incognitoinlatin's Xanga

I dream in Futurama

Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:49:07 GMT

The following is only an excerpt from the powerfully odd dream I experienced last night.

A space-creature, exiled from his ship, falls marooned to earth. Upon crash landing the creature--who in all respects appears to be a gorilla--encounters two figures walking across some wide, windswept steppe. Inquiring of them their business, the one replies,
"We're collecting lemurs."
"Oh, so you are vegetarians here?" asks the space-creature. Without skipping a beat he enters a Wagner-accompanied reverie.

Thought Bubble set to "Ride of the Valkyries."
The space gorilla drags a large, hand-fashioned ballista over the steppe. Overhead, a low-flying airbus passes. The gorilla carefully aims his ballista and fires a bolt opening into a large net, ensnaring the aircraft and crashing it. As the passengers disembark from the smoking remains, the gorilla gobbles them up one by one as they step out the emergency exit.
End Thought Bubble

"No, we're not vegetarians," interrupts the figure.

The Top Ten Games of the Aughts

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:15:26 GMT

Allow me to clarify the parameters of this list. Do I mean the "best," "most influential," or most "personally beloved" games? Yes. Somewhere, deep in my gut, the criteria for admittance is gestating, and I will allow that inner voice to guide me. Then again, it's more of a gurgle than a voice and could be "digesting" rather than "gestating." (Specifically, the TVP nuggets I just dined on.)

10. Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast
What: FPS/3rd-person action game following a Jedi exile on his quest to regain his abilities and save something. (Girl? Galaxy? The Universe's Ultimate Curry? I can't remember, which goes to show the plot really stays with you.)
Why: Enter a room filled with stormtroopers. Force pull half-a-dozen into the air and watch them drop. Lightning blast two dozen, and throw your lightsaber in a circular arc through their stunned bodies. Somersault over the lone Sith adversary and strike a critical blow where his defenses are weak--from above him. Land before all your opponents have even finished slumping to the floor and feel the adrenaline rush as you realize you are one of the most formidable forces (get it?) in the galaxy: a Jedi.

Apart from the slow-to-start but ultimately pitch perfect campaign, I sunk dozens of hours playing multiplayer at LAN parties, and my positive memories are wrapped up with fond recollections of some of my oldest friends. If all that's not enough, JKII employed the considerable talents of Mark Hamil to reprise his role as the Joker.

9. Dawn of War
What: Sci-fi RTS based of the established IP of a...table-top strategy game?
Why: The harshness of 00's (Oh-Oh's) towards RTS's was only surpassed by their abuse for the endangered-species adventure genre. While the 90's ended on a high of creativity with the three-dimensional Homeworld, stagnation and audience decline have troubled this once celebrated category and most developers are content to release variations on the harvest resources/pump out units/engage in rock/paper/scissors combat formula. At least with DoW, Relic (who also developed Homeworld...hmmm...I just now noticed the connection) brought the "assault" mode of FPSes to real-time strategy and tried something different. It's a formula that works, and I spent many hours with friends attempting (and failing) to become adept at the small-squad micromanagement required for victory.

8. Sam & Max Save the World
What: Telltale Games resurrect both Lucasart's classic not-franchise and the very undead Adventure games themselves.
Why: Most developers can manage to make a good adventure game (Grim Fandango) or a profitable one (Nancy Drew Does Something Generic in a Mansion Like Saving Lost Shoes and This Isn't a Real Title But I Can't Be Bothered to Research an Authentic One), but not both at once. Telltale Games, however, have managed to combine both adequate/good gameplay and a business-savvy episodic content model, allowing them to churn out product-after-product of above-mediocre titles in a much-cherished but formerly presumed dead category. This spot really goes to Telltale Games, but since a company isn't technically a "game," I'm giving it to the first release to pioneer their technique. Perhaps it should have been titled Sam & Max Save Adventure Gaming.

(Naw. Who would've bought into that far-fetched premise?)

7. Knights of the Old Republic
What: A soldier from a galaxy far, far away and a long, long, long, long, extra-long time ago must choose what path to tread between light and dark on the quest to save--or rule--the galaxy.
Why: Solid RPG gameplay makes this entry fun, virtuoso storytelling makes this game transcendent. The expansive plot takes you across multiple worlds, while also finding space to give dimension to even the smallest characters. Excellent voice-acting and music service the experience, which is not only the best Star Wars tale written this decade (for any medium, natch), but one of the best sci-fi stories period. The jaw-dropping twist also makes this a Sixth Sense for the aughts, of sorts.

6. Portal
What: Test-subject in scientific lab attempts escape demented AI captor via ingenious use of dimension-warping experimental technology.
Why: It's the marriage of innovation coupled with unpredictable, hilarious, and compelling narrative. The writing is top-notch, brilliant sci-fi. The conceptually-simple game mechanic (or maybe not; it's about bending two physically separated locations to a single point via the use of additional dimensions) has legs that carry it to endless applications. It's broad appeal (no violence! Just puzzle-solving and turret disarming!) has led quotes like "The cake is a lie" to enter our mass culture and be printed on our t-shirts. Finally, the poignant and heart-rending resolution between a woman and her companion cube haunts me to this day.

5. Half-Life 2
This was another genre-advancing entry from Gabe Newell and the team at Valve. While their commitment to story is always trumpeted, I appreciate them more for the techniques they contribute than actual plot and characters. Lifelike animation, seamless lip-syncing, and the much-used peripheral scripted scene (a giant walker lumbers down the street just in the corner of your vision) are standard, now, but Valve set the bar.

Like a full-length technical demo, Valve showcased physics-based gameplay done right and proved that beautiful, hardware-pushing engines need not be unscalable to half-a-decade old equipment. That you could run the game on your ancient eMachine with a smooth framerate was a subtle achievement, but I think an important one, emphasizing some positive message about inclusivity or eco-friendliness or something. I'm tired and bitter about games making me purchase new video cards every two years. There.

You can read my original review here.

4. World of Warcraft
What: I don't know, I've never played it.
Why: Millions upon millions of people pay exorbitant subscriber fees to do repetitive virtual tasks in a dated graphical environment. And I'm afraid to even install the trial (which comes bundled free with video cards, mice, laser printers, pizzas, sunglasses, and shampoo) because of the habit-forming reputation this game/modus vivendi has. This is a significant contribution to the industry, much in the way tobacco contributes to the GDP or lotteries contribute to financing public education. I don't have to form an addiction to appreciate all three of these things exist. Like the War on Drugs needs marijuana, so the PC Gaming sector probably is dependent upon this gem for its survival.

3. Bioshock
What: Crash survivor ventures into underwater failed art-deco Randian social Utopian experiment, where philosophical questions are as dangerous as bullets.
Why: This is the first game I have encountered that uses the intrinsic nature of videogaming itself to make a point about free will. This clever utilization of the medium--which has been a long time coming--is a significant advance for the domain, and will hopefully inspire further ambitious and mature treatments of "mere" games. When coupled with immersive (and chilling) atmosphere, fantastic art direction, genius-level writing and dialog, and competent technical achievements Bioshock serves as a standout entry for the decade.

2. Halo (the original)
What: The Master Captain--or somebody--has to fight...oh...things in...the future? And there's a ring, like a really BIG one.
Why: Despite its underwhelming basis (I still have not played a Halo campaign to completion, and they're brief), it somehow overcomes this shortcoming in multiplayer which is nothing less than an addictive, polished, and finely balanced experience. This is Goldeneye for the New Millennium, and so much more, the game that made bringing bigscreen tvs to LAN parties something that actually happens and is not all that unheard-of. Countless hours have been spent with friends building our team coordination and honing our solo abilities. Halo gave me the excuse I needed to see other people in the new decade, and for that reason I will be eternally indebted to Bungie. (Just as Microsoft may be; Halo in large part could be responsible for making them a contender in the console business.)

1. Wii Sports
What: Use vaguely reality-corresponding movements to play a selection of virtual sports.
Why: Arguably responsible for catapulting the flagging Nintendo Entertainment Company (or am I just making that name up?) from its distant-third to market share dominance over competitors Microsoft and Sony. The best-selling game of all time (take that, cousin Mario!), Sports gets credit for introducing gaming to the non-gamers, the grandpas and elderly and supercilious art snobs. Or so the hype goes. But the numbers don't lie, and fifty million copies suggests more games were moved than there are gamers in existence. Maybe I'm just making that up, too.

(Sports comes bundled with the Wii; see how I did that, making sales appear more significant than they are?)

Honorable mentions, or Games I Really Liked, or Wasted Hours of my Life, or Nostalgia Valley:
1. Guild Wars. (170 - 180 hours)
2. Oblivion. (80 - 90 hours)
3. Knights of the Old Republic II. (c. 70 - 80 hours over two play-throughs, plus my sleep-deprived immune system caught the flu during finals week)
4. Prince of Persia series (had to give 70 - 80 hours over four installments)
5. Dragon Age: Origins (67 hours, not counting the many battles I lost)
6. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (c. 40 hours)
7. Tales of Vesperia (c. 40 hours)
8. Eternal Sonata (c. 40 hours, see review here.)

The Top Ten Lists

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:32:00 GMT

As the end of the decade approaches, one concern looms large in my mind: "What if I forget what happened?"

Well, not really, but it seems as good an excuse as any for the nebulously-motivated series of decade-spanning top ten lists I'm about to embark on. While I can't pin down why I want to do them, I will make clear they are for me and absolutely not for you; I'm not making any implied statements to whomever is out there reading these that you can benefit from my superior opinions. My blog has always been more of a diary I don't mind making public because there's never anything juicy enough to keep private, and this case is no exception.

It still boggles me why I want to go to the effort of creating these entries, but I can't dwell on that or I won't ever get anything accomplished.

Allow Me to Introduce Someone Special...

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:30:00 GMT

dakt.org

Home of "Dan and Kermit Talk," the acronym is pronounced DAK-TORG, or DACT-DOT-ORG if you care.

He's just a little baby blog at this point, still stumbling around and eating the carpeting but one day he shall grow into a mighty website who will shake whole internet-paradigms and be the progenitor of at least two buzzwords.

Perhaps the first "dialectic" blog I've heard of (perhaps), dakt.org is a joint venture between Dan H. and myself and already has a devoted following 100% larger than weblog average. There you will find stuff, maybe. I'm not making promises.

dakt.org is recommended for:
1. Those with high blood pressure.
2. Expectant mothers.
3. The elderly.
4. Those who suffer from motion sickness or experience back, chest and neck pain.

It may seem as though I'm just looking for excuses to drop the dakt.org URL. This isn't the whole truth; I'm also looking for excuses to drop the dakt.org RSS URL.

So, subscribe today. You maybe won't regret it.

R.I.P. MP3 Player -- Casualty of Car

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:19:00 GMT

Wednesday, July 22, 8:09 PM -- Sansa MP3 Player finished its slow decline in the wake of an unprovoked attack from Car. Apparently harboring a grudge against Player, in the late afternoon Car drowned the electronic device by dumping rainwater from the sunroof into the cup holder where Player was at rest, creating a makeshift cistern. Unable to swim, Player suffocated and suffered massive brain damage but clung to life another four hours until his batteries were depleted.

The owner of both Car and MP3 Player made this statement: "I don't know why it happened; it was so senseless. I guess Car secretly resented Player for being the most loved piece of technology in or around Car. But that's what happens when you do your task quietly, diligently, and competently! Car stood to learn a thing or two from the manner in which Player always administered his work, and it is tragic Car felt she could not compete so long as Player was around."

Asked how he would recover, the owner replied, "I think I'll get an iPhone. But I'll be sure to not take it anywhere near Car!"

Memorial services will be conducted on Saturday.

On Writing -- A Reply (Guest Post)

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:00:00 GMT

Editor's Preface: My correspondent's reply was insightful and I feel he deserves equal representation here.

Also, the epistle is rapidly vanishing as a literary form and presenting one on a blog is a bit like preserving a little bit of history.

By TJ

As you have had reason to attack this problem of ours as a master logician or top notch general might I am therefore obligated to attend to it as someone exploring human psychology might. For starters I accept fully your arguments to this point; Being, at least in our own minds, above average men if we can create prose of such quality that the writing of it entertains us through to completion then we will certainly have created something that is 'worthy of most men'.

The problem, sadly, is in the truth of the above statement. How many half written books have great men thrown away because they did not live up to their own expectations? When we look back on these great men and the works they destroyed we cringe in pain at the loss of these works. Even the trash of the masters would have value as something to absorb and soak up. But rarely do truly great men ever live up to their own lofty expectations for themselves. Of course this problem would only occur for the truly great.

For those of more meager talents a similar, yet different, problem arises. While one might enjoy the act of writing, even enjoy it enough to pursue it over all other past times, the realization that one's work is merely pedestrian can serve to push away even the most avid writer. People have a desire to do the things in life they do well. This is especially true of some particular personality types. What this means is that the act of writing, the act of performing any activity is tortuous.

Writing comes down to a war of attrition against one's own psyche. For the great writers, their works never live up to their expectations and this can have a damning effect on the psyche. For the ordinary writers, the ordinariness can be a burden to heavy to carry. I believe this results in only two ways in which a book can be completed.

The first method involves stony determination. This is the sort of determination that allows women to lift cars to save their children and men to battle bears when their life is in danger. I'm not sure that just anyone can have this type of determination. A person would need to be able to stand up to obscene amounts of self deprecation. The mocking voice of one's own inner cynic telling you every day that either your work was not very good or that it was no better than anyone else's work... "you are not a unique snowflake", their minds tell them. These men will tower over the great men like the Olympians towered over regular men.

The second way is easier, at least it seems so in my mind. Madness. I believe this method is possible only for the ordinary amongst us, but it masks the man's nature. When an ordinary man believes himself great... He will create works he finds to be above the pack. This will rarely be the case... but it may appear so by virtue of his finishing. The master throws out work he finds not up to his expectations but the fool will work diligently producing a work of great pomposity whose writing is fueled only by their own ego.

Perhaps, you are right. We may be made of sterner stuff than I think. It is possible that we are capable of enjoying the act of writing even if the product does not live up to our own lofty goals. If this is the case, however, I would think we would have something to show for it by now other than half finished chapters and lines in a waste basket. This is not to say that we could not change, evolve, or improve but it is a task not taken lightly.

On Writing

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:00:00 GMT

Oh, sheesh. The following is taken from what started out as an email (and wound up an essay), and which I have decided to share here.

Before we begin, I find it prudent to make a few introductory remarks. The email is about writing and so is, in effect, meta-writing. Meta-anything always gets confusing and is generally to be avoided. Furthermore, the essay stresses the importance of being interesting without actually being interesting. There are several early indicators of this inconsistency, the most notable being it starts by making a mathematical definition. (Nothing opens an essay with a bang quite like dense mathematics.) But, on the other hand, it also emphasizes the importance of writing that which we want to write, and in the end, this is apparently what I felt like writing.

So, without further ado...

What is a book?

Algorithmically, it could be defined as:

p(x) = "page x"

1. p(1) such that p(1) holds the average reader's attention for the span of an entire page.
2. p(n) such that Engaging(p(n)) >= Engaging(p(1))
3. Max n >= min number of required book pages.

My point being thus: it need not be smart, it need not be well-written, it need not be original, it only must be interesting. Of course, a side effect of promoting interest is usually the promotion of some other attribute--for instance, to be "interesting" a book might utilize a great plot. But a deficiency in some or all writing mechanics need not kill the book or its ability to sell, so long as it somehow manages to compensate for these deficiencies and still be arresting.

I don't have a real good proof of how a book could, say, have poor plot, characterization, dialogue, and not provoke a blind rage in the reader. Yet plenty of books are published and sell well in which I can find no redeeming value. If Transformers 2 teaches us anything, it is that quality has no strong correlation with profitability.

Forget being commercial, there may not even be any strict set of requirements for a book to be "good." Take Asimov, for instance. Flat characters, dull prose, and unfocused plots don't disqualify him as one of the masters; it is his ideas alone that show sufficient genius to grip the reader. The abilities we naturally assume are mandatory for quality--I don't believe they're rigid. There may be purists who insist on some traditional forms but they're probably wrong and only put up mental blocks. The book snob within who insists, "You must fulfill such and such" is wrong. Only on one point must we succeed, only one criterion must we fulfill: it must be interesting.

To achieve that goal it is imperative we be authorized to use any means necessary. Stipulate some talent we lack and we are doomed to failure.

The point is this, mere diversion is not so very daunting a challenge. Each of us periodically has the capacity to entertain for a minute; we do this all the time with blogs and little creations. This is unnotable of itself, the ability is widespread and perhaps even common to humanity.

But the commodification of our writing comes down to length. Anyone might occupy my attention for five minutes, but to hold it for hours on end is exceptional, and I willingly pay for it. The laws of supply-and-demand are at work here; the saturation of blogs cheapens all but the most exceptional, but interesting books are still rare enough to be valuable.

While I may be arguing we have no intrinsic deficiencies that preclude us from writing a good book, it still can be taken as an assumption that writing books is hard. Again, that the market is not saturated, and books still have value, points to their relative scarcity. The only explanation for this is difficulty.

But from whence does this difficulty come? There are probably two basic explanations for this: first, most people haven't figured out how to be interesting, or how to stretch their scraps of worthwhile thoughts to the breadth of a full-length book. Second, at least for those of us who are not professional authors or journalists, the act of writing must be a taxing process. Many people, I would venture, simply don't have the energy to devote to the task, especially on top of the obligations of ordinary life.

While these are no meager problems, we have a leg up. Identifying the trouble goes a long way towards fixing it, and by clearly seeing the obstacle we have already have given ourselves an advantage.

As a solution, I propose the writing itself should offload its own burden. If the act of composition is more engaging than all other pastimes, we will naturally prefer it over any competing hobbies. If the words we write are so exciting, enthralling, and alive that they are superior to all other competing activities, writing is what we will do. People are naturally pulled towards doing what they enjoy most, so if writing is what we enjoy most it will be what we do. And the act will be the means by which we gain energy, serving as a feedback loop to supplying its own impetus.

Furthermore, this is not only an answer to the second problem but also to the first (the matter of being interesting), so long as our tastes are disciplined and higher than average. If we self-filter, and create inspiring work, then we will not only be easily driven to completion, but when finished will have a product worthy of most men. Even supposing our tastes only ordinary, still we will have created a work that has worth to us. If it was only wrought due to what we suppose as the inferiority of all other choices, then it was the single best use of our time, even if all others despise it.

The writing process seems a formidable challenge, which is why I am attempting to analytically deconstruct it. Hopefully I have adequately supported my arguments, because my conclusions really are quite liberating. Writing need not fulfill any criteria beyond being absorbing, and all other requirements are basically extraneous. Writing should only, only, only ever be voluntarily attempted if it is fun. Else it will exhaust us in the pursuit, and, being only human we can hardly hope to accomplish that which self-defeats us.

If we are savvy, and play our cards right, the means are within our grasp.

A Dark World

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 22:09:36 GMT

A recurring theme in my life lately is the suggestion I write a book. "You should write a book!" I am told. "I wish you would write a book," my friends inform me.

And I ask myself, Do they have any idea what they're wishing for? What sort of book is it that they would expect me to write? Something funny and light? Brisk and witty? Insightful and thought-provoking?

I can't help suspect if I did write a book it would be entirely unlike anything they were looking for. Perhaps I don't really have any solid evidence for this suspicion, but I do think a book is a very different thing from a forum post, a blog entry, or a status update. It is, well, longer and more difficult. To complete such a task it is reasonable I would need a very different set of motives and somehow I'm skeptical "I'm writing this for so-and-so" could see me through.

No, in fact, the only person I love enough to write a book for would be myself. And the book I would want to write would somehow, I think, tap into some very deep, hidden, and strange places within me, perhaps revealing a side heretofore concealed. It may shock my friends; anything coming out of my head probably wouldn't qualify as "shocking" relative to what is already available in literature, but it may, in fact, be surprising coming from me.

A dear friend once said people saw me as "dark" and at the time I was taken aback. But in the years since I do have the impression I have grown more twisted and cynical. And I have always had a passion for black humor, sober music, and the tragic. I have always seen the world as a basically fallen place, the deepest blackness only intermittently punched through by the smallest shards of light.

Any work of mine would reflect this, or be exhausting I attempt to be something I'm not.

I don't have any basic desire to surprise or disappoint, but I think I don't have the ability or energy to produce what is sought. Really, I have no reason to believe one way or the other, that people would like or dislike what I create. But I know it would almost certainly not be what is asked for, and I think it only fair to warn you.

Best Tips for Girls (On the Topic of Men)

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:26:19 GMT

I had about five people ask for this. You know what they say about being careful what you wish for...

Tips for Women:

A. Don't give us "tips"; it's patronizing and we don't need your help. If we're really hurting we'll ask our mothers or trusted female friends who have gained our respect.

B. Don't create contradictory situations for us. If, for instance, you tell us we are to "lead" our choices are to either follow your lead (which is not leading) or passively ignore it (which is not leading). In this case if you really want us to lead I suggest you aggressively attempt to dominate us, and maybe we'll fight you for the territory. Otherwise you will simply have to submit to our noninvolvement.

C. You can't change us but you're certainly capable of annoying us.

D. If we're behaving irrationally be logical. Your clear thinking can shame us to our senses.

E. When plotting to win our hearts, remember we're social creatures, too. The girl we spend all our time talking to will defeat prettier, fitter rivals in the contest for our affections.

F. But still, every little bit helps. If you are concerned about your image, you could always exercise, eat healthier and dress sharper; you may double your eligibility.

G. It's a cheap trick but cleaning, doing our laundry, and cooking may create a dependency we're strongly adverse to losing.

H. Be honest, with yourself and with us. If that means making fewer promises, then so be it. But if you are consistently bending your word and breaking your pledges how can we possibly expect you to take any prominent vows seriously?

I. With regards to E., remember that not all guys will consider "talking at" them to be "talking TO" them. But some will and if that's your thing form a relationship with a taciturn male.

J. Remember you are strong, too. If we love you we will attempt to care for and protect you. But a relationship is a war, and prepare yourself to fight for us, to fight for God, and to fight for your children. We (with the exception of God) may need you to save us. When you are called upon to shoulder a heavy burden do not shirk it, but trust God and don't sell yourself short.

K. Finally, don't let your life revolve around finding/maintaining a relationship. Lead a meaningful, fulfilling life with or without a man, that way you will be happy without them and irresistible to them. Plus, it's what God wants.

The Plan

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:06:40 GMT

I have a strange plan.

It is probably not unusual for people to have a plan for their lives. At this point I'm only guessing, but it is likely such plans have certain ideas and goals of the sort "marry by age X," or "have a Y dollars by age 45." My plan also has goals in great detail, and a rigid timeline. But what is unusual is how little my plan has to do with what I'd like for my life. The objectives do not begin "I want to..." but rather "This must be..."

I can come up with an "I want to" plan. It would go something like "Get married, produce some children, have a family, make enough money to support them, purchase a boat, retire and die." Of course, at this plan I so far am a colossal failure, but that is not unusual for our plans. They do go awry and that is an accepted part of the process; we fail.

What is alarming about my plan, The Plan, is how I have managed to follow it down to the very letter, even while not trying. Though at the first opportunity I would gladly chuck The Plan and go off to do my own thing it doggedly pursues me. I have no choice but complete each item, right on schedule. I first sensed the shape of The Plan ten years ago, gave voice to it seven, and promptly forgot about it until recently, when I slapped my face and said, "My God! Look how I follow, still. How deterministic of it."

It is almost enough to make one suspect The Plan did not come into being but exists eternally; that I did not create The Plan but stumbled upon it lying fully formed in the woods. Far from being a list of human goals you wonder if it is a description of Destiny; the future to come, transcribed in my head.

One fears such a Plan, awful and unreasonable. Nothing will get in its way, nothing will stop it, The Plan will coldly proceed along its immutable course, with no compassion or tolerance for anything in the path. Not even for me and my desires. When I am relaxed, when my mind is empty and vacant with happiness, then the thought stirs. "I have to stick to The Plan." It comes from out of nowhere, and I struggle on.

With this vaguest of explanations, I enter Phase II. I have to stick to The Plan.

Author's Note: The practical implications of "Phase II" is a temporary internet sabbatical for the next few months.