I've been reading House Of Cards lately, and it's the same story of over-leveraging. One would think that it's pretty obvious when a company's sunk into risky assets as collateral and has precious little stuff in its reserves. The funny thing here is that well...if everyone knows it already and they're still going for it, it seems to me that they're really just running on faith. And hot air.
If an economy is indeed heavily reliant on credit, it is obvious how a credit crunch can utterly devastate the economy. Yet it seems that leverage is the steroid of choice amongst financial institutions. It's hard to think of a better way to create a heck of a lot of stuff out of a small pool of assets. Arguably, it's the only crazy effective way available in your average capitalist economy.
Yet, humans will be humans. If faith were to be maintained regardless, runs on banks would not occur as often, and everyone can happily live in Oz with the magickal flying dollar bills. Obviously, this doesn't happen. Someone invariably loses heart out there and realizes that things are going south in one part of the economy, and starts figuring that liquidity is beginning to look like a good idea. Seeing a big player do that, others will start to take their cues and so on. The house of cards comes tumbling down.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Human Cognitive Pathways
It is interesting how differently humans process the exact same input. That is, give a bunch of humans a single scene or thought, and the output will likely be quite different between the humans. What's more interesting is that some humans will actually process the same thing in completely different pathways, which may even be completely opposite to one another.
Amusingly enough, most people are not telepathic and have limited ability to discern what the other is thinking. Therefore, it is entirely possible for them to talk clean past one another and result in some rather damaging misunderstandings. The fun part here is that both (or more) parties will be convinced that the other's responding to one's statement in the same spirit, and it's difficult to ascertain otherwise.
Amusingly enough, most people are not telepathic and have limited ability to discern what the other is thinking. Therefore, it is entirely possible for them to talk clean past one another and result in some rather damaging misunderstandings. The fun part here is that both (or more) parties will be convinced that the other's responding to one's statement in the same spirit, and it's difficult to ascertain otherwise.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Shallow Professionalism
I am the sort to believe in raw performance in favor of appearance. If one fails to perform, it matters little to me what their personal bearing is like. Which, of course, is why shallow professionalism remains one of my pet peeves. I'd call shallow professionalism the art of appearing to be professional, be it by obvious conduct like constant apparent seriousness, or by appearance by dressing in a particular fashion.
Now, what irks me about it is how many professional-appearing individuals prove to be quite unprofessional in the practical sense. They are not performing their jobs to the best of their abilities simply because they are employed (and paid) to do so. Worst of all, the appearance of professionalism can easily throw off an unschooled supervisor, who may mistake the appearance for the actual performance of professionalism.
Unfortunately, it seems my views are in the power minority when it comes to this matter. The elevation of shallow professionalism to an art form remains to date, and really...not all that many of the people who matter are inclined to evaluate things otherwise. For one, that'd just take too much effort on their part. It may even involve a restructuring of management itself to dedicate resources to true performance evaluation.
Now, what irks me about it is how many professional-appearing individuals prove to be quite unprofessional in the practical sense. They are not performing their jobs to the best of their abilities simply because they are employed (and paid) to do so. Worst of all, the appearance of professionalism can easily throw off an unschooled supervisor, who may mistake the appearance for the actual performance of professionalism.
Unfortunately, it seems my views are in the power minority when it comes to this matter. The elevation of shallow professionalism to an art form remains to date, and really...not all that many of the people who matter are inclined to evaluate things otherwise. For one, that'd just take too much effort on their part. It may even involve a restructuring of management itself to dedicate resources to true performance evaluation.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Portal 2 Is Quality
I am crazy about Portal 2. Well...not drooling crazy, but crazy enough to play the game straight till 6am on a weekend. That's some good score, for a game that practically screams quality from every game moment. Not only is the game full of references to the goings on from the previous game, it manages to proceed with the kinds of twists and humor that are typical of the original.
From the very beginning, it's clear that the level designers paid very close attention to the principles of level design. The composition of scenes is impeccable, and always informs the user as to what she/he is to do next. If anything, the use of framing in the introduction gives users a very clear idea of exactly what portals are and how they operate. I'd say the intro itself did such a brilliant job of being an introduction, without feeling like a tutorial. Even the first parts of the game felt extremely well crafted, with the sort of dramatic tension that you'd find in good movies. The puzzles are also amazingly well crafted, requiring rather unorthodox solutions most of the time.
So...just how did Valve get something so right? =p
From the very beginning, it's clear that the level designers paid very close attention to the principles of level design. The composition of scenes is impeccable, and always informs the user as to what she/he is to do next. If anything, the use of framing in the introduction gives users a very clear idea of exactly what portals are and how they operate. I'd say the intro itself did such a brilliant job of being an introduction, without feeling like a tutorial. Even the first parts of the game felt extremely well crafted, with the sort of dramatic tension that you'd find in good movies. The puzzles are also amazingly well crafted, requiring rather unorthodox solutions most of the time.
So...just how did Valve get something so right? =p
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Space Marine: Improvements
First things first, I am a fan of the Warhammer 40k universe. As such, I do try very hard to like the Space Marine video game. Unfortunately, try as I might, I cannot not see just how they tried too hard in the wrong areas such that they made a potentially great game merely good.
Now, I am not sure exactly what constraints Game Workshop put on the company, but it seems that they are rather reluctant to engage canon. This is quite unfortunate, seeing as how they're using a well known chapter like the Ultramarines, and pitting it against some random Chaos warband. The first thing I would've done is consider revising the storyline to feature the Space Wolves, and the nasty involvement of the Thousand Sons. As a bonus, it's entirely possible for Magnus the Red to make a guest appearance.
The problem I see is how they've come up with an incredible variety of componentized armor for the different Traitor and Loyalist factions. It bewilders me as to exactly why they'd do that, when the chapters aren't quite featured in the campaign. We see a hint of Blood Ravens and some Dark Templars, perhaps, but little else. Simply put, there's a lot of possible variety in the mediocre multiplayer without popping the content in the campaign. For those who purchased Space Marine as a single player experience, the DLCs would've looked utterly useless.
It would've made sense to save the other content for possible expansions, while focusing on the core storyline as a content source for multiplayer. For example, if the conflict is between the Space Wolves and Thousand Sons, it would've been a small matter to bring in more detailed hierarchies in the campaign, reusing those assets in the context of the multiplayer as well. As a bonus, the weaponry used by the combatants can be iconic of their respective factions. For example, the plasma cannon's charged attack is AOE, which for damage purposes would be identical to virtually any other AOE in the game. Using the damage code, and replacing the plasma special effect with warpfire, it's entirely possible for a Thousand Sons sorceror to fire empyreal bolts. Overall, it would've added a lot of flavor to the overall game.
Focusing on the gameplay, with less on the progression (which is very art heavy), it's possible to dedicate more resources to the core gameplay polish. It would've probably been better to create a flexible system for the armor, but to hold back the asset development for future content. As it stands, having a full armor set for completing the campaign just feels like overkill, since that armor set has absolutely the same stats as every other armor. Moreover, the lack of distinctive faction-specific armors prevents the establishment of significantly different character silhouettes in multiplayer, which adversely affects IFF.
This is not to say that I'm bashing the game outright, since I have no idea why it turned out the way it did, and overall the melee combat is highly satisfying. However, I still reckon that it's entirely possible to have created a more polished gameplay with the exact same resources, securing the user base for the acquisition of future expansions.
Now, I am not sure exactly what constraints Game Workshop put on the company, but it seems that they are rather reluctant to engage canon. This is quite unfortunate, seeing as how they're using a well known chapter like the Ultramarines, and pitting it against some random Chaos warband. The first thing I would've done is consider revising the storyline to feature the Space Wolves, and the nasty involvement of the Thousand Sons. As a bonus, it's entirely possible for Magnus the Red to make a guest appearance.
The problem I see is how they've come up with an incredible variety of componentized armor for the different Traitor and Loyalist factions. It bewilders me as to exactly why they'd do that, when the chapters aren't quite featured in the campaign. We see a hint of Blood Ravens and some Dark Templars, perhaps, but little else. Simply put, there's a lot of possible variety in the mediocre multiplayer without popping the content in the campaign. For those who purchased Space Marine as a single player experience, the DLCs would've looked utterly useless.
It would've made sense to save the other content for possible expansions, while focusing on the core storyline as a content source for multiplayer. For example, if the conflict is between the Space Wolves and Thousand Sons, it would've been a small matter to bring in more detailed hierarchies in the campaign, reusing those assets in the context of the multiplayer as well. As a bonus, the weaponry used by the combatants can be iconic of their respective factions. For example, the plasma cannon's charged attack is AOE, which for damage purposes would be identical to virtually any other AOE in the game. Using the damage code, and replacing the plasma special effect with warpfire, it's entirely possible for a Thousand Sons sorceror to fire empyreal bolts. Overall, it would've added a lot of flavor to the overall game.
Focusing on the gameplay, with less on the progression (which is very art heavy), it's possible to dedicate more resources to the core gameplay polish. It would've probably been better to create a flexible system for the armor, but to hold back the asset development for future content. As it stands, having a full armor set for completing the campaign just feels like overkill, since that armor set has absolutely the same stats as every other armor. Moreover, the lack of distinctive faction-specific armors prevents the establishment of significantly different character silhouettes in multiplayer, which adversely affects IFF.
This is not to say that I'm bashing the game outright, since I have no idea why it turned out the way it did, and overall the melee combat is highly satisfying. However, I still reckon that it's entirely possible to have created a more polished gameplay with the exact same resources, securing the user base for the acquisition of future expansions.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Focus Good, Forgetfulness Bad
Gona be a short muse post here. Now, in general, it's a good thing to not be absentminded. Here's why: Today, I was making some soup and I noticed that a ladle next to me had a very healthy ant population because it had residual soup on it. Ok fine, time to leave it alone and get a clean one. I can always wash that later.
After which, I started boiling and grabbed a ladle to stir it with. Yup...you guessed it...the one covered in living things. Well, few things beat ant soup. Adds protein to the mix. *flexes*
After which, I started boiling and grabbed a ladle to stir it with. Yup...you guessed it...the one covered in living things. Well, few things beat ant soup. Adds protein to the mix. *flexes*
Monday, August 29, 2011
Horrible Bosses
First things first: I'm biased against comedies. I don't really like to watch a show that exists purely to make me laugh. Considering that, it shouldn't be surprising that I find most comedies meaningless. But not this one.
Now, what makes Horrible Bosses an acceptably good comedy? It's got a semi-plausible storyline with characters that people can sorta relate to. That is, three of the worst sorts of bosses anyone is likely to meet, and three very unhappy fellas who would love to have them killed. In fact, that's precisely what they strive to. Along the way, they get into the most hilarious situations that routinely come right back to bite them in their asses, and that only serves to add to the enjoyment.
Right, and here's a spoiler: There's no Hollywoodized romance in this flick. BOOYEAH! Of course, given the synopses most people have already likely read by now, they might wonder just why that would be...
I'd say this movie deserves a 8.5/10. High. Especially for a comedy. But is it worth it? Well for me I'd say this is a movie I'd actually pay to watch. The witty dialog and the politically correct (and grossly incorrect) situations make for a truly enjoyable movie experience. Watch. It. Now.
Now, what makes Horrible Bosses an acceptably good comedy? It's got a semi-plausible storyline with characters that people can sorta relate to. That is, three of the worst sorts of bosses anyone is likely to meet, and three very unhappy fellas who would love to have them killed. In fact, that's precisely what they strive to. Along the way, they get into the most hilarious situations that routinely come right back to bite them in their asses, and that only serves to add to the enjoyment.
Right, and here's a spoiler: There's no Hollywoodized romance in this flick. BOOYEAH! Of course, given the synopses most people have already likely read by now, they might wonder just why that would be...
I'd say this movie deserves a 8.5/10. High. Especially for a comedy. But is it worth it? Well for me I'd say this is a movie I'd actually pay to watch. The witty dialog and the politically correct (and grossly incorrect) situations make for a truly enjoyable movie experience. Watch. It. Now.
Friday, August 26, 2011
On Capitalism
Sometimes I think capitalism really doesn't agree with the more selfish side of Chinese culture. That is, they really shouldn't be trusted with that economic system lest it ruin them. Of course, the same could be said for every other selfish administration out there (yes, I'm looking at you, Uncle Sam) but I'm just writing about the stuff I've been observing about the Chinese as featured in the news.
My impression is that there's a mile wide streak of greed not tempered by a sense of civic duty at play here. Chinese culture is quite socialist by nature, and garnering wealth exclusively for one's private gain is somewhat taboo. For one, openly declaring that one cares primarily for oneself can have some major negative repercussions on one's social image. However, seeing the unethical and sometimes outright cruel things that are done, I get the impression that the perpetrators have outright ditched the moral values enshrined in their own culture and taken on bare faced greed instead. That's not very healthy at all.
I'm not sure if this is really the case, or if it is whether it can be rectified in some way within a generation or two. Times change, I guess.
My impression is that there's a mile wide streak of greed not tempered by a sense of civic duty at play here. Chinese culture is quite socialist by nature, and garnering wealth exclusively for one's private gain is somewhat taboo. For one, openly declaring that one cares primarily for oneself can have some major negative repercussions on one's social image. However, seeing the unethical and sometimes outright cruel things that are done, I get the impression that the perpetrators have outright ditched the moral values enshrined in their own culture and taken on bare faced greed instead. That's not very healthy at all.
I'm not sure if this is really the case, or if it is whether it can be rectified in some way within a generation or two. Times change, I guess.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Manual Control
A lot of the bodily functions are automatically controlled. That is, they work by themselves and aren't really something that comes to the forefront of one's attention on a daily basis. An example of this is how one's eyes focus. For now, I'm experimenting with my eyes and getting them to work at will, and it's been quite an interesting experience.
For one, I realize that the degree of light diffraction varies by the extent to which one opens one's eyes. For example, I see more astigmatic spikes from streetlights when I squint my eyes, as opposed to when I have them wide open.
And then there's the matter of eye focusing. Interestingly, eye focusing appears to be contrast detection based, so an object with higher contrast tends to be focused on more than one of lower contrast. For example, I can be on a bus with an ad on the windows. These ads are effectively black from the inside of the bus, with holes cut in a pattern that allows passengers to see through. This resultant mesh is relatively high contrast in certain situations, and low contrast in others. Hence, if I tried to discern a vehicle marking from close range, the eye tends to focus on the marking. If I tried it at a longer range, the comparative contrast of the mesh makes it incredibly difficult to focus on the vehicle's marking from then on.
After some experimenting with shifting focus along the length of a pencil near to the eye, I've managed to establish some control over how the eyes focus. So far I'm having some success in forcing the eye to focus past the mesh and on whatever it is that I intend to look at. Tiring on the eyes, unfortunately, but it's most likely something that'll become easier with practice.
For one, I realize that the degree of light diffraction varies by the extent to which one opens one's eyes. For example, I see more astigmatic spikes from streetlights when I squint my eyes, as opposed to when I have them wide open.
And then there's the matter of eye focusing. Interestingly, eye focusing appears to be contrast detection based, so an object with higher contrast tends to be focused on more than one of lower contrast. For example, I can be on a bus with an ad on the windows. These ads are effectively black from the inside of the bus, with holes cut in a pattern that allows passengers to see through. This resultant mesh is relatively high contrast in certain situations, and low contrast in others. Hence, if I tried to discern a vehicle marking from close range, the eye tends to focus on the marking. If I tried it at a longer range, the comparative contrast of the mesh makes it incredibly difficult to focus on the vehicle's marking from then on.
After some experimenting with shifting focus along the length of a pencil near to the eye, I've managed to establish some control over how the eyes focus. So far I'm having some success in forcing the eye to focus past the mesh and on whatever it is that I intend to look at. Tiring on the eyes, unfortunately, but it's most likely something that'll become easier with practice.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
It's The Steel
After grinding my blade for quite some hours, I was puzzled as to exactly why it refused to take on a durable razor edge. As far as I could tell, I was maintaining the correct angles and taking my time with the grind so I was unlikely to be botching the edge. It was then that I figured that perhaps the problem was not with the technique so much as it was with the steel itself. Simply put, the 440 I was working was probably didn't have the world's best temper and might not even be 440 to begin with. Hmm.
So what happened...I looked to my shelf and noticed some old knife blades I had lying about and not worked for some years. In fact, the blades had a touch of rust on them, so clearly they're not the best sort of stainless steel. They might even be some sort of carbon steel. Intriguing.
After spending 20 minutes completely reworking the edge to the angle I wanted, the blade seemed to be quite happy to maintain the edge. In fact, the edge was a lot more "bitey" than I got from doing the exact same thing to my 440 pocket knife. I kept at it till the edge felt good, then I tried the paper test. It melted through the paper this time. Hmm!
So, it does seem that the steel does make a big difference in the kind of edge the blade can take. Undoubtedly, my 440 knife could take a workable edge and if properly resharpened every time, it probably could be quite serviceable. However, when trying to get a true razor edge that lasts for some time, the blade falls flat. It's the steel!
So what happened...I looked to my shelf and noticed some old knife blades I had lying about and not worked for some years. In fact, the blades had a touch of rust on them, so clearly they're not the best sort of stainless steel. They might even be some sort of carbon steel. Intriguing.
After spending 20 minutes completely reworking the edge to the angle I wanted, the blade seemed to be quite happy to maintain the edge. In fact, the edge was a lot more "bitey" than I got from doing the exact same thing to my 440 pocket knife. I kept at it till the edge felt good, then I tried the paper test. It melted through the paper this time. Hmm!
So, it does seem that the steel does make a big difference in the kind of edge the blade can take. Undoubtedly, my 440 knife could take a workable edge and if properly resharpened every time, it probably could be quite serviceable. However, when trying to get a true razor edge that lasts for some time, the blade falls flat. It's the steel!
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Pick Your Madness
I discussed the matter of irrationality with my friend earlier today, talking about gambling in general. Gambling is patently unsatisfying to me, because the losses clearly exceed the gains, but people play it anyway. Somewhere along the discussion, he noted that watching movies was similarly irrational, because one pays to experience an illusion and comes out of it with no tangible gains as well. Good point!
So clearly, we all have our personal madnesses of choice. In fact, we probably have em without realizing exactly what they are. After some pondering, I figure the crux of the problem is that there's no absolute measure by which value is evaluated. I get negative value from losing money in a gamble and so I would not participate in gambling even though there's a chance that I can win. On the other hand, someone who likes the excitement of gambling will think me mad for watching movies if there's no monetary upside.
What the two seem to have in common is experience. There's an experience in the excitement of anticipating the gambling results. Movies and other similar entertainment are pure experiences. Likewise for hobbies and sports. If there's a madness people seem to be stuck to, chances are it's because the madness is associated with an experience that they truly like. Pick your madness.
So clearly, we all have our personal madnesses of choice. In fact, we probably have em without realizing exactly what they are. After some pondering, I figure the crux of the problem is that there's no absolute measure by which value is evaluated. I get negative value from losing money in a gamble and so I would not participate in gambling even though there's a chance that I can win. On the other hand, someone who likes the excitement of gambling will think me mad for watching movies if there's no monetary upside.
What the two seem to have in common is experience. There's an experience in the excitement of anticipating the gambling results. Movies and other similar entertainment are pure experiences. Likewise for hobbies and sports. If there's a madness people seem to be stuck to, chances are it's because the madness is associated with an experience that they truly like. Pick your madness.
Monday, August 15, 2011
On Sharpening Knives
I've recently decided that I wanted to know how to sharpen knives. I've carried a knife with me just about everywhere for a whole lot of years, but I realized that I had no clue as to exactly how I was supposed to put a killer edge on the thing. One thing I do know is that a knife that doesn't slice through stuff cleanly doesn't feel particularly good.
First thing I tried was with my pocket knife. It's a fairly cheap Boker, with 440 stainless for the blade. So far I figure perhaps I'm not particularly good with knife sharpening, seeing as how I've been putting a lot of time into it, but the edge doesn't stay for long. I figure I'm generating a wire edge on the blade itself.
After stropping, I managed to grind a fine edge into the knife that's fairly lasting. Hopefully the edge will hold. I figure it may be a good idea to reprofile the edge itself so that it'll stay sharp. We shall see.
First thing I tried was with my pocket knife. It's a fairly cheap Boker, with 440 stainless for the blade. So far I figure perhaps I'm not particularly good with knife sharpening, seeing as how I've been putting a lot of time into it, but the edge doesn't stay for long. I figure I'm generating a wire edge on the blade itself.
After stropping, I managed to grind a fine edge into the knife that's fairly lasting. Hopefully the edge will hold. I figure it may be a good idea to reprofile the edge itself so that it'll stay sharp. We shall see.
Monday, August 08, 2011
On Self-Esteem
Self esteem is a very delicate thing. Some seem to have a healthy lot of it, others are critically deficient. Me, I find that my self esteem is split. It's a weird predicament. Or perhaps more common than I'm implying. Most likely the latter, come to think of it.
Well anyway, I have this split between my self esteem when it comes to evaluations of my own aptitude, and evaluations of my appearance. If anything, the first is way higher than the latter. I suppose that may be related to why I'd rather work on buffing my aptitude than my appearance, which is generally a good thing anyway. Might also be related to why some people do the opposite.
That said, the power of knowledge is right there, to put things in perspective. If one doesn't know how things really are in the wider world, one would be quite content (or unfairly discontent) in what one's like. And of course, that evaluation would be quite inaccurate indeed. It'll also have the potential to create quite some unnecessary anguish. Let's say I learned something today, and it's comforting indeed.
Well anyway, I have this split between my self esteem when it comes to evaluations of my own aptitude, and evaluations of my appearance. If anything, the first is way higher than the latter. I suppose that may be related to why I'd rather work on buffing my aptitude than my appearance, which is generally a good thing anyway. Might also be related to why some people do the opposite.
That said, the power of knowledge is right there, to put things in perspective. If one doesn't know how things really are in the wider world, one would be quite content (or unfairly discontent) in what one's like. And of course, that evaluation would be quite inaccurate indeed. It'll also have the potential to create quite some unnecessary anguish. Let's say I learned something today, and it's comforting indeed.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Captain America
Captain America. Traditional boy scout comic book superhero. Boyscout by profession. There's little to not like about this particularly naive boy scout, and the movie itself does not disappoint.
Cap is sufficiently well known that it's fairly challenging to spin a reimagination of his origins. This movie serves that purpose, and throws in oodles of humor to boot. The acting was good, and the story was build up with sufficient context to please even non-fans. It is also refreshing to see how the romance ends in this movie (those knowing me will know what to expect), and that scores points as well.
On the flip side, there really is little going against it. I suppose you could regard the usual comic book physics as implausible to impossible, and one who's a stickler for realism should steer clear of this one. Then again, the over the top action and true Cap patriotism are adequate to more than make up for it.
I'd say the movie deserves a 7.5/10. Ok maybe at least 8 since the female lead is pretty darned cute.
Cap is sufficiently well known that it's fairly challenging to spin a reimagination of his origins. This movie serves that purpose, and throws in oodles of humor to boot. The acting was good, and the story was build up with sufficient context to please even non-fans. It is also refreshing to see how the romance ends in this movie (those knowing me will know what to expect), and that scores points as well.
On the flip side, there really is little going against it. I suppose you could regard the usual comic book physics as implausible to impossible, and one who's a stickler for realism should steer clear of this one. Then again, the over the top action and true Cap patriotism are adequate to more than make up for it.
I'd say the movie deserves a 7.5/10. Ok maybe at least 8 since the female lead is pretty darned cute.
Steam
Steam, the digital distribution application by the Valve Corporation, is an evil money spinning wonder. First question: Who the heck likes to view ads? Not me. Would I like seeing Valve ads? Hell yeah!
Now, I've known for some time that Steam is evil. I know this because of the hundreds of games on my Steam account, for example. But what fascinates me the most is how Steam has managed to convince people to like ads. Those in advertising will know that the holy grail is to get peoples' attention, turn that attention to sales and then everything's nice and sunny. Steam does precisely that.
The beauty of a highly specialized distribution system is that everyone getting on it has the same goal: To acquire and play video games. Then comes how their ads are laid out: The top bar has game ads (which everyone expects) and the popup has the highlight game ads. It's easy enough to ignore the unobtrusive top bar ads, and to close the single popup.
Now, how does this differ from the average ad popup? Well for one they tend to show up in ways that prevent you from getting at the product. Youtube ads prevent you from watching a video to get you the advertiser's message. Pron sites spam you with shitloads of popups to the same effect. And everything else has ad bars that show stuff that may or may not be related to what you seek. All in all those just serve to turn eyes away, which translates to lower hits and even lower conversion rates.
Taking a page from Steam and Amazon, it seems that customers react best to very tight ad integration that brings them the information they seek, and in a timely manner. It doesn't obstruct user consumption either. I suppose the next thing is to wonder how one may elegantly advertise on a site that isn't selling stuff...
Now, I've known for some time that Steam is evil. I know this because of the hundreds of games on my Steam account, for example. But what fascinates me the most is how Steam has managed to convince people to like ads. Those in advertising will know that the holy grail is to get peoples' attention, turn that attention to sales and then everything's nice and sunny. Steam does precisely that.
The beauty of a highly specialized distribution system is that everyone getting on it has the same goal: To acquire and play video games. Then comes how their ads are laid out: The top bar has game ads (which everyone expects) and the popup has the highlight game ads. It's easy enough to ignore the unobtrusive top bar ads, and to close the single popup.
Now, how does this differ from the average ad popup? Well for one they tend to show up in ways that prevent you from getting at the product. Youtube ads prevent you from watching a video to get you the advertiser's message. Pron sites spam you with shitloads of popups to the same effect. And everything else has ad bars that show stuff that may or may not be related to what you seek. All in all those just serve to turn eyes away, which translates to lower hits and even lower conversion rates.
Taking a page from Steam and Amazon, it seems that customers react best to very tight ad integration that brings them the information they seek, and in a timely manner. It doesn't obstruct user consumption either. I suppose the next thing is to wonder how one may elegantly advertise on a site that isn't selling stuff...
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The Lure Of Gambling
Gambling is the scourge of mankind. How is it possible for people to be hoodwinked into playing a well known losing game, while irrationally hoping against hope that they'd come out ahead?
The obvious answer is well...everyone hopes to win and nobody really expects to come out the big loser. Fair enough. But while watching people react to the outcome of gambling results, I actually see some really good game design behind the whole shebang.
The first principle here is feedback. It's very clear in the case of winning and losing. You win, you come out ahead. You lose, you lose. Simple enough. They even threw in a reward system that way (punishment doesn't count since the bet is already acknowledged as a loss at the beginning).
Then comes the heroin content: You, sir, have nearly won! Nearly won? What does that mean? In this case, betting on numbers...oh man, I've scored 4 out of the 5 required numbers for the winning ticket. Dude...if I just rolled my numbers differently, I'd be taking home tens of thousands of dollars right now! That nearly won effect is fantastic in keeping people playing. If they simply put tickets through a system and it told them...Win/Lose, the motivation to continue playing would fade pretty quickly: There's no lure. Actually, I see the game in win/lose terms, which is why I refuse to play.
Finally...you've played, you've won. Hell yeah! The next question: Do you cash out and walk away for ever, or play for more money? Yanou...that money I just won? It's easy to come by. I didn't earn it, it's the house's money... Well that's the House Money Effect. Throw everything in and you've got a game that everyone wants to play, are fairly happy losing money at, and really winning only gets them coming back for more. So, friends, would you like to ante up now?
The obvious answer is well...everyone hopes to win and nobody really expects to come out the big loser. Fair enough. But while watching people react to the outcome of gambling results, I actually see some really good game design behind the whole shebang.
The first principle here is feedback. It's very clear in the case of winning and losing. You win, you come out ahead. You lose, you lose. Simple enough. They even threw in a reward system that way (punishment doesn't count since the bet is already acknowledged as a loss at the beginning).
Then comes the heroin content: You, sir, have nearly won! Nearly won? What does that mean? In this case, betting on numbers...oh man, I've scored 4 out of the 5 required numbers for the winning ticket. Dude...if I just rolled my numbers differently, I'd be taking home tens of thousands of dollars right now! That nearly won effect is fantastic in keeping people playing. If they simply put tickets through a system and it told them...Win/Lose, the motivation to continue playing would fade pretty quickly: There's no lure. Actually, I see the game in win/lose terms, which is why I refuse to play.
Finally...you've played, you've won. Hell yeah! The next question: Do you cash out and walk away for ever, or play for more money? Yanou...that money I just won? It's easy to come by. I didn't earn it, it's the house's money... Well that's the House Money Effect. Throw everything in and you've got a game that everyone wants to play, are fairly happy losing money at, and really winning only gets them coming back for more. So, friends, would you like to ante up now?
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Harry Potter: The Deathly Hallows 2
This is the end of the Harry Potter series. Seeing as how virtually everyone who watches is a fan (myself excluded), I suppose there's little worry of spoiling anything with the comments here. Newsflash: Prof. Dumbledore is an asshole. But then I suppose everyone knew that beforehand anyway =p
So...am I impressed by this particular installment of the Harry Potter series? Did it go out with a bang? Well not really. Frankly, as a non-fan, I found the overall movie to be somewhat lackluster. For one, the magickal duel between HP and Tom just wasn't all that spectacular. There were funny moments in the assault on Hogwarts, but everything in between kind of turned into a somewhat amorphous mush. Hermoine's still hawwt, by the way.
Overall I'd say the movie's something like a 6.5/10. It reveals something of the series that fans already know, but from a non-fan's perspective it really is mediocre at best.
So...am I impressed by this particular installment of the Harry Potter series? Did it go out with a bang? Well not really. Frankly, as a non-fan, I found the overall movie to be somewhat lackluster. For one, the magickal duel between HP and Tom just wasn't all that spectacular. There were funny moments in the assault on Hogwarts, but everything in between kind of turned into a somewhat amorphous mush. Hermoine's still hawwt, by the way.
Overall I'd say the movie's something like a 6.5/10. It reveals something of the series that fans already know, but from a non-fan's perspective it really is mediocre at best.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Camera Love
I am a firm believer that a photo's compositional quality comes not from the gear, but from the photographer. If the photographer's good, she'll pop out superior stuff relative to a more inexperienced photog given the same gear. That much is true.
However, when it comes to the gear, sometimes it really can make a big difference in one's shooting style. Take for example the compact camera vs the EVIL camera vs the DSLR. The compact camera is small, and can take shots from virtually any vantage point. It's easy to squeeze that little thing through a gap in a fence and snap shots. For the EVIL, it's got image quality comparable to a DSLR, but with speed that is somewhat faster than the compact's. It's good for slow, considered photography. Not so good for anything faster. Then comes the heavyweight DSLR, which is zippy in performance and changing settings. But of course, its primary disadvantage lies in its sheer bulk.
I was taking photos at a railway just yesterday, and I was frankly getting a bit tired of my EVIL misfocusing shots. It's doing that by giving me false focus confirmations. After thumbing the DSLR for a bit, I realized that it really was all that much faster than my EVIL (I was burning that one in previously, so I had to use it continuously). The feel was so different, and the handling on the device did make me feel a lot more confident in taking shots with it. Odd shots, too, that may involve holding the camera at odd angles.
Overall, I'd say I can now understand why I originally wanted the DSLR as my primary shooter. If there's something worth shooting and I'm lugging my gear along, I might as well carry the DSLR. It isn't really worth it going on a dedicated shoot armed only with the EVIL...it currently isn't zippy enough to do the job.
However, when it comes to the gear, sometimes it really can make a big difference in one's shooting style. Take for example the compact camera vs the EVIL camera vs the DSLR. The compact camera is small, and can take shots from virtually any vantage point. It's easy to squeeze that little thing through a gap in a fence and snap shots. For the EVIL, it's got image quality comparable to a DSLR, but with speed that is somewhat faster than the compact's. It's good for slow, considered photography. Not so good for anything faster. Then comes the heavyweight DSLR, which is zippy in performance and changing settings. But of course, its primary disadvantage lies in its sheer bulk.
I was taking photos at a railway just yesterday, and I was frankly getting a bit tired of my EVIL misfocusing shots. It's doing that by giving me false focus confirmations. After thumbing the DSLR for a bit, I realized that it really was all that much faster than my EVIL (I was burning that one in previously, so I had to use it continuously). The feel was so different, and the handling on the device did make me feel a lot more confident in taking shots with it. Odd shots, too, that may involve holding the camera at odd angles.
Overall, I'd say I can now understand why I originally wanted the DSLR as my primary shooter. If there's something worth shooting and I'm lugging my gear along, I might as well carry the DSLR. It isn't really worth it going on a dedicated shoot armed only with the EVIL...it currently isn't zippy enough to do the job.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Corporate Inefficiency
One thing that constantly amuses me in game development is how a big company can be inclined to stick to completely arbitrary deadlines. I say big company, because small companies do not necessarily have the resources to be able to say it's-done-when-it's-done. If anything, a smaller company saying that is effectively betting the entire game, whereas a big company will be betting shareholder value.
I find it inefficient because the sunk cost for a project is already there at the arbitary deadline, and extending it by a tad would result in significant gains in quality. There is always the argument to strike while the iron's hot, and to have the project shipped on schedule to take advantage of the holiday season and whatnot for sales. Yet, I find that other companies have successfully sat on their project for sales period after sales period to ship a truly quality product way beyond the typical 2 year dev cycle.
To me, a company may do well to incur an additional 10-20% of production costs from improving quality, such that first impressions do not get the already expensive project crushed from poor reviews. It is the image from poor reviews that can severely damage a project's sales, after all...
I find it inefficient because the sunk cost for a project is already there at the arbitary deadline, and extending it by a tad would result in significant gains in quality. There is always the argument to strike while the iron's hot, and to have the project shipped on schedule to take advantage of the holiday season and whatnot for sales. Yet, I find that other companies have successfully sat on their project for sales period after sales period to ship a truly quality product way beyond the typical 2 year dev cycle.
To me, a company may do well to incur an additional 10-20% of production costs from improving quality, such that first impressions do not get the already expensive project crushed from poor reviews. It is the image from poor reviews that can severely damage a project's sales, after all...
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Super 8
Goonies meets ET. If you liked the old Spielburg classics, I think you'd really like this one. It's certainly a throwback to the old stuff, and strangely anachronistic for our current film styles. I say anachronistic because it gives more of a sense of forced nostalgia in an era of totally different film styles, even though the piece itself is indeed rather good.
So. We have an intrepid squad of film-making youngsters turned investigators when they start to look into the strange goings on in their small town. Set in the late 1970's to early 80's, it does invoke a certain nostalgia for those who remember the era.
What's there not to like? The alien here doesn't talk, it's seriously pissed off, and the rest of the movie is effectively the Goonies with moviemaking thrown in. In fact, even the movie they made was endearingly slapped together kid-style without trying to go all Blair Witch on our asses. To boot, the kids are quite good with their acting, portraying rather convincing characters (not that I could really tell, since I'm that bad with body language and all)
Overall I'd say I liked it, though it broke no new ground. That's not to say that it really had to, but it is what it is. 7.5/10
So. We have an intrepid squad of film-making youngsters turned investigators when they start to look into the strange goings on in their small town. Set in the late 1970's to early 80's, it does invoke a certain nostalgia for those who remember the era.
What's there not to like? The alien here doesn't talk, it's seriously pissed off, and the rest of the movie is effectively the Goonies with moviemaking thrown in. In fact, even the movie they made was endearingly slapped together kid-style without trying to go all Blair Witch on our asses. To boot, the kids are quite good with their acting, portraying rather convincing characters (not that I could really tell, since I'm that bad with body language and all)
Overall I'd say I liked it, though it broke no new ground. That's not to say that it really had to, but it is what it is. 7.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)