HDTVs in Malaysia

There's a new crazy trend in Malaysia. Since now large LCD TVs are cheap, and they're about the only thing selling well, everyone is stocking and selling these HD ready TVs. People are buying them although here in Malaysia - we don't have HDTV signal (not yet). It's fine if you're viewing over-the-air broadcasts (we probably won't be getting digital signal for another 2 years) - but most of them are rubbish at handling lousy input. A lousy input a lot of people know as: ASTRO satellite TV. That's not to say they haven't been working at getting a HDTV version of the satellite decoder out - but I think they're not that far behind. Even in Australia, where free channels have gone HD, the cable is still mostly SDTV.

As many people who are using a HDTV will testify, there's a lot of problems that can show up strangely on cheaper HDTVs (not sure about expensive ones, since I can't afford one). First, there's ghosting. I can assure you, it's not the screen's response time at fault. Then, there's also the JPEG-like compression blocks (which didn't show up before). It's a combination of bad input, deinterlacing methods and god knows what else. It's not just the ASTRO box which is at fault - it's just one of many.

How do I know it's not the screen's response time? For one, I have current generation consoles which output at 720p and 1080p - and I can assure you, ghosting will be something I'd be unable to bear during gaming. How do I know it's a combination of the input and video processing methods? For one, piping ASTRO through RF cable - actually improves the situation somewhat - although it shouldn't. S-Video doesn't help on my particular combination of decoder and TV. (Don't think that I don't have good cables. You would be surprised at the cables I have.)

Why am I blaming the ASTRO box when it could be just the TV's bad handling of input? My DVD player and PS2 don't suffer the same problem - so it's obviously at best, a combination of the two.

Thoughts on Designing Games

I realise that besides my actuarial CT subjects, I've been thinking loads about designing games. Two games in particular come to mind: Fantasy of War (which I'm ill-equipped to build) and new cards for Hecatomb.

While thinking a lot about how to make new Hecatomb cards, I realised what has to be done. A lot of rules clarification. Since like Magic, Hecatomb is all about making cards which push, bend and break the rules of the game. You begin to have to define entire series of problems - every card you make can cause another card you made earlier to malfunction, have unclear consequences, or become downright broken. Every new mechanic has to be defined for just about every situation you can think of - especially for problem cards which in particular mess with this mechanic.

And that's before balancing. This is both the benefit and curse of trying to work with a game that didn't get very far. Just like law - you have to look at the intention when the card was orignally made, not just what the card says. The benefit? You get to define everything that wasn't defined. The curse? You have to define everything that needs to be defined - and that's not always the card with card games, as judges at official events will easily tell you.

On the other hand, I've got an advantage too: I'm starting with both a clean slate and a preset environment. While I don't have a playtesting team, I can errata cards with an update, and it won't be a pain to keep up to date (like with real physical cards where the official wording can occasionally drift very very far from the original). I've also got plenty of TCG playing experience to know how to choose rule text well - not to mention how to push the envelope - and even make new card types.

It doesn't matter to me if no one plays it at the end of the day - I'm not making a business out of it (well, unless server load becomes an issue), what matters is that I tried to make it.