Not really in a blogging frame of mind right now. So instead you get this.
Even if it is fake, I don't care. More Nunchucks should be given out to the populace. If you're the sort of person to swing it without concern, you DON'T DESERVE TO BREED.
And since Nunchucks and videos were mentioned, I have to include this.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Non-expert commentary
So, people hear rumours spreading around about how bad a certain example of a type of media is. From there they spread the word, informing others of how horrible it is, relating annecdotes discussing why it should be banned or shunned.
What am I discussing here? Two different events, actually.
1. Mass Effect's nudity
2. Twilight.
I will be the first to say I laughed alongside many'a geek when one of the outspoken critics of Mass Effect laughed off the question "Have you actually played the game" with the response "oh good lord no".
"Ah ha ha, what ignorance!" I spake to myself, content in my own knowledge and superiority.
Probably a year later I read about Twilight and joined in the chorus loudly shouting about how crap it was. A friend asked me "Have you actually read it?", and I barely stopped myself from replying with a hearty "oh good lord no". It took me a second to realise what I was doing. I was doing the exact same thing as others did with Mass Effect, one of my favourite games.
So, am I simply a hypocritical arse?
Oh good lord no.
The primary difference is that I didn't just take word of mouth from a few individuals. I read up about it. I read Twilight book and movie reviews, both positive and negative (although I have to admit, overwhelmingly negative, but that's because they seemed to be the easiest to find). While I have never seen the Twilight movie or read the book, I maintain I am justified in disliking it without having read/seen it. Why is that? Because I basically did the internet equivilent of asking around about it and worked out from the opinions given (positive and negative) what sort of book/movie it was. From there I decided it is not the sort of book/movie I enjoy. In fact it is the sort of book/movie I relegate to the pile "Fucking shit."
Now, finish on a metaphor.
I don't have to eat crap to know it would taste bad. I can just look at it and say "Well, that would taste quite bad based on the smell and visual texture of it." Granted there is the possibility I may be pleasently surprised, and find this is crap from the Francais-monster, which has faeces that tastes like a perfectly cooked croissant with a light dabbing of butter inside, fed to me by a beautiful, scantily clad maiden. It could taste like that, but eating every pile of shit just because there may be nice tasting poo somewhere is stupid.
On the other hand, if someone puts a plate in front of you with something on it, covered in a cloth, and says "Underneath this is shit, don't eat it!", I will likely pull back the cloth to see if it is, indeed, shit underneath.
An awkward metaphor, but it massively increased the number of 'poo' synonyms I've used in this blog.
What am I discussing here? Two different events, actually.
1. Mass Effect's nudity
2. Twilight.
I will be the first to say I laughed alongside many'a geek when one of the outspoken critics of Mass Effect laughed off the question "Have you actually played the game" with the response "oh good lord no".
"Ah ha ha, what ignorance!" I spake to myself, content in my own knowledge and superiority.
Probably a year later I read about Twilight and joined in the chorus loudly shouting about how crap it was. A friend asked me "Have you actually read it?", and I barely stopped myself from replying with a hearty "oh good lord no". It took me a second to realise what I was doing. I was doing the exact same thing as others did with Mass Effect, one of my favourite games.
So, am I simply a hypocritical arse?
Oh good lord no.
The primary difference is that I didn't just take word of mouth from a few individuals. I read up about it. I read Twilight book and movie reviews, both positive and negative (although I have to admit, overwhelmingly negative, but that's because they seemed to be the easiest to find). While I have never seen the Twilight movie or read the book, I maintain I am justified in disliking it without having read/seen it. Why is that? Because I basically did the internet equivilent of asking around about it and worked out from the opinions given (positive and negative) what sort of book/movie it was. From there I decided it is not the sort of book/movie I enjoy. In fact it is the sort of book/movie I relegate to the pile "Fucking shit."
Now, finish on a metaphor.
I don't have to eat crap to know it would taste bad. I can just look at it and say "Well, that would taste quite bad based on the smell and visual texture of it." Granted there is the possibility I may be pleasently surprised, and find this is crap from the Francais-monster, which has faeces that tastes like a perfectly cooked croissant with a light dabbing of butter inside, fed to me by a beautiful, scantily clad maiden. It could taste like that, but eating every pile of shit just because there may be nice tasting poo somewhere is stupid.
On the other hand, if someone puts a plate in front of you with something on it, covered in a cloth, and says "Underneath this is shit, don't eat it!", I will likely pull back the cloth to see if it is, indeed, shit underneath.
An awkward metaphor, but it massively increased the number of 'poo' synonyms I've used in this blog.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Fast zombies suck
Edit: Additional: Unrelated to the below. Remember how I stated "Anyone who can complete the mission 'Occupation of Arteria Carpal' (or whatever it's called) is a freak". I must amend that. "Anyone who can complete that mission without ENORMOUS DIFFICULTY" is a freak. Since I kinda just finished it. With an A rating.
It's taken me months, if not years, but I've finally worked out why no movie with fast zombies has impacted on me as much as slow zombies.
Long term readers (or reader, possibly, this isn't a big blog) know of my fear of zombies. One of the main factors of that fear is the fact that when you get killed by zombies, you don't just die, you get dragged down and torn apart, eaten in front of your dying eyes. A horde of the bastards holding you in place as scrabbling fingernails and teeth rip at your flesh with an inevitable slowness you cannot hold back.
Consider the movies with fast moving zombies, primarily Dawn of the Dead (remake) (note, 28 days/weeks later is a good movie, but it is NOT a zombie movie, reasons later). In that movie we saw almost no one get genuinely pulled down and eaten. There were hints that the stupid security guard had that happen, but even what we saw was more like the savaging of dogs then the relentless feast of the undead. Fast zombies lack one of the primary fears of Shambling zombies, so they just lose points with me. Sure, in a purely practical sense it'd be better to be facing a horde of slow zombies then a horde of fast zombies, but they lack one of the primary fear inducers for me.
Now, as for why 28 days/weeks isn't a zombie movie? Even avoiding the semantical differences of "It's a virus, not the evil undead" (which doesn't work, since plenty of zombie stories rely upon the idea of zombism being spread through a virus), the reason is the effect of the zombification. Zombies have a specific terror-inducing purpose, to devour you. The 'Rage'd in 28 D/W are just there to inflict harm by any means, with the possibility of infecting you. It's more like an out of control riot then a zombie invasion.
Don't get me wrong, great series of movies, just not zombie movies.
It's taken me months, if not years, but I've finally worked out why no movie with fast zombies has impacted on me as much as slow zombies.
Long term readers (or reader, possibly, this isn't a big blog) know of my fear of zombies. One of the main factors of that fear is the fact that when you get killed by zombies, you don't just die, you get dragged down and torn apart, eaten in front of your dying eyes. A horde of the bastards holding you in place as scrabbling fingernails and teeth rip at your flesh with an inevitable slowness you cannot hold back.
Consider the movies with fast moving zombies, primarily Dawn of the Dead (remake) (note, 28 days/weeks later is a good movie, but it is NOT a zombie movie, reasons later). In that movie we saw almost no one get genuinely pulled down and eaten. There were hints that the stupid security guard had that happen, but even what we saw was more like the savaging of dogs then the relentless feast of the undead. Fast zombies lack one of the primary fears of Shambling zombies, so they just lose points with me. Sure, in a purely practical sense it'd be better to be facing a horde of slow zombies then a horde of fast zombies, but they lack one of the primary fear inducers for me.
Now, as for why 28 days/weeks isn't a zombie movie? Even avoiding the semantical differences of "It's a virus, not the evil undead" (which doesn't work, since plenty of zombie stories rely upon the idea of zombism being spread through a virus), the reason is the effect of the zombification. Zombies have a specific terror-inducing purpose, to devour you. The 'Rage'd in 28 D/W are just there to inflict harm by any means, with the possibility of infecting you. It's more like an out of control riot then a zombie invasion.
Don't get me wrong, great series of movies, just not zombie movies.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
4(chan) f's sake
First off, welcome back to me. Computer is working once more. Yay me, now I can indulge in my addiction to the internet.
D'you like the title? Took me all of twenty seconds to come up with.
First thing's first: 4chan is the arse end of the internet. If you want to understand why the internet is such a disappointment, look at 4chan. They took what could've been a collective database of the accumulated knowledge of the world, and turned it into memes, in-jokes and a collective nest of horrifyingness. 4chan scares me. I take pride in the knowledge I've only visited there twice, and both times I was sent fleeing into the darkest corners of my room, sobbing and rocking back and forth, muttering to myself about lemon parties and girls in tubs.
That said, 4chan, ever now and then, makes utter friggin' gold.
I would like to expose you to the "Traditional gaming" wiki within 4chan. While there're some jokes that could use a bit of sophistication, there are some absolutely brilliant parts in it.
The ultimate definition of Warhammer 40,000, taken from their description of Tyranids: "Tyranids will eat everything and shit out grimdark".
Absolutely brilliant parody of that oh-so-common "examples of play" thing used in RPG rulebooks: http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Examples_of_Play
Look through it and you'll find other amusing parts.
Something I find amusing? There are a few topics described on there that not even 4chan will mock. Gary Gygax's page, while containing a few examples of bad jokes (all made out of respect) refers to how everyone was affected by the great man's passing. The page on D&D is mostly non-humourous, with only a few jokes thrown in, as if they'd forgotten they were trying to be funny for most of the writing.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
No posts for a while
Due to computer malfunctions (at least that's what I assume it is. My computer went "pft" then refuses to turn on) this blog shall not be updated for a little while. How long? No clue, depends on how long it takes to get it fixed.
Note: I believe I am good at the game Armored Core: For Answer. Not perfect, but good.
With that in mind, if you can complete the mission "Occupation of Arteria Carpals", you are a god damned freak.
That is all.
Note: I believe I am good at the game Armored Core: For Answer. Not perfect, but good.
With that in mind, if you can complete the mission "Occupation of Arteria Carpals", you are a god damned freak.
That is all.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Narrative stupidity
People who know me, or long term readers will be familiar with the fact that I have a genuine... I won't say phobia, but in the region, about Zombies. If I watch a zombie movie, I cannot sleep that night. Very little other stuff has that impact on me. Zombies just freak me the hell out. In an effort to combat this I am forcing myself to watch Zombie movies at every available opportunity (in daylight, to minimise the negative effect. Baby-steps fellows, baby steps.).
One of my recent attempts was watching the remake of Dawn of the Dead. A pretty meh movie, and the speed of the zombies actually lessens the impact they have on me, but it made me think of something (stop reading if you don't want spoilers, but this doesn't give away too much, really). I can understand from a narrative perspective WHY the survivors decided to venture out to try and find somewhere safer, it moves the story along beyond "here be living people in the mall, there be dead outside" to a direct confrontation with masses of the living dead which makes for a more climactic finish. It doesn't change the fact the plan is FUCKING STUPID.
Like I said, from a narrative standpoint it makes sense, it moves the story along into something like a peak of action, but it is still completely moronic. They're abandoning a safehouse with food, water and protection (and yes, I do understand that their idea of it being safe has been shaken, doesn't stop the plan being stupid) to attempt to cross through no-man's land in the hope of there being a better safehouse elsewhere. Sorry guys and dolls, but that is completely moronic. They even try to lampshade it by having one of the characters define it in those terms and then agree with it anyway. It doesn't work, it just makes him look like a moron because he knows what's happening but goes along with it anyway.
Their logic is something like this: "If we stay here, eventually we'll probably all be killed. But if we go out there, we'll all have a much higher chance of being killed for a short time, then if we survive in the near future we MIGHT find somewhere safer then we are."
When the narrative requires your characters act like complete idiots, don't expect your audience to not notice. Hell, in the horror genre this is a common occurence.
"What are you doing! Don't friggin' split up!"
"Yeah, great plan, go and check out the dark room by yourself without telling anyone where you're going."
"Why in the name of CHRIST are you leaving the tent without a weapon, despite knowing there's an undead bear trying to eat you!?"
It is Jason's superpower. He inspires idiocy in his victims.
One of my recent attempts was watching the remake of Dawn of the Dead. A pretty meh movie, and the speed of the zombies actually lessens the impact they have on me, but it made me think of something (stop reading if you don't want spoilers, but this doesn't give away too much, really). I can understand from a narrative perspective WHY the survivors decided to venture out to try and find somewhere safer, it moves the story along beyond "here be living people in the mall, there be dead outside" to a direct confrontation with masses of the living dead which makes for a more climactic finish. It doesn't change the fact the plan is FUCKING STUPID.
Like I said, from a narrative standpoint it makes sense, it moves the story along into something like a peak of action, but it is still completely moronic. They're abandoning a safehouse with food, water and protection (and yes, I do understand that their idea of it being safe has been shaken, doesn't stop the plan being stupid) to attempt to cross through no-man's land in the hope of there being a better safehouse elsewhere. Sorry guys and dolls, but that is completely moronic. They even try to lampshade it by having one of the characters define it in those terms and then agree with it anyway. It doesn't work, it just makes him look like a moron because he knows what's happening but goes along with it anyway.
Their logic is something like this: "If we stay here, eventually we'll probably all be killed. But if we go out there, we'll all have a much higher chance of being killed for a short time, then if we survive in the near future we MIGHT find somewhere safer then we are."
When the narrative requires your characters act like complete idiots, don't expect your audience to not notice. Hell, in the horror genre this is a common occurence.
"What are you doing! Don't friggin' split up!"
"Yeah, great plan, go and check out the dark room by yourself without telling anyone where you're going."
"Why in the name of CHRIST are you leaving the tent without a weapon, despite knowing there's an undead bear trying to eat you!?"
It is Jason's superpower. He inspires idiocy in his victims.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Branching missions
Often in pre-planned tabletop gaming campaigns or computer games the Games Master/designers will throw in something called "Branching Missions." Despite the name they don't actually have to Branch that much, just have a couple of different options available that change what missions are available later. These have a number of benefits and detriments, that, in lieu of actual intelligent discussion (which is so common around here, end-sarcasm) I will describe in my own painfully inept manner. I mentioned tabletop gaming campaigns but, let's be perfectly honest, I don't have enough experience with that to be able to do anything other then say "in my imagination, while I'm surrounded by my millions of friends, this is how it is." As such it will be completely ignored.
Benefits: Branching missions encourage replayability. If there are five endings to a campaign then you're encouraging players to go through the campaign five times in order to find an ending they like, or alternatively see the wide variety from "here he comes, the hero of the house" to "you couldn't have cocked that up more, could you?"
Take the game that inspired this discussion. The campaign is remarkably short, being finished in two relatively normal gaming sessions, but the promise of three different endings has had me replaying it no less then four times looking for all these different endings and trying to finish all the mission (well, that promise, and the fact that I'm flying around in a gnarly death machine of awesomeness). I've replayed the same missions over and over again. If I am offered hundreds of thousands of credits in the future to destroy another giant rolling fortress bristling with weaponry I'll be treating that request in the same way I'd treat the request to walk the Dogs.
While I didn't play through all the missions in the first runthrough, the gameplay length has been extended like a manhood through the use of clever branching. What should have been done and dusted inside of 48 hours has instead lasted as long as sex being watched over by your Mum, namely, nearly a week of awkward stop-and-go gameplay with a strong sense of disapproval involved.
Detriments: This was touched on briefly above. Take a standard bunch of missions for a game, and arrange them in a linear manner.
Opening cinematic.
Mission 1
Mission 2
Mission 3
Mission 4
Mission 5
Mission 6
Mission 7
Mission 8
Mission 9
Ending cinematic.
If we're generous and assume it'll take an hour to finish each mission, then from opening cinematic from end will take 9 hours of playtime. Now, let's see what happens if the game branches off after level 3.
Mission 1
Mission 2
Mission 3
Mission 4 OR Mission 5
Mission 6 OR Mission 7
Mission 8 OR Mission 9
Let us once more assume it takes an hour, and now suddenly for the same amount of development work you get a game that takes 6 hours, and feels drastically shorter. Unless the player loved every minute of it, they are not going to want to throw down another 6 hours just to see ending two.
Although this isn't fair, since alot of games with campaign missions will have the choice only in major missions, and the ones in the middle being repeated anyway. But this doesn't avoid the problem that unless there's a significant hook, why would the player want to repeat a mission they've already done four times, just trying to get the third ending.
In short: Developers, Branching mission trees are great. They can really add to the feeling that the player has some control over themselves. However if you're going to make the player repeat missions he's done before try to have some other hook in place. For Armoured Core For Answer (still a stupid name) that hook would be, as mentioned before, that I'm flying around in a customisable gnarly death machine of awesomeness. Seriously, a mission doesn't feel the same if the first time you did it you had a pair of laser blades on an agile plane-thing with legs, and the second time you had a tank-like thing with a bazooka the size of something really huge.
Like your mother.
... Man, what a juvenile note to end on.
Benefits: Branching missions encourage replayability. If there are five endings to a campaign then you're encouraging players to go through the campaign five times in order to find an ending they like, or alternatively see the wide variety from "here he comes, the hero of the house" to "you couldn't have cocked that up more, could you?"
Take the game that inspired this discussion. The campaign is remarkably short, being finished in two relatively normal gaming sessions, but the promise of three different endings has had me replaying it no less then four times looking for all these different endings and trying to finish all the mission (well, that promise, and the fact that I'm flying around in a gnarly death machine of awesomeness). I've replayed the same missions over and over again. If I am offered hundreds of thousands of credits in the future to destroy another giant rolling fortress bristling with weaponry I'll be treating that request in the same way I'd treat the request to walk the Dogs.
While I didn't play through all the missions in the first runthrough, the gameplay length has been extended like a manhood through the use of clever branching. What should have been done and dusted inside of 48 hours has instead lasted as long as sex being watched over by your Mum, namely, nearly a week of awkward stop-and-go gameplay with a strong sense of disapproval involved.
Detriments: This was touched on briefly above. Take a standard bunch of missions for a game, and arrange them in a linear manner.
Opening cinematic.
Mission 1
Mission 2
Mission 3
Mission 4
Mission 5
Mission 6
Mission 7
Mission 8
Mission 9
Ending cinematic.
If we're generous and assume it'll take an hour to finish each mission, then from opening cinematic from end will take 9 hours of playtime. Now, let's see what happens if the game branches off after level 3.
Mission 1
Mission 2
Mission 3
Mission 4 OR Mission 5
Mission 6 OR Mission 7
Mission 8 OR Mission 9
Let us once more assume it takes an hour, and now suddenly for the same amount of development work you get a game that takes 6 hours, and feels drastically shorter. Unless the player loved every minute of it, they are not going to want to throw down another 6 hours just to see ending two.
Although this isn't fair, since alot of games with campaign missions will have the choice only in major missions, and the ones in the middle being repeated anyway. But this doesn't avoid the problem that unless there's a significant hook, why would the player want to repeat a mission they've already done four times, just trying to get the third ending.
In short: Developers, Branching mission trees are great. They can really add to the feeling that the player has some control over themselves. However if you're going to make the player repeat missions he's done before try to have some other hook in place. For Armoured Core For Answer (still a stupid name) that hook would be, as mentioned before, that I'm flying around in a customisable gnarly death machine of awesomeness. Seriously, a mission doesn't feel the same if the first time you did it you had a pair of laser blades on an agile plane-thing with legs, and the second time you had a tank-like thing with a bazooka the size of something really huge.
Like your mother.
... Man, what a juvenile note to end on.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Penn from Penn & Teller is an alright dude
What does this post have to do with nerdisms? SFA, but I'm running out of topics and I want to post this.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pennsays
I have only seen a couple of episodes of "Bullshit", the show that (I believe) Penn and Teller made their names in. To be honest, I didn't enjoy the show a great deal when I saw it, but that's not to say watching it was a waste of time. That show was what made me dislike Michael Moore. In general, both Moore and Bullshit have a similar interviewing style. They'll interview people, then when the person say something they'll pause it and put in a voiceover showing them where they were wrong. This is not a good debate, it means the other side has no chance to really respond. Both Bullshit and Moore do this. Bullshit may do differently now, especially since apparently Penn is very rigorous in his research, if the subtitles correcting himself in his videos are any indicator.
But that's not what I'm here to discuss. Check out the above Youtube channel. There's alot of stuff in it I generally disagree with, but at the same time there's plenty I agree with (just like with normal people, it's rare to meet someone you agree or disagree about everything with), but again that's not the point. Penn is quite a celebrity, and I would be willing to say most people I speak to on a regular basis would know who he is, if only vaguely, but the blog technique he's using is basically.... no technique, and it works. In a normal video blog there's usually a degree of editing to make it seem seemless, expressing the maximum amount of information/opinion/entertainment in the minimum amount of time. Penn's style seems to be almost like you're sitting with him on his travels (and he rarely seems to do a video from the same spot twice) and he's expressing an opinion. For a brief moment it's easy to forget he's a celebrity on the other side of the world, it feels almost like a normal person just telling an anecdote.
As likely as I am to disagree or agree with his particular perspective on matters, and as much as I didn't like his TV show, I have to admit I respect the man himself.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pennsays
I have only seen a couple of episodes of "Bullshit", the show that (I believe) Penn and Teller made their names in. To be honest, I didn't enjoy the show a great deal when I saw it, but that's not to say watching it was a waste of time. That show was what made me dislike Michael Moore. In general, both Moore and Bullshit have a similar interviewing style. They'll interview people, then when the person say something they'll pause it and put in a voiceover showing them where they were wrong. This is not a good debate, it means the other side has no chance to really respond. Both Bullshit and Moore do this. Bullshit may do differently now, especially since apparently Penn is very rigorous in his research, if the subtitles correcting himself in his videos are any indicator.
But that's not what I'm here to discuss. Check out the above Youtube channel. There's alot of stuff in it I generally disagree with, but at the same time there's plenty I agree with (just like with normal people, it's rare to meet someone you agree or disagree about everything with), but again that's not the point. Penn is quite a celebrity, and I would be willing to say most people I speak to on a regular basis would know who he is, if only vaguely, but the blog technique he's using is basically.... no technique, and it works. In a normal video blog there's usually a degree of editing to make it seem seemless, expressing the maximum amount of information/opinion/entertainment in the minimum amount of time. Penn's style seems to be almost like you're sitting with him on his travels (and he rarely seems to do a video from the same spot twice) and he's expressing an opinion. For a brief moment it's easy to forget he's a celebrity on the other side of the world, it feels almost like a normal person just telling an anecdote.
As likely as I am to disagree or agree with his particular perspective on matters, and as much as I didn't like his TV show, I have to admit I respect the man himself.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Watchmen comparison
You know what, I was planning out a grand discussion on the comparitive differences between the Watchmen movie and comic, but it's just too hard to do that without ruining the story for people.
So I'll just summarise my thoughts thusly.
1. It is a GOOD MOVIE. It is not a perfect movie, there is alot I would have prefered to see done differently (both to bring it a little closer to the comic, drop things that were completely unnecessary, or just improve the quality of the movie generally).
2. It needed about a third of the songs taken out. Sometimes silence says more then an 80's soundtrack does. It feels to me like the Director paid for the rights to a mess of songs, then thought they wouldn't be getting their money's worth if they didn't use them all.
3. The ending has changed, yes Watchmen fans I know, it sounds like sacrilege. But I will risk your wrath by saying: I Prefer this ending. The one in the comic feels a bit "Hey dude, fuck the what?", whereas this does feel more like a dastardly scheme with the best of intentions.
4. Nite Owl, my previously mentioned favourite character, has more characterisation in this movie. It works well, I think. Plus the actor they got for him did an amazing job in my view. He went from powerless human to powerful masked crusader very smoothly.
5. They did an admirable job of covering all the backstory, I doubt they could have done it better without tacking an extra 30 minutes on an already enormous movie, but still I get the feeling someone who'd never read the Watchmen would be a bit out of their depth.
6. They kinda give away the Silk Specter twist a little early, in my view. Anyone with half a mind could work it out well in advance of it being worked out.
7. The actor playing Rorshach did an admirable job of seeming like a threatening bastard, despite being about 5 foot 6.
8. There are alot of little hints in the movie that they not only paid tribute to some of the miniplots (the news vender and comic reading kid), but probably filmed alot more then they showed with them. I'm looking forward to the extended edition DVD (which according to rumours is going to have the Black Ship plot in it, voiced by the dude who played Leonidas from 300).
Final thoughts? I'd like to see Zack Snyder try to direct something where the entire movie hasn't already been storyboarded for him in a comic. Just for some variety.
So I'll just summarise my thoughts thusly.
1. It is a GOOD MOVIE. It is not a perfect movie, there is alot I would have prefered to see done differently (both to bring it a little closer to the comic, drop things that were completely unnecessary, or just improve the quality of the movie generally).
2. It needed about a third of the songs taken out. Sometimes silence says more then an 80's soundtrack does. It feels to me like the Director paid for the rights to a mess of songs, then thought they wouldn't be getting their money's worth if they didn't use them all.
3. The ending has changed, yes Watchmen fans I know, it sounds like sacrilege. But I will risk your wrath by saying: I Prefer this ending. The one in the comic feels a bit "Hey dude, fuck the what?", whereas this does feel more like a dastardly scheme with the best of intentions.
4. Nite Owl, my previously mentioned favourite character, has more characterisation in this movie. It works well, I think. Plus the actor they got for him did an amazing job in my view. He went from powerless human to powerful masked crusader very smoothly.
5. They did an admirable job of covering all the backstory, I doubt they could have done it better without tacking an extra 30 minutes on an already enormous movie, but still I get the feeling someone who'd never read the Watchmen would be a bit out of their depth.
6. They kinda give away the Silk Specter twist a little early, in my view. Anyone with half a mind could work it out well in advance of it being worked out.
7. The actor playing Rorshach did an admirable job of seeming like a threatening bastard, despite being about 5 foot 6.
8. There are alot of little hints in the movie that they not only paid tribute to some of the miniplots (the news vender and comic reading kid), but probably filmed alot more then they showed with them. I'm looking forward to the extended edition DVD (which according to rumours is going to have the Black Ship plot in it, voiced by the dude who played Leonidas from 300).
Final thoughts? I'd like to see Zack Snyder try to direct something where the entire movie hasn't already been storyboarded for him in a comic. Just for some variety.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Electronics Boutique games is a rip-off
Just a short post today dealing with something that annoys me.
If you're a fan of Zero Punctuation, or otherwise live here, you may have heard the prices for games in Australia. They're ridiculous. Recent events have brought to my attention that these prices may be majoritively the fault of Electronics Boutique games.
"Ha ha," you snidely laugh, dismissing my proposal without a second thought as the two dimensional Socratic Dialogue rip-off that you are, "what a poorly constructed arguement.
For your entertainment I submit two links.
BAM!
http://www.ebgames.com.au/ps3/product.cfm?id=12939&refer=productsearch
And BAM!
http://dstore.com.au/games/Armored-Core-For-Answer/2732218.html
From $110 Australian to $55 Australian (although to be fair, the Dstore one I ended up buying in the end WAS on special. It was down from $60).
You tug your collar awkwardly and begin sweating like a Walrus under the withering gaze of my arguement. "Well surely," stumbles out of your lips like a drunken hooker, "the shipping cost makes up for the difference."
BAM!
No. The shipping would have been $10 or so. I bought it piggybacking on a friend of mine buying something else there, and they had a special on that weekend wherein shipping was free for two or more items.
Even had I bought it by myself and forked over the shipping, and had it not been on special, that still would've bene a saving of $40. I could get myself half a case worth of beer at my local bar for that. I could buy nearly a full case of beer for that at the bottleshop.
EB nearly denied me a dozen beers. And for that they have my eternal hatred.
And now, just to round things off:
If you're a fan of Zero Punctuation, or otherwise live here, you may have heard the prices for games in Australia. They're ridiculous. Recent events have brought to my attention that these prices may be majoritively the fault of Electronics Boutique games.
"Ha ha," you snidely laugh, dismissing my proposal without a second thought as the two dimensional Socratic Dialogue rip-off that you are, "what a poorly constructed arguement.
For your entertainment I submit two links.
BAM!
http://www.ebgames.com.au/ps3/product.cfm?id=12939&refer=productsearch
And BAM!
http://dstore.com.au/games/Armored-Core-For-Answer/2732218.html
From $110 Australian to $55 Australian (although to be fair, the Dstore one I ended up buying in the end WAS on special. It was down from $60).
You tug your collar awkwardly and begin sweating like a Walrus under the withering gaze of my arguement. "Well surely," stumbles out of your lips like a drunken hooker, "the shipping cost makes up for the difference."
BAM!
No. The shipping would have been $10 or so. I bought it piggybacking on a friend of mine buying something else there, and they had a special on that weekend wherein shipping was free for two or more items.
Even had I bought it by myself and forked over the shipping, and had it not been on special, that still would've bene a saving of $40. I could get myself half a case worth of beer at my local bar for that. I could buy nearly a full case of beer for that at the bottleshop.
EB nearly denied me a dozen beers. And for that they have my eternal hatred.
And now, just to round things off:
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Retraction
My previous blog post about an obsessional robot seems to be inaccurate. After some suspicion (when I noticed the original article didn't site it's sources) I did a couple of quick Google searches.
Wouldn't'ya know it. The Toshiba Akimu Robotic Research Institute doesn't actually EXIST. Every single google search leads to a copy of that article I linked to. It seems IGN was just making shit up for shits and giggles.
Well played IGN. Well played.
Original article edited.
Wouldn't'ya know it. The Toshiba Akimu Robotic Research Institute doesn't actually EXIST. Every single google search leads to a copy of that article I linked to. It seems IGN was just making shit up for shits and giggles.
Well played IGN. Well played.
Original article edited.
Mythbusters Vs Prototype this
I imagine all of you are aware of Mythbusters. The collection of crazy dudes (and ladies) so awesome they inspire many'a nerdgasm. Some of you may also be aware of Prototype This, a new show by the same production company. Essentially PT is similar to MB in that it's about a bunch of eccentric genius' putting their hard earned knowledge to work in creating zany contraptions to prove a point. The difference is that while MB test out the likelihood of a Myth being true, PT use it to attempt to build working prototypes of possible future inventions.
Sounds fun right? Well, having seen a few episodes I feel I am now an expert on the matter and as such can comment in such a way that I cannot ever be disproven.
Prototype This just doesn't have the same degree of appeal for a variety of reasons.
1. Unpolished. This will obviously fix with age, as they settle into their roles and the production team smooth everything out. They'll work out what parts of the procedure work on the show, what parts struggle, and what parts they need to add. As the show goes on, this will be fixed
2. Different challenges. In Mythbusters the joy is seeing the trial and error. They'll spend days building this huge rig, then abandon it when it doesn't work in favour of using something very low tech.
3. The Spectacle. On Mythbusters the excitement of the team is almost palpable, you can feel it and get excited alongside them. Since PT so far seem to be showcasing their inventions for the (altogether too small (again something time might fix)) crowd, and none of them get as excited, it's hard to feel like laughing aloud.
4. The artificial deadline. Mythbusters occasionally mentioned how some things would 'take too long', but they never really set a deliberate deadline outside of specific challenges in which the deadline added to the fun. In Prototype This they set themselves an artificial deadline to add to the rushed feeling, but it never really inspires the excitement they're going for, for me. Instead I just see them all get stressed and rushed and I don't enjoy myself as much. Occasionally the Mythbusters would get down about something not working, but in general it was a feeling of excitement. Prototype this feels like watching people do work.
5. Non-personalities. Maybe it's just because (once more time) we haven't had time to get to know them, but the main people in Prototype this feel too similar, with the only differentiating factor being their haircuts (which is a pretty petty complaint, but come on, these haircuts are just plain scary).
6. EXPLOSIONS. Prototype This are building shit. Mythbusters are blowing shit up. I REST MY CASE.
Ok, a little more detail. Building things is a long and laborious process, meaning the show can only really focus upon one thing at a time, with the entire team working together to build a single item. Mythbusters swapped between several stories at JUST the right pacing. Since you wanted to see where the story went, so you were kept there waiting to see it return, all the while enjoying the next one. Prototype This feels almost like a lecture, keeping to one topic for the whole hour.
EXPLOSIONS.
Sounds fun right? Well, having seen a few episodes I feel I am now an expert on the matter and as such can comment in such a way that I cannot ever be disproven.
Prototype This just doesn't have the same degree of appeal for a variety of reasons.
1. Unpolished. This will obviously fix with age, as they settle into their roles and the production team smooth everything out. They'll work out what parts of the procedure work on the show, what parts struggle, and what parts they need to add. As the show goes on, this will be fixed
2. Different challenges. In Mythbusters the joy is seeing the trial and error. They'll spend days building this huge rig, then abandon it when it doesn't work in favour of using something very low tech.
3. The Spectacle. On Mythbusters the excitement of the team is almost palpable, you can feel it and get excited alongside them. Since PT so far seem to be showcasing their inventions for the (altogether too small (again something time might fix)) crowd, and none of them get as excited, it's hard to feel like laughing aloud.
4. The artificial deadline. Mythbusters occasionally mentioned how some things would 'take too long', but they never really set a deliberate deadline outside of specific challenges in which the deadline added to the fun. In Prototype This they set themselves an artificial deadline to add to the rushed feeling, but it never really inspires the excitement they're going for, for me. Instead I just see them all get stressed and rushed and I don't enjoy myself as much. Occasionally the Mythbusters would get down about something not working, but in general it was a feeling of excitement. Prototype this feels like watching people do work.
5. Non-personalities. Maybe it's just because (once more time) we haven't had time to get to know them, but the main people in Prototype this feel too similar, with the only differentiating factor being their haircuts (which is a pretty petty complaint, but come on, these haircuts are just plain scary).
6. EXPLOSIONS. Prototype This are building shit. Mythbusters are blowing shit up. I REST MY CASE.
Ok, a little more detail. Building things is a long and laborious process, meaning the show can only really focus upon one thing at a time, with the entire team working together to build a single item. Mythbusters swapped between several stories at JUST the right pacing. Since you wanted to see where the story went, so you were kept there waiting to see it return, all the while enjoying the next one. Prototype This feels almost like a lecture, keeping to one topic for the whole hour.
EXPLOSIONS.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Crazy robot love
EDIT: The original article is pretty much a hoax. Check it out, no sources sited, and every single google result for the Toshiba Akimu Robotic Research Institute is a link to a copy of the original article. It MAY be accurate, but I sincerely, sincerely doubt it. For now, be that cool "hard to convince" guy among your friends. I'll leave the original post on my blog in place for archive purposes.
For those of you hoping for something else, this is the WHOLESOME kind of love.
Well, not really.
http://au.gear.ign.com/articles/959/959790p1.html
Wow. Just wow.
Crazy robot love. Were it to ever happen to me, that's a story that I'd have to retell over beer, occasionally sprinkling my performance with shudders of terror, and punctuating my fear of the recollection with a massive gulping of alcohol, before crying into the remains of my schooner.
That is so awesome. Not for the person the robot loves, of course, but for me as a spectator it is incredibly cool. The concept that scientists try to program human emotion into a robot and the first thing they manage is batshit insane stalker. If it continues like this it'll be absolutely amazing.
What happens when they make a robot designed to clean your toenails? Mass amputations.
A robot meant to cut your hair? Genitals removed across the world
The next generation of tickle-me-Elmo will rip people limb from limb.
Japan, can I ask a favour? Can you wait until after I've lived a rich and full life before plunging the world into the Ropocolpyse? Thanks, I owe you one.
For those of you hoping for something else, this is the WHOLESOME kind of love.
Well, not really.
http://au.gear.ign.com/articles/959/959790p1.html
Wow. Just wow.
Crazy robot love. Were it to ever happen to me, that's a story that I'd have to retell over beer, occasionally sprinkling my performance with shudders of terror, and punctuating my fear of the recollection with a massive gulping of alcohol, before crying into the remains of my schooner.
That is so awesome. Not for the person the robot loves, of course, but for me as a spectator it is incredibly cool. The concept that scientists try to program human emotion into a robot and the first thing they manage is batshit insane stalker. If it continues like this it'll be absolutely amazing.
What happens when they make a robot designed to clean your toenails? Mass amputations.
A robot meant to cut your hair? Genitals removed across the world
The next generation of tickle-me-Elmo will rip people limb from limb.
Japan, can I ask a favour? Can you wait until after I've lived a rich and full life before plunging the world into the Ropocolpyse? Thanks, I owe you one.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Introspective
Nearly 8 months I've been blogging.
163 posts.
An average of nearly 21 posts per month.
Holy shit and bricks.
Any point to this post? Nope, not really. Just saying that my respect for Jackie Chan is THROUGH THE ROOF: http://www.jackiechankids.com/files/Jackie_Injury_Map_Main.htm
I didn't even know you COULD dislocate your sternum!
163 posts.
An average of nearly 21 posts per month.
Holy shit and bricks.
Any point to this post? Nope, not really. Just saying that my respect for Jackie Chan is THROUGH THE ROOF: http://www.jackiechankids.com/files/Jackie_Injury_Map_Main.htm
I didn't even know you COULD dislocate your sternum!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Sustainable evil
In a recent conversation with my brother we remarked upon something that's been bothering me for while. Are you familiar with Dungeons and Dragons? Passingly? Ok, near enough.
In the backstory there's this race of black skinned Elves who are evil (no racial comparisons intended by the designers... hopefully). They are evil pretty much to the last man (although considering how 99.99% of them are evil, there's a surprisingly large number of misrepresented rebels), and as such their society consists of oppression, scheming, political assassinations and vast amounts of "let's fuck over our neighbour and take their stuff". That's all well and good, it provides a good moral reason for the appropriately varied small group of elite warriors and wizards to sneak in and kill them because they're being evil and threatening, and sometimes that's GOOD for a party. No moral considerations, just "bad guys are here, stab their faces in". Oh, and they live in one of the most hostile areas of the world imaginable, where everything wants to eat everything else's faces.
However...
And this is a big BIG however...
As mentioned this is a race of Elves. In common Fantasy one of the normal aspects of Elves is that they breed very, very slowly. Maybe they're so sick of beautiful people they don't get it on much, but in general Elves breed slowly. The only reason the race doesn't die out completely is they're very good at what they do, and so don't die alot.
So a race that constantly kills each other, lives in one of the most hostile lands imaginable, and constantly tries to invade the 'good' surface world... SOMEHOW has a viable population. Call me picky, but this makes no sense. In general if a species is constantly getting picked off, the only way to avoid that is to have LOTS of babies, which it's already established Elves don't do. As an evil race of bastards, this is completely unsustainable.
It is then my brother came up with one of the greatest terms ever.
S.E.R.
Sustainable Evil Race.
A Sustainable Evil Race is one in which the population will never fall below a certain line of sustainable growth, no matter how many of them are killed by "heroic Adventueres" walking in, stabbing them and taking their shit, or the elements, or their environment, or even each other. Orcs and Goblins are normally a good example of this, since there seem to be so many of the bastards you couldn't stop them from showing up, even if you wanted to. Drow and other evil elven-like races? Not so much. Kill a couple and it'd be a genuine blow to the race. Kill an army of races like Kobolds and they'll be up and at'em again in a couple of years.
So, what is required for a sustainably evil race? Let's introduce some faux maths.
B = Birth Rate, how many will be born over a given time period
S = Percent who survive to 'fighting' age, the age they can fight alongside other evil buggers.
E = Environmental dangers, how many will die because of their surroundings over a given time period
I = Infighting dangers, how many will die because of they are all arseholes over a given time period
H = Heroic dangers, how many will die because of "heroes" killing them and taking their stuff over a given time period
L = Locations, how far spread around the world they are
(B x S - E - I - H)^L
An Example or two:
Drow have a low Birth Rate, but most of then survive because of protection by their family. Their environmental dangers are enormous, as is the infighting. Heroes aren't TOO common, but common enough to be a threat. While the Underdark (where they live) is meant to be enormous, it's also meant to be very inhospitable, and as such there aren't too many Drow settlements. As such, it's quite easy to imagine the Drow are NOT a sustainable evil population. If they didn't have as much infighting or heroic encounters it's not hard to imagine they'd have a greater chance of survival.
Goblins breed like rabbit hermaphrodites, alot of them probably die before reaching 'fighting' age because of low resources. They're the bottom of the food chain and bicker among themselves all the time, as well as having enormous problems with huge numbers of threatening heroes. But, and a big but, they are EVERYWHERE. The fact they breed like it's going out of fashion coupled with the fact they're all over the place means the best you can possibly do is wipe out a few tribes, and even then the other tribes will have bred enough in that time to make up for it. Goblins ARE a sustainably evil population.
What's the lesson here kids? If a race is going to have massive infighting, be evil enough to want to invade everywhere, and have major problems with the tough environment, they're going to need to breed enormously just to keep the numbers up. Remember that when you're designing stuff.
In the backstory there's this race of black skinned Elves who are evil (no racial comparisons intended by the designers... hopefully). They are evil pretty much to the last man (although considering how 99.99% of them are evil, there's a surprisingly large number of misrepresented rebels), and as such their society consists of oppression, scheming, political assassinations and vast amounts of "let's fuck over our neighbour and take their stuff". That's all well and good, it provides a good moral reason for the appropriately varied small group of elite warriors and wizards to sneak in and kill them because they're being evil and threatening, and sometimes that's GOOD for a party. No moral considerations, just "bad guys are here, stab their faces in". Oh, and they live in one of the most hostile areas of the world imaginable, where everything wants to eat everything else's faces.
However...
And this is a big BIG however...
As mentioned this is a race of Elves. In common Fantasy one of the normal aspects of Elves is that they breed very, very slowly. Maybe they're so sick of beautiful people they don't get it on much, but in general Elves breed slowly. The only reason the race doesn't die out completely is they're very good at what they do, and so don't die alot.
So a race that constantly kills each other, lives in one of the most hostile lands imaginable, and constantly tries to invade the 'good' surface world... SOMEHOW has a viable population. Call me picky, but this makes no sense. In general if a species is constantly getting picked off, the only way to avoid that is to have LOTS of babies, which it's already established Elves don't do. As an evil race of bastards, this is completely unsustainable.
It is then my brother came up with one of the greatest terms ever.
S.E.R.
Sustainable Evil Race.
A Sustainable Evil Race is one in which the population will never fall below a certain line of sustainable growth, no matter how many of them are killed by "heroic Adventueres" walking in, stabbing them and taking their shit, or the elements, or their environment, or even each other. Orcs and Goblins are normally a good example of this, since there seem to be so many of the bastards you couldn't stop them from showing up, even if you wanted to. Drow and other evil elven-like races? Not so much. Kill a couple and it'd be a genuine blow to the race. Kill an army of races like Kobolds and they'll be up and at'em again in a couple of years.
So, what is required for a sustainably evil race? Let's introduce some faux maths.
B = Birth Rate, how many will be born over a given time period
S = Percent who survive to 'fighting' age, the age they can fight alongside other evil buggers.
E = Environmental dangers, how many will die because of their surroundings over a given time period
I = Infighting dangers, how many will die because of they are all arseholes over a given time period
H = Heroic dangers, how many will die because of "heroes" killing them and taking their stuff over a given time period
L = Locations, how far spread around the world they are
(B x S - E - I - H)^L
An Example or two:
Drow have a low Birth Rate, but most of then survive because of protection by their family. Their environmental dangers are enormous, as is the infighting. Heroes aren't TOO common, but common enough to be a threat. While the Underdark (where they live) is meant to be enormous, it's also meant to be very inhospitable, and as such there aren't too many Drow settlements. As such, it's quite easy to imagine the Drow are NOT a sustainable evil population. If they didn't have as much infighting or heroic encounters it's not hard to imagine they'd have a greater chance of survival.
Goblins breed like rabbit hermaphrodites, alot of them probably die before reaching 'fighting' age because of low resources. They're the bottom of the food chain and bicker among themselves all the time, as well as having enormous problems with huge numbers of threatening heroes. But, and a big but, they are EVERYWHERE. The fact they breed like it's going out of fashion coupled with the fact they're all over the place means the best you can possibly do is wipe out a few tribes, and even then the other tribes will have bred enough in that time to make up for it. Goblins ARE a sustainably evil population.
What's the lesson here kids? If a race is going to have massive infighting, be evil enough to want to invade everywhere, and have major problems with the tough environment, they're going to need to breed enormously just to keep the numbers up. Remember that when you're designing stuff.
Friday, March 6, 2009
I need to play less Armored Core 4
I've already mentioned my love for the Armoured Core series of games stems from the fact I'm actually GOOD at them. It's one of my few games I can perform at a high level at. Granted I'm not a superhuman as some people seem to be (search for AC4 missions on Youtube, there are some ANIMALS on there), but I can hold my own, and given enough practice and time to design a giant robot I can take out most threats.
Case in point: There is a mission in the game where, in normal difficulty, you and two other Armoured Cores (both of them horribly designed) are up against a force of four elite ACs. You're outnumbered, outgunned and outclassed. It took me a few goes and a bit of tweaking of my AC, but I could beat it in the end. Then after finishing the (very short) game I decided to give the Hard version of this mission a try, since apparently you get special items for doing so. Now just so you know, when you do the hard version of a mission in this game it isn't a matter of "hey hey, enemies have higher accuracy", it's a genuinely redesigned mission with more enemies and less allies. Sometimes it's not much harder (a little extra health on the lone enemy), but other times it's genuinely WAY more difficult. In this case it was the latter.
For this mission I had to take on, by myself four weakened Armoured Cores. That is a BIG deal. It took me nine tries, and three difference ACs, but in the end I finally came up with a design that I believed could do it. First time through this final design (The Sledge MK IV) ripped them apart, barely lowering me to half health in doing so.
I had a minor panic attack when I realised this was the game I was "that" guy for. The one game where I rip through things, while normal people who play it struggle.
Then I pushed it aside and dedicated myself to that which takes up WELL over half the gameplay for me. It's not the actual missions, or the simulation/arena stuff, oh no. It's my holy grail.
Customisability.
Say it with me brothers!
Customisability.
Say it for me sisters, in your sexy voices!
Customisability.
I will grant you, the majority of customisation in AC4 is not truly game-altering, the most you can possibly do is change primary three factors
1. How much you can be shot
2. How fast you jet around
3. What guns you shoot
Other alterations are majoritively cosmetic, with their influences being secondary considerations at best. But still, it's enough for me. Even if it is just window dressing to change my ACs head to another design that looks better and offers 1% better armour, at the cost of 1% extra weight... It's still wonderful.
The reason for that is the ability to look back at that which you create and say, even if it has likely been designed by someone else somewhere in the world:
"This is MY Armoured Core 4 design, my NEXT. There may be other ones like it, but this one is mine."
For me it's like the love a car nut has for his vehicle, constantly tinkering with it and trying to get that LITTLE bit extra out of the little bastard. If I'm being honest with myself, I know the tiny alterations I make barely make an appreciable difference, but when I start up a mission with a rejigging of an old design I always think to myself "ahh, that's better". Or starting up a mission with a brand new design my first thought is to categorise the flaws and ponder how I can iron them out.
The game gives points called "FPS" points, which can be used to tweak certain statistics of the giant robot, making some parts of it perform better. Each of these provides a percentage based boost, that in playable terms probably makes almost NO difference by themselves, but throwing 50 or so into one stat can really help. So why, oh why, do I agonise over where to play that last miserable five points? It makes NO difference.
That's customisability for you. It turns a relatively geeky player into an obsessive/compulsive nutcase.
P.S. Yes, I know there are plenty of people out there who are animals at the game who could rip me a new one, but I haven't met them, and I imagine if I do meet them I'll feel like I need a shower afterwards. I'm the best player of the game I've encountered in my (admittedly) limited experience, so in my little world I'm far, FAR too good at the game to be healthy.
P.P.S. Next post I'll ramp up the nerd value by discussing Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition.
Case in point: There is a mission in the game where, in normal difficulty, you and two other Armoured Cores (both of them horribly designed) are up against a force of four elite ACs. You're outnumbered, outgunned and outclassed. It took me a few goes and a bit of tweaking of my AC, but I could beat it in the end. Then after finishing the (very short) game I decided to give the Hard version of this mission a try, since apparently you get special items for doing so. Now just so you know, when you do the hard version of a mission in this game it isn't a matter of "hey hey, enemies have higher accuracy", it's a genuinely redesigned mission with more enemies and less allies. Sometimes it's not much harder (a little extra health on the lone enemy), but other times it's genuinely WAY more difficult. In this case it was the latter.
For this mission I had to take on, by myself four weakened Armoured Cores. That is a BIG deal. It took me nine tries, and three difference ACs, but in the end I finally came up with a design that I believed could do it. First time through this final design (The Sledge MK IV) ripped them apart, barely lowering me to half health in doing so.
I had a minor panic attack when I realised this was the game I was "that" guy for. The one game where I rip through things, while normal people who play it struggle.
Then I pushed it aside and dedicated myself to that which takes up WELL over half the gameplay for me. It's not the actual missions, or the simulation/arena stuff, oh no. It's my holy grail.
Customisability.
Say it with me brothers!
Customisability.
Say it for me sisters, in your sexy voices!
Customisability.
I will grant you, the majority of customisation in AC4 is not truly game-altering, the most you can possibly do is change primary three factors
1. How much you can be shot
2. How fast you jet around
3. What guns you shoot
Other alterations are majoritively cosmetic, with their influences being secondary considerations at best. But still, it's enough for me. Even if it is just window dressing to change my ACs head to another design that looks better and offers 1% better armour, at the cost of 1% extra weight... It's still wonderful.
The reason for that is the ability to look back at that which you create and say, even if it has likely been designed by someone else somewhere in the world:
"This is MY Armoured Core 4 design, my NEXT. There may be other ones like it, but this one is mine."
For me it's like the love a car nut has for his vehicle, constantly tinkering with it and trying to get that LITTLE bit extra out of the little bastard. If I'm being honest with myself, I know the tiny alterations I make barely make an appreciable difference, but when I start up a mission with a rejigging of an old design I always think to myself "ahh, that's better". Or starting up a mission with a brand new design my first thought is to categorise the flaws and ponder how I can iron them out.
The game gives points called "FPS" points, which can be used to tweak certain statistics of the giant robot, making some parts of it perform better. Each of these provides a percentage based boost, that in playable terms probably makes almost NO difference by themselves, but throwing 50 or so into one stat can really help. So why, oh why, do I agonise over where to play that last miserable five points? It makes NO difference.
That's customisability for you. It turns a relatively geeky player into an obsessive/compulsive nutcase.
P.S. Yes, I know there are plenty of people out there who are animals at the game who could rip me a new one, but I haven't met them, and I imagine if I do meet them I'll feel like I need a shower afterwards. I'm the best player of the game I've encountered in my (admittedly) limited experience, so in my little world I'm far, FAR too good at the game to be healthy.
P.P.S. Next post I'll ramp up the nerd value by discussing Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
"Perfect" writing
I got into a debate very recently about defining 'perfect' writing. It stemmed from a friend telling me fanboys are panning the new Watchmen movie, to which I replied that didn't matter, since I wasn't a fanboy. From there it got into a point where I stated a fan will acknowledge something as masterfully done, a fanboy will insist it is perfect.
To call anything done by humankind perfect is to do the word an injustice.
Perfection is an unattainable goal, one that should still be sought for by people attempting to create things, but still completely unattainable. Nothing will ever be perfect, and if I ever meet a writer who is willing to say they think a piece of writing they did was perfect and nothing they could do would ever improve upon it, I would say they are a lazy writer rather then an excellent one.
The Watchman comic (I refuse the use the term Graphic Novel, and if you ever catch me using it, feel free to give me a verbal backhander) is an amazing story. It is a psychological profile of a world outside of our own yet so intimately familiar. It's an incredible story of social mores and morals. It's an amazing glimpse of a history that never happened. But it is NOT a perfect story (I am so going to get mugged by some guy in a Rorshach mask later).
Perfection is at best a subjective interpretation of something. If I judged Watchmen as a perfect comic, I would be stamping a subjective label on it, something that cannot be objectively verified, but even then I believe I would be simply deluding myself, since the moment something is called perfect, it denies that improvements can be made on anything. Since interpretation of a narrative (or really any form of art) is subjective, this cannot be true since perfection for one individual is not perfection for another, and thus improvements can always be made.
Ok, I admit, that last paragraph didn't make much sense, think about it like this: Perfection is something that can be true in two ways.
1. Objectively. If you have a perfect 100ml container, it will hold 100ml of water perfectly. This is objective perfection, in that it cannot be improved upon. The moment this container holds 100ml perfectly there is no way in which it can be improved in the task of holding 100ml of liquid.
2. Subjectively. If something is subjectively perfect, it is judged as perfect by an individual. This means the individual has decreed in their own mind that there is absolutely NO way something can improve upon the design/substance of the item in question. In my view, this is entirely wrong.
Someone can discuss "the perfect car", but it negates the idea that it could be supplanted by another "perfect car" in the future. A story can be "perfect", but that states that nothing can ever outdo that story in what it is attempting to do.
The moment something is labelled as perfect, I believe people are being close-minded. This is one of the reasons I dislike fanboys, since they are closing their mind to the idea of improvement by describing something as perfect. This is also a reason I always go into movie adaptations of previous stories with a sense of hope, believe that even if the adaptation is DIFFERENT, it may still be good.
That is, of course, completely ignoring my inherent uneasiness of remakes, adaptations and sequels as "max profit min brainpower" factory-produced movies, but I've talked enough about that in the past.
To call anything done by humankind perfect is to do the word an injustice.
Perfection is an unattainable goal, one that should still be sought for by people attempting to create things, but still completely unattainable. Nothing will ever be perfect, and if I ever meet a writer who is willing to say they think a piece of writing they did was perfect and nothing they could do would ever improve upon it, I would say they are a lazy writer rather then an excellent one.
The Watchman comic (I refuse the use the term Graphic Novel, and if you ever catch me using it, feel free to give me a verbal backhander) is an amazing story. It is a psychological profile of a world outside of our own yet so intimately familiar. It's an incredible story of social mores and morals. It's an amazing glimpse of a history that never happened. But it is NOT a perfect story (I am so going to get mugged by some guy in a Rorshach mask later).
Perfection is at best a subjective interpretation of something. If I judged Watchmen as a perfect comic, I would be stamping a subjective label on it, something that cannot be objectively verified, but even then I believe I would be simply deluding myself, since the moment something is called perfect, it denies that improvements can be made on anything. Since interpretation of a narrative (or really any form of art) is subjective, this cannot be true since perfection for one individual is not perfection for another, and thus improvements can always be made.
Ok, I admit, that last paragraph didn't make much sense, think about it like this: Perfection is something that can be true in two ways.
1. Objectively. If you have a perfect 100ml container, it will hold 100ml of water perfectly. This is objective perfection, in that it cannot be improved upon. The moment this container holds 100ml perfectly there is no way in which it can be improved in the task of holding 100ml of liquid.
2. Subjectively. If something is subjectively perfect, it is judged as perfect by an individual. This means the individual has decreed in their own mind that there is absolutely NO way something can improve upon the design/substance of the item in question. In my view, this is entirely wrong.
Someone can discuss "the perfect car", but it negates the idea that it could be supplanted by another "perfect car" in the future. A story can be "perfect", but that states that nothing can ever outdo that story in what it is attempting to do.
The moment something is labelled as perfect, I believe people are being close-minded. This is one of the reasons I dislike fanboys, since they are closing their mind to the idea of improvement by describing something as perfect. This is also a reason I always go into movie adaptations of previous stories with a sense of hope, believe that even if the adaptation is DIFFERENT, it may still be good.
That is, of course, completely ignoring my inherent uneasiness of remakes, adaptations and sequels as "max profit min brainpower" factory-produced movies, but I've talked enough about that in the past.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Watchmen: Nite Owl
With the Watchmen movie coming up, it's understandable that the topic will come up in conversation occasionally. However, every time it does I get an odd look the moment I mention my favourite Watchmen character.
Nite Owl.
People just look at me as if I misprounouced the name of my fiance on the alter, but it's true.
"But he's so boring!"
"He doesn't really DO anything."
"He's like Batman without anything interesting."
One particular interpretation I've heard of the Watchmen shows three of the main characters as 'aspects' of Batman. Veidt is Batman's intelligence without his morality or desire for vengeance, Rorscharchs is Batman's vengeance without his cunning or morality, and Nite Owl is Batman's gadgetry and sense of justice.
Nite Owl is just a guy who is morally good at heart who happens to have a knowledge of mechanics/electronics and a desire to help the world, who gets in WAY over his head.
The others are either so crazy, have their heads so far into the clouds or so caught up in their own problems they don't really notice just what they're getting into. Nite Owl is the one person who has his head on his shoulders firmly enough to realise what's happening is bigger then any of them (well, except maybe one or two).
Rorsharch is an amazing character, but there's nothing actually LIKEABLE about him, same with the Comedian. Both of them are FRIGGIN' MENTAL. Veidt and Dr Manhattan are both highly interesting character studies of what would occur if you gave people these abilities, but still they're not particularly empathisable, and I, for one, never felt like I could relate to them. Silk Spectre was too caught up in her own problems, and I never really got a feel for the character.
Nite Owl is a (relatively, he still dresses as an Owl and fights crime) sane individual who just wanted to try and help. When the Keene act passed, he didn't have some grand scheme to avoid it, or just go crazy and ignore it. He was as surprised as anyone and was afraid to break it.
Let's face it, all nerds have harboured hidden dreams of one day being a superhero, and for most of us Nite Owl is a look at who we would have become had we done so. A relatively normal person who is out of his/her depth, but still tries to do their best. I find that incredibly relatable, which I imagine was the point to the character. It's Nite Owl who grounds the whole story, his feeble protests that remind us that what's happening IS extraordinary, something we often forget in the constant realm of comic books where death is temporary and breasts are forever perky.
I am looking forward to seeing Nite Owl in action in the movie.
Nite Owl.
People just look at me as if I misprounouced the name of my fiance on the alter, but it's true.
"But he's so boring!"
"He doesn't really DO anything."
"He's like Batman without anything interesting."
One particular interpretation I've heard of the Watchmen shows three of the main characters as 'aspects' of Batman. Veidt is Batman's intelligence without his morality or desire for vengeance, Rorscharchs is Batman's vengeance without his cunning or morality, and Nite Owl is Batman's gadgetry and sense of justice.
Nite Owl is just a guy who is morally good at heart who happens to have a knowledge of mechanics/electronics and a desire to help the world, who gets in WAY over his head.
The others are either so crazy, have their heads so far into the clouds or so caught up in their own problems they don't really notice just what they're getting into. Nite Owl is the one person who has his head on his shoulders firmly enough to realise what's happening is bigger then any of them (well, except maybe one or two).
Rorsharch is an amazing character, but there's nothing actually LIKEABLE about him, same with the Comedian. Both of them are FRIGGIN' MENTAL. Veidt and Dr Manhattan are both highly interesting character studies of what would occur if you gave people these abilities, but still they're not particularly empathisable, and I, for one, never felt like I could relate to them. Silk Spectre was too caught up in her own problems, and I never really got a feel for the character.
Nite Owl is a (relatively, he still dresses as an Owl and fights crime) sane individual who just wanted to try and help. When the Keene act passed, he didn't have some grand scheme to avoid it, or just go crazy and ignore it. He was as surprised as anyone and was afraid to break it.
Let's face it, all nerds have harboured hidden dreams of one day being a superhero, and for most of us Nite Owl is a look at who we would have become had we done so. A relatively normal person who is out of his/her depth, but still tries to do their best. I find that incredibly relatable, which I imagine was the point to the character. It's Nite Owl who grounds the whole story, his feeble protests that remind us that what's happening IS extraordinary, something we often forget in the constant realm of comic books where death is temporary and breasts are forever perky.
I am looking forward to seeing Nite Owl in action in the movie.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Games without stories
One might think from the title I may be about to talk about random puzzle games, or pointless fighting games, but no, I'm here to talk about games that TRY to have a story, and fail.
We've all played them. They're the pointless fighting games (or, as I recently found, Armored Core 4) that believe they have a story. They believe it, but that doesn't make it true.
Soul Calibur 4 is a perfect example. I just wish there isn't an actual writer who comes up with all that stuff. It's a bad story to begin with, and I didn't even understand it until I read it on Wikipedia ("wait, is THAT what it was meant to be? How the hell'd they work that out from that cutscene?"), and even now I think it was a waste of disc space that could've contained more breasts. Ha ha. I kid, I kid, that game couldn't contain more breasts if it came with the Victoria's Secret catalogue.
What inspired this? The above mentioned Armored Core 4. I love a good giant-robot-fighting game, and while AC4 may be a bit too fast paced for me (I still love it, I'm just not particularly good at it). It really, really wishes it had a story. It doesn't. It has characters (or close approximations of them) and unrelated events. I'm sure it was meant to be a grand, powerful event when you wiped out the entire central structure of an entire super-corporation that controlled 1/6th of the earth, but it never felt like it. It felt like another 100K in the bank to spend on new shooty-death-McBoom weapons. They could have told me someone killed my 'handler', and my only thought would be "hooray, less pretentious stuff that has no relation to anything". Here's a hint game writers, if my character has killed hundreds of people at the instructions of my handler, then told to go off and kill a big boss, when she later shows remorse at the death of a man who was "fighting for what he believed in... a real hero", it seems pointless and out of character, especially when she later tells me to go blow up what's left of the hero's army for enough money to buy the dead sea scrolls and use them as toilet paper.
I've done some reading up and you-tube watching of the game "Mortal Kombat Vs DC Universe", and it succumbs to the same problem. They believe there is a story. The story makes no sense, and basically consists of a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo trying to justify why close friends in the DC Universe start biffing each other, and how Batman still manages to win everything even when he gets butch-slapped to the ground.
One last example, the most recent Dead or Alive game (like I said, it's mostly fighting games with this problem). Most of the time in 'story' mode they just threw you into random fights, but every now and then they'd give you a cutscene to try and justify the fight. Some of them are just pointless, and you can tell it was just to pad out the story mode and CGI budget, others is obviously just to show off their breast physics engine. The bit that really screws it up is how little sense so much of it makes. Case in point, playing as one of the ladies, there's a point where you have to hire a mercenary to later on help you defeat the evil corporation, righto, we're following so far. The Mercenary responds that he'll only fight for people who can beat him in combat. Beside being probably the stupidest requirement in a job ever (let's face it, most mercenaries aren't hired by better soldiers then they are), it's also the most pointless. Considering in this game every single fight seems to be resolved with hand to hand combat, if she can beat him then there's no point in hiring the mercenary, as she'd do a better job herself.
Game Designers, please, either have a story or don't. These half-stories in games are confusing and pointless.
We've all played them. They're the pointless fighting games (or, as I recently found, Armored Core 4) that believe they have a story. They believe it, but that doesn't make it true.
Soul Calibur 4 is a perfect example. I just wish there isn't an actual writer who comes up with all that stuff. It's a bad story to begin with, and I didn't even understand it until I read it on Wikipedia ("wait, is THAT what it was meant to be? How the hell'd they work that out from that cutscene?"), and even now I think it was a waste of disc space that could've contained more breasts. Ha ha. I kid, I kid, that game couldn't contain more breasts if it came with the Victoria's Secret catalogue.
What inspired this? The above mentioned Armored Core 4. I love a good giant-robot-fighting game, and while AC4 may be a bit too fast paced for me (I still love it, I'm just not particularly good at it). It really, really wishes it had a story. It doesn't. It has characters (or close approximations of them) and unrelated events. I'm sure it was meant to be a grand, powerful event when you wiped out the entire central structure of an entire super-corporation that controlled 1/6th of the earth, but it never felt like it. It felt like another 100K in the bank to spend on new shooty-death-McBoom weapons. They could have told me someone killed my 'handler', and my only thought would be "hooray, less pretentious stuff that has no relation to anything". Here's a hint game writers, if my character has killed hundreds of people at the instructions of my handler, then told to go off and kill a big boss, when she later shows remorse at the death of a man who was "fighting for what he believed in... a real hero", it seems pointless and out of character, especially when she later tells me to go blow up what's left of the hero's army for enough money to buy the dead sea scrolls and use them as toilet paper.
I've done some reading up and you-tube watching of the game "Mortal Kombat Vs DC Universe", and it succumbs to the same problem. They believe there is a story. The story makes no sense, and basically consists of a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo trying to justify why close friends in the DC Universe start biffing each other, and how Batman still manages to win everything even when he gets butch-slapped to the ground.
One last example, the most recent Dead or Alive game (like I said, it's mostly fighting games with this problem). Most of the time in 'story' mode they just threw you into random fights, but every now and then they'd give you a cutscene to try and justify the fight. Some of them are just pointless, and you can tell it was just to pad out the story mode and CGI budget, others is obviously just to show off their breast physics engine. The bit that really screws it up is how little sense so much of it makes. Case in point, playing as one of the ladies, there's a point where you have to hire a mercenary to later on help you defeat the evil corporation, righto, we're following so far. The Mercenary responds that he'll only fight for people who can beat him in combat. Beside being probably the stupidest requirement in a job ever (let's face it, most mercenaries aren't hired by better soldiers then they are), it's also the most pointless. Considering in this game every single fight seems to be resolved with hand to hand combat, if she can beat him then there's no point in hiring the mercenary, as she'd do a better job herself.
Game Designers, please, either have a story or don't. These half-stories in games are confusing and pointless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)