At this year’s Game Developers Conference, Chris Hecker of Maxis/Electronic Arts made an interesting observation of the Wii according to this article:

He believes that Nintendo does not treat gaming as an art form, but simply a tool for fun.

Hm. I’m as ready as most anyone passionate about video games to defend them as a ’serious art form.’ In an earlier post I mentioned Ebert’s shortsighted view on this very topic. However, Hecker’s statement isn’t just shortsighted, its downright backwards. What on earth is wrong with art being fun? Does he really believe the two are mutually exclusive? One of the big draws of video games is that they aren’t exclusively hoighty-toighty too-good-for-you pieces of art that the common man, or woman, is too low to understand. Why should they be? Does Hecker expect gaming to be another elite class of ‘dev-onistas’ lifting up their noses and raising their pinkies? Does he really believe that games shouldn’t be, *gasp*, fun?

As for the Wii, I admit that the architecture seems to be a bit lacking in terms of sheer power. But what it lacks in the electronic pants it more than makes up for in the electronic hands, interacting with the average gamer in ways most (if any) have never experienced and on a scale that is in some ways a watershed indicating that the future predicted in the 50’s and 80’s might finally be a reality, albeit sans flying car. If Nintendo really intended to save a few bucks and cut some corners to actually make a profit on the hardware for once, well good for them cuz it’s working. That being said, I find it hard to believe as the Wii is a very sexy piece of hardware. In my opinion, it far outweighs a Mac’s (or any Apple product’s) overengineered elitist classism by leaps and bounds. In any case, the average consumer has said ‘yes’ and hasn’t stopped saying ‘yes.’ The aftermarket for these babies alone has probably boosted the economy in significant ways that economists will finally note in their text books a couple years from now, filed away next to the tech bubble but ‘more fun.’

Money does not determine good art, I will unhesitatingly admit that. However, in a genre that is already breaking what is considered traditional art how could anyone claim that user interaction in a game can’t be art? On that note, what on earth makes a game art in the first place? What is the goal of a video game? To tell a story or to create and experience or to entertain… it can be all of these, but overall a game has to be interactive or it simply isn’t a game. I think anyone with any sort of experience with these machines can say the Wii has accomplished that. If you can’t see the inherent art in creating an interaction then you’re truly not seeing the level for the polygons.

Ubuntu doesn’t immediately recognize this card for some reason. There are many ways mentioned on the internet on how to fix this, however I found what I believe to be the simplest fix.

Perform the following before entering MythTV setup. If you are installing Ubuntu first and then MythTV then simply do this during your hardware enable stage before the MythTV install (note that it is better to install Nvidia/ATI graphics card drivers AFTER the MythTV install). If you are using Mythbuntu, do not perform setup and click Finish at the end of your install. Reboot and load a different run-time so you can use a console to perform these instructions. Then switch back to the normal run-time and go ahead and continue the setup. To switch run-times type ctrl-alt-f4 (or other function key). The normal run-time is on ctrl-alt-f7. NOTE: I’m not familiar with run-times so use at your own risk or use a different run-time according to your knowledge. Let me know if ctrl-alt-f4 is a bad one to use for this.

If you’ve already setup MythTV then don’t worry. Use the run-time trick mentioned above or just boot into Gnome and then rerun MythTV setup. Correct the capture card, video input, etc.

Sudo edit /etc/modprobe.d/options and add the following line at the bottom:

options cx88xx card=4

Then perform the following to enable it:

sudo modprobe -r cx8800

sudo modprobe cx8800

Then use dmesg to check it. It will be towards the bottom so just typing dmesg and hitting enter at your prompt is sufficient. If it worked the brand (TV Wonder Pro) should show up somewhere around the messages regarding the tuner card, and there shouldn’t be an error towards the end.

I give credit to this fix to someone else, but I don’t have the link. If I can find it again I will post it.

ATI fails to deliver when it comes to MythTV. The problem stems from some ATI cards (afaik), when using VideoOverlay which is important for smooth tv viewing if you’re using a sotware tuner card, showing only the top 2/3rds or so of the stream. Apparently this is a driver issue and while there are some complicated work-arounds that may or may not work ATI seems to indicate no intention of fixing it. Nevermind even supporting any linux platform. Yet one more reason to drop ATI in favor of Nvidia. Doesn’t matter how fast you say your card is, if it doesn’t work it doesn’t matter.

I’ve had to switch my GeForce 7600 GS in my primary desktop with the Radeon 9800 Pro in my mythbox, so no more games for me. Probably for the best anyway, I need fewer distractions and this does give me component-out for my mythbox now.

In press conference at New Mexico State University on Sept 4th, Virgin Galactic unveiled plans for a $31 million hangar-terminal according to the Las Cruces Bulletin. The facility is designed to blend with the landscape and be as environmentally friendly as possible; using solar panels, water-recycling, and passive heating and cooling systems. It also features a slim and organic profile designed to blend with the terrain, hopefully alleviating local concerns about a Spanish colonial trail’s “viewshed” (Bulletin). Construction is expected to start in 2008, pending a spaceport license.  The Virgin Galactic spaceliner is based on the craft that won the X-Prize and the company hopes to offer sub-orbital flight at $200,000 a ticket as early as 2009.

The biggest obstacle at the moment is local concerns over messing up the landscape. My view on this is that the concerned parties should record as much of the history they wish to preserve and then make way for what is probably the biggest and greatest thing to happen to New Mexico ever, much less the rest of the states. After all, no other state can claim to be the birthplace of commercial space travel. Arguments can be made for the NASA facilities in Texas and Florida I suppose, but really I don’t think anyone really believes that NASA is the future of space exploration. I take it as a fact that private companies are going to be the ones that make space a valid frontier. Concern for history is all well and good, but do not forget the beginnings of history. After all, pretty much anywhere has some sort of history. Are we going to be a nation that consists of nothing but monuments and protected trails? It may sound cold, but at some point I think it necessary that triage occurs.

Anyway. Enough on the soapbox. Here are some pictures from the article in case the link goes down. Credits go to URS Corp. of San Francisco and Foster + Partners of England, the winning design team; and also the Las Cruces Bulletin where I first saw the article. Image hosting by Imageshack.

We haven’t heard from either of the two copyright holders we contacted so we’re moving forward with making our own rules. This will take a little longer but the result will be a game entirely our own.

I have recently become quite addicted to this game, and through browsing around on the internet I noticed that the way most people recommend to trap animals is really quite inefficient. So here’s the method I came up with:

• Make 4 or 5 snares (large traps) and gather 2 or 3 vines.
• Go to the grasslands and find a large animal.
• Watch it for a bit and attempt to place a trap in its path. If you succeed here, great, if not all is not lost.
• As you run around look for wood sticks. I usually find two. Use these to make more traps.
• Keep trying to trap animals using this method until all you’re seeing are the little cat-looking animals and the boars.
• Go back to the cave and rest.
• In the morning, head back to the grasslands. Chances are you’ve caught an animal. You’ll know instantly because you’ll hear it straining and grunting in the trap as soon as you enter the zone. If not, leave and come back until you do. You’ll probably end up with two or three animals in a very short time using this method.

This works because the animals consistently spawn in a finite number of areas. As you try to trap them you seed their most likely spawn zones with snares which increases your chances of getting one. Placing traps near the entrance takes far too long because animals rarely spawn there.

Hints: Always have snares with you when you’re in the grasslands and try to trap animals until you’re all used up. This way every time you enter the zone you’re likely to have caught something. Also, stock up on stamina ’shrooms. These are different for every game, experiment till you find the right ones. I think that they’re usually in the mushroom zone farthest from the cave.

If you’re considering getting this game, I recommend it if you don’t mind a slower-paced game and don’t have preconceived notions about how an rpg should be (or are open-minded to a different sort of game). It’s definitely not a typical mainstream game.

Ogame? This — is — SPATRAS!

Spatras has been approved as our senior project so we don’t have to do bioinformatics like the rest of the sheep.

What is Spatras you ask? I’ll tell you! Here is the email I sent to Marc Miller, creator of Classic Traveller in asking for his permission to use the CT ruleset:

Dear Mr. Miller:

Hi! Thanks for writing me back.

Our initial focus will be on space trading, ship-to-ship combat, and exploration. Also character generation will keep things like pistol skills and (maybe not initially) we would like to use that for boarding. At some point in the future we would like to implement some sort of planetary adventure as well.

Our concept is a web-based game similar to (but far better than) ogame.org. This game has huge flaws. There is no exploration to speak of, combat is static (you can determine the exact results of any battle before you engage using a player-made tool), there is no trading, no visual representation of other players, etc. As a long-time fan of Classic Traveller I felt that the flexibility and adaptability of these rules would enable us to create a more satisfying game. Our vision is a game that allows a playing model similar to the following:
* Create characters (using Book 1)
* Enter Space Trade/Combat/Exploration (using Book 2 and Book 3)
- via Scout mustering out with Scout Ship.
- via teaming up and pooling resources to buy a ship.
- via working for other players,
existing player-run companies,
or for the Imperium (which would be us, the developers).
* Allow for Ship Purchase, Building, and Combat (using Book 2)

This overall gameplay would (hopefully) have something like the following mechanics:
* Exploration. Worlds and other errata are randomly generated when explorers venture into unknown map regions. Then they are maintained as part of the persistent universe, meaning other players can visit there. We would use the rules in Book 3 to handle this. As of now we don’t intend on using the existing canon maps, everything will be generated.
* Trade. Book 2 rules.
* Imperium. Either ourselves or possibly ai to be a governing force in the spirit of Classic Traveller and the era of wooden ships. This also means of course that players can become pirates and prey on other players or tangle with the Imperium.
* Visual recognition of other players and communication keeping in the spirit of CT. This means that long range messages are handled via courier (or possibly drone) and short-range is real-time (via radio). Initially this may mean that you see their ship on some sort of map. We hope to have this feature be so basic as to allow players to form companies of mercenaries, traders, or pirate bands in a way that is integral to the game.

In the future, if and when we continue to work on this project, we would like to implement more books from Classic Traveller; especially High Guard, Merchant Prince, and Robots.

To summarize, we would like to implement Books 1-3 as much as possible. The game itself will have as many players as want to play, similar to an internet forum. Therefore, while my colleague and I may be something like a referee, there won’t be any specific story-telling unless it is performed by the players themselves using the game. I have not played this game, but the old Trade Wars BBS game might be a similar concept; EVE Online is also a loose sort of example, but ours probably would not have quests and certainly won’t be as graphics oriented (we’re limited to webpage-type interface and graphics). We want a system where players can run around on their own trading and fighting and interacting and what-have-you and we feel that Classic Traveller rules are a great match for implementing this. The only things that we would want to implement that are canon are the Imperium and some of the basic ships and items. If you only allow us to use the rule set we can, of course, use our own items and governing body. Additionally, and this is a much later if ever goal, we would like to use ads or some similar model to support the server. This might mean royalties of course, or some sort of licensing agreement. I’m only speculating, I have never done this before so I don’t know what it would involve. I just do not want to do anything illegal, much less infringe on something that I respect and enjoy so much.

Allow me to restate that we do not now or ever intend to infringe on your works.

I feel it’s also worth mentioning that some parts of CT probably will not work in our implementation. The fair-use faq I read at travellerrpg.com mentions that rule rewriting is forbidden, and I understand why. However, especially since we do not wish to do game time compression if possible (i.e., one minute in real life is one hour in game time) and since all players have to be doing things in the same time-frame; there are many elements that would have to be changed. Jumping for example shouldn’t take a week. If we gain your permission I hope you can give us some advice on this.

Thank you very very much for your reply, interest, and time.

Note some formatting and context issues. Woot!

I was sent this link by a friend. The comments offer an interesting discussion on the pros and cons of the zoom vs maximize and predictably, near the top is a rabid OS X zealot reaming the author for having a differing opinion from the ‘right’ way. When is it ever ok to behave this way, no matter how wrong you think your opponent is? If I used the same tone in sharing my faith I would be lynched.

Anyway. There is still some excellent discussion. The author mentions the cluttered feel to the desktop when using multiple non-maximized windows, a sentiment I agree with. One of the commenters mentions the real desktop analogy, how if you have multiple papers on your desk you have to move one out of the way to see what’s below; so really, how unintuitive is that? In my case though my desk is clean (at work anyway). All papers are filed away in a drawer and only the material I’m working at the time is out. I never have to move papers out of the way and I can’t stand a cluttered desk, I don’t feel like I can think as well or stay as focused. I treat my virtual desktop the same way. I do have multiple windows open occasionally, and multiple tabs in Firefox; but in OS X things felt way more cluttered. I can’t explain why because really its more minimalist than Vista which I appreciate very much. Perhaps it has to do with the toolbar (and really, the zoom vs maximize issue is minor for me, its the toolbar that is the dealbreaker). That being said, I rarely use maximize on my widescreen monitor but I do love it in Ubuntu on my smaller monitor for terminals (especially in portrait mode). However, I hardly ever used zoom in OS X either. I suppose I’ve become too used to resizing windows myself.

As for Expose I found it worked far slower than alt-tab, but I usually don’t have a gajillion things open. It has its place and if I have both I’ll use both for different purposes. Ubuntu/Beryl has a similar feature that I have used (both of these Expose or Expose-like features work better than the pretty-but-useless 3d switching Vista offers).

Other than the occasional zealot, the comments left by Mac fans in this article are some of the most intelligent and open I’ve seen so far. One mentions the advantage of the OS X windowing system when drag and drop is well supported. You can’t drag photos from app to app in Vista and expect the same behavior, something I do appreciate in OS X but rarely use. Another mentions the advantages of the Mac way in a pleasant manner, but also talks about its drawbacks. Specifically, the advantages of the OS X windowing system are lost if its hard to gain focus (seeing instantly which window is on top, for example). He goes on to say that OS X has been moving backwards in this respect over the years, like the brushed chrome theme; but seems to maybe be moving forward again with Leopard.

Overall I like many of the features of OS X but I dislike its complete lack of customizability. I’m also very turned off by the rabid screamings of its fans, a significant contribution to my dismissal of the system. I might get a macbook but that’s probably as far as my adoption will go. M$ has its problems too, while the windowing system isn’t elegant or pretty (or even useful in some cases) my primary issue with Windows (and specifically Vista) is how things are handled behind the scenes. I’m a shell user and I like tinkering and working behind the gui. OS X does let me do that but my other annoyances (and its fans) pretty much overshadows the positive experience I had using it. With Cygwin on Vista and a second Ubuntu machine (and Ubuntu as my primary os at home) I’m pretty set. As far as my uses are concerned, Ubuntu is the perfect os except for games and I have Vista to cover that end. I also have to use Windows at work so having Ubuntu around for coding and other such needs works well.

I suppose the fact that I use two operating systems just goes to show how imperfect OSes are for me and, I daresay, are for everyone.

There are better places I’m sure, but a quick Google for it turned up this and this.  Now most places are saying it shows only your ammo, THIS IS NOT TRUE.  I remember seeing more than that when I was using it back in the day, and I finally found where the extra stuff is.  From the release notes:

When installed, this patch will add a UT2004 LCD display screen.  This display screen has 3 modes that can be toggled via console commands.  They are:

Mode 0    - display real-time network stats
Mode 1    - display a scoring summary
Mode 2     - display weapon ammo counts

You can change LCD modes using the “LCDMode” console command.  The format is:

“lcdmode <x>” where x is the mode to display.  Additionally, you can use the NextLCDMode and PrevLCDMode commands to move between them.

Games are not art, according to Ebert; he mentions ‘prejudice’ a couple of times. I have a dirty little word called ‘elitist.’ I understand his point that when a user interacts with the game and effects the outcome it isn’t the same as a completely dictated work like a movie. However, I think he misses the mark horribly. His basic argument depends on a single assumption of what he says he thinks is high art, and that is authorship. In his opinion, it can’t be high art if the user changes the outcome. Interesting thought, considering that people who view art, especially abstract art, have a range of differing experiences. One might say that their basic self changes the outcome. Let’s not forget the phrase ‘leaving it to interpretation,’ often artists depend on people coming up with differing views on their pieces. Is that so different? Is the artistry and creativity poured into a game to generate a specific time, place, atmosphere worth nothing? I think he fails in that he is looking at it in the sense of movies, a complete story from beginning to end presented according the creators’ intentions. He fails to see that multiple endings in a game tend to be presented according to their creators’ intentions. The user gets to choose, sure, but in the context of the argument Ebert should probably consider each storyline and ending separately so that in the end he is actually considering, say, 3 games instead of one. Additionally, apparently the work, creativity, and artistry poured into the game to create a specific time, place, and atmosphere account for nothing.

He also displays the same prejudice nearly everyone of his generation seems to display, and that is that games are a waste of time. I couldn’t find a link to the original article, but there’s a quote here. This has been a topic of interest to me and I’ve conducted some research. I had already planned on posting a sourced and composed essay about this soon so forgive the lack of sources for the following paragraph.

The idea that games give you nothing in return is becoming more and more false. Research is increasingly showing that more than just hand-eye coordination, games are teaching people spatial ability, pattern recognition, and decision-making on a level never before seen in human history (among other things). That isn’t to say that there aren’t people in our past who have these abilities, rather that there has never been such an effective tool that could teach all these things at once. One of the benefits of video games is immediate feedback. If you’ve ever played a complicated video game that had good introductory missions or similar, you’ll know what I mean. You can learn a complex system quickly and enjoyably and get all the benefits of the things I mentioned before; and the game isn’t even geared to teaching you anything. Imagine what could happen if people could make really effective educational games (currently most of these are terrible but that is slowly changing as the understanding of the medium improves).

In any case, Ebert displays an outmoded attitude that shows a lack of understanding of the medium, the same attitude I’d wager that wrote the horrible DMCA. Much like the stalwart oak against the hurricane.