Questions of Absolutely No Importance . . . Except to Me

Okay, fine, I'll admit it, one of my (I think rather harmless) quirks is that I like video games. And, yes, all you young'uns, one fine day you, too, are going to discover that you are in your forties and still playing with your XBox 360 (or PS3 . . . or both, for that matter, for all you spoiled little brats . . .). Then again, I also still play with model trains and little hunks of pewter that look like tanks, too . . . What can I say? He who has the most toys, wins.

Anyway, as I "died" for the thousandth time today in exactly the same place in a game, it occured to me that I have a few questions - and observations, I suppose - both for those who make games, and those who play them.

First of all, for UbiSoft and Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 . . . since when do handgrenades bounce off walls like rubber balls? I mean, yeah, I could plonk a grenade off a wall a foot or so, but your grenades come bouncing back at you like superballs. Come on, I've heard of "relaxed" physics, but that's overdoing it more than a bit.

Oh, and you do realize, right, that real CT teams consist of more than three guys? More importantly, you do realize that the other guys on the squad actually do more than soak up bullets? Honestly, I've seen more responsiveness out of the inhabitants of a graveyard . . .

I've also got to ask, just when does it get fun when the enemies never miss? Sure, I suppose you've got to find some way to make up for the fact that they tend to charge blindly straight into your sights, but really. If I can empty half a magazine into some guy standing five feet away from me and have him laugh it off because presumably my aim off, at least do me the courtesy of saddling them with the same sort of aiming difficulties.

Speaking of enemies, is it really that difficult to ensure that once they are dead they stay that way? Okay, getting shot in the back by someone you just killed is kind of funny the first time it happens, but really aggravating the next six hundred times. And why do you think it's terribly fun to have one guy going up against, oh, a few hundred enemies? Particularly when they never miss and seemingly can shake off headshots like rain drops . . .

And for those of you who have played and mastered both Rainbow Six: Vegas and Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 and froth on and on about how "realistic" the games are . . . If you really think that the games have given you a taste of or mastery of CT operations and CQB, I can only suggest that you never look into that as a possible line of work. As a matter of fact, please don't even pick up a real firearm, you're just going to hurt yourself.

Ah, Call of Duty 4. I love that game . . . but talk about enemies who blindly charge into your line of fire and who never miss . . . Oy. At least when you shoot someone in that game, they stay dead . . . most of the time. But, really, what's with the automatic spawn points for the enemies? I ask because it seems that, if you and your "platoon" (for you do have a lot of A.I. buddies alongside for the ride) secure an area, it should be a no-brainer that enemies can't appear there. Especially when they appear a foot in front of you and empty the entire magazine of an AK-47 into your face. On the bright side, though, at least the grenades don't go bouncing around like tennis balls . . .

As I said, I love that game, but if anyone out there thinks it is even remotely like a real battlefield, I would advise against ever joining the Army (or the Marines, since the Army doesn't make an appearance in Call of Duty 4), because you'll be in for a rude shock. If you tried to do in a real firefight the kinds of things you do in a videogame firefight, the only thing you'll earn is a ride home in a box with one of those letters from DoD that starts off "We regret to inform you that your son is dead because he was stupid . . ."

Now, for the game that's currently giving me fits, Ace Combat 6: Fires of Liberation . . . Look, Namco, a long time ago, I was a fighter pilot. And I can accept that I can not do in a game the same things I used to do with a real-life high-performance jet fighter. No problem. Still, for a game that bills itself as being so ultra-ralistic, there are some things that should still be the same . . .

How about this as a for instance? When a jet is "down in the weeds" and using terrain-masking in a nap-of-the-earth profile, i.e. below five hundred feet of altitude, and zipping along at a thousand miles an hour (and, look, a jet that low can't travel that fast, but . . .), it can not be shot down by another aircraft or a SAM. That's the whole reason the tactic was invented in the first place.

An enemy aircraft certainly can't get below you, and if it gets in front of you, you're going to blow past him before he has time to do anything . . . unless he likes mid-airs. Any enemy pilot who manages to get in behind you is going to be too busy avoiding imitating a lawn dart to worry about anything else. The only approach angle you have on an aircraft flying NOE is from above, and that just isn't going to work. Here's why. First off, the approach angle is too steep; I can guarantee that you can dive down on the target, but you're never going to be able to pull out of that dive before you hit the ground. Second, your aircraft's radar can't track something that close to the earth; you're going to lose the target in the ground clutter. Even a pulse-doppler radar with a variable PRF isn't going to be that helpful, because it's only going to "see" a target that is moving directly away from or directly at you; if it's moving perpendicular to your course, the radar won't "see" it at all. Third, the guidance-systems on your weapons won't be able to track a target that close to the ground . . . nor will the guidance systems on a SAM.

Oh, speaking of SAMs, every one of the blessed things is controlled and guided, at least initially, by the battery's radar unit. If you take down that radar, SAMs are pretty much useless. Sure, you can blind-fire them and hope something wanders close enough to the proximity-fuse to set it off . . . but I wouldn't go betting the farm on that.

Before I forget . . . avoiding SAMs and, for that matter, AAMs . . . It would have been nice if you included chaff and flares in your game, because all combat aircraft have those systems. Sure, sometimes they work, and other times the missile still bites you, but it would have been nice to have them. But at least you did include breaking to avoid missiles, even though that seems to rarely work in the game. Look, I've got to tell you, it's a really exciting maneuver and not for the faint of heart, and the timing has to be just right, but . . . The maneuver works because a missile, be it a SAM or an AAM, can not match it. With a SAM, you point your nose at the weapon, wait until the time feels right, and then break hard in whichever direction looks best to you, and the missile can not make the turn to follow you. It will fly right on past you, at which point you can cease worrying about it . . . unlike the SAMs in the game. The same with AAMs; a good, hard break can succeed at evading the weapon.

Speaking of the AAMs, I really have to admire how, in the game, sometimes the "tracking" works and sometimes it doesn't. I mean, nothing is quite as fun as having a target locked up in the pipper, but for some odd reason the missile refuses to lock on, or even acknowledge that there's an aircraft out there with a huge "KILL ME" sign painted on it . . .

Oh, yeah, and one generally doesn't have to wait thirty seconds or so from the time a control input is entered until the aircraft actually responds. Just thought I'd point that out . . .

Finally, I have to ask again, just when does it get fun when you find yourself confronted with a 1-v-30 (because, no matter what you tell your wingman to do, he only responds with helpful comments like "Watch out! They've got a lock on you!" instead of doing something actually useful like, oh, engaging the enemy) where your missiles refuse to track and you can't hit squat with your gun? And since when can aircraft reverse direction in, like, no time or space at all? I mean, I've seen aircraft in this game pull off maneuvers that even the nimblest UFO couldn't match . . .

Maybe I'm just missing out on something, but, really, I believe a game should be fun and not punish the player. Is that too much to ask for? Or perhaps I should just take up cribbage . . .

Bend Over, I’ll Drive

I should have known this day was coming. Well, actually, I did know this day was coming . . . or, I should say, coming again. And yet, I feel so violated . . .

There comes a day in every man’s life where a visit to the doctor’s office suddenly and dramatically changes, and nothing is ever the same again. You leave the office feeling somehow cheap and dirty, desperate to appear as if everything is normal, but given away by the furtive, worried glances and the snickering emanating from the nurse’s station.

The conversation, of course, starts off harmlessly enough. You wait in the little room for a while, and finally the doctor comes in and she asks you how you’re feeling. Why, just fine, you reply, lulled into a false sense of security by the complete normalcy of the conversation. No complaints?, she asks. Nope, you say, just here for my physical . . . and then it hits you, as you realize what she is doing as she is speaking. Uh, say, doc, what’s with the gloves? . . .

R’uh r’oh.

Time to drop the pants and bend over the table, the Flying Fickle Finger of Fate wants to introduce itself. It wouldn’t be so bad, I suppose, if she didn’t take a full wind-up first, like a major league pitcher getting ready to smoke one over the plate. Except, of course, someone is sticking their finger what feels like halfway up into your intestinal tract from the wrong end. Talk about an awkward situation, and you just have to stand there while it feels like someone is tapping out a rag-time beat in your anus. And you just can’t help but notice that the conversation flows along the lines of something like, "Does this hurt? Aside from my finger being up there, I mean." Well, I suppose that, as long as someone is going to be poking around down there in such an intimate fashion, the least they can do is be polite about it . . .

Now, I have been told that there is a certain etiquette to this whole procedure. Wiggling around is frowned upon, but a few moans here and there for the performance are apparently appreciated. "Ooo, yeah, doc, right there. Oh, you’re the best doctor I’ve ever had . . ." You know, that sort of examination talk. Of course, the one thing you don’t want to do is inadvertantly moan and then murmur your old doctor’s name. That tends to break the mood and can really make things awkward. Talk about embarrassing . . .

Of course, the humiliations don’t end there; no that would be too easy. After the finger is removed, with the same kind of popping noise a champagne bottle makes when the cork is removed, you’re handed a wad of paper towels to clean up all the lube - and, trust me on this one, there’s no such thing as too much lube in this case - and, well, other things, that may currently be working their various ways out of your ass and down your leg. Yeah, nothing like wiping with company present to make your day. But the bigger problem is that you notice the gloves are coming off, only to be replaced by another pair. So, just when you thought it was finally safe to put your pants back on, you find out it’s time for . . . a testicular exam. Oh, joy.

First of all, I want to make it very clear that it was cold in that exam room. In such circumstances, shrinkage is inevitable. Even more so considering a digit was just inserted and took a short tour in a place where no self-respecting digit has any place going. Such things will make any gentleman’s, er, appendages seek refuge, let’s all just be real clear on that. Back to the point at hand, however, you’re now in a position where all you can do is stand there, stare at the ceiling, and wonder which is worse: the finger up your ass, or having someone playing ping-pong with your balls. My vote is for the finger up your butt . . .

In any other situation, having someone basically play with your nuts is a rather enjoyable situation. Unfortunately, I rarely seem to be in those situations. Call it another fantasy shattered, although I somehow feel much closer to my doctor than I did before . . . Hey, it’s not like having my fantasies destroyed hasn’t happened before. I mean, I used to have one where I was lying naked on a table surrounded by three really hot nurses. What I failed to anticipate that time was that they would be shaving me in preparation for an angioplast. So, no, no happy ending there, either, just a reminder to be careful what you wish for.

Still, I can’t help feeling cheap and dirty and, well, used. Like I just want to take a shower and put the whole sordid affair behind me, so to speak. I mean, after all that, the least my doctor could have done was buy me breakfast . . .

I Heard Him Say It, So It Must Be True

Once again, Senator Barack Obama has firmly stuck his foot right in his mouth. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, and say that it was merely a case of letting campaign rhetoric get the better of him, but I can’t. This is yet another example of him baldly lying.

"This," for those of you who may have missed it, is his recent statement that Senator John McCain wants to commit the United States to continue the fighting in Iraq for "the next hundred years." Now, that’s a spectacular statement. McCain also didn’t say anything of the kind, as Obama was forced to admit when a reporter, in a rare act of intellectual and journalistic honesty, pinned him down on the subject.

What Senator McCain actually said was that he saw no reason, if both the Iraqi government and the U.S. government were amenable to the idea, some sort of security relationship - including the stationing of U.S. troops in Iraq - couldn’t be continued, and he drew a direct parallel to the stationing of U.S. troops in Germany and Korea. For those of you who haven’t been counting, we’ve had troops in, and security relationships with, Germany for over sixty years and Korea for over fifty years.

*Sigh* But that isn’t what Obama said that McCain had stated. Nor would he have said anything other than "McCain wants to fight for a hundred years in Iraq" had he not been almost immediately called on that. Not that it matters, because you know what people are going to remember and continue to spread, even though it is untrue?

"John McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq for a hundred years."

I understand that Senator Obama wants to be the President. I also understand that there are enough issues, including the current Iraq policy, that divide the candidates which can be debated without resorting to blatant falsehoods. Nor, I think, does deliberately distorting positions and outright lying speak much for the good Senator’s judgement, which he claims as a cornerstone of his candidacy.

There is a sickness in American politics that favours form over substance. The thirty-second sound bite reigns supreme, and if it sounds good, run with it. Who cares if it’s true or not? Except that we do a profound disservice to ourselves every time we play that game. Why is it that we, as a people, place a sacred trust in our elected officials, but allow them at the same time to abuse that trust in order to get to the office they seek?