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.
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.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
