Meteoric

Okami is a very fresh take on Japanese folklore – you play as lupine Sun god Amaterasu but although you are effecting divine changes in your environment, nothing really feels deus ex machina about this status. There is a fine line trod here between making ‘Ammy’ believable as a god and managing to present any kind of challenge, one that Okami treads with flowers springing up in its path.

One way in which Okami achieves this is by use of the Celestial Brush – at times players will be required to bring up a new screen analogous to the scene before them and paint given shapes onto it. Depending on which brush skills you have attained (thirteen in total) these shapes will manifest in the “real world” to differing effects. For instance, Amaterasu can literally turn night into day by using the “Sunshine” ability – by drawing a circle in the sky that actually becomes the Sun.

Art in Motion
The Celestial Brush is a surprisingly congruous innovation given the graphical presentation of the game. Okami makes use of cell-shading to construct a world that is art in motion, pure and simple. This highly-stylised presentation is very forgiving and it looks beautiful in screenshots, although even screenshots fail to capture the subtleties brought out by movement – the way that thick black horizon melts away as Amaterasu sprints towards it, the explosion of colour as a tree bursts into life.

The scope of this game is rather broad – you are charged with the task of absolving an entire country of its spreading curse. However, this is accomplished via a sequence of much more minor tasks, or, “manageable chunks”. There is a satisfying level of variety in these tasks, which adds to the experience of finally playing a game that noticeably lacks long periods of unnecessary boredom, and a real sense of self-congratulation as you watch your environment become more and more beautiful as a result.

Expos-Issun
What should be a substantial criticism of Okami, however, is the sheer level of exposition. While tasks are often obvious or fairly simple the game generally explains them to you unprompted (usually via Issun, your artist companion). This is frustrating, and more than a little patronising. Parts of the game that should be challenging, but are not, are made even easier by this practice. In fact overall, Okami is not a game to pick up if you are looking for something to test your gaming ability.

Drawbacks aside, most people will find that beautiful and eye-catching aesthetics, innovative gameplay and compelling storyline have tag-teamed to make Okami a gem in the crown of any gaming collection. A classic.

Score: 8/10

Is there something a little bizarre about the desire to spend a lifetime in the pursuit of science? Is there something a little archetypal, a little “mad scientist” about it?

Just take a look at the “life cycle”: a larval scientist might be happier tinkering with a set of Meccano than playing hide-and-seek with other children; the pupal stage, beginning with the onset of puberty, is characterised by the pain of metamorphosis: spots, bodily odour and the inability to shake off the social stigma associated with terminal geekdom. It is at the pupal stage that many may start to travel in small packs for safety despite their solitary nature. The adult scientist is an elusive creature, simultaneously revered and deprecated by a society he is considered somehow apart from, alien and aloof.

Sean Leathen, a student at NCN High Pavement taking three science-related subjects agrees: “[People] assume I must be smart,” he comments, “because their impression is that science is hard.” Likewise, when asked, the staff of the High Pavement science department said that, as scientific professionals, they felt characterised by society as “clever people”, but also as “nerdy”, “geeky” and “elitist”.

Another student not taking any science-based courses, who preferred not to be named, felt that scientists are “intelligent, but different from other people”, adding “they think differently, and have their own clique”.

“Some of them think they’re better than everybody else.”
“Some of them,” commented an anonymous student, “think they’re better than everybody else.”

There is no denying the rift between the scientific community and the general public that places science and scientists almost on the outside of society. At the root of this is probably a breakdown in communication; whatever the cause there is undeniably, as a member of the science department shared, a general “mistrust of scientists”.

It only takes a glance at the headlines over the past ten years to reach this conclusion. Take the controversy surrounding a supposed link between the MMR ‘jab’ and Autism. Although the original study that suggested such a link has been repeated and debunked, it seems that the general public sees this, not as accredited peer-review, but as the scientific community’s rejection of something out of hand just because it is controversial or politically ‘awkward’. In fact, to reject something for a reason other than because it is ‘wrong’ (as far as can be determined) is itself unscientific.

35% do not believe that scientists know what they are talking about.
Similarly, while well-respected scientists are close to unanimous on climate change or the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution they often find themselves debating these topics in public forums where they are considered ‘controversial’. According to a study performed in 1995, 35% of the British public believe that scientists do not know what they are talking about on environmental issues, despite the fact that these scientists have devoted their working lives to studying the subject. In the same vein, a 2001 Gallup poll showed that 47% of United States adults said that they believed evolution played no role in shaping humans, while the same poll showed that, within the scientific community, 95% accepted the theory of evolution.

“People don’t understand science.”
Study of the ‘supernatural’ throws up more misconception. Believers in the supernatural might simultaneously try to support their claims with pseudo-scientific conjecture and dismiss any actual scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs. The problem is that the ‘supernatural’, by definition, is unscientific in nature – the moment reliable evidence for, say, ghosts, is uncovered, ghosts then cease to be supernatural, having a scientific – or natural – explanation.

Maybe ‘supernatural’ explanations for events are more accepted because they are simpler-seeming in comparison to “sceptics’” explanations, which, nonetheless, often have a more scientific basis. A casual observer of a debate between a scientist and a supernaturalist might take away the impression that, rather than that there is no rational reason to believe, the scientist simply does not want to. This is related to a public impression of scientists summed up by a member of the science department as being that “people think scientists lack imagination.”

Sean Leathen says that this is because “people don’t understand science”. “[They] think it’s boring,” he adds, “so they think you’re not an interesting person”.

Cross-posted: Skreever (NCN High Pavement college magazine).

Tattooing is an art form with a long and beautiful history: the practise itself may date back to 12,000 BC, and the earliest human example is of a man who lived over 5,000 years ago. In light of this, it has been suggested that tattooing is almost primal in its connection to the human spirit, so is it now just another fashion trend, or is there something in it that runs a little deeper?

"The wearer of an image calls the spirit of that image,"
"Ritual and tradition," writes the tattooing website darkangeltattoos.com, "have been common and constant features in tattooing," citing the marking of women in Borneo to denote their skills as example. "It has also been believed that the wearer of an image calls the spirit of that image. For example, the ferocity of a tiger would belong to the person baring [sic] this tattoo."

Pharrel Williams seems to identify with this last statement. He has several tattoos of angels, of which he writes in Rolling Stone: Tattoo Nation, published in 2002, "They're protection, although they're just figurines on my arm. They're a reminder of goodness and righteousness."

It seems that throughout history tattooing has been attributed a deeper meaning, whether positive - liberating, expressive, - or negative - deviant, criminal. In Greece and Rome it was used as a method of branding, whereas in Japan it became a mark of religion. R 'n' B artist Eve also wrote in Tattoo Nation that her tattoos are "definitely" more than just designs, and it seems that both proponents and opponents of tattooing agree.

Jane Caplan writes that "it is asserted (with some truth) that, given the attitudes of many towards the tattooed or extensively pierced, to engage in such practises is to place oneself 'outside of society'." She adds that, for some, tattooing is "a way of releasing the savage within." She also refers to many modern histories of tattooing as "synthetic", implying them to be almost fabricated, born from a desire to bestow on tattooingt a greater cultural meaning. However, Katherin Kremarik of Michigan State University asserts that "People use the same ideas and the same way of expressing themselves in all kinds of media," invoking an image of cultural and universal connection through tattooing.

Popularity Flux
Tattooing was re-introduced to Western society in the late 1700s and early 1900s by sailors such as William Dampher and Captain Cook, who brought back from their voyages examples of tattooed Polynesians. It was not until 1891, however, that tattooing could become more widely available, with the invention of Samuel O'Reily's electric tattooing machine. By the 20th Century, tattooing had become associated with the lower classes and the circus.

It was in 1908 that Charlie Wagner set up shop with a man named Lew Alberts and repopularised tattooing in Chatham Square, New York. However, in the 1920s, the tattooing centre moved to Coney Island and became more heavily associated with soldiers and sailors. Outbreaks of hepatitus in the 1960s lead to a great depopularisation.

Lyle Tuttle helped change attitudes towards tattooing in the last forty years and now it seems that tattooing is as popular as ever. Even now, tattooing still holds an allure - a promise of freedom and self-expression, but how free do you want to be?

Tattooed Women: Rebellious, Bold, Free.
According to astro.temple.edu, temporary tattoos are flourishing because "fashion magazines portray women with real tattoos as rebellious and independent, but because society doesn't want women to be overly so, they push temporary tattoos as a more acceptable alternative," later commenting that "because this erstatz tattooing lacks permenance and meaning it is, really, the antithesis of tattooing". Yes, being a woman and getting a tattoo is bold. Sam Stewart, Ph.D. asserts that women with tattoos are "lank-haired slags, with ruined landscapes of faces and sagging hose and run-over heels". Perjorative language, indeed.

Women themselves are mixed on their own tattoos. Vyvyn Lazonga writes "I always felt strong and powerful about it and I still do. but I try to keep my arms covered if I'm taking care of business." This is probably born from society's own view of tattooed women - despite host Wally Kennedy's declaration of his tattooed female guests as "disfigured" on his show Philidelphia AM, they self-identified their tattoos as "an act of freedom", and an expression of love for their bodies.

It seems that the tattoo, then and now, has often been a symbol of empowerment, whether an expression of prowess in battle, ownership of one's own body or just the rejection of society's norms. This is particularly important to women, even now, which reinforces the idea that tattooing "transcends fashion", whatever people may say to the contrary.

Sony to release PSP in Metal Gear Solid 'camouflage' version.

At least this way I guess they're tapping into a demographic that actually likes the games available for the PSP, rather than a demographic that, by and large, is going to take a pink DS Lite over the pink PSP any day because the games on the DS Lite actually appeal to them.

To be fair, I do see where they're coming from with this stuff, because you can say it's just about the games all you want, but I haven't sold a pink PSP to a male customer yet despite its being overwhelmingly better value for money. I just think that colour, in this instance, is entirely the wrong way for Sony to tap into the "girl gamer" market.

The reason the PSP doesn't appeal to girls is not because it doesn't match their pink iPod and pink Motorola; it's because the games available on the PSP are not the kind of games that a large proportion of female gamers are going to be interested in. If you have to make the pink PSP better value for money to shift it at all you know it's not doing its job to boost sales.

Nintendo could release the DS/DS Lite in pink (even without being sponsered by, well, P!nk) because they already had a solid base of female gamers who were interested in their games. They also had a few games specifically aimed at younger girls, like Pippa Funnel or the Strawberry Shortcake game, that could be packaged up into a special pink-only DS Lite bundle. It's still a little patronising, but it does make sense, especially where targeting girl gamers under ten is concerned. It's a lot less patronising than Sony's unspoken assumption that 'we', meaning the female gaming demographic, are fickle enough to buy the PSP just because it's pink when, as a whole, we have very little interest in the games available for it.

Besides, I can't help but feel that their real target demographic (i.e. people who enjoy games predominantly about cars or violence, i.e. young males) is a little put out by it. Girls might go for a PSP in black or white, but any instance where you actually manage to sell a pink PSP to a boy, however much better value for money it is, is going to be anomalous. They will not do it, and every time I say "Sorry, the Value Pack is only available in pink," I can almost taste the alienation. Some of them even verbalise it: "I can't believe that. I mean, they have to think of boys as well."

So I don't know what this is. I think the camouflage PSP is ugly, but, especially with all the trimmings, I can really see the prepubescent boy demographic really going for it. No word on whether it's going to come out anywhere outside of Japan yet, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Image credit: Engadget.

The organisers of Madrid’s fashion week have turned away underweight models in an attempt, they say, to promote an image of health and beauty. The move is unprecedented.

The restrictions were made voluntarily as an agreement between fashion show organisers and Madrid’s regional government after last year’s show drew protests that girls were developing eating disorders in an attempt to copy models’ “rail thin” looks. According to Concha Guerra, a Madrid official, the regional government decided to intervene.

The fashion industry is often targeted as a contributing factor in the development of eating disorders, but Madrid’s regional government was careful to comment that, while the fashion industry had a responsibility to portray healthy body images, it did not blame designers and models for anorexia.

Cathy Gould, of New York’s Elite modelling agency, was also careful in the choosing of her words: pinning the move as an infraction against freedom of expression, she claimed it was potentially harmful to the careers of naturally “gazelle-like” models. Ryan Brown, Elite’s director of marketing and public relations disagreed, saying he thinks it is “great to promote health”, and expressing a desire for fashion to return to the more voluptuous image idealised by the industry in the past. The ban is in effect only against those models considered medically underweight – those with a body mass index (BMI) of less than 18.

The Association of Fashion Designers of Spain leant its support to the new restrictions, but Spain’s Association in Defence of Attention for Anorexia and Bulimia had doubts. A representative for the group, Carmen Gonzalez, suggested legislation as a plausible outcome if the industry failed to self-regulate.

It is important not to “scapegoat” the fashion industry as the sole cause of eating disorders like anorexia, which affects seven million women in alone. While idealised images of unnaturally thin, “heroin chic” models have a contributory effect on the condition, concentrating only on the sway of the fashion industry is unhelpful in the context of other root causes. Nonetheless, millions of young women are taking their cue from the catwalk; as Guerra said: “Fashion is a mirror and many teenagers imitate what they see on the catwalk”.

A report by the British Medical Association was unequivocal: “Female models are becoming thinner at a time when women are becoming heavier, and the gap between the ideal body shape and reality is wider than ever”. It also suggested that “there is a need for a more realistic body shape to be shown on television and in fashion magazines,” in order to “play up the fact that it is not shape that matters. It is health that matters.”