This is a Good Day - and a Good Bye.

A good day at work - I got some nice recognition, so that makes me smile - was followed by a beautiful day on the golf course. Nine holes with Shawn, and a young college kid who just got paired with us. I lost zero golf balls, which is amazing. And it's really fun to golf with Shawn -- he's a bit better than I am, but we are not competitive with each other, so that's fun.

And now, home for discussions of party planning and vacation planning. And soon all the kids will show up to have a birthday meal with me - since we will not be able to get together for the actual day. And Sherry has prepared a FEAST! Roast beef, homemade noodles, corn bread, peach pie! Oh, my mouth is watering.

So I head into this weekend with a very good feeling. I'm unlikely to blog again for a while. For anyone who checks this regularly, whether I know you personally or not, I wish you a very happy couple of weeks.

Enjoy this beautiful shot of Minnehaha Falls while I'm away.






Aloha!

Can I blog on water?

Somehow, I doubt it.

If the miracles of modern technology allow me to blog while on a cruise ship, I will be surprised.

And so, dear readers, I'm afraid I must break my string of consecutive weekdays when this blog has something new. I'm hoping to continue to write each day, even if not to blog.

I find that what started as a self-imposed routine has now become a pleasurable habit. I find that I frequently have more than one topic I'd like to write about each day, and sometimes the one that gets posted is just the shortest one (because my time is still well spoken for.)

My hope had been that this blog would not only provide me another method of communicating with the people I know and love (or at least like,) but would also get me closer to the goal of actually writing something. Something substantial, that is. Because, after all, "Writing is writing." I'm surprised at how little time it's now taking to write something cogent each day. As I said in an e-mail yesterday "If I could keep this up, I anticipate I would build to a point where I would be compelled to write something big."

Still, vacation approaches, and I will revel in the freedom and the beauty. I will relax. I will recreate. I will indulge. I will enjoy.

And when I get back, I will blog.

Poll - Summer Sequels

Blogspot just released a new feature we can use in our blogs: the poll.

You can see my first attempt on the left side of the page. It was very easy to create. I doubt I will use it much, unless I get a larger following than I have now. But it's new, and it's cool, so I tried it.

This summer's list of big movies is dominated by "sequels." That's not quite right for all of the films, but it's close. A traditional sequel feels like the producers said "Hey, the first one made money. Let's try it again." Thus, "Ocean's Eleven" begat "Ocean's Twelve," which led to "Ocean's Thirteen." Pirates 3 is really the conclusion to a story, the first half of which was told in a sequel - so it's half sequel, half serial. But the Harry Potter movie is essentially an installment in a serial.

So far, I've only seen five of the seven I listed. (I feel like I forgot one, too -- any help in recognizing an omission would be appreciated....) ^[1] Of those, Harry Potter and Pirates get my votes. Spiderman, Fantastic Four and Die Hard were definitely fun and worth seeing in a big theater, but if I could see only two movies this summer, they can't beat the others.

So, if you read this blog, try out the poll. Vote for the movies you really liked. I'll see if there is anything else poll-worthy in the future.


^{[1] Yep, I forgot "Spiderman 3" in my first attempt.}

Quote - On Writing

“Planning to write is not writing. Outlining, researching, talking to people about what you're doing, none of that is writing. Writing is writing.”
[E. L. Doctorow]



For more writing-related quotes from Doctorow, click here.

I like Brainyquote.com. But, to give credit where it's due, I found this quote as the "Quote of the Week" at Stephen Wilbur's Writing for Business and Pleasure website.

What? Me Worry?

Here I am, less than a week from getting on a plane, and then on a cruise boat. I've been seeing news reports about credible threats against the U.S. Does that cause me to worry?

Nope. And why not? I have so many great philosophical references which instruct me:



Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life^[a]? [Matthew 6:27; Luke 12:25]

Don't worry. Be Happy. [Bobby McFerrin]

“Worrying is like a rocking chair, it gives you something to do, but it gets you nowhere.” [attr. Glen Turner]


What? Me worry? [Alfred E. Newman]



Who can argue with all that?

I choose to anticipate, with hope. I have no time for unfocused fear.

Come on vacation - arrive!

As I Like It

Over the weekend, there were so many things to enjoy!

Friday night: "As You Like It" at the Civic Theater. It was so funny! Physical comedy, helping to make the language accessible, with some fine young actors. Rosalind was wonderful. The Hillbilly Silvius! Duke Frederick as a Pro Wrestling promoter, and all-around sadist! Over three hours, but worth every minute. And we went as a family, so we had another fun shared experience.

Saturday: Magic Tournament. My first local tournament. A son and his friends for companionship. I met some nice people. I played my way into the Top 8. A great time. I'll have to do some Friday Night Magic sometime.

Sunday: "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" for a second time (so I could attend it when the girls saw it for their first time.) Even better the second time around. How in the world did the original casting crew know that all of these kids would have the skill to act this well? Sure, the main three are astounding - I'm not discounting that. Emma Watson knows Hermione is not a strident know-it-all anymore; her resolve is tangible, her empathy fills the viewer's heart. But the supporting cast is also excellent, and they haven't changed since they were first cast. Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley) has almost no lines, but her character grew so much -- because we can see it in the acting. Matthew Lewis (Neville Longbottom) has been consistently good in each film.

Also Sunday: Watched the final episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space 9" again. This marks the end of my re-viewing it on the treadmill. I started it two years ago. It's a touching end. I will miss those characters. But it's time to move on to a different series for my exercise time.

This is what a weekend is all about. Escape into fiction or games or both. Meeting a few new people. Sharing fun experiences with family and friends. The only thing missing was a run in the beautiful weather. I'll try to get that done today.

Here's hoping your weekend was as good!

Random Snippet

Every once in a while, my mind wants to produce a snippet -- a short piece of fiction which typically captures a mood. Today, this came tumbling out through my keyboard:



The tumbler rolled himself, a brightly colored ball of human contortion, from across the room. Directly in front of me, he sprang to his feet, a living jack-in-the-box, hands extended in upturned fists. I gazed at him quizzically; his lidless eyes and his forced smile were accentuated by his face paint, both threatening and tempting me. A slow tilted incline of his head urged me to look at his hands. I did. The left opened, slowly, to reveal the remains of a large spider, crushed, sticky and sweaty. As the fingers of the right hand began to loosen, I realized what must be inside. I turned; I ran; I screamed.

I don't think I made it to the door before I died.



Don't worry, not every snippet is quite so dark.

Have a great weekend.

Fantastic Five, or The Phoenix is Phabulous

We saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix last night.

It was excellent!

I did not re-read the book before seeing the film. The gap between reading it and seeing the celluloid version was probably two years. For that reason, there were a few key things I remembered about the plot, but many things I had forgotten. The film contained about 97.5% of the plot points I remembered. And it also contained several that I was happy to remember once they showed up. Furthermore, the film took the most annoying parts of the book (which were key plot points, in my estimation) and made them entertaining.

If you have not read the book, you should read no more of this entry.

If you have read the book, but don't want to spoil which parts of the book were left in and left out, you should skip the rest of this, as well.

[pause for people to click to espn.com or gmail or weather.com or whatever]

.

.

. Spoiler space

.

.

[that's far enough]

Superb items in the film:
- The final spell battle with the Death eaters was awesome! Both the part with the students, and then when the Order joined in. I've often imagined spellcraft battles (being a D&D player who almost always runs a wizard) and this was what I always imagined, and beyond! I want to watch it again, right now!
- Luna was perfectly cast and perfectly played. Evanna Lynch will make a name in Hollywood. I had forgotten about her. In the book, she was a great character, but somewhat hard to empathize with. Not in the film. She was completely enjoyable.
- Umbridge's little laugh, and her office. Is she evil? Well, she may not be a Death Eater (or she may) but you can be evil in more than one way -- and one way is by thinking you're serving the State and your ends justify your means. Umbridge is Evil. Her tittering laugh and her dainty office belie her true nature.
- The D.A. was set up perfectly and executed flawlessly. I want to join Harry's class, too!
- Daniel Radcliff is growing up, and they're letting Harry, too. He's got presence and charisma, and looks like a young man.
- There are so many more. How can I stop? But I have to, or I'll never get this posted.

So, let me mention two more points.

Point 1. During the book I was most annoyed by two things: First, Harry's whining (and general bad mood) throughout the book. I actually believe it was important, but it got long in the 870 pages. In the film, it was better because it took less of the movie, and because Daniel Radcliff showed more range than I pictured in the books. Second, the general lack of support Harry got from the adults, but especially from Dumbledore. In the film, it's clear that McGonagall tries, and is stopped by Umbridge's McCarthy-istic behavior. And, in the film, even though I think Dumbledore was still written poorly in this decision, the lack of support was only a small part of the action.

Point 2. The editing (or something -- I'm not an expert on how films are made and who makes what decisions) was choppy at points. This film was 138 minutes, but adding two more minutes to allow for transitions from one scene to the next would have helped in several cases. It's not enough to ruin the movie, but for those who only see the movies and don't read the books, it will cause troubled whispers ("Huh? Where are we now? Who is that? What just happened?")

So, while not perfect, this movie was excellent. In my opinion, for me, the best of the five so far -- and that's saying something. I didn't think any Potter movie would be better than "Prisoner of Azkaban."

Well done!

You're a Wizard, Harry.

I'll be attending a movie on opening day again. That rarely happens. It takes a special kind of movie to get me to fight crowds and sit in a packed theater.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is certainly a special kind of movie. At least, it should be. The book was special. At well over 800 pages, it contained far too much material for a film just over 2 hours and 15 minutes. If they have done it well, it will be a tour de force.

I hope they have!

How much will Umbridge dominate the film? Will Harry seem as whiny as he did in the book? Does Emma Thompson get some good scenes? Will Sirius get the attention he deserves?

All this, and more, I will learn tonight.

Get the popcorn!

Great Games - the List

Last Friday, I posted "Great Games in the Modern World" and listed the attributes that I think make a great game. I mentioned most of the games in that entry, but I figured it's only fitting that I should list them here.

So, once again, a list from Steve.

Great Games of the Modern World

• Magic: the Gathering - the first, and best, collectible card game
• Dungeons & Dragons - the first, and best, role-playing game
• Civilization III (at least, the "Complete" version - I've heard that without the expansions, it's not as good, but I haven't played it in any version other than Complete) - the grandson of the grandfather of all turn-based simulation games.
• Heroes of Might & Magic III (with, or without, expansions - but especially with the expansion that allowed random maps.)
• Diablo II (with the "lord of Destruction" expansion) - a precursor to MMORPGs
• World of Warcraft - by reputation and recommendation. I've only seen it played. I think it would hook me.
• Super Mario 64: if I had to pick one console game^[1], it would be the one.
• Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask belong here, too, though, if console games are allowed.
  

Table top games which belong in the discussion, though they are limited in scope:

• Settlers of Catan
• Eurorails and its two good variations: Iron Dragon and Lunar Rails
• Carcasonne
  

Given its success, you might also expect some people to list Second Life, but it's honestly not a game, per se. And I haven't engaged in it.

I may think of more, but I think it's hard to argue with my first list, and harder still the higher up the list you go.




^{[1] Though I've yet to see a console game, outside the RPG genre (which are typically ports of PC-based games) with the kind of individualization I talked about, these console games allow you to develop a manual dexterity skill that works similarly, in my head. And still, even without true individualization, I think they have the other attributes. So, like Diablo II, they fit the definition.}

If it's Monday, I must be Magneto

I've heard about MyHeritage.com a couple of times over the past few months. Seems they have some face "recognition" tool that takes a picture of your face and then finds famous people who look (sorta) like you. I had to try it. So, I used the picture of myself I have for my blog, and got this personalized page. I hope it works.

So, you see, the "top match" was Ian McKellen, who played Magneto in the X-Men movies, and of course, Gandalf in the best movie series of all time. (So why claim I'm Magneto? Why not Gandalf? No beard? No, silly. Alliteration!)

And, if that's not good enough, I look like Jeff Bridges and Matthew Fox, too!

Of course, looking like Chiang Kai-Shek is a little weird, but if I have some of the undeniable beauty of Carrie Fisher, who can complain?

Great Games in the Modern World

Thursday night, two of my friends and I played Diablo II and had a great time! We'll probably spend a good portion of our lunch hour today discussing our exploits. One of the amazing things about this experience is that Diablo II came out in 2000! ^[1] After almost seven years, the game holds almost all the thrills it had initially (it's only missing the "freshness" aspect.)

This got me to thinking about what it takes for a game to be "great" in our modern era. I think it comes down to a few attributes, and a game can be missing one of these and probably still be great.

1. Individualization.
2. Replay value.
3. Multiple goals.
   
4. Well disguised complexity.
5. Freshness.
6. Longevity.

Individualization: Traditional games, the games most of us over the age of 30 grew up with, were very structured and there were very limited ways to play them. Board games, such as Monopoly and Clue, or card games like Pinochle and Bridge, had random elements that allowed the game experience to be different each time, but in general there was not much variability in the winning strategies. You might be a better player than I, and win more often, because you understood the strategies better than I, but the opportunity to let personality into the strategies was limited, compared to what great games today allow.

Diablo II lets a player choose from among seven different character classes, each with its own options for customization within the class. Seemingly unlimited random items which can be used by the characters provide further opportunities for individuals to express their own style of play.

But Diablo II is not alone. The most successful MMOs (Massively Multiplayer Online games) such as World of Warcraft (WoW) have the same kind of customizing features. So do games like Magic: the Gathering (M:tG) and Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) in their own ways.

Replay value: Admittedly, the great traditional games have this same attribute, so replay value represents a differentiator between good (or bad!) games and great games. I really like "Scene It?" - a DVD-based trivia game. However, playing it more than a couple times a night, a couple times a year gets tiring. It's a good game. But you tire of playing it over and over.

The same would not be said by lovers of Bridge, Pinochle, M:tG or Civilization III, (CivIII) nor by the tens of thousands of fans who still play Diablo II regularly and the thousands more who play irregularly (like my friends and me.)

Multiple goals: I'm not sure I have picked the words quite right here. Perhaps my explanation will help me find the right phrase. You see, in many games these days there are multiple ways for a player to have fun. I've already pointed people to it in my entry titled "Call me Timmy - Or Melvin", but the M:tG design team understands that there are several ways to have fun with their game, and if the design team is careful, they can satisfy many people with one game. Thus, it's not always about winning the game -- sometimes it's about how you win, or making something specific happen.

But, in addition to having multiple possible ways to have fun, games can provide multiple subordinate goals on the way to completing the game. Diablo II has five acts (in its expanded form; four in the original) and each act has multiple quests, each map has multiple waypoints to reach, and each character grows in level. Thus, despite the game taking hours to complete, a goal can be reached in one play session relatively easily.

Civ III, and to some extent, its predecessor versions are perfect examples. While the ultimate goal is to win the game, on the way, players can choose to win by conquering, or by diplomacy, or by cooperating with other players, or by scientific and technology advancement. The "JOMT" (Just One More Turn) phenomenon keeps people playing this game, and Heroes of Might & Magic III (HoMM3), for hours because it seems each turn allows a player to complete a subgoal.

Well-disguised complexity: Inherent in all the "great" modern games I can think of, and necessary if the level of individualization is high, is a level of complexity that allows wide variation in the game experience. However, if that complexity shows through to every player, only a few people will stick with the game. There are many miniature-based games (usually war games or battle games) which have very complicated rules. A few people, who love the strategy and/or the particular milieu in which the game is set, find these games appealing. Most, however, don't appreciate having to spend hours learning a game before ever being able to play it, only to be rewarded by hour-long turns filled with calculations and rule interpretation discussions.

Computer games can get past much of this, hiding it from the casual gamer, by incorporating the complex mechanics internally, while presenting a smooth, visually intuitive experience. Not all computer games do this well, but the great games do. And, in fact, the great games allow a player to delve deeply into the mechanics and gain some slight advantage by doing so, but still make it possible for a less intensive player to succeed and have fun.

What's even more amazing is when a highly complex game can appear fairly simple, and be quickly taught, with non-computerized games. To me, this is what makes M:tG nearly unique. Sure, a novice can't watch a game between masters and know what's going on in their heads, but he understands the basics. And someone who doesn't know the game at all can be given a beginner's deck and be playing within a few minutes.

Freshness: This is almost self-explanatory, but not quite. There are at least a few ways to get "freshness" in a game. The first, and most obvious, is to have an amount of randomness built into the game to ensure that each time it is played, the experience is different than the last, and often very different. With this freshness comes the feeling of surprise and discovery that thrills most game players. M:tG does this with a large card base and the randomness associated with shuffling. Civ III does this by generating a random map each time and having some randomness in the AI of the opponents. I gather that WoW does it by making a virtual world that is huge.

But WoW also accomplishes freshness by another technique - frequent expansions. Blizzard, the company that makes the game (and the money) produces expansions to keep it fresh. Wizards of the Coast does the same thing for M:tG. Every so often, there are new things to be discovered, evaluated and enjoyed - all of which have been designed to augment the experience.
As I mentioned in my opening, this is the one area where Diablo II is lacking. There is a slight amount of variability in the maps in the opening acts, but for the most part, each game covers the same ground, facing the same obstacles. We haven't had new character classes added since the "Lord of Destruction" expansion, and we've not had a new map since then, either.

Great games can make up for a lack of freshness somewhat if they take a long time to play. This allows for a feeling of "it's been a while since I've been here" when you start over. Similarly, if they have sufficient side quests or hidden levels which are not required for the completion of the game, but which are fun to play, there is "freshness" to be had. The later "Super Mario" and "Legend of Zelda" games from Nintendo use these tactics to allow some freshness and encourage re-play. But in my opinion, the Great Games have freshness baked (designed) in.

Longevity: In a sense, longevity doesn't belong on the list. A new game can be great, even though it has not existed for long. But if you want to spot a great game, you could use a worse rule of thumb than "Are there still large groups of people playing it two years after it was released? Or four? Or Six?"

Longevity can be supported by the gaming companies which produce the games, as in the case of games which have regular expansions, but it's not necessary. HoMM3 is not produced anymore (HoMM4 was a dismal follow-on. HoMM5 might be better; I haven't tried) but there are loyal players who keep a decent community going. Diablo II is only supported in a small way by Blizzard (they still provide servers for on-line play, despite making no money doing so.)


So, there you have it. I may think of some additional attributes, but I think I have the basics covered. All of the modern games I consider "great" have five of these six characteristics, and most of them have all six. As I look for new games that will have a chance of making it into my personal "Great Games" list, I will look for them to measure up in these areas.

And when I find one, I'm pretty sure I'll say something in this blog.

Happy gaming!




^[1] Full disclosure: We played it with the "Lord of Destruction" expansion which came out in 2001.

Why Public Radio?

Why should I listen to Public Radio more? To get facts I can use!

Today I learned the following:

A caffeinated beverage is not really a dehydrator. It's just slightly less hydrating than water. The researcher said if you drink a liter of water, your body takes 800 ml of it for hydration and lets 200 ml pass through. So, water is 80% hydrating. If you drink a liter of caffeinated beverage such as iced tea or coffee, the body retains 700 ml for hydration; 70%. This is not consistent with the conventional wisdom that tells us that caffeinated beverages are diuretic.

And it means I'm getting as much hydration from my 52 ounces of pop as I'd get from 45.5 ounces of water, which is over 5.5 of my daily required 8 cups of water. I get most of the rest of it in the ice that melts into my pop as I nurse it for hours.

It may not sound appetizing to coffee drinkers (coffee doesn't sound appetizing to me!) but it works for me.

And I learned it from listening to MPR for three minutes.

I guess I'd better consider membership again.

Blogged Chicken

It's been a good day off so far. I've used my Freedom (capital "F") to sleep late, to run on my treadmill while watching "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine," to play some Magic: Online, to beat Diablo in Diablo II, and to generally enjoy myself.

And now, it's time to grill chicken. Mmmmm. Chicken on the grill, with Sherry's BBQ sauce. But, while I watch it, I have a few minutes to put this entry in the blog.

However, a boat-load of chicken tends to produce chicken-fat fires, so I'm afraid I will not produce anything remotely interesting in the entry today.

Yikes! Look at those flames!

I'll be lucky to have eyebrows when I'm done with this!

OK, now, let's get this chicken cooked.

Happy Independence Day, friends!

"Most Important"

This entry is a response to Lucas's entry titled "The Most Important Blog Post That You Will Ever Read."

In it, he states the following:

"At some point in your life, there will be a singular moment that will be the most important. This is an undeniable truth as long as you believe one thing, that thing being that moments have varying amounts of importance. Once that is accepted, it's very logical to reason that one moment in life will be at the top."

This is very logical. Very Western-philosophy, too. Quantification and ranking and order and logic. I started thinking about my life from this point of view. Which moment would be "most important?" Marrying? What about that first date with Sherry? Deciding to work at IBM and not some other place? Yet as important a those were, how different would life be without those moments? Quite astoundingly different, actually, but there might be another.

In a sense, the "most important" moment of my life was when my friends pulled me back onto the ice before I was washed away into the wintry Upper Iowa river, almost certainly to die. Because, if not for the outcome of that moment, I would have had no others.

There certainly have been some turning-points which I also judge to be highly important. I mentioned a few. I'd like to think they were the "most important." Those points were decisions I made, or actions I deliberately took. In the end, though, the "most" important action I took in my life so far might have been the careless, stupid one of stepping out on that thin ice, and the most important actions were taken by those friends. I probably owe my life to that moment. By extension, so does Lucas.

"You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect."

Pardon Me?

Or at least commute my sentence?

I have always found it odd that the President of the U.S. of A. can just pardon anyone at any time. I didn't realize it was within the powers to commute a sentence, as GWB just did for "Scooter," but it makes sense. If a President can set aside the judgment of the judicial branch completely, modifying it should be allowed, too, I guess.

Countless people have opined about this case, and now there is even more kindling for the fire. One might even suggest that GWB just added gasoline.

The guy was convicted for his part in outing an operative of the U.S. Intelligence community. Apparently, he let slip Classified information. Yet, for the crimes for which he was actually convicted, he received a 30-month sentence. The federal prosecutors indicate that's consistent with similar sentences for those not presidentially-connected. So, how does GWB (or the minority whip) justify calling it "excessive?" They don't. Justifying would require reasoned arguments supported by factual data. They, instead, just need a sound-bite.

Remember the TV show "The West Wing?" It had many episodes which helped us to thoughtfully consider aspects of politics, especially presidential politics, which we might neglect, but which are truly filled with dramatic possibilities. The issuance of pardons was dealt with more than once, and it showed the kind of serious thought which ought to go into a President mucking with the outcome of a judicial decision.

Then again, the honor and integrity of Jed Bartlet are fictional, just as he was. That we will ever have a person holding the office and those characteristics in real life is the stuff of fantasy.

Relaxation - at Vermont

[Lake Vermont, that is.]

We just spent an extended weekend at my brother's lake house with him and his family. The house is on the shore of Lake Vermont, a small, pretty lake north of Alexandria. While I believe their television does pull in one channel, we never tried it, and never even gave it consideration. When there's a lake, a dock, a boat, and a sunny spot for a lounge chair, why would we want a TV?

So, I spent a good portion of the weekend reading. Another fair portion of the weekend was spent goofing around with my nephew and niece -- playing baseball, capture the flag, card games. And then there was the excellent sleep, and some even better conversation.

I should probably schedule days like this more often. I doubt the lake is actually necessary for the relaxation; though it certainly helps. So does being away from home and all the responsibilities waiting for me there.

Long weekends are great. They are even better when they have this much relaxation in them.







And now, back to reality.....