The Power Of Experience

In game design, what distinguishes a good designer from a great designer is not creativity. In fact, creativity is a prerequisite for the gig in the first place. If one is not creative, they should not be in the line.

The distinguishing factors are in fact influence and experience. A veteran and a newbie may well come up with the exact same creative idea and flesh out every spec that the idea needs in order to get implemented. Yet more often than not, the veteran's idea will come out closer to the original vision than the newbie's. This is where influence and experience come in.

As the adage goes, a designer's only as good as her relationship with the team. If the team hates the designer, they will be quite well incentivized to not implement exactly what the designer wants. It may not be an unprofessional attempt to sabotage the project since they would suffer for it as well, but it would come in the form of dislike for the designer bleeding into dislike for the idea in general. Alternatively, the sheer reputation of a designer might hold some sway, but that will only go so far if everything else about them is downright repulsive. No influence, no implementation. 'nuff said.

Then comes the experience. Even if the designer's absolutely influential, it does not mean that the team will be able to get the ideas out at first pass. Misimplementation is just one possible problem, but easily spotted. If it doesn't match, it's wrong. The other is having an inferior foundation, which is by far a more insidious issue. It is very easy to charge towards milestones while paying little heed to the pipeline and tools used for future iterations. Eventually, the inferior foundation will make itself known, as the even slightly increased delay between iterations will add up over time. It must be noted that few things are ever done right on the first pass, and every additional delay in each iteration will be multiplied by the dozens if not hundreds or thousands of iterations before a feature is finally shipped.

Considering this, it should be clear that while talent will be what distinguishes equally experienced and influential designers, it plays a much smaller role than what many beginner handbooks seem to be pushing. Not everyone can be exquisitely talented, but anyone who pays attention to what is going on can become somewhat more influential and certainly more experienced.

The Nature Of Guilt

Guilt is only possible when the nature of the guilt-inducing act can be comprehended. By definition, someone who does not know that she did wrong is quite unlikely to feel guilty about the wrongdoing. That much is common sense.

However, it is also possible for highly guilt-inducing acts to move to a scale that defies comprehension. The result is the same: people who would feel guilty about a lesser act may well feel minimal guilt at the far greater act that is beyond their comprehension.

Take for example the guilt of murder. Most normal people would probably feel quite guilty over murdering someone. When it turns to mass murder, however, it quickly goes beyond human comprehension. It seems quite unlikely that getting say...10 million people killed is going to weigh on the conscience 10 million times stronger than a single murder would. It is simply beyond what can be comprehended. In fact, it may be possible that the number itself becomes so immense that guilt is practically diluted to nothingness. Where massive numbers of people get slaughtered, it becomes ever easier to shirk the responsibility and project it on others.

An intentional killing is a murder. A billion intentional killings is a statistical reduction.

Scaling Corruption

Corruption simply does not scale terribly well. If power corrupts, I'd rather have absolute power. It's not as if I'm gona be pure either way. And I certainly would not approve of being absolutely powerless.

Of course, corruption itself is not quite so simplistic. It is often subtle, and not something that people would likely notice at first. Just a selfish act here, a little betrayal there...nothing major. Yet later on, as one becomes accustomed to committing little corrupt acts, the ramifications of corruption become less grating on the psyche. Guilt falls away, and it becomes easier to go down that slippery slope. What's it to me if I did one more teeny corrupt act...

Ultimately, the corruption switches from being unintentional to possibly intentional. The acts are now clearly beneficial, though possibly at the expense of others. Benefit becomes an end in itself. Yet it does seem like the marginal guilt reduces as one proceeds down the path of corruption. The first act could've required quite some deliberation, but as one becomes sufficiently corrupted, previously unthinkable acts could become practically second nature.

Acceptance Of The Disabled

It does seem, sometimes, that people with handicaps are better accepted. Of course, it may well be an illusory acceptance, borne of pity and the strength of social taboos. Specifically, the taboo against bullying the weak...or disabled.

On second thought, perhaps a more accurate description of the state of the disabled people would be a state of tolerance rather than acceptance, since they are not so much accepted as they are tolerated. Life certainly isn't plain sailing.

Yet, it is precisely because of these adversities that the disabled are given special leeways that are just not granted to those perceived as normal. It seems that people are unwilling to provide for the special needs of unique individuals unless there's a really compelling reason to do so. Strangely enough, those special treatments are often readily granted to children and animals. Double standards abound.

Vampirism Sucks

Pun intended. It is strange how people can develop a fascination with vampiric creatures. If one considers the practical implications of vampirism, it really does not seem terribly appealing at all. Of course, one caveat will be that I do not regard Twilight-style vampires as vampires at all. They're really more like a bizarre variety of blood drinking Superman. 'nuff said.

Anyway yes, the usual perks should be considered. Superhuman strength, senses, speed, etc etc. Yes we get it, they're superpowered. And immortal...sorta. Cool beans, eh? But then we gota consider the disadvantages as well. Given the fatal allergy to sunlight, it really is no fun to be out at least half of any given day. Perhaps more, if one's in a temperate region. Then there's the inability to effectively enjoy any mortal food. You'd imagine that tasting blood (however tasty, it's effectively got one flavor) for an eternity would not be very nice at all. Not to mention one doesn't actually have a death to look forward to: you're gona have to get off'ed or off yourself at some point if you're sick of existence.

Quite a raw deal, imo. Of course, there is a common mythical alternative. Which is the werewolf. A lot sweeter, seeing as they're all nice and furry and cuddly, can eat regular food and live pretty much a darned long time. Not to mention they're of the superpowered variety, too. Of course there's the same issue of frenzying from time to time, and being quite allergic to silver. It's still a comparatively minor tradeoff.

Given the comparison, I do wonder why people seem to favor vampires over werewolves. It does not compute. Maybe it's to do with the scruffy looking presentation of stereotypical werewolves in comparison to the Victorian refinement of vampires. Come on, wolvies, beef up the PR already. Geez.

Collapse Of Law

Vigilantism exists whenever rule of law is perceived as being inadequate in some way. Perhaps it is an underfunded and/or corrupt police force, or laws that are not agreeable to some people. Simply put, the activities exist for very much the same reason black markets do: to fill a void left by the authorities.

One thing that does get me thinking is exactly when does a vigilante (if ever) have the right to do something righteous despite the righteous act being outlawed due to omission or intention. Taking the example of Batman (again), the Gotham City law has a blind spot whereby certain criminally insane people are not being put to death despite repeatedly escaping and causing the deaths of innocent people. Would it ever be right for Batman to kill them?

Of course, we have the popular perception consideration that takes into account the fact that vigilantes already operate outside the law and are somewhat feared by the people. Vigilantes starting to kill would turn public perception against them. Yet this neglects the point that there are worse things than vigilantes killing small numbers of murderous individuals as opposed to the criminally insane killing large numbers of innocents. Would people choose the lesser evil, or would they continue to support their legal system riddled with loopholes?

Batman's Dilemma

Batman seems on the surface to be exceedingly foolish, perpetually incarcerating homicidal maniacs who invariably go free and proceed to wreak havoc on yet more innocents. Yet, there is the claim that were he to simply kill them, he would be no better for in willingly taking their lives he simply becomes a murdere: very much like one of them.

The utilitarian argument of killing one to serve the needs of many does seem to provide a solution, albeit one that is somewhat disturbing in its implications. Genocide comes to mind. Despite this, there is a niggling doubt about Batman's actions, since his solution does not seem terribly good either.

This may be explained by his motivations, which are actually rather selfish. It does appear to be a case of wanting to push the guilt of killing over to the maniacs, whom he in turn repeatedly punishes. He clearly decided that indirectly killing others through inaction is not criminal in any way, even though he already knew from past experience that incarcerating them would only lead to the deaths of more innocents.

In Batman's case, it would actually be a clear cut case of people not worth saving. It is a case of possibly saving 1 person in exchange for the assured death of 100. It is no longer about saving 1 person, but sacrificing 100 to possibly save 1. In real life, such decisions are of course considerably harder to make, seeing as how the average person is generally not quite as predictable.

MC Sandwich

I am writing this as a documentation of my use of multicoated optics to enhance the performance of vintage camera lenses. A common problem old lenses face is flare and other aberrations resulting from the limited capabilities of primitive coatings. Hypothetically, introducing multicoated optics in the front and rear of the optical path would improve image quality somewhat. The extent of the effect is unknown, and may vary from lens to lens.

I tested this theory on a cheap Makinon 400mm f6.3 optic by placing a well coated Hoya HD filter in front, and using the Olympus EC14 teleconverter behind it. Before using the MC optics, flare was objectionable and the image appeared to be soft due to extensive optical aberrations. After adding on the optics, the image quality was greatly improved and the lens combo could render passable results.

Trying again on the Olympus 300mm f4.5 (a non-MC optic), there was a small but noticeable amount of CA and subtle flare in the images when shot wide open. After the introduction of MC optics, CA and flare completely disappeared. This was unexpected. Of course, being no expert in optical design, I'd expect there are explanations for how/why this happens; besides the obvious ability of MC optical glass to resist flare and the teleconverter's ability to collimate light.

It is expected that similar combinations may be used on other legacy optics to similar effect, and may provide a way to rejuvenate old lenses. However, further experimentation is necessary before it can be established exactly which optics respond best to the treatment. Initial findings suggest that a relatively fast lens is required in order to maintain a usable level of light transmittance for general photography.

Hitting The Swamps

Trudging around on a mangrove boardwalk doesn't sound like something most people would like to do on any particular day, especially not on Good Friday. Well...that's precisely what I did.

Today was a Good Friday indeed, seeing as how many wonders we managed to behold during the short excursion. It was a largely unplanned trip, so we arrived at the mangrove just as the tide was coming in. Not only did we get to briefly witness the mangrove as it usually was at low tide, we got to see the water trickling then rushing into the bog. We even got to see the fruit of the nipah palm for real. At this point, the crabs crawling about suddenly decided to climb some trees, with some crabs reaching pretty much head height. It's probably not just for forage, but also to avoid the deadly monitor lizards.

Then there were the birds, and the occasional archer fish. The egret/heron family birds were present, as were oodles of kingfishers. As the trip drew to a close, I noticed a large bird landing to peck at the fruit hanging from a palm tree. It turns out the bird was a pied hornbill and its mate. Truly rarities, and awesome to behold. What better way could there be to spend a Good Friday, than to appreciate the wonder of the stinking bog.

Limits Of Randomness

Purely random item spawns is a method often used in game design to provide a variety of loot for players. This is intended to let players experience a sense of discovery and anticipation every time they play a level. It is like Christmas all over again.

Unfortunately, random loot has its limitations. Even when loot is balanced towards player levels and game difficulty, sometimes the desired loot simply will not drop. For example, a swordsman may wind up with loads of awesome mage staves while finding lousy to mediocre swordsman equipment. This may be tenable in games where it is intended for players to trade with one another for better loot, but it is plain irritating in single player experiences.

Take for example Dawn of War 2. Loot is randomized so my Devastator squad may never get the high end heavy bolters or their usable equivalents in Terminator armor. A possible solution to this would be to subtly weight loot drops according to fielded troops. For example, having a Devastator squad on the field will automatically grant me a +3% chance of getting Devastator drops. This value may need to be modified in order to make the drops still feel random, but will result in sufficiently high good drops to keep the players happy.

On a separate note, loot must be available for looting. DUH! I am still peeved about levels ending immediately after killing the boss creature, often preventing me from picking up that nice looking wargear that was just dropped. Talk about waste of effort. If loot cannot be automatically retrieved at the end of missions due to balance issues, the least they could do is provide a small window period for players to retrieve the items...

On The Jews And Chinese

The Jews are purported to be unusually successful. Perhaps disproportionately so. They are industrious and thrifty, which are sometimes attributed to their unusual success. Yet, it seems that the Chinese share such values, and are never reported to be quite as successful. By success I mean things like becoming rich, holding fine professions, being awarded Nobel prizes (excluding Obama, if he were Jew). At risk of sounding racist, I think there is (on average, perhaps, though I have no precise idea of where the true average lies) one key difference between the two peoples: their attitudes towards education.

For a Jew, education is an end in itself. It is valued by its own virtue and seen as something worthy to be sought. Self-improvement, intellectual inquiry, formal education are all seen as family treasures. Even the religion-culture encourages intellectual discussions as to the nature of the religion itself. There is also a willingness to take risk, to try out an opportunity when it presents itself. Combine this with the business savvy from generations of commercial enterprise, and you have a winning formula.

Chinese, on the other hand, are also a trading people. They work hard and are thrifty. However, education is a means towards an end. And that end is economic gain. If it comes to the crunch, between obtaining more formal education/self improvement/performing intellectual inquiry and getting the butt out there to earn money, it seems that earning money wins hands down. The culture itself is not largely in favor of intellectual inquiry. The business savvy of past generations counts for little, because it has become allowed to stagnate. There is little motivation for risk-taking, because that would adversely affect stability and in all likelihood damage the income stream.

True, exceptions do exist, whereby there are unsuccessful Jews and highly successful Chinese. However, blind chance would have it that the Chinese and their incredible population would have likely churned out some incredible successes. Yet, by proportion, this is not so. In the presence of a Jewish attitude towards learning in general, the learned person is by far more likely to be able to spot opportunities in the first place, followed by the willingness to take risk. That is an approach that can lead to success. For a Chinese, however, even if the opportunity is spotted, chances are that it would not be attempted unless it's a sure-win situation (which tends to wind up as a scam, instead).

Twilight

I will be upfront. I do tend to like vampire novels...and am biased towards urban fantasy in general. Twilight seems to be really popular. It's a vampire story. Nice. And then I actually read Twilight. Someone please tell me...how could a cookie go so wrong?

I have nothing against romance stories. Vampire/human romances? Ok sure. A bit dodgy, but passable. Vampires that walk in sunlight but have superpowers...now that sounds suspiciously like overpowered thinbloods with the abilities of Anne Rice's Marius. I begin to frown. And then the entire novel reads like a long drawn out love-swoon. Fail.

Romance I can tolerate. But when romance becomes sufficiently overbearing that every page seems to be the reminisces of a schoolgirl high on love (which it is), I begin to seriously doubt just how deep this story goes. Allow me to summarize: Gal meets amazing vampire dude who totally blows her mind, mind stays blown, mind stays blown, mind stays blown, bad-guy shows up, vampire dude does a superhero, mind stays blown, mind stays blown... etc.

Of course, perhaps the vampire dude isn't gona be quite as lovestruck. It does make sense, to a large extent. But no...unfortunately it was a mutual love at first sight situation. Frankly, unless you're positively nuts about a long drawn out lovestruck scene, I'd say skip this book entirely. I'd say our vamp was really only vampire in name, and nothing more.

Suicide

Suicide is a very touchy subject amongst humans, and there are some seriously heavy duty taboos surrounding it. In most societies, willfully killing another human is wrong except in very specific circumstances like an execution. Otherwise, it's murder. This would seem consistent, if killing someone might be allowable under the law and only under the law while it is absolutely forbidden elsewhere. War is probably allowable by law. Probably.

Now comes the idea of euthanasia. Killing a person to put them out of their misery is certainly unacceptable by that definition. They have not committed a crime, and really do have a right to live. Fair enough. However, the definition of killing is somewhat skewed. By definition, killing can be done through willful action or inaction. For example, if I encountered someone drowning in a well, it would probably be criminal for me to just let him die. It does seem worse, though, if I was the one who tossed him in in the first place.

Strangely enough, the same reasoning does not appear to hold true in the case of withholding treatment from a terminally ill patient. It has become euthanasia lite to just let someone die without medical care, while it remains criminal to give them a lethal injection. Yet if someone were actually conscious, it would likely be more torturous to let them waste to death (perhaps from thirst and starvation?). The common line drawn between the acceptability of withholding treatment is when the body is unable to sustain itself. However, is that not the case for any poor person, who is unable to get food for itself?

What Is Evil?

It is an intriguing question as always, about the definitions of good and evil. As established earlier, it is difficult to know for sure what is beneficial and non-beneficial. However, it seems to be agreed upon that knowledge is key to actually having intent, and that intentionally desiring non-beneficial things on others is quite unacceptable.

The problem here is that perhaps there is no specific definition of good or evil within an act: It is a matter of whether there is intent, and if the intent is malicious or benevolent. Therefore, the ignorant entity may well be performing acts that are highly harmful to others, but the ignoramus will be neither good nor evil given that state of perfect ignorance. Likewise, the entity is incapable of being good by performing beneficial acts.

Taking this further, it can be asserted that someone with absolute knowledge has the potential to do good or evil. Given that the outcomes of the actions are fully known, every action or inaction will be a result of some intent and thus that entity will be capable of absolute good or evil.

Of course, in reality, no individual is likely to be perfectly ignorant or knowledgeable. This may be a case to assert that while entities may have largely good or evil intentions, no single entity is likely to be purely good or evil. But it is possible to be quite ignorant and dumb about things.

Studying Instincts

When it comes to explaining the instinctual/subconscious motivations of human behavior, it is tempting to try to assign a purpose to them. For example, one can easily point out that aggression is a survival mechanism. It seems to make sense, of course, in the context of other similar aggressive conducts that result in observably beneficial outcomes. Those conducts are, however, often observed in animals.

The thing about these hidden motivations is that they are effectively a blank slate for projection. Can instinctual motivations ever make sense in a rational human framework? Indeed they can, but only through references to what already makes sense. The mapping is unfortunately imprecise at best, and quite possibly completely wrong at times. Instincts are by their nature inexplicable not just because humans are largely ignorant of their little nudges but also because their natures may not map directly to reasonable sensibilities.

It may be unsatisfying to say that we simply do not know what reasons lie behind instinctual motivations, yet it may be equally unsatisfying to harbor the distinct possibility that what seems like a perfectly reasonable and proven hypothesis turns out to be simple projection. As they say...it seemed like a good idea at the time.

A Vampire's Rights

It would be interesting to consider, hypothetically, what a vampire's rights would be like. There are some considerations. For one, a vampire is clearly ex-human, in that it is a dead human creature and most certainly has different characteristics and needs from your average human. Yet, those needs will make consideration of a vampire's rights quite interesting, as treating one just like a dead person would be clearly insufficient seeing as this particular dead person happens to be walking (or flying, or floating, or scampering) around like a living creature.

The easy solution, as seen in Dracula, would be simply to regard vampires as a menace that should be eliminated. As such, they'd probably be classed as a sort of rather dangerous vermin. However, if one were to try to engineer rights to afford integration of vampires into human society, things get considerably more complicated. That would mean that vampires are to be granted the same rights and responsibilities accorded to humans: the right to live without harm as long as one does not harm others.

Another basic consideration would be sustenance. As a vampire feeds on blood (presumably not exclusively human blood), that would count as the food source. The right of access to food does not actually exist in many societies: in fact, they are quite content to starve those who cannot afford food. Economics would dictate that vampires likewise be required to pay for their food.

Lodging is even more critical for a vampire than a human, seeing as vamps have a fatal sun allergy. Even if economics dictate that they pay for their homes the way humans do, they'd at least need a coffin to keep them alive. Survival as a basic right, after all.

Confucian Corruption

Confucianism and the Chinese practice of holistic relationships (guanxi) were probably formulated with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, in practice some aspects of them can produce the worst of results. In one discussion on the concept of justice, it was asked what would should be done, should one know that one's father has committed murder. The response to this, as famously known, was to hide the father and not hand him up for the murder. This stresses the importance of filial piety, yet also emphasizes a very distinct "inner circle" that is most certainly developing nepotist tendencies and has a very real potential for harboring injustice.

In guanxi, relationships are viewed holistically. That is, if someone is your teacher, that person remains your teacher regardless of context. That someone will be treated as a teacher even at the swimming pool, the gym, at work, as a client and so on. Likewise, a parent will always be treated as a parent regardless of context. In short, following these aspects of the philosophies in this way results in a situation where it is in fact right and good to shield parents (and to a somewhat lesser degree, close relatives) even when they demonstrate corrupt behaviors. While it is said that the gentleperson leads by example and thus brings others towards goodness, it is also said that the children should not contradict their parents.

This potential for corruption further festers especially when guanxi's system results in a sense that there is no conflict of interest when people from two different organizations start providing one another preferential treatment. It is recognized that such preferential treatment exists in all societies by virtue of simple interpersonal relationships, but it is another matter when this treatment becomes somewhat socially sanctioned.

One problem with the way some organizations are run seems to stem from a partial implementation of the Confucian philosophy. While respect and deference are maintained, the justice component seems to have been overlooked. Deference without justice seems to be a pretty good starting point for corruption to fester within organizations that maintain such lopsided arrangements.

Alice In Wonderland

Twisted. Just the way I like it. Imagine a Vorpal sword wielding, grown-up Alice in a fantastical Wonderland after the whole child-Alice saga. There you have it...Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. I must admit that I was initially intimidated by the awful reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. After all, they do tend to be right about when a movie is good. Fortunately, that does not necessarily hold true when they declare that movies suck.

One thing that I do recall a friend saying is that Hollywood has a tendency to turn every story into a battle epic with a romance in it. This Alice is no exception. Yet, as someone who had read the original stories, it was indeed a refreshing twist on the classic tale. Alice is now all grown up and has gone back to Wonderland, albeit one that has seen better days. Not to mention the fact that she does not actually remember what she did there the last time she came. Of course, then we have the Hatter as a rather pathetic figure in need of a rescue, while hinting at some romance brewing with him and Alice.

True to his skill, Johnny Depp manages to play a Hatter that is really quite Mad. I dare not say that Hathaway did quite as good a job of being the White Queen. Yet, it is amusing to see the greatly feared Jabberwocky being slain by a sword that refused to go snickerty snack. There is little I can say that would not spoil the movie experience, save that this is one twisted tale that I did not regret seeing...in 3D, no less. 7.5/10

As a side note, it seems that "3D" has become the latest blanket excuse for massive price hikes in cinema tickets. I think the cinemas may well price themselves out of the market before piracy manages to pull off that feat. By the way...why is a raven like a writing desk?

Horn And Halo

The horn and halo effect is often an interesting phenomenon within human societies. In-groups are ascribed good values, while out-groups are ascribed negative ones. The effect is quite salient especially when it comes to racial minorities.

It works something like this: a person makes a mistake. Everyone makes mistakes from sooner or later, so that's to be expected. However, if the person is from a majority race, the mistake is attributed to an isolated fault. At most, that particular person is faulty, while the majority remain pretty decent in comparison. Yet, when the person is from a minority, the fault may become ascribed to that of their entire race. That entire race is stupid, or lazy, or (insert negative value here).

Perhaps the horn/halo effect is an offshoot of human xenophobia. Racial minorities are most certainly different, and there is greater pressure to start understanding them as quickly as possible than one would have to for a majority since one is likely already steeped in the majority culture. Generalizations may be a convenient way to come up with that understanding. However, there is also the fear of the unknown and suspicion of newcomers. That creates an additional tendency to ascribe negative attributes to minorities, in an attempt to err on the side of caution.

Overall, this is just laziness. Whether the xenophobia is a matter of nature or nurture, it would still be incumbent upon the majority to deal with the differences as they would with any other person, rather than taking the easy way out and breezing through evaluations of people. Easier said than done, apparently.

The System Honeypot

Sunk cost can be used to great effect. When considering the pricing of items in camera systems, it is readily apparent that a low entry cost can easily attract a large following. Beginners are a lot happier to plonk money down for a cheap unit than an expensive one, obviously.

Then comes the 2-year itch. Some never feel it, some give up and others just can't seem to stop upgrading. Time to ditch the beginner's model and work on something better. What's important then is the next tier, whereby a close upgrade will be desirable and another close upgrade and so on. Of course, to top it all, there needs to be a highly desirable but extremely out of reach aspiration tier.

Of course, this means that there needs to be multiple tiers with routine upgrades, forming a fairly gradual ladder to the top. What's best about this pricing method is that the sunk cost simply builds and builds. First it looks pretty small at a thousand or so, then a few hundreds sink in...and soon we're talking thousands of dollars invested. The sunk cost becomes the shackles that hold users within a system. However, it's also essential to make sure the ladder works fine, or the honeypot will lose its stickiness.