The Banana Man Can…

“I have an intellectually stimulating theory. It’s my theory of where the soda-can may have come from. Billions of years ago, there was a big bang in space. Nobody knows what caused the big bang, it just happened. And from this bang issued this huge rock, on top of the rock was found a sweet, brown bubbly substance. And over millions of years, aluminum crept up the side, formed itself with a can and a lid and then a tab. And then millions of years later, red paint, blue paint, white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words ‘12 fluid ounces - Do not litter’.”

-Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort seems like a nice enough fellow, and even his accent is quite charming (thanks to Flight Of The Concords). Above is a common argument on his part for the evidence of Intelligent Design in the natural world. He has formed this concept by pointing an audience to objects that they’re quite familiar with in every day life, and then he simply states, “we can’t see the designer of the [inanimate object], but we know it has been designed, so we know the [inanimate object] had to have a designer.” I’ve heard him state this about everything from the architecture of a room, a combustion engine, and yes even a soda can. Though I get what Ray is trying to do here in opening up a connection between man made objects having a designer and therefore “designed” object in the Universe and natural processes must also, but I think for the sake of his own argument he is ignoring one really heavy aspect of debate that I will attempt to bring to light.


Lets start with the coke can… and I’ll debate the parts within his statement.

“I have an intellectually stimulating theory. It’s my theory of where the soda-can may have come from.”

The first glaring issue is that if you are attempting to speak (even to mock) from the scientific viewpoint on the hypothetical evolution of the coke can, it would be better that he use the word Hypothesis rather than theory. I say this because he uses the words, “may have come from” in the second sentence. This for a scientist would be a hypothesis, not a theory. Now because he is not a scientist and he is speaking to an everyday audience of non-scientists, he is using the word theory in the context of everyday use. Theory in science implies an collection of evidence that points heavily to conclusion and is not likely to ever be overturned by any new evidence. Scientific theories can predict future findings and do quite well all the time. A hypothesis is a yet untested idea that can be proved or disproved once tested multiple times. I’ll forgive Ray, because even if he gets the terminology wrong, I do basically understand his meaning. For those he is speaking to who don’t know the context of theory in science, that is where I begin to worry about how they respond to his ideas. I’ve written on this subject before, so check it out if you want a clearer understanding.


“Billions of years ago, there was a big bang in space. Nobody knows what caused the big bang, it just happened.”

Yep. That’s about as layman as you can get with the explanation of the Big Bang Theory. No arguments here. We know from powerful telescopes, measuring light speed, and the readings of temperature variations in the radiation left over from the Big Bang, that the evidence points heavily to the entire universe expanding fast from a single, super condensed singularity. We certainly have no idea what caused the singularity to expand into the Universe we have today, though M Theory and currently un-testable hypothesis relating to black holes may eventually shed better light on the subject. We simply don’t have the technology to test them yet, so that’s up in the air for now.

“And from this bang issued this huge rock, on top of the rock was found a sweet, brown bubbly substance.”

Energy from the blast of the Big Bang expanded. Gravity caused swirling masses of gas to cool and collect to form burning stars, which then began the process of fusion which creates all of the elements and matter we know to exist today. The sweet brown bubbly substance forming on the rock is the beginning of the end of Ray’s argument.  

“And over millions of years, aluminum crept up the side, formed itself with a can and a lid and then a tab.”

Again I get what Ray is trying to do with this, but there is an issue that I will explain at the after we go through each set of sentences. Millions of years are certainly correct, but Aluminum is a compound (composed of two or more separate elements) found in nature and is never found in its pure form. We extract it from other minerals. Most of the world’s aluminum is extracted from a mineral called bauxite, which is made up of aluminum, oxygen and many other compounds. We process this mineral into alumina and then by using electrolysis (using electrical current to create a chemical reaction) we process it into aluminum. However these are all man made processes of inanimate objects. Keep that in mind. Aluminum can’t creep. It certainly can’t form itself into an everyday functional object without interaction from man. Again, I know he’s not being literal, but a little background on aluminum will not hurt anyone.


“And then millions of years later, red paint, blue paint, white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words ‘12 fluid ounces - Do not litter’.”

Once again paint is the combination of man made processes, which take a pigment as well as a liquid or paste “host” such as oil or water that carry it and attach it to a surface. Pigments are found naturally all over the Earth and from many different sources. But again these are processes that do not occur without man’s interaction with them. That English text on the can was formed from Latin base languages and developed over the years to where some like me (for a career) in modern times can use Adobe Creative Suite to help design and typeset that text accurately on the can’s surface with help from large industrial printers. Not literal, Ray… I know.

But all of this is what boggles my mind before I even start to think more about the point he wants to raise. I’ve heard many argue Ray well within the context of his statement though Ray himself admits it is a ridiculously hypothetical explanation to express his point. It is quite a ridiculous statement, though I’d venture that it’s ridiculous more because he is asserting that we know a designer designed everything natural in our Universe, while using a made man inanimate object as a reference.

Well Ray, we do know the coke can is designed, but we also can research and know how it was designed. We know all of the man-made processes; metals, techniques, factory locations, blueprints, ingredients, employees, founders, and creators that got that coke can into our hands. Some of them I touched briefly on above. It’s in our history, and it’s not hidden (except for that pesky Coca-Cola formula! Thanks a lot John Pemberton for not sharing). Not only can we know all of these things with enough research, we could even create an identical coke can ourselves if we use all of the same materials and processes. The same can be said for any building, combustion engine or man-made inanimate object that is designed from many inanimate parts.

And this is my point. If you are going to argue that the entire Universe around us has a designer, then you may want to start using actual life forms to construct your examples, because in the end wouldn’t that better suit your point. Plus, any actual scientific evidence would greatly help cement your assertion. Ill give you credit for trying to use organic matter as an example with that whole banana fiasco even though you had to reverse your statements based on the actual documented domestication by man of the banana. You’re going to have to try harder my friend to convince those undecided.

I know how I got the coke can. A dude (John Pemberton) with time and money created a tasty brown liquid from the many elements and processes easily found and that are repeatable on Earth. I love that liquid, and I buy it to satisfy my caffeine addiction. The can that encapsulates that tasty liquid is created by mining ore and using manufacturing processes to extract and refine the aluminum that is shaped into the form of a can to make it easier to drink. Problem solved. I know the creator of it and I know how he created it as well as the combustion engine or any building I ever stand in. Even if I don’t know and I’m just curious, I can do my homework and learn how. Science and those that innovate have kept pristine records. And those records show that yes, even the modern domesticated banana was actually intelligently designed…but contrary to your original idea it was merely by man. I’m glad you owned up to that mistake, but had you researched you would have never made it in the first place.

I get the deeper question you’re trying to pose for debate and its admirable, but you have to at least start with something that is not so easily solved or is at the very least alive. I don’t need the creator of Coca-Cola in the room to know that someone designed the coke can. It’s common sense, and that’s supposed to be the crux of your argument that you hope will persuade others to assume the same concept in relation to Intelligent Design, but it’s also completely known who created the coke can and how. All anyone has to do is leave after your lecture and look it up. You’re going to better serve your idea by showing an example that isn’t an inanimate object and that can be proven using the scientific method. Feeling that it’s created because it seems complex to you is not enough to prove your feeling. Relating your feelings to the design of a coke can does nothing for your bigger argument. Knowing a coke can has/had a designer doesn’t relate or carry over to the idea that everything has a designer. It’s a large leap on your part. Because it’s true of A, it must be true of B? Without evidence that others can reproduce you’re only dealing with straw man arguments or arguments with a stated premise that fail to support your proposed conclusion. These types of arguments always show your misunderstanding of the opposition’s ideas. 

To feel that something is designed or just know it is designed and isn’t just a process of a greater natural selection via evolution (which is evident in our DNA and the fossil record) you would need to show something other than just your assumption that it was intelligently designed, just because you can’t explain (or haven’t bothered to investigate) how it might not be. That or clearly show evidence that the opposition’s scientific findings are not accurate. That’s also a tough uphill climb, but any scientist would gladly welcomes the chance to be proven wrong. That’s what science is all about.


Lets relate that to a magician and his tricks. Some magic tricks are insanely well done. I may never know how they are completely pulled off, but I know that the magician is using unknown (to me) techniques of illusion and trickery to fool me into assuming it’s real. Also in magic, the selling of the events unfolding before me relies heavily on viewing it from one location or being obstructed from seeing every angle. From the front of the trick, as we mostly see them, it looks unbelievable, but if we were allowed to see it from every angle we might very easily see that the methods used to pull off the illusion are nothing special at all (in most cases they’re quite easy and functional). There is an art to hiding that one angle from view that would ruin the whole effect and that is the magic behind what magicians do.

So based on the information around me I make my best guess, not based in the idea of his magic being real, because I know that physically it’s impossible to for any man or woman to breathe under water for 18 minutes at a time, disappear into thin air at will, or catch a bullet with his/her teeth (which is an awesome trick by the way). Using what I know of the natural observable world, I create a hypothesis to how he/she may perform the illusion and unless they tell or show me, I may never really know.

Point being, we could feel that the trick is real and have no understanding of how it is done, though that’s not enough evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt that the magician has special powers that are not possible for me to replicate. We suspend disbelief only for a moment to enjoy the show. Just because we can’t explain it, doesn’t make it believable that they have magic powers. We operate this way in most of our daily life. Watch the show Ghost Hunters if you want a great education in the absence of evidence while trying to believe that ghosts really exist. It’s certainly fun to think so, but even with six seasons under their belt, I’ve seen no evidence to support it. I certainly can’t explain some of the things they find, but that doesn’t make ghosts real.

So Ray, I would say do some more digging, read some more books, and at the very least spend some time with the evidence that supports your opposition’s side. Straw man arguments only make you less credible. Especially when the goal of your examples is to persuade others to know that the Universe and everything inside it was formed by Intelligent Design (or as the original first draft of, “Of Pandas And People” called it… Creationism).


You’ve written many books, one of which I actually have on my Kindle, so I know I won’t be able to persuade you probably ever from your asserted validity of these inanimate object intelligent design comparison examples, but I just wanted to offer you some friendly advice on constructing a solid argument for your future debates. Pick an object that actually correlates and corroborates the connection to the Universe and all inside it. That would be a good start.

I’m completely open to hearing the ideas you want to get across, but the coke can, the banana, the combustion engine, and human architecture all have the same issue for your argument. They don’t support the idea of Intelligent Design. They simply show that they all have human designers and that people aren’t stupid enough to assume otherwise. As far as the Universe, there’s a lot of work to be done on your part of you aim to convince those that deal with rationality. The world is waiting. So far you haven’t really connected anything one way or the other.

"They’re coming outta the walls!"

I spent the better part of two hours last night watching a lecture broadcast that brought both the ethologist (the study of animal behavior) and evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins and the astrophysicist and science communicator, Neil deGrasse Tyson together onto one stage. It was an exchange that allowed the two men to construct a conversation and ask questions of each other surrounding any topic with no moderator to lead them. Some very interesting topics and concepts were discussed, but it was the later part of the conversation that I feel is fitting to share, since this Friday the feature film Prometheus will be released in theaters. Prometheus deals with a crew of scientists who answer an ancient message on a distant planet in search for the origins of life. It is a sort of prequel to the original Ridley Scott Alien film. Needless to say, my ticket is in hand.

However, I thought it would be interesting to share some of the evidence and ideas behind the concept of life in our universe as two top scientists in their respective fields discussed it, compared to the film’s general story. Keep in mind I haven’t seen Prometheus yet so I can’t spoil anything for you. In the trailer however we discover that the main scientists have found a reoccurring set of stars on many different ancient relics all over the Earth. They are all thought to correspond to a star map of sorts, or as one character puts it, “an invitation.”

The concept of contact with any possible intelligent life is intriguing, but as Neil points out in the discussion it would be likely that any effort to make contact would have to be made by them rather than us. This is because of the vast distances in the universe. He leads with an example of the Earth’s radio-sphere. This is essentially a bubble around the Earth that is a representation of how far we have sent radio signals (intentionally or unintentionally). We have been sending them unintentionally since the early 1900’s. We know that currently nothing moves faster than light in the universe (thanks to Einstein’s theory of relativity), and as of the time of their discussion that distance was about 70 light years. Impressive… at least until you zoom out. Neil asks the audience to imagine the Milky Way Galaxy (where we currently sit) as the size of the stage where the two men are sitting. Earth’s radio-sphere would take up only the distance of a small marble in relation to the stage. In this example you can see that even for as long as we have been projecting radio signals (which are increasing in distance constantly) we haven’t even begun to cover even the smallest fraction of our own galaxy, let alone the Universe.

We as Earth’s inhabitants are quite restricted to our speed limitations. The speed of light is about 186,000 miles per second. Currently, we only travel at a top speed of around 18,000 miles per hour using simple combustion and sadly we will most likely never leave our solar system physically, especially when our space program is all but completely cut off from funding. This idea leads scientist to theorize that any contact with intelligent life outside of our solar system would require technology and much higher intelligence on their part rather than ours. However there is another issue to consider. Who says we’re intelligent?

Neil tackles this concept by giving an example of a man’s encounter with a worm. It happens all the time. When it rains the worms come out and end up on our sidewalks. How many times have you seen the worm, avoided it, and left it to its own devices? Most likely your thoughts are not centered on how the worm is feeling, where it’s going, or if it’s worth communicating with. You pass by and continue with your day. Now take this example and apply it to our scenario. If we don’t even have the technology to travel vast distances and another intelligent being were successful with it, it would mean they would have to have greatly surpassed our intelligence, just as we humans have the worm’s. We could then be so far behind that what we tout as huge scientific breakthroughs are the equivalent of something rudimentary that the other being’s children can acheive on day one of their lives. This begs the question that if we barely notice the worm based on its lack of intelligence compared to ours; does possible greater intelligent life outside of our solar system bother noticing us? It’s food for thought.

In trailers for Prometheus we can see life forms that mimic that of the non-human, un-intelligent life that scatters our world today. The interesting evidence that Richard adds to the conversation of life outside of our planet is the idea that intelligent life has only appeared one time on Earth’s evolutionary journey, where characteristics such as sight, sonar, hearing, and almost every other characteristic of life has evolved more than a few times. This begs the question as to whether Intelligence (such as language communication and culture) is the final end result of Natural Selection, or whether it is simply a one off anomaly. Neil adds to this idea that the probability of life based on the size of the Universe as we see it today over almost 14 billion years of passed time, is actually quite high. And not high as in maybe it has happened once or twice, but high enough that the chances of a habitable planet existing around a common star like our sun would allow for the possibility of numbers that can barely be understood by man today. We’re talking numbers that are greater than the total sum of every single word ever spoken by every single human combined since the beginning of time and even more than that; numbers that are greater than the total number of grains of sand on a major beach.

The reason for this high number is simply because of what makes life possible in the Universe. Life exists because of a few simple core elements, explains Neil. For life on Earth, we require the basic biogenic elements (Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Sulfur, Phosphor, and a few lesser elements), the presence of liquid water, and a source of energy. As far as Earth is concerned we have our energy source in the form of the Sun and our liquid water that is far enough away not to burn up and close enough to the Sun not to freeze (the habitable zone). The interesting thing is that the highest occurring elements found in even just our Milky Way galaxy are the following (in order of abundance): Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Silicon, and Sulfur. With the exception of helium they’re almost 1:1. We have already spotted over 1,235 planets (54 of which contain the possibility for similar habitable conditions as Earth) and counting, but we are not done here.

The idea that a planet must be within a habitable zone to provide life, or that if a planet doesn’t exactly mimic our situation is being challenged constantly, and even within our own solar system. We know from surface samples and the geology of Mars that at one point water did flow on its surface and even today it sports its own polar ice caps. However, Mars is currently not a place you would want to be even in a space suit. There is no thick atmosphere to protect you from the Suns deadly rays that constantly pound the surface and the surface is made up of mostly 95% Carbon Dioxide. That being said water can still exist in repositories deep under the harsh surface and we know from examples on Earth that life can thrive in even the harshest of environments where even humans would perish. For example a snottite is a single-celled colony of extremophilic bacteria that thrive in toxic sulfur caves located in Mexico. This is the type of life that scientist think may very well exist underneath Mars harsh surface.

Europa (one of Jupiter’s moons) is another example of a body that could very well contain life. We know that the surface is covered in ice, but that the constant cracks that scar its surface are because of a warmer interior of liquid water and the pull of Jupiter’s tidal forces. A liquid interior could also mean a hot core, which would very well mimic the conditions of thermal vents on Earth, which despite their harsh conditions allow for much life to thrive. Prometheus trailers don’t give us an idea really of the type of planet they are visiting, but it could be possible that much of it is taken from examples like Mars or Europa, in that it consists of a harsh surface and obviously very active subsurface.

Earth was originally thought to be flat, which was first debated by the Greeks and then proven obsolete by Magellan and Elcano around 1519-1520. Then Copernicus showed that Earth was indeed not the center of our solar system then proved again and again when man finally exited the atmosphere. The invention of radiometric dating as well as multiple alternate forms of geographical dating brought the Earth’s age into light at a ball park of 4.5 billion years after millions of years worth of gravitational pull and battery from outside elements. The one thing that both men argue and are quite blown away by is the fact that we are indeed unique and very lucky to be present in the conditions that are required for life. When it comes to the possibility of the Universe repeating these conditions again for other life to exist unbeknownst to us, its hard to imagine given our small sample size of data, but it can be likened to a simple draw of the cards.

Suppose that every star that exists in our Universe (estimated at possibly 300 Sextillion, or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) has a chance at these life creating conditions by form of playing a simple game of cards where we have a deck of 52 cards with each single card having a number that falls between 1 and 52, but no two cards have the same number. Assuming that the criteria for life that mimics Earth’s journey requires that you shuffle those cards and flip them over to reveal left to right a perfect ascending order of 1 to 52, you might say the probability is very low that it could ever happen. However, there is a slight defect in our game. This idea requires that based entirely off our small sample size of the existence of life, that the only way to form life is to have the exact same steps happen in the exact same order as it did on Earth. But life is varied even on Earth. Organisms exist in conditions on our own planet where humans would perish in a second. The other aspect to think about when it comes to the card game is that the probability of drawing a perfect ascending order of 1 to 52 is exactly the same as any other random order of the cards. Any hand I lay down after shuffling contains the same probability of ever happening again as would the perfect ascending 1 to 52.

What this basically means is that if the elements that formed life on Earth are found abundantly everywhere in our universe and the laws of physics and gravity (as we know them) show example after example of consistently formed planets, galaxies, nebulas, black holes, stars, meteors, moons, and life cycles, then it is more likely that the probably of life elsewhere is actually very large considering the sample size of space in the universe and the 14 billion years it has been allowed to operate. As far as how that life may look, act, think, evolve, survive, and more is currently best left up to people like Ridley Scott. Until we see it ourselves we can only speculate. One thing is for sure, time will certainly tell. Let just hope their not Xenomorphs. I’m not really into face hugs. See you in the theater!

PC Gaming has Evolved, I Think.

Well… nothing really, at least within my circle of hardcore gamers. It’s still a very strong fan-base that generally demands to be the forefront of technological advancements and graphical processing. Out of the nine people I keep close contact with, five are solely PC gamers, three are solely console gamers, and one is hoping to move to PC very soon. Now I realize that this could just be because of the relationships within this group of people, but PC tends to stand strong in my circle amongst those I know. However, even though PC gaming is still strong within my circle, it has greatly evolved and I wonder (at least for someone like me) if that is really a good thing.


I use the word “evolve” to describe a kind of divide even amongst the PC users I know. We tend to fall into two general types. Those of us who tend to lean more towards action based gaming such as FPS (first person shooters) and TPS (third person shooters) and then those of us who tend to lean more towards RTS (real time strategy) and MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role playing games. We all dabble in a bit of everything of course, but when it comes down to the type of games we tend to fall back on, it separates generally this way.


Games like the Elder Scrolls Series (Oblivion and Skyrim) appease us both equally, though I would argue that they probably get less play time than our fall back titles that stay within our genres. By this I mean I spend more time playing Battlefield 3 than I do Skyrim, though for the other group they may spend more time playing World of Warcraft than Skyrim. But my argument is that PC gaming has changed or evolved in a way that is worth noting and I have to ask whether that really is good for the overall PC market.


One of the key points as to why I think this may not be good overall is because statistically we see constantly how PC gaming (with regards to most genres) tends to lag in sales far beyond a console release of even the same game, with some exceptions. Lets look at Battlefield 3’s first week numbers…


XBOX:   2.2 Mil

PS3:      1.5 Mil.

PC:        0.5 Mil.


Its remarkable to me that a game that was designed and optimized for the PC ahead of all else couldn’t even sell 1/3 the amount of the PS3 copies in its first week. One factor has to be obvious in that the general public enjoys the concept of a console set up. They can buy the system, buy the game, plug it in and it works with no regard for having to update drivers, download patches, or deal with any minor issues related to their PC’s power. That is obvious and makes perfect sense. I’ve been told constantly by people that they accept the lack of graphics and power as part of the trade off for not having to deal with those issues.


But that can’t be the only explanation, can it?


I have another possible explanation, but it comes at the cost of alienating even my good PC gaming buddies, so I want to make a disclaimer here and say that in no way should anyone interpret the following idea as a knock on their judgment, likes, dislikes, choices and overall gaming experiences. I mean nothing than to start discussion on the topic. If anything I am the odd man out now a days when it comes to PC gaming, if this concept turns out to be accurate.


Here it goes…


I have a hunch that it could be possible that what has helped kill the PC market is the completely transforming, unbelievably successful realm of the MMORPG market. It holds a kind of overwhelming success that claims tens of millions of subscribed users and yet really only 3 or 4 completely successful titles. I know that this sounds crazy, but I don’t say it because of my general interest in the FPS and TPS genres, but because I find it to be interesting. No matter how I word it though, I’m sure Ill catch hell for it.


When you look at a game like World of Warcraft, it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t please millions of people, and aside from the fact that it’s not my type of game, it is a really good game as far as updating content, keeping users happy, and innovating the MMORPG genre. No one does it better than Blizzard. However the one thing it does (unintentionally, I hope) is require a monthly subscription that makes it harder for your money to go elsewhere. That’s not a bad business model, but for the health of the PC gaming market I wonder if its not bad in the long run. Sure 12 million x  $14.99/month to Blizzard (being part of the PC market) isn’t bad at all, but I would tend to think that if a another company wanted to release a version of another game that you wanted to purchase, that $14.99 a month could become a factor as to whether you could afford it or not. Especially if you’re locked into 3 or 4 other MMORPGs at a similar price.


For me the idea of pay to play isn’t an option because I currently don’t have the finances for it and even if I did, I come from a mindset that the upfront costs should cover all the expense of playing a game online. I know that to create all that content costs man-hours and requires massive server space, but you have to wonder if that $100,000,000 per month of estimated, collected revenue (after taxes based on 10 million subscribers) doesn’t more than cover that cost substantially. If the estimated cost of maintaining WoW is around a total of $200,000,000 since its inception in November 2004 (based on Blizzards report in 2008, though probably doubled now to $400 Mil.), then we’re looking at massive profits. I wonder if Blizzard could afford to lower the monthly subscription. I’m sure it’s more complicated than that, but ultimately you can see my point.


Does it even need to charge anymore? If it didn’t charge a fee, would you find an environment where gamers felt more comfortable venturing out past WoW into more PC titles? I know that when I pay for something, I want to make sure I get every bit of use out of it, but I guess it’s too hard to tell, because ultimately it comes down to personal tastes. However one thing remains pretty accurate. We live in a PC market where most companies choose to port over from a console build more often than the reverse in my favorite genres. The money is really in console gaming and if there is any of it in PC gaming, it’s being directed towards one type of genre mostly, with some exceptions.


Series like Max Payne, Call of Duty (though I’m not a fan), Grand Theft Auto, Rage, Hitman, Battlefield, Doom, Wolfenstien, Elder Scrolls and on and on are games that…



Were either originally PC games that have now left their roots for consoles while leaving a rotten port to stink it up on Steam or Origin.



Have the greatest potential to push the limits of PC gaming technology and have rightfully chosen to slow the innovation with a sort of multi-platform build that does the PC crowd no favors. (Cough… Rage… Cough… GTA)


This is the evolution of PC gaming. It is a world filled with a few enormously successful pay to play experiences in distant fantasy worlds that envelop the user as well as his or her wallets leaving possibly little room for experimenting across multiple genres and varied storytelling. And I say if that’s your type of gaming, then go and enjoy it. I will not tread on you. And the argument could be made that maybe I should play more MMORPGs, but finances generally dictate my experimentation in that genre (not to say I haven’t tried). But for those that remember the days of a solid variety of innovative titles and experimental genres where your favorite new action titles were optimized for PC instead of the mostly mindless Call of Duty type console player, I say remember the good times and hope that companies like DICE continue to put you first. It’s rare that they will. Even John Carmack has left us for console appeasing. But I digress.


One awesome effect of this evolution has been the influx of Independent developers. This is a good thing for PC gamers like me where LAN parties generally consist of WoW or League of Legends (free to play). Keep it up Indie guys. Not everyone wants to pay to sit around in a Dungeon Queue or play modified tower defense.


To all my evolved PC game buddies… you know I love ya haha!