With Hearthstone on the iPhone now, my battery is surely forfeit.

The long-awaited update to the iOS version of Hearthstone was released this afternoon, and will soon™ be on the Android handsets that can support it. I downloaded it, which didn’t take long at all, and gave it a whirl since I could burn the five minutes it would take to play through a casual match to unlock the free pack they’re giving away for completing your first game with an iPhone.

It took five minutes. I beat a custom Warrior with a basic Rogue deck. Cha-ching: free pack.

First thing’s first, with the condensed UI, you should consider tapping the board as a menu escape method if you need to zoom all the way out from looking at your hand and just considering what’s on the table. Otherwise, it’s best to operate one tap at a time to reduce the possibility of messing up what moves you’re going to make in your turn. Assigning minions to attack specific targets still works in the logical sense—sliding from the attacking minion to the minion you wish to damage—but avoid swiping from the bottom edge in quick succession, due to bottom drawer’s triggerbeing ‘any upward swipe from the bottom edge.’

Other than that, there are minor quality of life improvements made to the UI so that you don’t have to tap on the screen additional times to get things done, such as opening packs. No more dragging a pack and then clicking an ‘open’ button. You drag the pack, you get your cards—nice and simple.

I’ll add more in the future as play more games of Hearthstone. As far as progress, I’ve not completely unlocked all of the basic decks for all nine classes, but I’m getting there. I haven’t played a solo adventure since I unlocked the casual matchmaking feature, so I’m getting slowly used to the meta. I even have a couple of custom decks, but I don’t own nearly enough of the cards that exist to really use a custom deck in a match.

Oh, and also:

But it’s only available for download on the Amazon Appstore, at the moment. Which is LOLtastic.

Well, now all of the Android people can play cards now!

Can you seriously scrutinize Call of Duty’s campaigns? NC-G can.

Noah Caldwell-Gervais has been responsible for some landmark critiques of video games that focus on the gameplay and story-telling aspects of the game in a nearly dispassionate manner. There’s something to his way of thinking and analysis that I greatly appreciate and since he upgraded his equipment around last year, he’s been producing videos every month for a growing YouTube audience instead of two videos a year. (Note to self: I need to contribute to that Patreon campaign he’s running.)

This month’s video is about collection of single player campaigns featured in the Call of Duty franchise, a series of games with humble-enough intentions that turned into a formulaic, yet incontestable, genre-defining standard-bearer. It’s a fascinating two-hour-long look into the installments released for the PC.

Here’s what I learned from the /r/leagueoflegends mod drama over the past few days.

bcarr: but what you haven’t seen are the [Riot] orders to prevent e-stalking and the distribution of e-stalking detectors called e-readers and books about scientology
bcarr: OFUCK E-STALKING IS SCIENTOLOGY
§1: we need more hyphens.
bcarr: hyphenation is spreading across the nation-state
§1: I prefer e-hypenation really
§2: eHyphens
bcarr: now spell like AN euro
bcarr: e-hyphenuateons
§1: E H Y P H E N S
§3: e-Hyphens

Look, I don’t know if Riot really is pulling strings and shouting orders at the subreddit moderators or not like Richard Lewis’ articles suggest. Here’s what I believe:

  1. If you’re running a public fan forum for X and the company behind X approaches you, you trumpet it ’til kingdom come as a victory—you shouldn’t bury it. If you don’t, something’s weird.
  2. A NDA isn’t control, but it sure is ~control.~ There is a difference.
  3. “Trust but verify” will never work in esports. That’s why Richard Lewis and others investigate esports stories for more information.

Twitch does what ever it wants, policy and partner status be damned.

Twitch announced that Ultra Music was going to be streaming a biggun live event with them. It’s a big deal. I want to listen to every single thing that comes out of that show.

But then there’s the trailer posted to the blog post that just sort of flies in the face of the Twitch moral code.

I decided to be a little silly and post the link to the tweet in a reply to the Twitch official blog:

Will the next post be an addendum to the ToS that reads “official partners can break all of the rules because ~reasons~” or something like that?

Then I got this reply:

Screen Shot 2015-03-24 at 10.39.03 AM

And so I decided to elaborate:

It’s not a question of “are all the important bodily parts covered” it’s more to do with an ill conceived moralistic clause that is hurting more than it helps. Ferg goes into detail about the shortcomings of the Twitch policy than I do and I think that deserves a legit read.

I’m not a lawyer or claim to have ~the answer~ or anything like that (I don’t have an objection to Ultra’s content here, either, because I’m not a fucking moron), but I think the whole situation is two simpler situations:

First, by ignoring the actions of a partner–which I’m assuming is the case because why else would Twitch assign a staffer to write up a blog post to promote something massive like Ultra Music deciding to make Twitch its broadcasting platform–it begs the question: why would Twitch take down the pool party stream if they’re going to let a glorified yet well-produced pool party stream from a partner take its place?

Secondly, if Twitch was focused on growing its business with the music industry, they would have rewritten their obscenities clause in their Rules of Conduct (arguably alternatively titled “Twitch’s sole judgement”) after the pool party beer pong stream. If

If it’s unbearably hot where you are, and you happen to have your shirt off (guys) or a bikini top (girls), then just crop the webcam to your face. Problem solved. We sell t-shirts, and those are always acceptable. #Kappa

is their policy towards suggestive clothing or lack of it, is that policy not begging for a more professional treatment?

It’s not as if the management at Twitch have ever been in this situation before at, say, another live streaming service where the focus was on watching people when video gamers started taking over, prompting them to spin off the network into its own niche broadcasting network to escape legal terms and guidelines written for an entirely different type of broadcaster—WAIT A MINUTE, HERE. I SWEAR THAT’S HAPPENED BEFORE. COULD IT HAPPEN AGAIN? WE’LL SOON FIND OUT

But I dunno, maybe I’m just nitpicking because it seems like an obvious oversight to me. Maybe I’m wrong. The policy still needs clarifications a-plenty.