The Problem with Skyrim Post
This post will come from the point of view of pure destruction mage (no melee combat talents, whatsoever, so keep that in mind). I'm level 48, here is a link to my current build. Yes, I have unused talents for some reason. I'm near indestructible. I've turned combat to master to try and make it interesting again, but don't really notice much change; except a few deaths from an ice spike to the face.
Is this the best game ever made? Probably. Does that mean it doesn't have some serious problems? No.
I'll avoid the topic of cute bugs, because it's an open world game. Millions of people experiencing the game in a million different ways. You simply cannot account for it all. Who expects people to try and put a bucket on someone's head?
Very long post, so most is after the cut:
I’m Occupying Wall Street
I'm occupying Wall Street and complaining about corporate greed ....
While wearing a shirt I bought at Abercombie
And tweeting from my Iphone that I bought from Apple.
And being spied on by Facebook that I'm connected through my Ipad.
And using Google to find directions to other nearby protests.
And talking to other protesters thru the AT&T cell phone network.
I'm upset that ....
Big companies are getting bailouts, which Obama supported and voted for.
Big companies are controlling the marketplace, which Obamacare promises to expand.
Big companies are colluding with government, while I support making government even larger.
Big companies tell us what we can and can't do, while I support a government doing the exact same thing.
Big companies keep us in debt, while I support a government that is keeping everyone in debt.
There's too much money in government, while supporting a President who is promising a $1 billion re-election bid.
Fixing the Voting Process
Whether or not you like the results, it's clear a political upheaval will happen on Tuesday. But the real question is, "Why isn't the upheaval larger?"
Currently Congress has a 74% disapproval rating.
RCP AverageApprove 19.8Disapprove 73.8
Apocalypse Island: History Channel Should be Ashamed
So I was watching History Channel the other night and they had this 2 hour thing about Apocalypse Island. So for 2 hours, we watch these dudes talking about the Mayans and some island that is supposed to do something or other in 2012, when the world ends.
So, you have to wait an hour and a half to see this rock the guy claims the Mayans carved. It's supposed to be a head and a lion behind it or something. But, really, it just looks like a tall rock with another one behind it. Rare! Mysterious! Never do they even talk about tool marks (are there any?) to make him think it was carved or maybe it was just a natural formation. History Channel even goes out of its way (on multiple occasions) to show the rock as this guy imagines it (a head with a lion behind it) and not even show a graphic saying this was computer generated. It doesn't even matter that the features they claim the rocks should have don't even fit with the way the rocks look at all. Just awful.
Then, these guys climb all over this thing. As if you'd crawl to the top of the Egyptian Pyramids without taking any care to, you know, damage them?
Then they talk about the solar eclipse in 2012 and Venus crossing in front of the Sun in 2012 as well. Both of these are visible from, you know, a ton of places on the planet. The island's location is simply a post hoc logical fallacy on part of these idiots. No proof of any of the assertions made, but 2 hours of trying (too hard, if you ask me) to convince without any effort of evidence.
I think it's a huge shame that the History Channel is pimping this 2012 stuff so hard. Giving credibility to guys who, for all intents and purposes, are probably crack pots. The lack of any real science done during this show, and others of the 2012 series are just awful.
Then they countdown the 13 eras of the Mayans or whatever. Saying this happened on 12th, that on the 11th, etc etc etc. Well, of course something happened on those years. It's amazing, really. Mayans were so apt at predicting the future, you'd think they would have foresaw their own demise. Doh!
Imagine if the Mayans did carve something on Apocalypse Island, so they could see the end of the world. Then, a few years after it was done...they were like "Ah, screw it. I'm not waiting. Let's up and vanish, instead." The thought seems to disprove the point that the Mayans had any clue about anything.
Alvin Greene, Rocket Scientist, Senate Candidate
So that's Senate Candidate Alvin Greene on Olbermann the other night. Wow. Ooookay.
Let's get a few things straight. Yes, he's obviously unprepared. One could argue he's mentally disabled, I guess. So how did he get to be candidate for Senate in South Carolina?
First, let's go thru the conspiracy theory that he's a Republican plant.
Let's assume he's a plant. So, the GOP put this guy out there, hoping he'd get the nomination. Did the Republicans send him any money? No. Did they vote for him? No. Do the moronic Republicans even seem capable of pulling something like this off? No. The theory just doesn't wash on any level at all.
The far more plausible theory is, is that democrat voters are mindless robots. His name was top on the ballot, given that there was no incumbent on the Democrat side. Lazy voters just picked the first name they saw and went with it. That is far more plausible than a Republican plant (and it's not even the first time it has happened). It's something Democrats obviously don't want to hear - but that's normal for them . Coming to terms with reality has never been their strong point.
So, in that light, let's think about Clyburn's call for an investigation into the vote. The exact same people who voted for Greene voted for Clyburn - especially in the primary. So are both results questionable, or is just Greene's? Are Democrats in SC simply not capable of voting properly? If so, should Clyburn's election also be put into doubt?
Let's take it even further. What's so bad about Greene? He says he's a lifelong Democrat. One would presume he'd be a reliable vote for anything he's told to vote for. Seems to me, he's exactly what Democrats want up there. How is he different than, say, John Kerry? Or Al Franken? His voting record would probably be near identical to theirs. He's a perfect fit into the caucus. Just another nameless/faceless automaton in the Senate - voting for whatever he's told to vote for. He's the perfect distillation of what the Democrats want - mindless, obedient, reliable, no ambition. How is he any different than, say, Cynthia McKinney? Or Maxine Waters?
Really, does it scare them that the logical conclusion of their beliefs is people like Alvin Greene? Or is it that they just don't want him to the face of it? Why do they tolerate people like Maxine Waters? or Cynthia McKinney?
Final thought on the Olbermann interview. Did Greene really say anything more stupid than what Olbermann says on a nightly basis? Or Maddow? Or Leg Thrill Matthews?
Fan Theories That Make Movies Better
Just saw this at Cracked today and thought most of it was pretty good.
However, something stood out to me. Particularly #3.
There are a couple theories floating around here. One is that the younger brother is a mental fiction created by Elijah Wood's narrator to cope with the abuse--it's notable that no one except the narrator's family interacts with the younger brother. Another theory (which even Roger Ebert suggested) is that the younger brother plummets to his death or is beaten to death by his stepfather.
I love this movie and I always assumed the child died when he rolled his radio flyer down the hill. It's the only way to explain the comment near the end "Now do you understand what I mean about history being in the mind of the teller?"
If the older brother, who lived, invented this memory to cover up his brothers' death and sent cards home to try and make his mother feel better - the story is very touching, albeit very depressing as well. I think Hanks' comment near the end makes it apparent that the younger brother died. I'm not sure how it could be read any other way. It would make no sense, in the sense of the story, that the younger brother is flying all over the world - for real. He's dead. The older brother is just rationalizing what he's done.
So I'm not sure I'd call this a conspiracy. More like the unspoken part of the script.
And #6, I thought "James Bond" being a code name was pretty apparent as well. Given the number of people who've played him over the years, it seems that 007 is his rank. In one Bond (View to a Kill, I believe), we have a 009 (who is killed), and others with 003's (multiple 003's are killed, I believe). And what not. So 007 is rank, James Bond is the code name of the Agent. In Casino Royale, I do not believe he is called "James Bond" until he gets promoted from 006 to 007.
It'd be smart to keep the name "James Bond" going from agent to agent. That way, if you know James Bond is after you, you're screwed. Then again, why do the villains keep toying with him and not kill him immediately if they know who he is - the best British agent.
ObamaCare/PelosiCare: The Debate Summed Up
The Berlin Wall was erected to force people to participate in a government run economy. If they tried to seek freedom from their government, they were put in jail or killed.
20 years ago today, it fell.
Yesterday, Democrats pushed a bill through the House, that will force people to buy health insurance and if they don't, they will be put in jail.
Apparently the Wall fell, but the ideas remain. The lesson wasn't learned very well.
The Problem with Moderate Republicans
Many republicans and bloggers ponder the rift between Conservative Republicans and Moderate Republicans - and are trying to find a way to breach that schism in an effort to ensure victory in 2010.
Most people (Ace, Allah, etal) that I read focus on the idea differences between the two.
Conservatives want the whole boat (social conservatism and economic conservatism)
Moderates want part of it (economic conservatism only or maybe only social conservatism)
But is it even more simple than that? This post about Crist and the Porkulus got me thinking.
Let's distill the issues down to a set core of values, first off. Let's say a "pure" republican is:
- Pro-Life
- Pro Traditional Marriage
- Limited Government
- Low Taxes
- Against Illegal Immigration
- Pro Gun
Your "ideal republican" maybe 1-6, but would you vote for a guy who is 3-6? i.e. He's pro-choice and pro gay marriage. I'd say yes. A minority might say no, but overall that's a pretty good candidate. But would you vote for a guy who is 1-2, but not 3-6. I'd say no. 3-6 are non-negotiable. Right? That's the foundation. Small government, low taxes, pro gun. I don't think many republicans would disagree with this notion.
So, what's the problem with Moderates. They fit that. They are, essentially 3-6'ers. They aren't social warriors, right? They profess to be economic conservatives, but leave the bandwagon on social issues.
But the problem is they aren't even rock hard on those issues. They are squishy. Olympia Snowe says she is an economic conservative, but might vote for Obamacare. And she's certainly not a social conservative, right? So what is she?
If her "core" beliefs are that flexible and she can vote for big government and higher taxes, then what good is she? The converse is true as well. John McCain. He's pro-life and pro-gun. And pretends to be an economic conservative (I'd disagree, but that's another issue). But, as we see so many times, he doesn't hold to his guns on what he believes. He'll negotiate his core away at a moment's notice, if the opportunity is there.
So, really, that's the problem isn't it? It's not an all or nothing party. 1-6 or die. It's a stick to your beliefs or you are useless. If you don't want to be a social warrior - fine. Don't be. But then you must be an economic warrior. You can't go in and say "Well, maybe a tax increase here is okay." or "Obamacare is just dandy. Maybe I'll vote for it." and expect people to continue to support you. This is the problem with moderates - their beliefs in anything aren't firm enough.
I'd have absolutely no problem with Snowe as a social liberal, as long as she's an economic conservative - and sticks to her guns in that sense. If she won't support a pro-life judge or whatever. Cool. I don't care. But you can't turn around and stab Republicans in the back where you are supposed to be a reliable vote.
Arlen Specter was the same way. You aren't a social con. Wonderful. Who cares. But don't turn around and argue for big government spending and tax increases, too. You can't go left on all issues and expect people to support you.
And I think that's where the root of the problem is. (And yeah, I'm poor at explaining it). It's not -really- about social cons vs social moderates. It's about sticking to what you believe. Be steadfast in your core values.
If you are a Republican, who isn't a reliable vote on social issues, don't go in front of cameras and hedge on big government spending then wonder why the party hates you. And it's not the party's fault if you can't stand up for a single thing the party believes in. That's your problem, not ours.
A smaller example would be Ace or Allahpundit. They aren't pure conservatives. No one would argue with this. But you know where they'll come down on the things that matter to them. They are going to be reliable on economic issues (Except TARP, damn you both), war on terror, taxes, guns and government spending. Not so much on social warrior issues.
In an even smaller sense, this - I think - is the conservative problem with Little Green Footballs of late. It got popular because of the War on Terror and Islamic extremism. Since the WoT is being neglected by Obama, and the site has become more apologetic to Islamic Extremism - there is little reason to expect conservatives to love this site any longer.
Back to the original example of Charlie Crist. He wants to be a Republican candidate for Senate. He's not a social warrior, but he says he's a fiscal conservative. But he turned around and hugged Obama and supported Porkulus. Before he came out against it later. And even more recently, he pulled a Charlie Gibson (Porkulus? Never heard of it.). Which would go back to the original point - what is he? If he's not steadfast in his fiscal conservatism -and- he's not a social conservative ... what good is he?
It's not about party purity as so many suggest, he's simply not reliable in any way. And that's the real issue, isn't it?
Roland Burris Disqualified from Senate
Separation of Church and State.
"We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained," Burris said Sunday night.
Right? Senate is on my side.
The Problem with JRPGs
IGN has an article on the problems with Square Enix and how to fix them. As usual, I think the article misses the point entirely.
The goes through 5 problems with the JRPGs (Japanese Role Playing Games), in particular Square Enix. But many of these problems are common to JRPGs. This is an abbreviated list. Read the article for their points.
- Unreal Engine
- Presentation
- RPG Elements (cities and characters)
- Gimmicks
- More/Longer RPGs
Each of these miss the problem of the theme entirely.
The primarily problems, in my eyes with the genre are: no in game combat and no choice.
Let's take Fallout 3, Fable 2, Star Wars: KOTOR, etc. All great RPG games. What do they have in common?
You see something you want to kill. You go over and kill it. No loading a combat screen. No battlefield creation. Nothing. You point your gun or sword at it and go at it. No loading. No time wasted.
The last JRPG I played, Final Fantasy 9, I believe..every time you entered combat, you had to go to a load screen, get your party to have some sort of lame "go get em!" shout then boring turn based combat ensued. After a while, I wanted to avoid combat entirely. It got tedious.
I just finished Fallout 3. Totally different. You see a group of guys to kill. You aim your gun and kill them. Take their loot and move on. The whole game existed in the same engine.
The difference is huge and important.
Another problem with JRPGs is their linear nature. You go here, then you go there, then there and there. I don't want to be led through the game.
All the good RPGs these days happen in a sandbox. You do what you want, when you want. Oblivion let you take on tons of side quests and go just about anywhere and let you tackle the main quest at your own volition. Being led around by the nose through a game isn't fun. When a game does that, it feels like it was programmed 20 years ago. Leave me alone. Let me play how I want.
If those two things were fixed or changed with JRPGs, I'd consider buying one. But if I see a game video that includes a combat load screen, I know I won't be buying or playing it. If game programmers want to restrict movement to new areas before certain quests are done; that is easy enough if they follow the GTA model. Just make the access points to new areas "broken" until the proper point in the game.
On the flip side, I see a great way for game makers to cash in on the new era of downloadable content. I got the idea after finishing Fallout 3.
By the end of the game, I had 100 in most major/important skills (100 being the maximum skill level you can achieve and be "perfect" at something) and had enough powerful weapons to kill anything in the game with just a few shots - a few helpful perks to make it easier as well. (As a brief aside - there should not be an alien blaster in the game. The space alien is totally out of theme with anything else in the game - given that there are no real hints of aliens elsewhere. Unless that's a future expansion pack)
Fallout 3, in a post nuclear world, makes it possible to have tens, if not hundreds, of expansion packs. Imagine New York in the Fallout 3 universe, or Chicago, San Francisco, even Paris or Moscow.
With the powerful character you have at the end of the story, any of those areas are not going to fun or challenging with a super skilled and totally leveled up guy. So, in the initial game, it makes sense to limit the maximum skill level you can achieve - by either giving you less skill points/level or making skills harder to upgrade as you raise their level (1 skill point/level up to 25, 2/level up to 50, etc) so that if you want to have 100 in "small guns" you'd really have to sacrifice your lockpicking or repair abilities.
That way, when future packs come out and the level cap is inevitably raised, you have something to work for. While exploring new areas as well. Thus, adding value to future expansion packs. If you have achievements that are only possible with either multiple playthroughs (10 points for 100 in small guns, 10 points for 100 in lockpicking etc) or playing through the expansion packs, you are more likely to get buyers for those expansions as well.
In short, I think - these days - that in the end of the game, you should not have a super powerful character, but an adequate one that can finish the game - even if you do every side quest available. That way, when future packs come out, you can improve your character more and become that super powerful guy, if you do all the expansion packs. That's a future of gaming that I'd be glad to embrace.