nocoolnamejim's Blog

Title	Score
Resident Evil 5	9.0
Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword	8.5
Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4	9.0
Mirror's Edge	4.0
Valkyria Chronicles	9.0
NCAA Football 08	8.0
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots	9.0
Resistance: Fall of Man	8.0
Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords	6.5
Planescape: Torment	10

11Sep 09

You can't make this **** up.

It's been a while since I was really active blogging. I guess it is because summer is so incredibly boring when you're a grown up in the U.S. I can remember when I was a kid that summer was the most awesome time EVAR.

But as an adult, well, there aren't really any major game releases. My favorite sports aren't going on. I don't have three months of vacation. Also, I don't live on a beach with half naked women parading around me constantly. Even if I did, the sensation would be kind of like going to a buffet without being allowed to grab any of the food. As a married man, all I would be able to do is look and salivate.

Thank god though that we have the continued degeneration and devolution of the Republican right into complete and utter insanity. From "Death Panels", "Tea Party succession talk", "You Lie" to "Birthers" to "Deathers", it has been a non-stop, awe-inspiring summer of "can you top this?" among the Republicans in this country for nuttiness. It's been entertaining, if more than a little depressing. But then, I think Newt Gingrich just won the gold medal today.

Straight from the "you can't make this **** up" archive...

Former Republican Majority Leader Newt Gingrich has awarded Allison Vivas of pron studio "Visual Pink" his "Entrepreneur of the Year" award.

Link to article

Link to Actual Letter

Er...."Money Quote"

Allison Vivas wrote:

"I'm honored, and more than a little surprised, to receive this prestigious award. Rest assured, I'll take the opportunity to inform Mr. Gingrich of some of the major challenges facing the adult entertainment industry in the current market ... from obscenity prosecutions to content piracy. I'll make sure he walks away from that dinner educated about the realities of the online porn market."

I think my favorite part of the letter itself is the part where it invites her to an "intimate event" with Newt!

Obviously a case where Gingrich's 527 group got a little too eager to sucker in potential big money donors by giving out awards and didn't do enough research, but still funny as all hell.

Posted Sep 11, 2009 4:25 pm PT
Category: Humor
20 Comments

30Jun 09

This calls for the Jumbo Probe!

"This calls for the Jumbo Probe!"
Spiro, from "Destroy all Humans"

The English language is insufficient to address how awful dealing with Microsoft's customer support is. My anger and irritation cannot be described in mortal terms. Some sort of divine language would be needed to describe (without violating the Gamespot filter for swearing) how atrocious my experience with Microsoft's "support" structure has been.

I'm going to do my best to be succinct and passionless in attributing the ghoulish and demonic qualities that Microsoft has expressed to me into plain, unemotional words on a screen for my readers.

1. After dealing with no less than nine (9!) different "supervisors" from the 1-800-4MY-Xbox phone number, I've decided that they are all complete tools and decided to abandon that method of getting any sort of satisfactory resolution and found their corporate number. Should anyone wish to call in just to give them hell, or to support my case, that number is 425-882-8080. Feel free to make them regret that they were ever born. Also, feel free to ask for "Sabrina".

2. Microsoft, both through their off-shore support and their corporate support. does not care about you. Period.

3. The promise made to me has been acknowledged by this company. Apparently, "Eric" mentioned in previous blog, no longer works for the company. (Odd, since less than three weeks ago when I first started pursuing this one of the employees guaranteed that he did.)

4. Since the promise was inconsistent with business policy, it won't be followed. How that promise is MY fault and *I* should suffer for it is not exactly clear.

5. I have an email given to me for complaints beyond Microsoft corporate. I have pursued this. Given that I'd like they not be flooded with complaints while dealing with MY complaint (I'm selfish like that) I won't release it here yet. Yet.

6. As an example of just how much of a pack of liars and slimy rejects these people are, last Wednesday I spoke with a "supervisor" named Carmi about my case. (This is via the 1-800-4MY-Xbox number) and asked my case to be re-escalted.

As I'm not an idiot, I took notes. I was promised that I would be re-escalated. Turnaround was 3-5 business days. I called in today and "George' (Yet another supervisor) said that my case had NOT been re-escalated because it had been rejected before. "How can that be?" I asked. "You guys said you would re-escalate. Now did you, or did you not?" (There may have been a swear word or three mixed in.)

"No, we didn't sir. As I've said sir, you've been rejected already. There would be no point in escalating."

"Then why did you tell me that you did?"

"As I said sir, you've been rejected already. There would be no point in escalating."

(Creative license is taken from this point forward.)

"Does your mother have sex with farm animals?"

"As I said sir, you've been rejected already. There would be no point in escalating."

"At what point did you stop beating your wife?"

"As I said sir, you've been rejected already. There would be no point in escalating."

"Are you Hitler?"

"As I said sir, you've been rejected already. There would be no point in escalating."

(Creative license ending.)

Jim: "This is so much bull (censored)!"

I've written into the latest "escalation path" (translation: "Black hole") to try and get Microsoft to understand that it doesn't matter whether or not a promise made to me was against their policy or not. They've made it. They are bound by it.

I have little to zero hope of any sort of resolution.

Consider me no longer a customer of this company for life. Like the phone company Qwest, they are now dead to me.

Posted Jun 30, 2009 4:35 pm PT
Category: Rant
40 Comments

19Jun 09

Microsoft's Public Relations (A.K.A. 360 #3 RIP)

Well, I wish I could claim that I was surprised that my THIRD 360 has now started to experience severe problems, but I can't. As anyone who has seriously followed the trail of the 360 hardware issues should know by now, Microsoft released a piece of crap console from a hardware reliability perspective in order to be first to market and ordinary consumers have been paying for this cash-in decision ever since.

For the record, I do NOT have the dreaded "Red Ring of Death" issue. I have a related hardware failure that deals with non-stop console "freezes" when I am playing. Specifically, the console freezes up for no particular reason even when playing not particularly new games (like NBA Live 08 ).

If Microsoft wished to claim plausible deniability that this isn't a known and frequent problem, then their support menu should not list this issue in the same sentence as the three red light issue when you call in for tech support or to submit a repair ticket. Now seems a great time to bring up what Microsoft promised the last time I had a broken console.

Microsoft's Documented Promise

The Cliff Notes version is that Microsoft committed to me that in return for accepting a repair on my current console for a second time, if I ever had a third broken device I would get a brand new 360 Elite in return. The great thing about blogs is that they are a very good source of documentation.

Specifically, a gentleman named "Eric" made this promise on behalf of Microsoft back then. Unfortunately, Microsoft has not been willing to deliver upon this commitment. During this last week, which, fortunately, I've been on vacation from work for, I've escalated this situation TWICE and been rejected both times. Whomever "Eric" is, he apparently doesn't take good notes. Despite the fact I asked specifically for this commitment to be documented in my case file, the folks I've been talking with on the phone claim that no notes on this commitment are in their records.

The beautiful thing about having a wife who works in customer support is that you get a lot of detailed inside knowledge on how to get what you want when you are working with customer support from other companies. Specifically, I've gathered the following bits of information during my repeated calls into 1-800-4MYXBOX.

1. That phone number does NOT take you to Microsoft itself. Microsoft has outsourced their customer support to a 3rd Party. Based on the accents, I'm guessing that their outsourcing is probably Costa Rica. (The same country that the company that *I* work for has outsourced so many things to.)

2. I've spoken with three different "supervisors" thus far. "Kelly" and "Malcolm" are probably first level supervisors. "Krissa" is apparently one step up from either of them.

3. The "Specialty Department" is where "Eric" who made the promise to me documented worked when he made the promise. Unlike Kelly, Malcom and Krissa...Eric actually works for Microsoft itself.

4. Eric STILL works in the Specialty Department. This would be the same Specialty Department that has denied my case twice after promising me the exact thing that I am currently asking for.

5. Kelly, Malcom and Krissa are powerless to give me what I ask for. Due to the genius that is Microsoft's public relations, they don't have any real power to give customers anything. They instead have to escalate to Microsoft itself in the form of the Specialty Department.

6. The program that Eric works for is called "Risque Exchange". Entry level grunts don't know what this is. Malcom acknowledged this program's existence.

I'm writing this blog as I wait for exactly one hour to pass. After an hour, I intend to call the support number back again and immediately re-escalate. I promised Krissa that I would do this during our last call. She and I both know she can't do **** to help me, again do the the genius of Microsoft's PR department, but she CAN put detailed notes into my case that the Specialty Department reviews. So I want to ensure that she argues my case convincingly.

Essentially, I'm probably the very worst type of customer to deal with. Most customer support folks are not allowed to hang up on you so long as you are being polite and calm. They also usually are paid based on how many calls they take and resolve per hour. So I have no problem screwing their metrics up all to hell to ensure that they become my advocate. This makes my case a personal thing for the people handling it. Not only am I causing Microsoft money by calling in again and again and writing scathing blog posts detailing their abdominal console reliability and customer support, I'm costing the people speaking on the phone with me money personally.

Granted, this is not the nicest thing in the world to do, but on the other hand, this could have been resolved on Monday if Microsoft had stepped up to the plate and shelved out the $200 it probably costs them to actually make each of their 360 Elite consoles. I guarantee that it will cost them a lot more than that if they keep stringing me along.

At the end of the day, I was given a promise and I mean to ensure that the company that extended me that promise follows through. I don't care if it ends up costing them $200, $2000 or $20,000 before they finally cave. Three broken 360's is completely unacceptable.

I have almost 400 people tracking my blog. In the big scheme of things, that isn't that many. But on the other hand, that is four hundred people who have now (hopefully) been given a very negative view of Microsoft's cash-in decision to rush a broken, unfinished console to the market in order to beat out Sony and Nintendo. How many people will THEY say bad things about Microsoft to? How many people will the people they talk to say negative things about Microsoft to?

At the end of the day, By jerking me around Microsoft has probably cost themselves AT LEAST a couple of thousand dollars worth of future business to avoid spending $200 to give me a working, functional console.

Apparently, math is not this company's strong suit.

My next blog post on this subject will be on the Soap Box. (If necessary.)

Edit: If you think *I'm* harsh, you should listen to the wife while she takes HER turn on the phone. I'm not even the person on the other end of the line and she makes me want to hide under the bed. I'm so proud of her!

Posted Jun 19, 2009 3:06 pm PT
Category: Rant
31 Comments

3Jun 09

The Greatest Pitch Ever Thrown

Well, I've been pretty busy lately, but I don't want folks to think I've forgotten about them.

For your viewing amusement, I have two very short videos of a pitcher to consider.

Candidate Number 1

Candidate Number 2 (Language Warning.)

So...let the debate begin. Which of these two pitches deserves to be called "The Greatest Pitch Ever Thrown"?

Posted Jun 3, 2009 10:56 am PT
Category: Sports
20 Comments

24May 09

The Jesus Defense

"It's likely even Jesus would have OK'd water boarding if it would have saved his Mom. He would've done the same to save his Dad, or any one of His disciples. For that matter, He even died to save all humans."

-Red State

So, I've been sitting here for about five minutes now, rereading that quote over and over again. I'm afraid that I have nothing. This is SO anathema to any true reading and understanding of Christian morality and thought that I'm quite literally speechless.

Posted May 24, 2009 8:45 am PT
Category: News
63 Comments

18May 09

Mass Effect 2

The new trailer/interview makes me whimper in anticipation, particularly when watched in HD.

Konami can keep whatever milking MGS update that Kojima's new Countdown trailer likely indicates. My first response was something like "meh" and then "I guess it is too much to hope that the "S" stands for Suikoden VI for the 360 or PS3."

High quality, single player, character and story driven, RPG titles remain the rarest and most beautiful of gems in the modern day gaming industry. It isn't that I wouldn't enjoy a new installment of MGS - if for no other reason than to gently mock the over-the-top story cheesiness factor that the last one had...but I'd probably personally kill GabuEx or btaylor for a chance to play a really good sequel to Suikoden V on a current generation platform. (Translation: NOT HANDHOLD!)

But, that aside, I can't complain with some of the stellar gaming offerings that I've played recently. Persona 4, Prince of Persia, Gears of War 2, and Valkyria Chronicles have all been really excellent offerings. Even the "Beyond the Sword" expansion for Civilization IV, while not really a stand alone offering, was excellent. It can be hard to wait for such gems as Mass Effect 2, particularly when I break my own rules of not actually looking at trailers/previews/etc until a game is pretty close to release, but I can't say that the industry has been completely hopeless lately.

Posted May 18, 2009 10:21 am PT
Category: Games
46 Comments

15May 09

Phil Jackson is getting his *** handed to him.

To question the genius of a particular icon in the NBA is the equivalent of saying "The pope had a relationship with Al Qaeda." You just don't do it. But nevertheless, someone has to fall on this grenade. That someone may as well be me.

Phil Jackson, winner of nine NBA titles as a coach, and currently the commandant of the Los Angeles Lakers is being beaten like a rented mule in the Western Conference semifinals by his counterpart Rick Adelman of the Houston Rockets. I cannot even begin to describe how badly Phil is currently being out coached. My linguistic skills are insufficient for this monumental task. Some things, like the hotness of Megan Fox in the last Transformers movie, defy easy description.

Nevertheless, an attempt must be made. If I have to get the stinkeye look from some of the people I work with for blogging on company time on a Friday afternoon, then at the very least Phil Jackson must be held to account for the fact that the Lakers, inexplicably, are now needing to play a Winner Take All elimination game seven against the Rockets Sunday.

Let us count the ways that Phil is currently screwing the pooch right now.

1. Derek Fisher has no business starting for an NBA title contender.

I love Fish. I've loved him for years. I watched him be a key contributor to three NBA title teams and a steadying veteran influence since joining the Lakers for a second tour of duty a couple of years ago. I still maintain that his incredible .4 second shot against the Spurs in the playoffs is the most orgasmic moment I've ever experienced as a sports fan.

Still, he has been, and I don't know how to put it any more gently than this, absolutely horrific the last couple of months of this season. Derek Fisher is washed up. He doesn't have it any longer. Watching Phil continue to start him now is like watching a forty year old stripper continue to try and work her stuff at the local Spearmint Rhino. It's just sad and a little depressing.

2. Why hasn't Phil publicly torn Pau Gasol, Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom new "glory" holes for their play against a depleted Rockets front line?

I'm not normally a numbers guy, despite doing pricing for a living. But if my faithful readers will indulge me for a moment, I want to list a few numbers for your review.

Rockets: 6-9, 6-9 (Yeah right) and 6-6
Lakers: 7-0, 7-0, and 6-10

That would be the heights of the current front lines for the Lakers and the Rockets. The Rockets, of course, are missing all-star Yao Ming to a season ending injury and former all-star Dikembe Mutumbo to, yes, a season ending injury. And yet, the Lakers, inexplicably, are being pounded inside by this undersized and undermanned front line of the Rockets.

Attention Laker bigs: since Phil is unwilling to do it, allow me to play the stern step-father type. Where the hell are your cojones?! My wife has more cojones than you're showing me right now. This is embarrassing. This is a disgrace. This is the NBA equivalent of Ashton Kutcher, Ben Affleck and Keanu Reeves out-acting Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino and Morgan Freeman. How do you sleep at night?!

And Phil, for the love of god, you have, in a past incarnation, publicly called out types like Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant and, yes, even Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippin, when you felt effort was lacking. Have you slipped into a coma?

3. Paging Kobe Bryant...

Speaking of slipping into a coma...Mr. Bryant, your services are needed in Emergency Room 1. Specifically, take the ball to the ******* hole! I understand that you've played roughly 25,810 games without an offseason now. I get it that your legs have a lot of miles on them. I just don't give a rat's ***! You're applying for the job of the "Greatest Player of All-Time". Settling for contested, hand-in-your-face, mid-range jump shots all game long won't get the job done. Your services are required finishing at the rim. Man the **** up! That is all.

Oh, wait, that isn't all. Phil, the buck stops with you. Again, just like with Lamar, Pau and Bynum...when something is wrong, it is your job to address it.

4. Two words: Luke. Walton.

Seriously?! Luke Walton? Luke ******* Walton?! Phil...oh Phil. Phil. Phil. Phil. Is Luke Walton still getting significant minutes this year's equivalent of Phil Jackson attempting to give Chris Mihm a comeback role in Game 5 of last year's NBA finals after not playing for months with an injury? Luke is different from Derek Fisher in one really significant way.

Derek, who I will love to the day I die, is a has-been. Luke Walton is a never-was. He has no business being in the rotation for a championship contending team. He brings nothing. NOTHING I SAY! To the table.

For the love of all that is holy. The Lakers better win Sunday's game or I swear I will not be held accountable for the consequences. Katrina. Mt. Vesuvius. Telemarketing. These disasters will pale in comparison to my wrath.

Ye have been warned.

Posted May 15, 2009 1:14 pm PT
Category: Sports
9 Comments

12May 09

Quote of the Day - The Body

No, I'm not talking about the former supermodel that also was nicknamed "The Body". (Trivia time...anyone know who I am talking about?)

I'm referring to Jesse "The Body" Ventura, former Governor of Minnesota, WWE (then WWF) professional wrestler, and Navy SEAL.

The Larry King Interview wrote:

Jesse Ventura: I would prosecute every person who was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it, I would prosecute the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law."

Larry King: You were a Navy S.E.A.L.

Jesse Ventura: Yes, and I was waterboarded [in training] so I know... It is torture...I'll put it to you this way: You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

This is the key point that is lost in the current debate on torture.

Torture advocates will argue that torture can be justified if it saves American lives. Or, as they usually put it, "who cares what happens to terrorists?" leaving out the "suspected" word in front of the word "terrorists". They'll argue about ticking time bombs and Jack Bauer style last minute rescues.

The problem of course is that torture just doesn't work! It is great for producing false confessions and worthless for anything else. There's an old joke that used to get told in Eastern Europe and the countries that were a part of the old Soviet Union. It goes something like this.

One day Joseph Stalin was in his private office doing whatever it is tyrannical dictators do during their leisure time, when he decided to do some light reading. The problem was that he couldn't find his reading glasses. He looked all over the place for them, but they just were nowhere to be found.

Being a bit of a paranoid type, he called in his KGB chief. "You must find the traitor who stole my reading glasses!" he said. "Of course comrade Stalin." replied the KGB chief. He left to carry out the premier's wishes.

About a half hour later, Stalin happened to find his reading glasses underneath a book on his desk, so he called his KGB chief up on the phone. "You can stop searching for the traitor. I found my glasses."

"But comrade Stalin, that's impossible." replied the KGB chief. "I already have three people who have confessed to stealing your glasses."

The moral of the story is, of course, that when you beat the crap out of people and inflict extreme pain and anguish on them to the point that they can't even differentiate between what they know and what the interrogator wants them to say, they'll tell the interrogator anything he or she wants to hear to make the pain stop.

Like there are WMDs in Iraq.
Like there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Like there are rabid pink bunnies involved in a plot to rape and murder Donald Rumsfeld.

Most people learn this lesson in kindergarten the first time they are the victim of a vicious "Indian Burn" and made to cry out "Uncle" to make the Indian Burn stop.

Here's a bonus quote for my conservative readers.

President Ronald Reagan ratifying the UN Convention Against Torture in the US wrote:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention . It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today.

The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

This is not a partisan issue. This is not an issue of conservatives vs. liberals. This is not Republicans vs. Democrats. This is Right vs. Wrong.

I don't care if it was Dick Cheney or Nancy Pelosi. If they were involved in turning the U.S. into a country that tortures, they should be prosecuted. If they were involved in lowering our country's sense of morality to the point that torture is actually a question that we're debating, even for an instant, as acceptable every day in our society, then they should be put in jail.

Posted May 12, 2009 4:55 pm PT
Category: News
29 Comments

11May 09

Quote of the Day: Dalai Lama

"As a child in Tibet, I was keenly curious about how things worked. When I got a toy I would play with it a bit, then take it apart to see how it was put together. As I became older, I applied the same scrutiny to a movie projector and an antique automobile. At one point I became particularly intrigued by an old telescope, with which I would study the heavens. One night while looking at the moon I realized that there were shadows on its surface. I corralled my two main tutors to show them, because this was contrary to the ancient version of cosmology I had been taught, which held that the moon was a heavenly body that emitted its own light. But through my telescope the moon was clearly just a barren rock, pocked with craters. If the author of that fourth-century treatise were writing today, I'm sure he would write the chapter on cosmology differently.

If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

-Dalai Lama (Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan)

Jim thoughts:
Gosh, I wish all religions would take this approach. Science and religion are not, and should not, be in conflict with one another. Faith is the belief in that which is not seen, that which cannot be proven. Science is the opposite. The two can have either a harmonious coexistence or a combative one, but they are inexorably tied to one another.

In other news, my new blog about single player vs. coop/multiplayer gaming has gathered so many comments that I've given up on replying to all of them in a timely fashion, if at all. Once that blog has been pushed off the Soapbox I may try going back in and giving everyone a proper reply. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Posted May 11, 2009 10:33 am PT
Category: Religion
31 Comments

8May 09

Enough Multiplayer Please.

So, the big news of the day is that Bioshock 2 will have a multiplayer co-op component added to it.

Of course, if I use the word "news" doesn't it imply that this wasn't completely inevitable? Doesn't something have to be at least mildly unexpected for it to qualify as "news"? These days, a true singleplayer only game is as rare as a popular Republican politician. They're damned hard to find.

Consider the trend.

Resident Evil 5
Uncharted 2
Bioshock 2
Knights of the Old Republic

What do all these games have in common? They are all franchises that enjoyed great success as a singleplayer offering and, arguably, would have been better off staying that way. Instead, they are going to be multiplayer games and, in the case of KOTOR, MMORPGs.

Damn it all. I'm old enough to remember the time when gaming was an antisocial experience. By god, you went into your room, closed the door, and provided you had the foresight to bring in some snacks and stimulative beverages with you before you began playing, you didn't emerge again until your eyes started bleeding from overuse or your bladder was about to explode. And you loved it!

Some people might reasonably argue that "you don't have to play multiplayer if you don't want to" or "it won't come at the expense of a good singleplayer experience. It's a bonus." Respectfully, I must call "shenanigans" on that response.

Let's say for a moment that you have a budget of $10 million dollars to make a game. This is fixed. It does not change. You are given this $10 million to work with and told to make the best game possible. Let's speculate further that you're given three years to work on the game. This is also fixed. It is timed to coincide with a holiday season or some other business driven need.

Now then, those are your constraints and you are told to make the best possible game while staying within those parameters. Other than that, you're widely given discretion on what to do with the game itself. Like those old-school "Choose Your Own Adventure" novels, you are at a crossroads.

Scenario Number One:

Take the money and the three years and devote it exclusively to a singleplayer game. This results in a longer and more polished singleplayer experience. The game is less buggy. The story is more in-depth. The character development is more detailed. Unfortunately, some folks might claim a lack of replay value since there is no multiplayer component.

Scenario Number Two:
Split the money and time in some fashion between singleplayer and multiplayer aspects and claim that the singleplayer aspect will not be impacted.

Realistically, how many of you out there genuinely believe that you can make an equally good singleplayer experience with $5 million dollars and a year and a half to work as you can with $10 million dollars and three years to work with? Logically, that's just plain ridiculous. Anyone who claims that adding a multiplayer aspect to a game won't result in a reduction, to some extent or another, to the singleplayer portion has not thought it through all the way. Or they are full of ****.

Now then, that doesn't mean we can't argue about how much of a reduction occurs by shifting development dollars, time and resources away from singleplayer. Can you have a game that adds a multiplayer component and remains spectacular? Absolutely. Is there a point of diminishing returns when it comes to focusing solely on a singleplayer game? Can you, at some point, reach a point where a game cannot be improved any further without adding new features like a multiplayer component? Sure. Do a lot of games reach that point?

No. If a lot of games reached that point, we'd see a lot more perfect ratings given from the critics who write the reviews. When I think of the greatest games that I've played over the years, I have a hard time coming up with any that have withstood the test of time that were multiplayer. I think of Planescape: Torment. I think of Star Control 2. I think of Fallout 1 and 2. I think of Max Payne 1 and Max Payne 2. I think of Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2, or Grand Theft Auto Vice City and San Andreas. Heck, I think of Dragon Quest VIII, several of the Final Fantasy or Zelda games, or Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay.

I could go on, but my point is this. It is entirely possible to have a great game that has both singleplayer and multiplayer elements. However, it is highly unlikely to have a truly cla.ssic game that has both. Yes, for every rule there are exceptions. Some of the Blizzard games come readily to mind. I suspect there will be a generation gap in my responses. I'm thirty years old. I was raised on singleplayer. Younger gamers might beg to differ.

Don't get me wrong. I am not fully and firmly opposed to all multiplayer games. Some games have been demonstrably better off as multiplayer. But typically, those are games where the main game isn't really intended to be a narrative, story-driven experience.

Take Gears of War for example. Yes, it has a story. Yes, it even has some characters (and thus character development) in it. But they aren't really the focus. To this game, storywise and gameplay wise, it makes sense for it to be co-op or multiplayer driven. Some of the games I listed up above are not.

Let's look at Bioshock. Part of the attraction of Bioshock was the environment. It was the "creepy" factor. You were alone and isolated and in the middle of a survival horror experience. How horrifying can it really be if you're listening to a mate chatter at you through your headset, or farting after too much bean dip beside of you on the couch? Don't you think that might ruin the mood at least a little bit?

You can say the same thing about the Resident Evil games. Humans are, by nature, pack animals. We feel uncomfortable and concerned when we are isolated, particularly in dangerous situations. Adding a side kick reduces that feeling.

As for KOTOR: The MMORPG. Well, don't even get me started. Yeah, it will probably be cool for a bit. But really, how special is being a Jedi if you see a couple dozen of them run past you on the way to raid a couple of dozen Sith. How unique do you think that will feel?

Please developers. Take some time and consider things. Does the game you're working on really need a multiplayer component? Will it fit the story and the overall game experience or just feel tacked on and gratuitous, a way to check off another box under "design requirements" somewhere?

Alternatively, you could try and make Final Fantasy XIII multiplayer. You've taken just about every other franchise that direction so far. Why not go the rest of the way?

Edit: Reader and fellow Soapboxer OrkHammer007 reminded me that Star Control 2 did have a multiplayer component called Super Melee which I had forgotten. I regret the error and thank Ork for the correction.

Posted May 8, 2009 11:10 am PT
Category: Editorial
574 Comments

28Apr 09

Weasel is as Weasel does.

Well, for those of you who have not yet heard the news: Senator Arlen Specter (R, PA) will switch parties and become a Democrat.

This confirms something I have long suspected about Senator Specter: He is a weasel.

Now, I know that may seem a bit harsh for a liberal who just got handed a new addition to his party in the Senate like a gift wrapped box of expensive chocolate, but hear me out.

I've watched this man closely over the last nine years. There is one thing that I could count on him to do time and time again: Be independent from Republicans while the camera was on him, and then vote in lockstep with them when it really mattered. This is why the Republican establishment like John Cornyn said:

Senator John Cornyn - National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman wrote:

A vote for Arlen Specter is a vote for denying Harry Reid and the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate.

This is in reference to who conservatives in Pennsylvania should vote for in the contested Republican Primary in the state between Specter and Club For Growth ultra-conservative candidate Pat Toomey.

I suppose you can't really blame Specter that much. Pennsylvania has an over-inflated reputation as a swing state. The state is light blue. If Specter actually didn't show these flashes of independence on issues like torture, Iraq, taxes, etc. he would have been toast in that state long ago.

While it IS true that the Republican Party has moved drastically to the right - and more importantly to Specter's right - in recent years, this party switch is not motivated genuinely by a "come to Jesus" moment on the part of Arlen Specter so much as a desire for political survival. All recent polls showing the Republican primary race between Specter and his primary challenger Pat Toomey had him losing by double digits.

Moderate Republicans in Pennsylvania have left the party in droves. Over 200,000 moderate Republicans have switched party affiliation to the Democrats. Given the closed nature of the Republican primary in Pennsylvania, Specter was dead in the water against Toomey. Afterwards, Toomey's chances of winning in the general election were next to nil. He's way to conservative for Pennsylvania. He'd be the next Rick Santorum, a former Senator from Pennsylvania.

So while this is a net win for the Democrats, it isn't as big of one as was being advertised. Democrats had a very good chance of picking this seat up in 2010 anyway.

The big wins here are in other areas.

1. The symbolism.
Republicans are pretty much a regional party now. They are almost completely shut out of huge swathes of the country. This party switch, along with Specter's accompanying statement about how he didn't leave the Republicans, the Republicans left him, plays right into the Democrats' message. (Republicans are the party of Rush Limbaugh.)

2. Overcoming the Republican filibuster
My guess is that negotiations between Specter and the Democratic leadership went something like this. Democrats will clear their primary field of any challenges to Specter in the Democratic primary, which will almost certainly guarantee him reelection.

In return, Specter WILL vote for cloture on every bill that comes along. That doesn't mean that he'll vote as the Democrats do on all major pieces of legislation, but Democrats don't really need him to. The biggest thing keeping Democrats from advancing their key priorities like Health Care Reform and Employee Free Choice Act isn't that they don't have the majority of votes needed to pass those bills. It is that they have frequently fallen short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster and proceed to an up or down vote on the bill.

Unless I am very wrong, this is the key condition that the Democrats put to Specter when welcoming him into the party. They probably said something to the effect of: "You can vote yay or nay as you choose on any bill that comes up for a vote, but you WILL help us actually get to the point where we can have a vote."

This is where I cannot express how huge this is. With 58 Democrats (not counting Lieberman or Specter and assuming that Al Frnaken eventually gets seated), Democrats don't actually need Specter to vote yes on the final bills themselves. They just need him to vote for the end of debate on the bills. Once the bill gets to the final vote, all that is needed is 51 Democrats. The Democratic party could care less how Specter votes on the bill at that point.

Specter, in his typical weaselish way, is already showing how these gymnastics will work.

Senator Arlen Specter - Democrat of Pennsylvania wrote:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords' switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

This is true. He'll be the 59th vote. Al Franken will be the 60th.

Posted Apr 28, 2009 10:35 am PT
Category: News
18 Comments

20Apr 09

Mirror's Edge and a huge number of comments

Short blog update.

Three things here.

1. I've finally gotten around to replying to everyone who commented on my last blog. Thanks to everyone who left their thoughts, even to those who disagreed with my most recent selection of "Stupidest People in the World". Please remember that I am nonpartisan in pointing out stupidity and, in my time, have picked on Republicans, Democrats, Sports Stars and Celebrities alike.

2. Offline job has been crazy busy lately. The economy sucks, which means my employer sees no issues with demanding tons of extra unpaid overtime hours. If I keel over and die from a rampaging ulcer, I give my wifey permission to post the name of my company and my boss on her blog.

3. Mirror's Edge, from what little I have played of it, is insanely difficult. How this game didn't get the "Punishing Difficulty" emblem from Gamespot baffles me.

This is the ultimate example of a game that would have been about 20 times better if they had simply made it easier/more forgiving. Frankly, I'd go so far as to say that the game is broken because you need to handle the controls PERFECTLY to really get things right. There is no margin for error in this game and it makes the game zero fun to play.

So much potential, and so much suckiness. Everyone do yourself a favor and buy something else.

Posted Apr 20, 2009 8:40 pm PT
Category: Games
20 Comments

15Apr 09

Stupidest People In the World: Teabagger Edition

I have to admit, I'm having a hard time explaining in gentle terms why today's teabagging parties across the U.S. are stupid to anyone who isn't already completely aware of the reasons.

Imagine if you will that you and a friend are outside walking one nice, sunny, spring afternoon and you make a comment about how beautiful the blue sky is after all the rain from previous days and that your friend looks at you like you're crazy. Your friend then states, flatly and in a tone that will tolerate no dissent, that the sky is purple. How do you gently point out that he is wrong?

That is the dilemma I face as I try and write this blog. I want to nicely explain why all those people going to tea parties are dumb, but without using words like "flaming imbeciles" and "whiny **** nuts". I'm going to try my best, but if on occasional reference to "moronic degenerates" slips out, you'll just have to forgive me.

Reason Number One
We just had an election in November. Obama has been in power all of three full months. Agree or disagree, these protests are ridiculously timed. Getting angry and staying angry takes a lot of work for your average person. There's a natural tendency to calm down after you've been angry for a bit.

Therefore, if you're a teabagger and you want to be effective, you should probably start mobilizing the troops right before an election and not right after an election.

Reason Number Two
From what I can tell - and believe me it is pretty damned hard to make any coherent sense out of these people - one of the things that they are protesting is higher taxes.

The problem is that Obama just reduced the taxes of 95% of Americans. Which means that unless all the people attending these rallies are making more than $250,000 per year in income, they don't have any idea what they're talking about and are seriously misguided. Those making more than $250,000 per year have a better case. Obama really IS planning on raising their taxes.

In fact, he campaigned on these last two points for over two years. Cut taxes on 95% of Americans. Raise taxes on the top 1-2%. But here's the mystifying point that I think is being lost on all those fevered, ranting idiots complaining about "socialism" and "the oppressive federal government" and "that Nazi Obama"...even those folks making greater than $250,000 per year are only going to have their taxes raised to the Clinton Administration levels.

Which, for those of us who know our history, is less than what they were when Ronald Reagan was in office. I want to repeat this point because it is so critical: President Obama is proposing that the richest income earners pay less in taxes than they paid under Ronald Reagan.

So if Obama is a socialist, what does that make Reagan? A communist?

Reason Number Three
The only other barely substantive point I see from these tea party lunatics is that they think we're spending too much money.

To which I reply...were they in a coma the last eight years? Did you see how much Bush spent? Bush spent more money than any president in U.S. history. Where were the widespread protests to Bush's spending policies from the right-wing?

More to the point, Obama isn't spending these huge sums of money to stabilize the financial sector because he wants to. This is politically unpopular and Obama would probably much rather be spending his precious political capital on passing Employee Free Choice Act or Universal Healthcare. He's doing it because he has to. The structural problems with our economy did not begin under him. This recession was here when he got elected. Among mainstream economists, both on the right and the left, there is a broad consensus that government spending is required at this time.

This is clearly shown in the fact that President Bush started these bailouts with his first $700,000,000,000 stimulus package.

Reason Number Four
If you don't like what someone is doing, you need to actually present a viable alternative.

It isn't enough to say "no" to everything. If these people don't like what Obama is doing, or if the Republicans don't like what Obama is doing, present alternatives! And by alternatives, I mean alternatives different from what already got us into this mess. Simply saying "we'll give more tax cuts to rich people and a rising tide will lift all ships" isn't going to fly. Republicans had two chances to sell that to the country, before the 2006 and the 2008 elections.

In both of the last two election cycles that idea has not just been defeated, but soundly and decisively rejected. This, ultimately, is the biggest reason why these tea party protests are dumb. What Obama is doing isn't socialism or fascism or whatever, it is what he specifically has said he'd do if he got elected over and over again endlessly during the last two years he was running for office.

He has every right to do what he is doing because people elected him to do exactly what he's presently doing. It isn't like he campaigned as a moderate and then surprised everyone once he got into office (such as Bush in 2000). Obama was very open that this was what he was going to do and people voted for him anyway.

Yes, it is liberal. Yes, conservatives aren't going to like it. But guess what? That's how democracy works!

If a liberal runs for office and gets elected, he's going to advance a liberal agenda. If a conservative runs for office and gets elected, he's going to advance a conservative agenda. That's why you have elections. Don't get me wrong, if these tea parties were protesting anything in particular - similar to how liberals protested the Iraq war (and I hasten to add A LOT MORE liberals) - then I'd be saluting them and their participation in this democracy. A healthy democracy needs active participation.

Instead, all they are doing is making themselves look like sore losers because their side lost.

Reason Number Five
Ahem, please see the slang definition of teabagging. Enter "Teabagging" in a google search

Will a coherent, functional conservative party please step forward? The Republican Party is, at this point and unless they step back from the precipice of extreme craziness they are currently teetering over, on the verge of becoming only a regional party confined to the south and the midwest and unable to compete anywhere else.

Posted Apr 15, 2009 3:36 pm PT
Category: Rant
33 Comments

10Apr 09

Death of a Gaming Legend

New York Times wrote:

Dave Arneson, one of the co-creators of the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy game and a pioneer of role-playing entertainment, died after a two-year battle with cancer, his family said Thursday. He was 61.

Full article can be found here.

At this time, I raise one of my hundred sided dice in tribute to a man who actually has had a profound impact on my life. Fellow geeks everywhere, a moment of silence please. The RPG genre, in video games or elsewhere, would not be what it is today without this man's contributions.

Fare thee well, brave and noble Paladin. In honor of your passing, a song from one of the Wizards of the Coast books (which would never have been written had you not achieved what you did).

We've come to mourn the Paladin
The best and noblest type of man
His way was clear, his will was strong
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong

Alone he faced the orcish horde
And dauntless drew his mighty sword
He did not flinch. He did not blink.
He surely did not stop to think!

The halls of battle opened wide
And our Paladin was led inside
He shares with all his noble creed
And frowns on wenching, feasts and mead!

The song goes on. For my gentle readers, don't take this as a sign of disrespect. I'm pretty sure that this legend would have loved this sort of Eulogy.

Posted Apr 10, 2009 1:07 pm PT
Category: Games
18 Comments

24Mar 09

Bobby vs. The Volcano

Have you ever had one of those months where anything that could go wrong did?

Well, welcome to the world of Bobby Jindahl, Republican governor of Louisiana and likely presidential candidate in 2012.

Here is Jindahl, delivering the opposition speech to President Obama's State of the Union.

Notice the last thing that the governor derides as "wasteful spending". He talks about "something called volcano monitoring" and then goes on to mock it.

At the time, Jindahl was largely criticized not only for his awful delivery of the speech, but also for making stuff up and being a governor from a state that just got hit by a large scale natural disaster in the form of Hurricane Katrina who didn't feel it was the role of government to spend money protecting people from natural disasters. Some people - such as myself - were curious as to who Governor Jindahl expected to spend money monitoring potential natural disasters.

While reasonable people can disagree at times on which activities should be handled by the federal government and which ones are best left up to private industry, I don't really see a lot of money to be made commercially in the activity of monitoring natural disasters to prevent people from, you know, dying and stuff.

Or, as John Marshall put it:

TPM wrote:

At the risk of stating the obvious, using advanced technology to predict when a volcano might erupt, at the most basic level, allows local officials to, um, save people's lives by evacuating them. It's hard to think of a better use of government money.

Still, having seen Jindahl speak at other times I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he had an off-night as a combination of being a bit new to the national stage and having to go opposite all the pomp and pageantry that Obama had going for him as the incumbent president delivering his first State of the Union address. I figured Jindahl had four long years to recover from the damage his reputation suffered after the speech in question.

That was before...

Yes, this is indeed a volcano erupting. Worse, it is one of the volcanos that was going to get federal funds that Governor Jindahl - whose state receives no small amount of federal funds to monitor natural disasters that could threaten human lives - derided as wasteful spending.

Yes, it is within range of populated areas and yes, it could have potentially caused things like airplane crashes if we hadn't been monitoring the situation.

Fortunately, I managed to catch a look at Governor Jindahl when he learned the news.

Posted Mar 24, 2009 5:28 pm PT
Category: Humor
16 Comments

20Mar 09

Personal Space in the Modern Work World

It is late Friday afternoon at work and you get the following email from your boss. What is your reaction?

Hi Jim,

I wanted to ask if you could be the first to kick off a team builder that I want to do with the team?

I am assuming a yes response and you will accept the "Mission"

Your mission is to take a picture of your office-You can be in it or not. Then come prepared to the staff meeting to give us a virtual tour of your home office. Highlight special things that you have in your office space that you enjoy, challenges that you may face as well as the way you like to work. Is your desk clear of clutter? Tons of files? ...

I thought it would be fun since we are such a virtual team to share a little bit about each other. Every staff meeting we will profile a team member's workspace to learn more about them.

I would like to have this as the first part of our staff meeting on Tuesday.

Thanks tons,

(Redacted)

Well, if you are anything like me, then your first reaction is something like "Not only no but HELL no!" My second reaction is, "Gee, nice of you to use your position of authority over me to invite everyone into my house and private space."

Welcome to personal space in the modern work world, where not only are you required to pay for your work area to save the company money, your phone to save the company money, and your Internet connection to save the company money; your house is now company property that your boss feels perfectly comfortable asking you to allow others to inspect and pass judgments on.

For me it is enough to make me wonder just how far my company really feels they can push this whole "the entire economy sucks and nobody else is hiring so we can pretty much do whatever the hell we want to these people" thing. Coming about a month after my company cut everyone's annual salary because of the "tough economic climate" I think I can safely say that my rear-end virginity is no longer intact.

Now, here's the thing, I have no doubt that there are at least a couple of people out there reading this who are thinking, "Wow you're overreacting Jim. What's the big deal? I wouldn't mind that at all. It sounds kind of fun. This is just a way to build the team and help you have a way to relate to your remote teamworkers."

My response is that everyone is different. We all have different comfort zones and personal space. What some of my readers might be perfectly okay with, others might be very uncomfortable with. For me, I don't want to have to completely "work sanitize" my environment so I can take a few pictures of my home office space that wouldn't change how people I interact with professionally view me.

For example, I absolutely LOVE my big bookcase full of video game boxes, controllers, etc. To anyone I know OUTSIDE of work, I could care less about them seeing it.

However, I'm not sure I want everyone who might potentially be a work reference or a hiring manager in the future seeing such an "unprofessional" workspace. The bookcase is just a single example of a number that I could name, but really it is straying from the main point.

This is MY house. It is MY room. It is my private area. Someone with authority over me who pretty much forces me to let them into my house is doing something wrong.

Now, because of my earlier point - that people have different comfort zones and personal space - my guess is that with the particular personality type that my boss has it wouldn't even occur to her that she might be asking something that would make me uncomfortable. She is probably completely comfortable being this open. So I have a hard time really being mad at her over this, because it isn't bad intentions. It is just plain thoughtlessness.

Which means I could try and explain things to her, but all that will accomplish is her getting the impression that I'm a big baby.

Posted Mar 20, 2009 5:12 pm PT
Category: N/A
16 Comments

18Mar 09

Watchmen review. Dear....god.

So, the wife and I went to see "Watchmen" over the weekend and we both had some thoughts about the movie after getting out. We are, more or less, in agreement and in the hopes of helping others with their movie viewing decisions, I decided I'd throw those thoughts down here.

Watchmen is based on an interesting premise. Specifically, it is an "alternate history" premise wherein certain things that took place in the actual, real history of the world that I, you, and everyone else reading this blog live in, never actually happened. One example would be that President Nixon, rather than resigning in shame after the Watergate Scandal, went on to be reelected, eventually get term limits revoked, and continue to be reelected to the point where the film takes place in the mid 1980s and Nixon is still the head honcho here in the U.S.

I'm beginning to ramble. The main point is that the first thing to do when seeing this movie is to accept that you are viewing an alternate path that the country, and indeed the world, could have traveled if events had unfolded in a different manner. And that alternate reality is not pretty. The world is a mess. We are on the brink of nuclear war. Unlike in the true timeline where the Soviet Union eventually dissolved from within under economic difficulties, in this timeline the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. are at each other's throats. Only one man keeps us from the brink of annihilation. That man...is Dr. Manhattan.

A superbeing created from a nuclear accident, he is introduced to us early on in the film and we get our first exposure to...

DEAR GOD...IT'S A BIG, BLUE WANG-DOODLE!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, be prepared for about three hours of constant exposure to a big, blue phallus. There are a lot of glowing reviews out there about this movie speaking in such terms as "iconic imagery" and "darkly dramatic" and other crap like that, but the only thing glowing about this movie was Dr. Manhattan and the aforementioned sex organ that, for whatever reason, he seldom actually covers up. In truth, both the movie, and the characters in this movie, are a bunch of crap.

This movie is famous pretty much for the exact same reason "300" is famous. It has shallow sex appeal in places, great special effects, and pushes the right emotional buttons. Frankly, I should have taken the hint from the advertisement that stated "from the makers of 300" because this movie is just awful.

It isn't "provocative" or "dark" or any of the other terms being thrown around. It is just bad. The movie lasts a long while and at the end of it the only thing you'll really remember is that everyone in the movie EXCEPT for the main-antagonist/villain had the emotional maturity of a 15 year old boy (no offense to any 15 year old boys among my readers) with all the teenage angst which that entails.

Well, you probably will remember ONE other thing other than that - and believe me you WILL remember - and that is that the director apparently decided that it was time to rectify the last thirty years of gender inequality when it comes to nudity in movies in one swing for the metaphorical fences.

You WILL see a large, blue willie for the next couple of weeks after seeing this movie. It WILL be horrifying.

But beyond that, you'll also eventually start asking yourself very important questions like:

1. "If you were the last remaining link between 'god' and humanity...the last thing that kept him caring about the human race...would you dump him? Isn't that a bit selfish?"
2. "Is there a character in the entire movie that strikes me as an adult?"
3. "Wait...which character in the movie am I supposed to admire or find admirable in any way?"
4. "Why did I pay $20 bucks so that my date and I could see this movie, have popcorn, and then leave feeling like this?"
5. "Did that movie suck as much as I think it did?" (Let me answer for you...yes. Yes it did.)

Just do yourself a favor. Wait until the next superhero movie to watch. This one bombed, and bombed something fierce.

This movie was badly written, badly acted, badly modernized to audiences unfamiliar with the original graphic novel, and...well, you get the picture.

Posted Mar 18, 2009 4:37 pm PT
Category: Humor
36 Comments

9Mar 09

Persona 4: Impressions and Opinions

Imagine that you spent a whole bunch of time dating a girl who falls somewhere within the "pretty" category. This girl is no supermodel, but her features are certainly attractive. She's got a nice body and, despite some annoying qualities, overall you have a fun time when you are with her.

However, she has one annoying quality in particular that stands out and constantly leaves you feeling a bit frustrated. Through no fault of the girl's, she's frequently doing or saying things that leave you glimpsing that she COULD have been an absolute, breathtaking, world-class babe. Maybe every once in a while she wears a particular outfit or holds her head in a certain way, or smiles in such a manner to elevate her from "pretty" to "beautiful".

But it only lasts for a little bit and then she does something that frustrates and annoys you again, and you're left feeling, oddly, worse than you would have before you saw this potential.

That, my friends, was my experience dating Persona 3. At that game's best, it showed glimpses of supermodel potential. Unfortunately, all too often it would ruin the moment by doing something that disappointed me and left me feeling unhappy or unsatisfied.

Now, imagine for a minute that after dating the first girl for a while, you happen to meet her younger sister.

WOW!

The younger sister is like the older sister 2.0...an improvement in every way, shape, and form over the original. All the things that you really liked about the first sister that you've been dating for so long are still present. Looking at the two together, you can definitely tell that they are related, but the younger one just "has it going on" if I could reach for my slang-self for a minute. Her curves are better and the facial features, while they look enough like the first sister that it is obvious they are related, are overall "beautiful" instead of the older sister's "pretty".

Oh, and the younger sister doesn't say and do all the annoying things that the older one did. (For the most part at least.)

Yes, I have been dating Persona 4 for a while now, and the game is an improvement in just about every single way from the previous title.

The games are extremely similar in a lot of ways, but many of the things that annoyed me about the previous game have been improved upon in the new one.

1. Better environments
2. Improved social links
3. More RPG elements
4. Greater impact of social link building on the combat game play
5. Less annoying music

I could go on. The point is that Persona 4 is a great game. I haven't been able to get enough of it. It isn't a perfect title. There are a few things here and there that could still be improved upon. However, if the ultimate goal of any sequel is to take the good things from the previous game and carry them over to the new game, subtract some of the bad things, and then add-in just enough to make the sequel feel fresh and interesting...then mission accomplished.

Now if only RPG developers will start cranking out new RPGs on the PS3, 360, PC and Wii rather than banishing so many offerings over to the PS2, DS and PSP due to lower development costs...I would be a very happy man. This makes me more grumpy than ever that games like Suikoden, Dragon Quest IX, Persona, etc. are not appearing on the main consoles.

Posted Mar 9, 2009 8:52 am PT
Category: Games
27 Comments

25Feb 09

Five Simple Steps to Avoiding Moderations

Author's Note:
This is not in any way, shape, or form intended to replace Gabu's excellent Ask the Moderator's FAQ. His guide is focused more on explaining moderations after the fact. Mine is intended to help people avoid getting moderated in the first place.

Consider mine to be a friendly supplement to his.

1. Listen, learn, and don't repeat. A.K.A. "You fell victim to one of the "clas.sic blunders!"

A fairly common complaint that I've seen before is "What I did isn't worthy of a suspension!" This is usually code for, "Yeah, I know it was wrong...but it was a small wrong. You punished too severely." Frankly, when you don't look at the full context this often appears to be the case. Why should someone be suspended for something like "Ignoring a Stickied Thread" for instance?

The answer is that the more times a person repeats the same offense, the harsher the punishment becomes. Yes, ignoring a stickied thread isn't suspension worthy if it is done once. But what about if a person's received three warnings and two point losses and then ignores a stickied thread a sixth time?

Look, nobody likes getting moderated. In particular nobody likes being moderated for petty crimes that are the online forum equivalent of jaywalking or speeding, but offline this works the same way. The more times you're hauled in for the same crime the bigger the book that gets thrown at you.

I can't count the number of times I've seen people visit the Ask the Mods board, complain about a moderation as being unjust, be told exactly what they need to do in order to avoid being moderated for the same behavior again, then throw their hands up in the air and storm off in a pouty huff of anger.

Then a month later they are back complaining for being moderated for the same offense.

2. Report, don't retaliate. A.K.A. "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya.You killed my father. Prepare to die."

You'd be amazed at how many people fall into this trap. Someone is trolling or flaming or otherwise being an incredibly unbelievable tool. Time to set him or her straight Forum Justice St.yle!

And then you end up getting moderated.

Here's a dirty little secret about the moderators. We're like bouncers in a bar. We don't give a **** who threw the first punch. Nor do we play favorites. It doesn't matter if we personally like the users who are in the moderation queue or not. We look to see if they broke the ToU or not period because that's what we agreed to do: enforce the ToU as consistently and as even-handedly as we can.

Whether we do a good job of that or not is certainly open to debate, but what isn't open to debate is that if you want to avoid moderations you should report violations that you see, not try and be a vigilante.

3. Right or wrong, the ToU is ALWAYS right. A.K.A. "You and Dawson, you both live in the same dreamworld. It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove! So please, don't tell me what I know, or don't know; I know the LAW!"

Here's another little secret about Moderators. Not all of us agree with every single portion of the ToU, but it doesn't matter!

It is what it is...the document that governs the terms and conditions that people have to follow in order to use the site. Whether or not we think a particular portion of the ToU is silly or poorly written or whatever is irrelevant. If we want to use Gamespot, we agree to abide by it. Agreeing with it is not mandatory. Following it is.

This ties in closely with rule#1 up above. If you get moderated for something, even if you think that it is silly, take the time and figure out why you got moderated. What change do you need to make to keep it from happening again? A good example for me personally is that I once got suspended for using the word "retardation" in a derogatory manner. I took the time to read the ToU to find the proper section, then wrote a blog venting about the moderation....

...and then never did the same thing again. I don't agree with punishing one word differently than others, but it doesn't matter. If I don't want to get suspended again, I won't use retard in a derogatory manner again.

4. Don't be a rebel. A.K.A. "And now, your highness, we will discuss the location of your hidden rebel base..."

Piling up pages and pages of moderations doesn't make you cool. It makes you...well, let's call it "strong willed" to put as nice of a spin on it as I can think of. Knowing that something is wrong and will get you moderated, then doing it anyway doesn't make you a rebel. It makes you "strong willed".

Anyone ever heard the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face"? It doesn't hurt the moderators if you get moderated and retaliate by doing something worse with a challenge/dare to us to do something about it. All that happens is that we do something about it.

5. Remember, we can't hear the tone of your voice, see your body language or read your mind.

It's a well known fact that a large portion of how human beings process information is through non-verbal cues. People see posture, expressions, whether someone is using their "happy" voice or "sad" voice. All of which helps someone interpret what the person is actually saying differently.

Online we don't have access to any of that. So don't make us guess.

Take the extra time to make your intent with your posts clear. Yeah, rewording something that could be interpreted as trolling or flaming or whatever can be a pain in the butt. But it will help you in the long run.

These guidelines aren't the be-all, end-all of everything, but following them will help people avoid moderations and have a happier existence on Gamespot.

Posted Feb 25, 2009 1:06 pm PT
Category: N/A
42 Comments

24Feb 09

"Change" Defined.

Throughout the last two-year long Presidential campaign, Obama was continuously mocked for his very vague sounding "meta" concepts such as "Hope" and "Change". Critics derived his high soaring rhetoric as, ultimately, meaningless if (admittedly) very nicely phrased and eloquently delivered.

But what does it all MEAN Basil?

"Change We Can Believe In" is the most repeated and least understood phrasing of the last two years.

Fortunately, with the help of "The Internets", I can provide you, my wonderful and loyal readers, with the absolute best, most well enunciated and eloquently phrased answer that I have ever seen. I like to think that I've understood most of this all along, but there is something to be said for someone who can organize thoughts and deliver them so clearly and beautifully.

So here it is, The Obama Code.

George Lakoff wrote:

As President Obama prepares to address a joint session of Congress, what can we expect to hear?

The pundits will stress the nuts-and-bolts policy issues: the banking system, education, energy, health care. But beyond policy, there will be a vision of America-a moral vision and a view of unity that the pundits often miss.

What they miss is the Obama Code. For the sake of unity, the President tends to express his moral vision indirectly. Like other self-aware and highly articulate speakers, he connects with his audience using what cognitive scientists call the "cognitive unconscious." Speaking naturally, he lets his deepest ideas simply structure what he is saying. If you follow him, the deep ideas are communicated unconsciously and automatically. The Code is his most effective way to bring the country together around fundamental American values.

For supporters of the President, it is crucial to understand the Code in order to talk overtly about the old values our new president is communicating. It is necessary because tens of millions of Americans-both conservatives and progressives-don't yet perceive the vital sea change that Obama is bringing about.

The word "code" can refer to a system of either communication or morality. President Obama has integrated the two. The Obama Code is both moral and linguistic at once. The President is using his enormous skills as a communicator to express a moral system. As he has said, budgets are moral documents. His economic program is tied to his moral system and is discussed in the Code, as are just about all of his other policies.

Behind the Obama Code are seven crucial intellectual moves that I believe are historically, practically, and cognitively appropriate, as well as politically astute. They are not all obvious, and jointly they may seem mysterious. That is why it is worth sorting them out one-by-one.

1. Values Over Programs

The first move is to distinguish programs from the value systems they represent. Every policy has a material aspect-the nuts and bolts of how it works- plus a typically implicit cognitive aspect that represents the values and ideas behind the nuts and bolts. The President knows the difference. He understands that those who see themselves as "progressive" or "conservative" all too often define those words in terms of programs rather than values. Even the programs championed by progressives may not fit what the President sees as the fundamental values of the country. He is seeking to align the programs of his administration with those values.

The potential pushback will come not just from conservatives who do not share his values, but just as much from progressives who make the mistake of thinking that programs are values and that progressivism is defined by a list of programs. When some of those programs are cut as economically secondary or as unessential, their defenders will inevitably see this as a conservative move rather than a move within an overall moral vision they share with the President.

This separation between values and programs lies behind the president's pledge to cut programs that don't serve those values and support those that do - no matter whether they are proposed by Republicans or Democrats. The President's idealistic question is, what policies serve what values? - not what political interests?

For those of you interested in seeing the rest of this intellectual heavy lifting exercise, FiveThirtyEight has the scoop.

Posted Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm PT
Category: People
7 Comments

My Friends

My Recent Ratings

Jim's Groovy Garden 'o Gaming Delights