The Coop

Because it's human nature to want to know how things work. And when you see something that makes you wonder how it was done, you scrutinize it to get a better understanding. Figuring out how it was done doesn't suddenly make it shit. It simply puts it in better perspective. He still did a lot of work to put the songs together, but it's not quite what it looks like at first glance.

Neat videos. It's obvious he's making loops of his voice for various drums (perfect cymbal sounds constantly in the MegaMan video naturally? I don't think so...), instruments that never give him a chance to breathe (like bass lines), and splicing sections together before creating the videos to go with each track (funny how his head moves around, yet the sound never gets louder and quieter), but it's still cool looking and sounding.

I laughed, I cried, I broke wind in fifteen different states (and got fined for it in three). THANKS OCR!

That's a guy. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/chris-crocker

Is there more than one type of executable in there? The first game in the Royal Collection should still use DOS, but it might also have a Windows executable to go with the DOS one. I will say this though; if there's only one executable that actually starts the game, and it's giving you the "win" error, then it's a Windows executable that won't run under DOS, or in DOSBox, at all.

Try running the setup.exe file in DOSBox, not Windows. You'll get soundcard options that way (pick one of the Soundblasters, as they work well).

Another port that bugged me was Shadow of the Beast for the Genesis. The Amiga original had great graphics, tough gameplay, and spectacular music. The Genesis got the graphics mostly right, and the gameplay was basically there, but the game was sped up because of poor optimizing for U.S. systems, and the music was absolutely butchered. Maybe the Genesis couldn't have done an exact port, but it could have done a lot better than what we ended up with.

Not really sure, since I've never played this game. But, I downloaded it through nefarious means, and if you pick Soundblaster from the setup program, you'll get some music (the opening when the trumpeters are on screen, during various still graphics when they pop up during gameplay, etc.). Do you get that?

That's where our opinions differ the most I believe. If he's doing it, he knows he's doing it and why. Something like that doesn't happen in an "oops" moment of forgetfulness in my opinion (which seems to be in the minority at the moment). The coach? No doubt. The "damsel" trope? Well, as before, that's something we'll just have to agree to disagree about, that way we don't wind up going in circles so much, that we wear a rut into the virtual floor (assuming we haven't already ).

It's a possibility, but here's the thing. To me, sexism is discriminatory by its very definition and nature. It suggests that the one being treated differently is inferior based on their gender. It's not an "oops" moment, like grabbing unsweetened iced-tea instead of sweetened, it's a purposeful action. But these days, the term's getting broader in unwarranted directions IMO, which brings me to... That bolded part right there, is something I've encountered. I held a door open for a women who was walking behind me, and she called me a pig, saying she didn't need a man to hold the door for her. Somehow, my being polite became sexist, even though I hold the door for anyone who's close by when I go in or out one. At that moment, I discovered that the term "sexism" had jumped the proverbial fence. This eventually got me wondering, How can something be sexist, when there's no sexist intent within it?, as I realized that the term was now encompassing some things that had no reason to be included under its banner. Perhaps what I've written is too black and white a stance to take on it to some. Maybe I'm just not being sensitive enough. But when coupled with the idea of looking into the details of something before calling it sexist (like what I did regarding Mario/Peach), I don't think either of those is an issue for me. And in the case of the "damsel" trope... well, I've already explained my stance on that.

So the parallel here, if I'm reading your example right, is that even if there was no sexism involved in choosing a woman to be in need of rescuing, it's still sexist to have used it because it happened repeatedly (which I believe MC Final Sigma also put forth). If that's the case, then, again, I'm not seeing eye to eye with that assertion. It's putting sexism where none was intended or implied, and pointing at someone while saying "YOU'RE A BAD PERSON!" when no ill intent was present. Now, I know what at least a few are thinking. You're thinking, "It doesn't make them a bad person, it just says what they did was bad," or something similar. But there's no positive or gentle spin to put on the term "sexism" when it's thrown out there, as its stigma carries a lot of injustice and anger with it due to the history behind it. So the accusation still puts them in a rather bad light unfairly, kind of like how someone accused of rape can be proven to be 100% innocent, but the stigma of that accusation follows them anyway. As such, it's not a word to be thrown about lightly, and to me, calling the "damsel" trope sexist is really stretching what falls under that term. Here's the problem; Peach wasn't Mario's. The story goes, Koopas invaded, turned the Mushroom Kingdom people into various objects using black magic, and Peach is the only one who can undo the spell that was used. She's captured by Bowser, and Mario goes off to try and save her. There's no "she's mine" involved on the hero's part, and Bowser likely locked her away to stop her (it's implied that she can't undo the magic as a prisoner, but not flat out stated). So you're analogy (and MC Final Sigma's) doesn't work to me, because the story is in place, even if it's only in the manual. The gameplay may not differ, but the reasoning behind the gameplay does, and that makes a world of difference... again, to me.

What? The tale of a father eating his children is a perfect bedtime story. And it'll help keep your kids in line when you tell it to them while holding a knife and fork

Earlier models of the DS are, but Nintendo later removed that option from newer revisions.

Post your DOSBox config file so we can take a look at it. Might be something set up wrong.

This is obviously a point we're not going to agree on. So rather than restating my stance, I'll simply say this... You can call that fluff if you want, but the motivational intent is still there. And saying that the games I mentioned, that have a man trying to rescue his friend/love, just treat the woman as if she were interchangeable with any inanimate object isn't a fair assessment... to me at least. I disagree. We (the players) are only controlling the hero, not actually being the hero. It's not our viewpoint being used, it's the hero's. In the games that use the "captured love/friend" plot, she's not his possession, she's someone he cares about. If the player tosses that aside, then the problem isn't with the game, it's with the player, as they're inserting ideas that otherwise aren't there. That's a very important distinction that shouldn't be cast aside to make more examples for a point. To me, the issue at hand stems from the creativity front regarding game makers more than anything else; not any level of gender bias from our world's history. I think the trope we're discussing is a simplistic plot device that's outdated, but not intended to reflect any malice, or make a statement about women's societal roles in general. And saying something is sexist when there's no actual purposeful sexism present in what's being shown, comes off as looking for sexism where it otherwise didn't exist. Of taking that history, and crowbarring it into something that's not addressing or displaying it (the history I mean). It only becomes sexist if you're inclined to believe it does... and I don't. Regarding why, see below. The trope is toxic/sexist to you, and those who share your viewpoint. I don't agree, as to me, the arguments being made are too generalized, and ignoring the details. So like with Tensei, this is something we're not going to agree on. As I've said, I can see why some draw the parallels, and make the connections over the "damsel" trope. I'm not blind or unwilling to look at something from another's perspective, and I thoroughly get that it's a story that's been beaten into a fine paste. We all see sexism in one form or another on a daily basis, so we all know it's out there. And while I know my stance may make me seem like a prick to some, or misinformed to others, I don't agree that the trope in question, at its core, is sexist. Trite and way overused, but not sexist. There's no denying that women have been treated like shit in this world's history, but I just don't see that history rearing its ugly head with Sonic rescuing Amy, Mario saving Peach, or Simon rescuing Selena. It's just not there for me in the core idea of "man rescues woman," regardless of how many times it gets used. The core itself lacks malicious traits otherwise, and only gains them when the viewer breathes such things into it via their personal agendas/beliefs, or when the writer adds them directly. Until that happens, it's more or less a neutral concept waiting to be made into some kind of a heroic tale, or a diabolical nightmare. But in Anita's video, she calls it something that normalizes toxic and patronizing attitudes, which others have echoed in this thread. My issue arose with some of the examples she used, some of the blanketing statements she made, and how her disclaimer toward the end of the video ("... I'm not saying that all games that use the...") seemed to get lost in the discussion here at times; that the trope became simply evil and toxic no matter how it was used. So, I thought I'd give my perspective on the trope, where I disagreed about its representation, and say that while I can see the point she was making, I question some of the things she did to get there. And really, if the trope is a statement on anything today, it's on the laziness of the writers who repeatedly use the most basic and cliched plot around. I mean come on, it's not that hard to come up with something better, right? Of course, all of the above is just IMHO, so take it or leave it as you will folks

I disagree. What's more valuable on a personal level than a friend/loved one being taken away and put in danger? No lamp, wrench, or inanimate object is going to have that much importance; to give as much drive for the hero (player) to take action. It may be a simplistic plot device, but it's also a powerful one that acts on our basic instincts of wanting to keep those we care about safe. And what is the "enough" being said to you? Outside of potentially not having enough RAM (mostly for older games) or just being too lazy to make something more in-depth, I mean.

The Genesis port of Galaxy Force II. The visually intense arcade game was dumbed down to a shadow of its former self. Not surprising, given what the arcade game did (especially in the tunnel sections), but it was still a big let down at the time. I know the Genesis could have done better, at least on the planet stages. Although, CRI did bring the music over in fine fashion.

Funny, I don't recall saying anything akin to "so who cares" anywhere, but I did get the feeling you just skimmed my post... since you said the exact same thing I did right after the part you quoted. With that said, I got Anita's point just fine. My explaining part of where the "damsel" trope came from, and why it was used, was a minor history lesson for those not in the know, not a defense as you put it. In fact, I specifically said that the plot trope was thankfully being left behind more and more these days. Now, my problem with Anita's assessment of this trope thus far, is on several fronts. She (like you just did) lines up these simple and child-level stories in some older video games, with the very dark, real world events women have been going through over the centuries in many countries; as if the two things were one and the same. She then jumps right to "women are depicted as property/possessions," despite that the female characters she showed half the time are actual love interests or friends of the hero (you know, someone they'd want to help, not go "reacquire" like a lamp). Peach/Toadstool is Mario's friend/love interest (by Super Mario World at least... not 100% sure about the earlier games). Selena is Simon Belmont's bride. Princess Prin Prin is Arthur's love interest/girlfriend. Annabelle is Billy's girlfriend. Remi is Steven's girlfriend (My Hero). Silvia is Thomas' girlfriend. Yet these games were lumped in with the "ball" analogy, despite that the reason the hero is going after the kidnapped woman, is because he cares about her and her safety... not because she's his "property." It goes right against what she's talking about, and hurts her argument in ways, because it makes it seem like she didn't really pay attention to the examples she chose. Some of the games she used, like Wizards and Warriors, Dragon's Lair, and Star Fox Adventures (the Zelda series is a tougher call due to that fact that I don't know if Link's Zelda's friend, or just a protector), do make the woman either a generic thing to be rescued by the hero, or make the woman more of an object. So those were better choices. However, Anita says in the video that the trope itself backs up the negative views women in society have been fighting against (the "this trope is patronizing and toxic" comment), and I have trouble agreeing with such a generic statement. Here's why... Whether Anita intended it or not, she's sweeping an awful lot of games under the carpet of her "these make women seem weak/objectified" message right now. She spent a lot of time using too broad a brush to paint her picture, using various games that weren't demeaning or toxic at all. It undermined her intentions, because they simply didn't fit her analogy. And that so much more got breathed into something as simple as a man rescuing his love interest... well, it makes me question how objective she's really being, and how objective she'll be when the heavier subjects come around. Now, we all know the trope is a bloody pulp by now. But my other main issue with her generic statement, is that the tropes use is still valid (lazy, but valid). It's not a sexist, degrading stereotype toward women in and of itself. It's how the female is treated and portrayed before and after capture, and how the hero sees/treats her, that will make it sexist/demeaning/objectifying, or not. The villain can have various reasons for taking the woman (wanting her as a bride, getting knowledge she has, ransom, getting back at the hero for some reason, etc.), and the hero can have numerous reasons for rescuing her (she's his wife/daughter/lover, he was charged with ensuring her safety, he was called upon to rescue her without knowing her, etc.). To say it's all objectifying is way too simplistic and short sighted. And I simply don't agree that the simple act of a woman being captured in a video game, and unable/unwilling to fight back or escape, is degrading, or somehow bolsters the idea that women are weak in any tangible, realistic way. Only the weakest of minds would watch Zelda get kidnapped and say, "See? I told you women are weak," or use it as an stepping stone to rant about how supposedly helpless and needy women are. The rest of us know that the woman being kidnapped in that individual game is a single, fake woman... not a representation of all real women. So, those are my thoughts on it. I don't expect anyone to agree with anything I said, and I fully expect what I wrote to be picked apart with less than polite comments slung at me for one reason or another. But I think Anita focused a bit too much on the wrong areas to back up her "property" argument in this video, while vilifying a concept that, at its core, is only as sexist/objectifying as the writer, or the viewer's own biases, make it. I know this is only her first video, and many more are to come (at some point). But it's a rocky start for how she's bolstering her opinion, in my opinion. Oh, and regarding my "some women really are defenseless" comment that seemed to set zircon off, the games didn't make this type of woman up. We've all known a girl or woman that always had to have someone fix her problems for her because she couldn't, or go along with her to keep an eye on her because she tended to get herself into bad spots. That the games Anita spoke of only focused on that kind of woman for their simplistic fairy tale-like stories is unfortunate. But again, it's a simple tale for simple games that chose to focus on the "rescue your love/the woman" as the only linear plot line. That's not a defense by me, it's just why it was used; for simplicity's sake. It's not proclaiming that real women are like the woman in the game, telling you to treat women like they're helpless, or backing up how other countries see women as lesser individuals. So slamming the real world history of women (be it in America, or other countries) into the game's painfully basic story just comes across as over analyzing what's being presented, and allowing personal biases/stances/agendas to color the story in unintended ways (on either side of the issue). Now just give me a second to put on my fire retardant suit, aaaaaaand...

You felt it wasn't repetitive, yet I did. So I guess we're not going to agree on that point. To be blunt, some women are helpless and unable to defend themselves from an attacker, just as there are men who fall into the same mold. It's hard to call something sexist when there is actual truth behind it on both sides. Not every woman is a Lara Croftian, gun-totting badass. Do you think Paris Hilton would be able to pull off the same kind of self defense that Laila Ali could? I sincerely doubt it. And to expect every woman to be Laila Ali is as silly as them all being helpless. It is true that rarely did the man get captured and need rescuing by his female companion/lover in these older games, so I'm not arguing that. But I am arguing over the idea that it deserves to be labeled as sexist; like it was done to "put a woman in her place" as it were. In older games, more often than not, the plot of the game was basically a fairy tale; a simple story to drive the simplistic level video games were at (especially arcade games, which had their stories kept to very simplistic concepts). A love taken must be gotten back. A princess was kidnapped and you must rescue her. Yes, this is a thoroughly beaten plot (no MLP reference intended), but to call it sexist seems a bit of a stretch. Why? In human history, one of the most effective ways to get back at someone, or to get some kind of monetary gain from them, was to take something of value from them that you knew they'd want back at any cost. One of those things, was a richer man's wife/daughter/lover (with "richer" being in money, land, stature, whatever). Kidnap her, put forth the idea that she'd be forever lost somehow, and the man would be at your mercy. In the real world, the bandits might do any number of horrible things to her. But this isn't the real world, it's an older video game. So like the fairy tales that simplified the very real world concept into something not as dark for younger audiences, '80s/early '90s video games did the same thing (usually). The games that used this old trope aren't saying all women are helpless, and anyone making that assumption is making a leap in logic that Evel Knievel would be proud of. The one woman who was captured in that game might have been helpless at that moment, but to suggest that her helplessness applies to all women at all times doesn't show a very strong sense of self identity within those who get offended by the concept of a woman being depicted as helpless. As I said, it is a well worn idea; one that's been thankfully getting put aside more and more in video games. And yes, I can understand why women would be tired of seeing it used after so many games did so. But to call it sexist doesn't strike me as correct, as it suggests the game designers used it for nefarious reasons. Maybe some did, but until it's shown that many did, I believe those women-hating designers would be in an extreme minority, and older games using the simple "damsel" idea did so for simplicity's sake with no ill intent, and aren't something truly sexist in my book.