Initial Thoughts on Forza 3

So I've been playing Forza 3 for about four days now. I'm already up to Level 30, where the game gifts you with the amazing Bugatti Veyron 16.4. That's right. No need to buy the $1.4 million credit supercar.

While that's fun and all, this iteration of Forza has managed to delight and frustrate. It is now the sixth or seventh console generation. Video games have been under serious development for almost thirty years. "Simulators" like Forza and Gran Turismo have been undergoing the same development for at least a decade.

Yet little has changed. It's kind of pathetic, really. The developers seem to treat these games as little more than virtual test drives. They trumpet their success with physics engine this and polygon count that - yet they've overlooked basic details that clash with their claims of realism.

I understand the desire to crack the simulator barrier and open up the game to more casual players who can be intimidated by ultra-realistic racing. That's fine. But Gran Turismo did that with its arcade mode - a system that has been copied right down to today. So that 'excuse' is just stupid.

So what has changed for the better? Well, for starters the Forza programmers have finally managed to catch up with Gran Turismo 2 and get the physics of rear-wheel drive correct. I never played Forza, but in Forza 2 any unmodified rear-drive car like a Toyota Supra, Mazda RX-7, or Nissan 300ZX would instantly spin out when taking a corner with just the tiniest amount of extra throttle. That always bothered me, as I've driven plenty of rear-drive vehicles and they simply don't handle like that. I could understand it being the case if one had a 450 bhp Supra on stock tires, but bone stock? The result of this mayhem was that no one would drive a pure rear-driver in a race. They would only use front-drivers or all-wheel drive. It was ridiculous, and I'm glad they finally fixed it.

Secondly, they've upped the polygon count of the tracks and the cars. That's pretty nice, but I would rather have had more cars on the track - say, 12 instead of 8. But the tracks are breathtaking. It's like you're actually there, and that's pretty awesome.

Thirdly, and this is probably the only true breakthrough development of the game, there is much more subtle communication about how the car is behaving than ever before. From tiny screen shakes to excellent rumble control, the cars feel more alive than ever before. It's difficult to get the feel of driving a car at the limit with just a game controller, but the Forza guys have managed to do it. As the virtual car approaches the limit, it begins to complain just like it would real life. Little cues like a slight shudder in the steering wheel or a subtle shift in the seat have been translated into code and applied to the gaming experience. It's really quite amazing.

Unfortunately, that's about it on the newness front. The Microsoft boys are touting the new in-car view as this major breakthrough. Sorry, the original Need for Speed did that way back in the mid-90s. And Need for Speed: Shift does it better anyway. It feels like they just tacked it on at the end. The driver's hands never even leave the steering wheel!

Another "improvement" that was really kind of a no-brainer and the industry should have figured out back with Gran Turismo 2 is the ability to load upgrades along with car settings. Any player could tell you it's stupid to load up a car's settings and then have the game tell you that such-and-such parts need to be added. Why couldn't the game simply add them itself, and if some of the parts needed to be purchased, give me the price and let me choose whether I want to buy them or not? Well, in Forza 3 we can finally do that. Halle-freakin'-lujah. That it's taken the Forza guys three iterations to figure this out shows just how little innovation and creativity exists in the industry today.

There are other problems, as well. As I said earlier, it's the sixth (or depending how you count) seventh console generation. Things like clunky menus should be behind us. While Forza 3 is better than its predecessor (half the game loads to the hard drive so it's not so slow switching menu options), it still manages to underwhelm me with its sheer stupidity and clunkiness.

Part of the reason I play simulators is to be able to "drive" cars that I'd never be able to in real life. I also like to compare cars. I own a Cobalt SS Supercharged. And I like to have virtual drive-offs between it and cars like the Acura RSX and Honda Civic Si. Now, Forza has a fun option for that called hot-lapping, where I pick my car, pick my track, then go race alone against the clock. That's wonderful, fantastic, I love it.

But when I want to race another car on the exact same track, I have to exit the track, wait for the menus to load, back out of the track menu, select another car, re-select the track, wait for it to load, then begin playing.

I can't possibly be the only one who thinks that is incredibly stupid. Why can't we just leave the track loaded and allow me to select a different car? I realize I'll still have to wait a little bit to load the car physics and all that. But that would be WAY better than the rigamarole above.

But it gets worse. Sometimes I like to drive the same car, but at different spec levels (Forza has a cool system called the Performance Index that has different classes from F to S and beyond). One would think that I could simply load different spec levels for the same car while at the track. But no. Forza sees that as an error, and kindly asks you to set the car up BEFORE entering the track. That's just stupid.

While I'm complaining, I might as well register another gripe that's been bothering me since Gran Turismo 3. Why do I always have to race the A.I. opponents in the same cars in the same order? It's stupid. Under Forza 3's Freeplay option, one would think one could set up a race any way one wanted. But no. Let's say I pick a B-class car to race, and I chose Quick Race. First of all, it's only one lap, which is stupid. Why not let the user pick the number of laps? But secondly, while I admire the computer's ability to pick cars that are in the B-class for me to race against, why can't I pick cars from my garage and let the A.I. drive those?

Let's face it. Even on "expert," the A.I. simply cannot beat me if I have a B-500 and they only have a B-461. Why not let me give the A.I. a fighting chance and have them drive my highly modified cars? That would make for a real interesting race.

Recently Game Informer and other video game media have wondered how the industry can breathe fresh life into the simulator world. Games like Grid and Need for Speed: Shift attempt to answer those questions by shaking somethings up, but they took away the most important part of the simulator - the ability to buy and modify my own stable of cars. Idiots.

Now, to me it seems like a no-brainer. "User-generated content" is all the rage, after all. I've outlined above several very simple ways to breathe fresh life into the simulator crowd - things that would probably be regarded as "revolutionary" by the media. Shows what they know. This kind of stuff should have been making its way into the genre starting with Gran Turismo 3, or maybe the fourth one at the worst.

Now I know Forza's graphics creation thing is fantastic, and that's wonderful and all. But would it really be that hard to add the the suggestions above, and maybe a few others? Surely the programming is not the issue. If it is, that's just sad.

No video game has ever failed by giving gamers what they want in a well-executed, highly polished package. However, whole franchises have sunk (I'm thinking of From Software here) by refusing to change and attempting to dictate gameplay to the gamer. I'm not saying Forza and Gran Turismo are doomed to that fate. But they could be if the industry doesn't wake up and sprinkle a little creativity into these things.

If I wrote for Game Informer, I'd give this game a 7. If I worked for G4 TV, a 3. It deserves those scores for failing to innovate, and worse, trying to pass off "innovations" that happened a long time ago as true breakthroughs. Boo. That said, I'll still play the crap out of it, and love it, because there's nothing better out there. And that's just sad.

PS - they've taken steps forward and backward in the aural department. Cars sound better overall, yet the engine sounds don't change with modification - a staple in the genre. That's just stupid.

The Three R's

My friend Pedro teaches a Freshman Seminar at the local college. Since he is given a lot of freedom as to what he teaches, he mostly uses it as an opportunity to shake the self-absorbed American teenager out of complacency and into a more thoughtful, well-rounded life. A sort of introduction to practical philosophy, if you will.

Naturally this is accomplished by reading a lot and writing papers, and that's also where the problem arises. These kids can barely read, and by that I don't mean they are illiterate. I mean they have little idea how to devour a text and then explain what it is they just read. I don't know if it's because they get distracted by text messages, updating their Facebook page, or the opposite sex strolling casually to and from the shower. I also don't know what the SAT is measuring these days, but it certainly isn't comprehension.

But it's not just reading. These kids can barely write. I've been watching Pedro's class for a few years now, and the spelling and grammar has generally improved. So whatever changes took place ten or so years ago - bravo! However, they still tend to misuse words, and they still tend to get confused by its and it's, they're, their and there, and other things I had ironed out by the sixth grade.

Not only that, but the five paragraph essay seems to be dead. These kids have no idea how to write an introduction, thesis, supporting paragraphs, and conclusion. Sure, they think they've got it down, but really all they have down is the art of the MFA citation. And that's nice and all, but twenty well written citations does not a paper make.

It's almost as if they don't know the paper is supposed to contain their opinion. Most of the time they can barely even articulate an opinion, unless they're a strong sports fan or a Single Issue Fanatic. Sometimes I go help Pedro in his attempt to help the students write better papers. Most of the time what I encounter is a strong stream-of-consciousness style of writing with a large helping of feelings-oriented argumentation.

Certainly there is a time and place for such things. But not in an opinion paper (usually the first paper), and certainly not in a paper in which one is supposed to defend one's worldview (usually the second or third). Can you imagine a politician trying to argue the merits of a controversial piece of legislation by meandering all over the place with his random thoughts and feelings?

I'm sure all teachers in all generations have lamented the poor education of the students they see every year. Every generation looks back on the previous one and sees nothing but faults and missed opportunities. But here's the rub: New Jersey spends an astronomical amount of money on its education system. As a result they're consistently ranked in the top five states. Yet this is the result? These kids not only can't articulate their own opinions, they have an almost unshakable faith in their own ability to think for themselves. Pedro is brilliant at shining a light on this dark lie, and at the end of the semester these kids - whose brains are still mostly mush - do manage to understand that they certainly have not been as thoughtful as they claim, and they have a sinking suspicion they ought to think a bit more on the things that matter most.

That is a noble pursuit, but I think it's sad that it is hampered, at least initially, by such poverty in two of the three pillars of modern education.

Do Babies Dream of Electric Bottles?

One of the things that surprised me about being a parent was when Zoe first started waking up suddenly, crying her lungs out. She does this on occassion, and as near as Victoria and I can tell, she seems to be having a nightmare. It's very hard to wake her up in this condition, but once she does, she usually calms down and can even be quite happy.

But this begets a whole series of questions. Can babies dream? If so, what about? What is a baby's worst nightmare? She doesn't seem to have anxiety separation yet. We can leave her with strangers, walk away, and she's happy as a clam.

Victoria suggests that perhaps she sees a bottle that she cannot reach, and is maybe a little hungry as well. But I wonder. Is the subconscious even formed yet? Is the sense of self even formed yet (i.e., is she even self-aware)? How would one even test such a thing? I mean, I can imagine a battery of MRI or CAT scan tests to determine which areas of the brain are lighting up, but that can only tell us if the baby is actually dreaming. Such tests can't reveal the content of the dream.

Too bad there's no way to do the cool sci-fi thing and hook up a camera directly to her brain so that we can see the images on a screen. Then again, perhaps an Avent bottle with angry eyes, giant fangs, and a bad case of rabies is something I'd rather not see.

Nobel Pity Prize

If you're like me, and you woke up this morning not expecting to hear that the President had won the Nobel Peace Prize, then your next thought was probably, "What for?"

Sure, President Obama has a wonderful way with words, and speaks like one of the old-school politicians from days of yore. But I'm not sure how that translates to Peace Prize. The Nobel committee explained that they sometimes give these things out to enhance potential.

Or something like that. I wasn't really paying attention, since I was still a little shocked.

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at all, though. I don't know about the rest of you, but I first thought something was wrong with the Nobel folks when they gave the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat. Here's a guy who spent his entire life doing anything but promoting peace, and yet because he decided to wash his hands a bit and give some mighty purty speeches, they dump a peace prize into his lap. Nevermind that his minions continued to sow seeds of discontent and violence. Nevermind that a couple of years after his prize all his grand words turned into hog slop as the deals he negotiated fell apart at his own direction (to be fair, the Israelis must shoulder their share of blame).

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the real reason they gave him the prize is that they felt sorry for him. I mean, he wasted all that effort trying to get the Olympics for Chicago, and those meanies didn't even give us the time of day. Healthcare reform is proving to be a pain, as is closing Guantanamo, dealing with the Afghan war, and cleaning up the economy. And of course there's a lot of rumors flying around about people dumping the dollar. You know, on account of our astronomically huge debt. The guy just can't catch a break!

Boo-hoo, cry me a river. This is a sad, sad day for America. We've now become the pity vote. The kid you try not to pick last for kickball because your mom told you it would hurt his feelings (I was that kid, by the way). The guy that all the girls consider a friend but not a boyfriend (I was not that guy, by the way).

Last time I checked, this country was supposed to be about working for a living, earning achievement through hard work, dedication, and perseverance. I didn't realize we could get million dollar awards and international fame for mere potential. Clearly I've been riding the wrong gravy train.

Awesome. I can't wait to see what else Real Change (TM) brings to America.

Hooray for Oppression!

I suppose someone, somewhere can make a reasonable excuse for why the Empire State Building was lit up for China. In a world where the United States is seen as evil because we pretended to drown three guys who just happened to want to kill babies, I suppose such things could even be considered common.

In the video game Command and Conquer: Red Alert, players can assume the role of Communist Russia. Actually Stalinist Russia, since the Man of Steel himself gives orders to the player. Seen as cheesy by today's standards, I thought the portrayal of Stalin was actually quite good at the time. I'll never forget this line:

"If one man dies, it is a tragedy. If a million die, it is a statistic."

Creepy as it is, perhaps these famous words can help us solve some of the problems we've been facing on the world stage. After all, our popularity of late, even with a big time rock star president, hasn't helped us win the Olympics, de-nuclearized Iran (or North Korea), and that mean old Hugo Chavez still doesn't like us. Apparently, the trick is not to pretend-kill a few folks, but to actually kill a whole lot of folks. Like, millions. Since China is now so beloved around the world, the obvious answer to our war woes is to start killing more people, like they did.

But therein lies the problem. For the last thirty years, we've been developing weapons that kill less, not more. "Smart" weapons technology is focused solely on doing as little collateral damage as possible. I think it is now clear that such a strategy was tragically myopic.

Now that the world knows we respect life, unlike the Chinese and other communists, they expect us not to kill at all. Our magical wonder weapons should be able to wage war without killing anyone. Maybe some light lesions and contusions are OK, but loss of life and limb is right out.

So how do we reverse the current negative opinion of the United States on the world stage? Fortunately we have all the tools we need right here at home, and we won't even have to spend too much money to enact the plan. In fact, we can kill multiple birds with one stone! I know in today's economy bang for the buck is a high priority. My plan will give us the biggest possible bang for our teeny tiny bucks.

"zOMG, Peter," you might say, "wat iz tihns magik wepun?" Why, it's our nuclear arsenal, of course! Think of the possibilities. Nuclear weapons can kill tens, or even hundreds of thousands with just one warhead. We still have several thousand. With a limited nuclear war, we could easily begin closing the "Death Gap" we have with China, and begin securing our position as the world's most popular country.

But wait, there's more. Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan have all been giving us headaches of late. By nuking these guys, we solve two problems at once! As Stalin also said, "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."

But that's not all! Lots of other countries are upset with us because we don't do the environmentally correct thing. But neither has China, and they're way more popular than us. The nuclear option actually takes care of three problems at once! Not only will we kill millions of people, solve international political disputes, but we'll ruin the envirnoment at the same time! And all for one low price! It's a trifecta of savings.

Don't wait. Call your representative today. Those nukes aren't going to launch themselves. Sure, our popularity might take a hit in the short run. But think of the big picture. In fifty or sixty years, skyscrapers all over the world will fly the red, white, and blue as they celebrate our authoritative return as the world's most popular country.

Thanks For All the Fish

Today the Security Council and Germany made a few agreements with Iran. The most notable are that they'll all meet up again at the end of the month. The second was that Iran will allow the IAEA in to inspect the new site at Qom, which they said they'll do in two weeks or less. The third is that Iran will send its ~20% enriched uranium to Russia for verification.

I believe Iran has played us all, and though the events today would seem to be evidence against that at first blush, from the Iranian perspective nothing has substantially changed. Their goal now is to delay. Every extra day they delay is another day they can enrich ever more uranium.

Consider the deal to send Russia their already enriched uranium, which they say is for medical purposes (first, when it was at a lower enrichment level, it was for peaceful power generation). There is no timetable for that move, unless I simply misheard the President, which is entirely possible. Even if there is, the Iranian government has proven to be quite masterful at using delay and distraction techniques to achieve their goals.

If you'll remember the first few rounds of inspections, they continually led the IAEA inspectors on wild goose chases, locking them out of facilities, delaying entrance to facilities, even throwing them out of the country on occasion. There is no reason why they won't start that nonsense again, and no reason why they won't use the same techniques to keep their uranium away from Russia.

The President has promised to increase pressure if Iran does not comply. But what does that mean? Suppose two weeks go by and Iran delays letting the IAEA into the Qom facility, as they have done in the past. The conversation will go like this:

P5+1: "You were supposed to let those inspectors in. Two weeks are up, what's the deal?"
Iran: "Two weeks? That wasn't nearly enough time to prepare for such an auspicious visit, we need more time. Also, some holidays are coming. Religious ones."
P5+1: "Religious? Oh, pardon us. We didn't realize. We'll wait 'till they're over, but then we must begin without delay."
China: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
Iran: "You dare to speak against the Prophet?"
U.S.: "You're not helping."
Iran: "We can't go on like this, being insulted day in and day out by these intolerant imperialists. America is the great Satan."
Russia: "True dat, yo."
U.S.: "Wait! We didn't even do anything!"
France: "Why can't you be more accomodating, like us? It's your arrogance that prevents peace."
U.K.: "I say, you can't speak that way about my sister, you filthy frogs!"
Germany: "Ich bin ein jelly doughnut."
Switzerland: "Who wants one of our world-famous Army knives? We also have some excellent watches and chocolate for sale."

I'm telling you, it's just going to get worse from here.