Science Fiction: The Old Ways Are Best. For Now.

Steve Icon

I speculated some time ago that though we needed to have more inspiring science fiction, and that we may have had some kind of “imagination gap,” that we also had to ask what the best form is to deliver it (books, webcomics, etc.). I consider it a legitimate question since the first goal after creating the good fiction, is to get it out there.

Lately I’ve been editing Serdar’s “Flight of the Vajra” (which I can say, our friendship aside, is quite good). Sitting down to my first SF novel in awhile has made me think about my former essay and opinions. Specifically that the newer forms (webcomics, serial fiction, etc.) right now are not the best way to deliver the revolutionary/return-to-imagination SF I’m talking about.

Yes I said that.  Me the technophile and neophile is thinking we might need to take it back a notch and keep it old school for awhile. Continue reading

A Kick(Starter) to the Head: It’s All About the Benja…uh, Perks

Heya, Fantoprosketeers!  Last week when we spoke (or when you read my…wait, I forgot to update last week) Last time when we spoke, I said I was going to go over the idea of perks.  So, with that in mind, here’s the perky perks (or is that perqy perqs?  Purki puhurcs?)

Continue reading

Review: Ready For Anything, 52 Productivity Principles for Getting Things Done by David Allen

Steve Icon

Review: Ready For Anything, 52 Productivity Principles for Getting Things Done by David Allen.

ISBN-10: 0143034545
ISBN-13: 978-0143034544

PROS:

  • Advice is presented in intense, “bite-sized” sets of tips that make for easy reading.
  • Little wasted space
  • Stories help illustrate the points.
  • Comes with insightful exercises to get the most out of the advice – and shock you into awareness.

CONS:

  • You really have to read “Getting Things Done” to get the most value out of the book.

SUMMARY: An indispensable, insight-filled companion to “Getting Things Done” – just read that book first. Continue reading

It’s Always Real Life

TamaraThere’s a phrase I’ve recently dropped from my vocabulary.  I don’t say “IRL” or “In Real Life” anymore.  Generally, IRL refers to things that happen offline or in-person, and so that’s what I say now instead.  I encourage people to drop the dichotomy that implies that online events aren’t real.  They are very real.

First and foremost, plenty of us conduct our businesses, social lives, and hobbies online.  If we don’t count that as real, then we have very empty lives indeed.

For another thing, saying that offline life is real and online life is only virtual saps the human element out of what we do.  When you draw something and post it online, that’s yours.  Implying that everything that happens online is somehow divorced from the people behind it is to further sever the link between a creator and their intellectual property.  Progeeks will know, it’s hard enough to get credit for one’s own accomplishments.
Continue reading

Geek to Geek: Continuity

How much can a series break its continuity before you go from appreciating it to laughing at it?

Tamara: Good “magic rules” or world building interest me such that I can forgive a lot.  For example, the first time I saw “Sailor Moon,” they played the pilot and then three random episodes.  It was continuity-warped worse than “Firefly.”  However, I still loved it anyway because it hinted at so many cool things.  I was taken in by the magical items, the ordinary-kids-as-superheroes theme, the talking cats, and the promise of another world.

Ewen: It really depends on how they do it and why. The team behind Red Dwarf for example has a habit of flagrantly ignoring continuity when they feel like it, but they’re mostly playing it for laughs, so when they have weird jumps in continuity (like Lister having his appendix out twice) you know it’s in the service of comedy. At the other extreme is stuff like Heroes from season 2 onward, which clumsily retconned the rather bold and satisfying ending of season 1, and then proceeded to flail around a bunch. Put simply, I’m willing to forgive continuity issues when they make the overall story stronger rather than weaker.

Scott: Depends on the series.  A comedy that cheerfully stomps over the idea of continuity isn’t going to worry about it, and that’s part of the joke. A serious drama that forgets a detail here or there, especially a series that has been running for some time, isn’t going to lose much.  Sure, there’ll be people online pointing out the error, but when a series lasts long enough that the entire writing staff has changed, errors crop up.  Ideally, the writers either admit to the mistake or play with the error and turn it into a plot point.

Then there are the series that forget what happened the previous week, how the technobabble is supposed to work.  It’s forgivable if the series runs on dramatic narrative – things work or don’t work only because it’s dramatic.  But, if one week, the technobabble doesn’t work against substance, then the next it does, it breaks suspension of disbelief and, well, draws ridicule and laughter.  This needs to not happen.

Steve: That really depends on how much they do over time.  In general though a violation of any core principles or complete reversal of important elements can do it, though sometimes that can be done right.  Also, blatant pandering in such continuity breaking turns me off fast.

Serdar: If it’s a show where the continuity was never all that important to begin with, then they can pretty much do as they please. If it’s a show where the making of the show is not wholly predictable, then it’s also OK. (Doctor Who did this)

But it’s hard to watch something that has a lot of money thrown at it and a lot of effort when the people allegedly responsible for the show aren’t even willing to do that kind of diligence. I see on-set continuity and in-universe continuity as being no different from each other.

Bonnie: I’ve given continuities the benefit of the doubt a lot of times. However, if something is no longer recognizable as the original at all and the canon offers no logical explanation as to what has happened, or if the current incarnation of the series has become a complete departure from the creator’s original intentions, I can’t take it seriously anymore. (An example of this can be found at the current My Little Pony fan rage at the Equestria Girls spinoff – many fans think its boys-and-popularity high school plotline is a violation of the original series’ “There’s no wrong way to be a girl” core values.)

Why We’re Bad At Networking #5: Many Personalities, One Method

Steve Icon

Why are we bad at Networking? This issue has been obsessing me for the last few weeks, which I hope has been as informative for you as it’s been therapeutic for me. It’s nice to organize my thoughts and get them out. As you may guess, I’m not done yet.

Now there’s a lot of effective networking advice out there. Sure it’s often basic, sure we get the same stuff thrown at us again and again, sure the tools are overwhelming. But we do get a lot of good network advice and options out there.

It’s just that in a lot of cases . . . it’s pitched at people who already network in specific ways, do specific things, and have specific personalities. Continue reading

Why We Can’t Explain Video Games To Non Gamers

Steve Icon

A lot of us have, are, or want to work in gaming. Which is great, even if the industry is insanely confusing (enough for me to have ranted about it for quite some time). Gaming is a legitimate form of development and dare I say it, art. Also it really helps push technology, so I’m all for it.

Except as I expand my work in the geekosphere I encounter a lot of people who just don’t “get” gaming. Oh they’re as nerdy as the rest of us, as technical (if not moreso in some cases), but they don’t see why people would blow hours doing this and what they get of it. Wondering why some people don’t “get” gaming is something I’ve been thinking of.

I’ve been thinking about it because it affects how we develop, how we market, and how we communicate. If we are missing people that may enjoy our games, that is an issue. If value is not communicated, that is an issue. If sometimes we’re wasting time on a bad project we could avoid with the feedback of a “non-gamer” that is a big issue.

So why is it some people just don’t “get” games? After some analysis, I came to a few conclusions, some of which are surprising.  Well, to me. Continue reading

Lost in Translation 62 – Adapting Games, Part IV

Welcome to Lost in Translation‘s quick series about the ins and outs of adapting games to television and film.* As seen since the first post, if something is popular, someone else will want to adapt it to a different medium. Today, 2013, the most likely medium to adapt from elsewhere is the Hollywood film.

Part I – Video Games
Part II – Boardgames
Part III – Tabletop Role-Playing Games
Part IV – Adapting Games to Games

Adapting Games to Games

So far, I’ve looked at adapting games as movies and television. There is still one more way for a game to be adapted – as another game. Already, a questions appears; “Why? What’s the point?” A popular game, though, is ripe to be exploited.

Starting with boardgames, what usually happens is the game gets adapted as a video game. The main advantage is that the player can get a computer opponent when there is no one else available to play with. Another advantage is having an impartial judge, the computer or console, make sure that the game is played fair. With the integration of the Internet into day to day lives, updates to the game, in the form of new content, is easy to get. Trivia games, such as Trivial Pursuit, can add new questions and fix wrong answers with a patch instead of waiting for the next expansion pack to be published. A successful adaptation of a boardgame has to keep the gameplay the same in the video game; otherwise, why play the video game when the boardgame is within reach. Most boardgames have simple mechanics, relatively speaking. The rules have to be easily interpreted by the players to keep the game flowing and keep the number of arguments to a minimum. The computer opponent needs to be challenging but not impossible to beat. The experience has to be similar to the original game, though added details like animation are a plus.

Video games, usually ones that have become household names, do get adapted as board games. Sometimes, it’s a brand applied to another existing game, typically Monopoly**. Other times, there’s an effort to bring the feel of the video game to the board; the Frogger adaptation involves trying to cross a highway and the Pac-Man board game was a multi-player version of the video game. World of Warcraft has spawned boardgames, a trading card game, and a miniatures game. HeroClix, a miniatures game, has sets for Assassin’s Creed, BioShock, Gears of War, Halo, and Street Fighter. Again, the experience the players have must be similar to the original video game. Pac-Man‘s board is set out like the video game’s, with the players’ tokens looking like Pac-Man himself. There will be cases where it will be difficult to bring the video game experience to the table; first-person shooters will lose that perspective. The HeroClix examples, however, add a new dimension; all HeroClix sets are compatible. It is possible to find out if a team up of Master Chief from Halo and Chun Li from Street Fighter can win against Batman and Robin.

Video games have also been adapted as tabletop rpgs. Not many, the market for a tabletop RPG is already a niche, and the cost of licensing a title may be more than the game can bring in. That said, the three adaptations that come to mind are Dragon Age: Origins (adapted by Green Ronin), Street Fighter II (adapted by White Wolf; currently out of print], and Everquest (adapted by Sword & Sorcery Studio, an imprint of White Wolf; print status unknown). Adapting a video game to a tabletop RPG means that the coding used to play the game, especially determining success with tasks, needs to be made available to the players in a way that is understandable by a human, not a machine. As with the case of the Street Fighter II and Everquest games, a tabletop game company may use its house rules and try to fit the video game’s setting around those. White Wolf used its Storytelling system with Street Fighter; the fit wasn’t ideal; the Everquest tabletop RPG used the third edition Dungeons & Dragons Open Gaming License as a base, recreating the classes from the video game to fit. Green Ronin, however, created a new system for the Dragon Age RPG, one that reflects what happens during gameplay. The key for a successful adaptation is to have the tabletop RPG feel like the video game while still being approachable by both people new to the tabletop hobby and people new to the video game’s setting. Characters should be capable of doing what their counterparts in the video game do; Street Fighter didn’t manage to do this while Everquest presented the same type of character that a new player just starting the video game would get.

As for tabletop RPGs, the adaptation of those spans the history of video games and will be dealt with in Part V

* And theatre, though I’d be surprised if someone made that leap.
** When the Monopoly movie comes out, will there be a Monopoly Monopoly?