Google+

If you haven't heard about it yet, Google+ looks intriguing. Google is throwing their considerable weight behind a Facebook killer and integrating it into the world's most widely-used search engine.

It also aims to improve privacy by allowing you to select which people you'd like to share information with: Friends, family or everyone. If that doesn't sound like a big deal, think about the last time you saw someone post party pictures on their Facebook page and get a stern warning from their mom / dad / grandma / religious aunt. Think of all the times that Facebook has changed privacy settings without letting anyone know ahead of time, revealing your private info to the outside world.

So, yeah, this is kind of a big deal.

Google is rolling this out piecemeal to get people used to the concept. However, it's hard to say if it'll catch on.

Consider: Facebook has 200 MILLION users. They've made their money on people who are not computer-savvy and get easily set in their ways. Most of these users don't know (or care) about their privacy. Most don't even know what Gmail is yet, and it's been out for 7 years. So, how are you going to get these people to switch over from Facebook to Google+?

One way is by a simple UI. Facebook succeeds, in large part, because anyone can take a look at it and understand how it works. In other words, it passes the "Grandma Test," or the fact that anyone's grandma can easily understand what they need to do to share and read messages.

Will Google be able to emulate that? All signs point to yes. Google is the master of the simple UI. They make it easy to search for images, web pages, anything. Social networking, however, is a bit of a different animal. You can't just copy Facebook's UI wholesale, so you have to create something kind of like Facebook's UI without aping it entirely.

Next, if no one is using your social networking site, then you lose both the "social" and "networking" portions of it. Then it's just a site. Google needs to build up word-of-mouth first of all and then hit with a massive advertising campaign playing up the simplicity of the service and the privacy of it.

Then, it's time for them to cross their fingers and pray like hell.

Either way, Google is betting the farm on this one. They've committed lots of money and lots talent to Google+. I can't wait to see how they intend to wrest the crown of internet superiority back from Facebook, and I can't wait to see what they come up with next.

Review: Rayman 3D

Developer: Ubisoft
Publisher: Ubisoft

It's fair to say the 3DS has had a disappointing launch library. Nintendo released glorified tech demos plus Nintendogs + Cats, and other developers haven't really given us a lot to play at launch either. When the best games for your system at launch are a turn-based strategy game and a retread of a two-year old fighting game, that's a sign that someone, somewhere was asleep at the wheel.
So, Rayman 3D. It's a twelve-year-old game, redone in 3D. Originally released for the N64, Dreamcast, Playstation and PC back in 1999, it's been systematically re-released for every other system in existence, including wristwatches and toasters. Now it's the 3DS' turn to get a version, right after they release the inevitable abacus version.

Now, don't mistake my whining for hating. Rayman 3D is not a bad game at all. If this was the first re-release of Rayman 2 in a long time, I'd actually be very excited about it. The level design is tight, the main character is unique, and they switch things up quite a bit throughout the game. You're not always just running from point A to point B. Sometimes you have to go back to a previous level and open up a door in order to get a MacGuffin that opens up the next path in a different level. The camera behaves nicely. The sound is still a little annoying and Rayman still sounds like he has a mouth full of peanut butter, but it's not so bad.

That's what I think of Rayman 2 in general. However, if you're thinking about purchasing this game for the 3DS, you're not wondering about how well it controls or how good the level design is. Chances are, you've probably already played it at some point in the last twelve years, so you know that it's a pretty good game. If you haven't played it, you probably have no intention of playing it.

No, if you're thinking about Rayman 3D, it's probably for the 3D. You want to know if 3D improves a platform game or is just a distraction. I'm happy to report that it improves the experience immensely.

For example: At one point, you're falling down a long path slowly. Around you are various "lums," or the little bits that you collect throughout the level to open up bonus areas and the like. In the regular 2D version, it can be difficult to gauge your distance to the lums, and you might have found yourself bypassing them or whiffing completely while you aim at them. However, in 3D, this section is incredibly easy. You can tell your exact distance to them and figure out the correct angle to get to them without too much fuss.

In another part, you're water-skiing behind a character that looks like the Loch Ness Monster. In the 2D version, you may miss some of the lums along the way or end up ramming into the various posts and obstacles. In 3D, this section is a breeze.

Also, I swear to God that Rayman looks better. I don't mean that his texture looks better or he has more detail, because he doesn't. It's just that when you see him move in 3D, he looks more real. Another example: There's an animation that happens when you knock down a door. In 2D, it looks cheesy and weird. In 3D, I actually whispered, "Wow." It's all because of the depth-of-field illusion that 3D gives you.

It's not all perfect. In some places, if you angle the camera the wrong way, you'll end up with an object closer to the screen than your character. When that happens, you'll see an immersion-breaking double-image, as it seems that the 3D effect doesn't work so well the closer something gets to the screen.

Still, this is a twelve-year-old game. Once there are more games our for the 3DS, Rayman 3D is going to look less and less impressive. All they did was take a pretty-good game and reskin it in 3D. However, as a proof of concept, Rayman 3D demonstrates how the 3D effect will make other games look really, really good. It's easy to see why Nintendo was excited about 3D gaming and raises my expectations for games like Kid Icarus: Uprising, Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D and Super Mario 3D Land. It's just sad that Nintendo let Ubisoft beat them to the punch with a twelve-year-old game.

Final Rating: C+

Why We Hate LeBron James Now

I found this article the other day. It basically says that people who hate on LeBron James are hypocrites and don't have any solid reason to hate him aside from jealousy.


In the author's opinion, we hate on LBJ because we don't like that he went to a different team and wants to win, or some twisted reason like that. He also believes that the more we hate him, the more we eat out of his hand, or something like that. He compares LBJ to Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, who was villified for not standing during the national anthem, and says that LeBron owns the people who hate him.

The author doesn't understand why people hate LeBron James. It's not because he left the Cavs. If LeBron would have left and gone to Denver, the Clippers, the Knicks, or any other team, Cleveland residents would be the only people still complaining. When the Cavaliers dropped from 61 wins in 2009 to 19 in 2010, it became pretty obvious that LeBron was the only player that the Cavaliers had, so who can blame someone for getting out of a bad situation?

Even if he would have gone to a team that had a solid No. 2 guy but no No. 1, that would have been OK. What bothers us isn't that LeBron left Cleveland. What bothers us is that he got together with his buddies for the express purpose of winning a championship. To the people sitting at home, that smacks of laziness.

We respect athletes who work hard. Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Albert Pujols, that kind. We hear stories about them being the first to practice and the last to leave. We like that. We expect our athletes to leave it all on the floor for us because that's why we pay them so much money. That's the tradeoff: We pay you money, you entertain us by giving it your all every day.

That's why, for example, Michael Jordan was beloved. He never took nights off. He never just said, "Screw it," and drop a pass to someone else instead of taking it himself. He never took the easy way. He pushed himself and his teammates to work, work, work, sometimes to their detriment. That what it takes to get six championships.

This isn't a question of whether or not LBJ or D-Wade or Bosh work hard on the court. No one is denying that they play hard. What puts them behind the 8-ball is that they gave up. Instead of using that competitor's fire to make their own teams better, they grouped together for the express purpose winning championships every year. Compare this to the Dallas Mavericks, which is comprised of Dirk Nowitzki, the husk of Jason Kidd, the occasional Jason Terry sighting, and that's it. Dirk could win almost on his own. Why can't these guys?

The author of the article also hints at racism, and reading the previous paragraph, you might be tempted to think that we liked the Mavs this year because Dirk is white, and we hated the Heat's Big Three because they're all black. That's too easy of an explanation, though. Here's why. Consider other African-American athletes:

Kobe Bryant. I was always a Kobe-hater, but I'm changing my tune. Consider: He has Andrew Bynum, Lamar Odom and Ron Artest on his team. They're all No. 2 type of guys. You would never ask any of them to carry a team on their own, because they can't. Yet, Kobe won a title with these guys.

Tim Duncan. He has Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli. Neither of them are No. 1s. Yet, he won tons of championships with them. He's beloved in San Antonio and respected throughout the league.

Shaq. Shaq paired up with Kobe in LA, true. Yet, Kobe wasn't yet KOBE. He was merely a very talented player who wasn't still a little wet behind the ears. He needed time and maturity to carry a team. Once he got a little more mature, Shaq left. He needed to be the No. 1. He went to the Heat. Wade was still a No. 2 and only grew into the No. 1 role after Shaq left.

Kevin Garnett. Garnett grouped with Pierce and Ray Allen. Now, can Ray Allen carry a team on his own? When he was younger with the Bucks and Sonics, he kind of did, but he was viewed as a No. 2 before Garnett arrived. Pierce was also a guy who was on the cusp of being a No. 1 but couldn't quite get there.

See? It's not a race thing. No one was necessarily mad at any of these guys for being on the teams they were with except for those who hate on everything. KG even engineered his escape from Minnesota to end up on a contender, and when he won a championship we were HAPPY for him. It's not about race or trying to find the right team for yourself. It's about respect for the game and the fans.

For example, most people dislike the Yankees or Red Sox because they stack their teams with the most expensive and talented players and expect championships. When the Yankees won in the 90's, it was with guys like Paul O'Neill and Bernie Williams, along with Hall-Of-Famers like Jeter and Pettitte. These were guys who came up in the system together and became a TEAM together. Now that they stack their teams, we take a perverse pleasure in watching them lose.

We weren't mad that LeBron picked a different team, we were mad that he picked THIS SPECIFIC team with THESE SPECIFIC players. He went out and grouped himself with players that would get him an easy championship. He could fade down the stretch like he did last year and no one would notice because Wade and Bosh could pick up the slack. That's not respectful to the greats who came before, guys like Russell, Bradley and Mikan.

"But, what about letting him do what he wants to do? He's a human being! Maybe he doesn't want to follow the script we've set for him! Ever think about that, you heartless, selfish bastards?"

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. We'll use a comparison between being an athlete and being a politician. They're very similar. Case in point: Who elects officials? We do. When we elect them, we expect them to represent us because we put them there. We pay their salaries, and when we stop liking them, we remove them.

OK, so who pays athletes? Well, same thing. We do. We pay with our tickets and watching them on TV. Therefore, we expect them to represent us because we put them there. If our team doesn't have athletes we like, we don't pay with our tickets or by watching them on TV. If we like an athlete, we pay them exorbitant amounts of money for our entertainment pleasure.

There's a reason that LeBron James gets paid more than, say, DeGasana Diop. It's because we, as the fans, want to see LeBron James more than Diop. We know he can do incredible things, so the payment is basically saying, "Hey, here's an advance on all the incredible stuff we expect you to do and payment for all the cool stuff you've already done. Good luck!"

That's why the argument of "Let the athlete do what he wants, it's his life" doesn't work. He gave up that right when we started giving him money to do awesome things for us. That's why we got mad at Ricky Williams when he walked away from football to hang out with gurus and get high: We paid him lots of money to entertain us, so we expect that he will do so.

Like, with LeBron, we paid him a lot of money to do incredible things on a basketball court. We paid him because sometimes we like to see an athlete transcend his sport and do something we've never seen. Instead, he took our money and did what he wanted to do instead of what we expected. Well, guess what? It doesn't work like that.

When a CEO takes enormous amounts of money for their work and don't accomplish anything, what do the stockholders do? They vote him out. When a politician takes more money than he deserves, what do they do? They kick him out. When someone gets more than they deserve, we get angry.

LeBron is blessed with a freakish amount of talent. It's fair to say that no other basketball player (and I'm including Jordan here) has as much as raw talent as LeBron has. He wanted to play basketball and use that talent to entertain us. When a person has that much talent and they decide to take it easy, we get angry. When we see someone like LBJ decide that he would rather hide his talent by letting someone else do the heavy lifting or treat his gift like something that is of no consequence, we get angry, and with good reason.

We get angry because we will never have that much talent, but we all want it. If we could have the talent that LeBron James has for one day, we would never, ever forget that day. We would dream about it. We would remember the one time we blew past three guys and dunked in the face of a fourth, ran down the court, blocked a shot, then took the ball the other way and drained a three with a defender's hand in our face. We would die with a smile on our face, remembering that one time.

Therefore, what we want to see, and what we pay LeBron to do, is use his talent to make his team better. If there was any doubt about that, all you have to do is look at how much hate is directed his way. The people who pay his salary have spoken.