James

The vehemence and persistence of the games community's reaction to Leigh Alexander has always seemed like it was because she was a woman. She was brash and drunk, yes, but people seem to genuinely hate her for it, even now. It's very shitty. Anyway. The format of the E3 podcasts seems to almost unavoidably lead to a few highlights surrounded by a lot of disappointing noise. It's just too much stuff to form into any sort of coherent whole. Either there's too many people and you can't hear what's going on, or you're missing someone who isn't there, and the people you want to hear from are shuffled out to make way for someone else because they have to have a bunch of voices because that's the whole point of doing it at a convention. I find it interesting that people feel they've gone downhill, though; perhaps I'm misremembering, but wasn't there an awful lot more drunken incoherence in the early years? Jeff has spoken a number of times about being over drinking at E3, and other than the obligatory Midway reunion segment, it seems like not many of the guests are particularly riotous these days. I don't mean to contradict anyone's feelings on the matter - I have no personal investment in people's enjoyment of it - I just find it surprising. I still look forward to their E3 coverage, but I've learnt that the hype doesn't add up to what I once thought it did. How much of that reflects the changes in E3, and how much the changes in me, I don't know. But if I come to it expecting nothing more than a bit of a change of pace, and a couple of interesting announcements in the press conferences/whatever they call them now, then I enjoy it.

Haha, no, I only got that one domain, which Austin hasn't yet managed to actually read out properly on the podcast, but whatever. I'm not responsible for bazinga.zone, or new.donk.city. I wish I'd had the inspiration to get the latter. I did set up a handful of other redirects on that one domain, though. For example, http://austinwalkergames.games/myspace.

Struggling to remember the Waypoint URL? Fear not! I've set up a handy redirect: http://vice.waypoint.austinwalkergames.games/com If due to some bizarre personal failing you're unable to remember that, I've also provided a shorter alternative: http://austinwalkergames.games/games.games What better reason to resurrect a months-dormant thread?

Rorie's pretty great. His – as you aptly term it – spur of the moment conversational style does lead to a lot of awkward dead ends, but he just kind of powers on through in a way I usually find hilarious and endearing. Perhaps because I have a slight tendency to ramble my way into killing conversations. I admire his ability to overcome this debilitating condition. I also love how frequently he returns from being distracted just in time to repeat the exact thing everyone else just got finished talking about.

That's a great reading, and that kind of fill-in-the-gaps narrative is something extensively developed fictional worlds like Star Wars offer in abundance, but I still don't think it serves the film well as a dramatic whole. Since that's not what the film is about, I think it's too distracting. Kind of like how some video I saw on YouTube went on at length about how actually the prequels show that the Jedi's flawed code of emotional detachment in fact caused all of the galactic strife, and is full of allusions to Buddhism or whatever; that's all fine, but they're still bad films that don't work. I guess the fact that you didn't like Rogue One meant that you were willing to be taken on an ultimately irrelevant* mind-tangent about minor characters, whereas I, being largely on-board with the film, kind of wish they'd left that out. I do love that one of them does a "leave it, it's not worth it" gesture, though, which is entirely in-keeping with your theory. Their behaviour on Mos Eisley seems more vindictive than harrowed or demoralized, but I guess people process that stuff in differing ways. Maybe it's also that it's played as a gag. I mean, that's the only way they would realistically do it, but if they had established that these characters were there for whatever reason, and then had the main characters bump into them, I think that probably would have taken me out of the moment less. But it would be a very strange use of screen time. * (from the perspective of the film; from a "world-building" perspective it's interesting)

You're absolutely right. I, like many, was so distracted that I actually missed most of Tarkin's lines. Just showing the backs of their heads would have been conspicuous in another way (i.e. it would be impossible to keep the "I know why they're doing that" thought out of your mind), but it would be less distracting and avoid the weird incongruity. I guess they wanted Tarkin to play a significant role in frustrating Krennick, which I think is a good motivation, but they could probably have achieved similar by making him aloof and dismissive. If they need more details for plot reasons or whatever, Tarkin can relay them via subordinates, refusing to even deign to speak with Krennick directly. Maybe it'd be a bit naff, but I think it could work. It's occurred to me that this sort of thing might actually benefit from the kind of Lucas-style meddling that harmed the original trilogy so much. There's definitely a case to be made for leaving a complete work as it is, but if you are going to fart around with stuff, fart around with the stuff that's already CG, and try to smooth over the edges so that it's less obviously thus. A truly inconspicuous stand-in for a speaking human face could be a long way off, though. Or maybe not. Who knows? On the subject of fan service, while I'm probably fairly forgiving and perhaps something of a sucker for some forms of that kind of thing, there were some pretty egregious cameos in this one. While they do have proximity to the plot, I was hoping this would be the first film not to feature C-3PO and R2-D2 on-screen, especially after they were so pointlessly crowbarred into the prequels, and while them bumping into the guys from the Mos Eisley cantina scene made me go "ha", it really didn't belong in the film at all. It was cheap and dumb, which I suppose is what fan service is.

Rogue One is definitely flawed in a few ways, but I was pretty determined to enjoy it, and I was able to, so it passed that incredibly low bar. I also thought The Force Awakens was really great, if that helps as a barometer of my tastes or standards or whatever. To me, what that scene in particular did really well was establish a pervasive sense of hopelessness to which the emerging New Hope was an answer. Not just the ruthlessness of this man in a supposedly heroic organisation, but also the despair of his unfortunate contact. Sure, it's pretty blunt, but it's not something I expected from Star Wars, and I think it effectively broadens the sense of a lived-in world, which is at least 50% of what's good about the series. The other films have big evil villains doing big evil things and heroes being occasionally anguished about it, but, for me at least, there hasn't been a strong sense of the emotional toll it's been taking on a broader scale. Perhaps I'm easily impressed, but appreciated the feeling that people were being worn down by a struggle that didn't seem to be getting them anywhere. It felt real and it felt like a different angle on the Rebellion than I would previously have expected from Star Wars. Not that you couldn't have inferred that it was there, but I wouldn't have expected to see it. I don't think the film really creates a proper arc for that feeling – you could plot one out based on plot points, centring on Jyn's "Rebellions are built on hope" bit – but emotionally, for me it just silently faded away. I wonder if that has anything to do with the reshoots. You can see a lot of the seams in that regard – the change in pacing between the first and second halves, the stubs of more extensive backstory and flashback stuff, not to mention all the stuff missing from trailers and promotional material – perhaps there was a better pay-off, or it made more sense, with that intact. Or maybe the film really was a complete disaster before they took a hacksaw to it. But the reshoots were supposed to lighten the tone, so it seems at least possible. I'd guess that most people aren't too familiar with Flash Gordon serials (does the film even still hold much of a place in the public consciousness?). As for the new titles matching the old; for people our generation and younger, I'd guess that people became familiar with and used to the old titles when they were too young to know that they were cheesy, and never really questioned them since. Kind of like how you can get well into your twenties or thirties and then suddenly realise that some word obviously derives from another one, or you were completely misinterpreting the literal meaning. Too bad I can't think of any actual examples of that, other than the "Ohh, phoenix down". I don't think "The Last Jedi" is particularly terrible, and it certainly fits thematically, but I do feel like it doesn't quite have as much of a ring to it as most of the others. The prosody feels a bit flat. Then again, maybe it'll fit in really well as the middle instalment of the trilogy. Maybe.

Yeah, I thought Titanfall 2 was pretty great. I mean, the story and writing were fairly bland standard military action fare, but the mobility has always felt good, and the single player campaign gives you space to really get into it without worrying that you're letting your team down when you're repeatedly trying and failing to do a cool sequence of wall-runs instead of working on any of the objectives. The campaign is pretty obviously a loosely-connected sequence of cool set pieces, but as far as set pieces go, I found them very imaginative and entertaining. I can see how it wouldn't appeal to everyone, though.

I also find Jeff's vindictiveness about the Doom multiplayer a little hard to relate to. Intellectually I can understand that adding things can reduce value (think of games with pointless filler, or some hypothetical game with excellent design but also a lot of racist content), but with something like multiplayer it's so easy to compartmentalise it to the point of it essentially not existing for you. I never even select the option on the main menu. It might as well not be there. I suppose a game of the year award is an endorsement, but reasoning that precludes flawed masterpieces from ever winning seems like a mistake. Some of Jeff's argument alluded to how disappointing the multiplayer was in light of the original game's key role in multiplayer history. I wonder, then, if he would have had similar objections had the game not included multiplayer at all. That would be a clearly intentional decision, but it would still be failing to live up to the series' legacy. I'm fine with Hitman winning – it's a great game, and it clearly captured the imagination of the staff. It's just the path they took to get to that point that seemed like it never quite solidified. Pet peeve: They rely way too much on the phrases "it doesn't hang" and "it doesn't stick the landing". I know that it's hard, when talking at such length, to avoid falling back on convenient set phrases, and I'm sure I unknowingly am similarly repetitive, but when you notice it it does grate a little.

That sounds great! I'm neither imaginative nor advance enough of a photographer to have specific suggestions, but that sounds like it'd be tremendous to experiment with. I'd probably focus on the deliberate distortion side of things. Maybe something that causes severe colour separation? Or non-uniform distortion? I don't know. I'd love to see some results, though!

I also had problems with the weird Yahoo/Google hybrid sign-in retraction thing. Anyway, I joined and posted a picture. It's nice to use a venue built for photo sharing, with high resolution images and a pretty good zoom tool and EXIF info and so on.

I very much enjoyed Stuart Wellington's contribution to the latest live Adventure Zone.

My nephew is very concerned.

Perhaps it's because of the extreme contrast between the bright towers and the dark but intensely blue sky that catches the attention. To me the towers look quite peculiar – almost as if they've had their luminosity channel flipped. I suppose that's because they're brighter than you'd expect given the background, and they're being lit from below, meaning the crevices you'd expect to be shadow areas are actually brighter. You know, the same reason people shine torches up at the bottom of their face when telling ghost stories.

Wouldn't they be in a stronger position to voice dissent now that the election is over? They're out of "whatever it takes to beat the Democrats" mode. Or am I missing something? Anyway, another dreadful morning. Good job, world.

I'm now being asked how much I would charge for doing the children's play thing. It would be on a Saturday, and sounds like a full day's work: individual portraits of two groups of around 50 students (!), and some photos of a dress rehearsal. I'd presumably charge less than the going rate, having zero professional experience, but beyond that I really have no idea where to even start. I don't even know what the going rate would be! The sheer number of portraits makes it sound like it could well be getting in over my depth, particularly since portraits are the aspect of photography I feel least comfortable with. With that many kids, I don't imagine there would be much time for finding my feet. A cool opportunity, for sure, but I don't know...

Thanks. Yeah, my sister keeps saying I should do weddings, but even the slimmest chance leaving someone with no good pictures of their special day is a nightmare proposition. As is the idea of having to get a whole bunch of (variously inebriated) strangers to pose. Also, I don't really know how to use flash properly, though that seems a more surmountable problem.

A friend of my sister has asked if I could do some photography for a children's play she's organising. That's probably a good opportunity, but my prevailing reaction is anxiety. A lot of my pictures are still dreck, and the prospect of anyone depending on them in any respect at all makes me very nervous. Also, taking pictures in front of people I don't know well makes me feel very uncomfortable, and I haven't got a clue how to make people feel comfortable for portraits. I guess there's no way to learn without giving it a go, but I tend to go with the "then don't learn" option. Anyway, to counter my shitty pessimism, here's a nice picture I took of the aforementioned sister: My nephew's out of focus, but it was pretty dark in there, so I was shooting wide open at f/1.4. I guess I could stopped it down and accepted a higher ISO, but I like it anyway.

Perhaps it was part of the indexing job Tabacco has mentioned. Or perhaps it was just an oversight and someone swept in to resize.

I'm glad to see you display your podcast art so proudly:

👍

The start of your ongoing project, "Big Things".

I don't know very much about post-processing, but I would have thought that the lighter area around the horizon and edge of the skyscraper suggests that he's brightened the foreground in that picture. Anyway, yes, you do have a knack for bringing out the colours and clarity in your images, Architecture. I particularly like the intense blues that figure in a lot of them. That bricked up door picture is particularly fantastic. With the three red elements, it's almost like it was deliberately staged just for the photograph. My backlog of pictures to be processed isn't getting much shorter, but here are a few I took of a friend's dog last weekend that I have got around to doing: Not particularly inspired, but she's an easy subject. That last one is how she relaxes in the car. Pretty laid back.

Yeah, that black and white one is incredible, Erkki. That's some lovely light in yours, Osmosisch. Have you experimented with cropping some of the black area on the left and bottom at all? Or perhaps that adds to the moodiness.

I'd suggest checking to see if there is any forum discussion attached to the questions you're having trouble with, Twig. I don't know how the Norwegian course compares, but I've found that if I'm confused about something, generally someone has already asked about it, and the course moderators are very helpful. It's also worth periodically checking out the topic introductions if you're not already. They're kind of an info-dump compared to the rest of the course, but sometimes they provide some necessary context that would be difficult to gleam from examples alone. I believe they're only available through the website, which is a nuisance. That's all very valid. In my specific case, however, I'm not sure it applies as much, given that Swedish grammar is relatively straightforward and not too dissimilar to English. Most of my errors are simple forgetfulness: either vocabulary or grammar I know but didn't think of at the time. That said, those errors do make me question whether these algorithmic teaching methods are as revolutionary as they purport to be, and whether I need to be doing more if I want things to stick in the long term. Also, there are occasionally instances where I'm unable to explain why I was wrong even after I've been shown the correct answer, but those are relatively rare. One thing I find quite interesting about my errors is how they're influenced by the way I speak, even if the question is asked and answered in text. Specifically, speaking with a non-rhotic accent, it would seem I don't attach much importance to whether a word ends with an R or a vowel, so one of my most common errors for a long time was to add an R to the base/infinitive form of a verb when it wasn't required. Also, because in English (or at least the variety I speak) unstressed vowels are often reduced to a schwa or some other tiny vowel, I don't pay them much heed, leaving me frequently unsure as to whether it's an E or an A at the end of a word. Or perhaps those are problems everyone experiences regardless of their accent. But it does seem to line up quite neatly.