Archive for December, 2009

“It’s A Wonderful Life”, “A Christmas Carol”, “Silent Night”, “What Child Is This?”, “Carol of the Bells”, “Auld Lang Syne”

This time of year is packed with tradition.  Why do we do the same things each year?

“The Lord of the Rings”, “The Hobbit”, “The Blue Sword”, “I, Jedi”

Why do we read books more than once?  What is it about them that we want to revisit?  Why are they so great?

“The Ten Commandments”, “Romeo and Juliet”, “The Tempest”, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, “Canterbury Tales”, “Casablanca”

What is it about these bits of entertainment that sticks?  Is pop culture actually culture?  (Beej, I’m especially interested in your take on this…)  More than once, I’ve noted that a story is good, but “it’s no Shakespeare”.  What was the expression before Shakespeare’s time?  “It’s good, but it’s no Chaucer”?  How is it that these things stand the test of time?  How do they become cultural touchstones that people continue to look to and revisit?  Why?

Why can we watch episodes of our favorite shows over and over?  I can watch Stargate SG-1’s “Window of Opportunity” every week and not get tired of it.  (The whiplash change from silly to serious just works, far better than most shows I’ve seen.)  Things that resonate with us seem to always have a home.

Sometimes it’s just a moment.  “You Shall Not Pass!”  A Crowning Moment of Awesomeness.

“Night at the Museum:  Battle of the Smithsonian” isn’t Shakespeare, but I’ve found that I enjoy it.  A few moments stand out, though:  The Tuskegee Airmen are my clear favorite, especially in a quiet moment with Amelia Earhart.  You might get the gist of the interaction just from watching them exchange salutes, but if you know a bit more about the Airmen and Ms. Earhart, the moment is considerably more poignant.  Custer‘s moment of reflection near the end of the movie also resonates with anyone who has read a bit of military history, or who has served in leadership, especially in the military.  The movie works best when it draws from real history.  (Of course, I’m also partial to the Air and Space Museum anyway, so it probably just resonates with me more than some, and I spent time in Alabama, where the Airmen are rightfully lauded as heroes.)

We can mention the Titanic in casual conversation and use it as shorthand to allude to hubris, arrogance, and human incompetence.  No internet firefight (or id game) is complete without someone invoking Hitler or Nazis, whether directly or indirectly.  The Constitution isn’t just a piece of paper.  Da Vinci, Einstein, Newton, Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Stalin, Ghandi.  We don’t even need their first names any more; everyone knows who they are and why they are important.  (Tangent:  or at least, everyone should know.  Don’t get me started on the sorry state of American education.)  These are the names, places and items that wove the tapestry of culture today.  Does it always need to be real, though?

George Bailey, Ebenezer Scrooge, Puck…

Aeris?  Is she even a spoiler any more?

Video games are young.  Very young, compared to most of these cultural touchstones cited.  And yet, what serious gamer hasn’t at least heard of Aeris?  For good or ill, her plight is a touchstone in the gamer culture.  And are we not members of society at large?  If you prick us, do we not bleed?

Video games have a place in history, for good or ill.  I harbor no illusion that Arthas is in the same weight class as Rocky, but his name is not unknown.  He is no MacBeth, but he is important to some people.  His rise, fall and ultimate fate aren’t exactly Campbellian, but they are an important component of a game that millions of players have played.  It’s still bizarre to me to see “For the Horde” as a bumper sticker, but it communicates a lot in three small words.

We’re a motley bunch, we gamers, but more and more, we’re everywhere.  What effect are we having on culture?  Are we providing cultural touchstones that will help us build positive things in the future, or will our legacy live in infamy like that of the Titanic?

Perhaps it’s just that I’m especially introspective this time of year, but I do reflect on these things on occasion.  I believe that games have great potential, and can be a force for good.  We can make things that are replayable, and offer something each time through.

I’ve taken the opportunity to replay LucasArts’ “The Dig”, and I’m finding things that I didn’t catch the first time through when I played over a decade ago.  Each time I read “I, Jedi”, I find something interesting.  Each time I watch “It’s A Wonderful Life”, something else clicks for me.  (Especially now that I’ve spent a few years studying financial and political concerns.)  I fully expect that playing FFVII or even watching Advent Children again will make something else click for me.  Playing Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days has me itching to play the original KH again, to see what else fits together.

Every time I read the scriptures, something else clicks for me.  Not because the content of the scriptures changes, but because I have changed.  It’s nice to have those touchstones to bounce off of, and build on.

I often wonder what I’m providing to build on.

Happy New Year, everyone.  Here’s hoping the last one was a good one for you, and that the next one can be built on the successes of your past.


Read Full Post »

Merry Christmas, all!  May you have a wonderful holiday, and reason to remember He for whom the holiday is named.

If you don’t happen to subscribe to Christianity, well, Merry Whatever You Do Celebrate!

Oh, and if you’ve been bad this year, don’t expect a lump of coal from Santa.  Al Gore threatened to melt Santa’s workshop at the North Pole if he got in the way of cap & trade legislation and other assorted power grabs in the name of Global Climate Change Crisis That We Must Act On Now While It’s On Sale.  Instead, you get a nicely shaped lump of recycled postindustrial Green packing material.  Don’t forget to look for a Nobel Peace Prize winner in your lump’s profile!  (They ran out of Elvis, Mother Teresa and Michael Jackson already.)

Read Full Post »

No, not that Ownership Society, arguably a significant part of the psychology behind the housing boom and bust (and other problems in the economy).  I’m talking once again about MMOs and video games.  In an age of great sales via digital distribution, subscription games and ever dwindling PC game sections in stores, the landscape of game ownership is varied and interesting.

I’ve written about this sort of thing before, but Gordon over at We Fly Spitfires is my reference this time:

The Importance of Character Customization

I wholly agree that character customization is a significant part of giving players some ownership in a game.  That’s a big part of establishing a relationship that the player wants to maintain, maybe even at the cost of a subscription.

What interests me is the cognitive dissonance between giving players ownership, all while running what amounts to a lease, wherein once the monthly cash drip is pinched off, ownership dissolves.

Of course, as in the discussions that inevitably come up about difficulty, it’s been noted that players don’t really want difficulty, they want the illusion of difficulty, and a pat on the back or some loot.  So, what do players really want from their characters?  What do players really want from their gaming dollars?

I don’t think there’s any one right answer. (Yes, that’s an obvious statement, but I do feel it needs to be noted.  Challenging the status quo of MMO design is sort of a hobby of mine.)

I just know that for me, ownership of a game is much more than customizing a character.  I want to play it whenever I want, however long I want, without incurring a cost to do so.  I’m happy to pay for a game I like (as my wife will attest to… like Andrew, I probably have more games than time to play them).  I don’t want to lease a game.

Likewise, ownership of a character in a game is much more to me than picking a class at creation and mucking around with talent trees.  I want more out of my gaming time than conforming to a dev’s script.  I’ve written about this before, and likely will again.

Perhaps it’s not so much that I want a sandbox game, but rather, I want a sandman character.  I don’t mind some structure to my games (after all, a sandbox is still a box, and you can’t think outside of it until you know where it ends), but I want to have flexibility in how I approach the game’s challenges.  I want to really own my approach to the game, to leave my stamp on the experience.  Not because I want bragging rights, but because it’s simply more fun to me to do things my way.  I want to make my own memories, tell my own story, and have my own fun.

Because, well, that’s what I want for my money.

Read Full Post »

Torchlight Sale

Torchlight is on sale via Steam this weekend.

Half price for an already nicely priced game that’s good dungeon crawling fun?

That’s worth dealing with Steam for.

Read Full Post »

Spurred by a recent “Pick Up Group” experience in Allods Online and a couple of articles (OK, and doing the WoW Druid Bear art for BBB), I wanted to write a bit again about tanking and the Holy Trinity of MMO combat.  Here are a few great articles to prime the pump as well:

Overcoming the Fear of Tanking (Spinksville)

On Being a Tank (Tank Hard)

Rethinking the Trinity of MMO Design (Psychochild)

I’ve written about this sort of thing before.  Long story short, I’m highly in favor of breaking the trinity affording greater player customization and flexibility, hopefully making for more interesting combat.

Mostly, it’s because I want to be flexible when I’m playing a game.  I don’t want to have to depend on other people… though I’m happy to help other people.  That’s my particular brand of soloist play; I want to do my thing and have fun without needing other players… but if I want to help others out (and I often do), I want it to be fun and easy enough to get to do.  (Note, not necessarily “easy to do”; I like challenge in my games, after all.  I just don’t like fighting the UI or having insufficient tools to deal with idiot players.  I don’t like fighting other players, either; I’m all for cooperative PvE ventures.)

Perhaps a story will help illuminate.

I’ve been playing League side in the Allods Online beta as a Gibberling Psionicist.  I have characters of most races and classes for experimentation, but I picked the Psionicists as my “main” for the beta so I could push through to some non-newbie content before the beta ends.  The Psionicist is a DPS/Support class, designed somewhat along the lines of the Guild Wars Mesmer, where I find ways to control foes and the pace of combat, while burning them down with psionic blasts.  So far, it’s been good fun, if a bit repetitive.  (Finding my optimal “rotation” took all of three or four fights.  Certainly not several levels’ worth of fighting.  That’s another rant, though, and such design is certainly on par with other modern MMOs, so it’s not a glaring flaw unique to Allods.)

There is a “boss” fight on the League newbie island.  It’s a super powerful Wisp that requires at least three players to tackle; a tank, a damage dealer and a healer.  It’s the same old dance of “deal damage/mitigate damage/heal damage”.  As long as MMO combat is based on hit points and damage, we’re pretty stuck with these core roles in some form.  There is nothing crazy about this particular fight, then, it’s just a fight that requires a group (GASP!  I PUGged!) or an extremely overleveled soloist.

The first time I fought the boss, I just shot at it to see what it would do.  It chased me and pretty much ate me for lunch.  Gibberling nuggets, extra crispy.

A level later, still saddled with the quest to kill the boss, I answered the call of a tank who needed help to take it down.  A healer met us at the boss rock (it’s an open world boss that just putters around a rock in a circuit until a fight), and we proceeded to beat it into protoplasm… slowly.  The tank took the brunt of the attacks, I did my best damage from short range (so I could work in a dagger stab or three while skills were on cooldown), and the healer kept us all alive.  The healer’s mana actually died out close to the end, so he just moved in and started stabbing as well, but we were close enough to victory that it wasn’t a terrible breach of etiquette, and nobody fell but the baddie.

Yay, quest finished, experience earned, congratulations and thanks all around, group dissolved, chalk one up for the good guys.  (At least, until the respawn.)

A few days later, I’m one level older, slightly more powerful (though with no new abilities), and about to leave the newbie Allod.  Someone is spamming LFG in the zone chat, trying to get a party together for the same boss.  I figure, sure, I have a little time and would like to help.  I get there only to find three other DPS characters (two Hunters and a Druid).  OK, sure, just burn the boss down fast and hope it works, right?  Nope.  Nobody wants to try, and it turns out, for good reason.

A tank finally shows up after ten minutes of zone spam, and we go to town on the boss.  It turns out the tank didn’t actually tank, but just spazzed out in flaky DPS tango mode.  I get “aggro” because I’m doing solid DPS with my now-rote rotation, and the Big Bad Wisp proceeds to fry me again.  I’m soon followed by a Hunter who was also doing solid damage.  The tank disappears, the healer says the tank was incompetent, and we sit around for a while waiting for another tank.  Eventually, I give up, and move on.  (I still wonder about throttling my DPS, but the healer was pretty adamant that the tank wasn’t doing her job.)

So much for helping other players.  It’s a good thing I didn’t still need that quest; I’d have been more annoyed.  As it was, it was grist for the blog mill, so I was happy enough.  I won’t do that again, though.

The fight failed for lack of a tank who actually tanked.  I blame the game design just as much, though.

If any of us were able to step up into the tank role, regardless of class, we could have shuffled around and tried with someone else at point.  This is why I love the Druid class in World of Warcraft (or the Paladin or even Shaman, maybe even a Warrior).  Played well, a Feral Druid can either take point and tank in Bear form or shift a bit and start scratching backs in Cat form.  No respecs (though Dual Spec is nice to extend the flexibility), no gear swapping, just role swapping.

I would have happily stepped up as a tank if my Psionicist were able to do so.  Sure, it would probably mean some sort of “dodge tank” or “mesmerizing tank” rather than the traditional “hit me, I can take it” tanking, but that would be fine with me.  That wasn’t an option, though, so I wound up frustrated.  Sure, I had a stun (on a long cooldown, and the boss is apparently immune), a magic shield (on another long cooldown) and an “AAAH!!” button (a clone that takes aggro and then dies), but those aren’t really tanking tools when I’m puttering around in cloth armor holding a little dagger.  All in all, it just wasn’t working.  One guy in the group even wandered off to quest for a bit while we waited for a new tank.

Again, I don’t like depending on others.  I would have gladly put my head on the chopping block to help other people, even if it would have been more difficult to do, but waiting for someone else was something I didn’t do for long.  I’m not sure what it’s like to need a DPS, but I’ve also had occasion where needing a competent healer made for frustrating gaming, too.

When I have the ability to shift into different roles as occasion demands, I’m a LOT more likely to enjoy playing in a group.  I can plug holes and adapt to tactical situations.  I do that in Puzzle Pirates when I’m out sailing my ship with other people.  I let them pick their favorite stations, then play whatever still needs to be done.  I get and sympathize with the tanking philosophy, and the utilitarian moral of doing what the group needs.  I don’t like it when the game arbitrarily makes that depend more on the class (or even the build) than the player.

Short story long:

Tesh goes on 2 PUGs, one good, one bad.  Still tired of the Holy Trinity and inflexible game design.  Recommends the ability to change roles at the drop of a hat, even in combat.

Read Full Post »

I’ve had my eye on Machinarium for a few weeks now, so I had to try out the demo:


I liked it, and will probably pick up the full game one of these days if it goes on sale.  I like some adventure games (“The Dig”) but don’t like others (“King’s Quest 7”).  The genre really is a mixed bag.  Machinarium’s demo plays fairly well, though, so I recommend at least the demo to anyone who is interested.

For a pair of differing opinions, check out Andrew’s experience over at Of Teeth and Claws and Nels Anderson’s take at Above 49.

In the meantime, the demo reminded me of the importance of trust in game design.  There was a point in the demo where I found my gamer instincts warring with reality.  Naturally, Here Lie Spoilers…



The game is all about clicking on stuff, trying to find what you need to solve puzzles.  Sometimes, you have to combine objects you’ve gathered to progress.

Level 2 has your character trying to get through a security checkpoint.  You need to devise a disguise to get past the sentry.  At one point, you pick up a traffic cone as part of the disguise, but there’s still a stack of cones left over.  You can click on the stack, and the character throws a cone into the nearby canyon.  This is where I ran into trouble.  I wasn’t sure that I’d never need another cone, so throwing them in the canyon seemed like an irreversible move that I might regret later.  I never want to get stuck in a game, so I don’t like irreversible moves.

Thing is, you need to throw all the cones overboard to get to a puzzle piece under the stack.  I only found this after I had exhausted all other possible moves and just went ahead and threw caution to the wind.  I didn’t want to get myself stuck, but the devs were a step ahead of me and made the game so that I couldn’t get stuck.  My instinctual desire to keep all potential puzzle pieces around until I had it solved, a sort of MacGyver/Packratitis affliction, ran contrary to the solution of throwing away potential puzzle pieces to get to the solution.

This might just be a set of mixed expectations, just as much my fault as the designers, since often in these adventure games you actually do need everything and even a lot of apparently useless stuff to solve the puzzles.  In a way, this skirts Twinkie Denial conditions of “extreme lateral thinking” and “no lateral/logical thinking”.  Some pieces just don’t make sense unless you’re reading the devs’ minds, and some are blindingly obvious in their function… which means they don’t really work that way in the game’s logic.

Still, I don’t like throwing pieces away that might have a use later.  I had to trust that the devs knew best by having my little character throw the cones away.  That wasn’t something I did lightly, and I find that it reveals a slightly untrusting/adversarial relationship that I have with puzzle designers.  (In contrast, the only reason I’m still working on one puzzle in Professor Layton and the Curious Village is because I do trust the devs that there’s an answer to it, despite evidence to the contrary.  Funny how that works out.)

All in all, this is probably just as much, if not more, about my approach to the game.  I don’t like throwing away potential puzzle pieces.  I don’t like needing to trust the devs that much, especially when the puzzles themselves may well get increasingly obscure as the game goes on.  I detest needing to read the designer’s mind; to me that’s the sign of lazy puzzle design.

I do still like the game.  I’m leaning toward buying it at some point.  It’s just not a perfect game, and this tenuous trust between player and designer can make or break a game, especially one based on puzzles.  Players need to know that they will have all the tools and pieces at their disposal, and that their cleverness will carry the day.  That’s the backbone of the puzzle/adventure game genre, and really something that should be the core of the design.  Obscure elements or lack of communication of clear goals, tools and pieces can kill a game like this very quickly.  Some of this is UI design, some of it is game design, but players need to be able to trust the designers… even if (maybe especially when) they default to “not trusting”.

Read Full Post »

Just a quick thought, this one.  I’ve been reading up on Allods Online, seeing what others have to say.  Consistent among them is the notion that AO is “good for a free to play game“, occasionally noted as being better than a subscription game.  As if the business model inherently makes a game better or worse.

Mark me as a dreamer, but I look forward to the day when games can be judged on their own merits, rather than being “good for being a member of some arbitrarily contemptible lower class” of game, whichever side of the holy wars one subscribes to.  This reason alone is enough to champion the increasing democratization of the business model.

Then again, I think racism, “solo vs. group”, “Democrat vs. Republican” and football rivalries are dumb, too.  *shrug*

Oh, and my dad can totally beat up your dad.  Neener, neener.

Read Full Post »

No, it’s not Hellfighting (fighting oil well fires), it’s the dreaded game development crunch.

David Sirlin has an interesting article up on his experience at the Unity engine conference:

Making Games Faster

It’s an interesting peek at some workflow issues that game development is still sorting out.  It’s well worth a read, and he has some interesting links that are worth chasing, too.

What stuck out to me is the notion of shorter work days being more productive.  The willful compression of the workday into the most productive “flow” hours makes sense to me, and is far more healthy than the death march grind that most dev studios use.  It’s almost a daily crunch to combat the overall crunch, except it’s coming at the term from a completely different angle.  It’s working smarter, not harder or longer, as Mike Darga might say, and it’s perhaps the notion of “good crunch” as Brian “Psychochild” Green might say.  (Please correct me on that as necessary, either of you… I’m interpreting a bit.)

I know that for me, when I’m productive, I can blow through production and problems in a snap… but when I’m feeling sick, tired, annoyed, depressed or just plain bored with mundane production, things take longer than they really need to.  I’ve taken occasion to focus myself to get things done, and it really is nice when I hit my stride.  I’m not so sure it can be institutionalized, these practices run against the “40 hour week” (80+ hour in some evil crunch modes) mindset, and creative types are notoriously inconsistent… but it’s at least an alternative to the crunch mode that has caused far too much trouble for the industry.

I know that for me, when I have a list of Things To Do by Some Certain Time, I manage myself to get them done in time.  (At least if it’s possible.)  When I’m micromanaged, well… things don’t go as well.

Read Full Post »

I’ve sent out the questions to Katelyn, the Allods Online Community Manager.  It’s a rather… bulky set of inquiries, so we’ll see what settles out as answerable.

I find that the more I dig into the game, the more I want it to be like Puzzle Pirates in the shipboard aspects of the game.  It would also be awesome if they incorporated things like wormholes in EVE (thanks to Tipa for a fun article on wormhole exploring).  Cooperative PvE and multiship PvP really are a blast in Puzzle Pirates, even to this old, scarred soloist.  (I’ve grouped more in PP than in any other MMOs combined.  It’s fun to do so, which is all the difference, and it’s completely optional.)  Add the instability of the Astral stuff Allods float around in, and you could have a huge variety of things for Explorers like me to do.

In the meantime, there are these interesting tidbits, the location of which I thank Keen for.

Talent Calculator (inconveniently in Russian)

It’s an interesting mix of WoW talent trees (the “three subclass” mentality) and Final Fantasy X’s Sphere Grid and XII’s License Board.  If we can plunk variable widgets into the blank spots on the grid, well, that would be really cool in my book.  It’s nothing earth shattering, perhaps, cribbed as it is from other games, but it looks like it might be fun to tinker with, and that’s what counts.

Astral Ships

This is a very interesting article on the ships in Allods Online.  I’m extremely interested in how these ships pan out, since they seem to me to be a defining feature of AO.  I really hope they wind up with a variety of sizes of ships, all the way from soloable to HUGE, like Puzzle Pirates.  It’s proven to be key to the longevity of that game.

In the meantime, I still don’t have my hands on any beta keys, but since I didn’t exactly have the doors beaten down in the Allod of Questions post, howzabout I just give a beta key to whomever wants one and asks for it, and when I run out, I run out?  Well… once I actually get them that is.  Thankfully, as Stabs noted earlier, the game will be playable on release without a monetary investment, so it’s not really a big deal to wait until then.  I’ve asked Katelyn for beta keys, and will be happy to disseminate them, but we’ll see what happens.

Thanks for the questions, all, and here’s hoping we get some great answers, eh?

Read Full Post »

It’s that time again.

What with the whole “SWTOR companions are solo friendly, and LOTRO Skirmishes are solo friendly and FUN“, the “MMOs are for grouping only” zealots are tunneling out of the woodwork again.  More often than not, the acronym “MMO” is cited as self-evident conclusive evidence that grouping is the Only One True Way to Play.  (Green Armadillo has a good starting point if you want to start prowling the conversations, and he has a great point to boot.  And to answer his question, yes, NPCs can teach you how to group with players.  This is precisely how it works in Puzzle Pirates, where NPC pirates train you as a noob, and even let you sail ships solo later on by manning stations.  It works, and works extremely well.)

I suppose there’s some sense to it, after all, “multiplayer” does by definition mean more than one player.  Of course, given the “virtual world” roots of MMO design, it should be (and has been) noted that “multiplayer” in no way exclusively implies “players playing in a group”.  That’s the difference between connotation and denotation.  “Multiplayer” denotes “more than one player”, in this case, playing the same game.  Some players take it and run with it, believing that it connotes “more than one player playing together“, when the word itself only has that as a possible subdefinition, not an exclusive overarching one.  If anything, such is a much more limited and specific small subset of the word “multiplayer”.

I know, English is hard, especially if you’ve gone through American schools, and logic is even harder.  Perhaps it’s not the gameplay that needs dumbing down in these games, it’s the terminology and public relations.  After all, it’s harder to educate people than it is to make the system stupider.  *coughNCLBcough*

Perhaps we need a new acronym.  (Muckbeast wrote a great article on this a while back, but I can’t find the link…)

I suggest MGORPG.  The G there is for “Grouping”, so that there is absolutely no question what the second letter in the acronym refers to.  It also sounds better, since MuhGORPGuh sounds worlds better than MuhMORPGuh.  The former just rolls off the gutteral better, while the latter sounds like a stammering hikikomori surrounded by pretty women who want his phone number.  Plus, gorp is healthy!

I suppose you could go with GOG (Grouping Online Game), but that’s already taken by Good Old Games, and Gog and Magog are sort of apocalyptic, which may not be a good allusion.  And that brings us back around to connotation and denotation.

MGORPG could clarify the debate considerably.  Of course, it’s only a mirror suggestion to make the acronym family complete, since others have suggested MSORPG (rather condescendingly and inaccurately… it should be MSPORPG since “single player” is actually two words) for single players.

I’d actually like to see that sort of differentiation in the market.  Make a nice Punnet Square of games; MSPORPGs that are just leveling content, MSPORPGs that are just raiding, MGORPGs that are just leveling content, and MGORPGs that are just raiding.  Throw a bunch of players at them (F2P to get more players involved, of course), and see what sticks.  That’s what happens in a nice, mature, differentiated market.  The successful design floats to the top, and the next wave of designs takes those successes and runs with them.  Darwinian game design, as it were.

Of course, it might be noted that such is actually the genesis of the increased soloability of MMOs of late.  See, people, weird whackjobs that they are (remember, I’m a soloist, too, pleased to be a nutter), actually do like playing solo in MMOs.  Games are evolving to cater to such players, and GASP, are proving to be profitable by doing so.  Ditto for the differentiation in the business models.  Anyone who has spent much time reading about MMOs has certainly seen the fallout from that particular holy war.

The staunch Old Guard still wants subscription based forced grouping death march grindy games, and by gum, those whippersnappers should want them too.  It’s self evident that such is the One True Way when it comes to MMORPGs, since that’s how it’s always been.  I mean, it’s right there in the acronym, right?  Get off my lawn and go play your offline single player games, NOOBz!

Oh, by the way, there’s a black guy as president in the U.S. now.  Stupid hippies.  Can’t they see that the American Empire only works when there are old rich white guys in charge?  We’re doomed! Who let those freaks vote?  Let’s go back to landowners (subbers) being the only ones that can vote!  Those other people are doing it wrong!!!

Further recommended reading:

Playing Alone, Together (Muckbeast)

That’s Right, I Solo in Your MMOs! (Saylah)

Get Your Party Off Of My MMO (Ravious)

Gaming Dictatorships (Melf_Himself)

AI Allies (Andrew)

Suddenly Bioware is Incompetent (evizaer)

The Social Soloer (Sente)

Three Truths (Cyndre)

Stupid Single Player Games Ruining it for MMOs (Dusty)

Defining “Casual” and “Hardcore” (Gordon)

Grouping Isn’t Always Healthy (Callan)

Disclosure:  I’m not an Obama fan, but it’s because I don’t like what he does.  Imagine that, judging someone by what they do and by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin, or their playstyle, or how they pay for their games…

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »