I've blogged in the past about how Wil Wheaton is a really funny writer. However, having now watched him deliver a very impressive keynote speech for PAX East 2010, I also have to admit that he is a great orator (and someone who really knows how to connect with a geek audience).
Probably a bit late to say this but if you aren't a gamer, don't click on the above links. :)
Anyway, PAX stands for Penny Arcade Expo and its an annual gaming convention in the US where people get together for a long weekend to celebrate videogames, RPGs, card games, board games and all things geek. It was started several years ago by the people behind Penny Arcade (hence the name) and has grown so big that they had to run an extra Expo on the East Coast.
Wil had done a really good keynote speech at PAX 2007 (which you can hear here - no video unfortunately) and he was invited to give the keynote speech at the inaugural PAX East 2010. And, just as with his keynote in 2007, he really knocks it out of the park.
What really resonated with me in his speech was when he talks about his earliest memories of playing video games with his friends. As a person, I really don't dwell on the past much and have a very poor memory of my childhood. All I can really remember are odd bits and pieces (contrast this with my wife who has an excellent memory and can remember large stretches of her childhood). You can also see this in play when reading my blog - I very rarely talk about my past.
However, in looking back at my posts where I do talk about my past, one thing becomes clear. Whenever I think of my childhood, the memory tends to include either a video game or a roleplaying game. Nice huh!
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Morning person
This is an interesting article.
It basically details the thoughts of someone who experimented for a month by waking up at 5:00am. Even though he went to bed early as well, he found that he was able to accomplish a lot more by having more time in the mornings. He offers several reasons why this is the case (such as less interruptions) but one thing really stood out for me.
He mentions that he rarely gets stuff done in the evenings because he is tired from working during the day. Thinking back to my own lifestyle, this is absolutely true for me as well. Regardless of what time I leave the office or how busy I actually was, there is a psychological element in my brain which makes me just want to vegetate after leaving the office. Ultimately, this makes it hard to focus and motivate myself to do productive stuff (like going to the gym or upskilling myself).
Of course, the real question is whether I can do the same and move to an early wake up time as well. Unfortunately, the answer in my case is no (but possibly not for the reasons you expect).
The biggest issue with "early to bed, early to rise" for me isn't the kids, or the missus or my social life or anything like that. All of that stuff can be controlled to an extent. The problem is that it will kill my X360 time.
At the moment, my X360 time starts after 10pm which is when Gordon generally goes to sleep in the evenings. At this point, I finally get the living room and can turn on the TV and X360 and get some gaming time in before going to bed. If I goto bed at 10pm, then I would obviously lose this time. So why not play in the mornings instead?
The issue is that Gordon tends to wake up around 5:00 or 6:00am (time seems to vary a bit). What this means is that even if I go to bed at 10pm and wake up at 5am, I'm not going to get any time on the X360 as Gordon will also be up and about. Currently, I just don't see any way around this as giving up my X360 time completely or relegating it to one evening a week is not an option.
Still, its an interesting idea and judging from the comments in the above blog post, it looks like a lot of other people have also tried, and had success, with this approach.
It basically details the thoughts of someone who experimented for a month by waking up at 5:00am. Even though he went to bed early as well, he found that he was able to accomplish a lot more by having more time in the mornings. He offers several reasons why this is the case (such as less interruptions) but one thing really stood out for me.
He mentions that he rarely gets stuff done in the evenings because he is tired from working during the day. Thinking back to my own lifestyle, this is absolutely true for me as well. Regardless of what time I leave the office or how busy I actually was, there is a psychological element in my brain which makes me just want to vegetate after leaving the office. Ultimately, this makes it hard to focus and motivate myself to do productive stuff (like going to the gym or upskilling myself).
Of course, the real question is whether I can do the same and move to an early wake up time as well. Unfortunately, the answer in my case is no (but possibly not for the reasons you expect).
The biggest issue with "early to bed, early to rise" for me isn't the kids, or the missus or my social life or anything like that. All of that stuff can be controlled to an extent. The problem is that it will kill my X360 time.
At the moment, my X360 time starts after 10pm which is when Gordon generally goes to sleep in the evenings. At this point, I finally get the living room and can turn on the TV and X360 and get some gaming time in before going to bed. If I goto bed at 10pm, then I would obviously lose this time. So why not play in the mornings instead?
The issue is that Gordon tends to wake up around 5:00 or 6:00am (time seems to vary a bit). What this means is that even if I go to bed at 10pm and wake up at 5am, I'm not going to get any time on the X360 as Gordon will also be up and about. Currently, I just don't see any way around this as giving up my X360 time completely or relegating it to one evening a week is not an option.
Still, its an interesting idea and judging from the comments in the above blog post, it looks like a lot of other people have also tried, and had success, with this approach.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Gordon, Gerry and some delish grub
At last, some more pictures of the family!
Alas, despite the above opener, this isn't actually a picture of Gerry. Rather, this is a picture by Gerry. The kid you see behind us is some random kid who was passing by at the time and decided to be naughty.
Actually, I think this is a really good picture considering that it was taken by a 4 year old. Both the missus and I are in the middle of the frame. You can also see the cat statue behind us and the camera is also focused properly as well. All in all, not bad!
A rare family photo. It's really hard to take family photo's with Gordon. In addition to this one, we have approx 20 gazillion other ones where either Gerry or Gordon (or both!) are looking in different directions.
A close-up of Gordon. If you are wondering what he is looking at, its probably the cheesecake. "What cheesecake?", I hear you ask.
This cheesecake!
Here you can see Gerry taking full advantage of his filial right to eat some of his mummy's portion. Still, at least he liked it!
Alas, despite the above opener, this isn't actually a picture of Gerry. Rather, this is a picture by Gerry. The kid you see behind us is some random kid who was passing by at the time and decided to be naughty.
Actually, I think this is a really good picture considering that it was taken by a 4 year old. Both the missus and I are in the middle of the frame. You can also see the cat statue behind us and the camera is also focused properly as well. All in all, not bad!
A rare family photo. It's really hard to take family photo's with Gordon. In addition to this one, we have approx 20 gazillion other ones where either Gerry or Gordon (or both!) are looking in different directions.
A close-up of Gordon. If you are wondering what he is looking at, its probably the cheesecake. "What cheesecake?", I hear you ask.
This cheesecake!
Here you can see Gerry taking full advantage of his filial right to eat some of his mummy's portion. Still, at least he liked it!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Digital actors
One of the things which impresses me immensely is the quality of digital actors in video games. The improvement in quality in just a short couple of years has been incredible and is particularly noticeable when you compare the digital actors in a game like Mass Effect with Mass Effect 2 which only came out a year or two later. However, good as they are, they are still nowhere near as good as a real actor.
The reason I'm talking about this is mainly due to Chuck and Mass Effect 2. Or to be more precise, one of the common links between the two - Yvonne Strahovski. Yvonne plays the role of Sarah Walker in Chuck and is also the face and voice of Miranda Lawson in the video game Mass Effect 2.
In the comments on the last post, I mentioned that I thought Yvonne had done a decent, but not great, job as a voice actress in ME2. However, after posting this, I thought about it a bit more to analyse what exactly I didn't like and I came to a realisation. The problem wasn't that Yvonne's voiceover wasn't good - it was that the digital actor wasn't as good as her own acting ability.
You see, I was actually watching the second season of Chuck at around the same time as I was playing ME2. As one of the main characters in Chuck, Yvonne gets a lot of screentime and I actually think that she is a really good actress. This shines through in Chuck in how she stands, little glances and facial expressions that she has. In my opinion, she has a great ability to show emotion and express herself and her feelings through her body language, facial expression etc.
However, the quality of digital acting (good as it is in ME2) is just not on the same level as a real actor. What this means is that the character of Miranda Lawson in ME2 doesn't come close to showing the same range of emotion and expression that Yvonne is able to pull off. And when you consider that Miranda looks and sounds like Yvonne, I found that I wasn't able to evaluate Miranda as a character without thinking of Sarah Walker.
Which is really unfair to Yvonne's voiceover.
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that I jumped onto YouTube and watched a stack of videos of Miranda Lawson cutscenes. After listening to her voiceover a bit more carefully (and closing my eyes so I wasn't distracted by Miranda's face or ass), I have to revise my original opinion.
Yvonne has done a really good job.
The reason I'm talking about this is mainly due to Chuck and Mass Effect 2. Or to be more precise, one of the common links between the two - Yvonne Strahovski. Yvonne plays the role of Sarah Walker in Chuck and is also the face and voice of Miranda Lawson in the video game Mass Effect 2.
In the comments on the last post, I mentioned that I thought Yvonne had done a decent, but not great, job as a voice actress in ME2. However, after posting this, I thought about it a bit more to analyse what exactly I didn't like and I came to a realisation. The problem wasn't that Yvonne's voiceover wasn't good - it was that the digital actor wasn't as good as her own acting ability.
You see, I was actually watching the second season of Chuck at around the same time as I was playing ME2. As one of the main characters in Chuck, Yvonne gets a lot of screentime and I actually think that she is a really good actress. This shines through in Chuck in how she stands, little glances and facial expressions that she has. In my opinion, she has a great ability to show emotion and express herself and her feelings through her body language, facial expression etc.
However, the quality of digital acting (good as it is in ME2) is just not on the same level as a real actor. What this means is that the character of Miranda Lawson in ME2 doesn't come close to showing the same range of emotion and expression that Yvonne is able to pull off. And when you consider that Miranda looks and sounds like Yvonne, I found that I wasn't able to evaluate Miranda as a character without thinking of Sarah Walker.
Which is really unfair to Yvonne's voiceover.
Anyway, the upshot of all this is that I jumped onto YouTube and watched a stack of videos of Miranda Lawson cutscenes. After listening to her voiceover a bit more carefully (and closing my eyes so I wasn't distracted by Miranda's face or ass), I have to revise my original opinion.
Yvonne has done a really good job.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Chuck
On a recommendation from my brother, I recently started to watch Chuck. I've currently seen the first 2 seasons and so far, I have to say that the recommendation was a good one.
The show itself is about a geek who somehow ends up with all of the CIA and NSA secrets downloaded into his brain. More importantly, the government computer which initially housed those secrets has been destroyed so the only recourse for the government is to recruit Chuck (the aforementioned geek) as a secret agent. Episodes generally revolve around Chuck undertaking various missions with his two handlers and ultimately saving the day, despite initially bungling things due to lack of experience and training.
If the setup seems fantastical, then don't worry about it as the show is an action-comedy as opposed to a straight up drama.
Which in itself is an interesting approach. Unlike other American comedy shows, Chuck doesn't have a lot of LOL moments (although they are there). The humour in Chuck tends to be a lot more subtle and in the form of parody or nods to other popular culture. To be fair, I don't have a lot of exposure to American comedy but the impression I have is that American comedy tends to be much more "in your face".
I guess the premise for the show is one which really fits my interest profile. The basic idea of geek gone good is one which really works (although I tend to think of myself as more of a nerd than a geek - not really cool enough to be a geek) and instantly adds easy relatability to the show. Then there's the fact that I've always loved Bond movies and Chuck certainly takes a few parody pot shots at Bond as well as other spy cliches.
Oh, one last thing - Yvonne Strahovski as the eye candy? Nice!!
The show itself is about a geek who somehow ends up with all of the CIA and NSA secrets downloaded into his brain. More importantly, the government computer which initially housed those secrets has been destroyed so the only recourse for the government is to recruit Chuck (the aforementioned geek) as a secret agent. Episodes generally revolve around Chuck undertaking various missions with his two handlers and ultimately saving the day, despite initially bungling things due to lack of experience and training.
If the setup seems fantastical, then don't worry about it as the show is an action-comedy as opposed to a straight up drama.
Which in itself is an interesting approach. Unlike other American comedy shows, Chuck doesn't have a lot of LOL moments (although they are there). The humour in Chuck tends to be a lot more subtle and in the form of parody or nods to other popular culture. To be fair, I don't have a lot of exposure to American comedy but the impression I have is that American comedy tends to be much more "in your face".
I guess the premise for the show is one which really fits my interest profile. The basic idea of geek gone good is one which really works (although I tend to think of myself as more of a nerd than a geek - not really cool enough to be a geek) and instantly adds easy relatability to the show. Then there's the fact that I've always loved Bond movies and Chuck certainly takes a few parody pot shots at Bond as well as other spy cliches.
Anyway, if you watch the show, its worth sticking with it past the first season which, in my opinion, was a bit slow as there wasn't much of an overarching plot or storyline. However, things pick up in the second season when a bit more continuity is added without sacrificing the shows mission of the week approach. Personally, I prefer serialised TV shows which have that ongoing story arc (I also loved Battlestar Galactica) as the story is ultimately richer for it.
Oh, one last thing - Yvonne Strahovski as the eye candy? Nice!!
Friday, March 5, 2010
Darth Vader rides into battle
Anything I can say would just diminish from the awesomeness of this photo so all I will say is - check out this picture of Darth Vader riding into battle.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Why isn't this attempted murder?
It's been a while since I posted something in the Not Cool category so I guess its time to correct that. I read this article today in The Standard (a free english language newspaper in HK which is very good as it contains a lot of local news).
The short version is that the grandson of a tycoon stole money from his grandmother by conning her out of her insurance payments (he told her he made the insurance payments on her behalf and then got her to pay that money to him instead of to the insurance company). When the grandmother wanted to terminate one of her policies and get the money out, he drove her to a carpark and then beat her with an iron bar and tried to strangle her. Luckily, the grandmother managed to break free and was effectively saved by a couple of people passing by.
The article says that the grandson admitted one count of wounding and six counts of theft. The case is currently adjourned for sentencing so I have no idea what the punishment will be. However, from the article, it sounds like the grandson is only considered as guilty of wounding and theft and I guess that any punishment will be on that basis.
What I don't understand is why this wasn't considered an attempted murder case. From the article, it doesn't appear as if any of the facts are in question. If that's the case, then it sounds as if the grandson deliberately, and with premeditation, tried to kill the grandmother (I mean, he hit her with a 30 centimeter iron bar and tried to strangle her!). Granted - the premeditation may only have occured at the time the grandmother told him that she wanted to terminate one of her policies (which happened in 2007) but considering that the attack occurred in August 2008, it seems like he had plenty of time to plan the attack.
Lets just recap the key facts as I see them as based on that article (with some additional comment in brackets). He found out in 2007 that the grandmother wanted to terminate one of the policies. In August 2008 (at least a time period of 7 months afterwards), he drove her to a carpark (fewer witnesses?). He took an iron bar from the trunk (and really, how many people have iron bars in the trunk of their car on a normal basis?) and beat her with it. He also tried to strangle her (and may have succeeded if it weren't for some people passing by).
What do you think - does that sound like a premeditated murder attempt?
The short version is that the grandson of a tycoon stole money from his grandmother by conning her out of her insurance payments (he told her he made the insurance payments on her behalf and then got her to pay that money to him instead of to the insurance company). When the grandmother wanted to terminate one of her policies and get the money out, he drove her to a carpark and then beat her with an iron bar and tried to strangle her. Luckily, the grandmother managed to break free and was effectively saved by a couple of people passing by.
The article says that the grandson admitted one count of wounding and six counts of theft. The case is currently adjourned for sentencing so I have no idea what the punishment will be. However, from the article, it sounds like the grandson is only considered as guilty of wounding and theft and I guess that any punishment will be on that basis.
What I don't understand is why this wasn't considered an attempted murder case. From the article, it doesn't appear as if any of the facts are in question. If that's the case, then it sounds as if the grandson deliberately, and with premeditation, tried to kill the grandmother (I mean, he hit her with a 30 centimeter iron bar and tried to strangle her!). Granted - the premeditation may only have occured at the time the grandmother told him that she wanted to terminate one of her policies (which happened in 2007) but considering that the attack occurred in August 2008, it seems like he had plenty of time to plan the attack.
Lets just recap the key facts as I see them as based on that article (with some additional comment in brackets). He found out in 2007 that the grandmother wanted to terminate one of the policies. In August 2008 (at least a time period of 7 months afterwards), he drove her to a carpark (fewer witnesses?). He took an iron bar from the trunk (and really, how many people have iron bars in the trunk of their car on a normal basis?) and beat her with it. He also tried to strangle her (and may have succeeded if it weren't for some people passing by).
What do you think - does that sound like a premeditated murder attempt?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
