I've considered a few more things worth tacking on to my previous post about calling for rolls. Hey, if I'm lucky, this could turn into an entire series of posts.
The Knowledge Dump
Many games have knowledge skills; for example, in D&D 4th edition, you have History, Religion, Arcana, Dungeoneering, and Streetwise. It can be tempting to put game information behind these skill rolls in order to get some use out of them. I'm inclined to think these days, however, that that is a bad idea.
Information about the game world touches on a lot of elements. It gives depth to the setting, showing off the skills of the GM (or whoever wrote the material being used). It provides players tools for interacting with the setting and understanding the nuances of how things work. It can even be critical for short-term goals, such as deciphering the instructions to a puzzle in a dungeon, or discovering the location of a mission-critical goal.
So why would putting any of that behind a skill roll be a good idea, given the chance of player failure? If it's mission-critical stuff, then we're back to the problems in my first post on this topic. If it isn't mission-critical, then risking the players not rolling high enough does not provide anything. Your world will seem flatter and less interesting for the lack of information.
However, if only ancillary information is put behind knowledge skill rolls, some players may be less likely to take them, since they don't provide anything "necessary."
Success, but . . .
The Dresden Files RPG describes this strategy as, "Success, but . . ." and I really like it. That scenario from before, with the locked door? Instead of interpreting failure as the players not getting through the door, the players get through the door but make so much noise that they attract a guard's attention. I like this, as it makes failure much more interesting without letting the game grind to a stop while your players make the same roll over and over until the dice-gods relent.
Here's an example to put it together: Let's say your players are looking for the location of a mages' tower long lost to common knowledge. They rightly suspect that the historical archives in the capital city will have the information they seek. The player with the best score in History would want to go to the archives to study and find this information.
In the past, I might have had the player roll, with a bonus to the roll for using all the reference material of the library. This still invites the possibility of failure, unless I make the bonus so outlandish that the information was coming one way or another. I don't think this is a very interesting way to do things.
There needs to be a way to give the information on a failed roll, but offer up a minor penalty to the players anyhow. You could say that the research takes longer, depending on how badly the roll failed, but that can be game dependent. In some games, the passage of extra time might not mean much to the players, nor to the GM. Instead, let's say that failure results in needing the staff of the archives to help the players find the information they seek. Of course, the staff of the archives doesn't work for free, so it'll cost the players some amount of gold to pay for the services. Even better, let's say that instead of paying in gold, the players could offer to run "errands" for the archivists, retrieving specific historical texts from the locations they visit, including that mages' tower.
Failure has been made more interesting, but what about success? If the players are getting the information either way, success needs to be more than just, "You don't get punished." Perhaps, in finding the location of the mages' tower, the players also find some other interesting bit of information. A treasure depot, perhaps? Or maybe they learn about some of the defenses the mages' tower used to have, giving them a heads up on what to expect when they get there. Maybe there are monsters in the tower now, but the excellent research gives them an advantage in combat when they fight the monsters. In a completely different route, you could say that the player's research leads him to translate a section the archivists had been unable to interpret previously, so they pay the players for their help.
It seems like it would be difficult to make every skill roll this dynamic and interesting; not every player action is quite so complicated, after all. Still, as far as skill rolls are concerned, I think a little extra planning and the right frame of mind can do a lot to add to a game.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Friday, February 04, 2011
When to call for a roll
I tend to discuss RPG topics with my friends, and one of the topics that came to mind a while back has stuck with me enough that I think it's worth putting to the blog: When do you ask your players for a roll? It might seem simple enough, but it starts delving into the fundamental aspects of how (and why) RPGs are played.
For the uninitiated, RPGs tend to have players roll dice to determine the outcome of any event the player wants to resolve which would have an element of randomness to the outcome. For example, you would roll to see if you hit a monster with a fireball, and then roll again to determine how much damage the fireball does to the monster if it connects. But you might not roll if you're, say, hitting a door with an axe, since inanimate objects tend to be easier to hit.
There was something in the Dresden Files RPG books that I really liked, and I think makes for a great jumping off point. This is the advice they give GMs when considering whether to ask their players to roll: "1. Consider success. 2. Consider failure."
When you're asking someone to roll for something, there is the implication that they could fail at what they're trying to do. For the game to be fun, both success and failure need to be interesting. Combat seems to cover this automatically; if you succeed at a combat roll, you're that much closer to victory, and if you fail, that much closer to defeat. But skill and knowledge checks, well, there are definitely right and wrong ways to handle those. Here's some examples as to how that might work:
The Inevitable Victory
Let's say there is a locked door, and a character with a skill for picking locks wants to get through it. If they succeed, great, they get to find out what's on the other side, but what if they fail? Some GMs might just tell the player to try again, and keep that up until he gets it right. That's boring. Same thing if you let every other player with a lock picking skills to take a crack at it, as the odds are good that at least one person will roll high enough to make it happen.
Oh, and if they get through that door? There needs to be something worth seeing on the other side; if it's nothing of interest to the game, then you shouldn't have had them roll to get through the lock in the first place.
The Quick Recovery
Let's take another scenario: This time, you have the player in a treacherous situation, like avoiding a trap or accident of some kind. The player rolls to avoid the trap but fails. The consequence? Let's say a small penalty, or some minor damage. This is a fine consequence. But let's say that you then avoid any situation where the consequence would matter . . . what was the point? If the trap did damage to the character, but the character immediately gets to sleep it off, then there was no reason for asking him to roll to avoid the trap in the first place.
The Necessary Success
Quick story: I ran a game in which my players spent a lot of time fighting an evil lich who had raised an army of zombies. At the end, they met with the leaders of the combined mortal armies to push back against the lich; the idea being that they were going to ask the military leaders to lead the charge against the lich. So I had a player roll to see if they go for it. He failed . . . and I just let him have it, anyhow.
What was I going to do? The game had been building to this climactic final showdown, why would I just cut it off because of a single roll? That roll should never have been called for in the first place.
So, I think I can see a few principles for calling for rolls in an RPG:
For the uninitiated, RPGs tend to have players roll dice to determine the outcome of any event the player wants to resolve which would have an element of randomness to the outcome. For example, you would roll to see if you hit a monster with a fireball, and then roll again to determine how much damage the fireball does to the monster if it connects. But you might not roll if you're, say, hitting a door with an axe, since inanimate objects tend to be easier to hit.
There was something in the Dresden Files RPG books that I really liked, and I think makes for a great jumping off point. This is the advice they give GMs when considering whether to ask their players to roll: "1. Consider success. 2. Consider failure."
When you're asking someone to roll for something, there is the implication that they could fail at what they're trying to do. For the game to be fun, both success and failure need to be interesting. Combat seems to cover this automatically; if you succeed at a combat roll, you're that much closer to victory, and if you fail, that much closer to defeat. But skill and knowledge checks, well, there are definitely right and wrong ways to handle those. Here's some examples as to how that might work:
The Inevitable Victory
Let's say there is a locked door, and a character with a skill for picking locks wants to get through it. If they succeed, great, they get to find out what's on the other side, but what if they fail? Some GMs might just tell the player to try again, and keep that up until he gets it right. That's boring. Same thing if you let every other player with a lock picking skills to take a crack at it, as the odds are good that at least one person will roll high enough to make it happen.
Oh, and if they get through that door? There needs to be something worth seeing on the other side; if it's nothing of interest to the game, then you shouldn't have had them roll to get through the lock in the first place.
The Quick Recovery
Let's take another scenario: This time, you have the player in a treacherous situation, like avoiding a trap or accident of some kind. The player rolls to avoid the trap but fails. The consequence? Let's say a small penalty, or some minor damage. This is a fine consequence. But let's say that you then avoid any situation where the consequence would matter . . . what was the point? If the trap did damage to the character, but the character immediately gets to sleep it off, then there was no reason for asking him to roll to avoid the trap in the first place.
The Necessary Success
Quick story: I ran a game in which my players spent a lot of time fighting an evil lich who had raised an army of zombies. At the end, they met with the leaders of the combined mortal armies to push back against the lich; the idea being that they were going to ask the military leaders to lead the charge against the lich. So I had a player roll to see if they go for it. He failed . . . and I just let him have it, anyhow.
What was I going to do? The game had been building to this climactic final showdown, why would I just cut it off because of a single roll? That roll should never have been called for in the first place.
So, I think I can see a few principles for calling for rolls in an RPG:
- Success needs to be meaningful to the player's goal
- Failure needs to have consequences that are both felt and tested
- The game cannot hinge on a successful roll
Monday, January 17, 2011
Non-Combat Gameplay
That said, their most recent video was about non-combat gameplay. In short: A great majority of video games are mostly played through combat, and while this is both entertaining and a cheap way of introducing tension and drama, it neglects the many other aspects of life that video games could entertainingly portray in order to tell a good story.
Why is this so? I imagine it's the same reason sex, by which I mean scantily clad females, is so ubiquitous in video games. A great deal of both the creators and the players are male; while this has balanced somewhat in the last decade or so, men seem to be the dominant force in the industry. And let's face it: Men like violence. I don't mean this in any sort of denigrating way, it's just the sort of fantasy which we enjoy. Let's save psychology and philosophizing about why that is for another time.
Could you make a game that is entertaining which doesn't involve combat? I've no doubt. But I think the thing that will ultimately make that sort of game successful is a good story, not good mechanics.
The problem is that unless you have programming good enough to respond to a wide variety of player inputs, these sorts of games will probably be a long series of if/then statements. If player does X, computer responds with Y. Which is fine, and I'm sure it can be more complicated than that, but it will eventually boil down to predictable management of minutiae, which is going to be problematic for this sort of gameplay.
The entire idea is that you're offering a different way of overcoming obstacles in these games. Not combat, basically. If you don't replace the elements that make combat a cheap dramatic resource (tension, risk, the unknown possibilities), then the gameplay becomes formulaic.
Which is not the kiss of death for game, as I said; it's just that the impetus is then on making a good story. I loved the Phoenix Wright games, and I think they're an excellent example of this sort of thing. But I'm skeptical we'll ever see a game that fully replaces combat with philosophical debate, pushing the cloak and sheathing the dagger.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
The Unlockables
I picked up the new Goldeneye: 007 game for the Wii over Christmas. This is a classic game for me, one I spent many hours with in high school, whiling away afternoons with friends. In fact, I never played the single player game when this was on the N64, so finding out that Nintendo was remaking the game inspired a lot of nostalgia for the days of sitting on the couch and blowing my friends up.
So you know what happened when I picked up the game with some friends on New Year's Eve? I found out that half the features I wanted had to be unlocked, including the proximity mines (AKA the greatest video game weapons ever). There was much nerd rage to be had.
Seriously, why do game designers do this? What possible reason could there be to make players spend hours and hours playing one game mode to unlock features in another? I'd say it's to get people to play the game for longer, but it's not like designers get paid by the hours people play the game. It reeks of artificial padding.
I can think of worse examples, of course. Wario Ware on the Wii required you to beat the single player game before you could even access multiplayer. I've played DDR games where you had to progressively unlock each difficulty level for a song. Smash Brothers is defined by all of the unlockable features, which is pretty obnoxious if you bought it to play with friends. It's pretty disheartening when you crack open a game, anticipating a heavily advertised feature, only to find that you have to play the game endlessly before you can access it.
Consider this a negative review of Goldeneye for the Wii. The one feature I was looking forward to, proximity mines, is only unlocked through online play. How? Why, by earning experience and gaining levels through good performance. Oh, and what level do you unlock proximity mines? Level 53. Yeah, whoever made that decision can go suck an egg.
Edit: Forgot to add probably the most important point: This sort of gameplay has a limited shelf life. That is, the online community with which to play the game is only going to be around for so long. What happens when that well dries up? Will that content be forever locked away?
So you know what happened when I picked up the game with some friends on New Year's Eve? I found out that half the features I wanted had to be unlocked, including the proximity mines (AKA the greatest video game weapons ever). There was much nerd rage to be had.
Seriously, why do game designers do this? What possible reason could there be to make players spend hours and hours playing one game mode to unlock features in another? I'd say it's to get people to play the game for longer, but it's not like designers get paid by the hours people play the game. It reeks of artificial padding.
I can think of worse examples, of course. Wario Ware on the Wii required you to beat the single player game before you could even access multiplayer. I've played DDR games where you had to progressively unlock each difficulty level for a song. Smash Brothers is defined by all of the unlockable features, which is pretty obnoxious if you bought it to play with friends. It's pretty disheartening when you crack open a game, anticipating a heavily advertised feature, only to find that you have to play the game endlessly before you can access it.
Consider this a negative review of Goldeneye for the Wii. The one feature I was looking forward to, proximity mines, is only unlocked through online play. How? Why, by earning experience and gaining levels through good performance. Oh, and what level do you unlock proximity mines? Level 53. Yeah, whoever made that decision can go suck an egg.
Edit: Forgot to add probably the most important point: This sort of gameplay has a limited shelf life. That is, the online community with which to play the game is only going to be around for so long. What happens when that well dries up? Will that content be forever locked away?
Monday, January 03, 2011
As FATE would have it . . .
As I mentioned in a previous post, I've been reading The Dresden Files books recently. Well, "recently" may be generous, as I burned through the last of the books in May; the only things I haven't read yet in that series are the short story collections. With thirteen novels in the series, you can rightly call my interest piqued. I even purchased the Dresden Files RPG books by Evil Hat. I'll be the next person to sit in the GM's chair for my gaming group, so it's likely I'll end up running this, if for no other reason than I think the guys are ready for something besides D&D.
Dresden uses the FATE system, and if you haven't heard of it before, you should really check it out. I've been highly intrigued by it, and I'm really looking forward to giving it a shot. In short, there's a lot of mechanical inducements for role-playing, and the flexibility of it seems like it could make for very cool gaming moments.
Each character has to take a number of Aspects. These are essentially descriptors of the character, for anything from personality quirks to life goals, or even just physical attributes. The more wordy, the better the Aspect. For example, Harry Dresden, lead character of the novels, might take an Aspect such as "Wizard." That's accurate, but very dull and boring. Instead, he might take the Aspect, "The only Wizard listed in the yellow pages." Much more descriptive, and gives a lot more room to work with.
Why do you need room to work with? Well, characters get a number of Fate points to play with. You can spend your Fate points to obtain supernatural powers or learn special skill tricks, but all unspent points can be used in the course to play to make things go your way. This is done through "compulsion" and "invocation" of Aspects.
Let's say that Harry wants to make something happen in the game. He can invoke one of his Aspects by spending a Fate point if it's related. This can give him a bonus to a roll, let him reroll, or even just declare something to be, depending on the situation. Of course, the GM can also compel his Aspects. If Harry is trying to keep a low profile during an investigation, the GM could compel his Aspect mentioned above, forcing circumstances or actions on Harry's part; if Harry accepts this, he gains a Fate point he can use later. If he'd rather not have this hanging over his head, he can instead spend a Fate point to tell the GM to go suck an egg.
Aspects aren't just for characters, either, meaning there's a lot of interesting ways to make use of this system. I really like the back-and-forth potential this creates between players and the GM, and it sets the players up for really getting to shine in the spotlight when they need to.
I know some might complain that the GM has a lot of power to screw over the players in this sort of system, but I think if you're worried about the GM abusing power, and the players, then you already have problems in your game. This sort of system only works when the GM is working together with the players to tell an interesting story. If it's just the GM telling his story, or just pushing the players as hard as possible because you're only doing it right if the players are tearing out their hair, then the system breaks down. Those GMs, though, probably don't get the point of this sytem in the first place.
Go check it out, if nothing else. It's a really neat looking game, and the design and production values of the books are fantastic.
Dresden uses the FATE system, and if you haven't heard of it before, you should really check it out. I've been highly intrigued by it, and I'm really looking forward to giving it a shot. In short, there's a lot of mechanical inducements for role-playing, and the flexibility of it seems like it could make for very cool gaming moments.
Each character has to take a number of Aspects. These are essentially descriptors of the character, for anything from personality quirks to life goals, or even just physical attributes. The more wordy, the better the Aspect. For example, Harry Dresden, lead character of the novels, might take an Aspect such as "Wizard." That's accurate, but very dull and boring. Instead, he might take the Aspect, "The only Wizard listed in the yellow pages." Much more descriptive, and gives a lot more room to work with.
Why do you need room to work with? Well, characters get a number of Fate points to play with. You can spend your Fate points to obtain supernatural powers or learn special skill tricks, but all unspent points can be used in the course to play to make things go your way. This is done through "compulsion" and "invocation" of Aspects.
Let's say that Harry wants to make something happen in the game. He can invoke one of his Aspects by spending a Fate point if it's related. This can give him a bonus to a roll, let him reroll, or even just declare something to be, depending on the situation. Of course, the GM can also compel his Aspects. If Harry is trying to keep a low profile during an investigation, the GM could compel his Aspect mentioned above, forcing circumstances or actions on Harry's part; if Harry accepts this, he gains a Fate point he can use later. If he'd rather not have this hanging over his head, he can instead spend a Fate point to tell the GM to go suck an egg.
Aspects aren't just for characters, either, meaning there's a lot of interesting ways to make use of this system. I really like the back-and-forth potential this creates between players and the GM, and it sets the players up for really getting to shine in the spotlight when they need to.
I know some might complain that the GM has a lot of power to screw over the players in this sort of system, but I think if you're worried about the GM abusing power, and the players, then you already have problems in your game. This sort of system only works when the GM is working together with the players to tell an interesting story. If it's just the GM telling his story, or just pushing the players as hard as possible because you're only doing it right if the players are tearing out their hair, then the system breaks down. Those GMs, though, probably don't get the point of this sytem in the first place.
Go check it out, if nothing else. It's a really neat looking game, and the design and production values of the books are fantastic.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
TRON: Legacy
As part of my resolutions for the year, I'm attempting to post more frequently on the blog. While a Monday-Friday schedule might be more conducive for traffic, I may as well start the year off right.
You might recall (by scrolling down the page) that I wrote about a little game called TRON 2.0 back in August. This was partly as preparation for the upcoming film, TRON: Legacy. Well, I saw said sequel over my Christmas holiday. (For what it's worth, none of the content of TRON 2.0 is referenced by the movie.)
Overall, I liked it. I think this is partially because of my fondness for the concepts and atmosphere of the series. The film isn't breaking any new ground, story-wise. In fact, I'd argue that most of it is simply recycled from the first film. So, light on plot, heavy on spectacle; exactly the reasons I disliked Avatar. I'm still not sure what to make of that, except to say that Legacy seemed to at least attempt to tell a new story, albeit one with very familiar elements.
The film really is stunning, though. I didn't see it in 3D*, but I'm told it's makes good use of the technology. As with the original, the film does a lot with a little, making very attractive settings through the use of geometrically simple structures and monochromatic designs. The music is a fantastic companion to the visuals as well; I liked Daft Punk before, but they truly outdid themselves for this film.
Should you see it? If you're a fan of the original, then you won't want to miss this. If you like sci-fi action films, then this is worth your time. If you're into the spectacle of films, and loved Avatar because of how pretty it was, then you'll probably enjoy this as well. Everyone else . . . your mileage may vary.
You might also be interested in this review of the movie, courtesy of Movie Bob, over at The Escapist.
You might recall (by scrolling down the page) that I wrote about a little game called TRON 2.0 back in August. This was partly as preparation for the upcoming film, TRON: Legacy. Well, I saw said sequel over my Christmas holiday. (For what it's worth, none of the content of TRON 2.0 is referenced by the movie.)
Overall, I liked it. I think this is partially because of my fondness for the concepts and atmosphere of the series. The film isn't breaking any new ground, story-wise. In fact, I'd argue that most of it is simply recycled from the first film. So, light on plot, heavy on spectacle; exactly the reasons I disliked Avatar. I'm still not sure what to make of that, except to say that Legacy seemed to at least attempt to tell a new story, albeit one with very familiar elements.
The film really is stunning, though. I didn't see it in 3D*, but I'm told it's makes good use of the technology. As with the original, the film does a lot with a little, making very attractive settings through the use of geometrically simple structures and monochromatic designs. The music is a fantastic companion to the visuals as well; I liked Daft Punk before, but they truly outdid themselves for this film.
Should you see it? If you're a fan of the original, then you won't want to miss this. If you like sci-fi action films, then this is worth your time. If you're into the spectacle of films, and loved Avatar because of how pretty it was, then you'll probably enjoy this as well. Everyone else . . . your mileage may vary.
You might also be interested in this review of the movie, courtesy of Movie Bob, over at The Escapist.
* - I really, really hate the surge of 3D films coming out in the last 5 or so years. I find it to be mostly a gimmick, as well as an excuse to sell $15 tickets. After all, if you're having trouble putting butts in seats, why not reverse that trend with double-price tickets and a technology that isn't easily replicated at home?
But mostly, it's because I wear glasses. Those 3D glasses you have to wear are a massive pain to wear for the course of a movie, and eventually those movies end up making me vaguely motion sick. Stupid 3D movies.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Resolve
It's that time of year again, when people start thinking about everything they've botched up the previous year and what they'd like to change in the coming year. Or at least what they'll complain about botching up next year.
Like most other Americans, I have some fairly predictable resolutions: Spend less, save more, lose weight, spend more time with enriching hobbies and less with the unfruitful ones.
Still, this post over at Shamus's blog had me thinking about my own little corner of the internet. I always did like blogging, even when my only hits were the three friends who would check in a day, various trolls, and random Google hits that didn't result in anyone actually sticking around to read something. I really do regret letting the blog sit more or less fallow this year.
I think part of the problem is that I just don't have the same passions as I did when I started this back in college. I used to write a lot about philosophy and religion then, but I was exposed to so much more at the time. These days I just don't have the same exposure to material to inspire anything worth writing about (which is probably an indictment of my reading habits, if nothing else).
News commentary and criticism? Eh, perhaps, but it's not like there isn't enough of that going on. Plus, college newspapers always made it so easy, given the goofy things that they'll publish.
Science writing? I actually wish I did more of that. I'm about to finish Ben Goldacre's book (which deserves its own post, really), and it's definitely inspired me to write more about responsible science. It's the sort of thing I'd enjoy getting paid to do, although it would mean writing more and writing better. I'm no slob with the written word, but I've been lazy, and there's plenty of people out there willing to bang out 500 words about why some study or other is a bunch of horse pucky. If I want to go that direction, I'll need to step my game up.
Video games? Goodness knows that occupies enough of my writing anyhow, little though it is. Unfortunately, most of what I play these days is World of Warcraft, and I can really only write so much about that. Oh, there's an audience for it, but I don't want that to be my occupying focus.
It was suggested to me that getting back into blogging would be easier if I refocused the blog. Having a clear purpose would help, and feeling passionate about my topic(s) would go even further. I'm still not sure what that is, but at least I know that I need to figure it out. Probably not the most exciting resolution, but it's a start.
Happy New Year, folks, and good luck in 2011.
Like most other Americans, I have some fairly predictable resolutions: Spend less, save more, lose weight, spend more time with enriching hobbies and less with the unfruitful ones.
Still, this post over at Shamus's blog had me thinking about my own little corner of the internet. I always did like blogging, even when my only hits were the three friends who would check in a day, various trolls, and random Google hits that didn't result in anyone actually sticking around to read something. I really do regret letting the blog sit more or less fallow this year.
I think part of the problem is that I just don't have the same passions as I did when I started this back in college. I used to write a lot about philosophy and religion then, but I was exposed to so much more at the time. These days I just don't have the same exposure to material to inspire anything worth writing about (which is probably an indictment of my reading habits, if nothing else).
News commentary and criticism? Eh, perhaps, but it's not like there isn't enough of that going on. Plus, college newspapers always made it so easy, given the goofy things that they'll publish.
Science writing? I actually wish I did more of that. I'm about to finish Ben Goldacre's book (which deserves its own post, really), and it's definitely inspired me to write more about responsible science. It's the sort of thing I'd enjoy getting paid to do, although it would mean writing more and writing better. I'm no slob with the written word, but I've been lazy, and there's plenty of people out there willing to bang out 500 words about why some study or other is a bunch of horse pucky. If I want to go that direction, I'll need to step my game up.
Video games? Goodness knows that occupies enough of my writing anyhow, little though it is. Unfortunately, most of what I play these days is World of Warcraft, and I can really only write so much about that. Oh, there's an audience for it, but I don't want that to be my occupying focus.
It was suggested to me that getting back into blogging would be easier if I refocused the blog. Having a clear purpose would help, and feeling passionate about my topic(s) would go even further. I'm still not sure what that is, but at least I know that I need to figure it out. Probably not the most exciting resolution, but it's a start.
Happy New Year, folks, and good luck in 2011.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
TRON
If you've seen any movies this summer, then you've likely seen at least one preview for the upcoming TRON: Legacy. The original TRON was released early in my life, so I can't say exactly how the visuals compared to other movies at the time. Still, the previews for the sequel look very attractive with today's level of CG animation.
To prepare for the new movie, I rented the original a few weeks ago. It wasn't nearly as good as I remembered it, though its problems weren't much different than any other 80s movie, Sci-Fi or otherwise. Still, the movie has maintained a following for almost 30 years, so it did something right.
The jaunt to the past inspired me to partake in another TRON franchise, mostly to see if it gets utilized for the upcoming Legacy: TRON 2.0. (Why yes, I am about to talk about a video game well after it was relevant. How did you know?)
Continue below the fold
To prepare for the new movie, I rented the original a few weeks ago. It wasn't nearly as good as I remembered it, though its problems weren't much different than any other 80s movie, Sci-Fi or otherwise. Still, the movie has maintained a following for almost 30 years, so it did something right.
The jaunt to the past inspired me to partake in another TRON franchise, mostly to see if it gets utilized for the upcoming Legacy: TRON 2.0. (Why yes, I am about to talk about a video game well after it was relevant. How did you know?)
Continue below the fold
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Dresden Files
I've always been reluctant to be too critical of variations in media. What I mean is, if someone turns a book into a movie, I try not to get hung up on the differences and simply appreciate each for its various merits. Not that there isn't room for that. It's just that the criticisms are often a measure of what you wanted the translation to be, not what it is.
At least, until I started reading The Dresden Files.
Originally, I was introduced to the short-lived (one season) series on the Sci-Fi Channel (before it became SyFy). The premise: Harry Dresden is a hard-boiled Chicago PI, and also a wizard. He's not shy about it; in fact, he advertises in the phone book as a wizard. He spends his time handling various cases for clients as well as providing his services as a consultant for the Chicago PD on cases that are "unusual." He uses a hockey stick as a staff and a drum stick as a wand. It's like Harry Potter meets film noir.
At the time, I appreciated it for what it was. Then I found out a friend of mine read the book series, and a few loans later I was tearing through the books. It's been a while since I've gotten to enjoy fiction like this, and it's been refreshing. Maddening, too, since I finish them so fast I'm left with a constant thirst for more.
Recently, my girlfriend rented the DVDs of the television show for me, and it's been bittersweet. It's fun seeing the show again, but I'm having trouble appreciating it the way I did before I knew about the books. The show was cheesy, to be sure, and definitely would have benefited from being picked up by any station but Sci-Fi. Still, I find myself picking it apart for all the things that differ from the book. There's perfectly reasonable explanations for the changes in many cases, but it's difficult to enjoy all the same when I spend more time thinking about the differences than appreciating it for what it is.
Not much else to say on this, really. Just a recommendation to pick up the books, and a plea to some other network to clean up after Sci-Fi's failure to recognize a quality franchise when it comes along.
At least, until I started reading The Dresden Files.
Originally, I was introduced to the short-lived (one season) series on the Sci-Fi Channel (before it became SyFy). The premise: Harry Dresden is a hard-boiled Chicago PI, and also a wizard. He's not shy about it; in fact, he advertises in the phone book as a wizard. He spends his time handling various cases for clients as well as providing his services as a consultant for the Chicago PD on cases that are "unusual." He uses a hockey stick as a staff and a drum stick as a wand. It's like Harry Potter meets film noir.
At the time, I appreciated it for what it was. Then I found out a friend of mine read the book series, and a few loans later I was tearing through the books. It's been a while since I've gotten to enjoy fiction like this, and it's been refreshing. Maddening, too, since I finish them so fast I'm left with a constant thirst for more.
Recently, my girlfriend rented the DVDs of the television show for me, and it's been bittersweet. It's fun seeing the show again, but I'm having trouble appreciating it the way I did before I knew about the books. The show was cheesy, to be sure, and definitely would have benefited from being picked up by any station but Sci-Fi. Still, I find myself picking it apart for all the things that differ from the book. There's perfectly reasonable explanations for the changes in many cases, but it's difficult to enjoy all the same when I spend more time thinking about the differences than appreciating it for what it is.
Not much else to say on this, really. Just a recommendation to pick up the books, and a plea to some other network to clean up after Sci-Fi's failure to recognize a quality franchise when it comes along.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
It could always be worse
So, I caught the last half-hour or so of the LOST series finale, which effectively doubled the amount of time I've spent watching the show over all. Call it a mix of morbid curiosity and a desire to understand the reactions of my friends who watched it. Apparently they went the "Fulfill characters' stories" route rather than the "Explain all the sci-fi mysteries" route, which angered a lot of people. I guess everyone was already dead the entire time, or there was a parallel universe that was purgatory, or something. I didn't get it.
It actually reminded me of the ending of a series I watched on Cartoon Network a few years ago, The Big-O. The premise was awesome: A post-apocalyptic world where the only survivors were the inhabitants of Paradigm City, a place controlled by a corporation with an agenda. Forty years after the event which turned the rest of the world into an uninhabitable wasteland, nobody in the city has any memory of their lives before the incident, leaving them to struggle with understanding their history, their lives, the traditions and customs that drive and bind them . . . and at the center of it all, the protagonist: Roger Smith, a billionaire superhero reminiscent of Batman. Oh, except instead of fighting crime in a funny suit, he acts as a "negotiator" for hire and fights monsters and robots in his giant robot ("megadeus"), the Big O.
Neat, eh? As the series wears on, we learn a lot about the world. People slowly discover memories, personal or otherwise, of life before the apocalypse, something of great interest to the Paradigm Corporation. We learn that there is life outside of Paradigm City, both when giant robots attack from beyond the city, but also when Roger encounters a woman who works for "foreign powers."
Roger seems to be on the cusp of discovering the relationship between the Paradigm Corporation, the apocalypse, and the foreign powers when the series ends. As it ends, Roger finishes a fight with another giant robot, and . . . we see him open the door into a control room, where one of the characters sits and operates a console that seems to be directing everything.
That's right . . . it was all just an illusion being programmed by someone. What a ridiculous cop out.
Still, at least it's an ending. Many of the shows I enjoyed watching were started, only to drop before they finished (Inuyasha), or be transferred off of the channel I watched it on (Naruto). Some of them suffered from a lack of interest and vanished before they intended to (Undergrads), while still others carried on but became a shell of what they once were (Heroes, The Simpsons).
So, LOST fans, it could be worse. At least you got an ending, even if you didn't like it.
It actually reminded me of the ending of a series I watched on Cartoon Network a few years ago, The Big-O. The premise was awesome: A post-apocalyptic world where the only survivors were the inhabitants of Paradigm City, a place controlled by a corporation with an agenda. Forty years after the event which turned the rest of the world into an uninhabitable wasteland, nobody in the city has any memory of their lives before the incident, leaving them to struggle with understanding their history, their lives, the traditions and customs that drive and bind them . . . and at the center of it all, the protagonist: Roger Smith, a billionaire superhero reminiscent of Batman. Oh, except instead of fighting crime in a funny suit, he acts as a "negotiator" for hire and fights monsters and robots in his giant robot ("megadeus"), the Big O.
Neat, eh? As the series wears on, we learn a lot about the world. People slowly discover memories, personal or otherwise, of life before the apocalypse, something of great interest to the Paradigm Corporation. We learn that there is life outside of Paradigm City, both when giant robots attack from beyond the city, but also when Roger encounters a woman who works for "foreign powers."
Roger seems to be on the cusp of discovering the relationship between the Paradigm Corporation, the apocalypse, and the foreign powers when the series ends. As it ends, Roger finishes a fight with another giant robot, and . . . we see him open the door into a control room, where one of the characters sits and operates a console that seems to be directing everything.
That's right . . . it was all just an illusion being programmed by someone. What a ridiculous cop out.
Still, at least it's an ending. Many of the shows I enjoyed watching were started, only to drop before they finished (Inuyasha), or be transferred off of the channel I watched it on (Naruto). Some of them suffered from a lack of interest and vanished before they intended to (Undergrads), while still others carried on but became a shell of what they once were (Heroes, The Simpsons).
So, LOST fans, it could be worse. At least you got an ending, even if you didn't like it.
Saturday, March 06, 2010
You're not qualified to have fun
I haven't written about it much here, but back in 2008 I started playing World of Warcraft. I always wondered why people found such games so addicting, but, well, now I know. I haven't written much about it because it's kind of a specialized interest; it's easy enough to write a single review of a game, or even a short series, but WoW is one of those games that can take up a lot of attention. People even have full-time jobs just writing about it!
Recently in game, I applied to a new guild. For those who don't know, players band together in groups called guilds to facilitate higher level play. Often, the "endgame" content requires 10-25 players to accomplish, so being a part of a guild not only provides a (semi)stable structure for doing so, but also offers a stronger sense of community than you get otherwise. In many ways, it's almost required to be a part of a guild in order to see that endgame content. You can just group together with strangers (pick-up groups, or "pugs"), but often times this can be very stressful; expectations are very high, and there's very little patience or tolerance of mistakes. Sometimes it's akin to demanding a PhD for a burger flipping job.
I recently applied to join a guild on my server. If you think it sounds funny to say that I applied, as if it were an actual job, then you're not alone. I was rejected, and my reaction was worth pondering for a moment.
Some people take this game very seriously. There are people who play many, many hours a day and are highly competitive about completing "world first" achievements. Even though some guilds will never play on that level, they are very serious about completing the same content. As such, their standards can be exceedingly high. They won't take someone into an instance who hasn't been there before (which leads many players into a Catch-22 scenario). The wide variety ways that you can customize your character become irrelevant, as suddenly there are "right" choices and "wrong" choices. There are people who will tell you that you're a substandard player based on, say, a 1% difference in health pool, or a 2% difference in damage. The fervent belief in such things can be almost religious.
It's an odd thing, being rejected for what is, at its heart, a hobby. I mean, it might make some sense for an intramural sports team, for example (although people would understandably be upset about perpetually riding the pine), but this is a video game. I can't imagine someone saying, "No, you're not good enough at Donkey Kong, you can't play with me. You'll drag down the entire game."
There's certainly something to be said about playing as well as you can. If you're counting on nine (or 24) other people to put on their "A game," it can be frustrating that progress is blocked because someone is slacking off in one way or another. Still, the level of elitism and hostility that arises out of a cooperative hobby is very surprising sometimes. Perhaps it's just an extension of the GIF theory.
Recently in game, I applied to a new guild. For those who don't know, players band together in groups called guilds to facilitate higher level play. Often, the "endgame" content requires 10-25 players to accomplish, so being a part of a guild not only provides a (semi)stable structure for doing so, but also offers a stronger sense of community than you get otherwise. In many ways, it's almost required to be a part of a guild in order to see that endgame content. You can just group together with strangers (pick-up groups, or "pugs"), but often times this can be very stressful; expectations are very high, and there's very little patience or tolerance of mistakes. Sometimes it's akin to demanding a PhD for a burger flipping job.
I recently applied to join a guild on my server. If you think it sounds funny to say that I applied, as if it were an actual job, then you're not alone. I was rejected, and my reaction was worth pondering for a moment.
Some people take this game very seriously. There are people who play many, many hours a day and are highly competitive about completing "world first" achievements. Even though some guilds will never play on that level, they are very serious about completing the same content. As such, their standards can be exceedingly high. They won't take someone into an instance who hasn't been there before (which leads many players into a Catch-22 scenario). The wide variety ways that you can customize your character become irrelevant, as suddenly there are "right" choices and "wrong" choices. There are people who will tell you that you're a substandard player based on, say, a 1% difference in health pool, or a 2% difference in damage. The fervent belief in such things can be almost religious.
It's an odd thing, being rejected for what is, at its heart, a hobby. I mean, it might make some sense for an intramural sports team, for example (although people would understandably be upset about perpetually riding the pine), but this is a video game. I can't imagine someone saying, "No, you're not good enough at Donkey Kong, you can't play with me. You'll drag down the entire game."
There's certainly something to be said about playing as well as you can. If you're counting on nine (or 24) other people to put on their "A game," it can be frustrating that progress is blocked because someone is slacking off in one way or another. Still, the level of elitism and hostility that arises out of a cooperative hobby is very surprising sometimes. Perhaps it's just an extension of the GIF theory.
Back from the wilderness
Ah, the old girl's still here. Glad to know Google doesn't delete these things when a blogger disappears for a few months.
So where was I? The demands of graduate school left me studying ~8 hrs a day for, well, almost two months. It's not like I couldn't have found five minutes at the end of the day to jot down something, but there's only so much mileage you can get out of, "Exams suck. Grad school sucks. Is it March yet?" You wouldn't believe how consuming it can be.
A lot of things are up in the air still, but my hope is to get back to regular posting. Whatever "regular" means for this blog, at least.
So where was I? The demands of graduate school left me studying ~8 hrs a day for, well, almost two months. It's not like I couldn't have found five minutes at the end of the day to jot down something, but there's only so much mileage you can get out of, "Exams suck. Grad school sucks. Is it March yet?" You wouldn't believe how consuming it can be.
A lot of things are up in the air still, but my hope is to get back to regular posting. Whatever "regular" means for this blog, at least.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Forging science in the CRUcible
I should probably be burned alive for the title pun, but never mind that. I've neglected to write about a story that broke before Thanksgiving, but I feel compelled to finally do so. I don't really have a good link to a "summary" of the whole story, but you probably don't have to look very far if you just google "Climategate." (Ugh. Can we please get away from adding "gate" to word to name a controversy? It's just silly, people.)
Edit: Ah, I have such little imagination. Here's one from the Times of UK, and here's one AEI.
Here's what I can recall from memory:
A few weeks ago, some computers purportedly hacked at the East Anglia (that's England) Climate Research Unit and a vast array of information leaked onto the internet. Email, data, modeling programs and algorithms . . . it was a treasure trove of information. Analysis of the leaked information has led people to conclude that life at CRU was fishy at best and fraudulent at worst. The emails indicated that the scientists there were purposely avoiding FOIA requests for their data (which they are required to give, since they receive American grant money), spiking the research of colleagues who published research that rejects anthropogenic global warming, and manipulating their data to hide trends which contradicts the AGW hypothesis. As this has been coming to light and calls have been made for investigations, CRU has admitted to destroying data.
Altogether, that's bad. It's very counter-intuitive to how the scientific process is supposed to work. You might want to say that this isn't that big of a deal because this is only one place, and in general peer review is supposed to root out bad science and bad scientists. One problem is that apparently the CRU crew were big players in the AGW scheme, playing big parts in collaborations such as the IPCC. Additionally, it seems that a lot of secondary work is based off of what CRU produces, so if they manipulate their data or produce faulty read-outs, those errors may be multiplied down the road.
Of course, you'll want to read about it yourself. Some people are debating about the implications for the veracity of the AGW hypothesis altogether. I'll save my thoughts on that for another post. Instead, I'd wanted a chance to link to this Wall Street Journal opinion piece saying that the credibility of science is on the line because of this.
I sympathize with a lot of his main point. The general public is scientifically illiterate in ways that make me uncomfortable sometimes. Combine that with the fervent, political way in which AGW has been presented to them, and the sudden development that bigwigs up top are putting down the answers that they want and then saying the dog ate their homework, well, I can see how that might lower the general trust in that field specifically and the sciences as a whole.
Still, I'm reminded of another time that big players were found to have falsified their data in a highly controversial field. It wasn't too long ago that a Korean scientist was found to have forged data related to embryonic stem cell research. It's unfortunate that I don't remember either his name or the consequences of his shenanigans, but I do remember writing about it on this blog. My point being that, despite his actions sullying the "respectability" of the field, that area of research has continued onward.
Of course, the two topics are only similar in that there was scientific fraud being committed. That doesn't make this a bad example, but it does mean that we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. This could very well be the turning point at which AGW stops being the "consensus" position and politicians stop trying to implement catastrophic economic policies based on the word of over-zealous scientists. Or it might change absolutely nothing, with a few empty words spoken about how good it is to pick out the bad eggs but that the science is still sound, settled, and must be acted upon with all haste.
I'm hoping it's the former. Time will tell.
Edit: Ah, I have such little imagination. Here's one from the Times of UK, and here's one AEI.
Here's what I can recall from memory:
A few weeks ago, some computers purportedly hacked at the East Anglia (that's England) Climate Research Unit and a vast array of information leaked onto the internet. Email, data, modeling programs and algorithms . . . it was a treasure trove of information. Analysis of the leaked information has led people to conclude that life at CRU was fishy at best and fraudulent at worst. The emails indicated that the scientists there were purposely avoiding FOIA requests for their data (which they are required to give, since they receive American grant money), spiking the research of colleagues who published research that rejects anthropogenic global warming, and manipulating their data to hide trends which contradicts the AGW hypothesis. As this has been coming to light and calls have been made for investigations, CRU has admitted to destroying data.
Altogether, that's bad. It's very counter-intuitive to how the scientific process is supposed to work. You might want to say that this isn't that big of a deal because this is only one place, and in general peer review is supposed to root out bad science and bad scientists. One problem is that apparently the CRU crew were big players in the AGW scheme, playing big parts in collaborations such as the IPCC. Additionally, it seems that a lot of secondary work is based off of what CRU produces, so if they manipulate their data or produce faulty read-outs, those errors may be multiplied down the road.
Of course, you'll want to read about it yourself. Some people are debating about the implications for the veracity of the AGW hypothesis altogether. I'll save my thoughts on that for another post. Instead, I'd wanted a chance to link to this Wall Street Journal opinion piece saying that the credibility of science is on the line because of this.
I sympathize with a lot of his main point. The general public is scientifically illiterate in ways that make me uncomfortable sometimes. Combine that with the fervent, political way in which AGW has been presented to them, and the sudden development that bigwigs up top are putting down the answers that they want and then saying the dog ate their homework, well, I can see how that might lower the general trust in that field specifically and the sciences as a whole.
Still, I'm reminded of another time that big players were found to have falsified their data in a highly controversial field. It wasn't too long ago that a Korean scientist was found to have forged data related to embryonic stem cell research. It's unfortunate that I don't remember either his name or the consequences of his shenanigans, but I do remember writing about it on this blog. My point being that, despite his actions sullying the "respectability" of the field, that area of research has continued onward.
Of course, the two topics are only similar in that there was scientific fraud being committed. That doesn't make this a bad example, but it does mean that we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. This could very well be the turning point at which AGW stops being the "consensus" position and politicians stop trying to implement catastrophic economic policies based on the word of over-zealous scientists. Or it might change absolutely nothing, with a few empty words spoken about how good it is to pick out the bad eggs but that the science is still sound, settled, and must be acted upon with all haste.
I'm hoping it's the former. Time will tell.
Friday, November 13, 2009
HPV Vaccination Strategies
Ugh, it makes me sad to see that Oblivion post still sitting there at the top of the page. It's like a testament to my inability to finish projects. I still have half a dozen things to say about that game, but it stops seeming like a good idea when my last entry on the subject was almost a month ago. Where does the time go?
In any case, let's talk about something else.
Not long ago, my virology class hosted a lecture on Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) by Dr. John Schiller, the guy who pioneered the work that led to Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. Needless to say, it was a very informative lecture. It made me reflect on how there's such a poor spread of scientific and medical information to the masses. Sometimes I don't think it's even just that the journalists who spread this information get things wrong, though this factors in enough, but that many laypeople don't have the patience to learn about such things.
Anyhow, one of the misconceptions I had going into this lecture was that the carcinogenic HPV strains were mainly a female problem. This turns out not to be the case. While they do cause cervical cancer in women, they can also cause rectal cancer in men. Of course, this is only a problem for men who engage in anal sex with other men, and that isn't a big portion of the population. The number of cases of rectal cancer reported each year in men is very low.
However, when it comes to vaccination strategies, this is when it starts getting complicated.
Right now the idea is to vaccinate young girls. Since they stand the largest chance of getting the infection and it is easier to check for an infection in them, there is the most to gain by vaccinating them. While the vaccine is now approved for males, its utility is unclear. With the exception of rectal tissue transformation, men are asymptomatic as far as this disease goes.
One could argue that it would be discriminatory to spend public/insurance dollars vaccinating one sex over the other when both are just as vulnerable to the disease. However, the actual rates of infection and cancer would make it hard to justify vaccinating both sexes with limited funds rather than just the one sex that is more likely to be affected by the infection.
Of course, people can buy the vaccine on their own, even if insurance won't cover it. The price will probably drop, too, now that a competitor to Gardasil is on its way. However, we've already seen lots of opposition to this from some parents. The idea of vaccinating their girls against an STD is distasteful, as if preparing them for a life of licentious behavior, or at least acquiescing to the idea. How much more resistance do you think will arise for male vaccinations? "Hey parents, vaccinate your boys just in case they turn out to be gay!" I'm not sure that'll fly. The age is a complication here as well. The vaccine is being recommend, from the looks of it, for children aged 10-14. How many gay men would have had the foresight to get vaccinated at this age? How many would balk at getting it "just in case?" It's quite the conundrum.
I'm not sure I have any real gems of wisdom to add in here, no grand suggestions to make all of this go away. I simply found it interesting.
In any case, let's talk about something else.
Not long ago, my virology class hosted a lecture on Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) by Dr. John Schiller, the guy who pioneered the work that led to Gardasil, the HPV vaccine. Needless to say, it was a very informative lecture. It made me reflect on how there's such a poor spread of scientific and medical information to the masses. Sometimes I don't think it's even just that the journalists who spread this information get things wrong, though this factors in enough, but that many laypeople don't have the patience to learn about such things.
Anyhow, one of the misconceptions I had going into this lecture was that the carcinogenic HPV strains were mainly a female problem. This turns out not to be the case. While they do cause cervical cancer in women, they can also cause rectal cancer in men. Of course, this is only a problem for men who engage in anal sex with other men, and that isn't a big portion of the population. The number of cases of rectal cancer reported each year in men is very low.
However, when it comes to vaccination strategies, this is when it starts getting complicated.
Right now the idea is to vaccinate young girls. Since they stand the largest chance of getting the infection and it is easier to check for an infection in them, there is the most to gain by vaccinating them. While the vaccine is now approved for males, its utility is unclear. With the exception of rectal tissue transformation, men are asymptomatic as far as this disease goes.
One could argue that it would be discriminatory to spend public/insurance dollars vaccinating one sex over the other when both are just as vulnerable to the disease. However, the actual rates of infection and cancer would make it hard to justify vaccinating both sexes with limited funds rather than just the one sex that is more likely to be affected by the infection.
Of course, people can buy the vaccine on their own, even if insurance won't cover it. The price will probably drop, too, now that a competitor to Gardasil is on its way. However, we've already seen lots of opposition to this from some parents. The idea of vaccinating their girls against an STD is distasteful, as if preparing them for a life of licentious behavior, or at least acquiescing to the idea. How much more resistance do you think will arise for male vaccinations? "Hey parents, vaccinate your boys just in case they turn out to be gay!" I'm not sure that'll fly. The age is a complication here as well. The vaccine is being recommend, from the looks of it, for children aged 10-14. How many gay men would have had the foresight to get vaccinated at this age? How many would balk at getting it "just in case?" It's quite the conundrum.
I'm not sure I have any real gems of wisdom to add in here, no grand suggestions to make all of this go away. I simply found it interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)