"Snape kills Dumbledore!" At 11:59 PM, right before the 6th Harry Potter book was going to be sold on the east coast of the US, a guy pulls out a bullhorn and announced that to the long line of people (many of which were children) waiting for the release in a Walmart. Naturally this caused a mighty uproar and caused a lot of kids to cry. The big problem? The book hadn't been released yet and he revealed a major plot point. Soime people considered it illegal, except for one problem: The book had been released five hours earlier in the U.K. where the book was published. (This exact story is hearsay and I couldn't find a news article directly pointing to it, but this story has been around for some time as well as many versions of it.)
I think everyone will agree that 5 hours from release is way too soon for spoilers, whether it's a book, game, movie, whatever. But just how soon is too soon?
The standard fallback of "It varies for everyone" never applies. When one friend of mine was getting ready to watch the 6th movie, I asked "Are you gonna shout 'SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!' when he kills him?"
He looked at me aghast and said "Dude! Way to ruin the movie!"
"What are you talking about?"
"The movie just came out two days ago! I hadn't seen it yet!"
"... Dude, the book's been out for four years."
"... What book?"
Yeah, I didn't cut him any slack. I had a similar occurrence with the Lord of the Ring movies and had no shame in talking about books that had been out longer than I had been alive while others whined that I was spoiling things.
So I think we can agree as far as a standard goes, 5 hours can generally be too soon and 4 years is more than long enough. But then we have issues with people who honestly haven't experienced something yet.
My girlfriend has never seen the original Wizard of Oz movie. She knows a lot of the references though and doesn't really care to see the movie since she pretty much know what happens. Part of me is aghast as it's a deeply woven part of American culture. Heck, if you say "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore," people not only know what you mean, but where the reference comes from. (For added spice in outer space, use a more local reference. Imagine Luke Skywalker saying "I don't think we're on Tatooine anymore.")
I guess it really does come down to personal consideration. If someone is expressing interest is enjoying something for the first time, don't ruin it. Let them enjoy it in its unfettered beauty.
Except for Snape killing Dumbledore. Everyone already knew that. Have fun!
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Borderlands 2: Be careful what you wish for
Borderlands was a good game, but it was lacking in story. Sure it had plenty of chuckles, but not a lot of substance. So when the sequel was announced, a lot of the fan base asked for more of a story.
We got it. And it ain't pretty.
While Borderlands 2 has lots of laughs, it also delves more in to the who/what/etc. of the planet. There are some very dark moments, which definitely changes the tone of the game when you hit them. I'm not one for putting out spoilers, so you'll have to play through. I hit one point where suddenly I felt extremely horrible about what had happened. In a sense, "Shit just got real, yo."
Good job, Gearbox and 2KGames. I want to kill Handsome Jack not because it's the goal, but because it's personal. And I don't mean that "Good job" sarcastically. This is a story that starts off light and layers it on heavier and heavier. I'm now vested in my character and her motivations (Yeah, I'm playing Maya) and want to see this through to the end.
Oh, and if you want to know what the gameplay is like, it's a lot like Borderlands with more variety, which is a good thing. They took what worked and improved on it. They added a few new elements to re-balance the game and tied it in with the story. And the music just fits everything so well. It's also nice to have some more landscape colors other than Brown and More Brown.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Yogurt Boost
So here's an interesting kick twist for breakfast: Yogurt and Pancakes. No, I don't mean put yogurt on top, I mean inside the pancakes. This recipe for pancakes serves as an excellent base, but you may want to change the ingredients to...
Instead of adding milk, you can add a single serving of yogurt mixed with milk. Most yogurt comes in 6 oz. containers, so you won't need much milk. The easiest way to do this is to put the yogurt in a one cup measuring cup and fill it the rest of the way with milk. The pancakes come out a little heavier and more cake like. The batter is also much thicker, so you can't pour it like regular batter. I've found a couple spoonfuls make a good sized pancake.
Another fun mix is pudding. Many smaller instant pudding packages call for 2 cups cold milk. Again, replace some of the milk with a container of yogurt and you'll get a creamier pudding. What's more, you can have some fun mixing flavors of pudding. Strawberry yogurt and banana pudding make for a great combination, but experimenting can really produce some excellent results, like Jell-O's French Vanilla pudding and Yoplait's Triple Berry Torte yogurt.
There are other recipes you can do the swap with and eHow.com has some guidelines you can follow. Are you making things a little healthier? That's debatable, but you can certainly make them tastier. Have fun!
Eurocuisine 2-Quart Yogurt Maker from chefscatalog.com
- 1 cup all-purpose flour
- 1 tablespoon white sugar
- 1 teaspoon baking soda
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- 1 cup yogurt and milk
- 1 egg
Instead of adding milk, you can add a single serving of yogurt mixed with milk. Most yogurt comes in 6 oz. containers, so you won't need much milk. The easiest way to do this is to put the yogurt in a one cup measuring cup and fill it the rest of the way with milk. The pancakes come out a little heavier and more cake like. The batter is also much thicker, so you can't pour it like regular batter. I've found a couple spoonfuls make a good sized pancake.
Another fun mix is pudding. Many smaller instant pudding packages call for 2 cups cold milk. Again, replace some of the milk with a container of yogurt and you'll get a creamier pudding. What's more, you can have some fun mixing flavors of pudding. Strawberry yogurt and banana pudding make for a great combination, but experimenting can really produce some excellent results, like Jell-O's French Vanilla pudding and Yoplait's Triple Berry Torte yogurt.
There are other recipes you can do the swap with and eHow.com has some guidelines you can follow. Are you making things a little healthier? That's debatable, but you can certainly make them tastier. Have fun!
Eurocuisine 2-Quart Yogurt Maker from chefscatalog.com
Friday, September 14, 2012
College Classes Teach Each Other
Right now, I'm taking 3 college classes: Intro to Java Programming, Precalculus, and Intro to MS Office. One of my biggest obstacles I've had to tackle is "How can I use this?" Let's go back to high school. Or rather, let's think back to the classes in high school. Not many people actually want to go back. Anyway...
In high school, we came across a number of things that we didn't quite see how it applied to real life. Unless you were going on Jeopardy, why did it matter when the Magna Carta was signed? What did balancing a chemical equation have to do with the price of tea in China? And would someone please tell me when you would ever use the Pythagorean Theorem? All of these were just stuff we were taught in school, and we were rarely given real world examples.
This stuff bored the crap out of me and now I'm facing the same kind of boredom in my current classes. Sure, I'm happy to be learning all this, but it's aggravating. So I found ways to put my knowledge to use. Specifically, I've been using my classes to work with each other.
All my precalc homework is being done in MS Office and exported as PDF, e-mailed to the teacher. I've also been playing with Java and doing some of the calculations with Java programs instead of just a calculator. This actually gives me a connection with each of my classes on how to solve issues, even if it's just to do my homework.
If you find yourself struggling with the "boring" classes, see how you can relate each class to one another. It might just give you a little bit of an edge and make that information stick. Have fun!
Friday, September 7, 2012
Morals vs. Ethics
I generally thought morals and ethics were interchangeable, and in some instances they are. But like rectangles and squares, it's only in certain circumstances. All squares are rectangles because they all have four 90° angles. Not all rectangles are squares because not all of them have four equal sides.
Morals are personal. Let's get that right straight out of the gate: Morals are PERSONAL. They're something you grow up learning, applying, sometimes changing because you find that one isn't as right as you thought. Your own sense of right and wrong are your morals. They may copy or follow someone else's morals, but they are yours. Morals are generally associated with organized religions, despite being personal.
Ethics are much more social. They are debated, refined, and applied over systems. Ethics may conflict directly with morals or work perfectly aside them. Ethics tend to develop over time and only end up really changing when they are found not to be practical.
This is really a big difference. Morals are personal, simple, and easily changeable. Ethics are social, complex, and difficult to change. The bigger difference is ethics can become laws much easier.
In order for a law to have some bearing, it has to at least pass general consent. A wide variety of morals by their nature disagree with one another because each moral identifies what is good by only a personal point of view. Say a local council is deciding whether to make fishing in the local streams legal or illegal. You can have morals go like this:
In my opinion, one of the more famous examples of recognizing morals vs. ethics comes from the Book of Matthew
By ethical standards, paying the taxes was the right thing to do because it was the law. From a moral standard, you don't want to give up your money so you think it's a bad thing, thus it's immoral to impose taxes on you. Here's where the disconnect happens: Because you're attempting to apply your moral to someone else's behavior, it's no longer your moral; it is now an ethic, and the ethical thing to do would be to pay your taxes. In this way, Jesus was teaching that it was possible to be ethical and moral at the same time.
Where I've seen a lot of people improperly apply their morals is when dictating how other people should behave. Once you try to apply a moral standard to someone else, it's no longer your moral, it becomes part of an ethic. If there's an ethic in place already, your moral is automatically... I'm not sure what the right word for this is. Vetoed? Trumped? Ignored? In any case, it becomes unimportant.
In that vein, it's impossible to say someone is immoral. If they're doing something, they believe it is moral to do it. On the other hand, if someone is unethical, they're either rude or breaking the law. That sounds about right. Have fun!
Morals are personal. Let's get that right straight out of the gate: Morals are PERSONAL. They're something you grow up learning, applying, sometimes changing because you find that one isn't as right as you thought. Your own sense of right and wrong are your morals. They may copy or follow someone else's morals, but they are yours. Morals are generally associated with organized religions, despite being personal.
Ethics are much more social. They are debated, refined, and applied over systems. Ethics may conflict directly with morals or work perfectly aside them. Ethics tend to develop over time and only end up really changing when they are found not to be practical.
This is really a big difference. Morals are personal, simple, and easily changeable. Ethics are social, complex, and difficult to change. The bigger difference is ethics can become laws much easier.
In order for a law to have some bearing, it has to at least pass general consent. A wide variety of morals by their nature disagree with one another because each moral identifies what is good by only a personal point of view. Say a local council is deciding whether to make fishing in the local streams legal or illegal. You can have morals go like this:
- Good: Fishing is relaxing
- Bad: Fishing kills animals
- Bad: Fishing wastes time
- Good: I like to eat fish
- Bad: Fishing is boring
- Good: Some fishing will get me away from the family
- Good: It doesn't hurt other people
- Good: it doesn't encroach on others rights
- OK: It would have minor environmental impact
- Good: It could encourage business in the area
- Good: Licenses can be sold, generating revenue and reducing over-fishing
In my opinion, one of the more famous examples of recognizing morals vs. ethics comes from the Book of Matthew
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - Matthew 22:21, Christian bibleThis has been interpreted many ways, not the least of which is "You can't say you don't have to pay taxes because of religious reasons." For me, it's puts morals and ethics is the spotlight as well. A little back story for the quote, Jesus is approached and asked if people should pay taxes. The question was a trap because if he said no, they would turn him over for defying the government. His statement did more than just say "yes", however.
By ethical standards, paying the taxes was the right thing to do because it was the law. From a moral standard, you don't want to give up your money so you think it's a bad thing, thus it's immoral to impose taxes on you. Here's where the disconnect happens: Because you're attempting to apply your moral to someone else's behavior, it's no longer your moral; it is now an ethic, and the ethical thing to do would be to pay your taxes. In this way, Jesus was teaching that it was possible to be ethical and moral at the same time.
Where I've seen a lot of people improperly apply their morals is when dictating how other people should behave. Once you try to apply a moral standard to someone else, it's no longer your moral, it becomes part of an ethic. If there's an ethic in place already, your moral is automatically... I'm not sure what the right word for this is. Vetoed? Trumped? Ignored? In any case, it becomes unimportant.
In that vein, it's impossible to say someone is immoral. If they're doing something, they believe it is moral to do it. On the other hand, if someone is unethical, they're either rude or breaking the law. That sounds about right. Have fun!
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Retro Review Relevance
A lot of people are familiar with the Angry Video Game Nerd. If not, here's a simple summary: He reviews old games from the Atari 2600 to the Nintendo 64 (the oldest I recall) which are exceedingly bad. I had a laugh and agreed on quite a few points. But what relevance does that have in today's video game market?
I was doing some cleaning up and decided to hook up the GameCube and play some Wind Waker. And I found myself wishing there were games that used some of these elements.
And then I put two and two together.
A lot of people I talked to see retro reviews as something to just draw in the nostalgia crowd. I'm realizing there are more valuable lessons to learned. In the case Angry Video Game Nerd, it's what NOT to do. The majority of these reviews also point out what worked.
As an example, let's consider Super Mario 64, which was the first game for the Mario franchise to leap from the 2D to the 3D. It's a great game. Are the two related? Not directly. Though 3D gaming was becoming more popular, what made SM64 a great game was it was a great game. I know, a simplistic analogy, but hear me out. The level designs were excellent, the controls worked well, it gave a great challenge, the music fit the game very well (I loved the Metal Mario music!), and it's story, while not monumental, was just right for the game. The graphics were good for when it was released, but by 2012 they'd be considered crap. So why is it hailed still as a great game? Because it is a great game.
Retro reviews only mentions crappy graphics or horrible sound if they are truly awful. They do consider the available technology of the game's time. When they cite bad music, it's because it was badly composed or played inappropriately, such as only having a single ten second track looping endlessly without pause. When the graphics are hit, it from seeing the artists not even trying, especially if you're questioning if something is a gun or a dildo.
Even though they talk about games made 20 or 30 years ago, a number of lessons from those times can still be learned. A good game cannot rely on good graphics alone. If it has no substance, it'll make people ask why they even bothered picking up the game and playing it.
If you can, I invite you to play a couple of yesteryear games and see what made them good and what made them bad. Not for nostalgia's sake, but to make you appreciate all the work that helped make some of the good game what they are today. And on the topic of games, I just lost the game! Have fun!
I was doing some cleaning up and decided to hook up the GameCube and play some Wind Waker. And I found myself wishing there were games that used some of these elements.
And then I put two and two together.
A lot of people I talked to see retro reviews as something to just draw in the nostalgia crowd. I'm realizing there are more valuable lessons to learned. In the case Angry Video Game Nerd, it's what NOT to do. The majority of these reviews also point out what worked.
As an example, let's consider Super Mario 64, which was the first game for the Mario franchise to leap from the 2D to the 3D. It's a great game. Are the two related? Not directly. Though 3D gaming was becoming more popular, what made SM64 a great game was it was a great game. I know, a simplistic analogy, but hear me out. The level designs were excellent, the controls worked well, it gave a great challenge, the music fit the game very well (I loved the Metal Mario music!), and it's story, while not monumental, was just right for the game. The graphics were good for when it was released, but by 2012 they'd be considered crap. So why is it hailed still as a great game? Because it is a great game.
Retro reviews only mentions crappy graphics or horrible sound if they are truly awful. They do consider the available technology of the game's time. When they cite bad music, it's because it was badly composed or played inappropriately, such as only having a single ten second track looping endlessly without pause. When the graphics are hit, it from seeing the artists not even trying, especially if you're questioning if something is a gun or a dildo.
Even though they talk about games made 20 or 30 years ago, a number of lessons from those times can still be learned. A good game cannot rely on good graphics alone. If it has no substance, it'll make people ask why they even bothered picking up the game and playing it.
If you can, I invite you to play a couple of yesteryear games and see what made them good and what made them bad. Not for nostalgia's sake, but to make you appreciate all the work that helped make some of the good game what they are today. And on the topic of games, I just lost the game! Have fun!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)