Ammunition > Heroics

Wow, I haven't been posting.
Ben now has more posts than me, and I started doing this first. I'm not sure when it became a contest, but I think it is now. So, in my defense, my posts are generally longer. But still, I'm going to try to post more. I need to figure out a time where I just sit down and do it every day... I find things are easier when it's routine; it's worked with more important (though also more mundane) tasks (like... brushing my teeth or something).
Anyway, on to the actual content.

Oh, but first, a warning: this post is heavily gaming/game-design oriented. Because of this, some people may find it boring or confusing, but, of course, you will read it anyway.
Yes.
Yes, you will.

Alright then. Let's see... lately I've been playing a lot of Wesnoth.
The Battle for Wesnoth is a turn-based strategy game, that, if I recall correctly, works on any operating system. You can download it / read more about it at www.wesnoth.org.
Let me know if you get it; I'd like to play online with someone who isn't a faceless nobody.
I also beat New Super Mario Bros. (which I do not actually own; Andy left a lot of his stuff with us while he's in - KNEE PWN! - ah, sorry; I mean Japan), and unlocked every level (except a cannon or two). So now I have two stars next to my file (yes, two; isn't that amazing?), which is funny, because I don't even think Andy got that far. And, as I have already stated (though not directly) it is his game.

In other news, I have applied for a job at a local GameStop. I'm fairly confident I'll get this one, and as (and I'm sure you all know this by now) I am normally extremely pessimistic, that must mean something significant. The only problem is that I got the impression they were not actually in any serious need of help at the time I applied. Of course, by the time they are, I may not live here anymore. But here my inner pessimist surfaces, and is telling me that will most likely not be the case.
He's very vicious, by the way. He's got fangs. And... antlers. And insectoid wings. And he's purple and black. And sort of scaly.
Oh, sorry; where was I?
Right, right. I'd better move on to the subjects mentioned in the heading.

Let's get the "ideal resolution" bit over with first, as I have less to say on the matter, I think.
So. My computer's resolution is set to 1024 pixels by 768 pixels. Looking over the fact that that's the highest my graphics card will permit, I think it's excellent. You really don't need anything better than that. Everything can still look marvelous at that size. I don't see too much of a point in having anything more, really. Alright, well, there's a point to be made for something bigger if you have a larger-than-normal monitor (then you could have something that looks the same as mine, but have more icons on the desktop or whatever).
But I am speaking mostly in the realms of computer games, which is really the main reason one would want something really nice-looking. Well, maybe movies and suchlike as well. But my point is that nobody cares, for example, how nice this page of text I'm typing on looks. Improving the resolution won't do a whole lot.
Anyway, I'm losing it; what was I talking about? Right, so games, then.
The problem is that technology keeps improving so that games can look "nicer" and "nicer," and I'm here to say something shocking (as you should expect, really, which, I suppose, makes it less surprising); It's virtually pointless.
I have not yet seen something satisfactorily "photorealistic" reproduced on a computer screen. It's not just graphical capability, it's the time and effort put in by the artist, and no amount of that will ever make anything truly astounding.
And besides all that, realism isn't astounding. Because it's real. And we already see real things all the time; thus, it is relatively boring.
Use your imagination, people! I want to see crazy splashes of color, or completely monotonous things; bizarre shapes, convoluted artistry; DIFFERENCE! This, as you undoubtedly know, is something I strive for. Unfortunately, however, none of my games that are graphically radical have ever made it to any stage of development where I actually had something to show for my labor.
Anyway, returning back to 1024x768. I believe there are still vast measures of untapped possibility even within these restrictions.
Yet people continue to waste their time moving on to "bigger" things.
It's pathetic, really. You'd be surprised how much you can do, even on an extremely small scale (the screens of the Nintendo DS, for example, are 256 pixels by 192 pixels), when uninhibited by restrictive color palettes; if you can make any pixel of those any color, the edges of images can be as smooth as you want. Even if you are using a relatively limited pallet, you can still pull off some pretty impressive stuff. Art is often about being unusual; a very nice-looking picture can still be poor due to it being excessively uninteresting.
Oh, and by the way, I feel the same way about cameras; my new camera (which I may not have mentioned here before, sorry) has 7.2 megapixels, and I think that's plenty. In fact, as I don't plan on having anything blown up onto 3-meter wide posters, I'd say I don't even need this much. But I was not actively seeking out something smaller (my particular camera has the option to turn down the resolution), and you usually don't see much under 7 these days (among semi-serious cameras, I mean).
Wow; I actually said more on that than I had originally estimated. Well, no matter. On to the next subject....

I don't like to say I have a favorite type of game, because it really depends on what sort of mood I'm in. But there's a lot to be said for arcade-style games.
These sorts of games, so named because they are similar in form to what you would find in an arcade (and, indeed, are the only thing that is practically reasonable in an arcade setting) -- though I expect you guessed that already -- don't let you save any permanent progress. Every time you start up the game you have to start from the beginning.
There are merits to this kind of game, because, when done properly, the only thing keeping the player from losing interest is himself (or herself). Because now, rather than, "OK, I've completed the game, what next?" it's, "Let's see how far I can get next time." or "I want to try to beat my highest score.", because the game, while linear, does not necessarily have a singular objective.
The game can further keep the player's interest by adding unlockable features. This way, there's many goals the player can try to complete. I've always loved unlockable features, but their place in games is somewhat limited. I think they're best applied in an arcade-like game.
Just when you think the game can't stay interesting for much longer, *poof*! Now you can play as a different character, or access a harder difficulty level. It can be a lot of fun trying to unlock all of the extra features in a game, particularly if you have the sort of completionist personality I have (though mine is not so strong that I won't rest until I've found all of a game's secrets, no matter what).
Another way to keep these games interesting is by having things randomly generated. This way, the game is never the same twice. Though I hesitate to place Nethack and other roguelikes in the arcade category, they are a very good example of this. Roguelikes often feature randomly generated maps so that the game is different every time you play. Playing the same thing over and over can be boring, and this helps remove that problem.
One of the best benefits of this sort of game, though, is the idea that there is no commitment required. If you get bored, you can just stop playing and pick it up a week later. Because of this, arcade-likes can have a much better longevity than other games; if you play an RPG, for example, you're probably going to want to keep playing it until the end, and then you'll probably ignore it until you feel the urge to play it through again from the beginning (or go back to find any secrets you may have left undescovered). But with arcade-style games, you just play, or don't play, whenever. I suppose it's a bit more sporadic, and most people wouldn't play them for so long at one time, but the time left between the times it is played is usually shorter.
I guess that's all I have to say on the matter. I think that may have been a bit less than the previous subject, actually.
Oh, and if you hadn't guessed already, I plan on making this sort of game the next time I make one... I don't know when that will be, but it will probably be a game like I have just described.

Anyhow. I'm done.
I really do want to try to post more, but I've been feeling very lethargic and unmotivated lately. I really hate this state, perhaps more than having any kind of physical malady (and it's probably related to the fact that this has been going on for longer than the typical illness). I hope I'm rid of it soon. I can actually think of a few things that might make me feel better, but it's nothing I can actively pursue (and, indeed, if I tried, it would probably just make things worse).
So, yeah. My point is that I do have several posts planned, and I would like to get them done with less space in between them, but... I'm not making any promises.
Oh, and VBS at our church this week as well. It doesn't involve much, but so far (only one day) it's been marginally draining, so again, I'm not sure I'll get that many posts in.

:::Source= Paul M-unit 19.91 MKII