John Prezioso

There have been some interesting discussions pertaining to the latest round of Starforce debacles that have taken place on Bluesnews recently. Here is a post I made in one currently going on. If you read the whole thread, you'll notice another 3000AD regular taking part. LINK quote:"What makes a title a retail success? Is it copy protection? The fact that Call of Duty, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Battlefield 1942, Doom, or Half-Life were pirated to some extent is indisputable. And yet they were successful. The inheritant quality of these games is clear, but that is NOT what made them successful. The variables that go into determining a title's success are many, but I tried to boil it down to a few important ones. 1) Innovation of concept. Example: Doom. It heralded in a new way of playing through perfected 3D deathmatch. 2) Popular Culture Relevance. Example: Any WW2 title made even remotely well. After 'Saving Private Ryan' and "Band of Brothers' ushered in an era of rememberance of WW2 history, and 'Medal of Honor:AA' capitilzed brilliantly on this, as well as 'Call of Duty'. 3) Market Readiness: Remeber RPG's were dead? Remember when Baldur's Gate came out and everyone went nuts? The market has to be primed for the title you release. The right game at the right time concept. 4) Technological Advancement. Doom 3. Sure it wasn't a particularly innovative title, but it sure looked pretty. 5) Brand/Franchise Recognition. Hence the industry's love affair with 'sequelitis'. 6) Effective Marketing. Not just spending money on ads, but marketing it to the actual target audience. Hopefully there actually IS a target audience, and the developer is not just making a game for an imaginary group of fans that doesn't exists. See "Psychonauts" for an example of a great game with no market to sell it to. 7) Cater to the Hardcore Fan. Most recently, Gal Civ 2 is an awesome example of this done to perfection. The hardcore are the ones who spend time on message boards singing the praises of the game, creating the ever elusive "Buzz". 8) Have a 'Twist'. Tribes gave us teamplay with jetpacks and massive outdoor environments. God bless Dynamix for that gem. NOTE: See 'Tribes Vengeance' as an example of how to fail miserably at #7 There are probably more, and in truth most successful games combine many of these. Ultimately, though, copy protection has NOTHING to do with a title's success, unless you want to count the sales you lose by treating every consumer like a potential thief. This is not rocket science. Worry about making a game that resonates with your potential buyers, and stop worrying about people who never would have bought your game in the first place. "

I've heard it said many an election time: when it come time to run for office, move to the right. And that's the advice given to extreme liberals candidates. It arguably worked very well for Bill Clinton.

I'm pretty sure that by now, Bush is prepared to be blamed for just about anything bad that happens between now and the end of his presidency. There isn't enough money in the world to make me want to be president. Well, maybe if it was one beeeellion dollars!!!!!!...

Umm... I answer "I don't know" to all of the above. Seriously, it would be easy to compile a list of what he, or any president for that matter, hasn't done - a president is just one man, with finite resources and time. As far as the spending questions, I share your angst, believe me. He has proven himself to be quite the fiscal liberal. At least a tax-and-spend liberal understands that he/she has to raise taxes to cover the increased costs he inflicts on the sheeple. 'W' somehow thinks he can RAISE spending while LOWERING revenue. I'm all about tax cuts, but there has to be some belt tightening done, and there hasn't been. Just the opposite, in fact.

The guys at Stardock (Brad Wardell in particular) have my utmost respect. Very few people in this industry have it. People like Brad, Ken Levine, Sid Meier, Warren Spectre,Chris Taylor, Derek (natch) et al are extremelely rare in the cold cutthroat business PC gaming has become. Anyone who pirates GalCiv2 should have their computer monitors explode in their faces in a shower of glass and flaming components, scarring them for life. Or something.

OH YEAH!? Well... 'Firefly' was a big turd! So there! Honestly, I can't see how anyone can call such a good show rubbish, but to each his own, I guess. That's why Baskins and Robbins has more than just vanilla ice cream in their freezers.

Agreed, Lost In Space. While I remain of the opinion that the deal was a bad one, I'm disgusted how Hillary, Schumer and the media play both sides of this issue. The UAE probably is upset, and I guess they have the right, being offered the deal and then having it yanked, but it never should have been offered in the first place. Anyway, the bash-Bush crowd seem to have accomplished their mission - W's approval ratings have started entering Nixon territory.

Yeah, I bet a radeon 9500 or a Geforce 5200FX would run it great. All I know is your rig better scream running 'Morrowind' if you are going to have a prayer at running 'Oblivion' remotely well. Speaking of which, I wonder if you'll need a 'no cd' crack to run the game faster than 10-15 fps like you did with Morrowind early on. Gotta love that copy protection!

Perhaps 'collapse' isn't the correct word. In economies, the term 'correction' is more appropriate. To whit, the Great Depression is considered by many economists to have been an economic correction, albeit a fairly severe one. Sure, if our very system were to crumble in an unprecedented economic disaster, gold would be as useful as cray paper. But more realistically, we are looking at, if anything, what would amount to a severe economic downturn; or a 'correction', in which gold will largely retain its value on the world market while the majority of medium and high risk stocks that comprise our mutual funds will dry up to penny stocks. I have mutual funds; I just don't rely on them exclusively. From everything I have read, gold IS a wise investment; it just shouldn't be all that your portfolio is comprised of. Back to the topic at hand, did you have any response to my previous point about Bush and the economy?

While I share SilK's and Soback's disgust at our fiscal situation in this country, I don't lay it at Bush's feet so much as Washington's overall. It has been standard operating procedure for so long now to operate the U.S. like a fiscally-defunct household headed for bankruptcy, there is nothing one man can do to make a huge enough impact to turn things around. Bush has tried to do some things - his tax cuts, his social security reform, his vouchers for families, but all of these have died a slow political crib death. I can hardly blame Bush that in 10 years, the ratio of working people to retired people will have dropped from 40 to 1 in 1970 to 3 to 1. A reasonably intelligent person can see that this system is destined to implode under its own weight, but no one has done anything about the broken social security system for decades. How do you fix these things when they are broken beyond repair? Me, I have learned to stop worrying about it, invest in gold, have as large a savings as I can, and prepare for the seemingly inevitable collapse.

Bush isn't a Socialist - he's just not very fiscally responsible. Well, I think so, anyway. Personally, I worry far more about foreign enemies than I do about the economy these days. Aside from some major domestic security gaffs, I'd say he's doing a decent job. Still, I certainly hope a conservative gets elected to the next administration.

Aperson : Yes and no. Historically, we have always been a two-party system. It wasn't necessarily defined as such from its creation, but third parties, for whatever reason, simply don't work in our system. I did a research paper in college on political third parties in American history and what struck me as most remarkable is how our system simply rejects third parties. That's not to say it HAS to be Democrats and Republicans, as there have been others, but throughout U.S. history, 3rd parties have always failed miserably. Michael Medved, a syndicated radio talk show host, said it best when he likened our system to a boxing match. Boxing was meant as a one-on-one event. Throw in a third contender, and all you have is chaos.

Am I excited? More like filled with dread.

The Oscars have always seemed utterly pretentious and nauseatingly masturbatory to me. Someone would have to pay me large amounts of money to watch these self-righteous elitist yokels stroke their own egos.

***SHUDDER***

You keep saying that I've eaten the media line, which proves that you've read nothing that I said. You are unable to grasp the fact that someone can know the same facts as you and come to a different conclusion. Very sad. You keep saying that you've studied this. What is there to study? The facts you posted are common knowledge easily found to anyone who does a little googling. You're not special because you don't buy everything the media says. Polls show that most Americans don't. There are things I found out while googling that I'm sure you came across that you've chosen to downplay, or ignore completely. Fine. So you accuse me of buying into media lies, and I accuse you of only selectively posting the facts that suit you. I've grown tired over the pointless bickering with you, since, in typical Jag fashion, after about 2 or 3 posts, you continue to post the same thing. This discussion is over for my part. Feel free to post how I've disappointed you and blah, blah, blah- that's great. I don't exist to gain your approval. [ 02-28-2006, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: Prez ]

Jag - Well, it's a good thing I don't need your approval for my self esteem. You can believe what you wish; it affects me not at all. If it makes you feel better by claiming that you are the only one smart enough to understand all the details of this case, where there's really nothing all that complicated, well, be my guest. So carry on with you're silly posturing, by all means. The funniest part is that the guy who wanted to nuke Mecca several months back is now calling me racist. Priceless.

This is all SilK's fault: he reported on the deal waaayyy before the media even picked up on the story. Bravo! It looks like we have another Matt Drudge right here at 3000AD!

How about forgetting what you're "supposed" to think and just formulating your own opinion? It works for me, even when it pisses other conservatives off!

You know what I think? I think you sound like a kid who stands in the school yard and screams at the top of his lungs until everyone declares that he's right. I am aware of the difference- I am not stupid. Furthermore, I find it amusing coming from you that I'm letting my emotions rule me - you've been TYPING IN CAPS QUITE ALOT LATELY. I simply do not agree with you. In my opinion, Bush is wrong and the deal is wrong. Deal with it, or don't. I really don't care. You know, we conservatives are allowed to disagree from time to time without having to resort to slinging insults.

Jag, you're obsessing over semantics, and you sound borderline hysterical. Fine, they're terminals. Whatever. I don't think the UAE should be managing them. SHEESH!

Jag- I agree with you on 3 points 1. We are winning against Al Qaeda in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the evidence supports that. 2. The UAE has been a supportive ally since 9/11, and deserves to be commended for finally seeming to be on the right track. 3. The media lies like a rug. That does not mean we are no longer at risk. Furthermore, just because the UAE has recently begun acting like an ally, we just don't dive in feet first straight away and give them management of our ports. There are levels of trust that are earned slowly over time, and the UAE has Emirs in power right now that have been seen spending time with ole' Osama. (Do some research and you'll see that one reason Bin Laden isn't taking a dirt nap right now is because the U.S. aborted an assassination attempt because he was with an Emir of the UAE at the time.) No, the UAE has a long way to go before they deserve to be given such a sensitive position. This deal is still all wrong, all of your facts notwithstanding.

Yeah, I still have an unused Y2K kit that I have yet to use. So bring it on!

You are essentially right Soback. It's just another form of outsourcing, and that's just another level on which it's wrong. Why start another thread without answering the points I made in another on the same topic? quote:And we are supposed to suddenly trust the UAE, after they supported and funded the Taliban, and by extension Al Quaeda, and by further extension, Osama Bin Laden? Because they allow their containers to be inspected? What happens when this warm, fuzzy, and cuddly UAE government that adores us so much goes through a regime change like in Iran and Palestine? You know, where the government becomes run by militant USA and Israel haters who would stop at nothing to destroy us? Oh, well, it's only 2 terminals in NY. And 6 in Baltimore. And 4 in Los Angeles. And... Does thinking you're the last sane man in America make you crazy? 'Cause then I just may be nuts after all... Also, to illustrate how I'm NOT just buying into media muck-raking, I'll post a quote that I made just a week ago on another topic: quote: This is why I've been saying don't trust the media. About anything. At all. Whatsoever. NOTHING! They think their job is to shock you, to inflame you, to provoke you, to panic you, and to manipulate you. It's been a very long time since anyone in the media has performed their REAL freakin' task: to inform you. The bottom line is this: Bush is aggressively pursuing the war on terrorism overseas, and for the most part, given the magnitude of the job, I'd say he's doing a good job. However, domestically, his actions taken to provide for America's national security have been abysmally inadequate. On Sept. 11, any sane country would have completely sealed the borders against all foreign immigration, and kept them sealed until such a time that a system was in place to ensure that every single person entering this country is checked and accounted for. Is this racist? Because we're worried about security? Is Israel racist because they kept tight security along the Gaza strip? Or because they have extra security measures in place where there are high concentrations of Muslims? Some people would answer 'yes' to these questions, and I would patently disagree with them. When you're worried about nuclear bombs being set off in your cities or squads of suicide attackers being smuggled in through foreign-managed ports, you don't have the luxury of worrying about offending someone's delicate sensibilities. I've now been accused of being both racist AND stupid, and both charges I deny emphatically. If I'm to be accused of anything, it probably ought to be of being paranoid. Call me crazy, but having buildings that my loved ones work in come crashing to the ground on a sunny fall day can tend to make a guy paranoid. Instead of doing what a sane country under attack would do, we are doing the opposite. WE ARE AT WAR. Bush is going in the wrong direction with domestic national security, and if Hillary Commie Clinton or Chuckie Schumer agree with me, I can't help that. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

And we are supposed to suddenly trust the UAE, after they supported and funded the Taliban, and by extension Al Quaeda, and by further extension, Osama Bin Laden? Because they allow their containers to be inspected? What happens when this warm, fuzzy, and cuddly UAE government that adores us so much goes through a regime change like in Iran and Palestine? You know, where the government becomes run by militant USA and Israel haters who would stop at nothing to destroy us? Oh, well, it's only 2 terminals in NY. And 6 in Baltimore. And 4 in Los Angeles. And... Does thinking you're the last sane man in America make you crazy? 'Cause then I just may be nuts after all...