The Last Road

Living every day like it's the last… because one day, it will be.

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

On Guild Wars 2 and Tanks

Posted by Rystefn on November 23, 2012

If I’m playing a game, and there’s a tank option, I go straight for the tanks every time. To those of you that know me, this comes as no surprise. I also have a tendency to squeeze every ounce of performance out of the damned things. Whether it’s perching a Scorpion in your sniper position in Halo or shooting around corners in Combat!, I’ve been annoying the Hell out of people with the things for two and a half decades now. So when I was given a chance in my Guild Wars 2 personal story to lead a tank company charge against a dragon, I pounced on it. (Literally, I play a Charr.)

If you’ve been paying attention to the game, you may have seen one of these bad boys floating around the world of Tyria:
Charr tank

Imagine my disappointment when I was assigned these things:
Charr non-tank

That is no tank. That is a smallish canon mounted on back of an armored dune buggy. By the way, no, you don’t get to control one of them on the quest, either. The closest you get is standing around outside shouting firing instructions at the crew while it parks far too close to the battle and refuses to move come Hell or high water or fifty-foot tall zombies hurling rocks the size of Volkswagons.

The quest in question is buggy as fuck, too.

Remember when they told us that the personal story would be a top-notch single-player RPG? It ain’t. There’s exactly one NPC you will give half a damn about, most of the ones you’re supposed to like, you will hate instead, and while your choices have tactical impact and put you on different story branches, you have zero control over your character’s personality. It’s basically a slightly less compelling version of Age of Conan’s main quest.

Luckily, it’s stuck to a damned fine MMO.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Are you Stalking Me?

Posted by Rystefn on July 23, 2011

So, looking at my stats this evening, I came across a curiosity. The top search that’s leading people he is still “opposite of regret,” as it has been since I wrote the post (the English language really seems to need a word that means that… can we hijack one from somewhere else? German? Japanese? Portuguese, I’m looking at you…), but the second place entry was “Rystefn Skepchick.” Now, either someone is really interested to see what I have to say on the subject, or someone’s digging around for a connection, right? Am I missing something?

Look, there’s a history there, and it’s no secret. I’ll give you the whole story, and believe me, I don’t come off as the good guy in it, if you like. I’m just curious: if you’re one of the people running that search, what are you looking for?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

Hilarity Ensues

Posted by Rystefn on June 22, 2009

So I’ve been something of an angry asshole over the last few weeks… ok, let me rephrase: I’ve been an angrier asshole over the last few weeks. The people who understand need no apology, and the ones who demand apologies will never understand. Even so, I’ve apologized to everyone I feel deserves one, and I’d like to reiterate that now. To everyone I’ve already said it to, I’m sorry for taking it out on you. To everyone else, fuck you. I stand by what I said, and if I was harsher than usual about it… well, life’s a bitch. Wear a helmet.

In other news, Greg Laden made one of the great unintentionally comedic comments here a few days ago, when I called him out for maybe taking hyperbole a little far with the statement that “If you buy ivory, you are poaching an African Elephant.” His response was:

And, I’ll have you know, I never speak in hyperbole. Ever.

Of course, when I pointed out that he was either being dishonest, ignorant of what the word “hyperbole” means, or possibly making a hilariously awesome comment, he decided the threaten to ban me and delete all my comments unless I grovelled on hands and knees before him and begged his forgiveness for having the audacity to shamelessly point out his failings in public. Needless to say, that didn’t happen. Neither grovelling, begging, nor banning… he did delete the post and my response to it as well as my comment about his joke (which he has left so far). I’d like to think he did it to remove the evidence of his own stupidity, leaving the above quote for comedy value. I’d like to think that, but I just can’t give him that much credit. I’m rather of the opinion that he did it out of anger, and left his own joke thinking it was evidence of him putting me in my place, completely oblivious to the hilarity.

Needless to say, the sort of place where my comments are deleted for pointing out screamingly obvious flaws in the poster’s logic isn’t the sort of place I care to frequent. As I said there, I won’t be returning.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

The “Rape Switch” and Other Folly

Posted by Rystefn on June 5, 2009

So I’m tossing this out mostly from memory, I apologize if I mischaracterize anyone’s stance in this post.

Over the course of the last few days, there’s been a fair bit of discussion on the subject of rape. I guess in that way the Silence is the Enemy thing I referenced in the previous post is working. I’ve been pretty heavily involved, off and on, in a discussion that began with Greg Laden‘s forwarding the idea of a “rape switch.” If you’re interested, you can see that discussion here, here, and here.

The idea is a loose metaphor designed to illustrate that there are certain situations in which otherwise noncriminal types will become rapists. It’s not a particularly apt comparison, and there’s been no small amount of discussion, both about the phenomenon and the metaphor itself. None of that is terribly important to my point in this post, but if it sounds interesting to you, feel free to head over and join the discussion. It’s already spilled over to several blogs, and I’ve no reason to doubt that it will likely find its way to a few more.

No, the reason I’m posting is this line: “The switch being on does not mean that rape will happen. It simply means that the man (with the switch on) is now a rapist, whether he actually rapes or not…” You’ll find that in this post, about halfway through the fourth paragraph if you wonder whether or not I might be taking it out of context. I assure you, I’m not. In context, Mr. Laden is directly calling all soldiers in combat rapists. Regardless of whether or not they rape. Mine is the first comment to that post, and in it I point out that this is redefinition of the word “rapist” and isn’t the right way to make the point he’s trying to make.

Over the course of the discussion, I point out that he’s calling a lot of innocent people rapists, including myself, several times. A few other people also point out this problem, but he refused to back down, trying to brush it off as an unimportant and uninteresting semantic argument. Those of you who know me will be unsurprised that I persisted in bringing it up until I got a direct response. You might be surprised what the response was. I know I was. It most certainly wasn’t the apology that I had been asking for for two days. In his own words, “You are a rapist.” That’s not in general, by the way. It’s directed specifically at me. That’s from the comments here. In fairness to Greg, he did follow it with: “Rystefn, one of the many things you are not getting is that it is actually OK to be a rapist.”

Keep in mind, he is saying this without more than a slight indication that he thinks I might have possibly actually raped someone in the normal usage of the word. He did, however, classify as a rapist by two different definitions of his own and classify my actions with certain completely consenting adults as rape. As I pointed out to him at the time, he has managed to both directly offend me personally, but has also blanket-classified all soldiers in war as well a significant number of the BDSM community as rapists. While he was at it, he called that subsection… well, How about we just use his own words again?

I cannot imagine being sexualy[sic] aroused under those circumstances. I think someone who can or is classifies as a very different kind of person than we think of for any normal male walking around in regular society. Don’t you think? If not, get help now, please.

Now, again, lest we think I’m seeing malice where there’s only miscommunication, once again, after I pointed out that he had just roundly condemned much of the BDSM crowd, his response was to stand by it: “You seem to be saying that you area[sic] person aroused by the violent act of rape, and capable of doing it, and that you do in fact do it.”

Frankly, at this point, I’m not even sure how to respond to this anymore…

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

Transitional Forms

Posted by Rystefn on January 14, 2009

Yeah, I made a video last night, but I think this one says it so much more succinctly.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »