I was planning to write a big post about Tibet this week, but now that I'm sitting down and writing it, it just seems like such a lame thing to do. The whole situation is just so weird and bad. Early in March, some Tibetans were arrested for a peaceful protests around Lhasa. On March 14th, violent ethnic riots erupt. Ethnic Tibetans were the main instigators of the violence, smashing Han and Hui stores and killing a few people.
Pretty bad, right? The thing is, that's not even the beginning. A few western media outlets picked up the story; several quoted sources (free Tibet groups), falsely blaming ethnic Chinese people for the violence. CNN and several French and German sites stupidly used cropped images of police arrests (the Tibetan rioters in the back ground were cut out), and images of police brutality from India and Nepal, which were attributed in the stories to China. Many of the western media outlets focused on China's history of brutality in the region, glossed over the fact that Tibetans were the instigators in this most recent violent outburst, and generally stuck to their talking points about China, human rights, and Tibet.
Now the fun begins. Overseas Chinese students-- the only mainlanders with access to western media stories because China at that moment was in total media blackout--were outraged at the shoddy reporting in western media and began a wide internet protest campaign. This website was created, among others.
The free Tibet folks, seeing an opportunity to grab the media spotlight, staged protests during China's Olympic tour in Europe and USA. They were violent, and they seemed to go out of their way to alienate by attacking elderly and disabled torch bearers. Western media outlets dropped the ball again by highlighting the protesters and "ominous-looking" Chinese security, and by deciding not to interview Chinese relay participants.
This has only increased Chinese outrage against the media, and western media in general. There have been violent blockades of the French chain, Carrefour, in China. Videos like this are easy to find.
There's so much going on here: hack journalism, angry nationalism, politics (come on, backing out of the opening ceremony is such a lame pointless move), oh yeah, and there is also the issue of oppression, which, while being constantly shoved to the front, often falls back out of sight.
Where to begin?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Senioritis
As I'll be joining the ranks of the unemployed in June, I've completely checked out of work. Instead, my days are filled with surfing of weird and interesting stories on the web. Sadly, the ones that have captured my attention are the whole Mormon splinter group cult thing, the related issue of forced marriage, the pro-Tibet/pro-China protests, and (on a lighter note) trying to figure out if it's a good idea to build a Tivo (doesn't look like it. Hey, NYC people - what are the cable providers up there?).
Being the political junkie that I am, I'm going to discuss the pro-Tibet/pro-China issue. I've already talked about the limitations on having a rational discussion about the situation in Tibet: no reliable information. But what's really surprised me are the pro-China protesters in the U.S. Granted, it seems like many of them are from China (the interviews have lots of foreign students, but I think that's just of function of it being San Fran). However, I can't help feeling a touch of sadness over the fact that they still believe the PRC line, despite massive evidence to the contrary. For example:
Being the political junkie that I am, I'm going to discuss the pro-Tibet/pro-China issue. I've already talked about the limitations on having a rational discussion about the situation in Tibet: no reliable information. But what's really surprised me are the pro-China protesters in the U.S. Granted, it seems like many of them are from China (the interviews have lots of foreign students, but I think that's just of function of it being San Fran). However, I can't help feeling a touch of sadness over the fact that they still believe the PRC line, despite massive evidence to the contrary. For example:
The Olympics shouldn't be political. Please - they've always been political. If they weren't political, then China shouldn't be using it to showcase its global emergence. The entire route was specifically designed TO BE political, like stamping PRC sovereignty over Tibet and Xinjiang.
Support for the PRC. I can certainly understand that people want to support their culture, etc. But, the pro-Chinese demonstrators go further. They support the PRC government. At least with many of the Arabs I know, they are proud of coming from a long culture, but recognize and denounce the human rights abuses, corruption, and general venality of political leaders in the Middle East. The pro-Chinese protestors don't display any of this self-reflection. Granted, some of this is probably just reaction to a perceived outsider critique of China. But honestly, this quote from a student? "The Chinese people are very peaceful. They wouldn’t do what they are accused of.” Come on, man. The Chinese have been doing that to others and to each other for thousands of years. Where's the rational perspective?
China has been helping Tibet. Similar to the last point. Fine, China invests a lot in Tibet. But looking at this purely from an economic perspective is idiotic. It's about politics and power: who gets the money, can Tibetans practice their religious beliefs, what about the side effects of a depressed economy for a certain group of people and second class status in their own territory (like drug use)? I understand that people in China don't get the information to acknowledge these issues. But pro-Chinese in the U.S.? In the wake of the riots, it's impossible to believe that they were carried out by a small "clique" of individuals. Those were massive, widespread, and expressed great frustration with the economic and especially cultural degradation by the PRC. At the least, there needs to be some sense of humility about this, that economic investment hasn't been particularly successful, and that Beijing has given something of a raw deal to minorities.
Ah, that was cathartic. Now, if only the pro-China protestors would read this.Monday, March 31, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
I take back every mean thing I've ever said about China...
its tendency to confuse scarcity with quality, its passing familiarity with the normal definitions of quality, the nonexistence of the concept of intellectual property, its cultural self-aggrandizement and entitlement, its normally crap swipes...
All is forgiven. Re: Dave's Long Box post.
God, shameless commerce really is your best side, huh?
All is forgiven. Re: Dave's Long Box post.
God, shameless commerce really is your best side, huh?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Bioshock
Lots of posts, I know. I just finished Bioshock over the weekend. It was fun, and the setting was certainly atmospheric. However, I can't see why the game won awards for its story, more than its setting. The moral choices were pretty stark (SPOILERS - save the Little Sisters or kill them), and your choices ultimately weren't that consequential, except that it gave you one of two different endings. But, the limited moral choice aside, the biggest issue I had was that Bioshock was not so much a story-driven game but an exploration of recent history. Ken Levine gave an interview recently on why stories in video games suck, and he revealed that a remarkable amount of Bioshock's story was left on the editing room floor. It was condensed from a span of months to a single day. And that leaves the player out of some pivotal events in Rapture's "history", and instead he/she is left with picking up audio recordings of what happened. It is an exercise in - at best - piecing together what happened, rather than participating in the events.
And that hamstrings the emotional kick of the game. The audio recordings alone did get me to sympathize with certain individuals or revile others. But the foregoing the opportunity to interact with these people, either as events were going on or in the aftermath, was a narrative and emotional waste. Instead, you’re just left with shooting a bunch of psychos.
But I don’t want to be too harsh. Bioshock was good, and it had some excellent moments of set-piece story underpinned by a light layer of philosophy. But the story never matched the atmosphere. And the fact that Bioshock is renowned for its story is more an indication about the story state of narrative in video games, rather than a positive recommendation for the game.
And that hamstrings the emotional kick of the game. The audio recordings alone did get me to sympathize with certain individuals or revile others. But the foregoing the opportunity to interact with these people, either as events were going on or in the aftermath, was a narrative and emotional waste. Instead, you’re just left with shooting a bunch of psychos.
But I don’t want to be too harsh. Bioshock was good, and it had some excellent moments of set-piece story underpinned by a light layer of philosophy. But the story never matched the atmosphere. And the fact that Bioshock is renowned for its story is more an indication about the story state of narrative in video games, rather than a positive recommendation for the game.
Tibet and Taiwan
Some of this is coming a little late, but hey, I was hiking through mud while carrying a debilitating stomach bug.
Anyway, one of the obvious big pieces of news are the riots in Tibet. I can't add any additional analysis to what's already out there, but one question floating in the blogosphere did pique my interest. Namely, can you have a meaningful dialogue with the opposing side given the restrictions on information? I think it's clearly impossible with the rabid bloggers that have been unleashed on the Chinese side. However, I hold out hope that other Chinese netizens are willing to acknowledge that things in Tibet have not gone well for Tibetans, that their history is filtered, and that they don't have access to all the resources that people in the West do.
This is probably a fool's hope. But, I do wish that the Chinese government would recognize that democracy and free speech/press is typically a moderating force. With increased dialogue on the issues comes (ideally) increased respect for the other side. Now, they probably recognize this and want to stir up nationalism. But ultimately that's a failed policy. The anti-Japanese riots several years back are a clear indication of this: eventually you lose control, and that is ultimately constricting on the government's freedom of action.
Now, Taiwan. Obviously, I'm disappointed with the result. But this is a good time for the DPP to take stock and institute the internal reforms that people have been grumbling about for at least two years. However, even beyond this, I'm more disappointed with the analysis coming out of the State Department. They love the fact that the KMT won, and they should. But I don't think they realize the extent of Taiwanese nationalism - the feeling among Taiwanese that they should decide the country's future and no one else. None of this "the 1.3 billion Chinese will decide" crap: that's clearly not in keeping with international law.
But the fact that this feeling is widespread and strongly felt is an issue for the U.S. This election didn't change the political sentiment on this issue: it just kicked it down the road a bit. The U.S. still has to find a way to meaningfully resolve the Taiwan Strait issue in such a way that it doesn't allow China to threaten more U.S. interests. Even more, the U.S. needs to find a moral, democratic solution to the tensions. Economic inducements only go so far, and you only need to look to Tibet to see that.
Anyway, one of the obvious big pieces of news are the riots in Tibet. I can't add any additional analysis to what's already out there, but one question floating in the blogosphere did pique my interest. Namely, can you have a meaningful dialogue with the opposing side given the restrictions on information? I think it's clearly impossible with the rabid bloggers that have been unleashed on the Chinese side. However, I hold out hope that other Chinese netizens are willing to acknowledge that things in Tibet have not gone well for Tibetans, that their history is filtered, and that they don't have access to all the resources that people in the West do.
This is probably a fool's hope. But, I do wish that the Chinese government would recognize that democracy and free speech/press is typically a moderating force. With increased dialogue on the issues comes (ideally) increased respect for the other side. Now, they probably recognize this and want to stir up nationalism. But ultimately that's a failed policy. The anti-Japanese riots several years back are a clear indication of this: eventually you lose control, and that is ultimately constricting on the government's freedom of action.
Now, Taiwan. Obviously, I'm disappointed with the result. But this is a good time for the DPP to take stock and institute the internal reforms that people have been grumbling about for at least two years. However, even beyond this, I'm more disappointed with the analysis coming out of the State Department. They love the fact that the KMT won, and they should. But I don't think they realize the extent of Taiwanese nationalism - the feeling among Taiwanese that they should decide the country's future and no one else. None of this "the 1.3 billion Chinese will decide" crap: that's clearly not in keeping with international law.
But the fact that this feeling is widespread and strongly felt is an issue for the U.S. This election didn't change the political sentiment on this issue: it just kicked it down the road a bit. The U.S. still has to find a way to meaningfully resolve the Taiwan Strait issue in such a way that it doesn't allow China to threaten more U.S. interests. Even more, the U.S. needs to find a moral, democratic solution to the tensions. Economic inducements only go so far, and you only need to look to Tibet to see that.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Travels in Peru
So, got back from Peru a week ago. You know, I didn't enjoy this trip nearly as much as the one to Turkey. It could have been the week-long stomach bug I was battling, but I think that should be offset by all the glorious meat and ceviche (which probably gave me the stomach bug) that we ate.
No, I think the issue is large group travel. That's right, GF and I went on a tour group. Well, that is if you count 80 Wharton students a tour group. What I missed from Turkey was simply the chance to explore on our own, to meet native peoples and get lost in foreign cities. Because all that provides a much deeper experience and understanding of a country/place.
For example, we spent days exploring various Incan ruins and, of course, the Machu Picchu/Inka trail. But it was only when the two of us went to a museum on our own that all the various architecture, artwork, etc. finally started crystallizing into a coherent history. Similarly, we spent five days in Cuzco and only two in Lima. But I feel a much stronger understanding of life in Lima because it was primarily just the two of us walking around. No 80 person group of Americans to ward off interactions with local Peruvians.
Anyway, obviously none of this is groundbreaking, but I think it's firmly put me off of this kind of travel. GF, on the other hand, acknowledges the problems, but counters with the fact that we stayed at luxurious, high-end hotels at a fraction of the original cost. She also seems a bit less bothered with "understanding the local culture" thing, although that's probably because she reads the guide book diligently. Needless to say, if one of us is already going to do the reading, why should I? (Guys, don't take that advice.)
No, I think the issue is large group travel. That's right, GF and I went on a tour group. Well, that is if you count 80 Wharton students a tour group. What I missed from Turkey was simply the chance to explore on our own, to meet native peoples and get lost in foreign cities. Because all that provides a much deeper experience and understanding of a country/place.
For example, we spent days exploring various Incan ruins and, of course, the Machu Picchu/Inka trail. But it was only when the two of us went to a museum on our own that all the various architecture, artwork, etc. finally started crystallizing into a coherent history. Similarly, we spent five days in Cuzco and only two in Lima. But I feel a much stronger understanding of life in Lima because it was primarily just the two of us walking around. No 80 person group of Americans to ward off interactions with local Peruvians.
Anyway, obviously none of this is groundbreaking, but I think it's firmly put me off of this kind of travel. GF, on the other hand, acknowledges the problems, but counters with the fact that we stayed at luxurious, high-end hotels at a fraction of the original cost. She also seems a bit less bothered with "understanding the local culture" thing, although that's probably because she reads the guide book diligently. Needless to say, if one of us is already going to do the reading, why should I? (Guys, don't take that advice.)
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
We don't want no european decadence!*
Eliot Spitzer has taken a tumble and, at least before the financial business this week, the NY media engines has revelled in a having a new topic outside of the Democractic primary campaigns--a nice break I actually. Curiously, I was more surprised (shock is too strong) than coworkers and the like about the situation. I don't think of myself as a prude (so I guess the real shock to me is the realization that I'm not the go-to cynic in every conversation--there was a time I'd have laid bets on that certainty) but no one seemed terribly surprised. Mind you , it could certainly be that one of those reflexive "Oh, that always happens things. Aren't they always?" Which is obviously not true, or else, well or else there'd be more stories. But there aren't, because I don't live in Rhode Island.
So anyway, it's nice and all that some quarters are taking this opportunity to talk about the true effects of prostitution. The results in Sweden of the legalization of selling sex combined with the criminalization of buying sex on trafficking, and prostitution rates in general being especially interesting. Some of the commentary touched upon this article by the inestimable Martha Nussbaum, which if you read, you will see focuses greatly on prostitution an how the laws and enforcement reflect other things, but begins with the trope of the American among sophisticated Europeans wondering about American prudery. Why for are we lingering on the prurient when there is so much more to discuss?
Well, beyond the fact that we in New York are one of the few cities with vibrant enough daily papers to have the need to for some tabloid fare, so obviously there's inches to fill, he was the freakin' attorney general elected on a reform campaign. Not by a little bit. It is possible that the reaction is less about the sex, then about the hypocrisy. Also, the sheer stupidness of a former prosecutor laying out the trail that he did. Not all laws are moral, but breaking the law usually isn't. **
Also in the past week, there was also the release of Funny Games by Michel Haneke. I think the AV Club lays out the most generous and informative take on it. I'm pretty sympathetic to these sorts of art stunts, and after seeing Cache (which I consider one of the finest films I've ever seen), I have a great deal of respect for the director, with a generosity of spirit I don't think I'd extend to either Lars Von Trier (pretentious European provocateur) or the genre related if not intellectually (or only disingenuously) torture porn and ultraviolence these days. Maybe Oldboy gets a pass, but god I hate locked room stories. Long exposition aside, a comment mentioned the fact that even if the movie were a success in the manner Haneke intends, that is as an indictment of the audience as complicit in violence in our culture, he'd probably think that we as Americans liked it because of the torture. So to the continent that created this and other insightful fare like Irreversibleah I say back off. We get it. You aren't that smart. Or we don't, like everyone else. This business is only slightly more annoying than the Americans don't have passports cliche.
But in the interests of equal time, I say it has been fascinating to see the likes Naomi Watts promoting arthouse fare on Leno and the like. And follow it on to Funny Games review itself, but alright. Maybe we don't get it.
*I don't actually care about European decadence.
** Edited to fix stupidity.
So anyway, it's nice and all that some quarters are taking this opportunity to talk about the true effects of prostitution. The results in Sweden of the legalization of selling sex combined with the criminalization of buying sex on trafficking, and prostitution rates in general being especially interesting. Some of the commentary touched upon this article by the inestimable Martha Nussbaum, which if you read, you will see focuses greatly on prostitution an how the laws and enforcement reflect other things, but begins with the trope of the American among sophisticated Europeans wondering about American prudery. Why for are we lingering on the prurient when there is so much more to discuss?
Well, beyond the fact that we in New York are one of the few cities with vibrant enough daily papers to have the need to for some tabloid fare, so obviously there's inches to fill, he was the freakin' attorney general elected on a reform campaign. Not by a little bit. It is possible that the reaction is less about the sex, then about the hypocrisy. Also, the sheer stupidness of a former prosecutor laying out the trail that he did. Not all laws are moral, but breaking the law usually isn't. **
Also in the past week, there was also the release of Funny Games by Michel Haneke. I think the AV Club lays out the most generous and informative take on it. I'm pretty sympathetic to these sorts of art stunts, and after seeing Cache (which I consider one of the finest films I've ever seen), I have a great deal of respect for the director, with a generosity of spirit I don't think I'd extend to either Lars Von Trier (pretentious European provocateur) or the genre related if not intellectually (or only disingenuously) torture porn and ultraviolence these days. Maybe Oldboy gets a pass, but god I hate locked room stories. Long exposition aside, a comment mentioned the fact that even if the movie were a success in the manner Haneke intends, that is as an indictment of the audience as complicit in violence in our culture, he'd probably think that we as Americans liked it because of the torture. So to the continent that created this and other insightful fare like Irreversibleah I say back off. We get it. You aren't that smart. Or we don't, like everyone else. This business is only slightly more annoying than the Americans don't have passports cliche.
But in the interests of equal time, I say it has been fascinating to see the likes Naomi Watts promoting arthouse fare on Leno and the like. And follow it on to Funny Games review itself, but alright. Maybe we don't get it.
*I don't actually care about European decadence.
** Edited to fix stupidity.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
I'm deeply conflicted...
It's a thrill to see Jackie Chan and Jet Li together for the first time (though honestly, their styles kinda clash). It wasn't till the middle of this trailer that I realized that this was an American production (there's another version that reveals this as Neverending Story in China much more explicitly). I'm a bit fearful that this'll be Bulletproof Monk again...ah well, I'll probably still l see it. It won't be worse than House of Flying Daggers right? Right?
Also, Tan Dun--so over. Please get someone else. Use that fellow that Johnny To uses. Heck, get Johnny To some of that big Hollywood money and import his style. I like the actors from Asia too, but if you can't get them to commit to more interesting projects, then start pulling in the directors. We don't need no Edison Chen.
Friday, March 7, 2008
On this, the 101st post...
I bring you what I bring you best.
I want one of these.
These are neat. I linked to the source, but this is where I got it, and the banner ads at hobby blog embarrass me.
A bit older, but Jim Steranko's hair in this romance comic is fabulous. I keep staring at it.
And an oldie but a one-I-just-read-so-it-interests me. Namely in the comments.
I want one of these.
These are neat. I linked to the source, but this is where I got it, and the banner ads at hobby blog embarrass me.
A bit older, but Jim Steranko's hair in this romance comic is fabulous. I keep staring at it.
And an oldie but a one-I-just-read-so-it-interests me. Namely in the comments.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
RIP Gary Gygax
It would be remiss not to note the passing of Gary Gygax, wanted to write some adventures for the leaders of their armies in their tabletop wargames, and wouldnn't it be fun if they went on adventures in between the wars, and rescued towns, and princesses, and fought dragons? He created Chainmail with Jeff Perren, which evolved into Dungeons & Dragons (with Dave Arneson), advanced and otherwise, and begat so much of what I, and so many others, used to create and enjoy inspiring, fun, stupid, smart, and all other kinds of worthwhile stories.
Thanks for everything.
Thanks for everything.
Annoying Politics
I’m still working my way through Bioshock, so more on that and a response to Duvall’s post later. It’s engrossing, although I’m not sure that it quite reaches the level of “games as art.” Nevertheless, it’s an interesting exploration of Objectivism and where it all falls apart. Question: do gamers generally find Objectivism more appealing?
Anyway, this post is about the ’08 Election. A couple sound bites/positions have annoyed me to an unusual degree, and I thought I’d rant here.
Flip-Flopping – We all remember this: Bush supporters who lambasted Kerry for being a flip-flopper on his Iraq War vote. Granted, it was a politically brilliant sound bite (for Bush).
Fast forward four years, and many of those same Republican supporters are being asked about Romney and his flip-flopping. Perhaps it's the media echo chamber, but the majority of responses from Romney supporters have been “He flipped the right way, so I’m fine with that.”
Which of course means that going back on your opinion is not the horrible thing that Bush makes it to be. These guys don't care about flip flopping: they care about ideological agreement. What gets me is that they just can't admit that. It strikes me as dishonest, or perhaps self-deluding/denial.
Barack “Hussein” Obama – This has been in the news more recently. Slate had an article about it, where Republicans were calling attention to Obama’s middle name and essentially saying “We’re not trying to send a political message. We’re just calling him by his name.”
Sure. And Fox News was a model of journalistic ethics when it ran the madrassa issue (I’ve been to Obama's school, by the way. It’s gorgeous.). The issue I have with this is that it taps into something ultimately nasty and destructive in American politics (or really all politics) - the need to exclude what's different. It's exactly why we've been so unsuccessful in the War on Terror: the U.S. simply cannot work with or deal with individuals when they cast them as an undifferentiated, sometimes incomprehensible group.
And when you stoop to calling out a candidate's name because you want to draw negative associations with Islam, you appeal to and empower those instincts. I'm glad John McCain rebuked that radio talk show host. But I only expect more of this from the 527s as the campaign progresses.
Anyway, for something a little more fun, check out this blog.
Anyway, this post is about the ’08 Election. A couple sound bites/positions have annoyed me to an unusual degree, and I thought I’d rant here.
Flip-Flopping – We all remember this: Bush supporters who lambasted Kerry for being a flip-flopper on his Iraq War vote. Granted, it was a politically brilliant sound bite (for Bush).
Fast forward four years, and many of those same Republican supporters are being asked about Romney and his flip-flopping. Perhaps it's the media echo chamber, but the majority of responses from Romney supporters have been “He flipped the right way, so I’m fine with that.”
Which of course means that going back on your opinion is not the horrible thing that Bush makes it to be. These guys don't care about flip flopping: they care about ideological agreement. What gets me is that they just can't admit that. It strikes me as dishonest, or perhaps self-deluding/denial.
Barack “Hussein” Obama – This has been in the news more recently. Slate had an article about it, where Republicans were calling attention to Obama’s middle name and essentially saying “We’re not trying to send a political message. We’re just calling him by his name.”
Sure. And Fox News was a model of journalistic ethics when it ran the madrassa issue (I’ve been to Obama's school, by the way. It’s gorgeous.). The issue I have with this is that it taps into something ultimately nasty and destructive in American politics (or really all politics) - the need to exclude what's different. It's exactly why we've been so unsuccessful in the War on Terror: the U.S. simply cannot work with or deal with individuals when they cast them as an undifferentiated, sometimes incomprehensible group.
And when you stoop to calling out a candidate's name because you want to draw negative associations with Islam, you appeal to and empower those instincts. I'm glad John McCain rebuked that radio talk show host. But I only expect more of this from the 527s as the campaign progresses.
Anyway, for something a little more fun, check out this blog.
Friday, February 29, 2008
This is why blogs exist
I want share the fact that every time I see a wil.i.am produced video supporting Obama, I want to change sides. God, they're like Apple commercials or something.
I have half a mind to start a facebook group called "wil.i.am made me switch" except it would increase my involvement in facebook beyond my accepted copyright-infringing board game playing.
I won't sully this virtual ground of intellectual discourse and items of marginal interest by actually linking to the videos, you can find it if yourselves if you like. Dipdive or some shit.
I have half a mind to start a facebook group called "wil.i.am made me switch" except it would increase my involvement in facebook beyond my accepted copyright-infringing board game playing.
I won't sully this virtual ground of intellectual discourse and items of marginal interest by actually linking to the videos, you can find it if yourselves if you like. Dipdive or some shit.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Still filler...
So obviously, I continue to lie about my involvement with this blog. But work feels like work even when I'm not working. Yes this is a link blog item, but let me say I never expected to read something like this on a major gaming gossip site--a smart article about sexuality and juvenile sexuality in video games that doesn't spend all its time mired in preemptively defending itself from charges that it wants to take everyone's cheesecake frosting or equating boobs with adult material. It's one of the smartest thing ever on one of these sites really ever. Possibly the only flaw being that as the writer's expertise/interest seems to be Chinese cinema, all the examples come from there. Already one or two of the thicker set in the comments section think it's a comment on just one national culture, and not gaming culture generally.
Without delving into what the approach to narratives should be in video games, the sooner characterization in games matures past sexuality = thongs--though, first things first, we need to go by adult = sex--the sooner we can all collectively sneer off the folks who try to rationalize porn trading cards in Witcher as being character building.
It's interesting, I think, how the fact that this sort of discussion is so rare shows how much the study of video games is. It's still mostly concerned with defining what a "video game" is and the admittedly big task of figuring out the mix interactivity, game, and narrative . . . in essentially expanding the vocabulary of how you talk about games. It's so much in its infancy it hasn't even come up with pretentious term for itself yet, like "interactive novel" or vide0 games* or something.
More or less, there are a lot of John Woos, a few John Fords** out there in gaming, maybe even a Spielberg, but no Hitchcock. Which is me trying to say, conventions in games aren't common enough (mostly a strength of gaming actually, that they can be so varied) that the master manipulators work in genres of games instead of narrative genres) that we have designers playing with audience expectations just yet.*** That self-aware design cycle might've begun in adventure gaming (if adventure gaming was even half as healthy now as when Sierra was churning out franchises it might've even gone past jokes) but mostly, not enough examples of manipulating audience expectation. I don't actually like audience manipulation, it turns into cheap shocks usually, but when you're meta enough to start designing that way, that's when gaming will have really matured.
Chengora, I invite you to finish Bioshock and tell me if I'm wrong.
* You have to see the zero, and know that Art Spiegelman wants adult comics to be called comix, by the way, or it's not funny.
** Sid Meier/Miyamoto in Zelda mode
*** Penn and Teller don't count.
Without delving into what the approach to narratives should be in video games, the sooner characterization in games matures past sexuality = thongs--though, first things first, we need to go by adult = sex--the sooner we can all collectively sneer off the folks who try to rationalize porn trading cards in Witcher as being character building.
It's interesting, I think, how the fact that this sort of discussion is so rare shows how much the study of video games is. It's still mostly concerned with defining what a "video game" is and the admittedly big task of figuring out the mix interactivity, game, and narrative . . . in essentially expanding the vocabulary of how you talk about games. It's so much in its infancy it hasn't even come up with pretentious term for itself yet, like "interactive novel" or vide0 games* or something.
More or less, there are a lot of John Woos, a few John Fords** out there in gaming, maybe even a Spielberg, but no Hitchcock. Which is me trying to say, conventions in games aren't common enough (mostly a strength of gaming actually, that they can be so varied) that the master manipulators work in genres of games instead of narrative genres) that we have designers playing with audience expectations just yet.*** That self-aware design cycle might've begun in adventure gaming (if adventure gaming was even half as healthy now as when Sierra was churning out franchises it might've even gone past jokes) but mostly, not enough examples of manipulating audience expectation. I don't actually like audience manipulation, it turns into cheap shocks usually, but when you're meta enough to start designing that way, that's when gaming will have really matured.
Chengora, I invite you to finish Bioshock and tell me if I'm wrong.
* You have to see the zero, and know that Art Spiegelman wants adult comics to be called comix, by the way, or it's not funny.
** Sid Meier/Miyamoto in Zelda mode
*** Penn and Teller don't count.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
I am a big fat liar, sincerely hcduvall
Content tomorrow.
I can hardly review something properly if I read it months ago, right?
It's going to be the first volume of Crossing Midnight, incidentally.
I can hardly review something properly if I read it months ago, right?
It's going to be the first volume of Crossing Midnight, incidentally.
Monday, February 18, 2008
New Routine
If you really want to lose weight, cut fat, slim down, and enhance your cardiovascular fitness, there is really nothing better and nothing easier than running. Better than swimming, better than stair climber, and better than those radial things the housewives always use that the gym. I say this out of experience, not because I read it in the literature.
That's why its such a shame to live in this paved city. Not even the parks have unpaved running paths, and the longterm impact that all that pounding has on your knees, hips, and lower back probably more than makes up for the shortterm cardiovascular benefit you'll get by running here.
At the end of last year, with my sedentary job and somewhat careless eating habits, my waistline was getting out of control. In high school I stayed steady with a 30 inch waist. It moved up to 31 inches in college, and after several years of computer terminal jobs, I'm now at 32 inches. My pants have been steadily "shrinking" this year, bringing me close to 33 inches in November, so I had no choice but to put my foot down.
I had been maintaining a solid strength-weight routine for over a half year as of January and registered modest, incrimental strength gains becuase of it, but it did nothing to improve my heart health or slim me down. A super cardio/diet routine was in order, and running was out of the question because of the hard pavement, crowded sidewalks, and start-stop traffic lights around my house. I also counted out the treadmill becuase it's so horribly boring, and it is also bad for your hips. Swimming would have been a good backup option if there was a pool nearby--and there is not.
My only remaining recourse was/is the torturous stair climber. No doubt, it is an effective contraption and it can deliver a solid concentration of exercise. But in my opinion, you spend more energy wearing out your legs on the stair climber than you do increasing your heart rate, which makes it feel more like a strength routine than a cardiovascular one. Also, it hurts a lot, and it feels like you suffer twice as much to burn the same number of calories as you would running.
Mentally, any kind of machine is punishing. Unlike running outside or swimming laps, you cannot tailor your pace to your mood. You lock yourself in for a certain time and a certain difficulty, and you can't deviate from it. It is boring too, and there is little to distract your from your work other than the crap news or thinking about how much your legs hurt, yikes.
Flash back to six years ago: I was in pretty bad shape. I didn't exercise and was pretty reckless with my diet. On a whim, I decided to start running in the morning on a dirt track near my apartment. Within two months, all of the fat just melted off my body, and the whole process just seemed effortless. Unlike now, there was never a sense of forboding or dread when I started to run. I just did it. When I felt tired, I backed off, and I turned it on when I felt great. It was easy to add variety to the routine by running up stairs and doing sprints. Also, when I ran, I could zone out, look around, plan my day, and otherwise distract myself, and the workouts would always seem shorter than they actually were.
I guess there is nothing really left to say other than I wish there was more dirt in the city, more running surfaces than the concrete sidewalks, and more grass. It would be a lot easier for me to stay healthy if there were.
That's why its such a shame to live in this paved city. Not even the parks have unpaved running paths, and the longterm impact that all that pounding has on your knees, hips, and lower back probably more than makes up for the shortterm cardiovascular benefit you'll get by running here.
At the end of last year, with my sedentary job and somewhat careless eating habits, my waistline was getting out of control. In high school I stayed steady with a 30 inch waist. It moved up to 31 inches in college, and after several years of computer terminal jobs, I'm now at 32 inches. My pants have been steadily "shrinking" this year, bringing me close to 33 inches in November, so I had no choice but to put my foot down.
I had been maintaining a solid strength-weight routine for over a half year as of January and registered modest, incrimental strength gains becuase of it, but it did nothing to improve my heart health or slim me down. A super cardio/diet routine was in order, and running was out of the question because of the hard pavement, crowded sidewalks, and start-stop traffic lights around my house. I also counted out the treadmill becuase it's so horribly boring, and it is also bad for your hips. Swimming would have been a good backup option if there was a pool nearby--and there is not.
My only remaining recourse was/is the torturous stair climber. No doubt, it is an effective contraption and it can deliver a solid concentration of exercise. But in my opinion, you spend more energy wearing out your legs on the stair climber than you do increasing your heart rate, which makes it feel more like a strength routine than a cardiovascular one. Also, it hurts a lot, and it feels like you suffer twice as much to burn the same number of calories as you would running.
Mentally, any kind of machine is punishing. Unlike running outside or swimming laps, you cannot tailor your pace to your mood. You lock yourself in for a certain time and a certain difficulty, and you can't deviate from it. It is boring too, and there is little to distract your from your work other than the crap news or thinking about how much your legs hurt, yikes.
Flash back to six years ago: I was in pretty bad shape. I didn't exercise and was pretty reckless with my diet. On a whim, I decided to start running in the morning on a dirt track near my apartment. Within two months, all of the fat just melted off my body, and the whole process just seemed effortless. Unlike now, there was never a sense of forboding or dread when I started to run. I just did it. When I felt tired, I backed off, and I turned it on when I felt great. It was easy to add variety to the routine by running up stairs and doing sprints. Also, when I ran, I could zone out, look around, plan my day, and otherwise distract myself, and the workouts would always seem shorter than they actually were.
I guess there is nothing really left to say other than I wish there was more dirt in the city, more running surfaces than the concrete sidewalks, and more grass. It would be a lot easier for me to stay healthy if there were.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Narrative in RPGs
It's been ages since anyone's written, but Duvall tells me he's got a post coming up. So, in the interest of restarting this thing, I'd like to discuss something that's been on my mind. No, not the election, although a post on that may come soon enough.
No, I've been thinking about RPGs, specifically this roundtable discussion. I never really played the classic computer RPGs like Ultima, becoming engrossed in the genre during Black Isle's heyday of Icewind Dale (ID - only okay), Baldur's Gate (BG - grand and epic, but a little trite), and Planescape: Torment (PT - probably one of the finest examples of narrative).
But, as the roundtable discusses, they just don't make RPGs like they used to. Something has gone out of the narrative and immersion. American cRPGs are beginning - in my mind - to resemble Japanese ones. You're dropped into the middle of events, and you're essentially a glorified gopher. Your tasks focus on picking up the 3, 4, 8 fragments needed to put the magic weapon back together, complete the ingredients to your spell, save the world. But you have little choice in the matter, and your actions don't mean anything as a result. As important, the worlds feel "artificial:" they don't feel lived in, as if they persist both before and after your character.
And I think one of the main reasons for this drop in immersion is technology. Sure, graphics in the past few years have made a tremendous leap. The Infinity engine has nothing on the Aurora engine. But text used to play an enormous role in these games, mostly because the engines couldn’t produce the effects that were needed. Pretty lights? Sure thing. Big explosions? Check. Emotive effect through facial animation that can keep up with your dialogue choices? Uh oh.
But that was okay. Well-written text created immersive environments and effective narrative when combined with the literally thousands of characters that inhabited the BG and PT games.
With the newer technology, designers have opted for fewer characters and fancier graphics, thinking that tech can potentially substitute for the emotional content that came from narrative. But – to cite just one example – when you enter cities in Oblivion, do you notice something missing? That's right: people. The world outside may be vast and fun to explore. But the cities are sparse and lifeless affairs, because there is no background to explain WHY you should become the head of the fighter’s guild, why your choice is meaningful beyond the swag that you receive.
I think the strongest analysis in the roundtable is that RPGs have become, in effect, single player MMORPGs. No real background, no real narrative, no “world.” Which is why I’ve been finding myself getting into shooters. The best – Half-Life 2, Call of Duty 4 – tie your actions into a larger narrative much more effectively than many recent RPGs, and they do it with a variety of content and gameplay (it also helps that guns are just that much better from a first person perspective). They are immersive: nowhere near PT, but better than NWN1. But they don’t set themselves up as needing to create a coherent world.
So, RPG makers, craft a narrative that gives meaning to my choices; make me care about a character’s relationships, not about leveling up; immerse me a rich history. Give me worlds again.
No, I've been thinking about RPGs, specifically this roundtable discussion. I never really played the classic computer RPGs like Ultima, becoming engrossed in the genre during Black Isle's heyday of Icewind Dale (ID - only okay), Baldur's Gate (BG - grand and epic, but a little trite), and Planescape: Torment (PT - probably one of the finest examples of narrative).
But, as the roundtable discusses, they just don't make RPGs like they used to. Something has gone out of the narrative and immersion. American cRPGs are beginning - in my mind - to resemble Japanese ones. You're dropped into the middle of events, and you're essentially a glorified gopher. Your tasks focus on picking up the 3, 4, 8 fragments needed to put the magic weapon back together, complete the ingredients to your spell, save the world. But you have little choice in the matter, and your actions don't mean anything as a result. As important, the worlds feel "artificial:" they don't feel lived in, as if they persist both before and after your character.
And I think one of the main reasons for this drop in immersion is technology. Sure, graphics in the past few years have made a tremendous leap. The Infinity engine has nothing on the Aurora engine. But text used to play an enormous role in these games, mostly because the engines couldn’t produce the effects that were needed. Pretty lights? Sure thing. Big explosions? Check. Emotive effect through facial animation that can keep up with your dialogue choices? Uh oh.
But that was okay. Well-written text created immersive environments and effective narrative when combined with the literally thousands of characters that inhabited the BG and PT games.
With the newer technology, designers have opted for fewer characters and fancier graphics, thinking that tech can potentially substitute for the emotional content that came from narrative. But – to cite just one example – when you enter cities in Oblivion, do you notice something missing? That's right: people. The world outside may be vast and fun to explore. But the cities are sparse and lifeless affairs, because there is no background to explain WHY you should become the head of the fighter’s guild, why your choice is meaningful beyond the swag that you receive.
I think the strongest analysis in the roundtable is that RPGs have become, in effect, single player MMORPGs. No real background, no real narrative, no “world.” Which is why I’ve been finding myself getting into shooters. The best – Half-Life 2, Call of Duty 4 – tie your actions into a larger narrative much more effectively than many recent RPGs, and they do it with a variety of content and gameplay (it also helps that guns are just that much better from a first person perspective). They are immersive: nowhere near PT, but better than NWN1. But they don’t set themselves up as needing to create a coherent world.
So, RPG makers, craft a narrative that gives meaning to my choices; make me care about a character’s relationships, not about leveling up; immerse me a rich history. Give me worlds again.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Intelligence
Enough has been said about the latest National Intelligence Estimate's findings on Iran in the media, and there's enough in there to cast lots of (deserved) doubt on Bush's policies. But the biggest issue for me is not that Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons: I still suspect that they are pushing for some kind of nuclear program. Rather, it's that Bush's past positions make it incredibly difficult to pursue the only remaining policy option with international support: work through the IAEA.
Ahmadinejad is correct: Iran has a right to use nuclear power for energy, and Tehran's rationale for pursuing nuclear energy makes a certain economic sense. But he's wrong in a critical way: Iran cannot pursue nuclear power unless it declares its production sites and allows international inspectors unfettered access to those sites. This was always been the sticking point for me. Tehran could have gotten nuclear power through the existing international system. But why didn't it? If their intentions were peaceful, there's nothing stopping them.
But unfortunately, Bush has made hay about taking a "strong" stand against Tehran, which has forced it to eschew the carrot side of any negotiations. The U.S. could easily and clearly have said, "We respect your right to nuclear power, but you have to comply with existing international rules." Instead, the threats of war have muddled the message and American credibility, and this latest NIE report casts a further cloud over the President's objectives. It's made it much harder now to work with the IAEA and other countries to find a solution to this mess, and that clearly hurts the American position both right now and in the longer term.
Ahmadinejad is correct: Iran has a right to use nuclear power for energy, and Tehran's rationale for pursuing nuclear energy makes a certain economic sense. But he's wrong in a critical way: Iran cannot pursue nuclear power unless it declares its production sites and allows international inspectors unfettered access to those sites. This was always been the sticking point for me. Tehran could have gotten nuclear power through the existing international system. But why didn't it? If their intentions were peaceful, there's nothing stopping them.
But unfortunately, Bush has made hay about taking a "strong" stand against Tehran, which has forced it to eschew the carrot side of any negotiations. The U.S. could easily and clearly have said, "We respect your right to nuclear power, but you have to comply with existing international rules." Instead, the threats of war have muddled the message and American credibility, and this latest NIE report casts a further cloud over the President's objectives. It's made it much harder now to work with the IAEA and other countries to find a solution to this mess, and that clearly hurts the American position both right now and in the longer term.
Monday, December 3, 2007
F-Cubed
My co-worker introduced me to the term F-Cubed or "Forced Family Fun." Think of those nights when your parents forced you to play board games with them.
Well, it pretty much sums up my trip to Italy. We had gone about 10 years ago to northern Italy, and this vacation swept up Rome and Naples. In that intervening 10 years, however, I have discovered that I simply don't like skipping lunches to run from location to location - treating the country as a repository of historic places to see - eating dinner, then conking out somewhere between 8-10 pm.
Sadly, my sister is of the hyperactive, must-see-the-sights kind of person, although tellingly "sights" does not include actual people. So, while I saw an overwhelming amount of churches (I think there's some religious rule by which I am now Catholic), I didn't actually have a conversation with any Italians while with my family. And unfortunately, my parents are getting old, so they pretty much have to fall asleep after dinner. All of which meant early rising, lots of walking, little sampling of the food, and even less sense of what the places are actually like.
All of which made Italy an only okay trip. Rome was gorgeous, and I loved Bologna, mostly because I was not with my family and visiting a friend there. Another notable event was going to a resort town on the Mediterranean coast. As is often the case in resort towns in non-resort seasons, the local industry gets a little desparate. Thus, I forced my sister to stare at me, rather than the guy desparately foisting himself onto a hooker in his tiny car.
Then there was being racially profiled by a Neapolitan cop. The previous night, two Philippino men were picked up for drug running and money laundering. The cop thought my dad and I may be part of that ring and asked for ID. I pulled my driver's licence out of my wallet, to which he asked "What's in the wallet?" and "Who's money is that?" Really, what did he expect me to say?
So, in sum, Bologna was great, Rome was nice but superficial, and Naples sucked, except for the food.
Well, it pretty much sums up my trip to Italy. We had gone about 10 years ago to northern Italy, and this vacation swept up Rome and Naples. In that intervening 10 years, however, I have discovered that I simply don't like skipping lunches to run from location to location - treating the country as a repository of historic places to see - eating dinner, then conking out somewhere between 8-10 pm.
Sadly, my sister is of the hyperactive, must-see-the-sights kind of person, although tellingly "sights" does not include actual people. So, while I saw an overwhelming amount of churches (I think there's some religious rule by which I am now Catholic), I didn't actually have a conversation with any Italians while with my family. And unfortunately, my parents are getting old, so they pretty much have to fall asleep after dinner. All of which meant early rising, lots of walking, little sampling of the food, and even less sense of what the places are actually like.
All of which made Italy an only okay trip. Rome was gorgeous, and I loved Bologna, mostly because I was not with my family and visiting a friend there. Another notable event was going to a resort town on the Mediterranean coast. As is often the case in resort towns in non-resort seasons, the local industry gets a little desparate. Thus, I forced my sister to stare at me, rather than the guy desparately foisting himself onto a hooker in his tiny car.
Then there was being racially profiled by a Neapolitan cop. The previous night, two Philippino men were picked up for drug running and money laundering. The cop thought my dad and I may be part of that ring and asked for ID. I pulled my driver's licence out of my wallet, to which he asked "What's in the wallet?" and "Who's money is that?" Really, what did he expect me to say?
So, in sum, Bologna was great, Rome was nice but superficial, and Naples sucked, except for the food.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Applications
I'm done with my Ph.D. applications!
Well, that's only mostly true. I still have one or two things left to fill out (oh, FAFSA, the bane of my existence). But, all the application fees are in, and I don't have anything left to send to schools except recommendations.
Now, back to drinking.
Well, that's only mostly true. I still have one or two things left to fill out (oh, FAFSA, the bane of my existence). But, all the application fees are in, and I don't have anything left to send to schools except recommendations.
Now, back to drinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)