How much information do you really want to put on the web?

Were this Google, I'd share all the personal information I have with it/her
 
What would you trust Google with? Is there a limit? Are there things that you would consider too private to use on Google’s services? It’s no secret that the Commodore stands firmly in the Google camp (almost always... and their turning it around in China). I use Gmail, Google Calendar, Gchat with video and audi conferencing, An Android phone, etc. This means that if someone were to uncover the sum total of my Google information, they’d have a pretty substantial picture of my life ranging from my friends, my schedule, my account info for lots of internet services and the like. But there are (hopefully) a few things to which they wouldn't find access. This gets me thinking though, as Google is working around the clock to offer more services with the ultimate goal of gathering even more information from all of us, so they can sell advertising (I mean it is there business model). On other words, if there is a chance that Google can get more info from you, they will do so.
 
I’m not making any kind of statement about what (dubious or otherwise) purposes Google would want my information for, I’m simply asking what I think is a good question for us as a web savvy society: What information is too sensitive for use (or storage) on the web?

Guilty Hatred

We all have our favorite movies (Back to the Future).  We even have our guilty pleasures (Love Actually).  But something we're often loathe to admit are the movies that everyone else loves, you you hate.  You know what I mean, the blockbusters, the critically acclaimed, even the classics.  It can be for any reason.  I have a co-worker who absolutely hated Iron Man because he couldn't get over the ridiculous engineering feats in it.  And as he put it: "I know something about engineering."

Perhaps my biggest guilty hatred (and I know the Commodore and I have gone over this ad nauseum) is The Usual Suspects.  Not to spoil the ending for anyone (though is it really a spoiler if the movie came out a decade ago?), but I thought the plot was so obviously straining reality and mind-bending - just for the purpose of throwing off the viewer - that I actually guessed who Keyser Söze was halfway through the movie just by picking the most ridiculous possible person.  Add to that that the whole movie was basically a lie, and I just wanted my 2 hours back.

I know I can't be alone in this line of thinking.  What are your guilty hatreds?

A History of Videogames/Juggling

Alright so instead of me going on for an hour about something this week, I'm offering an opportunity to lose an hour of your time elsewhere. From time to time I like to expand my mind by watching (or listening actually) to Google Tech Talks which are basically academic (or sometimes not so much) lectures given by field experts to the people at Google. Google then takes these lectures and posts them to the web in the form of Google Tech Talks. They even have their own Youtube channel. I watched this video only a few days back and thought that some of you might find it interesting. Check it out here.

Here we have Bill Guschwan who recounts a “history” of video games from his own (mildly insane) perspective. Even though he's a bit eccentric, this guy's been through it all. He was instrumental in the launch of the PS1 in 1995, he worked for Apple in the Jobsless days, and he befriended Miyamoto who referred to him as the philosopher. I don't always agree with his perspective (whether philosophical or in terms of video game media) but I greatly enjoyed his recounting of events, especially when we talks about the substantial differences between him and Ken Kutaragi as the Playstation (Kutaragi's baby) was being launched. If you have an hour to put in on in the background, take a listen. And you are also free to do as I did when he just starts basically listing all of the philosophical schools he's aware of (which is completely irrelevant to the conversation) about 15 minutes from the end and just turn it off. And if you feel like it, post any ideas it inspires for you here and maybe we can get some good discussions going. Enjoy!

D&D 3.5e or 4e... what about 3.75?

I have an appeal to public opinion today rather than a formal blog post.  Our Friday D&D group has had murmurs of discontent recently with some aspects of 4th edition's gameplay.  We're instituting some fixes to try and make the game run smoother, but I've been thinking back to 3rd edition quite a bit lately with fondness and a little bit of longing.  Sure, 4e's fun and all, but some things just seemed better in 3e (or 3.5e).

More roleplaying opportunities, no skill checks, differentiation of the classes, less MMORPG feel... am I just looking back through rose-colored glasses, or has the 4e shininess just worn off?  I'm thinking of buying a Pathfinder Core Rulebook to peruse, which if you don't know, is basically D&D 3.75e run by a company other than WotC (Paizo) under the d20 open game license.  I've read some good and bad things about it (mostly good).  I saw the excitement over it in person when it was first sold at Gen Con 2009, but I'm wondering if any of our readers have tried it.  If so (or even if not), I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.  Feel free to comment below.  Or if the conversation really branches out, post in our tabletop gaming forum.  Let's hear what you have to say, geeks!

I second (and third) that eMotion

Whatcha gonna do, when the Wii Police come for you??? Stop laughing!
 
This week I thought I’d crap out some half baked thoughts about E3. Maybe make a top 10 list, or fire off a quip or two about Cliff Bleszinski’s T-shirt fetish, or perhaps even reflect on my undying love for Morgan Webb. Then after I realized I’d really just be rehashing Roo’s earlier E3 post (even though my impressions were quite different… but then again, I’m not a die-hard, Miyamoto crazed, look at my Earthbound T-shirt, Reggie is my baby daddy, any hardware with the letters DS in it must be the pinnacle of Western Civilization, Wii is a good name, Nintendo fanboy) I also realized I’d be doing a disservice to you my dear readers. You’ve come to expect more from me in my posts. So today I want to approach a growing debate in the industry that E3 has only served to highlight. Are motion controls now going to be a staple of video games?
 
We’ve all waggled our Wiis (I know, it’s still ridiculous), Dance Dance Revolutioned the night away, looked like mindless fools in front of a motion camera, and maybe even hit the floor to pound a PowerPad thus helping us to win an imaginary relay race. Maybe you’ve even bought a Wii Fit balance board, and you start your morning off with a little fake yoga. In any case, we’ve all had the experiences of what motion controls have had to offer up until now, and truthfully, it’s always seemed more gimmick than innovation. Is that the end of the motion control story? Let’s talk about it after the break.

From the outside looking in at E3

Sadly, not all of us are able to make the yearly trip to gaming's Mecca - E3.  But sometimes you gain more insight sitting in your cubicle pretending to work and watching keynote address than you can by rushing around a hectic show floor.  Well, at least that's what I like to tell myself.  So while Commodore and I are busy enacting our master plan to attend E3 2011, I'd like to share my thoughts on what I've seen from all the hoopla the Big 3 have put out in the aether over the past couple days.

And I've also noticed some of you have already got to talking about E3 presentations in our video game forum, so I encourage all of you to join in.  Hell, I can't think of a better time to use it!  And now, after seeing each major keynote as it happened, here are my initial impressions on the recently revealed gaming news.

The Trouble With Solo Monsters

I ran a 4E solo encounter against my party for the first time, and it sucked. The idea was basically to have them encounter a powerful draconic guardian to strike fear into their hearts and make them think carefully about using The Ways in the future. What are the Ways? I'll save that for another column.

The whole point of a solo monster is to provide a single interesting, dynamic opponent that can challenge the entire party and keep the player's attention. For 4E, that means that the monster needs to be able to act like 5 monsters for damage, staying power (HP), and actions, and the monster needs to stay interesting.

User login