Or maybe a gigantic Taco Bell.

In this modern day there are many different goals we strive to achieve, and while these goals are diverse in nature, I believe that there is one word to describe them. That word is progress. Whether it is improvements to the processing power of computers, more efficient cycle of crop production, flashier hand held entertainment, or being able to print artificial organs in the end all these actions are meant to make the world a little better for its creation. The concept of striving for progress is a logical result of evolution, as humans we innately desire it. In this way progress is comparable to time, whether you count the second or you waste away hours,there is no stopping time. If this is the case then there is no literal opposite to progress, the closest you get to that is inefficiency. Personally this scares me, because if inefficiency is the enemy to progress then it is logical to assume that our goal as a civilization is to eliminate it. Today I walked to school, back and to my job. A generous estimate is that it took me one and a half to get from destination to destination, where it only had to take me thirty minute maximum. This hour and a half can not be considered strictly productive, I didn't get any school work done nor was it an efficient way to get physically fit. The logical think to do is to eliminate this from my day, and while I enjoy my walks they are not essential to my well being physically or mentally. Of course another hour to my day would be nice, but there is no real reason to stop my habit of walking home as long as I can still get my work done. Eliminating all the small eccentricities that are not as effective as they could be on a level of all individuals would rightly seem absurd. No one should feel entitled to dictate these actions, and I am not talking about a work schedule that's pretty reasonable. No the personal choice that you make from day to day, refined with modern technology, true leisure limited to weekends and holidays. On an individual level this is pretty out there but as more and more cultures fixate on money, happiness, success, progress small eccentricities start becoming intolerable. It is inefficient, the human race chases progress. Peers start looking unfavorably on an hour spend walking home rather than finding a more efficient way to relax. A nice dinner, or perhaps a movie. I know that this kind of philosophy would be impossible to adopt today, people would refuse to give up their freedoms. For this I am thank full, yet it is also not unreasonable that with time our priorities as humans may shift and this becomes a reality. I only ask what if The Road Not Taken might become replace with something more productive, like a strip mall?
To reiterate progress only goes forwards, so lets be real careful where we lead it.

My Best Holden Caulfield Impression

It has come to my attention as of late that my personality has some striking similarities to that of everyone's favorite red capped run away. I am slowly turning into Holden Caulfield, this I believe. It's no secret that Holden possesses many undesirable traits, and while he does not mean harm to harm others, his self absorbed, un-empathetic, pompous, naive, ass has been getting on the nerves of other characters and fellow reader for over sixty years. So it is with displeasure that I describe my life in relation to Holden's.

It all starts to days ago where a literary Picasso was rejected for a this I believe essay, This writing was vague, complex, and incomprehensible just like the nature of the universe. This was an essay to contrast with the high hopes and dreams of my classmates, every room needs a nihilist, someone needs to critical of reality. The uniqueness of this masterpiece was its downfall as no one else could see the beauty. Boy, this it was not worth a lousy F, it was the prince of papers, and I needed to rewrite it. This shows you what the goddamn school knows, they know nothing, they really don't. It really doesn't matter though, I'll write that essay and make it bleed insight and lousy beliefs. Writing these kind of things kill me, you just chew the fat for a while and the teachers knock themselves out, but you you want to write something intelligent they never want to hear it, they really don't. So here I am and while I need to write something I believe in, the lousy part is I already did that the first time. Here I am by the goddamn computer writing another paper, it should be on how I believe in family, I'm sure that they would love to hear that. How do you even believe in family, it is not something to believe in it's there. I know that I am almost failing every class besides english. But you know what I have never gone dancing in thirty year olds, wait actually I did that at a wedding in Mexico. Goddam comparisons, well I still don't drink heavily, but I guess that can change if I start doing that madman stuff again. I don't have a red hunting hat, I wear a bandana. Most importantly Holden is a loser and a hypocrite, while I'm not. So from now on I'm not going to flatter others, but I'm going to do the complete opposite, really I am. No more flattery only insults. I'm not going to call call up girls because they are attractive rather I'm only going to talk to lousy looking girls because I feel a little sorry for them. Who needs goddam people I don't. I'm actually just going to live in a cabin by the woods where these things aren't a problem where the liars and the goddam flits don't go. They can stay in the city, I'll have my field. I can paint, and listen to nature, but not read. I can't stand another phony essay.

An artistic touch

I am writing this from inside the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. So here are unquestionably better things i could be doing right now but somethings need to be said. There is an exhibit recently put in recently put in for the Mega cities Asia exhibit. One of these exhibits is made from bike frames from the company forever. This brings a uniformity to the sculpture and keeps one bike from being a focal point. This also makes sure the bikes fit together neatly, yet I see this as a misrepresentation of the socially diverse mega city. (Maybe even some free advertising for forever) the most important part of this sculpture is in the the way these frames that should not necessarily fit together do, the balance between bike frames, seats, handlebars, but most importantly gears and wheels. These are key because they provide motion to a stationary sculpture. There is not motor but they CAN spin. Crowd of people gingerly circle this sculpture in appreciation of the vision that this artist had. Four, five six year olds have a completely different interpretation of this. They don't see the art, they see something better, they run under the bikes and go in the sculpture. They spin the wheels. They breath life into metal. It is because of these children I understand the beauty of this sculpture, because it is not metal to be a cylinder or a sculpture but a seductress pulling us the people in to admire what is there, creating a connection between us. Like the people that must share a city. There is no ribbon or barrier to this attraction and while I write this there are clearly people that come up close to the sculpture, they nearly caress it, and then back off this is a museum after all a place of appreciation not action. So as I go up I guiltily turn the pedal less pedals, i feel there resistance to my push, as i try to be firm yet gentle determined to leave my own mark on this sculpture. Then I take a set over to gently spin a wheel and finally a step back to admire my handiwork. This is when I am taken aback as a museum worker tells me not to touch the sculpture, it's not welded together, we don't know if its stable. After a moment of contemplation I spoke to her, and she agrees that this is a sculpture is made to be touched, and experienced but authority cant let there be a risk in doing so. There were kid crawling under the edge and going inside the where the cylindrical sculpture turned into an elaborate cage, and no child should get hurt from this kind of carelessness. So sitting here i'm not sure which pedal i moved or if anyone else has touched it since, but i know i have left a mark on something that can be greater than myself. While there are no motors on these wheels, but they are meant to spin. It does not matter which wheel, it doesn't matter who many, because this sculpture is lack luster on its own it is with human interaction in mind. As i look up a child spins the wheel as he walks by.

http://www.mfa.org/programs/series/the-city-talks

P.S. who said a child can't understand art.

Let's talk about... (video games)

I want to make this clear, the best part of Not a hero is it's trailer. Not a hero is a video game, with a minimal and quirky story line about a man in a bunny costume running for office (BUNNYLORD). What is nice about the game is that it satires politicians and democracy, for in is a rather common platform for a politician to be tough on crime. Not a hero takes that a into the realm ludicrous by being elected by killing the leaders of crime syndicalists, and hordes of generic hooligans. That being said modern politics can arguably be messy and inefficient. Realpolitik? Who cares, the game play is the important part. The only actions you can do is shoot, slide, use an item, move left, or move right. These controls are relatively simplistic, so the emphasis is on timing, and knowing the details of each individual level. So in practice you memorize a sequence of actions you need to do to beat the level, and then you run through the level over and over until you beat the level, no doubt by perfecting your sequence. In this way the game play feels a little like Dance Dance Revolution for your fingers, but what is nice about this is that there are different characters with different game play styles, for most levels creating multiple ways to succeed at the same level. Actually beating the level is not to challenging, but each level has challenges that go along with the level, when a particular challenge is traverse a third of the level in a minute, that is when perfect memorization and execution is required. The only other notable thing about the game is its wacky humor, that most shows through Bunnylord monologue that has a few key words that randomized, and the effect is much like a mad limbs story. Personally I do think "amazeballs" needs to be found more in my day to day vernacular.

As a whole I am rather content with the game. It might not be amazeballs, but the game plays as a simplified cover based shooter, different power ups and character kept the game from getting stale. The trailer for the game has a higher level of intensity than the game itself has, it has over the top humor, the game itself has more quirky and random humor. This difference in tone is the only element of the game that personally disappointed me. That being said, over sexualized Spanish man named Jesus, you are my favorite.

Sander Cohen Conundrum: Art in Bioshock

I'm sorry, but this post is going to be on Bioshock again. While I think that I written more than enough on the subject there are still some points that I personally have not touched on yet that I would very much like to, take for example my favorite moment from the game. You as the player are a bad ass at this point in the game you. There is a shortage of ammo, but every weapon except one is available to you at this point. The horror element of the game is completely gone, and now the concern is the most efficient way of disposing of enemies, and you as the player are getting good at it too. So you are feel as you open the doors into another apartment building, there is music playing reminiscent of Frank Sinatra's style of sing. As you see a couple of enemies, splicers they are called in the game, that are unaware of you. This is where my experience with the game becomes unique, not wanting to take any chances with the situation, I loaded up a heat seeking rocket and shot a single round into the pair, and got the satisfaction of seeing them flying. Almost the "enormity" of what I just did hit me, like I said earlier the game has conditioned me to be as efficient as possible when dealing with enemies, for they were dangerous and could attack me ruthlessly. These two were different to though, while they would certainly have attacked me if I had caught their attention, they were not looking for me the player, they were dancing. These two individuals found a way to enjoy the apocalypses, which is a feat no other character in the game achieves, and I as the player killed them on instinct. That is good video game design, hats off to the developers. The point I really want to consider is art within Rapture, and I brought up that game play not just because it was my favorite moments within the game but it is one of the few examples of art with in the game. For context, Raptures draw was no government interference in business, not moral limitations, and lastly no censorship for the artist. This aspect of Rapture would be under discussed if it wasn't for the fact that there is literally no art in Rapture, okay that is an exaggeration... if you want to make the argument that Bioshock as a video game is art you can do that, but that is irrelevant to the point. Other than that there is exactly two times art is directly brought up in the game, which is at first underwhelming. To start lets talk about Sander Cohen, probably the fourth most important character in the game. Cohen is meant to represent the height of artistic achievement in Rapture, but he is also the culmination of emotions in rapture. The other main characters are objectivists, but Sander Cohen represents an emotional response to watching Raptures decline. This decline causes Cohen great personal pain, as best demonstrated by his poem The Wild Bunny. The poem is about how Cohen wants to "take off the ears" (his trade mark is a mask of the rabbit) but he is unable too. Taken literally this is a poem about how Cohen can not stop being a performer, wanting his work to be appreciated always trying to express his passion. From a more abstract perspective this poem also relates to how Cohen is trapped in Rapture, it is the combination having artistic passion and begin unable to express it that causes pain. Cohen is still very capable artistically, while unstable we as players are shown this in Cohen's masterpiece as music number on the piano. Cohen also forces the player to kill his four disciples that have betrayed or disappointed him in various ways, and attached the proceeding pictures to dead bodies. The player is being forced to contribute in Cohen's artistic passion, letting a connection be built in the turn out of that piece whether or not the player likes that. Killing the disciples lets Sander Cohen move on from the past and accept the present reality. This is shown in the way he is the only major villain that you do not need to kill. That apartment with the dancing couple I described earlier was Cohen's apartment, and if you don't kill him, he does and spend the rest of the game in his room on the second floor decorated by rabbit masks. Notice though that even if Cohen survives then the couple is still there dancing, Ryan's idealism gets corrupted and dies with him, Suchong (a premier scientist) and if disregard for morals die. Even Frank Fontaine dies when he stops harnessing the will of the people and just relies on his supernatural powers. Yet emotion and the drive to create something beautiful live in Cohen, and the dancing couple, even though their idea of beauty might have been warped as the city they lived in started to decay. There is not a single painting in the Rapture of Bioshock, signifying how beauty has been destroyed and irrelevant to the majority of people, but the desire lives on. This is a big departure from Bioshocks criticism of objectivism, which makes its inclusion into the game even more relevant.

Bioshock thoughts (part 2)

Bioshock is not only an inspiration to me but also to others as well. It is a critically a claimed game after all, and I dare say that it has aged well, because the relevant themes of the story, setting, and trilogy of games it has spawned. Bioshock is responsible for the creation of my favorite terms that are unique to video game discussions, ludonarrative dissonance. when the game play of a game and its story clash. This term was created by Clint Hocking in his blog.

• http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html

It is very much because of this blog that motivated me to write this on a NINE year old video game, if video games interest you I highly recommend his blog. Otherwise why are you reading this blog? Having these two very tangible levels of story telling is something unique to story telling and any game that can successfully utilize that is excellent in my opinion. 

The inspiration of this game was objectivism, as created my Ayn Rand. Simplified, objectivism is the belief that there is no faith or higher power but only reason that you should hold yourself accountable to, and that as an individual your goal is to achieve as much as you personally can. This is a much nicer way of saying the end justifies the means. (sorry teacher) In this fictional world Andrew Ryan creates a utopia on the bottom of the ocean in order to escape established government. The appeal of this city is finical growth not restricted by governments, no censorship for artists, and no moral limitations for scientists. The effectiveness of this philosophy is demonstrated in the fact that this city gets built, and the it does become inhabited, yet when you as the player see the city for the first time you see a hollow image of a city torn by civil war. So story for the player the becomes conflict between objectivism and just trying to do the right thing. This is implemented through a system where you either kill or help little girls who create supper natural power through a special genetic modification they have. The rest of the story is one hundred and fifty percent linear. The issue with this mechanic is that you benefit more in the long run from saving the little girls, where this choice should have put you in a disadvantageous situation and made the game significantly harder it does not. This defeats the moral conflict that the game is trying to create, where you can be the hero and the most powerful person possible, ludonarrative dissonance. Strike two is in the linear story, this is a particular issue because this game is set to the back drop of great men that created their own destiny, but you are the play have only one path you can follow. This first half of the game you as the play are trying to help the first man you come into contact with "escape" Rapture with his "family", by killing Andrew Ryan the founder of the city. You as the play have no choice in the matter because you were raised in a test tube to be a solider and had been brain washed to fill any command/sentence that ended in "would you kindly". (ohhhhhh, I should have probably put in a spoiler warning somewhere before this... ouch.. well too late now) The first of two cut scenes is used here to illustrate this point, you don't get to kill Ryan, you watch him die. Personally it was a moment of shock for me as a player because I wanted to believe in the good side of that one person (Atlas/Frank Fontaine) and myself that I was doing the good thing, but the manipulation was a good double take. On the other hand for the people that didn't want to do the good thing but rather survive and become as powerful as possible.... it was more of a slap to the face, limiting what was possible to do in the game. It seemed as if the game was created to appease the naive hope with in us, that says good will prevail and my favorite soccer team can win, because I root for it. Its a nice message, and the ending credits for a "good" ending are beautiful, but this concept goes against the objectivist ideals that should make the game thought provoking. Ludonarrative dissonance. After you discover that your character is being controlled, even though there are multiple characters that know about this and yet explain nothing to you. The story is STILL linear. Your goal is to find a way to take back control over your mind and kill the man how now runs the city (Atlas/ Frank Fontaine, same person, just has two different personas). Thematically this makes sense whether you want to gain control over the city and take as much power as possible or you want to save the children. Props to the games creators for finding one scenario that enables both actions to be taken, but again the linearity of the story goes against the message of objectivism. Unless the developers are trying to create the argument that the actions of the morally good and the ruthless are near identical, but it is much more likely that the reason is some sort of technical limitation. Bioshock is excellent game, but in addressing this inconsistencies you have to ask if it could have been better.

Thanks for reading.

Bioshock thoughts (part 1)

Bioshock is a video game released by 2k Boston in 2007. In the context of video games 2007 was a long time ago, and plenty of fantastic video games have come out since then, but this video game has caught my interest for three key reasons. The setting/ context for game, the discussion in how video games should be made and the fact that it is the most recent game that I beat. The 20ish hours I spent playing the game can't be refunded, but that means I do have a very good impression on the game. This is not a review or recommendation of the game rather an analysis where I can offer some personal opinions and ask some question about what the game could have been. Bioshock is an first person shooter, with horror elements, and minor rpg elements. This blend is very good and at the highest difficulty a blend of guns and super natural powers is necessary in order to succeed at the game, at lower difficulties you can get away with dominantly gun play. Some points of interest is that in the beginning of the game is where all the horror elements can be found, the game actively sets up jump scares and and each individual enemy is a capable threat. As you go through the game and gain power as the protagonist the horror element of the game vanishes. At this point as a player you are more familiar with the city of rapture, to this transition makes sense game play wise and from a thematic stand point. This is an example of what makes the game special. Another core concept is that every enemy gives you a negative return on investment, the amount of resources (ammo, "mana") you need use to kill an enemy is much higher than the reward you gain for the kill. This makes exploration necessary and resource management a constant struggle in the game. Each gun having projectiles that fire in various ways (i.e. machine guns, shotguns, and rocket launcher all fire different projectiles) and different types of ammo. All of this in combination creates a situation where the player needs to actively think about what is the most efficient combination of supernatural powers, guns and ammo to take down an enemy, with added intensity because of the scarcity of the resources. This is excellent, but unfortunately this emphasis on special guns and magic powers does detract a little bit from the importance of aiming. Where this game's core game play mechanic is gun play, the game is in first not third person for a reason, aiming and shooting is has to feel good and be satisfying. In Bioshock a lack of aim can be supplemented with tactical knowledge or guns that are easier to control, and this is excellent but it does take away from the importance of aim, which a first person shooter is built around. This being said, the trade of in Bioshock is worth while, and unique for the time, the horror element can only happen in first person, its not hard to say many games take some inspiration from this system. That being said we have to wonder if a dodge mechanic would benefit the game, and would thematically make sense for the character. I do not think it makes sense for this game, because the game benefits on not being able to out run your enemies so they must be fought.... but dodging could add another layer of complexity and skill to most game.

The fact that enemies have infinite bullets while shooting you but when you kill them they only have 5 is the one thing that does annoy me in this game, that I wished the game addressed.