No, not yet, but let’s pair two stories:
- The Internet of Things participates in DDoS attachs
- Let’s add more things to the Internet of Things
The idea of the Internet of Things is to let all the dumb things in your house talk to each other, thereby collectively creating a smart world. (If that sounds dumb, remember that all the cells in your body are individually dumb, thereby collectively creating you.) Lots of devices now have some degree of connectivity, like DVRs, security cameras, thermostats you can control via app, keyless locks, or your garage door opener. Now think for a moment: when was the last time you changed the password on those? If you have one of those fancy, programmable toasters that makes a picture on bread, do you even know how to access security on it? Maybe they do not even build security into a toaster.
I remember mocking a headline about hackers “using your blender against you,” because the worst case scenario of a hacked blender seems like a lousy smoothie. So far, the apparent worst case scenario is contributing to a DDoS attack. If we now have millions of insecure, dumb devices online, and many of them can make some online requests, you can now flood anything with requests from millions of vectors. And those devices will continue to be vulnerable until they are out of service. Do you even know how many connections you have to the Internet of Things? If you know every device, can you access its firmware and update its security settings?
Adding in that second article: and now we have proof of concept for letting non-powered devices contribute to the Internet of Things using signals already in the air. “The goal is having billions of disposable devices start communicating,” he says, adding to the millions of insecure devices already doing so. The example in the article is contact lenses, hence my headline.
If we are not building security into the Internet of Things, we are building a world where you could attack a computer literally just by looking at it.
Unrelatedly, did you know that you can damage computers by shouting at them? Sound waves are physical vibrations, and computers can be very sensitive.
I was not expecting a game this philosophically fraught.
- Every moment you are not getting stronger, your problems are out there growing and your competitors are eating your lunch.
- This does not even demand competitors. Things just run into each other, and gradually everything grows beyond your capacity unless you are continually expanding your capacity.
- Paths that were safe when you started can become fatal long before you arrive. Prey can become predators while you are chasing them.
- If you knew everything and could do the math, you could theoretically plot out everything that was going to happen. But you do not have enough knowledge and time. You must make decisions now based on a very incomplete view.
- Often the energy it takes to acquire something is more than it is worth.
- If two things never touch, it matters little whether they were a blink away or a mile.
- Your path is sometimes dominated by outside forces you cannot safely escape.
- You will often want to start over with a better starting point, somewhere it seems less like you are surrounded by stronger forces blindly oblivious to how they can crush you in their paths. Alas, that was never an option.
- It looks soothing and simple, and each part may be. When you get deeper into it, you realize that everything is difficult and complicated because there are so many moving parts, so few of which are to your advantage at any given time.
- If you are big enough, you can wait for others to come to you.
- If you are not big enough, you need to act now before something bigger rolls over you.
- Sometimes acting now is what weakens you for those bigger things.
- Tiny moves now can have large, unforeseen consequences in the surprisingly near future.
- If you really want to grow, you need to go after the biggest goal you can achieve.
- Finesse is elegant and efficient.
- But sometimes the right answer is brute force.
The most impactful part of this is how it requires neither mind nor volition. One path of the game involves competing organisms, but mostly it is a mass of blindly moving objects, and yet your problems grow faster than you do unless you find the right path.
The simple mechanic of “bigger things absorb smaller things” yields a puzzle game with predator and prey, mazes, and planetary motion. That is elegance in design.
But seriously, the planetary motion (“force”) levels are kind of a bear unless you can eyeball Hohmann transfers. It seems a popular recommendation to do those levels last, if at all, and to have lots of patience with overlapping orbits.
The Financial Times reports that Japan’s Financial Services Agency is considering how to treat PokéCoins, which by extension would affect other RMT currencies. It is not the case that Japan is considering making PokéCoins an official currency or anything like that, despite how I expect to see this reported elsewhere.
The issue the FSA is studying is whether PokeCoins and other virtual currencies that can be purchased in-game with actual cash should be legally classified as a prepayment system, and therefore come under the jurisdiction of Japan’s recently updated Payment Services Act.
I know almost nothing about Japanese finance law, but that would presumably mean treating the RMT currencies like pre-paid gift cards, your Steam wallet, etc. I do not know how that would affect the fact that most F2P games also give away small amounts of RMT currency. I do not know how that would create liability in terms of data losses and game changes that negatively affect your RMT currency. It explicitly could mean more paperwork for games with RMT currencies and possibly depositing real cash in a Japanese bank to cover some of the outstanding virtual currency, the way that a store might need to show deposits to cover pre-payments that might be withdrawn.
Hat tip to Marginal Revolution.
I have no idea if Legends of the Brawl will be any good or even if it will launch, but they have won my interest with their plan to have playable characters of Teddy Roosevelt, Nikola Tesla, Lizzie Borden, HP Lovecraft (summoner class?), Marie Curie, and JP Morgan. Helen Keller clearly needs to be on the playable character list, if she is not a boss fight already.
Her Story is one of the recent not-a-games, in this case “A Video Game About a Woman Talking to the Police.” And that is it: it is a series of interview videos, chopped into short clips, and you find those clips by searching the database for words she says in the clips. To seed your story, the game gives you a starter search of “murder.”
In a way, the game part of this will be familiar. You have done this as a mini-game in a bunch of games, the conversation or interrogation game where you ask the subject questions to get material to ask further questions. On that level, it works really well. You amass some keywords, search the database for them, and find the story in your own, non-linear path. (Avoiding spoilers: but the ending remains ambiguous, so you get to decide what you think the story really is.) It retrospectively creates that experience of conducting the interview yourself, with the oddity of getting bits of several interviews at once.
The story is pretty good. I don’t know whether or not it benefits from the format. If you just sat down and watched the videos from start to finish, would they be worth watching? It’s not bad, but neither is it “must see.” There is some appeal from the broken chronological order, that you know some of what is to come when you see the earliest clips, and some earlier clips explain what it is you heard from later.
The interface is imperfect. It mostly works, but there are some oddities in how the search works, such as treating no (no quotes) and “no” (with quotes) differently, which becomes relevant if you are trying to find all the clips. If you are going for 100% and cannot find everything, that is one of the tricks: you are missing some 3-second clips with only one word in them. That herring is very red. Do you want another trick that can remove the entire game from the game? “BLANK” is not a NULL string in the tags box, and the game sorts clips by chronological order; if you want to watch the clips in order and make sure you’ve seen them all, you can start over and keep searching for “BLANK” while removing that tag after watching each video. But if you are going to do that, you might as well just search for a posted video of the game’s content, because that circumvents the game.
Spoilers are fair game in the comments, if you want to talk about the game’s story.
Are there any games that work well outside the recommended number of players? I am thinking of board games, but really any; did LOL Twisted Treeline ever become a thing? The particular thing that comes to mind is games with “variant rules” for more or fewer players, where the game is usually made for 3-4 players with a 2-player (or solitaire) variant and a 5-6 player expansion. That seems really common in board games, but I cannot think of many (any?) where I have seen it done well.
- Dominion breaks down with 5+ players, particularly if there are attacks. There is not much fun to be had in a game with at least one Torturer per round. Without attacks, you can have a very short game with that many people emptying stacks unimpeded.
- Starfarers of Catan gets extremely crowded in the early game, leading to a snowball effect where a bad first turn puts you several turns behind everyone else as you need to navigate/colonize around them. I have never tried Settlers of Catan with the 5-6 player expansion, out of a holy respect for the mathematical purity of the base game.
- 7 Wonders does a great job scaling up or down for 3-7 players, and that is built into the cards to begin with. Well done. The two-player variant is messy and clunky. I am told that 7 Wonders Duel is excellent, intentionally re-designed for two players.
- I am not sure if Smash Up is bad as a two-player game so much as very different, and the balance shifts massively. Any card that costs you something to hurt an opponent becomes vastly stronger if you have only one opponent, such as most Kittens cards, while factions like Ninjas and Pirates that jump into others’ fights are much weaker in a heads-up game.
- I should just stop the two-player games, because they play differently and usually pretty badly. Recent examples I have tried include Coup and Havok and Hijinks.
Some games work for two players without rules variations, and they can mostly work. This works better for Eurogames with minimal interaction, such as Dominion. I have played Kingdom Builder mostly with two players, and it becomes a much more strategic game as you limit the number of players.
In my day-to-day life, scaling down is the usual issue, playing with my wife at home. When I go to a game day, scaling up becomes the issue as we try to get more people at the table rather than boxing 3 or 4 people away for a couple of hours. But that often leads to a suboptimal time for several hours.
Thoughts from KTR readers, games that do this well or badly and why?
This week, I will probably reach the end of Cook, Serve, Delicious! It is incredibly engrossing and establishes flow wonderfully. I have now done just about everything you can do in the game, with a few more achievements to go to round it out. I 100%ed the main game and have moved on to Extreme Difficulty new game+.
“This mode is almost impossible. It will likely destroy you.” It really is as difficult as they advertise, what with the big boost in buzz (number of customers) and 0 patience. Getting the “table snacks” upgrade that gives them any patience was a huge boost in Extreme Difficulty. I wondered how one could sanely get the “serve 15,000 customers” achievement when you need fewer than 10,000 to complete the main game. I am, however, really good by now, so I have a buzz well north of 100% and am just about keeping up, which nets you more than 200 customers per day. Around the time I complete the two remaining Extreme Difficulty achievements, I should have that one too. The hard part will be getting a perfect day once I can have six items on my menu. I can almost keep up with 4, and those are probably the 4 easiest. I think I need to intentionally tank one day to get a big buzz penalty, then I should be able to ace it in a time or two.
Oddly, I am well past 10,000 customers and have yet to see a robbery. The security upgrade must really work. To get that last achievement, I will either need to keep pushing in Extreme Mode (ouch) or start a new game, not buying the security upgrade and hoping someone tries to rob me. “Too few robberies” is not a problem I expected to have. Hey, robbers, my restaurant in the main game has about $100,000 lying around because I kept playing long after having bought everything. Take my money, please.
Cook, Serve, Delicious! 2!! is scheduled for next year and available for your Steam wishlist. I hope it lives up to the original; I fear that it will get unnecessary complexity that detracts from its elegance.
I have been playing Plague Inc.: Evolved, which is pretty good, if a bit formulaic across the diseases in a way that makes differences seem like inconsistencies rather than variety.
Greenland, though. Man, Greenland. Greenland is the Madagascar of this game.
I can recommend the PC version. I do not recommend the mobile version, which is a bit heavily ad-ware, although maybe that goes away if you give them a dollar? There were too many screens asking me for money to skip things.
I continue to enjoy Cook, Serve, Delicious! in small doses of intense play. For anyone interested in a hardcore cooking sim, plus some other things, CSD! is in the current Humble Bundle for “pay what you want.” Bump that up to “more than average” and you get the source code too.
I played The Stanley Parable, but “played” feels somehow both wrong and perfect. It is closer to an interactive story than a game as such, but unusually for that genre it has a branching story tree — a “choose your own adventure” walking simulator. It is also a deconstruction of games in ways that I will avoid spoiling, but the comments section is fair game for all spoilers.
I will note that even the achievements are deconstructions. Three of the achievements are meta-commentary on achievements, one of which is literally “unachievable.” One achievement is to leave the game running for all of a Tuesday, another to log off and not come back for five years. 7% of players have that one on a game that has been out for less than five years, and 4% have the literally unachievable achievement, so I am wondering if cheating on those is meta-meta-achievement commentary. But for some reason only 1% of players have “leave the game on for an entire Tuesday,” despite that being something you can do AFK.