OUYA: A Bold New Direction for Videogames?

When it comes to creativity and innovation, the videogame industry is on life support. I've wrote about this a bit earlier in the month in regards to Nintendo and its new console the Wii U. The only innovation we see in videogames is the innovation in marketing and the way the Big Three (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) turn their consumers into fanboys and defenders of their product. If you really think about this generation of videogame consoles, can you honestly name one unique game that couldn't of existed on the prior consoles? 

While graphics have improved, gamers are still subjected to a slew of sequels, remakes, and rehashes instead of genuinely new games. The industry doesn't want to spend the money to make genuinely new games so they live off gimmicks, in-game purchases, downloadable content, pre-order content, trophies/achievements, and really anyway to get you to spend your money in their digital stores.

On the other side of all this bullshit is the new console announced a few weeks ago called the “OUYA.” It's a small project based on the Android operating system with a focus on being cheap, open source, and bringing free-to-play and inexpensive games to your HD TV. It's going to debut next March for 99$, and only after a few weeks, some of the bigger game developers have already announced they'll be releasing their Android based games for it.

OUYA mon!

The best part of the OUYA is the idea of a collaborative console. The entire thing is open source, meaning anyone can change, alter, or do anything they want to their OUYA without voiding an agreement or warranty. This means you actually own the product you buy and can do with it how you please, which is something that drives me crazy about the current consoles. (Seriously, why doesn't my Wii play DVD movies when the games are on DVDs and why can't I legally make it do so myself?) The reason why our phones are completely awesome these days is because of the collaborative and open source nature of their development and the OUYA is bringing this idea to console gaming. It's the games without all the strings attached that come with the modern consoles. 

Google Images

I've got no strings so I have fun. I'm not tied up to anyone. They've got strings but you can see there are no strings on me!

So far, the OUYA has been an internet success and has raised a crap load of money. They have over 45,000 backers on Kickstarter but I worry about this console breaking into the industry because of the negativity that surrounds anything different. Consumers for some reason defend the Big Three with a fervor and passion I will never be able to comprehend. I doubt this console will attract the Call of Duty, Madden, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto etc. gamers and the OUYA has already generated a lot of negativity because of this. People don't want innovation or real freedom with their consoles or games, (or anything really) they want to play the same thing they played before with a shiny coat of paint.

The current game industry has carefully created this fanboy culture and it acts as a defense mechanism against anything trying to enter the gaming market. These consumers defend their gaming “brand” and for some reason they don't see that these companies are getting filthy rich off of business practices that are questionably ethical at best. The games could and should be cheaper, and we deserve to be treated like the loyal customers we are. What we have right now is an industry that knows they have loyal customers just because people like videogames, so they do whatever despicable thing that they can think of to make more money. It isn't right, and I for one do not like feeling like a cash cow. Hopefully there are more things like the OUYA that look to change this in the future. 

In general there is this public conception that if something is cheaper or free that it is somehow inferior. The people who are currently supporting the OUYA may not know if it's going to be successful commercially and they probably don't care. Just because something sells does not mean it is actually good. I bet a lot of OUYA supporters are just tired of the the downright awful practices of the current videogame industry and see the OUYA as a vehicle for changing it. I know I do.

How much is Josh Beckett worth to the Red Sox?

According to multiple sources the Red Sox are looking to dump Josh Beckett before the trade deadline on Tuesday. How much have things changed for Beckett in Boston that the Red Sox are just looking to dump Beckett and his remaining 35 million dollars? Beckett is not having a great year  - 4.57 ERA, 1.27 WHIP,  6.81 K/9,  .9 WAR - but he is still an above average pitcher. While his numbers are well below his career averages, Beckett’s WAR still remains the best among the Red Sox starting pitchers.

I rarely buy into baseball clubhouse stability and moods, but how toxic is Josh Beckett to the Red Sox’s clubhouse if they’re going to dump their highest WAR starting pitcher? This is a team 23^rd in ERA and 25^th in quality starts and they’re going to dump their most productive pitcher this season to this point? That says something about where the relationship between Josh Beckett and the Red Sox management is right now.

I’ve been saying all along that I don’t understand what the point of trading Beckett or Lester is right now. Even through their struggles I have more faith in them bouncing back than calling up some random farm pitcher to replace them. Especially in Lester’s case, we all know he is not a 5.47 ERA and -.8 WAR pitcher. Beckett on the other hand is now 32, and been on the decline for a few years now. I’m not sure what he has left in the tank. Despite saying that, unless Beckett is a complete and total detriment to everyone around him, I don’t see the point of trading him while his value is this low.

It is hard to imagine a scenario where the Red Sox actually get a team to give them anyone of value for Beckett. The Red Sox will probably be forced to eat a lot of the money they owe him, similarly to what the Yankees decided to do with A.J. Burnett last offseason with the Pirates. After the struggles A.J. Burnett had the last few season with the Yankees did you ever expect him and Josh Beckett to have the same type of career arc?

Google Images

This earned Beckett an overpriced contract extension

This doesn’t seem like something the Red Sox should do unless they can get someone to outright take the rest of Beckett’s deal. If I’m a GM of a contending team right now I am not trading for a guy on the downside of his career who the team is dumping because he’s a problem in the clubhouse. The Red Sox are probably just testing out the market right now in case there’s a GM who still believes Beckett could be their 2-3 starter in the playoffs, but I can’t see there being anyone who still thinks that.

So the question is, how much is Josh Beckett worth to the Red Sox? Do they want to pay a fraction of what they owe him to pitch somewhere else or do they keep him and continue to overpay him? If they are trying to contend this year, trading away their top WAR starting pitcher while having absolutely no pitching depth, doesn’t seem like a great way to do it. Things have clearly reached a point where the Red Sox have had enough of Beckett, so how does he react the rest of the year if they don’t move him? The Red Sox now might just have to trade him at this point even if it isn’t what’s best for their contending chances.

For a team with the kind of talent that the Red Sox have, the past 3 years have been just been one ridiculous situation after another. Now there’s this situation where if they trade Beckett away they’ll be trading away their best pitcher and if they don’t, they can’t move on from his clubhouse issues. If they trade him it’ll also be sending a white flag to the rest of the team that they're not trying to compete this year. At this point I think Red Sox fans just want him out of town and to be done with him. I for one can’t blame them. 

The Ichiro Star Treatment

The first thing I worried about when the Yankees traded for Ichiro Suzuki was that his name and ego would get in the way of playing him rationally. These worries were calmed when the trade details were released showing that the Yankees indeed told Ichiro that he will bat down in the line up and may not play against lefties once in a while. It seemed like pretty risk free way of trying to “catch lightning in a bottle” for a couple months this summer. Also, the less I have to watch Raul Ibanez attempt to play left field the better.

I didn’t expect Ichiro to be treated like a star, mainly because Ichiro isn’t anywhere near a star anymore. His .261 AVG – .289 OBP - .642 OPS is the worst stat line of anyone on the Yankees not named Chris Stewart. (And Chris Stewart is one of the worst hitters I’ve ever seen) It isn’t just this year that Ichiro has struggled either, since the beginning of 2011 Ichiro has been the worst hitting outfielder in all of Major League Baseball.

Google Images

This is not the "star" Ichiro

Due to this, it’s hard to be too high on this trade because the Yankees absolutely did not land a star player. This is not like when they traded for Bobby Abreu in 2006. I do however, remain optimistic, because of the stories that Ichiro has been just going through the motions in Seattle and that his numbers hitting away from Seattle are significantly better. It would seem like you could do a lot worse than Ichiro being your number 8 or 9 hitter.

Unfortunately for this scenario, Alex Rodriguez had to go and break his hand giving the Joe Girardi the apparent freedom to switch around the order. This had Ichiro leading off for no apparent reason on Wednesday. As I stated before, Ichiro has been the worst hitting outfielder in baseball the past two years, he should in no capacity be leading off for the New York Yankees.

Derek Jeter is batting .311 with a .358 OBP and has been doing a great job leading off all year. Why change that? He’s also a double play machine so any chance you have for him to not hit with a runner on 1^st base is a plus. I cant understand the logic of giving Ichiro more at bats than anyone on the team not named Chris Stewart, Jayson Nix, or the recently recalled Ramiro Pena.

Maybe the Yankees will use their better judgment and not bat Ichiro at lead off but this is exactly what I worried about when the Yankees acquired him. There is no rational reason to bat this guy at lead off outside of his star power. Especially when it means you’re going to drop Curtis Granderson in the order and put Derek Jeter into a situation where he can hit into more double plays.

The Yankees begin a series with the Red Sox tonight in the Bronx and the game is on ESPN. I’m sure this means that we’ll be focusing a lot on Ichiro and talking about how amazing of a hitter this guy is despite the fact that he’s been terrible. I don’t exactly care if Ichiro didn’t want to play in Seattle or didn’t like hitting there, he’s not a star and he shouldn’t be a focal part of this Yankee team loaded with them.

How does Wallace Matthews still have a job?

I think a Fire Joe Morgan type website needs to be started to get Wallace Matthews to stop writing for ESPN New York. Time after time he writes the most sensational and illogical articles. He’s the guy who thought Alex Rodriguez should be traded for pitching before his 2007 MVP season because he wasn’t clutch and the one who completely condemned him and asserted he’d be facing a suspension based on an untrue tabloid story about A-Rod playing poker. It's just unbelievable that he writes about baseball professionally. Today he published “Rivalry? Red Sox haven't earned one,” asserting that the Yankees and Red Sox do not have a rivalry this year.

The Yankees-Red Sox rivalry ain't what it used to be, and there's a very simple reason.

In order for a matchup of two teams to truly be called a rivalry, the teams don't necessarily have to be good. But they must be competitive, at least against each other.

Right now, the Boston Red Sox are neither good nor competitive.

The Red Sox are 1 game under 500 and have a +34 run differential. I’ve stated it before, the Red Sox are not a bad team. They have just had injuries and bad luck, it happens. I don’t understand how you could call this team not competitive, because they’re certainly competitive. Who cares if they have a bad record against the Yankees this year? Newsflash, lots of teams have a bad record against the Yankees this year. 

For the moment at least, the Yankees aren't very good either, having lost five of seven games on their just-concluded West Coast trip, but with nearly 100 games of the regular season already in the books, we can draw one conclusion rather safely: They are better than the Red Sox. A lot better.

No shit, they’re up 10.5 games on the Red Sox. It doesn’t mean the rivalry is dead because that’s not how rivalries work. The Yankees-Red Sox rivalry is probably the oldest and most historic rivalry in sports. It doesn’t just go away because one team has a mediocre year.

It was 20 days ago, just before the All-Star break, when I wrote a column raising the very real possibility the Yankees could sweep the Red Sox at Fenway and put an end to the charade that Boston could still be a force in the AL East this season.

And they came pretty darned close, winning three out of four and heading into the break 9 1/2 games ahead of their erstwhile rivals.

The only thing that has changed over those three weeks is that now, even though the Yankees have played poorly the past week, the Red Sox are 10 1/2 games back.

I know I read that article. I almost did the same thing I did with this article because it's just as stupid. The Yankees since then have played 1 game better than the Red Sox. This means the rivalry is over. I get it.

There was a time was when you could disregard numbers like those in July -- remember back to 2009, when the Yankees started out 0-8 against the Red Sox and wound up winning the World Series? -- but not this year.

Waiting for the Red Sox to hit that hot streak is like waiting for Alex Rodriguez to start hitting like it's 2007 again. Fanciful, unrealistic notions rooted in notstalgia, not reality.

Why not? Isn’t that exactly why you should disregard those numbers? Didn’t the Red Sox start off the season horribly and go on a hot streak just to get where they are? I don’t think we’ve waited all season for the Red Sox to go on a hot streak.

You really just had to somehow take a shot at Alex Rodriguez didn’t you? Just because you hate him doesn’t mean you have to insult the player all the time. You’re the one who wanted the Yankees to trade A-Rod before the 2007 season, so you’re not biased at all. He only won MVP that year but I would’ve much rather had some help in the bullpen.

The truth is, the Red Sox are doormats this year, and their only function this weekend at Yankee Stadium is to serve as slump-busters for the home team.

The difference between what the 2009 Yankees were able to do and what the Red Sox are unlikely to do is this: The 2009 Yankees were bad against Boston and good against virtually everyone else, and even after having lost those eight in a row, they were still just two games behind, waiting to strike like Forego stalking a leisurely pace.

The Red Sox are not doormats this year! You know who are doormats? The Kansas City Royals. Why do you keep saying this when you have to know it’s not true?

We know the Red Sox have talent. They very well could win the series this weekend. Certainly crazier things have happened. I also bet most of your readership remembers the racehorse Forego from 1973. Quite the spot on reference you’ve made there Mr. Matthews.

The 2012 Red Sox have been bad against just about everyone, and while they can hold out hope of at least one postseason game due to the new double wild-card format, any real optimism about making a postseason run has to fall into the realm of fantasy.

Incredible as it may seem, I am told Red Sox fans don't know which to hate more this season, their own team or its manager, Bobby Valentine. In that hatefest, the Yankees are a distant third.

The Red Sox are 1-5 against the Yankees this year. You know that means they’ve actually won more games against the rest of the league than they’ve lost. So apparently having a winning record against the rest of the league means they’ve been bad against just about everyone? This is just an untrue statement.

As for the second paragraph, you’re a freaking journalist. Who have you been talking to? Isn’t it kind of your job to tell us? Red Sox fans might not be overly optimistic about their team but I’m sure they hate the Yankees more.

And there's no reason to believe the Red Sox can reverse their fortunes this weekend in the Bronx. The pitching matchups -- Phil Hughes vs. Aaron Cook, CC Sabathia vs. Jon Lester and Hiroki Kuroda vs. Felix Doubront -- all favor the Yankees.

Cook has faced the Yankees once, two years ago as a Colorado Rockie, and got lit up for six runs in 5 2/3 innings. Lester, who has had a dreadful season (5-8, 5.46), couldn't get out of the fifth inning when he faced the Yankees in that final series before the break.

And while Doubront pitched well against the Yankees in their first meeting in April -- his six-inning, one-run performance turned out to be a footnote to the Yankees' 15-9 comeback win at Fenway, a game that turned out to be symbolic of Boston's entire season -- the Yankees showed signs of decoding his mysteries on July 7, getting home runs from Mark Teixeira and Andruw Jones.

So you would be totally shocked if Phil Hughes got bombed or gave up a big home run to David Ortiz? Or if Jon Lester came out and pitched a good game? God knows he’s due. Nothing is predetermined and while the Yankees do have a better team, you never know what’s going to happen. The Red Sox are not a terrible team like you think they are, they’re capable of winning a couple of games.

Only a poor performance out of the bullpen in that game by the since-departed Cory Wade stood between the Yankees and what would have been a backbreaking four-game sweep that weekend.

The Sox played without Jacoby Ellsbury, Dustin Pedroia and Carl Crawford that weekend, but they have returned to the lineup and it hasn't made any difference -- Boston is 6-7 since the break and comes to New York a last-place team with a record a game below mediocrity at 49-50.

At their worst the Red Sox are around a .500 team. Again, why does this make them so terrible? I don’t get it. They have a bunch of players who just came back into the line up so that’s looking good right? 13 games going 6-7 happens all the time in baseball. Remember how you said earlier the Yankees are also struggling right now? It happens.

The division race is largely over -- even if the Yankees were to play .500 ball the rest of the way and finish at 91-71, a highly unlikely outcome, the Red Sox would have to play .667 ball (42-21) just to tie -- and the only carrot left for them seems to be finishing as the fifth-best team in the AL, also known as the second wild card.

But to this point the Red Sox have not shown the character to overcome their considerable injuries the way the Yankees, equally hard-hit, have, nor has their starting pitching staff shown itself to be anything but highly overrated.

So what if the division race is almost over? You can’t go and say this team is a doormat and then say they have a shot at the playoffs. What in the world are you trying to tell us in this article? They’ve underperformed we get it. They’re still not a terrible team though. Why exactly is the historic rivalry not a rivalry this year? What if the Red Sox do grab that Wild Card spot, win the game and then play the Yankees in the playoffs? Would the rivalry still be dead?

The Yankees are far from healthy -- A-Rod's broken hand Tuesday night added to an injured list that includes Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, Brett Gardner, Joba Chamberlain and Michael Pineda -- but they have demonstrated an indisputable ability to rise above adversity, plus a depth in both bench players and pitchers that has allowed them to thrive under conditions in which other teams -- hint, hint -- have folded up.

Exactly, the Yankees have a ton of injuries but they’re a deeper and better team than the Red Sox. Stating the same thing over and over again does not make your main thesis true when it doesn’t support your claim. I also hate these stupid character arguments. Like the Yankees players have more character and want to win more than the Red Sox players. Give me a break.

In past seasons, a Yankees-Red Sox series could transcend the woes of either or both of the teams involved, simply through pride, ability and the force of the rivalry itself.

But not this year.

In 2012, the Yankees and Red Sox are no longer rivals.

In fact, one of them is a doormat.

They should just rename the Red Sox the Doormats. They're terrible, the least characterful, near .500 team that's ever happened. How dare we even call this a rivalry anymore? 

Joking aside, Wallace Matthews actually believes this year that the Yankees and Red Sox are no longer rivals because in some perverted universe he thinks a very competitive, playoff contending Red Sox team, are doormats?  On what planet does that article make any logical sense to write? Why is it needed?

I’m sure Yankee Stadium will be close to sold out this weekend and I’d like to see you tell those near 50,000 fans that there’s no rivalry this year. This is a crazy article and you are a terrible and misinformed sports writer.

4 Absurdly Overrated Videogames

Often we confuse something being critically acclaimed as actually being good. Just because something gets decent reviews doesn't mean it's actually good, especially with videogames. Most of the time these reviews are based on only playing the game for a select amount of hours. Here are some of the most overrated videogames.

Grand Theft Auto 4 – GTA 4 is the highest rated game on metacritic (a site that compiles reviews from all over) and is one of the best-received games of all time. I remember going down to Gamestop with my college friends at midnight and purchasing it when it came out only for us to be like, “ehh…this is okay.” I’ve been absolutely puzzled by this games critical acclaim ever sense.

The main “beef” I have with GTA 4 is that it added “realism” to the franchise. Apparently realism means cars handling like big roller skates, being pulled over for driving drunk, and having to hang out with your virtual friends in the game. For a game that many critics called “perfect” I found myself annoyed at these things and I also found the story to be pretty mediocre.

I think in a game about being a maniac Russian immigrant set lose on a fictional New York City the last thing I’d want to happen is to be pulled over for drunk driving. Especially since the mechanic is the minute you drink and get even near a police car they immediately know you’re driving drunk and chase after you like you just beat an innocent bystander with a baseball bat. Did the New York County Sheriffs Sponsor this game or something? Drive drunk and they will know!

Even worse is when you progress through the game you start to make friends and those friends want you to pick them up and take them to do stupid things in the game. Seriously, the amount of time I wasted picking someone up, taking them to play pool, darts, get drinks, and then dropping them off is absurdly stupid. I’m playing a videogame if I wanted to be hanging out with my friends, I’d go hang out with my friends. It’d be one thing if this social mechanic isn’t an absolute bore to deal with but it’s just a total waste of time.

Google Images

"You want to hang out, again? We just played darts yesterday, asshole"

Also, the graphics were made out to be some of the most amazing graphics you’ll ever see. However, everything just kind of had a bland look to it with grey and brown overtones. If that’s what realistic graphics mean then I will take anything else. There were also tons of graphical glitches and people popping in and out of building and cars.

It’s not that GTA 4 is not a very good game, because it is. It’s just certainly not a masterpiece. It is very derivative of the previous GTA’s and really not much in the game made ever me think, “Wow, I’m playing the best game ever made.” It’s not the best game ever made and you’re a fool if you think that.

Diablo III – This is one of the most controversial videogames ever released and let me save you some time, it sucked. If Diablo III was not a Blizzard game, and was not called Diablo, it would’ve received atrocious reviews. It’s just a crappy game anyway you cut it.

The game is comprised of 4 Acts and only the 1^st of these Acts isn’t a completely rushed disaster. The story of the game not only ruins pretty much every character they established in the 1^st and 2^nd Diablo, but is painfully stupid and short. If you are someone who plays through games quickly you’ll beat Diablo in about 12 hours. This is a game that’s been talked about for over 10 years and you just beat it in 12 hours, way to go Blizzard.

“That’s how the game’s designed though, you’re supposed to play through it on all the difficultly levels to get better loot,” cry all the blind Blizzard supporters. That’s just painfully stupid and there is simply no excuse whatsoever for a game to have a really crappy story. If they wanted the player to play through the game a bunch of times they should’ve made the story tolerable or at least made the player be able to automatically skip the cut scenes.

I managed to play through three of the four difficulty levels in the game with my Barbarian named Dolph Lundgren. At the end of the “Hell” difficulty Dolph was level 60 and ready to face the toughest difficulty level, Inferno. Only Blizzard designed the game so that right around this time good loot just stops dropping. I couldn’t even get half way through Act I on the toughest difficulty because I didn’t have good enough gear to do so.

They did this in order to make more money off a rushed completely crappy game to begin with. They wanted me to grind gold for hours off monsters in order to buy good gear at the Auction House. Who the hell finds that fun? What a freaking waste of time. I could opt to use my real money to buy items at the Auction House as well, but that’s just disgusting.

This is not to mention that the Diablo III servers are pieces of freaking crap. The game seemed to never work when I wanted it to work and I felt like I was back on my Packard Bell in the 90’s when it was a serious challenge to get games to work. They knew how many people were going to try to play this game and completely failed to provide enough server space for people to play it. Again, they were thinking about profits and not actually providing a great game for people to play.

Google Images

Sorry, you cant play because we didn't spend enough money for servers

A cash grab is the only way to describe Diablo III. It’s a stripped down and rushed version of the previous game that Blizzard wants you to pump more money into than you’ve already paid. Diablo III not only doesn’t deserve the praise it’s received, it deserves to have some sort of lawsuit pressed against the company who created it.

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword – Calling this game overrated will probably cause some Nintendo fan to sneak into my apartment and attempt to murder me. Unfortunately, despite getting fantastic reviews across the board, Skyward Sword is just kind of a crappy game. It’s the same Zelda formula you’ve played for 10 years; meaning the story is painfully stupid, the characters are painfully annoying, and it doesn’t have voice acting. Oh, and motion controls are still a really bad idea.

Seriously, someone has to explain how anyone could call this game a “masterpiece.” Even when it’s evaluated in some sort of Zelda only vacuum it’s easily the worst one. I happened to play this game a few weeks before it came out because of a magic power I possess called the Internet, and when the perfect score reviews started rolling out my jaw dropped. Really, what game were they playing?

The motion controls are certainly the best in any Wii game I’ve played but that doesn’t mean they don’t completely suck and add nothing to the game at all. Pretty much every single thing you fight in the game requires you to swing the Wii-Mote in a certain direction and that almost never seems to work correctly. You travel to each of the three worlds (only three, I know right?) by flying on this big stupid bird thing that requires you to flap the Wii-Mote like an idiot. It not only is completely unnecessary but it also hurts your arm to do.

Google Images

Seriously, what the fuck is that thing?

I don’t think I really need to describe much of this game to you because you’ve probably played it before if you’ve played any Zelda ever. There’s still no voice acting for no apparent reason and the story basically consists of Link following Zelda around and proving he can fight this stupid guy that’s kidnapped her. At least this one set up some kind of relationship between Link and Zelda and didn’t just make you assume you have to save her because that’s just what you do in these games.

Like I said, even for a Zelda game this is a pretty crappy game. If you are absolutely in love with Zelda games you will probably love this game to. It doesn’t take away from the fact that by all the standards that we should be using to judge videogames at this point in time, it sucks.

Gears of War – One of my good friends convinced me to buy this along with my Xbox 360 after my freshman year of college. When I turned it on I didn’t understand the appeal of it and I still don’t understand the appeal of it. I have to talk about this one because after being so appalled by it I didn’t bother to buy the sequels assuming they’re more of the same. (I’d be totally shocked if they weren’t)

The best way to describe this critically acclaimed game is “grey.” Everything in this game is grey with brown smeared in it. Somehow these are perceived as some of the best graphics ever known to man but to me, they were dreadfully depressing. Who wants to run around in this grey world? I’m from upstate New York, most of my existence has been living in a grey world.

IGN

Is there anything in this picture that's not a combination of grey and brown?

This is another game with super “realistic” graphics that didn’t impress me at all. I get that it’s post apocalyptic game but really this style of graphics just caused everything to look the same. I didn’t even know whom I was supposed to be shooting at half the time, unless I was playing it online.

Gears of War also has to be blamed for every single game becoming a cover shooter. Hell, even Mass Effect became a cover shooter instead of an RPG. At least Mass Effect did it well as opposed to Gears of War where your back is like magnet just seeking out the next half sized wall. Seriously, in what world are there just perfect cover sized walls just sitting everywhere? If the zombie apocalypse occurs does that also mean that all our walls are going to suddenly crumble in half so we can take appropriate cover?

My friends insisted that the multiplayer is the reason to buy Gears of War though. It had to be because it couldn’t be the testosterone infused story that I played for about 3 hours before I realized I needed to slam down 8 Bud Lights to get in the right mental state to play it. I’m typically pretty good at games like this but not only was I terrible at Gears of War there was this stupid mechanic that made everyone who wasn’t the host of the game lag. This caused 1 person on the 4v4 matches to basically just have super powers because of his greater Internet connection. This was not my idea of fun and while I don’t really love shooter games, Halo and Call of Duty blow this out of the water.

This is one of the games people buy Xbox 360’s for and I can’t imagine them not being disappointed. Gears of War and both its sequels received great reviews and if they all sucked as bad as the first one, this is completely unwarranted. I haven’t heard very good things and that’s from people who really enjoy the series.

What are the 76ers doing?

The Philadelphia 76ers have had an absolutely atrocious offseason. I cannot for the life of me figure out exactly their plan is. They decided to use their amnesty clause on the last year of Elton Brand’s stupidly huge contract they gave him to save themselves 18 million towards building their team this year. They then proceeded to sign Kwame Brown (2 years, 6 million) and Nick Young, (1 year, 6 million) and resign Lavoy Allen (2 years, 6 million) Spencer Hawes (2 years, 13 million) and Thaddeus Young (5 years, 42 million). They also acquired Dorrell Wright from Golden State via a trade as well as drafting wingman Moe Harkless and power forward Arnett Moultrie in the 1st round. What exactly is the plan here Philadelphia?

Why amnesty Brand in the last year of his stupid contract? Why not amnesty him immediately last year if they were going to amnesty him at all? They basically just ate his 18 million dollars remaining on his deal when surely they could’ve used his expiring contract to bring back a package more valuable than Kwame Brown and Nick Young combined right? Hell, isn’t he better than Kwame Brown and Nick Young even in his current dilapidated state?

I just can’t wrap my head around what exactly this team is doing. Are they trying to save cap space or are they trying to compete for a title? Right now it seems like they’re doing a combination of both and that just doesn’t work in the NBA. They signed Nick Young and just let Lou Williams walk for a 3 year 15 million dollar deal, when Williams’ was probably their most productive player last year. Nick Young is terrible, have you watched him play? (Lou Williams had a 20.22 PER compared to Nick Young’s 12.93)

Google Images

Nick Young has swag...too bad he sucks at playing basketball

Right now they have Andre Iguodala, Moe Harkless, Thaddeus Young, Nick Young, and Dorrell Wright as their wingmen. They all fill the same role on a team and you can even make a case that Evan Turner belongs in this group too. The only way any of this possibly makes sense is if they plan on unloading Andre Iguodala for some expiring contracts and really blowing the whole thing up. Iguodala while a productive player is signed through next year for around 15 million this year and 16 million next year, so that’s not exactly going to be an easy thing to do.

Their starting 5 right now looks like Jrue Holiday, Evan Turner, Andre Iguodala, Spencer Hawes, and Kwame Brown. They’d have Thaddeus Young, Moe Harkless, Dorrell Wright, Lavoy Allen and Nick Young as their primary bench contributors. Does this sound like a team even remotely close to contending to you? This reminds me of some of the Isiah Thomas Knicks teams when every player he acquired seemed to play the same position.

Unless the goal is to send Iguodala out of town, which 76ers management consistently denies, this is a team that took a clear step backwards. They were an 8^th seed in the Eastern Conference and actually showed up and played quite well in the Eastern Conference Playoffs last year. I don’t see this team being any better than that team and it has the potential to be a lot worse.

Joba Chamberlain’s Amazing Comeback

If you talk to a Yankees fan about Joba Chamberlain, you’ll probably get some heated lecture about how the Yankees’ screwed him up with “Joba Rules” and making him a starter. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard the kind of fervor from from a fan base like the kind Yankees fans have towards Chamberlain. The way Yankees' fans talk about his 2007 season, when he debuted with the team, would make you think he road a bull onto the field and hurled baseballs engulfed in flames. Today, they talk about him like his career is over and honestly, that almost was the case.

Google Images

Joba's pumped to be back

Chamberlain has had to have one of the strangest years in the history of baseball pitchers. He needed to have Tommy John surgery to repair his throwing elbow last June and then had to under go an appendectomy in the same month. While rehabbing his elbow last March Chamberlain had another set back, this time it came in the form of a broken ankle he suffered while jumping on a trampoline at a children’s recreation center. Chamberlin broke his ankle so significantly that his bone popped through the skin of his leg and he lost a life-threatening amount of blood in the process.

Google Images

Despite under going Tommy John surgery, an appendectomy, and breaking his ankle so severely he almost bled to death, it’s reported that Chamberlain is coming back at the very latest, in early August. Are you kidding me?

The best part about this whole story is that reports are that Chamberlain has looked like his old 2007 self. According the Yankees’ GMBrian Cashman, “Joba’s out of control. The stuff he’s featuring is remarkable. He’s as high as 100 (mph) but upwards consistently (at) 96, 97, 98. He looks really good.”

If you’re looking for a remarkable sports story to follow this summer, I think you just got one. Joba’s been to hell and back in a year and whether you root for the Yankees or not, Joba’s comeback is must see TV. 

24 Million for Kris Humphries?

I’ve been criticizing the Brooklyn Nets moves all offseason when I criticized Billy King’s roster building and wrote an analysis on why they would not contend for a title this year, but it just keeps getting worse. Last week, Kris Humphries signed a 2 year 24 million dollar contract. This is a guy for some reason nobody wanted last year and who nobody really wanted this year and the Nets gave him 12 million dollars a year.

While he did have quite a good year last season there’s no way this signing wasn’t way above what he would've received in the open market. Outside of his rebounding, Humphries may make the Brooklyn Nets have the worst defensive starting five in the Eastern Conference. I’m pretty sure their plan is to have Gerald Wallace guard 5 players at once.

The real travesty of this Kris Humphries signing is that despite the Nets management saying that they “love” Kris Humphries, the real motive behind this is to still land Dwight Howard. Humphries 12 million would allow Brooklyn to absorb the stupid contracts that Otis Smith and the Orlando Magic have handed out over the last few years. This would facilitate a potential deal when they can trade the free agents they've signed come January.

Money is clearly not a problem for the Nets and this is certainly proof. They don’t care if they end up having to absorb this ridiculous deal if they can still be in for Dwight Howard. I just think this is an extremely expensive gamble that could have potentially terrible consequences for the team building that’s going on in Brooklyn.

ESPN Photo

24 million for this guy?

You’re trying to build a winning team that’s has to gel together and if Dwight Howard doesn’t get traded they’re going to have to deal with these trade rumors all year. The signing of Humphries basically tells Brook Lopez, “Hey we gave you that money but we will be shipping you out of town the minute we possibly can.” Humphries also is the 4^th highest paid player on that roster and if he doesn’t produce like he did last year, there definitely could be some contention with his salary. I also hear that not a lot of people get along with or like Kris Humphries, but this is mostly what my girlfriend tells me based on Keeping up with the Kardashians, so I’m not sure how reliable that is.

I can’t blame Billy King for keeping the option for Dwight Howard open because if he has a brain he can’t honestly think his team in its current state is going to compete for a title. That said, it’s pretty hard to justify giving Kris Humphries this kind of money and if they struggle from the start and Howard is still in Orlando, the trade rumors will continue to swirl. If Howard does end up being traded then King just gave Kris Humphries, a guy nobody else wanted, 24 million dollars for two years.

Defending Michael Vick’s “Dynasty” Statements

It seems like in our 24/7 media culture we look so ardently for athletes and celebrities to say the wrong thing that we tend to add negative context and meaning to anything they say. Michael Vick is a lightning rod for these kinds of statements and his recent “dynasty” remarks are no different. Here’s what he said,

"When I look at our football team and what we have on paper, I think about when I was growing up and the great San Francisco 49er teams, the great Green Bay Packer teams, and the great Dallas Cowboy teams, how they just positioned themselves to compete and be one of the best teams out there. I think we have a chance to be that. I think we have a chance to develop a dynasty."

What in the world is wrong with these statements? Vick wants to be great, he thinks he has a great team, and he thinks they have the potential to do something special. Isn’t this the belief every quarterback should have in their team and what every kid growing up playing football dreams of doing? I don’t understand what the problem is here.

CBS Sports

Michael Vick being questioned after his "dynasty" statements

This hasn’t stopped all the talking heads from picking on Vick saying this is exactly what’s wrong with him and the Eagles. Somehow these statements have been interpreted as Vick being immature and unfocused towards this season. This is an absolutely crazy way of interpreting what Vick said and just because someone might think these things about Vick, this one quote does not prove that.

The narrative about the Eagles season last year is that they struggled to handle the pressure handed down on them by the media from Vince Young’s “dream team” comments. The idea of this Vick “dynasty” quote adding more pressure to the Eagles this year is just more of this media hubris. This isn’t analyzing what the Eagles are doing in their training camp or really anything about football at all. The Eagles struggled last year because of some crappy luck, adjusting to a new defense, and Michael Vick not staying healthy and playing erratically when he was. The idea of crumbling under the “dream team” pressure is simply ridiculous when there were real reasons the team struggled.

I can’t believe I’ve defended the Eagles, Michael Vick, and Penn State in the same day, but some days are just weird. Vick speaking about dynasties isn’t the most appropriate thing he’s ever said but I love when my quarterback has confidence in his system and team. He expects great things from himself and his team and if you think there is something wrong with that, you need to get your head examined.