Bartimaeus

Yeah, I realize what I said may have been confusing, but I was trying to get across that character relationships in video games are currently pretty crude, not that they would always be. Keyrock said above that even books and movies/TV often struggle with character writing and relationships, and that's certainly true. There's nothing inherently different about video games, I don't think, that makes character writing and relationships more difficult than other mediums: it's just that the reality of the industry as well as customer expectations are in a pretty bad state even compared to those other mediums, and it sadly shows. Now, as Gfted1 so helpfully pointed out (as opposed to, I don't know, creating a straw-man in a troll-like manner like he could've done so easily), no-one ever said that character relationships had to be perfectly realistic. They certainly aren't in books and movies/TV, but are usually more like...somewhat abridged versions of how you might expect relationships to develop between characters - movies/TV more-so than books. However, books have the benefit of occurring in your head where believability will at least partially be supported/depend on your own imagination, and in movies and TV, characters are performed by actual human beings, which is a huge benefit vs. what are generally stiff/janky and non-stimuli-reactive body and face animations. Furthermore, since books and movies/TV are very often character-driven experiences (if not sold entirely on exactly that), a lot more attention is paid to them than in games, where gameplay generally comes first. There's nothing wrong with that for a lot of games, but it does create a focus and quality issue (which can lead to player experience issues) when a particular game is nominally character-driven (such as Mass Effect) and yet just doesn't quite have the stuff to back it up like a work in those other mediums might.

Well, that's not quite what I meant. The NFL probably can make as many errors and tell as many lies as it wishes to during the investigation itself, but they still have to follow proper procedures in handing down suspensions (if I recall correctly, the NFLPA president *must* be notified/contacted before a suspension is handed down, for example) and the appeal process, which, from the sounds of it, they may not have done.

From the sounds of it, the Texas judge currently involved seems to be favoring Ezekiel's side, possibly as a result of procedural errors committed by the NFL leading to what the judge reportedly termed "problems of fairness". While the NFL does have the ability to suspend anyone for any reason, there is still a procedure that they're supposed to follow to do that, and if they screwed that up, Elliot may actually be successful here. Though Elliot might run into a Brady situation where the initial court case is successful, but is then appealed up and reversed for the next season... (e): Also, it has been confirmed that he will play week 1, as the arbitrator was too late to make a decision.

Yeah, I wrote more above in my edits, and it covered some of what you wrote. Like you, I would at least be open to the idea of a game where the focal point is character writing and relationships and possibly romances...or not, if you choose. Well-written and interesting characters in video games are so rare that it would be certainly be at least worth trying out if a developer made a serious effort of it, and made a serious effort to have good and convincing voice-acting* (which is also sadly a bit of rarity in video games - even in AAA games, most of the time it's just passable with maybe just a couple of characters who are actually well-cast and well-voiced. I can think of only literally just a few games that I've played where the voice-acting was at least pretty good throughout, Broken Age being the most recent coming to mind, which was actually excellent throughout, the only game I can think of where that was the case). *Bad voice-acting is something that is a personal annoyance of mine, and is so much worse than no voice-acting at all for me.

Games aren't really a good medium for...actually, most relationships of any kind, not just romances. The reality of friendships, romances, et. al., is that there is generally some form of communication. It's not always important (and in fact, isn't the majority of the time), nor is it always verbal (and indeed, for people that know and are comfortable around each other, it often isn't), and there are usually breaks as people settle into a routine with each other...but when you're actually around a person for long periods of time, there's usually some kind of communication occurring between the two of you unless you are pointedly ignoring each other's existence. Games consequently have difficulty conveying meaningful relationships: there is rarely room for any sort of normal communication or small talk that would be requisite of most functioning relationships, there is almost never any meaningful nonverbal communication, and really, only the most "important" bits of a relationship are actually mentioned inside of the game itself. Everything else that you'd expect of a normal relationship you usually kind of just have to imagine yourself. This isn't necessarily the end of the world...but it does mean that gaming, as an interactive audiovisual medium, isn't really doing the job very well in of itself. It can also create odd and really annoying disconnects where the player intentions' don't match up with what the game thinks they are - in Mass Effect 1, for example, if you spend a little time to get to know your crew-mates/party members, with just the intention to learn more about them...the game will suddenly force a decision in regards to whom you want to romance. For a lot of players, this was perfectly fine (presumably because this is maybe something they had in mind, or at least were open to in the future), but for others, such as myself, who didn't even think they were flirting with those characters - never mind signalling clear romantic interest to the point where they're fighting over you - it feels like an utter farce. I literally just talked to them to get to know more of their story and personality: nowhere in the real world - besides maybe some kind of dating venue...and especially not a professional AND military setting like Mass Effect! - would this kind of conversation signal strong romantic interest. It felt like a joke, and I couldn't really ever take the game too seriously after. Another example is Metro: Last Light, where you meet a girl at the very beginning of the game for the first time, and all she does is repeatedly and condescendingly belittle you for like the ten, maybe fifteen minutes you're around her...and then you're separated from her for like half of the rest of the game. Finally, you meet up with her again...and she's madly in love with you. Uh, why? An even bigger joke than Mass Effect - especially because you have literally zero input on the matter - and it annoyed me so much that I just quit and have never returned. So yeah, I don't have a lot of respect for romance in video games as of now. A few games might do it a little better than others, but on the whole, it is still in a very, very early and crude state in video games..and I don't really expect that to change anytime soon. I will remain just a little open to the idea, though, in the event that someone actually manages to do it in a semi-believable and tasteful way. It doesn't help that the vast majority of games that might have various character relationships and possible romances are games where the overall focus of the game is on a lot more important stuff, and so they have a tendency to just feel irrelevant and/or tacked on...Mass Effect, for example, suffered horribly from this...but more low-scale and believable settings you'll probably run into the difficulty of creating an otherwise compelling game. A game that is focused entirely on creating semi-believable relationships might be interesting in that particular facet of the game, but would probably end up being little more than a visual novel in reality. And since the visual novel genre is seemingly dominated entirely by juvenile anime dating-simulators, I think there'd have to be a pretty serious paradigm shift in the genre for something like that to ever happen. (e): I've never played any of Telltale's games, but now that I think of it (and from what I've seen of a few of their games), their games might be kind of similar to what I'm thinking up here. Hmm. (e): And perhaps that Life Is Strange series? I've never played that either, but it might also be close to what I'm thinking of.

EE's suspension upheld. However, he may still play week 1 (it's not exactly clear: due to the fact that it took the arbitrator longer than expected to make a decision, it seems as though it might be too late for the suspension to kick in week 1, but again, it's not totally clear and there're conflicting sources on this), and there is also a chance of an injunction being handed down.

better too fast than too slow, right?

I think I literally read a news story on a "fleet of monster trucks" doing just that recently...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIwhn2pXgAEfeqt?format=jpg Appeal statement from the girl who fought with Elliot's ex-girlfriend. ...In other news, it's really not fair that my fantasy football league drafts tomorrow and we still have no resolution to this...

He was elected under our electoral college system, and the electoral college system is a way of implementing democracy...or at least attempting to. Clearly, some people do not feel as though it is a just or effective system, and I would count myself among them...especially seeing just how badly the current system can be gamed, with nearly 3 million more votes going to the loser (note: this is not a new phenomenon, and both parties have been focusing most of their efforts on certain battlegrounds over others for a long time because of this issue, but this election was a strong reminder just how bad it can actually get). Given that the Democrats have now lost two presidential elections in recent history - one to a not great candidate, and another to a disastrous candidate that also formed control over the other two branches of government - you'd think they'd have more interest in election reform. And some people do have interest, certainly...but not enough for any change to be on the horizon from what I can tell.

It was actually a pretty sore point in 2000 as well when Gore (D) lost the election while holding a .5 lead (not as gigantic of a lead as Hillary's 2.1, but sizeable enough). As for the rest of what you said, with no explanation/context, I'm not sure what you mean. (e: oh, the last point: yes, american liberalism is not the same as classic liberalism)

A military coup would be a disaster for everyone. Unless there is an existential/doomsday crisis, the removal of a president must follow the laws that have been set out unless we wish the end of our democracy and/or another civil war. The military should not become a separate branch of the government that is allowed to usurp the others, just as the others should not be allowed to usurp each other. We would be little more than a military state at that point. No, unless our very existence is being threatened because of the president, they must be removed the same way they were put there - lawfully. If that means we have to wait until the law does its due diligence, then so be it.

I think it would help your video game journalists to have actually have played video games before, but that's just me...

No, not really. Filing for bankruptcy is a great way to protect yourself from too much debt and overhead. You will lose assets, but if you are underwater on a lot of stuff, it is typically your best bet. it's a little worse than you s'pose. the nflpa messed up, particular during the most recent cba. the nfla demanded all kinds o' practical considerations which gave advantages to veteran players insofar as making money and keeping their jobs. got rookie pay scales for first four years. decrease practice times. changes to free agency. etc. all seemed to benefit vets, and the very big and very public contracts seeming support such a conclusion. well guess what? four years is longer than the typical nfl career, and something like 40% o' players is making the league minimum. these guys burn through their cash like there is no tomorrow... and they discover 'bout three years later they got no nfl career, hardly any savings, and no real degree 'pon which to fall back 'pon. thanks to the cba, the league has become increasing young-- opposite o' what the nflpa intended. most folks in the nfl plays a handful o' years and then discovers how difficult it is with a middle-class (if they are lucky) job to pay for multiple italian sports cars and a mansion, or two... or three. worse, these guys got too much pride to work as a manager at denny's, which is 'bout what their "kinesiology" *wink* degree from alabama or lsu is likely to get 'em after they quit playing. in not rich person bankruptcy so much as guys living way too rich bankruptcy. the nfl and nflpa gives multiple rookie seminars every year which educate players 'bout the realities o' their new careers. the valuable information provided by the player's association and the league should be a wakeup call, but it clear isn't. as to the elliott investigator, you folks didn't read the comments from mr. harvey we provided 'bove. he addressed the credibility issue o' the victim. is not as if her credibility issues were hidden from harvey, huston, lovelace davie, and white. 'ccording to the recent reports you folks is reading, the nfl investigator thought the evidence would be confusing and the victim's credibility would hurt. however, much like the lead investigator for ohio law enforcement who original investigated, those 4 individuals we mentioned 'bove accepted how the victim were untruthful 'bout an event, but still found her overall claim credible. the meta data clear did not confuse the 4 folks reviewing. people is selective reading to hear what they wish. is not the smoking gun you folks believe it to be, particular if you read the actual investigator comments and not simple the headlines. HA! Good Fun! The meta data on the pictures of the injuries definitely seems like the glue holding it all together - without it, there wouldn't be much of a case due to the witness being unreliable and a lack of other hard evidence. Everything would've just devolved to he-and-my-buddies-said and she-and-my-buddies-said without it. However, at this point, I feel pretty safe in saying that the NFL has bungled, once again, this investigation and especially the PR aspect of it...but in a different way than they have previously. The first thing they should've done is told every media outlet that they had at least some hard evidence and detailed what it was as the suspension was being announced - not this "we'll post an interview with the experts and leave you guys to figure out the pertinent info from there". Most people just don't read anything besides headlines anymore - that information should've been one of the first things fed to the media, not the last, so that it actually got to the general NFL fan. I never even saw that interview mentioned anywhere until you posted a direct link to it...and I'm relatively on top of football news, so what the heck, NFL? They should've also allowed the lead investigator to give his input (for some reason, he was not allowed to do this prior to the suspension being handed down) and gotten him on the same page as everyone else so we don't get this crazy "lead investigator didn't think Elliot should've been suspended" nonsense. They've now bungled the appeal in a few different ways, which combined with the other things, makes it difficult to have much sympathy for the NFL at this point. How many different ways can you screw up these PR crises? Things that they could at least *try* to prevent - knowing the predictable media and subsequent fan outrage that they've faced a dozen times now - and they screw it up every time.

Well, it says 78% of players actually "file for bankruptcy" within 5 years...I think that's actually pretty broke.

https://blog.mint.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/From-Stoked-to-Broke-Why-are-So-Many-Professional-Athletes-Going-Bankrupt.png Well, I was close (78% of players within 5 years). However, interestingly, while not quite as bad as football (which is the worst of the major sports), good percentages of other sports' athletes go broke pretty quickly, too.

The lead investigator of Elliot's case was the only person involved with the investigation to actually meet with the victim...and the lead investigator recommended no suspension for Elliot. So...all the other experts who didn't meet with the victim must've recommended that he be suspended, I guess?

I mentioned it before, but: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

lol @ the two memos that Trump's attorneys pre-emptively sent to Mueller to defend Trump against possible obstruction of justice charges. The Nixon defense - obstruction of justice laws do not apply to the president - and slandering Comey's character. Yeah, I'm sure those arguments are really giving Mueller pause.

They are experimenting with softer helmets this year, somewhat spearheaded by the Seahawks. I hope they are successful, though players have to choose to wear them. Seahawks are also big teachers of rugby-style wrap-up tackling (and if "big hits" are illegalized in the near-future, the Seahawks will probably be the best equipped to immediately evolve past them, which will probably give them a bit of a competitive advantage for a couple of years assuming Pete Carroll is still head coach). I really don't think we'll notice that much of a difference in the game if big hits become illegal - the elimination of the three point-stance will probably have a much bigger effect on the game, and it's what's likely causing CTE in linemen.

Oh, yeah, if you're looking to play sports professionally, baseball (and basketball*) is definitely the way to go. Football is a pretty crappy deal compared to other sports, all things considered - the relative low amount of money, lack of guarantees, horrible injuries, short career - but it does employ some different body types than other sports do. *Basketball has such tiny rosters, though, so your chances of ever making any decent money off of the sport is really low.

I wouldn't - at least, not outside of a few of the "safer" positions like a punter or kicker, maybe long snapper with the (head) protections they're afforded today. There's little point in earning millions of dollars if your brain is in such bad shape that you're perpetually making terrible monetary decisions (what is it, somewhere around 70-80% of players are bankrupt within like three years of leaving the league?) or cannot think straight or act normally a decade after retiring. Your brain is your entire mortal existence: it's not worth selling to this bloodsport.

Yep. Like I said, we really don't know exactly had bad or widespread CTE really is, even now. It'd be insane if it was actually 99% of the football population, and I very sincerely hope it's not (and I don't think it is because of the huge selection bias of only looking at people who already thought they had it - I just don't know how valuable that statistic can be without looking at players who didn't think they had it...but you can't get their brains to look at if they or their family don't donate their brain, so...). Either way, though, given the awful consequences of head injuries in the NFL and at the collegiate level, the head honchos of this sport are almost certainly going to need to re-examine the way the game is played if they want it to continue being top dollar in the U.S. in the decades to come. I certainly don't want us to go back to baseball...or soccer. Eugh.