Sandbox games: Make your own fun

With the release of Bully: Scholarship Edition for both my Wii and my 360, I found it was time to wax poetic about the type of game it is. You see, games like Bully and Grand Theft Auto (both made by Rockstar) have been criticized for being games dubbed as "making your own fun." I'm in the other camp, believing that "make your own fun" is an excellent type of game.

Other than Grand Theft Auto, perhaps the biggest and best example of MYOF would be The Sims. You can get your Sims jobs... or don't. You can fulfill their personality requirements... or don't. You can get them married... or don't. You can kill them off... but that takes a while.



Grand Theft Auto, and now Bully, are exactly the same way. You see, in both games there are things called "missions" that you must complete in order to move on through the game. They can range from making an errand to killing (or beating up in Bully's case) a specific foe. While in Bully I find myself inclined to complete the missions and beat the game, I have never felt that way for Grand Theft Auto. Perhaps it is because the killing and stealing in Grand Theft Auto are more fun than in Bully.


That isn't to say anything bad about bully. GTA is for mature audiences, and Bully is for teens. I just found a huge appeal and stealing people's cars. It's not as if I don't randomly go around beating people up in Bully for the heck of it... I just focus on the missions as well. In GTA, however, I find most of the missions tedious. But even without them... I've never had any trouble having fun -- making my own fun.


I think I have this appeal in both games because of Rockstar's use of witty dialog. I find myself laughing out loud at the things the characters say when I am fighting them. There's a whole city (or region in GTA's case) to explore, and most of the time 99% of it has nothing to do with your mission at hand. It's just fun to explore.

While games like Halo and The Legend of Zelda without these sandbox qualities will always be my favorites (though Zelda does have the "go where you want" and "take the game at your own pace" qualities, there's just less to do), I will always enjoy The Sims, GTA, and now Bully for their unique quality.

The winner, and still champion......

THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK! AND THE CROWD GOES WILD.

What am I talking about, you ask? Think about it for a second: New Yorkers... champions... you almost got it. Yes, I'm talking about sports. No, not the Yankees, they're chokers, not winners (lately). I'm referring to the only New York sports team in the major three to win a title in this century: the New York (football) Giants.

And what title am I referring to? Yes, yes, you can have your Super Bowl title (begrudedly). I am talking about the title of most obnoxious city (or region). Not only does upsetting the Patriots in the Super Bowl stop Boston (and New England) from becoming the most obnoxious place when it comes to sports due to sheer ego, it fuels the New Yorkers ego by giving them at least ONE other team that isn't horrible at the present more.

You see, had the Patriots scored 4 more points (or prevented the final 7) they would've been crowned as the new champion of the obnoxious sports fan universe. It wasn't hard to foresee: the Red Sox winning their 2nd title in four seasons, the resurgence of the most storied franchise in NBA history (who look to be on their way to hanging up banner 16 ANTIJINX), and on top of that, the most dominant sports franchise of the new millenium putting up only the 2nd undefeated football season in NFL history? That's more than enough to do it right there: and the Sox and Patriots had saved up enough good will to do it on their own in the 6 years prior to this one.


But history was averted. Doc Brown and Marty went forward in their De Lorean and convinced Ellis Hobbs to leave Burress open, convinced Dean Pees to blitz on their own goal line, and told Bill to go for it on 4th and 13. That's how I'd like to remember it anyway.

It's not even about the Super Bowl loss, and all the shame that's bound to come with it next season (deservedly). That's fine... two months ago to this day. We're over it (sniff sniff), regardless of me choosing to write about it today.

No, it's much more than that. It's about all the obnoxious Giants fans I see out now. In a way it's like tasting our own medicine... the Red Sox have the "pink hat" fans who go to the game because it's stylish. We have the casual Patriots fan who could only name HALF the Patriots with the last name of Brady (now they can since Kyle Brady is gone). But this all came after 86 years of paying our dues. New York fans were obnoxious as recently as 2003, and rightfully so. They're back, and with a vengence.



Just a month ago I went to go see Will Ferrell at the Ryan Center at URI. Leaving in pouring snow, I walked by a group of visibly drunk girls. One noted my Patriots sweatshirt, waited until I was a safe distance away (but still within earshot) to yell "YOU CHOKED!" It's the bevvy of Giants hats that I see out and about now... with the wearers of said hats shooting me shit-eating grins when I wear my Patriots sweatshirt. The faces are familiar... the hats are not. I want to ask.... "Where was that hat in December?"

You see, the day after last year's AFC Championship Game loss to (Professor Pennell's) Colts, I wore my throwback Rodney Harrison jersey. I did the same the Monday after the crushing Super Bowl loss. I wore it... with pride. During a class last semester, there was one guy who would wear a ratty Yankees leather jacket to class every week. When the Yankees made their run in early September, he added a hat to the mix.

He even got a bit obnoxious, despite their continued position of 2nd place in the standings. He predicted future victories should the Red Sox be "lucky enough" to survive to meet them in the ALCS. Once the Yankees fell victim to the Cleveland Indians, the hat and the jacket, disappeared. Part of me wanted to razz him about the weather getting colder and him maybe needing a leather jacket to warm up... but I didn't force the issue -- for fear of his mental state. Even after the Red Sox won the World Series I stayed mum... I didn't have to, but I did.

So enjoy it now, Giants fans. The world is yours for 10 more months. Don't waste the opportunity.

Don't touch me you open-source freak.

Has it happened? Yes, I've been using Linux for quite some time now... but I never thought I would turn into one of those people.... and I think I still haven't... yet.

If you don't know what I'm talking about -- I'm talking about those hippies who use Linux to "fight the power," and to work against the "establishment." You know those people in the Apple commercials who obnoxiously claim they "think different?" These people are 100 times worse, and would make commercials railing against those Apple hippies.... if commercials didn't cost money.



Yes, I use Linux because it's free. I have no qualms about Windows costing money. This is a dirty little secret that most Linux fans don't want you to know.... some Linux distributions cost money as well! Ahhhhhhhhh!!!! It's not about that.

I use Linux. I've used Windows. It doesn't deeply offend me that you still use Windows. I could care less. I use Linux because I'm a control freak and love being able to customize every pixel of my desktop. That's not for everyone, and that's fine.

I recently reformatted my girlfriend's laptop for her and, with her blessing, installed Ubuntu. She loves how her window borders are pink and "cute." She, like most people, is a blank slate. She may get lost using Linux, but she would get just as lost using Windows.

In fact, while setting up her internet, I had her run "ipconfig" on her Windows machine (which confused her as well, as she couldn't find the "Windows machine" on her Ubuntu desktop). When she ran it, I asked her what the number for her "default gateway" was. She informed me that her computer wasn't a Gateway, but was a Toshiba. I was dismayed. This, my friends, is a fellow Linux user, but hardly a hippie... just virus-prone and needed to be protected from herself.

So please don't group me, or her, into the demographic of Linux hippie. I am not, nor will I ever be, a Linux hippie.... and that is relieving. I just like customizing my stuff... and doding viruses no matter how promiscuous my laptop wishes to be.

Super Smash Bros Brawl: I'm not mad, I'm just...... disappointed

Don't take this the wrong way SSB Brawl... it isn't your fault. It's just that Super Smash Bros Melee, your predecessor for the Nintendo Gamecube... was just so... perfect. There was bound to be a letdown. Maybe I'm jus the only one I know not wearing Nintendo-colored glasses and can see this game for what it is -- a step backwards from Melee.

Like I said Brawl... it isn't your fault. Melee just did so many things so well. And as is the case with many Nintendo series... if things aren't changed, Nintendo gets criticized for standing pat. Nintendo critics probably aren't familiar with the expression "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."


Yes, I'm aware that this game has more characters than any other Smash title before... including outsiders like Snake and Sonic.... but there are also trash characters like Ice Climbers, who make a re-appearance though being abhored by.. EVERYONE.... with new additions to the crap character list like Wolf, Olimar, and Lucas. Speaking of crap characters... there are three, count them, THREE, Kirby characters. I have no problem with having three characters (okay I do), but all three are unlocked from the beginning.... yes, 3 of the some odd 18 starting characters are Kirby'd. Yes, I know HAL makes both Kirby and Brawl... but jeez.

I would go into, at length, why the different control schemes actually hurts the game... but all it would do is hurt me as well. You see... I tried to like this game.... HARD. I had every reason to. I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

Don't mind me... I'll just be in the corner weeping and mourning what could have been.

Don't tell my girlfriend: I'm in love with my DVR

Sure, sure, as with most subject matter I write about on this blog, it's not exactly fresh. Sorry to be tardy to the party. But I just cannot deny it anymore... I love my DVR.

Yes, it's true I've only had the thing for less than a month, but it makes no difference. It was love at first recording. It does help having more channels than I previously had to choose from, but I'd love my DVR even without them.

This is my first successful acquisition of a DVR, but not my first attempt. Two Christmases ago I was slated to get a TiVo from my aforementioned girlfriend. Things fell through and I got a poker table instead. I love that table, and it's a good thing I didn't get a TiVo. Now with an HDTV to go with my box, and my new channels... I'm in heaven. (And my Cable bill is lower? .....only in America.)



Back on the stone age if you had two things on you wanted to watch, you either had to tape one or go half fulfilled (unless you were some nerd with a multi-VCR setup... then God help you). Now with my DVR, I can tape things, without having to manually set every recording... and it's tape-less! My goodness!

That's not even the best part. I can stockpile my obscure shows for the lull on weekend afternoons while I slug through homework... that's more Rocko's Modern Life, Grounded for Life, The Riches, The OC, and South Park than one human is meant to enjoy. And enjoy it I do. And if something I want is on HBO (also new to the family) but I don't want to stay up until 4am watching it, tape-a-roo. Voila!

I sound like a schoolgirl talking about my DVR. And I don't care.

Dear diary,

I'm sure everyone waits for this moment in their life.... but... but... (take a deep breath) I think I'm in love. No, I KNOW I'm in love! I can't believe it, diary, it's happening to me!

His name is Motorola DCH3416. And he's everything I want in a DVR. He's not just any DVR, he's an HD-DVR. He can record two shows at once, and knows everything I like (after I told him of course). He's so dreamy

Best regards,

Rob

PS: Don't tell my little brother.

I don't even have a little brother.

But seriously... this is wonderful.

On a more serious note... I believe this not just because of my personal shows that I love. I think that this, along with On Demand, is the future of television. I mean, it's already starting to happen. No longer will it be "this place, this time" to watch shows. Once a show is "released," it will be available forever to download and view at your leisure.

I mean... that's the case for some people right now anyway... though the legality of that is a hot topic. I won't get into that right now and the COUNTLESS reasons why it should be legal for free TV to be free to download... but it will be the norm in about a decade, I believe.

Until then... let the lovefest continue.

(RDP+DVR 4EVER)

Please stop complaining about the Wii.

Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of reasons to complain about the Wii. It has last-generation graphics, 70% of the games for it are utter trash, and it being a success is going to "kill" gaming. While not all of these reasons are valid (or, in the case of some writers, coherent), they all have been beaten to death already.

The release of the Nintendo Wii and its subsequent success was a great thing for video gaming. It wasn't a "shot in the arm," or really a "breath of fresh air," or any of that other bullshit. It was just different. It was exactly what Nintendo needed after their previous two home consoles were downgrades from their predecessors (Super Nintendo was awesome, Nintendo 64 was okay, and Gamecube will forever be a flop). If the "Revolution" was released without motion sensing controls, would it have been a colossal failure? YES. But because it was, it hardly makes it a revolution.

The fact of the matter is that Nintendo is always the leader when it comes to goofy peripherals and funky new ways to play games. Some would even argue (Luke Smith) that the Wii itself is just a glorified Gamecube peripheral. Hmm... let's see, there was the Power Glove for the NES, R.O.B., the useless robot (who's resurgence in first-party titles lately has left me nauseous), Virtual Boy, and a little device called the Nintendo Dual Screen which was slated to be an ugly failure to the PSP... and how did that one turn out?



My point is that Nintendo has been doing this for years. While the Wii was the first commercially successful attempt on a home console doesn't mean it's anything new. It fell right into Nintendo's reputation. Surely it changed gaming, but there's a good side and a bad side to it.

Just from a titles perspective, it appears that it's about 70% bad as of right now. But there are more than just titles factored into it -- though it plays a huge role. If you're like me and have a Wii and another home console (Xbox 360), you couldn't wait to run out and try a game like Madden for the Wii. If the "like me" parallel continues, you were bored within 10 minutes and vowed never to play another multi-platform title on the Wii again.

Simply put, there are games that play perfectly on the Wii -- Zelda is a great example. But other games like Madden feel completely unnatural, and the trade off of poor graphics for innovative controls is just not worth it. That says nothing about Madden as a title... just Madden on the Wii.

No, no, the Wii has plenty of other horrid titles to worry about. Sure there is just about every Playstation 2 port in the world, as well as gimpy movie titles such as Spongebob and Cars... but I'm talking the fluke games made especially for Wii. Sure, some of them are fun (Cooking Mama, Trauma Center), but most of them should never see the light of day. And those that are multi-platform for current generation consoles are usually a huge downgrade due to the poor graphics and unnatural controls.

This is not to say that I don't love my Wii. I do... to death. But most of the time it is my exclusive "Wii Sports" machine... used for very little else. Sure it has ancillary channels such as news and weather, but they will never be my main sources for it. I commend Nintendo for its other channels like "Check Mii Out" and "Everybody Votes."

Am I forgetting something? Ah yes, the Virtual Console. Sure, the first time you start up Donkey Kong you feel all nostalgic... but the second time you crank up Donkey Kong you regret having bought it. Most other games are chalked up to a crapshoot of patience. You cannot wait to purchase Super Marios 1-3 for $15, fully knowing that Super Mario All-Stars (which includes all three titles) will be out in the future at some point, for $8. At the end of the day, it's not worth it.



But to say that the Wii being successful will kill gaming is ludicrous. Games will not suddenly be backscaled in graphics... advances will continue to be made. Graphics are almost as far as they can go for realism... and those who complain are just splitting hairs. There will always be those who want one or the other... I wouldn't trade my 360 OR my Wii, for very different reasons. If anything, it'll just force Sony and Microsoft to lower prices if they wish to COMPETE WITH NINTENDO.


Yes, I just said that. While it is a valid argument that Nintendo is in its own niche this generation, it's still a home console. They said so themselves. I scoffed at the thought of a Wii60 or a PSWii, and now I have one. But it's not as if Sony and Microsoft are fully embracing and aligning with the Wii, they're just not naive enough to deny its success. Even though they are the top selling console, I could see arguments that they cannot win this generation... though I can see people saying that they cannot lose it at this point.

Regardless of winning or losing the generation, Nintendo can't truly lose at all. They're back on the map, after being an afterthought for the past decade. And with titles like Zelda, Mario, Smash Bros, and Mario Kart bound to fly off the shelves quicker than they can be released... the future looks bright. But I bet that future would be a lot brighter and clearer in HD.

Dell gives you no excuse to not try Linux

And it's about damn time. Despite pressures from the big M, Dell has bitten the bullet and begun offering laptops with Ubuntu Linux 7.10 installed right out of the box.

It isn't the first time that Dell has made a decision like this... but it is the first time that Dell has made the decision and stuck with it.... because previously they HAD caved to pressures from Microsoft not to do so.

Not this doesn't mean that Dell has gone completely Linux-crazy -- far from it. In fact, there are only four machines being offered with Linux on them, and they are hard to find. And once you find the correct page, Dell makes several efforts to turn you away from the pages.... constantly asking you if "you're sure" you want to take the plunge into Linux-dom.



But beggars can't be choosers and I'll take what I can get. It's a start right? Now I, unlike many, don't need a computer to come pre-loaded with Linux to use it. In fact, I'm writing this post on my Linux machine right now. But it is nice to see a little exposure for my open source operating system. And it helps that it's my favorite Linux "flavor," Ubuntu.

No, this appeals to me for a whole different, selfish reason. You see, with Linux pre-loaded on machines, people who buy them don't need to pay that pesky additional cost for Windows Vista. This is because Ubuntu is free to use. It's just as good as Windows, arguably better. But I will admit it isn't for everyone -- especially for those without patience or computer skills.

But I know which computer I'm buying next. It's funny, the appeal of this offer is actually reversed for someone like me. This is supposed to rope Dell customers who normally wouldn't try Linux to try it. For me, it's supposed to rope in a Linux user who normally wouldn't buy a Dell. And it worked.

Bravo!

Blackout: The Halo 3 savior (I hope...)

So it's come to this. You know, Halo 3 didn't always need a "savior." Back in September when the title was released, hopes were high. Oh goodness how they were high. And they should have been -- things were good. Halo 3 was the most anticipated game since the day Halo 2 came out. And at first, it lived up to its billing -- a wonderful conclusion to the main storyline, competitive online gameplay, and a dedicated fanbase playing it at all hours of the day.

But, as expected, the game got stale. The unexpected part was in how little time it took for the stale-ing to occur. Certainly there were the normal distractions which did their part -- video game groupies jumping onto the bandwagons of other games such as Assassin's Creed or the god-forsaken Call of Duty 4. But Bungie did its own part in creating a dwindling lifespan for its game. Poor choices in the matchmaking playlists such as the dropping of fan favorite "Social Doubles" in favor of the much-maligned "Rocket Race" was just the tip of the iceberg.

This is a bit unusual for Bungie, who is known for its active community contact. And it didn't take long for them to start trying to remedy the problem -- though it may have been a tardy. Better late than never, I suppose.

The first attempt was an adaptation much like Rocket Race -- a non-killing game variant better identified as a gimmick..... Grifball. It is best described as a rugby takeoff of assault on the highly-customizable map known as Foundry. Foundry was the crown jewel in Halo 3's first Downloadble Content map pack, which was as equally disappointing as the game's previous failings. While Grifball was indeed a gimmick, it was highly successful -- but it wasn't true Halo.



The second attempt appeared the be the most promising, but was an utter disappointment that truly sent things further into bleakness for Halo. Two weeks after Grifball, its replacement was none other than the much sought after Team SWAT -- a quick paced game variant involving one-headshot kills. It was very highly anticipated, even by me personally. Life was good.

Just kidding. What we got was not Team SWAT, but a bastardized modified version of it for Halo 3. Normally with no grenades, Bungie decided to include them pointlessly in the Halo 3 version. If I were to take the time to explain why and how it was different to the non-Halo player, this post would challenge the Super Bowl post in length. Just know that the community was not satisfied with the results.

Bungie has always been secretive when it comes to new developments, and their 2nd Downloadable Content map pack was no exception. Slowly piece by piece the names and layouts of each map were revealed. First, there is an all-new map named Ghost Town. Secondly, there is a remade version of a Halo 1 map called Avalanche. Ho-hum, blah blah blah blah... who cares? But the identity of the third map blew my mind, and the minds of many in the Halo community.

You see, in Halo 2, the first Halo game I experienced, there was a map above and beyond the rest in popularity. It was named Lockout, and it was spectacular. And the identity of the third map is none other than a remake of my snowy heaven, entitled "Blackout."

This could be it. I predict it will be it. But, as with Team SWAT, Bungie could do its magic and find a way to ruin this. I pray that they won't, but they might. The world will find out on April 15th.

See for yourself!

Halo 3 Auto-Update

Yesterday the good folks at Bungie dropped the first auto-update for their stud title, Halo 3. The main focus of this update, at least for gamers, is that it is supposed to "fix" the issues in melee that occurs when what a gamer sees is them performing a beatdown first but then dying, while their opponent gleefully skips away.



If you'd like a whole "complicated" breakdown of what the issue was and how it was fixed, feel free to read about it here. For a further breakdown you should also listen to Bungie's latest podcast.

My first hands-on experience with the update came last night. I tested it out myself with a few friends, to see if we could see a difference. We did the obligatory "shoot each other three times and then go for it" test to see if it worked. It did.

The update hopes to eliminate the complaining and gnashing of teeth caused by people who feel they are wronged, and choose to blame the game for poor play or missed opportunities. Truthfully, what will really happen is that people will still have the anguish of defeat but will have a better understanding of why.

And after extensive testing myself, I would have to agree with that assertion. What has been removed is the cursing and utterances of "das bullshit," replaced with the giddy girlish giggling that comes with simultaneous beatdown deaths.

So, overall, I have to say that the update was very successful in clearing up any issues I personally had with multiplayer -- though the night overall was a bad experience playing. I'll sum it up by warning my opponents that camping makes you sterile... get some skill, bishes. ;)

Best Nintendo titles you've never heard of (#1)

This article is the beginning of a mini-series in which I will detail lesser-known games that fell through the cracks, as well as upcoming games that may be on their way to falling through the cracks. If things go well, I will add more sections to the mini-series, including cancelled games.

Stunt Race FX
Late in the life-cycle of the Super Nintendo, the advent of modification chips in game cartridges was introduced. These chips were used for higher processer calculation speeds, which allowed for things such as 3D graphics to be used in some games. The most popular of these chips was the "Super FX" chip.

Between the Super FX chip and its successor, the Super FX 2 chip, 15 games were planned and developed. Only 7 of these 15 were ever released for the Super Nintendo*.

The second title released was racing game called "Stunt Race FX." Despite being a first-party Nintendo title, was not marketed well, and sales suffered in the United States because of this. This came as a surprise to many, as Shigeru Miyamoto was one of the lead designers, notable for Super Mario and Legend of Zelda fame. His games were known for their popularity and success. But this games' failure was not in its gameplay -- in fact, the game received mostly high reviews in gaming magazines.

Stunt Race FX, as the "FX" in its title suggests, utilized 3D graphics and environments. Players could choose between four vehicles, a COUPE, F-TYPE, 4WD, and 2WD, as well as five racing modes. Players could use a fifth car, the TRAILER, only in a BONUS mode.



As is the case with many first-party Nintendo titles, some notable Nintendo characters make cameos in the game -- with Mario, Fox McCloud (of Star Fox), and Kirby appearing on billboards in certain levels. Also, the Arwings from Star Fox fly overhead in one of the night levels.

Despite its poor performance in North America, the game remains a cult classic for hardcore gamers and those who happened upon it in rental stores and gave it a chance.

While it is considered a celebrated title more than decade after its release, it is still not widely remembered. But fear not, Stunt Race FX fans, as is the case with many previous generation Nintendo titles, there is hope that it may reappear on the Nintendo Wii's Virtual Console, downloadable for anyone willing to shell out the $6 for it. Though the Virtual Console is usually limited to widely successful games, and it may take a bit of luck for Stunt Race to show up.

* Super Mario FX was a developing game for Super Nintendo. After five frustrating years of development, however, Nintendo was not pleased with what was accomplished. The game was repackaged and redesigned into what begame Super Mario 64, released on the Nintendo 64.

Hey Apple, get off your ass (and your high horse) and make native iPod support for Linux already...

I've had enough. I haven't exactly gauged how much of this post is because of my bias, but it is obviously what made me initially aware of this "problem," and was caused me to care about it.

You see, I've been using Linux for a little over a year now (Ubuntu, the equivalent of a toe-dip over from Windows into the ocean of Linux). But, unlike most people, I didn't take the plunge into the whole iPod thing until this past Christmas... and I'm already a fanatic.

My evil little device is named the iPod Touch, and it is fantastic. I was initially drawn to it because of the whole Internet Browsing aspect of it that wasn't in previous models. But when I found out that Touches could be "jailbroken," allowing third-party applications to be installed on it, I was hooked.

The problem is that currently, there is no fool-proof method for syncing an iPod Touch with any Linux distribution. For previous models, there are several methods, such as amarok and gtkpod. Amarok is a stand-alone media player application that is capable of syncing to a previous generation iPod, and gtkpod is an application exclusively used for transferring files to iPods. That's all fine and well, but it does me no good.

Now since I wasn't using Linux and didn't have an iPod, I don't know how long it took for those with Linux to be saved by the advent of these applications.... but I'm not patient enough to wait... Linux needs its own iTunes.

From what I know, Apple's stance on this is that they don't want to risk their install-base "waking up" and realizing that they can trade their Apple Unix experience for a (typically) free experience by using a Linux distribution such as Linux. Shame on you, Apple. Do you really believe that your users are that stupid? They know what else is out there, but pick you because you're "stylish" or something. In fact, in similar situations, the opposite is the reality. If a Linux user had no other choice, they'd probably turn to (gasp) Windows... mainly because they probably already have a licensed copy of it which came with their computer.

This is partly speculation -- the only real scenario I could envision which would keep Apple from lending a helping hand to their brother in Unix. Well... except for that Apple probably envisions that Linux users aren't a big enough percentage to consider.

For the minimal effort it would take to effectively PORT iTunes over to Linux, Apple would see the money pour in. With the advent of song, movie, TV show, podcast, and all other type of downloads iTunes is now capable of doing, their numbers would see a nice bounce with the addition of the obviously tech-savvy and tech-embracing Linux population. And with the new feature of movie RENTALS through iTunes... I, someone who would've before never downloaded a movie off the service, have my interest piqued. Let's not forget the added amount of iPod themselves that would be sold with Linux users no longer looking for a Linux-friendly alternative.

Apple, you've made some stupid decisions in the past when it came to alienating and excluding people (remember all the Mac-exclusive ports they used to sport because of their deep-seeded fear of Microsoft-ism?), but this is the worst. I could go into the endless reasons, but I've already written papers on this subject... so I'll end this by merely scolding you, Apple.

Apple, Apple, Apple, your segregation of the Linux community is indirectly helping your enemy. Syncing my iPod is the only reason why I even still have a Windows partition. You tossing us Linuxers a toss may keep some from potentially jumping to Apple, but more likely are giving them reason to jump to Windows, which is WORSE than losing your own customers. Your anti-Microsoft roots was born not in building your own base but dare people to "Think Different." By forcing those who with to think differently to think Apple or think nothing, you're failing. It's the 90s all over again.

Pretty please make me own personal iTunes? Until then, I hate you. Thanks for the iPod. :-*

A post-Super Bowl Patriots blog post 5 pages too long.

If you're looking for doom and gloom you'll be sadly disappointed. However, if you're looking for sugar-coating or a silver lining, you will also be sadly disappointed. Just my exaggerated bias... possibly one-notch lower than complete fanboy babbling... whatever a combined 25 minutes of half-sleep did to refresh and lift my spirits.

Overconfidence. If you listed the qualities of New England sports fans, it wouldn't make the cut for the short list. Despite two titles in the last four seasons, any Red Sox fan who's personally experienced their string of inexplicably bad luck will never forget that feeling. Sure, some exceptions come to mind. (I'm talking about you -- idiot in a Boston bar who customized the Greg Oden Celtics jersey for the 2007 Draft Lottery.)

It's never been like this, though. At least locally... everyone thought the Patriots would win this. Not everyone picked the Patriots (Jon Meterparel), but everyone thought they would win. Callers to radio shows made predictions like 62-7, 35-10, 42-3 Patriots, and were unchallenged, yet any caller who predicted even a 1-point Giant victory was lambasted for reasoning.

I should know -- I was one of them. I called a rare overnight local show and predicted 31-17 Patriots. Granted, I got my score from a Madden "supersim." But I defended it tooth and nail. I even smugly offered up a stat to help any Giants fans who wanted to defend a Giants' victory prediction. "The last 5 times two teams who played in the regular season met again in the Super Bowl, the loser of the first matchup is 4-1 in the last 5." I never thought it would prove prophetic. Despite my best efforts, I was overconfident. I couldn't help it. I couldn't see the Giants winning. If anything, their first matchup would benefit the Patriots in the rematch. I was overconfident, and it bit me in the ass. I will never let it happen again.... I hope.

I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm not upset. I'm not angry. I'm sick. I'm still literally nauseous. When the nausea began when the Patriots still had a 7-3 lead, though it felt like they never led in this game. When Kyle Boss broke free to the tune of 45 yards, every Patriot fan knew the Giants were going to score. It would likely be 7 points, but at least 3. And it was 7. And even when the Patriots marched right back three possessions later and scored, I still felt sick. They took 5 minutes off the clock, as much as they probably could have, and scored a touchdown, the most they could have gotten, but it wasn't enough. The lead was still one score, and could not be tied. And more importantly, there was way too much time left. But it was a factor out of the Patriots control. We all knew it, and we were sick about it.

And that sickness quickly got worse. During the Giants next drive, which began with 2:39 left on the clock, the Patriots had every opportunity to close the door. And uncharacteristically, they couldn't. There was a span of about six plays where the Patriots had at least three chances to basically end the game.

First, Eli overthrew his receiver, and Asante Samuel almost picked it off. He had to juggle catching the ball and getting two feet down, and seemed unable to accomplish both simultaneously... the ball bouncing off his fingertips. Okay, that's fine, at least it's a botched play.

Second, Eli Manning scrambles for about five yards and is tackled by Adalius Thomas. He apparently fumbles, and recovers it himself. This play was a bit sketchy though... because I have no idea how you call that a fumble, he was clearly down. (Although it seemed FOX had no plans of mentioning that.) And if it was indeed a fumble, I'm not sure how Thomas's arms lose a battle with Manning's legs for the ball. Oh well.

And finally.... do I even need to mention it? It'll probably go down in highlights and history as "Eli's Escape Act" or something cheesy like that. It is the defining moment of this Super Bowl. The Patriots had Eli in their grasp, though sloppily, but were going to slam the door shut. And just when you thought he was down and out, he breaks free and makes the unlikeliest of throws to David Tyree, who makes the unlikeliest of catches. (If you didn't see it, I'm not explaining it... because you HAVE TO SEE IT.) I think it was a microcosm of the entire game.

Perhaps if I would have been more clear-headed, I could've pointed out the similarities between this Super Bowl and the movie "Freaky Friday." If you held a gun to my head, I can't give you any statistical reasoning behind it... but Brady and Manning switched bodies. Their numbers were eerily similar... as were most other of the "feeler" statistical categories. Both teams were 50% on third down and the time of possession was less than a one minute difference. But it was never that close. The Patriots had a lead for most of the game, and yet were never that close to being truly ahead in this game. It was uncanny.


And what makes it worse is this whole 18-0 factor. Had this team been, let's say, 14-2, this is no big deal. Every season one team loses the Super Bowl. Granted, the Brady and Belichick losing is a big deal. But it isn't all that historically significant. Being undefeated and losing here and now is huge. This team is a punch line, a joke. Choke artists. Forget all the talk of (one of the) greatest teams ever. Not winning the Super Bowl disqualifies you from being in that conversation. It's the main pre-requisite.

Is that unfair? Maybe, but not necessarily. But it's the way it is. It limits the possible number from 84 or more to a slim, sexy 42 possibilities. But it may not make it accurate. For instance, let's say, just for this example, that it is understood that the 1990 Giants are the best team ever. They aren't, but go along with it. They beat the Buffalo Bills 20-19, on a missed field goal ("wide right") by Scott Norwood.

So if the 1990 Giants team is the best ever, then it is possible that the 1990 Buffalo Bills is the 2nd best team ever. They probably aren't, but wouldn't even make a list of the top 25, even if they deserved to be on it, because they didn't win the Super Bowl. Why am I making this example, you ask? To defend my should've-been but never-will-be 2007 Patriots. If you list the top 10 NFL seasons of all time, you may still find the Patriots on that list, though probably in the bottom 5. Does that mean that the Patriots are worse than every team ahead of it, head-to-head? Not necessarily. But they will be excluded, right or wrong, because they didn't finish the job.

That made this game all too significant for the Patriots. If the Giants lost, it's no skin off their back. I'm sure they would have been disappointed. But they wouldn't become historical examples. They were a double-digit underdog, and weren't supposed to win. That lessens the pressure (akin to the sentiments of Keith Foulke and Kevin Millar of the Red Sox). The Patriots, however, were in an all or nothing situation. Famous or infamous. No middle ground. That's infinite pressure.

Statistics aside, the Patriots were outplayed in every phase of the game last night: coaching, quarterbacking, rushing, passing, play calling, offense, defense, special teams, penalties, you name it. But, while they were outplayed, it wasn't the worst they had been outplayed all year. They were outplayed by the Eagles, the Ravens, the Colts, and arguably the Giants the first time they met. But, even though they were outplayed, they were able to out-talent the other team enough to just score enough points than the other team.

If games were decided by which team played up to its potential the best, this Patriots team would be no better than 11-5 and would not have even been playing last night. They didn't look their best vs. the Colts, Ravens, Giants, Eagles, and Jets. But up until this point it didn't matter.

And in this game, being outplayed could've been overcome as well. Even in the games they had been outplayed, they had no trouble scoring. In fact, this was the only time all season the Patriots failed to score at least 20 points. For that reason, I truly believe that the Patriots defense had been, at least partially, only been worried about keeping the other team's score lower than what the Patriots offense could muster, and not necessarily stopping teams. Just keep them below what Brady and the offense put up. And that had worked, until last night. Keeping the Giants to 17 points was a good performance, but they were clearly the 2nd best defense on the field last night.

Please don't get me wrong, there had been times that the Patriots have looked amazing defense, despite what Emmitt Smith and others on ESPN want to lie to you about. The defense on the AFC Championship looked like an improved version of the "bend but don't break" defenses of a few years ago. There were just some games (Philly, Giants Round 1) where you were a bit concerned about them.

As is the custom for New England sports fans, we must seek out a scapegoat. As for in-game scapegoats, I have two distinct ones throbbing in my brain: Going for it on 4th and 13 and Ellis Hobbs vs. Plaxico. I won't get into either right now... I could write on each topic for pages and pages. Maybe I will later.

But otherwise, our eyes turn to those who proclaimed the Patriots to roll in this game. Sure there were radio hosts and other pundits like Pete Shepherd, Mike Adams, Boomer Esiason, Aaron Schatz and many others, but that's their job. They made predictions, and had 20 hours a week to form and defend them. My only beef with them is that (for the most part) they let callers go unchecked with their crazy predictions. I mentioned before 62-7. I wasn't making that up. Some caller said that Moss would have two touchdowns, as would Welker, Watson, and one for Stallworth, and said he was being as objective as he could... hopefully with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek. I mean them no ill-will by mentioning them, it's my fault for letting their honest thoughts get my hopes up.

But I do intend ill-will towards others, many of whom are employed by the dreaded 4-letter sports network. If being 18-0 makes losing the slightly Super Bowl worse, what makes THAT worse is hearing the handful of people who picked against the Patriots out of fear, hatred, bias, or just for attention beat their chest about how they were so brave and smart. Sure, I pick the Patriots more often than not, and in a close game, I'm more likely to pick against teams I dislike, but I don't get paid to do it. And if I did get paid to do it, I wouldn't get paid six-figures to do it... Merrill Hoge. (In the immortal words of Ray Lewis -- "great talent, great talent, don’t ever get me wrong," but for someone who does as much film study as he does, he does a lot of posturing on TV, and ultimately sounds like an idiot more often than not.)

Do you really think that Hoge and Meterparel truly thought the Giants would win? I doubt it. Merrill is a Steelers guy. That's fine. God knows deep down inside I wanted the Seahawks and Bears to win the last two Super Bowls. But deep down inside I also knew the Steelers and Colts would win. Disliking a team is fine, but you're paid to be objective.


As for the Jon Meterparels of the world, that's just their gimmick. They need one, so they're not exposed for the frauds they are. Same shtick, different local team. I have no reasoning as to why Meter is this way, but he sounds like he'd be a decent "bad guy" wrestler. He could go out to the ring and talk about how the fans smell and are dumb, so he can get booed and get a high off of it and go back to his dressing room and touch himself. Then he'll pack it up and go to the next town and do the same. Sadly I don't think he has the size to be a pro wrestler.

You may have been wrong about the Cleveland Indians, Colorado Rockies, Jacksonville Jaguars, and San Diego Chargers, but you certainly got the Giants pick right. Take a bow, Meter. Maybe someday Boston College will be significant enough to be in a game somebody cares about, and people around here will pay attention and root for them. Then you'll have a real conflict of interest. Until then, you can just hide behind the skirts of your hosts when someone calls in to challenge you. And then you three can snicker and laugh about your little gimmick while you braid each other's hair and paint each other's nails.

Sadly, Meter isn't the worst of all. That crown goes to Mercury Morris. I mean... the nickname fits. Some of the things he says make me wonder if he's truly from another planet, or if he's just been exposed to the chemical element for a prolonged period of time. I don't think he realized that he was in a no-win situation. While I'm not sure he outright picked the Giants, it shouldn't have mattered to him. If the Patriots win, the 1972 Dolphins are no longer "special." They're not the only home-owners in his fictional "neighborhood" of undefeated teams. He claimed that if the Patriots were to go 19-0 they would have their own smaller house next door to the Dolphins.



But looking at the flip side, the Giants winning makes Morris no longer relevant. Sure, the Dolphins are still alone in their neighborhood. But if there's no talk of the Patriots going undefeated anymore, it means that two days from now there will be no reason to talk about Mercury Morris. Morris challenged the Patriots to join him, almost trying to intimidate them, saying that he welcomed them to match the Dolphins mark, and that if they got there he would be in a tuxedo waiting for his "bride." Luckily for him he was left waiting at the altar, but hardly jilted.

I guess if I were to draw any silver lining from this season being over, it's that Morris will finally be silenced. The guy used (and mixed) so many metaphors over the past 3 months, it's enough to make you wonder if he's on drugs your head spin.

Okay, okay, enough posturing on the scapegoat topic... who do you think I am, Merrill Hoge? I'll go outside the box on this one, and conclude that two huge factors in this loss being so historic are Baltimore Ravens linebacker Bart Scott and whichever Ravens coach called that timeout. This game, more than any other all season, the Patriots should've lost (besides the one last night). If they lose that game, they're a 15-1 team, and 15-1 teams generally aren't undefeated (I think). Without either Bart Scott's boneheaded tantrum or that coach "illegally" calling timeout, this Patriots team is now 17-2, and could fade into the sunset.

Whenever your team doesn't win the championship, it's natural look at the team and look for things to improve upon. If you didn't win, there obviously must be something that must be done differently. It's a unique situation when a team without a blemish on their record just suddenly collapses at the finish line. I know the team has flaws, but it's hard to look at the team, personnel-wise, and target certain areas that made this team insufficient to win the Super Bowl this year. They were more than good enough, and were more than deserving.

It doesn't mean that this win was a fluke, and that the Giants were not deserving as well. They truly were. They could hang with the Patriots, obviously better than any of the 30 teams in the NFL. But do I think that if these two teams played 10 times the Giants would win 5 times? Hardly. The Giants would be lucky to win 3 or 4 times, but no game would be won by a margin of more than one touchdown. They were that good of a matchup. They were 1-1 vs. each other, overall scores tied at 52 apiece. But you don't get rings or trophies for winning on Week 17.

Even if I can't target personnel within the Patriots that need to change, there will be some. As for retirements, it is not a huge impact. On offense, I think that Troy Brown and Kyle Brady will both hang it up. Troy Brown had been my favorite active Patriot up until this year (when he was supplanted by Wes Welker, the white Troy Brown). He will probably always be my favorite all-time Patriot. He only played in one game this year, which was sad in itself. As for Kyle Brady, he was a solid backup for Watson, and a great blocking Tight End. He was a one year Patriot, but you'd be lying if you said as a Patriot fan you didn't enjoy hearing "Brady to Brady" on the rare occasion he would get passed to.

As for defense, the only retirement I see happening is a huge one -- Junior Seau. He, more than any of the other 52 guys on the roster, I wanted to see get a ring. He's probably the most notable and accomplished non-quarterback in the league without a ring... check that, probably the most notable and accomplished player in the league without a ring. No one in New England wants him to retire, nor does he, but he would be 40 next season if he played. There's always a possibility... hell, we were saying this exact same thing last year.


As for major free agents who could possibly leave the Patriots, there's Asante Samuel and Randy Moss. I truly feel that Asante is too eager to "get paid," and that his Pro Bowl-caliber year this season did enough to price him out of New England. As for Randy Moss, call me naive, but I truly believe he'll be back next year. He came closer this year to winning a Super Bowl than he ever had prior. And, whether he stays or goes, the Patriots will be the clear favorite to win the Super Bowl next season. Like his former Minnesota counterpart, Kevin Garnett, I think he'll realize that he's already made enough money in his career, and it's time to stay on a good team and win.

(And for those of you who heard Tom Curran reporting that Moss may have talked his way out of town with his postgame comments about the Patriots being "outcoached," I've heard the tape and it's a non-issue. It's not even close to tantamount to things Richard Seymour has said in the past.)

To put this in perspective, this is a horrible loss. Two years ago, it was a horrible loss... Brady's first loss in the playoffs ever. The aura of invincibility was gone. Last year was slightly worse, blowing a 21-3 lead (21-6 at halftime) to lose to the hated Colts, and watching them go on to win the Super Bowl against the overrated Bears (2004 Red Sox comparisons anyone?). The only remaining aura of invincibility was gone -- we have Manning's number and he can't win the big game.

But this year is the worst of all. While 21-3 was the biggest deficit overcome by any team in conference championship history, it wasn't the biggest choke in all of sports. It wasn't even the biggest choke in all of football history. (I'm talking about you, 1992 Houston Oilers.) This year is different. Close score or not, this is easily the hugest choke in football history. In fact, it is the hugest choke in sports playoffs history.

While that is painful enough, the salt in the wound makes it even more unbearable. This being crowned as the worst choke in sports history supplants a very recent infamous choke, which will make New Englanders weep. Feel free to disagree with me, fans, but 2004 Yankees, you're off the hook. If anyone actually reads this blog, I'm sure I'll hear horrible feedback about that line, but I stand by it. This is infinitely worse. Choking to a New York team is bad enough, in the process saving the ass of another New York team makes it complex enough that it's giving me migraine.



And depending on if you disagree with me or not about that last point, this next point will either make you more pissed or you'll hopefully agree more. Even though I myself was once one of these people, it's time to give it up folks: stop denying the Yankees-Patriots connection. While the Red Sox-Colts connection is a bit more debatable (excluding the 2006 season, that's uncanny in my opinion), this one is getting clearer and clearer each season.

Think about it. I'll spare you going down the rosters and talking about how Bruschi is Paul O'Neil and all that garbage. It's pointless. Unlike most people, I have no problem with Brady walking through New York wearing a Yankees hat. (No one seems to have a problem with David Ortiz being a Packers fans, myself included, and I hate the Packers. I know it's different when it's New York, but still.) What I do have a problem with is Jeter supporting Brady. While I don't necessarily hate Jeter the way I used to (because of A-Rod), I still don't want him rooting for the same things as me.

It's hard for people to get perspective on what it's like outside of New York and Boston. But there's no argument that the Yankees are the most hated team in baseball. There's also no argument that the Red Sox are the second most hated team in baseball. But then they play each other (especially in the playoffs), everyone outside of the two areas are immediately nauseated. But they watch, and they enjoy it, because the games are always spectacular.

It's the same way with football. The Patriots are the most hated team in football. The Colts are also hated, but not necessarily the second most, unlike the Red Sox. But when they play, fans of other teams have to suck it up and root for the Colts. And as much as they don't want to watch, they know it'll be a great game. It isn't just those two... there are other minor players like San Diego (Cleveland Indians) and Pittsburgh (Anaheim Angels) who occasionally like to switch things up, but the Colts and Pats are the main players.

So, naturally, when the Patriots were in this game, no one truly them to win. A lot of the people predicting (players, TV pundits, radio hosts) picked them to win, because they were the favorites. And some people "wanted" them to win to see an undefeated team, but if they could swap out the team for any other team in the league (besides their own if they were an active player), they would've done it. They were the smart pick, and for that reason, the popular pick, but it didn't mean that people liked the Patriots and were happy that they appeared to be on their way to winning again.

And when they lost, people were happy. 30 of the 31 NFL fan bases were laughing at the Patriots. The other was (and is) too euphoric to laugh. But once they come back down to earth, they will be laughing as well, and the loudest.

Surely, a lot of credit was given to the Giants, and rightfully so, but people enjoyed the opportunity to kick the Patriots when they were down. Emmitt Smith, as mentioned before, claimed that everyone knew that the Patriots defense was the "weak link." Excuse me? The Patriots defense was fourth in yards per game allowed AND fourth in points per game allowed. Weak link? I supposed in comparison to the historic offense they had.

Then there's Steve Young, who said that if you looked at the month of January and compared these two teams, the Giants were better. Then a few minutes later proclaimed this to be the biggest upset in football history. Huh? Don't those two statements kind of... conflict? Oh well.

As embittered as I sound about this whole situation, I'm not as worked up about this as I may sound, and whatever I was, writing this really helped me to make peace with the situation. I'm going to dread next season, and having to live with the historical impact of being a fan of the biggest choke team in history. It almost seems unfair that the Yankees, the luckiest franchise of all time, only had the title for a little longer than 3 years.

Either way, I truly want to congratulate the Giants for winning the Super Bowl, and their fans. You truly deserved it. While I still believe this game was winnable, and in control if the Patriots could've closed the door, the Patriots didn't "beat themselves." The Patriots still had the talent and several opportunities to win despite all the things the Giants did right. But they didn't, and the Giants are the rightful champs. They executed when the Patriots didn't, and they won when it counted the most.

I'm excited that the Boston-New York rivalry has a new chapter, and a new participant. That being said.... this will be the longest 11 days of my life..... (Feb 15 - Red Sox pitchers and catchers report.)

Sample Post

This is the first in what will hopefully be many posts on this blog. The topic of this blog, which has been ambiguous for some time, has been reclassed as "miscellaneous." While I will not be posting necessarily about "whatever my heart desires," I will be posting about whatever is on my mind.

You see, I'm a very opinionated person, and my opinions aren't limited to one topic... one day it might be the Red Sox, the next it might be about poker, and the next it might be about Halo (the video game), and the next about Linux. It would be unfair to my other random thoughts to only stick to one topic -- and I have no intention of doing so.

Being a writing major, I love to write -- about various things. So get ready to read about whatever I choose to write about. That being said, I will do my best to limit what I'm writing to a small number of general topics -- more than likely sports, entertainment, computers, electronics... etc.

So buckle up and get ready to "read about random."