What is great about America*:
1) Free exchange of ideas.
2) Free practice of religious beliefs that do not infringe upon the rights of others.
3) Most of my friends and relatives live here.
4) My wife and I happened to be born here around the same time, which drastically increased the odds of our eventual meeting and pairing.
5) A growing movement to stamp out prejudice and bigotry, which gains ground with each new generation.
6) Barbecue.
7) Jazz.
8) Barbershop music.
*Not all of the items on this list are exclusive to America.
What is NOT great about America, that I can think of off the top of my head**:
1) Greed is our primary cultural value.
2) The unfettered, irrational individualism which has stemmed from #1, resulting in a nation of individual citizens almost completely unable to connect with each other because we're all obsessed with "getting ahead," which naturally results in "getting ahead of the other person," which prevents any kind of empathy with anyone.
3) The almost nonexistent sense of community which has resulted from #2, as we have all been pitted against one another by marketing and propaganda from the 1% (who strangely enough are motivated only by #1) to prevent us from realizing that not only are we a community, we are a community of oppressed people.
4) The ignorance and hysteria fueled by the 1% maintaining #3, causing massive numbers of oppressed people to act only in the best interests of their oppressors, and which has led to all kinds of irrational hatred of art and knowledge and people who are different.
5) A fascination with excess, stemming from #2, which leads us to all kinds of delights in violence and gluttony and ignorance in an attempt to portray ourselves as greater than the next person. This includes everything from "professional eating" to Bible-thumping at the Creation Museum to cheering whenever we fling soldiers willy-nilly across the globe.
6) A near-total inability to prioritize in a mature manner, stemming from #3.
We focus more on what our neighbor is doing in his/her bedroom than on the fact that our children's school is falling apart.
We willingly donate money to buy the pastor of a megachurch a new yacht, but scream bloody murder at the idea of paying taxes for infrastructure maintenance or basic services, and when that infrastructure falls apart and/or those services become unavailable due to lack of funds, we scream bloody murder AGAIN because we treat them as our due.
We complain that our educational system is falling apart, but in the same breath demand that nonscience be taught in science classes, demand no regulation or standards for education (even though in the act of complaining we admit to some kind of standard), and complain that teachers are overpaid.
**These may not be limited to America, but other countries tend to not parade them around like they're something to be proud of.
Food for thought.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
The LEGO Movie and Social Progress
And now for something completely different...
I find it fascinating and ironic that The LEGO Movie's plot involves a group of people, forced into a system in which their individual creativity is repressed or sacrificed for the benefit of a one-man oligarchy, breaking free of that system to found a system in which their individual creativity is channeled for the benefit of everyone.
Especially given that the United States has spent nearly a century treating "Socialism" like it's the worst curse word ever, while simultaneously bemoaning the loss of community involvement and general friendliness toward strangers with whom one shares a neighborhood.
But we can't really act surprised at this point.
What other result could we expect when we make "me getting ahead" our sole cultural foundation?
Especially combined with a infinite-expansion economic philosophy, in which "me getting ahead" is never enough, so it has to be "me always getting further/farther ahead".
Which naturally results in "me always getting further/farther ahead of you," demonstrated perfectly by attempting to drive pretty much anywhere other people are in America.
The more we as a culture have emphasized individual financial achievement, the more we have left things like "common courtesy," "manners," and "taking care of each other" in the past.
As much as I HATE the "good old days" mentality pervading far too much of my elders' psyches, we students of history are capable of tracing a line through American history showing a fall-off in things like communal identity.
Much of it fueled by a rise in unfettered, cutthroat capitalism.
Go figure.
HOLY CRAP 100TH POST!!
Only took........way too long.
I find it fascinating and ironic that The LEGO Movie's plot involves a group of people, forced into a system in which their individual creativity is repressed or sacrificed for the benefit of a one-man oligarchy, breaking free of that system to found a system in which their individual creativity is channeled for the benefit of everyone.
Especially given that the United States has spent nearly a century treating "Socialism" like it's the worst curse word ever, while simultaneously bemoaning the loss of community involvement and general friendliness toward strangers with whom one shares a neighborhood.
But we can't really act surprised at this point.
What other result could we expect when we make "me getting ahead" our sole cultural foundation?
Especially combined with a infinite-expansion economic philosophy, in which "me getting ahead" is never enough, so it has to be "me always getting further/farther ahead".
Which naturally results in "me always getting further/farther ahead of you," demonstrated perfectly by attempting to drive pretty much anywhere other people are in America.
The more we as a culture have emphasized individual financial achievement, the more we have left things like "common courtesy," "manners," and "taking care of each other" in the past.
As much as I HATE the "good old days" mentality pervading far too much of my elders' psyches, we students of history are capable of tracing a line through American history showing a fall-off in things like communal identity.
Much of it fueled by a rise in unfettered, cutthroat capitalism.
Go figure.
HOLY CRAP 100TH POST!!
Only took........way too long.
Monday, June 29, 2015
The Internet
Aaaaand we're back. Gah.
It's interesting to notice that every electronic communication medium we have developed in the past century and a half is spoken of as if it is a separate, physical location.
I saw it happen "on TV".
I talked with her "on the phone".
We chatted "online" or "on the Internet".
So no wonder we develop psychological issues regarding these media.
We've made them a completely separate universe instead of simply treating them as enhanced forms of normal communication.
A conversation via phone is still a conversation.
The whole point of the telephone's invention was to allow people to have a conversation without being limited by shouting distance.
Receiving information via TV is still receiving information.
We who still read newspapers don't treat the newspaper as some kind of microcosm in which words are different or have different meanings than they would if someone gave us the information by speaking aloud in our physical presence.
Perhaps we have this mentality because our access to these communication media is dependent upon technological progress.
Our ancestors could have never imagined television (or radio, for that matter).
Information was in a constant state of out-of-date, depending on how long it took distributors of it to receive it, process it, condense it into a format which could be broadcast, and then broadcast it.
Put in specific terms, if an enemy army was attacking, someone had to see it and run to the king, the king would send someone to run to the town criers, and the town criers would tell everyone in the town, at least everyone within shouting distance.
This process could take weeks, depending on how big the kingdom was.
Print made it a little easier, but you still had to have someone physically take the printed information to the masses.
Compare that to today's by-the-millisecond, twenty-four-hour information stream, hitting us at home and on the road and at work.
No wonder scientists figure we've created more information in the past ten years than humanity did in the past thousand.
Which I think is partially due to not much of the ancients' information surviving to the present day.
Hard to look at hieroglyphics and figure out what ancient Egyptians talked about while drunk.
Pretty sure it wasn't Osiris being killed and cut into pieces.
It's also no wonder that we're cracking up psychologically.
The world has always been in a constant state of change (biologically, geologically, socially, culturally, technologically, etc.), but up until these past twenty years or so we weren't so keenly aware of it.
Thus old people bemoan the loss of stability, and new adults seek desperately for it, unable to gain their parents' and grandparents' illusion which held out for so many millennia.
It's interesting to notice that every electronic communication medium we have developed in the past century and a half is spoken of as if it is a separate, physical location.
I saw it happen "on TV".
I talked with her "on the phone".
We chatted "online" or "on the Internet".
So no wonder we develop psychological issues regarding these media.
We've made them a completely separate universe instead of simply treating them as enhanced forms of normal communication.
A conversation via phone is still a conversation.
The whole point of the telephone's invention was to allow people to have a conversation without being limited by shouting distance.
Receiving information via TV is still receiving information.
We who still read newspapers don't treat the newspaper as some kind of microcosm in which words are different or have different meanings than they would if someone gave us the information by speaking aloud in our physical presence.
Perhaps we have this mentality because our access to these communication media is dependent upon technological progress.
Our ancestors could have never imagined television (or radio, for that matter).
Information was in a constant state of out-of-date, depending on how long it took distributors of it to receive it, process it, condense it into a format which could be broadcast, and then broadcast it.
Put in specific terms, if an enemy army was attacking, someone had to see it and run to the king, the king would send someone to run to the town criers, and the town criers would tell everyone in the town, at least everyone within shouting distance.
This process could take weeks, depending on how big the kingdom was.
Print made it a little easier, but you still had to have someone physically take the printed information to the masses.
Compare that to today's by-the-millisecond, twenty-four-hour information stream, hitting us at home and on the road and at work.
No wonder scientists figure we've created more information in the past ten years than humanity did in the past thousand.
Which I think is partially due to not much of the ancients' information surviving to the present day.
Hard to look at hieroglyphics and figure out what ancient Egyptians talked about while drunk.
Pretty sure it wasn't Osiris being killed and cut into pieces.
It's also no wonder that we're cracking up psychologically.
The world has always been in a constant state of change (biologically, geologically, socially, culturally, technologically, etc.), but up until these past twenty years or so we weren't so keenly aware of it.
Thus old people bemoan the loss of stability, and new adults seek desperately for it, unable to gain their parents' and grandparents' illusion which held out for so many millennia.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
Finishing off May Write Away - Character
You know a game character and plot has been expertly written when you're given "I would never hurt [character]. I care too much for her" as a dialogue option, and you pick it because you MEAN IT, not because it leads to a favorable outcome in the game.
Only the best-written characters can form that kind of deep connection with the player.
On an unrelated note, the love story between Serana and the Dragonborn could be a feature film by itself.
But what are some factors which lead to making this kind of connection in a game?
1) Professional-level voice acting.
Seriously. No, really. STOP LAUGHING.
Big-league games today are growing toward movies in terms of how players receive information.
...this isn't always a good thing, *cough* The Order:1886 *cough*.
In your average game balanced between cutscene and gameplay, the positive effects of voice acting are becoming more apparent, even though quality voice acting isn't something most players demand.
Mainly because they're too busy blowing stuff up or shooting terrorists or exploring dungeons or jumping on platforms to care.
But in games which are designed to immerse the player, which is quickly becoming the standard across all genres of gaming, the presence of deeper emotion, inflection, and implication in the voice acting adds a new dimension to the game experience.
Which in many cases isn't noticed until you play an older (or new but worse) game that doesn't have it.
2) A plot in which the player builds a relationship with the character.
Properly written dialogue and plot can create a facsimile of a bond between the player and the character.
This can play out in all sorts of plot circumstances, but the most common usage involves the player fighting alongside the character, and the player experiencing consequences from his/her choices involving that character.
Reactions to dialogue options, split-second decisions, or even accidents due to game lag can all contribute to the character feeling real.
Trauma can also contribute to the player's sense of connection to the character, especially in any game which masters the art of making the player experience emotions directly (as opposed to the oft-made mistake of showing the player-character feeling a certain way, and just assuming the player will sympathize).
If you feel it directly, and you see the character you're connecting with feel it, the connection is strengthened.
3) Relatability.
Spell-check doesn't like this word, or any other deriving from "to be able to be related to," which is WAY too many words.
This is a duh for any character in any medium, but especially game design and writing.
If you're going to give me a quest to save X-character, and you want me focused on rescuing rather than on slaughtering the kidnappers (both will happen, but we're talking about motivation here), you have to have created a character who feels real, and not just a bundle of pixels shaped like a caricature.
Here are two examples, both using the kidnapping idea as a framework, of relatable vs unrelatable:
A) The hero (you) comes upon a wrecked carriage. A trail of blood leads to the east. Following it brings you to the body of a young man clutching a journal. The journal mentions a group of enemy soldiers who ambushed the carriage and took its occupant, a young princess, hostage. The young man apparently slipped away and tried to follow them to their hideout, but was spotted and killed, but not before scratching an arrow on the ground pointing toward the hideout.
B) The hero (you) has been adventuring for awhile, at one point joining up with a group of comrades to clear out a string of bandit lairs. Their youngest member is insecure and lacks confidence, and really sucks up to you. You encourage him to take his own successes and turn them into self-confidence. He smiles and hopes to one day be like you.
Later, having parted ways with the boy and his fellows, you receive a message: He tried to take on a whole group of bandits, got in over his head, and is now being held for ransom. You're the only one close enough to reach him before the ransom deadline.
So, player, which one would you be more likely to want to rescue?
Obviously you'd be motivated to rescue both, but the motivation is deeper for one than for the other.
In A), regardless of your reason for rescuing the princess (money, desire to slaughter enemy soldiers, etc) the motivation comes from a caricature, the image of the damsel-in-distress in your own head as a result of seeing it countless times in literature and film and other games.
In B), while there is some degree of caricature (the novice in over his head), the motivation comes from YOUR shared experiences and relationship with the actual character.
In the ideal game setup there would even be a sense of mentor responsibility, given that you encouraged him to be more self-confident.
That we as players are able to make these kinds of connections with game characters demonstrates an astounding level of growth in videogames as a storytelling medium.
The player's ability to interact with game characters is unprecedented given previous limitations, and continues to open up new degrees of immersion and emotional experience for players.
I'm hoping to continue to write at this rate in the coming months, though it's entirely probable that I'll be doing weeks' worth of writing (still going to try sticking to the 200-per-day setup) in individual posts.
Just want to thank anyone and everyone who has found their way to this blog for your continued reading and support.
Only the best-written characters can form that kind of deep connection with the player.
On an unrelated note, the love story between Serana and the Dragonborn could be a feature film by itself.
But what are some factors which lead to making this kind of connection in a game?
1) Professional-level voice acting.
Seriously. No, really. STOP LAUGHING.
Big-league games today are growing toward movies in terms of how players receive information.
...this isn't always a good thing, *cough* The Order:1886 *cough*.
In your average game balanced between cutscene and gameplay, the positive effects of voice acting are becoming more apparent, even though quality voice acting isn't something most players demand.
Mainly because they're too busy blowing stuff up or shooting terrorists or exploring dungeons or jumping on platforms to care.
But in games which are designed to immerse the player, which is quickly becoming the standard across all genres of gaming, the presence of deeper emotion, inflection, and implication in the voice acting adds a new dimension to the game experience.
Which in many cases isn't noticed until you play an older (or new but worse) game that doesn't have it.
2) A plot in which the player builds a relationship with the character.
Properly written dialogue and plot can create a facsimile of a bond between the player and the character.
This can play out in all sorts of plot circumstances, but the most common usage involves the player fighting alongside the character, and the player experiencing consequences from his/her choices involving that character.
Reactions to dialogue options, split-second decisions, or even accidents due to game lag can all contribute to the character feeling real.
Trauma can also contribute to the player's sense of connection to the character, especially in any game which masters the art of making the player experience emotions directly (as opposed to the oft-made mistake of showing the player-character feeling a certain way, and just assuming the player will sympathize).
If you feel it directly, and you see the character you're connecting with feel it, the connection is strengthened.
3) Relatability.
Spell-check doesn't like this word, or any other deriving from "to be able to be related to," which is WAY too many words.
This is a duh for any character in any medium, but especially game design and writing.
If you're going to give me a quest to save X-character, and you want me focused on rescuing rather than on slaughtering the kidnappers (both will happen, but we're talking about motivation here), you have to have created a character who feels real, and not just a bundle of pixels shaped like a caricature.
Here are two examples, both using the kidnapping idea as a framework, of relatable vs unrelatable:
A) The hero (you) comes upon a wrecked carriage. A trail of blood leads to the east. Following it brings you to the body of a young man clutching a journal. The journal mentions a group of enemy soldiers who ambushed the carriage and took its occupant, a young princess, hostage. The young man apparently slipped away and tried to follow them to their hideout, but was spotted and killed, but not before scratching an arrow on the ground pointing toward the hideout.
B) The hero (you) has been adventuring for awhile, at one point joining up with a group of comrades to clear out a string of bandit lairs. Their youngest member is insecure and lacks confidence, and really sucks up to you. You encourage him to take his own successes and turn them into self-confidence. He smiles and hopes to one day be like you.
Later, having parted ways with the boy and his fellows, you receive a message: He tried to take on a whole group of bandits, got in over his head, and is now being held for ransom. You're the only one close enough to reach him before the ransom deadline.
So, player, which one would you be more likely to want to rescue?
Obviously you'd be motivated to rescue both, but the motivation is deeper for one than for the other.
In A), regardless of your reason for rescuing the princess (money, desire to slaughter enemy soldiers, etc) the motivation comes from a caricature, the image of the damsel-in-distress in your own head as a result of seeing it countless times in literature and film and other games.
In B), while there is some degree of caricature (the novice in over his head), the motivation comes from YOUR shared experiences and relationship with the actual character.
In the ideal game setup there would even be a sense of mentor responsibility, given that you encouraged him to be more self-confident.
That we as players are able to make these kinds of connections with game characters demonstrates an astounding level of growth in videogames as a storytelling medium.
The player's ability to interact with game characters is unprecedented given previous limitations, and continues to open up new degrees of immersion and emotional experience for players.
I'm hoping to continue to write at this rate in the coming months, though it's entirely probable that I'll be doing weeks' worth of writing (still going to try sticking to the 200-per-day setup) in individual posts.
Just want to thank anyone and everyone who has found their way to this blog for your continued reading and support.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
MWA 28, 29, 30 - Online Identity
And now for something completely different.
I get that I'm in this weird micro-generation on the border between "Generation X" and "Millennials," in a limbo between "I didn't get a computer until high school" and "INTERNET IS MY WHOLE LIFE OMFG!"
I get that.
I had a computer as a child, but I started with Windows 3.1, and the most powerful (aka, best-looking) computer games at the time required that lovely fossil of tech-lingo, "restart in DOS mode".
I didn't get Internet access until just before high school, and even now I refuse to get a laptop or smartphone because my concept of the Internet involves sitting behind a desk.
I still use the phrase "spending too much time online," which even many of my former schoolmates find perplexing in a world of always-online, always-connected.
So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that I find the idea of being driven to suicide by emails, texts, or posts online confusing and disturbing (to vastly understate).
I think of myself as relatively tech-savvy, even as I refuse to go fully mobile online.
I can use my wife's smartphone for whatever in a pinch, but I just don't feel a NEED to use gadgets like smartphones and tablets, or to constantly be connected.
If I react emotionally (in the negative sense) to something online, I physically step away from the computer and go do something else.
Because my concept of the Internet is its own activity, as opposed to reading a book, watching TV, watching a movie, spending time with friends, discussing theology or politics or nerdage, shopping, etc.
That it is possible to do any of those using the Internet has not changed my perception of those activities, and in many cases has increased my sense of differentiation between the way the Internet allows me to do them, and doing them without the Internet.
I'll watch a movie which I don't own on a free streaming service, but I don't understand the act of doing so conceptually the same way I understand taking a physical data storage medium and watching its contents on a machine which doesn't allow more than a very limited amount of input (also known as a television).
I've had some very negative interactions with people online, especially in the more anonymous sections, where a lack of real face and real name permits the worst, most cruel dregs of humanity to grab a metaphorical megaphone.
The forums in which much of this occurs predate social media, and were some of my first encounters with other people in my early days of Internet access.
Which may contribute to my perception of the Internet as something apart from myself, a communication medium first and foremost, to be accessed or NOT accessed at one's leisure.
Which seems to be the diametric opposite of today's children's experience and perception.
The prevalence of mobile Internet devices has them plugged in constantly.
Instead of forming their sense of self in day-to-day life and play and relationships THEN taking on the Internet as solid individuals (as my micro-generation and many Millennials did), they are attempting to form a sense of self in an almost entirely digital environment, in many cases neglecting the real world with its real experiences and real relationships.
This can (and too often, has) led to them being far too sensitive to the whims of the digital medium, which as I've said can be one of the most cruel environments ever devised by man.
Thus their emotional health teeters on a shaking razor's edge, which only gets worse as the hormones roll in.
Teenage self-esteem has always been unstable, at the whims of social cliques and perceived parental disappointment/abandonment.
And that was when the only influences available were REAL people they had to interact with in REAL life.
For generations it was a character-building experience that was and is vital to maturation, since the judgmental idiots and malicious elitists never really go away.
But now?
With so many children building an identity online FIRST, and their real life either barely or not catching up?
Never stepping away from the computer?
Never disconnecting?
Suddenly their self-esteem is at the whim of BILLIONS, and most of those billions are full of bile, hatred, and cruelty.
I get that I'm in this weird micro-generation on the border between "Generation X" and "Millennials," in a limbo between "I didn't get a computer until high school" and "INTERNET IS MY WHOLE LIFE OMFG!"
I get that.
I had a computer as a child, but I started with Windows 3.1, and the most powerful (aka, best-looking) computer games at the time required that lovely fossil of tech-lingo, "restart in DOS mode".
I didn't get Internet access until just before high school, and even now I refuse to get a laptop or smartphone because my concept of the Internet involves sitting behind a desk.
I still use the phrase "spending too much time online," which even many of my former schoolmates find perplexing in a world of always-online, always-connected.
So I guess it shouldn't surprise me that I find the idea of being driven to suicide by emails, texts, or posts online confusing and disturbing (to vastly understate).
I think of myself as relatively tech-savvy, even as I refuse to go fully mobile online.
I can use my wife's smartphone for whatever in a pinch, but I just don't feel a NEED to use gadgets like smartphones and tablets, or to constantly be connected.
If I react emotionally (in the negative sense) to something online, I physically step away from the computer and go do something else.
Because my concept of the Internet is its own activity, as opposed to reading a book, watching TV, watching a movie, spending time with friends, discussing theology or politics or nerdage, shopping, etc.
That it is possible to do any of those using the Internet has not changed my perception of those activities, and in many cases has increased my sense of differentiation between the way the Internet allows me to do them, and doing them without the Internet.
I'll watch a movie which I don't own on a free streaming service, but I don't understand the act of doing so conceptually the same way I understand taking a physical data storage medium and watching its contents on a machine which doesn't allow more than a very limited amount of input (also known as a television).
I've had some very negative interactions with people online, especially in the more anonymous sections, where a lack of real face and real name permits the worst, most cruel dregs of humanity to grab a metaphorical megaphone.
The forums in which much of this occurs predate social media, and were some of my first encounters with other people in my early days of Internet access.
Which may contribute to my perception of the Internet as something apart from myself, a communication medium first and foremost, to be accessed or NOT accessed at one's leisure.
Which seems to be the diametric opposite of today's children's experience and perception.
The prevalence of mobile Internet devices has them plugged in constantly.
Instead of forming their sense of self in day-to-day life and play and relationships THEN taking on the Internet as solid individuals (as my micro-generation and many Millennials did), they are attempting to form a sense of self in an almost entirely digital environment, in many cases neglecting the real world with its real experiences and real relationships.
This can (and too often, has) led to them being far too sensitive to the whims of the digital medium, which as I've said can be one of the most cruel environments ever devised by man.
Thus their emotional health teeters on a shaking razor's edge, which only gets worse as the hormones roll in.
Teenage self-esteem has always been unstable, at the whims of social cliques and perceived parental disappointment/abandonment.
And that was when the only influences available were REAL people they had to interact with in REAL life.
For generations it was a character-building experience that was and is vital to maturation, since the judgmental idiots and malicious elitists never really go away.
But now?
With so many children building an identity online FIRST, and their real life either barely or not catching up?
Never stepping away from the computer?
Never disconnecting?
Suddenly their self-esteem is at the whim of BILLIONS, and most of those billions are full of bile, hatred, and cruelty.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
MWA 25, 26, 27 - Random Stuff
I had meant to post this on Memorial Day, but then life.
A Short Ode to Arlington
The quiet there hangs heavy, light, the silence full of sound.
The jeer of children calms itself, and tears and prayers abound.
The knowing touch of footfalls there
Reach out to spirits in the air,
Who payed the price to earn their keep:
An honored mound in which to sleep.
Okay Fox, if you're going to do reboot League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, here's how you need to do it:
1) Rated R. Before a screenplay is even brainstormed, decide that you aren't going to pull any punches on the gore or sex or weirdness.
2) Use an ACTUAL League story. As in, one Alan Moore wrote. I don't care how much you have to pay the man for the rights.
3) Preferably, use the War of the Worlds story. And don't leave out what Mr. Hyde does to the Invisible Man just before marching to his doom.
4) On the subject of Mr. Hyde, use MOORE'S version of Jekyll and Hyde. This isn't supposed to be an equal partnership. Hyde is strength and passion and brutality, Jekyll is weakness and impotence. Your argument is invalid. End of story.
5) In keeping with the pattern I've established in these instructions, make MINA the film's main character. She's the only League member present in all continuities, she's the first one recruited by MI5, and subsequently the one who recruits the rest of them, and thus shouldn't be relegated to a side role played by a failed TV actor!
6) For the inevitable sequel-talk which will result if this movie is even made and is successful, use the Century storyline. Yes, the one in which Mary Poppins is God and Harry Potter is the Antichrist. DO IT!
I am so very contradictory at times.
I say "I can't wait to move back to a place with a half-decent public library! I haven't had the chance to read a new book in a year!"
And yet not only have I not finished reading every book I've owned for years (among them Robert McKee's Story, Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, and most of the written works of C.S. Lewis), I also recently inherited a small collection of history books from my grandfather, one of which I HAVE read.
So like many other people, I lie to myself as an excuse to complain.
I think it's interesting that when you confront someone with their failing to accomplish a given task, you get a response akin to "Well I just didn't get the opportunity".
Protip: Unless they're working three jobs and have multiple pets AND multiple kids?
They had the opportunity.
They lacked the motivation.
But we look down on people less for lack of opportunity than for lack of motivation.
...even though most of us really aren't that motivated most of the time.
So in this as in many other situations, we deem others inferior based on their outward demonstrations of our own inner failings.
It is entirely possible to act selflessly while being selfish.
Case in point: Religions with a temporal or eternal reward.
"I give to charity [so God will see and give me a bigger mansion after I die]!"
Also, can we stop using "I'm active in my church" when asked "Do you contribute to the community?"?
Please?
If you work through a program at your church to build low-cost housing for the destitute in your area, GREAT!
Say THAT when I ask if you contribute.
If you provide counseling for suicidal youth through a program organized and/or funded by your church, GREAT!
Say THAT when I ask about your contributions.
Saying "I'm active in my church" says NOTHING about actually contributing to the community as a whole.
Especially if yours is a church which requires conversion and/or membership for anyone to partake in the soup kitchens, homeless shelters, or whatever else your congregation provides, organizes, or helps to fund.
A Short Ode to Arlington
The quiet there hangs heavy, light, the silence full of sound.
The jeer of children calms itself, and tears and prayers abound.
The knowing touch of footfalls there
Reach out to spirits in the air,
Who payed the price to earn their keep:
An honored mound in which to sleep.
Okay Fox, if you're going to do reboot League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, here's how you need to do it:
1) Rated R. Before a screenplay is even brainstormed, decide that you aren't going to pull any punches on the gore or sex or weirdness.
2) Use an ACTUAL League story. As in, one Alan Moore wrote. I don't care how much you have to pay the man for the rights.
3) Preferably, use the War of the Worlds story. And don't leave out what Mr. Hyde does to the Invisible Man just before marching to his doom.
4) On the subject of Mr. Hyde, use MOORE'S version of Jekyll and Hyde. This isn't supposed to be an equal partnership. Hyde is strength and passion and brutality, Jekyll is weakness and impotence. Your argument is invalid. End of story.
5) In keeping with the pattern I've established in these instructions, make MINA the film's main character. She's the only League member present in all continuities, she's the first one recruited by MI5, and subsequently the one who recruits the rest of them, and thus shouldn't be relegated to a side role played by a failed TV actor!
6) For the inevitable sequel-talk which will result if this movie is even made and is successful, use the Century storyline. Yes, the one in which Mary Poppins is God and Harry Potter is the Antichrist. DO IT!
I am so very contradictory at times.
I say "I can't wait to move back to a place with a half-decent public library! I haven't had the chance to read a new book in a year!"
And yet not only have I not finished reading every book I've owned for years (among them Robert McKee's Story, Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote, and most of the written works of C.S. Lewis), I also recently inherited a small collection of history books from my grandfather, one of which I HAVE read.
So like many other people, I lie to myself as an excuse to complain.
I think it's interesting that when you confront someone with their failing to accomplish a given task, you get a response akin to "Well I just didn't get the opportunity".
Protip: Unless they're working three jobs and have multiple pets AND multiple kids?
They had the opportunity.
They lacked the motivation.
But we look down on people less for lack of opportunity than for lack of motivation.
...even though most of us really aren't that motivated most of the time.
So in this as in many other situations, we deem others inferior based on their outward demonstrations of our own inner failings.
It is entirely possible to act selflessly while being selfish.
Case in point: Religions with a temporal or eternal reward.
"I give to charity [so God will see and give me a bigger mansion after I die]!"
Also, can we stop using "I'm active in my church" when asked "Do you contribute to the community?"?
Please?
If you work through a program at your church to build low-cost housing for the destitute in your area, GREAT!
Say THAT when I ask if you contribute.
If you provide counseling for suicidal youth through a program organized and/or funded by your church, GREAT!
Say THAT when I ask about your contributions.
Saying "I'm active in my church" says NOTHING about actually contributing to the community as a whole.
Especially if yours is a church which requires conversion and/or membership for anyone to partake in the soup kitchens, homeless shelters, or whatever else your congregation provides, organizes, or helps to fund.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
MWA 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 - Skyrim
Playing catch-up once again because life.
And yes I know this game is older, but fuck you because I've been playing Oblivion in the intervening years because rebuilding your PC every time an Elder Scrolls game comes out is fucking expensive.
So after playing The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim for about a month now (after being informed that it would not run at all on my graphics card), I have chosen my two favorite new features.
1) Random dragon attacks
These keep the world in a constant state of flux, instead of being able to predict every monster and enemy encounter as in previous Elder Scrolls games, to say nothing of ANYONE CAN DIE in full swing. Especially since most of the landscape is mountainous, and you'll hear them a loooooong way off. This creates a sense of anticipation and realism, especially if you're currently fighting a group of bandits. It's a worldwide wild-card effect that keeps you on your toes no matter where you are.
It also means that if you're using the Smithing skill tree, you have an endless supply of dragon bones and scales with which to make the game's best non-overpowered type of armor and weapons.
2) Cinematic kills
These are just really freaking satisfying. Whether you're plowing through hordes of generic bandits or finishing off a dragon, this feature makes full use of the game's graphics capabilities.
Also I can never stop myself from yelling "FATALITY!!!" in my best Shao Kahn impression every time it happens.
Or "HEADSHOT!" in my best Unreal Tournament impression when it happens with a bow and goes into arrow-time.
And now for the two new features I hate the most.
1) No skill tree for "Athletics" and "Acrobatics".
Remember how several paragraphs ago I said the dragon attacks add realism?
Well here's where that balances out, unfortunately.
The removal of Morrowind and Oblivion's "athletics" and "acrobatics" skills makes the game feel unrealistic at a base level, since no matter how many times you jump or how much you run, you never get better at jumping or running.
This becomes even more frustrating in the early parts of the game, when you have to hoof it (or pay for a carriage) to the major cities before you can use fast-travel.
2) Fucking Frostbite Spiders.
Gah.
I thought my childhood arachnophobia had faded, but freaking spiders coming out of the freaking ceiling when I'm freaking sneaking.
Especially the boss-sized ones that can't fit through the door you used to enter their room.
Which, ironically, demonstrates my #3 pick for best new feature.
Neither Morrowind nor Oblivion created a real sense of "boss" enemies, aside from the main-quest bad guys.
Dragons, dragon priests, big fucking spiders, eight-foot tall undead kings, and my personal favorite Potema the Wolf Queen all create a grander scale of combat to cap off a harrowing dungeon or ruin crawl.
Especially combined with the Word Walls which not only provide an epic backdrop to many of those dungeon battles, but provide a different kind of reward for winning, Shouts.
So let's talk about Shouts.
This new mechanic has me torn.
On the one hand, it's awesome that Skyrim's hero isn't just a guy/girl who happens to be a reincarnation of somebody cool (Morrowind), or who happens to survive a trip through a gate to hell (Oblivion).
As with the boss battles, Shouts and the lore behind them give a more epic scale to the player character and his/her role in the world.
You're not just good with a sword or magic or a bow or all of the above.
No matter what playstyle you choose, you will always have Shouts at your disposal to enhance that playstyle, if you're willing to hunt them down and kill a lot of dragons to unlock them.
On the other hand, the degree of variety in Shout effects (super-sprint, fire breath, slowing time, changing the freaking weather, forcing animals in the area to help in combat, increasing attack speed, disarming an enemy, summoning lightning bolts, summoning A DRAGON, etc etc etc) reduces the player's need to rely on his/her chosen playstyle.
This can be especially true for magic-based characters, though Skyrim contains an entire arsenal of spells new to the series.
That being said, it's great to employ a three-pronged attack by wielding a sword in one hand, a spell in the other, and having a damaging Shout equipped.
Especially if all three are fire-based, and you're fighting...pretty much anything that isn't a Flame Atronach.
It remains to be seen if fire magic is overpowered.
Which is a feature I never would have expected to see in an Elder Scrolls game:
Different elemental magics serving different purposes.
I played Guild Wars for years, and always loved how the game employed Fire, Water, Lightning, and Earth magic to serve different roles (burning, impeding movement, hitting multiple targets, and providing armor to the caster, respectively).
Until Skyrim, elemental magic in The Elder Scrolls was basically all the same, unless you were fighting a creature MADE OF the element you were using.
Now we see Fire hitting undead harder AND lingering after casting AND being able to SET THINGS ON FIRE, Ice able to impede movement, and Lightning damaging Magicka.
Of course, Skyrim still falls for an issue that has been prevalent throughout the entire Elder Scrolls series.
One of the series' trademarks has been the degree of character customization, especially in the different abilities of the playable races.
However, a key element of the gameworld's lore has been racial tension.
In Morrowind, Argonians and Khajiit were kept as slaves.
In Oblivion, there were rumors of wars between the Nords and Dunmer.
Skyrim pulls out all the stops, with Nazi-esque elves enforcing their state religion, xenophobic Nords in open rebellion, Dunmer forced to live in ghettos after their homeland was destroyed, etc etc.
...but none of this ever affects the player.
No matter what race he/she chooses to play, no matter where he/she goes in the game, no matter what he/she chooses to do.
Because Skyrim's story contains so much ramped up racial tension (to the point of violence repeatedly), this lack of effect upon gameplay becomes that much more glaring.
One of the few, small ways in which Skyrim at least improved the feel of the series in this area is that at least the native Nords aren't pulling a "No True Scotsman" on you.
They actually greet you like you're in your homeland.
Which is only noticeable because the previous two games didn't even go that far.
In Morrowind, playing as a Dunmer still got you treated as an outsider by other Dunmer because your character supposedly wasn't born there.
Oblivion wasn't as negative, but it also didn't do anything on the positive side if you chose to play as an Imperial.
There's one final feature which I feel I have to address.
It isn't explicit in the game design, more of an overall sense within how the game is set up.
One of the other trademarks of the Elder Scrolls series is the ability of the player to play as EVERYTHING.
Be a sword-swinging, spell-slinging thief who saves the princess.
The series' skill trees allow the player to become proficient in whatever he/she is willing to devote practice to, which was and is a huge step up in realism from the EXP of yesteryear.
That being said, Skyrim is the first to truly push the player to focus on becoming proficient in a small number of skills via its skill perk system, in which the player is able to unlock abilities related to the skill as he/she becomes more proficient in it.
Which is hysterically ironic, given that Skyrim is the first Elder Scrolls game to be truly classless.
Instead of choosing a class (or building one of your own) which has a small number of skills which determine when you level up, Skyrim lets you level up whenever you raise any skill or skills a certain number of times.
The skill perk system guides you to focus on a small number of skills to achieve maximum output (whether weapon damage or sneaking or the kind of materials you can smith with, etc.).
This becomes especially true with the weapon skills.
One-Hand and Two-Hand both contain unlockable perks which allow you to turn a cinematic kill into a cinematic decapitation.
Yeah.
So since I'm running out of time before I have to go be productive, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim totally lives up to the hype.
Here's hoping for an Elder Scrolls VI: Summerset, or Elsewyr, or Black Marsh, or Akavir....good God this game world still has a lot to explore!
And yes I know this game is older, but fuck you because I've been playing Oblivion in the intervening years because rebuilding your PC every time an Elder Scrolls game comes out is fucking expensive.
So after playing The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim for about a month now (after being informed that it would not run at all on my graphics card), I have chosen my two favorite new features.
1) Random dragon attacks
These keep the world in a constant state of flux, instead of being able to predict every monster and enemy encounter as in previous Elder Scrolls games, to say nothing of ANYONE CAN DIE in full swing. Especially since most of the landscape is mountainous, and you'll hear them a loooooong way off. This creates a sense of anticipation and realism, especially if you're currently fighting a group of bandits. It's a worldwide wild-card effect that keeps you on your toes no matter where you are.
It also means that if you're using the Smithing skill tree, you have an endless supply of dragon bones and scales with which to make the game's best non-overpowered type of armor and weapons.
2) Cinematic kills
These are just really freaking satisfying. Whether you're plowing through hordes of generic bandits or finishing off a dragon, this feature makes full use of the game's graphics capabilities.
Also I can never stop myself from yelling "FATALITY!!!" in my best Shao Kahn impression every time it happens.
Or "HEADSHOT!" in my best Unreal Tournament impression when it happens with a bow and goes into arrow-time.
And now for the two new features I hate the most.
1) No skill tree for "Athletics" and "Acrobatics".
Remember how several paragraphs ago I said the dragon attacks add realism?
Well here's where that balances out, unfortunately.
The removal of Morrowind and Oblivion's "athletics" and "acrobatics" skills makes the game feel unrealistic at a base level, since no matter how many times you jump or how much you run, you never get better at jumping or running.
This becomes even more frustrating in the early parts of the game, when you have to hoof it (or pay for a carriage) to the major cities before you can use fast-travel.
2) Fucking Frostbite Spiders.
Gah.
I thought my childhood arachnophobia had faded, but freaking spiders coming out of the freaking ceiling when I'm freaking sneaking.
Especially the boss-sized ones that can't fit through the door you used to enter their room.
Which, ironically, demonstrates my #3 pick for best new feature.
Neither Morrowind nor Oblivion created a real sense of "boss" enemies, aside from the main-quest bad guys.
Dragons, dragon priests, big fucking spiders, eight-foot tall undead kings, and my personal favorite Potema the Wolf Queen all create a grander scale of combat to cap off a harrowing dungeon or ruin crawl.
Especially combined with the Word Walls which not only provide an epic backdrop to many of those dungeon battles, but provide a different kind of reward for winning, Shouts.
So let's talk about Shouts.
This new mechanic has me torn.
On the one hand, it's awesome that Skyrim's hero isn't just a guy/girl who happens to be a reincarnation of somebody cool (Morrowind), or who happens to survive a trip through a gate to hell (Oblivion).
As with the boss battles, Shouts and the lore behind them give a more epic scale to the player character and his/her role in the world.
You're not just good with a sword or magic or a bow or all of the above.
No matter what playstyle you choose, you will always have Shouts at your disposal to enhance that playstyle, if you're willing to hunt them down and kill a lot of dragons to unlock them.
On the other hand, the degree of variety in Shout effects (super-sprint, fire breath, slowing time, changing the freaking weather, forcing animals in the area to help in combat, increasing attack speed, disarming an enemy, summoning lightning bolts, summoning A DRAGON, etc etc etc) reduces the player's need to rely on his/her chosen playstyle.
This can be especially true for magic-based characters, though Skyrim contains an entire arsenal of spells new to the series.
That being said, it's great to employ a three-pronged attack by wielding a sword in one hand, a spell in the other, and having a damaging Shout equipped.
Especially if all three are fire-based, and you're fighting...pretty much anything that isn't a Flame Atronach.
It remains to be seen if fire magic is overpowered.
Which is a feature I never would have expected to see in an Elder Scrolls game:
Different elemental magics serving different purposes.
I played Guild Wars for years, and always loved how the game employed Fire, Water, Lightning, and Earth magic to serve different roles (burning, impeding movement, hitting multiple targets, and providing armor to the caster, respectively).
Until Skyrim, elemental magic in The Elder Scrolls was basically all the same, unless you were fighting a creature MADE OF the element you were using.
Now we see Fire hitting undead harder AND lingering after casting AND being able to SET THINGS ON FIRE, Ice able to impede movement, and Lightning damaging Magicka.
Of course, Skyrim still falls for an issue that has been prevalent throughout the entire Elder Scrolls series.
One of the series' trademarks has been the degree of character customization, especially in the different abilities of the playable races.
However, a key element of the gameworld's lore has been racial tension.
In Morrowind, Argonians and Khajiit were kept as slaves.
In Oblivion, there were rumors of wars between the Nords and Dunmer.
Skyrim pulls out all the stops, with Nazi-esque elves enforcing their state religion, xenophobic Nords in open rebellion, Dunmer forced to live in ghettos after their homeland was destroyed, etc etc.
...but none of this ever affects the player.
No matter what race he/she chooses to play, no matter where he/she goes in the game, no matter what he/she chooses to do.
Because Skyrim's story contains so much ramped up racial tension (to the point of violence repeatedly), this lack of effect upon gameplay becomes that much more glaring.
One of the few, small ways in which Skyrim at least improved the feel of the series in this area is that at least the native Nords aren't pulling a "No True Scotsman" on you.
They actually greet you like you're in your homeland.
Which is only noticeable because the previous two games didn't even go that far.
In Morrowind, playing as a Dunmer still got you treated as an outsider by other Dunmer because your character supposedly wasn't born there.
Oblivion wasn't as negative, but it also didn't do anything on the positive side if you chose to play as an Imperial.
There's one final feature which I feel I have to address.
It isn't explicit in the game design, more of an overall sense within how the game is set up.
One of the other trademarks of the Elder Scrolls series is the ability of the player to play as EVERYTHING.
Be a sword-swinging, spell-slinging thief who saves the princess.
The series' skill trees allow the player to become proficient in whatever he/she is willing to devote practice to, which was and is a huge step up in realism from the EXP of yesteryear.
That being said, Skyrim is the first to truly push the player to focus on becoming proficient in a small number of skills via its skill perk system, in which the player is able to unlock abilities related to the skill as he/she becomes more proficient in it.
Which is hysterically ironic, given that Skyrim is the first Elder Scrolls game to be truly classless.
Instead of choosing a class (or building one of your own) which has a small number of skills which determine when you level up, Skyrim lets you level up whenever you raise any skill or skills a certain number of times.
The skill perk system guides you to focus on a small number of skills to achieve maximum output (whether weapon damage or sneaking or the kind of materials you can smith with, etc.).
This becomes especially true with the weapon skills.
One-Hand and Two-Hand both contain unlockable perks which allow you to turn a cinematic kill into a cinematic decapitation.
Yeah.
So since I'm running out of time before I have to go be productive, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim totally lives up to the hype.
Here's hoping for an Elder Scrolls VI: Summerset, or Elsewyr, or Black Marsh, or Akavir....good God this game world still has a lot to explore!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
