You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2012.
Amazing how a little pregnancy can spice up a show. Hollywood’s depiction of pregnancy, giving birth and the physiological and psychological strains associated with the ordeal are, of course, way off base. On the upside, it makes for a great episode…
Diablo 3 is an action RPG, in other words, it is one happy dungeon romp after another, always in search of the biggest and brightest loot to make the character of your choice that much more powerful. D3 does a wonderful job at using a variable reinforcement schedule when it comes to getting your items as all treasure dropped by monsters is random, so you never know when your lucky spin is going to come up. Someone did their psychology homework, full marks Blizzard. D3 falls down in a few areas for me that I would like to touch on, specifically the character advancement system and how, despite a plethora of neat character skills, almost every skill does exactly the same thing. I have a couple of quibbles with the character advancement schema as well that I will touch on before getting to what I see as a major problem with Diablo 3.
Character advancement, as opposed to Diablo 2, is rigid as character statistic advancement points are doled out in what is deemed to be the correct ratio for your particular character class. So, for instance, as a Witch Doctor, when you level up your intelligence always receives the majority of your advancement points. Contrast the beefy barbarian that advances her strength at a increased rate. Now, these predetermined choices make sense for how each character is designed, but by making the point allocation automatic, players miss out on customizing their characters to their wishes as opposed to what what Blizzard thinks is best. Why bother with attributes at all when they are not player controlled? This leads, in a minor way, to a certain baseline similarity between characters in terms of how they are built. You won’t find a burly mage, or a barbarian that is intellectually gifted. Not really a big problem, but it plays into my main concern with how D3 feels distinctly modular when it comes to the core mechanic of the game. 
Diablo 3’s core mechanic is to defeat monsters and gain experience and gear that make your character more powerful and set up for the next challenge. Not a complex task, but a viscerally satisfying one as you, through various means, send the earthbound minions of hell back to hell, preferably in bloody, non-tessellated bite sized pieces. I’m good with that and the graphics for the various characters their associated skills are really quite amazing. When I see a Wizard call down a meteor swarm my screen shakes and huge fiery globes of burning death rain down on the enemies – Awesome! Or when the Witch Doctor summons an inhospitable pool of acid for the baddies to bathe in, or when the Barbarian begins adding extra ventilation on the nearest demon, it is all good. But here is the thing, despite all the cool graphical monster annihilating madness being served up what is actually being inflicted upon our most gracious enemies is a number (and the exact same number in each of these cases) and its called DPS, or damage per second.
The DPS generated by your character is dependent on your (predetermined) statistics and of course the gear you happen to have on. This is where I find the modularity of D3 detracts from the game. The epic minion crisping meteor swarm cast by the wizard does damage based on her DPS rating, that same wizard could cast Blizzard, a different area of effect spell, and do roughly the same amount of damage. Different graphical effects, same end results. There is certain amount of variation as you can modify the abilities you use with different runes that are unlocked as you gain experience, this provides some variation but does not adequately address the problem of modularity. It is like playing with Mr.Potato Head, whether you slap the goofy glasses on that lovable spud or configure him to wear his nose as a hat, in the end he is still just Mr.Potato head. Similarly in D3, using the the wizard example, you can pummel and deep-fry your foes with meteors and do X damage, or you can freeze them with blizzard and do, you guessed it, that same X damage.
So all you need to worry about is your DPS (damage), the choice of what shiny way you want to deliver said damage is mostly inconsequential, because if you remember the game mechanic that D3 is based on is slay da monster, get da loot, rinse and repeat. As the game increases in difficulty instead of becoming more complex the choices really boil down to two factors:
1. How much DPS am I doing?
2. How much life do I have?
Not enough of 1 but lots of 2 means that you’re trying to defeat enemies with harsh words while your demonic foes are peeling your face like a banana and using your skin to make doilies.
Not enough of 2, but lots of 1 means your are one means you’re viciously kicking ass, chewing bubble gum and taking names until you cut yourself on the gum-wrapper,bleeding out as you keel over dead.
So really, the meta-game of D3 is finding the balance between killing your foes and not becoming fish food yourself. Determining this requires playing with two factors, your DPS and your Vitality (life), everything else is secondary to this axiomatic notion in D3. And that is where the problem for me lies.
I apologize for the video heavy week we are having. This past weekend was filled with not a lot of sleep and as a result feeling quite grey and fuzzy when it was my usual blogging prime-time.
I really want to see this documentary its fascinating/creepy all at the same time.
Watch what happens when you mix broken foreign policy with religion…
“One of Pakistan’s most influential clerics has renounced his support for polio immunisation, claiming that the programme is a cover for American spies.”
Pakistan needs less of this particular brand of religious stupidity. The stupid is compounded by the bullshite American cloak and dagger games being played in Pakistan.
“But now he says he cannot back the policy after it emerged that the CIA had used a fake hepatitis drive to hunt for Osama bin Laden last year.
Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who organised the vaccination campaign, has been sentenced to 33 years in prison and his actions caused a wave of paranoia about foreign aid workers.”
Thank you America your botched war is screwing up yet another county in your drive to be the imperial power of this century as well. Newsflash – China isn’t going to let you; get over yourself and stop killing brown people for not agreeing to be vassals.
“Pakistan is one of three countries where the disease remains endemic. Only 22 cases have been reported this year – compared with 59 in the same period in 2011 – and hopes were high that it could soon be declared polio free.
However, hard-line clerics have long opposed what they suspect is a Western conspiracy against Muslims. As a result health workers carefully cultivated moderate leaders, who issued fatwas – or religious rulings – declaring vaccination to be in line with Islamic teaching.”
There is just so much wrong going on here. Vaccinations to eradicate polio are a fundamentally good idea. This fundamentally good idea is trumped though when Western spy agencies use them to further their foreign policy goals. Then you get backlash like this:
But Haq said that it made no sense for foreign agencies to keep children free from disease while bombing Pakistan.
“If you people are that much curious about the health of people living over there, it means that you are keeping these people alive just to kill them by drones,” he said.
The sad fatalism of marginalized people. Wrong, but understandable given the circumstances. Never forget that we are categorically *not* the good guys for much of the world. If we’d taken the time and effort simply not to perpetuate misery and destruction on poor coloured folk we might actually have some respect in the world.
Qualia soup argues for secularism and its benefits to atheists and theists.
Damn you CKUA breakfast show. You made me late to work as I had to listen to the end of the movement to find out what piece you were playing. On the upside finding out it was a whole concerto was fantastic.
he piece, as marked in the score, is in three movements:
- Allegro affettuoso (A minor)
- Intermezzo: Andantino grazioso (F major)
- Allegro vivace (A major)
There is no break between these last two movements (attacca subito).
Schumann preferred that the movements be listed in concert programs as only two movements:
- Allegro affettuoso
- Andantino and Rondo
The three movement listing is the more common form used.
Allegro affettuoso
The piece starts with an energetic strike by strings and timpani, followed by a fierce, descending attack by the piano. The first theme is introduced by the oboe along with wind instruments. The theme is then given to the soloist. Schumann provides great variety with this theme. He first offers it in the A minor key of the piece, then we hear it again in major, and we can also hear small snatches of the tune in a very slow, A flat section. The clarinet is often used against the piano in this movement. Toward the end of the movement, the piano launches into a long cadenza before the orchestra joins in with one more melody and builds for the exciting finish.
Intermezzo
This movement is keyed in F major. The piano and strings open up the piece with a small, delicate tune, which is heard throughout the movement before the cellos and later the other strings finally take the main theme, with the piano mainly used as accompaniment. The movement closes with small glimpses of the first movement’s theme before moving straight into the third movement.
Allegro vivace
The movement opens with a huge run up the strings while the piano takes the main, A major theme. Schumann shows great color and variety in this movement. The tune is regal, and the strings are noble. Though it is in 3/4 timing, Schumann manipulates it so that the time signature is often ambiguous. The piece finishes with a restating of the previous material before finally launching into an exciting finale, and ending with a long timpani roll and a huge chord from the orchestra.
I learned very early on that following The Fashion just wasn’t worth the hassle and that it just didn’t deliver what it promised. When I was three years old, I thought it would be super cool to have spiky hair. And for the first little while, it was cool. But every day, I had sit still for 5 whole minutes (a very long time for a young boy) while my mom applied the required gel to my hair to get it to stay in place. Those 5 minutes seemed to get longer and longer, until they stretched out into eternity. And was I rewarded with a new, more exciting life? Were my latent super powers suddenly unleashed due to my fantastically awesome hair? No. All I got for my unfathomable patience was a few seconds of a visual in the mirror only to go the rest of my day without looking at myself, not really caring what was on top of my head.
I very quickly dropped the ‘cool’ hair style and adopted the one I still wear today. I call it ‘short’. It looks the same every single morning, no matter how I sleep. It looks the same throughout the day, no matter how much wind there is. If you wake up a mere 5 minutes earlier each day to fix your hair, each year I get to sleep in a full 30 hours more than you. No muss, fuss, money-gobbling-products, worry, or stress. It is low maintenance and efficiency at its peak.
I apply this early lesson any time I encounter The Fashion. What would I gain? What would it cost? What are the odds this will deliver anything close to what The Fashion is promising? As anyone with a hint of practicality might imagine, The Fashion does not win out on very many of these cost/benefit analyses.
Of course, applying critical thought to The Fashion is quite unfashionable. Dressing according to utility will rarely earn you compliments and even sometimes elicit scorn. The Fashion is a greedy, non-sensical, evil, duplicitous, money-grab run by people who don’t care about you, your health, or your looks.
“What, what? When I listen to The Fashion, I look and feel good. So do millions of others. Back up your claim, you nay-sayer you!”
Glad you asked.
There are countless examples of The Fashion being a superficial waste of materials. I mean, who came up with ties? They don’t cover anything, and they certainly don’t keep you warm. But the example I want to look at makes it blatantly obvious that the rules of fashion are not only indifferent towards utility, but also contrived primarily to conjure up an imaginary need just so they can sell you useless crap. Here it is:
In N.America, The Fashion has a lot to say about skin tone. Tan is healthy. Tan is beautiful. Tan is sexy. Pale is sickly! Look at all of our starlets in movies with tans. Models in our ads have tans. We have tanning beds, tanning oils, tanning salons, tanning magazines, tan tan tan tan tan tan!
In Asia, The Fashion also has a lot to say about skin tone. Pale is healthy. Pale is beautiful. Pale is sexy. Tan is dirty! Look at all of their starlets in movies with pale skin. Models in their ads have pale skin. They have skin-whitening ointments, skin-whitening moisturizers, skin-whitening make-up, pale pale pale pale pale!
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…