Get your OCD on: Disgaea 3

OK, I'm going to say, right off the bat, that this game is definitely not for everyone... first, because it's only available on PS3; second, because it is not nearly as "pretty" as you would expect most PS3 games to be; third, because it will let you be as OCD as you want, which can be either a major turn-off for some folks or an extreme hazard for others. In fact, that third part is a big part of why it's taken so long for me to write about this game... so far as I can determine, I have had this game for nearly a year, the playtime tracker on the save games says I just went over the 300 hour mark, and I just recently completed the "main" storyline in the game. So, yes, it's a long game, but it held onto me well enough to get me through the story, too... which is by no means certain in a video game, even these days.

For those of you looking for a proper review, I'd suggest taking this link off to Metacritic, to see if it's your cup of tea. The highlights... it's a "tactical RPG", which means a role-playing game where you control a team of characters and fight out your battles in a turn-based game. The setting is quite unusual... "demon high school", with a strange cute/anime mix to the blend. Beyond that, there are multiple story tweaks and game mechanics to spice up the adventure... and, being demons involved, they pretty well invite you to game those game mechanics as hard as you can.

Speaking of game mechanics, there's one basic concept that I find missing in party-based RPGs in general that Disgaea 3 nails spot on... if you have multiple people ganging up on a single person, the effect should be more than simply additive. Better still, this game gives you multiple ways to embrace that concept, whether it's team attacks, combos, linked attacks, tower attacks, characters wielding other characters as weapons... there are many, many ways to bring great amounts of hurt to your opponents, often in visually satisfying ways (well, given the limitations of the game engine, at any rate).

But now, here's the kicker... like I said, I managed to spend 300 hours over the course of a year getting through the main story. What I've come to realize, especially after sniffing about online, is that the main story line is there, as much as anything, to get you accustomed to the behaviors of the game engine and advance your characters to the point where they are, tactically speaking, interesting to work with. There are extended story lines to pursue after the main story line, if you are so inclined, or you can just play randomly-generated battles if that's your thing. Any way you look at it... I've just completed a 300 hour tutorial on the game. Off and on, I'm going to be playing this game for as long as I use my PS3... and liking it, a lot. What can I say... between what I've written here, and the reviews available through Metacritic, if this game sounds interesting to you, pick it up... if it gets its hooks into you, it will be one of the better game purchases you ever make, especially in terms of playtime to dollars spent.

Corporate charity?

While attending a family get-together the other night, I got into a bit of a spirited discussion with my younger brother. Somehow, the topic came around to corporate-sponsored charity drives in general, with the center of contention being a local Thanksgiving dinner-generating/food-bank-filling event sponsored by Rosauers supermarkets and heavily pushed on KREM (our local CBS affiliate), especially on and around their news broadcast, for about a month before the two-day event. While most at the table thought the month-long lead-up was just overdone, I took the darker view (as I often do) that those two corporate entities had effectively hijacked the whole proceeding, taking it from the realm of "let's help the needy" to "see how good we are, getting all of you to help the needy". My brother took umbrage at that, and argued the position that, since corporations can't be expected to act altruistically (which I fully agree with), they should be lauded for whatever charity work they do engage in, no matter how much they profit from the exercise (which I emphatically do not agree with).

Of course, as always, the possibility exists that I'm playing the ass, with respect to the norms of society... so, what do you think? Where do you draw the line between corporate charity and corporate self-aggrandizement? Is there such a line at all?

Yes, please.

I'm sure I've ranted once or twice here about the lack of Internet competition provided by Comcast and Qwest, my local cable and phone companies... the problem being, short of one or the other improving their service and/or lowering their prices (none too likely, in either case), I couldn't see any "viable" third option coming to play. That changes today, with Google deciding to run a test project on entering the fray with true fiber-to-the-home Internet connectivity (link).

In brief, Google wants to run 1 Gbit connections to homes in its test area (at least 50 times faster than the fastest cable Comcast provides these days), and let you choose from a variety of Internet providers to get your service through their hardware... you know, kind of like in the old days of dialup, where there was active competition for your Internet dollar, and smaller providers were able to survive and, in some cases, thrive. The downside, of course, will be what Google's going to charge for that line to your house, I'm sure... but it's still a test program, so I can dream. Heck, while I'm dreaming, come over this way to run your test... I won't mind, honest... :)

Subscription TV via Internet - so... close...

Yep, Roku just added another channel to their box, for Skitter.tv. Unfortunately, it's not just "subscribe with us, and get content via Internet on the cheap"... rather, they partner with local Internet providers to stream content, including local broadcast stations, that their users would otherwise have to get via cable or dish. Being on a cable company's Internet service, that means that I won't be seeing this particular feature any time soon... but, patience is a virtue, and all that. One way or another, a la carte programming will make its way online... eventually... I hope... please? :)

The latest fly in my ointment - "alarm registration"

This is a small issue, but one that illustrates a basic flaw with most governments I've seen... the basic disconnect between "for the good of the community" they were set up to serve, and "for the good of the government" that they evolve towards.

Until this year, my city has had a simple, straightforward system for dealing with alarm systems, specifically for dealing with false alarms... the first one in a given year's free (accidents will happen), after which escalating fees and other requirements kick in to fix your brokenness. The end result of this setup (according to the numbers quoted in the notice I received): slightly over 1000 false alarm responses by the police, at an estimated cost of slightly under $45,000 over the course of 2008. If my math doesn't fail me, that's a per-alarm cost of $4.50... so, let's be generous (inflation and all that), and call it $5 per false alarm.

Now, being the rational sort that I am, if I considered this to be a problem (which, honestly, I don't... responding to potential property crimes in progress is part of the job of the police), I would look at either increasing the fines for false alarms (or, if that revenue stream wasn't reliable enough, a small fee on all alarm owners), and use that money to hire on more police help (with the numbers we're talking here, that's maybe only half or a third of a full hire... but I don't think most alarm owners would get too bent out of shape about hiring on added police capacity to ensure their alarm was responded to in a timely manner). Oh, but wait, that would involve administrative overhead to collect those piddling little funds, and might be portrayed as "raising your taxes", so we can't do that, can we?

Instead, the city has decided to bring in an outside company to do the administrative work, charging every residential alarm customer $25 a year ($15/year if no false alarms in the past year), and even more for business alarms... or, to put it another way, everybody who dares to own an alarm system gets to pay 3-5 times more (or even more for a business) than it cost, on average, for any false alarm they responded to in 2008... which, in and of itself, is a nuisance. However, they then take that money, and... wait for it... use it to make sure that your contact information is correct. That's it. The theory being that, if we can call you when your alarm goes off, you might tell us no, it's OK, I tripped the alarm myself, no worries, no need for the police to get involved.

But now, hang about a moment... if you have an alarm company, they're supposed to do that already. I mean, that's part of the purpose of having a monitoring company for an alarm... alarm goes off, they call to make sure it's not a problem and, failing that, call the police. So, the end result of this new system is, rather than improving public safety by hiring on additional police, the city is extorting funds from their citizens to fund a private company that duplicates what the alarm monitoring company is supposed to do for itself, on the off chance they're not... all so no elected official "looks bad" for raising taxes.

Now, for the part that really chaps my hide... I'm a homeowner, I have an old alarm system still mostly doing what it's supposed to do, but I don't have a monitoring company (haven't for years, and it's disconnected from the phone line entirely), just the audible alarm. It's been tripped a couple of times (usually when I'm out-of-town and have somebody drop by to feed the cats), and I haven't seen or heard from any police officers in that time, so the "false alarm mitigation" argument doesn't really fly for me... but, unless I uninstall the system or disable the klaxon, I'm still liable for the fee. Worst of all... I'm actually going to pay the fee, rather than muck with the system, because I'm reasonably certain I get more than $15/$25 off my homeowner's insurance over the course of a year for having a local alarm system. Well, at least they'll have my phone number right, when they need to call me about that alarm they happened to drive by and hear going off, I guess... :/