Repost: Professor Layton and the Hell Yes

My last blog before this got digitally bulldozed: I was hosting on a pay-per-webserver and when I got a new credit card forgetting to update the account, they sent one spam-collected warning before they deleted my site. Luckily I was able to salvage most of the posts via Google Cache, with the hope that I could write a script to de-WordPress-HTMLize them, and upload again so they could see another day. I haven't done it yet, but might still. The main reason I haven't is because a) those posts had lots of images I hosted on the server as well, which makes them uglier, and b) those posts are like these, but much more boring.

But I might re-post one or two every here and there. Here's a re-post from September 4, 2009, when I was playing Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box. I just got the sequel, Professor Layton and the Unwound Future (official site, trailer), and most of my sentiments are still the same:

-----


Anybody following my tweets for the past 4-5 days knows I've only really tweeted about one thing: Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box.

This is a breath of fresh air. Not even: I've written before about growing up during the Hollywoodization of the games industry, and in that context games like this are a fresh salad in a strip mall full of Krispy Kreme's. This game is a bargain for twice the price.

It would take a much-better planned post to cogently and coherently explain this game's genius, but to take a line from the movie Spy Game, I'll try to achieve "twice the sex with half the foreplay":

• The game's puzzle mechanic is innovative and damn fun. While scores upon scores of mini-games and puzzles in the larger game isn't new (Nintendo owned and made a fortune off this mechanic previously with Brain Age, Mario Party, etc.) Layton's puzzles operate in a radically different context. Most games have puzzles that are competitive and/or timed, with their primary mechanic some physical or reactionary task and how rapidly you can achieve it (mash buttons! Simon says!).
  
  The context of these puzzles change everything. The puzzles are non-competitive. You have unlimited time. They are cognitively fun, stimulating puzzles.
  
  I feel that Parappa the Rapper sort of emerged in this way, in that timed button presses weren’t themselves new (TASVideos demonstrates that completing most games could be thought of as a sequence of timed button presses, but Excitebike is a better example of a game with it as a central mechanic), but the context and presentation made it feel new.
  


• This game is beautiful. Also like Parappa, the game launders its play style though gorgeous original artwork and design. Who can't love Professor Layton, with his quaint accent, speech, and manners? Who can't love Don Paolo, the eeeeevil scientist who is such a cartoon villain? Who can't love the soundtrack, the villagers?


• It's always great to have a touch interface that doesn't suck. Have you ever tried designing a touch-screen interface? Or used one? Most of its proponents swear touch interfaces are more "natural," but most touch software sucks. This game feels great, however, so much so that my brother's girlfriend could feel inclined to pick it up and log 15 hours of game time in 4-5 days.

If you have a DS, get these games. If you don’t, ask to borrow mine ^_^

Strong words, Bed Intruder

A few things. One, cursing, and strong words!

I happen to agree. I swear very little, and do so very carefully (which is to say I treat swear words like any other word). But still, someone who thinks they have no place has never seen them put to great use (my favorite example is still the Pope Song).

Strong words!

Slurs, on the other hand, are pretty awful. I handle how I feel about these case by case. I happen to think, like swearing, we put too much weight on these as a society, but that's easy when you're tall, skinny, straight, and pass for white like I do. Normally I'm happy to leave well enough alone. But this Daily Show clip wins.

Finally, I love 2010. First you get this story on the news:

Which, naturally gets remixed:

But here's the best part: a school picked it up and playing it for marching band!

Are we lucky to be alive now, or what?

Making a living being an artist

This blog seems to have veered from code and cute whimsy to Paul Screed and Bloviation. Lets add one more post to that list, in part spurred by a post by Jason Robert Brown (writer/composer of Parade and The Last 5 Years, among others) that was making the rounds for a while. You should skim it, but he's basically making his case for how it's wrong that artists get cheated out of their royalties by technology by debating the issue with someone who is actively giving away and receiving his music.

First, a note on the post: it's pretty awful. He picks an inarticulate opponent to represent the other side, to the point that it's literally Master Writer vs. Opinionated Teenager. He doesn't contest the more grounded, better-expressed arguments refuting his own position, or even really acknowledge their existence. It's as if the only arguments there are are the ones this girl mentions, and he predictably takes her to town.

Let's make another distinction: this post isn't to say stealing music is okay, it's more to say royalties are doomed, think of something else. With this I mean I won't go into the ethics of downloading music illegally because, like most discussion on ethics and law, it's just way too hairy. It sounds like it should be a no-brainer that the proposition "stealing music is wrong" is true, but a) everyone may have very different definitions of stealing, particularly when b) music isn't a good or service that easily fits most tractable economic models for production or consumption, and c) assumes both speakers agree on a moral or ethical standard, notions of right and wrong, and fair behavior. So the only problems with "Stealing music is wrong" is "stealing," "music," and "wrong."

But I do believe Jason Robert Brown, like most artists who are successful or wish to be in the traditional sense, are clinging to a model that has failed and will continue to do so. That it's not a good idea to cling to an income that is primarily sustained by royalties. Like newspapers, that model only made money when people couldn't opt-out of a bad system. You're hedging your livelihood hoping that people will choose to opt-in to the same bad system, against a better alternative.

I can't find a link, but I remember a quote from the early days of the internet, when a 12-year old kid who loved Dave Barry articles would transcribe them from the newspaper onto his Geocities site: "When someone destroys your business model not because they hate you, but because they love you, you know you're in trouble."

And people won't opt-in. The Times of London online had a 90% drop in readership after instituting a paywall. The most compelling point the girl in the post made, which JRB never addressed, was that she literally couldn't access the music legally since you'd need a credit card to buy it online, and her parents didn't support her passion for theatre.

The act of buying legally itself is also marred with complications. See this graphic of watching a pirated DVD vs. a legitimate DVD, or read about this guy who pirated Starcraft, and had to wait two days to play it when he decided to buy it. While I believe the main reason people pirate is because they're cheapskates (most people pirating could afford at least some of the music they pirate, and could cut consumption like in any other market to make up the difference), it doesn't help that the experience is often better when you pirate.

Finally, and this goes back to arguing over whether it's "right" or "wrong:" most people are incredibly confused by this. When CD burning just started, I offered to make copies of commercial CD's my family bought legally to take with us to Guatemala, for us and only us to listen to. My mom relented (and looked at me like a criminal), thinking the act of burning the CD's was the illegal part (rather than the distribution... and I'm sure some RIAA lawyer would or can make the case that it is).

So regardless of whether or not what you perceive as stealing feels wrong to you (phew), even if you were 100% right and you die and go to Heaven and God himself says "Yes, Jason, you were robbed wrongfully by your brothers on Earth," it doesn't change the fact that while you were on Earth, your model was dissolving and you were being made irrelevant. I'm not arguing right or wrong, I'm arguing working and non-working.

So what should you do instead? Um... well, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure the solution isn't to stay on a sinking ship.

I can make a few suggestions though, as this generalizes nicely into the hard problem of how to make a career as an artist. The first step is to accept that you will take a pay cut. You can't keep the salaries and lifestyle you kept in the bad old days doing the bad old things. This might mean getting a second (or different) job.

The second thing to remember is branding. You're recordings may not be worth much anymore because we can now distribute them losslessly to whoever we want. But there is still only one of you, and that scarcity should factor into your model.

So try using the technology to brand yourself. Form connections. Don't stop producing and respond to your audience. If you're lucky, you can get as famous as Radiohead and give your music away for whatever anyone wants to pay for it. If you're a little less lucky, you could probably still get well-known enough to enough people to score a regular job or commissioned work. Ze Frank did a great daily show and seems to get regular work, even getting to be a speaker at TED.

A fringe benefit of this is that you no longer have to deal with middlemen taking big cuts, and stealing. Hollywood accounting means that you could still, technically, lose money on the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Peter Jackson and the estate of JRR Tolkien had to sue to get any royalties from the movies). It's how TLC could sell 10 million CD's and still go bankrupt. The bad old days were bad for artists too. So leverage the technology, and work for yourself.

Many of the same artist survival tactics still apply. Persevere, and understand the hardest part of the game is not giving up too soon. Picking up a skill will help you greatly. Like John Goodman said in Inside the Actor's Studio, the most useful advice he got for his career as an actor was to learn to type, allowing him a stable day job to live off while he worked. That skill may even supersede your love for your art, as happened to me. At the very least you will get more perspective of how most normal, non-artists people think and work.

On an institutional level, I can't recommend enough Brendan Kiley's article 10 Things Theatre's Need To Do Right Now To Save Themselves. It caused a major splash and proposed a lot of uncomfortable truths. Many artists hated it, which is precisely the type of reaction an appropriate solution would generate in such a broken system. Incidentally, and I know this makes me a Bad Actor, but I'm tired of seeing Shakespeare.

Obviously, easier said than done. But those are my two cents.

Video Games, and the failure of the word "Art" Redux

UPDATE (7/20/10): A little old, but Ebert closes the book by saying that, while he still thinks he's right, he shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. He essentially says "I'm not wrong, but I can't explain why I feel that I'm right." It's actually a pretty nice piece.

---

I wrote about Ebert et. al. being naive and/or lame when they don't allow games to be art. This great little reddit thread "Saddest moment in a game?" shows that, like the NYT summarizes rather well, it's more a generational misunderstanding of what 'art' should mean rather than one rooted in any actual thinking. See how many you've encountered yourself!

At the very least, I see how deficient I am for not having played any Metal Gear Solid beyond the first (which was excellent). Also glad Majora's Mask is getting a fair bit of love in that thread; it's the masterpiece nobody's played, like Skies of Arcadia.

Assorted interestings

I've always loved the Google "Did you mean?" (favorite is recursion), but this one came up recently while helping my sister with some definitions:



---

There are some words that people invoke to give false credence to ideas. The most obvious case is God; if you mention him/her, you can convince people of pretty much anything.

In non-God cases, it's normally an abstract term we use as shorthand but don't have a solid, working definition for. I've written about Art being a stupid word, and today I read an interesting blog post adds 'neuroplasticity' to the list.

Another game on Android Market!

My games group is happy and proud to release Momenta (development title Platformer) to the Market today!



As with my first Market release, you can click here if you're browsing from an Android phone, or search "Momenta" in the Android Market.



What would you pay for this Eyjafjallajökull eruption of fun? You might say $10,000, but wait, it's free! Download it, PLAY IT, enjoy it, and please provide feedback!

The Gods must be crazy!

Over 60% of the video online containing Paul was only uploaded in the last month. Here's another! I'm acting in Mt. Olympus, a new Brown TV show with some really wonderful people involved.


The premise is that the Greek Gods come down every once in a while from Mt. Olympus to let off some steam. During one visit, Hestia, who guards the hearth (and source of their Godly powers) leaves it unattended to take a break, and their powers vanish! What will they do in as students in a college that looks suspiciously like Brown?



I play Hermes, the messenger of the Gods. He's a trickster, and mostly serves as comic relief. The gods go through a number of identity issues when they lose their powers and learn to become mortal, but Hermes is really just there to have the best time he can.

There's about 2:40 introduction with the classroom scene. I'm mostly in the opening sequence after that, until about 5:00. The rest of the episode is quite fabulous, and I've made lots of great friends working on this. Keep watching until after the credits for More Paul™! It was that clip that left my family speechless when I got the rough cut of it over Spring Break.

Also, some of the music (namely the party music that comes in when I enter the dark room at 3:20) was done by a very talented friend I met at Brown, Mr. Andrew Underberg. I remember asking him for a recording of his midterm project in an Electronic Music class we took 4 years ago, because it really stood out as excellent (sadly, I can't find it on his site and lost it in a hard drive death...).

(also, I've updated the post on the Pope and Catholicism, providing reasons why I am so angry, with lots of links substantiating my original sentiment).

I read the news

If you aren't head-explodingly outraged with the Catholic church, you aren't paying enough attention (or, alternatively, you're incapable of independent thought).

With that in mind, this video tickled me (language NSFW).

Unsurprisingly, I agree with the Hitchens/Dawkins initiative to have the Pope brought to court.

Edit: I realize this was an inflammatory post, especially since I don't provide any links to what's going on, or the conversation in place. Here are a few articles that guided my understanding:

• Andrew Sullivan in invaluable in this discussion, as a compassionate Catholic who isn't afraid of following the truth where it lies. He's written a great article for The Times that lays it all out pretty well.


• Sullivan continues with more damning (literally, I hope) facts. The Vatican's response so far has been along the lines of calling this 'petty gossip,' seemingly unaware that the documented rape of hundreds children (and documented ignoring of calls for help) does not constitute gossip. It is fact, and there is a difference.


• How have Church representatives responded? By blaming the Jews, blaming the gays, and when that didn't work, blaming those slutty children who were totally asking for it.


• This has raised the question, can the Pope be fired? As in, suppose tomorrow we find out he also burned orphanages, uses performance-enhancing drugs, was in Arizona illegally, and was actually not even Catholic. Could the Vatican defrock him? Turns out, they can't. Surprisingly, the Catholic hierarchy has no real systems for accountability.


• Some bishops do step down, however. The timing suggests they're not so sorry that they did it as they are that they got caught.


• Christopher Hitchins was on Bill Maher's show, and while both are polarizing atheists who don't generally resonate well with believers (they're pretty inflammatory), this video lays it out pretty simply: would you accept a child molester (or someone who aided one) in your company? In your country? Then why is this any different?
  


• The Onion, a satirical publication, wins with the best headline though: Pope Vows to get Church Pedophilia Down to Acceptable Levels. The funny thing is, he hasn't even done this.


• In a major breakthrough, however, the Vatican may apologize in some way shape or form in June. Again, I have a feeling this is only happening because we're making such a big stink about it, since the abuse has happened over the last century (at least) and nobody from their end has said a peep about it, other than blaming.

The Vatican, like Phil Donahue and most other shills, have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of owning up to this, and have only shown their incompetence by blaming others. The best defense of the Catholic Church came just this morning, by Nick Kristof of the New York Times.

He basically says "don't mock so hard or cruelly, because these idiots in the Vatican aren't the entire Catholic church; many priests and nuns on the ground give their lives selflessly in the true spirit of the organization, and the mockery/criticism belittles their unmatched generosity."

Dan Savage addresses this, and I more or less agree. Standard accountability models are necessary, but mockery (especially honest and well-produced mockery, as in the video at the top of the post) will accelerate the response from the Church while they continue to earn it. Until that response comes, the good, "real" representatives of the Catholic faith will not be represented by the organization they deserve to be, and the churchgoers will suffer as they always have.

Until then, regarding Ratzinger, fuck the motherfucker.

Edit 2 (5/3/2010): More from Andrew Sullivan, reflecting on the NYT summary published yesterday. I also left out the reporting on Marcial Maciel, the Legion of Christ, and other establishment blights that further illustrate how horrible the whole situation is (Sullivan, National Catholic Reporter).

Edit 3 (5/11/2010): Ratzinger finally says something more substantive. This doesn't put him off the hook for the scandals he's been a part of, and I'm still waiting for him to do something. Took long enough, but it's better than blaming outsiders or the victims.

Patriotas!

I can write about Spring Weekend a bit later (this was the first and last time I'll do Spring Weekend as a student). In the meantime, I'll procrastinate by posting another favorite video. Sadly for you gringos, you have to speak Spanish to glean much meaning from it:

I used this as the basis for my first major project in an Electronic Writing course I took last year. Other works I did for the course are on the course wiki, my work including a programmatic riff on Pierre Menard, (this also used a text generator for grammar files I coded up), and my final project.

Video Games, and the failure of the word "Art"

Roger Ebert decided to revisit a topic that got him a lot of attention a few years ago, where he claimed that video games weren't art. Now he's strengthened his claim, stating that video games can never be art.

My reaction to this was mostly along the lines of Penny Arcade: there's nothing to see here. An older person who's never really played video games decides to classify them ungenerously. Whoop whoop.

And normally I would let it rest, but then PZ Myers decided to weigh in (he agrees with Ebert). Now PZ is all about thinking rationally, letting evidence trump prejudices, etc. So it surprised me greatly that he made such a claim with such little knowledge, and such poor understanding. It's very un-PZ.

Here are a few pennies for the conversation. This is really about two separate issues: not knowing about the medium you're criticizing, and more broadly, having a stupid question to begin with.

---
Regarding video games, there are a few major blunders in PZ's argument. PZ believes (emphasis mine):

Art is a kind of distillation and representation of human experience, filtered through the minds of its creators. A great painting or poem is something that represents an idea or emotion, communicated through the skill of an artist, to make you see through his or her eyes for a moment. Computer games just don't do that. No team sits down to script out a video game with the intent of creating a tone poem in interactive visual displays that will make the player appreciate the play of sunlight on a lake, for instance.

But they do, at least as much as producers of any other 'artistic' medium do. Compare Hideo Kojima's process with any filmmaker's. Look at the Flower example given in the TED talk that inspired the whole discussion. Stating that "this simply isn't something game makers do" is like an old Pythagorean stating that irrational numbers don't exist: it's simply not true, by very observable counterexample.

Even if you don't accept my examples (Ebert's discussions in particular are full of monkey-patches and amendments to definitions to ensure that no example is quite right), making a sweeping generalization about an entire expressive medium because someone hasn't done a specific project you prescribe (or template for a project) is simply bad logic. There's nothing stopping me from doing it myself, today, and poof! I've beaten your argument in its own, irrational territory.

PZ continues:

Video games will become art when replaying the performance becomes something we find interesting, when the execution of those tools generates something splendid and lasting. It just doesn't now, though. If you want to see something really boring, watch someone else playing a video game. Then imagine recording that game, and wanting to go back and watch the replay again sometime. That's where games fail as art, which is not to say they can't succeed as something comparable to a sport — we may want to explore the rules of a game at length, and repeatedly, and we may enjoy getting better at it. But no matter how well or how long you play a game, it's never going to be something you can display in your home as a representation of an experience.

To quote an old TA of mine, "isolated but incorrect assertion" on the "watching others play video games is boring." The only times I fire up video games is to watch strangers play Warcraft III, and Starcraft is on TV in Korea. YouTube is loaded with video game clips, and we know this is only for sporty demonstrations, not because the games have had a transformative effect on someone!

A less "sporty," more personal example: while growing up my siblings would often come into my room to watch me play Final Fantasy VII or Skies of Arcadia. They didn't have an interest in playing, but were very invested in my playing it for them. "It's like watching a movie, but better," they would say.

Finally, you also can't take this argument seriously when, if you follow it through, you see it enters a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose loop. You see, there are games where playing them and watching the outcome is very much an artistic experience: think Mario Paint, UmJammer Lammy, or the Everyday Looper. Then they would argue that the games themselves aren't art, that they are more akin to canvas, paint, etc. since they take the role of tools, and you only produce art when you play them, get the distinction? But here, PZ wants to classify them as art only if playing them is such an experience that you could hang on the wall. So the definitions he prescribes has it both ways so that he doesn't have to accept a new medium as being viable to the others.

---

Which brings us to the second major point: the whole argument is stupid because it concerns the biggest failure in the English language: the word "Art." The word is completely meaningless; its use almost always means someone trying to dodge a more difficult discussion involving more precise terms.

What is art anyways? Does it need to have an audience? Can anything be art in the right context? These questions are never answered because the word means whatever its listener wants it to mean at the moment they say it. Asking if X or Y is Art or High Art is like asking how many angels can stand on the head of a pin at one time: we can combine all we think we know about angels, pins, and the nature of standing, but it doesn't make the collection anything less than a clusterfuck of misunderstanding to no fruitful answer.

If I defecate into my hands and spread it on people around me, I'm a candidate to be institutionalized. But if I do the same in a theatre, and say I'm doing it for Art, I'm to be taken seriously and you should be more open-minded. The word Art, like God, is frequently invoked to tell people to stop thinking and allow idiocy to pass for proper, constructive thought.

So when I made arguments in the first section responding to PZ's quotes, I was a Copernican using what I knew to be weak Ptolemaic arguments to convince a stubborn Ptomaine who could hear nothing else. Just like the most reasonable answer to most "holy questions" is that there may simply be no God, the most reasonable answer to "can video games be art?" is usually "ask a better question, or clarify your terms."

Being lucky, being strange. Being lucky to be strange.

The Olympics brought more opportunities for people to be hatin' on Johnny Weir and his style of performance. I love what he said: "Every little boy should be so lucky to turn into me."

And, you know, it's sort of true. How wonderful if we were all so lucky that we could freely be who we want to*, without judgement?

I bring this all up because I saw this video yesterday (the action starts at about 1:08).



If we could only all be so lucky as Johnny Weir and this guy, the world would be a much more fun, interesting place to be.

*= Provided of course, nobody gets hurt. Sorry, murderers, pedos, etc...

Comix, miscellanous

This weekend I treated myself and bought the first Deluxe Set of Y: The Last Man (issues 1-10, I had the second set before by a happy accident). It's really a marvelous comic, and suggest people take a look at it.

My friend Lyn has a comic of her own, which I also greatly enjoy. I keep petitioning for the inclusion of another character, and maybe one day my calls will be met.

Last summer I tried to get a comic going. I considered posting the 1.5 pages I completed. It was going to be based in the world of the Catlevania: SOTN tribute I thought about writing. I may get back to it, in the meantime, here's the basic 'standing sprite' I drew, both the complete (enlarged, sorry for the blur) version, and the to-scale evolution using Derek Yu's Pixel Art guide:




Finally, I can't stop watching this (make sure you full-screen it):



The song is great, if only because it channels chip music. But the animation! Made with real wood blocks using old-school stop motion? It inspires me to create.