It's been a while since I posted a blog. Many reason include being busy, lazy, and not just caring. However, I finally feel like writing something so here I am.
One thing that is interesting is that I saw a food TV show about an Englishman going around the highest obesity areas in the states and trying to fix schools so that they have more healthy foods.
I feel like this is a good endeavor. There are definitely problems with the consumption or at least lack of exercise in the country. However, there are some things that disturb me. How he uses people is really annoying. When he deals with teenagers and young people I feel he does the "Mr. 'cool' guy". The weird thing with 'Mr. Cool' guys is that a) They're rarely cool and b) They try and walk over people. The way he talks to teens seems to be really steamroller. He's so 'energetic' he just doesn't allow the teens and other people to really get a word in edgewise.
The scary bit is how he talks about things. It is also the reason why I don't like the health care bill. He says one of his interviews (paraphrased) that kids need to be told what to do and what is right and wrong. My problem with this is that he is purposefully removing and controlling choices of people because "he knows better".
I'm not saying what he isn't saying is the truth, I'm just saying he is going about it the wrong way, just like the health care bill. Reformatting the lunch lines for healthier food is good, as it gives kids/teens more chances to become healthier. However, the way he's doing so is going through the parent-teacher boards and schools boards and revamping things without any permission.
If I was in his position, I would push for an upgrade in money for proper training for cooks and for healthy food, but I wouldn't go through people or remove choices. Doing so doesn't really stop the problem, it just postpones it. The main problem is poor education through the teaching and through poor teaching from parents. If you don't try and reform these areas, you're just postponing what will happen, not actually fixing the problem.
I saw a video from a the guy who developed Spore. He said something along the lines of being able to take another 6 years of development before coming out with a game he truly thought was fully fleshed out. I actually disagree with him. My example: Starcraft.
Blizzard hasn't patched Starcraft in years, yet it is the one of the biggest e-sports in the world. It has a HUGE following and community. You would think a 12 year old game wouldn't hold as well as it does, but the fact that people keep on coming up with strategies, tactics, and so on really increase the longevity of the game. The game still has ample bugs, bad ai pathing, and so on yet those bugs ended up making the game DEEPER, not shollower. The AI pathing and so on makes the game more challenging. However, many original SC fans are complaining that SC2 doesn't have these so the game is easier. I think the game is actually more challenging, but not because of the issues with the game.
Warcraft 3 doesn't need as high APM, but it requires more thinking because of how tactics and strategies are executed. A player with a good strategy but low APM can still beat a higher APM player if they're timing and strategy is better than someone who doesn't.
For example, the warcraft 3 player Space has an average of about 150-200 apm, yet he is one of the top undead players because of his ability with timing pushes and his excellent micro in battles.
A good way to compare the two games is that SC plays you against the game and the opponent, while WAR3 allows you to focus on what your opponent is doing.
This will draw a bunch of flame from SC players but whatever.