Community, sit-com extraordinaire, has returned to grace network TV with madcap hijinks and rapid-fire reference jokes. It's like a gorgeous hipster chick with severe personality disorders, and also she is kind of a pariah. Excuse that sentence... it doesn't seem right somehow.
But a third season was unthinkable two years ago. In fact, a third season was unthinkable a year ago. Truthfully it's still kind of unthinkable, so when I watched the premiere I watched carefully, as if holding a priceless, ornate, fragile thing with my eyes.
The season opened with a completely ridiculous musical piece which promised a very normal, happy, and good year that would be different from the other two years. This is because lots of people complained about the show being wacky. Some people don't like crazy shit on TV. Community courts this disaster of cognitive dissonance because some episodes are serious while others include scheming, simulated warfare, imagination, or madcap hijinks. I'll explain quickly - some episodes do not have zombie invasions and some episodes do not have characters confronting inner demons and other problems d'esprit.
The show's approach has meant that certain characters have changed from being near-sympathetic to unthinkable jackasses. The show has toyed with characters who are annoying catchphrase shouters. The show plays with identity because life plays with identity. If the game becomes a neon-lit nightmare where raw humor is overtaken by spectacle then it attracts some viewers and disappoints others. So, in essence, the show is probably the most challenging show out there. Even if you want to try to catch more than half of the references in an episode, for the watching to be worthwhile you need a belly laugh at least once.
For me, the show has delivered. It has had low points, certain characters been uncomfortably weak, and some situations and premises did not interest me. I watched regardless. I kept my distance from the hype/anti-hype machine of fans on the internet. In a way I treat Community as I treat Minecraft, except that Community has no risk of overdose. The once-a-week model fits it perfectly. There is suspense, there are character arcs, there are laughs and even though the first season will always be assessed as superior: it's only because it came out of the blue, because it was new at the time, and because of nostalgia.
I haven't said much about the show's third season. There's only been one episode. It reminded me a lot of the previous seasons' first episodes. Lots of promise, no way to know what's going on, and mild disappointment. But the first season took a few episodes to start rolling, and it rolled like a beautiful bastard all the way to its finale. Season two managed to function under the sophomore curse. Season three has looked back and laughed about the past, which implies self-consciousness and purview. This could mean anything.
9/24/11
9/23/11
Minecraft Comes of Age
The 1.8 update of Minecraft seemed like the perfect time to play again. With the new terrain generation, new landscape features, and many other fancy additions, it was the perfect time to load up the game. So I abandoned a months-old homestead and sprinted clear across the map into parts unknown.
The update makes it clear when you've left the protective, smiling benevolence of 1.7 landscapes and basically cuts them off in mid-flow. Actually the game occasionally makes a cliff for no reason anyway but this one is specifically due to the update and new terrain gen system. At that point I knew I was lost. So I kept running in whatever direction promised new features and exiting lands that would be lost immediately afterward.
Fortunately, getting lost was entirely worth it. Exquisite landscapes popped into being around me, replacing the bland rolling hills of the totally boring game that Minecraft was pre-1.8. Yes, the game has come of age. It used to make awesome delicious landscapes and then stopped making them for a while, in an effort toward coherent geography, and now it makes delicious insane landscapes again with an effort towards geographic coherence. All in all there are many, many, many different places for people to build their phallic towers and insane castles now. Instead of building 1) in water 2) on a shore or 3) on the side/top of a hill/mountain/cliff you have the chance of being able to build on an entrancing combination of all three.
And if that hasn't convinced you to buy Minecraft yet, or start playing again, the update brought many new dangers in addition to new combat and movement abilities. Now when you've painstakingly crafted a map, compass, and several diamond-grade tools you have a chance to lose them to incredibly deadly and tricky terrain.
Even in the sedate 'Peaceful' difficulty the world now has dozens of new ways to make you ragequit when you lose your cool stuff – be it a devilish, almost invisible drop into surface-level lava (which as been around since 1.5 but occurs typically 1-3 times per crafted map area) or running off a precipitous ledge into a deep chasm. Minecraft is dedicated to making karst style landscapes as often as possible, and when they introduce glaciers I imagine they will make them treacherous as well. What this means for the average player is probably some type of hoarding behaviour where all good equipment is stored in chests (which are now animated to open upon use) and left to collect dust during the inevitable exploration deaths, which will probably go up twofold for incautious players.
In short it was an impressive gesture that indicates the game is still alive and may well become highly interesting and rewarding. As it stands you get out of the game what you put into it, multi or singleplayer, and that means that most people will build a large thing, find diamonds, and die a few times and call it a game. Things I'd like to see include a robust, unlimited leveling system with useful perks, a sprint toggle, further developments to the combat system, some kind of decent mineral spread (even with plentiful caves it can be a half-hour or more before you find diamond or gold) and some way to branch minecart lines. A lot of proposed additions cover parts of what I refer to, especially since the EXP bar will pretty much have to lead to some kind of leveling system, but the game is still pretty good as it is. What I fear is that Minecraft will become the GTAIV of its type - pretty, ambitious, even clever, but essentially empty.
(PS: Really, really want shoggoths to be introduced and mining imps a la Dungeon Keeper)
The update makes it clear when you've left the protective, smiling benevolence of 1.7 landscapes and basically cuts them off in mid-flow. Actually the game occasionally makes a cliff for no reason anyway but this one is specifically due to the update and new terrain gen system. At that point I knew I was lost. So I kept running in whatever direction promised new features and exiting lands that would be lost immediately afterward.
Fortunately, getting lost was entirely worth it. Exquisite landscapes popped into being around me, replacing the bland rolling hills of the totally boring game that Minecraft was pre-1.8. Yes, the game has come of age. It used to make awesome delicious landscapes and then stopped making them for a while, in an effort toward coherent geography, and now it makes delicious insane landscapes again with an effort towards geographic coherence. All in all there are many, many, many different places for people to build their phallic towers and insane castles now. Instead of building 1) in water 2) on a shore or 3) on the side/top of a hill/mountain/cliff you have the chance of being able to build on an entrancing combination of all three.
And if that hasn't convinced you to buy Minecraft yet, or start playing again, the update brought many new dangers in addition to new combat and movement abilities. Now when you've painstakingly crafted a map, compass, and several diamond-grade tools you have a chance to lose them to incredibly deadly and tricky terrain.
Even in the sedate 'Peaceful' difficulty the world now has dozens of new ways to make you ragequit when you lose your cool stuff – be it a devilish, almost invisible drop into surface-level lava (which as been around since 1.5 but occurs typically 1-3 times per crafted map area) or running off a precipitous ledge into a deep chasm. Minecraft is dedicated to making karst style landscapes as often as possible, and when they introduce glaciers I imagine they will make them treacherous as well. What this means for the average player is probably some type of hoarding behaviour where all good equipment is stored in chests (which are now animated to open upon use) and left to collect dust during the inevitable exploration deaths, which will probably go up twofold for incautious players.
In short it was an impressive gesture that indicates the game is still alive and may well become highly interesting and rewarding. As it stands you get out of the game what you put into it, multi or singleplayer, and that means that most people will build a large thing, find diamonds, and die a few times and call it a game. Things I'd like to see include a robust, unlimited leveling system with useful perks, a sprint toggle, further developments to the combat system, some kind of decent mineral spread (even with plentiful caves it can be a half-hour or more before you find diamond or gold) and some way to branch minecart lines. A lot of proposed additions cover parts of what I refer to, especially since the EXP bar will pretty much have to lead to some kind of leveling system, but the game is still pretty good as it is. What I fear is that Minecraft will become the GTAIV of its type - pretty, ambitious, even clever, but essentially empty.
(PS: Really, really want shoggoths to be introduced and mining imps a la Dungeon Keeper)
9/6/11
Lolnet.heh/msuic
Recently I overheard people talking about an album by Bon Iver. And I was thinking, to be honest, "Hippy Bon Jovi Nonsense". So I did my due diligence, business people, and the rest of you should know I visited wikipedia, followed up on the name-drops, and laughed at something I found. It's a piece of music journalism. Two pieces, actually. I like to call them the dueling reviews. They inspired me to do some listening many weeks ago.
And all that time those two reviews have stuck in my mind. Sometimes I catch myself thinking about them on the way to work, or while getting groceries, sometimes even in the middle of a conversation some spare remark will prompt the two Bon Iver reviews that Tim Sendra wrote, presumably for Allmusic. These reviews and the three-and-something years between them are, I think, representative of how the human socio-cultural system has shifted. Or maybe I'm a tin-eared bastard with a dumb, sloppy blog.
The two Bon Iver albums strike me as being remarkably similar. I haven't played them constantly; I haven't listened to either of the albums particularly critically (huh?); I have, however, listened to both of the albums in full at least four times. As far as I'm concerned, I have more respect for Bon Iver than for Tim Sendra, but Bon Iver has to admit that Tim Sendra has somehow managed to make Bon Iver weirdly important to me. I wouldn't have known about this band or even written them off if not for two reviews that produced a mysterious reaction in my mind. Tim Sendra, however, has explained where the last three years of my life went, for which I am in his debt - figuratively, of course.
The two albums are titled For Emma and Bon Iver, chronologically. Note how the second album title is eponymous. The fact literally does not matter to me. I somehow always think it's the first album, which may have skewed my idea of things, except that I knew exactly what Tim Sendra was talking about when he reviewed either album. Let me be concise for a moment: I think the first album is sincere and conceited; I think the second is sincere and conceited. I found both of them pretty enjoyable except they have a sombre, cool vibe to them. Let me post an image of Tim Sendra's review of For Emma. I hope he doesn't mind this mild intrusion, but I am acknowledging him as the author and Allmusic as the owner, so there's nothing to apologize about since I'm not planning on calling him uncouth names.
It seems to me an honest review. It's probably how Tim Sendra felt about the album. It's a fair representation and he does not oversell. He notes: 'subdued', 'isolated', 'voice', 'harmonies', and you can read the rest. I find the album decent, etherized and ethereal and with a few stand-out songs. "Lump Sum" is alright. In the end the album is alright. Some of the vocals are autotuned, so there is obvious conceit and if you are not a sensitive soul you will find these touches laughable or out-of-place. They are used for emphasis, don't sound entirely stupid, but still: fucking autotune in another heartfelt, subdued, harmonic indie-rock folkish lament. I don't even know if it's original but it surprised me.
So, cool album. Not something I'd want to listen to very often, but for times of illness or heartbreak I imagine it is suitable if unhealthy. In themselves, For Emma and Sendra's review are harmless enough and inoffensive. Now, gentle reader, please allow me to bring Exhibit B into these calm, idealized waters. Exhibit B is Bon Iver, the album, and Sendra's review as accompaniment in B sharp.
And all that time those two reviews have stuck in my mind. Sometimes I catch myself thinking about them on the way to work, or while getting groceries, sometimes even in the middle of a conversation some spare remark will prompt the two Bon Iver reviews that Tim Sendra wrote, presumably for Allmusic. These reviews and the three-and-something years between them are, I think, representative of how the human socio-cultural system has shifted. Or maybe I'm a tin-eared bastard with a dumb, sloppy blog.
The two Bon Iver albums strike me as being remarkably similar. I haven't played them constantly; I haven't listened to either of the albums particularly critically (huh?); I have, however, listened to both of the albums in full at least four times. As far as I'm concerned, I have more respect for Bon Iver than for Tim Sendra, but Bon Iver has to admit that Tim Sendra has somehow managed to make Bon Iver weirdly important to me. I wouldn't have known about this band or even written them off if not for two reviews that produced a mysterious reaction in my mind. Tim Sendra, however, has explained where the last three years of my life went, for which I am in his debt - figuratively, of course.
The two albums are titled For Emma and Bon Iver, chronologically. Note how the second album title is eponymous. The fact literally does not matter to me. I somehow always think it's the first album, which may have skewed my idea of things, except that I knew exactly what Tim Sendra was talking about when he reviewed either album. Let me be concise for a moment: I think the first album is sincere and conceited; I think the second is sincere and conceited. I found both of them pretty enjoyable except they have a sombre, cool vibe to them. Let me post an image of Tim Sendra's review of For Emma. I hope he doesn't mind this mild intrusion, but I am acknowledging him as the author and Allmusic as the owner, so there's nothing to apologize about since I'm not planning on calling him uncouth names.
It seems to me an honest review. It's probably how Tim Sendra felt about the album. It's a fair representation and he does not oversell. He notes: 'subdued', 'isolated', 'voice', 'harmonies', and you can read the rest. I find the album decent, etherized and ethereal and with a few stand-out songs. "Lump Sum" is alright. In the end the album is alright. Some of the vocals are autotuned, so there is obvious conceit and if you are not a sensitive soul you will find these touches laughable or out-of-place. They are used for emphasis, don't sound entirely stupid, but still: fucking autotune in another heartfelt, subdued, harmonic indie-rock folkish lament. I don't even know if it's original but it surprised me.
So, cool album. Not something I'd want to listen to very often, but for times of illness or heartbreak I imagine it is suitable if unhealthy. In themselves, For Emma and Sendra's review are harmless enough and inoffensive. Now, gentle reader, please allow me to bring Exhibit B into these calm, idealized waters. Exhibit B is Bon Iver, the album, and Sendra's review as accompaniment in B sharp.
9/3/11
Revelations of an Aging Young Man
Radiohead totally ripped off Nick Drake. John Cale might've. Lots of music ultimately rips off other music. At least a little bit, and often very obviously. Life is grossly miscategorized and caricaturized for simplicty's sake. There is no way to succeed, just a way to infinite struggle. Making up words is easier than research. Web-browser spell-checks are woefully inadequate and irrational.
I've wanted to post a farce for the longest time. I just can't think up a really good one. A farce is just a light-hearted satire with no serious accusations. Or, rather, it's when a satire is beaten so severely that it loses its teeth, and learns how to tell mushmouthed stories for underwhelming profits and impact.
And as time goes on I discover various logical conclusions I have no faith in them. I'm pretty cynical when I come to the point. And that's disheartening. I trust none of my impressions anymore. There is basically nothing from which a human takes faith anymore, outside of those varied populations everyone knows about.
I've wanted to post a farce for the longest time. I just can't think up a really good one. A farce is just a light-hearted satire with no serious accusations. Or, rather, it's when a satire is beaten so severely that it loses its teeth, and learns how to tell mushmouthed stories for underwhelming profits and impact.
And as time goes on I discover various logical conclusions I have no faith in them. I'm pretty cynical when I come to the point. And that's disheartening. I trust none of my impressions anymore. There is basically nothing from which a human takes faith anymore, outside of those varied populations everyone knows about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)