February 19, 2009
-
2.19/2009
Is it fair to compare friends of the opposite sex to girlfriends or boyfriends? I've been contemplating this idea recently. For example... would it be fair to compare how one's friends of the opposite sex treat you versus the person you're in a relationship with? Is it fair to hold the person you're with to that standard? Although I have some slight reservations, honestly, I feel as though it is completely fair. Personally, I believe that if your friends of the opposite sex treat you better than your girlfriend or boyfriend, then there's something inherently wrong with that. However, I can see how a standard might be wrong if the standard is about actions initiated by the person and not a personal qualities. For example, if your friends would cook you breakfast, I feel as though it is wrong for anyone to hold a girlfriend or boyfriend to that standard. Additionally, if your friends liked going to dance clubs, I feel as though it is unfair to create a standard in which the girlfriend or boyfriend must go to dance clubs. However, I feel as though treatment in reference to personal qualities should be compared. For example, I feel as though something is amiss if your friends would help you out during a rough period, but your girlfriend or boyfriend wouldn't. I would also find something wrong with a situation in which your friends would listen to you without condemnation for speaking your mind, meanwhile your girlfriend or boyfriend wouldn't.
Others might argue the opposite. They would argue that the level of treatment is a product of time with the person. Therefore, it would be unfair to compare long-time friends and a girlfriend or boyfriend, because one [the friends] is fully developed, whereas the other [the girlfriend or boyfriend] is still developing. I acknowledge this is true on some circumstances, however, for many people, the treatment hasn't changed that much: People did not become more kind over time, at least not noticeably so. If they are nice, good-hearted people now, they were most likely the same when we became friends.
I bring this up because, in my last relationship, I struggled with this issue. "Is it fair to compare them?" I remember thinking this every time I saw a discrepancy. In the end, I never did because I thought it might be unfair to her. (Sadly, I probably should have, because I might have been able to save myself some additional emotional stress.) I've realized the err of my ways: Comparing these two groups is fair because it is a way to assess the healthiness of the relationship. It helps you answer the question, "Is this person right for me?" Ironically, it seems like a way to gain objectivity from subjectivity.
A fair comparison.
I picked up Street Fighter IV on Tuesday and I slightly regret it. The game is great as Street Fighter games go, but I can't help but think that Capcom took one step forward and ten backwards with the excision of their parrying system. In a certain light the game has become more primitive: People are now able to spam fireballs without repercussion, especially in the circumstance that their opponent has no health left and cannot block. Street Fighter: Third Strike, on the other hand allowed battles to be entirely dynamic because players had the ability to fight their way out of a loss. They had the power in their hands to reverse a battle with a perfect defense. It also allowed players to have a perfect offensive-defense by allowing them to predict their opponents moves and react accordingly to gain a further advantage.
The word around is that Capcom dumbed down the system to allow less-experienced players entry into the franchise. Prima facie, it makes sense, however, upon further consideration, it seems ludicrous. The parrying system did not create an insurmountable barrier for new players. People who were new to Street Fighter could still enjoy the game, they just needed to learn how to parry to become higher level players. Like any game, players are required to expend effort in the form of training to become highly competitive. The same can be said of L-canceling in Smash Bros. Melee and its omission from the latest installment, Smash Bros. Brawl. L-canceling is an optional technique that makes the game more competitive, should the player desire to learn it. Players who did not L-cancel could, and did, still enjoy the game. There were perhaps millions of players that never learned many of the advanced techniques in the game, yet still loved playing it. So, my question to Capcom is "How does having parrying dissuade new players from picking up the game?"
Anyway, aside from the lack of parrying, the game is still fairly entertaining, I guess. I played a friend of mine from Halo, who talks a mountain of trash about any game which he plays, and beat him the first two games I played. He came back and beat me the next few games, because I didn't know how to do Ultra Combos at that time, and I couldn't get Super Combos to work at that time. However, recently, I have beaten him into submission. The only times he wins is when I'm using characters completely unfamiliar to me either because this is their first appearance or because I never really used them as a kid (Fei Long, Abel, C.Viper, Balrog, El Fuego, etc.).
...I think I might trade this game in next week to get Star Ocean 4.
Recent Comments