So, in case you are unaware, the Giants have relieved their offensive coordinator, John Hufnagel, of his play-calling duties, handing them over to Kevin Gilbride. The best part of all of this is Eli Manning's response:
"It's an awkward situation," Manning said of the switch. "I feel it's somewhat my fault."
Really? Really, Eli? The fact that you keep whipping passes into triple coverage got someone demoted? Huh. Imagine that.
"Our offense hasn't been playing real well...It didn't have to do with the coaching or the play calling. We didn't execute or do anything right."
Honesty is the first step, there, Eli.
I'm not an Eli hater, really I'm not. I root for the guy. I have to. He's on my fantasy team.
Regardless, it's time to call a spade a spade. He's not getting it done. Granted, some of this is because an NFL offense is really hard to pick up. Drew Brees didn't really blossom until his 4th year. It takes time, no doubt. Maybe Eli will get it.
However, most of the mistakes he makes are because he doesn't read the coverage. As Tuesday Morning Quarterback will tell you, many of his mistakes can be traced back to lack of discipline. He'll rip off a pass to a clearly covered guy, and he does this a lot.
He's not the only one to blame, though. Plaxico Burress is also to blame. You can see it: when a pass is delivered right on the numbers, it magically slips through his fingers. When he has to stretch and leap to get it, he'll catch it. Fortunately for him, he's playing with Eli Manning, so most passes do not end up right on the numbers. In other words, there's enough blame to spread around for this team.
What's the solution?
Tom Coughlin is almost certainly out after the season. If he isn't, there needs to be an inquest into this. Coughlin runs into these problems everywhere he goes: When he's winning, his totalitarian policies are seen as a "disciplinarian" style. When he's losing, his policies are seen as an "impotent, sulking man-boy" style.
See, if Tom Coughlin was your boss, this is the kind of boss he'd be: He would be standing at the door, fuming, at 10 minutes to 9, tapping his watch and glaring holes in your head as you walked in. When you came in to work, he would call you into his office and explain, veins throbbing in his forehead, that you need to be a "team player," and mention that "Everyone needs to pull their own weight, and frankly, I don't see you doing that." It's virtually unbearable when everything is going well, and when it's not going well, it makes you want to dump your $4.50 venti latte all over his Armani suit, throw the cup at his head, and tell him to commit a degrading act to some type of livestock.
Only after divesting themselves of Coughlin can they actually start fixing these problems. However, it may already be too late for Eli. Eli will probably develop, at best, into a serviceable QB, who might cost you a game here and there, like a Jake Plummer. There may still be time to save this thing, but not this season.
This is default featured slide 1 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 2 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 3 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 4 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
This is default featured slide 5 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
Lost Makes Me Angry
So, I've finally figured out why "Lost" makes me so angry.
It's not the hanging plot details. No, those I expected from Day One.
It's not the slow pace of the show. I like slow-paced shows.
It's not the incessant flashbacks. I think it works perfectly.
I'm angry because they don't have a point.
Here's what I mean: They spent all of Season 2 setting up the Tailies. Ana Lucia, Libby, Eko, all these interesting characters. They give them back stories. (Except for Libby. What was that about? They set this up so mysteriously. "Oooh! She's in the mental institution! Oooh, she ran into Desmond!" AND?!) Eko's back story, in particular, was incredible.
So, what do they do? They kill Ana Lucia and Libby. I'm okay with that. It was a really shocking moment. You didn't expect it. It reinforced the whole "any character can die at any time" thing. No big deal.
Next, there's this big "incident" in the hatch. You spend all season in this hatch, and now, everyone just walks away from it and not another word is said. There was a freaking IMPLOSION in the hatch. And, mysteriously, no one wants to talk about it. Okay, I'm all right.
Now, there might be OTHER people on the island. There's a lady interrogating Jack, and more of the Others that are introduced. Plus, you're pushing to the forefront some other random couple that's been in the background the whole time. As if we need more characters, more balls to juggle. Okay, I'm still okay.
Then they kill Eko.
Now, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. One of the most intriguing characters of last season, Eko was just plain cool. He did everything the island told him to do, all while carrying around a Bible beat-down stick. You give him, not one, but TWO whole episodes of exposition. You save the guy from a polar bear. And for what? Just to kill him?
This is the problem. Much like this blog, Lost is getting more and more unfocused as time goes on. They're not tying anything together.
Take a look at Heroes. Already, halfway through the first season, they're explaining things. You see which direction the show is going. Shows are now being advertised with taglines that basically say, "Watch our show for 10 episodes and we'll explain everything. Scout's Honor."
Does this mean that when Lost comes on for the spring season, I will refuse to watch? Probably not. But I will feel very put out indeed.
It's not the hanging plot details. No, those I expected from Day One.
It's not the slow pace of the show. I like slow-paced shows.
It's not the incessant flashbacks. I think it works perfectly.
I'm angry because they don't have a point.
Here's what I mean: They spent all of Season 2 setting up the Tailies. Ana Lucia, Libby, Eko, all these interesting characters. They give them back stories. (Except for Libby. What was that about? They set this up so mysteriously. "Oooh! She's in the mental institution! Oooh, she ran into Desmond!" AND?!) Eko's back story, in particular, was incredible.
So, what do they do? They kill Ana Lucia and Libby. I'm okay with that. It was a really shocking moment. You didn't expect it. It reinforced the whole "any character can die at any time" thing. No big deal.
Next, there's this big "incident" in the hatch. You spend all season in this hatch, and now, everyone just walks away from it and not another word is said. There was a freaking IMPLOSION in the hatch. And, mysteriously, no one wants to talk about it. Okay, I'm all right.
Now, there might be OTHER people on the island. There's a lady interrogating Jack, and more of the Others that are introduced. Plus, you're pushing to the forefront some other random couple that's been in the background the whole time. As if we need more characters, more balls to juggle. Okay, I'm still okay.
Then they kill Eko.
Now, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. One of the most intriguing characters of last season, Eko was just plain cool. He did everything the island told him to do, all while carrying around a Bible beat-down stick. You give him, not one, but TWO whole episodes of exposition. You save the guy from a polar bear. And for what? Just to kill him?
This is the problem. Much like this blog, Lost is getting more and more unfocused as time goes on. They're not tying anything together.
Take a look at Heroes. Already, halfway through the first season, they're explaining things. You see which direction the show is going. Shows are now being advertised with taglines that basically say, "Watch our show for 10 episodes and we'll explain everything. Scout's Honor."
Does this mean that when Lost comes on for the spring season, I will refuse to watch? Probably not. But I will feel very put out indeed.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Is This Sad?
Is it sad when you own a computer for three months, and are already wishing you could replace it?
Now, it would be downright infuriating if it was due to a technical problem. I would probably have marched over to the company, dropped it on their doorstep, and screamed bloody murder until they replaced it. Or at least this is what I would have done if I were Bizarro Lee and actually enjoyed confrontations or asserting myself.
No, this is for something much more insidious. I WANT A FASTER COMPUTER.
Is my computer fast? Oh yeah. It's fine. Really. I mean, it's faster than the last one I had by a good margin. Here's the problem:
I want SLI.
I really, really want SLI.
For the uninitiated, SLI is a feature on new motherboards which basically allows you to have two identical video cards working in tandem to provide huge benefits in video processing. What does this mean? Imagine that brand new game you bought with all the bells and whistles turned on, with crystal clear graphics. Nary a jagged line in sight.
A thing of beauty, right?
Now comes the hard part: Convincing my wife.
She enjoys video games to a degree. She thinks they're all right. She doesn't understand why I would want to zone out in front of a video game for hours, no matter how pretty it looks. She also doesn't understand why I would want to spend so much money on a computer thingy when it works perfectly fine right now.
I feel kind of guilty about this next part, so bear with me. I think I've taken to deliberately sabotaging this poor little computer.
Now, it's done nothing wrong. Believe me, this is a nice computer I have. Its only fault is its owner.
So I've started leaving the window open nearby it. At night. During rainstorms.
NOT ON PURPOSE.
My last few repairs have gone somewhat bad. A missed jumper here, maybe a little too careless with one of the drives there.
NOT ON PURPOSE.
At this rate, my computer is going to commit suicide rather than have such a careless owner. I'll find it hanging from the ceiling by its power cord with a printed note attached that says "YOUR FAULT."
The one big problem with computers is how harsh the upgrade cycle is. If you want the latest and greatest, you have to keep on top of it. You can't just buy a $4,000 computer and expect it to be the best for the next five years. You have to keep putting more and more new stuff in it. I try explaining this to my dear, sweet wife, but I merely get the response of, "It's fine right now, and you don't need to play any more video games. You've got enough as is."
Sigh. I guess I'll have to go home and practice juggling knives. Right over the computer.
Now, it would be downright infuriating if it was due to a technical problem. I would probably have marched over to the company, dropped it on their doorstep, and screamed bloody murder until they replaced it. Or at least this is what I would have done if I were Bizarro Lee and actually enjoyed confrontations or asserting myself.
No, this is for something much more insidious. I WANT A FASTER COMPUTER.
Is my computer fast? Oh yeah. It's fine. Really. I mean, it's faster than the last one I had by a good margin. Here's the problem:
I want SLI.
I really, really want SLI.
For the uninitiated, SLI is a feature on new motherboards which basically allows you to have two identical video cards working in tandem to provide huge benefits in video processing. What does this mean? Imagine that brand new game you bought with all the bells and whistles turned on, with crystal clear graphics. Nary a jagged line in sight.
A thing of beauty, right?
Now comes the hard part: Convincing my wife.
She enjoys video games to a degree. She thinks they're all right. She doesn't understand why I would want to zone out in front of a video game for hours, no matter how pretty it looks. She also doesn't understand why I would want to spend so much money on a computer thingy when it works perfectly fine right now.
I feel kind of guilty about this next part, so bear with me. I think I've taken to deliberately sabotaging this poor little computer.
Now, it's done nothing wrong. Believe me, this is a nice computer I have. Its only fault is its owner.
So I've started leaving the window open nearby it. At night. During rainstorms.
NOT ON PURPOSE.
My last few repairs have gone somewhat bad. A missed jumper here, maybe a little too careless with one of the drives there.
NOT ON PURPOSE.
At this rate, my computer is going to commit suicide rather than have such a careless owner. I'll find it hanging from the ceiling by its power cord with a printed note attached that says "YOUR FAULT."
The one big problem with computers is how harsh the upgrade cycle is. If you want the latest and greatest, you have to keep on top of it. You can't just buy a $4,000 computer and expect it to be the best for the next five years. You have to keep putting more and more new stuff in it. I try explaining this to my dear, sweet wife, but I merely get the response of, "It's fine right now, and you don't need to play any more video games. You've got enough as is."
Sigh. I guess I'll have to go home and practice juggling knives. Right over the computer.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
10 Experiences Every Gamer Should Have
1) No One Lives Forever – Feel the breeze in the parachute level. One of the most exhilarating levels in years has you free-falling towards another man’s parachute. Can you kill the soldiers jumping out of the plane after you? Can you steal the man’s parachute before you hit the ground? A very well-done level.
2) Morrowind – Get caught in a dust storm. The sun is blotted out, and you can practically feel the dust in your eyes. Your only thought is to find shelter. It puts you inside the game like no other effect I have seen.
3) Half-Life – The Blast Pit. A giant and blind monster is what separates you from freedom. It hears your steps and slams its beak down in your direction, killing you instantly. How do you avoid it? How do you survive? The answer is in the palm of your hand.
4) Super Smash Brothers Melee – Beat your loud-mouthed friend with a well-timed, fluky throw of a capsule, which makes him throw the controller in anger and punch you in the shoulder. Sure, he’s beaten you repeatedly, and sure, it may just be one win. But man, does it feel sweet.
5) Final Fantasy VII – The End Of Disc One. If you’ve played it, you know what I mean. If you haven’t, you are missing one of the most cinematic, wrenching experiences in gaming history. Don’t let anyone spoil it for you; just play it yourself.
6) Katamari Damacy – Everything about it. The quirkiest, most original game since, well, ever. An indomitable charm that defies description and belief.
7) Donkey Kong Country – Mine Cart Madness. The best mine cart level ever. Combines speed and crazy gambits and danger all in one. The music swells and fills the air with danger. It reminds you why you like games in the first place.
8) Sonic The Hedgehog 2 – The casino level. The first time you set foot in the casino level, you know you’re in for a different experience. Never before had a video game character turned into what amounts to a pinball. The speed and precision of the level is amazing.
9) Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island – Eaten by a frog. You are now in a frog’s stomach, avoiding drops of stomach acid and throwing giant eggs at his uvula. (I said UVULA, you pervert.) An example of when games stop making excuses and just get creative.
10) Rise Of Nations – Crushing your enemies under your jackbooted heel. Something about watching your opponent’s territory shrink, piece by piece, is innately satisfying. It doesn’t get any purer than that.
2) Morrowind – Get caught in a dust storm. The sun is blotted out, and you can practically feel the dust in your eyes. Your only thought is to find shelter. It puts you inside the game like no other effect I have seen.
3) Half-Life – The Blast Pit. A giant and blind monster is what separates you from freedom. It hears your steps and slams its beak down in your direction, killing you instantly. How do you avoid it? How do you survive? The answer is in the palm of your hand.
4) Super Smash Brothers Melee – Beat your loud-mouthed friend with a well-timed, fluky throw of a capsule, which makes him throw the controller in anger and punch you in the shoulder. Sure, he’s beaten you repeatedly, and sure, it may just be one win. But man, does it feel sweet.
5) Final Fantasy VII – The End Of Disc One. If you’ve played it, you know what I mean. If you haven’t, you are missing one of the most cinematic, wrenching experiences in gaming history. Don’t let anyone spoil it for you; just play it yourself.
6) Katamari Damacy – Everything about it. The quirkiest, most original game since, well, ever. An indomitable charm that defies description and belief.
7) Donkey Kong Country – Mine Cart Madness. The best mine cart level ever. Combines speed and crazy gambits and danger all in one. The music swells and fills the air with danger. It reminds you why you like games in the first place.
8) Sonic The Hedgehog 2 – The casino level. The first time you set foot in the casino level, you know you’re in for a different experience. Never before had a video game character turned into what amounts to a pinball. The speed and precision of the level is amazing.
9) Super Mario World 2: Yoshi’s Island – Eaten by a frog. You are now in a frog’s stomach, avoiding drops of stomach acid and throwing giant eggs at his uvula. (I said UVULA, you pervert.) An example of when games stop making excuses and just get creative.
10) Rise Of Nations – Crushing your enemies under your jackbooted heel. Something about watching your opponent’s territory shrink, piece by piece, is innately satisfying. It doesn’t get any purer than that.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
New Format, and a Mini Superman Review
I have a new updating schedule!
In hopes that having a regular schedule will convince people to look at this blog sometimes (Ha! Ha ha!), I am now making a shorter entry on Tuesday/Wednesday and a more in-depth entry on Fridays. This will force me to keep a deadline (something which I am sorely lacking), and also will give you, the reader, a specific time to check in with me.
So, what’s on tap for this week? Well, I saw Superman Returns this Saturday. Now, I know the rest of the world has moved on to Pirates of the Caribbean, but I’m not a big PotC fan. In my world, here is the hierarchy:
Superheroes > Pirates > Ninjas > Julia Roberts
I hope that clears things up.
I loved Superman Returns. The people we went with took issue with the ending, claiming it ruined the entire movie. I didn’t think so. Sure, it was a stereotypical ending, but it wasn’t as bad as they said it was. It’s a first-day DVD purchase for me.
So, there it is. That’s the new format I’m shooting for. Shorter early in the week, and then something big on Friday.
By the way, if you do read this blog, let me know with a comment or two. It would really help. I don’t ask for much.
In hopes that having a regular schedule will convince people to look at this blog sometimes (Ha! Ha ha!), I am now making a shorter entry on Tuesday/Wednesday and a more in-depth entry on Fridays. This will force me to keep a deadline (something which I am sorely lacking), and also will give you, the reader, a specific time to check in with me.
So, what’s on tap for this week? Well, I saw Superman Returns this Saturday. Now, I know the rest of the world has moved on to Pirates of the Caribbean, but I’m not a big PotC fan. In my world, here is the hierarchy:
Superheroes > Pirates > Ninjas > Julia Roberts
I hope that clears things up.
I loved Superman Returns. The people we went with took issue with the ending, claiming it ruined the entire movie. I didn’t think so. Sure, it was a stereotypical ending, but it wasn’t as bad as they said it was. It’s a first-day DVD purchase for me.
So, there it is. That’s the new format I’m shooting for. Shorter early in the week, and then something big on Friday.
By the way, if you do read this blog, let me know with a comment or two. It would really help. I don’t ask for much.
Monday, June 19, 2006
Cars Review (The Movie, Not The Vehicles)
I don't know why I doubted Pixar.
You doubted too, I'm sure, when you saw the teaser trailer for "Cars." You saw the rusty tow truck saying "Dadgum!" just like I did. You thought that Pixar finally made a mistake. I did too. I don't blame you. It was the worst teaser trailer ever, possibly.
How does Cars stack up? It is very, very good. It ranks right up there with the other movies they've done, toe to toe.
Does it recycle the plot of other movies? Yes.
Does it feature racing, which for many people (like me) is not interesting? Yes.
Is it the best family film so far this year? Yes.
What makes it such a good film? The characters. Pixar always has great characters. It's such a basic thing, but they never seem to make a bad move. The rusty tow truck (His name is Mater, by the way) is actually funny. Paul Newman's crusty old Doc Hudson is well acted and very fleshed-out character. All this stuff that you don't think would work actually DOES work, and works well.
Now for the flaws. Is this a ground-breaking film? No. Have you seen a lot of this stuff before? Yeah. You have.
Will you enjoy this film? Undoubtedly. Go see it.
My review: 9.4/10
You doubted too, I'm sure, when you saw the teaser trailer for "Cars." You saw the rusty tow truck saying "Dadgum!" just like I did. You thought that Pixar finally made a mistake. I did too. I don't blame you. It was the worst teaser trailer ever, possibly.
How does Cars stack up? It is very, very good. It ranks right up there with the other movies they've done, toe to toe.
Does it recycle the plot of other movies? Yes.
Does it feature racing, which for many people (like me) is not interesting? Yes.
Is it the best family film so far this year? Yes.
What makes it such a good film? The characters. Pixar always has great characters. It's such a basic thing, but they never seem to make a bad move. The rusty tow truck (His name is Mater, by the way) is actually funny. Paul Newman's crusty old Doc Hudson is well acted and very fleshed-out character. All this stuff that you don't think would work actually DOES work, and works well.
Now for the flaws. Is this a ground-breaking film? No. Have you seen a lot of this stuff before? Yeah. You have.
Will you enjoy this film? Undoubtedly. Go see it.
My review: 9.4/10
Another Football Preview - This Time It's Personal
It's time for another NFL preview, during these, the quiet summer months before the first snaps. I hate this time of year, really I do. People grasp for news straws, and every single news item becomes a Big Deal. Take, for instance, this gem from CNN.com:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/06/17/chargers.hardwick.ap/index.html
Wow! A center signs a six-year deal!
Now, I love the offensive line, don't get me wrong. I know they're important. But a contract for a center isn't a big story. This is on the front page of SI's NFL news. That's sad.
On to the previews:
Every has Dallas as the trendy Super Bowl pick. Certainly they're stronger with Terrell Owens. Certainly, it's a stronger team all around, with key additions and maturing players. We're still overlooking two key parts:
1) Drew Bledsoe
2) Julius Jones
Bledsoe fades as the season progresses. He's been doing it for a few years now. Jones is by far their best running back, and he's always banged up.
This reminds me of last year's Arizona Cardinals. They added Kurt Warner and everyone freaked out. Playoff predictions ran rampant from everyone, including myself. We forgot certain key information, such as 1) Kurt Warner isn't very good, 2) the Cardinal O-line isn't very good. My point? Sometimes we forget that even though parts are added, there's still other, slower, less mobile parts in the team.
So, my trendy pick? Carolina in the NFC. Why? Because of depth and experience. Carolina is a scrappy team, much like the old (like, three year old) New England teams. They've faced adversity together. And, let's face it, if the Panthers would have had another wideout last year, they would have beaten the Seahawks. I don't like the Seahawks.
What about the AFC? Yes, what about them? They're still the stronger conference, definitely, but the gap is narrowing. Think about this: Last year, how many strong teams were there in the AFC? I mean, Pittsburgh was a sixth seed. This was a deep conference. Now, this year, in the NFC, there's a few more strong teams, like Dallas and Seattle and Carolina and and Chicago and Philadelphia and San Francisco. (I just threw that last one in there to see if you were paying attention.)
However, the AFC still has solid teams. New England isn't the same team it was in years past, but they find a way to win most of the time. They can't be counted out totally, though logic dictates that they're not going to make it.
Kansas City is improved, and a full season of Larry Johnson will be fun to watch, but here's the thing about LJ: He stinks at blitz pickup. He's not disciplined enough. THAT'S why Vermeil didn't like him, and I don't blame him. Look for the passing game to sag, and everyone will blame it on Trent Green. You and I both know the real reason, though.
This year, though, I like Pittsburgh again. Cincinatti's defense is still too spongy to make a huge difference, and Carson Palmer is still a question mark after his Kimo-therapy. If Ben Roethlisberger can rebound from his motorcycle accident (he's an idiot, by the way), and the defense is the same old Pittsburgh defense, look for good things from the Steel City.
So, my picks? Carolina and Pittsburgh to meet in the Super Bowl. Who wins? Why, we all do. (This is my copout answer to avoid making a pick.)
I miss football.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/06/17/chargers.hardwick.ap/index.html
Wow! A center signs a six-year deal!
Now, I love the offensive line, don't get me wrong. I know they're important. But a contract for a center isn't a big story. This is on the front page of SI's NFL news. That's sad.
On to the previews:
Every has Dallas as the trendy Super Bowl pick. Certainly they're stronger with Terrell Owens. Certainly, it's a stronger team all around, with key additions and maturing players. We're still overlooking two key parts:
1) Drew Bledsoe
2) Julius Jones
Bledsoe fades as the season progresses. He's been doing it for a few years now. Jones is by far their best running back, and he's always banged up.
This reminds me of last year's Arizona Cardinals. They added Kurt Warner and everyone freaked out. Playoff predictions ran rampant from everyone, including myself. We forgot certain key information, such as 1) Kurt Warner isn't very good, 2) the Cardinal O-line isn't very good. My point? Sometimes we forget that even though parts are added, there's still other, slower, less mobile parts in the team.
So, my trendy pick? Carolina in the NFC. Why? Because of depth and experience. Carolina is a scrappy team, much like the old (like, three year old) New England teams. They've faced adversity together. And, let's face it, if the Panthers would have had another wideout last year, they would have beaten the Seahawks. I don't like the Seahawks.
What about the AFC? Yes, what about them? They're still the stronger conference, definitely, but the gap is narrowing. Think about this: Last year, how many strong teams were there in the AFC? I mean, Pittsburgh was a sixth seed. This was a deep conference. Now, this year, in the NFC, there's a few more strong teams, like Dallas and Seattle and Carolina and and Chicago and Philadelphia and San Francisco. (I just threw that last one in there to see if you were paying attention.)
However, the AFC still has solid teams. New England isn't the same team it was in years past, but they find a way to win most of the time. They can't be counted out totally, though logic dictates that they're not going to make it.
Kansas City is improved, and a full season of Larry Johnson will be fun to watch, but here's the thing about LJ: He stinks at blitz pickup. He's not disciplined enough. THAT'S why Vermeil didn't like him, and I don't blame him. Look for the passing game to sag, and everyone will blame it on Trent Green. You and I both know the real reason, though.
This year, though, I like Pittsburgh again. Cincinatti's defense is still too spongy to make a huge difference, and Carson Palmer is still a question mark after his Kimo-therapy. If Ben Roethlisberger can rebound from his motorcycle accident (he's an idiot, by the way), and the defense is the same old Pittsburgh defense, look for good things from the Steel City.
So, my picks? Carolina and Pittsburgh to meet in the Super Bowl. Who wins? Why, we all do. (This is my copout answer to avoid making a pick.)
I miss football.
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
JUDAS
So, I have made an important, life-altering decision. Not really.
I'm going to trade my Playstation 2 for a Nintendo DS.
Now, before some of you start pointing at me and laughing, let me tell you why. First, my PS2 hasn't been getting any use now that my computer is back up and running. I'm having such a great time with Morrowind, Evil Genius, Rise of Nations, and Knights of the Old Republic that I really can't be bothered to play all the great games I have for my PS2 as well.
Second, a lot of the games that I have can be played on a PS1, which can be easily found for $20. I am notoriously cheap.
In conjunction with the previous point, by getting rid of my PS2 NOW, I am able to make more money and get more value in a trade. Then, when the PS2 drops in price, I can get it again. It's a simple buy low/sell high thing.
Plus, and this cannot be overstated, I'm really jazzed about the current DS lineup, especially New Super Mario Bros. I have waited for Nintendo to just make another Mario game for the past, oh, I don't know, 15 years. Now that they have, I'm beside myself. Having played it, it has me begging for more. I'm really intrigued by the wireless multiplayer for games like Animal Crossing and Mario Kart (even though I suck at Mario Kart). Age Of Empires II is turn-based, which makes me giddy with glee. Kirby: Canvas Curse is a new Kirby game, and I'm an absolute sucker for Kirby games (pun not intended).
So, Godspeed, PS2. We shall meet again, I promise.
I'm going to trade my Playstation 2 for a Nintendo DS.
Now, before some of you start pointing at me and laughing, let me tell you why. First, my PS2 hasn't been getting any use now that my computer is back up and running. I'm having such a great time with Morrowind, Evil Genius, Rise of Nations, and Knights of the Old Republic that I really can't be bothered to play all the great games I have for my PS2 as well.
Second, a lot of the games that I have can be played on a PS1, which can be easily found for $20. I am notoriously cheap.
In conjunction with the previous point, by getting rid of my PS2 NOW, I am able to make more money and get more value in a trade. Then, when the PS2 drops in price, I can get it again. It's a simple buy low/sell high thing.
Plus, and this cannot be overstated, I'm really jazzed about the current DS lineup, especially New Super Mario Bros. I have waited for Nintendo to just make another Mario game for the past, oh, I don't know, 15 years. Now that they have, I'm beside myself. Having played it, it has me begging for more. I'm really intrigued by the wireless multiplayer for games like Animal Crossing and Mario Kart (even though I suck at Mario Kart). Age Of Empires II is turn-based, which makes me giddy with glee. Kirby: Canvas Curse is a new Kirby game, and I'm an absolute sucker for Kirby games (pun not intended).
So, Godspeed, PS2. We shall meet again, I promise.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Second Thoughts On The Wii
OK, so you probably remember my scathing post on the Wii. (Or you don't. You probably don't read this blog.) At any rate, I seethed about the Stupidest Console Name Ever, and basically told Nintendo that they were dead to me.
I need a napkin to clear of the egg on my face, frankly.
After a strong E3 showing, and the Playstation coming out a $500, and people actually SEEING what the controller does instead of just having to guess, Nintendo is actually in the lead spot now for most gamers, strangely enough.
I still wish they would have kept the name "Revolution," though.
I need a napkin to clear of the egg on my face, frankly.
After a strong E3 showing, and the Playstation coming out a $500, and people actually SEEING what the controller does instead of just having to guess, Nintendo is actually in the lead spot now for most gamers, strangely enough.
I still wish they would have kept the name "Revolution," though.
X-Men 3 Review
My lovely wife and I went to see X-Men 3 on Monday. My wife is a fan of the movies, and she used to watch the cartoons as a child in Mexico. (As a side note, you have not lived until you have seen Darkwing Duck in Spanish.) As for myself, I liked the cartoons as well, and never really got into the comic books, even though I wanted to. So, while we’re familiar with the X-Men, we’re not beholden to the comic storylines.
That being said, we loved the new X-Men movie. I was prepared for the worst, and was extremely surprised. The pacing is a little slow, and the new mutants are little more than window dressing, but the story is fantastic.
Here’s the story, in case you haven’t heard, revolves around a “cure” for mutants, derived from a mutant boy named Leech. While some mutants welcome this cure, others, such as Magneto, view the cure as a way to stamp out mutantkind, and draw the line thusly. Along the way, Jean Grey returns as the Phoenix, an uber-powerful mutant who can do, well, basically anything. She’s highly unstable, though, and is a danger to herself and others.
Brett Ratner, the director, has a reputation for making bad films. X-Men 3 is by no means a bad film, though, and it’s easy to see why. Ratner spends the film trying to ape Bryan Singer’s style for the previous movies, and, for the most part, it works. In some ways, it’s kind of cute, like the little flourishes that he hamfistedly tries to put in the make himself seem like a better director. He’s not Singer, that’s for sure, but in Singer’s absence, he fits the bill.
The effects are mostly pretty great, aside from a few fakey-looking things, as in most heavily CGI-ed movies. The Beast is very well played by Kelsey Grammer, and he looks great too. Angel’s wings look good, even though all he gets to do is fly around and looking broodingly handsome. A bunch more mutants get thrown into the mix, mostly on the side of Magneto, but they’re not really well developed.
So what makes this movie as good as I say it is? The story is fantastic, Jean Grey is amazing, and Wolverine, as always, is a fascinating character. Speaking of Wolverine, he’s much less tormented this time around, more definite in his pursuit of evil, which actually is a good thing. It completes the circle, from tormented soul to recovering warrior to bold knight. Is it what happens in the comics? I don’t know. Who cares? It works.
All in all, I found this movie extremely enjoyable. Sure, there’s some things that are a little off, but as a trilogy-ending movie, it really doesn’t miss.
One last thing: Don’t leave the theater until after the credits are done.
My score:
8.8/10
That being said, we loved the new X-Men movie. I was prepared for the worst, and was extremely surprised. The pacing is a little slow, and the new mutants are little more than window dressing, but the story is fantastic.
Here’s the story, in case you haven’t heard, revolves around a “cure” for mutants, derived from a mutant boy named Leech. While some mutants welcome this cure, others, such as Magneto, view the cure as a way to stamp out mutantkind, and draw the line thusly. Along the way, Jean Grey returns as the Phoenix, an uber-powerful mutant who can do, well, basically anything. She’s highly unstable, though, and is a danger to herself and others.
Brett Ratner, the director, has a reputation for making bad films. X-Men 3 is by no means a bad film, though, and it’s easy to see why. Ratner spends the film trying to ape Bryan Singer’s style for the previous movies, and, for the most part, it works. In some ways, it’s kind of cute, like the little flourishes that he hamfistedly tries to put in the make himself seem like a better director. He’s not Singer, that’s for sure, but in Singer’s absence, he fits the bill.
The effects are mostly pretty great, aside from a few fakey-looking things, as in most heavily CGI-ed movies. The Beast is very well played by Kelsey Grammer, and he looks great too. Angel’s wings look good, even though all he gets to do is fly around and looking broodingly handsome. A bunch more mutants get thrown into the mix, mostly on the side of Magneto, but they’re not really well developed.
So what makes this movie as good as I say it is? The story is fantastic, Jean Grey is amazing, and Wolverine, as always, is a fascinating character. Speaking of Wolverine, he’s much less tormented this time around, more definite in his pursuit of evil, which actually is a good thing. It completes the circle, from tormented soul to recovering warrior to bold knight. Is it what happens in the comics? I don’t know. Who cares? It works.
All in all, I found this movie extremely enjoyable. Sure, there’s some things that are a little off, but as a trilogy-ending movie, it really doesn’t miss.
One last thing: Don’t leave the theater until after the credits are done.
My score:
8.8/10
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Mission: Impossible 3 Impressions
My lovely wife Ruth and I went to see Mission: Impossible 3, the new Tom Cruise vehicle. First of all, before I get into impressions, let me tell you a little bit about my M:I experience.
The first movie I saw when it came out, and didn't understand a word of it. I mean, I liked the action sequences, but the whole thing scrambled my brain. I saw the second one and loved it. Now, this was when I was a dumb kid. I mean, I loved Batman Forever. That should tell you about my movie tastes back then. Now, when I watch the movie, I can't believe how dumb it is, but I did like it way back when.
So.
I liked Mission: Impossible 3. It has its flaws, no doubt. Let's get the dumb stuff out of the way first. First, they have a machine that can analyze your brain and give you a real-time X-ray image, then detect and analyze a foreign object through bone and tissue, but they still have a defibrillator that takes 30 seconds to charge.
Second, because Tom Cruise is basically indestructible in these movies, there really isn't any suspense as far as his character goes. Wisely, they choose to put other characters in danger instead of Cruise, making it more suspenseful.
Third, the twist at the end is kind of predictable.
Those negatives out of the way, there was a lot to like about this movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is very menacing. He's an interesting actor, and this gives him a chance to play around. Someone was telling me that they're mad that he sold out, but you can't make Important Movies all the time. Every once in a while you have to cut loose and have fun, and Hoffman does.
Tom Cruise is many times maligned for his acting. In this movie, though, he does a superb job stepping into Ethan Hunt's shoes once again, making you feel that he's actually concerned about these events. Hunt and his fiancee, played by Michelle Monaghan, never really generate a whole lot of heat, but that's okay. They're not supposed to. She's there to give him something to protect, and as a plot device, it works well.
Finally, the direction, handled by J.J. Abrams in his feature debut, is fantastic. If you've watched Alias in its first few seasons, you know what to expect. If you haven't, you're in for a treat, as Abrams enjoys taking the movie everywhere he can. Literally. He goes to the Vatican, Shanghai, everywhere. It's a fantastic ride, and he knows when to slow it down to give the movie weight.
All in all, this was a very well-made movie. It should get a lot more love than it's getting in the theatres, and it's my mission to make sure it does. My final score:
8.5/10
The first movie I saw when it came out, and didn't understand a word of it. I mean, I liked the action sequences, but the whole thing scrambled my brain. I saw the second one and loved it. Now, this was when I was a dumb kid. I mean, I loved Batman Forever. That should tell you about my movie tastes back then. Now, when I watch the movie, I can't believe how dumb it is, but I did like it way back when.
So.
I liked Mission: Impossible 3. It has its flaws, no doubt. Let's get the dumb stuff out of the way first. First, they have a machine that can analyze your brain and give you a real-time X-ray image, then detect and analyze a foreign object through bone and tissue, but they still have a defibrillator that takes 30 seconds to charge.
Second, because Tom Cruise is basically indestructible in these movies, there really isn't any suspense as far as his character goes. Wisely, they choose to put other characters in danger instead of Cruise, making it more suspenseful.
Third, the twist at the end is kind of predictable.
Those negatives out of the way, there was a lot to like about this movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is very menacing. He's an interesting actor, and this gives him a chance to play around. Someone was telling me that they're mad that he sold out, but you can't make Important Movies all the time. Every once in a while you have to cut loose and have fun, and Hoffman does.
Tom Cruise is many times maligned for his acting. In this movie, though, he does a superb job stepping into Ethan Hunt's shoes once again, making you feel that he's actually concerned about these events. Hunt and his fiancee, played by Michelle Monaghan, never really generate a whole lot of heat, but that's okay. They're not supposed to. She's there to give him something to protect, and as a plot device, it works well.
Finally, the direction, handled by J.J. Abrams in his feature debut, is fantastic. If you've watched Alias in its first few seasons, you know what to expect. If you haven't, you're in for a treat, as Abrams enjoys taking the movie everywhere he can. Literally. He goes to the Vatican, Shanghai, everywhere. It's a fantastic ride, and he knows when to slow it down to give the movie weight.
All in all, this was a very well-made movie. It should get a lot more love than it's getting in the theatres, and it's my mission to make sure it does. My final score:
8.5/10
Fantasy Sports Are My New Addiction
I have a problem. I think that's the first step here. I'm hooked on fantasy baseball.
First, a little background. I love baseball. It was my first love, thanks to my dad. We used to play baseball in my grandma's backyard with my dad and my older brother. I still fondly remember the first time I hit a ball over the garage in back of the house. Of course, now that I look at the backyard, it's only like 80 feet, but when I was a kid, it was the most incredible thing ever. I was Paul Molitor, or Robin Yount, or, hey, even B.J. Surhoff would have been cool.
I spent hours in my backyard throwing a baseball against a backstop, trying to perfect all these pitches that I wanted to do. Granted, I was only 10, so you can't really have very many pitches then, but I practiced. And practiced. And practiced.
Was I any good? No. I didn't realize this until years later when my dad told me that, yeah, he just kind of humored me. He would let me beat him in wrestling, and pitch meatballs to me, and let me get to the next base even though I had little stubby legs and I ran like a girl. That didn't stop my love of the sport, though. To this day, when I drive by a baseball field at night with the lights shining down, the smell of newly-mowed grass in the air, my heart swells a little. I picture myself on the mound, staring down a batter, locked in a contest of wills.
Too bad I have no talent.
So, fantasy baseball is great for me. It allows me to fool around with baseball, and on top of that, it allows me to use math. It's like geek sports.
There's a problem, though. I'm checking my lineups constantly. I'm figuring out OPS for guys. I'm getting antsy over WHIP. I'm checking to see if any great guys have fallen into my lap. And so far, I've had great luck. How so?
Well, first, I picked up Kevin Mench just before his torrid streak of home runs. I traded Jose Contreras before his trip to the DL. Torii Hunter was slumping badly. Then I picked him up. Since then? .571 in the 8 games since then. This luck can't hold up forever, but it's a good run while it lasts.
So, it's an addiction, but I guess there's worse addictions. Like fantasy football in four months, which will start the process anew.
God help me.
First, a little background. I love baseball. It was my first love, thanks to my dad. We used to play baseball in my grandma's backyard with my dad and my older brother. I still fondly remember the first time I hit a ball over the garage in back of the house. Of course, now that I look at the backyard, it's only like 80 feet, but when I was a kid, it was the most incredible thing ever. I was Paul Molitor, or Robin Yount, or, hey, even B.J. Surhoff would have been cool.
I spent hours in my backyard throwing a baseball against a backstop, trying to perfect all these pitches that I wanted to do. Granted, I was only 10, so you can't really have very many pitches then, but I practiced. And practiced. And practiced.
Was I any good? No. I didn't realize this until years later when my dad told me that, yeah, he just kind of humored me. He would let me beat him in wrestling, and pitch meatballs to me, and let me get to the next base even though I had little stubby legs and I ran like a girl. That didn't stop my love of the sport, though. To this day, when I drive by a baseball field at night with the lights shining down, the smell of newly-mowed grass in the air, my heart swells a little. I picture myself on the mound, staring down a batter, locked in a contest of wills.
Too bad I have no talent.
So, fantasy baseball is great for me. It allows me to fool around with baseball, and on top of that, it allows me to use math. It's like geek sports.
There's a problem, though. I'm checking my lineups constantly. I'm figuring out OPS for guys. I'm getting antsy over WHIP. I'm checking to see if any great guys have fallen into my lap. And so far, I've had great luck. How so?
Well, first, I picked up Kevin Mench just before his torrid streak of home runs. I traded Jose Contreras before his trip to the DL. Torii Hunter was slumping badly. Then I picked him up. Since then? .571 in the 8 games since then. This luck can't hold up forever, but it's a good run while it lasts.
So, it's an addiction, but I guess there's worse addictions. Like fantasy football in four months, which will start the process anew.
God help me.
Saturday, May 6, 2006
Systematic Flaws
I am sick and tired.
Not literally, of course, though I have been fighting a nagging cough. (Please send all sympathy money directly to my charity. It’s called the GLM Fund. GLM stands for “Give Lee Money.”) I am extremely sick and tired of people trumpeting their system of choice as the One True System, or their chosen company as the One True Company.
Now, lest certain people in my audience think I am referring strictly to them, let it be known that I am not. I am referring to that other guy. You know, the one guy. The one with the socks. Yeah, him. I hate that guy.
Look, every system has clear flaws. If there was one true system, then they would have stopped selling them. As it is, every system has some major boo-boos. A brief retrospective will help us put things in perspective. For time purposes, I have only included systems that were successful. That means no Intellivision, Atari Jaguar, 3DO, Sega Saturn, or Neo-Geo. Your definition of “success” may vary, but if you are angry at an omission, get your own blog.
Atari 2600/7800/3.1415
Positives: A ground-breaking system. Had Pitfall and Combat, both of which are still highly playable. Also had wood-grain on the console itself, which increases coolness by a factor of 10.
Negatives: Really, really comically bad graphics. Also had E.T. Also Custer’s Revenge. Single-handedly destroyed the industry due to negative practices.
Nintendo Entertainment System
Positives: Also ground-breaking. Released so many classic games that a retrospective would take days. Cheap, too, so it influenced a lot of people to purchase video games when they normally wouldn’t have.
Negatives: Blowing on the cartridges. The huge amount of horrific games that were released. Bad 72-pin connectors. The Power Pad, R.O.B., and the Power Glove. Also the movie “The Wizard.”
Sega Genesis/Master System
Positives: Really fast processor (relatively speaking), allowing fantastic speeds in games like the Sonic series. Gunstar Heroes and the Phantasy Star series. Had the absolute best NBA Jam games, and frankly, Sega did what Nintendidn’t.
Negatives: Honestly, how many sports games does one system need? Do you like clangy music that sounds forced through your grandma’s accordion by way of AM radio? They also tried to squeeze way too much out of this system, with the Sega CD, 32X, and Nomad.
Super Nintendo
Positives: Mind-blowing games. Incredible colors and graphics. Did things that weren’t thought possible for a 16-bit system. They even made StarFox, a low-polygon shooter that turned out to be brilliant in spite of really low frame rates. And, despite what Shigeru Miyamoto thinks, Donkey Kong Country is a classic game.
Negatives: Slooooowdown. Tried to do too much toward the end of the system’s life span (Exhibit A: Stunt Race FX). Also, the Super Scope 6 was stupid.
Sony Playstation
Positives: Expansive games. Made video games mainstream, which is a very good thing. Also gave Squaresoft an expansive palette to make wondrous voyages of discovery. And Chocobo’s Dungeon.
Negatives: Battle Arena Toshinden and everything it stands for. Made too many cheap 3-D cash-in games. Sony systems are prone to breakdowns.
Nintendo 64
Positives: Nintendo again made some really good games, including the Zelda games and Mario 64.
Negatives: Released a Pokemon version of their system, which symbolized everything wrong with Nintendo. Not enough third-party games.
Playstation 2
Positives: Huge library, downward compatible. Attracted many top developers, once again, and also allowed quirkier games to find a home (Ico, Rez, Katamari Damacy).
Negatives: Not as powerful as current gen hardware. Poor LAN capability. Sony products prone to breakdowns.
Nintendo Gamecube
Positives: Top-notch library, including one of the best games ever, Super Smash Bros. Melee. Very portable.
Negatives: Once again, never reached it’s potential. Not enough third-party games. Kept pushing unnecessary features (connectivity) instead of important ones.
X-Box
Positives: Really, really good graphics. Had a built-in hard drive. Best on-line capabilities yet.
Negatives: Beyond the A-list games, there really isn’t a whole lot to dig in to. Never quite reached it’s potential.
See? Every system has flaws. Pretending they don’t is just ignorant.
Now, realistically speaking, none of these flaws are heart-breaking affairs. But they are flaws nonetheless. Every generation has them, and the following generation will have them too. What keeps these systems flowing despite the flaws? Personal preference. Which games do you like? Which controller do you like?
So, what's the point? The point is, the newest generation (Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and Wii) will have flaws as well. Granted, some flaws are more pronounced than others, but don't knock the systems before you try them. As much as I hate the Wii, with its two-fisted controller and incredibly stupid name, it might turn out to be fantastic. (Not bloody likely, but it might.) Likewise, despite the potential of the X360 and PS3, they may turn out to be horrible.
In other words, let's not call the hand until all the cards are on the table.
Not literally, of course, though I have been fighting a nagging cough. (Please send all sympathy money directly to my charity. It’s called the GLM Fund. GLM stands for “Give Lee Money.”) I am extremely sick and tired of people trumpeting their system of choice as the One True System, or their chosen company as the One True Company.
Now, lest certain people in my audience think I am referring strictly to them, let it be known that I am not. I am referring to that other guy. You know, the one guy. The one with the socks. Yeah, him. I hate that guy.
Look, every system has clear flaws. If there was one true system, then they would have stopped selling them. As it is, every system has some major boo-boos. A brief retrospective will help us put things in perspective. For time purposes, I have only included systems that were successful. That means no Intellivision, Atari Jaguar, 3DO, Sega Saturn, or Neo-Geo. Your definition of “success” may vary, but if you are angry at an omission, get your own blog.
Atari 2600/7800/3.1415
Positives: A ground-breaking system. Had Pitfall and Combat, both of which are still highly playable. Also had wood-grain on the console itself, which increases coolness by a factor of 10.
Negatives: Really, really comically bad graphics. Also had E.T. Also Custer’s Revenge. Single-handedly destroyed the industry due to negative practices.
Nintendo Entertainment System
Positives: Also ground-breaking. Released so many classic games that a retrospective would take days. Cheap, too, so it influenced a lot of people to purchase video games when they normally wouldn’t have.
Negatives: Blowing on the cartridges. The huge amount of horrific games that were released. Bad 72-pin connectors. The Power Pad, R.O.B., and the Power Glove. Also the movie “The Wizard.”
Sega Genesis/Master System
Positives: Really fast processor (relatively speaking), allowing fantastic speeds in games like the Sonic series. Gunstar Heroes and the Phantasy Star series. Had the absolute best NBA Jam games, and frankly, Sega did what Nintendidn’t.
Negatives: Honestly, how many sports games does one system need? Do you like clangy music that sounds forced through your grandma’s accordion by way of AM radio? They also tried to squeeze way too much out of this system, with the Sega CD, 32X, and Nomad.
Super Nintendo
Positives: Mind-blowing games. Incredible colors and graphics. Did things that weren’t thought possible for a 16-bit system. They even made StarFox, a low-polygon shooter that turned out to be brilliant in spite of really low frame rates. And, despite what Shigeru Miyamoto thinks, Donkey Kong Country is a classic game.
Negatives: Slooooowdown. Tried to do too much toward the end of the system’s life span (Exhibit A: Stunt Race FX). Also, the Super Scope 6 was stupid.
Sony Playstation
Positives: Expansive games. Made video games mainstream, which is a very good thing. Also gave Squaresoft an expansive palette to make wondrous voyages of discovery. And Chocobo’s Dungeon.
Negatives: Battle Arena Toshinden and everything it stands for. Made too many cheap 3-D cash-in games. Sony systems are prone to breakdowns.
Nintendo 64
Positives: Nintendo again made some really good games, including the Zelda games and Mario 64.
Negatives: Released a Pokemon version of their system, which symbolized everything wrong with Nintendo. Not enough third-party games.
Playstation 2
Positives: Huge library, downward compatible. Attracted many top developers, once again, and also allowed quirkier games to find a home (Ico, Rez, Katamari Damacy).
Negatives: Not as powerful as current gen hardware. Poor LAN capability. Sony products prone to breakdowns.
Nintendo Gamecube
Positives: Top-notch library, including one of the best games ever, Super Smash Bros. Melee. Very portable.
Negatives: Once again, never reached it’s potential. Not enough third-party games. Kept pushing unnecessary features (connectivity) instead of important ones.
X-Box
Positives: Really, really good graphics. Had a built-in hard drive. Best on-line capabilities yet.
Negatives: Beyond the A-list games, there really isn’t a whole lot to dig in to. Never quite reached it’s potential.
See? Every system has flaws. Pretending they don’t is just ignorant.
Now, realistically speaking, none of these flaws are heart-breaking affairs. But they are flaws nonetheless. Every generation has them, and the following generation will have them too. What keeps these systems flowing despite the flaws? Personal preference. Which games do you like? Which controller do you like?
So, what's the point? The point is, the newest generation (Xbox 360, Playstation 3, and Wii) will have flaws as well. Granted, some flaws are more pronounced than others, but don't knock the systems before you try them. As much as I hate the Wii, with its two-fisted controller and incredibly stupid name, it might turn out to be fantastic. (Not bloody likely, but it might.) Likewise, despite the potential of the X360 and PS3, they may turn out to be horrible.
In other words, let's not call the hand until all the cards are on the table.
Friday, May 5, 2006
The Bonds Of Hate
So, by now it’s clear that Barry Bonds will pass Babe Ruth on the all-time home run list. It’s not so much a matter of “if,” but “when.” A lot of people are sad about this, not the least of which this writer.
First of all, why is this upsetting to me? The whole steroids thing is a problem, first of all. Some commentators, such as Colin Cowherd, make the argument that steroids in baseball aren’t bad. It makes the game more lively, fans come to the games more, chicks dig the long ball, everyone is happy.
Here’s the problem, though:
Sports are a microcosm of life. That’s why we put so much effort into them, and we care so much, and love it when a “lunch-pail” team wins the titles. (Let’s ignore the fact that “lunch-pail” teams usually are getting paid far more that you ever will.) We love it when people’s hard work pays off. It’s what life should be all about it, isn’t it?
So, when people bypass the whole “hard work” phase and get the benefits that accompany hard work, we get upset. It shouldn’t work that way to us. They should have to fight and scrap to get to the top. Think of Hank Aaron, for instance. He fought for every single one of those home runs. He battled racism, he battled the looming legacy of the Babe, he battled people who didn’t want him to make it.
Whether or not performance-enhancing drugs were legal (or ignored) for Bonds doesn’t enter into the equation. We don’t want to see someone win when all they have to do is take a pill. It’s not fair to those who don’t, and makes us all feel a little worse.
So, then, the second issue. What should be done in the meantime? We know Bonds will get the record. How do we handle this? Here are a few suggestions:
1 – Encourage pitchers to throw at Barry Bonds’ head. This has a few drawbacks, not the least of which is a roid-raged Bonds charging the mound and eating the pitcher on live television. However, pitchers can defend this practice by pointing to his enlarged skull and claiming that “is impossible to miss his head.”
2 – Bonds is fueled by “boos.” He loves to hear the crowd hate him. He loves to hear the crowd love him. So, here is an equitable solution. Every Bonds at-bat, go to the concession stand, or the bathroom, visit a local park or museum, plant a tree, or read a book. (I recommend “Game of Shadows.”) Anything but pay attention to Bonds. You can picture Bonds screaming like a petulant child and stomping his feet for attention, can’t you? Think of the image. Priceless.
3 – Write a whiny screed about how Barry Bonds is ruining the sport and post it on your blog. Do nothing else.
So, you see, there are many different ways of dealing with Barry Bonds’ chase for one of the most hallowed records in baseball history. Remember, though, that sports should be a cause for celebration, not for anger. Whatever happens with Bonds, we should all applaud like the good sports we are and wave our hands in enjoyment.
Whether or not we will wave our hands with all our fingers up is your call.
First of all, why is this upsetting to me? The whole steroids thing is a problem, first of all. Some commentators, such as Colin Cowherd, make the argument that steroids in baseball aren’t bad. It makes the game more lively, fans come to the games more, chicks dig the long ball, everyone is happy.
Here’s the problem, though:
Sports are a microcosm of life. That’s why we put so much effort into them, and we care so much, and love it when a “lunch-pail” team wins the titles. (Let’s ignore the fact that “lunch-pail” teams usually are getting paid far more that you ever will.) We love it when people’s hard work pays off. It’s what life should be all about it, isn’t it?
So, when people bypass the whole “hard work” phase and get the benefits that accompany hard work, we get upset. It shouldn’t work that way to us. They should have to fight and scrap to get to the top. Think of Hank Aaron, for instance. He fought for every single one of those home runs. He battled racism, he battled the looming legacy of the Babe, he battled people who didn’t want him to make it.
Whether or not performance-enhancing drugs were legal (or ignored) for Bonds doesn’t enter into the equation. We don’t want to see someone win when all they have to do is take a pill. It’s not fair to those who don’t, and makes us all feel a little worse.
So, then, the second issue. What should be done in the meantime? We know Bonds will get the record. How do we handle this? Here are a few suggestions:
1 – Encourage pitchers to throw at Barry Bonds’ head. This has a few drawbacks, not the least of which is a roid-raged Bonds charging the mound and eating the pitcher on live television. However, pitchers can defend this practice by pointing to his enlarged skull and claiming that “is impossible to miss his head.”
2 – Bonds is fueled by “boos.” He loves to hear the crowd hate him. He loves to hear the crowd love him. So, here is an equitable solution. Every Bonds at-bat, go to the concession stand, or the bathroom, visit a local park or museum, plant a tree, or read a book. (I recommend “Game of Shadows.”) Anything but pay attention to Bonds. You can picture Bonds screaming like a petulant child and stomping his feet for attention, can’t you? Think of the image. Priceless.
3 – Write a whiny screed about how Barry Bonds is ruining the sport and post it on your blog. Do nothing else.
So, you see, there are many different ways of dealing with Barry Bonds’ chase for one of the most hallowed records in baseball history. Remember, though, that sports should be a cause for celebration, not for anger. Whatever happens with Bonds, we should all applaud like the good sports we are and wave our hands in enjoyment.
Whether or not we will wave our hands with all our fingers up is your call.
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Video Games Are For Dorks
Don't misunderstand the title. I'm not knocking video games in the least. I'm just making sure that everyone knows where they stand in the hierarchy of dorkiness.
Let's put it in a hierarchy:
1) Professional Athletes
2) Rock Stars
.
.
.
342) Mathletes
343) Video Gamers
344) Tabletop Gamers
.
.
.
1052) LARPers
1053) Furries
Now, this isn't a knock on gamers. Far from it. I'm a gamer. But let's take the coolest guy you know. What does he spend his time doing? For instance, let's take Matt Leinart, Arizona Cardinals quarterback. What are his hobbies?
1) Throwing footballs
2) Placing his hands in co-eds undergarments
3) Hugging Nick Lachey
Do you see video games on that list? I don't either. Now, granted, I'm sure he partakes of video games from time to time, no doubt. But Matt Leinart doesn't care about Nintendo's Wii, or the proper pronunciation of "mana," or Sony's market dominance. He mostly cares about other, more stereotypically cool things.
So, let's put that to rest, shall we? Let's stop saying that video games (or rather their players) are cool, because there is nothing cool about someone playing video games for hours on end, sweaty, with Cheeto-stained fingers.
Now, you may reason that I am being unreasonably harsh. Bear in mind, this is my hobby. But at no time when I am playing video games do I feel "cool," and with good reason. TV watching is not cool, much more so when a wired (or wireless, what does it matter) tether is attached. Other people's hobbies are rarely cool. Model trains, for instance, are interesting. Not cool, though. Also Civil War reenactments and Renaissance Fairs. There is a reason that you don't have movies where stylish young men (mostly Freddie Prinze Jr. or Paul Walker) go to the RenFair, or throw a Halo party. These things are not cool.
That's where I stand on the issue. If you want cool, go snuggle with Nick Lachey. If you want uncool, play video games. I, for one, enjoy being uncool, and I am comfortable with it. Besides, Nick Lachey isn't taking my phone calls anymore.
Let's put it in a hierarchy:
1) Professional Athletes
2) Rock Stars
.
.
.
342) Mathletes
343) Video Gamers
344) Tabletop Gamers
.
.
.
1052) LARPers
1053) Furries
Now, this isn't a knock on gamers. Far from it. I'm a gamer. But let's take the coolest guy you know. What does he spend his time doing? For instance, let's take Matt Leinart, Arizona Cardinals quarterback. What are his hobbies?
1) Throwing footballs
2) Placing his hands in co-eds undergarments
3) Hugging Nick Lachey
Do you see video games on that list? I don't either. Now, granted, I'm sure he partakes of video games from time to time, no doubt. But Matt Leinart doesn't care about Nintendo's Wii, or the proper pronunciation of "mana," or Sony's market dominance. He mostly cares about other, more stereotypically cool things.
So, let's put that to rest, shall we? Let's stop saying that video games (or rather their players) are cool, because there is nothing cool about someone playing video games for hours on end, sweaty, with Cheeto-stained fingers.
Now, you may reason that I am being unreasonably harsh. Bear in mind, this is my hobby. But at no time when I am playing video games do I feel "cool," and with good reason. TV watching is not cool, much more so when a wired (or wireless, what does it matter) tether is attached. Other people's hobbies are rarely cool. Model trains, for instance, are interesting. Not cool, though. Also Civil War reenactments and Renaissance Fairs. There is a reason that you don't have movies where stylish young men (mostly Freddie Prinze Jr. or Paul Walker) go to the RenFair, or throw a Halo party. These things are not cool.
That's where I stand on the issue. If you want cool, go snuggle with Nick Lachey. If you want uncool, play video games. I, for one, enjoy being uncool, and I am comfortable with it. Besides, Nick Lachey isn't taking my phone calls anymore.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Digital Love & Hate
So, I was explaining to a friend how much I had been playing Super Mario 64. I was having a good time, but I was getting angry about the difficulty level. I was complaining about some infuriating level and how I wanted to throw the controller, and what was his response?
“That’s classic gaming!”
Now, I have been accused of being a video game wimp, to be fair. It has been said that if I cannot master something within the first two minutes, I quit. That’s not entirely true. Sometimes I last up to four minutes before my complete and utter capitulation. I don’t know why. I think it’s because I’m part French.
But part of this is because of what I expect from my particular hobby. I play video games to relax, not to throw controllers. Also, my gaming time is now more limited than in times past, meaning that I don’t have time to waste on an experience that may anger me. I can’t play a game for its Tremendous Upside Potential alone. A game needs to grab me, shake me, and not let go. When there is a frustrating puzzle, or a laboriously difficult/tedious part or some other imperfection, I stop dead in my tracks.
For this reason, I greatly appreciate games that are pure combat, the kind that run on skill alone, or the kind that just keep bring relentlessly interesting. For instance, Katamari Damacy had a hold of me for quite a while, just because you never quite knew what you were going to run over next, or where it would take you. On top of that, you had to learn how to move your katamari in order to win. Was it difficult? Good God, no. Was it fun? Oh, God, yes.
See, that’s the thing. You’ll hear people equating “hardcore” with “will play excruciatingly hard games.” Can you be a hardcore gamer without playing frustrating games? Or does the very nature of “hardcore” mean that you do not shy away from these experiences?
In order to sidestep the question, thereby cheating you out an actually interesting topic, I would posit that being “hardcore” is not desirable at all. When you think of a hardcore gamer, you think of someone with a Cheeto-stained Mario 3 shirt who is still debating whether Terra did enough to stop Kefka’s destruction of the Espers and declaring that it is pronounced “monna,” not “manna.”
(As a side point, why do RPG players generally end up considered geekier than other types? You don’t see these people getting their panties in a bunch over Team Fortress Classic.)
So, if liking easier games is a crime against the gods of hardcore, so be it. I would rather have fun than be a hardcore gamer. As long as an experience is good, does it matter how difficult it is? Sure a victory may be hard-earned, but aside from people on a message board or your pet hamster Gandalf (you even made a HAT for it), who really cares? It’s kind of like purchasing horses for Elder Scrolls: Oblivion: Who really cares? Who is going to care that you have a horse? In the same manner, who cares that you beat Zelda without dying ONCE and I can’t beat the fourth dungeon? Did I have just as much fun?
No, I didn’t. I hate Zelda. It’s too hard.
“That’s classic gaming!”
Now, I have been accused of being a video game wimp, to be fair. It has been said that if I cannot master something within the first two minutes, I quit. That’s not entirely true. Sometimes I last up to four minutes before my complete and utter capitulation. I don’t know why. I think it’s because I’m part French.
But part of this is because of what I expect from my particular hobby. I play video games to relax, not to throw controllers. Also, my gaming time is now more limited than in times past, meaning that I don’t have time to waste on an experience that may anger me. I can’t play a game for its Tremendous Upside Potential alone. A game needs to grab me, shake me, and not let go. When there is a frustrating puzzle, or a laboriously difficult/tedious part or some other imperfection, I stop dead in my tracks.
For this reason, I greatly appreciate games that are pure combat, the kind that run on skill alone, or the kind that just keep bring relentlessly interesting. For instance, Katamari Damacy had a hold of me for quite a while, just because you never quite knew what you were going to run over next, or where it would take you. On top of that, you had to learn how to move your katamari in order to win. Was it difficult? Good God, no. Was it fun? Oh, God, yes.
See, that’s the thing. You’ll hear people equating “hardcore” with “will play excruciatingly hard games.” Can you be a hardcore gamer without playing frustrating games? Or does the very nature of “hardcore” mean that you do not shy away from these experiences?
In order to sidestep the question, thereby cheating you out an actually interesting topic, I would posit that being “hardcore” is not desirable at all. When you think of a hardcore gamer, you think of someone with a Cheeto-stained Mario 3 shirt who is still debating whether Terra did enough to stop Kefka’s destruction of the Espers and declaring that it is pronounced “monna,” not “manna.”
(As a side point, why do RPG players generally end up considered geekier than other types? You don’t see these people getting their panties in a bunch over Team Fortress Classic.)
So, if liking easier games is a crime against the gods of hardcore, so be it. I would rather have fun than be a hardcore gamer. As long as an experience is good, does it matter how difficult it is? Sure a victory may be hard-earned, but aside from people on a message board or your pet hamster Gandalf (you even made a HAT for it), who really cares? It’s kind of like purchasing horses for Elder Scrolls: Oblivion: Who really cares? Who is going to care that you have a horse? In the same manner, who cares that you beat Zelda without dying ONCE and I can’t beat the fourth dungeon? Did I have just as much fun?
No, I didn’t. I hate Zelda. It’s too hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
