Category: musings

March 9, 2015

R.I.P. Maxis (1987-2015): In Defense of Simcity

I was originally writing this post to be a defense of Simcity, but in light of the recent shutdown of EA Maxis’s Emeryville studio, the headquarters of what was once Maxis, after years of poor management by EA, I felt the need to speak out on this travesty. There are more complete obituaries of Maxis online–notably this one, which I enjoyed reading; this one is my personal story with Maxis and their games.

I’ve been a long time fan of Simcity, having played every version since Will Wright’s original in elementary school. Each iteration attempted a daunting task and presented the challenge to the player: the simulation of an entire city and its various layers of operation. Nothing gives you more appreciation of urban planners around the world like a game that gives you exposure to various simulated aspects of city building. Maxis took this idea and wrapped it up with addictively fun game mechanic has no formal “end”.

The studio long had a reputation for fun and intellectually fascinating edu-tationment oriented simulation games, which I had become familiar through Scholastic Apple catalogs we’d get from school. I found nearly every offering compelling because, aside from the hugely interesting subject matter, nothing like it was out there (this was the early 1990s). The real lasting appeal to those who love to explore was that many of their games never needed to end and they encouraged you to explore the limits of the simulation. SimLife and SimCity in particular could be endlessly perfected, generating a fascinating steady state of a living ecosystem, whether an entire planet, or a booming metropolis. The Maxis of the 1990s provided great experiences through quirky games like SimAnt, SimLife, Unnatural Selection, SimTower, to smash hit simulations like SimCity 2000. I played each of those, and loved them all. It was the early ’90s and was the golden age of DOS and PC gaming.

Simant (1991) – This was the first game that I ever bought for my DOS computer – This was in second grade, so I was 7 years old, in 1992. The computer I played it on was our family PC, a 386SX 16MHz / 4 MB / 60 MB HDD, and the game came on a single 1.44 MB floppy. I still have the manual.

Being a weird nerdy kid, I loved reading manuals and guides to things, and I loved the literature that Maxis provided, both in their physical manuals and accompanying publications, but also their in-game “lore”, in the form of scientific summary. I learned more about ants while playing SimAnt than I did anywhere else. Oh, the good old days, when Maxis actually cared about the subject matter, and indeed, felt more authentic to the subject matter and left the game mechanics develop around it.

The story of Maxis is a prime example of the sad fate of independent artists and thinkers when forced to operate under a profit machine. Maxis, as one of the most quirky and inventive studios may have had no hope under a monotonizing corporate giant, and sealed its own fate when on July 28th, 1997, it signed away its soul to EA. A quick read through the comment thread of the Ars article shows that this move was little surprise to many:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/03/ea-closes-simcity-studio-maxis-emeryville/?comments=1

The Tale of Two SimCities

My latest experience with a Maxis product was Simcity 2013, and the Cities of Tomorrow expansion. Having thoroughly enjoyed both, it’s quite a challenge to reconcile the experience with the online negativity surrounding the game. It has incredibly unique IP, a great game engine, wonderful content and replayability… yet collapsed under the collective weight of player expectations, and poor management by EA. If one came to appreciate it at it’s best, it’s an incredibly awesome simulation that is quite unlike any other mainstream game out there, but I guess in EA’s world, that’s the end of the line.

After buying the game on a whim at the end of 2013, I’ve been pleasantly surprised can say that if you try to enjoy it for what it is, rather than what previous Simcity has taught you expect, or what else you want it to be, then you can come to appreciate that it is an incredibly intricate simulation of a city, that has an incredible amount of dynamic activity that come together in fascinating, sometimes unexpected ways–often in the form of snarling traffic.

Indeed, I too have had many frustrating issues, and the issues that plagued Simcity at launch continued intermittently throughout my play time. A lot of forgiveness later, there still is a thoroughly enjoyable game that is well worth whatever fire sale price it can be had at now. I’ve played quite a bit, and over time, I’ve gotten quite good at building wealthy, highly educated, virtual cities, with wacky transportation options:

I won’t address those criticisms individually, but I can say that the game is much more enjoyable when creating an ecosystem of cities, rather than a single gigantic one, and as i got better at engineering entire urban regions, the strategic element of game play became quite rich and enjoyable. As I came to understand the model behind the game, I became increasingly appreciative to the intricacies of what was being simulated. Dan Moskovitz gave a great talk at GDC 2013 on the SimCity engine, Glassbox, after which, I much better understood how to work with the underlying engine.

The game itself, when it works right, is quite fun, and like I mentioned before, is quite like managing a living, breathing entity in some sort of equilibrium. My favorite times in the game would be when I rescued a struggling city, and built it up into a stable steady state, and i could sit back and watch it go. I would say it has the same therapeutic benefit as tending to a garden or watching fish in an aquarium. It helps that the game has a stellar soundtrack, which alone is worth the purchase price for me–I particularly love the soundtrack from the expansion:

All of which, makes the bungled launch, the excessive in-app-purchase like add-on content, and the incomplete feature set at launch (no single player mode?), seem like a series of publisher date/design-meeting compromises, along with an odd review-score changing incident that ultimately dinged the game so badly that I can only imagine that sales must have suffered. A shame really, as it likely was the final excuse EA needed to axe what was left to go fund cheaper projects like EA Sports: XYZ 2016.

In the end, what’s left is an odd lesson on corporate acquisitions and the impact on one’s identity and soul. None of this should be news to any studios today, but Maxis, for it’s long personal history with me, is one that I’ll remember passing. As for Simcity, it’s truly unfortunate that it’s legacy is going to be the one that self-destructed under EA, but for what it’s worth, I know history will remember Maxis for the incredible contributions it made to millions of kids like me, growing up to love games and tinkering around with systems and agents.

But as you’ll notice that the internet has since dumped it’s hate on the review score. Oh well, thus is the life and end of EA franchises. I hope the spirit can live on.

<br />

January 18, 2015

Mars Proficiency: 10 Techs to Master

by skyrien

One of the greatest themes of Interstellar (2014) is the notion that to avoid the tragedy of the commons and make the big picture best decisions, is that we need to “think less as a human, and more as a species”.

For reasons supported by many, and well expressed in the film Interstellar (2014), the extinction of the human race is an inevitability if we stay on Earth. Many of these concerns are beyond timescales of our own lives, but as a civilization and a branch of life, certainly. That said, I don’t think this should be our main drive for colonization of planets, but rather, for it’s long-term economic viability and component of an interplanetary society.

These types of discussion used to be purely the realm of science fiction, but there’s definitely something to be said for planning, and the framework for these missions may only be years to decades away at most. As the only technological species on the planet, should something occur, it would either be of our own doing, or it would leave us as the only species with the means to do something about it, for the sake of much of Earth’s ecosystems.

Why Mars?

Many discussions have been made about some sort of base at a Lagrangian point, either between the Earth-Moon as a local or Earth-Sun as deep space station. I suspect it may be of use at some point if asteroid mining really takes off (2020s?), in which case, local processing, mining on site and processing at a Lagrangian point would be far cheaper energetically (not to mention safer) than hauling a massive rock to a near-Earth processing facility. It’s an interesting thought, but I believe most of this system would be automated. Space drones, mini orbiters and robots would likely do most of the dangerous zero-G mining work, though I suppose a few individuals might love the remoteness and isolation that a remote asteroid mining town could foster.

For a larger human settlement though (dozens, or hundreds, or more), a planetary body is a much more practical destination, and while the outer solar system is host to some other interesting destinations, many are close to a decade away at near-term technologies, rendering them on practical terms, “too far”. Thus, for the near future (by which I mean 2030s), human settlement will likely be confined to the inner solar system, of which only Mars is a solid candidate. But indeed it is a fine candidate, at least compared to current alternatives, and is a great stepping stone for more advanced skills we would need beyond Mars. It’s proximity to the asteroid belt may also make it more advantageous for asteroid mining, possibly a key future industry to Mars settlements.

While there has been substantial focus by public agencies on the “exploration” of Mars, the flag-planting that NASA has planned for the 2030s fall far short of establishing a permanent, self-sustaining population on the Red Planet. There are many reasons for the lack of ambition in our public agencies–being overly influenced by politics, lack of technical imagination and of course, being stymied by political gridlock, concerns of cost, and the need to justify returns on investment–but this leaves humanity without a plan for expanding beyond Earth in the 21st century.

The accelerating privatization of near-Earth orbit over this decade has shown that the economic model for space is poised for change, allowing the efficiency of private “New Space” entities to produce industry-shaking innovations to replace the old public-financed “Old Space” world. By deriving technical and economic models based on first principles, and despite not having the benefit of cost-plus contracting, these new upstarts now provide access to space as a service. These lessons suggest to me that a privately-led venture, or a multitude of ventures, would be more viable for establishing a permanent, self-sustaining colony on Mars than any existing public initiative.

Our long-term goal is to establish Mars as a colony where the general human population can participate, and this project aims to bring together thought leaders and potential stakeholders to develop a clear roadmap, technical integration, and requisite partnerships to make this vision a reality. By opening up Mars as a place that humans can call home, we can help ensure that humanity is on a roadmap to becoming an interplanetary species.

The organizational needs for establishing such a colony would be substantial, but within the realm of reason. Other interesting sociological questions arise that we can discuss today, including the governance structure of such a colony, the expected capacity, the length of individual stays, what skills would be necessary, what problems could be faced, etc… Indeed, these are the kinds of questions that I’d like to see raised as it’s been demonstrated repeatedly that the public is interested, and that this is the right time; but we need the compelling contributions of all people to push forward our civilizations next great work.

(On a side note, I’ve been following Jumpstartfund.com, a startup dedicated to building commercial enterprises from ideas. At least, it is as of now. There, I’ve posted on my thoughts on Mars, and hope to engage some interested folks to enable this great endeavor!)

Walls to climb

If it hasn’t been clear, I’m a bit of a fan of strategy games, and no it’s not just the Korean side of me. I also like to make game references. So, if this Mars Colony was a “Great Work” of humanity, what would be its prerequisite technologies? How much would it cost? I’m no uber-scientist, but I love to brainstorm–here are a few that come to mind:

1. Solar power and grid-level battery backup (DONE)

To survive effectively on Mars, any colony needs a reliable source of electricity to support it’s needs. Mars receives less sunlight than Earth affecting PV effectiveness somewhat, and occasional dust storms will likely affect solar availability as well, but assuming flux typical of what you’d expect on the surface of Mars, being optimistic and using current tech as a model ~5 square meters of feasibly could generate 1,000 W (ballpark figures–Mars receives about a third of Earth’s sunlight where we get a theoretical 1,300 W / sqm at equator, max solar efficiency that I’ve seen is ~44%). This must be stored in order to allow use through dark periods, through some type of battery.

2. Power Efficiency (DONE)

Assuming that early colonies don’t rely on nuclear power (unlikely, given the necessary weight of a reactor), solar with battery backup will likely be the main source of power. And unlike Earth, where you can at least still survive without electricity for a while, on Mars, losing power would mean pending death unless recovered. As a result, expect the first Martian colonies to ration power like blood. Thankfully, we don’t ~~heat up our homes~~ light incandescent bulbs anymore, and from LED lighting, to low-power mobile devices, we made huge strides in reducing our power usage, at least in America and Western Europe. In the US, power peaked around 2006 before the recession, and despite the recovery, and a meaningful increase in population since then, we’ve actually decreased power consumption since then. Remarkable what we can do when you have the will and the means.

3. Electric everything (READILY FEASIBLE)

Due to the obvious fact that the Martian atmosphere is not going to let you burn anything, internal combustion just won’t work. Thankfully, a few companies have been devoting a great deal of resources into developing electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, so we can check this one off.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16460.html

4. Radiation shielding (CHALLENGE)

Mars does not have an effective magnetic field or ozone layer to shield it from damaging charged particles and solar radiation. As a result, any long term habitat for humans will need to consider how to shield itself from radiation, and mitigate it’s effects on the surface. There are clever ways to do this, but the best shielding is to build underground. A colony build underground could be shielded from the solar effects–not to mention any concerns over the increased risk of micro-meteorites due to the thin atmosphere and proximity to the asteroid belt.

To build underground though… this may have to be the task of robots. Good thing we’re good at that already.

5. Advanced computer vision-enabled robotic systems allowing for autonomous excavation, mining, construction (ADVANCING)

We’re about partway through the academic cycle on this one. Regarding computer vision, its pretty obvious that it’s going to matter a lot for drones, and with drones becoming more autonomous, for non-lethal activities, it makes sense to have them manage themselves. In the mining industry, earth-moving scale mining operations commonly use robotic mining equipment, though still often managed remotely. To move this further to allow robotic operation on Mars beyond mining could yield many benefits, including construction of radiation safe habitats, maintenance to atmosphere facing sides of the habitat, resource gathering in the field, field repair of vehicles, regular ferry between Mars surface and orbit, and from Mars orbit to Earth orbit, etc…

6. 3d-printing, micro-manufacturing, digital goods (ADVANCING)

Given the difficulties in moving physical goods to and from Mars, the ability to manufacture new equipment on-site will be a crucial strategic asset on Mars. Nasa has recently equipped the ISS with a 3d printer and tested the ability to digitally send parts for printing in space. This, and further developments will help provide necessary proficiency in on-site manufacturing that will be essential on supply-limited Mars.

7. Extreme-Agriculture and food (ADVANCING)

Humans like to eat food. If it weren’t for this unfortunate problem, we’d be able to get by without this gigantic requirement. But, let’s take this in stride; any thriving Mars colony will likely have the freshest locally-grown organic goods imaginable. Such will be the norm when all the water you drink and the air you breathe is tightly managed and pollution-sensitive. I’ve mulled around whether creating a true biosphere makes sense on Mars, given the past failures, but realistically, that’s overkill. Hydroponics and recent innovations in vertical farming show that massive improvements have yet to be made in the art of growing food. Our innovations in water management for smart cities will in turn provide a foundation for efficiencies in space.

8. Latency-tolerant interplanetary internet, and mass planetside caching (PLANNING)

The propagation delays, even at lightspeed are in the realm of minutes between Earth and Mars; naturally, we would like to expand the notion of the internet from being geo-centric to a solar system wide entity, with minimal latency. Perhaps caching content across Earth and Mars internet nodes. Some leading minds are involving resources to this; given what we can do today already, I suspect this is almost a no brainer :).

9. Colony governance

Yet unclear is what the level of government we would establish in the initial colony. Due to the amount of shared spaces and resources, individual space would be severely compromised, as compared to the typical Western lifestyle. The small populations of the initial colonies suggest that it would rely extensively from outside economic support.

Still, as long as basic human needs are being met, I think many people will be able to adjust. Still, such long term habitation in a confined space will likely induce some stresses on the population. I would hope that folks are able to recognize the shared struggle that this venture is. Given the long term habitation

10. Survival sufficiency

Any need for supplies and personnel would take at least 7 months (when orbital alignment is most favorable) a life altering commitment by the person choosing to go. Despite reusable rockets, the current direction still looks like a 500 day round trip period when using the ideal window. Any other orbital transfer would take longer, or use more fuel. So this necessitates having a baseline level of expertise in the colony populace, and coverage of key colony health subjects.

In a way, the Mars colony, can be seen as the most remote human village ever created.

I’m sure other key barriers will be recognized that require addressing in the days ahead. Please suggest any to me, if there’s something missing that you feel should be on here.

January 3, 2015

Truth, Satire, and ‘The Interview’

by skyrien

I’ve been meaning to talk about The Interview since I first watched it on Christmas Day, but oh well, Happy New Year world!

Tl;dr: I thought the movie was awesome delivering laughs, memorable one-liners, and a unique satirical take on American hopes and fears of the reclusive state and it’s leader, in a genuinely hilarious fashion. For satire, there are some great nuggets of truths in The Interview, and it’s expressed in the right doses of seriousness in the film. If you’ve displeased yourself while watching this movie (yes, it’s your fault) you’re probably taking it too seriously; for those that weren’t tightwads in college, the humor will probably deliver. Added tip: try watching it in Washington or Colorado.

The controversy around Sony’s release of The Interview was much talked about for good reason. That an international conglomerate as powerful as Sony, with annual revenue equal to about a quarter of North Korea’s GDP, could wither under the pressure of anonymous hackers on the internet, initially canceling the film’s release, surprising many. It is absolutely worth noting and remembering that this started with the cowardly decision on part of movie theater chains to pull out of showing the film. Equally cowardly was Sony’s decision to make a statement in-effect cancelling any sort of release. The backlash by the American social media populace was rightfully swift, with round condemnation from the internet to the President saying that “Sony made the wrong call” by basically caving in to anonymous threats.

Economic moves aside, that Sony was influenced by pressure from hackers (regardless of their disputed origin) amounted to a clear defeat of the freedom of speech and sets a completely wrong precedent for speech as a whole. Sony eventually backtracked (what a bunch of flip-floppers), allowing more forward-thinking VOD distributors to embrace the film’s release as a cause. Google instantly became a worldwide movie theater, and scored the vast majority of the views via Google Play and Youtube at time of release.

The official rhetoric of the DPRK should surprise no one, and for those that have learned not to take too seriously, it’s quite hilarious. In the real world, I felt that their previous UN protest of the film is actually a positive indication that they are taking international mechanisms for conflict resolution seriously.

“Obama always goes reckless in words and deeds like a monkey in a tropical forest,” North Korea’s National Defense Commission (NDC) continued, adding that President Obama “is the chief culprit who forced the Sony Pictures Entertainment to indiscriminately distribute” The Interview, a film that is “hurting the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK and agitating terrorism,” the BBC reports.
– From an article in the Rolling Stone

For those thinking this is just a bizarre isolated case of backlash against perceived deprecation of deified figures should recall not-long-ago Danish cartoonish controversy. There too, fears of death began to have a chilling effect on what people would/could say with possibilities of provoking an angered reaction. For a country that reportedly worships Kim’s cult of personality like the living messiah, it’s reasonable to think how the idea of a low brow comedy (though not the first) about their equivalent of Jesus or the Prophet Mohammed could offend, and even I’ve seen conflicts of western values of free speech when it comes to satire of religious figures.

It’s too bad, because it impedes the enjoyment of an otherwise hilarious comedy that indeed, will not appeal to all. Some say that the movie does injustice to those genuinely suffering under the regime, but the truth is, satire is a great way to encourage discussion about valid topics. That America public cares about North Korea at all should be the surprise, and if anything, a complement to the regime’s notoriety. Poking fun at the leader Kim is already an internet pastime, and this movie just pushes that forward AAA-style. Those of us that are from the internet are a great reflection of how seriously hitherto, America has taken the current Kim:

The distinction that Sony Pictures does not represent any official policy statement of the US government, may be lost on the North Korean leadership, who probably take this way too personally, and likely add to their fears about exposing their house of cards to their information-controlled population. North Koreans, allegedly, are taught from early childhood that their cult of personality leadership are demigods upon this earth and are raised in a institutionalized state where this is constantly reinforced. It’s hard to say when this started, but assuming it’s been since the state’s founding in 1948, it has now gone on for three generations, possibly producing a nation of zombie-like followers with no sense of humor, or understanding of comedy, particularly when it comes to their deified leadership, all to easily angered at any perceived slight against their divinity.

Regardless of whether or not American comedy writers are obligated to take these things into consideration, this specific case highlights a unique interaction between private media and state (or possibly stateless/rogue) agents and is a clear indicator of the influence of soft power in international relations. It’s interesting that the controversy comes from both sides, with another subset of folks calling out that the movie “humanizes the brutality of the leader Kim”. This too, I believe is silly. Looking back at the lens of history, countless times, scholars have found it useful to understand the perspective of leadership as individuals, and I will admit, there is a certain sense of American hopefulness in the movie.

In one of my set of favorite scenes, where Franco’s character is out bro-bonding with Kim, it’s revealed that Kim secretly is a Katy Perry fan, playing, of all songs–Firework — listening as a 30-year-old kid with affluenza, so detached from the plight of his people, yet so trapped by the cult that his father and grandfather he created that he too, feels forced to continue the role. In the movie, Kim plays the role of the misunderstood villain, who might just as well be a cog in the huge wheel of history that move nations to fight each other.

This song has been stuck in my head for days now! Thanks @sethrogan…

I like that the movie seems to ask if it has to be that way, playing into our confused depictions of what’s going on over there. The depiction of course, takes much creative license, but given how little we do know from oddball ventures like Dennis Rodman’s affairs in North Korea, we’re forced to imagine the true nature of the leadership. One line of thinking could take us to where this film does, and of all possible ways of depicting the DPRK’s Kim, I found the movie’s version quite novel, but with a level of authentic believably that even North Korea watchers say reflects some truths. It’s not hard to not feel bad for the guy, trapped in the shell of what must be a very insecure role, living constant in fear of enemies, both foreign and domestic. One could almost even imagine this 30-year-old Kim trolling the underworld of the internet with monikers such as the “Guardians of Peace”, while overcompensating for his fear with all to familiar bombastic outbursts fit for a child throwing a tantrum. The writer’s choice of Firework plays particularly into the zeitgeist of the Millennial generation, which, we mustn’t forget, that Kim Jong-un is also a part of. So can’t we figure out a better way?

As a Korean-American, I’ve been particularly sensitive to mischaracterizations in popular media, but I didn’t find the storywriters depiction too far out of left field; this is a Seth Rogan comedy after all, and it appeals quite well to the crowd it targets. As a satire reflecting the American mood, I felt the movie depicts how we wish it could be; a huge misunderstanding between people that in another world, would probably get along. Maybe Rodman was onto something. Lol.