On the Subject of Something

Modern art often baffles me; it is at times pointless, derivative and condescending. They revel in finding 'meaning' in simple objects or shapes--such as putting a old, worn-out rug in the middle of a bland, white room--while seemingly shunning the majesty of the Renaissance and Victorian era painters (including those of America, such as Thomas Chambers and William Ranney), from the baroque to the romantic. This was apparent in Europe this summer, every modern art museum I visited I felt like I wasted time and money, there was an air of boredom or restrained disinterest. On the other hand, visiting the great centers of classical works, the Vatican or the Louvre, there was a palpable sense of excitement and wonder, respectful awe at the skill on display--the attention to detail in the sculptures, the cornucopia of colors in the paintings, the realism of the bust. Below are some examples from a couple minutes of searching (including ones that I do and do not know), I will continue after the break.

----------Some examples:--------------
Classical:
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/americanstories/objectImages/TT.2.22.EL.jpg
http://www.lib-art.com/imgpainting/9/2/10429-the-raft-of-the-medusa-theodore-gericault.jpg
http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/200159/1/Landscape-Inspired-By-The-View-Of-Frascati-1822.jpg
http://www.wga.hu/art/b/boilly/stage_co.jpg
http://com3w09.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/david-oath_of_the_horatii-17842.jpg
http://wortleyvillage.net/postimp/C_Corot/bridgepc.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Cole_Thomas_The_Voyage_of_Life_Youth_1842.jpg
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/b/bierstadt/bierstadt_landers_peak.jpg

Modernist:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/pollock/pollock.number-8.jpg
http://lookintomyowl.com/elisha_blog/what_you_missed09.jpg
http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/f05/fkherani/11-cubism_Picasso_Woman-Playing-Mandolin.jpg
http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/images/picasso_2-thumb.jpg
http://www.artquotes.net/masters/josef-albers/homage-to-the-square-62.jpg
http://emptyeasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/broadwayboogiewoogiebypietmondrian.jpg

Modern-Classical:
http://v5.tigaer-design.com/gallery/painting/gte_std.jpg
http://www.visionafar.com/GFX/eventidebig.jpg
http://www.inetgrafx.com/gallery/albums/userpics/FJORD-1600.jpg
http://www.vision-afar.com/GFX/tarriance_1280.jpg
http://www.meduzarts.com/upload/portfolio/project/subaru/meduzarts_sub_modct1_ca_hr.jpg
http://www.visionafar.com/GFX/tranfull.jpg
------------------------

Most of the 'abstract' or modernist paintings do little for me, artist like Pollock produce works that are jumbled messes. Yes, some may find solace or meaning is the mindless clutter and supposed organization, I do not.

When in an art museum with modernist paintings, the defense I always get when I remark, "And I'm supposed to be feeling what?" Is that I do not understand or that I am supposed to be feeling nothing (?). The remark that I do not understand must defeat the purpose of art, which is to express the artist view and project it onto others. That I cannot even fathom, beyond things such as 'He is trying to show the clutter and waste of modern society; this works illustrates the plight of modern man; there is a message about our past and how it will shape us', is at times an indictment of the elitist culture they assume.

Now, that is not to say that the painters of old were not elitist, but their artwork could speak to you and even at first glance you could draw something from it. The abstract painters revel in your confusion, say that they have spoken to you, but that is not the case. It is more that I am biased toward the real--concrete, majestic or mundane--but have a dislike of the pointlessly abstract, when the same message could be given in a more sensory-pleasing fashion.

They [the modernist] disguise themselves as masters, when they are more like horrible writers, whose work so confounds the conscious that some may find it brilliant, but which in substance, it is lacking.

Just a brief post on Windows 7 and why I intend to upgrade or better yet, do a clean install.



---

Win7 has several built in features that increase productivity for me and make getting around much easier.

Below is a list of features I could think off of the top of my head that are useful:

+The jumplist for the explorer icon is extremely useful when you put shortcuts there.
+The ability to open a new window on a program by middle-clicking the icon on the taskbar.
+The search now takes up the entire start menu, easier for long items. Aero peek has turned out to be surprisingly useful. As well as the show desktop with a click feature.
+Also, Win7 on the same exact machine (on an even smaller hdd partition) is faster than Vista hands down and runs into less 'momentary slowdowns' (i.e. opening up an explorer window and waiting for contents to load).
+Win7 has been able to find drivers automatically and install them for all my hardware except an obscure audio driver, which it found but didn't install the software that makes it more useful. It even found the drivers for my IR reader and gave the correct and up to date download link from the company's website. All in all, the driver and other update experience has been greatly streamlined and more reliable.
+The thumbnail preview that you can actually highlight over to bring up the window (forget the official name). Very useful, especially when having many word, pdfs or other files open. Plus, the little close button is incredibly useful.
+Recently install program on bottom of MRU list.
+Little flyout menu to drag notification area icons to.
+Bigger taskbar buttons (I don't care if it is supposed to be for touch screen or that you can do something kind of similar in Vista (regedit, though it looks nasty)) helps a ton for quick switching, less a change of missing.
+Devices and Printers is useful, as are some improvements to the PC monitoring tools.
+WiFi menu saves time, two clicks without needing to open a separate dialog.
+If a program is pinned to the taskbar, always opens in the same location spatially to other programs. Especially useful since I had the taskbar set to auto hide.
+Homegroup, great addition, haven't tested it out as much as I would like.
+Jumplist, especially for programs like Excel, Word, E-Prime, Opera, or basically any program where I open many files and need to go back and access one, don't need to wait for the program to open to select a recent file or navigate to the file. Also, loading up inPrivate browsing from jumplist.
-Once devs start using it more, going to be amazing.
+Ditto to the explorer jumplist and its MRU folders.
[EDIT]
+How could I forget, Dragging a window to the edge and it fills half the screen, perfect (yeah, there is a Vista program to do this, but not as quickly and is buggy). Wish they would add the same feature for horizontal (top or bottom) or quarter screen (drag to an edge) stuff.
[/EDIT]
+I'll add more as I think of them.

---
So yeah, there are a lot of small things in Win7 that may not look like big improvements, but which I have assimilated so much into my actions of getting around that there are many I don't notice (or forget they are in Vista until I switch back to test some stuff and find myself stifled).

The 'on the taskbar looks like the dock, bad UI decision' crowd need to navigate the taskbar properties menu and turn off 'Always combine, hide labels' to 'Never combine' or 'Combine when full'. Once that is done, the taskbar is much more useful.

Some people say that this could have been an SP, I would not agree. Furthermore, one of the main reasons they kept the kernel model 6.x was to make it so that a ton of compatibility issues didn't appear (as some programs search for the kernel number before doing stuff), if I remember correctly. Win7 has a lot under the hood as well, but I wish Microsoft had decided to drop the price, but the quality of the OS so far is astounding.

Those who say that the launch may go bad, I wonder where they are getting the data from. I am unsure how the RTM will suddenly not support everything the RC has been supporting quite smoothly. Microsoft is being smart this time around, less talk and more delivery, though I want Expose-like feature built in rather than having to use a 3rd party, same with multiple desktops, they had a powertoys in xp (if I remember correctly).

All in all, at least for me, this is easily a worthy upgrade. The $50 (or depending, may go Pro or Ultimate) will easily be made up for in increased productivity, the RC has already saved me tons of time.

Here is a fun little clip I put together, getting a double kill with an exploding barrel.

Here is a basic design I submitted for the EDGE Design Challenge #4.

---
Space-Time: Possibilities

-Outline-

Space-Time: Possibilities splits the screen in half. The top screen will have the character moving through space (Space-World), while the bottom screen has the character moving through time (Time-World). The game would allow players to experience a single player adventure to explore both space and time to find events, locations, and clues as to how this ability was formed and how it might be extended (more dimensions of time possibly) for the race that controls it.

At the same time the game will offer 4 player wireless competition, allowing for fast paced multiplayer that allows the players to use cerebral methods to trap and take out other players in both space and time. The use of the music in a player’s library to set the time limit for matches (and add background music) is possible, while calendar events can be use to cause automatic Time-Walls to be erected on other players. The iPhone can be used for chat during game sessions with team-mates or in the lobby, but limited to converse battery, also phone can be used to leave messages – both spoken and SMS - in both Space-World and Time-World for others, such as advising a partner to plant a Time-Bomb at a certain point in time.

-iPhone screen representation of design-


-Concept-
The player will control the action on two planes. The upper plane would be a 3D representation of the world. The bottom screen would be a 2D representation of time (the people in the world of this game only know how to use the 2D realm of time . . . for now).

Upper Screen, Space-World:

The upper screen utilizes the multi-touch to control the speed of the character, click on locations in the 3D world to move to them, pick up items, attack enemies, etc. By combining movements of both thumbs (or other fingers), players can also activate tools and other features.

Lower Screen, Time-World:

Utilizing multi-touch, the accelerometer, and the six axis, the player navigates the ball, known as Time, through the level on the lower screen. The player can flick any part of the lower screen up to make Time jump, while tilting the phone side to side will move Time forward and back. The accelerometer can alternately be used for the flick feature, by flicking the iPhone upwards.

In Time-World the player does not have to progress to the end in a linear manner as is the usual case with time, and the obstacles in Time-World represent events in Space-World. Players can make events pass in Space-World without actually being in the correct place by utilizing the objects in Time-World.

-Goals/Objectives-

Single Player:
There will be a general story exploring how this race of beings came to hold the power to move about in both time and space. Then you will attempt to move forward and back, up and down in Time-World in an attempt to find events while in Space-World you will try to find clues around those particular events and around different locations.

Multiplayer:
Four player, wireless multiplayer between iPhones. The music in each players iPhone can be used to set the time limit (average of all players music selected) if wanted, and that music will play in the background. Players can move about the map (due to memory constraints not the whole world like in single player) in both Space-World and Time-World.

The purpose will be to find and eliminate the other players. The main mode will be Deathmatch or Team Deathmatch, with other modes like Puzzle, Speed Run available.

-Multiplayer Tools-
These are either powerups or features that are part of the multiplayer.
*Time-Wall: The ability to erect walls or barriers in Time-World around other players, either in the future or the past, trapping the player in time and effectively placing time limits on what other players can do before they have to do the opposite direction in time.
*Time-Bomb: Plant this bomb in Time-World to have other player run into in either world, depending if they are in the right time. Example, if a player wanders around Space-World and ignores Time-World, they can run into the bomb regardless of location in Space-World due to time continuing to pass in Time-World.
*Time-Mine: Other players cannot see the weapon, can only feel how close it is by the strength of the iPhone vibration. Works the same as a Time-Bomb otherwise.
*Space-Bomb: Plant this bomb in Space-World to have other player run into in either world, depending if they are in the right location in Space-World.
*Time-Event: Play someone right before they have an appointment scheduled on the calendar (whether they have to go or not), so this creates Time-Walls in effect for the opposing player. Allows other players time to hide and rest in the future, during the event.
*Space-Time: Switches for the opposing players for a time which screen is Space-World and which is Time-World, e.g. Space-World now controls like Time-World and vis-versa.
*Space-Time, Message: Utilizes iPhone’s mic to leave a message either in Time-World or in Space-World or utilizing a combination of both to make it harder to find for people who are not your partners.
*Space-Time, Rewind/Fast-forward: This allows the player to move back or forward in Time-World and have their Space-World avatar retrace their exact steps (including jumps, gun fire, etc.).
-Other tools planned, not enough space to detail them all. Most of these tools will be available in the single player mode as well.

The following is a response I had to a reader concerning how to solve the water managment issue and shortages around the world. They are provisionary thoughts on one way I think the problem can be solved. Here is the article which the comment is a part of: Article

MuskegonCritic,

I am glad you don't have power (I assume you do not). It is that kind of irrational thought process that destroys humanity. What if I offered to pay you $30 a gallon for the water from your lake? I am sure you would reconsider and at the same time the high price I am willing to pay will cause me to use that water as effectively as I can. Should you notice the water in your lake is depleting to fast, start charging $50 per gallon or $60. I will cut back on my water consumption and use that water I now buy for you even more effectively, since I am conserving and using less yet want to try and attain the same effect as when water was $30 per gallon. The problem is, the delivery of water is not like oil or natural gas or electricity.

People tend to claim that it is a 'fundamental right' to have access to water. By what faulty misconception of what rights are does this come about. You have one fundamental right, the right to your own life. This right does not put positive obligations on others (as the 'right' to water does), it merely means others can not (or should not) kill you or take your liberty and property (the methods by which you sustain your own life) from you by force.

Take the disasters that result when people confuse rights with non-rights, such as a house. The government subsidies the housing industry and props up faulty or bad loans and causes the boom and bust and illusionary perception that the housing problem has been solved. Only, as is illustrated by the housing bust now, this is truly an illusion built on quicksand, there is not foundation by which the 'prosperity' is built on.

Forward to the current water problem. There is not real 'price' on water per say because it is a 'fundamental right'. Of course, if something has no proper 'price' then that resource will be overused and misused until it is no longer available. For example, look at the rain forest in Brazil. The property rights in that region are not properly defined and the cost for buying and razing the forest is not properly priced. So what happens? The forest is misused, overused and is depleting rapidly. Look at the forest in the United States. The property rights are clearly defined and the cost is such that they are conserved, both because the price involved and because people who own property with forest on them see that the property retains more value if the trees remain or if the forest is used properly and replanted as well.

As Okkervil said, emotions have no place in this debate because they only cloud out rational thinking. People do not realize that once they shed this notion that water is a 'fundamental right' that it will actually be better for society, more people will have access to water and that water will be used more efficiently because there will be a price for that water. Like most things, if a group of people can not afford the price, there are many others who have the desire and are willing to pay (volunteer, charities, other private, voluntary actions) in order to see their fellow humans alleviated from suffering, without resorting to force, aka government.

It will be interesting to see who wins this debate, I will guess that the liberal (socialist bent, not classical liberty bent) view point will prevail due to the miseducation of the majority of people by government schools and economic illiteracy. But I hold out hope that even a minor step in the direction of defined property rights will yield enough benefits that people shed their preconceptions and realize things work better when you are not riding on an imaginary white horse which can somehow defy economic realities. Thank you.

---

MuskegonCritic,

So people who do not live near oil should not be able to buy it from those who do? How about coal, aluminum, copper, gold, silver, corn, rice, or all the other natural resources which are scattered about the earth. Just as I would not sell some items in my possession, no matter the price, so to the market gives you the ability not to sell your water.

You confuse the 'fundamental right' to water with water defined in property right terms, e.g. like coal, gold, diamonds, etc. Water as a 'fundamental right' means that everyone has a right to access to water, it is the same as saying people have a 'right' to food, in other words someone else has to supply it to you since it is a 'fundamental right'. Water defined as a property right merely allows for the allocation and selling of water on the market place, it would not mean someone has to supply that water, only that they can if they choose to deal with you. For example, suppose I had a house with a pool, the water in that pool would be mine in that I own it and its consumption. But, if I wanted to, I could sell that water to someone else who believes they can put it to better use. That does not mean that person has a 'fundamental right' to my water, only that they have the right to bargain with me it is sale.

The one problem with this method of doing business is the issue of who gains first 'rights' to water? This is where I am afraid people such as yourself (and those around the Great Lakes, please do not cite the propagandist, misleading rhetoric of Congressional representatives who try to whip up anger in people such as you in order to divert you away from tackling the issue) will be so inclined to believe that people will 'steal' all your water when in fact this method would lead to its conservation without having to resort to force, or government intervention. Also, should the demand be great enough for Great Lake water, an entrepreneur could devise a method of bringing fresh water from other regions (say from lakes in Canada, from rivers or underground water) and pumping it into the Great Lakes. If he could pump water into the lakes at the same rate he takes it out while costing him less to pump in then it does to pump out and sell, a profit opportunity is created and the potential for a solution to the problem appears.

I recognize that the use of water like property seems like a radical idea, but until it is treated like other natural resources it will continue to be misused. Oil has been misused because it has been subsidized and played with for so long that it is no longer a true market scenario, but that is an issue for another day.

One last note, how can people cry out that water is a 'fundamental right' yet claim they have the authority and power to prevent people access to a body of water without any clear definition of whether water is property or not?

---

MuskegonCritic,

Did you even read my post? I would appreciate it if you did.

I said: "That does not mean that person has a 'fundamental right' to my water, only that they have the right to bargain with me it is sale."

You said: "The people who do not live near oil should be prepared to not have oil, if nobody wants to sell it. People should not be FORCED into selling something they don't want to sell. That's tantamount to theft."

You are the one advocating forcibly preventing others from selling water from the Great Lakes, which by the arbitrary means you consider yours and those who support you automatically illustrate (by some logical flaw) that the majority of the people in your region actually want to prevent selling of water from the Water Basin, even though a Congressional act is far from a sign of approval by the majority of people. Even so, as Okkervil said, just because you have the majority, does not mean you are right or that your plans will work out logically.

Also, Arizona is not taking your water, most of the water they get, especially Tucson, is from their own underground water or water taken from the Colorado River. It would be to expensive to transport the amount of water needed from the Great Lakes to Arizona when they can get it locally through a variety of sources or buy it from surrounding states.

Third, if it was not for tariffs, they, heavy manufacturers, would not be near the Great Lakes, but more near the port cities, as it now becoming evident and old industry jobs drain from that region, but I do not care to start these useless regional wars, as they are arbitrary boundaries created by the state.

Where do you think you would get your oil to run your factories from if not for the people in the deserts of Nigeria or Saudi Arabia? Or the oil in Arctic regions? How about your copper from the mines of Arizona? Or the gold to run your electronic devices and other things? I could list many other commodities that you rely on that come from these Desert regions or regions with little access to fresh water. Do you know why people started moving there, because people in regions next to water did not have the request resources while those in regions without water did. It was a mutually beneficial trade of resources, but people forget why others move to the regions they do.

You militant stance on the issue is one problem with America today, you have let the statist doctrine so win you over that any attempt at solving the problem through voluntary action you resist and declare 'capitalistic' as if somehow the system (however hobbled the free market is in modern times) that brought you the wealth and freedom you have today is responsible for the evils that the state creates.

---

MuskegonCritic,

Please do not construe this conversation to make it look like I am the one advocating forcing people to or not to buy something, when you are the one advocating government restriction of trade between two parties.

You said: "Democracies force people NOT to sell things all the time"

The problem with Democracy is that A, B, and C can vote to restrict (force) D and E from trading with each other, even if D and E do not trade with A, B, or C. Democracy is mob rule, by which people find a big enough group of people sharing their sentiments, then take a vote to force others to come in line with those sentiments, e.g. banning the sale of certain drugs even for medical use even if they have been proven not to be harmful if taken properly. Just because it is illegal does not mean that is it bad, it just means you got a bigger mob to outlaw me and others from doing things you do not consider 'proper'. Do you think banning something will somehow make it go away? On the contrary, it just forces the price upward and makes that particular product a more lucrative business to enter into, and has been seen causes criminal elements to enter were they would not have otherwise.

You said: "It sounds like your beef is with the concept of contraban items. That, of course, is a different conversation."

My issue is not contraband items, do not misconstrue my words when I did not mention a single contraband in any of my post. My issue is a group of people, who may or may not be a majority, banning others from selling items to each other even if it causes no harm to those group of people. You, your representative and those who are in your camp think that your proximity to the Great Lakes automatically makes the use or non-use of them strictly your affair, whether or not others in the region want to sell some of the water.

You said previously:
"Look. You live in Nevada? New Mexico? Arizona? Guess what? You SETTLED IN A DESERT! IN A DESERT!!! The THING about a desert is, there's NO WATER THERE. And as those regions' populations explode, they're eying up our Lake for water. Suddenly their environmental engineers had a stark realization that there's not enough water IN THE DESERT to sustain a huge city."

Then said: "Arizona has been FANTASTIC with water conservation."

You realize that there is enough water in many desert states to maintain a population of a huge city, if only it is priced and used wisely, even though before you stated otherwise. You fearmongered before, erected a straw man argument even when the fact do not support you, and seemed you hoped not to be found out. I will not discuss this part further - fearmongering, militant stances, non-negotiable issues and other tactics are loved by the statist.

You said: "This is really simple. We're not selling the water."

More specifically, you and your constituents are not selling water so you want to force others in your region from doing so because you believe you know what is best for them. Why not allocate certian percentage of the river to each citizen, then they can sell their alloted gallons or not sell them. By that method we will truly know whether your claims are valid or not and whether you and your constituents should be able to ban the sale of Great Lake water.

You said: "P.S. Arizona can keep its copper. We gots plenty in the UP. But I would like some of that delicious creosote tea. Mmm...but you don't HAVE to sell it to me."

Right, Arizona does not, but that does not mean Arizonans should be able to ban the selling of the tea between a citizen of Arizona and a citizen of the Great Lake region. On the other hand you are saying that those in the Great Lake region should not even be able to sell their commodity (water in this case) to those in other regions, in other words forcing others to not even have the option to sell.

Have you ever considered what would have happened to other commodities and their conservation and use if property rights surrounding them had not been made and properly defined? Oil would have been extracted and exploited more quickly, the forest of the United States would have been deforested and various other resources would have been depleted more quickly, as often happens with mispriced commodities.

---

MuskegonCritic,

I am sorry, but I will point out some factual errors you made, while also giving my thoughts on how to solve the issue.

You said: "You could put Scotland AND Arizona INSIDE the great lakes and still have room to swim around."

The Great Lakes cover about 94,250 square miles while Arizona alone is 113,634.57 sq mi. Your statement is incorrect. (Sources: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/factsheet.html and http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html)

You said: "The thing is...people who don't live near the Great Lakes, don't know anything about them, they don't know the size of them, they don't know they're used for shipping, they don't know there's commercial fishing, and they don't know how threatened they are."

I know full well the problem facing the Great Lakes. At the same time there is a dire problem facing the use of the Colorado River by California, Nevada and Arizona. You do not have to live near a geographic region to know its problems - you can visit there, have friends or family there, read about it and learn about the problems. Most people know about the shipping in Great Lakes and the fishing that is done there. Many also know about the problems facing many lakes, in that they are not being used properly and are losing water.

You said: "Once it's out of the water basin it's gone forever, and the water levels are PERMANENTLY lower."

Water levels are not permanently lowered because various natural and human factors keep water running into the lakes. Example, the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions bring water into Lake Superior from sources that once flowed into James Bay. They were constructed for hydropower generation and logging. For one article on this look at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/nature/lakes/e_levels.htm

Notice how when property and business is at stake people find ways to save natural resources they otherwise would not? People will do amazing things to secure their natural resources in a non-militant way, using capital investments and other methods to ensure that their renewable natural resources stays that way.

I stated: "Why not allocate certian percentage of the river to each citizen, then they can sell their alloted gallons or not sell them. By that method we will truly know whether your claims are valid or not and whether you and your constituents should be able to ban the sale of Great Lake water."

Using this method, it would be in the interest of all in the region to keep the water from flowing out to rapidly, whether that be into the ocean or by selling it to others outside the region. It would also be in the interest of those in the region to build structures to replace lost water, since the less water in the lakes, the less water each person has for their own use.

Lastly, I would like to leave you with a quote. You seem to think that all the Southwest states think about is taking Great Lake water. Well, consider this:
"In 20 years of discussing and debating water issues at a national level, I've never once heard a utilities director in the South or West say one word about tapping Lake Erie for water," said Ciaccia, now head of the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District. "Those cities are more interested in water reclamation, re-use or even desalination than in coming to get our water."

---

MuskegonCritic,

Are you even going to address my points and your factual errors?

You said: "Kostov seems to be coming back and back and back to the point that people shouldn't be restricted from selling something. For example, I should be able to dig out chunks of asphalt from the Interstate or pull down powerlines and sell the copper or asphalt to China, or hunt elephant seals and sell the meat to Korea."

Are you kidding me? Why do you keep misconstruing my words? Of course you can not sell something you do not own. I am only advocating that people be able to sell the water (or items) they own. That should be clear from my advocacy of a free market.

I recognize the issues and problems facing the Great Lakes. The problem is you have not even cited a single source where you are getting your 'facts' (as some of them have been inaccurate and wrong) from, which is of concern to me.

You said: "They just HOLD water. When you remove water from the water tables, it's gone forever."

Water will not drain out of the Great Lakes permanently, as I stated and cited in my previous post (source of on article from previous post: http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/nature/lakes/e_levels.htm).

Did you not read my previous post? I pointed out that many of the states you have criticized for wanting to take your water have not interest in it and instead want to focus on water conversation, reclamation and other forms or reuse. With regards to long-distance water transport: "But as for long-distance water diversions: "It's not technically impossible, but it's also not economically feasible," Ciaccia said."

You said: "Mr. Kostov is making arguments against contraban"

I make arguments against others banning people they do not know and should not be interfering from dealing with themselves on property they own. You have created this contraband issue as an attempt to attack my character and make it look like I am advocating harming others and committing illegal activities that are meant to harm others.

You said: "You're well stocked with red herring, my good man."

Please address when and by what statements I have used red herring. I have not claimed you are using red herring arguments yet you attack me for doing so without pointing out which arguments I make are red herring diversions. My last post pointed out factual errors you made in your previous arguments, which I would hardly consider red herring since incorrect facts cause harm to a debate.

You said: "Mr. Kostov seems to be making larger grievances with Democracy. And to that...I don't care what his problem with Democracy is. That's another discussion."

I do make some grievances with Democracy when it violates people's right to their life. The issue at hand is not my grievances against Democracy, but how the people in the Great Lake region propose to ban others from doing something just because they are in the 'majority' (I am not sure whether you are or not).

You said: "Kostov is irritated by the old adage "posession is 9/10 of the law""

Should I even continue dissecting your post in which you attack my character at every chance?

You said: "Yes. Our proximity means the water loss affects us more. SO we should get more say."

How about the others in the region who want to sell some of the water, do they not also have a say?

dyslexistentialism,

You said: "people want to continue to INSULT"

Read my post, I call his stance militant, which it is since he seems to be willing to fight over the issue and is repeating the same fact over and over. It is not name calling, it would be akin to him calling me a free market man. I do not call him or regard him as an idiot, that is not how I debate since it is akin to pulling the Nazi card, it ends all debate and makes it worthless.

Robert J. Eletto,

You said: "Does anyone else think it's irresponsible to slowly etch away public control of water?"

Who is the public? If everyone owns the resource then who should control its use and allocation? I do not think it is irresponsible to etch away public control as long as it is done in a clearly defined manner, such as who gets what parts of the public property, how the sale of the public property will be organized, and various other aspects. There are many cases in which things in private control actually conserve resources better, since it is in the interest of the person owning the property to retain its value or increase its value.

---

The debate seems to have veered off from the original course of whether making water private would solve many of the problems associated with it today. From my post I have proposed methods of doing so that would benefit those in regions with little water or even regions with plenty of water. Many seem to be stuck in the mindset that water is 'public', without considering whether making water private would better help its allocation (as it does with oil, consumer products and other things) and use.

---

MuskegonCritic,

You said: "Not selling the water. I get it. You think that's a bad idea. Noted."

You continue to not even read my post and understand what I am saying. I do not say you have to sell your water, only that the neighbor next to you should have the opportunity to sell his water if he wants to. Do you have the right to prevent your neighbors from selling what is there's? If no one in the Great Lake region wants to sell water, then I have no issue with that, as long as it is their water property and they are not preventing others in the region from selling their water.

I will end my discussion with you, as you have promptly ignored the various sources I have pointed out that contradict your claims and have not responded to any of my assertions, going so far as to call everything I have done, ""You're well stocked with red herring, my good man." If you believe the sources I cited and the logic I use to propose a system by which water will be used more wisely and properly since it will have a price on it is red herring, then I do not know what this whole debate was about. I believe it was about solutions to the growing water shortage issue. Thank you for taking the time to (I am beginning to doubt) read my posts. I will move onto other people in this comment section who will actually read what I have to say and respond to it.

As a last note, maybe this article will help you understand some ideas on how to converse natural resources: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/publications/tech_briefs/7forestservices.pdf

Yankee Kid,

I have some questions about your plan, where will the money come from and is the technology available to make the claims you made possible?

Would it not be likely that in creating a international body, politics will eventually come into play and people will fight over where the projects should start, who should get the first allocation of money, and other such issues?

It seems to me that had people placed a proper price on water, many of these issues would not be occurring now. Cotton is grown in Arizona when it could more effectively be grown elsewhere and use less water. Other various uses, such as people in the desert and other regions having large lawns to water, have not been exposed to the true cost of the water they are spending, so it is wasted. Take a automobile shop I was driving by recently. They had a fountain shooting out water around some of their cars, an unnecessary waste of water that would not occur had the water been price properly. I could go on, but I have already made several post dealing with the matter, it can be seen where I am going with this.

The following is an ongoing debate between two members of Amazon.com (Bezukhov is me) over the book Economics in One Lesson, it is interesting and I believe much benefit can be derived from reading it. Tell me what you think of the discussion, what they are missing and what could be improved.
-----------
Bezukhov says:
Funny you cite lower crime rates (a cultural phenomena rather than a government phenomena in most cases); education (which has much to do with how much government controls education, which the United States is a leader in, as the government has a near monopoly there, while many western European countries have voucher programs, a capitalistic, market based approach leading to better education due to competition, etc); and health care (which is only better if you have not been to the United States and experienced health care that is responsive to you, treats you as the number one customer rather than another statistic that must be dealt with and satisfied (by some 'caring' and 'responsible' politician or bureaucrat), the market approach, though hobbled by endless regulations, still succeeds in this case).

Better TV programs is debatable, that is purely based on what you consider 'good' television, not objective like who is getting a surgery faster, with less risk and at a lower cost. Plus, in most of the western European countries, the government has minimal, if no, involvement in the development of television programs.

Explain to me why you feel that regulation (coercion) is the answer to problems rather than allowing people to come to voluntary agreements on a deal? If I do not feel that a producer is giving me enough information about their product, I won't buy from them or will negotiate with them until they concede more information. I need no government to force that, and other, producers to provide me information that I am not entitled to.

But I will stop before I get side-tracked. The free market works, only the world has rarely had true free markets, even in the United States.

p.s. could you give examples as to why this book deserves a 1-star rating, political views aside can you rate the book based on how informative it is.
-----
C. M. Struik says:
OK, it's a political review. I can't see how this can be avoided when the book itself is so blatantly political. I agree that the market economy works; it's very efficient at producing more unnecessary goods for people who already have everything, and at unbalancing society in general as it takes account only of what people will buy. It also succeeds at reducing the salaries of government workers and thereby causing a decline in public services and promoting corruption. I'm not pleading for socialism, but I get worked up when serious economists like Keynes etc. are made fun of.
-----
Bezukhov says:
Do you realize that the market economy is only an extension of allowing people the freedom to go about their lives without the fear of some other person or government entity using force to make them do something they do not want to do. Public service is alive and well, the government is not needed to promote such actions. Charities are alive and well, children's clinics, such as St. Andrew's Church in Nogales, are operating, where professional doctors volunteer their time to help those in need.

Have you researched the fact that in Soviet Russia, the farmers who were allowed the freedom to grow their own crops and reap the rewards of their hard work, produced 25% of the country's crop output on only 3% of its land.

Keynes was only a serious economist if you consider economic theories that are based on coercion, massive debt build up and the idea that the only method of people making income and producing growth is through consumption.
Read this article for some reasons why Keynes and his theories have caused nothing but trouble: http://mises.org/story/2950

Realize that much of what the government does right now, from education to social welfare, was done through private action through much of the 19th century before the rise of the welfare state during the 20th century. Government rarely creates wealth, more over its chief method of making money is by legally stealing, plainly theft, of its subjects property.

I will leave you with two quotes, both counters to your arguments.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it [...] gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want."
-----
C. M. Struik says:
Belief in freedom is a faith, which you're welcome to, but I can't see how you can manage to overlook the downsides of untrammeld capitalism and individualism. (Enron comes to mind?)
I already said I'm not a socialist or communist, but my belief is that people should take government seriously so that their money is spent wisely. The freedoms that America is so proud of were brought about by wise government, and I can't understand why so few Americans are interested in politics, an interest which might bring about some improvement.
I guess you are aware of the percentage of underfed children in the richest country in the world?
-----
Bezukhov says:
You bring up one downside to 'untrammeld' corporatism (not capitalism) and greed (not individualism).

To make a side note, individualism does not mean greed, egotism and selfishness, it means the recognition of the individual's views and tastes as supreme in his own sphere, however narrowly that may be circumscribed, and the belief that it is desirable that men should develop their own individual gifts and bents. From this an individualist can be a charity donator, a non-for-profit operator and many other things that are no for profit or greed.

The freedoms that America enjoys are brought about by wise government, capitalism (or more accurately the free market), need a wise - and limited - government to operate smoothly. But a wise government does not mean an interventionist, welfare state type government. It means a government that creates rules for the game and officiate those rules (referee) them impartially. In soccer the referee can not change the rules on a dime without notifying players in advance (even then under most games he can not once the game has begun), neither can he interfere in the game, try to make the players 'better', he merely makes sure the players follow the predetermined rules. This is the same purpose of a wise government.

Your 'wise' government seems to be one that decides what is best for others, a collectivist focused government rather than an individualist (which is no synonymous with selfishness and greed) focused government. Hayek in 'The Road to Serfdom' already broke down in great detail and highlighted the failures of collectivist thought and governance, so I won't repeat it here.

The number of underfed children is not a fault of capitalism but a fault of government subsidies and control of the agriculture business. There are times when tons of wheat are sitting in storage containers because the structure of the government rules surrounding the sale and trade of produce makes it more profitable for the farmer to hold onto the produce than sell it, hardly a feature that would occur under an unfettered free market. Government interference into industries brings misallocation, witness the disaster of the government trying to allocate gasoline during the 1970s. It causes people to have nothing rather than have something at a price. Lastly, why do people who attack capitalism always bring up some 'oh but the children' argument? Here is a nice article to think about: http://mises.org/story/2967.

I will give you a list of the upsides to unhindered capitalism and individualism. James J Hill (built a rail road faster, more efficient and better than government run and subsidized ones); Bill Gates (took the money he earned by voluntarily trading with others to help those in need, witness the Gates Millennium Scholarship and so much more); automakers (the competition for customers and the warranties that would make it costly to have a defective car ensured cheaper and more reliable cars for the average person); software programmers (they make leaps and strides each month improving the usability of software and allowing people to get things done faster, better or easier than before); Eli Whitney (the invention of the cotton gin to improve the removal of seeds, helping make cotton cheaper); and the list could go on and on.

And lastly, the Enron problem was not a fault of the market, but one of violating the rules of the market. There will always be those who try to defraud others. That is why we need laws against theft and fraud. The Enron debacle is the fault of government for not having a clear Law of the Market so that the auditing conflicts would have been illegal unless the company charter had stated that it would engage in such practices, which would have warned everybody.

Once again, government, not the market, failed.
-----
C. M. Struik says:
I seem to read the wrong books. In "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" one finds corporate practices that are less uplifting than the ones you mention. As Enron was only one example of violation. Not everybody is enthousiastic about Bill Gates' business practises either.
Our basic disagreement seems to be faith in human beings with lots of freedom. I think they need more checks and balances than you do, and that as a result we should care about how we are governed, so that the kind of mistakes you mention are avoided.
With regard to your football metaphor; the government should be a coach: love and support all his players, but some have to be on the bench at times. He should also have an eye for the weaker players and find decent alternatives for them.

So far in Hazlitt's book I have found no objections to large sums being allocated to war by the government, where not only the precious tax-payers dollar is used for actions that violate international agreements, but also human lives are sacrificed. It seems to be of no consequence that large companies benefit from war through the taxpayer's dollar. It's only an example to illustrate how important government is and that not all forms of production are necessarily beneficial, no matter how efficient they are.
-----
Bezukhov says:
It seems that you do not want to address the points I brought up directly, but you seem to desire to restrict the actions of rational people like me because you feel you know better than us how we should live our lives. People who support regulations are people who think they know how to run others lives better than they themselves do. Also, many of the 'mistakes' you and I cite would happen regardless of whether there are 'check and balances' in place, humans will always make errors of judgment. Under a free market (with a clear Rule of Law) those people would be punished financially and reputationally. Under a semi-free market with a labyrinth of rules and regulations, the type of actions you cite happen more often, because those violating the rules are able to confuse and mislead the regulators who have to watch over a complex and contradictory set of rules that at times defy logic.

The Government should not be a coach, because the coach is biased toward his team and certain players, and does not officiate the game. The coach interprets no rules by which the different players shall follow. The referee on the other hand, is impartial, helps out the players who gets knocked down (allows for assistance by others) and does not limit which players are allowed on the field of play, as long as they are registered (aka citizens) and haven't abused the rules of the game in any way (aka no red cards, etc).

Companies that benefit from war are a direct result of people wanting to expand government, if the government was small and limited, it would not have the ability to wage offensive wars and thereby permit an industry that piggybacks on wars and other conflicts. Also, the military industrial complex is not efficient, it just has large government contracts to keep it continuously humming along.

Read 'The Road to Serfdom' and see whether your support for a more socialistic government (to even a minor degree beyond protecting the very small percentage of people who actually need assistance) almost always leads to problems down the road.
-----
Ian says:
"OK, it's a political review. I can't see how this can be avoided when the book itself is so blatantly political."
How is it political? It's straight, basic economics. It's only political if one reads with one's politics. In that light, any book can be political.

"<The market economy> also succeeds at reducing the salaries of government workers and thereby causing a decline in public services and promoting corruption."
Not necessarily true on any count. A healthy market economy can fund a robust government (unfortunately). Public services can be provided by private enterprise, and in a way obedient to actual market demands and needs. Nor is there an inverse relationship between government funding and corruption. Unaccountability is a prime reason for corruption, and that is found in any government.

There is an alternative: an honest, cost-benefit analysis of how much government is actually needed, as opposed to a pure benefit analysis, a ubiquitous fallacy of pro-government thinking that is a major theme of Hazlitt's book.
-----
Ian says:
"Our basic disagreement seems to be faith in human beings with lots of freedom. I think they need more checks and balances than you do, and that as a result we should care about how we are governed, so that the kind of mistakes you mention are avoided."

What checks man best is his fellow man. The American founders identified proper government as that which checks the passions of man: his aggressive, bullying instincts. It does this through law and force. But it is not proper government to check man's lawful interests. They identified "the pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable right because government ends freedom when it begins to decide what's best to make a man whole and happy.

Let culture, which has the force of persuasion, deal as best it can with the man with an unsavory idea of happiness. But let goverment, which has the force of arms, deal with him, and we give government permission to becomes man's providence. What then?
-----
C. M. Struik says:
I'm afraid there is no end to this discussion. I feel the pursuit of happiness has led to more greed and selfishness, a decline in respect for culture and learning. More children grow too fat (if they're not underfed) than are challenged by education. They follow shallow dreams fed to them by advertising, Hollywood movies, in short everything producers can throw at them to tempt them to find temporary, but unhealthy bliss. I am not telling you or them how to lead your lives, but I do wish there was an alternative to a system that can only survive on more consumption. In this system people are seduced to make unhealthy choices, that affect themselves and untimately the planet.
The reason I call the book political is that it's basic choice is to produce more and more efficiently, and though the book says time and time again that it looks beyond immediate results it doesn't take into account the consequences. If you've seen Chaplin's modern times, you must have realised that many jobs will becomes pointless and repetitive. If you have read any literature, starting with eg The Great Gatsby, you can't have missed the point that individual lives are nothing but show. Keep up with and impress the Joneses.
Maybe the book isn't bad economics, it's blind to the consequences of capitalist production.
-----
Bezukhov says:
You seem to miss the whole point of my posts. You have a stereotyped view of today's children, fed probably by the same media that you criticize for cheapening their lives and dreams. You should give children more credit than that, I know several children naught yet out of elementary school who are dreaming of how hard they need to work to attend MIT, Harvard or another top school and help make the world better, yet they are awash as any in the media blitz of our times.

I am not advocating a production of just the best goods at the best price, but the freedom for people to engage in whatever voluntary actions they please, as long as they do not infringe upon others ability to do the same. You believe that freedom leads to just more consumption, unhealthy choices, a decline in the respect for culture and learning and lives that are pointless and repetitive. The Great Gatsby, while a great book, was a period piece and an individuals story. It illustrates the pointless pursuit of a substanceless dream, that once attain, leaves the person empty. That was Gatsby. Other characters are flawed because they are trying to revisit the highs of their youth (Tom, trying to find the high of his footballing days) but are never able to attain them. The book is about flawed characters, and the flaws of the rich at the time, not necessarily an assault of modern times or modern humans.

On the other hand, a lack of freedom illustrates a declining respect for culture (look at the Nazi book burning, the Soviet destruction of other cultures monuments, other regimes who want to tell people what 'proper' culture is, etc.) while freedom breeds a respect for other people and their cultures (witness the diversity of cultures in just one city in America, such as New York, and that view will change, unless you find other people's cultures 'cheap' and superficial). What makes you think that forcing children to have 'substantive' dreams will actually make them want to pursue those dreams, and who is to decide what a 'shallow' dream is? A lack of freedom or private property breeds a lack of respect for the land, look at private land compared to public land, people like to conserve their property, make it look the best it can, as that is what gives it the most value, not barren, destructive land. Plus, socialism gives no incentive for people to save and conserve, while capitalism gives incentive to produce something with the least cost (ie resources) in order to make a larger profit.

Furthermore, are you implying that we should design jobs that are not pointless and repetitive, that is just the nature of many occupations. You may find it hard to believe, but some people like that, they do not have to think, get paid then can entertain themselves elsewhere. You seems to associate freedom with capitalism, even though capitalism is only one part of a free society. Freedom includes the ability to form charities, volunteer organizations, associations, clubs, etc. This is what leads to a more wholesome community, not people controlling and telling people that they are living 'shallow' lives.

Lastly, greed and selfishness are the only human qualities that are universal, animals (which we are) are inherently greedy (how else would they survive if they did not want resources for themselves) and selfish (they want the best for them, their family and species). Why not create a system that harnesses these qualities for good, ie the free market, and tames them rather than a system that attempts to deny they exist, ie collectivist doctrines, and gives them more power to harm others.

Go to an elementary school and talk to some children, it might change your mind on the state of freedom, what those children dream of becoming and the future of the planet, people are selfish and greedy, but are not love and compassion made up of both?
-----
C. M. Struik says:
I'm really glad you're taking so much time to educate me. I can assure you I do read your posts carefully, and the reasoning is not without its merit, I just don´t share your optimism. If human beings are still largely controlled by their ids I see no reason to trust most of them with unlimited freedoms, not do I see the system harnessing the id for good.
And as for missing the point, I have more than once written I´m neither a socialist nor a communist, and I resent being grouped with Nazi´s or Soviets. As for contact with kids, I´m afraid I am in daily contact with adolescents, whose increasing immersion in useless pastimes may one day be replaced by greater things, but whose lack of interest in cultural development is sometimes frightening. Nevertheless I enjoy their passion and optimism.
I´m surprised that you don´t recognise Gatsbies all around you, and I suppose that the gruesome future depicted in Brave New World has no validity for present developments either. I´m sorry to be such a dim and stubborn pupil; it makes further discussion useless. I thank you for your time.
-----
B Bezukhov says:
I am sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, I did not mean in any way to group you with the Nazi's or Soviet's (to do so would end discussion and devolve it into name calling). It was a general statement of the progression of lack of freedom, more appropriate example would be the FCC and its fines for things such as nudity and language which are a part of every day life and definitive features of some cultures, yet are subdued by a government body that restricts people's freedom to communicate ideas with one another.

I realized early on that you were not a socialist, communist or any type of collectivist, just a person who believes some more controls are necessary to ensure people do not harm each other. A lot of this comes down to the community ones lives in as well, if you see more of the vices than the virtues of man, it would lead you to want to control him more than a person who saw the reverse.

While I see Gatsbies all around me, I do not take that as a reason to restrict what those people can do, most choose freely to live such a life, some enjoy it while others do not. But it is not up to me to decide whether I think their lives are substantive or whether they should pursue better aims, that is up to them. My only aim in interacting with them would be to cooperate with them for my own, their own or some third party's own benefit. When controls are put in place, it is usually for one person's benefit (maybe their piece of mind, ie gun controls) at the expense of somebody else (ie someone not being able to freely go out and buy a gun, possibly for a collection).

I take the view that if I can talk to one mind and influence it even slightly toward the concept of more freedom for all, then it is worth it, because as they spread their ideas to others, and more people will be influenced than just them directly. Plus, discussions illustrate the weaknesses in my ideas, which I can then start find out ways to fix. Thank you for taking the time to read my posts, it has been most enjoyable.

Video games are a growing entertainment medium and pastime for many people around the world, and during the past quarter century the popularity of video games has risen dramatically. But with that growing relevance in today's culture comes a debate which few other entertainment mediums have to deal with. That debate is whether or not video games addictive. Professionals to the average person have weighed in on this issue, and while there is evidence that video games are addicting, much like gambling, there is no clear consensus that it is harmful for people to play video games for long periods of time. The issue is then, are video games a hobby or pastime that can be abused at time, or are they actually addicting? And if they are addicting, are they harmful to the addicts?

For many people who consider video games a harmful addiction, their greatest argument is that video game addiction clinics have opened up around the world, from Europe to China. In Amsterdam, a clinic has been opened that treats people who consider themselves addicted to games. Keith Bakker, the director of the program at the facility, says that "the more we looked at it, the more we saw [gaming] was taking over the lives of kids."⁶ Bakker believes that video games are addictive and that they can have a negative impact on the lives of those who play video games obsessively. He has had to deal with the addicts on a daily basis, such as Tim, so he can speak from experience. Bakker thinks that an addict is someone who becomes miserable if they are not getting whatever they are addicted to and that many of the people in the clinic show signs of not being happy when they are away from video games. In addition, Kimberly Young, PsyD, while talking about the new facility added that he considers video games an addiction, saying that 'i'ts a clinical impulse control disorder", an addiction in the same sense as compulsive gambling.⁶ The clinic in Amsterdam is much like the ones opened elsewhere, it treats video game addiction much like most other addictions are treated and since some of the proclaimed addicts say they are mostly cured of their addiction afterward, it has strengthened the argument that video games are addictive.

In Beijing, a clinic has opened to treat the growing number of gamers who consider themselves addicted to video games and the internet. Dr. Tao Ran, head of the clinic, believes that video game addiction is a problem, especially in China, stating that "every day in China, more than 20 million youngsters go online to play games and hit the chat rooms, and that means that internet addiction among young people is becoming a major issue here."² Dr. Ran is talking about Internet/Gaming Cafes which are more prevalent in Asian countries such as South Korea and China than in the West. The cafes are seen both as social gathering places and as a cheaper way to access the internet than owning a computer and internet connection at home. For around $2 people in China can play games like World of Warcraft. The company does not require you buy the game, just that you pay a monthly subscription, which has lead to the game having a large number of users, many who play for hours a day.¹ All the people cited so far are doctors in their respective fields who consider video games an addiction that is harmful.

Some consider video games a hobby that can be abused, but not necessarily an addiction; while one researcher thinks that the criteria used for determining whether playing video games can be addictive are wrong. Nelson Monterroso, a student at Cal Poly, says that games are not necessarily addictive, but that like everything else in life to much use can have negative effects.⁸ He believes that while games can take up too much time in someones life, they never actually become addictive. Dr. John Charlton says that games can be addicting, but not on the level most doctors and researchers think. He states that previous studies have often compared gaming addictions to gambling, that the same symptoms that are used in the diagnosis of gambling addiction are also used for diagnosing Internet/gaming addiction.⁷ He does not consider this criteria accurate, he is refuting Dr. Young's argument by saying that the compulsive disorder is not the same in video games as it is in gambling. Dr. Charlton says that this misconception is what causes some to consider video games more addictive than they actually are. He states that "incidences of addiction could be 10% lower than some currently accepted classification schemes suggest."⁷ It seems that this 10% could be argued as experimental error, but the case still stands that other research studies might be using the wrong criteria to judge how harmful video games actual are, which can in turn be used by people such as Monterroso, who believes games are not addicting, to say that the data other doctors have is wrong since it is based off of the inaccurate criteria.

It is reasonable to see the validity in the argument made by people who think that video game addiction is real and harmful, who believe that you need not look further than at the people who have been harmed by playing video games excessively. Kim Kyung-jae, a South Korean who died after playing online games for 86 hours strait¹⁰, is a great example for people such as Dr. Young, who argue that games are addictive. The opposite side, such as Dr Charlton, argue that this is an extreme case that happens rarely. A more common case, though, is that of Wang Yiming, who became addicted to online gaming then started to fail test in school and become a loner as his addiction became more important than anything.² Another like him, Jake Andersen, was a Cal Poly student who dropped out due to his failing grades caused by his abusive habit of playing games up to 60 hours a week. These are both examples of players who have become addicted to games. Dr. Young, director of the game addiction clinic in Beijing, said that these types of stories are becoming more common in China.⁶ Lastly there is a case that the people who think gaming is an addiction point to for support, the case of Qiu Chengwei who stabbed Zhu Caoyuan after he found out that Zhu had sold his virtual sword for real cash. Originally Qiu was sentenced to the death penalty but has since been given life in jail.⁹ This is a perfect case for the argument that playing video games can become addictive because it illustrates that someone is willing to take revenge, in the form of a life, on someone who caused them to lose an item in a video game. Like people addicted to drugs, this shows how video games can cause someone to become so addicted to playing that when they are deprived of it (either by not being able to play or in this case not having their favorite item) they commit acts of violence. First hand accounts such as these of the problems caused by playing too many games further cements the argument that video games can be addictive in a harmful way.

Governments are starting to think that playing video games too often is harmful and that, much like gambling and drugs, the government must try to curb the amount of time played in the interest of the public good, at least from the politicians point of view. In China the government has started to impose limits on the amount of time children can spend online playing games and has mandated fines for players who go over the allowed time by taking away in-game rewards.¹¹ The government has stated that it hopes this will curb addiction to online games, especial a genre known as Massively Multiplayer Online or MMO. In South Korea, the government has created an organization called the Center for Internet Addiction Prevention and Counseling which seeks to diagnosis video game and online addiction as a compulsive disorder like pathological gambling or eating disorder.¹⁰ The center says that it is researching into cyber addiction, addiction to games and the internet, and finds that it is not just the amount of time spent playing games that causes addiction, it is the surrounding effects such as putting the games over more important things in life. With these measures it is clear to see that, at least in East Asia, governments consider spending too much time playing video games a problem, and at times, an addiction.

The question over whether video games are addictive or not might never be fully answered, but looking into research reports, the opening of clinics, what governments are doing, and first hand accounts of proclaimed addicts, one can tell a lot about the mind set of the people involved in this debate. While it seems that a majority of the views think that video games are harmful or addictive, there are some who think the criteria for addiction to games is wrong, while others think that video games are not addictive at all, they can just be an abusive hobby at times. Whatever the view, it is clear to see that the issue of whether or not video games are addictive has touched many people and continues to be debated today.

Works Cited

1 Episode 77, PCGamer Podcast." Pcgamerpodcast.com 2007
PC Gamer Podcast. 5 April 2007 <http://www.pcgamerpodcast.com/podpress_trac/feed/123/0/pcgp_077_20070402.mp3>

2 Treating China's online addicts. BBC.com 2005
BBC 10 October 2005 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4327258.stm>

3 The Quest to End Game Addiction. Wired.com 2001
Wired News 5 December 2001 <http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/2001/12/48479>

4 Are Games Addictive? The State of the Science. Gamasutra.com 2006
Gamasutra 28 February 2006 <http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060228/clark_01.shtml>

5 When the game gets serious. Richmond-News.com 2006
Richmond News 8 December 2006 <http://www.richmond-news.com/issues06/122206/news/122206nn1.html>

6 Detox For Video Game Addiction?. CBSnews.com 2006
CBS News 3 July 2006 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/03/health/webmd/main1773956.shtml>

7 Study: Online Gaming Addiction Not as Bad as Previously Thought Gamedaily.com 2007
GameDaily 23 March 2007<http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15578>

8 Detox For Video Game Addiction?. DailyCollegian.com 2007
Daily Collegian 24 April 2007 http://media.www.dailycollegian.com/media/storage/paper874/ news/2007/04/24/News/College.Students.Say.Excess.Video.Game.Use.Not.Addiction-2875856.shtml

9 Chinese gamer sentenced to life BBC 2005
BBC 8 June 2005 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4072704.stm>

10 South Korea's gaming addicts BBC 2002
BBC 22 November 2002 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2499957.stm>

11 China seeks to 'limit game hours' BBC 2007
BBC 11 April 2007 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6544759.stm>

Rather than a list of my favourite games or the ones I enjoyed the most, I have decided to take a look at the games that have most influenced me. This list, like the 'On My Favourite Games' list, will hopefully grow to be much larger than it currently is. In the future, as more thought is put into it, the order of the list will change substantially.

Winning Eleven/ Pro Evolution Soccer
Pokemon Blue (GB)
Descent: Freespace - The Great War (PC)
Age of Empires II (PC)
Unreal Tournament
Gran Turismo (PS)



Final Fantasy VIII (PS)
Super Mario Land 2 (GB)
Medal of Honor Allied Assault (PC)
SimAnt (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced (GBA)
The Incredible Machine 2 (Mac & PC)



Gran Turismo 4 (PS2)
SimCity (PC)
Super Mario Land (GB)
Civilization 2 (PC)/Civilization 4 (PC)
Pitfall: The Mayan Adventure (PC)
Grand Theft Auto 3 (PS2)



Yukon Trail (PC)
SimFarm (PC)
Advance Wars (GBA)
Star Wars: Demolition (PS)
Bushido Blade (PS)
San Francisco Rush: Extreme Racing (N64)



Math Munchers (Mac)
Bubble Trouble (Mac)
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3 (GC)
Unreal Tournament 2004 (PC)
Rise of Nations (PC)
Odell Down Under (PC & Mac)



Wave Race 64 (N64)
F-Zero X (N64)
Tennis (GB)
Star Wars Episode I: Jedi Power Battles (PS)
Jimmy Connors Tennis (GB)
Fire Emblem (GBA)
Donkey Kong Land III (GB)



Math Blaster Ages 9-12 (PC)
Star Wars (GB)
The Amazon Trail (PC)

As I continue to build the list in hopes of reaching my top 100 games, I present to you my current top 42 games. Unlike most list, the order doesn't matter so much, as each game is unique in its own way and has impacted me in their own ways, though, those higher up on the list I either liked more, or have more fond memories from/of.

Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past (SNES)
Civilization 2 (PC)
Rome Total War (PC)
Age of Empires 2 (PC)
Rise of Nations (PC)
Unreal Tournament 2004 (PC)
Medal of Honor Allied Assault (PC)
Winning Eleven 10/ Pro Evolution Soccer 6 (PC)
Final Fantasy XII (PS2)
Halo: Combat Evolved (custom edition) (PC)
Yoshi's Island (SNES)
Fire Emblem(series) (GBA)
Advanced Wars DS
Super Mario 64 (N64)
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (DS)/ Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin (DS)/ Castlevania: Symphony of the Night (PS)
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (PC)
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64)
Resident Evil 4 (PS2)
Super Mario Bros/Super Mario 2 Bros/Super Mario 3 Bros (NES)
Panzer General (PC)
Deus Ex (PC)
X-Com: UFO Defense (PC)
Chrono Trigger (SNES)
Chrono Cross (PS)
Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime (DS)
Guild Wars (PC)
Final Fantasy Tactics (PS)
Final Fantasy VIII (PS)/Final Fantasy II (NES)/Final Fantasy VI (SNES)
Golden Sun/Golden Sun: The Lost Age (GBA)
Meteos (DS)
Tactics Ogre (SNES/PS)/Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis (GBA)
Descent: Freespace - The Great War (PC)
Riviera: The Promised Land/ Yggdra Union (GBA)
The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons (GBC)
Super Metroid (SNES)
Mario Tennis (GBC)
Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards (N64)
Samurai Showdown (SNES)
Windjammers (Neo-Geo)
Sensible Soccer (SNES)
Tennis (GB)
Dragon Ball Z: Gokuden (SNES)

The PC is the great equalizer, not just in terms of news, media and the internet, but also in terms of games and what can be achieved. Developer's for major companies can come up with great ideas, there is no doubting that, but they are limited by a thing called the bottom line, if an idea will only appeal to a very small group of people (when the company wants to reach a large group of people) then the idea probably won't make it into the game. Because of that they cannot explore every possible gameplay design they have thought of, nor can they create and implement every graphical element or style they dream up. This is where the PC (though the consoles may soon be able to do this on a larger scale due to downloadable content) becomes a great avenue for those untapped ideas. While there are many games out there that are innovative, filled with fresh ideas that hopefully will reach a wide audience, the focus for now will be on three (well four, three in a title looks cleaner) for the moment: Chalk, Crayon, Blocksum and Seiklus.

[/IMG]
Chalk in Action

Chalk is a brilliant game with a simple premise that gives way to a very enjoyable time. Put simply, you control a character who floats through scrolling levels, you can draw using chalk anywhere on the screen (though you have a limit of time to how much chalk is in each line). Using this premise the game throws enemies and environmental object your way, you must use the chalk to make different combos (such as drawing a chalk line from an enemy's bullet to the enemy in order to hurt the enemy) while at the same time using the chalk to protect your character from harm (such as drawing a shield made of chalk to protect your character from oncoming bullets). These simple elements give way to much fun as the game adds twist to the basic premise (especially during boss fights) to keep you thinking about how to best use the chalk. When first playing this game, many would think of how good it would be on the Nintendo DS, direct control of the chalk due to the touchscreen would greatly enhance the players accuracy, plus it could be assume the developer could come up with a creative way to use the second screen. Maybe someday we will see a game like this on the Nintendo DS, as the system still has much to offer. This game is almost a childhood dream come to life, a chalkboard coming to life as you battle different enemies and solving puzzles; easily a game worth playing.

[/IMG]
An example of Crayon outside normal gameplay, took couple of minutes

Crayon has certain gameplay elements similar to Chalk, and is just as fun (probably more so depending on how you choose to play). In this game you aim to solve puzzles by getting a rolling ball to a star using your ability to draw objects on the screen (for the most part rectangular objects). At its most basic it is a puzzle game in which you are given certain parameters in which to get an object from point A to point B, but there is much more to the game than that, if only you have the mindset to explore and go beyond just solving puzzles. The game utilizes some degree of physics on every object you create, so if you draw a rectangle half off of a cliff, it will most likely tip and fall off. This physics engine comes into play is during regular gameplay, but once you beat the game (which would take a relatively short time) you can play around with this engine, trying to see how you either can solve the same puzzle but in a more elaborate (or simple) way. Also, though, you can play with the engine, try to create a balance and see how much weight you can continually put on each side to keep it balanced or even construct a simply building and see how much stuff you can put on it while keeping it upright (the example above implements both these idea in one structure). This is nothing extremely new, but the context, drawing with crayons, is simple and fun and can be enjoyed by most anyone.

[/IMG]
Over to soon?

The two previous titles have one issue that traditional developers might see, they are too short. This is less of a problem as it is a stigma, the video game industry has cultivated this thought that if a game is not a certain length (such as the 10 hour campaign length for a First Person Shooter) then the length of the game should be extended by either adding more levels or increasing the difficulty. This seems wrong on a fundamental level, are books lengthened on purpose because they are not perceived to be long enough? No usually. This may actually be hindering the industry as good ideas that are better played for a short period of time are destroyed or changed in order for the play time to be increased, but more on that in a later post, now on to the great puzzler Blocksum.

[/IMG]
Blocksum

Blocksum is a puzzler, somewhat in the same vein as tetris in that you want to stop the blocks from filling up the screen, but from there the comparison ends (mostly). The premise of the game is to clear the blocks (each block has a number such as 1, 2 or 5) that appear by adding blocks that touch each other together. The best way to explain the next part is an example, suppose there were four number 1 blocks, you connect one pair on number 1 blocks and then connect the other pair of number 1 blocks, this creates two number 2 blocks which are then cleared. If the same thing happened, but the blocks added up to three, you would need at least three number 3 blocks to clear the number 3 blocks. Once you are playing the game it is all very simple, but this game brings up a great issue, how to make educational games fun. It seems sometimes that many educational games figure out the education part first then tact on the game, usually bringing about subpar results. While the author of this game probably was not intending to make it for educational purposes, if applied right this game could be a great way to kids to learn their basic numbers and adding them in different ways (and looking a step further, if instead of adding each touching block it multiplied them, you could do even more). This game is fun and addictive and it could be seen (once played) how this could be very educational, hopefully in the future more developers will think of an interesting gameplay idea then add on the educational parts as they go (or like Blocksum (and to some extent games like Age of Empires) make them educational without knowing).

[/IMG]
Seiklus

Seiklus is a game like Knytt, or more accurately Knytt is a game like Seiklus. In the post previous to this the game Knytt is reviewed and many of the points such as the great atmosphere created in the game, are represented greatly here. This game is talked about here less for the innovation it brings and more for what the industry needs, a short (couple hours at most) game that is highly enjoyable and probably would not have been made better by adding onto its length. This game is everything a platformer should be: the level design is great; the character has weight and is easy to control; and the atmosphere is great, from the music to the look of each level. It would be a joy to see, instead of the next 2 million pixel per gun FPS, a game like this on the Xbox360, PS3 or Wii (or PC), use the increase power of those systems to create a gorgeous 2-D platformer that does not aim to be the next Halo, Gran Turismo or Metal Gear Solid. With the introduction of the different Marketplaces on each console, the game would not have to be a full retail release, just pay $5 and get a short but sweet experience that a longer game cannot replicate. When playing this game you start to wonder why every game that comes out, even 'simple' platformers, tend to have health bars, lives and some sort of gimmick to keep things complicated (and supposedly interesting). This game you have no real health bar, lives or gimmicky system, like Knytt this game is pure platforming, running and jumping and exploring a world ready to be taken in. While complicated systems and game mechanics are fine and enjoyable, sometimes it is fun once in awhile to be able to just react and take in the game world without having to worry about whether you have enough gold to buy the new sword in the next city.

Downloads for the Games:
Seiklus
Crayon
Chalk
Blocksum

Almost every game has an end, whether it be a 10 minute end movie or a simple ending telling you that you have completed the game. Either way, it becomes apparent that what the game offers after the endgame may be just as important as what it offers during the main portions of the game. Some games throw at your harder modes of the main game, other games offer completely new levels or areas to explore, while many offer nothing but endgame satisfaction. At times these divisions are along genre lines, RPGs tend not to offer a harder mode since that would mean another 40hrs of the same game but harder, which few are prepared to do. While first person shooter games and hack-and-slash games tend to offer new mode, usually hard modes. But with all these variations on what should happen after the end of the game, it begs the question of whether games should offer new content after a player completes the game, or do people just want to be done with the game?


Mario End Game

In short, it depends upon not only the genre the game is in but also what the developer intends to have the player take away from the game. There is then two routes that can be taken in this discussion, both will be talked about here. The first, does the developer want to water down the impact of the experience or give the player more freedom in favor of replayability. The second, does the developer want to guide the player, make them part of an interactive story that is planned out and doesn't give the player much freedom. Each of these is an equally valid method, and many great games make use of both of these paths.


Final Fantasy X, an example of a restricted game

Grand Theft Auto is the king of the "sandbox" genre, a genre that gives the player so much freedom at times that they make the story rather than the developer making the story. Games such as these don't usually give the player more levels or modes after completion, but rather they open up the whole world to the player. In a cheap sort of way, many do this by giving the players the best weapons/abilities/etc. by the end of the game that after the game is completed, they get to keep all this gear and roam around the world in it. This is an example in which the developer intentionally does not create a definitive endgame so that the player can have more replayability, even if the overall experience is less tight and focused.


GTA:SA , an example of a very unrestricted game

Many RPGs, such as the Final Fantasy series and the Dragon Quest series, don't give you new modes or places to explore after the game is beaten. Though, many revisions of old RPGs released on systems today include extra dungeons that were not there in the original game. Final Fantasy X will be used as the example of the type of game in which the developer crafts a tale that is more focused so that there is less to do after beating the game. Such a game has no need to add replayability after the game ends because all the developer wants to portray and wants the player to experience is already planned out and given before the game ends. There is no problem with this method because it would rather the character experience a great tale rather than let them craft their own tale, what nearly all other medium of media do.


Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced, a example of a game with lots to do after the game has ended

In the end, what happens after the end of a game is completely subjective to what the developer wants to player to take away from the experience. If the developer wants the player to take away a great story, they will more likely opt for no extra modes and let the story and game stand on their own. On the other hand if the developer wants the player to leave with a feeling, such as the urge to explore or discover, they may allow the player more freedom at the expense of the developer telling it's own tale. Either way, games will always have an end to the game, whether that be scripted or when the player finally gets bored of the game, is up to the developer to decide.

Nostalgia; a word, a memory and a marketing tool. In today's world, many companies are relying upon their enormous back-catalog to sustain them. Some companies have such a storied and pedigreed past that they can survive for years selling a new generation old products. The videogame industry is at the point at which it can start using its enormous and quite storied back-catalog and in the process reap pure profit. Nintendo is probably a company that has become stuck, in both its vision of the future and its glory days of the past. It is trying, with great success, to use its grand library of games to create a cheap and easy way to make money. But the question soon begs, is the past all it is hyped up to be or is the gaming industry using the nostalgia card too soon?

The movie industry has become proficient in releasing decades old films to a new generation( or in more sinister cases the same generation) with so called special editions. This blog has already discussed the state of special editions, so the topic will not be brought up in detail again. The use of nostalgia to make a quick buck is nothing new, for many industry's try to prey on that incomplete memory that will make a bad movie seem good. While the gaming industry tends to shy away from bad games to choose for re-issuance, mainly because of the community gaming has in which bad games stay bad, they don't suddenly become classics like what happens in other industries.

Many of the older games being released by gaming companies for profit are either main stream successes or cult hits, the later being more geared toward the hardcore gamer. The main stream success games are known by all and therefore will be downloaded/picked up by the masses once again as older members of society either want to relive years gone by or introduce the 'classics' to the younger generation. The other games released are the cult classics, games that were generally acclaimed by the community but never became commercial successes. These games aim to pander the group of gamers that will gobble up anything released dealing with their favorite franchise, especially if they were cult hits, and it gives them a feeling of being special, again the idea of the special edition pops up. This does not get to the core of the point of this article, why now and is it a good idea?

To put it bluntly, no, it is not a good idea. First, the gaming industry in its modern form is little more than 20 years old, which is quite young. Second, the gaming industry, from its lack of relative age compared to other mediums of entertainment, is playing its cards to soon. The reasoning behind this is that, if the gaming industry starts to play its nostalgia card now and releases many of the good old games now, eventually they will run out sooner than they can make new games to turn into 'classics'. It also create a space in which the industry can not move forward because it become enamoured in the past, it has one foot in the present and one foot in the past with no feet in the future.

If the industry is to move forward it has to let the past fade a little, it has to let the games of the 1980s and 1990s become true classic in the literary sense. Give them 20 or 30 more years to fester and then bring them back anew to the true next generation of video game players. But this argument to wait has one fatal flaw, a flaw that is unique to the video game genre, graphics. Twenty years from now the games might look so advanced and realistic that pulling out games from the 80s and 90s will be like comparing X-men 3 with picture books in the special effects department. It could have a backlash in which gamers of the future don't want to look to the past, for they might perceive it as archaic and boring, therefore not worth their time. Such is the plight of playing the nostalgia card.

In the end, though, nostalgia is a great card to play, just in the case of the video game industry it is a little different. Play it to soon and you risk diluting and wasting the your whole back-catalog, but play it to late and you risk not being able to sell the 'classics' to the new generation, just as it is hard to sell a 4th grader "War and Peace" instead of Harry Potter. The classics may not be all they are hyped up to be, they are based off of misguided memories yet when marketing is used in an effective way, nostalgia is the greatest tool of capitalism.

It is an interesting topic or idea to think about. During the switch from the last generation to this current generation, there has been some talk of how graphics will soon start to increase in smaller increments. It is talked about how by the next cycle of consoles, PS4 and whatever Microsoft and Nintendo will name their products, that graphics will become something that is no longer worried about and that the game mechanics of games will truly shine. Here in lies a worrisome problem, a problem that is fundamentally a bigger issue than games but can easily be applied to gaming. It is the idea of a point at which nothing new, in the context of current human thinking, can be created, let us call it the Endpoint.

To better relate this to games, it is of course easier to actually look at the games that have caused the idea of Endpoint of occur. One such game or series is Grand Theft Auto(GTA). Taken in its broadest sense the purpose of the GTA series will be to replicate real life but with a twist, usually a satire of something. But suppose 10 years down the line we have GTA 7 or GTA 8, what will those games be like? The idea that graphics will become a constant and only game mechanics will shine overlooks a fundamental problem, what if game mechanics also reach a constant. Suppose that 10 years from now the next GTA is about to be released, the graphics are vastly improved yet underlying all the new bells and whistles is the same game we are playing now in San Andreas. The argument could be made that San Andreas can be vastly improved, which many would tend to agree with, but at its base you would just be improving upon the same basic formula set up back in GTA III. All the new game mechanics--the ability to swim, the ability to fly a plane, the ability to buy land, etc--would just be an add-on to what we already have rather than something totally new.

So the GTA reference may be growing old, then the next franchise to be analyzed for its significance with Endpoint is Zelda. At their very basic, every Zelda game has been the same; you save something after coming from humble beginning as a village boy( or int he case of some you have already done this but it is then a continuation of a story). This has rarely changed yet each new Zelda game in the main line--referring to the Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, Windwaker type Zelda games--has been hailed as the greatest game of its generation even if the game at its base is the same as the original Legend of Zelda released more than 20 years ago.

It might not be evident why this is significant to the idea of Endpoint. Think about how Zelda has been described so far, it is the same thing as what was being said with the GTA series but instead it has already happened and continues to happen. The current Zelda games are nothing but an improvement of the original, be it better graphics, more stuff to do or new ways to interact with the world of Hyrule. This is then significant because it introduces the idea that the Endpoint is very far off, for the Zelda series has survived all this time improving on the same basic template laid out decades ago.

Yet this still does not solve the problem of Endpoint, something that the movie industry seems to be running into at times but continually pushing back. At some point all that a new RPG can do is create a new story, though parts of it will probably be right out of an older game, and hope it can add some new, small little perk that will keep the game from feeling like a total re-hash. Endpoint doesn't just apply to gaming as a whole but can apply to the individual genres in gaming. As such genres that are heavily reliant on stories rather than game mechanics, such as the adventure game, will most likely reach the Endpoint first; since other genres can slowly start to use stories more effectively while playing to their strength of delivering fun and challenging game mechanics.

So all this talk has been made of Endpoint and how it will be reached, but is there a solution to this problem that seems so far away. In short there is only a solution if people are willing to step outside the bounds that gaming has created. At the current course Endpoint will be reached rather soon, the Dual-Analog type controller can only get you so far. This is were the Wii comes in, but rather as a first step, a prototype rather than an example, for several reasons.

The Wii doesn't quite change what is currently being done for several reasons. Rather can create something really new, it mearly translates what is currently done into a different form of input, which in a sense is the first step and in actuality might actually be the step. Another problem is the lack of actually forward thinking on part of Nintendo, the Wii is nowhere near future proof, the box is weak compared to what it should be and three years from now, when the fad effect has worn off, the Wii might not look as compelling and people will revert back to the traditional way of gaming. And if this happens this is the fundamental way in which the Wii will hasten the day Endpoint arrives rather than push it back. If this prototype fails, people might not want to risk creating another prototype and so we may never get out finished product for awhile because people will be to cautious and so Endpoint will come sooner.

So Endpoint is an important idea moving forward, for it is a concept which will soon come up more and more as people realize that doing the same thing, with the same form of input, can only last for so long and that soon something will have to change or monotony will set in and Endpoint will be reached. The success or failure of the Wii might prove to be bigger than a failure or success for Nintendo, it might have ramifications for the industry much wider than that. From this Nintendo might be doing the industry a huge favor or be giving us a huge burden, but only time will tell. And in the end this is what Endpoint is about, only time will tell when and if Endpoint shall be reached, let us hope that it is later rather than sooner.

I would like to point out a great website I found, it called The SimExchange. Basically it is a simulation of the stock market but instead of company stocks you buy stocks in games. Its fun to play around with the site. Anyways just wanted to have a short post, unlike most of my long post recently, dealing with something that dealt with news rather than big discussion ideas.

This is the first in my series on the greatest games I've ever played or enjoyed. When I talk about the greatest games I don't just mean in terms of gameplay and graphics but also in terms of how much of an impact the title had on me. With this in mind this first game I picked for this series was Civilization II, I will later on write an article on Civilization IV which is close to surpassing Civilization II. Civilization II is one of the greatest games in my mind because it offers so much to do, from waging war to building a great economic empire. Probably the main reason why I hold this game in such high regards in because of how it keeps you wanting to play long after you should have stopped and because in the end, each game of Civilization II is different, its like a choose your own adventure but with infinite possibilities.

In order to lay the ground work from which I will build upon, I first need to describe Civilization II and the mechanics that govern the game. Civilization is a turn based strategy game the allows you to take turns either with an human or a computer managing empires. Basically at the beginning you choose what type of civilization you want to be, for example the Japanese, Egyptians, French, etc. Once you have done this you are then given a settler and you can move him around the map for as much time as you want trying to find the best place to settle. The genius of this game is that these first couple of turns at the beginning of the game can decide a lot. First it is usually not wise to waste precious first turns looking for the best place to start your civilization, because in that time other civilizations could have grown much more powerful and gained a head start you will have a hard time recovering from. One other thing that elevates this game is how time in the game works. Early on each turn takes up to 100 years of time away but slowly as time goes on each turn takes less time, not in turns of actual time but in terms of the games time. So say you take a turn in 4900 B.C., the next turn may start in 4700 B.C. to represent how everything moved slower during those earlier times. Next of course is the management of cities and how they grow, which is more fun than it sounds.

First off, city management isn't like SimCity, you don't actually build a city but rather you manage the main points of a city, like whether to spend resources building a religious temple or a military barrack. Another thing that make this game so much fun is the fact that certain tiles in the game represent different gains for the land there. To put it simply you might build a city near a bunch of mountains, which would allow you to more likely be able to mine resource, but if you happen to build a city with no open plains around it also, the city might not have any food. The great part comes in when you can actually go in and edit what and how much of each resource surrounding the city, within a certain number of blocks, since you only have a limited amount of production or human base from which to distribute the load. Also in the city mode you can build military units, which you can then use to wage war upon other civilizations. Combat in the game is generally abstract and on a whole the combat usually isn't the climax of a campaign but the culmination of all your work and effectively, or ineffectively depending on your strategy, wins or loses you that said campaign.

Now that the description is out of the way, yes it took up half of the post but I also want to bring awareness to why the game is fun rather than just rant about it. One of the main reasons why Civilization II is so great is because it let you craft your own adventure and story, so that by the time your done a miniature world with its own major events, wars and so on has occurred. It may be that airplanes first saw flight in 1700s and the first world war was in 1808 instead of 1914. To see why this game is so great, let me just describe the first game I played of Civilization II.

First I played as the Japanese, because in every game like this that is the first civilization I always play and started out in a relatively fertile area. It soon grew to encompass a peninsula and I had a mountain range to the north and supplied me with the production points needed to raise an army. To the south I had the french, who would be my main ally/adversary throughout the game. Let me describe then another reason why this game is so fun and enjoyable to play. The french, as I said before, were my main ally/enemy because as the game went on we both used each other to get ahead and at time betrayed each other to get vital land to expand our empires. At one point later on in the game one of my major cities with my UN building and numerous other wonders was captured by the french and to me this was the last straw. I recalled in most of my troops on campaigns elsewhere against other civilizations to launch a full scale invasion of all the french territories, including their over seas possessions. This campaign lasted around 200 years from around 1700-1900 of off and on combat until finally I was able to take their capital and eliminate them as a threat. Later campaigns would subsequently wipe them off of the map. I could spend pages describing the different battles, involvement of other civilizations and so on and this was just in that 200 year span of time, in that one particular game.

By now you might get the picture of why this game is so great, even years after playing that first game I can still recall distinctly all the battles and events that took place throughout the game. The graphics for the game will look horrible and dated by today's standard but the wealth of fun and exciting play waiting beneath them is well worth the trade off. Even today from time to time I boot up the game and play it and any game that has that amount of replay and can ingrain in your mind adventures you had in it for year, is a game to me quite worthy of contention for the greatest game ever made.

“Playing is believing” was Nintendo’s mantra when describing the Wii to people who had not yet played it. To me they could not have been more right, after playing the Wii today, I think that Nintendo is on to something, first with the DS and now this. The reason why the Wii is so great is not because of the flashy graphics that the PS3 or Xbox360 has, it is because it is just plain fun to pick up and play, and does it with so much charm and charisma, you can’t help but have a smile on your face.

The first this that you will notice the first time you pick up a Wii controller is how different it is from the traditional controllers the videogames have used for a long time. The main controller has no analog stick, you hold it just like a tv remote and it has a motion sensor that detects where you point it. There is an attachment called the nunchaku, which is hard to describe the look, the picture below can help. The amazing thing about the controller is how well it detect the motions you make, they are mimicked with surprising precision. The controller is also quite lite, which helps since you have to have it in the air most of the time, but it doesn’t feel cheap like most controllers that feel lite tend to. Overall I really like the controller, it fits the hand well, is lite and looks really sleek–it has a white polish/glossy finish after all.

The next thing to look at is the Wii itself, which is very small compared to the Playstation 3. It is about the size of a couple of DVD cases and while I would have like to, the representative at Gamestop would not let me open the glass cover and pick up the Wii. The Wii also looks very nice, very sleek and very Apple like, it has a i[insert noun] look to it, which lend itself well in Nintendo’s attempt to make the machine marketable to the masses. The Wii has no sliding out DVD holder, instead it is like a car, in that it just sucks in the DVD, very nice, very simple and very elegant–on a side note the place where you insert the DVD is light a nice neonish blue, also very sleek, elegant ad infinitum. Overall the Wii is a very beautiful looking system, it puts to shame any of the current-generation systems and in a way to the Xbox360 and PS3 also. Nintendo did an excellent job when designing this system, though for some people it might look so beautiful that the other devices in the living room may look outdated next to it.

Next is the Wii interface, the main menu of sorts that lets you access a multitude of things, from viewing photos to browsing the web. The interesting thing about the menu is that Nintendo decided to call each of the menus “channels”, so the menu to look at Pictures is called the Picture Channel. The first part of the menu is the Disc Channel, which basically leads you to whatever disk you have inserted into the Wii, whether it be a Wii or Gamecube game. The next menu is what is called the Mii Channel, which essentially lets you create a character with exaggerated looks but is nonetheless very fun to play with. After that is the Picture Channel, which if you have a SD card, from your camera or PC or Mac. This is a very cool feature because you can do many things while in this mode, you can even view video. The great thing about this is the fact that you can basically extend the memory of your Wii by putting in different SD cards and since SD cards are getting very cheap, it makes it a smart move by Nintendo. The next couple of menus, the weather channel, news channel, internet channel and the Wii Shop I could not use since the store did not have the Wii hooked up to the internet. Overall I was very impressed with what I saw with the overall interface of the Wii, it is very modern, very sleek and easy to pick up.

The games, they are what make or break a system, but in this case I cannot judge that until about a year from now, but I will describe the fun I had with a game called Excite Truck. Excite Truck is a fairly standard racing game, you have the acceleration, the boost and some other things. You control the trucks in the game with the Wiimote–I will call the Wii’s remote as such for now and in later post–which by turning it sideways causes the game to be controlled like you are driving a car, which is pretty cool. The Wiimote picks up the movements of your had really well, I was quite impressed with how accurately my movements were pick up. One of the coolest features in Excite truck is the way in which the boosting is initiated, when you go off of a jump you start to see a blue streak coming off of the back of your tires, anytime the car is in the air you can control not only its left and right but also its tilt relative to the ground, by tipping th Wiimote forward or backwards. This is useful because if you land a jump level to the ground, you get a boost and once you get a hang of the system it becomes really fun to do. The game looks okay, the water looks great, but overall it has a very Gamecube looks, albeit a AAA Gamecube title but nonetheless a Gamecube look. This might put off graphics whores, but it never really takes away from the experience and overall I felt like they are clean and crisp, if not great. In the end I really had a lot of fun playing Excite Truck, the Wiimote really brought what would have been an average game to new levels, which really shows the potential in the Wii.

In the end, the Wii will be a success this holiday season not because of it high end graphics but because it is a ton of fun to play. Also while I was playing many people had already heard news about it and thought it was cool how it worked and how easy it was to pick up. Nintendo has hit a jackpot with this console, I really think that if the Wii doesn’t succeed, then the gaming industry would have made a big mistake in its race toward photo and video realism, sometimes its just about having fun.

The PS3 is destined for success, not because of its 1080p graphics, not because of it planned Playstation Network, or any other innumerable advantages it has. It will succeed based off of brand recognition alone, because in today's capitalistic world, sometimes it isn't always about creating the best product, its about getting the consumer to think of your product when they think of an industry.

For over 10 year, the Playstation brand has dominated the videogame industry. Just for comparison, in this last( or current depending on your view) generation of videogame consoles, the Playstation 2(PS2) has sold around or more than 100million units, compare that with the Xbox's 22 million and the Gamecube's 20.5 million. This is a sizable gap and the funny thing is, technology wise the PS2 was worst of the three, it produced the lowest resolution graphics, muddiest texture and worst sound, yet despite all of this it was able to outsell both the competitors, combined. This is an example of brand recognition winning, were the logo triumphs the technology.

A great place to start looking for how Sony has managed to edge out the competition is its excellent use of hype. Before the PS2 came out, they Sega Dreamcast(DC) was already released and already had many good games out for it, such as the canonized Soul Caliber. But Sony, knowing how much people valued the PSone, decided to announce that they would be releasing the PS2 soon, with the added bonus that it would be supporting the successor to the CD, the DVD. While this wasn't as big a deal in the United States, in Japan this probably is what made the Dreamcast die and the PS2 thrive. In the early years of the PS2's lifespan in Japan, people bought more DVDs than they did games, even though a couple years in people realized it was a horrible DVD player, but it had served its purpose.

The key difference with the launch of the PS3, is that the new supported format Blu-ray, is in competition with another format, HD-DVD. Also they are now competing with Microsoft and Nintendo, two companies that unlike Sega are not in their last throes or breathing their last breath. The hype machine, while still effective, will not work as well as it did in the past, especially with the near bottomless pit that is Microsoft's reserves. But back to the format wars, the last time Sony developed a major format for recording visual-audio was the Betamax tapes, and we all know how that turned out. (If you don't they ended up wasting a lot of money on a format that would end up being crushed by VHS).

The key difference this time is the number of high level companies such as Apple, Dell, Hitachi, and HP. The problem is the format Microsoft is backing is also supported by several other high level companies, such as Toshiba, NEC, and Sanyo. This makes some of the worst conditions for both sides because it is setting up to be a war of attrition, and the unlucky consumer left on the wrong side could suffer the consequences. This is were the success of brand name and the PS3 help Sony, the PS3 will be the main platform that will push forth the Blu-ray, it is $400 cheaper than the least expensive Blu-ray player and can do much more. On the other hand if the PS3 succeeds and somehow Blu-ray as a format doesn't catch on, then Sony is stuck out in the cold.

In the end though, the PS3 will succeed because of brand recognition, when people think of videogames they think of Mario, GTA, Halo and the Playstation brand, the other three are software, not hardware, and while in the long run software does matter, when it comes to selling hardware, there isn't a system right not that is more recognized than the Playstation brand.

Some of you may have heard of this remarkable new technology being produced by Novint, a haptic device company. Their new product, titled the Falcon, allows for force feedback and other more advanced rumble like features. It is not like a rumble pack though in that you control the game with the controller but the controller provides resistance if your say, feeling your hands in the game through cement. Even cooler is if your firing a weapon, the controller provides realistic recoil and slowly moves upward like a real gun wold. The real catch with this device is that the ball like controller used normally for control can be switched out with say a gun like device or other such devices.

The reason why this is brought up is that, the possibilities are nearly endless on the applications for this neat little device. Imagine a boxing game in which you could feel the resistance against your hand every time you connected a blow or a sword fighting game in which each time two weapons clashed you felt the vibrations and a sensation of weight pushing back due to the other swordsman trying to get the edge. There are so many applications for this new little device, it good to know that Novint said it will cost around $100 or less, putting it in more of a mainstream area rather than an exclusive club. It will be released sometimes in 2007, hopefully Q1 or Q2. Thoughts about the impact and application of this technology will be discussed in further post.

A list of quotes that I find funny, enlightening or really good. This list mostly has quotes that are not from famous people, but that's fine because they are still good or funny.

"One should never trust a woman who tells one her real age. A woman who would tell one that, would tell one anything."

"You must not find symbols in everything you see. It makes life impossible."

"Life is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy to those who feel."

"Everybattle is won before it is fought"

"The all knowing-all loving god of the universe is responsible or all natural disasters, wars, horrific infectious diseases and Republicans on planet Earth. He creates homosexuals so they can be one of many flashpoints of hatred and ridicule for his followers on Earth, in case they get bored with starting wars, brainwashing children or making war with followers of any of the many other religions He created. He also created people of color, which he called 'niggers', so that they should be slaves for white Europeans and Americans."

"Anyone who says "Easy as taking candy from a baby"
has never tried it."

"When a man talks dirty to a woman, it's sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man, it's $3.95 per minute"

"Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else."

"The best buy had a midnight madness for the PSP and they told me only 10 people showed up."

"Books on How To Read
You learn from books by reading them. However, if you can't read, you can't learn from books, so you can't learn to read by reading a book that tells how to read. Does this make any sense to you?"

""It's always in the last place you look" - Of course it fucking is, if you've already found it why would you keep looking for it?"

"Doc: I'm a pacifist.
Caboose: You're a thing that babies suck on?
Tucker: No, dude, That's a pedophile.
Church: Tucker, I think he means a pacifier.
Tucker: Oh yeah, right. Man I was... totally thinking about somethin' else.
Church: That's real classy, Tucker."

"About 3% of history is some form of apology for or to black folks. This usually includes thing s about the Negro League and how those black guys would have totally kicked Derrick Jeter's ass if he mosied by the bar after the negroes had suffered a hard day of being black in the racist North of the later Industrial Age.

The rest is mostly about using black people as guinea pigs during World War II and the Cold War. "

"History is a form of right wing propaganda dedicated to ensuring that people continue to hear the messages of two key groups: 1, the Nazis; and 2, the Confederacy.

Anything that does not pertain to the Nazis or the Confederacy is probably not history. The rest of the planet outside America and Nazi Germany considers this bloody annoying

This is shown by the fact that 88% of all history ever written has something to do with Hitler, German attempts to build an atomic bomb, the Battle of Gettysburg, Confederate efforts to build a useful submarine"

World Soccer

This is a funny video parodying different soccer leagues throughout the world.

Single player has always been an important part of the video game experience, whether it was the engrossing story of Final Fantasy Tactics(PSone) or the fun gameplay of the Mario series or the challenge of the megaman games. Single player, up until recently, has been the benchmark for whether you game was considered a worth the time to play, or just a waste of time. Single player has provided many people with memorable experiences and memories albeit many times the same ones. When someone says, 'oh remember Omaha Beach?' or 'remember that final mission in GTA: SA?' you would probably be like, yeah I remember that and remember '(insert something else about the same part of the mission/level)' and the conversation goes as such. While this is all well and good, the recent surge in xbox live and the recent customization craze, people seems to want everything to be tailored to them, and memories and experiences are no different. Enter the multiplayer experiences, while this is nothing new, it certainly has grown in the last couple of years to nearly, if it hasn't already, eclipse the single player experience.

Case in point, the Battlefield series has been known to have some of the best multiplayer around, even if its single player seems to have been dreamt up by monkeys. Why is it that even when the single player is bad people will still flock to a game, as stated before it is the desire for unique and non-set piece memories and experiences that drive the urge to play multiplayer. Suppose two people that played Battlefield had a conversation about the game, one person might say ' oh it was so tight, I was flying in a helicopter while rockets were exploding all around and then one hit us, we crashed but I survived and had to defend and wait for help, eventually one of my teammates came in with another copter and took out the enemy, I got into the copter and we flew off, blah blah blah' the other person might say 'nice, that hasn't happen to me but one time me and my pal were riding down the road full speed, taking out enemies and trying to dodge bullets, well right as we were about to reach the objective deep behind enemy lines a plane came out of no where and shot our vehicles, we got out before we could take to much damage fought off some enemies for awhile before our ammo ran out, lucky for us our commander dropped some supplies and we were about to get out of there alive' and the conversation continued in this manner. The real question is, which conversation would you rather have?

Many people of the RPG and other genres traditionally dependent on the single player would most likely have the former conversation rather than the latter, while people of the FPS and RTS genre would rahter have the latter conversation. But really, most people would rather have the latter conversation because it has more room for more thing to be talked about just from the virtue that each person had a different experience and they can share that experience knowing that it is unique to them. This thought of uniqueness, when playing in multiplayer, is more real that any customization option or avatar will give you because it was really you and other human beings who created the experience, there is no pre-scripted runs or attack patterns, most of the time it is on the fly, spontaneous or random. And this is why multiplayer will soon, or is, eclipse the single player experience.

But one interesting thing to note, is how the creators of single player experience are using the knowledge of why multiplayer is fun and putting it to good use, one case in point being the Indiana Jones game corning out in 2007. This game is using an engine were the actions that the NPCs carry out aren't really prescripted, the animations or the actions, go here for more. This is great because it opens up the possibility of unique experience to happen even in a generally pre-scripted single player mode. It is great to see this happening, not only from this game but from many other including games like Medal of Honor: Airborne Assault and others.

The greatest example of this fusion of single player pre-scripted restrictions on uniqueness of memories and the multiplayer creation of unique memories is Guild Wars. The game at its core is a single player RPG that can almost be play through without actually using the help of any companions, even though it is a MMO. The interesting thing that comes into play is that even single player missions can become multiplayer missions, all you need to do is have a party with you. And this is where the great fusion of single and multi player comes into play, you can still participate in the semi-pre-scripted fun that the single player offers while simultaneously creating unique memories with your friends. Remembering killing the hoards of drakes and other creatures with only yourself is uneventful and usually boring, but add in the group dynamics and general fun associated with taking out the hoard with your friends, and it will probably be remembered better and more fondly.

The recognition of why many people now prefer playing the multiplayer over the single player will greatly assist the makers of single player experiences of recognizing their goal of giving the player the sense that they are fight along or against real player while not actually doing so and in the process provide the randomness that is inherent with playing multiplayer games. In the creators of single player experiences will have to evolve to embrace the idea that unique memories that multiplayer can produce while still keeping at their core the stories and memorable missions( like Omaha beach) that have defined single player games.

So after my top ten( well top 11) list of favorite games, I decided to bump it up to 25, as time goes on I will add to this list until it get to my top 100 games. So now I present to you my top 20 games( some might be a tie, if a game is #20 doesn't mean that the game at #9 I like better, so yeah, I'll just throw that out there).
1. Legend of Zelda: Link to the Past
2.(tie) Civilization 2
Rome Total War
Chrono Trigger
Chrono Cross
6.(tie) Age of Empires 2
Rise of Nations
Unreal Tournament 2004
Medal of Honor Allied Assault
10. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
11.(tie) Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Super Mario 64
13. Final Fantasy Tactics(PS)
14.(tie) Fire Emblem(series)
Advanced Wars DS
16. Halo: Combat Evolved PC(custom edition)
17. Final Fantasy VIII/Final Fantasy II/Final Fantasy VI
18. Golden Sun/Golden Sun: The Lost Age
19.Super Mario/Super Mario 2/Super Mario 3
20.(tie) Yoshi's Island
Tactics Ogre/Tactics Ogre: The Knight of Lodis
22.(tie) Panzer General
X-Com: UFO Defense
24. Descent: Freespace - The Great War
25. The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons
26.(tie) Super Metroid
Samurai Showdown

That is a rough list, it will change as I get to my top 30, 40 50, etc. I am certainly missing some game that I would rather have on the list, but will put on later.

Why is it that recently, though this is open to debate, many people within and outside the industry are declaring it dead, void of innovation and having no clear path as the where to go next? Why is it that people complain about sequels, ports and games that just get the job done? Why is it when a Madden 20xx comes along people cry foul at the dominance of sequels and ports but at the same time these sequels and ports do so well. Why is it then that gamers themselves cry for innovative new genres and games yet the top selling games are usually not those innovative ones? It is within this framework of mind that I will try to paint a picture of what is right, and wrong, about the current state of the people commenting on the industry and the industry itself.

When people say that the industry is stagnant I really don't get what then mean, especially after the success of the DS and the great looking things coming from the Wii, plus all the great and generally fun looking games coming out across all platforms. It is possible then that these people, who sit on their silver pedestals and declare innovation dead, are really just not looking hard enough, and are expecting something where there is nothing. Why not perfect( or get as close to perfection as possible) the current genre's that have flourished for so long. It still seems that for every Tactics Ogre there is an Onimusha Tactics, for every Rise of Nations there is a Empire Earth( I like the game, but many key elements fall short). All the people say that the industry has no where to go, but how about we cover the base first. Really would a military start researching a new technology while its current technology is partially broken and doesn't always deliver reliable results? They might but they would rather( hopefully) cover there bases, pun intended, than seek out something new and risk losing them. The same thing with the gaming industry, I hope to see many of the current genre's refined to near perfection while at the same time see others forge new path, after more of the same, but better, isn't in any way bad.

Now of course people will ask, give us an example of such a genre tha could be perfected or near perfected, in the near future, the easiest place to look I think is the RPG. I'll use square-enix rather than Atlus or Nippon Ichi as an example, because they have a much larger catalogue( that I'm familiar with) to draw on. If you read reviews on many of the square-enix games out right now, mostly many of the less big name ones, you notice that many of there reviewers talk about how one element of the game excels extremely well, whether it be the battle system, the story, the look of the game/art style, the adventuring, the small innovations. Now consider if square-enix was to bring together all the best aspects of each game cohesively, imagine the possibilities. Now of course since it was so many people and directors that probably oversaw each of these games this would be hard to do, but if they even if got many of these parts right it would still make a fantastic game. Of course that all depends on whether they can bring these pieces together while still making a great and fun to play game.

Another place in the industry where there seems to be a lot of failure is combining two or more genres( besides the rather good combos of RTS/RPG). But what seems to happen more rarely is for a game to forget that it has two of more genre's flowing through its veins and instead of just letting them operate on there own, they try to mash them together. Why have a FPS were the RPG elements are forced upon you, why not have the game separated into different segments, with adventure parts being primarily RPG while the FPS parts can be made for just the 'random encounters' or other forms of combat. While this is sometimes done, many times the RPG element of the game is shoved down the throat of the player when they just feel like playing an FPS. It is hard to describe but it seems like some games are taking this up more, one game in the past that did this combination of genres well but without squishing them together is X-Com. Play that game and you will see what I mean.

On the other hand you can look at all the things that the gaming industry is doing right at the moment, and looking and the nice flow of good games I would say that we are far from stagnant. But while many games push to have better 3D visuals that might add another layer to the games, many times these new graphics effects are no more that eye candy, and they in no way contribute to adding the the experience other than added 'realism' What I really hope to see, Super Paper Mario can be seen as an example of this, is people to use this new graphical power for things other than HDR lighting, 1000 different filters per pixel and other things associated with 'next-gen' games. Wouldn't it be great if someone were to use this new power to create an adventure that doesn't have all the sheen and blinding light that seems to dominate most current games?

How about a game that can look as good as any of Hayao Miyazaki's motion pictures, imagine a world as colorful, vibrant and fun to explorer as the worlds that Miyazaki creates. I'm not saying that someone isn't already doing this, many people are trying but as development cost rise it will be a rare commodity to see, a game such as Kurayami looks like it might fall in this category. At the same time this gets to the heart of the problem with many people who comment on the industry, they talk about how the increase in graphics and the new coat of paint is bad, that it further degrades the quality of games, because they will now focus on the look rather than the substance, and I have to disagree with many people here, because in a sense it is almost a cliche by now to say that. People always think of the old days, how how if games were simpler they would be better, but many times this isn't the case and nostalgia plays fiddle with our brains. Why can't these people really be open-minded, instead of trying to sound open minded while really being close minded about the future of games, a future where innovation thrives and sequels wither and die. As is known, this will never happen, so why not instead focus on the games that deliver more of the same, games that refine what we already know and love, rather than ditch what we have in a headlong race toward 'innovation' which is truly only seen in the eye of the beholder, after all what I consider innovation, might not be innovation to you.

By now many of you know about asian breakers, but the video I present may not really count as an asian breaker movie, I really don't know what to classify it as, so hopefully someone else can.