Yeah, you saw that movie... like a champ!
Keep up the fuckin' nice work.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Relationship House
Relationships are like houses. At first they are new and exciting. You develop them and explore them and fantasize about all the big plans you have for them. You talk about it and share it with the world. And eventually two types of people can develop.
One type of person always wants something new and exciting. They want bright colours all the time and new furniture. These people like to keep things tucked away in their place, either to only be seen when used, or to be forgotten entirely.
The other type of person has lived-in the house. They want things to be comfortable and hate to throw things away. Trinkets of memory and self expression litter any and every unused surface, exposed in the context of the house.
The second person wants to stay in that old house forever. They will try to take it with them even when it is condemned and demolished; even something as plain as a doorknob has meaning and value.
The first person wants a bigger house, like the ones you see on TV. They want lots of open/empty space to show their friends how much better their house is.
Regardless of the house, home is where the heart is.
One type of person always wants something new and exciting. They want bright colours all the time and new furniture. These people like to keep things tucked away in their place, either to only be seen when used, or to be forgotten entirely.
The other type of person has lived-in the house. They want things to be comfortable and hate to throw things away. Trinkets of memory and self expression litter any and every unused surface, exposed in the context of the house.
The second person wants to stay in that old house forever. They will try to take it with them even when it is condemned and demolished; even something as plain as a doorknob has meaning and value.
The first person wants a bigger house, like the ones you see on TV. They want lots of open/empty space to show their friends how much better their house is.
Regardless of the house, home is where the heart is.
Too Rich
I have three fundamental problems with leaf blowers.
1. Protection. Okay, so you have hearing protection. What about me? I'm outside too! Where once there were the sounds of the birds in the trees and the gentle breeze rustling the leaves, nature's beauteous splendour ev- b'RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR-WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBWRRRRRRRR-RWRRRRRRRRRRWRBRRRRRRRRRRRRR-RRRRRRRBRRWRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBR-RRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrwrrrrrbrrrrrrr!
- of life so peaceful.
Sorry, what was that?
2. Effectiveness. So the basic premise is that you blow the leaves onto someone else's property, right? Seems like it's not -
3. Cost.
What's the fucking point?
1. Protection. Okay, so you have hearing protection. What about me? I'm outside too! Where once there were the sounds of the birds in the trees and the gentle breeze rustling the leaves, nature's beauteous splendour ev- b'RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR-WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBWRRRRRRRR-RWRRRRRRRRRRWRBRRRRRRRRRRRRR-RRRRRRRBRRWRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRBR-RRRRRWRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrwrrrrrbrrrrrrr!
- of life so peaceful.
Sorry, what was that?
2. Effectiveness. So the basic premise is that you blow the leaves onto someone else's property, right? Seems like it's not -
Motherfucker!- air turbulence, right?
3. Cost.
-OR-
What's the fucking point?
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Standard of Living
I think it must be an element of the human condition to desire in life the most what we do not have; to want to do what we can't do, or what we are, or at one point were, bad at. Some people aren't smart and think that life is better when you are educated. Some people are poor and think that life is better when you are rich. Some people are single and think that life is better being together.
What is odd is that only that last fact can go the other way. No rich person ever says, "fuck, what I'd do to just be poor!" No educated person ever says, "I wish I never learned any of that!" Maybe they'll say, "that was a waste of time," but they don't knock the education, just the time it takes. But people in relationships always seem to be able to wish they were single. Becoming single is easy. "This isn't working out." It's four to five words, depending on how well you enunciate. It's the reverse that is hard. Granted, "do you want to go out?" is only six words, but there is an argumentative factor. The response affects the outcome. You can't break up with someone and then they refuse to break up with you. That's not how it works.
One might say that it is the irreversibility of the process that is daunting. But education is also irreversible. So how can we say that one irreversible process is entirely positive while another is not? One might say that education doesn't hurt anyone, but we must always look deeper. Classes often fill completely up. Programs are often waitlisted. Your enlistment often ensures that someone misses their chance. Someone suffers the detriment of your benefit.
Being single is sometimes necessary, much like it is necessary that every start out uneducated, and that it is good for some people to be poor. But just because it's necessary and sometimes can be fun (let's face it, knowlegde can be a burden and finances bring a certain financial responsibility. Also, there is class comrodery. It's lonely at the top, they say) doesn't mean that it's ideal.
But this is just me. Some people must want to be single, just like some people might want to be poor and uneducated. Spiritual enlightenment, afterall, disregards institutional learning and material possessions.
What is odd is that only that last fact can go the other way. No rich person ever says, "fuck, what I'd do to just be poor!" No educated person ever says, "I wish I never learned any of that!" Maybe they'll say, "that was a waste of time," but they don't knock the education, just the time it takes. But people in relationships always seem to be able to wish they were single. Becoming single is easy. "This isn't working out." It's four to five words, depending on how well you enunciate. It's the reverse that is hard. Granted, "do you want to go out?" is only six words, but there is an argumentative factor. The response affects the outcome. You can't break up with someone and then they refuse to break up with you. That's not how it works.
One might say that it is the irreversibility of the process that is daunting. But education is also irreversible. So how can we say that one irreversible process is entirely positive while another is not? One might say that education doesn't hurt anyone, but we must always look deeper. Classes often fill completely up. Programs are often waitlisted. Your enlistment often ensures that someone misses their chance. Someone suffers the detriment of your benefit.
Being single is sometimes necessary, much like it is necessary that every start out uneducated, and that it is good for some people to be poor. But just because it's necessary and sometimes can be fun (let's face it, knowlegde can be a burden and finances bring a certain financial responsibility. Also, there is class comrodery. It's lonely at the top, they say) doesn't mean that it's ideal.
But this is just me. Some people must want to be single, just like some people might want to be poor and uneducated. Spiritual enlightenment, afterall, disregards institutional learning and material possessions.
Those who can't do...
Real life is really fucking hard. There are so many things that can go wrong. It's not standardized and you can't just go back and correct your mistakes when you fuck up.
School is easy. A lot of people have trouble with it, but you just have to do the work. It's simple. And if you do fuck up, you just try again.
A lot of people say that's the same with life, but it just isn't. So many things are unique. When you fuck up a relationship, it's hard to fix. In school you can scrap it all and start over. Some people say that about relationships, but I think they miss the point.
A relationship can have all the same variables the fundamental grounds of the relationship are different for every person you are with. Every relationship is unique. In school, the variables all change, but the question is always the same. You can practise over and over with no consequence to anyone. It's all the same and you can only get better at it.
Plus, you get to take breaks from school and when you do, nothing has changed.
School is easy. A lot of people have trouble with it, but you just have to do the work. It's simple. And if you do fuck up, you just try again.
A lot of people say that's the same with life, but it just isn't. So many things are unique. When you fuck up a relationship, it's hard to fix. In school you can scrap it all and start over. Some people say that about relationships, but I think they miss the point.
A relationship can have all the same variables the fundamental grounds of the relationship are different for every person you are with. Every relationship is unique. In school, the variables all change, but the question is always the same. You can practise over and over with no consequence to anyone. It's all the same and you can only get better at it.
Plus, you get to take breaks from school and when you do, nothing has changed.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Illusion of Choice
I was playing Ultimate Alliance 2 with TK the other day and I've come to fully realize how black and white that game is. To a certain extent, it offends me.
If I wanted a someone to tell me what to think, I'd watch FOX News. I would hope that intelligent video game designers would have a better understanding of moral ambiguity. Although it may make for a more linear storyline, I hate when you're given a supposed "moral choice" only to be crowbarred back into the main story for Act III.
In UA2, you choose either Pro-Regulation or Anti-Regulation in a so-called modern civil war. In truth, your options are very clearly douchebaggery or the American Dream, respectively. Though the choice of obeying possibly questionable governmental laws versus violently rebelling in order to remain unidentified is very clearly ambiguous, the character dialogue makes for a very obvious dichotomy of right and wrong. The Pro-Regs are evil, and once you are "shown the folley of their ways" you are railroaded back onto the path of the righteous.
To put it another way, there is a game about Anti-Regulation with the option of playing as the bad guys for a few levels.
Why can't your choices ever matter? So many games have this "choice" feature that is as superfluous as the "customize" feature. Take Fallout 3, for example. You choose your gender and race free of any social persecution (for a world based off the 50s, that seems... inaccurate). You get down to choose every little detail right down to the width of the bridge of your nose. Of course, you cannot change height, weight, or any other physical feature of your character, but, hey, making a scale function in two dimensions is incredibly... uh, easy, actually. But I digress. The fact of the matter is the customization process has no effect on gameplay and neither does your "Karma." If you're bad, the good guys try to kill you. If you're good, the bad guys try to kill you. The townspeople act the same, Raiders will always attack, Mutants will always attack, the Enclave will always be your enemy. Nothing you choose changes anything. I understand that something like that becomes immensely complex, but for something like UA2, why not play out the ramifications of Pro-Reg winning?
To voice this argument another way, and to reference Zack's latest post, if an element is unneccesary, why have it? If the choice of good or evil doesn't change anything, who cares? If you can't join the Empire, why join the Dark Side? That would be like Luke doing everything Vader told him, but he still has to blow up the Death Star in the end.
As I said before, I understand that an impactful choice system exponentially complexifies a game. It's like having to design multiple games in one and weave them all together. It's hard work. But so is realistic physics, dynamic ambient light, interactive environments, multiple character choices, Co-op modes, user designed levels... the list goes on about features of a game that make it harder to make. But designers work on them and do them well. So why don't designers put that kind of effort into the "choice" feature?
If I wanted a someone to tell me what to think, I'd watch FOX News. I would hope that intelligent video game designers would have a better understanding of moral ambiguity. Although it may make for a more linear storyline, I hate when you're given a supposed "moral choice" only to be crowbarred back into the main story for Act III.
In UA2, you choose either Pro-Regulation or Anti-Regulation in a so-called modern civil war. In truth, your options are very clearly douchebaggery or the American Dream, respectively. Though the choice of obeying possibly questionable governmental laws versus violently rebelling in order to remain unidentified is very clearly ambiguous, the character dialogue makes for a very obvious dichotomy of right and wrong. The Pro-Regs are evil, and once you are "shown the folley of their ways" you are railroaded back onto the path of the righteous.
To put it another way, there is a game about Anti-Regulation with the option of playing as the bad guys for a few levels.
Why can't your choices ever matter? So many games have this "choice" feature that is as superfluous as the "customize" feature. Take Fallout 3, for example. You choose your gender and race free of any social persecution (for a world based off the 50s, that seems... inaccurate). You get down to choose every little detail right down to the width of the bridge of your nose. Of course, you cannot change height, weight, or any other physical feature of your character, but, hey, making a scale function in two dimensions is incredibly... uh, easy, actually. But I digress. The fact of the matter is the customization process has no effect on gameplay and neither does your "Karma." If you're bad, the good guys try to kill you. If you're good, the bad guys try to kill you. The townspeople act the same, Raiders will always attack, Mutants will always attack, the Enclave will always be your enemy. Nothing you choose changes anything. I understand that something like that becomes immensely complex, but for something like UA2, why not play out the ramifications of Pro-Reg winning?
To voice this argument another way, and to reference Zack's latest post, if an element is unneccesary, why have it? If the choice of good or evil doesn't change anything, who cares? If you can't join the Empire, why join the Dark Side? That would be like Luke doing everything Vader told him, but he still has to blow up the Death Star in the end.
As I said before, I understand that an impactful choice system exponentially complexifies a game. It's like having to design multiple games in one and weave them all together. It's hard work. But so is realistic physics, dynamic ambient light, interactive environments, multiple character choices, Co-op modes, user designed levels... the list goes on about features of a game that make it harder to make. But designers work on them and do them well. So why don't designers put that kind of effort into the "choice" feature?
Misinterpretation
There is a common misinterpretation that people have about me. They say I lack confidence and seem to think that I need an ego boost.
I would like to clarify.
I am awesome.
It's everybody and everything else that sucks. The last thing I want is for people to pour on condescending and insincere compliments. I'm an average sort of guy with moderate ambitions. I don't pretend that I'm going to be someone big one day anymore. That's all bullshit anyway. There's nothing wrong with being nobody. Most everybody ever has never been anybody.
I would like to clarify.
I am awesome.
It's everybody and everything else that sucks. The last thing I want is for people to pour on condescending and insincere compliments. I'm an average sort of guy with moderate ambitions. I don't pretend that I'm going to be someone big one day anymore. That's all bullshit anyway. There's nothing wrong with being nobody. Most everybody ever has never been anybody.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
