When Kara is not generating human beings, I understand she plays a fair bit of The Sims. Outside of Kings Quest VI, it's the only game Brenna has ever genuinely tolerated. I've played a fair bit of the new one myself, but it's not wrong to say that I mostly watch television. That is to say, I watch sims watch television, because apparently just watching regular television isn't lazy enough. I watch television by proxy.

The primary feature Brenna was looking for in The Sims 2 isn't there, which is the ability to put furniture in the corner, facing a room. There are hearth configurations she can't manifest in the game, which strikes her as criminal act. For my part, there's a lot more "game" there - in addition to whatever short and long term goals you have established on your own, each sim has a series of wants and fears that need to be managed. You'll find that these things are correlated a lot, in that you'll have a teenaged sim that is extremely enthusiastic about kissing girls but also mortally terrified of being refused. Not really anything I need to explain, there.

Everything else just has greater depth: if you buy a couch, you can choose different upholstery and woodgrain options. There's a fairly elaborate (at least, by my standards) "make-up" option when creating your sims now. You have absolute control over their facial bone structure. When you want to cook something to eat, you aren't limited to "dinner" or something like that, there are a host of menu items based on your cooking skill. Anyway, yes. It's a better dollhouse than the first one, which will either attract or repel you. That's all you really need to know.

I've completed the main campaign in Dawn of War, but that doesn't mean I'm particularly dedicated - unlike offerings from Blizzard, which I will admit are almost ridiculously elaborate, Dawn of War has a single campaign which is only ten or eleven missions long. The campaign hits all the right notes though, as far as the setting is concerned, but I'm really not satisfied. I don't feel like I wasted my money, I feel like I want another "helping." The game is from Relic as you'll recall - Relic, who gave an entire RTS expansion away for free. Hopefully they will recall some of that old benevolence and dish it up.

Though the game in the box is already terribly amusing, as a fan of 40k in general my mind has already wandered to the ineluctable retail expansion pack. It's customary to get a few new units for existing armies in the *Craft games - but there's still so much left in Warhammer 40k to kick out. The anime-inflected Tau. The Matrix Space Zombie Necrons. The Tyranids, which Starcraft players know better as the Zerg. Relic could also forego a new army, and go the Command & Conquer: Generals route - each of the armies they've already implemented in Dawn of War have, according to the tabletop rules, myriad sects within each to which special rules apply. I'd rather see a new army altogether, but honestly I'm still so elated that they didn't completely fuck this up that I'm willing to invest a bit of faith in them.

(CW)TB out.

nous sommes le generation lazi

I knew that they were including something similar to Pandora's Mutliplayer in the sequel, but I had no idea how elaborate they were going to go with it. I guess this explains the new March release date, huh?

Take a look at those screens at Worthplaying,especially if you enjoyed Pandora's online play. There is a screenshot that, at least to my mind, very clearly shows a Merc flipping a spy over his back - as though the Spy had him by the neck before. That's a pretty significant change.

(CW)TB

I got a ton of mail from people asking if we need volunteers for Child’s Play 2004. If certain hospitals find themselves overwhelmed with donations and need help sorting through them we may put the word out for readers in that area to help. Unloading all the toys is a big job and if a hospital needs help we’ll let you know.

I also got a mail from someone telling me that the Buzzcomix forum wanted to help us out this year. This surprised me at first since most of the guys over there really seem to hate us for some reason. I thought that perhaps they had decided to put aside their dislike for PA long enough to support a good cause. I hit the link he gave me and discovered that they still don’t like us very much. One of the guys posting in the thread really got to me and I wanted to address some of his complaints here. He started off by saying this:

“Sorry to wet-blanket all of this, but true chairty can only occur when it is done without the knowledge of others. Otherwise, it becomes a form of ego validation.

Sticking up big signs that shout WE'RE HELPING THE KIDS is not altruistic in the slightist.”

I understand that at some point everyone turns seventeen and thinks they are smarter than everyone else. We’ve all been there. I’d hate to think of the shit I said when I was seventeen made public and archived forever on the internet. I know that in a few years he’ll look back at this post and shake his head. I still wanted to comment on it htough.

It’s a nice thought but the reality is that if we did this by ourselves we could have given a couple hundred dollars each. However by “sticking up big signs” we were able to raise almost $200,000 in toys and cash. So we’re not being altruistic, do you think the thousands of children that benefited from Child’s Play 2003 would agree or even care? If there was just one guy draining his blood and keeping it in his fridge would that be more altruistic than the Red Cross? Or do you think the Red Cross is full of shit because of the huge flags they fly wherever they go? The bottom line is that the more you promote a charity the more good it can do.

Then he followed up with this post:

“This isn’t like Make A wish or some similar organization. They live it. They do it every day. Where will you, Gabe and Tycho be on December 26th? At the hospital hugging the wee ones? Somehow I doubt it.

Now I could be wrong, but until I get shown otherwise, this is nothing more than Christmas Charity, ultimately meaningless because it does not show true compassion to your fellow human being. And that's what I find repulsive about these "acts of compassion"

But I think we do agree on one thing, assuming that's what your meaning is: If it takes Christmas charity to get people to break out of their selfish little shells at least once a year, then it's an improvement. But please spare me the bullshit that this is being done for the kids and the kids alone.

Our culture has taken self-aggrandizement to artistic levels. Wrapping yourself up in a cloak of compassion once a year in the hopes that someone will notice is just a sick twisting of what the true meaning of charity is.

Anyway, get back to me when this is a weekly event.”

Once again this post smacks of “seventeen-ism”. Unless he’s typing this post with one hand and giving blood with the other he can go fuck himself. You’re telling me that unless I can help someone every single day it’s worthless to help anyone ever? Unless I spend every day at the hospital hugging sick kids I shouldn’t bother trying to help them at all? What you’re asking for is certainly admirable but in reality it’s not possible. I’m not Mother Teresa, I just draw a comic strip about games. The majority of people couldn’t and wouldn’t devote their lives to charity. If we all lived by your rules no one would ever help anyone, not even once a year. Your outlook means that since you can’t help everyone you never have to help anyone. How convenient for you.

-Gabe out

I apologize if I made it seem like we did not want the help of the Buzzcomix community. I understand there are quite a few people over there that would like to help and are not total assholes. I respect the fact that some of the members there are genuinely interested in helping us with Child’s Play 2004 and I appreciate that. The stuff that kid was spouting was just too funny not to post. I’m also sorry we broke your website.

-Gabe out

Here they are. I'll talk about them more later, but I wanted to give you night owls something to chew on.

(CW)TB