I've added a new section to my site (retiring the horribly neglected Gun of the Week). You'll see it up there: "Interactive Fiction". The reason I've added this are pretty well covered in the section. It's also my current project as I finish off what will hopefully be the last update to Night's Edge: Wet Works. What, no mod for UT2003? Possibly, though the idea I had for a rune-style mutator is kind of mutually exclusive with the built-in adrenaline, and I'm kind of tired of spending months of work on something no one plays. I won't rule out the possibility of helping out on another UT2003 project, but I won't be doing my own. Anyway, my hope is to start entering the annual IF competition every year. It's a shame I started so late, I've just missed this year's contest.

A lot of people (Europe, especially) have expressed concern... okay, let's admit it, they've been "horrified" at the Iraq-related comments coming from the Bush administration lately. All around the world, various nations have condemned the idea of a preemptive strike against Hussein for his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and his defiance of the U.N. inspection resolution. A lot of people are suggesting that Bush simply wants a war to raise his popularity and that's it.

But look at the result. Iraq is, for the first time in years, finally talking about letting inspectors back into the country. Of course they're not talking full access yet and they're currently demanding an end to sactions first, they're still back at the table. In addition, countries all over the world are exerting more pressure on Iraq to comply with the U.N. resolutions. Some because they want to avoid needless violence. Others, I imagine, just because they want to spite the U.S.

But what prodded this all on was the war rhetoric coming from the White House. And maybe this was their goal the entire time. A little saber rattling to get Iraq back in line.

Sweden's health becomes political issue

And people wonder why a welfare state is so vigorously opposed here in the United States. It's not that people don't have compassion, it's that they recognize that a system like this is so easily abused.

Recently I've played 2 real-time strategy games. Though both were good, neither was without its faults.

Warcraft 3 is one of the big games in recent time, receiving a lot of hype and good press. And not without reason. The graphics are great, the move to a 3D engine went off without a hitch, and the different races seem quite balanced. Some people call it "StarCraft with Orcs", though of course they're forgetting that StarCraft was originally known as "Orcs in space". The single-player campaign was great, with a very involved storyline that not only made sense, it let you experience all four races in a logical progression. Though the majority of cut scenes used the standard game engine, there were a handful of beautiful pre-rendered cinematics that Blizzard has become known for. My only problem with WC3 is the extreme focus on Heroes in multiplayer games. Proper management of heroes is the deciding factor in MP games, and the problem is exacerbated when you play against the computer. Warcraft 3 lets you pick any AI difficulty setting.... as long as it's Impossible. While you've managed to get your hero to level 4, here comes the computer army, led by its two level 8 heroes, and you don't stand a chance. Building the game around the hero in my mind diminishes the rest of the game. I'm hoping that in the future they release a patch that: makes a "no hero" option when starting a game; gives an adjustable computer difficulty.

Emperor: Battle for Dune was the other RTS I recently finished. Not as good as Warcraft 3, it's still a fairly well game. It just has a number of what I consider to be game design flaws. Too many bulky and slow-turning units often turn fleet management into an exercise in frustration. Individual unit AI is pretty poor... for example, a unit on guard mode is supposed to attack enemies that come within a particular distance. However, enemies that attack it from beyond that distance with long-range weapons will simply be ignored. Move and attack orders are often "approximated" by a unit if it can't reach the exact spot you wanted, and the locations chosen often aren't the nearest alternatives. There's no way to order a unit to move to a spot, but attack any enemies encountered along the way. So when you have an army on the go, you have to babysit it the whole way, lest they come under attack as they move and never respond. This even goes for the many units that can attack in different directions than they're facing.

A long time ago, Westwood and Blizzard were the major competitors in the field of RTS games. In my opinion, Westwood used to be the clear winner. But over the years, lack of innovation and helpful in-game functionality led to Westwood's slipping from the top. Blizzard was more than happy to take the title as King of the RTS. Maybe with C&C Generals, Westwood will prove it still have what it takes to advance the RTS genre that it pretty much created. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.