June 13, 2010
On Global Warming
I've been meaning to do a post like this for a while...
When people talk about global warming, the legitimacy of the science backing it, etc., they're talking about several different issues and questions all rolled into one. They are these:
1) There are difficulties with temperature measurements. We don't have the luxury of being able to directly measure temperatures from a hundred years ago, or fifty years ago. (Or even five minutes ago, though we do a pretty good job of direct observation these days, so our recent records can be taken as essentially accurate.) Early temperature records were often taken inconsistently, with poor-quality instruments, over only a fraction of the area we might be interested in. Beyond that, we're forced to rely on proxies, such as ice cores and tree-ring data, that don't correlate all that well with actual temperatures.
2) On top of that, the data sets that we've been using for global warming analysis have been normalized in processes that are, well, shall we say not entirely transparent and well-documented? Now, this isn't necessarily instant evidence that they were falsified by crazed global warming activists who want to seize control of all industrial activity (they won't show up for a few sections!) But it does limit the usefulness of those data sets when it comes to analyzing the climate. We're studying a very complex system with relatively poor tools. We know that there are cycles that we only poorly understand, and we suspect that there are additional cycles that we don't understand at all (and we are absolutely sure that there's one big ice age-temperate cycle that we can't even describe properly). Data that's been normalized, especially data that's been normalized by hand, reduces our ability to accommodate questions regarding these cycles. Oh, we need to take into account El Nino-based warming? But do we need to apply that correction across the board, or have some of our observations already been Nino-corrected? Double-correcting is as bad as ignoring it; worse, because then we may think we have reached a solid conclusion when we have not.
3) There are limits to the resolution and utility of computer modeling of a complex system. I'm regularly astounded by encounters with individuals who believe that the computer models are modeling actual, physical processes that are understood in their entirety by the scientists creating the model; in short, they don't understand the difference between the sort of observation a physicist might make in a lab, and the output of a statistical model that takes topographical and temperature data as inputs to approximate weather processes that we can't model in the micro sense, much less the macro sense. In this sense, the models' failure to correctly model the relative temperature stability of the last decade should at least be troubling. Yes, okay, I'm willing to grant that the last decade might be an anomaly in the context of a gradual increase of temperature, but it's not like the models were predicting the anomaly; even now they can't really account for why the expected warming didn't happen, without applying a pretty big fudge factor to account for it without actually explaining it. To the extent that reality doesn't conform to your model, that suggests your model is faulty!
4) On top of that, the models that predict catastrophic warming in the next century do so mostly through the assumption of certain positive feedback loops (event A promotes B, B promotes A, A promotes more of B, etc.) The problem that you run into here is that positive feedback loops don't tend to result in broadly stable systems; if warming tended to suddenly result in a lot more warming, we have to explain why things haven't spiraled into disaster areas when those events have occurred in the past. (Yes, we've been warmer in the past. One can argue that we haven't had as much atmospheric CO2 in the past to go with that warmth, but the CO2 isn't generally involved in the feedback loop. Rate of change arguments don't really have a lot to do with this either - those have more to deal with habitat than climate.)
5) The computer models use pretty loose statistical standards of evidence (mostly 90% confidence levels). Granted that it's not like they can fire up their office mini-Gaea to run experiments. But if you move the error bars up to 95% or so, your error bars get big enough to include the null hypothesis (i.e. they suggest but don't prove warming). Keep in mind that those error bars have nothing to do with the previous sections - they reflect the chance that, if the underlying models are sound, that the statistical analysis is just flat wrong.
6) CO2 emissions can't be limited by country; they call it "global" warming for a reason. Emissions which occur in China or India have the same effect as emissions from your backyard. Thus, taking action country by country to limit emissions is worthless - to the extent that industry can relocate to regions without a CO2-emission legal limit, it does. This has certainly been the experience of Europe under the Kyoto treaty. In fact, arguably it could even make the problem worse, if the industry that relocates is then powered by less-efficient hydrocarbon-burning plants, characteristic of developing nations. (Does nobody remember the fuss with Beijing, smog, and the '08 Olympics?)
7) The chances of getting India or China to agree to an international system of emissions control is significantly less than zero. Well, it's no surprise. India and China have tremendous populations still mired in subsistence farming; these populations need access to energy and industrial goods in order to modernize. For them, the worst-case scenarios presented by global warming activists aren't nearly bad as "just do what you're doing now for the next 50 years". (Subsistence farming -sucks-!) Should we come up with a magic-bullet solution, that allows us to generate the power we need without setting fire to a hydrocarbon, doubtless they will agree to go along (probably asking for significant subsidies to help them make the conversion, but meh.)
8) It's not a magic bullet, but we do have a method of producing significant electric power without burning hydrocarbons; it's called nuclear fission. It works with current technology, it has a good safety record (especially if you discount Russian engineering design, and if you compare it to the radioactive emissions caused by, say, coal plants). France has embraced nuclear fission as a source of the majority of its domestic electricity and had no problems for decades. The failure of global warming activists to embrace nuclear energy is, well... illustrative, and has a lot to say about the objectives of a lot of those who fall under that umbrella.
ALL of these segments are independent of each other, more or less. We could perfectly resolve the political situations, but if the original data is sufficiently crappy, so too the science based on it. The data could be perfect, but fed into statistical models that just aren't up to the modeling job. The models could be predicting today perfectly, but the positive feedback mechanisms that they've posited for the future might simply not work that way. The science could be 100% flawless, but good luck convincing a Chinese peasant that because of that, his family should starve in the next famine.
Sorry that I went on a bit of a political/scientific jag there. Holiday from Haruhi DVD subtitle formatting (damn you, Minoru Shiraishi!)
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
01:29 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1255 words, total size 8 kb.
1
Great post! A couple questions/comments...
To start, a general comment on the first five points collectively- I may be mistaken, but your comments give me the impression that you believe that anomalous temperatures in the last century are the primary, or even sole, piece of evidence for climate change. But even if we couldn't measure modern temperatures as all, we would have cause to be concerned-
Firstly, Human activity has increased the concentration of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. That's pretty straightforward to measure and I don't think anyone disputes that.
Secondly, Greenhouse gas concentrations change the radiation balance of the Earth, which in turn changes the surface temperature of the Earth. This is pretty basic physics which has been understood for over a century- you can look at the absorption spectrum of these gases and see that they transmit visible light but absorb the kind of infra-red radiation given off by the surface of the earth.
So it's pretty well understood that some level of global warming should occur, and in fact was predicted as early 1896. It's only in the past couple of decades that the effect has been strong enough for us to directly measure- but those measurements should be taken as confirmation of the predictions of physics and not as our first indicator of a problem.
That's not to say that the measurements aren't importantly- firstly, it's good to have further evidence in support of that theory, if the temperature record were in stark contrast to what we'd predict we'd want to reevaluate the above argument to see what we might be missing. Also, it's important to understand feedback mechanisms- if the direct effect described above were all that was happening, we'd expect the effect to be much smaller than we are seeing, and measuring temperature changes helps us understand these mechanisms.
On to some of the individual points-
1,2- You bring up some excellent points about the difficulties involved in taking accurate temperature readings, not much to add here.
3- Again, good points about difficulties in computer simulations. But you say that you are concerned that we haven't been able to predict future global temperatures accurately, while I would say there are some very good reasons to think that it would be impossible to do so. There are completely unpredictable events which have major forcing effects on the global temperature. For a dramatic example, see if you can find a plot of the temperature record around the end of the 19th century. There is a pronounced dip around 1883 when Krakatoa exploded- the temperature was depressed for a good four years following this event. Without knowledge of these and other forcing effects I don't think it's possible to predict global temperatures, at least not on a year by year basis- the best one can do is check after the fact whether the temperature record is consistent with one's model. That's not nearly as strong evidence in favor of a model as prediction would be, but I think it's the best we can do.
4- You argue here that systems with positive feedback loops are generally unstable, but that is not, in fact, correct. Certainly systems with very strong feedback loops can be unstable, but that's not a general quality of feedback. Consider a simple system where a temperature of x results in a forcing of f*x. The feedback effect of this term will be of order f^2*x, and higher order terms will give the series x*(1+f+f^2+f^3...). Now for f greater than or equal to 1 this gives the kind of runaway effect you describe, but in general the total effect can be any arbitrary multiplier- for example if every degree change resulted in another half degree, the total effect would be to double the size of any change. Certainly there is no reason to conclude from positive feedback effects that things will spiral out of control. I think the concern is more that we would have difficulty living outside of a very narrow temperature band- if feedback effects result in the temperature changing a couple of degrees, we'd have problems coping, not because it would continue to compound but just because that would be enough.
5- I don't think any computer simulation can prove global warming with 100% confidence. But don't you think 90% confidence would be plenty to worry over? If the Earth had a 90% chance of being hit by a meteorite that would change the climate several degrees I think it would be well past the time to be concerned.
6,7- Largely in agreement with you about the political challenges ahead.
8- I'm very much pro nuclear power. Even if we can develop cleaner energy sources down the road, I can't imagine that happening quickly and we need something during the transition period. I'm as upset as you are that it hasn't been embraced.
Posted by: Dudest at June 16, 2010 08:25 PM (/OnPc)
2
Well, keep in mind that "greenhouse gases" and "CO2" are not equivalent. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there are others, and in fact other gases have a much stronger greenhouse effect (relative to their concentration in the atmosphere) than CO2 does. Methane, for example, has a very strong greenhouse effect associated with it; it doesn't get a lot of play because it has a very low concentration to start with, and most of that comes from the intestinal tracts of agricultural livestock. (Granted that people talk about released methane deposits from the sea floor as a possible global-warming related problem...)
The real kicker, though, is that numero uno when it comes to greenhouse effect is water vapor. But water vapor's inherently tied up with weather; the atmospheric content of water vapor is not a phenomenon that can be measured or understood properly except in the context of weather, and not climate-average weather but is-it-raining-tomorrow weather at that. Which means that it's not modeled well, because the models can only approximate the effects of weather, not actually model it.
But that's potentially huge, and yeah, it could go either way - if climate warming resulted in an increased amount of water vapor in the air, that would suggest a positive feedback event. But if the increased water vapor caused increased cloud formation, that would tend to increase atmospheric reflection, affect the albedo, and become a negative feedback event. And... you see how it rapidly becomes complicated.
Honestly, the idea that a couple of degrees of warming would inherently cause problems is bunk. Too much heat is bad in an "oh god it's hot, I want shade and a cool drink" way, but it's not the civilization-killer the way another ice age would be. It's something we could cope with until such a point as better options than setting fire to a petrochemical become available...
Your comment regarding statistical probability is a little odd. No computer simulation could prove global warming to 100%, simply because of the uncertainties present elsewhere in the data. The 90% means that, if everything else is accurate (i.e. if the temperature measurements are accurate, nothing's being double-accounted for, and the models are 100% accurate representations of reality), there's still a 10% chance that the model's results have nothing to do with reality. For that sort of thing, you generally DO want a 95% statistical chance or better; certainly you'd demand it from the FDA or from an engineer building a bridge.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at June 16, 2010 09:04 PM (pWQz4)
3
I certainly hadn't meant to imply that CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, and I'd agree that the effects of water vapor are incredibly important. Another good example of the kinds of input that are impossible to predict ahead of time, making predictions on a year by year basis impossible. As you say, the final effect of increased greenhouse emissions depends in a detailed way upon the feedback mechanisms.
I think you are dramatically underestimating how bad more than a couple degrees change would be for much of the world. My understanding is that a four degree change would result in sea levels rising by about half a meter, which is enough to displace about 1.5 million people. I'd also be concerned about the effects on our food supply.
We're agreed that computer simulations estimates can only be accurate up to the degree that the assumptions built into them can be trusted. But why assume that any flaws in the assumptions mean it overestimate the risk of climate change, when it is equally likely that any existing flaws cause us to underestimate risks? Uncertainty just makes things more variable- it certainly doesn't make them any safer.
As for how much risk we should tolerate, I have to say I find your reasoning odd as well. The accuracy we expect from the FDA and bridge builders stems from how much risk we are willing to tolerate- we will not accept a 5% risk that a drug is unsafe, or that a bridge will fall down during use. We would never say that a drug must be shown to be more than 95% fatal before we would ban it, or that a building must be shown to be more than 95% likely to collapse before we would condemn it. So why would we say that not only is 5% risk of global warming not enough to take action, as we would with an unsafe drug or building, but that even a 90% risk is not enough, and that we must wait until we have shown with over 95% certainty that we are taking a risky action before we become concerned?
Posted by: Dudest at June 16, 2010 09:43 PM (/OnPc)
4
You're still conflating statistical certainty with probability. The 90% isn't "this has a 90% chance of happening". It's "there's a 10% that even if we're totally correct in our methodology, understanding of climate, data handling techniques, etc., that we're still completely wrong - that the data set that we have is insufficient to the point where it doesn't say anything about climate change at all."
It's not done at 90% because we're incapable of running the calculations at 95% statistical probability. It's because the error bars at 95% are so large that they include the null hypothesis. (Remember, when you're dealing with a statistical model of an event of unknown probability, you're just saying "the mean is somewhere within the error bars"; you're NOT saying "it's smack dab where I think it is with a normal distribution of chance either way", and it's a common misconception to assume that.)
Over 100 years, possibly displacing a million people isn't of a whole lot of consequence. That's maybe a quarter Afghanistan or half a Sudan. I mean, not great, to be sure, but we regularly tolerate refugee-producing events of a similar scale, but which would be vastly easier to solve. If you're worried about a refugee problem, spending money on carbon is the least efficient way to go about it. (The same goes for third-world health outcomes.)
Food supply? We've got large amounts of land which are currently of only marginal value as agricultural land, because it's too cold; a few degrees of warming turns big swathes of the north US, south Canada, and endless miles of Siberia into arable land. For there to be a serious issue with food supply, there would have to be widespread dessication events of the type which alarmists are fond of alluding to, but which the scientists are not predicting (their climate models just don't include those details, after all). Sure, there's some costs involved in repurposing various types of agricultural land, but in a world of agri-subsidy, the overall risk is pretty minimal.
A lot of the above arguments aren't indictments of the motives of the people involved in advocating for carbon emission controls. The models aren't deficient because of a conspiracy to lie about the results of the models; they're deficient because what they're trying to do is
really hard. But it's still possible that they can be, simultaneously, the result of the best science available to us, and not sufficient to prove the case. I'd go further than that, actually. They're definitely not sufficient to prove the case.
That said, the argument about nuclear is pretty much a direct indictment of the motives of those advocates. You're correct that we know enough that there should be some concern. We have a potential solution, or at least something that we can do that would both help ameliorate the problem, and can be justified on grounds having nothing to do with climate change. But as we agree on this point, I won't belabor it.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at June 17, 2010 03:46 AM (mRjOr)
5
"conflating statistical certainty with probability"- I don't think I am, but perhaps I'm drawing an inference from what you stated that you didn't intend. You've stated several times that if the error bars were extended to allow a 95% confidence level that they would include the null hypothesis that climate change was not occurring- and I inferred from this that at a 90% confidence level the studies you are considering do not have this possibility within their confidence range. On the other hand if those models predict climate change with less than 100% probability we have to further discount that rate by 10% to account for the chance that we have a false positive, the issue of statistical certainty you brought up. Could you clarify whether you in fact meant for the possibility of no climate change to fall within the 90% confidence interval, because I'm getting a different impression from your later comments than I did from your initial comments.
I still think you are being incredibly blase about the risks involved in climate change. We're basically engaging in reckless geoengineering by changing the chemical concentrations in our atmosphere, and our best guess as to the consequences is that they will be dangerous to us. If we are highly uncertain about the consequences, that should make us more cautious, not less. You say that our climate models don't go into the details of the effects on our food supply- you shouldn't take that to mean that we will definitely be able to handle any problems, it means that we are going in blind and thus that this is extremely risky behavior. Also, why do you assume we have 100 years to deal with any population displacement? And could you provide some evidence that tackling global warming, for example by switching to nuclear power, would be the least efficient way to handle a refugee problem?
I'd agree that this is an incredibly hard problem, but I'd also say that the scientists working on it are aware of the issues we're discussing here and have been careful to avoid making any claims stronger than the evidence supports. I'd also agree that we don't have absolute proof of climate change, and I don't see how we could ever be completely certain without the sort of "office mini-Gaea" you jokingly referred to earlier, but I think the preponderance of evidence is in support of this theory, and that even if we think there is only a small chance of it occurring, a cost-benefit analysis would support taking steps to prevent it. I think you are rightfully skeptical of our ability to predict future temperatures accurately with current models, but I think this is not our sole or even primary piece of evidence for climate change.
(Lastly, this is kind of an aside, but- why the concern with the possible motives of people in favor of taking steps to curb climate change but against nuclear power? I mean, yes, there are some very silly people in the world, and some of them will take a knee-jerk stance of whatever they perceive to be the green solution, and there are also some people who will take a knee-jerk stance against doing anything about climate change for equally silly reasons. But why should we worry about either camp for a second, when we can just focus on the actual evidence? Supposing some people come to the right answer for the wrong reason, should that make us hesitate at all if we independently came to the same answer?)
Posted by: Dudest at June 17, 2010 05:07 AM (/OnPc)
6
A quick explanation of how the confidence intervals work - the size of the error bars and the level of confidence are inversely related. At a greater level of confidence (that is to say, the percentage chance that the statistical data underlying the model is sufficient to indicate that the results of the model are significant), we have greater error bars - we're more sure that we're barking up the right tree, as it were, so long as we're willing to expand the definition of "right tree" to a bigger clump of trees, any one of which could be the one we're supposed to be barking up. We can narrow down that clump of trees (our error bars), but at the same time, we have relatively less chance of being barking anywhere like in the right area at all.
It's not so much that I'm blase about the risks, as that I recognize that there's a lot of terrible things going on in the world. Amazingly, a lot of those things don't have anything to do with global warming. If the suffering of refugees is what moves you, there are far more refugees being created by other causes than global warming (and causes that might, just might, be amenable to change with less than a mythical concerted effort world-wide). If poverty is what moves you, there's a great amount of poverty in the world as it is, and to put it bluntly, almost all efforts to prevent global warming will make it harder for impoverished nations and peoples to industrialize and enjoy the fruits of modern society.
You mention a cost-benefit analysis; the UN did one as part of a development conference a few years ago, to see what sort of expenditures in poor African nations would promote the most overall well-being. If I recall correctly, water sanitization and mosquito netting came in at 1 and 2, or possibly 2 and 1, with a whole raft of development projects coming in after those; global warming amelioration was dead last by over three orders of magnitude (which is to say, each dollar you spent on mosquito netting was worth more than $1000 you spent on CO2 reduction).
The reason I mention motive is that there are several potential solution spaces, if you'll allow me to use that term; a lot of people seem to have already come to the conclusion that the correct solution space is to limit industrial activity to generate less CO2 (as opposed to expanding nuclear power, or direct amelioration through geo-engineering, or "just deal with the effects"). Given the limited utility of the reduce-industry approach, given the geopolitics and economics involved, you'd expect it to be the least popular based on merits alone. Certainly, some of the anti-nuclear bias is just plain anti-nuclear bias, but to a degree, you have to ask, is it just that some people aren't interested in solutions that don't result in turning off the lights and shutting down plants? Certainly some people have been advocating for just that, long before global warming was an issue...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at June 17, 2010 03:33 PM (pWQz4)
7
Your description of a confidence interval is exactly how I thought they worked, so I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. Perhaps I can clarify my earlier comment- I wasn't saying that the model estimated a 90% chance that global warming was real and a 10% chance that it wasn't. I was saying that if it says global warming is real with a 90% confidence interval, then with a 90% chance we are "barking up the right tree" and global warming is definitely real, and with a 10% chance we are "barking up the wrong tree". If that is the case we have no idea what the chance of global warming being real is, but it has to be between 0% and 100%. Using conditional probabilities we can bound the chance of global warming being real between 90% and 100% chance in that scenario. Now, that's all assuming that the simulations predict global warming with certainty- I took you to be stating that but I'm not certain about that part.
That UN cost-benefit analysis you mention sounds very interesting- I'm going to try to track that down, and I may ask you for a link if I have trouble finding it. Frankly, it would be quite a relief to me if it were to turn out that the worst case scenario were not as bad as I had thought. I am under the impression that we could potentially be driving ourselves extinct, which is a possibility I find terrifying, and I would be very happy if I were to discover that this is not actually a possibility.
I guess I still don't see other people's motivations should be a concern here. I feel like the task before us is to find out how risky climate change is, do a cost-benefit analysis, and determine what the best course of action is. Suppose that as you say, there are people who want to limit industrial activity for it's own sake and are just using climate change as an excuse to push that agenda. I can't see how that would in any way cause us to adopt a different course of action.
Posted by: Dudest at June 21, 2010 08:59 PM (/OnPc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 24, 2010
Endless H8 continues
Leaving aside the issue of the commercial wisdom of Endless Eight, they're actually doing interesting things with the cinematography.
One of the manifestations of this is in the wardrobes. Not only did they re-animate each episode, but the characters aren't wearing the same things - and that's something that takes some extra work, since you have to build up a new character model for each outfit. As it is, it adds to the believability if outfits are largely determined by what the character happened to grab out of the closet that day.
However, they overdid it a little. It makes sense that the day-to-day wardrobes are going to vary. It makes sense that Haruhi's taste in yukata choice is somewhat arbitrary and can turn out differently depending on what she had for breakfast that day. But while we can assume some variety in the closets and in the yukata store, the characters shouldn't have that many different swimsuits. How many bikinis does Haruhi own, anyway?
It's also notable that they've gone to the trouble to throw in some Kyonservice for the ladies; he's posing like a shirtless Calvin Klein model at a couple of points. Dunno, personally I don't swing that way, but maybe someone's enjoying it.
The episodes are still a pain in the butt to work on (too much similar dialogue...), but eh, what can ya do?
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
02:11 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Technically, it could still be just the one swimsuit...Haruhi is just changing it every day. Heck, I'd be surprised if Nagato *owned* a swimsuit before the E8 segment.
Posted by: Ben at May 25, 2010 03:46 PM (o1p6A)
2
Didn't she pack one for the summer outing? That happens before Endless Eight.
For Nagato, it's completely plausible that her swimsuit would be generated when needed and only then. (Pattern variance would be harder to justify - but if she's mercurial about which mask to choose, well, maybe she has some fashion sense buried in there too.)
But that doesn't work with Haruhi or Mikuru. And if the swimsuits are changing as part of the "world is changing" stuff, then Haruhi is doing something much more complex and iterative than just resetting the clock...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at May 25, 2010 04:02 PM (pWQz4)
3
Oh yes, forgot about the murder mystery.
As for how much Haruhi was doing, that's part of what I enjoyed about the E8 arc. Of course, I'm speaking from the point of view of not being familiar with anything other than the Haruhi anime. Maybe it's all explained in the novels. I always get the feeling that Haruhi is subconsciously "tweaking" the world around her all of the time. The level of nitpicking, then, that she was doing in E8 was very specific: something she wanted to happen wasn't happening (or whatever), but the actual course of events made her happy...so she kept changing the insignificant things.
Again, I may be way off base, I'm not familiar with the original material. And I'm sure a lot of people would say that finding meaning in nothing is a perfect description for E8!
But I liked it.
Posted by: Ben at May 26, 2010 07:20 PM (o1p6A)
4
So why hasn't Haruhi tweaked the world to eliminate spam, Ben?
Posted by: Mitch H. at May 27, 2010 10:45 AM (jwKxK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 22, 2010
Endless H8
Sigh... I don't know what's worse, the repeating episodes, or working with MP4 video.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
06:27 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Woah, you drew the Endless Eight straw? Are you to be congratulated or pitied? Did they offer you subsidized therapy for the after-effects?
I owe an obligation buy, but I'm not sure I'll watch the Eight episodes. I sat through Endless 5 twice -I got disoriented when queuing up 6 & didn't realize it was the same episode repeated until most of the way through the second time.
Posted by: Mitch H. at May 24, 2010 01:06 PM (jwKxK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 05, 2010
Note to self: post more than once a month
April turned out to be busy. A wedding to attend in Mobile, lots of car repair stuff, etc. Molars are all healed up, though, so that's one less thing to worry about. And I finished painting another squad of orks... so that's 20 down and well over 100 to go. Heh.
Been watching a real mix of anime lately. Rewatched most of Moyashimon the other night. Been keeping up with Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou for silly, and finished Hanamaru Kindergarten, but I haven't really tucked into anything new lately. Still need to finish the back end of Railgun, too...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
10:26 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.
April 02, 2010
The Power of Positive Painkillers
Against all expectations, I'm not hurting. It probably hurts less now than it did before I got the teeth cut out...
Of course, I'm also just a little loopy (not tremendously, but maybe two drinks short of sober) and I'm really not up to eating anything crunchy, heh. But I was braced for much worse than this - the last time I helped someone out after they had wisdom teeth out, he was literally pounding the walls because of how much he hurt. I've always had a good pain tolerance, though, thank goodness.
Update: Was loopy enough not to hit "post" above. A few hours later, pain medication still doing the trick pretty well. Spent a lovely evening with my dear mother, working on a jigsaw puzzle.
Should be back up and running by Monday
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
10:19 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yeah, when I had mine out in 2004 it wasn't nearly as bad as I had feared. Barely even touched the pain prescription, actually, though that was more because I tend to be really stubborn about taking painkillers.
Out of curiosity, did they do they surgery under general or local anesthetic?
Posted by: Andrew F. at April 03, 2010 03:50 AM (kjl/L)
2
I had braces as a teenager, and my orthodontist looked at the X-rays and said, when my wisdom teeth came through, I was going to be in for a world of hurt. So they actually took out my rear molars then instead.
Never liked my orthodontist much, but I have to say, my wisdom teeth came through without so much as a twinge.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 19, 2010 05:37 AM (PiXy!)
3
Same diagnosis as Pixy, different cure...
They cut into my gums, broke the wisdom teeth into pieces, and extracted them before the wisdom teeth could push through and mis-align all my newly-aligned teeth.
...yes, I slept through that procedure.
Posted by: Mikeski at April 20, 2010 01:33 AM (GbSQF)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 31, 2010
Tooth or dare
Going in Friday to have my wisdom teeth removed. One of the buggers came in crooked and is busily cutting up my cheek every time I open my mouth wide... This weekend will probably be spent uncomfortably healing.
As if I didn't have enough hobby stuff going on, Steven reminded me that Civ 4 was a load of fun, so I got it reinstalled. I had always backed significantly off the video quality in order to get everything to run smoothly; with the new hardware, I can set it "max everything", -windowed-, and it runs completely smoothly.
Diplomatic strategy plays a much bigger role in Civ4 than it did earlier on in the series. Technology trading is still important, to be sure, but the religion aspect throws a monkey wrench in traditional strategies. You can help pacify otherwise-aggressive neighbors by spreading your religion to them. More problematically, most civs will declare the first religion they get as their "state religion" - there's benefits to having one, especially early on - and they hang on to that one like grim death. It can be easier for you to convert yourself to their religion instead!
Interesting week in EVE, as a new large-scale conflict kicks off; a motley group of alliances is conducting an offensive against the Northern Coalition, mostly for the crime of being steeenking rich and out of boredom. Hostilities weren't due to start until tomorrow, but the attackers were moving their main capital fleet as a single unit (and essentially unscreened - there's a limit to how many ships you can have in a single system in EVE before the server hardware starts screaming).
Somehow, either through infiltration or just good scouting, the NC got wind of the move, and dropped a strong attack fleet with a full support element on the capital convoy. Only five percent of the attacking capitals were destroyed before the overloaded system node crashed completely, and the attackers (they need to get some clever name so that it's easier to refer to them!) wisely stayed logged out rather than attempting to log back in to a busy node chock full of attacking capital ships and screen.
A note about EVE combat - since every ship in the game is fitted with short-range faster-than-light drives for in-system travel, one of the major challenges in combat is to keep your opponent from using that drive. (It's not instantaneous, and you can't maneuver in mid-jump, but by the time your opponent figures out where you went, you can be on your way somewhere else...) The necessary modules that create warp disruption effects or fields are rarely mounted on capital-class vessels (which are huge and slow and expensive as hell), since usually capitals operate in conjunction with screening elements which are more suited to that role. Without interdictors and heavy interdictors in their screen, the attacking fleet couldn't prevent the NC capitals from breaking off action when heavily damaged, whereas the NC attackers had the necessary vessels to lock down individual attacking capitals and pound them until they popped.
The corporation I'm a member of is a client of one of the major NC members, so this is cause to celebrate. It's also one hell of a morale hit for the attackers - even before things got underway, they were already faced with system overload, un-fun levels of lag, significant casualties, and a big disruption to their timetable. Morale's important in these things, because large-scale wars tend to turn into grinding attritional battles; both sides are wealthy enough to absorb big losses, but the power to continue the offensive is also largely based on the ability to keep pilots showing up on a regular basis... bored or frustrated pilots find other things to do with their spare time.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
03:14 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 633 words, total size 4 kb.
March 21, 2010
Had to check my calendar again
It's snowing. It's technically spring. I'm just a little disturbed. (I did, however, go outside and throw a snowball, just to have done it.)
I've been having a hobby overload lately. Plenty of games to play (between EVE, Crysis, FF13, and the Dawn of War expansion, I'm spending a lot of time playing). I've got a pile of books to read. I've got a small army of orks to paint, build, and otherwise fool with. There's... not actually a ton of anime to watch this season, but I've been letting it build up, and there are several series I want to go through yet haven't found the time to.
Add to this about 10 hours of overtime a week, and my schedule is loaded fairly heavily.
I enjoyed EVE well enough back in the day, but quit when I got tired of puttering around in high-security space (where there's not much to do but mine and run fairly-uninspiring missions) and getting shot at by pirates in low-security space (a nearly-deserted ghetto where players can hunt other players but not claim territory). A friend got me back into it, and I resolved this time to attempt to play in 0.0 space (the "way out there" territories where there are no laws or rules but those enforced by players). Good decision - joining up with a 0.0 corp gives even some of the boring stuff like mining or shipping goods around an extra
frisson of excitement. And the profit margins out there are high enough that you can absorb the occasional ship loss, so long as you're not some kind of Norse berserker pilot.
FF13 is interesting so far, if very firmly set on rails. The characters are somewhat hit and miss (Vanille I would happily drown, for example), but Lightning is working for me, precisely because she is
not nice. Extremely not nice. She doesn't like the other characters and lets them know it (sometimes with rejoinders that aren't so much jerky as "downright hurtful".) But she's not some kind of super-tsundere, just an unhappy loner. I was worried that Hope was going to be a Shinji all game long, but he pulled his head out long enough to decide on something to do (even if it's extraordinarily stupid, but what hey, even he knows that). Sazh is just fun.
Enjoyed a few episodes of Hanamaru Kindergarten; it's shocking how you can take a creepy concept like Kodomo no Jikan, throw in some Potemayo, and get something good out of it. Think I'll watch some Railgun next, even if it has less Misaka than I might otherwise prefer...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
02:48 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.
February 15, 2010
Starting: Nogizaka Haruka no Himitsu
Three episodes in, and I'm enjoying it so far. Fairly standard unlikely-romance story... male lead bumps into impossibly-perfect female lead while the latter is doing something embarrassing, doesn't make a big deal about it, and cute romance blossoms. The "embarrassing thing" in this show is anime fandom, but at least so far, it's more of a prop than anything else (not to mention license for the show to do some thematic validation pandering to otaku, but oh well.) It could have been motorcycles or sumo and the show would still be cute.
Few more panty shots than... well, I'd be lying if I said "comfortable with", since goodness knows I'm inured to that sort of thing by now. But as usual, I wish they'd refrain from the little sister ones! Come on, guys, you've got plenty of attractive older characters to show off (and this show does, heh); could we skip the loli-service for once?
I don't have a deep reason to keep watching, but I enjoyed it enough to keep going for a few more episodes. (Well. It has maids... But that's not a deep reason!) From what I've heard, the writing took a downturn in the second season, but there's still plenty of episodes before I get that far!
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
02:59 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Regarding copyright:
Sorry for the delay, I dug through what is LITERALLY a foot-thick stack of paper and finally called my lawyer. He explained to me it was a "finding" for our case and was being considered as a "published finding." I was confused, apparently. Supposedly this means that we could apply this finding to any case we brought on material we have copyrighted, but it would not count as precedent for other copyright holders.
I'm not certain of the ultimate fate of it, but we had some big guns on our side in the Copyright Office. By the end we weren't dealing with phone answerers but people pretty high up on the food chain who clearly understood that there was going to be a lot of manga and anime being published in the USA in the future and it was an issue that needed attention. I might add that we were never once treated in an inferior way just because we were "comics and cartoon dorks," which frankly surprised me.
As for Nogizaka, it's very good natured and cute but I found a little went a long way.
Posted by: Toren at February 24, 2010 09:32 PM (O0/8k)
2
Thanks! I really appreciate that you went to the effort.
I had doubts that it was an established precedent after reading Pournelle's discussions of copyright and fanfiction; if the production of derivative works automatically assigned the copyright to the original creator, then a few of the legal cases he mentions couldn't have been brought at all (mostly situations where fic authors were accusing the creators of SF serials of taking their ideas/work for additional episodes, coincidental or otherwise.) That's not to say that it shouldn't BE an established precedent, of course; it makes sense and would be easy on the paperwork.
I find Comiket fascinating. It's a huge copyright free-fire zone, but... not really, right? The whole thing is gray-market at best, a festival dedicated almost wholly to things which violate IP laws (and take the original work of nice people and do terrible, terrible things with it), and yet everyone generally plays within a set of commonly-understood rules without stepping on each others' toes. I don't know that you could pull that sort of thing off here, the legal culture's just too confrontational.
I also have my doubts that CR could waltz through a copyright case. Steven pointed out the unclean hands doctrine, but CR's history of violations isn't so much checkered as spattered.
Gotta agree about Nogizaka. I don't have a tremendous desire even to finish the last couple of episodes in S1, honestly. Too much other stuff I ought to be watching...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at February 25, 2010 03:22 AM (mRjOr)
3
Well, see, there I was, minding my own business, reading comments about loli-panchira, and suddenly a copyright discussion broke out. Were the panchira copyrighted?
Posted by: dkallen99 at February 25, 2010 02:04 PM (1PFDl)
4
My bad. I didn't have Avatar's email so I hijacked this post.
Posted by: Toren at February 25, 2010 05:22 PM (O0/8k)
5
Hijack away. I enjoy that kind of discussion more than panchira anyway.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at February 25, 2010 06:52 PM (pWQz4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 11, 2010
Home! And it's still snowing
Even now, big clots of the white stuff are falling outside.
Frankly, it's a little nicer here than in Chicago. It never really got deep in downtown Chi-town, mostly because they have a fairly efficient snow-removal system - the offending flakes were melted on heated sidewalks, plowed from the road, and stomped into a filthy slush on a minute-by-minute basis. Here it's just piling up. (Though not on roads - it's not cold enough to stick there.)
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
03:00 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
February 08, 2010
Chicago!
I'm in Chicago, Mon-Wed, on business; we're going to be offering Relativity hosting for clients, so it's off to the Kcura headquarters for training.
Not much to say so far. Our flight stopped in Kansas City, where the snow was really coming down (not enough to stop us from taking off, but enough to make 'em de-ice the plane). It's freezing in Chicago, but there's not actually any snow hanging around downtown; I'm assuming that the heat island effect warmed things up to melt it off, because there was plenty still on the ground coming in to the airport. We're supposed to get a couple of inches tonight, though, so that ought to be fun to trudge through in the morning. (Fortunately the hotel's only a block away from the training site, and we've the promise of good deep-dish pizza to keep us interested...)
Don't think I'd want to live here, though. Urban downtown doesn't do anything for me. Hard to drive in, hard to park in, and I can't imagine walking everywhere in the winters they get up here.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
09:58 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Argh, wish I had known! Duckford's not that far from Chicago, after all. Though the "couple of inches of snow" would have played hob with any plans, as it's closer to 10" up here.
If it ever happens that you're in the neighborhood again, lemme know!
Posted by: Wonderduck at February 09, 2010 10:02 PM (G8/ak)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 21, 2010
Video card fall down, go boom
The 5770 card I'd placed in the new machine didn't survive 24 hours; it choked and went stone dead. It has been replaced... with a 5870. The store didn't have any of that model of 5770 when I went back, so I figured, eh, why not spend a little extra for a much better card? (Well, because it's not just a little extra. Guess I should put some overtime in this month... or more like, I already did.)
Today's Supreme Court decision was pretty interesting... the court essentially tore the throat out of McCain-Feingold, so now campaign finance is up in the air again. Interesting stuff, really, opinions all over the place. Take a few minutes to read up if you've got an interest.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
03:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.
January 18, 2010
Time for an upgrade
The home PC is ill. Trying to keep WinXP running and trojan-free is getting ridiculous - even being properly cautious and keeping everything updated isn't enough. It's time for a wipe and reinstallation.
...and if I'm going to go to the trouble of wiping everything, I might as well install stuff on completely new hardware, right? So I went down to the local Micro Center and dropped quite a bit too much money on some nice gear. I'll get the old machine working one last time, long enough to get any data I haven't already backed up off and onto the external HD, and then it's format and forget for that box.
New machine will be an Intel i7 860 on a Gigabyte motherboard, 4 GB RAM, Radeon 5770 video, 1 TB HD, and the usual bells and whistles (notably, I don't usually do much in the way of audio.) New case with a nice external SATA port if I ever need to go in that direction, and boy don't I wish I had some of those for the office.
I may configure the old box as a file server, but honestly, I don't know if I have the need for one. Another possibility is as an HTPC in the living room, which might be interesting...
I've opted to pass on the Blu-Ray drive on the new box for the moment. I hardly have any of those now, and I've got a perfectly functional player in the PS3.
With any luck, when I get home tonight, I'll be able to get the new box up and running, with everything moved off the old box that needs moving. The real question is... what to name it...
Edit: Especially when it's glowing an eldritch blue! Darned quiet for as many fans as it's sporting, though. I'm posting from the new box now, which needs about three tons of software installed, and I'm still working out getting Win7 configured up.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
06:19 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Mmmm, blue LEDs...
What do you think of Win7 so far?
Posted by: Andrew F. at January 20, 2010 09:35 PM (if/sI)
2
Not entirely certain, to be honest. Admittedly I haven't really had a chance to play around - most of my time has been spent reinstalling software, pulling the video card that didn't survive the burn-in period, and swanning around in a battleship in EVE Online. I'm also affected by a cursor size bug in the video drivers, which is annoying but not Microsoft's actual -fault-.
I don't find the security controls annoying at all, personally. If I'm doing something to install something, I expect it to pop up, and so eventually when it pops up when I'm not expecting it to, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. On the other hand, I haven't tried using any software that regularly attempts things that set it off.
I'm still busy training it, though. (No, Windows Media Player, I don't want you starting for anything unless I specifically click on you, which I won't ever do.)
Once I get a chance to play with the desktop some, I'll probably do a post or two on it.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at January 21, 2010 05:02 AM (mRjOr)
3
I just leave UAC turned off. No less secure than XP, and I never had any major issues with malware on that OS. It's pretty trivial for malware to circumvent UAC on 7's default setting, anyway.
Posted by: Andrew F. at January 21, 2010 04:37 PM (if/sI)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
December 28, 2009
Home from the holidays
A very good Christmas in Houston this year. The whole family was able to get together, along with Jeff's new wife Manesha and her brother Manesh. (Uh. I almost wanted to ask their father "why did you hate your children so?" But my dad's first name is Aubria, so I guess it's not unique...)
Picked up the Carcassonne tabletop game (played it with the folks, and it's quite fun, while not taking too long), as well as novels by Pratchett, Banks, Erikson, and Hamilton. Biggest gift was a nice adjustable easel table, which turns out to have had a broken pen tray for the bottom... except I'm going to be using it as a hobby desk for painting 40K figures, and thus wasn't even going to put it on anyway. Funny how those things work out sometimes. There's also a nice magnifier/light for when I'm doing really finicky detail work. (And, of course, I can plop the table down in front of the TV and catch up on painting and football at the same time, though I don't think I could manage subtitled anime that way.)
And clothing, of course, but I actually asked for that; I'm getting old enough that getting clothing for Christmas is pretty nice (and my hobbies are esoteric enough that sending Mom out to get stuff for them is kind of a crap shoot. "Uh, I need a... stomper? And a DVD of Spicy Wolf?")
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
12:32 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 1 kb.
December 20, 2009
What do you mean, I won?
Went down to the local comic store today for a 40K tourney. They called it on fairly short notice, and Sunday's not their regular tourney day, but ten guys still showed up with a thousand points and a few dozen dice. Three games later, I, uh... I won!
I'd like to say "well, it's because I read my Clausewitz," or something pretentious like that, but there was a lot of luck involved. (I mean, I did read my Clausewitz. I actually enjoy military history. But Clausewitz had very little to say on the subject of orbital insertion as a factor in squad-level combat...)
If anyone's interested, blow-by-blow is below the fold. Sums up easy, though - I had a great time, I won about $60 in store credit (spent, heh), and I'm definitely coming to the next one.
more...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
10:30 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 858 words, total size 5 kb.
December 13, 2009
More boyz pictures
Second batch is complete. Below the fold...
more...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
03:39 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.
December 06, 2009
Buildin' boyz, pinning
A few of the ork models I've picked up are an older style, and have both metal and plastic parts. The bodies and giant rocket booster packs are metal, and the arms, legs, and heads are plastic. (I also have a couple of all-metal character figures, but those suckers are staying safely unassembled until I get a good bit better at this!)
The problem with these models is that good ol' plastic glue doesn't work on them. (Plastic glue actually dissolves some of the plastic on each side of the join, making for a fairly strong connection.) For the metal/plastic or metal-metal joins, you have to use plain ol' superglue, which works great if you have a nice smooth connection between the two parts, and something less than great otherwise. Guess which kind of fit these models have?
It took quite a bit of work with files to get the rocket packs flush against the ork bodies, but now that that's done, the joins are extremely strong. (I don't mean to say that they'd hold up against intentional efforts to lever the things off, but they're not going to come off with casual handling.) The joins between the arms and the torso aren't that sturdy. I'm not terribly sure why - it looks like a fairly flat join - but obviously it's not working like one; out of my 16 stormboyz, 4 have lost arms and one his head, just traveling between my living room and bedroom. I definitely don't want to have that happen after I get them painted up!
So I picked up a pin drill. With it, I can drill a small hole in the arm, and another in the torso, and then put a short length of metal rod in to reinforce the joint. (This is the technique they use to fix the broken Gundam model's leg in Genshiken, incidentally.) I was worried that drilling into the metal parts might take a lot of force, requiring some sort of clamp, but as it turns out, the drilling is really easy.
With the metal rods reinforcing the joints, I can prime up the stormboyz without fear of unplanned amputation. This is a good thing overall - while they're not the best unit in the Ork army, they're quite fun (partially because they're quick - they can get halfway across the table to get "stuck in" in a single turn - and partially because the idea of a malfunction causing an Ork to corkscrew across the battlefield and faceplant into a wall is pretty funny.)
Next batch of boyz just got their blue shirts and gloves issued, and after a bit of touch-up, they'll be ready for the metal basecoat. Definitely looking sharper so far.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
01:37 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.
December 02, 2009
Arts and crafts, green style
Well, it hasn't all been funeral arrangements around here. After a good amount of building, gluing, trimming, filing, priming, and a little painting, I've got some orkish results... (Images after the cut.)
more...
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
02:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 542 words, total size 3 kb.
November 22, 2009
RIP, Aubria Daniel Kent
My grandfather on my father's side passed away two days ago.
No need to overdo it on the condolences, I'm doin' okay. He was 93, and had reached that point where eventually it would be one thing or the other. It ended up being a stroke, which has the benefit of being quick; a far better way to go than many of his other options.
Dad flew up there immediately, and the rest of the immediate family is going to fly or drive here tomorrow and we'll all caravan up together, to a little town called Lockney, Texas. We were going to have a Thanksgiving where everyone was spread out - Mom was visiting her mother in Oregon, Jeff was going to join them, and Dad was going to visit his parents. Now we're getting the whole family together and then some; just wish it was a happier event.
I've only one thing I can fault my grandfather with - a man who grew up with the name Aubria ought to know better than to name his son that as well. It's little wonder that Dad uses his (and my) middle name instead.
Other than that, though, he was a good man. I can only hope that at his age, I can look back at everything I've done and have as much to brag about.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
10:01 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.
October 31, 2009
Not actually For the Emperor
Posting's been pretty sparse here, since there's been plenty of new games - Brutal Legend, the punishing Demon's Souls, and the surprisingly-entertaining-for-$20 Torchlight. But I've also been spending a lot of time on another hobby...
I'm putting together a Warhammer 40K army.
Ach, I know, I know, this is not making me less geeky or enhancing my chances of ever providing grandkids for Mom and Dad. But it's always been something I've been interested in, except that in the past, the expense has always been a factor. My finances, notwithstanding the lack of contract work, are in fine shape, and the boss has just finagled me a raise (of hearty content, too, and the second time this year); with big upcoming projects promising many hours of overtime, and the bank account sitting fat and happy, I figure I can afford it.
So I picked up a starter box, with a bunch of Space Marines and orks. Because I'm a glutton for punishment, I'm going with the orks. (Masochistic for two reasons - first, ork characters are notoriously lightly armored and get shot in droves... and second, they're cheap, which means to field an army, you need
many many of them, which means you gotta paint
many many of them.)
I've spent a couple of weeks assembling what I've got, including the Space Marines for testing purposes, and today I primed about 50 models (ran out of black primer spray paint before I could knock out the last 10 and the 5 helicopters). Started painting, experimental-like, and found that I'm not happy with the brown I've got (way too flat for good leather straps), but the layering technique makes for astonishingly realistic-looking green skin. I'll take some photos once I've got finished models I'm not embarrassed to show off.
I've also done some buying on eBay (and picked up another 40 boyz, so my total model count will be over 100... better get more primer, too!) At this point, I seriously need to think about how to transport these things. Big toolbox, maybe?
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
10:34 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Beware, 40K is a path that leads only to bankruptcy and the eventual abandonment of ones humanity.
For carrying your army, tackle box is generally the preferred method as the multiple trays can provide protection and categorization for your figures.
Posted by: The Brickmuppet at November 04, 2009 02:07 PM (NkKu7)
2
I use rifle cases for my 40k minis, since they come with foam padding already inside them. plus the "whoah" factor when you walk into the store carrying 2 rifle cases.
Posted by: DarkSong at November 04, 2009 06:10 PM (zJX7v)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
October 14, 2009
Brutal Legend... strategy game?
So as you might expect from a medieval fantasy/heavy metal dystopia game, you spend a significant amount of time guiding Eddie the roadie around and hacking, slashing, electrocuting, or igniting anything that moves, when you're not mowing them down in your lightning-shooting, flame-spewing heavy metal hot rod while blasting a selection from something like 100 songs. Par for the course. Even a bit repetitive, honestly.
But every so often, at key parts of the plot, you engage in battle... and because you're a roadie, and that's how you roll, "battles" are played out as huge stage shows. ("Hey, where I come from, this guitar makes noise. Here it shoots lightning. I can't wait to see what happens when we put on a whole show!") The game temporarily becomes quite different - you can still run around and pound enemies, but "winning" the stage requires you to take control of various strategic points, then take the resources they collect and use them to recruit troops, which you then order around with a fairly simple "attack that/stay here/come with me" command system.
The combat's not that hard to put together. Collect the resource points nearest to your stage (you do this by playing a solo, which prompts the construction of a... merchandise booth... sigh), pick up a few Headbangers and some ranged troops, then set off after the nearest enemy-controlled point. Trying to take the enemy army on alone is suicidal, but if you have even a small group with you, it really cuts down on the amount of fire you draw (the computer is not smart/evil enough to say "everyone shoot at the player!") You then plow into the biggest group of enemies, play the "Face Melter" riff, and watch as they dissolve. Suddenly the skirmish is overwhelmingly in your favor, and you can go on to whack an enemy resource point. Once this is done, rinse and repeat, except more and faster.
I can see how some people would have trouble with this part - if you're playing mostly to go kill stuff, it can be hard to think "oh, it's too dangerous to attack that group, I need to fall back and pick up my reinforcements". But if you have invested even a little time in RTS games, it'll be really simple - the enemy does not have great strategy, and once you get rolling you have a resource advantage over the enemy, which usually means victory in the long run.
Overall I'm quite pleased with the game. It could have taken itself really seriously, in which case it would have been terrible. But the writing's quite witty so far, and Eddie's got the right mix of "I am a Bruce Campbell-style badass" and "everything will be fine so long as I remember that I'm a roadie". Could have been whiny, but isn't; could have been a cardboard hero cutout (could always devolve there, too; I'm not done with it yet), but so far, hasn't.
Posted by: Avatar_exADV at
01:58 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.
91kb generated in CPU 0.0531, elapsed 0.2342 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.2213 seconds, 112 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.