I have a lot of games at my disposal, available to play at any time on either my PC or my 360, but none seem to be hittng the right buttons any more. I yearn for something different, something new and innovative. All the RTS’s I play seem very samey at the moment; build a base, build an army, attack, repeat as needed. It doesn’t matter what extra frippery is tacked on the basic premise is the same. The same with FPS’s; the scenery is different but the motions are identical.

The stories are still, for the most part, tacked on and half thought out; with plots and characters which would tax the credulity of a child. A notable exception being Call of Duty 4. I want depth, drama and emotion in my games and not simply a series of explosions, gunfights and clichés.

MMO’s are not the breeding grounds of innovation that many think they are, maybe when they first appeared but now it seems that its the same old mechanics being reused over and over. Leveling, grinding, collect x of y from monster z quests and crafting were all great things when they were new but now that everyone is doing them they’ve lost their shine. I want to create believable characters, not superhuman, super-attractive, perfect specimens of whatever race I happen to choose.

I want real choices, which I don’t know I’m making. I want my actions to have a wider impact than the next thirty seconds of gameplay. i want more flexibility, no more simply choosing a side, race or class and letting that define how I play the game. If I want to field an army of rabid exploding ferrets in my RTS then I should be able to. Balance be damned.

I’m not asking for greater realism, that would be silly. The point of games is to be unreal, flights of fancy which let us escape from our humdrum lives for a few brief minutes. There is a need in me for unrestricted freedom in the games that I play. I want choice and variety in spades. For example, in an FPS I’d like to be able to break down any door, climb any mountain, hop over that irritating barbed wire fence, which even though it is only waist height, I can’t get over. Most of all I want something different.

There is only one game on the horizon which seems to promise this kind of freedom but using the inverse law of video game hype, I don’t think that it’s going to deliver. Spore is the name of the game and its due out in September.

If anyone has any suggestions of games which might rekindle my interest and give new life to the gamer within, let me know in the comments.

Now blocking filesharing is nothing new, most ISPs throttle the ports which software like BitTorrent uses simply because the infrastructure can’t handle the volume of traffic which filesharing generates, but Virgin blocking Skype is alot more sinister and smacks of anti-competitive behaviour. Added to this the fact that an unwanted side effect of these practices is that online games also get blocked (currently EVE, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Call of Duty 4, and World of Warcraft on Tiscali and Virgin) and you’ve got a situation which will see alot of unhappy internet users.

Skype is a VoIP service which allows users to make phone calls through their computer at a fraction of the cost of using the phone. Virgin obviously feels that this is cutting into their profits as they offer a phone service as well as cable TV and broadband. Basically Virgin would rather you paid to use their phone line to talk to your mates than spoke to them for free (If they’ve got Skype) or paid Skype (If you’re calling a normal phone line). Virgin have decided that they can’t beat Skype in a fair fight and so have done the equivalent of kneecapping the other competitor.

Now I’m the last person to be saying that the government should get involved in what is basically a business arrangement between the ISPs and their customers but we keep being told that the government wants everyone online (their motives for this aside), if this is the case then they need to give the ISPs a slap and make sure that internet access is available for all to use as they want. I’m of the opinion that unless its kiddie porn or some other unsavoury nastiness, then its none of the ISPs business what I use my internet connection for.

I’ll be updating this post with links to relevant info as I get it (I’ve got my trusty researcher on the case as we speak, collating information and such.) Though if you guys have any useful links feel free to post them in the comments.

Keep the Net Free (not as in beer, that would be unreasonable)

Out

Recent controversy over games such as Manhunt 2 and the Grand Theft Auto series of games has given the nanny brigade yet another baseless fear to cow the masses with. As many parents are still under the impression that games are for kids they are understandably concerned about the content of the games their children play. Thats kind of missing the point though. The point being that adults play games too, and actually make up the majority of the gaming demographic, with the average age of a gamer being around 27 and over 70% of gamers being over 18. I believe that as more and more gamers grow up to become parents, with an understanding of the medium and their own opinions of what they deem acceptabl, a ratings system such as the one proposed becomes unnecessary. Until then non-gaming parents need to be more aware of the medium and accept the fact that its not just for kids.

Games like Manhunt and GTA are just the birth pangs of a new kind of game, designed to cater for a more mature audience. An audience which, like myself at 30, has been playing videogames for the best part of their lives and has grown out of the gaming equivalent of Disney movies and hankers after something more along the lines of Kubrick and Kurasawa. Granted we also like a bit of fairly mindless entertainment, games that are the equivalent of a Michael Bay movie.

The worrying thing about this legislation is that it will serve to stifle a burgeoning art form, and prevent the free expression of game makers. Unlike the US we have no first amendment rights, no indisputable right to freedom of speech. It may be implied by our ‘unwritten constitution’ but all that means is that the government can (and does) deny us that right on a whim. No doubt filmmakers and TV execs will be overjoyed at this turn of events, anything which restricts their competition will be a good thing in their eyes. Personally I feel that traditional media has pushed for just this kind of thing purely on competitive terms. However the internet is the freedom fighter’s friend, I’m sure that any attempt to ban games will be easily subverted by some resourceful bod online, and games available freely elsewhere in the world will be easily downloadable if you know where to look.

I think you may have missed the point Tom.

Let me explain the metaphor:

Bush and his cronies (and our government, don’t want them to feel left out) are the staff. They harp on about freedom and liberty when they are the ones most responsible for taking them away. They’ll be happy to euthanise her to protect their power and maintain control of a population they see as an economic asset.

They say that all the new security measures and procedures are being brought in in order to protect our freedoms, I say bullshit.

ID cards are simple a way to count, number, and control us like we were a herd of cattle. Like a supermarket monitors its stock levels or a factory the quantities of materials in their stockpiles. Internet censorship (which the linked article talks about) is merely a way to control the information that we get. Its not about ‘protecting the children’ at all. The list talked about in the linked article is not overseen or approved by any kind of democratic process, it is arbitrary and secret, meaning that the government (any government, not just the current one) can put sites it doesn’t like on it and they will be blocked by ISPs, no questions asked.

Children are not protected by measures like these, children are protected through living communities in which the individuals look out for each other. Communities where you know your neighbours and aren’t afraid of walking the streets at night. Neither do these things stop terrorists, there is no evidence to support such assertions. Terrorism is defeated by the simple act of not being terrified. Personally I refuse to change my life one iota to protect myself from terrorists, If I do then they win.

Religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, we now have reality TV, soundbites, and minority lobby groups with loud voices telling us what we should be concerned about. We are being fed a diet of fear and paranoia about nightmares that just don’t exist on the scale that we are led to believe. All for the sake of a passive, docile and compliant workforce. Nero gave his subjects bread and circuses, we get X-factor, Neighbours, and non-documentaries about the end of the universe. Hypnotised by pretty pictures and soothing noises we live our lives in the service of a machine whose interest in our happiness or well being only goes as far as making sure we keep the wheels greased.

We are a fragmented society, living in fear of those around us. The state cannot protect us from an enemy that does not exist. There are not paedophiles lurking malevolently outside every school, neither are there terrorists plotting in every mosque. The very idea of these things being true is ridiculous and yet we as a population swallow this charade and let the government walk all over our right to make our own decisions about things which are frankly none of their business. If the landlord of a pub wants to allow people to smoke on his premises that’s his business and the business of the smokers, anyone who doesn’t want to drink in a smokey pub is perfectly within their rights to go elsewhere.

The day is not long coming when you will be required to comply with a uniformed official stopping you in the street saying “Papers please,” or face arrest. Sound familiar?

The ‘freedom’ they promise us is hollow, they allow us to shift the blame for our mistakes and shortcomings to others, to society, their environment,  drugs, or poverty. The people who say “something must be done” are insipid weak willed cowards who don’t want to risk doing something themselves in case they get the blame when they fuck up. Freedom is always a sham if the free are not responsible for the consequences of their actions. A heroine user dies of an overdose or gets shot robbing someone’s house? Well, in my opinion they had it coming. We are told that these people are not responsible, the drugs made them do it, their upbringing is to blame, society is at fault. I’m sorry but they made the choice to take those drugs in the first place, no-one ever has no choice. There is always a choice and you should stand or fall by the results of that choice. To deny this is to belittle everyone, to deny one person’s humanity denies the humanity of all and reduces us to nothing more than cattle

The amazing thing is that those in government don’t see that the easiest way for them to avoid taking the blame for mistakes made when meddling in the personal lives of its population is not to meddle in the first place. Let people make stupid decisions and don’t try and protect them from the results. The only limits on freedom should be the freedom of those around us.

Sorry about the rant, I agree that the piece was a bit too saccharine and schmaltzy. I will concede that point at least. But I see the world chaning around me every day, and not for the better. We are being lied to, herded, and our freedom destroyed and no-one seems to care. It makes me really angry.

I’m talking about the curtailment of the second season of Heroes. Originally meant to be 24 episodes NBC aired the last one on the 12th of December last year, it was the 11th chapter. (Note: Yes I know I’m not supposed to be able to watch them but I have, live with it. I’m going to buy them on DVD anyway.)

One side in this strike has to give way, a compromise has to be reached. I demand it.

This is yet another example of how unions (for all the good that they can do) can be a force for evil in the world. The studios in Hollywood are over a barrel. You’d think that they would be inundated by wannabe screenwriters (and they probably are) but this is not going to help them. They can only employ writers who are members of the union, by law. The writers have them over a barrel and are denying the thousands of couch potatoes like myself the pleasure of watching their work.

Heroes is by far the best US drama I’ve seen in a very long time. The series, more than any of the big comicbook movies of recent years, has all the depth and intricacies of all but the most convoluted Marvel or DC comic book saga. And no one in it is anything more than an average Joe who happens to have special powers. Its dark, funny, moving, gripping, warm, and above all human. Its a comicbook story for those of us that grew up with them.

I want more, and I want it now.

To the writers I say: Get a grip and remember what is important here, yes I know you have to eat and such, but surely the residuals from TV re-reruns and DVD sales are enough to keep you going until you can iron out a deal regarding internet distribution? Your art is nothing if it is not appreciated by people like me who watch it.

To the studios I say: Cave, cave now. Give the writers their dues or people will no longer watch your products. You are going to lose because the Internet could break you so easily. If you persist in clinging to your outmoded way of doing things then others will come along who are willing to make what you make for the love of doing it and they will pay the writers. This content will be available to download (for a modest fee) or watch via a stream (supported by ads) and uyou will have no place in the industry anymore other than to buy the rights to show these programs on TV from the new boys, and believe me they will make you pay.

I could be wrong, I could be misunderstanding the whole thing. I just want more Heroes (and Battlestar Galactica, Bionic Woman, 24, Lost, Family Guy, Simpsons, etc. etc.)

If I could set up a way to get the writers, crew, and cast to do what they do for me, instead of for the studios then I would. But I am merely a humble viewer and fan and have no pull with them at all. I have a vision of a website, served from the backbone of the internet where not only can the viewing public gain access to the material we so love, but writers, actors, advertisers, and everyone else involved gets their fair share of the revenues. If anyone has any ideas as to how this can be done…

It all comes down to how much the ‘epidemic’ is going to cost, £45bn by the year 2050 apparently. All in terms of health care and lost work hours. I’m guessing that the lost work hours is the most worrying to those in power. If everyone is too fat to go to work then the economy will collapse, sounds hyperbolic but that’s exactly what they’re feeding you.

We are to be encouraged to exercise, our food intake should be even more regulated than it is already and I wouldn’e be surprised if it became a crime to eat fast food. Of course all this will be done ‘for our own good.’

My opinion is going to ruffle a few feathers, and that is its purpose. Taken to its logical extreme, my political inclination would have the government abandon those who insist on overfeeding themselves to their fate. Let them gorge themselves on whatever crap they want and let them die of malnutrition, heart disease, stroke and all the other obesity related afflictions, they brought it on themselves after all.

There is evidence that obesity affects fertility and sex drive, not to mention attractiveness to the opposite sex, so the likely hood of these people breeding is small. Evolutionary forces will make themselves felt and the obese will no longer be a problem. Denying benefits to the obese would also make sense, If they wanted to eat they would have to work.

Any parent who abuses their child by allowing them to become obese, should have that child removed from their care and not be given any contact. There is hope in the case of children, they can be educated, they are dependant after all.

My main gripe is this though; the government has no business telling people what they should be doing with their own bodies. If someone wants to kill themselves with food then that’s their business, all that society (which is not that state, the distinction is important) can do is try and tell them that they’re killing themselves and offer to help them overcome their condition. Forcing them into treatment that they don’t want, and I don’t want to pay for, is inhumane in both directions.

The above response to the situation is extreme, but so is allowing the state to get its filthy fingers into every facet of our lives. Hayek, in the road to serfdom, talked about a government attempting to control an economy by brute forcemand this attempt leading to totalitarianism. As in the example of Communism, where all means of production are brought under state control. Think about it, ultimately the means of production are people.

When the state controls every aspect of your life, for your own good you understand, then it controls the means of production. We are destined to become a herd, a resource to be farmed, numbered, and treated like the cattle they see us as. We are the economy going, and under the guise of managing it the government will strip us of our freedom, dignity and humanty.

(BBC, Obestiy ‘as bad as climate risk’.)

Some questions which have been around for a while but are now beginning to demand answers; Why do the MSM insist on misrepresenting facts? Who benefits? You have to wonder about the timing of the Bristol University report into Cannabis, just at the time when Mr. Brown is saying he wants to reinstate its class B status. Whose press release are the various media outlets basing their story on? Did they actually read the scientific paper in question, or did they just regurgitate a PR from a political source? Whose interests do the MSM serve, ours, their own or their political master’s?

The cannabis story is old news, old research that basically says what all the other research into its use, abuse and effects has said. Which is “There is no concrete evidence of a causal link between cannabis use and various forms of mental illness. There is a correlation but it could work in either direction.” Cannabis use is so widespread that I wouldn’t be surprised if everyone in the country knew someone who Smoked, even if they didn’t know that they Smoked. Simply saying “Drugs are bad, m’kay” doesn’t have the desired effect so the governemnt wants to scare people into submission. Here’s a little experiment you can try yourself; Count your friends. Now count your psychotic or schizophrenic friends. Now ask each of your friends whether they smoke cannabis or not. Think about the answers you get.

Personally I know quite a few people who are Smokers and have only ever encountered mental illness twice in any of my acquaintances. One of those cases was definitely down to overdoing it with the weed, once he stopped for a month or two he was fine, who knows what pre-existing condition may have existed to trigger such a breakdown. The other was frankly not very stable to begin with and hadn’t had a nice time throughout his life. Everyone else I know who Smokes (some heavily, others not so) seems to me to be about as well balanced and sane as a human being can be (which if we’re being realistic, isn’t very). The evidence of my experience places no link, except a loose correlation, between Smoking and mental illness, and then only in cases of very heavy use or pre-existing problems.

The meat of my point is that sensation sells, journalists are lazy and put out any press release they’re handed without sufficient research, and it is in the interest of the powers that be that we are fearful of every shadow.

How stupid does this man think we are? I mean, really, its insulting. Replaying the same old broken record trying to convince us that we need an ID card/database. All the arguments he uses in this article have been refuted over and over again. Maybe he thinks that if he ignores us we’ll just go away. I like how the tally of comments on the CiF site is something like 70:1 against ID cards, its quite heartening really.

I would leave the country and give up my nationality if I could afford it and if I had somewhere to go where me and my family could live in relative peace and freedom. That is currently not an option however and I’m going to have to do it before my passport expires because once it does I’m stuck here. (If you apply for a passport, you are automatically entered into The Database, no opt out.)

What a piece of work this guy is.  We don’t need a code of conduct, simply because it will merely restrict the activities of those who choose to follow it with everyone else carrying on as usual. This is merely a sop to the “Something must be done!” crowd and an attempt to get some press on the back of what happened to Kathy Sierra (and indirectly Cathy Seipp, sorry but its Fox.) which I find to be in extremely bad taste. I have every sympathy for Ms. Sierra but don’t think a ‘Blogger’s Code of Conduct’ is a solution.

People behaving as they did towards Ms. Sierra should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and ostracised from their respective online followings. There should be no protection of anonymity for such people. Stopping people posting anonymous comments, especially on sensitive issues where their livelihood or even lives may be at risk for doing so, is not a solution. Email addresses can be spoofed and names made up. IP addresses can be traced to an ISP who will hold records of who that IP belongs to (or in the case of dynamic addresses, who was using it at the time). I will not publish IP addresses

Citing ‘Freedom of Speech’ in these cases should not be taken seriously. To paraphrase Ms. Sierra: The threat of violence is just as damaging and ultimately oppressive as the violence itself. The instigation of violence against anyone is not acceptable in a supposedly civilised society and shouldn’t be tolerated, this does not require a code of conduct however and should be an accepted part of living in modern society.

It should be up to every individual blogger, the methods they use to deal with abusive and threatening behaviour on their blogs. If their blog dishes it out then they should expect to get it back and be prepared for such eventualities. It may be helpful if bloggers publish their individual policies but having a universal code of conduct goes too far. Its a step towards having the state regulating what people do on the internet, which by many is seen as the last true bastion of free speech and free expression. If such a code of conduct does become a reality (as it seems it might), those who do sign up to it should not be give preferential treatment over those who don’t. There is a risk that people with valid and important things to say, who for their own reasons don’t sign up, will be ostracised, ignored and seen to be less trustworthy than those who do. If blog directories and networks start making signing up to the CoC a prerequisite for being included in their lists then that will be a sad day for all bloggers.

As an addendum, here’s my policy towards abusive and threatening comments (not that I’ve ever had any, yet):

1. Publish them. I will publish them unedited and uncensored. If the author wants to show themselves up as being incapable of expressing themselves in a civil and intelligent manner that’s their business.
2. Anonymous comments aren’t allowed on this blog. Everyone has to give an email address. If this turns out to be a fake then I have the IP address of their host. If the comment is sufficiently threatening and/or abusive I’ll contact the ISP and inform them that one of their customers is behaving in a threatening manner (providing logs and such as proof). If it really gets out of hand I’ll contact the police.
3. If a commenter uses ad hominem attacks in a discussion I’ll point that out to them and tell them that I may well be a *insert derogatory name here* but that doesn’t invalidate my argument. Not only do ad hominem attacks fails to make the attackers point they also show them up to be incapable of making a logical and reasoned case for their side of the argument. They are ultimately self defeating.
4. I’ll never respond to abuse or threats by being abusive or threatening. Such behaviour usually only serves to inflame the situation.
5. Trolls will be pointed out as such and the readers allowed to respond or not as they see fit.

That about covers my policy with regards to reader comments.