This entire show is supposedly some form of game criticism where we talk about what worked and what didn’t. But let’s put that idea aside for the next couple of episodes, because that’s not really what our conversation is all about. When I say something didn’t work for me, I’m using that to segue to another philosophical question. I’m not actually saying the game is bad, or that it should have been done differently. I’m a big believer in the idea that when it comes to philosophical wanking like this, there are no wrong answersObviously the stakes go up when we start talking about how this stuff could be applied to real-world problems, but that’s why I love sci-fi. It gives us a safe space to play around with these ideas, where nobody dies if we’re “wrong”..
To put it more specifically: It’s pretty clear that Simon (and perhaps the developers?) disagree with me on a pretty fundamental level. And that’s okay. I bring this up because I disagree with the game often, and I don’t want people to think I’m counting these disagreements as faults, from a game-design sense. It’s all good.
 Obviously the stakes go up when we start talking about how this stuff could be applied to real-world problems, but that’s why I love sci-fi. It gives us a safe space to play around with these ideas, where nobody dies if we’re “wrong”.
If Star Wars Was Made in 2006?
Imagine if the original Star Wars hadn't appeared in the 1970's, but instead was pitched to studios in 2006. How would that turn out?
WAY back in 2005, I wrote about a D&D campaign I was running. The campaign is still there, in the bottom-most strata of the archives.
PC Hardware is Toast
This is why shopping for graphics cards is so stupid and miserable.
Crash Dot Com
Back in 1999, I rode the dot-com bubble. Got rich. Worked hard. Went crazy. Turned poor. It was fun.
In Defense of Crunch
Crunch-mode game development isn't good, but sometimes it happens for good reasons.