October 18th, 2012Top Story The Most Pro-Science Presidents In American History By George Dvorsky One of the more frustrating aspects of this current election season is the disturbing willingness of both presidential candidates to conveniently set aside meaningful and timely discussions of science. And it's not as if there isn't a lot to talk about: there's climate change, a public health crisis, a withering economy that could use a science-inspired boost, and a public eager to see a coherent vision for America's future in space. But it hasn't always been this way. In honor of previous executives who were either scientifically-minded or simply happy to serve as cheerleaders, here are 10 of the most science-friendly presidents in U.S. history. Top image: John F. Kennedy, Alien Hunter by Jason Heuser. 1. Thomas Jefferson It's hard to imagine a U.S. president like this today: Thomas Jefferson was an Enlightenment era polymath who spoke five languages and had a keen interest in science (especially archaeology), engineering (he invented a clock that was powered by the Earth's gravitational pull on cannonballs), architecture (he designed his own mansion, Monticello), and philosophy (he was was President of the American Philosophical Society). He also founded the University of Virginia and sponsored the Lewis and Clark Expedition to explore the west. 2. John Quincy Adams Known as a pre-Civil War era reformer, John Quincy Adams was responsible for modernizing the American economy and building an infrastructure to support it. To that end, he established a uniform system of weights and measures, improved the patent system, facilitated a thorough survey of the country's coasts, and was a very early advocate for science as a way to encourage the spirit of enterprise and invention in the United States. An avid astronomer, he established an astronomical observatory (what is now the U.S. Naval Observatory) and participated in the establishment of the Smithsonian Institution. 3. Abraham Lincoln Though primarily remembered for the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln also managed to sign a bill that created the National Academy of Sciences. And disillusioned with the backwardness of U.S. farming practices, he enforced scientific techniques and insights onto the agricultural industry. Driven by Malthusian fears of overpopulation and unsustainability, Lincoln saw to it that farmers were educated at government expenses, and that they would be provided with latest intelligence on farming machinery (he even predicted "self-propelled" machines), fertilizers, soil chemistry, and crop management. He is also the only president to hold a patent for his invention of a method to lift boats off sandbars and shoals. And disturbed by the country's reliance on sperm whale oil, he encouraged the development of alternative fuel sources (read more about this episode of history here). 4. James Garfield A total math nerd, James Garfield developed a trapezoid proof of the Pythagorean theorem, a finding that saw his work published in the New England Journal of Education (given the anti-intellectual streak that runs through much of US politics today, it may be a while before another published scientist gets elected to office). And following in Lincoln's footsteps, Garfield continued to promote the idea that agricultural science should be supported by the federal government. 5. Theodore Roosevelt The exuberant and outspoken Theodore Roosevelt will forever be known for his work as a dedicated naturalist and conservationist. A Nobel Peace Prize winner, he was quoted as saying, "Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us." Fascinated by geography and biology, Roosevelt was a published ornithologist and an avid outdoorsman. In 1891, he used the Forest Reserve Act to allocate 150 million acres of land to the public domain — an unprecedented move for a U.S. president. He also oversaw the creation of the U.S. Forest Service. After his presidency, he participated in the Roosevelt-Rondon Scientific Expedition in the Amazon. 6. Franklin Roosevelt Let's put it this way: While the Nazis were bathing in Himmlerian pseudoscience and obsessing over useless V2 rockets, Franklin Roosevelt took the hint from Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, and Leo Szilard and put together a crack team that developed the world's first atomic bomb — a scientific megaproject that changed the course of World War II and history itself. But even prior to the war, Roosevelt had already made his mark on encouraging scientific progress and environmentalism by kickstarting work on watersheds, forest conservation, agriculture, and managing the ravaging effects of the Dust Bowl. 7. Harry Truman Working closely with the preeminent scientist Vannevar Bush, Harry Truman increased federal funding for scientific research in the immediate post-war era. His intention was to foster innovation and a more vigorous economy, a stronger national defense, and improved healthcare. In 1950, he signed a bill into law that established the National Science Foundation. 8. John F. Kennedy In his own words: Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it—we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding... We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. 9. Jimmy Carter Despite his Baptist background, Jimmy Carter was fascinated by science. He had a bachelor of science degree from the U.S. Naval Academy and was trained as an engineer. Looking to change NASA's megaproject mentality, Carter stated upon his presidency that, "Our space policy will become more evolutionary rather than centering around a single, massive engineering feat. Pluralistic objectives and needs of our society will set the course for future space efforts." To that end, he supported the Space Shuttle project (including the construction of four space shuttles) and supported the development of the Hubble Space Telescope. In 1977, the twin Voyager spacecrafts carried the golden phonographs into space with a message written by the President himself. And as an inheritor of the 1970s energy crisis, he founded the U.S. Department of Energy, proposed a number of energy conservation schemes, and promoted research into alternative energy sources. Lastly, Carter had a friendship with the late evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould in which the two of them debated the finer details of Darwinian theory (he even wrote the postscript for Gould's book, Bully for Brontosaurus). 10. Ronald Reagan Though hardly an intellectual, Ronald Reagan was a huge fan of science, particularly space exploration. He was a cheerleader for NASA and his views often ran in conflict with those of his advisors. In addition to supporting the Space Shuttle program, Reagan approved the construction of a space station, stating that it would "permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications, in metals, and in life saving medicines which could be manufactured only in space." And though controversial, it was his administration that launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (collequially known as "Star Wars") to develop a space-based system to protect the U.S. from nuclear attack. But as the Cold War melted in the late 1980s, Reagan seriously considered working with the Soviets on a collaborative space program. Though not a fan of environmentalism (he removed Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the White House), he did react quickly to ban ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons when that crisis hit. And given his support for space exploration, we'll just have to conveniently forget that he was advised by his Astrology-loving wife, along with advisors who claimed that ketchup was a vegetable and that trees cause pollution (which they kind of do in a twisted sort of way). Sources: nps.gov, American Almanac, Center on Philanthropy, sciencemag, eoearth, NASA. Images: Jefferson, Adams, Teddy, FDR: Elias Goldensky (1868-1943), Lincoln, JFK, Carter, Reagan.

Canada's government knew about the geohacking project off its Pacific coast How did Adventure Time become better than most live-action TV shows? Creepy wax anatomy models from the 1700-1800s. Apologies if you planned on sleeping tonight. The 10 Most Defining Performances in the History of Genre Television The Most Pro-Science Presidents In American History How Will Humans Get to Alpha Centauri? Neil Gaiman's second Doctor Who episode will appear this season after all! More Stories on io9 »

dwyld.kwu.11muchado2011@blogger.com: Change your e-mail address | Unsubscribe

Gawker Media, 210 Elizabeth Street, Floor 4, New York, NY 10012
Terms of use | Mailing List Policy

October 18th, 2012Top Story The Best Productivity Tricks Used By Evil Dictators By Thorin Klosowski History is full of evil dictators, and while the had their share of bad qualities, it's undeniable they were efficient at getting things done. Here's what we can learn from them, despite their evil nature. Dictators manipulate people when their willpower is weak, they get rid of close friends, and they give rousing speeches that can convince people to do just about anything. Here's six things, both good and evil, we can learn from the ways dictators have handled situations. Force Difficult Decisions on People When Their Willpower is Weak As we've talked about before, working when you're tired and when you're suffering from decision fatigue leads to poor decision making. A good dictator knows exactly how to exploit this. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro loved 4 a.m. meetings where he'd often get people out of bed so he could put them at a distinct disadvantage. Russian dictator Joseph Stalin would also use this tactic, even meeting Winston Churchill late at night to draw up plans to attack Germany. How you can use this: In both of these cases, the idea is to catch your enemies (or allies) when their willpower is low and they're willing to do anything to work with you. On the flipside of this, it's a reminder that decision fatigue is real and easily exploitable by anyone for a variety of means—so whenever possible, avoid those 4am meetings with your boss (or give yourself enough time to wake up beforehand). Photo by Garry Knight. Create a "Five-Year Plan" for Personal Goals Popularized by Joseph Stalin, the Five-Year Plan was an economic plan that sought to bring about a specific end goal like industrialization, lower unemployment, and general readiness for possible problems. On top of being embraced in Soviet Russia, the idea of a Five-Year Plan was used in The People's Republic of China, Cuba, Pakistan, Vietnam, and others. How you can use this: While your five-year plan will likely be less ambitious than most dictator's, the idea itself is still a solid one. In fact, we've talked about making a five-year financial plan before, and "where do you see yourself in five years?" is a popular interview question you should have a response to. To figure out what you want, and how to work towards those goals, financial blog The Simple Dollar recommends you create a Five-Year Sketch: Here are some elements to think about when making this sketch: What will your job be like? What will your family be like? What will your physical appearance be like? What will your home be like? What will a typical day be like? What will you be looking forward to? What will your social circle look like? I encourage you to try to write down at least ten traits for each of these questions that describe the way you'd like your life to be in five years. Planning ahead five years is a great way to figure out what you want, and how you want to get it. We've shown you how to prioritize those goals with a hierarchy, how to fight back when your brain stops you from achieving goals, and even how working towards your goals in public can help. Photo by Pascal. Purge Threats to Your Power In order to hold onto power, a dictator often needs to get rid of threats. This means purging your closest friends and advisors when they get too close to you or you feel like they want your power. The threat alone makes those outside the circle vie for power and attention, while the inner circle is stuck sucking up to you. Nearly every dictator uses this tactic to some extent, but Fidel Castro and Peru's Alberto Fujimoro were especially good at it. As Steven Levitsky points out in the Journal of Democracy, Fujimori is most famous for his self-coup in 1992 where he closed Congress, suspended the constitution and got rid of the judiciary so that he could take control. In their book The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics, authors Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith outline this idea as "Rule 1: Keep your winning coalition as small as possible." Fidel Castro was legendary at this. After the revolution in Cuba was a success, 12 of his 20 ministers had resigned (or were ousted). This included Castro's fellow revolutionary Che Guevara. Castro sent Guevera to Bolivia for a mission in 1967, then cut his funding and left him stranded there because Castro saw Guevera as a threat. How you can use this: If someone is challenging your authority, the easiest way to deal with it is to get rid of the person in question. Be careful and keep an eye out for anyone gunning for your position. On the flipside, if you're looking to move up in the ranks, you'll either want to be extra nice to the person who's job you're gunning for, so they don't feel threatened. Alternatively, you could try to get rid of them before they get rid of you, but that's much riskier (and not as nice). Photo by Cory Doctorow. Embrace Your "Cult of Personality" The cult of personality is a well-known dictator trick. The idea is to present yourself as the most amazing thing possible. To do this, dictators would pick up ridiculous habits, plaster their photos all over the country, or even give themselves nicknames. The most prominent (and possibly over-the-top) example of was North Korea's Kim Jong-il, aka, the Supreme Leader of North Korea. Jong-il's cult of personality rose to the point where, according to author's Chol-hwan Kang and Pierre Rigoulot in the their book, The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag, people actually believed that Jong-il could control the weather with his outfits. This is common practice amongst dictators. Romanian communist dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu gave himself the title, "The Genius of the Carpathians," Italy's Benito Mussollini made himself look taller by only allowing pictures from certain angles, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi only employed female bodyguards known as the "Amazonian Guard", and Cambodia's Pol Pot rarely allowed pictures of himself at all. How you can use this: Your own cult of personality isn't likely to get as extensive as a dictator's, but the idea that you can embrace and control it is important for things like job searches. As we've mentioned before, shameless self-promotion during interviews isn't a bad thing. More important is establishing and maintaining your online identity, which is essentially the non-dictator version of the "cult of personality." If you control what others see, you can control their perception of you, and come off looking a lot better than you are in real life. Give Direct, Powerful Speeches By a lot of accounts, Germany's Adolf Hitler was one of the best public speakers in dictator history. At least part of that was due to his timing. Before Hitler started to take power, public speaking was often an intellectual thing, filled with complex, lecture-like readings. Hitler's performance, in contrast, was excited, emotive, and filled with slogans. In Richard J Evan's The Coming of the Third Reich, he describes Hitler's public speaking like so: [Hitler] gained much of his oratorical success by telling his audiences what they wanted to hear. He used simple, straightforward language that ordinary people could understand, short sentences, powerful, emotive slogans. Often beginning a speech quietly, to capture his audience's attention, he would gradually build to a climax, his deep, rather hoarse voice would rise in pitch, climbing in a crescendo to a ranting and screaming finale, accompanied by carefully rehearsed dramatic gestures...as he worked his audience into a frenzy emotion. There were no qualifications in what he said; everything was absolute, uncompromising, irrevocable, undeviating, unalterable, final...he exuded self-confidence, aggression, belief in the ultimate triumph of his party, even a sense of destiny. Of course, Hitler's speeches were all about rhetoric and absolution. While the content itself was horrible, he was undeniably good at getting people to agree with him—even when he was openly calling them stupid. Bruce Loebs, from the Department of Communication and Rhetorical Studies at Idaho State University points out that Hitler used a few tricks to get people on his side. These included arguments that used passion over reason, black and white reasoning as propaganda, and of course, repetition. How you can use this: In some ways, Hitler's speeches were similar to what we talked about when we showed you how to plant ideas into someone's mind, but Hitler was far more over the top. Still, a lot can be learned from his speech style. Hitler was an obsessive editor of his speeches, and he consistently delivered them in plain language that everyone could understand. Keep this in mind when giving a presentation at work, raising office morale after a bad day, or even presenting an argument to a friend. Simplify your speech (as opposed to trying to sound smart), put some emotion into it, build up slowly, and you'll have your audience eating out your hands. Photo by Kıvanç Niş. Learn From Experiences, Not Books The strongest and longest lasting dictators embraced the idea of "practice makes perfect", and put themselves on the front lines at some point in order to gain experience. Julius Caesar, for instance, fought on the front lines with soldiers, slept in the same beds, and learned from them before coming up with the quote, "Experience is the teacher of all things." Napoleon Bonaparte, of course, did the same thing as he worked his way through the French Revolution (before eventually installing himself as a dictator). Vladimir Lenin was extremely well read, but still spent his time practicing his craft, writing pamphlets, and talking with his people. Mao took this a step further and used his peasant upbringing not just as an excuse not to shower, but also as fuel for his control over peasents. How you can use this: The point is that experience is far more necessary to get a job done well than a bunch of reading material. New experiences are important, and with deliberate practice you'll eventually be the best you can be. As we know, practical experience is often better than grades or books in the job market. Internships are more valuable than grades, because when you have experience—but no direct qualifications, you're a better candidate for the job. Heck, even when we hire here at Lifehacker, having a personal blog of writing samples is far more useful than previous, irrelevant job experience. If you don't have those types of experiences, make the experience yourself. Photo by Couverture & The Garbstore. This post is part of our Evil Week series at Lifehacker, where we look at the dark side of getting things done. Knowing evil means knowing how to beat it, so you can use your sinister powers for good. Want more? Check out our evil week tag page. The title image was illustrated by Dominick Rabrun. You can find his illustrations on his personal web site, or works in progress on his blog. Click to view Click to view

What's New In Ubuntu Linux 12.10 "Quantal Quetzal" How Can I Earn Some Pocket Money Online? The Best Productivity Tricks Used By Evil Dictators Use "Naked Planning" to Keep Yourself Accountable During Projects How to Plant Ideas in Someone's Mind The Right Way to Deep Fry a Turkey From the Tips Box: Hanging Laundry, Cropped Photos, and To-Do Reminders More Stories on Lifehacker »

dwyld.kwu.11muchado2011@blogger.com: Change your e-mail address | Unsubscribe

Gawker Media, 210 Elizabeth Street, Floor 4, New York, NY 10012
Terms of use | Mailing List Policy

October 18th, 2012Top Story Old Is New: This Year's Best Games Are All About The Classics By by Kirk Hamilton and Jason Schreier This fall, we've been getting the best sort of déja vu. From Dishonored to XCOM, many of the best games of the fall have learned from past classics and reworked them into smart, satisfying, fresh-feeling games. Is this new appreciation for 90's classics a trend, or an anomaly? What exactly does "old-school" mean? Does the future of gaming depend on this current crop selling well? Is Mitt Romney actually a giant spider? My oh my, those sure are some... Burning Questions. Kirk: Hello Jasonbro! It has been a little while since we did one of these. I guess we've both been busy playing lots of video games, huh? Jason: I fucking hate video games. Jason: just kidding Kirk:This time of year, it can be easy to start feeling that way. Especially if you're, say, reviewing Resident Evil 6. Heyo! (Too Easy? Low-hanging fruit?) Jason: Low-hanging fruit that pops back up every time you try to take it and says "YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST OF ME YET!" Yeah, I'm lucky enough to have spent my time with a ton of great games over the past few weeks. Dishonored, XCOM, Virtue's Last Reward... Kirk: As well as Torchlight II, Borderlands 2... the list goes on and on. Honestly, there's been some grumping from people I know about how 2012 has been a bad year for video games, but I think they're tripping. Skyrim may not have come out again this year, but 2012 has been fantastic. Fantastic, and super interesting. Jason: Fantastic, super interesting, and old-school. Kirk: Yeah! Which is our topic du jour—how all of these old-school ideas and philosophies are showing up in modern games, and how for the most part, they're working. Jason: We sure are enjoying them, aren't we? Maybe it's because of nostalgia; maybe it's because design was actually much sharper 10 or 15 years ago. I don't know. But you're right — it's 2012 and here we are raving about games like Dishonored, which is basically Deus Ex, and XCOM which is basically... XCOM. Kirk: I think you make the delineation thusly: X-Com for the old game and XCOM for the new one. Jason: Dashes and lower-case letters are so 1994. The future is all CAPITAL LETTERS. Kirk: AND THANK GOD, REALLY. But yeah, as you say: It's important to plumb why, exactly, we like these games so much. Is it nostalgia, or is it because they're good games? Though actually, let's deal with that one swiftly, because it feels like a less-interesting digression. Dishonored, XCOM... these are effin good games by any metric. Nostalgia, shmostalgia. Jason: Right — I mentioned to you while we were playing Dishonored that this is a game I would want to show someone as an example of what video games can do. Like, here you are in this situation, and you have to figure out how to accomplish your goals, and the story is what you do along the way. Emergent narrative, and all that jazz. I usually prefer a more linear, tighter story, but it's hard not to be impressed at just how empowering a game like Dishonored can be. Kirk: And there really is something classic-feeling about it; the way that it works, that flexibility. The fact that you can lean. It feels like Thief, like Deus Ex. But it's also just a smart, cerebral video game. In an era where AAA console gaming is largely defined by Call of Duty (which series, when writing about Dishonored, our friend Tom Bissell awesomely referred to as "digital Pirates of the Caribbean log-flume rides"), something like Dishonored inspires a sort of terrified hope. Could it be that the types of games we fell in love with as kids are actually going to be popular again? Jason: Were they ever unpopular? We don't know how well Dishonored is doing, but it's been getting rave reviews from both critics and gamers all over the place. There's this general consensus that Dishonored is the type of game people have been craving for a very long time. EA or Activision might not have been able to fit it into their crowded lineups of intense military shooters and free-to-play mobile games, but I think a game like this would have been critically acclaimed whether it was released in 2012 or 2005. Kirk: Yeah, that's kind of the question here. I'm not sure these types of games ever went out of style, but it sure did feel for a little while like no one was making them. Like you just said—there is a hunger for this game, and you don't get hungry if you've been eating well. There's a reason that both Dishonored and XCOM have felt like an oasis in the desert. Looking back at 2008-2012, it feels like we were stuck in this big-budget, consolized rut. But was that actually the case, or does that diagnosis overlook a bunch of games? Jason: Well! Let's not generalize too much. Like 2012, the past few years have been full of all sorts of games, both indie and big-budget, both PC and console, both crazy-linear and stupid-emergent. Both good and bad. But you're right in that I can't think of any games like Dishonored—maybe Deus Ex: Human Revolution comes the closest?—or XCOM—Fire Emblem? Valkyria Chronicles?—that have been released during this current console generation. They both feel very old-school. So let me turn that point around: what exactly makes a game "old-school"? Kirk: Right—and actually, Human Revolution felt much the same to meas Dishonored did this year, though in the end Dishonored focuses on a couple fewer things and as a result is more flexible, empowering and polished. But yeah, that question: "What the hell does 'Old-School' mean?" Does it mean more difficult? More complex? Less approachable? More tweakable? I liked Jason Killingsworth's article over at EDGE that discussed that topic as it pertains to Brenda Brathwaite and Tom Hall's "Old-School RPG" Kickstarter. Jason summed it up well: "To label one's project Old School RPG seems to just draw attention to this appeal to nostalgia in such an obvious way that it comes off feeling a little crass, perhaps too forward." Maybe, though, the answer is that "old-school" is more than just a nostalgic ideal; it's shorthand for "Longstanding design ideas that seem to work well." Jason: And it is perhaps not a coincidence that Brathwaite and Hall's Old-School RPG seems like it will miss its funding goal. I'm glad you brought that up, because on one hand you have that project (which has since been updated and named, but was rather generic when it first launched) and on the other hand you have Project Eternity, Obsidian's old-school RPG. The big difference? With Project Eternity, all they had to do was namedrop: "Hey, this is going to be like Planescape: Torment meets Baldur's Gate meets Icewind Dale." Boom. Instant gushing from anyone who grew up with those specific games and misses the way that they played. Not so surprising that Project Eternity raised almost $4 million—a new record for a Kickstarted video game—in just over a month. Kirk: And there, you have to think that while Obsidian will use those games as inspirations, their game will surely be updated for modern times. (And if and when Brathwaite and Hall make their game, it's a safe bet they'll do the same.) It's easy to forget that a lot of things about those older games just weren't very fun—I love Planescape Torment, but replaying it earlier this year, I was struck by just how fiddly and unsatisfying everything is. Ditto X-Com—that game is a seriously dense, not-that-fun-to-handle thing. What's been remarkable is how these successful games we're talking about, particularly the smart yet streamlined XCOM, take "old-school" design ideals and make them work better, and smoother, than ever. Jason: Good point! As our expectations get higher and higher, and as video games start offering more and more polish, it's really tough to go back and play some of those old games. Which makes us crave the "old-school" even more: if I'm looking for, say, a great sci-fi tactical isometric RPG-strategy game with base-building and character customization, my options are kind of limited. Kirk: We kinda want it all. The feeling those games gave us, but updated for our more sophisticated palate. (And here I'm going to go ahead and say that "complex micro-management" and "sophistication" are not necessarily the same thing.) I'm sure there are people who legitimately would be happy playing crusty action-point-based isometric RPGs forever, but once you play something like XCOM, it's hard to go back. I'm not sure I'd say that Dishonored pulls such a leap over Deus Ex or Thief, but then again, it's certainly a hell of a lot more user-friendly without sacrificing any vital levels of complexity. But you know, I think that part of the reason we're all so enamored of these two games in particular is that, for one reason or another... they just feel unlikely. You know? We're so used to publishers cramming shit like Medal of Duty 3: Modern Ops down our throat that it feels somehow insane that we'd get a game like Dishonored, with its single-player-only campaign and brand-new, non-derivative world. Are we really all so jaded? Jason: We are. I mean, you were at E3. We both were. Dubstep, shooters, neon, war, you know the rest. I welcome the unlikely. Kirk: A couple years ago, I would have told you that dubstep + Far Cry seemed pretty unlikely, but yeah, I take your point. Jason: Speaking of unlikely games, let's talk about the game I can't stop playing. Virtue's Last Reward. Yesterday you promised me you'd check it out—did you? Or are you going to break my heart? Kirk: I did! I played a little bit before I fell asleep. What the hell is this game, Jason. Jason: hahahahaha ok. hahahahahaha. Kirk: I mean. Seriously. Jason: Tell me your first thoughts. First impressions. Go. Kirk: First impressions? I like the idea behind the story. There are a lot of words. The acting seems weird. It feels like an iPhone game. I'm intrigued, but more because you say it's good than because I've been sucked in. Jason: Okay. Let me give readers some context, here. Virtue's Last Reward is the sequel to 999, one of my favorite games of 2010 and one of the best adventure games I've ever played. Like 999, VLR is a cross between a visual novel and a point-n-click adventure. It's a big interactive story. To get through, you read, make choices, and solve puzzles as you try to figure out where the hell you are. Kirk: So yeah, speaking of unlikely games... Jason: Hahaha! It's very Japanese. You've grasped the basics of the story, yes? Nine people are trapped in this facility by some crazy character named Zero (who speaks through a bunny rabbit avatar). They're forced to play this twisted game. Or die. Kirk: Right. It's like that movie Cube! Sort of. I need to play more. Jason: You have to read a lot, and think a lot, and once it grasps you, you won't be able to stop. All of the characters have their own hidden secrets, and there are tons of other mysteries to find (and try to solve) in this facility. Also, there are like 24 endings. 24! Kirk: So, to attempt to wheel our careening locomotive back onto something resembling "the tracks" of our previous discussion—this does feel like an unlikely game. And while it's not really AAA (It's on 3DS and Vita, right?), it is a good example of another unlikely, old-school feeling (puzzles + interactive fiction) game hitting the market. Telltale's The Walking Dead is another good example of this—people are actually coming up with interesting things to do with the "old-school" adventure game, breathing life into it in ways that feel fresh, approachable, smart, etc. Jason: Right, I was getting there! People loved 999 (and will love Virtue's Last Reward even more) not just because it's well-written and engaging, but because it reaches back to the fundamentals. It was made by Japanese developers, but those developers are clearly fans of Western games like Zork and Monkey Island and Myst. Old-school games. You can see a great deal of all of those games in Virtue's Last Reward. Kirk: Right. And on that tip, I've been seeing some really interesting stuff come out of the interactive fiction scene. I feel like you probably didn't check out Emily Short and Liza Daly's First Draft Of The Revolution, but that game was almost effortlessly unlike anything else I've ever played. It asked questions and explored spaces that I've literally never seen a game explore. And it does it with text. All of this really just makes me think that for all the hand-wringing we do about how much everything sucks now, the truth of the matter is that we are still just barely exploring video games and all of the different things they could be. Oh boy, I'm starting to get pret-ty broad here. Um... quick, make a joke or something. Jason: Umm... I guess you could say we have a binder full of video game possibilities? Kirk: Nice! Topical! Honestly, I was expecting a joke about Mitt Romney turning into a giant spider. Jason: Nothing funny about that. I'm just surprised more people aren't bringing it up. I mean... he turned into a spider! On national television! Kirk: Yeah, though fortunately not a nano-tech video game spider. Just a regular old giant spider. Jason: Still terrifying. So anyway, we've talked a lot about the new games we're playing that feel old, but hey, that's old news! Let's talk about the future. Are there any genres or systems or types of games you'd like to see resurrected in the next few years? Kirk: You know, I'm pretty stoked about how good developers are get at making complex games work on controllers. Not just from a technical standpoint, but also in the very core of the game's design. We're finally seeing games that have all the depth of an "old-school" PC game but are playable while sitting in front of your TV. I'm excited to see how much better game-makers can get at that. I'm also hopeful that both Dishonored and XCOM will convince more AAA publishers to support more games like those two. Though really, fuck 'em—if there's anything we've learned from the past year, it's that where there's a consumer desire, there's a way! And often, a Kickstarter. How about you? Sensing any trends this fall? Jason: Bro. You didn't answer the question. Kirk: I've been watching too many presidential debates. Jason: OK brobama. Kirk: Okay, okay. Hmm. I truly think that XCOM has awoken in me a real thirst for good turn-based strategy games. As much as I like FF Tactics and Tactics Ogre, I get the sense that developers could do a lot more with the turn-based idea. Furthermore, turn-based games can work well on a controller, since you don't have to do complex actions quickly. So, that's my answer: More big-budget turn-based strategy games! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW, MR MODERATOR Jason: That's good! What about on a Wii U controller? I have spent many-a-night fantasizing about a potential Final Fantasy Tactics sequel—a true sequel, not one of those Advance spinoffs—that uses the Wii U controller for grid-based battling. Kirk: Haaa I like that you spend your nights fantasizing about Final Fantasy Tactics on the Wii U. But yes—I bet that controller could be fabulous for just that kind of game. Maybe a Wii U Fire Emblem sequel... hey maybe you should ask Reggie about that the next time you two are hanging out. Jason: hohohoho. He does love telling me about Fire Emblem. Okay, so I guess it's my turn to resurrect a genre? Kirk: That it is. Jason: Dungeon Keeper. Enough said. Kirk: Nice. Jason: So to summarize this whole conversation, everything old is new again. But when will it become old again? When will we start wistfully remembering the days of military first-person shooters and dubstep? Kirk: Heh, I'm sure it will. I mean, there was a time not so long ago when we were SO SICK of World War II shooters. And Modern Warfare came out and everyone was like, "Finally! Something new and different!" And... well, now look at us. When I played Company of Heroes 2 at PAX, the whole time I was thinking, "Man, it's so nice to be playing a World War II game again." Aah, the circle of life. Its radius stretches over eons, but all things must return from whence they came. Jason: Yes. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, shooters to consoles. Kirk: So it is written, so it is known. Jason: Amen. Praise Tebow.

Old Is New: This Year's Best Games Are All About The Classics Quite Possibly the Most Refined Video Game Artwork You Will Ever See Do Doom 3's Graphics Hold Up? Check Out Assassin's Creed III's Stunning Recreations of Historic Buildings Good Luck Eating this Ridiculously Large Sushi All By Yourself Tsk Tsk Tsk, And I Bet He Wasn't Even Insured This is What a Lot of the Internet Looks Like More Stories on Kotaku »

dwyld.kwu.11muchado2011@blogger.com: Change your e-mail address | Unsubscribe

Gawker Media, 210 Elizabeth Street, Floor 4, New York, NY 10012
Terms of use | Mailing List Policy