Gaming in 2013

Gaming in 2013 — Blue Ink Alchemy

The new year is in full swing. I'm starting it off writing by carving out writing time on a daily basis (for the most part, more tomorrow on that). But once the writing is done, and with Fringe done and Sherlock's third season not yet underway, what sort of amusements fill my time once I tear myself away from the allure of social media and videos on the Internet?

Magic Type <2

With the introduction of Gatecrash, you might think that I'm eager to get involved with new decks for Magic: the Gathering's Standard format. And you wouldn't be wrong. However, I have to admit the format is beginning to lose some of its luster. New sets to Magic come out every few months, and when they do, your current Standard decks either need an overhaul or get scrapped altogether. I like theorycrafting and deck-building as much as the next Planeswalker, but the recurring investment is starting to bother me. I'd much rather make small alterations to decks I already have than having to keep build new ones every quarter while sinking money into boxes of new cards. To that end, I'm turning more towards Modern and Legacy formats of Magic. I'll talk more about the decks I'll be fielding next week, but suffice it to say the new expansion does factor into at least one of them...

Warhammer 40k

Oh, 40k. If ever a hobby was even more of a time and money sink than collectible card games, it would be you. Your little plastic men are much pricier, your rules are a great deal more complex, a fighting force takes a lot more to prepare than a deck, there's painting involved... ...yet I can't deny there's appeal. The universe is steeped in baroque, melodramatic lore, the disparate forces guarantee there's something that will appeal to players, and I've played it and other wargames enough to understand the appeal of plotting out a strategy to defeat the enemy, preparing the right mix of troops, seeing how the enemy responds, and the thrill of adaptation on the fly. I have a Dark Vengeance starter kit sitting near my writing desk, just waiting for me to make the time to start doing something with it. Soon, my minions... soon.

Video Games

I played a bit of the original PlanetSide back in the day, so I figured since it has the same name and is free to play, PlanetSide 2 would be worth checking out. There are plenty of multiplayer shooters out there - Team Fortress 2, Blacklight: Retribution, Tribes: Ascend - but this is the first one where I've felt like part of a major military outfit instead of a being out for myself. To succeed in PlanetSide, teamwork is required, not unlike League of Legends. And rather than approaching the enemy with a couple friends, you do so as part of a group that could include 100 or more fellow players. This leads to some chaos, to be sure, but after joining up with an Outfit and getting on Mumble with them, it really provides a gaming experience I hadn't realized I missed. It feels like a worthwhile investment. On the single-player front, I have quite a few video games left to finish before I feel comfortable downloading new ones. I kickstarted Strike Suit Zero and definitely need to play more of that before I weigh in on it, I haven't finished Assassin's Creed: Revelations, and I have an itching desire to play through LA Noire and The Witcher 2, which probably means I should finish the first Witcher as well. At this rate, it might be a while before I finally play FarCry 3 or Dishonored, which is a shame, because I really want to play both of them! Not enough hours in the day, unfortunately.

Board Games

Here we have perhaps the rarest of specimens amongst the games I play. I live with someone who finds board games to be rather boring, and so my boxes containing SmallWorld, Ticket to Ride, Pandemic, Android: Netrunner, and Lords of Waterdeep go largely unopened. We do play Cards Against Humanity and Chez Geek from time to time, but I don't think the others will ever really win her over. But I will not be deterred! There are still board games I want to experience. I am a huge fan of space-themed 4X games, and Eclipse looks poised to scratch that particular itch. After Wil Wheaton's Tabletop showed me how Alhambra works, I find myself intrigued by a game with such a pastoral theme that still has deep strategy and requires forethought and negotiation. I hear wonderful things about Battlestar Galactica, and the theme in and of itself is enough to encourage me to buy. And tying back into Warhammer is Chaos of the Old World, a game that will require me to scrape together three friends, no more and no less, who will probably get annoyed at me if I keep calling dibs on Tzeensch. That's a rundown on what I'll likely be playing in the year ahead. What about you? What's on your docket for gameplay and other amusements?

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man — Blue Ink Alchemy

In the wake of The Avengers, it seemed like Marvel could do no wrong. And, since Iron Man 3 won't be out for another few months, the jury is still out on their record. However, given the critical and commercial success of the studio's flagship project, and the resurgence of the X-Men label under the skillful hand of Bryan Singer (seriously, if you haven't seen First Class yet, FIX THAT.), Sony Pictures suddenly got a lot of attention, as it had held onto Spider-Man after Sam Raimi left the character behind. People were likely crossing their fingers when The Amazing Spider-Man was released, hoping not only that fans of the original trilogy would like it, but also that Marvel wouldn't ask for its favorite wisecracking web-slinger back. Being a reboot, we drop in on science student Peter Parker during his awkward teenage years. His parents, rather than simply being absent, abandoned him when he was young, leaving him in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Peter's only clue is that his father worked for the major pharmaceutical and scientific research conglomerate Oscorp. He discovers that lovely fellow student Gwen Stacy interns there, and her mentor is one Curt Connors, a one-armed biogeneticist who worked closely with Parker Sr. It is while wandering around the Oscorp building that Peter gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider that, in turn, gives Peter super-powers. Peter's background with his father's work helps Connors perfect a formula to regrow his arm that also makes him become the Lizard, Gwen's father is a police captain who despises vigilantes, Uncle Ben is shot by a carjacker Peter needs to track down, and it was at about this point in the film I found myself asking a new question every five minutes, only a few of which got answered. The plot of The Amazing Spider-Man is, to put it simply, a mess. Multiple plotlines are nothing new in narratives, and some tales do benefit from some of them going unresolved within the course of a given story. However, in those cases, one or more plotlines either become superfluous or get completely resolved before the end of the tale. Here, all of the plotlines remain active and ongoing until the very end of the film, and all of them needing to share screen time causes the story to feel disjointed and meandering. It's like all of the writers wrote up scripts separately without ever meeting one another, and director Marc Webb shuffled the pages together into something resembling a cohesive narrative and tossed it at his cast of characters.
Much as I rag on him, this isn't entirely his fault. This leads me nicely into the other major problem here: Peter Parker. Not Andrew Garfield, though, I didn't mind him. What struck me is that Peter feels very little like his own character, but rather an amalgamation of popular teen affectations. Peter is something of a loner even in the comic books, but the lengths to which he goes to convey that feels like overcompensation. Peter demonstrates that he has a brilliant mind, a creative way of thinking, and a determination to do the right thing, yet he chooses to wrap all of that in Abercrombie and hair gel and skater gear. I don't know if this was Garfield's intention, but it feels like Peter is already intentionally wearing a disguise long before he gets bitten. And after he gets bitten, aside from his powers, what changes about him? He continues to act as he does before the bite, and after Uncle Ben's death, he simply has another task ahead of him. His final line demonstrates that he's learned nothing about responsibility, continuing to act however he likes no matter what authorities say or experience has taught him. He fails to grow. He has no real arc. He falls flat as a character, and without him feeling realized and sympathetic, the rest of the movie fails to connect. That's actually a shame, as there are some really talented people involved. Like I said, I didn't mind Andrew Garfield. In full-on snark mode he approaches the modern take on Spider-Man I've seen in the pages of the Avengers. As much as I loved the original pair, Sally Field and Martin Sheen have good chemistry as Aunt May and Uncle Ben, hinting at a genuine, long-standing, and affectionate relationship. Rhys Ifans does some remarkable work as the Lizard, his own face and eyes conveying emotion through the green scaly lens of advanced motion capture. Denis Leary is actually pretty solid as Captain Stacey, and as for his daughter, I could watch Emma Stone reading out of a phone book and be happy. But I'm probably a touch biased. She and Garfield do have decent chemistry of their own, and if Peter had come across as just a little less insufferable and a little more endearing, I probably would have enjoyed this more.
This is definitely not her fault. The Amazing Spider-Man is a study in failed ambition, misfired potential, and squandered goodwill. There are glimmers, here and there, of something better that could have been made with this cast and this atmosphere. It's a dark film, about as dark as you can make an adaptation of one of the oldest heroes born of the House of Ideas, and some interesting ideas come and go during the running time. A few visual moments really stand out, and as I said, the actors do bring their A game. But between setting too many plotlines in motion and borrowing too many ideas from Batman Begins and Twilight, instead of interest and excitement, one is left with a lingering feeling of disappointment. And that's not how you want your plea to hold onto your super-hero franchise to end. Stuff I Liked: Spidey did have some good lines. May & Ben were good. I always like seeing Denis Leary. The realization of the web-shooters was a cool little touch, and the scene in the sewer making use of the web was a nice change from some of the other inane decisions being made. Stuff I Didn't Like: Peter felt a little too much like a hipster douche, and looked a bit too much like Robert Pattinson. Too many plot points go unresolved to actually build much mystery or suspense. Very little of the film actually feels all that tense or exciting. Stuff I Loved: Emma Stone. Also, Stan Lee's best cameo to date. Bottom Line: I have seen worse super-hero movies in my day, and hardcore Spidey fans may enjoy this far more than I did, but the degree to which I am disappointed in The Amazing Spider-Man is... wait for it... amazing.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man — Blue Ink Alchemy

In the wake of The Avengers, it seemed like Marvel could do no wrong. And, since Iron Man 3 won't be out for another few months, the jury is still out on their record. However, given the critical and commercial success of the studio's flagship project, and the resurgence of the X-Men label under the skillful hand of Bryan Singer (seriously, if you haven't seen First Class yet, FIX THAT.), Sony Pictures suddenly got a lot of attention, as it had held onto Spider-Man after Sam Raimi left the character behind. People were likely crossing their fingers when The Amazing Spider-Man was released, hoping not only that fans of the original trilogy would like it, but also that Marvel wouldn't ask for its favorite wisecracking web-slinger back. Being a reboot, we drop in on science student Peter Parker during his awkward teenage years. His parents, rather than simply being absent, abandoned him when he was young, leaving him in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Peter's only clue is that his father worked for the major pharmaceutical and scientific research conglomerate Oscorp. He discovers that lovely fellow student Gwen Stacy interns there, and her mentor is one Curt Connors, a one-armed biogeneticist who worked closely with Parker Sr. It is while wandering around the Oscorp building that Peter gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider that, in turn, gives Peter super-powers. Peter's background with his father's work helps Connors perfect a formula to regrow his arm that also makes him become the Lizard, Gwen's father is a police captain who despises vigilantes, Uncle Ben is shot by a carjacker Peter needs to track down, and it was at about this point in the film I found myself asking a new question every five minutes, only a few of which got answered. The plot of The Amazing Spider-Man is, to put it simply, a mess. Multiple plotlines are nothing new in narratives, and some tales do benefit from some of them going unresolved within the course of a given story. However, in those cases, one or more plotlines either become superfluous or get completely resolved before the end of the tale. Here, all of the plotlines remain active and ongoing until the very end of the film, and all of them needing to share screen time causes the story to feel disjointed and meandering. It's like all of the writers wrote up scripts separately without ever meeting one another, and director Marc Webb shuffled the pages together into something resembling a cohesive narrative and tossed it at his cast of characters.
Much as I rag on him, this isn't entirely his fault. This leads me nicely into the other major problem here: Peter Parker. Not Andrew Garfield, though, I didn't mind him. What struck me is that Peter feels very little like his own character, but rather an amalgamation of popular teen affectations. Peter is something of a loner even in the comic books, but the lengths to which he goes to convey that feels like overcompensation. Peter demonstrates that he has a brilliant mind, a creative way of thinking, and a determination to do the right thing, yet he chooses to wrap all of that in Abercrombie and hair gel and skater gear. I don't know if this was Garfield's intention, but it feels like Peter is already intentionally wearing a disguise long before he gets bitten. And after he gets bitten, aside from his powers, what changes about him? He continues to act as he does before the bite, and after Uncle Ben's death, he simply has another task ahead of him. His final line demonstrates that he's learned nothing about responsibility, continuing to act however he likes no matter what authorities say or experience has taught him. He fails to grow. He has no real arc. He falls flat as a character, and without him feeling realized and sympathetic, the rest of the movie fails to connect. That's actually a shame, as there are some really talented people involved. Like I said, I didn't mind Andrew Garfield. In full-on snark mode he approaches the modern take on Spider-Man I've seen in the pages of the Avengers. As much as I loved the original pair, Sally Field and Martin Sheen have good chemistry as Aunt May and Uncle Ben, hinting at a genuine, long-standing, and affectionate relationship. Rhys Ifans does some remarkable work as the Lizard, his own face and eyes conveying emotion through the green scaly lens of advanced motion capture. Denis Leary is actually pretty solid as Captain Stacey, and as for his daughter, I could watch Emma Stone reading out of a phone book and be happy. But I'm probably a touch biased. She and Garfield do have decent chemistry of their own, and if Peter had come across as just a little less insufferable and a little more endearing, I probably would have enjoyed this more.
This is definitely not her fault. The Amazing Spider-Man is a study in failed ambition, misfired potential, and squandered goodwill. There are glimmers, here and there, of something better that could have been made with this cast and this atmosphere. It's a dark film, about as dark as you can make an adaptation of one of the oldest heroes born of the House of Ideas, and some interesting ideas come and go during the running time. A few visual moments really stand out, and as I said, the actors do bring their A game. But between setting too many plotlines in motion and borrowing too many ideas from Batman Begins and Twilight, instead of interest and excitement, one is left with a lingering feeling of disappointment. And that's not how you want your plea to hold onto your super-hero franchise to end. Stuff I Liked: Spidey did have some good lines. May & Ben were good. I always like seeing Denis Leary. The realization of the web-shooters was a cool little touch, and the scene in the sewer making use of the web was a nice change from some of the other inane decisions being made. Stuff I Didn't Like: Peter felt a little too much like a hipster douche, and looked a bit too much like Robert Pattinson. Too many plot points go unresolved to actually build much mystery or suspense. Very little of the film actually feels all that tense or exciting. Stuff I Loved: Emma Stone. Bottom Line: I have seen worse super-hero movies in my day, and hardcore Spidey fans may enjoy this far more than I did, but the degree to which I am disappointed in The Amazing Spider-Man is... wait for it... amazing.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

The Special Cases

The Special Cases — Blue Ink Alchemy

In my experience, no character is or should be completely without flaws, issues, or fault. The characters we create emulate the people in our lives, and since those people are imperfect, so to should our characters be. The more flawed or abnormal the character, the more compelling the story, right? Well... sort of. Within limits. Your characters should be more than the sum of their parts. Incidental side characters may be an amusing bundle of neuroses, tics, and habits, but you can't build an entire narrative around someone like that. There needs to be more there than a list of long condition names from the DSM IV. If a character does operate with or suffer from a mental disorder of some kind, and it's simply a part of the character rather than their entire being, you need to consider how that disorder is portrayed. Take Sherlock Holmes, for example. From the beginning, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's consulting detective has been single-minded, selfish, insufferably arrogant, difficult to work with, and at times nearly impossible to access on an emotional level. His modern BBC incarnation self-identifies as "a high-functioning sociopath." Yet this is not the only aspect of his character. There are people he cares about and will go to great lengths to protect, and as intolerable as his behavior can be, he really does believe he is helping people more often than not. His disorder is not portrayed with the sole purpose of being laughed at, nor is he held up as anything towards which we should aspire. John Green often challenges us to "imagine the other complexly." We need to see beyond what could be considered stereotypical behavior and bring across the hidden depths of a character. Sherlock Holmes or Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory or Miriam Black would be what doctors would consider 'special cases', people so wrapped up in their complex issues that it can be hard to get to the person that lays underneath. And there is a person in there, beyond all of the neuroses; and like all people, they have feelings, aspirations, doubts, and vulnerabilities. Part of the reason I have trouble enjoying Big Bang is that I often feel that Sheldon is not being complexly imagined; rather I feel that his neuroses are simply being played for laughs, and that we are encouraged to laugh at him, rather than with him. There should be more to him than a haughty superiority complex and a bundle of nerd culture references, and things beyond those facets seem difficult to find. But, that's just me. What I'm driving at is this: imagine your characters complexly. No matter how special their case may be, they have wants and needs to which readers should be able to relate. The deeper your characters, the more they will enhance your narrative, and the better your story will be.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

The Special Cases

The Special Cases — Blue Ink Alchemy

In my experience, no character is or should be completely without flaws, issues, or fault. The characters we create emulate the people in our lives, and since those people are imperfect, so to should our characters be. The more flawed or abnormal the character, the more compelling the story, right? Well... sort of. Within limits. Your characters should be more than the sum of their parts. Incidental side characters may be an amusing bundle of neuroses, tics, and habits, but you can't build an entire narrative around someone like that. There needs to be more there than a list of long condition names from the DSM IV. If a character does operate with or suffer from a mental disorder of some kind, and it's simply a part of the character rather than their entire being, you need to consider how that disorder is portrayed. Take Sherlock Holmes, for example. From the beginning, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's consulting detective has been single-minded, selfish, insufferably arrogant, difficult to work with, and at times nearly impossible to access on an emotional level. His modern BBC incarnation self-identifies as "a high-functioning sociopath." Yet this is not the only aspect of his character. There are people he cares about and will go to great lengths to protect, and as intolerable as his behavior can be, he really does believe he is helping people more often than not. His disorder is not portrayed with the sole purpose of being laughed at, nor is he held up as anything towards which we should aspire. John Green often challenges us to "imagine the other complexly." We need to see beyond what could be considered stereotypical behavior and bring across the hidden depths of a character. Sherlock Holmes or Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory or Miriam Black would be what doctors would consider 'special cases', people so wrapped up in their complex issues that it can be hard to get to the person that lays underneath. And there is a person in there, beyond all of the neuroses; and like all people, they have feelings, aspirations, doubts, and vulnerabilities. Part of the reason I have trouble enjoying Big Bang is that I often feel that Sheldon is not being complexly imagined; rather I feel that his neuroses are simply being played for laughs, and that we are encouraged to laugh at him, rather than with him. But, that's just me. What I'm driving at is this: imagine your characters complexly. No matter how special their case may be, they have wants and needs to which readers should be able to relate. The deeper your characters, the more they will enhance your narrative, and the better your story will be.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Flash Fiction: Knight of Swords

Flash Fiction: Knight of Swords — Blue Ink Alchemy

This week, Terribleminds charged us with writing using a motif. The d10 told me to go for Swords, in the genre of Paranormal Romance with the setting of Route 66.

---

"This is insane, even for you. You need your rest." Simon Cooper ignored the suggestion. Part of him hoped that the traffic would have drowned him out, but Route 66 was quiet at this time of night. It had to be night, of course. He thanked the powers that things had happened so close to a full moon. He would need every advantage he could get. "Tell me, Xavier, what would resting accomplish that not resting will not?" "You'd be able to look at the situation with clear eyes. You'd get some cobwebs and trauma out of your head. And, I hate to say it, you'd see that..." "You could just say 'nothing' and leave it at that." Cooper was also ignoring the pain in his leg. The blade had gone clean through his thigh. "Look, Simon..." "Xavier, you insisted on coming along. Don't ruin things by trying to convince me to quit. It'd be a waste of gas and, more importantly, time. Time that Esther doesn't have. Now, listen. There's a ley line under that diner, and I need everybody out to tap it. Run interference for me." Xavier put a hand on Cooper's shoulder. "Just stop, for a second. Think." With a sigh of exasperation, Cooper stopped and turned. "What?" Xavier took a deep breath. "The Legionnaire came for me. She gave her life to save me. I can't bear the thought of not being there when they turn off the machines." "You will be there when they turn them off, because she's going to come back." "Dammit, Simon. The sword went through her neck. It's a miracle she survived long enough to get on life support in the first place." "The Legionnaire carried an epee. It was meant to pierce her defenses, not hack off her head or limbs. And it was enchanted with a spell to part souls from bodies, not nerves from organs." Xavier ran a hand through his hair. "If you're wrong..." "I'm not. Come and see." It was a slow time in the diner. Only two patrons and four staff members in total. Cooper used a pyromantic cantrip to start a fire in the kitchen, and Xavier helped people get out. Simon's follow-up spells were a wide-area disruption of electronics and putting the fire out while Xavier locked the doors. "Now, we can begin. The salt, if you would." Xavier handed Cooper the container of sea salt. The other man whispered to himself as he turned, pouring the crystals out in a circle around him. He handed the container back. "The Tarot." Carefully, Xavier removed the small leather pouch from Cooper's pack. Once he had it, Cooper pulled the strings and gently freed the deck from it. He closed his eyes as he shuffled. He dealt one card to the north, shuffled as he turned, dealt to the east, and repeated the process for the south and the west, shuffling once more and turning over the top card before laying the deck at his feet. Xavier never really understood the whys and wherefores of Cooper's methods, as he was practically from a different world. But for all the years he'd known the warlock, no spell that had been worked in his presence resulted in evil or even much collateral damage, save for an incident in New Jersey that neither man talked about. "Eight of Swords to the north. Damned if I do, damned if I don't. So I can't hesitate. You can stop thinking I need to quit now, Xavier." "I wasn't..." "Hush. Three of Swords to the east, practically at your feet. A truth, hidden, that will be revealed, and change everything." He opened his eyes to look at Xavier. "Do your superiors know?" Xavier bit his lip. "What would they say, Simon? How would they react to a priest being in love with a witch?" Smiling, Cooper held up a finger. "I won't tell if you won't. Just as long as you know that I know." He closed his eyes again. "Nine of Swords to the south, behind me, meaning that I've left behind sleep and other mortal comforts for this. Good. I'm on the right path. And... Ace of Swords to my left. My left hand, the one I'd use to hold a scabbard, draw a sword from, sharp and ready... excellent, excellent. I can do this." "What about the one at your feet?" Cooper looked down. "The Queen of Swords herself. Oh, this is good. Xavier, I was right. Esther isn't dying because her body is shutting down, she's dying because her soul was stolen. Some deity or denizen has been keen to her magic and wants her for some purpose." Xavier frowned. Then, without a word, he moved to the fuse box and shut down the diner's power. He removed seven candles from Cooper's pack, laid them out around the circle, and lit them. "What else do you need, Simon?" "My totem belt." It was a heavy grade piece of military surplus wear, to which Cooper had affixed several pouches, with everything from herbs to small relics to holy water Xavier himself had blessed. He strapped it on. "Simon Johnathan Tesla Cooper." The warlock turned to the priest. Xavier didn't often say his full name. "Bring her back to me. Bring her back to both of us." "What did you think I was going to do, Father Xavier, watch as her body slowly gives up waiting for her to come back? She's my sister." "I know you don't believe in God..." "Nonsense, of course I do. I just don't believe yours is the only one. I've met too many." "... but may He bless and keep you." Simon Cooper managed a smile. "Thanks." He turned away, eyes shut, and spoke words in ancient tongues as he flicked various pouch contents into the candle flames. At the last, there was a flash, and he was gone. Xavier sat on a diner stool, folded his hands, closed his eyes, and began to pray.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Writer Report: Momentum

Writer Report: Momentum — Blue Ink Alchemy

After a long dry spell, it's nice to have the feeling of getting writing accomplished again. I'm still not entirely sure what was keeping me from making progress on Cold Streets. I guess my time management skills still wax and wane after all of this time. After playing Spec Ops and The Walking Dead (review in two weeks!), and realizing that stories like this would remain unknown if someone hadn't carved out the time to write them. I mean, Spec Ops borrows a great deal from Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now, but you know what I'm getting at. Incidentally, I also finished playing The Darkness II, which I may go back and review at some point despite the fact it's long past the release date. While the premise feels very much like the '90s comic book that spawned it (no pun intended), the game features some decent moments of character growth or realization, and keeping it entirely in the first-person perspective of the protagonist makes some of the moments really work and the scenes where reality changes quite effective. It focuses on the characters, as any good story should. Holy crap, I just figured out why I have such a problem with The Amazing Spider-Man... more next week. It's focus on characters that's gotten me moving forward again. Banter is being exchanged and relationships are developing and being explored. The fact that I'm carving out the time as soon as I get off of the dayjob is helping, as well. My energy is still high enough to maintain a decent word count if I get right to it as soon as I get home, provided I don't have to run errands, do chores, or buy something for the household. At least it's happening, though. And it's not like one can expect the process to go smoothly. If anybody tells you writing is easy, they're lying to you.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

The Guilds of Gatecrash

The Guilds of Gatecrash — Blue Ink Alchemy

Art by Cliff Childs The cards have been spoiled, the materials have been sent, and another Magic: the Gathering release event is upon us. The second set in the Return to Ravnica block, Gatecrash, hits the streets to open February, and with it comes a re-introduction of the five guilds not featured in the first set. While I maintain my allegiance to the Izzet League, I must admit some of the other guilds do hold appeal for me, and all of them warrant examination. We'll start with the Gruul Clans. A loose affiliation of rowdy and rather monstrous bands of warriors united under the massive cyclops Borborygmos, I think they would only be out-partied by the Rakdos. Gruul is all about big game-ending creatures, from dragons to hydras, and I feel it will pair very well with two of the guilds introduced in the previous set, Golgari and Selesnya. The new Gruul mechanic, Bloodrush, ensures that attacking creatures could always get bigger than the opponent expects. Yet, I don't feel the Clans are for me. I like dragons and massive creatures as much as the next Planeswalker, but I also enjoy coming at my challenges from areas other than the "smash face" angle. Plus, with many saying Gruul is "the guild to beat" in Limited engagements, my inclination is to invest in another guild. The Simic Combine feels like a cousin to the Izzet League. This may be due to many of their creatures being somewhat odd combinations, like Crocodile Frogs and Crab Sharks. But rather than Frankensteinian mad science at work, the Simic seek to bring the natural world into the cityscape of Ravnica in a way that may not be as harmonious as the Selesnya would like, but still ensures the preservation of non-constructed life. Simic creatures Evolve, growing stronger as larger ones enter the field. I can see how advantageous this could be. However, I don't feel quite as drawn to the Combine as I am to some of the other guilds. I've always been fascinated by decks that marry the colors of black and white. [mtg_card]Sorin, Lord of Innistrad[/mtg_card] remains one of my favorite Planeswalkers. While not what I would consider my primary colors, the dichotomy of white's ability to defend and gain life and black's tendency to erode and corrupt is intriguing. So it is with the Orzhov Syndicate. Part church and part organized crime family, the Orzhov often make you pay for what you want. Attack an Orzhov player and you may lose all of your creatures. Attempt to damage them directly and they'll gain life in response. The new Extort system allows an Orzhov player to supplement the cost of a spell with additional mana that not only increases their own life, but reduces that of the opponent. I feel Orzhov may be one of the most underestimated guilds in all of Ravnica, and I'm curious if I can prove it. Slightly more prevalent than my fascination with dichotomy is my love of stealth, counter-intelligence, and espionage. Games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Thief, and Metal Gear Solid always get my attention, as has House Dimir. Ravnica's guild of spies and assassins relies on deception and misdirection, as well as nasty tactics like milling an opponent's library, forcing discards, and making creatures impossible to block or even target with spells. And if a Dimir agent gets a hit in on you, it could cost more than life points; Ciphers attach to creatures like enchantments but cannot be removed without removing the creature themselves, repeating their effects every time the creature does damage. My attraction to the Dimir may help explain my trepidation towards the Gruul; I prefer subtle tactics to overt ones. Last but never least, the Boros Legion returns in Gatecrash. While the Orzhov may represent the most insidious aspects of an organized spiritual movement, the Boros are more of the fire and brimstone types, or rather fire and sword. Lead by a literal archangel and commanding an army of dedicated soldiers, Boros has just as much aggression potential as the Gruul clans. It combines the direct damage of red with the defenses and life gain of white, and Battalion allows groups of creatures working together to surge forward in battle. On top of all of that, I feel they may work quite well with Izzet. After all, Boros are all about righteous fire, and what fire burns hotter than lightning conjured by magic? All in all, Gatecrash looks to be an exciting and flavorful set. I think I will be playing Boros in at least one release event, and if I manage to pair up with someone for Two-Headed Giant, I may choose Orzhov or Dimir. I have Standard deck ideas that include all of those three guilds... more on that next week. If you're playing in the Gatecrash release events, what guild have you chosen and why? If you haven't picked one yet, don't worry - you can learn more about them here, or even take a quiz to place you in one. Good luck!

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Game Review: Spec Ops: The Line

Game Review: Spec Ops: The Line — Blue Ink Alchemy

If you look up the definition of the word "game", you will find words like "amusement" and "fun" used to describe it. And video games, by and large, are designed to be just that: fun amusements. But as technology has progressed and the tools used by developers have become more advanced, the capacity for video games to tell stories that give context to the fun continues to grow. And just like with any other medium for storytelling, occasionally a game will come along that eschews the typical through-line of established narratives and try to not only tell a story, but tell us something about ourselves and the world in which we live. Enter Yager Development's Spec Ops: The Line. In modern-day Dubai, nearly cataclysmic sandstorms have battered the city. A United States army battalion, the "Damned" 33rd under command of one Colonel Konrad, moved in to help evacuate civilians from the are before it's swallowed by the desert. After a long silence, a distress signal was detected. Captain Walker of Delta Force and his two squadmates are sent into the area to locate survivors and report back with their status. When they arrive, they find evidence that something has gone wrong within the city. Given his personal history with Konrad, Walker decides to try and find some answers. The game is a third-person shooter, reminiscent of games like Mass Effect, in which you and two AI partners grab cover where you can and shoot from behind it. Ammunition is scarce in this bleak urban environment devastated by the desert, so you must scavenge what you can from the fallen. There are a variety of weapons, many of which feel somewhat situational, but good luck trying to determine if the P90 or the shotgun is a better choice in the middle of a firefight. The gameplay, while not innovative or a stand-out, is competent and functional, and I am of the opinion that it is the least important aspect of Spec Ops. I will go so far as to say that any review that focused on the gameplay has missed the point of the game entirely.
Much of the scenery is gorgeous in its bleakness. No, the point of the game is to tell Walker's story, and as it unfolds, we discover that Walker's story is one of eroding character, the horrors of war, and perhaps even madness. Rather than constrain this narrative to cut scenes, however, much of the story's weight and message are in the actions the player can take. Does Walker shoot his foes and move on, or does he take the time to execute them as they lay on the ground, holding their wounds and bleeding out, moaning or gurgling or crying out for mercy? While video game violence is by no means realistic, the executions are somewhat brutal, and they always yield additional ammo - in essence, the game rewards you for being as inhumane as possible to your fellow man. This is not done with any amount of cheek or humor, though. The actions you take as Walker, or that Walker takes while under your control, are presented strictly as they are, leaving you as the player to make your own judgments as to the necessity of the brutality and the state of Walker's mind. Walker has multiple opportunities to stop in his pursuit of Konrad and 'the truth', ones his squadmates point out as the situation develops, but the more horrors Walker is exposed to, the more dedicated he becomes to finding Konrad. And the further he goes to achieve that goal, the more and more he becomes divorced from the professional solider with whom we're introduced in the beginning. Say what you like about Nolan North: the transformation in Walker's words and mannerisms is so potent thanks in no small part to the voice work. The visceral immediacy of modern warfare coupled with Walker's fanatical pursuit of his quest creates an extremely tight and effective story, albeit not an entirely fun one, and also drives to the heart of a matter beyond the plight of pixelated soldiers.
How many of these candles are lives you've taken? The depiction of modern warfare in video games is one of those things that is often seen or described as glamorized. Some even go so far as to say that such games promote violence. While evidence is threadbare at best when it comes to video games inspiring troubled young people to take up arms, the plethora of games in which heroic soldiers (usually Americans) gun down diabolical foreigners in the name of freedom with attractive and satisfying hardware flood the market and always sell. At first, it seems like Spec Ops is just another one of those paranoid gun-wank fantasy trips, but within the first few minutes the tissue-thin facade of its Modern Warfare and Medal of Honor brethren falls away to reveal a stark reflection of those games and their players. There is one sequence, in particular, where Walker and the player assume your usual perspective on a tool of destruction: from above, in monochrome, on a small military device as you guide projectiles of death. And after all of the explosions and multiple-kill combos and the eagerness of the programmed device, you and Walker must slowly move through the devastation you just caused. I won't say too much more on the sequence, other than doing so in the way Spec Ops does was a bold choice that makes the glorification of such things in other games seem downright creepy by comparison. Art, from tragic portraits to satirical plays, has always been in a position to, as Hamlet put it, "to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure." Spec Ops has the bravery to be unflinching in its depiction of a soldier slowly coming undone due to his own inability to deal with the issues before him in any way but violence, and even extends that towards the player to a degree. This is a game that a player is not entirely guaranteed to enjoy; however, it is also a game that a player is unlikely to ever forget, not because the gameplay is bad or the characters ridiculous, but because it is designed to plunge you into the abyss of the human heart at its darkest, and make you stare at what lurks there whether you want to or not.
Best not to think about that man's family, right? Do you think they'll miss him? I'm skipping the usual "stuff I liked/disliked" portion and going straight to the bottom line, here. There are games that come along that are landmarks in their field. Like Myst for adventure games, StarCraft for real-time strategy, and Silent Hill 2 for horror, Spec Ops: The Line is perhaps one of the most important games I've ever played. It breaks from traditional mores of wrapping some spoon-shallow paranoid fantasy around what is essentially the means for online gamers to verbally abuse one another to the staccato background noise of simulated gunfire, and shines a bright and brutal light on the sort of people who enjoy engaging in said abuse. I highly recommend the game for anyone who appreciates storytelling in games, is sickened by modern military shooters, or thinks games are nothing more than passing fancy amusements for the intellectually stunted. It is dark, it is uncompromising, it is chilling, and it is one of the most emotionally fulfilling gaming experiences I have ever had.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Game Review: Spec Ops: The Line

Game Review: Spec Ops: The Line — Blue Ink Alchemy

If you look up the definition of the word "game", you will find words like "amusement" and "fun" used to describe it. And video games, by and large, are designed to be just that: fun amusements. But as technology has progressed and the tools used by developers have become more advanced, the capacity for video games to tell stories that give context to the fun continues to grow. And just like with any other medium for storytelling, occasionally a game will come along that eschews the typical through-line of established narratives and try to not only tell a story, but tell us something about ourselves and the world in which we live. Enter Yager Development's Spec Ops: The Line. In modern-day Dubai, nearly cataclysmic sandstorms have battered the city. A United States army battalion, the "Damned" 33rd under command of one Colonel Konrad, moved in to help evacuate civilians from the are before it's swallowed by the desert. After a long silence, a distress signal was detected. Captain Walker of Delta Force and his two squadmates are sent into the area to locate survivors and report back with their status. When they arrive, they find evidence that something has gone wrong within the city. Given his personal history with Konrad, Walker decides to try and find some answers. The game is a third-person shooter, reminiscent of games like Mass Effect, in which you and two AI partners grab cover where you can and shoot from behind it. Ammunition is scarce in this bleak urban environment devastated by the desert, so you must scavenge what you can from the fallen. There are a variety of weapons, many of which feel somewhat situational, but good luck trying to determine if the P90 or the shotgun is a better choice in the middle of a firefight. The gameplay, while not innovative or a stand-out, is competent and functional, and I am of the opinion that it is the least important aspect of Spec Ops. I will go so far as to say that any review that focused on the gameplay has missed the point of the game entirely.
Much of the scenery is gorgeous in its bleakness. No, the point of the game is to tell Walker's story, and as it unfolds, we discover that Walker's story is one of eroding character, the horrors of war, and perhaps even madness. Rather than constrain this narrative to cut scenes, however, much of the story's weight and message are in the actions the player can take. Does Walker shoot his foes and move on, or does he take the time to execute them as they lay on the ground, holding their wounds and bleeding out, moaning or gurgling or crying out for mercy? While video game violence is by no means realistic, the executions are somewhat brutal, and they always yield additional ammo - in essence, the game rewards you for being as inhumane as possible to your fellow man. This is not done with any amount of cheek or humor, though. The actions you take as Walker, or that Walker takes while under your control, are presented strictly as they are, leaving you as the player to make your own judgments as to the necessity of the brutality and the state of Walker's mind. Walker has multiple opportunities to stop in his pursuit of Konrad and 'the truth', ones his squadmates point out as the situation develops, but the more horrors Walker is exposed to, the more dedicated he becomes to finding Konrad. And the further he goes to achieve that goal, the more and more he becomes divorced from the professional solider with whom we're introduced in the beginning. Say what you like about Nolan North: the transformation in Walker's words and mannerisms is so potent thanks in no small part to the voice work. The visceral immediacy of modern warfare coupled with Walker's fanatical pursuit of his quest creates an extremely tight and effective story, albeit not an entirely fun one, and also drives to the heart of a matter beyond the plight of pixelated soldiers.
How many of these candles are lives you've taken? The depiction of modern warfare in video games is one of those things that is often seen or described as glamorized. Some even go so far as to say that such games promote violence. While evidence is threadbare at best when it comes to video games inspiring troubled young people to take up arms, the plethora of games in which heroic soldiers (usually Americans) gun down diabolical foreigners in the name of freedom with attractive and satisfying hardware flood the market and always sell. At first, it seems like Spec Ops is just another one of those paranoid gun-wank fantasy trips, but within the first few minutes the tissue-thin facade of its Modern Warfare and Medal of Honor brethren falls away to reveal a stark reflection of those games and their players. There is one sequence, in particular, where Walker and the player assume your usual perspective on a tool of destruction: from above, in monochrome, on a small military device as you guide projectiles of death. And after all of the explosions and multiple-kill combos and the eagerness of the programmed device, you and Walker must slowly move through the devastation you just caused. I won't say too much more on the sequence, other than doing so in the way Spec Ops does was a bold choice that makes the glorification of such things in other games seem downright creepy by comparison. Art, from tragic portraits to satirical plays, has always been in a position to, as Hamlet put it, "to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure." Spec Ops has the bravery to be unflinching in its depiction of a soldier slowly coming undone due to his own inability to deal with the issues before him in any way but violence, and even extends that towards the player to a degree. This is a game that a player is not entirely guaranteed to enjoy; however, it is also a game that a player is unlikely to ever forget, not because the gameplay is bad or the characters ridiculous, but because it is designed to plunge you into the abyss of the human heart at its darkest, and make you stare at what lurks there whether you want to or not.
Best not to think about that man's family, right? Do you think they'll miss him? I'm skipping the usual "stuff I liked/disliked" portion and going straight to the bottom line, here. There are games that come along that are landmarks in their field. Like Myst for adventure games, StarCraft for real-time strategy, and Silent Hill 2 for horror, Spec Ops: The Line is perhaps one of the most important games I've ever played. It breaks from traditional mores of wrapping some spoon-shallow paranoid fantasy around what is essentially the means for online gamers to verbally amuse one another to the staccato background noise of simulated gunfire, and shines a bright and brutal light on the sort of people who enjoy engaging in said abuse. I highly recommend the game for anyone who appreciates storytelling in games, is sickened by modern military shooters, or thinks games are nothing more than passing fancy amusements for the intellectually stunted. It is dark, it is uncompromising, it is chilling, and it is one of the most emotionally fulfilling gaming experiences I have ever had.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Game Review: Spec Ops: The Line

Game Review: Spec Ops: The Line — Blue Ink Alchemy

If you look up the definition of the word "game", you will find words like "amusement" and "fun" used to describe it. And video games, by and large, are designed to be just that: fun amusements. But as technology has progressed and the tools used by developers have become more advanced, the capacity for video games to tell stories that give context to the fun continues to grow. And just like with any other medium for storytelling, occasionally a game will come along that eschews the typical through-line of established narratives and try to not only tell a story, but tell us something about ourselves and the world in which we live. Enter Yager Development's Spec Ops: The Line. In modern-day Dubai, nearly cataclysmic sandstorms have battered the city. A United States army battalion, the "Damned" 33rd under command of one Colonel Konrad, moved in to help evacuate civilians from the are before it's swallowed by the desert. After a long silence, a distress signal was detected. Captain Walker of Delta Force and his two squadmates are sent into the area to locate survivors and report back with their status. When they arrive, they find evidence that something has gone wrong within the city. Given his personal history with Konrad, Walker decides to try and find some answers. The game is a third-person shooter, reminiscent of games like Mass Effect, in which you and two AI partners grab cover where you can and shoot from behind it. Ammunition is scarce in this bleak urban environment devastated by the desert, so you must scavenge what you can from the fallen. There are a variety of weapons, many of which feel somewhat situational, but good luck trying to determine if the P90 or the shotgun is a better choice in the middle of a firefight. The gameplay, while not innovative or a stand-out, is competent and functional, and I am of the opinion that it is the least important aspect of Spec Ops. I will go so far as to say that any review that focused on the gameplay has missed the point of the game entirely.
Much of the scenery is gorgeous in its bleakness. No, the point of the game is to tell Walker's story, and as it unfolds, we discover that Walker's story is one of eroding character, the horrors of war, and perhaps even madness. Rather than constrain this narrative to cut scenes, however, much of the story's weight and message are in the actions the player can take. Does Walker shoot his foes and move on, or does he take the time to execute them as they lay on the ground, holding their wounds and bleeding out, moaning or gurgling or crying out for mercy? While video game violence is by no means realistic, the executions are somewhat brutal, and they always yield additional ammo - in essence, the game rewards you for being as inhumane as possible to your fellow man. This is not done with any amount of cheek or humor, though. The actions you take as Walker, or that Walker takes while under your control, are presented strictly as they are, leaving you as the player to make your own judgments as to the necessity of the brutality and the state of Walker's mind. Walker has multiple opportunities to stop in his pursuit of Konrad and 'the truth', ones his squadmates point out as the situation develops, but the more horrors Walker is exposed to, the more dedicated he becomes to finding Konrad. And the further he goes to achieve that goal, the more and more he becomes divorced from the professional solider with whom we're introduced in the beginning. Say what you like about Nolan North: the transformation in Walker's words and mannerisms is so potent thanks in no small part to the voice work. The visceral immediacy of modern warfare coupled with Walker's fanatical pursuit of his quest creates an extremely tight and effective story, albeit not an entirely fun one, and also drives to the heart of a matter beyond the plight of pixelated soldiers.
How many of these candles are lives you've taken? The depiction of modern warfare in video games is one of those things that is often seen or described as glamorized. Some even go so far as to say that such games promote violence. While evidence is threadbare at best when it comes to video games inspiring troubled young people to take up arms, the plethora of games in which heroic soldiers (usually Americans) gun down diabolical foreigners in the name of freedom with attractive and satisfying hardware flood the market and always sell. At first, it seems like Spec Ops is just another one of those paranoid gun-wank fantasy trips, but within the first few minutes the tissue-thin facade of its Modern Warfare and Medal of Honor brethren falls away to reveal a stark reflection of those games and their players. There is one sequence, in particular, where Walker and the player assume your usual perspective on a tool of destruction: from above, in monochrome, on a small military device as you guide projectiles of death. And after all of the explosions and multiple-kill combos and the eagerness of the programmed device, you and Walker must slowly move through the devastation you just caused. I won't say too much more on the sequence, other than doing so in the way Spec Ops does was a bold choice that makes the glorification of such things in other games seem downright creepy by comparison. Art, from tragic portraits to satirical plays, has always been in a position to, as Hamlet put it, "to hold as 'twere the mirror up to nature: to show virtue her feature, scorn her own image, and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure." Spec Ops has the bravery to be unflinching in its depiction of a soldier slowly coming undone due to his own inability to deal with the issues before him in any way but violence, and even extends that towards the player to a degree. This is a game that a player is not entirely guaranteed to enjoy; however, it is also a game that a player is unlikely to ever forget, not because the gameplay is bad or the characters ridiculous, but because it is designed to plunge you into the abyss of the human heart at its darkest, and make you stare at what lurks there whether you want to or not.
Best not to think about that man's family, right? Do you think they'll miss him? I'm skipping the usual "stuff I liked/disliked" portion and going straight to the bottom line, here. There are games that come along that are landmarks in their field. Like Myst for adventure games, StarCraft for real-time strategy, and Silent Hill 2 for horror, Spec Ops: The Line is perhaps one of the most important games I've ever played. It breaks from traditional mores of wrapping some spoon-shallow paranoid fantasy around what is essentially the means for online gamers to verbally amuse one another to the staccato background noise of simulated gunfire, and shines a bright and brutal light on the sort of people who enjoy engaging in said abuse. I highly recommend the game for anyone who appreciates storytelling in games, is sickened by modern military shooters, or thinks games are nothing more than passing fancy amusements for the intellectually stunted. It is dark, it is uncompromising, it is chilling, and it is one of the most emotionally fulfilling gaming experiences I have ever had.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

The Writer's Box

The Writer's Box — Blue Ink Alchemy

Think outside the box. What a lovely little snippet of corpspeak. It's crept into the common parlance as not only a means to go about solving problems and finding solutions to problems, but also to critique any thinking that's considered too mainstream or commonplace for the issue at hand. Basically, being 'inside the box' is seen as a bad thing. But I don't think that's necessarily the case. Writers can be fickle creatures, especially if they write fiction. Being full of ideas and imagination, they have a habit of becoming easily distracted. In fact, it may seem at times that a given writer is willing to do anything but write. "Oh, is that a new game? Have I seen this cat video before? There's something else humiliating on television?" So on and so forth. Sometimes, the best way to get a writer to write is to stuff 'em in a box. The stores that are not yet written are not going to write themselves. Bringing them to completion requires time and discipline, and in order to hold onto both of those, sometimes one must become isolated, relatively speaking. The degree to which this isolation occurs is up to the individual, and can vary, but it really comes down to shutting out whatever you need to shut out. It can be as simple as shutting down the social networking and Youtube browsing for a bit, or you may need an entire setup away from anything even resembling a distraction. It's also a measure of respect for anyone the writer happens to live with. Saying your a writer is all well and good, but in addition to getting published, the proof is in the pudding: it's easier for people to accept that you want to turn this weird-ass "hobby" into a career if they see you writing. If you're not writing every day, you go from being a writer in the perceptions of others to that live-in wacko who mutters to themselves and smells funny. It seems to me from experience that folks do appreciate the effort made by the writer when they are writing, even if meals need to be poked towards them with a stick while they're inside the box. Obviously, a little isolation goes a long way. You can't forget to emerge from your grotto to do things like eat. And eventually your energy is going to be tapped for the day and it'll be time to set the work aside (unless you're really on a tear, in which case by all means, go nuts). But every hour spent inside that box is another hour closer to your goals. It lets you hammer out the dents in your story, smooth over rough patches for your characters, untangles knots in your plot, and generally provides a great many more benefits than the cost incurred by being away from Twitter and Facebook for an hour or two. You will get more accomplished, and just as importantly, you will feel more accomplished. Basically what I'm saying is that corpspeak is for suckers, and the box is your friend. Climb in, and get some shit done.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Flash Fiction: The Journal in the Cave

Flash Fiction: The Journal in the Cave — Blue Ink Alchemy

This week's challenge had us choose one from a series of beautiful photos of impossible places.

---

I don't know how much light I've got left. But there's plenty of air. I can't tell if the light I'm seeing nearby is reflected from my lamp or from another natural source. It's enough to see by. And my God, this place is huge. Bigger than any sonar readings could have told us. Bigger than anybody imagined. I'm still not sure why they brought me along. All the geologists and professional explorers and local experts, and then there was me. I've always found caves and mines fascinating, but from a historical standpoint, as indicators of what humanity needs them for and how it uses the tools it can create or is presented with, never from a rock formation or shale composition standpoint. I consider it a cruel irony that it was me who fell through the loose rocks above into this chamber below. They've gone to get more rope to try and get me out of here. The camp is a few hours away. I guess that gives me time to explore, provided I don't wander too far.

---

I think my leg might be broken. It won't hold my weight very well and it's extremely painful to move it, let alone try to stand on it. I found some painkillers in my pack, and I have a good supply of drinking water. I'm going to see what I can do to cobble together a splint.

---

Hobbling is not the most expedient way of getting around, but I did discover something down here. Something that will change human history forever. Under the calcification and fallen rocks, there are man-made structures down here. I've discovered what appear to be massive load-bearing columns, like support beams, all through this cavern. I can't even begin to guess at the age of this stonework. Centuries? Millennia? I'm no scientist and have no equipment to measure such a thing. All I know is that it bears further investigation. My watch tells me it'll be a few more hours before the party returns. I'll take a few minutes to rest, have a drink of water and perhaps another round of painkillers, and see what I can find.

---

This is becoming more and more impossible as I go on. There are carvings in some of the structures. From what I can tell, mostly by shining light through the calcification, they resemble Scandinavian runes in passing. I say 'in passing' because we are pretty far from any Scandinavian countries. And while I am no expert, as I've only examined original Norse ruins and documents in passing, I have to say that many of these symbols are entirely unfamiliar to me. I will sketch what I can before I return to where I fell in.

---

I don't know if it's the painkillers or something in the air or if I'm simply going mad. But I'm hearing things down here. Sounds that I am not myself making. Checking my watch, the party should have returned by now. They need to return soon. I cannot get out on my own. My light is beginning to fade, and unless my eyes are playing tricks, some of the other light is also shifting. It's as if a shadow is moving somewhere beneath me. And then there's sound. God help me, it sounds like drums. Drums. Drums in the deep.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Writer Report: All Quiet On The Writer's Front

Writer Report: All Quiet On The Writer's Front — Blue Ink Alchemy

This has not been the best of weeks in my writing career. I have several good reviews lined up, plenty to discuss in terms of gaming, a solid outline for Cold Streets, and traction on the fantasy rewrite. Yet I'm continuing to struggle in carving out the time I know I need to get things done in a timely manner. There's still something "off" about how I'm going about my daily business. Maybe I need to finish unpacking all of my crap. Maybe I have a blocked chakra. Maybe I'm just lazy. I know that the only way for me to write is to sit down and write. And as much as I could lament that I'm not in college anymore and I don't have as much free time as I used to, that feels like a cop-out, placing blame on circumstances rather than not taking control of the things over which I have control. It's looking outward when I should be looking inward. I need to see what I can do about this. I need to make a change. The consequences of what will happen if I don't frighten me.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

The Speed of Strategy

The Speed of Strategy — Blue Ink Alchemy

First contact with the Protoss. Better think fast. Yesterday's Extra Credits discussed depth & complexity in games. When discussing complexity, James asks the question "How many mental calculations per second are you asking of your player?" He then goes on to posit that turn-based strategy games are no more complex than first-person shooters, based on the number and types of decisions a player must make based on the pace of play. But turn-based isn't the only kind of strategy game out there. When considering the degree of challenge presented by a game based on strategic, overarching decision-making, the speed at which the game progresses is very important. When I think turn-based strategy, I think Civilization. It's the 4X game I grew up with and, while I miss Master of Orion, the latest iteration is very polished and well-presented. As all of your decisions are done on your turn, and no time limit is imposed on those turns, the pace of play is very leisurely. While you are making complicated choices, especially as you develop more technologies and expand your empire, you are under no temporal pressure to come to a conclusion. You have all the time in the world, and that makes a game of Civ truly relaxing, if incredibly time-consuming. Some games present the choices of the player in relative real time but mitigate the pace with the use of a pause function. So it is with FTL. Weapons fire and teleporters activate just as soon as their cooldowns make them available, which can lead to some intensity, especially when you have multiple hull breaches and you have Mantis invaders chewing on your crew. But you can hit the Pause button at any time, catch your breath, and consider the situation from a broad perspective. This reduces the immediate burden on your brain and mitigates the pressure, thus making decision-making a bit easier and reducing what appears to be a daunting amount of complexity. Online games do not afford the luxury of a pause function. Time manipulation in the real world would be a titanic advantage, but chronomancy is unfortunately restricted to speculative fiction. However, team-based play like that in League of Legends tends to take the burden off of the individual player. Ideally, five brains are better than one, and being able to at least discuss the situation at hand if not develop a plan of attack based on that information lessens the cognitive burden on the individual. The pace is still fast and some decisions will need to be made immediately without help from the team, but that 'safety net' is still there. And then you have solo real-time strategy experiences like StarCraft 2. While a team mode does exist for the game, the play that earns the most attention, accolades, and money is the one-on-one experience. You can strategize and theorycraft until the exploding sheep come home, but when the game begins, all of your decisions need to be made immediately. You must process information on the fly, while carrying out your own plans. You must both out-smart and out-play your opponent, even if you're going for a held-back strategy that works from the angle of base expansion, defense, area control, and technological upgrades as opposed to, say, a cannon rush. Yet the decisions you have to make in a game of StarCraft - unit composition, the approach to the objective, examination of opponent's weaknesses to exploit - are not that different from those in Civilization. They simply need to happen more quickly, and while this may make the game seem more complex, I dare say it really isn't. The complexity of the decisions is magnified by the pace of play, but taken on their own the decisions themselves are not that difficult. It is, however, difficult to make a solid decision in a very limited span of time, and still have the confidence to know it was the right one to make (see also The Walking Dead). This is both the challenge and the appeal of strategy. No matter what the pace of play might be, the brain is fully engaged in making decisions and carrying out strategies. Playing well is definitely more a case of mind over matter, and I for one am a huge fan of thinking your way out of a difficult position.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Movie Review: Dredd (3D)

Movie Review: Dredd (3D) — Blue Ink Alchemy

In Mega-City One, the population is astronomical and crime is rampant. The people are represented by one group, and one group alone: the Judges. They locate and investigate crime; they prosecute and punish the offenders on the spot. They are the law. These are their stories. Going back to the well of an established intellectual property can be risky business. If it's a long-running story, die-hard fans will be frothing at the mouth not just to see this new take on their beloved worlds, but tear the storyteller to ribbons over anything they might get 'wrong'. So it was in the first movie based on Judge Dredd, the central character of the ultra-violent, subversive, and even satirical 2000 AD Comics. It was... well, not great, but amusing and even entertaining in its own way. They went back to the well for a 2012 remake, and fans held their breath. I hope they let it out shouting for joy, because this new Dredd is ultra-violent and subversive - not necessarily satirical, but considering how stripped-down the film is, it's clear something had to go. We join Joe Dredd at the start of an average day as a Judge in Mega-City One, a final bastion of teeming humanity on the edge of a nuclear wasteland. You know how it goes - get up, put on the armor and helmet, get the Lawgiver ready, chase down some thugs on your kickass bike, same old same old. Today's different, though. Dredd's been saddled with a psychic rookie named Anderson, and heads out with her to investigate a triple homicide at the mega-block known as Peach Trees. The mega-block is a miniature city in and of itself, 200 floors housing 80,000 people, and the drug queen Ma-Ma is in control of it all. She doesn't like Judges poking around in her business. So she locks the place down and calls for their heads. She thinks she's the law in Peach Trees. Guess who disagrees. Right from the start, seasoned readers and watchers can tell this is not the same Dredd as before. Unlike the previous film's predilection for overwrought bombast, bright splashy colors, and a leaning towards camp that didn't quite hit Flash Gordon levels but came pretty close at times, Dredd plays things closer to the vest. I'd say it's more subtle, but that seems a disingenuous word considering how violent the movie is. People are shot, stabbed, skinned alive, even set on fire - when it comes to 'inventive law enforcement', the Punisher and the Boondock Saints have nothing on Dredd. But under all of the bloodshed and gore is an undercurrent of reflectiveness, a dark mirror of our own modern society, steeped in the glorification of carnage and the acknowledgement that, when the corrupt will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals, there are times when you need someone of such deep-rooted and nearly fascistic righteousness to step in who is willing to stop and nothing to punish the aforementioned corrupt.
If you see this scowl, RUN. The sort of person who personifies this mentality is not bombastic. They don't like a lot of attention and they're not given to grand shows of power to demonstrate how awesome they are. Hence why Karl Urban is superior in the role of Judge Dredd to Stallone. Where Stallone shouted, Urban growls. Where Stallone emoted with his weird-ass contacts, Urban scowls. He moves with a purpose at all times. He appears long enough to do his job, brutal as it might be, then moves on. He keeps his own counsel and demonstrates that absolute adherence to the law does not mean unreasonability. And he never, ever takes his helmet off. This is, of course, the result of many galvanizing years on the mean streets of Mega-City One. In order to fully demonstrate the hidden depths of the character, rather than just tell you "there's a lot going on under that visor," the audience benefits from a surrogate. Enter Olivia Thirlby as Judge Anderson, the rookie with whom Dredd has been saddled. There are a lot of directions a writer can go with a character like this - a wide-eyed questioner, a cheerleader for the protagonist, and so on. Anderson, however, is not just there to be a pretty face. She's being tested, and not just by Dredd. It's a testament to Thirlby's acting chops that we feel, rather than hear about, her mix of respect and fear for Dredd, her uncertainty at the situation in front of her, and her determination to prove herself and not back down no matter what challenge presents itself. Even when things go bad for her, she retains a measure of control, never gives up hope, and never betrays her fears in full. She's one of the best female characters I've seen on screen in a while, especially in a movie based on a comic, and I'd pay money just to see another story with her in it.
She'd make a fantastic Samus Aran. The supporting cast, while decent, never really rises to the level of the two leads. Lena Headey is always good in whatever role she takes, from Queen Gorgo of Sparta to Cersei Lannister, but Ma-Ma has little in the way of range. She's tough and brutal, of course, but there's really nothing to her other than ambition and those overlying traits. The rest of her forces are pretty interchangeable mooks, and we only get bits and pieces from others to really show us what life in Mega-City One is like. Given that the film is only 95 minutes long, a little more fleshing out here and there would have been fine, without having too much negative impact on the pace of the action. Finally, as bleak as the setting is, I never got the feeling that Mega-City One was as oppressively crowded as it might seem given the numbers. But that's a minor quibble with an otherwise overwhelming success in going back to the well, and coming back with something that not only sustains, but delights. Stuff I Liked: There's very little fat on this movie; it moves at a great pace and is very goal-oriented. Its rather straightforward story lends itself well to character examination through action. The small scale of it and the lack of any overarching compulsion to save the world, or the girl, or the Law, makes it a much tighter and more substantive story than you get in most movies based on comic books. Even some Marvel ones. And the predominance of practical effects makes the action even more visceral and concrete. Stuff I Didn't Like: I don't like the idea of this being the only story I'll see with these actors as these characters. I would have liked to see a bit more backstory and characterization with Ma-Ma, even though what we get is perfectly adequate. Stuff I Loved: Let's just say "everything about Dredd and Anderson" and leave it at that. And considering how we're with them every step of the way in this story, there's plenty to love. Bottom Line: There are a lot of reasons to see Dredd. See it for the tight, intimate story. See it for the extremely well-shot and visceral action. See it to enjoy a rendition of Judge Dredd that feels authentic and real, not campy and bombastic. See it for a growly voice that puts Bale's Bat-voice to shame without being as ridiculously over-the-top.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Movie Review: Dredd (3D)

Movie Review: Dredd (3D) — Blue Ink Alchemy

In Mega-City One, the population is astronomical and crime is rampant. The people are represented by one group, and one group alone: the Judges. They locate and investigate crime; they prosecute and punish the offenders on the spot. They are the law. These are their stories. Going back to the well of an established intellectual property can be risky business. If it's a long-running story, die-hard fans will be frothing at the mouth not just to see this new take on their beloved worlds, but tear the storyteller to ribbons over anything they might get 'wrong'. So it was in the first movie based on Judge Dredd, the central character of the ultra-violent, subversive, and even satirical 2000 AD Comics. It was... well, not great, but amusing and even entertaining in its own way. They went back to the well for a 2011 remake, and fans held their breath. I hope they let it out shouting for joy, because this new Dredd is ultra-violent and subversive - not necessarily satirical, but considering how stripped-down the film is, it's clear something had to go. We join Joe Dredd at the start of an average day as a Judge in Mega-City One, a final bastion of teeming humanity on the edge of a nuclear wasteland. You know how it goes - get up, put on the armor and helmet, get the Lawgiver ready, chase down some thugs on your kickass bike, same old same old. Today's different, though. Dredd's been saddled with a psychic rookie named Anderson, and heads out with her to investigate a triple homicide at the mega-block known as Peach Trees. The mega-block is a miniature city in and of itself, 200 floors housing 80,000 people, and the drug queen Ma-Ma is in control of it all. She doesn't like Judges poking around in her business. So she locks the place down and calls for their heads. She thinks she's the law in Peach Trees. Guess who disagrees. Right from the start, seasoned readers and watchers can tell this is not the same Dredd as before. Unlike the previous film's predilection for overwrought bombast, bright splashy colors, and a leaning towards camp that didn't quite hit Flash Gordon levels but came pretty close at times, Dredd plays things closer to the vest. I'd say it's more subtle, but that seems a disingenuous word considering how violent the movie is. People are shot, stabbed, skinned alive, even set on fire - when it comes to 'inventive law enforcement', the Punisher and the Boondock Saints have nothing on Dredd. But under all of the bloodshed and gore is an undercurrent of reflectiveness, a dark mirror of our own modern society, steeped in the glorification of carnage and the acknowledgement that, when the corrupt will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals, there are times when you need someone of such deep-rooted and nearly fascistic righteousness to step in who is willing to stop and nothing to punish the aforementioned corrupt.
If you see this scowl, RUN. The sort of person who personifies this mentality is not bombastic. They don't like a lot of attention and they're not given to grand shows of power to demonstrate how awesome they are. Hence why Karl Urban is superior in the role of Judge Dredd to Stallone. Where Stallone shouted, Urban growls. Where Stallone emoted with his weird-ass contacts, Urban scowls. He moves with a purpose at all times. He appears long enough to do his job, brutal as it might be, then moves on. He keeps his own counsel and demonstrates that absolute adherence to the law does not mean unreasonability. And he never, ever takes his helmet off. This is, of course, the result of many galvanizing years on the mean streets of Mega-City One. In order to fully demonstrate the hidden depths of the character, rather than just tell you "there's a lot going on under that visor," the audience benefits from a surrogate. Enter Olivia Thirlby as Judge Anderson, the rookie with whom Dredd has been saddled. There are a lot of directions a writer can go with a character like this - a wide-eyed questioner, a cheerleader for the protagonist, and so on. Anderson, however, is not just there to be a pretty face. She's being tested, and not just by Dredd. It's a testament to Thirlby's acting chops that we feel, rather than hear about, her mix of respect and fear for Dredd, her uncertainty at the situation in front of her, and her determination to prove herself and not back down no matter what challenge presents itself. Even when things go bad for her, she retains a measure of control, never gives up hope, and never betrays her fears in full. She's one of the best female characters I've seen on screen in a while, especially in a movie based on a comic, and I'd pay money just to see another story with her in it.
She'd make a fantastic Samus Aran. The supporting cast, while decent, never really rises to the level of the two leads. Lena Headey is always good in whatever role she takes, from Queen Gorgo of Sparta to Cersei Lannister, but Ma-Ma has little in the way of range. She's tough and brutal, of course, but there's really nothing to her other than ambition and those overlying traits. The rest of her forces are pretty interchangeable mooks, and we only get bits and pieces from others to really show us what life in Mega-City One is like. Given that the film is only 95 minutes long, a little more fleshing out here and there would have been fine, without having too much negative impact on the pace of the action. Finally, as bleak as the setting is, I never got the feeling that Mega-City One was as oppressively crowded as it might seem given the numbers. But that's a minor quibble with an otherwise overwhelming success in going back to the well, and coming back with something that not only sustains, but delights. Stuff I Liked: There's very little fat on this movie; it moves at a great pace and is very goal-oriented. Its rather straightforward story lends itself well to character examination through action. The small scale of it and the lack of any overarching compulsion to save the world, or the girl, or the Law, makes it a much tighter and more substantive story than you get in most movies based on comic books. Even some Marvel ones. And the predominance of practical effects makes the action even more visceral and concrete. Stuff I Didn't Like: I don't like the idea of this being the only story I'll see with these actors as these characters. I would have liked to see a bit more backstory and characterization with Ma-Ma, even though what we get is perfectly adequate. Stuff I Loved: Let's just say "everything about Dredd and Anderson" and leave it at that. And considering how we're with them every step of the way in this story, there's plenty to love. Bottom Line: There are a lot of reasons to see Dredd. See it for the tight, intimate story. See it for the extremely well-shot and visceral action. See it to enjoy a rendition of Judge Dredd that feels authentic and real, not campy and bombastic. See it for a growly voice that puts Bale's Bat-voice to shame without being as ridiculously over-the-top.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Movie Review: Dredd (3D)

Movie Review: Dredd (3D) — Blue Ink Alchemy

In Mega-City One, the population is astronomical and crime is rampant. The people are represented by one group, and one group alone: the Judges. They locate and track crime, then prosecute and punish the offenders on the spot. They are the law. These are their stories. Going back to the well of an established intellectual property can be risky business. If it's a long-running story, die-hard fans will be frothing at the mouth not just to see this new take on their beloved worlds, but tear the storyteller to ribbons over anything they might get 'wrong'. So it was in the first movie based on Judge Dredd, the central character of the ultra-violent, subversive, and even satirical 2000 AD Comics. It was... well, not great, but amusing and even entertaining in its own way. They went back to the well for a 2011 remake, and fans held their breath. I hope they let it out shouting for joy, because this new Dredd is ultra-violent and subversive - not necessarily satirical, but considering how stripped-down the film is, it's clear something had to go. We join Joe Dredd at the start of an average day as a Judge in Mega-City One, a final bastion of teeming humanity on the edge of a nuclear wasteland. You know how it goes - get up, put on the armor and helmet, get the Lawgiver ready, chase down some thugs on your kickass bike, same old same old. Today's different, though. Dredd's been saddled with a psychic rookie named Anderson, and heads out with her to investigate a triple homicide at the mega-block known as Peach Trees. The mega-block is a miniature city in and of itself, 200 floors housing 80,000 people, and the drug queen Ma-Ma is in control of it all. She doesn't like Judges poking around in her business. So she locks the place down and calls for their heads. She thinks she's the law in Peach Trees. Guess who disagrees. Right from the start, seasoned readers and watchers can tell this is not the same Dredd as before. Unlike the previous film's predilection for overwrought bombast, bright splashy colors, and a leaning towards camp that didn't quite hit Flash Gordon levels but came pretty close at times, Dredd plays things closer to the vest. I'd say it's more subtle, but that seems a disingenuous word considering how violent the movie is. People are shot, stabbed, skinned alive, even set on fire - when it comes to 'inventive law enforcement', the Punisher and the Boondock Saints have nothing on Dredd. But under all of the bloodshed and gore is an undercurrent of reflectiveness, a dark mirror of our own modern society, steeped in the glorification of carnage and the acknowledgement that, when the corrupt will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals, there are times when you need someone of such deep-rooted and nearly fascistic righteousness to step in who is willing to stop and nothing to punish the aforementioned corrupt.
If you see this scowl, RUN. The sort of person who personifies this mentality is not bombastic. They don't like a lot of attention and they're not given to grand shows of power to demonstrate how awesome they are. Hence why Karl Urban is superior in the role of Judge Dredd to Stallone. Where Stallone shouted, Urban growls. Where Stallone emoted with his weird-ass contacts, Urban scowls. He moves with a purpose at all times. He appears long enough to do his job, brutal as it might be, then moves on. He keeps his own counsel and demonstrates that absolute adherence to the law does not mean unreasonability. And he never, ever takes his helmet off. This is, of course, the result of many galvanizing years on the mean streets of Mega-City One. In order to fully demonstrate the hidden depths of the character, rather than just tell you "there's a lot going on under that visor," the audience benefits from a surrogate. Enter Olivia Thirlby as Judge Anderson, the rookie with whom Dredd has been saddled. There are a lot of directions a writer can go with a character like this - a wide-eyed questioner, a cheerleader for the protagonist, and so on. Anderson, however, is not just there to be a pretty face. She's being tested, and not just by Dredd. It's a testament to Thirlby's acting chops that we feel, rather than hear about, her mix of respect and fear for Dredd, her uncertainty at the situation in front of her, and her determination to prove herself and not back down no matter what challenge presents itself. Even when things go bad for her, she retains a measure of control, never gives up hope, and never betrays her fears in full. She's one of the best female characters I've seen on screen in a while, especially in a movie based on a comic, and I'd pay money just to see another story with her in it.
She'd make a fantastic Samus Aran. The supporting cast, while decent, never really rises to the level of the two leads. Lena Headey is always good in whatever role she takes, from Queen Gorgo of Sparta to Cersei Lannister, but Ma-Ma has little in the way of range. She's tough and brutal, of course, but there's really nothing to her other than ambition and those overlying traits. The rest of her forces are pretty interchangeable mooks, and we only get bits and pieces from others to really show us what life in Mega-City One is like. Given that the film is only 95 minutes long, a little more fleshing out here and there would have been fine, without having too much negative impact on the pace of the action. Finally, as bleak as the setting is, I never got the feeling that Mega-City One was as oppressively crowded as it might seem given the numbers. But that's a minor quibble with an otherwise overwhelming success in going back to the well, and coming back with something that not only sustains, but delights. Stuff I Liked: There's very little fat on this movie; it moves at a great pace and is very goal-oriented. Its rather straightforward story lends itself well to character examination through action. The small scale of it and the lack of any overarching compulsion to save the world, or the girl, or the Law, makes it a much tighter and more substantive story than you get in most movies based on comic books. Even some Marvel ones. And the predominance of practical effects makes the action even more visceral and concrete. Stuff I Didn't Like: I don't like the idea of this being the only story I'll see with these actors as these characters. I would have liked to see a bit more backstory and characterization with Ma-Ma, even though what we get is perfectly adequate. Stuff I Loved: Let's just say "everything about Dredd and Anderson" and leave it at that. And considering how we're with them every step of the way in this story, there's plenty to love. Bottom Line: There are a lot of reasons to see Dredd. See it for the tight, intimate story. See it for the extremely well-shot and visceral action. See it to enjoy a rendition of Judge Dredd that feels authentic and real, not campy and bombastic. See it for a growly voice that puts Bale's Bat-voice to shame without being as ridiculously over-the-top.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy