Cav's Place

Considering the timing, I have to start by saying that this post has nothing to do with the United States elections. What was there was working badly and therefore required change.

Bad things don’t usually change in this world of ours, or at least not for the better, but the good or “functional” ones sure tend to. The problem isn’t usually the change itself, though in case of the good things it can be, but the way it happens. Sometimes the change is for the worse, which is obviously a big problem. Other times it’s just change for the sake of change, not making something noticeably better or worse, only making it different, which is pointless at best and very frustrating at worst. And yet other times the end result of the change may be somewhat positive if you view it objectively, but the balance between the good and the bad things brought by the change doesn’t lean heavily enough towards the good to make it worth struggling to adapt to the new conditions.
I think this happens because it seems easier to improve on something that already works than to fix something that doesn’t. Why don’t people realize that it’s not so? When you try to improve on something that already works, the result must be undeniably better for the change to be worth it. When you try to fix something broken, all you need to do is make it function, even if poorly. It is, however, true that the bad things tend to be more important than the good things, which does make them harder to change, but that only means we should try harder!

I have a set of “rules” when it comes to change. I don’t mean to sound like a dictator, but it might be nice if others would follow them…
When something does not work, you must determine why that is and whether or not the problem can be fixed in a reasonable manner. If it can be fixed and it is desirable to do so, fix it. If it either can’t be fixed or was working too poorly to begin with, replace it. That may sometimes mean destroying it and building something new in its place, possibly including a few parts from the old thing if they’re still functional and appropriate for the new thing. Try anything you can think of, at worst it still won’t work and leave you no worse off than you currently are, just don’t let it continue not to work!
When something works poorly, you must try your best to fix it, making it work better. However, you must take precautions in case your attempts will cause it to work even less well or even fail completely. You can try many things, but you first need a reliable contingency plan in case your attempt fails. Even something that works poorly is usually more desirable than something that doesn’t work at all.
When something works within acceptable parameters, you must be very careful if you wish to make any changes. It is true that it could work better, but it could also work less well or not at all. You must think very carefully before doing anything, only making changes which bring an undeniable and significant benefit. Keep in mind that even adapting to a good change could be a problem when the change is not desired, so if your attempts could also affect others you must always take their opinions into account and not do things that would negatively affect them. And if you wish to sacrifice some things in order to improve others, you might wish to reconsider. Yes, it is desirable to improve, but you must be sure that the improvement is real and significant enough to be worth the effort of adapting to it.
When something works well, it would probably be better if you’d leave it alone. The risk of any change making it be, or at least appear to be, worse is far too great. Of course it could be even better, nothing’s perfect, but that’s just one of the reasons you should not try to change it. Since nothing can be perfect, striving for perfection only leads to unhappiness. Treasure a good thing for what it is, they are few and far between…

I think this applies to a lot of things in life, from the least important to the most important. We would all be better off if people would learn to treasure what works well and focus on fixing or replacing what doesn’t…

Decided to clear my answers and start over yet again. It was rather pointless to be fair with their system if they weren’t fair with me. Picking the answers I’d want a potential “match” to pick and selecting the appropriate importance was pointless since I’m not looking for a “match”, and since they don’t let you pick differently for the “friend” score and don’t even say how it is calculated I have decided to do it the other way around. When it tells me to pick what I’d like my “match” to answer, I’ll pick what I’d like a good friend to answer, and select the importance accordingly, making the “match” score relevant.

Moving on to something else, I’ve been having a really bad feeling these past few days. Right now it’s actually making me sick… I feel like something very bad is either about to happen or just did. Of course, I assume it concerns Andra so I get even more worried. I’m so scared that I’m not even sure I want to know what’s going on, if anything really is… Some of these feelings did prove true in the past, especially concerning her…

Perfect World did manage to keep me interested so far, but lately it was starting to feel like a chore. Even though a Venomancer is far better suited for my solitary playing style, there were more and more things that you just can’t do alone. But the main reason it was becoming a chore was that it was taking too long to level up by sticking to my plan. I didn’t want to use the “Crazy Stone” quest and I didn’t want to grind, which meant that I had to do a lot of Dragon Quests. But I also didn’t want to teleport, as that’d mean spending money and I stick to the idea of not doing anything in order to earn money but also not spending anything unless I absolutely have to even in games. That meant that each Dragon Quest turned into over two hours of flying from one place to the next, which was not fun at all.
Still, after playing Calad for 30 days I wanted to play Kalee for 30 days as well, and made a plan to get her to level 40 during this time. Since a plan’s a plan, that’s exactly what I did. Kept on looking for errors to send to the developers too, at least it seems that nitpicking is one of the very few things I’m good at.
But all that is done now, managed to get her to level 40 last night, sent the last e-mail today and now I’m taking a break. They have announced an expansion for December 1st, so I think I’ll be back a few days before that. I’m curious what new things will be added, even though I assume they won’t be for somebody as low level as me, and especially not for someone who insists on playing alone. This of course only applies if the expansion will also be free. I still think I’ll get back even if it won’t, I’ll probably try to get Kalee to level 50, but doubt I’ll stick around long after that.

But… I wonder how many World of Warcraft players fail at saying “screw it” when a game starts to seem more like work than play… Quite a lot of them, from what I know…

IGN has recently published this year’s edition of the Readers’ Choice Top 100 Games of All Time and it once again showed the same differences between PC and console games and gamers, differences which unjustly put PC games at a disadvantage, which in turn puts PC gamers at a disadvantage as well.

The top included 26 PC games, including here any game which was listed as having a PC version. Eight of those games, including the top four, didn’t have the PC version listed on their page in the top itself. That might mean that the user ratings for that version weren’t taken into account for some reason, therefore making their presence in a hypothetical “Readers’ Choice Top 100 PC Games of All Time” questionable. But I’ll just ignore that fact for now and say that there are 26 PC games in that top 100. I’d have preferred them to be around a third instead of a quarter, but that is still a reasonable number.
The problems appear when you analyze further. The Legend of Zelda and Mario seem deadlocked in the battle for the best series of games of all time, each appearing eight times in the top (though Zelda has the first and fourth places while no Mario game made it into the top ten), while Metroid, with six appearances, is a relatively distant third. All of these are strictly console games! What’s worse, even though two PC games did make it into the top ten, they are both PC ports of console games, released two years after the initial release date, and neither of them has the PC version listed on their page in the top anyway. (As I said before, the top four PC games are not listed as such, though at least the third one, Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, 12th overall, is an actual PC game and not a delayed port.) The highest ranked game which has the PC version listed is Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, 18th overall, and it is followed by yet another PlayStation port, Final Fantasy VII, 30th overall.
Since this top is created by users, it indicates that gamers prefer console games. However, it seems it’s not just the regular gamers. Console games tend to get better scores in official reviews too, even the console version of a game often gets a better score than the PC version of that same game, and I’m not talking about delayed ports here. I’m trying to determine why that happens…

Of course this is not something I’ve just noticed now, so I already have an opinion. I think there are three main causes for this: the hardware, the gamers and capitalism. Let me explain a little about each.
PCs are constantly evolving. The best thing right now will be mediocre next year and obsolete a couple of years after that. That makes it very hard to create games that take advantage of the latest developments, but also to enjoy the full potential of recently released games. Developers have to choose between creating games that work on weaker systems, which will disappoint all those who want “eye candy”, and taking advantage of the latest technology, which will make the game unplayable for all those who have weaker systems. They often choose the third option, especially when it comes to graphics, which is to make the game “scalable”, therefore taking advantage of the latest developments but allowing those who own weaker systems to turn off those features in order to still be able to play. When you also add the fact that, due to the desire to keep up with the latest technology, developers change parts of the code during the production process, it becomes clear that PC games require more time, money and skill to produce than console games. They are also far more likely to contain bugs. On the other hand, since console hardware is pretty fixed, it’s much easier to work with it and take advantage of all it has to offer, without compromises. But the hardware also plays a part in how gamers view the games. It’s impossible to take full advantage of the constantly evolving PC hardware, so gamers who focus on the technical aspects (which are the vast majority, actually) are unlikely to be completely satisfied with a PC game. Plus that there is the little issue of the controls. Console gamers expect relatively simple and perhaps even limited controls, but PCs have keyboard, mouse and potentially other peripherals as well. That makes PC gamers expect the controls to be nothing less than perfect, and we all know perfection is unattainable.
From this we can conclude that console games and PC games are likely to be judged differently even by the same person, with the expectations for the PC version being higher. We also conclude that PC games are harder to make. Since a person’s satisfaction is determined by how closely facts meet their expectations, PC games are likely to be less satisfying even if they turn out well, which is less likely to happen…
Next come the gamers themselves. I stick to my opinion that PC gamers are more demanding of quality and complexity than console gamers. A large number of console gamers would just be happy with something fun to waste their time on. That means that console gamers are by default more likely to enjoy a game and therefore rate it very highly. Most do not analyze it too carefully, and they have lower demands even when they do. On the other hand, many PC gamers want a lot and are more thorough, making them more likely to notice even small flaws and give lower ratings because of them.
So, up to this point, we can conclude that the games which are easier and cheaper to make, and also less likely to contain bugs, reach a less demanding (and likely also larger) audience, while those which are harder and more expensive to make, and also more likely to contain bugs because of it, reach a more demanding (and likely also smaller) audience.
That takes us to capitalism. Some developers might still make games simply because they want to, they enjoy it and want that to show, but the publishers certainly don’t care about that. They are only interested in profits, sticking firmly to the old business adage of producing as cheaply as possible as many things as you can possibly sell for as much as possible. That makes them focus on the console market, and the developers are forced to follow suit because they have unfortunately grown dependent on them. The reasoning is quite simple, good console games can be produced cheaper and faster than good PC games and they are likely to sell more copies at a higher price. (Personally, I don’t really get why do console gamers let publishers get away with selling console games for so much, but I guess that’s their problem. I guess a good part of it has to do with them being less demanding and, I don’t fear saying it, even less intelligent than PC gamers.) That means they can produce more for less and sell more for more, fulfilling all parts of the adage I mentioned above. Not to mention the whole piracy issue, which I won’t get into again. All of that makes them pay more attention to console games, making them more likely to actually be better than PC games.
Putting it all together leads to a very disheartening conclusion for PC gamers. Less demanding buyers are more likely to be satisfied with their purchase. If they are happy with their purchase, they are more likely to make another. That means higher profits for the publishers from console games, which in turn makes them focus on those, especially since they’re cheaper and easier to make, increasing both their quantity and their quality. Higher quality certainly means even higher sales, but higher quantity means more choice, which usually makes more people want to see what it’s about and therefore also potentially increasing sales. This creates an upward spiral for console games. On the other hand, more demanding buyers are less likely to be satisfied with their purchase. If they are unhappy with their purchase, they are less likely to make another. That means lower profits for the publishers from PC games, which in turn makes them turn away from those, especially since they’re more expensive and harder to make, decreasing both their quantity and their quality, which obviously means even lower sales. This creates a downward spiral for PC games.

The way out? Since the constant development and versatility are exactly the traits that make PCs what they are, those can’t be changed. Consoles could also start receiving upgrades, but that is undesirable because it would cause problems for everybody. That means the hardware problem can’t be solved. But it doesn’t need to be solved…
If the gamers would change, the problem would be partially solved. Of course, PC gamers could become less demanding, but that would be undesirable. Instead, console gamers should become more demanding and discriminating, and also stop putting up with the outrageous prices the publishers sell console games for. That would make publishers stop focusing on them at the expense of PC games so much, but, unless the balance would end up being tilted the other way, it could actually increase the quality of console games even further as well. After all, offering low quality products to discriminating customers is a quick way to bankruptcy, so they will avoid doing that.
Of course, the best way to change this situation is eliminating capitalism. If profits wouldn’t be a priority anymore, good PC games would be as likely to be produced as good console games. Without marketing and financial constraints, those who truly enjoy making games and have the skills for it would be far more likely to create good games, regardless of platform, so everybody would benefit. Yes, this would require nothing short of changing society as a whole, but most good things require that…

I got my new ID card yesterday, after standing in line for 50 minutes only to get it in 30 seconds afterwards. The interesting thing is that there were only about 10 people in front of me, so I have no idea why it took so long.
I did spot an announcement that caught my interest while there, though. It was addressed to “citizens whose last names start with the letters A-Z and currently reside in Bucharest or Ilfov County”. Excuse me, but what else could a person’s last name start with?

Moving on to something else, my monitor seems to be developing dead pixels and I don’t know why. It certainly didn’t have any when I bought it in February last year, because I checked it thoroughly.
I have started suspecting that there was one a few months ago, but I never checked too carefully because a single dead pixel wouldn’t be covered by the warranty anyway and it seemed to blend in with what was around it and therefore was hard to spot and not a problem. But a couple of weeks ago a black one appeared rather close to the center of the screen, and that one is certainly not hard to spot. That made me look more carefully, and this check revealed a few more.
Actually, the initial check only revealed one more, but I have noticed four others since then, which makes me think that the number is increasing very quickly. I guess I could have it replaced now, unless they’d find a way to claim that I have damaged it and that’s why it’s happening, but that means being without a monitor for a while, and you can’t use a computer without a monitor… I’d much rather figure out what’s going on and stop it from getting even worse, at least until I’ll have another monitor to use before I’ll get a replacement for this one if I’ll send it in, which is very unlikely to happen in the next few months.