I previously wrote about my recent vacation in France, and discussed all the places we went and fun things we did. I made a few allusions to parts of the trip that were unpleasant, but I didn't elaborate. I wanted to focus on the enjoyable parts of the trip, and save the unpleasant parts for a follow-up post.

I've previously visited the U.K., Denmark, and Germany, where everyone spoke fluent English, and I never had any problems communicating with anyone. I was a little more worried about the language barrier on this trip, since the French have a bit of a reputation for not liking Americans. I was especially worried about our plans to travel outside of Paris, into more rural parts of the country, where I did not expect English to be as common.

This fear proved almost completely unfounded. Almost everyone in Paris spoke conversational English. In the few instances in which we interacted with non-English-speaking French persons (mostly in the country-side), my partner proved to be surprisingly capable of conversing with them. I had no idea that she spoke French (in addition to Spanish and some Japanese), but apparently, she had been studying French in the months leading up to the trip, and was able to hold conversation well enough.

The only thing worse than an airline seat...

The real misery began before the vacation even properly began, with the trans-Atlantic flight. Airlines seem to be going out of their way to do everything possible to make long flights as miserable as possible. It's like they're all in a race to the bottom. The last few times I flew overseas, it was over British Airlines or Hawaiian Airlines, which were both reasonably comfortable flights. This time, I flew a Delta flight partially operated by Air France, and I've also flown Frontier recently. The 7 1/2 hour flight across the Atlantic to Paris was almost as bad and uncomfortable as a domestic Spirit flight. I had a middle seat, with my knees pressing up against the seat in front of me the whole time, and my elbows scrunched into my sides so as not to be infringing on my neighbors' space.

It's as if plane seats have been scientifically designed to be as uncomfortable as possible for anybody who is of average size or larger.

To make matters worse, as soon as the plane took off from my layover in Detroit, I started developing a migraine. I've suffered from migraines my entire life, and they recently have been getting worse. So I had recently visited a neurologist to talk about my migraines, and he had prescribed me a new migraine medication called Sumatriptan. I had taken the Sumatriptan once prior, and it knocked out the migraine within 30 or 40 minutes, so I was hopeful that it would work again. In fact, I expected that it would work again, and didn't even bother to pack my old go-to medication: Excedrin Migraine.

A small bottle of Excedrin is an essential travel supply.

Well, the Sumatriptan did not work.

The only thing worse than an airline seat, is being stuck in an airline seat with a migraine. I spent the entire 7 1/2 hour flight across the Atlantic crunched in a middle seat, with a migraine, unable to sleep or relax, and unable to read or watch movies. I had even taken my gaming laptop with me, with the expectation of going on a 7-hour Civ bender during the flight. No such luck. I had to just sit there with my eyes closed and my head in my hands, counting down the minutes until the plane landed. Thankfully, once I got out of the airport and metro stations in Paris, and out into fresh air, the migraines started to recede on its own, and I was able to enjoy the rest of the day with just a dull headache.

I've since taken the Sumatriptan again, and it also did not work. So I guess it's back to taking Excedrin Migraine until my doctors can find something else that does work...

In any case, the experience was so miserable that I spent the extra money to choose my own seat for the flight back. I did not want a repeat, especially considering that the flight back was an 11-hour flight that landed in Seattle for a transfer to Vegas. I picked a seat on the aisle in the back row. This would allow me to stretch my feet into the aisle, and being in the back would give me immediate access to the restroom if I needed it (I didn't end up using the restroom during this flight, but you'll understand later in the blog why I wanted this).

I've finally been working at my current job for long enough that I have more than a month of paid time off. This affords me more time to be able to take extended holidays throughout the year without having to worry about saving time for sick days or to take time off around Thanksgiving or Christmas. After a few years of not taking any major vacations (other than short weekend road trips) due to having a baby at home, my partner and I finally decided that the toddler was old enough to be able to stay with his grandparents for more than just a weekend. So we finally treated ourselves (and our daughter) to a real vacation with another trip to Europe.

I spent a week on vacation in France
with my lovely partner and our daughter.

This time, we decided to go to France!

My partner actually spent almost 3 weeks abroad with our daughter. They went to the U.K. as well. I did not go with them to London, since I have already been there multiple times, and I didn't want both of us to be away from the toddler for too long. I decided to stay home while they were in the U.K.. My partner already had the experience of being a single mother and not being able to do things like travel because of having a baby, so I volunteered to stay behind so that she would have the opportunity to do the things that she wanted to do. Instead, I flew out to Paris to meet them during the 2nd week of their trip.

I'm going to write about the plane flight and my feelings about modern air travel in a separate post, since I want to reflect on the pleasant parts of the trip first.

2 Days in Paris

The first part of the trip (for me) was 2 nights in Paris. Overall, Paris reminded me a lot of San Francisco. The nice parts of the city are beautiful and a joy to walk around. The other parts are filthy, and full of homeless people. And these neighborhoods can literally be separated by a single block. It can be emotional whiplash going from the awe-inspiring sights like Notre Dame to the heartbreak of having to walk past block after block of homeless beggars (including children!) -- many of whom have given up on even trying to panhandle for cash.

Since they live in Europe, hopefully they at least still have access to health care. Right? Surely one of the benefits of having socialized healthcare is that people like this can at least have access to physical and mental health care. I hope that is the case. Regardless, there's not much that I can do about it, especially since I don't live in France and cannot vote in their elections. All I can do is vote in American elections, and to advocate for more public policies that promote the humane and dignified treatment of homeless people and those in poverty. Plenty of my tax dollars go towards bombing black and brown people in other countries, much to my disgust and frustration. If I'm going to be paying those taxes, then I'd much rather that they go towards services like shelters, food banks, healthcare, addiction treatment, and job training for the poor and homeless, many of whom are victims of circumstance and exploitation, and do not deserve to be in the situations they are in.

My partner likes medieval tapestries, and the Lady and the Unicorn is one of her favorites.

My partner and daughter did pretty much all of the usual Paris sight-seeing. They visited the Eiffel Tower and Palace of Versailles, which are both things that I would have liked to do, but which were lower on my priority list. Together, we went to the Musée de Cluny to see the Lady and the Unicorn tapestries. This is one of my partner's favorite medieval artworks, and we have a copy of one of the tapestries hanging in our living room. We also spent a full afternoon at the Musée de l'Armée, which is loaded with medieval armor, swords, rifles, canons, uniforms, and weapons from medieval history, all the way through Napoleonic Wars, and both world wars -- not to mention Napoleon's Tomb. They even have Napoleon's horse, stuffed and preserved in a glass box.

I also learned from this museum that, apparently, "gun-swords" were a real thing. You win this round, Final Fantasy VIII...

I think the last few years have brought us to a bit of an inflection point for open world video games -- which I feel have been in kind of a rut for the better part of the last decade. Long-time readers of my personal blog will probably be very familiar with my complaints. The two core complaints that I've had with this particular game design paradigm are:

1. That the map itself rarely feels meaningful as a game space, and instead serves primarily as a convoluted mission-select screen full of time-wasting filler content.
2. That the sandboxy nature of the game design means that the world and narrative often feel stagnant (as if in a kind of "limbo").

These problems can be traced back at least to 2001's Grand Theft Auto III, which set many of the conventions of open world games for the next two decades. Companies from Ubisoft to Bethesda, and many others, would copy GTAIII's structure of going to a location on the map to trigger a mission in an aggressively linear, cinematic story, while spending free time on time-wasting filler content that did nothing to move the story forward.

Grand Theft Auto III set many of the standards
for open world games over the past 20 years.

Aside from Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series, these problems have been present to varying degrees in everything from Skyrim to The Saboteur to Mad Max to Just Cause to The Amazing Spider-Man to Fallout 4 to Metal Gear Solid V, and many more. It started getting to the point that when I would see a game advertise the size of its map, I'd roll my eyes and lose interest. "Great, that's just more wasting my time walking from place to place with nothing meaningful or interesting or challenging to do."

Where you are on the map, where you're going, and how you get there was almost completely irrelevant in these games, which made the map itself (no matter how big and scenic it might be) feel mostly irrelevant. In fact, some games started introducing mechanics that let you bypass the map entirely by letting you fly, glide, or zipline to points of interest without having to engage with the space in between. In the case of Metal Gear Solid V's Afghanistan map, the roads are lined with sheer cliffs, funneling the player along linear paths from enemy outpost to enemy outpost, with practically nothing for you to do in the space between outposts. Even though the stealth action at those outposts was some of the best in the series, I couldn't help but think that Snake Eater provided a much more fulfilling experience of living within an open-ended game world.

I would roll my eyes whenever a game advertised the size of its map or hours of content.

The maps themselves weren't playspaces anymore; they were just the spaces in between towns, dungeons, and set pieces where the actual gameplay would take place. Just point in the direction of a waypoint and walk in a straight line, stopping every minute or so to pick up an umpteenth collectible, or climb an umpteenth tower, or sneak into an umpteenth enemy base and kill the umpteenth recycled mini-boss. Stop me if you've done all this before... A majority of the time with the game was just travelling around the map without any engagement in any gameplay systems or mechanics or strategies, and then playing some rote, recycled filler content to pass the time. And as the maps got bigger and bigger, the filler content just kept multiplying.

...

Last November, my girlfriend and I took a trip to Denmark and visited the Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde. That was a great trip, and the ship museum was pretty great, but there were a couple things that we wanted to do, but which we couldn't because the ship museum doesn't operate them in the winter. For one thing, the museum has a collection of reconstructed Viking ships, including a full-size longship. These ships are usually docked in the harbor, along with some living exhibits of the construction and maintenance of these ships and the ropes and sails used to sail them. During winter, the exhibits are closed and the ships themselves are brought onto land and covered in order to prevent ice from forming and damaging the ships.

More importantly, the museum offers tourists the opportunity to go out sailing the reconstructed ships with a couple of museum guides. This service is also only offered in the summer due to weather restrictions, and we decided that we wanted to go back to Denmark so that we could sail a Viking ship!

Big Ben was the first of several Civilization
world wonders that I'd get to see.

She found affordable tickets to London, and we allocated two weeks to spend in Europe this summer. My dad also expressed an interest, and we offered to take him with us and pay for part of his airfare and lodging expenses as a combined Father's Day and birthday gift (his birthday is in May). We ended up deciding to take him to London, England, to Coppenhagen, Denmark, and to Munich, Germany.

London, Stonehenge, and Shakespeare

Our first stop was London, England on June 26th. We did some of the usual tourist things, like visit the Tower of London and walk by Parliament and Big Ben (one of several Civilization wonders that I would be visiting during this trip!) and Westminster Abbey. We also had fish, chips, and beer in a pub and started two week's worth of gluttonous eating! Despite walking 15 to 20 miles per day, I still gained 3 ¹/₂ pounds during the trip.

The British Parlaiment building was covered with scaffolding, apparently being repaired or remodeled. This would actually become a recurring theme during this trip, as many of the places that we visited would be covered with scaffolding.

We visited the Imperial War Museum, including the Churchill Warroom.
I tried on some World War I-era clothing, which was very uncomfortable and itchy.

The second day (Tuesday), we visited the Churchill Warroom and the Imperial War Museum. I had previously visited the Imperial War Museum in Manchester during my trip to the U.K., so this time we got to see the larger museum in London. I was a little bit disappointed that the museum didn't cover British Imperial history prior to World War I. There were no exhibits about colonial British sailing ships. The museum starts with World War I, and then goes through World War II, the Cold War, and the War on Terrorism. It also included an exhibit on the Holocaust, which was interesting because the exhibit started on the top floor, and then descended to the lower floor as the exhibits shifted from persecution of the Jews in Germany to the full-blown "final solution" period. It was a clever bit of symbolism to descend into the fullest horrors of the Holocaust.

On Wednesday, we did a day-trip with a tour company to Windsor Castle, the Roman bathhouse in Bath, and to Stonehenge (another Civ wonder!)...

In my reviews of The Force Awakens and Rogue One, I complained about how the speed of communications and hyperspace travel seems to have shrunk the Star Wars universe. I asserted that the writers seem to have no appreciation for the size and scale of this universe, or for galactic conflict. That observation severely hurt my enjoyment of both films. Star Wars has always flown lose with its science, but even though the original trilogy got a lot of details wrong (ahem, "parsec"!), there at least seemed to be an effort to respect some scientific believability. Even the prequels stayed fairly respectful to the size and scale of the universe and conflict. The new movies, by comparison, seem completely (and deliberately) scientifically illiterate.

Keep in mind that the following analysis is coming from someone with only minimal knowledge of the extended universe. I'm more of a Trekker than a Star Wars fan (a "Warser"?). I have tech manuals of the Enterprise and the star charts of the Federation, but no Star Destroyer tech manuals or Imeprial star charts. So my opinions come from the films alone. Besides, all those novels, video games, and comic books have been de-canonized by Disney anyway. If anyone more knowledgeable of the Star Wars extended universe wants to chip in with corroborating or conflicting information, feel free to do so in the comments. Thanks to Disney's meddling, such knowledge may now be moot.

And oh, by the way, it drives me nuts when Star Trek movies make these sorts of mistakes as well. I'm looking at you, Star Trek V and first episode of Enterprise!

Hyperspace originally analogous to contemporary air travel

Let's start by looking at a frame of reference: the trip in the Millenium Falcon in the first Star Wars movie. While the Millennium Falcon is in transit from Tatooine to Alderan, Luke has time to receive some rudimentary Jedi training from Obi Wan, Han calmly relaxes and socializes in the lounge, and Chewbacca has time for at least one game of space-chess against the droids. This hyperspace trip is presented as being analogous to cross-continental (or intercontinental) plane flight: at least enough time for passengers to unfasten their safety belts and wander around the cabin.

A hyperspace trip in the Millennium Falcon offers at least enough time for everyone to lounge about.

But an estimate of hours is on the low end of the spectrum of possibilities. As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the movie that negates the possibility of this trip to Alderaan taking days. That would certainly be plenty of time for Obi Wan to teach Luke enough of the basics of Force-sensitivity to enable his "lucky shot" in the climactic Death Star trench run. It would also give the characters enough time to socialize, converse and develop some sense of camaraderie with one another. It's also enough time for Leia to undergo at least a couple rounds of interrogation aboard the Death Star...