Bad design is so much more fun.

Bad design is honestly more fun than good design. Good design simply is good; often there is not much to say because just looking at it instills a sense of satisfaction on some level. Bad design, we get to point out just why it is inharmonious.

For this assignment, I figured I'd stick with my modus operendi and do something video game related. In this case, cover art. Once upon a time, we didn't have this new-fangled "Internet" contraption. All we had to go by when it came to picking out if a game was good or bad was the cover art. Surprisingly, the vast majority of it in the late 80s and early 90s was atrociously bad despite the game itself being quite good.

Let's start out with the good design. I present to you the box art for Batman: Arkham City.

I love, love, love this art cover. Ignore the X-Box 360 garish neon green for a moment (Seriously, Microsoft, could you pick a more austentatious ugly color for every game for your system?) and just look at the image itself. It's just well put together and draws your eye. Gestalt principles at work here I believe are the Law of Pragnanz and the Law of Continuity. The entire artwork is in grayscale except for the red of the blood on Batman's fists and under his nose. (The bloody nose is actually foreshadowing, as well. Great job by Rocksteady capturing such an integral moment in the game's plot just in the artwork.) It immediately draws you in. It's incredibly simple from that regard. No one even really notices the Wayne Enterprises building in the background of the image at first glance because the figure and pose of Batman is so striking.

As for continuity, we actually begin this one by looking at the white space between Batman and his logo. While that seems at odds, trying to draw your eye in both directions, it works for this reason: the logo is simple enough it immediately lets you absorb it and then focus on the rest of the image. There's a circular loop one's eye draws, without really causing stress.

Contextually, there's a lot going on here. As I already mentioned, the cover foreshadows a great deal into the game. (I advise anyone to play it, not just Batman fans. It's really quite good.) Second, Batman is a known pop culture entity, and currently relevant. His last movie was a huge success and there is a considerable amount of hype for the next one. This means the art designers can play off public perception: All other Batman related things as of late are dark and gritty. Inside the game, it is that way. However, the art is very light. It's a dark grim city, but the contrast was jacked up so high even the grey sky appears white. It's very opposite of how we think of Gotham and of Batman.

It's also eye-catching on any given game store's wall. It isn't a busy cover, unlike so many other titles, so it actually catches our eyes more. Plus, it is mostly greyscale and light, so it sticks out like a sore thumb amongst the neon green of the physical case of it and every game nearby. If every game used that same color scheme, it obviously wouldn't be as effective. It is highly stylized, a signature feature of the modern Batman brand.

NOW ON TO THE FUN PART: Bad design.

Check out the cover art to the Sega Genesis game, Strider. The original arcade game came out in 1989 and the Sega Genesis release came out just a year later toward the end of 1990, so keep that in mind.

What is going on here? I can't even... what is th-... Wow. I mean wow. It was ugly back then. Looking at it now 20+ years later, it's just a glaring eyesore.

There are so many things wrong with this, most notably the fact the only thing this has to do with the actual game itself is the main character wears purple. Let's talk about gestalt principles.

The Law of Proximity has an effect. Strider's character is leaping out of the box and the bad guys are all in the background, grouped together simply by standing together. The law of continuity is also in effect because we are drawn to what seemingly 3-d object is "closest" to us then we go ahead and look back at the rest. There is at least the left to right flow going on.

The whole 90's art style was ugly. There is no contrast in the image at all. You go from this ugly purple super space man outfit this oddly Russian looking guy is wearing to a floating pink city to more purple jumpsuits, just on bad guys this time. Then, you've got this really cheesy 'motion' effect on the sword, like he's slashing it, but the guy is in such a hero pose it seems odd and out of place. There is no way a guy standing like that making that face is also performing a combat action. It's simply not believable.

The worst part is how it has so very little to do with the game. Part of the coolness factor of the title was the weird tonfa-like plasma saber the Strider in-game used. This guy is wielding a very non-descript broadsword? Weird. He's also blond, instead of Japanese. Again, this is odd. Unlike old NES titles, people had a fair grasp of what Strider was supposed to look like because graphically, the game was ahead of it's time. Let me show you a few screenshots.

He is not some Aryan-looking body builder. Guy is a lithe ninja, with brown hair and his garb is more traditional ninja type affair, not some muscle suit. And again, the sword. (How could they get that wrong when it was such a key feature of the coolness of the game? URHHGGG.) Also, it doesn't look like he's stuck in the Tetris castle.

The worst, worst, worst part of all this is the game already had really good concept/"cover" art for it's initial Arcade launch. Check out this flyer, the type of thing you would have seen on the sides of the Japanese arcade cabinet:

I think given the time period and local (remember, Japanese game) this type of thing worked. Weird, yeah, but at least you got a sense of what the game was about: a ninja killing a bunch of cyborgs. You also had complimenting colors, with the blue suit of the protagonist against the fiery oranges and reds of all the bad guys displayed, so there is a visual pop.

Positive thinking leads to a lot of negative thinking.

I enjoy my life right now, except for one major area but we'll get into that later. I'm enjoying school. I've finally picked up a creative hobby in playing my guitar. I am a pretty deep thinking person, because I know I am engaging to talk to. I'm also just about the most loyal person ever, never lie to anyone, and am very helpful to anyone who asks for it. 

That doesn't stem out of my pathological need to feel needed, either; I am just a helpful person because why not? If anything, my helpful nature stems from boredom. Someone needs me for 3 hours to paint their house or something, why the hell not? I'd just sit around and watch TV or pluck at my guitar or play video games. It's FUN to go out and do things to benefit other people, at least for me.

So why do I feel so alone all the time? I'm doing everything in my power to exude that confidence everyone always talks about, to put forward uplifting messages to other people around me. And none of the rewards that are supposed to come with it happen.

I still sit alone for 80% of my conscious day. I try to find solace in that solitude, but it's really difficult. Yeah, it's nice sometimes, but when it's all the time and has been all the time for the last couple years, it's really painful. Solitude by choice is nice; solitude despite every effort to make otherwise is not.

It's baffling. All the older people in my life tell me they think it's baffling, as well; that they don't understand why I'm so unpopular with my peers.

It's not lack of confidence. I know if anyone gave me a chance, I'd be their best friend or whatever. I'm a caring, giving person. It just sucks it's one of my best qualities and I never have a chance to showcase it. The reason I always search for input on how to better myself is more out of pure lack of understanding. In fact, I'd say my confidence leads to my apparent lack of confidence. You try spending several months holed up in your room invisible to the people you care about most, and tell me it makes any sense to you.

Maybe that's the problem. I have to quit asking for advice, because fuck you. I don't need advice. I'm awesome, goddamn it. Maybe everyone just gets mad at me for getting mad at them they are giving  me advice I already try to follow.

It'd be cool to be Greek.

I'd love to sit around and philosophize all day. It's pretty much what I do already, but it'd be so much cooler if I was a public nuisance like the students of Socrates. That's something history tends to downplay, is he was criticized heavily in his own day for "corrupting the youth," indeed what he eventually was put to death for.

I'll be straightforward: this post is mostly so I can deal with my own thoughts. Come along for the ride if you want.

I used to laugh at the whole concept of a midlife crisis. It seemed so silly to me. Men get in their fifties, then basically lose their minds because they throw away everything that was important to them, uprooting their entire life. The whole idea wouldn't hang around if people didn't see it in every day life.

The stereotypes are usually pretty stupid. "Oh, dude has a Porsche and is over 50? Mid-life Crisis." No. That's just because any male with the means to do it would drive a nice car. Period. I can't think of a single person I know who is prudent enough to at the very least not desire some form of luxury car. That one is based in logic.

Wanting a sweet car is not a crisis. Throwing away the people who loved you is, and frankly that is the one which happens far too often.

There is a man I know and love and respect, and I think he's gone to the dark side. I think this iteration of his mid-life crisis (he's really been in one for a decade or longer, to be honest) is scary. He's radically altered his appearance, quit his business that he quit his original career to build, and is incapable of being in the moment to enjoy time with his family. These aren't just signs of a guy being unhappy with his life; they are signs of a man hiding an alternate life.

If this person has cheated on his wife or really in fact doesn't "love her anymore" as the rumor mill goes, then my entire concept of reality is shattered. His wife is easily one of the best women I've ever known, ever. His children are all good kids if a bit slow on the getting through life part. I don't know how that couldn't be his number one priority any more.

This man got caught up in being a health guru. I'm all for wanting others to live in a healthy manner and improve their lives, sure. It's frightening the ego-boost and self-gratification this guy started to feel doing this, though. If you hadn't figured out by now, I know this whole family really well. They are some of the only people I communicate with on a regular basis. I've personally witnessed the entire family together in the living room, watching TV (some sporting event, usually), chatting it up and he just checks out. Sits in his spot on the couch and texts people the whole time. In fact, the only thing he tends to add to the conversation is about what some "friend" of his somewhere else in the world thinks about that game's events. The rest of his family will have conversations about him while he is present and he is oblivious to it.

I think an intervention is in order. This is at one time a God-fearing man. I bet he'd tell you he still is, but actions speak louder than words. Sunday Christians piss me off. I feel I am closer to the divine the cold, bitter, alone man that I am on Sundays than people who go to church just so they can ignore all the people hurting in their lives the rest of the week.

Since I heard this whole rumor of trouble in paradise, I haven't been able to turn off my brain except during restless sleep. I've wondered if this will happen to me. I've seen it happen to so many otherwise good men. Will I turn 55 and suddenly be so angry life didn't turn out the way I wanted I throw a bunch of people under the bus to try and satisfy my ego? The worse thought is if I'll even have anyone in my life when that time comes around to even hurt.

This one really hits close to home, guys. I'm not sure this broodiness is going to leave me any time soon. Only reason I mention that is because I'll be extra emo and analyze every little thing to be skewed against me for a bit. Example: Was planning to ask a girl in my only class Tues/Thurs to lunch afterwards, but she was quick to get out the door and never responded to my text afterward. Something this innocuous is already causing panic attacks. Let's all hope this situation ends up resolving itself in a way that doesn't cause a splintered family.

Contrast, Balance, Harmony: Fun things you can do on Flickr

You have to love assignments where you are basically told, "Find any image and talk about it." A class where I can just use what we talk about and apply it to whatever moves... me? Not just some random crap we're told to talk about?

Awesome.

First thing I did was get on Flickr and browse around. They have this nifty feature which displays the top photos from a year ago, and I ran across this image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tjintjelaar/5381410226/sizes/l/in/photostream/

(I apologize for not embedding the image, but Flickr's new policy is any link to their images also goes to the site. I don't know HTML well enough to just lift the photo off the page.)

I can't take my eyes off it. I'm blown away by the fact this is an actual building and not some optical illusion penned up by an artist. The sky might be artificial (I can't really be sure, but the artist mentions he used some post-processing stuff) but either way, the building itself is somewhere in Utrecht, Netherlands.

In terms of the three key terms we're dealing with, there is great contrast between the sky and the building itself. First, we can talk about the lines of it. You have straight vertical lines on the building, with the wire-mesh looking stuff on it. When it breaks into the sky, the wavy shape created by the paneling on the building gives almost an oceanic feel when juxtaposed to the diagonal streaking clouds.

The biggest contrast comes by way of light, I think, and it's also the greatest source of harmony in the image. This wire mesh paneling on the side of the building already gives us a cross pattern simply due to the layout, but combined with how light reacts, it is hard to look away. It's almost like the center of each panel glows and radiates, growing darker toward the ends. The fact it's not solid texture but one of this meshy pattern adds extra power to that glow, as in the direct center of each panel it's still pure white, like the light is so concentrated in those areas it fills in the gaps with light.

The photo is also balanced using the tools discussed in class. There is great symmetry, as every possible thing to draw our eye to it is duplicated throughout, and the rule of thirds comes in to play with the sky taking up the top third of the image with the bottom being of the building itself. I feel like light is the focal point of this image and even that is weighted out in a balanced way, the focal point in each panel being the center and even the sides of the image both have levels of light reduced at a near identical way.

Last, we've got harmony. Thematically, it's hard to say there's anything more than simply stating "That is a pretty impressive looking building." That's why the stripping of any color in this image lends it power. The focus is on the light and the form that light highlights. The vertical line energy of this skyscraper leaps out. I suppose I don't really know what to say here other than nothing feels out of place and yet you still can't take your eyes off it.

Addendum: I'm not sure what I take out of this psychologically, socially or culturally. As I mentioned, the building is located in the Netherlands, but it's a modern enough building I think it could exist in just about any first world country. Psychologically, there is a clear sense of might that I take away from this. The building just seems important. I imagine it's owned by Big Important Firm, LLC.

American Culture: How Ignorance is a Virtue

I am a vocal person. I don't think this is in question by anyone. I voice my opinions, as I feel most people should do, simply for the sake of voicing them. I think hard about everything. I'm a very analytic person.

Which makes me incredibly unpopular on web forums.

It baffles me. The point of most web forums is to talk about something. Yet when I make a thread starting with well-though out subject matter and am able to make it concise enough to still read as conversational (seriously, no one is going to comment on your Wall of Text), I just get "cool story, bro" or "u mad?" or various other meme'd responses. It's tiring.


WARNING: LOTS OF VERY TECHNICAL TALK ABOUT A VIDEO GAME  YOU PROBABLY HAVEN'T PLAYED

For example, I've been playing an exceptional amount of Batman: Arkham City. (While I'm on the subject, get the game. It's incredible.) On the game's actual forums, in the section to talk about the game, I made a thread detailing why Catwoman is a horribly thought out character from a gameplay perspective. It didn't generate any discussion. Just was a bunch of people telling me I was stupid, or a rage-head, or whatever.

My point was to ferret out poor gameplay design. We've been talking about usability in my New Media Apps class, and I always adapt the principles to things I know more about simply to increase my own understanding of it. So, I did this with Batman's 4 playable characters in Arkham City. Obviously, Batman is the highlight of the game as he's friggin' Batman. I mean, duh. He's the focus of the game, and while you can play as Catwoman during very brief scenes in the main story, he's pretty much all you play in it. The game was designed around him and every gadget as a result has a million more gadgets and tricks he can do than the other characters, who are only playable in the various Challenge missions.

Then you have the two DLC only characters, Nightwing and Robin. (Nightwing, for those who aren't Batman fans, is the original Robin all grown up, a guy by the name of Dick Greyson. The second Robin was a dude named Jason Todd and the Joker killed him. The third Robin is a fellow by the name of Tim Drake.) We'll start with Robin as Nightwing was introduced PURELY as DLC while Robin was a character people who pre-ordered the game from some various outlet could get for doing that.

First thing you notice: No cape. That means no gliding. That means getting around the stage is a little bit harder as it limits your mobility. It's minor, but still worth noting. Secondly, his super x-ray vision mode (every character has it in some way) doesn't highlight any of the interactive scenery (grates, vents, gargoyles, etc). It's a problem he shares with Catwoman though his is a little more noticeable because everything turns a washed out grey color where it's still possible to make out the shapes of what you're walking on due to the more defined red hue of thief vision.

The reason this pisses me off is because the game trains you through the single player and the use of Batman to pay attention to different colors. Detective Mode for Batman turns everything a see-through light blueish color, and highlights everything in definable ways so you can still navigate effectively and know what you're dealing with. Grates, doors, Gargoyles, etc. are all orange (a complimentary color to Blue, so it pops) and enemies are easy to identify. Armored enemies have a different color than unarmored enemies. Armed enemies are different colored than unarmed ones. Basically, it allows you to take stock of the situation.

You can still tell where guys are with Catwoman and Nightwing, but that's it. It hinders your ability to make smart decisions. I can't tell you the number of times I waited patiently behind some wall for a lone enemy to walk passed, hoping to take him down silently. Then I can't. After mashing the Y button a couple of times, I get shot by someone who eventually takes notice (you can't sit still long in these missions) and it drops me back into regular vision. There, it's easy to tell the guy is in Armor. Can't tell that while you're in thief mode with these two characters. I can't for the life of me figure out why they removed all the same visual cues they give Batman and Robin. The difficulty it adds is entirely artificial and contradicts how the game has been training you to think.

Thing is, I still love Nightwing. They gave him some pretty boss gadgets and he still has a batclaw so he can grapplehook around with ease. The gimped vision mode is easily handled by just dropping into regular sight before you attempt to actually take anyone down. He has this electric blast thing which shocks enemies around you, which you can do two things with: Drop down from above to send them launching, or just when you're surrounded to give you enough of a window to start running away to hide again. He also has a limited use Stun Dart launcher, which is pretty self-explanatory. Other unique attack he has is his stick weapons. He'll chuck it and it bounced around to take down multiple guys at once, making it a better mid-ranged utility than a standard batarang.

Next, we've got Robin. He's got the slowest attacks in melee because he slaps people with a metal pole. It's really not all that noticable in just regular combat missions, but in the stalker mode, that extra two seconds it takes to beat a guy down is all it takes for the other dudes with guns to see you and start shooting. Annoying. They also replace the Batclaw with a Zip Kick. The difference is you go toward them instead of pulling them to you. In combat scenarios, it's tactically different but still an advantageous thing to do. In stalker missions, it just gets you killed and also lacks the functionality of pulling guys over ledges to knock them out. You can still kick dudes off ledges, but the positioning to do that is tricky, requires a lot of set up and therefore time (which in a mode where the goal is to beat it as fast as possible makes this useless), and is generally inferior to attempting to bash guys off the ledge with his other unique item, his Bullet Shield. I have two beefs with the shield: Really utilizing it means being shot at, something you don't want to ever have happen to you in a mode about sneaking around unseen to knock dudes unconscious. Secondly, the targeting on it is totally bad. Sometimes, I aim at a guy and Robin will try to tackle some invisible dude 5 feet to the left of him for some reason, which usually means the guard I was trying to knock out notices me and gets a few shots off. Remember, this entire rant is about usability: something which does not function in the manner of which you employ it is quite frustrating. Robin is in every other way just like Batman so at least there's that.

Then, we have Catwoman. For some inexplicable reason, she has a significantly smaller health pool than the other characters. I can understand this from a settings standpoint (Batman, Robin and Nightwing are all geared out superheroes using Batman's crazy funding for bullet resistant armor, blah blah) but from a gameplay perspective, it's pointless. It doesn't really add to the immersion of the game, which is the only reason I can see a designer trying to do this.

The smaller health pool is highlighted by the fact she has significantly less tools at her disposal. Nightwing and Robin both have 5 total gadgets, Batman has like 11, and Catwoman has a whopping 3. She's got her whip, and luckily that is a rather good tool. You can both just trip a guy or strip his gun from him although both accomplish the exact same thing of stopping a guy from attacking you literally the exact same amount of time. I'm not sure why they bothered to make the distinction of being able to do both. Next, we have her Bolas. You think they'd be able to trip a guy or something, but no. Functionally, they are like the Batarangs employed by every other character, except way slower. Lastly, we have some caltrops which would be useful if they didn't make a really loud noise, therefore causing guards to look for them, therefore making them sweep them away, therefore making your caltrop a waste of time that only helps enemies spot you. The only way to really "use" them is to drop them behind an enemy, because that will cause him to trip and fall over. Bolas accomplish the exact same thing, however, and have a nifty auto-aim feature so you can't miss like you can with the caltrops.

The only thing she's got going for her is she is more fleet of foot than the other characters. It never really comes into play to help you survive, though, simply because she dies in two hits while everyone else can take around 5.

To top it off, earning the medals on challenge missions for her are significantly harder than any other character. For those who haven't played this game, the Predator missions are basically single rooms with a bunch of armed guards, and you need to take them out silently as quick as possible. The thing that makes them challenging is it forces you to do 3 specific tasks in order to earn medals. They range in things you're probably going to do anyway (take out a guard with a silent takedown, for example) to the stage-specific (knock a guy off the trains on the subway map) to the downright absurd (blow up a single wall panel into three different enemies like you have to do on the museum stage as Robin.) There's usually one medal on every map which requires a lot of set up when it comes to manipulating the enemies into going where you want. It's very easy with Batman as he has a Sonic Batarang which gets the nearest guard to wander over to it and investigate it's loud beeping. It's also fairly easy with Robin because he's got access to a remote controlled shuriken thingy which you can use to punch enemies around a stage. Nightwing would have a helluva time with it, but none of his challenges (literally not a single one) involve you needing to take out more than one guy at a time with any attack. Hit, yes, take out, no. You can do all the ones which require you to throw and bounce his Escrima Sticks into 3 guys by taking out any other guard and then patiently waiting above til the unconscious body is discovered by a patrol, because one guy will always call 2 more dudes to any discovered unconscious body. Same goes for the one mission which requires you to drop on top of 3 guys at once with the electrical blast.

Catwoman needs some really tricky positioning thing on every stage due to the fact she has a much smaller selection of medals to even earn. And she has no tools to really help her get enemies to go where you need them to go. Caltrops rarely even work and even then, it just trips a guy for a couple seconds, so it doesn't really help you maneuver them into position. Bolas just knock guys over or alert them to look near wherever you threw them from, but the they resume the patrolling path they were already taking. Her whip, also, just trips people, and it's short range so you can't exactly do anything with it other than take out dudes you are already very close to.

END OF NERD TALK
In summation, she dies the fastest, has the least amount of ways to prevent her from taking damage, and has the most absurd, difficult-to-accomplish medals to earn. She is the worst possible character in literally every single possible way. Her usability is extremely limited. I cannot for the life of me figure out who thought it was a good idea to roll up the worst possible qualities in every aspect of the game and stick them on one character, and expect people to enjoy playing her as much as any of the other characters.

It has to be a lack of foresight. Has to be.

This all works back around to my original point: People don't take the time to think about things any more. When someone else shows an analytic perspective, they would rather just troll them. Oh durr hurr, you used big words so you must be a nerd! You... you nerd!

Seriously, Rocksmith is the coolest "video game" ever.

Can I gush for a moment?

Of course I can. It's my damn blog.

I've been playing Ubisoft's excellent, excellent Rocksmith more or less non-stop since mom got it for me as a Christmas gift. Link to their website is here, so I'm going to assume you click it and watch their intro video to get a hint of what it's like.

Part of the appeal is being on a console system, but calling it a "game" is a misnomer. It's a guitar trainer, utilizing something no other guitar lesson teacher trainer person or program can ever give you: immediate audio-visual feedback. The game more or less turns your home entertainment system into a glorified amp for any electric guitar, including an actual amp mode which lets you throw on up to 3 custom pedals to change the sound. (Significantly cheaper than actually going out and buying a ton of pedals!)

Let me re-iterate that: ANY electric guitar. If you've got a quarter-inch plug in for your guitar, you can use it with the game's cable. It's got a quarter-inch on one side and a USB plug on the other. No special guitar needed. If you've got a $600 dollar sexy Gibson something or other, use it. Pretty awesome if you ask me.

The way it teaches you songs is pretty intuitive, as well. The better you play, the more of the song it throws your way. We'll use the first song the game throws your way as a sample: Satisfaction by Rolling Stones. The basic riff of the song is simple going 2-2---245-5-54-42-2 on your second string (I really need to memorize which all the strings are in their default basic tuning). It'll just have you play the 2 and the 5 beginning each segment. Then it throws in the 4 on you. Then after you prove you have that part down, it throws in the hammer-ons and pull-offs.  I am relatively certain the game tracks if you're playing correctly even if it doesn't show the notes to you, because songs where I already knew how to play them leveled up a lot faster even when I "missed" notes than songs I played perfectly but just the notes it showed me on screen. Perhaps it's just rhythm and timing were better so it just seemed that way, but it's worth mentioning my observations either way.

The song selection is pretty awesome. I haven't encountered anything which has made my ears bleed yet, something Rock Band definitely struggles with at times. (Seriously, no more death metal on the basic disc please!) Currently I'm working on a Kings of Leon song called Use Somebody. I'm like 97% on the song and I've got all the segments maxed out. Makes me happy. It's the type of song I think I could sing while playing too, so that's cool. It's also Kings of Leon so girls will squee if I could actually play it well (or so I imagine.)

Lastly, there's a bunch of mini-games to help with various aspects of guitar-playing. The first one is called "Ducks" and it's basically a guitar version of Asteroids. Little ducks come down lanes designated by frets and depending on the color, you pluck that string and that note to fire a little laser to shoot them down. Starts off easy, then gets really fast to the point you can't go look down at your hands to find the right spot and expect to be able to look up again without missing several other ducks. The trainer for scales is pretty straightforward, simply having a little guy ride along on the note and if you don't play the next one in time, you dude falls off. The more you play in a row, the faster it comes to you. My personal favorite is Chord Zombies, where zombies rise up in different chord shapes and you have to play that chord to shoot them and keep them from eating your brains.

There are some pretty glaring flaws I hope get patched soon. For starters, there's a "lives" thing in the trainer modes for specific segments of songs. That to me seems kind of superfluous. It'd be better if it just repeated that segment over and over til you got it, because I mean that's what anyone would do if the game was present or not. Kicking you back out after you fail a segment 5 times in a row is counter-productive. I've seen enough hate toward that particular idea on Ubisoft's forums I think it's going to be axed whenever a future patch hits.

Most glaring as a flaw (and it's something you can't code around) is HDTV audio lag. If you are like me running through just an HDTV, there's about a half-second delay in the audio between when you hit the note and it comes through the speakers. When you're really jamming to a song, you don't really notice it but while learning a song, it's frustrating. Apparently hooking audio from your Xbox of PS3 directly into home theater speakers solves this problem but that's another $30 cable and however much more on speakers if you don't already own some. The other solution is to simply use an old standard definition TV, but then you have to deal with that ugly blur from yesteryear we have almost already forgot existed as a society.

You guys all know me by now: I don't like assigning a number to my game reviews. Numbers are so arbitrary and fluctuate on the day (I know people who give 8's to games they like significantly better than games they've given 9's to.) For the purpose the game was intended for, it's near perfect. Anyone with a guitar and a modern console should at the very least look into it. It's cheaper than a month of guitar lessons and arguably more effective!

What is Beauty?

Fun times, all 3 people who actually read my blog beforehand: I get to use it for two classes this semester! For assignments and everything! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!


First thing we were asked in Visual Communications is to define what we appreciate as beauty.

Boy, that's an unfair starting point. Haven't poets and theologians and artists and philosophers been arguing what beauty is since the dawn of recorded man? It's a good thing there's the caveat of what I find attractive, because we could be here all day otherwise.

As opposed to just 23 and a half hours.

The first order of business for me is to make one of my famous proclamations. As anyone who's into English as a language in the slightest degree can tell you, the most powerful thing in our language is the simple declarative sentence. So here it goes:

Beauty is.

I realize that's rather abstract and vague and grandiose, but so then is my concept of beauty. Everything is in it's own way lovely. I suppose the only extra information I need to add is "as long as it is not destructive." And I suppose even then, that's not entirely true. As a fan of MythBusters, some of my favorite things are large explosions, taking matter and then scattering it elsewhere in tiny, small pieces.

At the end of the day, out of all the things that interest me most, the thing I always come back to is women. Am I sometimes misogynistic? Yes. Am I sometimes resentful toward the fairer sex? Yes. I am many unfavorable things in the subject of gender relations, but at the end of the day, I believe I see deeper into people than they see into themselves. I have a gift of summing up a person's character upon moments of meeting them. I am very rarely wrong in these assertions. What this has to do with women: I see marvel in just about every woman I know. A get up and go attitude, or a desire to maintain pleasant physical appearances, or the thirst for knowledge, or motherliness, or maybe just the depth of soul behind beautiful eyes. Sexist? Probably. I prefer to think of myself as the hopeless romantic jaded by my own failures.

I also find beauty in grand schemes coming together. It's probably why I'm such a huge fan of football as opposed to the other major sports. Most people probably just see the big pass or the great run. I see the blocking, the distractions in alternate route-running, the simple play calling, the way that team drafts new players. The whole thing. It's all amazing and wonderful to me. It's why I love the music I do. Often discordant, it still works when tied together with a funky bass groove or an off-beat syncopated drum beat.

Oddly enough, I also appreciate simple. I know that seems like a direct opposite of what I just listed, and I suppose to a great degree it is so. I suppose we'll classify this dichotomy as "harmony." Not bland. Not exquisite. Just right. I suppose an example of this is my taste in clothing. If I could wear the same thing every day, it'd be my brown chord pants and a plain white T. I don't need patterns, but there is just enough texture in chords so it's not flat. Both are rather neutral colors, too. I like earth tones. You won't see me wearing bright oranges or yellows as I prefer darker greens, clay reds and brown.

I could go on and on, I'm sure. Let me just sum my tastes up this way: I have many of them.

The world is going to end, and I'm upbeat

I've got to tell you, the feeling is kind of neat.
A new look on life, my god is it sweet.
A part of me feels complete.

Okay, now that the bad song writer is out of me, I do feel pretty good lately. Yay upbeat blog posts!

I think a large part of it has to do with coming out of a really bad depression. My closest internet of the last two years turned out to secretly loathe me the whole time. One of my only real life friends ended that friendship Christmas night when after her boyfriend raged out and punched her in the face, she didn't understand why I was upset she'd rather get stoned than spend time in a loving environment.

Something in me snapped when she snapped at me. I just didn't care anymore. About any of it. I am a good guy. I was doing a good thing for someone. I've been doing good things for people for a long time, and I've never got any recognition for it. And you know what? I realized that's fine. I was doing it for the hopeful return of their love and affection. Now I am just doing it because it's the right thing to do. People don't have to recognize it any more. I am okay with being unappreciated.

And it's liberating. I feel like Salieri at the end of Amadeus: I am the king of mediocrity. I don't look at it as a bad thing any more. I'm capable at whatever I do. Great? No. Good? Yes. I'm never going to be that number one choice, and this realization is not sad. It seems like something I should be sad about, but I am not. I just feel like I've finally accepted my place in life, and everyone who doesn't want to be a part of my good life can just go ahead and not be in it. Their damn loss.