Age of Conan

I'm a sucker for a few things in life. Good ice cream. The smell of a newly opened boardgame. Dogs.

And new MMOs.

After I broke the WoW habit over a year ago, I developed a tendency to play new MMOs for a while, then quit. City of Heroes, Lord of the Rings, Vanguard...etc. Even when I don't review them I like to play for that first month before the company wants more money from me. So it will be with Age of Conan. So, starting on the 20th, I'll be lopping off heads on a routine basis.

Anyone else getting this?

Big Brown and More Games

Big Brown is a freak. A true freak. That was about the easiest Triple Crown win as you will ever see. Well, not the THE easiest. That would be this race.

But he's a marvelous horse and absolutely has the look of a TC winner. But so did Smarty Jones, and 9 others since '78. Still...man that was easy.

OK -- quick game update. I'm still playing The Show. So that's what...3 months and I'm not tired of it? If that's not a stamp of approval I dunno what is. Review wise I'm heavily into the GalCiv II expansion-- big thumbs up.

My copy of the new edition of Blackbeard is set to arrive on the 20th. Yarr. Also, Mike recently reviewed a game that I just got called Manoeuvre which looks like a lot of fun -- a 'simple' 2-player card driven tactical Napoleonic wargame.

In other boardgame news I am planning on creating a new website for a game that I am designing with my father. The site will basically be about the design process --along with info about th egame itself. I was thinking of just doing that stuff here but it didn't seem to fit plus I think we want our own site for it.

The design is actually very well along right now and we're about to start some play testing.

Exciting stuff.

Some Details of Deep Route (Long but worth reading)

OK -- so the game should be ready in June. It's looking great, and I have been given permission to post some attribute info to give you guys an idea of what the game is doing under the hood.

Here's the website again -- keep an eye out for a press release soon. This is going to be fun. From what I have seen first hand, all of these attributes really matter. It's not just window dressing.

Position Rating

This rating is an "overall" rating of how the player compares in aggregate to other players at the same position in primary attributes. This should be used only as an quick indicator, but not in place of good judgment. For instance, you may have an agile QB with lower accuracy rated below a slow footed QB with better accuracy. Which should you use? That all depends on your line and how you use your QB.

Height

Taller receivers may have an advantage over shorter corner backs. Shorter QBs are more likely to have balls batted down at the line of srimmage.

Weight

Weight is used when determining the attributes based on size (Strength / Size, Speed / Size, Cover Skills / Size). Larger players will be naturally stronger than their smaller counterparts, but will also be slower with less ability to cover the players they are assigned to defend. Bigger O-linemen can be naturally harder to move than their smaller counterparts

Strength / Size

How strong your player is based on his size. Again, larger players are naturally stronger, so a 300 pound player with a 50 strength will be stronger than a 250 pound player with a 50 strength. This is used by both blockers and defenders when trying to fight through blockers or fight off defenders. Is also used in determining how hard it is to bring down a player trying to avoid being tackled

Stamina

This is used to determine how quickly a player begins fatiguing, and how quickly he recovers. All players are affected, but some positions (like QB) don’t use it as often (unless, of course, your QB does a whole lot of scrambling). RB’s and defensive players are affected the most, as this helps determine how often they need to be spelled

Toughness

How tough a player is. Can also be a determining factor on how hard a player tacklers another

Athleticism

Not a big determinant on a play by play basis, but is used in several ways. First off, an athletic player may, on occasion, outplay his numbers. Also, it helps determine how well a player may play out of position. Finally, it is used on the kick and punt return coverage as well as the return person himself

Intelligence

Obviously, this is how smart a player is. Smart players tend to make better decisions, and put themselves in positions to make plays more often. Smarter QB’s will call more audibles and make better decisions.

Leadership

Ultimately, teams with strong leaders will tend to perform more consistently as a unit than their counterparts with weaker leaders.

Clutch: Currently only kickers and QBS

Clutch QBs will perform better latter in close games; clutch kickers are more likely to hit field goals

Consistency

How consistently a player performs at his maximum level. Highly consistent players will perform to their levels on almost every play, while less consistent players may make mental errors that cause them to perform at a level not constant with their skill levels on every play

Passing Arm

How far and hard a QB can throw the ball. Strong armed QB’s can throw better long passes than their weaker armed counterparts, and are less likely to get picked off on those long passes.

Passing Accuracy

How accurately a QB throws the ball

Handle Snap

How well a QB can take the exchange from the center

Escapability

How well players can avoid being tackled. A combination of being able to squirm out of tackles and simply keep from getting tackled

Speed / Size

How fast a player is for his size

Footwork

How quickly and accurately a player's feet can do what he asks of them. Obviously important when trying to make cuts, but equally important to exterior blockers (tackles) to make sure they can get in position to block oncoming defensive ends, and to those applying pressure on the QB to help avoid being blocked

Cover Skills / Size

How well a player can cover another player when they are in pass coverage

Shed Blocker

How well a player can get away from a defender who is blocking him and has already engaged in contact

Pass Catching

How well a player catches passes. Also used to determine how well a player fields punts

Route

How well a player runs his assigned route and is where the QB expects him to be when trying to pass

First Step

How fast a player accelerates. Important particularly for blitzers, running backs, pass defenders, and receivers.

Run Blocking

How well a player blocks for runners – NOTE – once a player is past the line of scrimmage, this is used even on pass plays

Pass Blocking

How well a player keeps defenders from getting to the QB

Snapping

How consistent a snapper is in snapping the ball

Motor

How apt a player is to attack a play. Players with high motors tend to be involved in more plays on the defense and pursue more actively, Players with very low motors have a tendency to take plays off

Read Opposition

How well a player diagnoses a play. For QB’s, this would be how well they read the defense. For Defenders, this is how well they diagnose a play. For running backs, it is a bit like natural instincts when trying to make a decision on which way to run

Tackling

How well a player wraps up and tackles

Feel Pressure

Used when a player gets hit. Players that are more prone to know a hit is coming are less likely to fumble. "Feel Pressure" is an indicator of how well a player can "feel" a hit coming before it does.

Protect Ball

The likelihood of a player fumbling.

Find Opening

The ability of the ball carrier to see a hole develop and attack it

FG Accuracy

How accurate a kicker is

Kicking Strength

How strong a punter / kicker’s leg is

Punting Accuracy

How good a punter is, particularly at not allowing returns or pinning an opponent deeper in the endzone

Distraction

Will eventually be used to determine how much of field drama a player is likely to incur.

Leaping

Receivers with great leaping ability may use it at times to reach balls other receivers can’t. Defenders with great leaping ability may be able to knock down balls other defenders couldn’t . Used in conjuncture with height.

Hump Day Music Break

A little Johnny Cash today. Man...this song is just plain haunting.

Power Pros Screenshots!

I'll get the entire batch up on GameShark today (there's a lot of them). Here's a taste.

Lost Cities

My take on the XBL version of Lost Cities is up today.

I'd also like to take this chance to say that NBA 2K8 hasn't age well. And by "age" I mean since it was released back in, oh...October of 2007. That game, against the AI at least, has absolutely no flow whatsoever and plays very little like an NBA basketball game should, IMO at least. I gave the game a B+ review --and I was wrong. And why can't 2K release rosters that are worth a damn for this game? Seriously. how hard is it to release playoff rosters for your flagship basketball game?

I'm a month into my MLB 08 franchise and while I'm still not thrilled with the way doubles are handled and the overall speed of the gameplay (and I'm now firmly in the camp of there being WAY too many plays where the first baseman is pulled off the bag) I'm very much looking forward to each day's game, which says something, I think.

I'll have more on Deep Route today or tomorrow. It should be ready in June. I have the go ahead to post the player attributes and what they actually do in game terms. It's extremely impressive.

Todd's Epic Marvel Movie Roundup: Hope for the Future?

In the comments section of my spoilery Iron Man write-up Loren brought up that Marvel already has two named projects in the pipe for 2011: The First Avenger: Captain America and The Avengers (titles are tentative, of course). This comment rather neatly dovetailed into something I'd been thinking about since seeing Iron Man last week, which is Marvel's record in movies with their properties. Here's the lineup, with the Blade franchise excluded as I don't think it's part of the regular Marvel (616) Universe. (At least, among my many thousands of comics, I've never seen Blade turn up in a regular Marvel title.)

• X-Men (2000; 20th Century Fox / Marvel Studios): This straddles the line between good and merely decent. We'll call it a win, though because it was a relative commercial success and had a lot of good stuff in it. (It's also the first successful team-up/group superhero flick that I can think of.)
  

• Spider-Man (2002; Columbia Pictures / Marvel Studios): Just a great, great superhero origin movie that really sticks true to the heart of the character. There's really nothing to complain about here. (I could quibble with killing off Norman Osborn, but it set up the second film so well that I think it was the right thing to do.)
  

• Daredevil (2003; 20th Century Fox / Marvel Studios): Ben Affleck is horribly miscast in this flick. (His good buddy Matt Damon, as the Bourne movies can attest, would've been a fine choice.) It has some classic Daredevil imagery in it, but the plot just sort of meanders about and doesn't really have anything to say about anything (to the best of my recollection).
  

• X-Men 2 (2003; 20th Century Fox / Marvel Studios): This remains (barring some repeat Iron Man viewings) my favorite comic book superhero movie to date. It does lose some points for Cyclops remaining an underused character and Professor X once again being taken off the board (knocked into a coma in the first one and manipulated and abused in the second), but everything else that's there is just so note-frigg'n-perfect that in the end I don't care. I so want to see the X-Men 3 movie that director Bryan Singer set up in this film, rather than the wasted POS that we eventually got.
  

• Hulk (2003; Universal Studios / Marvel Studios): I didn't hate this as much as other people, but it was, without question, a pedestrian, meandering film. I really hope Marvel Studios manages to do better with the upcoming re-do, though the trailers haven't done much for me so far.
  

• The Punisher (2004; Artisan Entertainment / Marvel Studios): Didn't see it and the general consensus is I don't need to. A great big F for this one.
  

• Spider-Man 2 (2004; Columbia Pictures / Marvel Studios): This one may in fact be a better overall film than X-Men 2. I just like that film better for personal reasons. A crappy Peter Parker musical interlude aside (when his life is all great and shit because he's no longer Spider-Man), this is pretty much a perfect Spider-Man story. I wasn't convinced Doc Oc would make a good on-screen villain, but man was I wrong. Spidey 2 was also like X-Men 2 in that it setup up a lot of really promising plot points for a third film only to fail miserably when said film came out.
  

• Elektra (2005; 20th Century Fox / Marvel Studios): Another one I passed on after the buzz indicated this film was a waste of celluloid. I have no regrets about not seeing this.

• Fantastic Four (2005; 20th Century Fox / Marvel Studios): This one looked like a dud from the very first trailer on. And it was. A complete casting and plotting disaster. That guy from the horribly Buffy wannabe TV Show, Charmed, who played Doom should never be allowed in a big budget motion picture again. And frigg'n Jessica Alba as Sue Storm? Here's the deal guys, if your sole criteria when casting Sue Storm is just to get a hot Hollywood hottie, get one that actually fits the part, because when you try to make Alba look like her blonde-haired, blue-eyed comic counterpart, she's no longer a hottie. Frankly, she just looks creepy. Plus, not so much for her with the whole acting thing. I'll give a pass to Chris Evans as Johnny Storm. He looked totally wrong for the part -again, the Storms are Nazi poster children; blonde hair and blue eyes- but he's the only one who sold their performance. (Michael Chiklis was okay, but had almost nothing to work with.) The only perk was the final battle in the last 20 minutes of the flick when the onscreen action really came together and clicked. I had hope it would set up a good sequel..... guess we came up snake-eyes on that role. (You can tell how much I hated this film by how much I just wrote about it.)
  

• X-Men 3: The Last Stand (2006; 20th Century Fox / Marvel Studios): You had to know this film was in trouble when the directing duties went from the great Bryan Singer (even if Supes Returns was a missed-step, he's still great) to Brett "I make crappy action movies devoid of any substance" Ratner. Here's a little tip to Brett and his writers: when you decide to take on The Phoenix Saga, the most venerable story in X-Men lore - Don't. Fucking. Screw. It. Up. So what did they do? They made it a ridiculous side plot to a more ridiculous (and totally played out) let's rid the world of mutants with our magic syringes of anti-mutancy storyline. The Phoenix is a sideplot to nothing and this film was an unmitigated disaster that didn't deserve nearly the box office returns it got.
  

• Ghost Rider (2007; Columbia Pictures / Marvel Studios): At some point I'd actually like to see this to see if we're talking about a merely subpar film (Daredevil) or something truly awful (Fantastic Four). The buzz indicates the latter.
  

• Spider-Man 3 (2007; Columbia Pictures / Marvel Studios): I hate orgasm and stiffy metaphors when talking about movies and games, but damn if the trailers for this didn't give me a pole the size of the Washington Monument. The actual film managed to make that go away right quick. Truth be told, it wasn't bad on the level of X-Men 3. I didn't hate this film with the white hot passion of a thousand suns. I was just very, very disappointed in it. The action, at times, was pretty kick ass, but shoehorning three villains into a film is pretty much never a good idea. No plot point had time to breath, a problem that was made worse with the constant, "Hey, Peter's a dickhead who thinks he's bad ass now," musical interlude insanity. When I heard people say this movie's suckage was caused by director Sam Raimi getting back at the studio for not letting him make the film he wanted to make (the rap is that he was forced to include Venom and Gwen Stacy), I thought they were nuts. After I saw the film, though, I had to acknowledge they might've had a point. I don't think Raimi actually sabotaged Spider-Man 3, but I do think he mailed it in (along with the rest of the cast; who should all be replaced - even Toby Maguire).
  

• Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007; 20th Century Fox / Marvel Studios): What a complete piece of shit this film was. I actually had some hope for it because of the strong finish from the first movie and a pretty kick ass trailer, but it's just two consecutive hours of lame. When Johnny Storm asks Reed Richards if his Dodge-logo'd Fantasticar has, "got a Hemi," I just about vomited on the person in front of me. The effects were good, but when you take on the Galactus/Silver Surfer storyline from the comics, you damn well better do it right. F#@ing it up like they did in this clusterf$#% of a movie is unforgivable on a level with screwing up the Phoenix storyline in X-Men. Director Tim Story simply should not be making superhero films. He's damn near on the level of Joel "I killed the Batman franchise for a decade" Schumacher.

***Note: this list was compiled from this Wiki

Near as I can figure, prior to Iron Man, Marvel has put up an abysmal record of 4-9, in which only the first two Spider-Man and X-Men movies were really worth a damn. If you wanted to subdivide between merely subpar and god awful you might give them a record of 4-3-6, with Daredevil, Hulk and Spider-Man 3 in the not quite responsible for the fall of civilization category.

Now, here's the thing: when you look at this list, Marvel franchises have basically been critical (and mostly commercial) flops for the last four years. So how did Iron Man break the streak? My theory is that it's all about Marvel Studios. Marvel may be a bunch of shameless whores (hey, who isn't in the publishing business?), but they know their properties pretty well and they know their audience. And it seems pretty clear they didn't control the production for any of the films in the list above. Fox drove the production of the X-Men film, Sony was in the drivers seat for Spider-Man and so on. Starting with Iron Man, Marvel is producing their films themselves. Paramount is merely distributing them.

Is Marvel being in control of the production of their own properties the golden ticket? If Iron Man is any indication, it certainly could be. You still, though, have to put the right people in the right places. There's no question Marvel knocked the ball out of the park when they tapped Jon Favreau to direct Iron Man.

I think the real barometer will be the forthcoming release of The Incredible Hulk. I've never heard of the director on this one (Louis Leterrier), and the trailers have been less than inspiring, but I'm still holding out hope that this flick will be what Hulk should've been. (I can live with lackluster CG if the scripting and acting are worth a damn.) That said, even if it flops, I wouldn't write off the slate that Marvel has in store. In 2009, for the first time since 2001, Marvel has absolutely nothing coming out in the theaters, but they've got a total of four flicks scheduled for 2010 (Thor and Iron Man 2) and 2011 (Captain America and The Avengers). It could be these first two films are fliers, while they get their ducks in a row for what's coming next. The post-credits cameo from Iron Man would certainly seem to indicate as much (see my last post re: Iron Man).

New Top Ten

This week we run down the Top 10 Non-Shooter Shooters. Fun read.

Mr. Jack and Blackbeard

Fortress Ameritrash has a review of the new Blackbeard boardgame -- this is actually a remake of a 1992 game (which I own). My copy of the updated version should arrive soon. I'm excited. I love Piratey stuff. You can also play solo, which I always appreciate in a bg design.

I played a couple of games of Mr. Jack the other day with Mary and Ashley. I enjoyed it. While I really dislike it when games water down a notoriously nasty villain like Jack the Friggin Ripper, Ashley enjoyed the deduction aspect of figuring out which character was Jack.

Basically, there are eight investigators from a street cop and a gas lamp lighter to Sherlock Holmes and even Dr. Watson (why Sherlock Holmes is in a game about the Ripper...let's just move on..) One of these eight characters actually IS Jack and only the player playing Jack knows who it is and he's trying to get that character to escape off the board before the other player catches him. Each character has special movement rules, and the investigator has ways of guessing who Jack really is.

Like I said, it's fun in a light-hearted sort of way. Not the kind of game I'd play without Ashley around, but she wants to play again tonight, so I'm glad I own it. Any game that I can get her to use her noggin and not just reflexes and rapid eye movement ---I'm game.

I-Phone Picture of Sorrow

Yes, her name is Sorrow. I didn't name her but I am of the belief that you can get used to any dog name. She's Sorrow, and after 13 years it no longer sounds remotely odd (or sad). This was taken by Billy Baroo and his IPhone during Abnercon.

That Spider-man bed/chair used to belong to Ashley but Sorrow has since confiscated it.

Power Pros, Cool ; NBA 2K8 Online, Not So Much

A new MLB Power Pros is coming out for the Wii this summer. That's great news as Power Pros is a personal Top 10 baseball game. Really, really good. Let's hope they don't muck it up.

I'm playing NBA 2K8 on XBL during my lunch breaks. Billy Baroo bought the game and we've been battling. That said, a few things annoy the piss out of me.

• In a one-off match against a friend you can't change the sliders, the difficulty or the minutes? Am I missing something? You can edit this stuff in league play, but not in a basic set up?
• You can't set up a tournament with just 2 players and let them play the teams they want? Huh? Why do I need 4 players to play a tourney and 8 for a league? Limits like this suck. And are dumb.

That makes zero sense to me.

Oh, yes, the next Cracked LCD There Will Be Games column is up today. Great stuff.

Finally, I've been playing Mario Kart every night for the past 5 days. It's all about Ashley and if I didn't have a 7 year old I doubt I'd even own a Wii, but I do have a 7 year old, and it's probably the most fun console in the house because of it. Playing WITH her as she uses that little plastic wheel, hollering and laughing...awesome.

Getting Sick of the Clinton Spin Machine

Indiana, as you just might have heard, held its primary yesterday (along with North Carolina). No shock here, I cast my ballot for Obama (and gubernatorial candidate Jill Long Thompson). But after a 2% Clinton "victory," the Clinton camp is oh so excited that they won their "tie-breaker" state, managing to declare victory before there was a projected winner.

You heard it here first, Indiana is a democrat tie-breaker state. I guess that's true if you factor out... well, reality, I guess.

I just don't get it. Bad media narrative aside, this thing has been all but over since early March. The good news is that, last night, the major media networks finally got hip to the fact that Clinton has absolutely zero chance of winning this thing. But that reality hasn't managed to leak down to Clinton's surrogates. I know they have a job to do and all, but I still can't quite wrap my head around the level to which these people will sink to not only make this race sound competitive, but to make it sound like Clinton is winning. That takes a special kind of delusion. Sure, if you just look at the delegate counts it might look close. They're only a couple hundred delegates apart out of about 3,000. But with only a handful of unpledged and supers left, Clinton has zero chance of having them all break her way (which is what she needs at this point).

I particularly like hearing the Clinton people talk about how, "Obama hasn't won a significant primary in two months," nevermind how disingenuous that sentiment is. Obama cleaned house in Frebruary. There were exactly three primary dates (totaling 6 states) in March. There was one in April. A total of seven states. Obama won three of those states outright (Vermont, Wyoming and Mississippi), so I'm sure those states will be relieved to know that the Clinton campaign still doesn't think they count. And that gives Clinton credit for "winning" Texas, even though by the only barometer that matters -delegates- she actually lost Texas (99-94). But they're right, North Carolina was Obama's first win since the Ice Age.

I get that this is easy for me, being an Obama supporter sitting over in the cheap seats. And I know this is a race for the White House and all, but there is such a thing as losing with a little class and dignity, something that said bye-bye to Miss Hillary a long time ago.

The thing is, I always had a favorable view of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. BJs from not very attractive White House interns aside, I always liked Bill Clinton. There's no doubt he earned the name, "Slick Willy," but I do think that he ultimately wants to do right by this country and I think he largely did that. As for Hillary, the fact of the matter is, my biggest grudge with her at the beginning was her last name. 20-30 years of Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-? is not what our founders had in mind. This is not an aristocracy. I started to lean towards Obama very early in the primary season -hell, I started to lean Obama after his 2004 convention speech- but it wasn't until this primary season really got going that I started to outright loath the Clintons, something I didn't think was possible.

I don't like people who are willing to do or say anything to win an election. Granted, most any politician fits that bill, but some will take it a little farther than others. It was one of many reasons I didn't like Bush when he ran in 2000. It's the primary reason I have absolutely no intention of voting for McCain, whom I liked back in 2000. (For those of you still clinging to the notion that McCain is a "centrist" and Repub party "maverick," I've got a bridge to sell you.) But back to Clinton...

In the Clinton-narrative, the only states that count are the ones that vote for them. The rest, I guess, can all go out drinking and fuck themselves once they get home. The only polls that count are the cherry-picked ones that show them in the lead. Which is sort of like determining the winner of the Super Bowl by going with the team to which Vegas offers better odds. Michigan and Florida are maligned innocents that the Obama campaign is stamping down, as if Obama controls how the DNC elects to handle this clusterf#@ of a situation. Obama can't win the big swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania because, well, apparently these record democrat turnouts in the primaries will all just stay home or vote for Bush's third term, I guess. Nevermind that national polling has Obama competitive with McCain in a lot of states where Clinton is not and that the electoral math favors Obama. (There's a bunch of detailed electoral math posts at Daily Kos to this effect.) And all that is after Obama's 3-week Reverend Wright nightmare, gas tax pandering, and the other obligatory nonsense about lapel pins, elitism and bittergate. If Obama was going to sink under the weight of all this junk it would've shown up in the results last night. No such luck for Clinton.

What I really don't get, though is that two months of outright shameful campaigning has worked for her in a lot of ways. The more mud she slings, the more "reality" she invents, the better she seems to do with her core supporters, who don't seem to care that her campaign has tried to move the goal posts at every single opportunity as soon as their narrative of the day was no longer convenient for them. Nevermind the reality that the only thing Clinton really had going for going into yesterday was a media narrative that parroted her campaign's garbage for everything it was worth (and more).

Thankfully, that appears to have ended last night. I flipped back and forth a lot between CNN and MSNBC and the storylines were all the same. Without a huge win in Indiana and at least a close loss in North Carolina the door was going to shut on her chances of winning the nomination. She didn't get it and as hard as the Clinton surrogates tried last night to spin otherwise, the overarching narrative last night was that she's now fighting an impossible battle. The only question is just how far she'll go. My guess is, not much farther.

Clinton's only real hope up to this point was coup by superdelegate. And her "insurmountable" lead in that segment of a few months ago has all but disappeared. It seems like every day another superdelegate drops into Obama's column and after last night, I'm betting the superdelegate floodgates really start to open over the course of May. At the end of this month the DNC is going to meet to determine just how to handle the Michigan/Florida question. Once that is dispensed with I'm betting it's just a matter of days to the end game.

I don't know how they should handle that. You need to find a way to seat the delegates for the convention. But you can't count the primary votes in those states at face value. Even if the rules are idiotic, they're the rules everyone agreed to and Michigan and Florida broke them. (Hell, only Clinton's name was even on the Michigan ballot and 40% still voted uncommitted.) It's ludicrous to think that should change just because the clock's running down in the fourth quarter. Not that it matters. Even if you gave Clinton her 55% in Michigan and 50% in Florida it wouldn't put her back in the nomination race.

For reasons passing understanding, Clinton's going to get her big numbers in West Virginia and Kentucky over the next two weeks. That seems pretty clear at this point. But after that, the well runs dry. Though, I suppose Guam could break for her. (Woo!) But even then it won't be nearly enough without locking up nearly every uncommitted superdelegate left in the game and that's fantasy land. (Granted, the supers can change their mind at any time, but these people are not going to just hand Clinton the nomination when the pledged delegates significantly favor Obama.)

Clinton needs to use the next two weeks (and their primaries) to put on a good *clean* show for her supporters, one that focuses on McCain's shortcomings and not Obama's, and then she needs to rally her base behind Obama and bow out. It's the only thing she can still do to retain any shred of credibility in the eyes of this voter.

Hump Day Music Break

Here's a tune from The Delgados called Accused of Stealing. This is a still picture video, but a very good song.



And here's my favorite New Pornographers song, Mass Romantic...performed with The Sims 2. Ha.

iTunes Movie Purchases - No Big Whoop

There's been a lot of press the past few days about Apple putting movies up for sale on iTunes that will be day and date with their DVD releases. I've been wanting to write something up about how this is all sound and fury, signifying abso-frigg'n-lutely noth'n, but as is usually the case, someone else has done it far better than I could have.

This time it's Windows guru, Paul Thurrot. And yeah, while Thurrot is primarily a Windows guy, I think he's very fair-minded about Apple. He gives them props where they're due and calls them out when they deserve it.

I also like (sarcasm in full force) the few pundits I've seen tie this announcement into the recent narrative of Blu-ray not doing very well since the demise of HD-DVD. Check out The Digital Bits for a nice rebuttal on that front. It's the "My Two Cents" post dated 5/2. Just scroll down to the paragraph that begins with, "There are also a couple of interesting stories in the mainstream press worth commenting on."

Keep in mind this isn't to say digital downloads don't have their place and that they won't eventually become a big part of the future. But that day is not today. And it's not next month or next year. Digital downloads are in their absolute infancy here. They're a convenient, but incredibly limited way to purchase and watch movies. And storage -despite becoming incredibly cheap over the years- is still a huge issue if you plan to amass a large movie collection in HD quality.

Thanks, but when it comes to movies, in both HD or standard def, I'll stick with something on a disc. (Not to mention, for the relatively techie, there are plenty of easy-to-use tools out there that'll let you rip your DVDs to your PC and portable media player.)

More Iron Man: This Time With Spoilers

Okay, so I tried to keep my initial Iron Man impressions as spoiler-free as possible. In this post, that goes out the window, so if you don't want to know stuff, abandon this post with all due haste. This is also going to be largely negative, as I'm focusing on the parts of the film that I think hold it back from being a perfect adaptation. Don't take that to mean I think it wasn't an awesome movie, because it really was.

If you hadn't guessed, by the end of the movie Obadiah Stane goes from trusted confidant to arch nemesis. That's fine. I don't really remember how it happens in the funny books, but I'm sure it's a bit different. (I don't think the two characters were ever friends.) Doesn't matter, it's a great adaptation for the film. That said, they jammed into the end of the film, what I think they should've saved for a sequel. Stane should have been the shadowy menace throughout the entire film. The guy whose true, sinister nature isn't fully revealed to the audience (and to Tony) until damn near the very end. Use the sequel for Stane to develop and learn to use his own suit of armor, where you could really sell it as plausible and really take your time in developing a knock-down drag out fight that isn't forcibly hamstrung by Tony's (equally lame) dead battery problem. Beside, there was plenty of on-screen action for Iron Man just in Tony Stark's core mission to destroy the Stark Industries weaponry that had fallen into the hands of terrorists. The film didn't need a direct arch-nemesis.

I also think it was a bad idea to "reveal" that Stane was behind Tony's terrorist abduction, at the beginning. Sure, have him provide the terrorists with Stark Enterprises weapons and all that. But at the start of the film the terrorists let Stark live so that he can build them his new missile prototype. Yet, after his escape a few scenes later, the terrorist's have gotten their hands on the Stark Industries version of the same missile via Stane. If it was so easy to get one that way, why blackmail Stark for three months to get him to build one? Personally, I think it would've been better if Stane just provided the standard weapons and then used Stark's change of heart upon returning to the States to usurp control of Stark Enterprises from him. (Again, setting up the inevitable sequel.)

Then there's the computer AI Tony has in his lab that helps him build his Iron Man suit. I'm fine with him having an uber-advanced setup for his home/lab, but the "Jarvis" AI (a nod to the Avengers' butler?) bordered on sentient, which is a bit much.

Beyond those nits, Iron Man was just about the perfect comic book movie so there's not much more to dissect... except for the Sam Jackson as Nick Fury, Director of SHIELD cameo after the credits. I've seen some say it was lame, but I thought it was cool as hell. Sam Jackson was born to play Nick Fury. Hell, the Nick Fury of Marvel's "Ultimates" series is based on the Sam Jackson = Bad Ass persona. And for him to reference an, "Avengers Initiative," was just sixty different shades of awesome.

That said, you have to wonder how Marvel is going to pull an Avengers flick out of their hat. I mean any Avengers movie has to have Iron Man and Captain America in it, which means they absolutely have to get a Captain America movie out first; that is, unless his origin is going to be the plot focal point for an Avengers movie (which I think would be a mistake).

My fear is that Marvel shoots for an Avengers lineup that is inline with the "New Avengers" comic, which means mining both Wolverine and Spider-Man for the lineup, possibly the Hulk, if they're desperate. It would explain why Marvel is so hell-bent on relaunching a Hulk movie franchise despite biting it hard on Ang Lee's Hulk movie. And I'm really not down with those characters on the Avengers roster. (Okay, as a movie it would be a first of its kind with a shit ton of potential. I'm just sour because in the comics world Marvel has hopelessly overexposed Wolverine and have completely ruined Spider-Man. EiC Joe Quesada and his whole "One More Day" storyline should be banished to the seventh concentric circle of Hell.) I suppose they could shoot for Daredevil (with someone other than Affleck), but to the best of my recollection, old hornhead has never been an Avenger in the comics.

Anyway, it could be done within the framework of the existing Marvel movie franchises, and done very cool, but I'd like to see more a more traditional Avengers lineup even if it would be a tougher sell to a movie going public that has largely never read an Avengers comic book.

...

Wow. I think this post, if you're keeping score at home, just turned into a giant geekgasm.

Iron Man Review: The Spoiler Free Version

I took Friday afternoon off of work so I could go see Iron Man. The buzz on this flick is pretty much spot on. It's an excellent movie. It'll take time to put it into objective context, but on first impression, it's as good as the first two Spider-Man movies and X-Men 2. If you're on the fence don't expect to be let down.

The movie is incredibly well-casted. Robert Downey Jr. was born to play Tony Stark and he absolutely nails the role. I really look forward to seeing where they take the character in future movies. Jeff "The Dude" Daniels, did a surprisingly good job Stark Enterprises money man, Obidiah Stane. I didn't think the role seemed to be a good fit for a guy whose best (and I mean that sincerely) work was as the laziest man in all of Los Angeles ("Careful, man, there's a beverage here!"), but damn if he didn't sell that part... at least until the film starts to derail in the last half hour or so.

The movie actually reminds me a bit of Batman Begins, which was an unbelievably good -even perfect- flick until you get to the final bit of plotting. In Batman Begins it was the dastardly Water Tower of Doom, which struck me as contrived and not remotely believable, even if the action was frigg'n sweet. In Iron Man a lot of the film is dedicated to Tony Stark building, testing and learning to use his armor. As a viewer you're making the conceit that all of this is really possible, but you're doing so with the film making damn clear that this is not an overnight process. What Tony Stark is doing is hard. So, when the ultimate villain of the piece seems to procure and master his suit at the drop of a pin it strains all credibility. The action in this part of the film is still great, but any suspension of disbelief goes right out the window, along with Gwyneth Paltrow's performance as Tony Stark uber-secretary, Pepper Potts. Paltrow, like the film, is great until the end, where she's in a ton of effects-heavy scenes and she's completely unable to sell it.

All that said, though, the negatives don't come close to dragging down all the fantastic highs. As mentioned, Downey Jr. is Tony Stark from beginning to end. There's not nearly as much Iron Man in the film as I'd of liked to see, but the effects totally sell it. The first time Stark flies the armor out of his lab and really learns to fly it... [shudder] even as a kid I've never wanted to *be* Iron Man more than in those first scenes of flight. I mean Stark isn't Superman. He's just a regular guy and suddenly he's f'n flying around LA (?); it's pure, liquid joy. Likewise, they do an excellent job of making the Iron Man suit believable, which outside of comic books, is a pretty tough sell.

Finally, if you are at all a fan of the core Marvel books, stick around past the end credits. I won't spoil it here, but there's a cameo in there that made me want to giggle like a school girl. If you're not a comic book reader or if you don't like Marvel's stuff, however, the scene probably won't do much for you. Iron Man is just about as good as a superhero comic book adaptation can get.

Hammer Time, The Show Rosters, and NCAA 09

A few links on this rainy Derby day. My report on the recent Warhammer Online Conference Call is live at Crispy Gamer. Transcribing this was a bitch. Tony Mitera covered this for GameShark and his report will be up Monday. I can't wait to play this game. I'm going to jump into Age of Conan later this month but Warhammer Online is the game I want to see the most -- well, that and Alone in the Dark.

Michael Barnes did a great Risk Black Ops Q&A for his Thursday Cracked LCD column.

The Aub has released his player edit roster that take Knight's additions and then tweaks several player ratings. I have not used these but I plan on doing so this week and should finally start my Reds franchise.

There's two files on this...one is from February 5th; I have absolutely no idea what it is. If someone wants to enlighten me (I'm guessing its last year's rosters), they can. The other file may be of a bit more importance. Grab them here.

I would link some of the NCAA 09 previews floating about but it's an utter waste of time. Previewing these mass market sports games is meaningless unless the previewers gets to sit down and play the games for a good while. Everything else is New Feature Regurgitation which we can do from reading the press materials.

I will quote what OS did from the 1UP Preview:

"The biggest of these little things is the way QB composure factors into the game. If you're rattled by 80,000 roaring haters while under center, you won't be able to accurately see the routes your receivers will run. The routes will appear like distorted sine waves on the screen."

Which makes sense. I mean that's exactly what happens when the crowd gets to a QB.. The QUARTERBACK forgets the play. There's also some bizarro pop quiz thing about regaining composure. If this sounds sort of gimmicky, well, yeah...it does, doesn't it?

The thing about NCAA 09 that most intrigues me is the 12 player Online Dynasty Mode. FINALLY -- we can play against buddies in a Dynasty format, recruiting against one another. If that works, NCAA 09 will be a great success. I have given up all hope of the AI playing up to snuff in this series. I have been excited only to be brought back to reality every year since the 2004 version so I am officially in NCAA Football Missouri Mode. SHOW ME.

Still an online Dynasty with Todd and Billy Baroo and Dave...I'm in.

Knight's Roster Set #1

The thread on OS is here.

The link to the rosters is here.

The thread that talks about installing these is here.

The info is...below:

This is the link for the Full Minors set for MLB The Show'08.

It has over 1,000 created players that represent the minor leaguers and top prospects for every organization.

If you've read the thread...you know about the limitations of the amount of editable players...so just over a dozen teams have ONE fake player...all LF. You'll know them when you see them. I left one B rated position player on the FA list...this is for you to make a player for your team to replace that fake player(if you team has one) ...his last name is....B!

Couple of things....I didn't get to fully check on the NL West...AL East or Central...so please go over it and make changes if you feel the need. Also...these are set for opening day.....you should get the Becketts/Pettites/Chavez' up to the MLB in your franchise soon enough...but if you don't like seeing Pettite start on the "DL" move him beforehand.

Forget about the amount of guys to thank....it's immense...however I would like to thank them all for TREMENDOUS work and effort...THANK YOU!

If you use these be sure to say thanks in that OS thread. This is a CRAZY amount of work.

Note -- this does not incldue Aub's attribute edits, but it should be good to go if you don't want to use those.

The GTA IV Post

I have absolutely no interest in Grand Theft Auto IV whatsoever.

Hump Day + 1 Music Break

Neil Young remains one of my favorite musicians. This is from 1971 on the BBC, and it's absolutely brilliant.




Here's another clip of the Heartless Bastards, doing a live version of "Grey." Pretty cool.