Karakuri Babble is a daily column by the editors of i360.com, usually on topics tangentially related to anime and cosplay.

In the past we have endorsed many things; in the future we shall support many others.

Computer Arts Visual Entertainment.

Lately I've been in full-on "media consumption" mode, and it hasn't really left time for much else. It's kind of scary. There's a line from Gene Wolfe -- "We say, 'I will,' and 'I will not,' and imagine ourselves (though we obey the orders of some prosaic person every day) our own masters, when the truth is that our masters are sleeping. One wakes within us and we are ridden like beasts, though the rider is but some hitherto unguessed part of ourselves."

For me the consumption of media is like that -- consuming. I begin to do something, and then I can't stop.

Anyway. I bought an arcade game a while back: 虫姫たま (Mushihime-tama). It's a puzzle game by CAVE, infamous makers of impossible games. The game is demented. It's like they got together and asked themselves "what is the most ridiculous, challenging game we can make that uses only a single control?" The gameplay is simple, even absurdly simple: pull back on the stick to charge, release to shoot. But the mechanics! Time your initial pull so that you release just as the ball falls into the well. Aim perfectly so that you get a "just fit" bonus. Fire hard, so that you break the blocks in the way. Fire soft, so that you don't break the guides that you need to support your combo. And hurry. And get the score bonuses while you're at it.

Cave! Everything they do is like this!

And it's even more galling because it's a cheap cash-in, playing purely on the sex appeal of the main character from Mushihime-sama. (Her voice, incidentally, is way too childish for comfort.) It ought to be terrible. Instead, like virtually everything else by Cave, it's a minor classic -- small but beautifully-executed.

words from chris, 2013-07-04 00:17:02, los angeles


267 > 337

test 65

--

337 > 338

reply to 337.

--

338 > 339

reply to 338.

--

339 > 350

does this make it work better?

--

338 > 340

second-level reply, plus with login step.

--

340 > 347

looks like the move operation loses data. test test.

--

347 > 351

so you're telling me there's some kind of bug tied to replying to a thread's second child, without a reply to the first?

--

338 > 359

testing no-js reply to 338

--

359 > 361

test no-js reply 338; strip params from redirect.

--

359 > 362

test param strip take 2.

--

359 > 363

test rewrite req url take 3.

--

363 > 365

i'm replying to 363 here, right?

--

337 > 341

test input for toplevel comment.

--

341 > 358

more testing.  move around, change layout.

--

267 > 342

let's try this again.

--

342 > 343

still works?

--

343 > 353

this does seem like a lot of work for something that, other than me, probably no one will ever like.

--

353 > 354

on the other hand, out we go.

--

354 > 356

so how's it work on the mac?

--

353 > 357

more testing on the mac.

--

353 > 360

so does it still work?

--

353 > 364

necessary enhancements:

  • highlight (or somehow indicate anyway) what you're replying to.

  • display name.

--

364 > 366

oh, and * formatting.

--

366 > 371

yay! more breakage!

okay, actually we should have names now.

-- ct♥

267 > 345

what'd we break this time?

--

267 > 349

whoops. plurals. my ancient nemesis.

--

267 > 355

testing moving around a bunch, then ending at toplevel.

--

267 > 367

we have markdown. quick test:

heading 2

heading 3

blockquote: if i had seen one miracle fail, i had witnessed another; and even a seemingly pointless miracle is an inexhaustible source of hope.

italic

bold

i'm going to disable some features soonish. just testing right now.

--

367 > 368

<em>okay, we now clean. . . stuff.</em> i still haven't blocked markdown links, which i want to do. and images.

--

368 > 369

wait, what? where are the ' and " getting escaped?

oh, okay, we should have tags cut out too now.

--

369 > 370

now that we're clobbering all html, do blockquotes still work? if not, no great loss, but i'd prefer to have them.

when you gentlemen return, you will be haggard and desperate and well-trained.

--

openid:
editing: