Well, next week I'm on holiday, so I won't be doing any more blogging until after that.
I've decided the main job for the holiday is to try to clear out my room a bit. I discovered where the local recycling centre is and it's just down the road, so I'm planning to basically take a load of junk down there. Indeed, I'm planning to take several loads of junk, in order to clear out some crap.
I'll also be sorting through stuff generally, trying to decide what to either throw away, take down the recycling place or put on e-bay.
One of the biggest space consumers are my large collections of comics. I've had these kicking about for years with the intention of seeing if I can e-bay some of them. Problem is quite a lot of my comics are either very niche or very old and I really doubt they'll sell.
I'm also not at all sure whether it's best to whack them on as collections - issues x through y - or as single issues. If single issues, it could become a logistically nightmare to say the least. That's why I'm kinda tempted just to chuck them all out.
Next week also features the day of the general election.
The only thing I'm certain about is I won't be voting Conservative. Generally speaking, Tory ideas and views don't tend to mesh with mine, but there's also a specific reason for me not voting that way this time - the BBC.
If Cameron's mob gets in, I'm pretty sure one of the things they'll do is start the break-up and privatisation (that is to say, destruction) of the BBC. And to me, that's just not right. The BBC is one of the greatest things about this country, and I'd hate to see it go.
Imagine a world where all terrestrial TV is like ITV. It just doesn't bare thinking about.
Friday, 30 April 2010
Thursday, 29 April 2010
phew!
Really hectic day at work yesterday.
A work colleague had asked me to recreate a picture he needs for a job, but he wasn't there on Monday or Tuesday to explain it to me, and the notes he'd left me didn't really make a lot of sense. He therefore left me a note saying he would call to explain, but then failed to do so.
Also, bits of it needed decoding from acronyms, and I didn't know what they were. Plus I had loads of other work to do.
Anyway, the upshot was that I didn't do anything about it. And then yesterday it turned out it was fairly urgent. But he didn't say that at all.
So I spent all day, scrabbling around for stuff to use in the picture and drawing it and stuff. Now don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy doing that sort of stuff, but it's always more time consuming than you think. So doing it quickly is very draining.
And it didn't help that what I think he really wanted was way too ambitious. I mean, I could have done it, but it would have taken about a week, which was more time than I would have had even if I had worked on it since the start of the week.
So yeah, I'm pretty knackered today, and I'm not really even sure if what I've produced is what he's after :/.
A work colleague had asked me to recreate a picture he needs for a job, but he wasn't there on Monday or Tuesday to explain it to me, and the notes he'd left me didn't really make a lot of sense. He therefore left me a note saying he would call to explain, but then failed to do so.
Also, bits of it needed decoding from acronyms, and I didn't know what they were. Plus I had loads of other work to do.
Anyway, the upshot was that I didn't do anything about it. And then yesterday it turned out it was fairly urgent. But he didn't say that at all.
So I spent all day, scrabbling around for stuff to use in the picture and drawing it and stuff. Now don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy doing that sort of stuff, but it's always more time consuming than you think. So doing it quickly is very draining.
And it didn't help that what I think he really wanted was way too ambitious. I mean, I could have done it, but it would have taken about a week, which was more time than I would have had even if I had worked on it since the start of the week.
So yeah, I'm pretty knackered today, and I'm not really even sure if what I've produced is what he's after :/.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
terminator: salvation
Time travel can be confusing stuff.
In the original Terminator film, the terminator in question was sent back in time to try to kill Sarah Connor. The basic jist for anyone that doesn't know (is there anyone?) is that in the future, Skynet, a military computer, had started a nuclear apocalypse, in order to wipe out humanity.
Humanity had been nearly wiped out, but the survivors were rallied into a resistance that, led by one John Connor, had turned the tide and were winning. On the very eve of their victory, Skynet had therefore sent back the terminator - an 'infiltrator' unit that was a humanoid machine clad in real human tissue - to try to kill Sarah, the mother of John and thereby prevent its defeat.
The problem with this of course is it could potentially create a paradox. Paradox's are the big problem with time travel. I mean, if Skynet only sent the terminator back in time because it was about to be defeated by John Connor, then if it succeeds, John Connor doesn't exist and it doesn't loose, so it doesn't have any reason to send back the terminator.
But there was an ace in the hole - it was a James Cameron film. So he did two things. First off, he focused the film on the relationship between Connor and Kyle Reese, who was the guy Connor sent back to protect his mother. So despite being a science fiction, action-heavy chase movie, it was also pretty much a love story.
Second, he made it so that the terminator was actually part of the original past. So, for example, it turned out that Kyle Reese was actually John Connor's father. Now really this is still paradoxical, but it's sufficiently plausible that you don't mind.
And then, in a sense, the problems started. The terminator was a hit and so a sequel was made.
Luckily, the sequel was again made by Cameron, so it worked, but the problem was, the first film wrapped itself up so well that they effectively had to tweak the story of the first in order to fit the second in.
The best example of this is that we're told at the beginning that oh, no, actually Skynet sent back two terminators - one to try to kill Sarah, the other to try to kill the young John Connor. And so the paradoxes start to eat your brain. I mean, why didn't Skynet send back a veritable army or terminators, or both terminators to kill Sarah Connor, if it could send 2 back?
But those aren't the bigger questions, the bigger question is that now, where the first film wrapped itself up by saying that the events of the film were integral to the events of the future, the second changes that. It's revealed, for example, that Cyberdyne systems got hold of the remains of the first terminator and, by retro-engineering it, they've gotten much further ahead than they were before.
Similarly, you get a weird contradiction that John Connor sends back a T800 to protect his younger self, because that's what he as an adult remembers happening. And yet, at the same time, things are being changed. Indeed, the whole end of the movie depicts them properly changing things in order to prevent the whole holocaust.
And yet it works because again you've got Cameron helming it, and there's a deft focus on the relationships of the characters as well as the action and the chase.
But T2 was an even bigger hit that the first and there was therefore a desire to make a third film. And Cameron wasn't to be involved because, quite rightly, his take was that he'd wrapped up the story he wanted to tell in the first two films.
So what to do?
Well, what they ended up doing was a kinda "re-instate the original future" film. And things get very confused, to say the least. One of the big problems of course is that the sequels are often trying to either retro-fit the preceding films or twist the story so that they can exist. But in doing so they break both the previous films and themselves.
So now, for example, even though the future was changed, the Skynet of this, presumably alternate future, must still send back the original two terminators, even though it presumably has access to information that proves these two attempts failed. But it also sends back a new terminator to try to wipe out the heads of the resistance.
I mean, when you really sit down and think about the plotting, it's really messed up, and yet I actually thought the third film worked on some levels. It maintained the central ideas of time travel, terminators, chase films and also, crucially, the focus on the relationships between the characters. So, although it doesn't make sense, it still basically works.
Wow, that's a hell of a lot of words already, isn't it? And I've not even mentioned the fourth film yet :/.
So, what did I think about the fourth film?
Well, it was okay.
One of the problems of course was that at the end of the third film, they left it so that judgement day was happening. In other words, the franchise had now effectively caught up to its own future. So one of the basic plot mechanisms of the previous films - time travel - wouldn't really make any sense in the fourth one.
Also, it's a little difficult to introduce new relationships, because they've already fixed John Connor's and Kyle Reese's relationships. As such, they introduce a new character, and, indeed, it's really this new character who is the central character in the film. And unfortunately, while they do give him a sort of romantic relationship and a sort of person to protect, it's just plain not as well done in the previous films. For one thing, of course, they're separate people, so it's diluted.
Well, kinda, there's also a lot of focus on Connor, but in a bit of a weird way. I mean, there's a suggestion from some of the taglines and plot summaries that some people don't believe he's really going to be this great leader. However, no one during the film actually says that to him.
At one point he meets the heads of the resistance, but although they're pissed off at him, it's for a perfectly sensible reason, not because he's some supposedly Christ-like saviour and they don't believe it. Indeed, they actually end up trusting him with a really important mission.
And that kind of oddness pervades the movie generally. Towards the end, Connor ends up going toe-to-toe with the
There are plenty of plotholes too. At one point the machines capture the younger Kyle Reese and put him in a prison cell. Why they simply put him in a prison cell and don't just kill him is not explained.
I mean, okay, they need Connor to think he's captive, but they don't really need him to be alive, do they? Or at least, once Reece's presence has lured Connor in, they could kill him straight away. But they don't - they wait until much later.
And it's not even clear why they're collecting humans. They effectively capture Reese by accident, because they're collecting humans, but there's no explanation as to what they're doing with them.
But despite that it's still okay as a film. There's some really good action stuff, the effects are good and it has a frenetic pace that pulls you along despite all the stuff that doesn't make sense on further inspection.
That really is a lot of words just to come to the point that it's "okay", isn't it?
In the original Terminator film, the terminator in question was sent back in time to try to kill Sarah Connor. The basic jist for anyone that doesn't know (is there anyone?) is that in the future, Skynet, a military computer, had started a nuclear apocalypse, in order to wipe out humanity.
Humanity had been nearly wiped out, but the survivors were rallied into a resistance that, led by one John Connor, had turned the tide and were winning. On the very eve of their victory, Skynet had therefore sent back the terminator - an 'infiltrator' unit that was a humanoid machine clad in real human tissue - to try to kill Sarah, the mother of John and thereby prevent its defeat.
The problem with this of course is it could potentially create a paradox. Paradox's are the big problem with time travel. I mean, if Skynet only sent the terminator back in time because it was about to be defeated by John Connor, then if it succeeds, John Connor doesn't exist and it doesn't loose, so it doesn't have any reason to send back the terminator.
But there was an ace in the hole - it was a James Cameron film. So he did two things. First off, he focused the film on the relationship between Connor and Kyle Reese, who was the guy Connor sent back to protect his mother. So despite being a science fiction, action-heavy chase movie, it was also pretty much a love story.
Second, he made it so that the terminator was actually part of the original past. So, for example, it turned out that Kyle Reese was actually John Connor's father. Now really this is still paradoxical, but it's sufficiently plausible that you don't mind.
And then, in a sense, the problems started. The terminator was a hit and so a sequel was made.
Luckily, the sequel was again made by Cameron, so it worked, but the problem was, the first film wrapped itself up so well that they effectively had to tweak the story of the first in order to fit the second in.
The best example of this is that we're told at the beginning that oh, no, actually Skynet sent back two terminators - one to try to kill Sarah, the other to try to kill the young John Connor. And so the paradoxes start to eat your brain. I mean, why didn't Skynet send back a veritable army or terminators, or both terminators to kill Sarah Connor, if it could send 2 back?
But those aren't the bigger questions, the bigger question is that now, where the first film wrapped itself up by saying that the events of the film were integral to the events of the future, the second changes that. It's revealed, for example, that Cyberdyne systems got hold of the remains of the first terminator and, by retro-engineering it, they've gotten much further ahead than they were before.
Similarly, you get a weird contradiction that John Connor sends back a T800 to protect his younger self, because that's what he as an adult remembers happening. And yet, at the same time, things are being changed. Indeed, the whole end of the movie depicts them properly changing things in order to prevent the whole holocaust.
And yet it works because again you've got Cameron helming it, and there's a deft focus on the relationships of the characters as well as the action and the chase.
But T2 was an even bigger hit that the first and there was therefore a desire to make a third film. And Cameron wasn't to be involved because, quite rightly, his take was that he'd wrapped up the story he wanted to tell in the first two films.
So what to do?
Well, what they ended up doing was a kinda "re-instate the original future" film. And things get very confused, to say the least. One of the big problems of course is that the sequels are often trying to either retro-fit the preceding films or twist the story so that they can exist. But in doing so they break both the previous films and themselves.
So now, for example, even though the future was changed, the Skynet of this, presumably alternate future, must still send back the original two terminators, even though it presumably has access to information that proves these two attempts failed. But it also sends back a new terminator to try to wipe out the heads of the resistance.
I mean, when you really sit down and think about the plotting, it's really messed up, and yet I actually thought the third film worked on some levels. It maintained the central ideas of time travel, terminators, chase films and also, crucially, the focus on the relationships between the characters. So, although it doesn't make sense, it still basically works.
Wow, that's a hell of a lot of words already, isn't it? And I've not even mentioned the fourth film yet :/.
So, what did I think about the fourth film?
Well, it was okay.
One of the problems of course was that at the end of the third film, they left it so that judgement day was happening. In other words, the franchise had now effectively caught up to its own future. So one of the basic plot mechanisms of the previous films - time travel - wouldn't really make any sense in the fourth one.
Also, it's a little difficult to introduce new relationships, because they've already fixed John Connor's and Kyle Reese's relationships. As such, they introduce a new character, and, indeed, it's really this new character who is the central character in the film. And unfortunately, while they do give him a sort of romantic relationship and a sort of person to protect, it's just plain not as well done in the previous films. For one thing, of course, they're separate people, so it's diluted.
Well, kinda, there's also a lot of focus on Connor, but in a bit of a weird way. I mean, there's a suggestion from some of the taglines and plot summaries that some people don't believe he's really going to be this great leader. However, no one during the film actually says that to him.
At one point he meets the heads of the resistance, but although they're pissed off at him, it's for a perfectly sensible reason, not because he's some supposedly Christ-like saviour and they don't believe it. Indeed, they actually end up trusting him with a really important mission.
And that kind of oddness pervades the movie generally. Towards the end, Connor ends up going toe-to-toe with the
There are plenty of plotholes too. At one point the machines capture the younger Kyle Reese and put him in a prison cell. Why they simply put him in a prison cell and don't just kill him is not explained.
I mean, okay, they need Connor to think he's captive, but they don't really need him to be alive, do they? Or at least, once Reece's presence has lured Connor in, they could kill him straight away. But they don't - they wait until much later.
And it's not even clear why they're collecting humans. They effectively capture Reese by accident, because they're collecting humans, but there's no explanation as to what they're doing with them.
But despite that it's still okay as a film. There's some really good action stuff, the effects are good and it has a frenetic pace that pulls you along despite all the stuff that doesn't make sense on further inspection.
That really is a lot of words just to come to the point that it's "okay", isn't it?
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
settlers 7
Across the last couple of weeks I've been playing settlers 7.
I've discussed it a bit before. It's basically an economic/resource management game like Anno, meets an RTS like C&C.
Well, over the weekend I played the final mission in the campaign and also had a bit of a go on the skirmish mode. I have to say I did enjoy the campaign. The story was quite interesting, and things like the cut-scenes were well done. Also, the tip system worked very well and it introduced you tot eh concepts of the game quite well. Also, the game is very pretty, with lovely graphics.
On the downside, the system of copy protection they've put in is a total pain. And I think something in the game causes my computer to crash - it was totally fine before I installed it, but then it started giving me BSODs all over the place. These reduced dramatically once I discovered you didn't need to keep the DVD in the drive, although they still happen occasionally.
Also, I'm not really the biggest fan of the Victory Point system they've put in. The suggestion from the way they're marketing it is that you can choose how to win the game, using science, trade or the military. As such, you would expect that the number of victory points available to each of the routes is the same and that earning them is of about the same difficulty for each route.
But in reality, this is not the case - some routes let you get the victory points easier than the others. Additionally, it's not true that you can focus entirely on the one victory route.
For example, say you pick science. Slightly oddly, this actually means building up your religion. To do that you need various resources and that means expanding. Now, you can actually take over Neutral sectors using your monks, so initially that's fine and good.
But how do you take over a sector controlled by another player? Or what if another player wants your sector? Well those can only be done by military force.
So that means you need to build up at an okay military force, even if just for defence. But doing that is complicated, because if another player is doing military he'll have better units, so you need those better units too. Also, it can be expensive, and one of the best ways to get cash is via the trade route.
So in other words, it's actually nearly impossible to win without having at least a bit of all three routes.
And so here's the thing - now that I've finished the campaign, I'm probably going to uninstall it.
As I mentioned, I've had a couple of cracks at the skirmish mode, and it's okay, but it's like any other skirmish mode in an RTS. Basically, you're not playing for any real objective other than to win.
I've also no real interest in multiplayer, so basically, unless I replay the campaign, there's nothing left for me to do. Which is why I love about Anno 1404 - crucially, it has a Sandbox mode.
If you're not familiar with that term, it's where you can just play the game without objectives in a 'free creation' mode. So it's a bit like an RTS skirmish mode, except with one crucial difference - it's not about "winning" (well, unless you set a particular goal when you set it up). It's difficult to explain, but it gives huge longevity and continuing interest.
I've discussed it a bit before. It's basically an economic/resource management game like Anno, meets an RTS like C&C.
Well, over the weekend I played the final mission in the campaign and also had a bit of a go on the skirmish mode. I have to say I did enjoy the campaign. The story was quite interesting, and things like the cut-scenes were well done. Also, the tip system worked very well and it introduced you tot eh concepts of the game quite well. Also, the game is very pretty, with lovely graphics.
On the downside, the system of copy protection they've put in is a total pain. And I think something in the game causes my computer to crash - it was totally fine before I installed it, but then it started giving me BSODs all over the place. These reduced dramatically once I discovered you didn't need to keep the DVD in the drive, although they still happen occasionally.
Also, I'm not really the biggest fan of the Victory Point system they've put in. The suggestion from the way they're marketing it is that you can choose how to win the game, using science, trade or the military. As such, you would expect that the number of victory points available to each of the routes is the same and that earning them is of about the same difficulty for each route.
But in reality, this is not the case - some routes let you get the victory points easier than the others. Additionally, it's not true that you can focus entirely on the one victory route.
For example, say you pick science. Slightly oddly, this actually means building up your religion. To do that you need various resources and that means expanding. Now, you can actually take over Neutral sectors using your monks, so initially that's fine and good.
But how do you take over a sector controlled by another player? Or what if another player wants your sector? Well those can only be done by military force.
So that means you need to build up at an okay military force, even if just for defence. But doing that is complicated, because if another player is doing military he'll have better units, so you need those better units too. Also, it can be expensive, and one of the best ways to get cash is via the trade route.
So in other words, it's actually nearly impossible to win without having at least a bit of all three routes.
And so here's the thing - now that I've finished the campaign, I'm probably going to uninstall it.
As I mentioned, I've had a couple of cracks at the skirmish mode, and it's okay, but it's like any other skirmish mode in an RTS. Basically, you're not playing for any real objective other than to win.
I've also no real interest in multiplayer, so basically, unless I replay the campaign, there's nothing left for me to do. Which is why I love about Anno 1404 - crucially, it has a Sandbox mode.
If you're not familiar with that term, it's where you can just play the game without objectives in a 'free creation' mode. So it's a bit like an RTS skirmish mode, except with one crucial difference - it's not about "winning" (well, unless you set a particular goal when you set it up). It's difficult to explain, but it gives huge longevity and continuing interest.
Monday, 26 April 2010
wherever i may roam
So I went for another walk yesterday.
The weather was a bit weird, as it kept looking like it was going to rain, so I put my coat on, but then when the sun popped out it was really warm. It was also weirdly muggy, even though there seemed to be quite a strong breeze blowing at times.
I've come up with a nice little route for my walks where I basically head off down the hill I'm on, then cut through a minor road past some fields that takes me onto the back route in past all the schools. That bit is the longest part of the walk, but it's on the flat. I then have to come up through the 'back way' that goes through the estate.
Obviously, since I came down the hill, that last bit involves climbing back up, but where downhill was fairly gentle, the uphill is very steep. The advantage of that route is that the only other way back is the long way back (which, of course, involves going uphill anyway). Therefore, it forces me to do a good stretch uphill and really get my heart pumping.
All told it's about one and a half miles. I know that for normal people 1.5 miles isn't exactly a long walk, but for me at the moment it's a huge distance. Well, actually, I could easily walk further, what I mean is that with the hill bit it's a good compromise between a long distance, which would take a long time, and good exercise.
It currently takes me about 30 minutes to do the whole walk and I normally have to stop a couple of times. I don't stop for long, but the walk up the hill is pretty steep, so I usually stop to catch my breath and on Sunday with the sun out, take my coat off and wipe my brow.
I've no real ambition regarding doing longer distances or walking it quicker. I'd like to get to a position where I can walk it twice a week - maybe Sunday and Wednesday - and also not feel quite so knackered afterwards.
Otherwise the weekend was a pretty normal one. I cleaned the flat and thought about cleaning the car. My car's been caked in dust this last week or so, which I dunno if it has anything to do with the volcano, but it could have done with a clean.
Trouble was with Sunday being the best opportunity and with it constantly looking like it was going to rain but then not actually raining, I ended up not bothering. Besides I'm on holiday next week and my landlord goes on holiday the week after, so I should get ample opportunity to give the old girl a good clean in the next couple of weeks.
The weather was a bit weird, as it kept looking like it was going to rain, so I put my coat on, but then when the sun popped out it was really warm. It was also weirdly muggy, even though there seemed to be quite a strong breeze blowing at times.
I've come up with a nice little route for my walks where I basically head off down the hill I'm on, then cut through a minor road past some fields that takes me onto the back route in past all the schools. That bit is the longest part of the walk, but it's on the flat. I then have to come up through the 'back way' that goes through the estate.
Obviously, since I came down the hill, that last bit involves climbing back up, but where downhill was fairly gentle, the uphill is very steep. The advantage of that route is that the only other way back is the long way back (which, of course, involves going uphill anyway). Therefore, it forces me to do a good stretch uphill and really get my heart pumping.
All told it's about one and a half miles. I know that for normal people 1.5 miles isn't exactly a long walk, but for me at the moment it's a huge distance. Well, actually, I could easily walk further, what I mean is that with the hill bit it's a good compromise between a long distance, which would take a long time, and good exercise.
It currently takes me about 30 minutes to do the whole walk and I normally have to stop a couple of times. I don't stop for long, but the walk up the hill is pretty steep, so I usually stop to catch my breath and on Sunday with the sun out, take my coat off and wipe my brow.
I've no real ambition regarding doing longer distances or walking it quicker. I'd like to get to a position where I can walk it twice a week - maybe Sunday and Wednesday - and also not feel quite so knackered afterwards.
Otherwise the weekend was a pretty normal one. I cleaned the flat and thought about cleaning the car. My car's been caked in dust this last week or so, which I dunno if it has anything to do with the volcano, but it could have done with a clean.
Trouble was with Sunday being the best opportunity and with it constantly looking like it was going to rain but then not actually raining, I ended up not bothering. Besides I'm on holiday next week and my landlord goes on holiday the week after, so I should get ample opportunity to give the old girl a good clean in the next couple of weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)