In today's culture of needy oversharing, cultural voyeurism, and [post-]post-modern irony it can seem as if nobody is willing to simply be their own self. It's possible that being a human being will no longer be as attractive an option as it used to be in the so-called 'simpler times' but most likely it is the old struggle in which mass culture tries to either force itself to be interesting or lays down a smokescreen of excuses about why it isn't. A reasonably recent phenomena, born out of cultural desperation and distaste, is New Sincerity. And, goddamn, the term is hot right now, and getting hotter by the moment – so come inside, place your bets, and learn a little something about nothing!
I'm no expert. New Sincerity, as a term, doesn't sit well with me, just like so many other facets of contemporary cultural shorthand. In many ways New Sincerity can be simplified as the diametrical opposite of that vague modern boogeyman 'the Hipster'. And yet, research I have done on the matter seems to suggest that mainstream 'hipster scions' are in fact loosely associated with New Sincerity. I don't really know what Zach Braff would say about the matter. Was Garden State actually a determined piece of New Sincerity propaganda? Did it manage to cash in on the credible? Worse yet, have the bewildering, out-of-favor films of Wes Anderson been appropriated by the movement? By the other movement?
My intention in this article has changed from simply making fun of New Sincerity to undertaking somewhat of a census about it. Mostly this will be the type of armchair cultural criticism I am known for, worldwide. For the most part New Sincerity is often used as a prescriptive term. In music this situation changes: many bands, hearkening back to the simpler, more heartfelt times of Bruce Springsteen, term themselves part of the New Sincerity movement, performing lyrics based less on conceptualism and cleverness and more on love, loss, sorrow, joy, and excitement. These are the earnest topics for music, but what keeps them from becoming pop music is a blend of aesthetics, identity, and intent. The prime axiom is to be authentic at all costs by not making attempts at authenticity, and never to ask 'what is authenticity?'
Unsurprisingly, New Sincerity stems from classic rock superstars such as Bruce Springsteen, Ted Nugent, John Mellencamp, and Bob Seeger, among others. Hair metal and psych are too ironic, or too insincere, or illegal, so lots of 'dad-rock' played to death on classic rock radio is actually questionable. Or perhaps they are valid inspiration, it's quite foggy to me and researching these kinds of things is slower than decisive critical strikes. What have these (and other) roots inspired?
Modern popular/indie acts such as The Hold Steady, Japandroids, Passion Pit, and evidently even Animal Collective are considered New Sincerity. These are just loose examples. To my mind the absolute pinnacle of new sincerity is probably Japandroids - they're not as bland as The Hold Steady and they're not politically or philosophically newly sincere. They just rock out and sing and holler and scream about partying, kissing girls, how life is and what they feel about it.
It's not slavish imitations of Springsteen topics about living in a shit down and running out of hope, or shooting up a bank in the back-roads of Nebraska. One has to admire the mixed positivity in songs about change, nostalgia/heartbreak, or raw excitement. The sense is that it's all youthful enthusiasm and angst, sometimes regret, and the energy cannot be denied. Their lack of pretense, deliberate simplicity and raw force all stand in contrast to established hype bands like The Hold Steady (with Springsteen and hearts worn on the sleeves). However, Japandroids' sophomore album is either too earnest or actually ironic in the ennui mode (or simply underwhelming after their debut), which may or may not say anything about New Sincerity.
Myself, I think the best part is that New Sincerity is often hailed as the redemptive force of contemporary hipster culture. It's a pretty great lie, but it makes everything seem much more epic and heroic, as if there really is a struggle against insincerity in culture. I stress, again, that the modern hipster has roots in Victorian England and earlier German youth movements. We see again and again the sorrows of young Werther in the trappings of a modern-day dandy. However it was inevitable, after the crushing nihilism of the 80's and the strung-out apathy of the 90's, that some kind of cultural force would rise in opposition. The only questionable thing is whether terming it 'new' is not a smidgeon untrue.
3/20/13
Hype Level Critical: Age of Wonders 3
Age of Wonders is the holy grail of fantasy turn based strategy/RPG mashups. Age of Wonders I is a highpoint beyond even the Heroes of Might and Magic series, the Disciples series, or arguably even the slightly unrelated Civilization series. However, the (for a long time) final game in the series was released in 2003, which left possibly the longest shadow in gaming. Age of Wonders is a non-AAA series, in part because it never developed Warcraft's following and also because originated in (the final years of) an era when there were more publishers and less-AAA series. Multi-million dollar advertising budgets were also extremely rare in those days, but notable exceptions exist (PS1 and other consoles, Daikatana).
When the first game was released in 1999, it already looked outdated. In the modern era it would hardly pass (graphically, among the subnormals, children, and hacks who review games) for a half-assed indie title - even in 1999 (a time when, arguably, nearly all graphics were primitive and 'ugly') it was often remarked upon negatively for its graphical shortcomings. Nevertheless, since the game was a product of pure craft, what graphics it did possess were A) infinitely presentable, and B) charmingly executed. Honest reviewers acknowledged that if the presentation wasn't cutting-edge, it was passable, and in any case it was paired with deep, engaging and challenging gameplay. It also had a magic system that was deliciously broken, and crafty players could discover all sorts of hi-jinks to turn themselves into demigods.
The series might not have ever developed Warcraft's following, but among the hardcore Age of Wonders I is generally acknowledged as a masterpiece. I hate using the word 'hardcore', but that's what it comes down to: the game is unforgiving and if you cannot handle strategy, tactics or adversary, it is best to avoid it. It is one of those games which requires tact and some trial-and-error. There is no hand-holding, and losses are inevitable. The sequel (and its standalone expansion) carried on the tradition with varying degrees of success. The first missions alone can prove, on easy, more difficult than entire campaigns in other games, levels can take long and get brutally difficult even against basic AI. I would not go so far as to call the game masochistic, myself, but others might – odds are they're softies, though, with no real appreciation for challenge and glory.
With the modern explosion of game sequels, it is ultimately unsurprising to see the return of a great series backed with significant nostalgia. Yet the story is probably the best of the year (which is already a good one), even better than the Age of Empires II HD release. One of the best parts is that the success of Minecraft is partially responsible, which means that, whatever you think about Minecraft, it finally gave back to the community. I say all this before Age of Wonders III is even released: good news is good news, and I am happy about this.
After the Nerd Bubble article it may seem that I am a cynical outsider to nerd culture or even an elitist myself, but I am simply a lapsed gamer who used to care too much. I continue to play AoW1 because it is that good, and GOG.com sells it at a fair price (and sometimes a steal price), so anyone can play it even on the most modern hardware. This is truly the best era of gaming: even the ghosts of yesteryear are coming back to life. However, I would like to caution myself and others who are getting hyped already. Let's keep our expectations realistic.
The more I read about the AoWIII project, the more I like it. Michiel can den Bos, who composed music for AoW1 (not to mention Deus Ex and Unreal, two other dear favorites of mine) is apparently on board. Truly good news, because he never did a bad job of scoring a game. Evidently the old crew is, for a large part, assembled on the project. Triumph Studios are no loafers and I don't expect they will release a garbage bag, but it's been a decade since they've tangled with the AoW series. The main question, quite possibly the most pertinent and exciting question, is whether or not Age of Wonders III will recapture the magic of the first game. To do so will be a challenge - the first game had something like 12 races and unit exposition for each and every of the 48+ units. Just to execute this small part (which had much to do with the 'sense of magic' in the wondrous debut) can be difficult, and to ignore it would annoy at least some fans.
When the first game was released in 1999, it already looked outdated. In the modern era it would hardly pass (graphically, among the subnormals, children, and hacks who review games) for a half-assed indie title - even in 1999 (a time when, arguably, nearly all graphics were primitive and 'ugly') it was often remarked upon negatively for its graphical shortcomings. Nevertheless, since the game was a product of pure craft, what graphics it did possess were A) infinitely presentable, and B) charmingly executed. Honest reviewers acknowledged that if the presentation wasn't cutting-edge, it was passable, and in any case it was paired with deep, engaging and challenging gameplay. It also had a magic system that was deliciously broken, and crafty players could discover all sorts of hi-jinks to turn themselves into demigods.
The series might not have ever developed Warcraft's following, but among the hardcore Age of Wonders I is generally acknowledged as a masterpiece. I hate using the word 'hardcore', but that's what it comes down to: the game is unforgiving and if you cannot handle strategy, tactics or adversary, it is best to avoid it. It is one of those games which requires tact and some trial-and-error. There is no hand-holding, and losses are inevitable. The sequel (and its standalone expansion) carried on the tradition with varying degrees of success. The first missions alone can prove, on easy, more difficult than entire campaigns in other games, levels can take long and get brutally difficult even against basic AI. I would not go so far as to call the game masochistic, myself, but others might – odds are they're softies, though, with no real appreciation for challenge and glory.
With the modern explosion of game sequels, it is ultimately unsurprising to see the return of a great series backed with significant nostalgia. Yet the story is probably the best of the year (which is already a good one), even better than the Age of Empires II HD release. One of the best parts is that the success of Minecraft is partially responsible, which means that, whatever you think about Minecraft, it finally gave back to the community. I say all this before Age of Wonders III is even released: good news is good news, and I am happy about this.
After the Nerd Bubble article it may seem that I am a cynical outsider to nerd culture or even an elitist myself, but I am simply a lapsed gamer who used to care too much. I continue to play AoW1 because it is that good, and GOG.com sells it at a fair price (and sometimes a steal price), so anyone can play it even on the most modern hardware. This is truly the best era of gaming: even the ghosts of yesteryear are coming back to life. However, I would like to caution myself and others who are getting hyped already. Let's keep our expectations realistic.
The more I read about the AoWIII project, the more I like it. Michiel can den Bos, who composed music for AoW1 (not to mention Deus Ex and Unreal, two other dear favorites of mine) is apparently on board. Truly good news, because he never did a bad job of scoring a game. Evidently the old crew is, for a large part, assembled on the project. Triumph Studios are no loafers and I don't expect they will release a garbage bag, but it's been a decade since they've tangled with the AoW series. The main question, quite possibly the most pertinent and exciting question, is whether or not Age of Wonders III will recapture the magic of the first game. To do so will be a challenge - the first game had something like 12 races and unit exposition for each and every of the 48+ units. Just to execute this small part (which had much to do with the 'sense of magic' in the wondrous debut) can be difficult, and to ignore it would annoy at least some fans.
3/1/13
The Return of Community
It was a long time, and now the show has returned for all of four weeks. There has been a Halloween episode, a premiere, an episode about an in-joke, and just this past evening the first episode in the busy itinerary to actually take place in a more or less normal day at Greendale. I think it's been a long time since I've talked about the show. I'd like to make some comments about it.
Firstly: I'm glad it's back. The four month delay was probably because NBC was considering shit-canning the show for good. Season three was almost unbearably meta at certain points, but then again so was Season 2. Any purist would only accept Season 1 minus the paintball episodes as the true greats. If you want, you can identify a purist by how they will maintain that the paintball episode 'was a bit too much the first time and definitely overplayed as a two-part special.'
For the record, the first paintball episode was what drew the show into a 'hype updraft' which lasted roughly until the end of the first half of the third season. By that time, several characters lay in ruins, multitudes of fans felt betrayed and increasingly disturbed by the show's directions and obvious funding cuts, and every casual viewer had stopped watching entirely. Season 1 had become a memory of a brighter time, when the show had no popular appeal because it was simply excellent and fresh and 'too smart' or whatever down-talking supporters tell themselves. To be fair, Community Season 1 was a damn lot brighter than Two and a Half Men or the Big Bang Theory, and easily more fun to watch than anything that year.
What happens if you talk to a purist now, and you like the show? Tough question. Good luck with that, actually: I can't answer it. I have no idea what would happen, but it would be like admitting you prefer the second season. I was a particularly rabid fan during the time of the first season, but that was only because there were not a lot of good TV shows on network television at that time, and essentially zero good new series, and I needed distraction because I was a useless head case with a shaky full time job that would ditch me just in time for the Christmas Episode - which can be compared to anything the show has done since and still be puzzlingly superior despite how basic it is.
2009, around the time Community premiered, was another era. Dollhouse wasn't cancelled yet. The Recession was still fresh in everyone's mind. The 2012 elections only took up 15% of daily newscasts. Ghaddafi was still alive. Glee hadn't yet fallen so astoundingly low, and making fun of it was still sportive. 100 Questions hadn't premiered yet – and to me, this is important to note, because when it premiered in May it was return to the awful network television standards that made Community stand out so much in the first place. There have been few television experiences as jarring as Community finale-ing one week and the Worst Show Ever premiering the next, ushering in the season where healthy people stop watching TV. I am still kind of incredulous about 100 Questions. It is my Abed Moment, and makes absolutely no sense to the observer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)