by on

So, no doubt even non-gamers have heard the fuss about the new gaming consoles coming out this month.  It’s the first new console generation when I have had no desire to buy any of the new consoles.  Here’s why:

Now, graphics aren’t all that matters, and if there were a good launch title–say, a Fallout 4, made by Obsidian–on these consoles, I would likely get one.  But there isn’t. All there is is Madden and Call of Duty: Ghosts.   (So named, I assume,  because everyone is a ghost after all the apocalyptic world wars depicted in previous Calls of Duty.)

I am not seeing any reason to upgrade.

by on

(Part 1 is here.)  The big difference between soccer and football is the pace–with soccer, play just goes on and on, in a more or less continuous flow. With football, everybody sets up runs a play which takes usually not more than 20 seconds, and thenfootball stop and set up to run another play.

This is kind of weird, because if you think of sports as a substitute for war, football is more analogous to 19th-century European warfare, with units being moved carefully into position and then executing maneuvers.  Soccer is faster and more anarchic.  I wonder how this relates to the fact that soccer is popular in Europe and football is popular in America.soccer

On another note, I think football looks cooler than soccer, largely because of the helmets. (Some people I know think they look stupid, though.)  It looks like there are robots out there fighting, as opposed to just guys in shorts and polo shirts.

by on

I did something new yesterday.  I watched almost all of an episode of a “reality TV” show.  I’ve really never watched any in the past–save for a few minutes of a “Wipeout” course that looked kind of neat–because “reality TV” shows strike me as stupid, which is a little unfair to think given that I’ve never seen one, but I have seen commercials for them during football games and they don’t look very interesting.

But it transpired I had some time to waste, and there was nothing on PBS that I hadn’t seen, and so I flipped over to the show “Stars Earn Stripes” on NBC.  If you haven’t seen it, it’s a show in which various celebrities run missions “based on” military training exercises.  The only celebrity on it who I had heard of before was Sarah Palin’s husband, so I’m not sure they’re actually “stars”.

I think the words “based on” are highly significant here.  I have never served in the military, but I am highly skeptical of whether they would have a training exercise like the one on last night’s episode, where the contestants had to shoot (with a pistol) at stationary, dinner-plate sized targets on the ground from a parked humvee. Seems pointless, unless they are expecting to fight a ground war against an army of dinner plates. If any veterans read this and have seen the show, I’d love to hear from them about it.

Their was also some sort of “elimination round” between two of the contestants.  It seemed more realistic, in that it was some kind of competition to clear a confined area of targets.  It looked like shows I’ve seen on S.W.A.T. training where they practice fighting through a building that has been taken over by criminals.

A lot of people, including Nobel Peace Prize Winners, say the show glorifies war.  I guess it does, but it mostly glorifies training for war, which may or may not be the same thing.  It’s not as egregious about it as, for example, the super-popular Call of Duty games or many popular action movies,  but at the same time it definitely plays like a military recruiting commercial, especially with the awkward presence of General Wesley Clark as co-host.

Is that bad?  I don’t know; the military has been trying to figure out ways of recruiting more people through P.R. stunts ever since the draft ended.  Maybe it was because of my expectations, but it struck me as no different than those ads you see during football games for the various branches of the service.  And those, I feel, are about as likely to succeed as other commercials.

It’s the Act of Valor issue all over again: sure, it’s recruiting film, but that still doesn’t answer whether it’s a bad thing or a good thing.  Personally, I think it’s kind of weird to show the celebrities doing stuff “based on” military training.  Seeing them try to get through an exact re-creation of Army Ranger training would probably be more exciting viewing, but then, I don’t think many celebrities would sign on for that.  And I doubt many viewers would say “looks like fun.”

Like I said, I haven’t seen much reality TV, but I get the impression the big draw is seeing the emotional disputes and inter-personal drama between the contestants.  There was none of that here.  I’m guessing that NBC wanted an emotionally stable cast, since they are giving them access to real weapons and live ammunition.  (Shades of “You can’t fight in here, this is the war room!”)  It makes practical and ethical sense, but probably makes for worse TV.

Lastly, I did feel a little weird watching the show.  Maybe I am cynical but it–along with most reality shows and sporting events–remind me a little too much of the Ancient Roman Gladiator Games.  While it’s obviously much safer for the contestants, there’s still something a bit unsettling about it as a viewer.

“Pollice Verso” by Jean-Léon Gérôme. 1872 artist’s conception of gladiatorial games.

by on

My favorite part was the bit where the multitude of Mary Poppinses banished Voldemort and all the other villains.  (Incidentally, I thought some of the monster costumes looked a lot like the Ghost People from the Fallout add-on Dead Money.) The James Bond bit was also amusing, but sort of weird.

In general, though, I don’t like all that pageantry.  It makes the whole thing seems less about sport and more like a grand theater production, or a massive circus act.  I mean, theoretically, this is the big moment for sports; the opportunity to see who is really the best in all the world, but it all feels more like a show than a real competition.

This article says the ceremony cost $42 million to make.  I don’t know too much about London’s economic situation, but I can’t help wondering if that is a wise use of money.  Might be better to spend it on infrastructure or something.  Still, there should be a Keynesian stimulus effect from it, but probably nothing too major.

by on
Image via Wikipedia

“Gentlemen, this is a football.”  Thus did the famous coach Vince Lombardi supposedly begin every first team meeting of the season, while holding up same.   The point being, you always start off with the basics. However, I don’t know about the AIFA; some of their players might be seeing a football for the first time.

The other day, somebody got to this blog by searching for the terms “how would max weber view american football”. I don’t know if he was even thinking of the same Max Weber I’m so fond of, but regardless, I thought to myself: “Heck, I would like to read that article.”  So, here is a cursory attempt at writing it.

Of course, it’s hard to figure out the answer without a Ouija board and some arcane black magic.  And even then, it would probably only be something simplistic like “the competitiveness reflects the Protestant ethic” or “the Browns are 6 and 10 this year, best case.”

I’m not too familiar with his most famous writings about religion; I’ve mostly studied Weber’s contributions to political thought. Long-time readers probably remember his three types of authority:

  1. Charismatic authority
  2. Traditional authority
  3. Legal authority

Well, I suppose he’d think that coaches like Rex Ryan and players like Tim Tebow have charismatic authority, whereas coaches like Belichick and players like Ray Lewis rely on a sort of traditional authority–they have enjoyed a lot of success, so people are supposed to automatically respect them.  The equivalent to Legal authority is, well, the referees and the commissioner. (As the Saints are discovering.)

But this doesn’t tell us anything about the broader social phenomenon of football. Maybe Weber would note the similarity of the sport to religion.  After all, some fans follow it with the same zeal that people follow religions. They even collect artifacts and relics relating to the heroes of the sport.  And then, of course, there’s the ubiquitous Mr. Tebow. (I know I’m breaking my vow here. I’m sorry. But I promise you one thing: you will never see another blogger try as hard not to mention him as I will try the rest of the off-season.)

I once saw an NFL Films show about the Pittsburgh Steelers championship run in 2005.  It started off with this quasi-hymn or chant-like music that sounded religious and very eerie all at once. Imagine “Duel of the Fates“, only way creepier.  It seemed pretty serious for a bunch of football highlights.  But there are people who definitely see football as nearly as important. (Another Lombardi line, of which there are some variations: “All that matters is your God, your family and the Green Bay Packers”.)

Still, Weber studied religions as a way of highlighting differences in cultures and people’s philosophies.  The superficial resemblance of sports fanatics to religious fanatics is obviously more about the features of fanaticism than religion.  So we’re still at a dead end.

Let’s approach this from a different direction: we know that American football, though wildly popular in the United States, is not the number one sport in any other country. Perhaps the reasons for this are tied to “American exceptionalism”.  But this is more Tocqueville than it is Weber. (Where is that Ouija board?) And unfortunately, I cannot find much that Weber had to say about America.

So once again, I am frustrated.  I leave it to you, blogosphere and distinguished commenters, to sort this problem out.  What would Max Weber think of American football?

by on

For some bizarre reason, and in spite of some confusion, games three and four of the Stanley Cup Final aired on NBC Sports Network. The first two games had been on NBC. Lord only knows where game five will be. They like to keep their fans guessing.

I swear, pro hockey has some of the worst marketing… It’s one thing to air your championship on non-free TV. That’s a mistake, in my opinion, but it can be lucrative, so I get it. But at least be consistent! They can’t even manage that. Why would you put part of the series on one channel and the rest on another? It’s like they are actively trying to make the sport difficult to follow.

Hockey is a great sport, but the way it’s managed is highly questionable. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If I were in charge, I’d have a 20-game regular season, followed by a single-elimination tournament, televised either on one of the major over-the-air networks or ESPN. The tournament would begin the week after football season ends and be over by mid-March.

It will never happen, though, for obvious financial reasons. But I bet it would increase the popularity of the sport–and hence, the profitability–over the long-run.

by on

I don’t follow pro basketball much.  But I do occasionally like to read about or even take in a game of the closely-related sport “Karma punishes LeBron James”.

I don’t hate him. “Hate” is such strong word.  No, it’s more like how you feel about a villain in a children’s cartoon: you don’t want to see anything really terrible happen to him, but it is funny to watch his arrogance come back to bite him over and over again.

Besides, he’s being paid millions of dollars to entertain people. The least he can do to earn his pay is continue to not win championships.  While Miami may pay him to win, I bet he’s worth far more to the league if he always falls just short.  Many people will quit following if he ever wins.

I’ve seen people saying on sports blogs that the Heat can’t win because they’re not a team, they’re a collection of superstars.  superstars, to be exact, and that they can’t win with just those three guys. They’re too predictable.

Well, I don’t know much about basketball, but the general logic seems sound.  I even said roughly the same thing about another disappointing team in another sport earlier this year.

At any rate, for all I know, the Heat might win the game tonight and all their remaining games and be crowned champions.  But I hope not.  I’m not a fan of basketball, but there is something oddly enjoyable about seeing him pay for his overconfidence.

by on

My prediction of the demise of real-world sports might have one adverse impact on virtual counterparts: there is no longer the possibility for the thrill of changing the fortunes of a player or team. My Bills may not have enjoyed much real world success, but in video games, I can make them into a 19-0 juggernaut if I want. It’s kind of neat to see your favorite team win it all, especially if they’ve never actually done it. This trailer for MLB 12: The Show “makes its pitch” based on this feeling*:

If there were no more actual sports, this would be less exciting. People would eventually forget who the Chicago Cubs were.

The solution, I think, would be to let people choose backstories for their teams, much as they choose them for their characters in certain RPGs. You could have “reigning champs”, “fading band of superstars”, “up-and-coming”, “rebuilding” or “plucky underdogs”, just for a few examples.

*Hat Tip to Thingy for the video. She’s taken her blog down, so no link, unfortunately. (Come back!)

by on

“Reck·on·ing: an itemized bill or statement of a sum due.”

That is the second definition at The Free Dictionary for the word “reckoning”. A dark bit of irony, given the fate of the game Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning 

I’d been seeing ads for it on game sites and in stores for awhile, but I never paid any attention to them, because the whole fantasy/medieval setting has never done much for me. I’m still recovering from forcing myself through Neverwinter Nights 2.

But today, I saw that 38 Studios, the company that made it, is folding. It’s getting a lot of publicity because it was founded by Curt Schilling, a baseball player so famous that even I have heard of him. I’ll have more on the business aspects of this in a minute, but first a little more about the game itself.

Also of note to me was that the game’s lore was created by R.A. Salvatore. I’ve only read one book by him, the novelization of Attack of the Clones. I thought it was pretty bad, to be honest, but I know he’s a very widely-acclaimed fantasy author.

The plot of Kingdoms of Amalur sounded…. Well, let me show, not tell. From the Wikipedia page for Kingdoms:

“Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning” follows the story of a mortal known as the “Fateless One”, who having died before the game’s outset, is revived in the experimental Well of Souls by the gnomish scientist Fomorous Hugues. The first and only success of the experiment, the Fateless One must escape the facility when it comes under attack… Having escaped the facility, the Fateless One – having no memory of his life before his death – learns of the intriacies [sic] of the world he has returned to by the Fateweaver Agarth…

For comparison, here’s a bit of the plot summary for Planescape: Torment a famous and almost universally beloved RPG from 1999:

“Planescape: Torment”‘s protagonist is “The Nameless One,” an immortal being who, if killed, will wake up later, sometimes with complete amnesia…

The game’s story begins when The Nameless One wakes up in a mortuary. He is immediately approached by a floating skull, Morte, who offers advice on how to escape…

Well, I guess it’s a nice tip of the hat to Torment… that’s good, I suppose. Not breaking a lot of new ground, though. Regardless, the general reception of the game was good, but not great.

Apparently, though, it needed to be great, because 38 Studios ran out of money and laid off all their employees. That’s sad. It’s always a shame when people lose their jobs.

And this is where the story gets really bad. Back in 2010, Rhode Island loaned the company $75 million dollars to move there, on the idea that it would generate “jobs” and “tax revenues”. The Governor of Rhode island is not at all happy about the situation, and Schilling has apparently run out of money to put into the company.

Another aspect to the whole thing is that Schilling is known for his support of Republican politicians. It seems, as Brian McGrory notes, rather hypocritical that a Republican should be taking money from the government to support his business. Doesn’t quite square with the whole “free market” thing, and all that. But then, I don’t know what kind of Republican Schilling is. Perhaps he has no deep philosophical or ideological ties to them; he merely recognizes–correctly–that as a wealthy person it is to his financial advantage for them to win.

What concerns me more is the black eye it gives to video gaming companies as business ventures–people will think twice before investing in a game company with the specter of it being “the next 38 Studios” hanging over it. I mean, if one that is backed by a wealthy celebrity and produces a reasonably well-liked game can’t succeed; that’s going to give everyone pause.

by on

People are upset at the Boston Bruins goalie for skipping the team’s visit to the White House. He says he did it to protest the growth of the Federal government. Well, whatever. It’s a free country, and he can do that if he wants to. Though it’s hard to see how this helps further his cause, which, I have heard, is based largely upon the work of political philosopher and gold salesman Glenn Beck.

If I think about it, I guess the idea of sports teams that win championships visiting the White House seems kind of odd. I may be wrong, but I think there was also a practice of associating the gladiatorial games with the emperor in ancient Rome. Not good ancient Rome, but decadent ancient Rome. And that’s not the sort of historical parallel I like to see. (I may be wrong about this though–so any information that friend of the blog and Roman history expert P M Prescott can provide would be much appreciated.)

As I’ve said before, I love sports–three of my last four posts have been about sports–but sometimes they can get out of control, and it seems a little strange for the President to be both rewarding and congratulating people who–though skilled and accomplished performers–aren’t doing much in the way of improving the country, at least in their capacity as sportsmen. But maybe I’m being too fussy.