If you read this blog, you know I like to write fiction. Sometimes it's based in reality, sometimes not. I want to be a writer, is what I'm saying.
Well, I've decided to take up a challenge.
My friend Omar has decided to start up doing The Bradbury Method and do one short story every week for a full year. Ray Bradbury would write one short story a week; write it on Monday, edit it Tuesday through Saturday and send it off on Sunday. We're going to attempt to do just that.
It's going to be a slog and I might not make it the whole way, but I know I'll at least have something to show for it by the end - like a year long NaNoWriMo.
I'll probably need some support before this thing is through, so thank you all in advance. I'll keep you posted on how it's going and anyone who wants to read anything I've got just let me know.
Here goes nothing.
Mahalo.
Showing posts with label in. Show all posts
Showing posts with label in. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Trapped in the Hells
So. Like (almost) every other gamer on the planet right now, I purchased and have begun playing the long-anticipated Blizzard game, Diablo III - the sequel 12 years in the making after the ridiculously successful Diablo II.
I, for one, absolutely adore the universe and the gameplay in these games. The world is filled with interesting characters, the missions are intriguing and the monsters are grotesque and evil. You, as hero, stand as the lone light of salvation in the doomed world.
Set 20 years after the events of Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, wherein the last of the three Prime Evils, Baal, is killed last after his brothers - Mephisto and the eponymous Diablo - were killed, the heroes must rise again to fend off the encroaching hell hordes. The last of the Lesser Evils have surfaced after a mysterious fireball smashes into the Earth and causes the dead to rise.
If you were one of the many who received their game on its May 15 release date, odds are, you were met with the various Error messages, informing you that you couldn't log on. The servers had crashed with the traffic.
"What?" you may ask. "How can the servers of a single player game crash?"
Good question. Let me tell you.
In a move that has royally pissed off more than a fair share of people, something which is concisely summed up in this article. The main problem being that, in an attempt to curtail piracy - which has run rampant in the gaming community for, well, ever - Activision/Blizzard have decided that you have to log in to the server to be able to play your game.
"Hell," you say, "that's not so bad! You have to do that for Starcraft II and it works just fine!"
Oh, but you see, for Starcraft II, you have the option to play offline. Not so with Diablo III. You must be online at all times with Diablo III. It's no longer a "single player game with an online/multiplayer option", it's an online single player game that has the option of being played alone. But never offline.
And god help you if you have anyone on your friends list, because they can just pop into your game whenever they please. Without asking. Just PING! and they're in. But, that's neither here nor there.
My main gripe is the fact that, as happened to me on Tuesday night, if their servers are down or if my internet just plain isn't working that day, I have paid $69 for a game that I can't play. I know this is the case with World of Warcraft or any other number of MMORPGs, but those are designed for online play. You play them, you accept that servers need maintenance and sometimes they're going to go offline. But, when I purchase a single player game, I expect to be able to play it whenever I damn well feel like.
This means that unless my train has wireless, I can't play on the train. I can't play at someone else's house who's internet I can't get into. I can't play anywhere where there is no internet. And that just shits me.
That said, it's a pretty damn great game.
Mahalo.
I, for one, absolutely adore the universe and the gameplay in these games. The world is filled with interesting characters, the missions are intriguing and the monsters are grotesque and evil. You, as hero, stand as the lone light of salvation in the doomed world.
Set 20 years after the events of Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, wherein the last of the three Prime Evils, Baal, is killed last after his brothers - Mephisto and the eponymous Diablo - were killed, the heroes must rise again to fend off the encroaching hell hordes. The last of the Lesser Evils have surfaced after a mysterious fireball smashes into the Earth and causes the dead to rise.
If you were one of the many who received their game on its May 15 release date, odds are, you were met with the various Error messages, informing you that you couldn't log on. The servers had crashed with the traffic.
"What?" you may ask. "How can the servers of a single player game crash?"
Good question. Let me tell you.
In a move that has royally pissed off more than a fair share of people, something which is concisely summed up in this article. The main problem being that, in an attempt to curtail piracy - which has run rampant in the gaming community for, well, ever - Activision/Blizzard have decided that you have to log in to the server to be able to play your game.
"Hell," you say, "that's not so bad! You have to do that for Starcraft II and it works just fine!"
Oh, but you see, for Starcraft II, you have the option to play offline. Not so with Diablo III. You must be online at all times with Diablo III. It's no longer a "single player game with an online/multiplayer option", it's an online single player game that has the option of being played alone. But never offline.
And god help you if you have anyone on your friends list, because they can just pop into your game whenever they please. Without asking. Just PING! and they're in. But, that's neither here nor there.
My main gripe is the fact that, as happened to me on Tuesday night, if their servers are down or if my internet just plain isn't working that day, I have paid $69 for a game that I can't play. I know this is the case with World of Warcraft or any other number of MMORPGs, but those are designed for online play. You play them, you accept that servers need maintenance and sometimes they're going to go offline. But, when I purchase a single player game, I expect to be able to play it whenever I damn well feel like.
This means that unless my train has wireless, I can't play on the train. I can't play at someone else's house who's internet I can't get into. I can't play anywhere where there is no internet. And that just shits me.
That said, it's a pretty damn great game.
Mahalo.
Monday, March 8, 2010
A Note on Alice in Wonderland
It has come to my attention that Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" film only really makes sense, and is really of any consequence, when you have the background knowledge of the Jabberwocky poem from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There (1872) by Lewis Carroll. Here is a link to the Wikipedia page explaining the poem, and I have reprinted the poem below.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
The image is an image of the Jabberwock illustrated by John Tenniel.
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
The image is an image of the Jabberwock illustrated by John Tenniel.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Alice in Blunderland
Those of you who know me know that I am a great lover of Tim Burton's films. I find that he can practically do no wrong. Even though I was a massive fan of the original "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", I find Burton's was still good and as the two were so different, were practically incomparable. However, this is not the case with his new film "Alice in Wonderland".
The story is basically what happens if bad stuff happened after Alice left Wonderland, and so the various characters plot to bring her back to be their 'champion' against the Red Queen - or more famously known as the Queen of Hearts. But, alas, Alice has no recollection of ever being in Wonderland and she must relearn her lessons all over again. The film had promise to be an interesting follow up story to the events after the original "Alice in Wonderland" - the definitive version, I find, to be the Disney animated classic, but that's just me. Unfortunately what ended up happening was Alice was turned into an annoying teenage leading character who did nothing but complain and the plot may as well have been The Narnia Chronicles...in Wonderland.
Mia Wasikowska (Alice) can not be blamed I find for the poorness of the character, as she was mutated into a traditional misunderstood youth. Wasikowska first dealt performed in the Australian television show "All Saints", an episode directed by Robert Marchand. The role I find her best so far was in the short film "I Love Sarah Jane", in which she plays a young girl in a zombie apocalypse setting. Definitely worth a watch, it's available here.
Johnny Depp's performance as the Mad Hatter was clearly the best in the film. Though I am generally hard pressed to find a Johnny Depp performance I have disliked, this one was once again something new for the actor. The costume, voice and general physical movement of the character was so well carried out that simply watching him on screen was the saving grace of the film.
Anne Hathaway's performance as The White Queen was amusing in its own right because of her freedom to do with the character what she wanted, "When I was trying to work her out, I kept saying to myself, ‘She is a punk-rock, vegan pacifist.’" the actress said in an interview for Azrael Merrylan's blog.
What disappointed me most was by far the lackluster performance by Helena Bohnam Carter as The Red Queen. Now, normally, I am an incredible fan of the actress - I find she was practically flawless in "Fight Club" and "Sweeney Todd" - but this performance was simply not up to scratch. Albeit her subtle comedy in the role was well done, the screaming and general foolishness became frustrating to watch.
Voice work by Alan Rickman and Steven Fry in (respectively) the Blue Caterpillar and Cheshire Cat were very much up to scratch.
What annoyed me first about this film was that it did NOT need to be in 3D. Not at all. This is not "Avatar" where its only saving grace was the 3D used to make it and was basically just an exhibition of the possibilities of 3D animation. "Alice and Wonderland" and Tim Burton are a perfect match because ANYTHING is possible in both of their worlds (to paraphrase Anne Hathaway from the aforementioned interview) but Burton seems to have simply made a blockbuster film for the sake of it, not including the traditional Burton feel into it like in any of his other classic films. All in all, a massive let down. Mahalo.
The story is basically what happens if bad stuff happened after Alice left Wonderland, and so the various characters plot to bring her back to be their 'champion' against the Red Queen - or more famously known as the Queen of Hearts. But, alas, Alice has no recollection of ever being in Wonderland and she must relearn her lessons all over again. The film had promise to be an interesting follow up story to the events after the original "Alice in Wonderland" - the definitive version, I find, to be the Disney animated classic, but that's just me. Unfortunately what ended up happening was Alice was turned into an annoying teenage leading character who did nothing but complain and the plot may as well have been The Narnia Chronicles...in Wonderland.
Mia Wasikowska (Alice) can not be blamed I find for the poorness of the character, as she was mutated into a traditional misunderstood youth. Wasikowska first dealt performed in the Australian television show "All Saints", an episode directed by Robert Marchand. The role I find her best so far was in the short film "I Love Sarah Jane", in which she plays a young girl in a zombie apocalypse setting. Definitely worth a watch, it's available here.
Johnny Depp's performance as the Mad Hatter was clearly the best in the film. Though I am generally hard pressed to find a Johnny Depp performance I have disliked, this one was once again something new for the actor. The costume, voice and general physical movement of the character was so well carried out that simply watching him on screen was the saving grace of the film.
Anne Hathaway's performance as The White Queen was amusing in its own right because of her freedom to do with the character what she wanted, "When I was trying to work her out, I kept saying to myself, ‘She is a punk-rock, vegan pacifist.’" the actress said in an interview for Azrael Merrylan's blog.
What disappointed me most was by far the lackluster performance by Helena Bohnam Carter as The Red Queen. Now, normally, I am an incredible fan of the actress - I find she was practically flawless in "Fight Club" and "Sweeney Todd" - but this performance was simply not up to scratch. Albeit her subtle comedy in the role was well done, the screaming and general foolishness became frustrating to watch.
Voice work by Alan Rickman and Steven Fry in (respectively) the Blue Caterpillar and Cheshire Cat were very much up to scratch.
What annoyed me first about this film was that it did NOT need to be in 3D. Not at all. This is not "Avatar" where its only saving grace was the 3D used to make it and was basically just an exhibition of the possibilities of 3D animation. "Alice and Wonderland" and Tim Burton are a perfect match because ANYTHING is possible in both of their worlds (to paraphrase Anne Hathaway from the aforementioned interview) but Burton seems to have simply made a blockbuster film for the sake of it, not including the traditional Burton feel into it like in any of his other classic films. All in all, a massive let down. Mahalo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)