The Current Direction of Gaming

So, I haven't blogged in a while, and I wanted to finish my thoughts on the "Smarter Grids" topic, especially since Bryan brought up scooters and that got my mind working. But I will wait and finish that later I guess. What I want to talk about today is the current direction of the gaming industry, specifically the focus of turning gaming into a "group" activity.

I would classify myself as a "light hardcore" gamer - I play very frequently but not usually obsessively, and I tend to play several games very thoroughly, rather than many games more casually. I play games to blow off steam for the most part. They are there for my enjoyment, and I don't particularly care about being good at them, as long as I am good enough to finish them I don't really care if I don't excel at them. I also play games virtually exclusively by myself. I have played some Little Big Planet with Leesa, and I was very involved with the MMO scene with Final Fantasy XI for a time, but since quitting FFXI roughly a year ago, I have been a very independent gamer.

What bothers me about more and more games these days is that they seem to be aimed exclusively at group gaming, either through a cooperative mode, or a competitive or team-based multiplayer mode. I don't mind that these games offer such options, I know a lot of people really prefer to play the games in those modes, and I know it might be a good idea to give gamers some opportunity for a bit more ... "social interaction". The problem is that many games focus ONLY only these aspects, and show little attention to the single-player (call it campaign, or story mode) of the game. So this means that there are many games out there that just don't offer enough on the story/campaign front because they figure they can make up for it on the multiplayer. Which is great if you like multiplayer, but leaves people who typically do not use the mutliplayer features in the dark.

The main problem I have with multiplayer experiences is that it makes my experience dependent on other people. And most of those other people are absolute and complete morons. I played a total of about 8 hours or so on the Far Cry 2 multiplayer, which amounts to probably 30-40 total rounds. I'd say that in 90% of the rounds where other players had microphones, one or more of the following was present...

• "Dude, I'm so high right now. I've smoked so much pot today. Is anybody else high? I'm so high."
• Player not actually speaking into their mic, but instead blasting their crappy music (typically Linkin Park or some form of gangster rap) for everyone to hear, only because it's coming through their crappy microphone, it sounds 10x worse than it already was.
• Baby screaming in the background - yeah man, forget about changing that diaper, or feeding your kid, you really need to help protect the Captain while he captures that control point.
• Player aged 10-14 talking about what their teacher did at school today that totally pissed them off, and explaining how they're not going to take it because they're hardcore.
• Player aged 10-14 reeling off as many curse words in their squeaky voice as they can think of, because obviously cursing makes you hardcore.

On rare occasion, I'd somehow land on a team full of people who actually use their mics to communicate to their teammates, offering constructive criticism or insight on a level. When that happened, it was actually really fun. The problem is, most people that play that way are already part of a "clan" or similar organization, and they all play very frequently and demand fellow members do the same. I just don't have that kind of time or desire. There IS a multiplayer experience out there that I want, I just can't dedicate myself to a game enough to actually get it.

As such, I tend to steer clear of mutliplayer games and focus solely on campaigns, but again, this is actually drastically cutting down on my options in terms of games that offer me my full $60 worth of enjoyment. Thankfully, there are some games on the way, specifically Assassin's Creed 2 and Uncharted 2, that should offer me a very strong campaign. Of course, even Uncharted 2 is going to offer multiplayer - here's hoping they don't make sacrifices in the story mode in order to work on the multiplayer.

Another problem with having so many multiplayer games is that they all wind up with smaller communities as a result. Instead of having maybe 3 or 4 games that have the bulk of the players, everyone is spread out amonst 20 different titles. So at a given time, even if you WANT to play some multiplayer, you might not be able to because there's just not enough people around to play a match. Perhaps this effect was exaggerated in my eyes as I was on Far Cry 2, which was not exactly a heavy hitter in terms of players - it might be very different if I was on CoD4, but either way, there is no doubt that having more multiplayer offerings dilutes the pool of players.

Am I the only one who has noticed this trend and doesn't particularly care for it?

Smarter Grids

Hey sports fans, I know it's been a while since I've blogged, but I've had a lot of good blog ideas lately, and it's time I cowboy up. You'll be relieved to know that this isn't going to be about sports, but instead, about smarter energy and traffic grids.

Lately, I've been hearing a lot of tech commercials on the radio about using "smarter grids" to improve the world. Let me put it out there right now that I am not an expert on any kind of grid, but I do like technology, and I am all for improving the world. I think that developing smarter energy is of critical importance and that quite frankly, we completely overvalue reducing automotive emissions and completely undervalue alternative energy sources. Hybrid cars are not the only possible answer to the energy crisis. Renewable clean energy sources, such as wind energy, provide much more value in my opinion. They would make an electric car so much more viable - currently it's just swapping burning petroleum for burning coal. Lesser of two evils perhaps, but we can do better!

Anyways, what bothers me about this commercial is that they brag about how the city of Stockholm recently introduced a "Congestion pricing" system, which you can read about here on Wikipedia. Essentially, this means you have to pay to drive in Stockholm during certain time periods. They have a similar system in many places, like London. What bothers me is that this commercial boasts it has reduced congestion by 20% (good) and carbon emissions by 12% (also good), but they declare this is a smarter grid produced using all this wonderful technology. I have to disagree. It seems to me like they've simply made it a financial burden on people to drive during these times and declared they've built a smarter grid.

I think all they've really done is made a more expensive grid and declared themselves brilliant. Pricing people out of the market doesn't make it any smarter. There's no great leap forward with technology there. You've accomplished two goals, reducing congestion and carbon emissions, but you've created other problems, namely that it is now too expensive for some people to be able to get to where they need to go. Because you now have to pay to drive, rich people are rewarded with less traffic, while people who may have to stretch their money further are greatly inconvenienced. Reducing congestion and emissions by forcing people of less means to find other methods of transportation hardly seem like a genius idea to me.

I mean, let's say the US government decides to start charging an extra $4 tax on a pack of cigarettes, so less people die of lung disease and the government then declares they've developed a smarter cigarette. It would be ludicrous. So why is making driving more expensive some super smart concept? To me, a smarter grid would be one that manages to move just as many people, but in a more efficient and environmentally friendly way.

Thoughts?

More A-Rod Garbage

Before I get into this rant, I just want to point out that I don't really care about A-Rod one way or another. I am not a huge A-Rod fan, and I am not a huge A-Rod hater. I don't think he is the best player in baseball, even though he is the highest paid, and I am not full of righteous anger over how much money he makes. If someone is willing to pay you that much money, I don't think I can fault you for taking it. But athlete salaries are for another day.

As many of you know, it has recently come to light that A-Rod failed a steroid test in 2003. There has been a ton of fallout from it, obviously, with interviews and rants and raves and everything in between. Now, the Sports Illustrated writer who broke the story is releasing a book soon about A-Rod. And quite frankly, I think it's a little scummy the way these people try to profit-monger off of these situations. These people act like all they want is the truth and it's for the good of the game, but really, they're just trying to sell books and make money. It's a business, and I know the goal is to make money, but I think it's a scummy business.

But what has me really fired up today is the article in the New York Post (I think) that says the book hints that A-Rod is suspected of using performance enhancers while he was in New York, as well as in high school. Originally, it was only reported that he used them in Texas as a Ranger, and he corroborated that story in interviews. However, now they are saying that he was suspected of using them after 2003, when he signed with the Yankees.

My response: DUH. Of course he is suspected of using steroids after his departure from Texas. EVERY great baseball player of the past 2 decades is now suspected of using steroids. Every single one. There is not a single guy out there who has hit 50 homeruns in a season who is not at least suspected of using steroids. To me, saying that a great baseball player is suspected of using steroids is like saying "Many experts believe that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow".

Not to mention, what good does suspicion do? Until you offer real proof, you offer me absolutely nothing. If you shell out money for a book, I sure hope you get something better than "It's believed A-Rod used steroids all the way back in high school, and continued to use them when he was a Yankee." Accusations are absolutely worthless without proof, and based on this new "information", there isn't going to be anything worth reading in this book. Heck, I don't know how you can even call these accusations "information" because it doesn't sound like any of it can be proven.

Quite frankly, I am just over the whole A-Rod situation. It bores me. I know it must excite many people because they drink it in like it's water in a desert, but for me, I'm just ready for baseball to move on.

Helpful Customers

So I just got an email from a customer that simply said, "THIS PROGRAM SUCKS". And it got me thinking, who are these people that send emails like this? Then I remember my favorite e-mail of all time. Below it is transcribed in its entirety. By the way, it contains the F word at least 8 times, so be aware.

"YOU AND YOUR WEB SITE SUCK BIG DICK. I HAVE WASTED TIME FUCKING AROUND WITH YOU SCREWED UP CAD DOWNLOAD BULLSHIT. DON'T FUCKING PLAY AROUND WITH THIS SHIT IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT. YOU ARE JUST WASTING MY TIME YOU MOTHER FUCKING ASSHOLES. STICK TO MAKING YOUR MOLD STUFF AND LEAVE THE CAD DOWNLOADS TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT TOP LEVEL GO TO http://www.mcmaster.com/ . THOSE GUYS DO IT RIGHT. FIRE THE FUCKERS YOU HAVE NOW AND HIRE THE WEBMASTERS WHO DID THE MCMASTER SITE. I WILL NEVER PURCHASE FROM OR RECOMMEND DME BECAUSE YOU HAVE WASTED MY TIME. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO LOGIN AND REMEMBER FUCKING CODES AND PASSWORDS JUST FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF PURCHASING YOUR FUCKING PRODUCTS. DO YOU THINK YOU ARE SOME SPECIAL FUCKING SECRET ORGANIZATION? IF YOU WANT ME TO USE YOUR PRODUCTS MAKE IT EASY FOR ME TO GET WHAT I NEED TO COMPLETE THE PURCHASE. YOUR FUCKING CAD DOWNLOAD THING IS WAY TO COMPLICATED AND DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. I JUST WANTED A 2D OF A LEADER PIN AND BUSHING. WHEN I CLICK ON ONE OF YOUR STUPID LITTLE ICONS TO DOWNLOAD, NOTHING HAPPENS. NO MESSAGE TO TELL ME WHATS WRONG. JUST THE SAME SCREEN APPEARS. FUCK YOU."

That was sent to me, or rather to our website help email address, by a customer from his work email account. Who the hell would send something like that?

What would happen to you at your job if you sent an email like that to someone? It blows me away that someone would actually send this email out, even to what appears to be an automated system.

I should also point out that last year, our sites served out over 3,000,000 CAD downloads, and every day, thousands of people download their 3D CAD models without issue.

I won't point out the name of the customer or his company, I'll just advise you against every doing business with Piramoon should the opportunity arise.

My Name Is Earl

Lately, Leesa and I have been working our way through the TV series My Name Is Earl. We're about 1/3 of the way through the 2nd season now, and it's a really great show. The basic premise is that Earl is a criminal, and his life sucks. Finally, he thinks he gets a break when he wins $100,000 in the lotto, but while he is celebrating, he gets hit by a car and the ticket floats away. Laying in his hospital room, he sees Carson Daly on TV explaining that the reason his life is so great is good karma. Do good things, good things'll happen to you. Do bad things, and bad things happen to you. Earl makes a list of all the bad things he's ever done, and decides to make up for each and every one of them. Of course, as he starts his list, his luck turns around and good things start to happen to him.

But it got me thinking - is Earl really being altruistic in crossing things off his list, or is he just acting out of enlightened self interest? If you do good things so that good things happen to you, aren't you really just acting out of your own best interests? I mean, if you're only doing it for the reward, I think it's far from altruistic. You're not doing it because it's the right thing to do, you're just doing it to help yourself out. Now, typically Earl does not expect anything back from the people he is making amends with, it still seems like he is doing it so that HIS life is better, not theirs. Their lives are bettered, of course, but that seems like just a consequence of his bettering his own life.

Don't get me wrong, I love the show, and Earl seems like a good guy, but in the end, maybe he isn't the altruist we all thought.

Vidya Games

So, I would most certainly qualify as a "gamer", and I figure it's finally time to put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard, as it were), on the whole "violence in video games" thing. Now I highly doubt I will say anything that people haven't heard before, but there are a few talking points I've come up with from thinking on this topic a bit. I doubt that I'll solve all the problems of the world here, but whatever.

As it seems to stand now, both the media and politicians want to blame video games for all the of the problems of America's youth. Basically, they think that playing video games will automatically turn your 7th grade honor student into a gun-toting mushy-brained cop-killing psychopath. Unfortunately, statistics do not seem to back that up. A quick Google search will reveal that kids today are actually less violent than they were a generation ago( when they had no video games). Now, don't get me wrong, it's difficult to compare generations because times have changed so much. But if kids are less violent now, I think it means either a Barney brainwashing lasts a lifetime, or maybe that video games don't turn you into a brainless killer.

Now, I will point out that I think it is extremely inappropriate for an 8 year old to hop onto Grand Theft Auto and start beating hookers with a baseball bat. I don't have a problem with wanting to keep inappropriate games out of the hands of young people. And I think it's fair to restrict stores from selling M (mature, 17+) games to people under the age of 17. However, in the end, I feel the primary responsibility for regulating what a young person plays rests in the hands of the parents. I agree that video games, TV, and movies do a poor job of raising children. But it's not their job to raise kids, so I don't think they should be held responsible for not doing it well.

I think in the end, if some kid is running through a game blowing the heads off of nazis and pretending that he's murdering his classmates and teachers, he's probably pretty crazy in the first place. Normal people simply don't do that. I don't think that a video game is going to make that kid any crazier than he already is. Quite frankly, from my totally amateur point of view, I almost think that using the violent video game as an outlet may actually make the kid less likely to be a violent person. I think it's safe to say we'd all prefer that he vent his frustrations on virtual people as opposed to real. I know people will act like video games are like training simulators, but I have to disagree with that point as well.

Let me tell you, as a person who has shot several real guns as well as countless virtual guns, the smililarities are almost non-existant. And let's be honest - guns are not difficult to use. You point it at what you want to shoot and pull the trigger. The real difficulty of using any gun is the process of loading it and cocking it - both of which I have never seen accurately represented in a game. If a kid doesn't know how to use a gun, I don't think many games will teach him how. And I can guarantee you that no amount of shooting virtual shotguns will prepare you for the recoil of actually firing one.

And I also wonder about the rating of racing games. Few, if any, are rated M (17+). The vast majority are rated E for everyone, though a few of the more street-race type games are rated T (teen). But, not everyone is allowed to drive. Why aren't you required to have a driver's license to purchase a racing game? I am 25, and I have noticed that if I have been playing a lot of a racing game, it actually translates into faster driving in my real car. So if it makes me a faster driver at 25, why wouldn't we expect it to make a 16 year old a faster driver? Why wouldn't we expect it to teach people even younger some very bad driving habits? More teenagers die in auto accidents every year than in gun deaths. Why are we not up in arms over racing games? I've shot literally thousands of virtual people, but it has never inspired me to shoot a real person. I have, however, seen a racing video game influence my real life driving habits.

In the end, everyone is always looking to point the finger somewhere else, and unfortunately for video games, they seem to be the new "it" target for parents looking to pass the buck when it comes to reasons that their kid is a delinquint.

Bonsai Stage 1

So it has been a really long time since I last blogged. Of course, my previous entry was about my desire to have a bonsai tree, and I have now moved that project forward into phase 1. I ordered 2 different kind of bonsai seeds - 100 each of Ficus Benjamina and Ulmus Parvifolia (Chinese Elm). The Ficus seeds have not arrived yet, despite my having ordered them over 2 weeks ago, but the Elm seeds arrived last week, and last night I finally got around to starting them. Unfortunately, the seeds we much more difficult to work with than I anticipated.

Typically, when I think of seeds, I think of things like apple seeds. A package of 100 apple seeds would simply be 100 separate seeds - easily distinguished from one another. These elm seeds, on the other hand, came in a tiny envelope, and came out as pretty much a small "cloud" of seeds. They were all stuck together and stacked on top of one another, and the seeds themselves are very small, flat, and sort of feathery. So separating them out was kind of a pain, but I managed to get it done. Now, about half of them (there were probably 140-150 in the package, rather than 100), are soaking in a glass of water, which they'll do for 24-48 hours, and then they'll be stratified in the fridge.

Quite frankly, I am not holding out much hope for the process. It doesn't seemto be particularly difficult, I just don't have much faith in these stupid little seeds. They just seem kind of frail, and it's not like I am some garden professional. Hopefully when the ficus benjamina seeds show up, they'll be a bit easier to work with.

At any rate, success or not, I am excited about the prospect. I will report all of this in more depth at Team Hamster Hat, as we are severely lacking in the Science! department.