bc-programming

With Success comes emulation, and this holds true in the software industry at least as strong as in any other. Recently I plugged a relatively recent game purchase I made- Minecraft. Excellent game. It has bee nwildly successful and inspired many people to write "clone" games with a similar idea. Here is a list of a few: Manic Digger I won't lie; I haven't actually played this so I'm basing this on videos; but to be honest, this looks really quite stupid; it's a outright attempt to "copy" Minecraft and steal away some of it's success. What makes it interesting though is that it was mildly successful on that count for a single reason- it's not written in java. Now, I'll admit that java is quite far from my favourite language, but that hardly came into play when evaluating minecraft. Basically, if you base your opinion of a software product on the language it was designed in then you are a moron. It doesn't matter. It's fair to point out stuff that it is missing or has as a result of the language choice; for example, Minecraft is written in java and therefore there was no need to port or even compile the game for a variety of platforms. Most people think "so what, that just means it's easier for people to use different Operating Systems". I have two responses to that: First, don't trivialize the difficulties of trying to write a single code-base that works on multiple platforms, and second, the advantages are hardly limited merely to operating systems; after all, Windows runs on two platforms today that are common; x86(32-bit) and x64 (64-bit). What makes java interesting is that for a 64-bit machine you install the 64-bit Virtual Machine, and the Interpreter Compiles the java bytecode to 64-bit machine code; so the game will automatically take advantage of 64-bit where it can. The following paragraph has been revised; I originally thought that Manic Digger was written in C++ (I noted already I didn't actually look it up- I was basing that on the frothing love the clone had by many people who it seems are entirely unaware of what it was really written in) Now, Manic Digger is written in C#. Who the fuck cares. If you are basing your opinion of a product on the language it is written with then you are clearly not trying to provide an objective opinion. C# has very few advantages over java, and certainly none that aren't countered by equal advantages that java holds (better Linux support being one... ever try getting a C# program working in Mono? Not happening. And If my quick 5 minute research is to be believed, Manic Digger uses XNA, which in turn uses DirectX and therefore will be entirely unavailable to other platforms, limiting it to windows. As I noted, I had to change this passage; many people are still pushing Manic Digger as superior because it is written in C++ (which it isn't; thanks to a commenter (exe) for correcting my misinformation); so the question is why people seem to think that something being written in C++ is better then something written in java anyway; seems a tad preemptive; The only advantage C++ would have would be pure speed, and that pure speed is completely irrelevant since it makes up for it by being about 10 times a bigger pain in the ass. Basically, what I am trying to say, is that changing the language used for something is not going to make anything faster unless you coincidentally happen to be doing a lot of something that language is really good at. C# and Java are extremely similar; Personally I prefer C# if only because it is very mature for it's age, Also because I haven't used java since the awt days and can't even get the IDE to make me any sort of basic GUI. That's more my own incompetence with it then any particular problem with the language though; truly they both use Virtual Machines (the java VM for Java and the CLR for C#) each of those VMs have more then that one language running on them The java VM has Scala, as well as several other languages that can be compiled to it. the CLR has C# as well as F#, VB.NET, and a few others. Aside from the fact that C# is a bigger pain in the ass to get working on Linux or Mac machines (having to rely on Mono, and almost requiring that you plan ahead from the beginning to make it work in Mono), and some programmatic features, there is no visible advantage that C# would have over Java; saying C# is C++ only confuses people for a while until somebody helpfully corrects their incorrect information. But what I find weird is why people would find that simply a choice of language- say C++ over Java - is in and of itself a sign of marked superiority- you can write shitty applications in any language at all, and speed is more up to the choice of algorithm then any ridiculous perceived speed improvement from having a compiled language like C++; additionally, I'm pretty sure we left the era of needing to use finely tuned machine code compiled applications in the late 90's, when it was realized that programming using those languages was a huge pain in the ass. Thing is, C++ doesn't really have any marked advantages over java aside from a little bit more raw speed (at the cost of requiring native compilation, and thus requiring platform-specific distributions) and a messier syntax, more difficult to use debugger, and far less extensive class library. It's an excellent language that should be judged on it's own merits, but the moment you start comparing programming language you may as well start comparing fruits. Many people have their own favourite fruits, but everybody also understands innately that if somebody says "the banana is the best fruit" they truly mean "I think the banana is the best fruit". They might list their reasons, maybe even state why Bananas are better then Oranges or easier to eat then Apples, and so forth. But everybody knows it is merely opinion on that persons part, since an equal number of people no doubt feel the same way about pomegranates or Apples or Oranges or Grapes. Grapes can be turned into better wine then Bananas, but Bananas make a far better Banana split. In any case, judging from what I've seen, Manic Digger is far too similar to Minecraft to be said to have been "inspired" by it. I personally toyed with the idea of trying to make a Minecraft clone. Then I realized that I would be wasting my god damned time, unless I can think of some really good changes and additions to make to the core mechanic of the game, I wouldn't be adding much gameplay wise. And at the time the only advantage I could see was that it would be implemented in C# which hadn't been done before, a misconception I have recently been cleared of. A Common thing that people bring up is that the first FPS game- Wolfenstein, spawned many clones. What is interesting about this argument is that Wolfenstein didn't have any clones at all. Many people made modifications to the actual Wolfenstein Game, but with a few exceptions (Ken's labyrinth) there were very few actual clones; and of those that were made, none of them went so far as to be an exact duplicate; that would defeat the purpose. Ken's labyrinth, for example,was far less "serious" in tone, had more colourful graphics, and, even added a few game mechanics. (No "Guns" for example). It wasn't until Doom was released that there were some true "clones" of the game made. Of particular interest is that even then most of the "clones" weren't clones at all but rather new games using the exact same engine; that is, they didn't rewrite all the 3-d stuff for the game, instead they licensed the Doom Engine from id Software; this was used in Heretic and Hexen, as well as a few other games. Even ID software themselves jumped on that bandwagon and released Doom II commercially. Basically, Yes, clones of games are often made, but that doesn't make them right- and it doesn't make them popular either. I cannot name a single Doom clone. The closest thing I can think of off-hand is the Alien Vs Predator game for the Sega Saturn (or Jaguar, I forget), and that merely used the Doom graphics engine- under license. The actual gameplay was far different from Doom. There were clones of Doom that copied a lot of the game content and idea, but nobody remembers those because they lacked originality. Aside from Manic Digger, the only "clone" I know of is "fortresscraft". And, while it certainly is a clone in many of the most common definitions of the word, there is something that needs to be considered- platform. Fortresscraft is a 3-dollar game that to my understanding is going to be released on XBox-Live. It looks pretty stellar to be honest, but reading the inevitable "debates" that spring up, I've noticed several things on both sides. From the "OMG notch is fecking god" side, they don't seem to be considering the fact that the game is not really directly competing with Minecraft at all- it's for an entirely different market segment and if I had a Xbox 360 I would certainly try it. Of course if I had an xbox 360 or any console of that generation I'd have other problems, but I digress. On the other hand, the people holding down the fortresscraft provide some specious defenses for the clear "clone" that fortresscraft is; first, they raise the silly argument that it's no different from clones of wolfenstein. Well, aside from the facts I already stated that there weren't really any clones of wolfenstein, (in the sense that they were exactly the same as the id software game in almost every way, like the SNES version of wolfenstein versus the original PC installment, and weren't clones as much as they were licensed redistributions of the same game) it's a false dichotomy to suggest that they are a similar happenstance; the two games have almost identical goals, almost identical items and blocks and mechanics; the sole change seems to me to be only in the fact that the XBox version has greatly enhanced graphics (and they do look awesome). Of course, Mojang (and people REALLY need to stop saying "Notch" when referring to the minecraft development, since he is now quite far from alone in creating and adding features to the game, that would be like blaming every single thing you like or dislike about Family Guy on Seth Macfarlane or everything you like/dislike about the Simpsons on Matt Groening. They are hardly making those things single-handedly)... Mojang couldn't really sue anyway since as far as I understand it they didn't trademark anything in the game nor do they have copyright claims on any of the content; but a safe analogy might be to flip the bit and go back to the late 80's; and even back to ID Software. Nintendo, Console gaming supergiant (at the time, anyway) had just released their blockbuster, Super Mario Brothers 3. With smooth, two way scrolling, colourful tile animations and great gameplay, it was raved about by millions. Look at any other game on that console. Are there any "clones"- even remote clones- of Super Mario Brothers 3 on the console? Good luck finding any. On the PC, there could have been a clone of Super Mario Brothers 3 made- almost block for block the same; the folks that would later go on to create Id Software had put together a small sample that duplicated the very first level of Super Mario Brothers 3 in all it's fine detail, replacing the game character (Mario) with "Dangerous Dave" a character who was prominent in some of the games created by one of the other authors. What makes this notable is that the PC was not considered a gaming machine even in the broadest sense at the time; it was considered far behind in terms of capability to systems Like the Nintendo Entertainment System and ZX Spectrum. When they sent this disk to Nintendo to inquire about wether Nintendo would like a PC version made of the game; they declined. It's important to note what happened here. They didn't take their engine and create a very near but not quite the same rip-off of Super Mario Brothers 3; They didn't even create an engine-similar verison of the game that had different level designs- they practically redesigned the game from scratch. And that is a step I think may have been forgone in many of these newer games that clone the latest trend. The result of their efforts gave us Commander Keen, which is hailed as a gaming classic by many; but nobody whose played the game would say it was a "clone" of Super Mario Brothers 3. Fortress Craft feels like a Commander Keen that never came to fruition. Aside from bringing a already existing game to a new platform, it doesn't do much at all. (although the graphical improvements are quite stellar). That isn't to say I have a problem with the game; as I noted if I had a system that I could play it on I would totally buy it, because it looks great; but it doesn't really build it's own "identity" since it looks really quite similar to Minecraft with a texture pack. It has really quite the same goals (which is to say none at all) and so forth. Many Console gamers looking forward to it defend it by saying that "Notch should have done it himself if he didn't like it". But really, I don't think that is a good way to put it. Releasing a Java game on the PC and releasing a Console game are totally different things; what blurs things quite a bit in my opinion is that for, at the very least, the very last generation, Consoles have ceased to exist. As Far as I'm concerned, Consoles have reverted to being "specialized game Computers" which was originally merely a moniker used because Personal computers were new and fresh and the Console makers wanted to identify with them. A Game Console usually uses a hugely different set of chips then a standard PC; for example, the Super Nintendo uses a totally different set of chips, by totally different manufacturers, then any computer on the market at the time; it used Cartridges for the games as well, something that simply has no PC equivalent. Nowadays, though, many consoles use Intel compatible processors and even the same core Operating System software (in the case of the Xbox, surprisingly relevant here considering it's the one getting fortresscraft). They have hard drives. As far as I'm concerned, a Game console should not have a fucking hard drive. That is utterly stupid. That's a computer thing. Not console. Although to be fair that could be extended at least in part to CD-ROM media. In either case, Game consoles are just not something that even enters the minds of game programmers; BASeBlock, for example, is not something I can just decide one day will run on a PS3 or a Wii or a XBox 360; that is something that usually needs to be planned from the get go, or a rewrite is required. Besides, there are plenty of silly little block-breaking games on the Playstation anyway. I think of BASeBlock more as "programming practice". The explosion in the gaming industry has caused consumers to trivialize the very methods used to create the games they play to the point where everybody is a armchair game designer, programmer, and lawyer. All with a console game controller in their hand as their qualification.

With Success comes emulation, and this holds true in the software industry at least as strong as in any other. Recently I plugged a relatively recent game purchase I made- Minecraft. Excellent game. It has bee nwildly successful and inspired many people to write “clone” games with a similar idea. Here is a list of a few:

Manic Digger

I won’t lie; I haven’t actually played this so I’m basing this on videos; but to be honest, this looks really quite stupid; it’s a outright attempt to “copy” Minecraft and steal away some of it’s success. What makes it interesting though is that it was mildly successful on that count for a single reason- it’s not written in java. Now, I’ll admit that java is quite far from my favourite language, but that hardly came into play when evaluating minecraft. Basically, if you base your opinion of a software product on the language it was designed in then you are a moron. It doesn’t matter. It’s fair to point out stuff that it is missing or has as a result of the language choice; for example, Minecraft is written in java and therefore there was no need to port or even compile the game for a variety of platforms. Most people think “so what, that just means it’s easier for people to use different Operating Systems”. I have two responses to that: First, don’t trivialize the difficulties of trying to write a single code-base that works on multiple platforms, and second, the advantages are hardly limited merely to operating systems; after all, Windows runs on two platforms today that are common; x86(32-bit) and x64 (64-bit). What makes java interesting is that for a 64-bit machine you install the 64-bit Virtual Machine, and the Interpreter Compiles the java bytecode to 64-bit machine code; so the game will automatically take advantage of 64-bit where it can.
The following paragraph has been revised; I originally thought that Manic Digger was written in C++ (I noted already I didn’t actually look it up- I was basing that on the frothing love the clone had by many people who it seems are entirely unaware of what it was really written in)
Now, Manic Digger is written in C#. Who the fuck cares. If you are basing your opinion of a product on the language it is written with then you are clearly not trying to provide an objective opinion. C# has very few advantages over java, and certainly none that aren’t countered by equal advantages that java holds (better Linux support being one… ever try getting a C# program working in Mono? Not happening. And If my quick 5 minute research is to be believed, Manic Digger uses XNA, which in turn uses DirectX and therefore will be entirely unavailable to other platforms, limiting it to windows. As I noted, I had to change this passage; many people are still pushing Manic Digger as superior because it is written in C++ (which it isn’t; thanks to a commenter (exe) for correcting my misinformation); so the question is why people seem to think that something being written in C++ is better then something written in java anyway; seems a tad preemptive; The only advantage C++ would have would be pure speed, and that pure speed is completely irrelevant since it makes up for it by being about 10 times a bigger pain in the ass.

Basically, what I am trying to say, is that changing the language used for something is not going to make anything faster unless you coincidentally happen to be doing a lot of something that language is really good at. C# and Java are extremely similar; Personally I prefer C# if only because it is very mature for it’s age, Also because I haven’t used java since the awt days and can’t even get the IDE to make me any sort of basic GUI. That’s more my own incompetence with it then any particular problem with the language though; truly they both use Virtual Machines (the java VM for Java and the CLR for C#) each of those VMs have more then that one language running on them The java VM has Scala, as well as several other languages that can be compiled to it. the CLR has C# as well as F#, VB.NET, and a few others. Aside from the fact that C# is a bigger pain in the ass to get working on Linux or Mac machines (having to rely on Mono, and almost requiring that you plan ahead from the beginning to make it work in Mono), and some programmatic features, there is no visible advantage that C# would have over Java; saying C# is C++ only confuses people for a while until somebody helpfully corrects their incorrect information. But what I find weird is why people would find that simply a choice of language- say C++ over Java – is in and of itself a sign of marked superiority- you can write shitty applications in any language at all, and speed is more up to the choice of algorithm then any ridiculous perceived speed improvement from having a compiled language like C++; additionally, I’m pretty sure we left the era of needing to use finely tuned machine code compiled applications in the late 90′s, when it was realized that programming using those languages was a huge pain in the ass.

Thing is, C++ doesn’t really have any marked advantages over java aside from a little bit more raw speed (at the cost of requiring native compilation, and thus requiring platform-specific distributions) and a messier syntax, more difficult to use debugger, and far less extensive class library. It’s an excellent language that should be judged on it’s own merits, but the moment you start comparing programming language you may as well start comparing fruits. Many people have their own favourite fruits, but everybody also understands innately that if somebody says “the banana is the best fruit” they truly mean “I think the banana is the best fruit”. They might list their reasons, maybe even state why Bananas are better then Oranges or easier to eat then Apples, and so forth. But everybody knows it is merely opinion on that persons part, since an equal number of people no doubt feel the same way about pomegranates or Apples or Oranges or Grapes. Grapes can be turned into better wine then Bananas, but Bananas make a far better Banana split.

In any case, judging from what I’ve seen, Manic Digger is far too similar to Minecraft to be said to have been “inspired” by it. I personally toyed with the idea of trying to make a Minecraft clone. Then I realized that I would be wasting my god damned time, unless I can think of some really good changes and additions to make to the core mechanic of the game, I wouldn’t be adding much gameplay wise. And at the time the only advantage I could see was that it would be implemented in C# which hadn’t been done before, a misconception I have recently been cleared of.

A Common thing that people bring up is that the first FPS game- Wolfenstein, spawned many clones. What is interesting about this argument is that Wolfenstein didn’t have any clones at all. Many people made modifications to the actual Wolfenstein Game, but with a few exceptions (Ken’s labyrinth) there were very few actual clones; and of those that were made, none of them went so far as to be an exact duplicate; that would defeat the purpose. Ken’s labyrinth, for example,was far less “serious” in tone, had more colourful graphics, and, even added a few game mechanics. (No “Guns” for example). It wasn’t until Doom was released that there were some true “clones” of the game made. Of particular interest is that even then most of the “clones” weren’t clones at all but rather new games using the exact same engine; that is, they didn’t rewrite all the 3-d stuff for the game, instead they licensed the Doom Engine from id Software; this was used in Heretic and Hexen, as well as a few other games. Even ID software themselves jumped on that bandwagon and released Doom II commercially. Basically, Yes, clones of games are often made, but that doesn’t make them right- and it doesn’t make them popular either. I cannot name a single Doom clone. The closest thing I can think of off-hand is the Alien Vs Predator game for the Sega Saturn (or Jaguar, I forget), and that merely used the Doom graphics engine- under license. The actual gameplay was far different from Doom. There were clones of Doom that copied a lot of the game content and idea, but nobody remembers those because they lacked originality.

Aside from Manic Digger, the only “clone” I know of is “fortresscraft”. And, while it certainly is a clone in many of the most common definitions of the word, there is something that needs to be considered- platform.

Fortresscraft

is a 3-dollar game that to my understanding is going to be released on XBox-Live. It looks pretty stellar to be honest, but reading the inevitable “debates” that spring up, I’ve noticed several things on both sides.

From the “OMG notch is fecking god” side, they don’t seem to be considering the fact that the game is not really directly competing with Minecraft at all- it’s for an entirely different market segment and if I had a Xbox 360 I would certainly try it. Of course if I had an xbox 360 or any console of that generation I’d have other problems, but I digress.

On the other hand, the people holding down the fortresscraft provide some specious defenses for the clear “clone” that fortresscraft is; first, they raise the silly argument that it’s no different from clones of wolfenstein. Well, aside from the facts I already stated that there weren’t really any clones of wolfenstein, (in the sense that they were exactly the same as the id software game in almost every way, like the SNES version of wolfenstein versus the original PC installment, and weren’t clones as much as they were licensed redistributions of the same game) it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that they are a similar happenstance; the two games have almost identical goals, almost identical items and blocks and mechanics; the sole change seems to me to be only in the fact that the XBox version has greatly enhanced graphics (and they do look awesome). Of course, Mojang (and people REALLY need to stop saying “Notch” when referring to the minecraft development, since he is now quite far from alone in creating and adding features to the game, that would be like blaming every single thing you like or dislike about Family Guy on Seth Macfarlane or everything you like/dislike about the Simpsons on Matt Groening. They are hardly making those things single-handedly)… Mojang couldn’t really sue anyway since as far as I understand it they didn’t trademark anything in the game nor do they have copyright claims on any of the content; but a safe analogy might be to flip the bit and go back to the late 80′s; and even back to ID Software.

Nintendo, Console gaming supergiant (at the time, anyway) had just released their blockbuster, Super Mario Brothers 3. With smooth, two way scrolling, colourful tile animations and great gameplay, it was raved about by millions. Look at any other game on that console.

Are there any “clones”- even remote clones- of Super Mario Brothers 3 on the console? Good luck finding any. On the PC, there could have been a clone of Super Mario Brothers 3 made- almost block for block the same; the folks that would later go on to create Id Software had put together a small sample that duplicated the very first level of Super Mario Brothers 3 in all it’s fine detail, replacing the game character (Mario) with “Dangerous Dave” a character who was prominent in some of the games created by one of the other authors. What makes this notable is that the PC was not considered a gaming machine even in the broadest sense at the time; it was considered far behind in terms of capability to systems Like the Nintendo Entertainment System and ZX Spectrum. When they sent this disk to Nintendo to inquire about wether Nintendo would like a PC version made of the game; they declined.

It’s important to note what happened here. They didn’t take their engine and create a very near but not quite the same rip-off of Super Mario Brothers 3; They didn’t even create an engine-similar verison of the game that had different level designs- they practically redesigned the game from scratch. And that is a step I think may have been forgone in many of these newer games that clone the latest trend. The result of their efforts gave us Commander Keen, which is hailed as a gaming classic by many; but nobody whose played the game would say it was a “clone” of Super Mario Brothers 3.

Fortress Craft feels like a Commander Keen that never came to fruition. Aside from bringing a already existing game to a new platform, it doesn’t do much at all. (although the graphical improvements are quite stellar). That isn’t to say I have a problem with the game; as I noted if I had a system that I could play it on I would totally buy it, because it looks great; but it doesn’t really build it’s own “identity” since it looks really quite similar to Minecraft with a texture pack. It has really quite the same goals (which is to say none at all) and so forth. Many Console gamers looking forward to it defend it by saying that “Notch should have done it himself if he didn’t like it”. But really, I don’t think that is a good way to put it. Releasing a Java game on the PC and releasing a Console game are totally different things; what blurs things quite a bit in my opinion is that for, at the very least, the very last generation, Consoles have ceased to exist. As Far as I’m concerned, Consoles have reverted to being “specialized game Computers” which was originally merely a moniker used because Personal computers were new and fresh and the Console makers wanted to identify with them.

A Game Console usually uses a hugely different set of chips then a standard PC; for example, the Super Nintendo uses a totally different set of chips, by totally different manufacturers, then any computer on the market at the time; it used Cartridges for the games as well, something that simply has no PC equivalent. Nowadays, though, many consoles use Intel compatible processors and even the same core Operating System software (in the case of the Xbox, surprisingly relevant here considering it’s the one getting fortresscraft). They have hard drives.

As far as I’m concerned, a Game console should not have a fucking hard drive. That is utterly stupid. That’s a computer thing. Not console. Although to be fair that could be extended at least in part to CD-ROM media. In either case, Game consoles are just not something that even enters the minds of game programmers; BASeBlock, for example, is not something I can just decide one day will run on a PS3 or a Wii or a XBox 360; that is something that usually needs to be planned from the get go, or a rewrite is required. Besides, there are plenty of silly little block-breaking games on the Playstation anyway. I think of BASeBlock more as “programming practice”.

The explosion in the gaming industry has caused consumers to trivialize the very methods used to create the games they play to the point where everybody is a armchair game designer, programmer, and lawyer. All with a console game controller in their hand as their qualification.

Unless you've been living in a cave for the past year, or are a hermetic monk seeking spiritual enlightenment, you no doubt have had least heard about Minecraft; I've referred to it in a few of my previous posts. What exactly is it? Well, It's a game. That much should be clear. But the question should really be "what makes it worth mention"? Well, That's a loaded question, since naturally opinions differ. Some people think it's the best thing since sliced bread; others think it's nothing more then a child's plaything, like lego. I fall neatly between these two. The basic idea is that there is: No story No Objective No Boundaries Anything you can think of doing, you usually can do. The nice thing is that it appeals to several different game players, who would normally seek different genres; you have the ability to explore and adventure through caves and find dungeons, and fight several types of enemies. Seeking treasures and materials; or adventure above-ground to find scenic locations or certain rare above-ground material deposits. Another "segment" is that if you can think of it, you can build it (as long as your idea fits within the game engine). For example, if you want to build a brick house, you can. But you will need to adventure and look for clay deposits, and then fire that clay into bricks, and then fashion the bricks into Brick "Blocks" which you can build with. It tries to balance the various things. Of course, that last bit is a taste of the concept of "crafting" which adds the "craft" to "minecraft". Basically, you can arrange various materials in a grid, and then that can create a new item that has a new use; For example, you can create axes, which make it easier to chop wood; shovels, which make digging dirt,sand, clay, and gravel easier; pickaxes, which are a necessary staple for underground exploration, swords to help inflict damage, armor, and various other tools and implements. Some people say that it's the "procedurally generated world" that makes it worthwhile; I have to correct them, however, since although the world is "procedurally generated" that is no different then random maps on age of empires or Command & conquer; that is, the maps are generated procedurally. The appropriate term might be dynamically generated worlds- as you enter new areas, the game will randomly generate those new areas It's not really so much "random" as it is "random with cues" that is, it doesn't just randomly place blocks in a complete noise distribution, it randomly generates terrain and caves to look "natural". This makes the replay value infinite; since even on the same file you could practically indefinitely go in a single direction and never run out of areas to explore. This brings about what I feel is sort of a bad point, though; while everything is generated randomly, the game has a habit of making things look pretty similar; in many ways, once you've seen one minecraft desert, you've pretty well seen them all. Of course occasionally the generator tosses in some unique landmarks or strange landforms, such as perhaps a dungeon lying right underneath sand so that the sand creates a small "dip" with exposed cobblestone, or perhaps grass covered mountains of trees in the center of a vast desert, etc. This doesn't so much detract from the game as much as it makes it easier to get lost. Thankfully, it usually throws enough unique landforms in that you can recognize them; "ahh, I remember, my main base was north of that mountain with the giant cave near the top". The caves can sometimes be immense; having to light up every crevice to prevent monsters from spawning can get repetitive and boring, as you constantly find that the paths branch out in a handful of directions, and you find yourself getting lost near the bedrock with no torches, or something (which is more a result of being unprepared and reckless then of a particular problem with the game). In a followup post I will discuss several "clone" games that are attempting to siphon off of Minecraft's success, and even bring the game to new platforms.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past year, or are a hermetic monk seeking spiritual enlightenment, you no doubt have had least heard about Minecraft; I’ve referred to it in a few of my previous posts. What exactly is it?

Well, It’s a game. That much should be clear. But the question should really be “what makes it worth mention”? Well, That’s a loaded question, since naturally opinions differ. Some people think it’s the best thing since sliced bread; others think it’s nothing more then a child’s plaything, like lego. I fall neatly between these two.

The basic idea is that there is:

• No story
• No Objective
• No Boundaries

Anything you can think of doing, you usually can do. The nice thing is that it appeals to several different game players, who would normally seek different genres; you have the ability to explore and adventure through caves and find dungeons, and fight several types of enemies. Seeking treasures and materials; or adventure above-ground to find scenic locations or certain rare above-ground material deposits. Another “segment” is that if you can think of it, you can build it (as long as your idea fits within the game engine). For example, if you want to build a brick house, you can. But you will need to adventure and look for clay deposits, and then fire that clay into bricks, and then fashion the bricks into Brick “Blocks” which you can build with. It tries to balance the various things. Of course, that last bit is a taste of the concept of “crafting” which adds the “craft” to “minecraft”.

Basically, you can arrange various materials in a grid, and then that can create a new item that has a new use; For example, you can create axes, which make it easier to chop wood; shovels, which make digging dirt,sand, clay, and gravel easier; pickaxes, which are a necessary staple for underground exploration, swords to help inflict damage, armor, and various other tools and implements. Some people say that it’s the “procedurally generated world” that makes it worthwhile; I have to correct them, however, since although the world is “procedurally generated” that is no different then random maps on age of empires or Command & conquer; that is, the maps are generated procedurally. The appropriate term might be dynamically generated worlds- as you enter new areas, the game will randomly generate those new areas It’s not really so much “random” as it is “random with cues” that is, it doesn’t just randomly place blocks in a complete noise distribution, it randomly generates terrain and caves to look “natural”. This makes the replay value infinite; since even on the same file you could practically indefinitely go in a single direction and never run out of areas to explore. This brings about what I feel is sort of a bad point, though; while everything is generated randomly, the game has a habit of making things look pretty similar; in many ways, once you’ve seen one minecraft desert, you’ve pretty well seen them all. Of course occasionally the generator tosses in some unique landmarks or strange landforms, such as perhaps a dungeon lying right underneath sand so that the sand creates a small “dip” with exposed cobblestone, or perhaps grass covered mountains of trees in the center of a vast desert, etc.

This doesn’t so much detract from the game as much as it makes it easier to get lost. Thankfully, it usually throws enough unique landforms in that you can recognize them; “ahh, I remember, my main base was north of that mountain with the giant cave near the top”. The caves can sometimes be immense; having to light up every crevice to prevent monsters from spawning can get repetitive and boring, as you constantly find that the paths branch out in a handful of directions, and you find yourself getting lost near the bedrock with no torches, or something (which is more a result of being unprepared and reckless then of a particular problem with the game).

In a followup post I will discuss several “clone” games that are attempting to siphon off of Minecraft’s success, and even bring the game to new platforms.

Whenever a new "discovery" is made of an ancient device like this one, it sparks debates about wether such a device is or is not a computer; in this case, by the commenters. First, It's important to note that the people discovering and working with these devices are Scientists they know damn well what they are talking about. There are far to many bloody armchair scientists who have this egocentricity that makes them feel like they are qualified to veto the findings and declarations made by the people working with this device hands-on for months and years based entirely on a short demonstration and explanation of how the device works. The people studying these types of discoveries are not homeless, educationless retards from the street; they are well-educated scientists who specialize in exactly that field, they know what they are doing. The problems arise- well, at it's core the reason is because so many people are egotistical morons - but also it's because those ego-tistical morons don't realize that "Computer" is a general-purpose term. Today, in common vernacular it generally means a desktop or laptop PC; based on this many people somehow feel that things like that described in the video are not really computers. In the comments there, there was even a debate about whether an abacus was a computer. Of course it is. The person making that statement is clearly an uneducated troll. A Calculator is a computer; most people recognize that. But, a Computer does not need to actually perform any tasks on their own; a bunch of rocks are a computer just as much as our own fingers can be for counting or small objects. There is no requirement that a "computer" actually do the computing; in the case of us using our fingers we are using them more for "storage" then for actual calculation. But it still counts; a Computer explicitly means any device or devices designed to assist in the act of computation. So nearly anything can be called a computer. Of course whether something is technically a computer or not is a different story then that of whether people will understand what you mean when you say it; no doubt you would encounter any number of idiots who will argue your statements, much in the same way that there always seems to be a person in the room who has no idea what the difference between imply and infer are.

Whenever a new “discovery” is made of an ancient device like this one , it sparks debates about wether such a device is or is not a computer; in this case, by the commenters.

First, It’s important to note that the people discovering and working with these devices are Scientists they know damn well what they are talking about. There are far to many bloody armchair scientists who have this egocentricity that makes them feel like they are qualified to veto the findings and declarations made by the people working with this device hands-on for months and years based entirely on a short demonstration and explanation of how the device works. The people studying these types of discoveries are not homeless, educationless retards from the street; they are well-educated scientists who specialize in exactly that field, they know what they are doing.

The problems arise- well, at it’s core the reason is because so many people are egotistical morons – but also it’s because those ego-tistical morons don’t realize that “Computer” is a general-purpose term. Today, in common vernacular it generally means a desktop or laptop PC; based on this many people somehow feel that things like that described in the video are not really computers. In the comments there, there was even a debate about whether an abacus was a computer.

Of course it is. The person making that statement is clearly an uneducated troll. A Calculator is a computer; most people recognize that. But, a Computer does not need to actually perform any tasks on their own; a bunch of rocks are a computer just as much as our own fingers can be for counting or small objects. There is no requirement that a “computer” actually do the computing; in the case of us using our fingers we are using them more for “storage” then for actual calculation. But it still counts; a Computer explicitly means any device or devices designed to assist in the act of computation. So nearly anything can be called a computer. Of course whether something is technically a computer or not is a different story then that of whether people will understand what you mean when you say it; no doubt you would encounter any number of idiots who will argue your statements, much in the same way that there always seems to be a person in the room who has no idea what the difference between imply and infer are.

No, I'm not talking about a mysterious bacterial infection that is sweeping the nation. I'm actually talking about a television show. At least I think it's on television, not sure. I stumbled upon it while browsing www.knowyourmeme.com. I'm really not sure how I ended up there. Anyway, so I found myself on this page. HAHA. I said to myself. GOTTA SEE HOW DUMB THIS IS. So pressed play. Mixed opinion on the opening sequence, good animation. sensible music that isn't really really annoying. At least they got somebody to actually write the song, anyway. So, very soon I noticed that I was no longer watching it in an ironic "let's see how ridiculous this is" fashion. I discovered I thought it was great. This caused a crisis of sorts for me; until I realized that no such crisis really exists except in my mind. Perhaps that was solidified by a response in IRC when I made it clear I was not being facetious when I repeatedly stated "My little pony rules". <Me> MLP=My Little Pony the new one <Me> it's gangster man <Other> ahhh yes <Me> it's hip and cool and pop and fresh <Me> and also it is clearly done in flash and is very well animated <Me> makes me want to make my own non-crappy cartoon <Other> It's retarded is what it is <Me> no man you're just ignorant <Me> heh Note the immediately close-minded opinion about it, based entirely on it's name. "Neotenous multi-hued sapient female horses? Clearly such a show is designed for the intellectually inferior needing to see many colourful objects to maintain their attention". To be fair my response was less brash; mostly on account of expecting just such a close-minded reception based entirely on the title of the show... or maybe the introductory sequence. I suppose the less secure in your own masculinity you are the more uncomfortable liking the show makes you feel, so some people avoid that discomfort by simply refusing to allow the show to be "enjoyed" by them, and merely state that "it's retarded" without any actual data; instead providing blanket statements that in no way- as shown above- attempt to discredit That it's well done in flash and well animated; it also has good writing. No attempt was made to discredit that, so I could just as easily say that any show of any sort done in flash that is well animated and has good writing sucks. Although to be fair no particularly common shows come to mind, I don't think that Family Guy is animated in Flash; I think South Park is, though. At least, now it is. <Other> Sorry had to be said <Other> Your a grown Man... act your age not your shoe size Again, not surprising; Although to be fair I was somewhat surprised that somebody who essentially prided themselves in their ability to come to logical conclusions based on evidence rather then feelings would do the latter. I was actually somewhat disappointed in that respect. Nonetheless, I perservered <Me> I mean come on, where else but some sort of street gang will somebody be named "twilight sparkle" yeah, that's what I thought <Me> FACE <Other> heh <Other> OK may be act your age and not your IQ <Me> oddly enough it's fanbase is mostly people like myself who were inadvertently directed to it by that damned knowyourmeme.com <Me> I was all HAHA! this is gonna suck <Me> but just like that damned minecraft I underestimated it You'll note that my good friend here continues to pile on the hate for something of which he only has very limited information; at this point in time he is only aware that it is well animated and well written, and that it has a name implicating the presence of mares suffering from extreme cases of dwarfism. Now, to be fair, the target demographic- I think- is definitely younger girls. But I mean, if you are willing to entirely dismiss a piece of creative work based entirely on it's target demographic then clearly you are more close-minded then you profess; after all, megaman is a Nintendo game and was no doubt written for people with Nintendo's of the time, which generally meant 10-14 year olds; similar to other machines such as the ZX Spectrum. So you say "well, of course you still like it, you played it when you were younger". And you would have me there; except the first Megaman game I played was Megaman X when I was 17, and I was more "meh" at the fact that it was a SNES game using a password system. I didn't play the "classic" ("original" Megaman series) until FAR later, so there was no shield of nostalgia that could be said to be preventing me from seeing how crappy they are. Perhaps it is this very shield of nostalgia that allows me to find Megaman 6 to be my favourite of the 6 NES games? I've found this to be an uncommon viewpoint but I hold to it. MM2 comes a very close second. Although I haven't played 6 in ages. In any case, my point is that a lot of people seem to think that target demographic makes any bit of difference. It shouldn't. If you actually see the "Y" rating on MLP and shrug away because it might make you feel like less of a man, then go ahead and do so; clearly you aren't very secure in your masculinity. I have a job and work and I'll watch whatever I damn well please though, regardless of ratings. After all, most of my favourite Nintendo games are Rated "Kids to Adults" And everybody knows the "to adults" part is only added so people playing them that are around my age and have the sense of sexual security of a purple scarf on viagra don't feel "unconformist" if they play and enjoy said game. Moving along though; I think what is important is to not highlight the bits that are clearly "dumbed down" in the show- that's the problem when people try to view these things, they often don't look at it subjectively and instead start the show off with -100 points and give the show an additional -100 points for every "silly kidlike thing" it does; such as for example the ridiculous "what lesson have you learned" at the end (which really seems like something that some higher-ups said they needed, it often seems rather contrived). It's important to look at it objectively. And seriously, I mean, come on. IT HAS A FREAKING TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES EPISODE. Ok, to be fair they were called "parasprites" but the same plot is there, one of them finds this "cute" little bug thing, they take it home, it multiplies on the way back, so she gives it to one of the other ponies, and so on, until the entire place is overrun with them. It doesn't have klingons though, so I suppose that's a minus point. lacking kirk could go either way though. In any case, while it has the same core plotline as the Star Trek episode the setting of course necessitates a few changes in the name of artistic license. But seriously... one of it's plots is based on a Star Trek episode. How will a young girl know this? they won't. But clearly there was an intent at a connection, with the various clear similarities. In a way it reminds me of my own Flash Videos; with the exception that it's animated well and actually has some coherent plots; but what I mean is the fantasical nature of it all; I mean, in my "Agent Stick" flash videos (you know the staple of any beginning flash animator) "Mr.Gregorson" somehow manages to make clones. I never explain this... I probably couldn't if I wanted to. It's clearly unscientific, particularly that one scene where one of his clones transforms into a "corporate magnet" <<< (see, puns too)... what was I talking about? Anyway, clearly the best demonstration is to cut away the wheat from the chaff; of course somebody has to separate wheat from chaff to make flour but some people feel like making broad generalizations like "there is no wheat, only chaff" without even grabbing a mortar and pestle. They require handholding down the path of not being a moron to be enlightened. For those viewers, there are several youtube videos. Here's a short clip I took from another video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3gKZ_yAac8 I mean. Come on. That is hilarious... Actually, come to think if it, it sort of reminds me of that Family Guy Episode where they all have superpowers and are investigating them. I forget the exact dialogue but I do recall that Lois stated "we should only use our powers for good/when we need them" and Peter responded "roger"... and had transformed into a sandwich. Except in this case they all get nicknames. In this case the "Curse" is more akin to an illness caused by a blue plant called- get this- Poison Joke. haha! get it, Poison Oak... Poison Joke! HAHA. Some may say "wow, that's stupid, a blue flower that does that" Well, true, but Then again flowers have done stranger things on star trek, including making Spock Climb trees. Truly the effect from Poison Joke is not as extensive as a plant that can make spock climb trees. Seriously. If you think so, you are clearly lying to yourself. Spock Climbing trees is almost as unthinkable as a scene on any star trek episode with a dinner that actually get's finished. (Am I seriously the only one who notices that? they have like a full plate of food and then somebody calls them away and they just sort of leave it... Seriously do the characters ever get the finish a god damned meal? Ahh finally, We can sit down to a nice breakfast. Just Coffee and Croissant like we agreed that time we could like read each others minds. Did we ever actually do anything about the people who endangered our lives? Naw we just figured they did it for the lulz. hey gais sorry to interrupt but you're like needed on the bridge, not a structure crossing over a body of water bridge though, lolz, the one on the ship. Wait, why? I am number 1 I call the shots around here, lolz, but there are like... romulans ROMULANS? Romulans? yeah, dat's what I said, I shaved my beard lolz can't we finish our breakfast? lolz I guess so but they are like, on our ship now killin our redshirts, soon we will be prisoners of war lol I would rather die then be a prisoner of war like my father! lol worf and his honour and klingon stuff, haha, we tricked u dood you're just a human with a lot of makeup O RLY? haha yeah lol my beard grew back If I wear a hat am I klingon? LOL no I can do tests and make flashy lights with a piece of plastic if you like lol no remember that time I had blood fever or whatever No Oh yeah you weren't here lol lol that was when we had the other doctor we never talk about, The romulans like killed the black guy at the console lol now I sad. ... So, yeah. Aside from that, it breaks from "tradition" and follows a different "format" most cartoons like it split themselves into two plotlines; The problem with that is you've got two 10 minute episodes rather then one longer 22 minute episode; The "Longer" episodes are generally what you find in shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, South park, etc. With longer episodes there is more time for character development; In family Guy for example, think of how much they would have to cut out if they basically had to reduce each episode in half- Say goodbye to most flashbacks; and a lot of the Stewie griffin soliloquys would no doubt be gone; there would be no time to develop Meg into the Butt Monkey, and it would all in all be far less fun to watch. With more time per plot, there is more time for plain old character development. Prime example being Fluttershy and the Dragon; without most of the previous episode for context it's difficult to understand the scope of that scene. In any case, I felt like writing something. Seems a good chunk of this post is a fictional dialogue in The Next Generation, but I suppose that's somewhat inevitable.

No, I’m not talking about a mysterious bacterial infection that is sweeping the nation. I’m actually talking about a television show. At least I think it’s on television, not sure. I stumbled upon it while browsing www.knowyourmeme.com. I’m really not sure how I ended up there. Anyway, so I found myself on this page. HAHA. I said to myself. GOTTA SEE HOW DUMB THIS IS. So pressed play. Mixed opinion on the opening sequence, good animation. sensible music that isn’t really really annoying. At least they got somebody to actually write the song, anyway. So, very soon I noticed that I was no longer watching it in an ironic “let’s see how ridiculous this is” fashion. I discovered I thought it was great. This caused a crisis of sorts for me; until I realized that no such crisis really exists except in my mind. Perhaps that was solidified by a response in IRC when I made it clear I was not being facetious when I repeatedly stated “My little pony rules”.

<Me> MLP=My Little Pony the new one
<Me> it’s gangster man
<Other> ahhh yes
<Me> it’s hip and cool and pop and fresh
<Me> and also it is clearly done in flash and is very well animated
<Me> makes me want to make my own non-crappy cartoon
<Other> It’s retarded is what it is
<Me> no man you’re just ignorant
<Me> heh

Note the immediately close-minded opinion about it, based entirely on it’s name. “Neotenous multi-hued sapient female horses? Clearly such a show is designed for the intellectually inferior needing to see many colourful objects to maintain their attention”. To be fair my response was less brash; mostly on account of expecting just such a close-minded reception based entirely on the title of the show… or maybe the introductory sequence. I suppose the less secure in your own masculinity you are the more uncomfortable liking the show makes you feel, so some people avoid that discomfort by simply refusing to allow the show to be “enjoyed” by them, and merely state that “it’s retarded” without any actual data; instead providing blanket statements that in no way- as shown above- attempt to discredit That it’s well done in flash and well animated; it also has good writing. No attempt was made to discredit that, so I could just as easily say that any show of any sort done in flash that is well animated and has good writing sucks. Although to be fair no particularly common shows come to mind, I don’t think that Family Guy is animated in Flash; I think South Park is, though. At least, now it is.

<Other> Sorry had to be said
<Other> Your a grown Man… act your age not your shoe size

Again, not surprising; Although to be fair I was somewhat surprised that somebody who essentially prided themselves in their ability to come to logical conclusions based on evidence rather then feelings would do the latter. I was actually somewhat disappointed in that respect. Nonetheless, I perservered

<Me> I mean come on, where else but some sort of street gang will somebody be named “twilight sparkle” yeah, that’s what I thought
<Me> FACE
<Other> heh
<Other> OK may be act your age and not your IQ
<Me> oddly enough it’s fanbase is mostly people like myself who were inadvertently directed to it by that damned knowyourmeme.com
<Me> I was all HAHA! this is gonna suck
<Me> but just like that damned minecraft I underestimated it

You’ll note that my good friend here continues to pile on the hate for something of which he only has very limited information; at this point in time he is only aware that it is well animated and well written, and that it has a name implicating the presence of mares suffering from extreme cases of dwarfism.

Now, to be fair, the target demographic- I think- is definitely younger girls. But I mean, if you are willing to entirely dismiss a piece of creative work based entirely on it’s target demographic then clearly you are more close-minded then you profess; after all, megaman is a Nintendo game and was no doubt written for people with Nintendo’s of the time, which generally meant 10-14 year olds; similar to other machines such as the ZX Spectrum. So you say “well, of course you still like it, you played it when you were younger”. And you would have me there; except the first Megaman game I played was Megaman X when I was 17, and I was more “meh” at the fact that it was a SNES game using a password system.

I didn’t play the “classic” (“original” Megaman series) until FAR later, so there was no shield of nostalgia that could be said to be preventing me from seeing how crappy they are. Perhaps it is this very shield of nostalgia that allows me to find Megaman 6 to be my favourite of the 6 NES games? I’ve found this to be an uncommon viewpoint but I hold to it. MM2 comes a very close second. Although I haven’t played 6 in ages.

In any case, my point is that a lot of people seem to think that target demographic makes any bit of difference. It shouldn’t. If you actually see the “Y” rating on MLP and shrug away because it might make you feel like less of a man, then go ahead and do so; clearly you aren’t very secure in your masculinity. I have a job and work and I’ll watch whatever I damn well please though, regardless of ratings. After all, most of my favourite Nintendo games are Rated “Kids to Adults” And everybody knows the “to adults” part is only added so people playing them that are around my age and have the sense of sexual security of a purple scarf on viagra don’t feel “unconformist” if they play and enjoy said game.

Moving along though; I think what is important is to not highlight the bits that are clearly “dumbed down” in the show- that’s the problem when people try to view these things, they often don’t look at it subjectively and instead start the show off with -100 points and give the show an additional -100 points for every “silly kidlike thing” it does; such as for example the ridiculous “what lesson have you learned” at the end (which really seems like something that some higher-ups said they needed, it often seems rather contrived). It’s important to look at it objectively.

And seriously, I mean, come on. IT HAS A FREAKING TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES EPISODE. Ok, to be fair they were called “parasprites” but the same plot is there, one of them finds this “cute” little bug thing, they take it home, it multiplies on the way back, so she gives it to one of the other ponies, and so on, until the entire place is overrun with them. It doesn’t have klingons though, so I suppose that’s a minus point. lacking kirk could go either way though. In any case, while it has the same core plotline as the Star Trek episode the setting of course necessitates a few changes in the name of artistic license.

But seriously… one of it’s plots is based on a Star Trek episode. How will a young girl know this? they won’t. But clearly there was an intent at a connection, with the various clear similarities. In a way it reminds me of my own Flash Videos; with the exception that it’s animated well and actually has some coherent plots; but what I mean is the fantasical nature of it all; I mean, in my “Agent Stick” flash videos (you know the staple of any beginning flash animator) “Mr.Gregorson” somehow manages to make clones. I never explain this… I probably couldn’t if I wanted to. It’s clearly unscientific, particularly that one scene where one of his clones transforms into a “corporate magnet” <<< (see, puns too)… what was I talking about?

Anyway, clearly the best demonstration is to cut away the wheat from the chaff; of course somebody has to separate wheat from chaff to make flour but some people feel like making broad generalizations like “there is no wheat, only chaff” without even grabbing a mortar and pestle. They require handholding down the path of not being a moron to be enlightened. For those viewers, there are several youtube videos.

Here’s a short clip I took from another video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3gKZ_yAac8

I mean. Come on. That is hilarious… Actually, come to think if it, it sort of reminds me of that Family Guy Episode where they all have superpowers and are investigating them. I forget the exact dialogue but I do recall that Lois stated “we should only use our powers for good/when we need them” and Peter responded “roger”… and had transformed into a sandwich. Except in this case they all get nicknames. In this case the “Curse” is more akin to an illness caused by a blue plant called- get this- Poison Joke. haha! get it, Poison Oak… Poison Joke! HAHA. Some may say “wow, that’s stupid, a blue flower that does that” Well, true, but Then again flowers have done stranger things on star trek, including making Spock Climb trees. Truly the effect from Poison Joke is not as extensive as a plant that can make spock climb trees . Seriously. If you think so, you are clearly lying to yourself. Spock Climbing trees is almost as unthinkable as a scene on any star trek episode with a dinner that actually get’s finished. (Am I seriously the only one who notices that? they have like a full plate of food and then somebody calls them away and they just sort of leave it… Seriously do the characters ever get the finish a god damned meal?

	Ahh finally, We can sit down to a nice breakfast. Just Coffee and Croissant like we agreed that time we could like read each others minds.
	Did we ever actually do anything about the people who endangered our lives?
	Naw we just figured they did it for the lulz.
	hey gais sorry to interrupt but you’re like needed on the bridge, not a structure crossing over a body of water bridge though, lolz, the one on the ship.
	Wait, why?
	I am number 1 I call the shots around here, lolz, but there are like… romulans
	ROMULANS?
	Romulans?
	yeah, dat’s what I said, I shaved my beard lolz
	can’t we finish our breakfast?
	lolz I guess so but they are like, on our ship now killin our redshirts, soon we will be prisoners of war lol
	I would rather die then be a prisoner of war like my father!
	lol worf and his honour and klingon stuff, haha, we tricked u dood you’re just a human with a lot of makeup
	O RLY?
	haha yeah
	lol my beard grew back
	If I wear a hat am I klingon?
	LOL no I can do tests and make flashy lights with a piece of plastic if you like
	lol no remember that time I had blood fever or whatever
	No
	Oh yeah you weren’t here lol
	lol that was when we had the other doctor we never talk about, The romulans like killed the black guy at the console lol now I sad.

…

So, yeah. Aside from that, it breaks from “tradition” and follows a different “format” most cartoons like it split themselves into two plotlines; The problem with that is you’ve got two 10 minute episodes rather then one longer 22 minute episode; The “Longer” episodes are generally what you find in shows like The Simpsons, Family Guy, South park, etc. With longer episodes there is more time for character development; In family Guy for example, think of how much they would have to cut out if they basically had to reduce each episode in half- Say goodbye to most flashbacks; and a lot of the Stewie griffin soliloquys would no doubt be gone; there would be no time to develop Meg into the Butt Monkey, and it would all in all be far less fun to watch. With more time per plot, there is more time for plain old character development. Prime example being Fluttershy and the Dragon; without most of the previous episode for context it’s difficult to understand the scope of that scene.

In any case, I felt like writing something. Seems a good chunk of this post is a fictional dialogue in The Next Generation, but I suppose that’s somewhat inevitable.

It's impossible to not have heard about the great "debate" about Evolution and Creationism; particularly in the United states, where fundamentalists are pushing an agenda to have Creationism taught in schools alongside evolution, under the pretense that "Evolution is a theory, Creationism is a theory, they should both be taught". The thing is, this doesn't hold water. Evolution is a theory supported by incontrovertible evidence. Creationism is supported only by metaphysical religious dogma. What makes this even more interesting is that it isn't truly supported, as they might claim, by the bible; after all, the entire thing is a long-running metaphor and theirs is only one of innumerable interpretations of the text; a person's interpretation of a metaphor, simile, or other literal device will depend on that persons personality and their experiences. The creationists hold that evolution is false, and we were made exactly as we are today; they move forward and claim that anybody claiming otherwise is asserting the non-existence of god. That is simply preposterous. The fact is evolution and divine creation are not mutually exclusive; It merely means an interpretation of the translations of the translations of a text that has gone through several languages is incorrect. Oddly, in many "debates" on the subject, a religious zealot brings up how "the bible says the earth is round": They quote things like "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). Yes- that, on it's own, might be a good, compelling argument. Except, even acknowledging the lack of a hebrew word for circle (which is an odd thing to mention (they always do) since that particular portion, from what I can find, was written in greek) there is no doubt  that it's still, as always, open to interpretation. Consider standing in the middle of a field. It stretches out to the horizon in all directions. What do you see? a Great circle. It appears indisputably to be a great circle; without knowledge of the earth's curvature, that is what it is. And this is forgetting the fact that many other cultures had already reasoned that the earth was round long before; Eratosthenes proved it years before. repeating known truths hardly makes those truths divinely given. Additionally, they conveniently forget such passages as: Rev. 7:1: "...four angels standing on the four corners of the earth" &amp; Daniel 4:10-11 Now, Anybody with a basic understanding of geometry can tell you that neither a sphere- nor a circle- has corners. Therefore one can surmise that whomever wrote this passage did indeed believe that the earth had corners, in which case it had ends, and was therefore not a sphere. Clearly this passage is figurative; interpreting the bible as if it was a science textbook is utterly ridiculous. The best way to identify what the Bible is is by emphasizing what it isn't, and high on that list is that the Bible is not a science book. You don't read the Bible looking for answers to why rain falls or how clouds form or whether the Earth is round. If you want to perform science, you use the scientific method, not "it sez in this book". Besides, this is more a case of reinterpreting old text to fit modern day scenarios. We can't know wether they meant sphere when they wrote circle. We can't know how a sphere or circle can have corners. That is not explained. If you want to get your science from a bronze age book written by ignorant barbarians trying to understand the world thats fine but just stay the hell away from heavy machinery. It is not a science textbook. In that light, it's important to note that since it is in fact not preaching science- it's preaching faith, most christians I have no doubt would agree- then there is no pretense for science to contradict the bible; Science is for answering the "How" questions, faith and religion is what people turn to when they feel they need a "Why" There is no conflict, and where conflicts are said to be observed it's no trouble to simply change those passages; or, more likely, find a more fitting interpretation. My problem with the bible is when it is used as a science textbook; some people claim "the bible says this is this way, so we shouldn't explore it, or question it" But that isn't the case. That is merely their interpretation that says it's that way; If the bible said that we were made of chocolate and need to eat vanilla nougat to stay alive, nobody could say "that's true" without following blindly. In that sense, it isn't so much faith that I personally have issue with, it's blind faith. Now, this hardly is exclusive to established religions. I know many people who claim not to be part of any religion (atheists) but are in fact part of one- they are anti-theists. Atheists simply don't believe there is a god; but will accept and understand those evidences that are brought forth; they reject the idea of "if we can't explain it, god must have done it" explanation provided by many fundamentalists. anti-theists, on the other hand, reject the very idea that there is any god as ludicrous and impossible. They label christians, and those following any religion as ignorant fools. However, what makes this particularly funny is that they are no different. They are blindly following a faith in something they cannot know- they cannot possibly conclude, with any sort of confidence that there is no god; just as nobody can know for sure that a god did indeed cause the big bang, Anti-theists cannot possibly know that there was not. In that sense their "crusade" is no different then those whom they claim to be wrong; they can cite various instances where they are wrong, but then they draw from those conclusions that any other things they say are also wrong. This is utter nonsense. Personally, I don't believe there is a god in the abrahamic sense- in that sense, some could label me a deist; but a more apt description might be a agnostic deist. I don't believe he would intervene in our lives or the progress of civilization as is described in the various books of the bible; in that sense I believe that the stories themselves are more lessons about what is good and bad, not what god did, did not do, or would do; that is, he will not turn you into salt, for any reason; that was a metaphor. For what? I don't know. However, unlike many people I know, I don't claim to be more "enlightened" then any christians; they believe, I do not, but I do not think their belief is any more wrong then my own. Many atheists seem to have this superiority complex that they are right because "science backs them up" sure, it's  been noted that god would be unnecessary, but so are fancy dresses, and they still exist. So get over yourselves, you don't have any more evidence of a diety's nonexistence then anybody has that they do exist, particularly when you consider that most people seem to be looking for evidence that he exists, but we can only judge existence through our own senses; generally through common sense. The thing is, Common sense is useless in science, if something, or someone, surpasses time can they not also surpass a provable existence in our reality? militant atheists and anti-theists need to pull their head out of their overly smug "science is on my side" asses and actually realize that the questions they purport to have answered are not something that can even be answered with science. That is the crux of the problem. Evolution is something that can be proven. You don't need fossil records; the DNA of a human being has so much in common with that of a primate that it would be utterly foolish to simply deny that evidence. In fact, the entire theory of creationism seems to rest of finding holes (often fabricated) in evolution, many of which are merely misconceptions, and those can be found explained here Truly, there isn't a whole lot I can say myself that isn't covered in that video.

It’s impossible to not have heard about the great “debate” about Evolution and Creationism; particularly in the United states, where fundamentalists are pushing an agenda to have Creationism taught in schools alongside evolution, under the pretense that “Evolution is a theory, Creationism is a theory, they should both be taught”.

The thing is, this doesn’t hold water. Evolution is a theory supported by incontrovertible evidence . Creationism is supported only by metaphysical religious dogma. What makes this even more interesting is that it isn’t truly supported, as they might claim, by the bible; after all, the entire thing is a long-running metaphor and theirs is only one of innumerable interpretations of the text; a person’s interpretation of a metaphor, simile, or other literal device will depend on that persons personality and their experiences. The creationists hold that evolution is false, and we were made exactly as we are today; they move forward and claim that anybody claiming otherwise is asserting the non-existence of god. That is simply preposterous. The fact is evolution and divine creation are not mutually exclusive; It merely means an interpretation of the translations of the translations of a text that has gone through several languages is incorrect.

Oddly, in many “debates” on the subject, a religious zealot brings up how “the bible says the earth is round”:

They quote things like “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth…” (Isaiah 40:22,NIV).

Yes- that, on it’s own, might be a good, compelling argument. Except, even acknowledging the lack of a hebrew word for circle (which is an odd thing to mention (they always do) since that particular portion, from what I can find, was written in greek) there is no doubt  that it’s still, as always, open to interpretation.

Consider standing in the middle of a field. It stretches out to the horizon in all directions. What do you see?

a Great circle. It appears indisputably to be a great circle; without knowledge of the earth’s curvature, that is what it is. And this is forgetting the fact that many other cultures had already reasoned that the earth was round long before; Eratosthenes proved it years before. repeating known truths hardly makes those truths divinely given.

Additionally, they conveniently forget such passages as:

Rev. 7:1: “…four angels standing on the four corners of the earth” & Daniel 4:10-11

Now, Anybody with a basic understanding of geometry can tell you that neither a sphere- nor a circle- has corners. Therefore one can surmise that whomever wrote this passage did indeed believe that the earth had corners, in which case it had ends, and was therefore not a sphere. Clearly this passage is figurative; interpreting the bible as if it was a science textbook is utterly ridiculous. The best way to identify what the Bible is is by emphasizing what it isn’t, and high on that list is that the Bible is not a science book. You don’t read the Bible looking for answers to why rain falls or how clouds form or whether the Earth is round. If you want to perform science, you use the scientific method, not “it sez in this book”. Besides, this is more a case of reinterpreting old text to fit modern day scenarios. We can’t know wether they meant sphere when they wrote circle. We can’t know how a sphere or circle can have corners. That is not explained.

If you want to get your science from a bronze age book written by ignorant barbarians trying to understand the world thats fine but just stay the hell away from heavy machinery. It is not a science textbook.

In that light, it’s important to note that since it is in fact not preaching science- it’s preaching faith, most christians I have no doubt would agree- then there is no pretense for science to contradict the bible; Science is for answering the “How” questions, faith and religion is what people turn to when they feel they need a “Why” There is no conflict, and where conflicts are said to be observed it’s no trouble to simply change those passages; or, more likely, find a more fitting interpretation. My problem with the bible is when it is used as a science textbook; some people claim “the bible says this is this way, so we shouldn’t explore it, or question it” But that isn’t the case. That is merely their interpretation that says it’s that way; If the bible said that we were made of chocolate and need to eat vanilla nougat to stay alive, nobody could say “that’s true” without following blindly. In that sense, it isn’t so much faith that I personally have issue with, it’s blind faith.

Now, this hardly is exclusive to established religions. I know many people who claim not to be part of any religion (atheists) but are in fact part of one- they are anti-theists. Atheists simply don’t believe there is a god; but will accept and understand those evidences that are brought forth; they reject the idea of “if we can’t explain it, god must have done it” explanation provided by many fundamentalists. anti-theists, on the other hand, reject the very idea that there is any god as ludicrous and impossible. They label christians, and those following any religion as ignorant fools. However, what makes this particularly funny is that they are no different. They are blindly following a faith in something they cannot know- they cannot possibly conclude, with any sort of confidence that there is no god; just as nobody can know for sure that a god did indeed cause the big bang, Anti-theists cannot possibly know that there was not. In that sense their “crusade” is no different then those whom they claim to be wrong; they can cite various instances where they are wrong, but then they draw from those conclusions that any other things they say are also wrong. This is utter nonsense.

Personally, I don’t believe there is a god in the abrahamic sense- in that sense, some could label me a deist; but a more apt description might be a agnostic deist. I don’t believe he would intervene in our lives or the progress of civilization as is described in the various books of the bible; in that sense I believe that the stories themselves are more lessons about what is good and bad, not what god did, did not do, or would do; that is, he will not turn you into salt, for any reason; that was a metaphor. For what? I don’t know. However, unlike many people I know, I don’t claim to be more “enlightened” then any christians; they believe, I do not, but I do not think their belief is any more wrong then my own. Many atheists seem to have this superiority complex that they are right because “science backs them up” sure, it’s  been noted that god would be unnecessary, but so are fancy dresses, and they still exist. So get over yourselves, you don’t have any more evidence of a diety’s nonexistence then anybody has that they do exist, particularly when you consider that most people seem to be looking for evidence that he exists, but we can only judge existence through our own senses; generally through common sense. The thing is, Common sense is useless in science , if something, or someone, surpasses time can they not also surpass a provable existence in our reality? militant atheists and anti-theists need to pull their head out of their overly smug “science is on my side” asses and actually realize that the questions they purport to have answered are not something that can even be answered with science. That is the crux of the problem.

Evolution is something that can be proven. You don’t need fossil records; the DNA of a human being has so much in common with that of a primate that it would be utterly foolish to simply deny that evidence. In fact, the entire theory of creationism seems to rest of finding holes (often fabricated) in evolution, many of which are merely misconceptions, and those can be found explained here

Truly, there isn’t a whole lot I can say myself that isn’t covered in that video.