Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Finally, a direct challenge to the alleged toughness of paper

In Mike Tyson's Punch Out, something always struck me as odd.

You boxed as "Little Mac," and the nickname could not have been more appropriate. Mac was really fuckin' little:

Doc: "Punch him in the left-right-left nut!"

Even though the perspective is somewhat on a downward angle, the fact that Bald Bull is FARTHER AWAY yet still WAY FUCKING BIGGER means that Little Mac clearly has his work cut out for him. If these two were side by side, how high up would Mac come next to Baldy? His belly-button? How the fuck is some white dude who's too pussy to even take off his tank top while he's BOXING gonna handle this gigantic, mean-as-hell-looking motherfucker? It'd be like putting Mini-Me up against a enraged, drunken elephant that not even Paris Hilton could help.

(That reminds me -- remember how Wyatt and Gary were too pussy to take a shower with Kelly Le-fucking-Brock in Weird Science without taking off their jeans?

Yeah. That Kelly LeBrock.)

Punch Out asked me to accept that somehow Little Mac could handle such clearly larger foes as Soda Popinski and King Hippo (not to mention Mike frackin' Tyson), and in order to continue playing, I did. This sort of thing was remarkably prevalent in childhood. And I don't just mean Santa and the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and whatever. They at least gave you things, so saying, "Okay, I'll go along with this [utter bullshit]," was somewhat understandable.

But Punch Out was a video game. Unlike 'Nam, it had rules -- which you couldn't argue with. But then there were things like Freeze Tag. "Okay, you tagged me. So now I have to stand here perfectly still? Why? So the fat kid whose ass I just kicked in Wall Ball can come tag me? Fuck that. I'm just gonna run away. What's he gonna do, get upset? Tell on me?" But those were the rules, so when I played I stood still upon being tagged. It was dumb, and I knew that even then.

However, there was one childhood game which perplexed me more than most. That feeling has never really left, either. There was one particular aspect of this particular game that I immediately spotted as Bullshit, and even though I played along, I always maintained my inner grievance. The game? Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Some of you may have seen what I'm about to show you. (As I type right now, it's the Number 1 story on Digg, so clearly this thing has ventured all over the Worldwide Interweb of Information.) But wow, when I read this, it was like whoever wrote it had read my precociously intelligent 11-year-old mind: Fucking-A!

(Picture first seen here.)


The Notorious LJT said...

you have to admit it would fuck up the whole game if one of each weren't superior over another.

and, oh-by-the-way, the game is rock, paper, scissors (shoot) and not paper, scissors, rock as some heathens have said.

Open Bar said...

I understand that the game requires paper to be able to beat rock, I'm just pointing out that that's utter crap. Unless this paper were made of steel (in which case, it wouldn't be paper), there's just no friggin' way paper is beating rock in any sort of physical altercation. Please, someone explain how paper can beat a rock.

And people who say "paper-scissor-rock" have no soul.

Faith said...

I think this paper would beat rock (though apparently it can't withstand water).

The Notorious LJT said...

as much as i'd like to disagree with you, i cannot

Open Bar said...

Faith: Just because something bears a resemblance to paper (it's thin and rectangular) doesn't mean that it should be considered actual paper. If I took a car and had it crushed into a very thin piece of metal, then cut off the rough edges to create a rectangle shape (and then, I suppose I'd write up an equation or something on it, I dunno), that doesn't make it paper.

But if you did use that product, I would simply dip my rock in water first.

Winner: Me.

ChuckJerry said...

paper doesn't "beat" rock. paper "covers" rock.

Just as scissors "cut" paper and rock "smashes" scissors.

I mean, when was the last time you smashed some scissors with a rock?

Open Bar said...

"Cutting" and "smashing" are clearly violent actions indicating the method you would use with each item to defeat your opponent's item.

For example, if I brought a piece of paper into our battle and you brought a pair of scissors, you would cut my paper, clearly leaving my paper in miserable defeat. If I had brought the scissors instead, but you had brought a rock, you would smash my scissors, again leaving me without a suitable weapon, as it is now SMASHED.

However, if I brought a rock and you brought a piece of paper, how in the devil's balls are you going to defeat my rock? By covering it? My rock is still in perfect shape, neither smashed nor cut nor damaged in any way whatsoever. I would simply put my rock right through your dumbass choice of weapon. Game over.

Maybe if it was Rock-Rockeater from Neverending Story-Scissors, it would be a quality 3-way fight. A rock smashes scissors. Scissors stab Rockeater in the eyeball. And Rockeater eats rock.

Think about it -- if your opponents potentially have a rock and a pair of scissors, would you want to bring a piece of fucking paper into battle?

Open Bar said...

And I smashed a pair of scissors with a rock on Monday. What did you do on Monday? Loser.

The Notorious LJT said...

you know what's fucking awesome? america