Scope Issues

Scope Issues — Blue Ink Alchemy

Let's say we have an idea. You might have the nugget of a story, the core of a sweeping epic. How best do you bring the narrative to life? You could just start tossing words on the wall and see what sticks. However, the problem with shoulder-rushing your way into a new project without a plan is that it can quickly grow out of control. This is something known as 'scope creep' in circles of design firms. The best way to control it is to lay down a few ground rules. You give yourself a deadline, set parameters for the project, and make plans for what might happen if those parameters or that deadline get exceeded. It's the same for writing. Before you begin a story, one of the best things to do (in my opinion) is to lay down a projected word count. This is particularly important for shorter forms of fiction. If you want to write a short story of no more than 2000 words, only to finish writing and find that your story ended up being 2345 words in length, that's 345 words you need to cut. It helps maintain your focus on the end goal of the narrative and makes the editorial process easier. Let me turn the mike over to y'all. How do you control scope creep in your writing? Are there things you do before, during or after you write to keep things on the right track?

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! The Adventures of Robin Hood

IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! The Adventures of Robin Hood — Blue Ink Alchemy

[audio:http://www.blueinkalchemy.com/uploads/robinhood.mp3] Long before things like 3-D, CGI, THX and all those other wonderful acronyms came along, films were seen as extensions of the stage. Actors brought their best Shakespearean bombast, sets were designed as you would the sort of staging you'd have to quickly break down in the dark between acts, and directors framed and propelled their shots in a particular way. If 1938's classic swashbuckler The Adventures of Robin Hood has a flaw, that'd probably be the biggest one. It's also completely irrelevant, however, as this is the sort of movie where I can use the words 'classic swashbuckler' with an entirely straight face. King Richard I of England is on his way back from the Crusades when he gets tied up in Austria. Literally. Some guy named Leopold takes him prisoner. Richard's little brother John takes over and immediately starts oppressing the Saxon commoners, fattening the purses of the Norman land-holders to build up support for his bid for England's throne. The big thorn in John's side is the Saxon Robin, Earl of Locksley, who sees right through John's public decrees that the increased taxes are to pay Richard's ransom and vows to do everything in his power to stop the oppression and restore Richard to his throne. Sir Guy of Gisbourne, John's aide de camp, makes a vow of his own, which is to see Robin dangling from the end of a rope, especially when the lovely Maid Marian starts warming to Robin's roguish charm instead of falling for Guy's Norman sensibilities and position. There's plenty of sword fighting, swinging from ropes, and the sort of laughs men make by putting their hands on their hips and engaging their diaphragms. As I said, this is a classic swashbuckler. The classic part of that comes from the Oscar-winning score and art direction, as well as the acting. The story isn't all that original but it's being told with such adventurous abandon and honest charm that the premise never gets in the way of the fun. Sure, the sets look a bit two-dimensional in places, the lighting isn't always appropriate for the fictional time of day or night and there's more than enough men in green tights on display to give Mel Brooks something to parody, but in the case of this Robin Hood it's easy to brush all of that aside. The way in which this movie is acted, shot and presented is so rousing, colorful, lighthearted and satisfying that it could have been shot in the round against a black background and it'd still be entertaining.
"So, I heard you like venison..." Errol Flynn in particular possesses so much charisma and wit that it's obvious why he became the iconic Robin Hood for years. He takes a film with a setting, story and style that would normally mark it as charmingly camp, and elevates it to being just plain charming. He has chemistry with Olivia de Havilland, who manages to look glamorous even when she's wearing some pretty ridiculous headgear. By this point they'd already worked together on two pictures, one of which being the equally iconic Captain Blood which also paired Flynn with one Basil Rathbone. This is one of the earliest instances I can recall of seeing a main villain who keeps their hands clean while a top lieutenant does the dirty work with relish - a Big Bad and a Dragon, if you will. In Robin Hood, Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone demonstrate exactly how this dynamic should work. Rains' Prince John is affable, magnanimous, crafty and ruthless all at the same time, and while he never becomes physically involved in the goings-on, his presence is undeniable. Rathbone's Sir Guy, on the other hand, has little patience for posturing and politics, spending most of his time waiting for Prince John to tell him who he gets to stab next. Long before things like powered armor or automatic weapons were born, Basil Rathbone used tone, poise and expression to show audiences exactly what it means to be the biggest badass in the room.
Prince John's "WAT." face There's even a touch of a villainous Power Trio, with Melville Cooper's somewhat rotund and cowardly Sheriff of Nottingham revealing himself to be a pretty smart guy. However, the most interesting relationship is that between Robin and Sir Guy. These are two men who are completely confident in their own abilities, are vying for the affections of the same woman and serve two entirely different masters. Underneath the story stuff, however, is the chemistry between Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone. It's particularly telling in their swordplay, which segues me into the 'swashbuckling' portion of this 'classic swashbuckler.' The swordfights that happen in Robin Hood are fun to watch, with high energy and great music underscoring the tension. The movements are large and deliberate, swords clash against one another and the hero and villain exchange blows on spiral stairs, or wander out of shot for their shadows to do the dueling. This is the textbook example of well-choreographed cinematic swordplay, even if trying to engage someone in a sword fight in real life using these techniques would quickly get one skewered. It's the kind of swordplay that makes films like the aforementioned Captain Blood, 1940's The Sea Hawk and The Princess Bride such swashbuckling classics - and those are good examples of how these fights are staged, a method sometimes referred to as Flynning. Guess why.
"But enough talk! Have at you!" This isn't to say that it looks terribly fake. Outside of the occasional set or lighting error, Robin Hood looks great all around. While the costuming's probably not terribly historically accurate, it's quite sumptuous and atmospheric, and being shot in Technicolor, everything's got a bit of a bright sheen on it. And while the aforementioned sword fights aren't necessarily realistic, they don't look bad at all, either. Hell, Basil Rathbone was an accomplished fencer as well as a great actor, and he used his skill to make sure he let Errol Flynn have a convincing win! Whups, sorry, should've put a spoiler alert on that one. Anyway, The Adventures of Robin Hood is a classic that might show its age in places, but has definitely aged gracefully. It's exciting and fun to watch without being dumb or terribly formulaic, which is more than can be said for a lot of films being made some 70 years later. The cast is charming, the action is well done and the story, while familiar, is told with enough touches of freshness that it's still interesting after repeated viewings. I say give it a look. If you have already seen it, I have to ask this one question: Where the hell did the phrase "lusty infant" come from? Josh Loomis can't always make it to the local megaplex, and thus must turn to alternative forms of cinematic entertainment. There might not be overpriced soda pop & over-buttered popcorn, and it's unclear if this week's film came in the mail or was delivered via the dark & mysterious tubes of the Internet. Only one thing is certain... IT CAME FROM NETFLIX.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Book Review: Lamb

Book Review: Lamb — Blue Ink Alchemy

The Gospels in most standard Bibles - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - talk a great deal about the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But there are about thirty years of his life missing from those narratives. A question asked by many (including myself) is: what happened during those thirty years? How did they help shape the Son of God's ministry? Christopher Moore, an author and humorist I'd rank with Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett, attempts to answer that question with Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal. Levi bar Adelphus, who is called Biff, is raised from the dead by the archangel Raziel to write a new Gospel. Kept under house arrest - or rather hotel arrest, as they're staying at a Hyatt in St. Louis - until he finishes, Biff sets his mind on the task of recounting his journeys with his best friend, Yeshua bar Jehovah of Nazareth. Josh & Biff both work for Biff's father as boys, and take turns courting the irrepressible Mary of Magdala - Maggie, for short. When an angel appears to Josh and tells him he needs to find his destiny, the two embark on a journey across the continent in search of answers. In addition to making an attempt at shedding light on one of the most influential men in history, Lamb also takes a fascinating look at some of the other faiths and philosophies in the world, such as the teachings of Confucius, the tenants of Buddhism and some of Hinduism's darker sides. There are a pile of references to everything from the world being round to evolution, and a great deal of it is done with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I don't know if I've ever even heard of an elephant doing yoga before I read this book. This is a very funny book. If you're reading it in public, especially in a library or a study hall, you are very likely to disturb others. I lost track of the number of times I burst out laughing reading it. As I said, Christopher Moore's work is of a high caliber of satire and humor. This was my first time reading one of his books, and I know I'll be reading more after this. I also know I'll be reading Lamb again because, as a Christian, I'll admit I got a great deal out of it. I know there are people out there who consider any reference to Christ in literature outside of the Bible to be blasphemous or false or something like that. They might think that portraying Him in any way other than fearful reverence dilutes the power of His message. Christopher Moore proves thoroughly and completely that this is not the case. The notion is that a divine and omnipotent intelligence alien to our own responsible for the creation of the universe incarnated as a normal human child to experience the range and depth of the human experience without the bias of an omniscient point of view. Lamb shows the confusion, determination, delight and humanity of Joshua, treating him with respect throughout the work. His desire for understanding and compassion is balanced very well against Biff, who acts as a sarcastic and realist foil for the Messiah. It could be said that Biff shows us what it's really like to have a "personal relationship" with Christ, in that sometimes Biff gets smacked a bit hard, and sometimes Biff yells at Josh for one reason or another. It's a friendship, a very deep and human bond, and I think this review is going a bit more serious than I intended so here's a picture of a bunny. Apparently Josh liked bunnies. Anyway, Lamb is a great book, on many levels. It's funny, interesting, powerful and tender. It never disrespects its source material, has a lot of good research behind it and just tries to answer a few questions that might nag anybody who looks on the life of Christ with their brain engaged. Questions like "What was Jesus like as a young man?" and "What if Jesus knew kung fu?"

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! The Adventures of Robin Hood

IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! The Adventures of Robin Hood — Blue Ink Alchemy

[EDIT: Audio will come later this evening. My lunch break kinda sucked.] Long before things like 3-D, CGI, THX and all those other wonderful acronyms came along, films were seen as extensions of the stage. Actors brought their best Shakespearean bombast, sets were designed as you would the sort of staging you'd have to quickly break down in the dark between acts, and directors framed and propelled their shots in a particular way. If 1938's classic swashbuckler The Adventures of Robin Hood has a flaw, that'd probably be the biggest one. It's also completely irrelevant, however, as this is the sort of movie where I can use the words 'classic swashbuckler' with an entirely straight face. King Richard I of England is on his way back from the Crusades when he gets tied up in Austria. Literally. Some guy named Leopold takes him prisoner. Richard's little brother John takes over and immediately starts oppressing the Saxon commoners, fattening the purses of the Norman land-holders to build up support for his bid for England's throne. The big thorn in John's side is the Saxon Robin, Earl of Locksley, who sees right through John's public decrees that the increased taxes are to pay Richard's ransom and vows to do everything in his power to stop the oppression and restore Richard to his throne. Sir Guy of Gisbourne, John's aide de camp, makes a vow of his own, which is to see Robin dangling from the end of a rope, especially when the lovely Maid Marian starts warming to Robin's roguish charm instead of falling for Guy's Norman sensibilities and position. There's plenty of sword fighting, swinging from ropes, and the sort of laughs men make by putting their hands on their hips and engaging their diaphragms. As I said, this is a classic swashbuckler. The classic part of that comes from the Oscar-winning score and art direction, as well as the acting. The story isn't all that original but it's being told with such adventurous abandon and honest charm that the premise never gets in the way of the fun. Sure, the sets look a bit two-dimensional in places, the lighting isn't always appropriate for the fictional time of day or night and there's more than enough men in green tights on display to give Mel Brooks something to parody, but in the case of this Robin Hood it's easy to brush all of that aside. The way in which this movie is acted, shot and presented is so rousing, colorful, lighthearted and satisfying that it could have been shot in the round against a black background and it'd still be entertaining.
"So, I heard you like venison..." Errol Flynn in particular possesses so much charisma and wit that it's obvious why he became the iconic Robin Hood for years. He takes a film with a setting, story and style that would normally mark it as charmingly camp, and elevates it to being just plain charming. He has chemistry with Olivia de Havilland, who manages to look glamorous even when she's wearing some pretty ridiculous headgear. By this point they'd already worked together on two pictures, one of which being the equally iconic Captain Blood which also paired Flynn with one Basil Rathbone. This is one of the earliest instances I can recall of seeing a main villain who keeps their hands clean while a top lieutenant does the dirty work with relish - a Big Bad and a Dragon, if you will. In Robin Hood, Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone demonstrate exactly how this dynamic should work. Rains' Prince John is affable, magnanimous, crafty and ruthless all at the same time, and while he never becomes physically involved in the goings-on, his presence is undeniable. Rathbone's Sir Guy, on the other hand, has little patience for posturing and politics, spending most of his time waiting for Prince John to tell him who he gets to stab next. Long before things like powered armor or automatic weapons were born, Basil Rathbone used tone, poise and expression to show audiences exactly what it means to be the biggest badass in the room.
Prince John's "WAT." face There's even a touch of a villainous Power Trio, with Melville Cooper's somewhat rotund and cowardly Sheriff of Nottingham revealing himself to be a pretty smart guy. However, the most interesting relationship is that between Robin and Sir Guy. These are two men who are completely confident in their own abilities, are vying for the affections of the same woman and serve two entirely different masters. Underneath the story stuff, however, is the chemistry between Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone. It's particularly telling in their swordplay, which segues me into the 'swashbuckling' portion of this 'classic swashbuckler.' The swordfights that happen in Robin Hood are fun to watch, with high energy and great music underscoring the tension. The movements are large and deliberate, swords clash against one another and the hero and villain exchange blows on spiral stairs, or wander out of shot for their shadows to do the dueling. This is the textbook example of well-choreographed cinematic swordplay, even if trying to engage someone in a sword fight in real life using these techniques would quickly get one skewered. It's the kind of swordplay that makes films like the aforementioned Captain Blood, 1940's The Sea Hawk and The Princess Bride such swashbuckling classics - and those are good examples of how these fights are staged, a method sometimes referred to as Flynning. Guess why.
"But enough talk! Have at you!" This isn't to say that it looks terribly fake. Outside of the occasional set or lighting error, Robin Hood looks great all around. While the costuming's probably not terribly historically accurate, it's quite sumptuous and atmospheric, and being shot in Technicolor, everything's got a bit of a bright sheen on it. And while the aforementioned sword fights aren't necessarily realistic, they don't look bad at all, either. Hell, Basil Rathbone was an accomplished fencer as well as a great actor, and he used his skill to make sure he let Errol Flynn have a convincing win! Whups, sorry, should've put a spoiler alert on that one. Anyway, The Adventures of Robin Hood is a classic that might show its age in places, but has definitely aged gracefully. It's exciting and fun to watch without being dumb or terribly formulaic, which is more than can be said for a lot of films being made some 70 years later. The cast is charming, the action is well done and the story, while familiar, is told with enough touches of freshness that it's still interesting after repeated viewings. I say give it a look. If you have already seen it, I have to ask this one question: Where the hell did the phrase "lusty infant" come from? Josh Loomis can't always make it to the local megaplex, and thus must turn to alternative forms of cinematic entertainment. There might not be overpriced soda pop & over-buttered popcorn, and it's unclear if this week's film came in the mail or was delivered via the dark & mysterious tubes of the Internet. Only one thing is certain... IT CAME FROM NETFLIX.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! The Adventures of Robin Hood

IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! The Adventures of Robin Hood — Blue Ink Alchemy

[EDIT: Audio will come later this evening. My lunch break kinda sucked.] Long before things like 3-D, CGI, THX and all those other wonderful acronyms came along, films were seen as extensions of the stage. Actors brought their best Shakespearean bombast, sets were designed as you would the sort of staging you'd have to quickly break down in the dark between acts, and directors framed and propelled their shots in a particular way. If 1938's classic swashbuckler The Adventures of Robin Hood has a flaw, that'd probably be the biggest one. It's also completely irrelevant, however, as this is the sort of movie where I can use the words 'classic swashbuckler' with an entirely straight face. King Richard I of England is on his way back from the Crusades when he gets tied up in Austria. Literally. Some guy named Leopold takes him prisoner. Richard's little brother John takes over and immediately starts oppressing the Saxon commoners, fattening the purses of the Norman land-holders to build up support for his bid for England's throne. The big thorn in John's side is the Saxon Robin, Earl of Locksley, who sees right through John's public decrees that the increased taxes are to pay Richard's ransom and vows to do everything in his power to stop the oppression and restore Richard to his throne. Sir Guy of Gisbourne, John's aide de camp, makes a vow of his own, which is to see Robin dangling from the end of a rope, especially when the lovely Maid Marian starts warming to Robin's roguish charm instead of falling for Guy's Norman sensibilities and position. There's plenty of sword fighting, swinging from ropes, and the sort of laughs men make by putting their hands on their hips and engaging their diaphragms. As I said, this is a classic swashbuckler. The classic part of that comes from the Oscar-winning score and art direction, as well as the acting. The story isn't all that original but it's being told with such adventurous abandon and honest charm that the premise never gets in the way of the fun. Sure, the sets look a bit two-dimensional in places, the lighting isn't always appropriate for the fictional time of day or night and there's more than enough men in green tights on display to give Mel Brooks something to parody, but in the case of this Robin Hood it's easy to brush all of that aside. The way in which this movie is acted, shot and presented is so rousing, colorful, lighthearted and satisfying that it could have been shot in the round against a black background and it'd still be entertaining.
"So, I heard you like venison..." Errol Flynn in particular possesses so much charisma and wit that it's obvious why he became the iconic Robin Hood for years. He takes a film with a setting, story and style that would normally mark it as charmingly camp, and elevates it to being just plain charming. He has chemistry with Olivia de Havilland, who manages to look glamorous even when she's wearing some pretty ridiculous headgear. By this point they'd already worked together on two pictures, one of which being the equally iconic Captain Blood which also paired Flynn with one Basil Rathbone. This is one of the earliest instances I can recall of seeing a main villain who keeps their hands clean while a top lieutenant does the dirty work with relish - a Big Bad and a Dragon, if you will. In Robin Hood, Claude Rains and Basil Rathbone demonstrate exactly how this dynamic should work. Rains' Prince John is affable, magnanimous, crafty and ruthless all at the same time, and while he never becomes physically involved in the goings-on, his presence is undeniable. Rathbone's Sir Guy, on the other hand, has little patience for posturing and politics, spending most of his time waiting for Prince John to tell him who he gets to stab next. Long before things like powered armor or automatic weapons were born, Basil Rathbone used tone, poise and expression to show audiences exactly what it means to be the biggest badass in the room.
Prince John's "WAT." face There's even a touch of a villainous Power Trio, with Melville Cooper's somewhat rotund and cowardly Sheriff of Nottingham revealing himself to be a pretty smart guy. However, the most interesting relationship is that between Robin and Sir Guy. These are two men who are completely confident in their own abilities, are vying for the affections of the same woman and serve two entirely different masters. Underneath the story stuff, however, is the chemistry between Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone. It's particularly telling in their swordplay, which segues me into the 'swashbuckling' portion of this 'classic swashbuckler.' The swordfights that happen in Robin Hood are fun to watch, with high energy and great music underscoring the tension. The movements are large and deliberate, swords clash against one another and the hero and villain exchange blows on spiral stairs, or wander out of shot for their shadows to do the dueling. This is the textbook example of well-choreographed cinematic swordplay, even if trying to engage someone in a sword fight in real life using these techniques would quickly get one skewered. It's the kind of swordplay that makes films like the aforementioned Captain Blood, 1940's The Sea Hawk and The Princess Bride such swashbuckling classics - and those are good examples of how these fights are staged, a method sometimes referred to as Flynning. Guess why.
"But enough talk! Have at you!" This isn't to say that it looks terribly fake. Outside of the occasional set or lighting error, Robin Hood looks great all around. While the costuming's probably not terribly historically accurate, it's quite sumptuous and atmospheric, and being shot in Technicolor, everything's got a bit of a bright sheen on it. And while the aforementioned sword fights aren't necessarily realistic, they don't look bad at all, either. Hell, Basil Rathbone was an accomplished fencer as well as a great actor, and he used his skill to make sure he let Errol Flynn have a convincing win! Whups, sorry, should've put a spoiler alert on that one. Anyway, The Adventures of Robin Hood is a classic that might show its age in places, but has definitely aged gracefully. It's exciting and fun to watch without being dumb or terribly formulaic, which is more than can be said for a lot of films being made some 70 years later. The cast is charming, the action is well done and the story, while familiar, is told with enough touches of freshness that it's still interesting after repeated viewings. I say give it a look. If you have already seen it, I have to ask this one question: Where the hell did the phrase "lusty infant" come from? Josh Loomis can't always make it to the local megaplex, and thus must turn to alternative forms of cinematic entertainment. There might not be overpriced soda pop & over-buttered popcorn, and it's unclear if this week's film came in the mail or was delivered via the dark & mysterious tubes of the Internet. Only one thing is certain... IT CAME FROM NETFLIX.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Need Some Help Here!

Need Some Help Here! — Blue Ink Alchemy

This time next week, I will be in Mystic, Connecticut for a family reunion. That means I might not have a lot of time for blogging, if I have any at all. So, I'm running up the white flag and asking for a bit of aid in keeping the daily delivery of blog-flavored goodness. Got something you want to say about storytelling in general? Did the story of a particular film or game piss you off, earning a place in your personal "How not to tell a tale" pantheon? Hell, did something I do piss you off? What makes good speculative fiction? Why do you love/hate/feel indifferent towards/want to hump IT CAME FROM NETFLIX! every week when it shows up? Toss ideas at me in the comments, if you have any. I'm looking for three gems for next weekend. I've got Friday covered, of course. Back to work for me. Head going under water. Glub, glub, glub.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

The Advantages of Steam

The Advantages of Steam — Blue Ink Alchemy

Summer is here. To celebrate, Steam is having a mind-blowingly brilliant sale. They're offering discounts on many of their packages - titles from publishers like Valve, Square Enix, Atari, Rockstar, etc. But it doesn't stop there. Every 24 hours or so, they slash the prices on a few titles. So while normally a game that may interest you may be a bit on the pricey side, if you can catch it during this sale you'll save a ton of cash. But why spend money on games at all? I mean, sure, you can pick up Torchlight for $5 and have Diablo-flavored fun with fresh graphics and an adorable animal sidekick while you're waiting for Diablo III to emerge from Blizzard, but why do it through Steam instead of GameStop, for example? I'm glad you asked.

W+M1

This has less to do with Steam specifically than it does with PC gaming in general, but for me, the control scheme of keyboard & mouse is superior than those for consoles. By this point, yes, I've gotten used to moving one thumb to push my digital avatar forward while the other thumb lets me look around. But when I return to a game like World of Warcraft and have more than a couple buttons at my disposal, the result is actually more immersive and has a great deal of potential for flexibility. Take Team Fortress 2, for example. On the X-box, one of your precious few controller buttons calls for a medic, another does a taunt. You can hook up a headset to use voice chat, but unless you want your team hearing what you're yelling at your spouse, you'll need to move your hand from the controller to flick the mute switch. With the keyboard attached to your PC, you have a lot more options for communication. Many more voice commands are available for your character, and if those aren't enough, the voice chat option operates with push-to-talk functionality, rather than being on all the time. And all of these are at the fingertips of one hand, while the other controls your viewpoint, combat commands (shootin', etc) and weapon selection. It just makes more sense to me, but then again, I'm a crotchety old man set in my ways.

What is this DLC you speak of?

Another big difference is that not every developer wants to nickel & dime people for DLC. To Valve, DLC is called 'updates'. None of the new maps, weapons or headgear available to players of Team Fortress 2 on the PC are accessible on the 360, because Valve doesn't charge money for them, and they aren't going to. Those games that do charge for DLC - Borderlands for instance - can do so via Steam if they choose, but it's not a requirement. This again points to Steam being a more flexible and open-ended engine for content delivery than, say, X-Box Live.

Community Service

It could just be a matter of perception, but based on my experience, the community around Steam seems more constructive and geared towards fun than that of X-Box Live. There's nothing wrong with a spirit of competition, but getting yelled at by twelve-year-olds who have nothing better to do than polish their console shooting techniques in preparation for the next Halo title isn't exactly my idea of a good time. You'll get the occasional loudmouthed loser on Steam, as well, but at least the admins of those servers can kick said loudmouths with a quick keyboard command. Good luck doing that with a console.

No Motion Controls

I think it's going to be a long, long time before we see anything like Garry's Mod hit consoles while developers are so hung up on things like motion controls and 3D. To me, gameplay innovation should about what can be done with the games themselves, not how one sees or controls them. Does nobody else remember the Virtual Boy? Am I the only one who thinks that adding extraneous peripherals to gaming consoles is a path leading to a dead end in development? I guess while everybody's flailing around their living rooms trying to find ways to make that fun and unembarrassed, I'll be playing with rag dolls in a physics engine. I've even had a couple of series ideas. Not comedy, though. Das Bo Schitt has that covered. So yes. When I'm not writing, watching movies with my wife or playing World of Warcraft with her, I'll be Steaming things up. Unless something exclusive to the consoles hits, like War for Cybertron. I mean, come on - from what I understand, somebody finally brought back what made the Transformers awesome in the first place.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy