The ramblings of a raving liberal

It's been, well, it's been a while. Time to comment on what games I've been playing!

In no real particular order:

Assassin's Creed I & II: The parts I enjoy the most are climbing on things, and successfully executing a stealth kill. Unfortunately, I'm not terribly good at doing so. Plus, the controls often fall in the range of "need to be an expert twitch gamer, because if you don't nail them precisely correct, we're going to send you in the exact opposite direction of where you intended."
I enjoy the surreal aspects to the series. Kind of disappointed to read that they get sidelined, or even dropped entirely, from future installments.

Mirror's Edge: Lots of climbing / parkour stuff! Has a bit of the "if you don't hit things exactly right, you die" to it, though.

Nier : Automata : I enjoyed it, but I only made it about halfway through the second playthrough (out of something like four times you're supposed to go through the game in order to get the full story...) Interesting idea, but I think I need to take a break between iterations, because going through the same part of the game repeatedly stopped being interesting for me.

Ark - Survival Evolved : It looked like it would appeal to me - I've enjoyed a few games where the object was to gather supplies to survive and build bases, and this one promised that I'd get to ride dinosaurs! Glad I got this dirt cheap, because it's terrible. Poor graphics, and even on easy it's ridiculously hard to survive for more than 10 minutes. Plus, it was apparently primarily meant to be played online, and that's a big nope for me.

Jedi: Fallen Order : Loved this game. Kind of like Star Wars meets Uncharted. Plus for a Star Wars nerd, all kinds of easter eggs to enjoy. I normally go on about games I love, but this one is basically, "get this if you love Star Wars."

Subnautica : This is one of the survival games I've been enjoying. Swim around and gather supplies, build up bases to work from, find stuff that gives you info about the world and its past, plus it has a wicked sense of humor at times. One of the rare times I've actually gone back and replayed a game on a higher level of difficulty.

No Man's Sky : I've listed it before, but thanks to Hello Games steadily putting out more and more free updates, the game keeps changing. It's still a fun exploration / survival game at its core, but there have been so many things added, it's a game I often return to between other games.

Final Fantasy VII Remake : Some of the side quests that were added were a bit repetitive, but man, this game is gorgeous. I loved the original, and I very much enjoyed the remake. I'm looking forward to the subsequent parts.

Horizon : Zero Dawn : Holy cow, I loved this game. It's basically Breath of the Wild, only without the recycled plot and characters. Oh, and your weapons aren't always breaking on you. More to the point, I found the plot very compelling. There are core mysteries to the game, which they do a great job of building towards the reveal. By the time I got to the big reveals, I was mostly thinking, "well, _that_ explains that thing from much earlier in the game!" I basically took every opportunity I could get to play this game - quite possibly the annoyance of everyone else in the house... Easily towards the top of games I've played over the last few years. I mean, I finished the game, and I'm thinking of putting it back on to go through and get all the last little side bits I hadn't completed yet... usually once I finish a game, I'm done and I move on.

Octopath Traveller : I was enjoying this game quite a bit, up until I got close to the end. Then I hi a brick wall of difficulty. I don't really have patience for grinding anymore. If there's one thing American and European RPGs do better than JRPGs, it's in figuring out how to let players progress naturally through levels so that by the time they reach the later stages of the game, they're already sufficiently leveled up without having to run around and random-encounter things just to beat up on them for XP. This game is very much a classic JRPG in a lot of ways. Most of them I appreciate. Needing to grind in the late game is not one of them.

Ace Combat 7 : Skies Unknown : I'd been wanting a flight sim. This is more arcade than sim, but good enough for some fun. The story was kind of interesting, and unlike Ace Combat 5, which I'd given up on, the difficulty didn't suddenly shoot up a cliff, so I was able to finish it. This was basically what I was looking for when I got it, and since I got it at a heavy discount, I was pretty pleased with the purchase.


That's probably enough for now. See you again in another year or so, I guess!

I'm tired of seeing the same post up, so I'm going to post something short about console games I've played recently.

Mass Effect: Andromeda
I love the Mass Effect series. But this one falls a bit short of the others. It's got some interesting ideas and some cool bits, but it's tedious and repetitive in a way that previous games in the series usually weren't. When I read that the development was done by a different team, and then at the last moment they attempted to get the original team back on board to "fix" things, well, it explained a lot. I haven't actually finished it. It's gone on the back-burner while I play other things. I'll eventually get back to it and finish it, since I've gotten most of the way through.

Final Fantasy XV
I really dislike the combat system. And good god, is the game just plain _boring_ at times (so... much... time... just spent watching them drive around). I've gotten to the end-game, and am now trying to go back and finish off the side quests before starting the end. And I've back-burner'd this game as well, because I just don't have the patience for the grind anymore.

Destiny
I got the version that came with all the expansions, so I've got plenty of content. It's very much a Bungie game. Unfortunately, Bungie hasn't really kept up with the times. Back when they did Marathon, they were ground-breaking with how they integrated a mysterious story into a first-person shooter. They did this mostly by giving information in the flow of the game, which was nice, but it also meant that plot points were generally far apart. Halo was similar. Destiny... is really just more of the same: "Here's some plot, now go shoot things until you're told the mission is over, and then we can give you more plot." They've mostly improved the shooting side of things, but not the integration of plot. I've still enjoyed it, but I can't help but compare it to the original Mass Effect trilogy, and the comparison doesn't favor Bungie.

Uncharted (1-3, so far)
I've enjoyed this series quite a bit. Granted, the whole thing puts you on rails, but it's got a story and interesting characters, and it integrates plot with gameplay, and provides several different elements to the gameplay (platform/climbing puzzles, shooter and stealth, but most of the focus is on the platform/climbing puzzles).

No Man's Sky
This is a game that's a niche interest. It's not really a shooter or dogfighter. It's a game of exploration and resource gathering. It's a game I return to when I need a break from other games. And every once in a while, they release a new update that adds a whole ton more to the game. There's no end to the game, really, so it's something I can just come back to. It's also something I can play around the kids at this point, unlike most of the above games. I got a PS4 in order to play this game, and while others have bemoaned it, I've never regretted it, myself. Love this game. Partly because it's different from most other offerings.

Watch Dogs/Watch Dogs 2
I never played any of the Grand Theft Auto games after the first one (which is rather different from the later versions). So this series is really my first experience with this style of game. But this series has trappings that appeal more to me than the GTA series - you basically play a hacker/fixer that is opposing a corporation that is attempting to control everything through surveillance and control of data... and some of the things it has to say about data privacy, data gathering, and manipulation of public opinion via the use of data, it just seems all the more relevant now. The second game has more compelling characters, and fixes many of the flaws of the first game, but I really enjoyed both.

Super NES Classic
Super Metroid! Final Fantasy III (really IV)! Nostalgia!


Anyway, that's what I've been playing lately (mostly in fits and spurts in the evenings after the kids are in bed). Anyone else play anything interesting lately?

I first read Neuromancer by William Gibson when I was around 15 years old. It had been recommended by father's colleague who knew I had similar tastes in science fiction as him. I think I even borrowed it from him, for that matter. He was correct in thinking that I would enjoy it.

I remember thinking that the main character, Case, was pretty cool, and seemed mature at the time, even if he made some dumb decisions. I remember feeling ambivalent about Molly, and liking Dixie Flatline. I didn't really remember any of the other characters.

I recently finished re-reading Neuromancer, this time at the age of 40. It's only the second time I've read it, despite liking it. Probably because I didn't get around to getting my own copy of it for a long time, and even once I did, it sat around, because I always have a large stack of new books to read. I just decided that it was what I wanted to read right now. It's still good. And I take away very different things now than I did when I was 15.

First thing I noticed was that thanks to my memory of the character, I was surprised to discover in the first chapter that Case was only 24. By the time I got to the end of the chapter, I was no longer surprised the character was 24, but he definitely didn't seem cool and mature to me. To my 40-year-old sensibilities, he now seems very immature and emotionally stunted. Based on his background, that fit the character. But I see how my 15-year-old self got that impression. Basically, Gibson wrote a believable 24-year-old. Kudos to him!

I also had a very different opinion of Molly. In some ways, I appreciate her more. In other ways I roll my eyes over her portrayal. The latter mostly over the very male way of writing a female character...

Dixie Flatline is still fun, though. Not a good person, but an interesting character. Though speaking of Dixie, the other thing that struck me is how, outside of getting the Dixie Flatline construct, Case never actually did any real hacking. He was just an interface for Dixie, who directed the Kuang virus. In other words, Case was basically a script-kiddie.

I also discovered that I was disappointed that I hadn't remembered Maelcum and the other Zionists. They were fun.

All in all, I'm impressed that William Gibson wrote a novel that spoke to me in different ways that still worked as both a 15 year old and a 40 year old. And despite the novel having been written over 30 years ago, it mostly still holds up well.

Wow. This is actually the most logical explanation of Fred Phelps and the so-called "Westboro Baptist Church" I've ever seen. It makes far too much sense to not be accurate. Which only makes Phelps and his family even more reprehensible.
http://www.kanewj.com/wbc/

(Stolen from ls56)

One of the GOPs talking points is always about how "activist judges" "legislate from the bench" instead of "strictly interpreting the Constitution" as it was written.

Well, here's an exchange between two "Constructionists" on the Supreme Court that I think does a good job of showing why that argument has always been a farce:

'"I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games," Alito said to laughter in the courtroom.

"No, I want to know what James Madison thought about violence," Scalia retorted.'
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_VIOLENT_VIDEO_GAMES?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

As society changes and technology advances, it simply isn't possible to only take into account what the original writers of the Constitution and its amendments intended. There are so many situations they simply never conceived that are now commonplace. One always has to interpret the Constitution in the context of the current times. Otherwise, we end up trying to figure out how James Madison felt about video games.

I'm just about reduced to gibberish by this one:
'Mr. Palermo, also a math teacher, rehashed this point again before the board during the public comment section.

He pointed out that the existing policy could jeopardize students who might be in the running for athletic scholarships.

And, he said, it was unreasonable to expect every student to get above a D in math.

"A quarter of our students are special [education]. Do we honestly think all of these kids can get a D in math?" he said.'
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10302/1099010-298.stm
(Bolded for emphasis by me).

I'm sorry, but yes, it is quite reasonable to expect every student to get above a D in math. If they aren't, then you aren't teaching it properly. And yes, that includes special needs kids. Special needs kids can learn, you just have to figure out how they learn, and help them.

I am furious about this. I'm just glad it isn't the school district I'm living in right now.

I'll let some other people do the writing, because they did a much better job than I can:

"As The Economist puts it:

Using the IPCC’s assessment of probabilities, the sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide of less than 1.5C in such a scenario has perhaps one chance in ten of being correct. But if the IPCC were underestimating things by a factor of five or so, that would still leave only a 50:50 chance of such a desirable outcome. The fact that the uncertainties allow you to construct a relatively benign future does not allow you to ignore futures in which climate change is large, and in some of which it is very dangerous indeed. The doubters are right that uncertainties are rife in climate science. They are wrong when they present that as a reason for inaction."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/10/the_real_science_on_climate_ch.html

"Why are conservatives so radical about the climate?"
"John Raese, who is leading the Senate race in West Virginia and who says proudly that he was “a tea partier before the Tea Party existed,” recently declared that “one volcano puts out more carbon dioxide than everything that man puts out.” This doesn’t tell you anything about volcanoes. (Actually, humans emit about one hundred times more carbon than volcanoes.)"
...
"[T]here’s a kind of right-wing nationalism that demands we take no action until China, India, and the rest have played their part. But that doesn’t even make mathematical sense—China’s per capita emissions are one-quarter of ours. If leadership in the world means anything, then that imposes certain burdens on us."
...
"What missionaries and militaries have in common is that they have to deal with reality. In fact, that was always the trump card of conservatism: It refused to indulge in sentimentality and idealism, insisting on seeing the world as it was. But, at the moment, it’s the right that is indulging in illusion, insisting, fists balled up and face turning red, that the reports from scientists simply can’t be true."
(The whole article is worth reading, but I thought the above points were worth quoting in particular).
http://www.tnr.com/article/environment-energy/magazine/78208/gop-global-warming-denial-insanity

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change (ACC)] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.short

Somehow, though, this concept is still debated (especially by politicians) like it is merely a matter of opinion. Sorry folks, but science doesn't work that way.

"Mr. DeWeese later said he may have threatened to fire them in the heat of anger, but that he didn't mean it."
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10207/1075458-100.stm

He actually tried to use "I didn't really mean it!" as a legal defense. In court. Wow. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

No, wait, scratch that, it's definitely funny, albeit in a dark humor kind of way.

I'm a bit late on this one, but right now I've got the right combination of time and anger to write about it.
"The law requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally. It also requires legal immigrants to carry their immigration documents."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IMMIGRATION_ENFORCEMENT?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I'm glad the US Attorney General is not only fighting the law as being unconstitutional all on its own, but also going to keep an eye on making sure there is no racial profiling, because, let's be honest, the only way this law is going to be used is that the police are going to harass Hispanics. If anyone can tell me what would give a police officer a "reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally", without using their race, I'd like to know it (and no, anonymous tips don't qualify - those should be sent to INS, so the Federal Government can do its job. The law was designed to allow police officers to go after people they see on the street).

Here's an obvious problem with the law: while it requires legal immigrants to carry their immigration documents, it does not (nor can it) require natural-born citizens from carrying documents that prove they are US Citizens. So, what happens if an Arizona police officer decides a Hispanic person might be in the country illegally, and demands the papers of a natural-born citizen? They won't have them, of course, and suddenly an innocent person is going to jail, until they can prove they were born here. Don't think this won't happen, either.

This law allows police officers to assume people are guilty until proven innocent, with no more basis than their appearance. If it's not obvious how big of a problem that is, I suggest a review of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is in order.