An Open Letter to Valve Software.

CRTC and Bandwidth Limits, an appeal from a faithful Steam user.

The CRTC stands for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. They say they are there to protect the consumers concerning Radio, Television and Telecommunications. The irony here is that many of those that make up the CRTC are ex-CEOs of large telecom companies here in Canada. The CRTC has recently passed a bill that will allow large telecom companies to charge independent IPS a flat rate for any gigabyte used over 60GB (monthly). (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/28/crtc-usage-based-billing-internet.html)

It is worth noting that, on average, Canada's internet infrastructure is much better than the United States, especially along the east and west coast areas. It costs the large telecom companies between $0.01-$0.05 dollars per gigabyte used in bandwidth. This bill will allow Bell (Our largest telecom company) to charge Independant IPSs $1.12 per gigabyte used beyond the base bandwidth limit. Fortunately, this is up to a maximum of $22.50. This means that smaller ISPs will find themselves having to charge their customers for their bandwidth. It also means the end of unlimited download plans. This goes directly against the progression of the internet as a medium of sharing information, and of course distributing games, movies, television and music digitally.

These kinds of decisions can hurt the gaming industry immensely. Canadian Steam users will potentially be severely affected by this. Games today are getting larger and larger. It is not uncommon to see games over 20 gigabytes (which alone takes 1/3rd of a 60GB download limit). Couple this with services such as netflix and streaming television, and internet power users (which I'm sure make a rather large portion of the Steam userbase) will be hung by the necks with this. This is a government decision that directly impedes your abilities to sell games to customers.

There is already a petition that already has over 70,000 signatures (http://openmedia.ca/meter). I know this may not be within your normal procedures, but I write this letter to ask of Valve a service too its community, to stand behind us and let us know that you're on our side. How you do this is up to you really. contacting those at the CRTC (http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/about/whoweare.htm), posting something on the Steam forums, or putting up a news post, making statements to the community. Such an action will show the Canadian Steam users that you indeed care about customer satisfaction (and of course you care about the money you make off of us for the great service that Steam provides).

It's great to see 70,000 users coming together to speak out against this decision. It would be even greater to have support from Valve in knowing that you are on our side. Either way, thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I can only hope this situation works out for the betterment of the consumers, and your customer base.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Steam User.

Misconceptions About Video Games.

I've been a gamer for over 18 years. I am currently 23 years old (24 in may). That means I started gaming at a very young age. My first brush with gaming was on the NES/SNES systems where I played games like Zelda, Mario and Super Metroid. I quickly grabbed interest in PC gaming by playing old games on my father's 286 computer. The rest as they say is history...

Today I decided to post about the most common fallacies that some people spew out when it comes to video games. There's an awful lot of negative media surrounding video games, and it seems as though there aren't enough people out there pointing out the positive facts about video games. In the following blog entry I will state some points used against video games and I will proceed to debunk them. And so let us begin.

Violent video games can cause violence:

This is probably one of the most used arguments against video gaming. It's also one of the most ridiculous arguments against gaming. Violence has existed for a long time. Crime has existed long before any books, TV shows, movies or video games ever existed. Our ancestors were clubbing people because they got funny looks since the dawn of humanity.

More prominent in recent media seems to be cases of school shootings which are often linked to video games. There were even a few cases where the media or police assumed that the perpetrator was an "anti-social video gamer", only to be proven wrong by not finding any video games in the dorm room. The fact is that school shootings have been going on since long before video games even existed. Heck, calling them school shootings would be quite wrong, since there are cases of mass murders in schools that don't even involve guns.

- There is a case in 1940 where a 10-year-old Clarence Stevens, a third grade pupil at Holy Name School, was stabbed to death inside a storeroom at the school by 27-year-old Guy Willie Ponder.

- Another case in 1898 where Samuel Jacobson, student at Grammar School 85, stabbed his 8-year-old classmate Hans Pietze with a pocketknife after he fell over the latters foot. Both students were said to have quarrelled often before.

Both cases are before video games existed, and both cases don't even involve guns. The only common ground found in all incidents of school murders involves a troubled student, or troubled person. Someone who is under a great deal of emotional distress, or involving someone who is incredibly angry. Whether or not these people were video gamers wouldn't have an impact on the incident.

I'm not above saying that a troubled person could actually use video games as a way to get ideas on how to go about committing crimes, but then again there are a great many other sources of information that can do the exact same thing. this includes the News, TV Shows, Movies, Books and even word of mouth.

Another big point that anti-gamers seem to use is that violent video games cause an increase in brain activity in parts of the brain that would be active when committing an act of violence, or a crime. Many video games also cause an increase in adrenaline.

Oddly enough the same symptoms are often found in people who play sports. It is more prominent in those playing competitive team sports. Sports also (most definitely) cause an increase in adrenaline.

It is normal that someone's body reacts to video games in this way. Games are meant to cause emotional response from the players. Emotional reactions cause physical changes to the body. Other forms of media cause emotional responses, even books. It is true, though, that a video game will often cause a stronger response then a book.

We must also acknowledge that as a species, we tend to be quite aggressive. Violent and aggressive thoughts go through our brain on a daily basis. Whether or not violent video games have an effect on a person's aggressiveness has yet to be proven, or even disproved. What is a fact, though is that violent video games alone will not and cannot cause someone to act violently unto others.

Video games are anti-social:

Ah yes, argument that says video games are anti-social. This argument often refers to the fact that most of the more devoted gamers tend to be less social. These are people who spend more time on a computer than others. Again, though, games in themselves are not anti-social. In fact often times video games are quite a social activity.

World of WarCraft is a Massively Multi-player Online Role Playing Game. Millions of people play World of WarCraft around the world. On any given world (a real, or server that players can play on) there are thousands of other players playing the game at the same time. These players will often talk to each other, and even co-operate to achieve goals within World of WarCraft. Dungeons need 5 or more players to be completed.

At the higher end of World of WarCraft you will find 25 players co-operating with each other to achieve some difficult tasks. These players must be coordinated and focused to achieve these tasks. Players will often communicate through a third party voice chat application known as Ventrilo, or Teamspeak. During the less difficult parts of any given Raid Dungeon, the players will often socialize to pass the time, until they reach another challenging point in the Raid Dungeon that is.

No matter what you are doing in World of WarCraft you always see people chatting it up. You join guilds with friends, you make new friends in guilds. You meet new people every time you play World of WarCraft, and that is an undeniable fact.

Other multi-player games promote communication and co-ordination between players. Although we have some games that are exclusively single-player. These games cannot be played cooperatively or competitively. That doesn't mean there is no social aspect to these games at times. I have even found myself playing single player games with friends, while one of us plays, the other watches. We would each take turns playing the game. I am also not considering the final social aspect of video games which is talking about video games when you're not playing video games.

The more anti-social people tend to flock to hobbies to pass the time, these hobbies happen to include video games. Video games have a bad rap of being considered anti-social because over a decade ago, video games were not nearly as popular. When it comes to anti-social people, they tend to be the first to adopt new hobbies, or adopt multiple hobbies. Now that gaming is becoming more mainstream, we often find even the most social creatures playing these games. Although I generalized a bit here, there's no denying that video gaming will only get more popular as time goes on.


Video games can cause addiction:

Humans have the capacity to become addicted to nearly anything. Some people are addicted to sports, some people are addicted to movies. Many people are addicted to television shows or any series of books. When someone enjoys something, they tend to build a desire to continue doing whatever it is they like doing. Some call it addiction, others call in passion, take your pick. The fact is that some games can be addictive, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. Of course some people have a difficult time controlling their addiction, and when one's addiction gets in the way of their personal life or work life, that's where trouble can begin. Yet again though, anyone who gets so addicted to video games also has the capacity to get addicted to other activities such as sports. We won't prevent people from playing sports because a select few have trouble doing anything else.

In fact when it comes to sports, those who are truly passionate can make a living off sports. Video games are also going a similar route. Already there are professional video gamers making money by playing games competitively. Another way to make money by playing games is to become a game tester, or beta tester. These testers explore the games to find issues in the game known as bugs. Nobody enjoys buggy games.

There you have it, the three most common arguments. These are very general arguments against video games, though. Each of these three also contain sub-arguments. I attempted to cover them in reasonable detail without creating a text bomb. Thanks for reading this long blog. I know to most readers, what I state is already known, but hopefully you'll get at least one new counter-argument that you haven't heard or seen before.

Censorship never worked. Banning video games will not solve problems. Most of the time it causes more problems then it solves.

Dignity and the Media!

On The Escapist forums there was recently a thread about how the unrealistic portrayal of women in games objectified them and served only to make them seem as sex objects. It was argued that it harmed their dignity. It was a rather hot topic with people on both sides of the spectrum. Any gamer out there is sure to know of at least one scantily clad female character who wears almost nothing and has over-sized breasts and an over-sized bottom.

Ivy, a female fighter in the Soul Calibur series. As you can probably see from the above posted image, she's quite curvy... And her breasts are rather large to the point of being somewhat ridiculous.

So do these portrayals of women in games really objectify or harm people's dignity? My answer is a clear-cut no. I'll explain my answer further soon enough, but let us first look at another similar argument that is being used against the Pornography industry. Some people out there don't like porn, and that's fine they're allowed to have their opinions on it. It's when they start to attack the porn industry openly; then try to make pornography illegal by saying it is dangerous for society that problems can arise. The argument against the porn industry is that it gives men an incorrect portrayal of romance which is just utter bullshit. Pornography does not equal romance, it never will. We men know the difference between fucking and making love.

You may be asking how this has anything to do with video games and I'll explain. In many video games females are portrayed as dressing in rather overt and sexual outfits. They sometimes have rather unrealistic figures where their breasts can be quite large. Some female gamers think this makes men predisposed to being attracted to these kinds of women in our daily lives. Other female gamers think that it portrays females as sex objects. There's no debating that these characters are there to look sexy. Let's face it, sex sells. There's no two ways about that. Let us be clear on one thing about video games here; they are fictional. Video games are not real, and they never will be. Some games may be simulations and thus they attempt to simulate real life, but these games don't portray females in such sexual manners. Other games are not so realistic, they're clearly fantasy and thus I fail to see how it objectifies women. People know the difference between fantasy and reality. Those who don't know the difference are the ones you find locked up in asylums and prisons.

I don't think there's a problem with video games with half-dressed female characters. I think that those who are offended by it should simply not play the game, or ignore it. Those who think it objectifies women, or sets unrealistic standards for beauty need to learn to accept themselves for who they are. They need to stop comparing themselves to Ivy. You are your own harshest critic, you need to learn to accept yourself for who you are. We all have flaws, we're not perfect. What is portrayed in the media often looks down on these people. These are people who need to break out of their self uncertainty and learn to simply say "Okay, she has really big breasts, who cares?" I don't mind these female characters at all, I even find a few of them to be attractive in a strange way. Personally, though I much prefer more realistic and down to earth portrayals of women on games.

I really like the characters that have flaws about them. The ones that are imperfect, yet interesting. These are characters like Zoe Castillo on the right. Zoe is indeed very attractive, but she's obviously not overtly dressed, and her breasts are of reasonable size. She was featured in the game Dreamfall: The Longest Journey as the main protagonist. I really enjoyed the game and I found Zoe to be a great example of a well written character. Now I'd admit that I'd love to see more characters such as her, but I don't believe characters like Ivy are actually objectifying women in any way.

I think the problem here is that people are allowing themselves to be objectified by these fictional characters. It's not something that will go away, and thus it's better to either accept it or simply ignore it. The day you say "Oh, look at the size of those breasts. Mine are nowhere near as big as those, but who cares. I'm still much more intelligent and much more interesting then that character." is the day that you will finally realize that these sex symbol characters are nothing more then fictitious characters. Many male and female gamers alike think characters like Ivy and Duke Nukem are hilarious. Why can't others do the same?

I'd like to end this little blog with a little fact about freedom of speech and how it works. To accept freedom of speech also means that you must accept that you may be offended by someone's opinions, art or work. You must accept that what others say may offend you, lest you may say something that others may find offensive as well. You must also accept that your own work may be criticized, and you are indeed entitled to your own criticisms against someone's work. You can criticize all you want as long as you don't seek to censor someone's work because you do not agree with it. And that is the single most important part of freedom of speech. So long and thanks for all the fish.

Science and Politics. Just say no!

I'm a firm believer in science. To me science is the key to our existence. As a race we must learn more about our planet, our galaxy and our universe in general. As advanced as our current science is, there is a threat to science; Politics. I found an investigative report done by the "UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM" done in late 2007. The report is rather long and provides detailed evidence on how the government censored scientists on the subject of Global Climate Change.

Let us start with the conclusion of this report.

The Committee’s 16-month investigation reveals a systematic White House effort to censor climate scientists by controlling their access to the press and editing testimony to Congress. The White House was particularly active in stifling discussions of the link between increased hurricane intensity and global warming. The White House also sought to minimize the significance and certainty of climate change by extensively editing government climate change reports. Other actions taken by the White House involved editing EPA legal opinions and op-eds on climate change.

Okay, so the report tells us that the White House actively controlled any information about Global Climate Change given to the public. What struck me the most was their censorship on data relating to the increase in storm intensity shortly following Hurricane Katrina. For future reference NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In September 2005, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Max Mayfield, the Director of the National Hurricane Center, was scheduled to testify before the Senate Commerce Committee. On September 6, 2005, Tom Jones of Senator Ted Stevens’ Commerce Committee staff e-mailed Noel Turner in NOAA’s Office of Legislative Affairs. He wrote:

We’re going to work on smacking the shit out of this issue. At the hearing on the 14th we’re going to ask max mayfield about it. I’d love to have an answer from him that doesn’t contain any long words or flavor of equivocation. Something like, “mr chairman, the individuals who are implying that Katrina has something to do with global warming are just plain wrong. They don’t understand the science and they’re shamelessly trying to make political hay out of a national tragedy.”

Noel Turner then e-mailed John Sokich of NOAA, stating:

Talked to Tom Jones a bit today, and have additional insight into what he is looking for. With respect to the climate change issue, he is looking for something quotable. I believe his exact words were something “pithy, short, and quotable.” While I don’t think his verbage is quite right, he is looking for something along the lines of “Mr chairman, the individuals who are implying that Katrina has something to do with global warming are just plain wrong. They don’t understand the science and they’re shamelessly trying to make political hay out of a national tragedy.” I would not say that, verbatim, would be appropriate for either the VADM [Vice Admiral Lautenbacher, Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere] or Max, as it just doesn’t sound like something they’d say — but if we can get something close and quotable, that would probably be good. … I think [t]he number one priority with this hearing is making FEMA look bad. Number two could be killing the climate change and hurricanes issue.”

So if I read that right they are actively seeking to censor any relation between Global Climate Change and Hurricane Katrina. To me this is not only a travesty of science, but a complete disrespect and blatant disregard for those who have died in that horrible event. In the aftermath of Katrina the rescue efforts were heavily criticized for being slow and unsatisfactory. Many people also criticized the lack of preparation set out by local authorities. These are other issues entirely, though and I will not go into them in detail.

The White House also seems to have gotten their grubby hands on reports and case studies pertaining to Climate Change. Why the American government seeks to censor such information is beyond me.

The White House systematically minimized the significance of climate change by editing government climate change reports. Documents obtained by the Committee show that CEQ Chief of Staff Philip Cooney and other CEQ officials made at least 181 edits to the Administration’s Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties. They also made at least 113 additional edits to the plan to deemphasize or diminish the importance of the human role in global warming. Other Administration documents that were heavily edited by the White House include EPA’s Report on the Environment, the annual report to Congress entitled Our Changing Planet, and EPA’s Latest Findings on National Air Quality: 2002 Status and Trends.

Science is about the truth. Whenever lies get involved in science things tend to get sour. I read through the entire 33 page report with my jaw gradually lowering further and further as I read on. I had heard of the controversy involving global climate change, but never did I believe it to be the work of the government. This begs the question though; what else is the American government keeping from the public? Are other world powers doing the same thing to their scientists? How would this affect our future as a race?

the world does not need crap like this. I already dislike politics in general, but to me this just takes the cake. I'm disgusted by this and I'm sure many others are as well. The internet is a wonderful way to spread information, which is why I opted to write about this here, hopefully others will read the report to spread the word if not for science, but for truth.

You can read the report for yourself here.

"I'm sorry, but I'm already dating somebody."

How many times have you had that line pulled on you? The line comes from the idea that relationships should be exclusive. The idea that I'm "with someone" which means I cannot share those feelings with anyone but one person is something that has perplexed me for a long time. I recently started digging into my own mind to find out why many people follow the idea of an exclusive relationship.

First thing I asked myself was; Is it possible to love more then one person equally? By love I mean romantically involved in the highest sense. And I came to the conclusion that yes it is possible. Believing otherwise would be nearly insane. Also realize that it is also possible to love someone exclusively, meaning that person is the most important person in the world for you. Relationships can go either way. This begs the question though; Why has there always been a sort of aura in the world that compels us to think that a loving relationship should be between two people and no more.

Imagine this situation. You find out that your significant other has had a relation with someone else behind your back. Upon finding out you would most likely wonder why someone would be with someone else when he or she has you. Are you missing something? Is your significant other looking for something that you can't provide? Does your significant other love you anymore?! These are all questions that would most likely race through your mind upon discovering that your significant other has cheated or is cheating on you. I think this can be especially hurtful to people who don't take lightly to not being "the one and only." But wait a moment here. Normally when someone comes to you with an attitude that they are "the one" and you are not, we dismiss them as self centered and egotistical. Now, don't jump all over me just yet. Hear me out some more.

I'm not saying everyone who thinks relationships should be exclusive is self centered. Let's face it when two people both think relationships should be exclusive and they are happily in an exclusive relationship there's nothing self centered about that at all. I do think, though that the origins of this general belief that a relationship should be exclusive comes from people who are incapable of accepting that they cannot offer everything to someone else. Almost everyone is influenced by this general idea in one way or another. A married man refrains from watching porn, or looking at other women on the beach he is doing so because of this belief.

We can look at open relationships and see that many of us out there are pretty comfortable with the idea of sharing a significant other with someone else. There are countless examples of healthy relationships that involve 3 people or more. I think these people are comfortable with the idea that maybe they can't offer everything someone else wants, so if that person goes elsewhere to get it then that's fine by me.

What it really comes down to is I just can't find any real good reason as to why it would be considered wrong to have an open relationship with 2 or more people. I bet if I asked people on the street "Why shouldn't you have an intimate relationship with more then one other person?" they wouldn't be able to give you a definitive answer beyond simply personal preference. We all know doing something behind someone's back is definitely wrong, but I really don't understand why people would refrain from having a relationship with several people just because it's generally considered wrong.

Next time someone tells you something you're doing is wrong and you're not quite sure why, then I think it's time to reflect on exactly why it could be considered wrong. Maybe other boundaries we live by aren't quite as well founded as you may think.

Quake Live!

A fair amount of buzz has been surrounding the news that a touched up version of Quake III is going to be available for free on the web. The game will stream onto your computer as you play. This isn't some slow Java or Flash version of Quake it is in fact pretty much the same Quake III many users still have installed on their systems today.

id's goal in making Quake III easily available online is to not only refresh the old Quake III community, but to introduce it to the more casual PC gamers out there. id has said that they are implementing a system that tracks your efficiency and skill level so it will automatically suggest servers to play on so you can play people at your level of skill. As it is now, to play Quake III you have to install the base game, patch it to 1.32c then download a bunch of mods that people play. Maps are another story all together. While this system is fine for those who are truly into Quake III (as I am), the new players are often turned away by this alone. I really do think Quake Live will at least solve this portion of the game's accessibility, but there's one thing Quake Live won't change, and that's the community.

To me, and many of the hardcore Quake players it's not just a game, it's actually a sport. Quakers play hard, they've gotten so good that any new player who joins in will be outmatched. id's matchmaking system will only go so far. Quake III's community has a lot of media coverage. These "Frag Movies" often display some of the best examples of the amount of finesse and skill that is within the Quake III community. All these videos are easily accessible either on youtube or Own-Age.



The above movie is but one example of some of the media that users create showcasing some pretty impressive skills. Now when someone new plays Quake III they are often there as a result of watching these videos and want a piece of the action. This won't change much with Quake Live, although the player may discover these videos at a later time. They may then choose to ignore id's matchmaking system to try and move upwards in the Quake community. That's where they will hit the brick wall. Of course there is the possibility that the new Quake Live players will form their own community, but it's incredibly difficult to imagine that the old Quakers won't mix up with the new ones resulting in a lot of discouraged players.

Of course there are those new players who will be persistent and they will keep on trying and pushing themselves. These players are the ones who become the true Quakers. The players who aspire only to get better. Although the Quake community can sometimes frown upon the new players (due to their lack of experience and skill) there are always those who help the newer players and teach them the ropes. Quake III is a game where there's so much to learn, then you take what you learned and you evolve into a more skilled player. Everything down to the movement in Quake III requires hours of practice.

Community aside Quake Live will offer better net-code, a completely web based community system with stats and server browser along with some minor game-play tweaks and graphical touches. New game modes (many coming from some of the Quake III mods currently available) are also being implemented. For those of you who are interested you can try to get into the action by applying for the beta here. All it takes is your e-mail address and you're set. Not everyone gets invited to the beta, but it's always worth a shot.

Will Wright - Insane? Maybe. Genius? Definitely.

I never really payed any mind to Will Wright prior to The Sims. It's at about the same time the first Sims game came out when I first heard of who he is. Simply put, Will Wright is the brains behind Sim City, The Sims, and the soon to be released Spore. He is known for not just thinking out of the box, but thinking light years away from that box.

I have some good respect for those who take an existing idea, polish it up and release it with a few little additions and tweaks. Call of Duty games come to mind here, where they take the same basic game play and add in a few little things here and there to make their game interesting. I have even more respect for those who think of something so different it's almost crazy, they look at the world around them and dig deep within their own minds to uncover some truly unique and amazing ideas. I mean, let us take Spore as an example. Spore is a game about evolution. You start off as a tiny amoeba in a pool of primordial goo. You do what these little amoebas do in real life, you feed breed and evolve. At some point in this phase you start to evolve what could be called limbs, or usually fins. You eventually find yourself in control of an entire civilization. You can go passed the civilization phase even, once you've taken over your planet (either violently or peacefully, it's your choice) you get to build a space ship to expand your new galactic civilization to other planets in an immense pet galaxy. This pet galaxy eventually becomes a huge playground where you can perform some neat experiments.

At first glance Spore appears to be a hugely complicated game. Chances are it is rather complicated, but I don't think it's as complicated as many seem to think. The game is simply a collection of tools and games put together in one large package. The way Spore is weaved together is simply amazing really. You look at such a basic, yet infinitely complex idea and put make it a reality in a virtual world. Let's put it into perspective. "Let's simulate a whole galaxy in a video game." That's what Spore aims to do. This seems to be an impossible, or very daunting task, but really when you start breaking things down it seems very possible. Granted, this is a video game and not a perfect galactic simulator. In this game you can make a totally new ecosystem with your own creatures and even plants. It uses a simplified model to simulate ecosystems, the game picks and chooses which species of creatures to put into your ecosystem to make it balanced. You as the player can take one creature, and find out what happens if you insert it into an alien ecosystem. It's these kinds of experiments in-game that can actually provide the scientific community, or a kid at home learning about all this stuff with valuable insight on the impact humans can have on Earth's ecosystem. Spore is a collection of already used ideas weaved in a totally different way. The core idea and concept joining all these done-before ideas together is where the new idea lies.

To me, meeting someone like Will Wright would be an amazing experience. I have so many questions that peek my interest. I always have a huge amount of respect for those that don't follow the norm. The current norm in the gaming industry is basically a linear evolution in video games. You can expect most next generation games to have better graphics, better sound and even better physics. I do tend to like the latter physics part because you can really get some cool things to happen in a game these days, but it takes more then that to truly be innovative. I seem to share a similar opinion about the gaming industry as Will does.

The only next gen system I've seen is the Wii – the PS3 and the Xbox 360 feel like better versions of the last, but pretty much the same game with incremental improvement. Bu tht eWii feels like a major jump – not that the graphics are more powerful, but that it hits a completely different demographic. In some sense I see the Wii as the most significant thing that's happened, at least on the console side, in quite a while. - Will Wright.

The Wii is a really awesome console in my opinion. It's a next-gen console that takes the actual interaction the user does with the games and changes it. It is most definitely unrivaled in a party environment. Like Spore, it is a fresh idea.

Like The Sims, I expect Spore to be a huge success. The idea alone is a true winner. Kudos to the man who dares venture where most game developers are scared to go. The fear the industry has when venturing into totally new territory is holding the industry back as a whole. People like Will Wright open new doors, they shed light on unexplored territory for other companies to start playing with these ideas. Although a totally new idea is often times a hit or miss ordeal, the thing that makes Will Wright so amazing is that he, and Maxis (the company he works for) find ways to almost guarantee a new idea's success.

You find more information on Spore and Maxis at the official Spore Website.