About two weeks ago I borrowed a book called Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain from the local library. I've been somewhat despondent regarding my artistic ability for a while now, and wanted to at least take some steps in the direction of improvement. I didn't really have any sort of rationale for picking that particular title, other than the fact that Derek Yu referenced it in a blog post. I have a lot of respect for him due to the fact that he completed his undergraduate studies in Electrical Engineering/Computer Science and yet is also a very accomplished artist. In this particular post, he rants a bit about the "left-centric" state of the American educational system, which typically does not contain a lot of artistic instruction. The rationale is always that art is not "practical," which I guess makes sense for a lot of people. I guess if you end up making a living by being a salesperson or accountant, you won't have much call for drawing skills in the daily grind. But when did our educational system start being concerned about vocational training? I thought it was all about getting a broad background in the liberal arts, to prepare you for whatever you might encounter in life.
So right now I'm finding out that I was not really prepared in regard to artistic output. Most of that was my fault, to be honest. In my early life, I never really had a reason to want to draw. I was much more interested in playing games (of course). However, now that I have an interest in actually creating games, I want to do everything myself, including the art. It will definitely be bad, but I want to be able to execute my own vision myself. Kind of selfish, but since I'm not doing it for money, there's no reason not to. Plus, I like the idea of making my brain more "well-rounded," and also not being embarrassed when I have to draw stick figures :/
As an introductory exercise, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain has you complete three pencil drawings: a self-portrait, another person from memory, and your own hand. Chandra and I sat down last night in front of a mirror and completed all three in one go. Her self-portrait was way better than mine, which I entitled, "Fat-faced, angry man." It can only get better from here.
When I was younger, I really looked up to my cousin Doug. He was four years older than me, and about as cool as I could hope to become. Not only was he socially adept and a good skateboarder, but he was also way better than me at video games (obviously the attribute that I envied the most). Once, when we were all on a family vacation, he had convinced his parents to let him bring his Nintendo to my great-grandparents' house. My sister and I watched him play through a large portion of his collection of NES games... probably the most game endings you'd see in one sitting prior to YouTube. I'm sure some kids might have demanded a turn playing, but I was totally content to to watch these games (Blaster Master, Metroid, Super Mario Bros. 2, etc.) being played at levels nearing perfection. One of the games he beat was Zelda II: The Adventure Of Link. Now, I really liked the first Zelda game, but when I got home and tried playing the sequel, I didn't do so well. The game was really unforgiving, which basically ensured that I would not finish it. I didn't have the mental fortitude as a kid to not get discouraged by having to repeat a section of a game over and over again. (As an aside, I also never finished other difficult side scrolling games, such as Ninja Gaiden or Castlevania.)
I'm old and tenacious now. Or maybe I'm just stupid enough not to know when to quit. Regardless, I had the idea that since I've finished most of the other games in the Zelda series, I should go back and finish Zelda II. So I busted out the NES (no Virtual Console here, punk!) and played through the game. Having completed it, I now feel like I'm in a better position to comment on the "black sheep" of the Zelda franchise.
Zelda II is usually dismissed by gamers, due to its departure from the "traditional" top-down view that all other 2D Zelda games use. Instead, it is broken up into an overhead "exploration" view, and a side-scrolling "action" view. The "action" view, while being something of a new paradigm for the series, is also notoriously difficult. Even though Zelda II doesn't contain much of the exploration and puzzle-solving that gamers associate with the name "Zelda," I still like it. In my mind, it's a great example of a sequel done right. It takes the characters and world of the first game, and instead of rehashing the first game, creates something entirely new (from a game play perspective).
While the game is difficult, it's not impossible. The great thing is that it's possible to progress in the game using tenacity to replace skill. If you are having difficulty dispatching some of the tougher enemies in the game, you can fight weaker enemies until your character's attack power and life meter increase. Unlike the first game in the series, enemies do not drop health-replenishing hearts. Instead, the main character, Link, gets a "Heal" spell very early in the game. Running out of MP to cast the spell while in a dungeon puts you in a tight spot... or does it? Every 6th enemy drops a magic-replenishing jar, which (if the process is repeated enough) will fill up your magic gauge, which in turn refills your life. Plus, as you progress through the game (and gain skill at the game mechanics), these "helpers" become more and more superfluous.
My conclusion is that I like it. It's a worthy game to invest time in completing, especially since it's not really that long by modern standards (maybe 7-10 hours, depending on your playing ability). It's nice to feel a sense of accomplishment from finishing a hard game, rather than one that is based on item collection or mediocre puzzles. Many games in the Zelda franchise are "going through the motions," but it's nice to see this early sequel adding something genuinely new and different to the series.
So I finally decided to be "done" with this little shooting game I've been working on for a while. It's called "Armada." The goal is to destroy 1,000 enemies. Whenever you kill one, another one jumps on the screen to take its place. However, the more enemies you kill, the faster your ship moves and shoots. Check it out on Kongregate.
One thing I've learned about myself during its development is that I can get really bogged down working on more than one thing at a time. My personal programming time is so limited that having two active projects slows things down considerably. Plus, if a project takes too long, I lose motivation pretty quickly. When waking up early in the morning, one has to be excited about what one is doing (an aside: tips for waking up early).
I think the thing I miss the most about my iPhone is the fact that it was from the future. If my high school-aged self had a chance to look forward in time and see the computer hardware his future self was using, he probably wouldn’t have been that impressed. Sure, computers now have faster processors and more RAM, but we’ve been on an upward trajectory for years now… Moore’s Law, and all that. The iPhone is like a convergence of awesome… my past self would have been amazed at all the functionality of the device, which you used your darn fingers to interface with. Sadly, the phone I have now, even though it was released recently, reflects some 2004-vintage tech. Un-inspiring.