The restoration of the skin archives is nearly complete. You'll notice that about 95% of the skins, themes, and wallpapers are now back. We'll be posting a list of people who helped us out with our thanks!

We are still left with a few minor challenges.

1) We are missing a few files still that we will hopefully be able to get back.

2) We are down 2 high speed servers. Some of this is on warranty so we'll be able to get them back. Technically, it's amazing we're ven up right now.  But clearly more redundancy is needed.

Issue #2 really should be discussed as a community issue. Let me talk numbers: In January 2003 this site got just over a milliion visitors per month.  Last month, despite the libraries being down for a couple of days this site still got over 2 million unique visitors.  In short, we doubled our size and continue to grow at a huge rate.

This is good. Except it does means we need more hardware. So in a few days, we're going to start a subscription drive with the goal of getting 500 new subscriptions (500 people out of 2 million uniques) by the end of the year. If you've already purchased a subscription, you've done your part and you have our thanks. But of the 1.998 million who haven't, hopefully some of them will be willing to help us out.  WIth 500 new subscriptions we'll be able to bring in 2 new servers and provide instant redundancy so that future disasters can be averted.

We will also display on the site how close we are to meeting that goal.  So all subscriptions starting tonight at 10pm EST and on will be counted towards the subscription drive.  A WinCustomize subscription lasts TWO years and is only $20. That's less than $1 per month. It gets you all kinds of extra software goodies, unlimited bandwidth use, a couple of premium suites and helps the site.

Thanks for all your help. We'll keep you posted! If you see any missing skins or themes at this point, if you have them please consider submitting them (screenshot will still be needed too).

We'd like to thank Pat (T-Man) and Kris (Nakor) and Nate Mook (owner of Betanews.com who is also our IT god in LA) for all their hard work in getting things back in order.

I often enjoy John Dvorak's columns. He's probably my favorite technical columnist out there.  But at the same time, he is one of those people who makes rash predictions that are sometimes dead wrong.  In fact, he's made so many bad predictions that he gave me the idea for a website - www.badpredictions.com that I registered almost 4 years ago.  The idea was to let people submit entries that were either predictions already shown to be bad or ones likely to be bad: Who made a prediction and what the prediction was and when they made that prediction so that people who rashly make these predictions could be held accountable. We just haven't had a chance to put it together -- yet.

In that fine tradition of making bad predictions Dvorak talks about blogging and by doing so makes it clear that he just doesn't get it. More to the point, he has fallen into a logical fallacy that, frankly, surprised me. In this case, his argument is that while there are millions of bloggers out there, few are popular and of those that are popular, some of them are being co-opted by "big media". Therefore, he concludes, blogging is done. Dead. Finished.

But on closer inspection, his argument fails. Let's look at it:

Let's start with abandoned blogs. In a white paper released by Perseus Dev Corp., the company reveals details of the blogging phenomenon that indicate its foothold in popular culture may already be slipping (www.perseus.com/blogsurvey). According to the survey, more than half of them are not updating anymore. More than 25% of all new blogs are what researchers call "one-day wonders". Meanwhile the abandonment seems to be eating into well-established blogs: Over 132,000 blogs are abandoned after a year of constant updating."

This paragraph really sets things up for the rest. It actually says a lot more than I think John Dvorak intended.  For one thing, as it becomes clear later, he believes that it takes massive numbers of bloggers to have nay impact. Not true. I would argue that bloggers like Steven Den Beste, who is not a professional writer, carry as much clout as many full time journalists in terms of influencing people. 

But more to the point, the assumption Dvorak makes is a false one.  It doesn't take a million bloggers to have a significant impact.  The issue isn't the number of bloggers, it's the number of readers those blogs get. Period. The only relevant statistic, which is absent from Mr. Dvorak's analysis, is how many readers, on a daily basis, are dedicated bloggers getting.

Continuing (paraphrasing)

There are perhaps 5 million blogs. Most new blogs are abandoned. Luckily for the blogging community, the growth rate is larger than the abandonment rate. But growth eventually stops. The most obvious reason for abandonment is boredom. Writing is tiresome. This is compounded by the lack of feedback. Most blogs have an audience of 12 readers. Some people must feel the futility.

So what? Here's one key fact: Most bloggers do not see themselves as indie journalists. He's writing as if all bloggers are in it to be be pundits.  Most bloggers are simply people that want to record their thoughts and life. Like journals and diaries, most of these are given up at some point. But so what? Most would-be book authors also give up. Does that mean writing books is doomed? Look at the numbers he's throwing around -- 5 million blogs. I think most people would agree that if even 100 mega blog sites had a readership of say 20 million people monthly that that would be a significant force. 

The fact that there are apparently 5 million blogs should send shivers up the spine of old media -- 5 million people, presently, have figured out how to get their own thoughts and views onto the web where others can read them. That's 5 million potential competitors. And of those 5 million, it only takes a handful to make a huge difference. Arguing that most of them fail equals doom to all is akin to saying that because most businesses fail that capitalism is doomed.

So then he gets to taking a direct shot at Glenn Reynolds and Lileks and Andrew Sullivan.

The problem is further compounded by professional writers who promote blogging, with the thought that they are increasing their own readership. It's no coincidence that the most read blogs are created by professional writers. They have essentially suckered thousands of newbies, mavens, and just plain folk into blogging, solely to get return links in the form of blogrolls and citations. This is, in fact, a remarkably slick grassroots marketing scheme that is in many ways awesome, albeit insincere.

I don't even know where to start on this. How does he know they're "insincere".  I don't see how their popularity can be construed to "suck people in".  Suck people into what? To what end? I haven't seen Reynolds write about getting a gold plated rocket car recently. Dvorak's cynicism is amazing not to mention is utter disdain for us "newbies". We're all just sheep too dumb to figure out we're getting conned. I don't write for glory, I write because I enjoy it. I like communicating with other people and I happen to think that it's a good thing that people from all over the world can get together and talk about things that "big media" hasn't talked about. It makes us think.  Perhaps Dvorak would prefer we get back to watching football but I must say that I and other people I know who blog find it very stimulating. It makes you think. It lets you interact with lots of different people. And it lets our voices get heard. Even if it's only heard by a few people, so what? Instapundit and the others are incredibly popular because of quality.

With that said, it's time to destroy John's argument: According to Alexa, only 3,370 websites on the Internet link to Instapundit. So apparently the scam Dvorak imagines isn't working too well.  3,370 links to out of 5 million blogs.

Again - these sites are popular because they produce outstanding quality every day.

Unfortunately, at some point, people will realize they've been used.

Used for what? At best, 3,370 people will feel used. What about the other 4.9 million? And in what way will those 3,370 people feel used? I link to Instapundit in lots of places and I don't feel used.. I link to things that I think other people will find interesting or useful. I link to content not people.

This will happen sooner rather than later since many mainstream publishers now see the opportunity for exploitation. Thus you find professionally written and edited faux blogs appearing on MSNBC's site. This seems to be where blogging is headed -- Big Media. So much for the independent thinking and reporting that are supposed to earmark blog journalism.

Whoa. I've read Glenn's articles on MSNBC and they are the same kind of material he has on his blog. Who is being co-opted? Bloggers or big media? If blogging has become powerful enough that big media finds itself carrying the viewpoints of popular bloggers, then I think the question answers itself.  But let's make sure we understand what is being said here: "Big Media" instead of having a monolithic set of typically left wing columnists on their sites are now having columns written by popular bloggers who continue to write as they always have is now somehow a bad thing for blogging. Really?

Let's look at this from an analogy: Let's say I was an independent film maker making films about American success in Iraq. And I became very popular in the grass-roots sense. And then Warner Bros. paid me to take one of those independent films and distribute it to every movie theatre in the country.  Who exactly has gotten co-opted here? Who is influencing whom?

So now we have the emergence of the professional blogger working for large media conglomerates and spewing the same measured news and opinions we've always had -- except for fake edginess.

These aren't the droids you're looking for.  Good grief. Has he read any of these co-opted articles? Well, let's take a look at today's "fake edginess" on MSNBC from Glenn Reynolds. If that's "fake edginess" then serve this newbie up some more.

Another so-called revolution bites the dust. Big surprise.

...Right.... You know, I think I will work on getting BadPredictions.com up soon just so that I can get this particular prediction in there. The bottom line is that when millions of people can get their information from sources other than a tiny set of former Columbia graduates working and living in New York or Washington D.C. that's a good thing for everyone -- even John Dvorak.

I write this from the airport. Thanks to my SprintPCS enabled cel phone, I'm on the Internet at around 384K (3G network). Being able to connect to the Internet anywhere makes traveling only slightly less painful.

For one thing, airports are still an incredible hassle. For me, I don't travel except under great need. The logistic (and expense) requirements to move my carcas around has gotten pretty high over the years as a way of discouraging unnecessary travel. No matter how well I plan, it seems like something, small usually, will be missed making the entire trip just a bit more tedious. In today's case, the problem is that I forgot the strap for my laptop bag so I'll have to carry it by the handle the whole way. A little thing, to be sure, but just another reminder of why I hate traveling.

It's not the flying so much that bothers me. I have no problem with airplanes. But the lack of freedom, the finality of going somewhere and not having all your comforts of home with you can be quite disconcerting. What if I get ill? What if I lose something? Is my airline ticket on me? It it? It's been 2 minutes since I last checked...

On this trip our client is meeting me at the gate so I won't have to deal with taxi's or rent-a-cars which usually just to the reasons I don't like to travel. Over the years I've found that there are 10 issues/tips that either make traveling worse or could make it better.

1) Parking at the airport. If I can get dropped off, that eliminates a whole world of pain of having to park in some far off lot (I live near Metro Detroit, the worst airport in the United States -- seriously).

2) Traveling light enough not to have to check in bags.

3) Electronic Tickets help too.

4) Flights running on time help.

5) Going business class or better on longer trips makes a big difference.

6) Total travel time <6 hours. That means no Detroit to Atlanta to LA nonsense.

7) Avoiding renting a car if possible on business trips. Though this heavily depends on the particular trip. Taxis and rent-a-cars bug the heck out of me. I am much more comfortable dealing with hotel shuttles or better yet having someone there in the baggage collection area to pick you up if it's a business trip.

8) Staying at a nice hotel. That means one where you don't smell smoke. That isn't incredibly loud. That isn't incredibly cramped. It doesn't have to be expensive. In the bad old days we'd save $10 per night going with the crappiest room around. It's worth an extra $50 per night to stay in a much nicer room. Nice rooms have desks btw.

9) No more than 1 stop on any trip.

10) Having someone to pick up you when you return. It's a real bummer they don't let people meet people at the gate anymore. This "security" policy on its own has been enough to put a major damper on flying. There's nothing quite like having your wife and kids meeting you at the gate to make you glad to be home.

I don't normally post reviews of desktop enhancements but this review was unusually thorough and well balanced.  It's a review of Keyboard LaunchPad, a program, in my biased opinion, that is amongst the most productive enhancing programs out there.

Martin has created a great BootSkin tutorial. It explains how to create your own BootSkin to change your Windows 2000 or Windows XP boot screen.  Check it out.

Thoughts of the day...

I updated my msstyles rant.  It amazes me that someone out there would actually pay money to patch their uxtheme file. I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't busted "companies" that make a profit selling cracks to the gullible.

Tomorrow I'm speaking to U of M on software development and about the game industry.

Tuesday I'm off to LA on business and won't be back until late Wednesday. I really hate traveling. I mean I can't understate it. I REALLY hate travel. I could write a blog just on that subject. I know that our company could be a lot bigger and I'd probably be a lot wealthier if I was willing to travel more but while I don't mind going to new places, the actual act of traveling drives me nuts. It's not flying that bugs me, it's the airports, train stations, whatever. It's just such a hassle. I don't like being inconvenienced. I'd pay an extra 25% on everything dealing with travel if they would just make flights on time, have more logical paths (no flying to Atlanta "on the way" to Las Vegas for instance).  The result is that I end up just paying for first class (or insist on at least business class if a client really needs me to fly out to visit) which of course makes things a lot tougher when dealing with us.  This is the part where someone emails me and says "You need a better management team." Duh. I know, this is one area we are weak as a company. We don't have a "Vice President" who can do this kind of thing. Who knows the whole company's business, is reasonable technical, and knows business. I'm the only "generalist" (knows all the things going on but focuses on none) in the company at present. Our management team is brilliant in the sense that they are amongst the best in the world at what they do. But because we do so many different things it's hard to keep an eye on all of it or understand the technology, business, and running of all of them at once. Or more to the point, one can't specialize on the various details AND keep track of all of it. So I'm the generalist. And that's not surprising (read next paragraph on how much stuff is going on at once).

So right now I've got this on my plate. That is, these are the projects I'm currently spending significant time in the next few weeks:

• Galactic Civilizations 1.2 (have to code on that)
• Galactic Civilizations Expansion Pack (have to code on that too)
• The Political Machine (have to code on that)
• Try to get WinCustomize back in action (have to help organize exactly how we're going to get new drives up, budget new servers, etc.)
• Have to write up two WinCustomize Magazines to help get WinCustomize's traffic back on track.
• We'll need to send a reminder to all skin authors who lost skins in the crash a reminder of what skins still need to be restored once we have the archive restored.
• Have to work on promoting the Holiday Desktop suite both with C-net and on WinCustomize
• Need to get Universe Metal 2004 out the door, that will mean coordinating the various project pieces
• Need to work on DesktopX 2.1, that involves managing mainly and putting together objects, documentation, and marketing
• Need to work on Object Desktop 2004's install. Not the coding (Kris does that) but making sure the install is totally seamless
• Have to put together the default suites for Object Desktop 2004's CD.
• Have to put together the rest of the Object Desktop 2004 documentation, that includes writing about 30 more pages, putting together 30 pages, and editing 30 more pages (90 pages on top of the existing 90 pages of which I wrote about 40 pages of).
• Have to put together media kits on Object Desktop 2004.
• Have to decide if Object Desktop 2004 is going to come out now or in January 2004. It's looking more like January due to the WinCustomize crash.
• Will need to check in and update the Neowin.net WindowBlinds forum and help out there on news items and such as part of my news admin duties
• Same for WinCustomize.com
• Need to help on WindowBlinds 4.2 which includes putting together and deciding on default visual styles.

That's all between now and the holiday break.

The left really hates George W. Bush.  I don't particularly care for Bush myself. But it's more on a personality level than due to his policies.  I haven't decided whether I will vote for him or not. But one thing is for sure, he seems to drive some people on the left insane.

And I mean that literally -- IN-SANE. Ask them why and the reasons usually are in a gurgle of profanity and crazy talk. And unfortunately for them, the left is increasingly becoming its own worst enemy.  As you surf the web looking for blogs or whatever to read, it's becoming increasingly difficult to read a coherent left-wing blog. More and more I read blogs that just spew so much hatred towards Bush that whatever point or argument they were making is lost.

Worse still, their talking points are increasingly becoming bizarre, unsustainable, and out of touch with the American people. It is as if the people on the left assume that most people hate Bush too or are gullible.  This makes for a lethal combination for Democrats. On the one hand, their core base is becoming increasingly crazy sounding due to their irrational hatred of George W. Bush. And their more "moderate" members are stuck with lame talking points like "Worst economy since Hoover." (like please, do they really think that Americans have discounted the affect 9/11 had -- $1 TRILLION lost in one day added to an already slumping economy as Bush was elected?).

There are, of course, exceptions. Kind of. But it's getting hard to find someone who can put forth a rational argument for throwing Bush out of office. Especially when their alternative is increasingly looking like someone like Howard Dean who seems to be totally devoid of any geopolitical thought whatsoever and have zero interesting economic proposals other than raising my taxes. Not a great message: "Vote for me and I'll enact policies that won't protect you from terrorists but we'll raise your taxes? Yay!"

If the left were serious about getting rid of Bush they would put forth a candidate with these talking points:

1) Zero tolerance of terrorism. We will stay in Iraq and win that war.

2) Will balance the budget through spending cuts.

3) Must get back to eliminating the deficit. As soon as the economy bounces back will enact a 2% across the board temporary tax to repay the debt. EVERYONE will pay this.

4) NATO countries and South Korea will send X number of troops to Iraq to help OR the United States will remove X number of troops from those countries and send them to Iraq.

5) To China: Stop putting your currency at the same rate as the US dollar or we will put tariffs on your goods. Massive tariffs. China has 5 times the population of the US, there's no excuse for a $200 billion or whatever trade deficit.

But overall, I think the strongest message a candidate could give right now and have a chance would be to say we're going to win the war on terrorism, stay in Iraq, and make our domestic policy about balancing the budget. I think these things would appeal to a lot more people than crazy talk like "John Aschcroft is going to come to your home and send you to a secret prison" or "Worst economy since Hoover..."

Either way though, the left needs a positive message. They need a message that is about something more than just hating Bush.

I suspect I'm not the only one who is thinking this. As a student of history I've come to a fairly simple conclusion when it comes to war: Wars only end when both sides decide that it ends. 

While this may seem straight forward, it a conclusion that seems to escape from many policy makers. Many of the problems we face in Iraq are the result of the enemy not believing they are defeated. The United States and its allies have fought a war as antiseptically as possible. Surgical precision to win the objection with the least amount of damage and casualties to both sides. But we are now seeing the downside of that strategy.

In World War II, the German and Japanese people didn't want anymore war. They had suffered massive losses both human and material. Their lands were devastated, their countrymen dead or maimed. There was no significant resistance after the defeat because the people themselves knew they were defeated. And they knew, in their hearts, that their enemy would be more than happy to inflict even more gruesome losses on them should they not fully submit.

The same cannot be said in Iraq where every American casualty is reported on the evening news. Think about that. In nearly a year of "war" American combat deaths is well under 1,000.  That's less than a 10th the casualties the Americans suffered taking one tiny island in the Pacific during World War II that few people have heard of. The people themselves have not suffered greatly either giving those who oppose American occupation hope to dislodge their enemy. We face a scenario where those who oppose us do not see significant risk to themselves because we are willing to go to such lengths to not harm anything without being positive about whom we are harming.

Which begs the question, can this war really be won without the defeated sustaining massive losses? Can the war be won without our enemy's homes and towns being consumed in the destruction of war? Many a general has said "War is hell" but in this war, war is merely "inconvenient" to our enemy. I realize we have portrayed the Iraqi's as victims. And they most certainly are. But so too were the Italians and German people in World War II in their way (particularly the Italians). War without suffering invites those unfamiliar with it to be tempted to it.

During the American Civil War, I would argue that Sherman's march to the sea had a lot to do with the ultimate success after the war between north and south.  The average southerner who didn't own slaves, who didn't have much of a stake in who actually won the war certainly wasn't going to be inclined to support anyone sniping at union troops. They'd seen their farms and cities laid waste by Sherman's armies (And retreating confederate armies).

But in Iraq, what is the incentive for the average Iraqi to thwart some terrorist or thug fighting US troops? If they see a team of teenage "soldiers" setting up a mortar position to fire on Americans, what is the incentive for the people around to stop them? The Americans aren't going to blast that neighborhood.  So they just take the position, "it's none of our business, we're not involved."

Which brings us to the main issue -- can you really win this war without the civilian populace having a very immediate stake in the outcome? Democracy, freedom, etc. are all wonderful concepts. But on a day to day basis for the average Iraqi they are distant ideals that have little to do with their day to day lives. Successful wars end when both sides decide it's over. When one side fully accepts defeat. When the population itself has a vested interest in there being peace.

So while 21st century American warfare may accomplish quick short term victories, it remains to be seen whether it can be effective in delivering long term success. I am not convinced that you can win a war such as we have in Iraq without massive destruction. I don't say that because I want there to be death and destruction, far from it. But I suspect that realistically, winning "hearts and minds" of a people is a lot easier when those same people have already experienced the alternative to cooperation.

So you've got Windows XP and it has only 3 looks: Blue, Green, and Silver.  And you want to add more. How?

There are two commonly used ways to do it.  You can patch Wndows XP to support applying Microsoft's .msstyles format. Or you can use Stardock WindowBlinds  Both ways have their own pros and cons.

MSStyles / UXTHEME

When it comes to using .msstyles you need to patch uxtheme.dll to use them. There's roughly a thousand msstyles out there (though many of them are just the default Windows XP style with the color changed somewhat).

.msstyles is the skin format that the default Windows XP theme is in. But Microsoft made it so that you can't use uncertified MSStyles. Some people have gotten around this by patching Microsoft's skin engine DLL (uxtheme.dll). By disabling the digital signature checking, you can then use those third party msstyles (or you can use SkinStudio which will import them automatically into WindowBlinds).

If you decide you want to use .msstles, beware that some companies are trying to sell programs that do little more than simply patch uxtheme.dll.  Don't be fooled by slick marketing. They'll be the ones trying to tell you that their programs use "no additional resources" or "0 footprint". Worse, people have been led to believe that these programs are what are doing the skinning. They're not. UXTheme is something that's on your system. It was written by Microsoft. And contrary to what some have claimed, Microsoft has not condoned doing this.

But as a free method for users who are reasonably tech savy who like msstyles, patching uxtheme.dll and downloading msstyles is a viable way to skin Windows XP -- just don't pay someone to do it.

Also, beware of claims like uses no extra memory or "won't slow down your computer".  The fastest way to run our computer is to run Windows classic.  UXTheme.dll is a skinning engine that installs a system wide hook to intercept paint calls and injects skin data. It will take longer to do that than to un classic. But fear not, on a modern computer, you shouldn't notice the difference.

So to sum up what we have so far, uxtheme.dll in Windows XP is Microsoft's bundled skinning engine that can applies .msstyles. A svchost.exe pocess runs to manage the skin.

The advantage of .msstyles running via uxtheme is that because the included skin (Luna) uses it, it should have a high degree of compatibility. Hence, other .msstyles should be relatively compatible.  It also has the advantage of being free if you find a good uxtheme patcher.

WindowBlinds

WindowBlinds is the most popular way to skin Windows. It has its own skinning engine called wblind.dll.  Because it was designed to allow third parties to create skins for it, it has a much larger library of skins and a lot more features. The skin format for it allows skinners to make a huge variety of skins.

WindowBlinds uses lightly less memory than uxtheme because the WindowBlinds skin format is more memory efficient. In truth, however, the differences are tiny.

The avantage of WindowBlinds is that it has vastly more features and is very user friendly to get up and running. The downside is that it's not free for the enhanced version and that poorly made skins can potentially be incompatible with some lesser known programs. At the time of writing this, every third-party skin released (including ones from Microsoft) have chosen WindowBlinds for skinning.

A few other comments on uxtheme

Some people have referred to MSStyles as "Style XP themes". This would be like calling MP3s "Winamp songs". Style XP is one of those programs that charges money for patching your uxtheme.dll so that you can run MSStyles (that's not all it does, but that is the main selling point).

But if you want to patch your uxtheme.dll, there's no need to pay money to do it. There are plenty of places you can go to download your own uxtheme.dll patcher for free. But there are some caveats to patching uxtheme.dll -- you are, after all, patching a core system DLL of Windows XP. So every time you update Windows XP in any significant way you're likely to find yourself either unable to boot or at best, finding that your skins don't work anymore (this is true whether you pay money for the uxtheme patcher or not). The other problem is that you're probably violating your Microsoft EULA by modifying Microsoft's DLLs.pack.

But you can do it as long as you know what you're doing. Just make sure you know which build of Windows XP you have.

Either way though, don't let yourself be fooled into believing that patching your uxtheme and running skins that way uses no resources. That's simply a falsehood that's been repeated so often that non-technical people now believe it. Skins have to be painted. Painting requires a program. Programs require memory. Neither WindowBlinds or Microsoft's UXTheme engine use much memory or resources. But they do use some.

Here's a list of the 3 methods and the general features of both.

Feature WindowBlinds FREE WindowBlinds Enhanced UXTheme Patch Allows Windows XP users to add more visual styles Visual Styles support Changing XP Theme Aware controls Number of Native Visual Styles ~3000 ~3000 ~1000 Visual Styles support Changing XP Start Bar Supports .MSStyles visual style format * * Supports .UIS visual style format   Supports adding more controls to the title bar/border (roll-ups)   Supports multiple border/title bar sizes     Supports per-application skinning     Works on Windows 98, ME, 2000   Visual styles support animation   Visual styles support sound   Visual styles are scriptable   Visual styles support enhanced hardware acceleration   Users can control what mouse button clicks on title bar do   Certified by Microsoft   Visual styles can be made grayscale or have their brightness/contrast changed on the fly     Visual styles can have their color changed on the fly     Visual styles can change Windows program dialog animations (copy, move, delete, etc.)     Visual styles can change Windows toolbar icons     Visual styles can skin the Windows XP command prompt     Visual Styles can also skin changing XP NON-Theme Aware controls       Purchase N/A $19.95 N/A Download  Download Update  Download

* Requires SkinStudio to convert .msstyles to .UIS

So now matter what you choose, have fun and get skinning!

I just finished Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Outstanding role playing game. I played the PC version though the game is available on the consoles as well.

Knights is an adventure/role playing game where you control up to 3 characters at a time. From a pure game mechanics point of view, it contains the standard fantasy role playing elements with fighters (soldiers), thieves (scoundrels), and various magic classes (Force powered things).

In the game, you begin as a low level fighter/scout/thief (your choice) and must help the Republic during the Sith wars that took place 4000 years before the Star Wars movies. What really makes the game stand out though is the story itself. It is like an excellent book where you control the plot. And what a plot it is. It's hard to go into much depth in the review on the story without spoiling things because there are so many twists and turns in the plot. Your character has an immense amount of control over the story and can elect to go down the dark path or the light path.

But my favorite part of the game had to be the incredibly seamless way in which non player characters fit into the game. Even though you decide which characters are with you at a given time, they chime in and add to crucial plot elements so perfectly that when you finish the game you can scarcely imagine how the story could have gone any other way -- except it could. And all of the dialog from characters is spoken -- and acted with movie quality perfection.

In countless scenes the characters I brought with me would say things that were so spot on for their particular character and often hilarious. In one adventure, in which I was trying to infiltrate a Sith base, I brought with me a psycho droid and a smart-ass old former Jedi. When the Sith overseer asked me why I have these two companions, I responded "Oh, they're just slaves" in which the smart ass old Jedi immediately adds, "I don't hear so well, just glad the Masta ain't beating me mo today." Shortly after that, the overseer says, "You will have to do something to impress me.." and the psycho droids responds, "How about if we slaughter every living thing on this base?" (the droid is constantly looking for an excuse to kill "meat bugs").

As a role playing game, the Star Wars universe, IMO, is actually better than the D&D role playing games. And I say that with Baldur's Gate (I and especially II) being one of my favorite games of all time as well as being heart broken when I finished Planetscape Torment. The reason I say that is that the abilities and powers one gains in the Star Wars universe are ones we've seen on screen.  For example, I quickly chose to get the various mind domination powers even though there were plenty of more lethal abilities available. BTW, you'll never get all of them in a single game, there are just too many (for instance, I didn't get the force choking power).  But with mind domination, I got plenty of chances to pull the old "These aren't the droids you're looking for" trick on NPCs.  "You want to let me into this facility." I was able to use this power to great advantage.  Other powers are similarly interesting (force push, force lightning, even the force speed looked like what we saw in Phantom Menace).

.jpg" width="700" height="525">

The game's engine was also outstanding for a Star Wars game. The game just felt like I was watching a Star Wars movie. This one with good acting and a good story to boot. Blaster shots deflected harmlessly by light sabers automatically. Star Wars sound effects at full power. And the musical score was top notch.

If I have any criticism of the game on the PC, it is that it was somewhat buggy. I had several crashes during the course of the roughly 75 hours of game play along with multiple instances where my character wouldn't attack and even a case where my light sabers weren't glowing.  And it wasn't due to some weird machine problem. The game was played on a brand new Dell. And I mean new as in I got the game and the machine at the same time, it's the only non-preloaded program installed on the machine thus far.  But none of it stopped me from playing the game or damaged the enjoyment.

Overall, this was the best RPG I've played in a long time, possibly ever. I really hope LucasArts and Bioware collaborate on more games in the Star Wars universe. I think the game was immensely helped by having it take place so far in the past that they were free to do pretty much whatever they want without having the baggage from the movies.

If you even remotely enjoyed Baldur's Gate or Planetscape Torment or Neverwinter Knights, you'll really like this unless possibly you hate Star Wars or something and even then the outstanding story, production values, and game elements are likely to win nearly any player over.

4.5 out of 5 stars