- Aug 1, 2001
[sup]I think Matt Moore was the fourth highest ranked QB in the AFC this year. I am not sure that makes his point or not[/sup]
And even his most egregious moment — the so-called Spygate scandal, which we will not relitigate here because we do not want all our readers to lapse into comas — was little more than sharp practice. He won. He got caught. He got fined nearly a million dollars. And he moved on, even though there are football pundits out there who may never rise from their fainting couches over the whole thing.
That bolded part is awful and rather than helping his point it simply stokes the fire with the kind of empassioned baseless opinion that has made the entire 'is games art' argument one of the more tired 'who cares' internet discussions of the modern age. He also throws Roger Ebert straight under the bus by misrepresenting his initial position and then failing to acknowledge Ebert very quickly and modestly turned his position around and accepted he'd been convinced.Obviously, this whole conversation is hampered by the fact that people who talk about video games, myself included, often turn to those games' narrative, atmospheric, or aesthetic content when discussing their artfulness. The conversation is also hampered by the fact that many who play and design sports games — not to mention athletes themselves — would sooner dive into a thornbush than say, "Yeah, that thing I do? Art, pal. Right there. Art." But do me a favor: Go to YouTube and watch a few old clips of Jordan or Maravich. Watch Aaron Rodgers thread the needle through some impossible coverage formation. Watch Jackie Joyner-Kersee run. I've been doing that for the past 40 minutes or so. It's been enlightening.
But he was thinking :... this alarming lacuna in my Madden résumé was acceptable — that, in a weird way, it was even sort of preferable, given that one of the franchise's perennial challenges has been to figure out ways to keep the Madden base engorged while also rehooking those who once played Madden but don't anymore.
This is true to a degree, but another point is that someone who hasn't played Madden since 2001 is much more likely be impressed by Madden 2012 than someone who has religiously played every recent incarnation of Madden. This is because every new edition of Madden is essentially an incremental increase on the previous version, and rarely does more than tinker with elements. Jumping into Madden 2012 with zero Madden base knowledge is a great way to rave about the game, even though it's very similar to Madden 2009, 2010, and so forth.... this alarming lacuna in my Madden résumé was fucking brilliant because it means nothing negative was going to be asked, raised or written about in an article written by a wide-eyed gamer who was about to swallow every single 'Key Message' delivered by the carefully arranged interviewers through the course of the full day junket.
A slightly more aggressive zebra might have whistled Lee Evans' catch in Foxborough a touchdown before Sterling Moore slapped the pass away, which would have turned Moore — beaten on the play for what would have been a second touchdown allowed — into a whipping boy for Patriots fans and the ultimate signifier of New England's many draft failures.
Yeah, exactly. I like Barnwell but that's a stupid comment. There's no way calling that a TD would have held up under review.If an agressive zebra whistles that a TD, the play automatically gets reviewed upstairs (all soring plays are reviewed) and they buzz the ref. Since the replays clearly showed Evens get not get his second foot down before the ball was slapped away, the TD would have been overturned.
Bissell wants to write for Kill Screen but doesn't have the (basic) underlying understanding of games or the culture that he so desperately wants to inject into his work.Tom Bissell just writes about games from a very weird perspective that has almost nothing to do with how I or anyone I know plays or thinks about games. He's like Armond White on film--not stupid, but clearly preoccupied with a ton of shit most people don't rate at all when evaluating films. Sometimes it makes for interesting reading, but I've never come away from a Bissell piece feeling that it was useful as a review, nor have I ever read his thoughts on a game I've played and agreed with him.
I loved this article on the first read, but the more I've thought about it, the more I've questioned it. My issue with articles like this they seem stuck between telling a narrative and reporting fact, and it's difficult to tell how much of the latter is sacrificed in service of the former. Obviously, the details of the fights and characters are sketchy, but the author seems to cite authority only when it's convenient or conducive to the story he's trying to tell - rambunctious black fighter defeats conventional white fighter, but due to scandal and malfeasance the white fighter is able to come back and actually win the fight. By the time of their rematch, the black fighter has gone off and drank and whored himself out of shape. If most of the accounts of the fight save one don't mention the distraction or the first knockout, why is the lone sportswriter's account credited? It could be that Phillips has a ton of research he withheld in order to keep the article from being too dry, but - in a narrative that repeatedly references the obscurity of its subjects and the possibly apocryphal details of their lives - it would've been reassuring had he included a few more direct accounts.
This forum is full of people taking renowned writers to task, I don't think damning CPP with what might be considered faint praise should be taken as passing judgment on his credentials.Yeah, a couple more years of hard work, and he could really be somebody in this business.
As game reviews for the purpose of influencing buyers, Kill Screen is hard to top. I don't think Bissell's style guns for Kill Screen style at all. Bissell is a writer who plays games. Kill Screen is a game review publication. Their observations are on different planes altogether, quality notwithstanding.Bissell wants to write for Kill Screen but doesn't have the (basic) underlying understanding of games or the culture that he so desperately wants to inject into his work.
He's not good.
... Except, apparently, for the ones he writes massive stories about.I don't think Bissell's style guns for Kill Screen style at all. Bissell is a writer who plays games.
Never payed attention to Kill Screen, but this made me look and....yup. Sort of like Bissel, they seem to have well written, thoughtful reviews that are pretty much useless for byers.Bissell wants to write for Kill Screen but doesn't have the (basic) underlying understanding of games or the culture that he so desperately wants to inject into his work.
He's not good.
I quite liked his take on "LA Noire", which was his first Grantland piece. I also really liked his book "Extra Lives".... Except, apparently, for the ones he writes massive stories about.
Out of interest, could you provide a few examples of the work of his you like? I'd be keen to see his good writing.
My guess is that they're not writing for buyers, at least not like 1up or IGN are. On the flip side, I doubt video games have nearly as many people clamoring for in-depth dissertations as, say, movies or TV shows do.Never payed attention to Kill Screen, but this made me look and....yup. Sort of like Bissel, they seem to have well written, thoughtful reviews that are pretty much useless for byers.
The biggest tie between all of these now seems to be the UCB theatre (mostly the LA one), The State crew and Scott Auckerman's Comedy Bang Bang podcast empire. With the exception of Forte and Huss (and maybe Martin Starr?)Here's an example of an article that I thought that I was going to like on Grantland. However, it goes nowhere.
Granted, in the title it does say it is an infographic, but I think that it could have been a really interesting read about the group of comedians who keep popping up in different shows. I know that Megan Mullalley was in "Parks and Rec" and "Children's Hospital" and a bunch of other shows, but (aside from PaR) why? Is it the simple answer that these people are funny and thus are cast in funny shows, or is it something different? They touched on it when the author said some were in the Groundlings and UCB together, but it's just a surface scratch.
And unfortunately, this is true of a lot of Grantland's stuff; great ideas but there's not a lot of follow-through.