Posted 10/10/2008 at 07:52:00pm

On the bright side (if there is, in fact, a bright side), the choice of who wins is already out of your hands.  As 2000 showed us, it doesn't matter who anyone in America votes for, only a select few actually earn the right to really elect the president.

The rest of us are just useless fodder.

Posted 10/10/2008 at 07:45:35pm

Knowing our government, they will have this foolproof way of knowing if someone could be eavesdropping on their communications from the outside, while they are chock-full of keyloggers on the inside.  This program will be easily beaten--not by physics, but by stupid people who say "Yes, I want to see nude pics of Anna Kournikova!" and download something onto their end of the 'closed system'.

Posted 10/09/2008 at 07:26:38am

If Obama wins, he could just as easily be pardoned.  Still, I wonder how much of this sort of spy game goes on between the parties anyways--under the radar, of course. 

Posted 10/08/2008 at 08:12:09pm

There's a ton of choices, and in general I can understand missing a few golden nuggets when you have to start calling numbers.  CCleaner is a 'must have' no matter what kind of PC is running. 

However, not including any DVD-writing programs is just plain mean.  Unless, of course, you spend the majority of your time burning CD backups because you don't believe in large ...er... media files.  A nice FLV player would have helped too, since it's easier to save the ones we love rather than assume that YouTube will always be a repository for our favorite opening songs of antiquated 1970's cartoons...

Posted 09/17/2008 at 07:21:17pm

The Communist party may rule China as far as the world is concerned, but it's a haven for every illegal, counterfeit, and fake item produced worldwide.  The communists can't do a damned about it, either.  They are completely at the mercy of every sweatshop producing these goods.  On the bright side, it does mean that the communist party there is dying and it is only a matter of time before they are laid to rest.

The down side is that until earnest, strong businessmen clean house in China, it will always be a place to expect anything (and every scheme) for sale.  

Posted 09/13/2008 at 08:52:04am

At some point, someone is going to have to sue EA--or anyone else using stringent DRM.  Not because of 'rights' or 'fair use' or something else that can go either way in court, but because the DRM schemes used essentially load potentially hostile software onto my computer.  Software that I may not be able to fully remove, even if the game is uninstalled.

Since EA is unlikely to provide details on the DRM schemes used so that I can evaluate if I believe it to be harmless or not prior to installing it, and since it is unlikely that such software can be fully removed short of reformatting the hard drive... well, it's just a lawsuit waiting to happen.  Should we pirate it?  I say no, because I firmly believe such a thing to be unethical.  EA should most certainly be sued so that someone--whether the public or an impartial computer securities firm--can review the details?  Oh yes.  Very soon. 

Posted 09/11/2008 at 08:36:52pm

These are just skirmishes.  The real battle will take place when someone (not saying who would be most likely to do it) decides to 'optimize' their 'browser experience' for different web features that are not in line with pre-determined we standards.  The result?  Every web developer sweating bullets trying to make their site appeal to each variation of the browser experience because instead of two that can't agree, they'll be stuck with five that don't.

It's too early to say what will happen, but at some point one of those companies is going to try to angle web standards to reflect their own philosophy.  Then we'll have a real war on.

Posted 09/10/2008 at 07:18:20pm

Nothing would make me happier than to see EA get stomped into the dirt on something like this.  What's their next DRM scheme going to include?  A pint of blood every time you play the game so that they can verify the person who is playing is the same person who bought the game?

EA has brought this on themselves, and while I don't expect them to ever change (or any other company for that matter) I do think that if they get hit in the wallet often enough they will make some meaningful attempts to stop acting without thinking.

Posted 09/09/2008 at 08:06:04am

I agree about the text.  That has to go the way of the Ford Pinto and fast (at least, faster than the Pinto).

One thing I wish game developers would do is stop creating the notion of 'even teams' on FPS games.  Every weapon side A has is also on side B--with a different skin.  I want to see gameplay change so instead of going 32 to 32, make it 16 highly armed/armored opponents against 48 weaker people.  Make it about sound coordinated attacks instead of every single person out for himself.

Oh, and make something with a traitor in it.  Every good war story has a dark character who sabotages his own team.

Posted 09/05/2008 at 09:04:48am

Ultimately everybody says they want balance--they like the idea of going one on one with another player and besting them.  This is a nice, quaint idea that has roots all the way back into medieval times where knights would joust to see who is best on equal terms.  Life, however, is anything but equal.

When I fight an enemy I don't want to just best them on equal terms--sure, a kill is a kill--but I want to taste real victory.  I want to take down a baddie whose gun outclasses mine, whose goals are not necessarily my own goals.  Especially if their goals are not my goals.  The modern FPS game is about diametrically opposed sides where 'we' need to beat 'them'.  There's no grey area, there is no traitor in the midst, there isn't even a price for the vehicles, guns, manpower that we use.  Can you imagine the dynamics of a game where each user could take from a common pot (whether through a commander or simply on demand) so that sure--you could buy that helicopter, but as funds dwindle you may have to make the choice of whether or not you want to have enough for guns and ammo near the end of the game.  How about if one or more players were traitors--working for the benefits of the other team until found out and killed? So yeah--you could end up with a team that plays conservatively, letting the other team be left with nothing but a pistol and combat knife, and then take them out with machine guns.  Unfair?  Perhaps, but a hell of a good story.  Even moreso if the underdog wins because THAT is what makes us cheer most.

There is a tremendous range of things we can and should be doing with game stories.  Get rid of the 'Side A has a rocket launcher, and side B has a similar weapon that does the same amount of damage'.  That doesn't make me want to take out a bad guy.  Getting a better gun than I have?  Oh yes, now that requires a little more skill.  And as a gamer I respect skill--otherwise it's just luck.