Game Dev Derek Smart (Again) Responds To A Negative Review By Making Vague Legal Threats And Banning Commenters

from the celebrating-18-years-of-bad-reactions dept

There are many ways to handle criticism well, and none of those ways include lawsuit threats or deleting comments. This almost always results in a previously localized event becoming the focus of widespread coverage and commentary. Instead of only a few people knowing how lousy your product/service is, everyone knows. It's a phenomenon whose name scarcely needs repeating here at Techdirt.

Despite this well-known effect, some people continue to feel that blustering thuggishness will somehow make the problems go away, as is the case with the game developer whose recent attempts to rub out a negative review quickly spiraled out of control. (via Adam Steinbaugh)

The game developer is Derek Smart, one who has never shown much interest in damage control. Smart's problems with negative reviews go back at least as far as 1996, when public discourse ran through AOL, CompuServe and Usenet. Negative reviews of Smart's insanely ambitious "Battlecruiser 3000" prompted what has been declared the "longest running flamewar" in Usenet history. Smart made tons of promises about the game (which had been in development since 1989), many of which failed to materialize in the finished product. Disappointed reviewers expressed their disappointment and Derek Smart (among many, many other things) expressed a desire to sue them.

In 2004, Something Awful poked the (somewhat dormant) hornet's nest with its "Completely Libelous Review of Universal Combat," a game the reviewer admitted to not having played and which opened with this memorable sentence:

Universal Combat is one of the first games produced solely for sex offenders.

Needless to say, the hornet's nest responded by poking at SA's own hornet's nest. This poke arrived in the form of another (somewhat veiled) lawsuit threat, albeit one prefaced with the phrase, "I get parody," before heading off in a direction that suggested Smart didn't actually get parody.

And there is parody and then their is libel. Stating as fact that I was convicted of bank fraud, is NOT funny - and I can 100% guarantee you, is not within the legal guidelines of fair use parody…

Look, I know some of you think you're above the law because you are on the net, but I never have and never will take legal action against ANYONE in the media. But if you bastards make me set an example, it won't be a good one. And trust me - I don't think any of you have enough pennies to rub together to outspend me. So whatever you do, don't test my resolve. I'm NOT taking this shit anymore.

Smart asked for the correction of the bank fraud assertion and received this in reply from "Dr. Richard Kyanka, PhD."

Dear Doctor Smart,

As per your request, I have changed the offending remark.

"When he was convicted of bank fraud in 1994"

has been altered to:

"When he was convicted of bank fraud and raping an entire petting zoo in 1994"

I hope this is satisfactory.

So there's that. Nearly 20 years down the road from his one-man assault on Usenet, not much has changed. A gamer recently published a review of Smart's "Defense Tactics." Overall, the review isn't terribly negative but it does point out that the game is short, shallow and most crucially, has severely broken controls. It does highlight other aspects, but in the end, the reviewer points out its not worth the $25 Smart's asking for it.

That's when everything started going haywire. Smart banned this reviewer from his dev forum, followed by flagging the full review as "abusive." This prompted the reviewer to add bunch of links to Smart's apparent burial of negative comments (via the deletion of posts and banning accounts) at his section of the Steam forums.

Smart then penned a lengthy response to the heat he was taking, which immediately got off on the wrong foot by suggesting that gamer reviewers suffered from an outsized sense of entitlement. During the extra-long read, Smart dropped a small hint about what he felt the corrective action should be.

The forum mob mentality is the bane of internet forums and is the primary reason why, across the internet various content providers are taking steps to curb (you can't prevent haters from hating or people from behaving badly) this behavior as best they can. So much so that many a lawsuit has been filed against some people who went too far.

The reviewer on the receiving end of Smart's unhappiness also grabbed a screenshot of another comment Smart had made, which suggested he was serious about using the legal system to shut down criticism. (That original post has apparently since been altered or deleted.)


The non-specific legal threat reads as follows:

Whether it is a lawsuit or just a discovery engagement to find the misfit behind the anon mask, I will pursue as I have done on several occasions -- and prevailed.

At this point, it's tough to say how much this will affect the public's perception of Derek Smart. 17 years of actively arguing with critics in public forums tends to leave a lasting impression. Smart's has often stated he doesn't care what the public thinks, but his actions prove otherwise. As far as damage control goes, he's apparently never found anything but scorched earth to be a useful tactic.

What's bizarre about Smart's defensiveness is that the review is not a simplistic bashing. It highlights what the reviewer found enjoyable or innovative about the game, but in the end the reviewer felt the game was too short (and the controls too broken) for it to be worth the premium price Smart was demanding. This isn't the sort of thing that should lead to multiple defensive posts from a developer, much less the indiscriminate banning/deleting of comments and commenters.

While this situation will likely only solidify Smart's antagonistic relationship with the public, it is having an adverse affect on his latest game. Steam's "tag" system has been used to tag the game with such colorful phrases as "Diva Game Dev" and "Overpriced Port of a Mobile Game."


Some semblance of order has been restored at this point (likely related to the game being temporarily unavailable for part of Feb. 15th), with the tags having returned to the more expected "space," "scifi" and "strategy." (Although Smart's efforts haven't completely eliminated the "scam" tag…) One would normally call this sort of internet give-and-take "instructional," but we're dealing with Derek Smart whose tactics haven't shifted since 1996. He may find that the internet is much, much bigger than it was in the CompuServe/AOL heyday (or even 2004, for that matter), but as he stated in his long post at Steam, he's too old to care about engaging with negative commenters (while pretty much writing off the entirety of Steam's forum members as trolls).

If that's the case, there's nothing to learn, at least not for Derek Smart "PhD." If nothing else, this may kick off the Great Steam Flamewar our kids will be reading about in Wikipedia twenty years from now.

Filed Under: criticism, derek smart, video games

Man Bravely Saves His Xbox From Burning House

from the hot-hot-hot dept

Look, for all you critics out there, I admit it: I love video games. They're my primary source of entertainment, since I long ago discarded regular television viewing, most music, and most movies. My entertainment quota is filled by literature and video games. But even my love for video games pales in comparison to this smitten hero from Kansas, who bravely walked out of his burning home with his most prized possession in tow: his Xbox.

“Hold onto what matters most” are words of wisdom that most people strive to live by, perhaps none more so than an Olathe, Kansas man who on Friday morning risked a fiery death by charging into his burning house to save a beloved Xbox. (The exact model is unknown.) Thankfully, both console and human survived, the latter suffering from smoke inhalation.

I carry your controller with me, I carry it in my heart. I am never without it, anywhere I go you go, my dear console, and whatever is done by only me is your doing, my console. I fear no fate, for your games are my fate, and I want no world, for my Xbox is my true world, and it's you, whatever Grand Theft Auto has always meant, and whatever a Mortal Kombat will always sing is you.

Or, you know, something like that...is what I imagine this guy wrote to his inanimate gaming console. Whatever, my point is this: you can love your console, love your games, and love the experience of playing them. But there must be something else in the place you call home that you'd rather save than the saves on your Xbox. Especially if there's even the slightest chance that same Xbox is the one trying to kill you with the fire of Doom-driven hell-demons.

In a strange twist, the disaster was blamed on an electrical junction box, which makes us wonder if the Xbox wasn’t partly to blame. Was it a suicidal act, or simple betrayal? Difficult to say, as is the matter of where exactly he plans to plug the device in now.

In the afterlife, dear reader, if fate has bothered to read its Shakespeare, I fear this gentleman will meet no Juliet more fair then the electronic daughter of Bill Gates.

Filed Under: kansas, video games, xbox

EA Deploys The Comcast Defense: 'It Only Sounds Like A Lot Of Complaints Because We Have So Damn Many Customers'

from the these-'launches'-are-hardly-deserving-of-the-word dept

EA continues to prove it is unable to offer up even the slightest bit of contrition for its disastrous game launches. Both SimCity and Battlefield 4 were plagued with problems that prevented many game purchasers from playing their purchased games. Server problems and other related issues locked out many gamers for the first couple of weeks.

When SimCity debuted in a Hindenburg-esque blaze of glory, EA reps scrambled to pin the blame on anything but its awful decision to make it online only. Every complaint was deflected with PR doublespeak and vague allusions to "server-side calculations." Nearly a year down the road, it "embraced" its SimCity community by handing them a set of stunted modding tools and an offline mode that had been possible (according to one modder who did exactly that) within a week of the game's release.

But nowhere among the many statements issued during EA's twin catastrophic release did you find any indication that the company was rethinking its online deployment strategies or even truly hearing what angry players were saying. The tone-deafness continues, as is indicated by the responses given to Rock Paper Shotgun's Nathan Grayson when he tracked down EA's chief creative officer at the recent DICE Summit in Las Vegas.

RPS: SimCity and BF4 both had terrible launches. SimCity didn’t work for more than a month, and BF4 still has issues. Surely you’re overhauling how you approach launches internally from now on?

Hilleman: I’m not sure I accept your premise. Battlefield 4 has been an exceedingly successful product on both consoles and PC. From a sales perspective, from a gameplay perspective.

RPS: Sure, BF4 is fundamentally a good game, but you can’t just write off months of glitches and server issues. Some people straight up could not play for the first couple weeks.

Hilleman: I think there was a lot of noise about the game, but some of that is a function of your surface area. The more customers you have, the more noise becomes available. We did things wrong. We know that. We’re gonna fix those things. We’re gonna try to be smart about what customers want in the future.

Unbelievably, EA's creative officer trots out the same excuse as Comcast's CEO did recently: a lot of complaints means aproblem of scale, not an indication our company sucks at doing its job. This eerily similar dismissal of complaints as simply being an indicator that a company has lots of customers helps explain why these two companies race neck-and-neck for the title of Worst Company in America year after year.

Fixing problems doesn't have the same ROI as cranking out "new" titles and pushing DLC. When a company's customer base is sufficiently large, it can drown out complaints by shoving wads of cash in its ears. At least EA's front-mouth admitted the company did something wrong, but that comes at the tail end of him describing the uproar as nothing more than the byproduct of "surface area." And that part followed him attempting to deflect the question entirely by obtusely refusing to "get" what Grayson was inquiring about. "Your product was broken at launch." "What do you mean? It sold tons and gameplay was solid."

This part at least clarifies how EA views game "success." If it sold well, all else is unimportant. Keeping customers locked out of their own purchases because you can't keep servers running is a problem only EA can solve and as far as it can see, it did nothing wrong. Crashing servers is a "scale" problem, too, but one of no more apparent importance than the ignored complaints.

EA at least had the sense to momentarily halt the DLC assembly line in order to patch Battlefield 4 into usefulness, but other companies are also finding that patching games doesn't fill the coffers.

Warner Bros Montreal explained its plans for the rather hollow sequel/prequel in a forum post:

“The team is currently working hard on the upcoming story DLC and there currently are no plans for releasing another patch to address the issues that have been reported on the forums.”

“If we do move forward with creating a new patch, it will try to address the progression blocking bugs for players, not the minor glitches that do not prevent one from continuing to play. The issues that are not progression blockers will unfortunately no longer be addressed.”

WB says maybe we'll fix a bug that prevents people from finishing the game. Maybe. In the meantime, here's some stuff to buy. That's the endgame. Buy. And keep buying, no matter how much we ignore you or break your purchases. As long as the "surface area" remains roughly intact, EA will live on to fight another day bungle another launch.

Filed Under: dlc, sim city, video games
Companies: ea, electronic arts

RPS Takes On Critics Of The Idea That Games Should Eventually Enter The Public Domain

from the at-war-with-the-entitled dept

I'm going to dispense with the normal introductions for this post, because there's so much meat here and we should all get to eating. To keep it short, RockPaperShotgun's John Walker recently wrote an editorial about how GOG.com saves older games for consumers, with a sidebar about how video games should probably eventually enter the public domain after a reasonable period of time, say 20 years. 20 years, for those of you not into gaming, encompasses several eras when it comes to the gaming industry. Predictably, in my opinion, this set off a contingent within the gaming industry that railed against Walker's desire to starve game-producers and murder small puppies, eventually leading to a request that he be fired. That'd be amusing, since it would essentially mean Walker firing himself, but I suppose that's a remote possibility.

Given the maelstrom, Walker has since written a delightful follow up in which he takes the arguments presented against his reasonable approach to task. We'll deal with them in order, with some of the highlights. First up is the annoyingly ubiquitous charge that any reduction in the ownership of creators will result in less incentives to create.

I think this argument is so astronomically false that my hat flies clean off my head when I read it. It’s so ghastly, so gruesomely inaccurate, such a wretched perspective of humans – these wonderful creatures so extraordinarily bursting with creative potential – and it makes me want to weep. The idea that creativity is only feasible if there’s a financial reward is abundantly demonstrably false...And not only does an argument for a more imminent end to copyright periods than the current monstrosities like “life plus 70 years” not inhibit someone from making a living from their creative works, but it also doesn’t even mean they couldn’t continue making a living from the creative works they produced after the copyrights have expired – that’s the magic of Public Domain! They just then share the ability to profit from those works with others.

This hits upon two points we discuss regularly. The first is that financial incentives are of course not the only reason creative folks create. This should be an obvious logical conclusion from the start. After all, would we say that people become creative once they are aware of the financial reasons to do so? Obviously not. Creative people create. The financial incentives are there not to spur creativity, but to create a structure that encourages the disclosure of the creation for public consumption. That point gets lost far too often. Secondly, this myopic view that the public domain ends the ability to profit off of the creation is so demonstrably false it isn't even worth addressing.

Next, Walker takes on the idea that ideas should be owned through copyright as a matter of creative privelage. After digging into some of the history of copyright law, he lets loose with this cogent salvo.

But now copyright seeks to protect individuals, not ideas. In fact, its purpose is to restrict the free flowing of ideas, to prevent cultural exchange, for the profit of the few. Copyright itself is the threat to future creativity, attempting to artificially restrict that most human of actions: sharing ideas. It has returned to its origins, and exists as a form of censorship. Not a censorship many are willing to recognise as such, so successful and endemic is the international brainwashing by the copyright industries, but the censorship of ideas all the same. So why shouldn’t someone get to own ideas like they own a table? Because ideas don’t exist in an ownable form, are born of the shared cultural mass of humanity, and you can’t rest a coffee mug on an idea.

And nor, I would add, should society want idea ownership to perpetuate. Physical objects are one thing, but the moment we began allowing culture and ideas to be locked up, we entered very dangerous territory. Because, I would argue, the next step in this progression is going to be language. Don't laugh, it's not as silly as it sounds. If you think about it, we already do this to some degree tangentially. After all, software is essentially written in a programming language, and the result of that language is locked up. Trademark and copyright already lock down language in a very limited degree, but even that limited degree can be problematic, as the wonderful world of IP lawsuits has shown us. Ideas, culture, and language shouldn't be restricted in any society that wants to continue to progress. That's our entire point.

Next we have the notion that creators should be able to lock down their creations for at least as long as they're alive:

Putting aside that an embracing of the public domain does not prevent someone from profiting from their idea, my response to this question is: why should they? What I’ve found interesting about asking this question of people is that I’ve yet to receive an answer. I’m either told it’s on me to explain why they shouldn’t, as if I hadn’t just spent thousands of words doing that, or I’m told that they just should. I’ve noticed a complete unwillingness for people to stop and engage with the question. Why should someone get to profit from something they did fifty years ago?

It's the same argument I've always made, which is that those attempting to take action have the onus to prove the need for that action. Human beings share inherently. Locking sharing down via copyright may arguably have some merit for some period of time, but it's on those advocating for it to prove that, not us. And that's a tall mountain to climb. Demonstrate that the culture in question deserves payment for the amount of time of a creator's life, demonstrate its value, demonstrate what society gets as a result, and demonstrate that any harm is outweighed by the benefit. That's on the copyright folks, not on us to prove the opposite. They're imposing upon us, not the other way around, no matter what copyright advocates would have you believe.

Finally, there's the argument that people who think the public domain has value don't want those working on video games to be paid.

Games, unlike some other creative pursuits, are often made by huge teams of people. While there may be a project lead, this isn’t like a book’s author. This is a company. People getting paid to do their job, to make a game. The rights to the game, the ownership, lies with the publisher that funds it, not the creatives who create it. When a 20, 30 year old game is still being charged for, not a single person who was involved in its creation is getting a dime. When it is more like book with an author, an indie developer and their self-published project, then yes, there is a greater chance they’ll see the money. But then we return to the my larger, more significant argument: that after those decades of getting paid for it, it’s time to return it to culture.

This, too, is in Techdirt's wheelhouse. When we combat this argument with the way many in the industry, and other creative industries, actually go out of their way to not pay those involved with the creative work, there never seems to be much of an argument against us. Whether its labels ducking royalties, horrific contracts, or movie studios using hollywood accounting practices to keep as much money as possible out of the creative folks' hands, the end recipient of much of this long-term copyright money is a company headed by people who weren't creating in the first place. Yet it's we who are making war on creativity?

Go give the entire thing a read, but this is spot on in nearly every respect. Kudos to Walker for not shying away from the argument. Or firing himself, either.

Filed Under: copyright, public domain, video games

Europe's Highest Court Says DRM Circumvention May Be Lawful In Certain Circumstances

from the this-could-be-big dept

One of the many problems with DRM is its blanket nature. As well as locking down the work in question, it often causes all kinds of other, perfectly legal activities to be blocked as well -- something that the copyright industry seems quite untroubled by. Here's an example from Europe involving Nintendo (pdf):

Nintendo markets two types of systems for videogames: 'DS' portable consoles and 'Wii' fixed consoles. It installs a recognition system in the consoles, and an encrypted code on the physical housing system of videogames, which has the effect of preventing the use of illegal copies of videogames. Those technological protection [DRM] measures prevent games without a code from being launched on Nintendo equipment and prevent programs, games and more generally, multimedia content other than Nintendo's, from being used on the consoles.

That means that DRM is preventing users from accessing non-Nintendo games and other works that they have lawfully acquired. One company affected by this is PC Box, which sells "homebrews" -- applications from independent manufacturers -- the use of which requires the installation of software that circumvents Nintendo's DRM. As was to be expected, Nintendo is not happy about that, and so the Milan District Court has been asked to adjudicate:

Nintendo considers that PC Box equipment seeks principally to circumvent the technological protection measures of its games. PC Box considers that Nintendo's purpose is to prevent use of independent software intended to enable movies, videos and MP3 files to be read on the consoles, although that software does not constitute an illegal copy of videogames.

Aware that this raised an important question of law, the Milan judges asked the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EU's highest court, to clarify how the European Directive on the harmonization of copyright applied in this case. The judgment has just been handed down; here's the key part:

The Court of Justice next states that the legal protection covers only the technological measures intended to prevent or eliminate unauthorised acts of reproduction, communication, public offer or distribution, for which authorisation from the copyrightholder is required. That legal protection must respect the principle of proportionality without prohibiting devices or activities which have a commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent the technical protection for unlawful purposes.

The Court of Justice notes that the scope of legal protection of technical measures must not be assessed according to the use of consoles defined by the holder of copyright, but that rather it is necessary to examine the purpose of devices provided for the circumvention of protection measures, taking account, according to the circumstances at issue, of the use which third parties actually make of them.

Having made those important general points, the Court of Justice of the European Union then goes on to instruct the Milan court to consider specific issues, such as whether Nintendo could use alternative forms of DRM that allow other programs to be run, and whether PC Box's software is mainly used for legal or illegal purposes.

As well as being an eminently sensible ruling, it's potentially hugely important, because it establishes that in principle DRM may be circumvented, depending on the circumstances. It's one that is likely to be greeted with howls from the copyright industry, since it cuts right across its view that DRM is sacred, and can never be circumvented in any situation. It's refreshing to see Europe's top court adopting a more nuanced approach to copyright that recognizes that users have important rights too, and that they should not be obliged to put up with what copyrightholders impose upon them if that is disproportionate in its knock-on effects.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: circumvention, consoles, copyright, drm, european court of justice, homebrews, mod chips, video games
Companies: nintendo, pc box

DailyDirt: Playing Games With Your Brain

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Who wouldn't want to improve their brain function simply by playing some games or doing some brain training exercises? (If doing homework or reading counts as a brain training exercise, though, there are plenty of students who don't seem to want to better their brains.) Brain games are getting popular (have you seen any Lumosity ads recently?), and there are already plenty of educational software programs for skills like learning foreign languages. Some of these brain games claim to help you maintain your cognitive skills as you get older, and there's even some evidence that these claims could be true. Here are just a few examples of brain games that could help keep us all mentally fit for decades to come.

• A 10-year long study of older adults shows that certain kinds of brain training exercises can have long-lasting, measurable (and beneficial) effects. Hundreds of volunteers (2,832) were divided into four groups for a control group and groups receiving memory, reasoning, and speed-of-processing training -- and the groups with reasoning and speed training showed significantly less decline in those cognitive skills. Unfortunately, it looks like memory training doesn't slow memory loss as we age.... [url]
• People over 60 might want to consider playing some brain training video games for a few weeks. Researchers created a (kinda lame) video game called NeuroRacer, and elderly volunteers who played it showed improvements in memory, attention and multi-tasking abilities. [url]
• Brain training video games are a multi-million-dollar industry, but the actual benefits of commercial brain games have yet to be rigorously studied -- or if they've been studied, the games show little to no real benefits. Hopefully, game makers will eventually succeed in making games that match their brain-boosting claims. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: brain, cognitive abilities, education, elderly, games, memory, multitasking, neuroracer, retirement, training, video games
Companies: lumosity

DailyDirt: Old Video Games Live On...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The first video games you could play at home were introduced in the late 1970s, and these games got really popular until the early-80s when the game market slumped. Fortunately, video game consoles took off again with the introduction of the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985, and we've all seen how popular video games are nowadays. Here are just a few links on remembering those old 8-bit/16-bit games that kids today might not even recognize.

• Video games have been part of museum collections before, but the "Applied Design" exhibit allows visitors to play some of its collected games (9 out of 14) -- including titles like Pac Man, the Sims, and Katamari Damacy. This MoMA exhibition ends soon (Jan 20th), but you might be able to find some of these games in your basement, anyway. [url]
• How much do you think an Atari 2600 console would cost in today's dollars? If you guessed about $800, you've got a pretty good handle on the rate of inflation (and a good memory for what a gaming console cost in 1977). [url]
• Maybe you've played Super Mario Bros all the way to the end and solved it, so you can better appreciate how an algorithm attempts the same task. The LearnFun/PlayFun program doesn't actually solve the game, but it does play pretty well for a player that can't actually "see" the game sprites. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: ai, algorithm, art, culture, game console, inflation, katamari damacy, moma, pac man, super mario bros, video games
Companies: atari, nintendo

Applicant For UND Head Football Coach Cites Video Game Experience As His Qualifications

from the dive-dive-bomb dept

Many of my fellow Americans enjoy the sport of football and their professional and collegiate leagues, the NFL and the NCAA. If you're like me, you often opine that you could run the team, the program, or the franchise in immeasurably greater fashion than the millionaire chowderheads currently employed to do so. If you're also like me, you play football video games and, oddly, learn quite a bit about the game from them. That, however, is usually as far as this type of thing goes.

Unlike me, however, Christopher McComas decided that all of these things have somehow merged together to make him the perfect fit for the University of North Dakota's vacant head football coach position. Having noticed on Twitter that UND was looking for a new head coach, he submitted his resume. His plan, such as it is, is undeniably interesting:

My football philosophy is basically an attacking one. We're going to give AIR RAID a whole new definition. Theoretically how many times do you think a team can pass in a game? Challenge accepted. We're going 5 wide, chucking the pigskin all over the place. Never punt. Onside every time. Chip Kelly will be calling me to learn my offense. We will put on an exciting brand of football, we will pack them into the Alerus Center night in and night out, go ahead and blow the roof off the place and add about 35,000 seats to that place.

To many of us, this philosophy is quite familiar. We often see it employed by every ten-year-old we play in an online version of Madden or NCAA Football. This, as McComas 9 page PowerPoint he sent to UND Athletic Director Brian Faison to justify his hiring, is so recognizable for a reason.

Now, I can't say for sure that Mr. Faison will find these video game credentials as underwhelming as I (Thurman Thomas a God? Even God couldn't do that!), but it seems quite unlikely that they'll get McComas hired. Also, his plan to be good by "winning a lot of games" seems more like a goal than a plan, but what do I know?

Either way, it's useful to remember as we head into the holiday season and the TV glow is full of sports (for some of us, at least), there's always someone better out there, even if that means being better at foolishly stating how great we'd be if we were in charge of our favorite teams.

Filed Under: christopher mccomas, football, university of north dakota, video games