My sister linked an interesting article on the state of single graduate men, a subject that has been on my mind a fair amount.
I don't particularly like the article actually. It sounds too much like another bemoaning of the lack of marriageable bachelors with only small lip service to any causes or solutions thereof. Besides, there are plenty of marriageable young men, we just don't hang out in bars.
If I had to cite a cause for the "adolt" condition, I'll have to callously point to the systems in which our youth are raised. Both the formalized public school system and the society of teenagers within it encourage young men to be unmarriageable. To a large extent this carries over into college and thereafter.
Basically, the school system encourages students to avoid setting goals, and it is the exception rather than the rule which strives for excellence. At the same time the school's student culture favors beefy, physically mature guys over sensitivity and respect.
I could go into more detail, but it gets a little too personal and blame heavy for me to comfortably rant on the subject. Suffice it to say that these kinds of articles are extremely frustrating and even infuriating for marriageable bachelors.
20080131
20080128
Repeating 9s
So, I've once again run headlong into more nerdy math stuff.
First, I'd like to address my dear brother's comment on my previous post on the subject of 1 = .999....
I'll readily admit that my solution to this issue is equal parts philosophical as it is mathematical, and I think that's where we're coming into conflict.
Allow me to represent my argument a different way.
9.999... = 9/1 + 9/10 + ... + 9/(10^n)
0.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + ... + 9/(10^n+1)
When we plug infinity into n, we have 10^infinity versus 10^infinity+1. In my mind, and maybe I'm being childish, there's a difference between infinity and infinity+1. If there's a proof to the contrary, then me and my philosophical meanderings are washed up.
That said, I have encountered a 1=.999... proof that I can't easily counter. That is the a/(1-r) proof. See: Geometric Progression.
0.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + ...
0.999... = E ar^k (a = 9/10, r = 1/10, |r|<1)
0.999... = a/(1-r)
0.999... = (9/10)/(1-(1/10))
0.999... = (9/10)/(9/10)
0.999... = 1
So, either I'm a complete hack, or E ar^k (where |r|<1) != a/(1-r) is wrong. In fact, it's possible to represent the 9.999... - .999... in similar notation and blow my infinity versus infinity+1 argument out of the water. So, as any credible thinker should, I make my last stand and give my opponents a chance for a coup de grace.
Looking further into it, there is a step where we have limit (n->infinity) (ar^(n+1))/(1-r). Anyone who remembers their limits knows that this evaluates to zero as r<1. Desperate for an "out", I pose the following question.
Is ar^(n+1) zero or simply infinitesimally small to the point that we really can't keep track of it any longer and in 99.999...% of situations it doesn't matter? If it's the former, and mind you I would like a "because [explanation]" following any "It's zero", then my mental exercises have done little but given me a good, if futile, stretch. If it's the latter, then I would contend we've found the hole in another argument for 1 = .999...
Thus we end my grasping at straws.
First, I'd like to address my dear brother's comment on my previous post on the subject of 1 = .999....
"This is because trailing the end of 9.999... is an additional 0 (due to multiplying by 10), while trailing the end of 0.999... is a 9."
Except that the number 0.999 repeating doesn't *have* an end for the zero to go on. Pick any 9 you want, but there's always a 9 after it, not a zero. It's like the proof of limits in calculus, where you prove it by showing that no one can specify a place where the function will suddenly deviate from its course towards your limit. 0.999 repeating is the same thing, except that it's by definition of what repeating is.
Your argument against the rule of nines is similarly ridiculous because, again, THERE IS NO EDGE FOR SOMETHING TO TRAIL ON. Infinity doesn't "end". That's why it's infinity, that's why infinities have to be dealt with completely differently than normal numbers. Just because .111 repeating is too long of a number for us to divide by brute force doesn't mean we have to resort to remainders to say that it's equal to 1/9. I'm pretty sure it's provable that 1.0 divided by 9.0 will be .111 repeating. You want to say that somewhere along the line you'll suddenly get a different correct answer when you do the division, 10/9 = 1 with 1 remaining. Obviously, it won't, as division is a function and will give the same answer when given the same input, and in this case the input for each small division in the long chain is the same as the output. 1/9 will divide into .111 repeating And that's what .111 repeating MEANS: 1/9. There IS NO TRAILING EDGE. IT GOES ON FOREVER.
There is no trailing edge. There is no trailing edge. There is *no* trailing edge. Are you saying there's some number which is at the top of infinity, which you can then put another number on top of? No, you can't do that, because infinity has no top. In the same way, repeating numbers HAVE NO TRAILING EDGE. -- To have an edge, an end, is to not be infinite --
I'll readily admit that my solution to this issue is equal parts philosophical as it is mathematical, and I think that's where we're coming into conflict.
Allow me to represent my argument a different way.
9.999... = 9/1 + 9/10 + ... + 9/(10^n)
0.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + ... + 9/(10^n+1)
When we plug infinity into n, we have 10^infinity versus 10^infinity+1. In my mind, and maybe I'm being childish, there's a difference between infinity and infinity+1. If there's a proof to the contrary, then me and my philosophical meanderings are washed up.
That said, I have encountered a 1=.999... proof that I can't easily counter. That is the a/(1-r) proof. See: Geometric Progression.
0.999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + ...
0.999... = E ar^k (a = 9/10, r = 1/10, |r|<1)
0.999... = a/(1-r)
0.999... = (9/10)/(1-(1/10))
0.999... = (9/10)/(9/10)
0.999... = 1
So, either I'm a complete hack, or E ar^k (where |r|<1) != a/(1-r) is wrong. In fact, it's possible to represent the 9.999... - .999... in similar notation and blow my infinity versus infinity+1 argument out of the water. So, as any credible thinker should, I make my last stand and give my opponents a chance for a coup de grace.
Looking further into it, there is a step where we have limit (n->infinity) (ar^(n+1))/(1-r). Anyone who remembers their limits knows that this evaluates to zero as r<1. Desperate for an "out", I pose the following question.
Is ar^(n+1) zero or simply infinitesimally small to the point that we really can't keep track of it any longer and in 99.999...% of situations it doesn't matter? If it's the former, and mind you I would like a "because [explanation]" following any "It's zero", then my mental exercises have done little but given me a good, if futile, stretch. If it's the latter, then I would contend we've found the hole in another argument for 1 = .999...
Thus we end my grasping at straws.
20080123
Viewing Comprehension
Scientific minds are stereotyped as having difficulty understanding subjective subjects such as art. So, leave it to the internet to provide an art gallery for geeks.
My only warning are, it really doesn't help explain art so much to geeks as it does to satirize it, and I believe there's one semi-offensive picture in the bunch.
Enjoy
My only warning are, it really doesn't help explain art so much to geeks as it does to satirize it, and I believe there's one semi-offensive picture in the bunch.
Enjoy
20080121
Prognostication: SPOILERS AHOY
The following characters were revealed by a very unintentional leak on Nintendo's part. I will not describe the nature of the leak in this preamble, nor the characters that were revealed. Chances are, these characters were meant to be hidden, and as such will not be announced on the blog until well after Brawl comes out. If you're attempting to avoid finding out about such things, cease and desist.
That said, here is the relevant link. I'm also embedding the trailer below to fill space before I say anything.
You might have missed it, but hidden in that video were the unannounced characters. If you missed them you weren't alone, I certainly overlooked it (and apparently Nintendo did as well).
If you've read the link you'll know that the characters were Ness, Jigglypuff and Lucario (another pokemon).
So I both correctly and incorrectly predicted Ness, nailed the Puff, and am aghast at Lucario. I obviously don't pay attention to the Pokemon movies (phew). Sadly, chances are Mewtwo is out, which would be a black mark on my record.
My only major complaint is that there's over a month between the release in Japan and the release in America. As such, we'll probably know all the secret characters before we even get our hands on the game.
Accordingly, I'll cease to pay attention to any news outlets likely to reveal such facts, with the exception of the official page. That's unless the official page decides to have a blowout the day of release and crush my hopes and dreams.
That said, here is the relevant link. I'm also embedding the trailer below to fill space before I say anything.
You might have missed it, but hidden in that video were the unannounced characters. If you missed them you weren't alone, I certainly overlooked it (and apparently Nintendo did as well).
If you've read the link you'll know that the characters were Ness, Jigglypuff and Lucario (another pokemon).
So I both correctly and incorrectly predicted Ness, nailed the Puff, and am aghast at Lucario. I obviously don't pay attention to the Pokemon movies (phew). Sadly, chances are Mewtwo is out, which would be a black mark on my record.
My only major complaint is that there's over a month between the release in Japan and the release in America. As such, we'll probably know all the secret characters before we even get our hands on the game.
Accordingly, I'll cease to pay attention to any news outlets likely to reveal such facts, with the exception of the official page. That's unless the official page decides to have a blowout the day of release and crush my hopes and dreams.
What about the bullocks?
I find this extremely humorous. While there's interesting stuff you can do with black and white or pure silence, ultimately it's helped the medium to change those from arbitrary to voluntary restrictions.
I'm sure that in 60 years, I'll be looking back on the video games industry with similar contempt.
20080115
Brawl, 300 and Co.
The Bad News: Super Smash Brothers has been delayed (again) to the 9th of March. Alas.
The Good News: This is my 300th entry in this pit of insanity!
The Bad News: That calls for some parody in ill taste concerning Spartans.
The Good News: I'm not going to do that.
The Bad News: Instead, you get to see how many times a politician can dodge the same question! (Answer: Not 300)
The Good News: This is my 300th entry in this pit of insanity!
The Bad News: That calls for some parody in ill taste concerning Spartans.
The Good News: I'm not going to do that.
The Bad News: Instead, you get to see how many times a politician can dodge the same question! (Answer: Not 300)
20080109
Prognostication: Captain Olimar
My prognostications have had a couple of low points, not in the sense that I didn't want specific characters to scream out of nowhere and sully my record but just in the sense that I incorrectly ruled them out. Actually, I ruled Sonic out based on a false assumption. I had thought that as the Olympics wouldn't be held until 2008, the game for the Olympics would come out until 2008. I might have thought differently had I known the truth.
In any case, here to restore your faith in my predictive capabilities is Captain Olimar. It is mete and right that he of all the "Others" I mentioned here has been announced as a character in Brawl. I placed him as "Probable", and low and behold here he is.
His fighting style will be incredible to be hold I'm sure. It sounds like there's very little he can do without pulling Pikmin out of the ground. In a sense, he's bound to feel like Mr. Game and Watch did, rather wonky and strange, yet still intuitive (somehow).
In one month's time, Brawl will be released. That sounds incredible, and it is. I expect that over the next month, the nature of the information posted to the website will be increasingly deep and exciting. Remember, we're still waiting for official announcements for characters as obvious as Captain Falcon, Ganondorf, Sheik and Luigi.
I'm looking forward to 1up'n you all.
In any case, here to restore your faith in my predictive capabilities is Captain Olimar. It is mete and right that he of all the "Others" I mentioned here has been announced as a character in Brawl. I placed him as "Probable", and low and behold here he is.
His fighting style will be incredible to be hold I'm sure. It sounds like there's very little he can do without pulling Pikmin out of the ground. In a sense, he's bound to feel like Mr. Game and Watch did, rather wonky and strange, yet still intuitive (somehow).
In one month's time, Brawl will be released. That sounds incredible, and it is. I expect that over the next month, the nature of the information posted to the website will be increasingly deep and exciting. Remember, we're still waiting for official announcements for characters as obvious as Captain Falcon, Ganondorf, Sheik and Luigi.
I'm looking forward to 1up'n you all.
20080104
20080102
If Memory Serves...
I had a random philosophical whim and thought to share it.
Imagine if we remembered the future, but never the past. This kind of existence has all sorts of mind-warping possibilities, the most obvious of which would be a working knowledge of everything that would happen to you until the day you day. We could spend endless amounts of time exploring the viability of free will or predetermination in these circumstances, but those are somewhat obvious compared to other interesting facets of such an existence.
Instead, let us think about how people define themselves. In our current mode, we view people as an extension of everything they've ever done. People evolve and change overtime to become what they are in the present, and their memories are a sometimes clear, sometimes fuzzy map of that. How we shape ourselves is determined by what has happened before, and what is happening now.
Supposing that we instead live in a backwards world where we remember things that are going to happen rather than things that did, defining ourselves would be rather different. As memory remains a fickle thing, we would still likely be unable to clearly remember anything but the reasonably near future, with smattering of random thoughts and moments strewn throughout the greater future, and perhaps a few far flung ones toward the end of life.
However, in stark contrast we would have absolutely no working knowledge of anything we'd ever done. The past would be an fearsome black hole of lost existence. Horoscopes would prognosticate what you had already done, rather than what you would do. Alfred Hitchcock's works would drive their suspense not by surprising events but by fear of the unknown past, a plethora of super-Memento films. It would be a very different world.
I could probably write a science fiction novel in which at some arbitrary date everyone's memory switched between these two modes. Then again, writing such a novel would be excruciatingly difficult. How does someone who only remembers the future think? Can one even have a train of thought under such circumstances?
I have mused enough for now, but it'd be a fun topic to explore further with someone able to stand the constant paradigm destruction.
Imagine if we remembered the future, but never the past. This kind of existence has all sorts of mind-warping possibilities, the most obvious of which would be a working knowledge of everything that would happen to you until the day you day. We could spend endless amounts of time exploring the viability of free will or predetermination in these circumstances, but those are somewhat obvious compared to other interesting facets of such an existence.
Instead, let us think about how people define themselves. In our current mode, we view people as an extension of everything they've ever done. People evolve and change overtime to become what they are in the present, and their memories are a sometimes clear, sometimes fuzzy map of that. How we shape ourselves is determined by what has happened before, and what is happening now.
Supposing that we instead live in a backwards world where we remember things that are going to happen rather than things that did, defining ourselves would be rather different. As memory remains a fickle thing, we would still likely be unable to clearly remember anything but the reasonably near future, with smattering of random thoughts and moments strewn throughout the greater future, and perhaps a few far flung ones toward the end of life.
However, in stark contrast we would have absolutely no working knowledge of anything we'd ever done. The past would be an fearsome black hole of lost existence. Horoscopes would prognosticate what you had already done, rather than what you would do. Alfred Hitchcock's works would drive their suspense not by surprising events but by fear of the unknown past, a plethora of super-Memento films. It would be a very different world.
I could probably write a science fiction novel in which at some arbitrary date everyone's memory switched between these two modes. Then again, writing such a novel would be excruciatingly difficult. How does someone who only remembers the future think? Can one even have a train of thought under such circumstances?
I have mused enough for now, but it'd be a fun topic to explore further with someone able to stand the constant paradigm destruction.
20080101
Stupid stupid stupid...
I managed to forget my Nintendo DS on the plane.
I'll find out after 2:00 tomorrow whether it ended up in Cancun.
I feel stupid.
UPDATE: I called today and they didn't have it. Supposedly it can take 72 hours for them to get items, more potentially as it is the holidays. While that seems a ridiculous amount of time, I will keep calling them just after 2:00 each day until Wednesday of next week.
I probably won't look much to hope past Friday, but stranger things have happened.
I'll find out after 2:00 tomorrow whether it ended up in Cancun.
I feel stupid.
UPDATE: I called today and they didn't have it. Supposedly it can take 72 hours for them to get items, more potentially as it is the holidays. While that seems a ridiculous amount of time, I will keep calling them just after 2:00 each day until Wednesday of next week.
I probably won't look much to hope past Friday, but stranger things have happened.
20071217
Shower Curtains
I'm not ready to review Portal yet, as I've only completed the story and not all the bonus challenges. However, the game is quite simply the most spectacular puzzle/platformer game to date.
I do warn you, do not play the game if you have just returned home late in the evening after initiating a sugar rush via refreshments provided after an hour and a half long presentation by you and the choir prior to which you practiced for an hour. You will get nauseous under these conditions. In simpler terms, Choir Practice + Vivaldi (and extras!) + COOKIES + Tired + Portal = Nausea.
The following is over a year old, but effectively captures what Portal is about like any good preview should.
I do warn you, do not play the game if you have just returned home late in the evening after initiating a sugar rush via refreshments provided after an hour and a half long presentation by you and the choir prior to which you practiced for an hour. You will get nauseous under these conditions. In simpler terms, Choir Practice + Vivaldi (and extras!) + COOKIES + Tired + Portal = Nausea.
The following is over a year old, but effectively captures what Portal is about like any good preview should.
Labels:
Apeture Science,
Portal,
shower curtains,
video games
20071212
20071204
1 ≈ .9999999999999...
For anyone who is familiar with math headaches, this is one of the major migraines. You can easily find all manner of argument over the internet as to the matter. I am not going to claim that in one short blog entry I can once and for all close the matter, but I can at least refute one argument.
Specifically, the following argument.
It seems pretty conclusive, but there is a subtle mistake that is made at 5, specifically in the subtraction on the right hand of the equation. It should read as follows.
5) 9N ≈ 9
or
5) 9N = 8.9999999...9991
This is because trailing the end of 9.999... is an additional 0 (due to multiplying by 10), while trailing the end of 0.999... is a 9. That single digit difference is what unravels the issue. Either it must be admitted that step 5 is only an inaccurate approximation made because we are too lazy to actually travel down the path of infinity to find the "last" digit, or we have to account for the difference and display the equation appropriately.
And in case you were wondering, .8999...9991 / 9 = 0.999...
Another common argument is the table of nines.
Again, this is slightly disingenuous but in a slightly different fashion. Rather than ignoring the relationship of two separate infinites, this one ignores a fundamental concept learned in grade school. Specifically, the concept of remainders.
Trailing the edge of 0.111... isn't a pure 1, it's a 1 R(1/9). Evaluating the remainder is what gives us our next decimal place in infinity, but it will also, always have it's own remainder of 1/9. This remainder is unrepresentable in machine terms/thinking without evaluating it, hence infinity and the erroneous concept that 1 / 9 "ends" in a simple 1.
It is this remainder that, when multiplying 0.111... by 9, evaluates to 0.000...0001 and ticks the value over from 0.999... to 1.
Q.E.D. I am a nerd, thanks Dad.
Specifically, the following argument.
The precise mathematical proof consists of assuming first a number N which is defined by:
1) N = 0.999999999...
If we now multiply both sides of the equation by 10, we obtain:
2) 10N = 9.999999999...
Now substracting N from each side of the equation, we obtain:
3) 10N - N = 9.999999999... - N
4) = 9.999999999... - 0.999999999...
5) 9N = 9
or
6) N = 1 = 0.999999999...
It seems pretty conclusive, but there is a subtle mistake that is made at 5, specifically in the subtraction on the right hand of the equation. It should read as follows.
5) 9N ≈ 9
or
5) 9N = 8.9999999...9991
This is because trailing the end of 9.999... is an additional 0 (due to multiplying by 10), while trailing the end of 0.999... is a 9. That single digit difference is what unravels the issue. Either it must be admitted that step 5 is only an inaccurate approximation made because we are too lazy to actually travel down the path of infinity to find the "last" digit, or we have to account for the difference and display the equation appropriately.
And in case you were wondering, .8999...9991 / 9 = 0.999...
Another common argument is the table of nines.
1 / 9 = 0.111...
2 / 9 = 0.222...
3 / 9 = 0.333...
...
8 / 9 = 0.888...
9 / 9 = 1 = 0.999... = 0.111 * 9 = 1 / 9 * 9
Again, this is slightly disingenuous but in a slightly different fashion. Rather than ignoring the relationship of two separate infinites, this one ignores a fundamental concept learned in grade school. Specifically, the concept of remainders.
Trailing the edge of 0.111... isn't a pure 1, it's a 1 R(1/9). Evaluating the remainder is what gives us our next decimal place in infinity, but it will also, always have it's own remainder of 1/9. This remainder is unrepresentable in machine terms/thinking without evaluating it, hence infinity and the erroneous concept that 1 / 9 "ends" in a simple 1.
It is this remainder that, when multiplying 0.111... by 9, evaluates to 0.000...0001 and ticks the value over from 0.999... to 1.
Q.E.D. I am a nerd, thanks Dad.
20071203
20071121
Comb moon ick ate shun
Being a new hire is difficult for a number of reasons irregardless of where you work. This is a fundamental truth I have encountered, and there isn't a whole lot a company can do about it. It's an inherent issue stemming from the method by which we educate our youth, and the generational gaps that stem from this.
For the first 18-22 years of our lives, we are sheltered in an environment comprised almost entirely of people our own age. Thus, outside of a few authority figures, we grow accustomed to our generation's culture, our methods of communication, and our own "language" of sorts. What no one tells you is that outside of the interactions you'll have with people your own age post-education, none of that will be very helpful for communication in the working world.
When bright, dewey-eyed intern/new hire enters their first job, they will probably be as oblivious as I was to the nuances of office communication. I'm most certainly still ignorant of many fundamental necessities that doubtless are obvious to the people who have been here for years. Basically, I have found that everything I knew was true about communication in college is not true here.
For example, e-mail. In college, e-mail was the cornerstone of communication. With the volatile schedules and activities of college students, phones and instant messages were very inadequate. If you wanted someone to get a message, you sent them an e-mail, and whenever they checked their e-mail they'd respond back.
On the job, things are very different. E-mail very often vanishes without a trace into the ether, or so it seems as no response is forthcoming even after a week. This unfortunately leads the inattentive new hire to simply sit on their hands and wait, rather than send reminders or actively pursue the person. They'll get back to you when they can, right?
I've found myself battling my college habits in terms of time management and communication on a daily basis. A number of times significant balls have been dropped because I hadn't grasped that people outside my generation do not religiously respond to e-mail. Even now as I write about it, I'm sure that I'll have to consciously work to avoid falling into habit and just sitting around wondering why no one ever gets back to me.
For the first 18-22 years of our lives, we are sheltered in an environment comprised almost entirely of people our own age. Thus, outside of a few authority figures, we grow accustomed to our generation's culture, our methods of communication, and our own "language" of sorts. What no one tells you is that outside of the interactions you'll have with people your own age post-education, none of that will be very helpful for communication in the working world.
When bright, dewey-eyed intern/new hire enters their first job, they will probably be as oblivious as I was to the nuances of office communication. I'm most certainly still ignorant of many fundamental necessities that doubtless are obvious to the people who have been here for years. Basically, I have found that everything I knew was true about communication in college is not true here.
For example, e-mail. In college, e-mail was the cornerstone of communication. With the volatile schedules and activities of college students, phones and instant messages were very inadequate. If you wanted someone to get a message, you sent them an e-mail, and whenever they checked their e-mail they'd respond back.
On the job, things are very different. E-mail very often vanishes without a trace into the ether, or so it seems as no response is forthcoming even after a week. This unfortunately leads the inattentive new hire to simply sit on their hands and wait, rather than send reminders or actively pursue the person. They'll get back to you when they can, right?
I've found myself battling my college habits in terms of time management and communication on a daily basis. A number of times significant balls have been dropped because I hadn't grasped that people outside my generation do not religiously respond to e-mail. Even now as I write about it, I'm sure that I'll have to consciously work to avoid falling into habit and just sitting around wondering why no one ever gets back to me.
20071120
A Nerd Power is Rising!
Playing World of Warcraft is nerdy enough as it is. However, I can now claim Mr. T and William Shatner among my peers.
20071112
Ruth
I was contemplating my incoming niece, for whom this post is named, when I chanced upon the word "ruthless". Now, obviously, if one can be ruthless one must also be able to be ruthful. I investigated.
Apparently, ruthless is actually a conjugation of "rue". Thus someone who does not rue, does no ruing, and has rued, rues and will rue nothing, is not a ruer but is ruthless (and not rueless). However, a practicing ruer can be said to be either rueful or ruthful, have ruefulness or ruthfulness, and speak ruefully or ruthfully.
This is your nerdy grammar lesson for the day.
Apparently, ruthless is actually a conjugation of "rue". Thus someone who does not rue, does no ruing, and has rued, rues and will rue nothing, is not a ruer but is ruthless (and not rueless). However, a practicing ruer can be said to be either rueful or ruthful, have ruefulness or ruthfulness, and speak ruefully or ruthfully.
This is your nerdy grammar lesson for the day.
20071106
Thunderdome: Hellgate vs Warcraft
Before we begin, allow me to indulge in a brief preface. Hellgate will not be the end of the World (of Warcraft). Despite popular perception, it is possible for MMORPGs to coexist, especially ones with vastly different settings and gameplay styles. All other technical reasons aside, such talk is nonsense for these reasons alone.
That said, we begin our match.
Round 1: Launch
Warcraft had a number of issues at launch, some of which were so severe the game lost several awards it had received. In summary, there were numerous minor glitches and rampant server stability and reliability problems. By the time I picked up the game these had been dealt with, but that was six or so months later.
Hellgate, similarly, has issues as well. While it shares in the numerous small glitches, Hellgate lacks the rampant server issues of Warcraft. Instead, Hellgate has various minor nuisances throughout its user interface and instruction.
Judgement: Draw.
Explanation: By all accounts the glitches are pretty equivalent, leaving the judgement to a measure of server issues against interface problems. Here Hellgate might seem to come out ahead, as server problems prohibit play entirely while a slightly unwieldy interface only makes play more difficult. However, server issues are more readily repairable. A later judgement may be able to better weigh this contest, but for now it shall be judged that the one is even to the other.
Round 2: Character Creation
The character creation systems in both Hellgate and Warcraft are remarkably similar. There are very minor differences, but someone who has seen one can very easily understand the other.
Hellgate has several advantages, and a small disadvantage over Warcraft. Rather than cycling through hair and skin colors, Hellgate has a drop down palette that makes such choices far easier. Where Warcraft has races to differentiate height and breadth, Hellgate has sliders to allow for that kind of differentiation. Both games have class and faction descriptions present.
Where Hellgate errs is in the depiction of the character. Rather than show what your character will look like initially, the game shows them as they might look in higher level gear. This can be confusing, as it isn't clearly stated anywhere a casual person might look. Some people might see this as an advantage, but for the most part it is more of a hinderance than a help.
Judgement: Draw.
Explanation: The color palettes are nice, but it's as minor as the depiction mistake.
Round 3: Initial Impression
Warcraft treats you to a sweeping tour of your character's starting area at the offset complete with dramatic voice over explaning your backstory and place in the world, before dropping you in front of your first quest giver. From there, you are asked to embark on your first genocidal quest to cleanse the area of some unfortunate animal, and slowly familiarize yourself with the game's basics. Any tutorials are in the form of tips at loading, or clickable during the game.
Hellgate's backstory is almost completely conveyed by the game's opening cinematic. Your place in the grand scheme of things is explained only in the manual. However, Hellgate's tutorial is somewhat more proactive in helping you get a feel for the game. It's very friendly, very helpful, unrestrictive, skippable, and short. Basically, everything you could want from a tutorial. There's are a number of things that aren't covered, but Warcraft is more than guilty of this as well.
The impression Warcraft impresses upon you is one of awe and an eagerness to explore. Hellgate, on the other hand, is more content to let you be excited about your character and their abilities.
I'm going to fault both, however, in that neither really take care of their own. Beyond the very most basics of the game, very little is explained. It's enough to get a player unfamiliar with MMORPG conventions up and going, but it leaves them to flounder about every which way. Each has their highs and lows in this area, but neither really comes out on top.
Judgement: Draw.
Explanation: While we could argue that Warcraft's interface is more intuitive and thus user-friendly/impression making, that's a separate round unto itself.
Round 4: Interface
Mods are excluded from this round as outside parties. I will not delve into them, nor into the ability of either game to support them. Should it come up, it will be in the inevitable rematch.
Hellgate's interface, as one might guess from earlier notes, leaves a fair amount to be desired.
First and foremost, the game has issues remembering your account name. It will only keep track of it so long as you do not exit the program. Even in this case the cursor defaults to the account name field, meaning it must be moved lest one absent mindedly start typing their password in the wrong place.
The next obvious failing is that of the helpful tips on the loading screen. Specifically, their propensity to burn through several hundred of them in less than a second during the loading process. This, however, only obscures the complete lack of any visual measure of loading progress for a minute or two. While the loading screen is aestetically pleasing, it would be nice if some indication of the current status of the effort were present.
Also vexing the user is the method of logout. If one wishes to stop playing, the "Exit Game" option is chosen. Rather than exiting the game, however, it only pushes you back to the log on screen. This appears to be some deranged compromise between actually exiting the entire game, and providing an option to exit to the character selection screen. As it stands, a player must "Exit Game" and then log in again in order to switch characters.
The other notable nuisances are the lack of any efficient system to trade items between characters, the unintuitive and obfuscated choices in console commands, and the similar difficulty in item management. There isn't any way to transfer items between your characters save for handing them off to a trusted friend and relogging. The console commands, while following the standard /[command] syntax are longer in name than necessary and are not described either in the manual or in the game. Lastly, Warcraft has a universal key one can hold down while clicking to move the chosen item into a bank, buy or sell from a vendor, or trade it to another player; Hellgate only has this function for vendoring.
Meanwhile, Warcraft boasts mailing systems, an auction house, helpful guards, and will soon sport an enhanced minimap to make finding quest givers, trainers and vendors easier. As a whole, the Warcraft interface is also intuitive and consistant. If something functions in one place, it functions the same way elsewhere. It also mimicks standard operating systems enough that there aren't any surprises for anyone.
Judgement: Warcraft wins the round.
Explanation: Hellgate's glaring errors don't impact actual gameplay, but they make getting to the good stuff significantly harder than necessary.
Round 5: Gameplay
Warcraft and Hellgate come from two vastly different schools of thought in terms of MMORPG gameplay. Warcraft follows the tried and true Everquest paradigm, while Hellgate sticks to the roots of its creators and takes after Diablo. Both styles of gameplay have their merits and their detriments.
Warcraft's gameplay is much more forgiving to the player, but much less so towards the player's time. Most notable accomplishments in the game take a significant investment of one's free hours. It is possible to spend hours just preparing for some other task, and getting nothing done other than "housekeeping".
Timewise, Hellgate can be played in short spurts or over large sessions. While it has similar directives to Warcraft, the time between setting out to complete a quest and returning victorious is far shorter unless you are going in over your head. The lack of a cohesion in Hellgate means the game doesn't suffer under the need to establish a sense of distance in a persistant world. As such, all of the traveling around to find vendors and services is absent. The presence of instant teleportation to other party members, and to and from town, significantly shaves off the time investment required.
Additionally, the pacing of each game varies as well. The actual meat of each game, quests and killing of monsters for loot, experience and glory, follows the same pattern. Warcraft has a much more leisurely pace, while Hellgate is more action oriented without necessarily being more difficult. Hellgate's leveling curve is far more forgiving than Warcraft's as well. They both start out even, but where Warcraft's begins to slow Hellgate continues to charge forward at relatively the same rate.
Hellgate is also far more forgiving when it comes to items. There is no concept of "soulbound", items can be freely traded and reused. Items are easily upgraded, customized, added to and more. While Warcraft has significant crafting advantages over Hellgate's professionless system, the freedom Hellgate offers is an unavoidable advantage.
Warcraft, however, is more forgiving in one area. Hellgate offers no ability to reselect skills and spells after they have been allocated. Once you have made your character choices in attributes and proficiencies, there is no going back. This does, however, suit Hellgate as it did its predecessors. While for a beginning player the time necessary to level a character will be significant, experienced players will likely be able to reach "high" levels over the course of a weekend.
Judgement: Hellgate wins the round.
Explanation: While actual judgement of the respective gameplay styles is subjective, Hellgate has a key advantage in allowing you to get from login to gameplay much faster and without as much effort. The "Time to Fun" as it were, heavily leans towards Hellgate.
Round 6: Social
Warcraft is an odd duck when it comes to matters of society. It seems to preclude having a social life, while at the same time being a heavily social game. It encourages bonding with other players, while seemingly attracting the kinds of people who fail to realize that "plz" is not an endearing subsitute for "please".
However, the kind of bonds that form from grouping and raiding in Warcraft are not easily replicable in Hellgate. There isn't content in Hellgate that makes deep friendships a commonplace thing. You don't have the same kind of dungeons, raiding and group questing that bring people together. Rather, Hellgate is more oriented towards incidental fun with friends you already have.
Judgement: Draw
Explanation: To summarize, Warcraft is a much more social game but comes at the cost of social life elsewhere. Hellgate may not have as much social depth, but it does allow for it in a more casual sense and at the same time does not have any draw to preclude other social engagements (beyond basic addiction).
Bonus Round: Overall
We could try and compare Warcraft as it was against Hellgate, but that's a bad comparison. Whatever Warcraft was, it has since evolved. Telling people that Warcraft was a fun game nearly 3 years ago is about effective a suggestion as telling people how wonderful this town was before all the carpet baggers came. The suggestee can't take a bus back to yesteryear.
As such, Hellgate must face off against the Warcraft of today.
Judgement: Warcraft wins the round.
Explanation: The amount of content, it's quality, the long fixed bugs, the smooth servers, and the excellent interface come together into something spectacular. Should Hellgate improve on its shortcomings the same way Warcraft has, it could easily boast a victory later. For now, Warcraft is the better experience.
That said, we begin our match.
Round 1: Launch
Warcraft had a number of issues at launch, some of which were so severe the game lost several awards it had received. In summary, there were numerous minor glitches and rampant server stability and reliability problems. By the time I picked up the game these had been dealt with, but that was six or so months later.
Hellgate, similarly, has issues as well. While it shares in the numerous small glitches, Hellgate lacks the rampant server issues of Warcraft. Instead, Hellgate has various minor nuisances throughout its user interface and instruction.
Judgement: Draw.
Explanation: By all accounts the glitches are pretty equivalent, leaving the judgement to a measure of server issues against interface problems. Here Hellgate might seem to come out ahead, as server problems prohibit play entirely while a slightly unwieldy interface only makes play more difficult. However, server issues are more readily repairable. A later judgement may be able to better weigh this contest, but for now it shall be judged that the one is even to the other.
Round 2: Character Creation
The character creation systems in both Hellgate and Warcraft are remarkably similar. There are very minor differences, but someone who has seen one can very easily understand the other.
Hellgate has several advantages, and a small disadvantage over Warcraft. Rather than cycling through hair and skin colors, Hellgate has a drop down palette that makes such choices far easier. Where Warcraft has races to differentiate height and breadth, Hellgate has sliders to allow for that kind of differentiation. Both games have class and faction descriptions present.
Where Hellgate errs is in the depiction of the character. Rather than show what your character will look like initially, the game shows them as they might look in higher level gear. This can be confusing, as it isn't clearly stated anywhere a casual person might look. Some people might see this as an advantage, but for the most part it is more of a hinderance than a help.
Judgement: Draw.
Explanation: The color palettes are nice, but it's as minor as the depiction mistake.
Round 3: Initial Impression
Warcraft treats you to a sweeping tour of your character's starting area at the offset complete with dramatic voice over explaning your backstory and place in the world, before dropping you in front of your first quest giver. From there, you are asked to embark on your first genocidal quest to cleanse the area of some unfortunate animal, and slowly familiarize yourself with the game's basics. Any tutorials are in the form of tips at loading, or clickable during the game.
Hellgate's backstory is almost completely conveyed by the game's opening cinematic. Your place in the grand scheme of things is explained only in the manual. However, Hellgate's tutorial is somewhat more proactive in helping you get a feel for the game. It's very friendly, very helpful, unrestrictive, skippable, and short. Basically, everything you could want from a tutorial. There's are a number of things that aren't covered, but Warcraft is more than guilty of this as well.
The impression Warcraft impresses upon you is one of awe and an eagerness to explore. Hellgate, on the other hand, is more content to let you be excited about your character and their abilities.
I'm going to fault both, however, in that neither really take care of their own. Beyond the very most basics of the game, very little is explained. It's enough to get a player unfamiliar with MMORPG conventions up and going, but it leaves them to flounder about every which way. Each has their highs and lows in this area, but neither really comes out on top.
Judgement: Draw.
Explanation: While we could argue that Warcraft's interface is more intuitive and thus user-friendly/impression making, that's a separate round unto itself.
Round 4: Interface
Mods are excluded from this round as outside parties. I will not delve into them, nor into the ability of either game to support them. Should it come up, it will be in the inevitable rematch.
Hellgate's interface, as one might guess from earlier notes, leaves a fair amount to be desired.
First and foremost, the game has issues remembering your account name. It will only keep track of it so long as you do not exit the program. Even in this case the cursor defaults to the account name field, meaning it must be moved lest one absent mindedly start typing their password in the wrong place.
The next obvious failing is that of the helpful tips on the loading screen. Specifically, their propensity to burn through several hundred of them in less than a second during the loading process. This, however, only obscures the complete lack of any visual measure of loading progress for a minute or two. While the loading screen is aestetically pleasing, it would be nice if some indication of the current status of the effort were present.
Also vexing the user is the method of logout. If one wishes to stop playing, the "Exit Game" option is chosen. Rather than exiting the game, however, it only pushes you back to the log on screen. This appears to be some deranged compromise between actually exiting the entire game, and providing an option to exit to the character selection screen. As it stands, a player must "Exit Game" and then log in again in order to switch characters.
The other notable nuisances are the lack of any efficient system to trade items between characters, the unintuitive and obfuscated choices in console commands, and the similar difficulty in item management. There isn't any way to transfer items between your characters save for handing them off to a trusted friend and relogging. The console commands, while following the standard /[command] syntax are longer in name than necessary and are not described either in the manual or in the game. Lastly, Warcraft has a universal key one can hold down while clicking to move the chosen item into a bank, buy or sell from a vendor, or trade it to another player; Hellgate only has this function for vendoring.
Meanwhile, Warcraft boasts mailing systems, an auction house, helpful guards, and will soon sport an enhanced minimap to make finding quest givers, trainers and vendors easier. As a whole, the Warcraft interface is also intuitive and consistant. If something functions in one place, it functions the same way elsewhere. It also mimicks standard operating systems enough that there aren't any surprises for anyone.
Judgement: Warcraft wins the round.
Explanation: Hellgate's glaring errors don't impact actual gameplay, but they make getting to the good stuff significantly harder than necessary.
Round 5: Gameplay
Warcraft and Hellgate come from two vastly different schools of thought in terms of MMORPG gameplay. Warcraft follows the tried and true Everquest paradigm, while Hellgate sticks to the roots of its creators and takes after Diablo. Both styles of gameplay have their merits and their detriments.
Warcraft's gameplay is much more forgiving to the player, but much less so towards the player's time. Most notable accomplishments in the game take a significant investment of one's free hours. It is possible to spend hours just preparing for some other task, and getting nothing done other than "housekeeping".
Timewise, Hellgate can be played in short spurts or over large sessions. While it has similar directives to Warcraft, the time between setting out to complete a quest and returning victorious is far shorter unless you are going in over your head. The lack of a cohesion in Hellgate means the game doesn't suffer under the need to establish a sense of distance in a persistant world. As such, all of the traveling around to find vendors and services is absent. The presence of instant teleportation to other party members, and to and from town, significantly shaves off the time investment required.
Additionally, the pacing of each game varies as well. The actual meat of each game, quests and killing of monsters for loot, experience and glory, follows the same pattern. Warcraft has a much more leisurely pace, while Hellgate is more action oriented without necessarily being more difficult. Hellgate's leveling curve is far more forgiving than Warcraft's as well. They both start out even, but where Warcraft's begins to slow Hellgate continues to charge forward at relatively the same rate.
Hellgate is also far more forgiving when it comes to items. There is no concept of "soulbound", items can be freely traded and reused. Items are easily upgraded, customized, added to and more. While Warcraft has significant crafting advantages over Hellgate's professionless system, the freedom Hellgate offers is an unavoidable advantage.
Warcraft, however, is more forgiving in one area. Hellgate offers no ability to reselect skills and spells after they have been allocated. Once you have made your character choices in attributes and proficiencies, there is no going back. This does, however, suit Hellgate as it did its predecessors. While for a beginning player the time necessary to level a character will be significant, experienced players will likely be able to reach "high" levels over the course of a weekend.
Judgement: Hellgate wins the round.
Explanation: While actual judgement of the respective gameplay styles is subjective, Hellgate has a key advantage in allowing you to get from login to gameplay much faster and without as much effort. The "Time to Fun" as it were, heavily leans towards Hellgate.
Round 6: Social
Warcraft is an odd duck when it comes to matters of society. It seems to preclude having a social life, while at the same time being a heavily social game. It encourages bonding with other players, while seemingly attracting the kinds of people who fail to realize that "plz" is not an endearing subsitute for "please".
However, the kind of bonds that form from grouping and raiding in Warcraft are not easily replicable in Hellgate. There isn't content in Hellgate that makes deep friendships a commonplace thing. You don't have the same kind of dungeons, raiding and group questing that bring people together. Rather, Hellgate is more oriented towards incidental fun with friends you already have.
Judgement: Draw
Explanation: To summarize, Warcraft is a much more social game but comes at the cost of social life elsewhere. Hellgate may not have as much social depth, but it does allow for it in a more casual sense and at the same time does not have any draw to preclude other social engagements (beyond basic addiction).
Bonus Round: Overall
We could try and compare Warcraft as it was against Hellgate, but that's a bad comparison. Whatever Warcraft was, it has since evolved. Telling people that Warcraft was a fun game nearly 3 years ago is about effective a suggestion as telling people how wonderful this town was before all the carpet baggers came. The suggestee can't take a bus back to yesteryear.
As such, Hellgate must face off against the Warcraft of today.
Judgement: Warcraft wins the round.
Explanation: The amount of content, it's quality, the long fixed bugs, the smooth servers, and the excellent interface come together into something spectacular. Should Hellgate improve on its shortcomings the same way Warcraft has, it could easily boast a victory later. For now, Warcraft is the better experience.
20071031
Review: Sea of Shadow
Be forewarned, this is going to be less a review and more of a rant.
I recently began and finished a book titled The Twelve Kingdoms: Sea of Shadow. A Japanese high fantasy novel, it was recommended by a friend. Incidentally, it's also been converted into anime form.
Before I delve too thoroughly into the book I'll give some context as to why I am going to be so harsh toward it. Quite simply, the end left me disappointed. I was willing to forget the novel's flaws because of its significant merits, but then it was abruptly over. It was so sudden and incomplete that it reminded me of when someone is in the middle of a sentence and they
I probably wouldn't even be writing this if it didn't bother me so much. The book wasn't good, it was fantastic. The story, the characters and the world were all excellent, though not flawless. What kills me is how amazing everything was right up until the point where it ended.
The story builds magnificently towards a climax that never comes. It opens up thousands of questions that are never answered. For all intents and purposes our heroine checks off box #1 on her list of "epic achievements I need to complete before this story ends", magically checks off box #2 in about two pages of story, and then we get checkboxes #3 through #7 in a brief history-like epilogue that lasts two paragraphs. Meanwhile, we have answers to burning questions #1 through #7, but #8 through #33 are left completely unanswered.
For those of you who have read Tolkien, imagine it like so. What would you have felt like if the story had ended immediately after Bilbo escaped Gollum with the Ring? It's certainly a milestone in the story; a worthy achievement of our shoeless shorty. It is not, however, where anyone in their senses would recommend to stop.
Disappointed probably isn't the right word to describe how I felt when I reached the end. I felt betrayed. Through the course of the book and the revealing of the small, subtle details chiseled into the author's world was the feeling of a promise, a sworn oath of a great story that in concluding would open up the world to greater epics. It felt like the Hobbit; an incredibly engrossing introduction into a larger universe. Then, without much warning other than the waning number of remaining pages, it ended before it was even halfway there.
It is almost as if the author, excited at the prospect of writing the greater epic, cut short the all too important introduction. That or perhaps the publisher wasn't going to wait any longer for the book to actually be finished.
There really isn't an effective way to convey the confusion, mild anger, buzz kill, and other assorted negatives I felt when I closed the book, knowing that it was all over.
I can only sit here and wonder, why is the fun gone?
I recently began and finished a book titled The Twelve Kingdoms: Sea of Shadow. A Japanese high fantasy novel, it was recommended by a friend. Incidentally, it's also been converted into anime form.
Before I delve too thoroughly into the book I'll give some context as to why I am going to be so harsh toward it. Quite simply, the end left me disappointed. I was willing to forget the novel's flaws because of its significant merits, but then it was abruptly over. It was so sudden and incomplete that it reminded me of when someone is in the middle of a sentence and they
I probably wouldn't even be writing this if it didn't bother me so much. The book wasn't good, it was fantastic. The story, the characters and the world were all excellent, though not flawless. What kills me is how amazing everything was right up until the point where it ended.
The story builds magnificently towards a climax that never comes. It opens up thousands of questions that are never answered. For all intents and purposes our heroine checks off box #1 on her list of "epic achievements I need to complete before this story ends", magically checks off box #2 in about two pages of story, and then we get checkboxes #3 through #7 in a brief history-like epilogue that lasts two paragraphs. Meanwhile, we have answers to burning questions #1 through #7, but #8 through #33 are left completely unanswered.
For those of you who have read Tolkien, imagine it like so. What would you have felt like if the story had ended immediately after Bilbo escaped Gollum with the Ring? It's certainly a milestone in the story; a worthy achievement of our shoeless shorty. It is not, however, where anyone in their senses would recommend to stop.
Disappointed probably isn't the right word to describe how I felt when I reached the end. I felt betrayed. Through the course of the book and the revealing of the small, subtle details chiseled into the author's world was the feeling of a promise, a sworn oath of a great story that in concluding would open up the world to greater epics. It felt like the Hobbit; an incredibly engrossing introduction into a larger universe. Then, without much warning other than the waning number of remaining pages, it ended before it was even halfway there.
It is almost as if the author, excited at the prospect of writing the greater epic, cut short the all too important introduction. That or perhaps the publisher wasn't going to wait any longer for the book to actually be finished.
There really isn't an effective way to convey the confusion, mild anger, buzz kill, and other assorted negatives I felt when I closed the book, knowing that it was all over.
I can only sit here and wonder, why is the fun gone?
20071024
Balance!
Balance in anything is hard to achieve. We're supposed to maintain a balance of work and play, eat balanced meals, balance our checkbook, and maintain our balance when the temperature inexplicably drops 60 degrees overnight causing a mysterious patch of ice on the front steps.
Of course, foreign policy also requires balance. Here to speak on the subject is Jon Stewart.
Be aware, he uses some "choice" words, one of which fails to be "conditioned".
Of course, foreign policy also requires balance. Here to speak on the subject is Jon Stewart.
Be aware, he uses some "choice" words, one of which fails to be "conditioned".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
