Sunday, February 17, 2008
Welcome to the Circus of Values!
Good article about Bioshock and Objectivist philosophy over at Kotaku. As I'm not an Objectivist, I don't really have much to say about the game's semi-critical attitude towards the philosophy, except insofar as they are more general criticisms of free markets. And even here, it is hard to read anything in Bioshock as a truly substantial criticism of free markets or libertarianism as Andrew Ryan, Rapture's leader and the game's main anatagonist, comes off as a tyrnat and is hardly a libertarian model (likewise I would be be hesitant to call Rapture a "libertarian" society).
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Video Games as Art
On July 21st, 2007 Roger Ebert wrote an article in which he declared, in no uncertain terms, that videogames should not be considered art. This is a far grander claim than one might at first realize. Ebert is not merely claiming that, at this very moment, there are no videogames that have attained the lofty status of “high art”; rather, he is claiming that no videogame could ever attain such a status. I think the former question—that of whether any videogames right now ought to be considered ‘art’—is a more open question that is worthy of serious discussion (for those curious, my answer would be a qualified ‘yes’). But I do not wish to tackle this thorny issue—rather, I would like to answer Ebert’s claims with regard to the latter issue, that videogames can never attain the status of high art.
Before addressing Ebert’s claims point-by point, there is a general point that ought to be made. There is a larger question of some importance here, a question that reaches far beyond the scope of this response (it is a question also not addressed by Ebert). This is the fundamental question: what is art? What characteristics makes something ‘art’ but something similar ‘not art’? This is a very important question, not only with regard to the general pursuit of knowledge, but also with regard to attempting to categorize any specific videogame as either art or not. But I don’t think the question is of too much importance in our current task. It is enough, I think, that we note these points about Ebert’s view of art: one, that Ebert clearly thinks that there are objective criteria for what he calls “high art”, and, two, that in general literature and film are capable of attaining this status. If we accept these premises for the sake of argument, then it follows that videogames, too, are capable of being high art.
Why can’t videogames be considered ‘art’? In answering this question, Ebert says:
How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports.
This response is problematic for two reasons. First off, Ebert is already making a shift from making a claim about what any videogame could possibly be to a claim about what most videogames right now happen to be. Even if we assume that it is true that, right now, most videogames involve ‘scavenger hunts’, or are nothing but empty shooters, this doesn’t seem to show that videogames can’t be art any more than if it were the case that most literature right now consisted of trashy romance novels. It is also unclear why “point and shoot” mechanics or treasure hunts ought to be grounds to disqualify a game from being considered art. These mechanics, as well as combat mechanics, puzzles, etc. constitute the “active” elements of gaming that makes videogames interactive in a way that novels and films are not. But so what? These are just what makes videogames games, and make them distinct from, say, movies. Ebert has given us no reason to believe that such elements detract from being art, and why should they? If a videogame can tell a story of the same caliber as a novel or movie, why does it matter that you actively “play through” parts of the story (assuming that your play doesn’t change the story—Ebert’s points about ‘player control of the outcome’ may have some merit, and will be addressed later).
Let us move on to some of Ebert’s other points. Many of Ebert’s points in this article are written as a response to comments by Clive Barker, and here Ebert responds to Barkers’s claim that Ebert has a prejudiced view of videogames:
I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.
Note that, again, Ebert equivocates between claims about what videogames can be and claims about what they are (or will be). He begins by stating that he thinks that gamers have a prejudiced (“misguided”) idea of what games can be, but then claims that he thinks games will not achieve the level of Shakespeare (implying that they of course could).
This aside, does Ebert have a prejudiced view of videogames? Honestly, I wouldn’t know, and I doubt there’s enough information in this article to make that claim. However, I do think that Ebert is pretty ignorant about videogames, and I don’t mean for this comment to be particularly mean or disparaging. After all, he implies that he has never played a videogame, and many of his points in this article belie the fact that he has a misguided view of what many videogames are like. So while I would not call Ebert’s view prejudiced, I would describe it as misinformed.
Let us look at perhaps the most important criticism of videogames-as-art that Ebert makes, one which connects with his earlier point about player-controlled outcome:
I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. Would "Romeo and Juliet" have been better with a different ending? Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?
In general, I believe that his point is a good one. In other words, art, on a fundamental level, is created by the artist, and experiences in which a story is left open for someone else to decide (be it a videogame or even a “choose your own adventure” novel) aren’t “high art.” But I question how relevant this point is to videogames in general—while some videogames certainly fall into this category, not all of them do. And more importantly, videogame don’t necessarily involve player control of the outcome, at least in any significant manner. Allow me to expand on this point: it ought to be clear that some changes made by a person don’t affect a work of art’s status as art. If I am reading a Shakespeare play online, and change the text color from black to red, I clearly haven’t made any artistically significant changes. Similarly, if we allow for the moment that a videogame might be art, how I play through the game (how I solve puzzles, what characters I use in battles, whether or not I complete sidequests, etc.) will have no bearing on the game’s esthetic values. The only player-induced changes that could affect a game’s standing as art, I think, are those that are significant changes to the plot or theme of the game’s story. But this isn’t enough to disqualify videogames as a medium from being considered art, since a) many “artistic” games (by which I mean games that one might defeasibly consider art) don’t have any significant player control of outcome (Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid 2, and Shadow of the Colossus come to mind), and b) many games that have player control of outcome shouldn’t disqualify a game from being considered art. Let me explain what I mean by this. Let us take the game Bioshock as an example, and put aside questions of whether is game ought to be considered art. The point I want to make is that whether or not this game is considered art should have nothing to do with the fact that player choice determines the outcome. Why? Because very little about the story hinges on whether you play the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ route—it pretty much affects only the ending on the most literal interpretation. But what makes Bioshock such an interesting game—the eerie music, the deco-art style, and the twisting and turning story—depends little on how the game “wraps itself up”, so to speak. And Bioshock is not alone, I think, among videogames in which the portion of the outcome that a player can “decide” is really a rather insignificant portion (or which the path the player chooses is disparate enough that making a different choice amounts to playing two different games).
Thus, I do not think it is fair to claim that videogames cannot be art. This isn’t to say that none of Ebert’s points are valid; on the contrary, I think his general insights (and I say “general” partly because he doesn’t discuss this in great depth) on what elements are a necessary component of “high art.” And I would agree that a lot of great video games—perhaps even some of the best video games—could not be considered “high art.” But I vehemently disagree with Ebert’s claim that no video games could ever be considered high art. I think, even on Ebert’s own position, this claim is ultimately untenable. Video games come in all varieties, and many have the same artistic goals (and use similar means to attain these goals) as films and novels.
Before addressing Ebert’s claims point-by point, there is a general point that ought to be made. There is a larger question of some importance here, a question that reaches far beyond the scope of this response (it is a question also not addressed by Ebert). This is the fundamental question: what is art? What characteristics makes something ‘art’ but something similar ‘not art’? This is a very important question, not only with regard to the general pursuit of knowledge, but also with regard to attempting to categorize any specific videogame as either art or not. But I don’t think the question is of too much importance in our current task. It is enough, I think, that we note these points about Ebert’s view of art: one, that Ebert clearly thinks that there are objective criteria for what he calls “high art”, and, two, that in general literature and film are capable of attaining this status. If we accept these premises for the sake of argument, then it follows that videogames, too, are capable of being high art.
Why can’t videogames be considered ‘art’? In answering this question, Ebert says:
How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports.
This response is problematic for two reasons. First off, Ebert is already making a shift from making a claim about what any videogame could possibly be to a claim about what most videogames right now happen to be. Even if we assume that it is true that, right now, most videogames involve ‘scavenger hunts’, or are nothing but empty shooters, this doesn’t seem to show that videogames can’t be art any more than if it were the case that most literature right now consisted of trashy romance novels. It is also unclear why “point and shoot” mechanics or treasure hunts ought to be grounds to disqualify a game from being considered art. These mechanics, as well as combat mechanics, puzzles, etc. constitute the “active” elements of gaming that makes videogames interactive in a way that novels and films are not. But so what? These are just what makes videogames games, and make them distinct from, say, movies. Ebert has given us no reason to believe that such elements detract from being art, and why should they? If a videogame can tell a story of the same caliber as a novel or movie, why does it matter that you actively “play through” parts of the story (assuming that your play doesn’t change the story—Ebert’s points about ‘player control of the outcome’ may have some merit, and will be addressed later).
Let us move on to some of Ebert’s other points. Many of Ebert’s points in this article are written as a response to comments by Clive Barker, and here Ebert responds to Barkers’s claim that Ebert has a prejudiced view of videogames:
I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.
Note that, again, Ebert equivocates between claims about what videogames can be and claims about what they are (or will be). He begins by stating that he thinks that gamers have a prejudiced (“misguided”) idea of what games can be, but then claims that he thinks games will not achieve the level of Shakespeare (implying that they of course could).
This aside, does Ebert have a prejudiced view of videogames? Honestly, I wouldn’t know, and I doubt there’s enough information in this article to make that claim. However, I do think that Ebert is pretty ignorant about videogames, and I don’t mean for this comment to be particularly mean or disparaging. After all, he implies that he has never played a videogame, and many of his points in this article belie the fact that he has a misguided view of what many videogames are like. So while I would not call Ebert’s view prejudiced, I would describe it as misinformed.
Let us look at perhaps the most important criticism of videogames-as-art that Ebert makes, one which connects with his earlier point about player-controlled outcome:
I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. Would "Romeo and Juliet" have been better with a different ending? Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?
In general, I believe that his point is a good one. In other words, art, on a fundamental level, is created by the artist, and experiences in which a story is left open for someone else to decide (be it a videogame or even a “choose your own adventure” novel) aren’t “high art.” But I question how relevant this point is to videogames in general—while some videogames certainly fall into this category, not all of them do. And more importantly, videogame don’t necessarily involve player control of the outcome, at least in any significant manner. Allow me to expand on this point: it ought to be clear that some changes made by a person don’t affect a work of art’s status as art. If I am reading a Shakespeare play online, and change the text color from black to red, I clearly haven’t made any artistically significant changes. Similarly, if we allow for the moment that a videogame might be art, how I play through the game (how I solve puzzles, what characters I use in battles, whether or not I complete sidequests, etc.) will have no bearing on the game’s esthetic values. The only player-induced changes that could affect a game’s standing as art, I think, are those that are significant changes to the plot or theme of the game’s story. But this isn’t enough to disqualify videogames as a medium from being considered art, since a) many “artistic” games (by which I mean games that one might defeasibly consider art) don’t have any significant player control of outcome (Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid 2, and Shadow of the Colossus come to mind), and b) many games that have player control of outcome shouldn’t disqualify a game from being considered art. Let me explain what I mean by this. Let us take the game Bioshock as an example, and put aside questions of whether is game ought to be considered art. The point I want to make is that whether or not this game is considered art should have nothing to do with the fact that player choice determines the outcome. Why? Because very little about the story hinges on whether you play the ‘good’ or ‘evil’ route—it pretty much affects only the ending on the most literal interpretation. But what makes Bioshock such an interesting game—the eerie music, the deco-art style, and the twisting and turning story—depends little on how the game “wraps itself up”, so to speak. And Bioshock is not alone, I think, among videogames in which the portion of the outcome that a player can “decide” is really a rather insignificant portion (or which the path the player chooses is disparate enough that making a different choice amounts to playing two different games).
Thus, I do not think it is fair to claim that videogames cannot be art. This isn’t to say that none of Ebert’s points are valid; on the contrary, I think his general insights (and I say “general” partly because he doesn’t discuss this in great depth) on what elements are a necessary component of “high art.” And I would agree that a lot of great video games—perhaps even some of the best video games—could not be considered “high art.” But I vehemently disagree with Ebert’s claim that no video games could ever be considered high art. I think, even on Ebert’s own position, this claim is ultimately untenable. Video games come in all varieties, and many have the same artistic goals (and use similar means to attain these goals) as films and novels.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
There are many--and I would count myself among them--who felt that the officials played too large a part in determining the outcome of Monday night's Ravens-Patriots game. Specifically, I am talking about the 4th and 5 defensive holding call. Now, this call is certainly more controversial than, say, the "holding" calls against Pitt from Saturday, not only because the call against the Ravens actually turned a victory into defeat, but also because it is far less clear that the defensive holding call actually was bad.
Peter King, for instance, defended the call, saying:
"Once Watson gets past the 8-yard line, it's illegal for Winborne to have anything but
incidental contact with Watson, but he clearly has an arm on him well past the 8, and all the way into the end zone. Maybe the call should have been holding, maybe the call should have been illegal contact, but it was a legitimate call, not a ticky-tack one."
There are two ways, I think, to interpret what King is saying here when he calls the flag "legitimate" and not "ticky-tack". The first would be that, as per the events he describes, Winborne's actions fit the description of defensive holding, and therefore the call was legitimate (in this scenario, a "ticky-tack" call would involve something, perhaps, that looked like a penalty but strictly speaking was not). The second interpretation is that, with regards to the context in which the penalty was called, the penalty was legitimate.
Before I rebut King's point, let me briefly state my own position, which will in turn clarify my problem with his argument. I subscribe to the 'prevailing' notion that the players, not the officials, should decide ballgames. Absent any concrete circumstances, this can sound vague and rhetorical; but in practice I think it generally means that officiating needs to be contextual. That is, the range of what fouls/penalties/etc. get called might need to change given the context of the game. And I know I am not alone in holding that when a game gets down to the final minute(s), or the last few plays/possessions in a big game, that officials ought to "let the players play", so to speak, and save penalty flags and whistles for only the truly egregious fouls.
So it is important to understand that I (and others who feel similarly) are not necessarily criticizing the defensive holding flag insofar as it was actually a penalty--the criticism isn't that no defensive holding took place (this might be our criticism of the holding calls in the WVU-Pitt game), but that the holding was not egregious enough to be called at such an important juncture of the game. Which is why it matters, to some extent, which interpretation we attribute to King. For on the first interpretation, his point misses the mark, since most are not denying that, technically, defensive holding took place; the call was bad because "ticky-tack" defensive holding shouldn't have been called on a play of this magnitude. If we (perhaps more charitably) attribute the latter meaning to his argument, he is certainly addressing the meat of our argument, but I am not sure that anything he says ultimately supports his point. For the situation he describes (Winborne riding Watson past the 5-yard mark where contact is allowed) doesn't seem to merit a flag within this context. It's fine if King doesn't think that the call was "ticky-tack" like many do--but everything he says merely shows that the flag was correct only in the most technical sense. Which is exactly what people mean when they call a penalty "ticky-tack".
Peter King, for instance, defended the call, saying:
"Once Watson gets past the 8-yard line, it's illegal for Winborne to have anything but
incidental contact with Watson, but he clearly has an arm on him well past the 8, and all the way into the end zone. Maybe the call should have been holding, maybe the call should have been illegal contact, but it was a legitimate call, not a ticky-tack one."
There are two ways, I think, to interpret what King is saying here when he calls the flag "legitimate" and not "ticky-tack". The first would be that, as per the events he describes, Winborne's actions fit the description of defensive holding, and therefore the call was legitimate (in this scenario, a "ticky-tack" call would involve something, perhaps, that looked like a penalty but strictly speaking was not). The second interpretation is that, with regards to the context in which the penalty was called, the penalty was legitimate.
Before I rebut King's point, let me briefly state my own position, which will in turn clarify my problem with his argument. I subscribe to the 'prevailing' notion that the players, not the officials, should decide ballgames. Absent any concrete circumstances, this can sound vague and rhetorical; but in practice I think it generally means that officiating needs to be contextual. That is, the range of what fouls/penalties/etc. get called might need to change given the context of the game. And I know I am not alone in holding that when a game gets down to the final minute(s), or the last few plays/possessions in a big game, that officials ought to "let the players play", so to speak, and save penalty flags and whistles for only the truly egregious fouls.
So it is important to understand that I (and others who feel similarly) are not necessarily criticizing the defensive holding flag insofar as it was actually a penalty--the criticism isn't that no defensive holding took place (this might be our criticism of the holding calls in the WVU-Pitt game), but that the holding was not egregious enough to be called at such an important juncture of the game. Which is why it matters, to some extent, which interpretation we attribute to King. For on the first interpretation, his point misses the mark, since most are not denying that, technically, defensive holding took place; the call was bad because "ticky-tack" defensive holding shouldn't have been called on a play of this magnitude. If we (perhaps more charitably) attribute the latter meaning to his argument, he is certainly addressing the meat of our argument, but I am not sure that anything he says ultimately supports his point. For the situation he describes (Winborne riding Watson past the 5-yard mark where contact is allowed) doesn't seem to merit a flag within this context. It's fine if King doesn't think that the call was "ticky-tack" like many do--but everything he says merely shows that the flag was correct only in the most technical sense. Which is exactly what people mean when they call a penalty "ticky-tack".
Monday, December 3, 2007
Cardinal's-Eye View
There were some crazy football games this weekend, but it seemed to take place admist some very poor officiating. Pitt beat West Virginia despite what could only be described as the officials' best efforts to give WVU the game (two ridiculously bad holding calls on two of the game's biggest plays, and the second one followed by a pretty questionable no-call on defensive holding against WVU). But, yeah, that outcome was... unexpected.
In any case, I was very happy to see my Rams improve to 3-9 (though maybe I shouldn't be, since at this point we're only costing ourselves draft position...) and Ohio State luck into the championship game. The only thing that ruined it was the Browns losing. Now, granted, they didn't play very well, turned it over four times, so I guess in some sense they 'deserved' to lose--but this game is the type of game that good playoff teams find a way to win, and in a very real sense we should have won that game. And we would have won that game, if not for an extremely bad call at the end of the game. I mean, if I were to give someone a textbook example of what a "force-out" was, this would be the play I would show. If that catch by Kellen Winslow isn't a force-out, then what is? And what was that official even looking at? It looked like he wasn't even watching, like he was expecting the ball to be incomplete-- or perhaps he was in a hurry to get the game over with so he could go collect his giant bag of money from the Cardinals.
In any case, I was very happy to see my Rams improve to 3-9 (though maybe I shouldn't be, since at this point we're only costing ourselves draft position...) and Ohio State luck into the championship game. The only thing that ruined it was the Browns losing. Now, granted, they didn't play very well, turned it over four times, so I guess in some sense they 'deserved' to lose--but this game is the type of game that good playoff teams find a way to win, and in a very real sense we should have won that game. And we would have won that game, if not for an extremely bad call at the end of the game. I mean, if I were to give someone a textbook example of what a "force-out" was, this would be the play I would show. If that catch by Kellen Winslow isn't a force-out, then what is? And what was that official even looking at? It looked like he wasn't even watching, like he was expecting the ball to be incomplete-- or perhaps he was in a hurry to get the game over with so he could go collect his giant bag of money from the Cardinals.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Contracts, Abortion, and You
One of the most common arguments, against both libertarian outcry that "taxation is theft" and against abortion, is the 'tacit consent' argument. Essentially, it is posited that by doing some action (in the case of the State and taxation, it is remaining in the country and using tax-funded goods and services; in the case of abortion, it is having consensual sex), you have actually tacitly contracted to do something further (pay taxes or not have an abortion).
Now, I think this is a bad argument for several reasons (and in the not too distant future I hope to elaborate more on this), not the least of which is that these seem like highly improable cases to even consider for a tacit consent argument. But I think one of the biggest problems with such arguments is that they ignore the inalienabilty of our rights. To say that our right to self-ownership is inalienable is to say that that nothing we say or do (or contract) could possibly give up our right of self-ownership. (This is why, for instance, I would argue that on libertarian principles one could never sell oneself into slavery.)
The importance of this point to the matter at hand is that contracts are always 'breakable', in the sense that even if I contract to do X, I could always change my mind. I may owe compensation to the person with whom I contracted, but that person would have no right to force me to do X. Thus, e.g., I might agree to mow my neighbor's lawn. Then, the day that I'm going to mow it, something comes up and I can't do it. I may owe my neighbor compensation for not mowing her lawn and breaking our contract, but my neighbor couldn't use force to make me mow my lawn.
I think this point is apllicable both to arguments against social contract theory, as well as arguments in favor of legalizing abortion. Focusing on the latter, let's assume that a woman having consensual sex is tantamount to 'tacit consent' to bear any child that may come of her actions (I think this is a very weak argument and hard to maintain, but that's a different matter). I still don't think this would be a strong argument against abortion, since the woman has every right to change her mind and break her "contract." Since no contract can take away a person's inalienable right of self-ownership, her 'consent' to bear the child doesn't bar her from the future action of having an abortion.
Now, I think this is a bad argument for several reasons (and in the not too distant future I hope to elaborate more on this), not the least of which is that these seem like highly improable cases to even consider for a tacit consent argument. But I think one of the biggest problems with such arguments is that they ignore the inalienabilty of our rights. To say that our right to self-ownership is inalienable is to say that that nothing we say or do (or contract) could possibly give up our right of self-ownership. (This is why, for instance, I would argue that on libertarian principles one could never sell oneself into slavery.)
The importance of this point to the matter at hand is that contracts are always 'breakable', in the sense that even if I contract to do X, I could always change my mind. I may owe compensation to the person with whom I contracted, but that person would have no right to force me to do X. Thus, e.g., I might agree to mow my neighbor's lawn. Then, the day that I'm going to mow it, something comes up and I can't do it. I may owe my neighbor compensation for not mowing her lawn and breaking our contract, but my neighbor couldn't use force to make me mow my lawn.
I think this point is apllicable both to arguments against social contract theory, as well as arguments in favor of legalizing abortion. Focusing on the latter, let's assume that a woman having consensual sex is tantamount to 'tacit consent' to bear any child that may come of her actions (I think this is a very weak argument and hard to maintain, but that's a different matter). I still don't think this would be a strong argument against abortion, since the woman has every right to change her mind and break her "contract." Since no contract can take away a person's inalienable right of self-ownership, her 'consent' to bear the child doesn't bar her from the future action of having an abortion.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Miscellaneous Thoughts
1. That San Diego-Indy game was one of the weirder games I can remember watching recently. At this point it seems pretty safe to say that San Diego isn't going to be a threat in the playoffs, since they have no ability to pass the football. Rivers has looked awful every time I've watched him this year. Oh, and Vinitari missing that 29-yarder was absolutely shocking. I was stunned and unable to move for at least 5 minutes.
2. How big was that botched call early in the Ohio State-Illinois game? After OSU went up 7-0 in like 20 seconds, Illinois responded with a 80 yard run to OSU's 3 yard line, at the end of which the runner clearly fumbled and was recovered by Ohio State. For whatever reason, the play wasn't challenged, reviewed, etc. Talk about a game-changing performace; as bad as Ohio State looked that game, I don't think they lose the game if that play is reviewed and they get the ball back, up 7-0 still, ready to add more points at home.
3. After my Rams won on Sunday (actually looking good for once!) I had to entertain wild thoughts about them winning out (their schedule isn't too tough, but they do have Green Bay and Pittsburgh) and slipping into the division title. What's scary, though, is that the scenario, while unrealistic, isn't as unrealistic as it ought to be. San Francisco is terrible (they should be winless right no, as they were completely outplayed in their two wins), Arizona is still Arizona, and Seattle is inconsistent and overrated. That said, the Rams probably won't win out (they were 0-8 before Sunday for more reasons than massive injuries), andd Seattle will probably end up better than 8-8 (though maybe not by much). But I have to keep the dream alive!
4. I just finished reading Dune; not exactly sure what to think about it. It was definitely good, but I felt like maybe it was not quite as good as I was expecting/hoping. I plan on watching the movie (the mini-series one) soon, so maybe I'll have more thoughts after that.
5. The new Lego Star Wars game, like all the ones before it, is way more fun than it has any right to be. Honestly, I'd probably keep playing it for the next month or so, except that both Mass Effect (Nov 20th) and the new Star Wars: Legacy of the Force novel (Nov 27th) are out soon.
6. Speaking of Mass Effect, I'm currently reading the prequel-novel thing (by Drew Karpyshyn, also the author of the Darth Bane Star Wars EU novel). So far, so good, and I can't wait for Mass Effect.
2. How big was that botched call early in the Ohio State-Illinois game? After OSU went up 7-0 in like 20 seconds, Illinois responded with a 80 yard run to OSU's 3 yard line, at the end of which the runner clearly fumbled and was recovered by Ohio State. For whatever reason, the play wasn't challenged, reviewed, etc. Talk about a game-changing performace; as bad as Ohio State looked that game, I don't think they lose the game if that play is reviewed and they get the ball back, up 7-0 still, ready to add more points at home.
3. After my Rams won on Sunday (actually looking good for once!) I had to entertain wild thoughts about them winning out (their schedule isn't too tough, but they do have Green Bay and Pittsburgh) and slipping into the division title. What's scary, though, is that the scenario, while unrealistic, isn't as unrealistic as it ought to be. San Francisco is terrible (they should be winless right no, as they were completely outplayed in their two wins), Arizona is still Arizona, and Seattle is inconsistent and overrated. That said, the Rams probably won't win out (they were 0-8 before Sunday for more reasons than massive injuries), andd Seattle will probably end up better than 8-8 (though maybe not by much). But I have to keep the dream alive!
4. I just finished reading Dune; not exactly sure what to think about it. It was definitely good, but I felt like maybe it was not quite as good as I was expecting/hoping. I plan on watching the movie (the mini-series one) soon, so maybe I'll have more thoughts after that.
5. The new Lego Star Wars game, like all the ones before it, is way more fun than it has any right to be. Honestly, I'd probably keep playing it for the next month or so, except that both Mass Effect (Nov 20th) and the new Star Wars: Legacy of the Force novel (Nov 27th) are out soon.
6. Speaking of Mass Effect, I'm currently reading the prequel-novel thing (by Drew Karpyshyn, also the author of the Darth Bane Star Wars EU novel). So far, so good, and I can't wait for Mass Effect.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Seriously?
Last Sunday, I had a choice between watching the local Cleveland Browns (playing against my hapless and injury-depleted St. Louis Rams) and watching the Bears-Lions game. Now, I wouldn't call the Bears-Lions a terrible game, but it isn't a game that's going to excite many people outside of Detroit and Chicago. *Especially* Cleveland fans who don't really care what happens in the NFC North.
This weekend, the very same Cleveland market is being denied the Patriots-Colts game (which should but won't be airing in Cleveland opposite the Browns at 4:00 ET).
So let me get this straight: last weekend, it was okay to show a game opposite the Browns, when that game was insignificant. But when there's a really really good game that people might want to actually watch (one of the most anticipated regular season games in NFL history!) it won't be aired because the Browns-Seahawks game is on at the same time on another station. Who comes up with this asinine bullshit? I will pass on a rant here about the monopolies that help bring about such ridiculousness (suffice to say that I think intellectual property rights have a lot to do with this dire situation; I'll try and say more about this later). I will say, though, that this is the type of frusterating thing that legitimately makes me want to boycott the NFL. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I think I love football too much to do that.
This weekend, the very same Cleveland market is being denied the Patriots-Colts game (which should but won't be airing in Cleveland opposite the Browns at 4:00 ET).
So let me get this straight: last weekend, it was okay to show a game opposite the Browns, when that game was insignificant. But when there's a really really good game that people might want to actually watch (one of the most anticipated regular season games in NFL history!) it won't be aired because the Browns-Seahawks game is on at the same time on another station. Who comes up with this asinine bullshit? I will pass on a rant here about the monopolies that help bring about such ridiculousness (suffice to say that I think intellectual property rights have a lot to do with this dire situation; I'll try and say more about this later). I will say, though, that this is the type of frusterating thing that legitimately makes me want to boycott the NFL. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I think I love football too much to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
