What is a "Big Name Running Back" anymore?

Been a while since I posted so I figured I'd make this a big, statistically driven one based on some disturbing comments that I've heard recently. No lie, I'm a Steelers fan. And I've heard on ESPN recently that Pittsburgh has Rashard Mendenhall who they're going to try to limit some more to keep him fresh, with their early bye week and the amount of load that he carried with the suspension of Ben Roethlisberger. The worry, according to these analysts, is that Pittsburgh doesn't have any big name running backs or guys with a lot of experience behind him, who could pick up the slack should he be sidelined with an injury.

This got me thinking about what a big name running back really was in the NFL. All of my player statistics are derived from NFL.com's listing of player stats and rankings (as of 11:19PM on Sunday, October 24th, the end of the weekend games in Week 7 of the NFL, not accounting for the Monday night game). I'll credit any other statistics that I use.

Per Answers.com (derived from a Google search), the average career for an NFL running back is 2.6 years. Though they do say (from common knowledge) that the average American changes careers roughly 5 times in their lifetime, these athletes play the game of football for sometimes more than a decade, going through every different stage of the game and showing their prowess usually through their college career and getting drafted or signed later to an NFL team. So imagine if you had done an internship for 10 or more years, just to get the full time job that you've worked so hard to get and was incredibly selective, and then after 2.6 years, you leave that by your own volition, or because there just isn't a job for you and have to go do something completely different. I'll give credence to the knowledge that these guys did get degrees during their college career and I'll give the benefit of the doubt that most of these guys have prepared for life after football by getting an education and mentally preparing, just in case. Either way, that would be a very harsh change of pace for you, when you've spent every day training your body, learning playbooks and playing football and then all of a sudden, BOOM, you're forced into doing something else.

There are several people in the NFL who probably won't experience such a rise and fall kind of career. Names like Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, LaDanian Tomlinson, and others will have or have had long and illustrious careers that lead to a lot of great statistics and will probably lead to Hall of Fame inductions down the road. While those guys exist, let's look a little deeper into the position of running back and really get a look at how blue-collar that position really has gotten, where at any moment, any one guy can be called to pick up the slack for a team, a realization that has definitely been exposed this year.

Starting at the beginning of the season, a guy who was virtually unknown going into this year, stole our running back loving hearts. Who really, aside from absolute fantasy football nuts who listened to every blog and read every article, expected after Week 7 that Arian Foster would be the top ranked Yahoo! Fantasy player? Even those fantasy nuts probably wouldn't have expected that Foster would be ranked better in Fantasy Football than Adrian Peterson and Chris Johnson, accepted as picks 1 and 2 for most fantasy football leagues this year. Foster was ranked before the season at 45 by Yahoo!. But statistically, after Week 7, Arian Foster is 2nd in the league in rushing yards behind Chris Johnson, and he's had his bye week already. This then makes me wonder, where did Steve Slaton go? The Houston Texans' 3rd round pick and golden boy of 2 years ago who caught a rough case of fumbilitis and injury in 2009, and now sits behind Foster on the depth chart, racking up a meager 19 attempts over the past 6 games an average of 3 attempts per game. And despite his assigned role on their official depth chart, he is still ranked behind 3rd string back Derrick Ward in rushing yards. Let's talk about a fall from grace for a third round pick who has now lost his job to an undrafted free agent (Foster) and has fewer yards than a seventh round pick (Ward). Is it safe to say that it's only a matter of time before Slaton is let go from the Texans who seem to be in a constant ebb and flow to find a winning combination in what is an incredibly competitive AFC South? We saw the exact same thing happen with former Steelers starter Willie Parker, who holds a Super Bowl record for the longest rushing TD (Super Bowl XL), and former Chiefs first round pick Larry Johnson who, after being ousted by their "glory teams" were both cut after trying out for the Redskins in the offseason, and are currently watching football from their couch after 5 and 6 year careers, respectively.

Can Slaton land with another team, desperately in need of his services because of injury or because another team is willing to give him the chance to regain his starting status? He absolutely can. Tomlinson is a clear example of this after he was cast off from the Chargers and is rejuvinating his career with the Jets. But Tomlinson is not normal, in fact he's an absolute anomaly in the NFL and that's why he is a lock for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, potentially as a first ballot candidate. As much of an anomaly as he is though, keep in mind that he wasn't brought in to carry the load and be the starter in New York, far from it. He was brought in to spell Shonn Green, who was destined in the pre-season to be the starter and rushing hero of the Jets and now has been forced to the backseat with what I can only imagine was some colorful language from his head coach.

This is the life of an NFL running back. Any given Sunday, any player can come out of someone's shadow to show off the fact that they have what it takes to carry the load and be successful in this league. When the oft injured Clinton Portis inevitably went down this season (he's played 16 games only 50% of his career before 2010 and already missed games this season), his role was filled by Ryan Torain. Anyone who isn't a close friend of mine is wondering exactly what I was wondering: who is Ryan Torain? If you were looking for him in the 2009 season, you'd be looking forever. He was injured in August, '09 and was released from the Denver Broncos with an injury settlement. If Mike Shanahan, who drafted Torain with the Broncos in the fifth round in '08, hadn't remembered this guy, he'd still be sitting on his couch on Sundays watching football (with Parker and Johnson maybe?). Instead, he was picked up by the Redskins, beating out big names Parker and Larry Johnson for a coveted roster spot. Portis was injured, and Torain for Week 7 is ranked 4th with 125 yards, above the likes of Chris Johnson, Michael Turner, Steven Jackson, and other "big name running backs." In fact, on the year, he's ranked 19th, well above the man he replaced, Clinton Portis (41st in yards) and that is after starting only 3 games.

So these are small examples that are rare in the NFL, right? Most of the top running backs were drafted in the top two rounds at least right? Consider this: of the current top 10 running backs in the NFL in yards, half (Mendenhall, Chris Johnson, Steven Jackson, Peterson, and Darren McFadden) were drafted in the first round. Out of the top 5, only 2 (Johnson and Jackson) had that illustrious honor of the jersey with a "1" on it. The other 3 are Foster (Undrafted), Turner (5th Round) and Ahmad Bradshaw (7th round). It doesn't take first round rated talent to be a successful running back in the NFL.

So what does it mean to be a "big name" running back in the NFL anymore? Does it mean having an incredibly long name like New England's "Law Firm", BenJarvus Green-Ellis (undrafted in '08), who is tied in the Top 10 with 4 rushing TDs on the year, accounting for all but one of New England's overall rushing TDs? It definitely means being the man of the week, for sure. Making a Pro Bowl puts you in the public eye and is an impressive feat, as a season long name builder. But the truth is, anyone at any point at the running back position can stand out and be great. Tampa Bay undrafted rookie LeGarrette Blount, who is 3rd on Tampa's depth chart according to their website, had 79 yards rushing in Week 7 which put him in the top 10. Cleveland's Peyton Hillis (7th round pick by the Broncos in '08) ranked 14th on the week (69 yards) followed immediately by Cleveland Browns PUNTER Reggie Hodges who had a 68 yard fake punt rush. Hodges 68 yards put him above Chris Johnson (66 yards) and Rashard Mendenhall (37 yards). That's right; a punter had more rushing yards than two first round draft picks. I can not make that kind of thing up.

So to say that just because Isaac Redman and Mewelde Moore aren't widely known household names, they can't be stand out running backs at any time is ludicrous. They have the potential at any point to be the next stand out performer rushing the ball. There will always be your Emmit Smith's, Barry Sanders', Chris Johnson's and Adrian Peterson's, guys who will hold their position for several years and be dominant the whole time. However, it's just as important to remember that anyone, at any time, can prove themselves to be great at the running back position, maybe the only true blue collar position left in the NFL.

Stay Outta My Bacon!

As my previous posts may have made obvious, I'm an avid video game player. This being said, I've played a ton of games and keep up with the video game industry. I get the pleasure in this regard of being made well aware of when Hollywood tries to get their grubby paws into the video game industry.

To preface this, we all know the power house that Hollywood is. It's estima

ted that in 2010, the US Movie Market will make roughly $11.02 billion. This is higher than the GDP of dozens of countries around the world. Needless to say Hollywood can pretty much do whatever they want with no looking back because of their massive amounts of cash flow.

The Video Game industry is definitely booming. Despite many companies going through layoffs and closing, games are still pouring out and millions of people every day turn on their XBox, PS3, Wii, DSi, PSP, even PC's for the purpose of immersing themselves into a world of interactive bliss.

I won't trap myself in an imagination land where every video game has a deeply rewarding story, game play, or is even good for that matter. A vast majority of the games which come out for systems are overlooked critically and commercially because they just aren't that good. No innovation, no new story, no new taxes. But there are some games which will literally rip your brain out of your head, take it to a nice steak dinner, romance it all night, and then put it back without any hanky panky because these games are classy and don't kiss on the first date. One such game series is the Uncharted series by Naughty Dog Entertainment. I completed the first game and I'm on my way to finishing the second and I have to say that for both, they are a mental explosion of awesomeness. There are huge moments where things are falling all around

you, exploding, just an insane amount of action. Here is the point: I fear for the day I hear about an Uncharted movie being in the works.

With the advances in video game technology, most of the cut scenes and even in game experiences look as impressive as movies. For a game like Uncharted, even something like Halo, it feels like I'm interacting with a movie in my living room. Why would anyone want to strip that from the gamer and the entertainment fan by making a movie from a video game? It inevitably will be cast by a pack of wild hyenas that are let loose on a movie lot with the intention of casting whoever they attack as the starring roles. Add into it that with the limitations of special effects when doing live action movies and the same advances of video games which are making them more realistic, there is no way to recreate the same massive events that occur in video games without massive Hollywood budgets. Consider this, as convoluted as this has been so far, your introduction paragraph.

First let's look at the interactive aspect. I recently went to see The Twilight Saga: Eclipse with my girlfriend at midnight at a theater. Don't you dare judge me. The only interaction that I had with the movie was the gut wrenching feelings I got when I had to watch Kristen Stewart act. On the other hand, I played Uncharted 2 last night and got to progress the story myself, keeping me awake until 4 in the morning. I took part in every gun fight. I jumped across every chasm. I ran away from every tank. I was immersed in the action because it was interactive. Don't get me wrong, there are movies that keep me locked in my seat through drama and action, or humor. But they don't hold a candle to how intensely tied into games one can get. It's the difference between being pulled behind a NASCAR race car as it speeds around the track and being the driver. It would be far more exciting and engaging to be in the driver's seat.

Let's move on to casting. Hollywood has a core group of actors and actresses which when you see them, you say "I want to see that movie." The rest of them just get plugged into ever other role that the movie industry comes up with, and there are a bunch of them. With video game movies, I can't reference a point when the casting has been absolutely awful. Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft was a reasonable move. Timothy Olyphant as 47 in the Hitman movie is another good call considering how well he performed that role. But I always fear that the casting decisions will end up turning out awful and leaving me hurling my lunch all over the carpet of the theater. There's always the hope that some big studio would hire a small, indy director to take on this project and then allow them to do all of the casting themselves to ensure that it turns out the way they want. But the likelihood of that is slim. With video games gaining popularity and the desire of Hollywood's aging and washed up stars to appear that they're hip and cool, they all sign on as soon as possible to take any role they can to prove that to themselves. Plus we all already know that Samuel L. Jackson is in everything.

One of my bigger fears is definitely casting. But it's also the lack of sense and sensibility when it comes to picking video game movies which are going to be made. Tomb Raider had an already established story, which through dozens of iterations was run through the mud, stabbed, beaten, bludgeoned, molested, tickled and then set ablaze already by the game company. The movie industry took a concept which had been played out in an interactive media and forced us to watch them play it out again without any control. At least in the games when it got boring you could make Lara swan dive off of a cliff. Hitman loosely followed the concept of the game and injected more of a story line into it. It was about betrayal and revenge, much like the games, however it also forced an interaction of emotion from the title character that isn't found in the games for the purpose of drawing in a larger audience.

It can usually be determined video game movies aren't great ideas when one of the most popular game franchises out, the Halo series, can't get a movie rendition off the ground. The incredible following that the game has would mean droves of gamer fan boys (yeah me too) would line up to see that movie, and it can't get studio or director support. Even with Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame backing it. Hollywood doesn't have faith in game movies and won't throw the kind of money needed to get the right cast, writer, and director to make it truly successful and not let down an entire nation of gamers. When you short change something like that, it's not setting it up for success in the long run. Transformers was given a $150 million dollar budget and was pretty successful at keeping the comic and cartoon fans happy. Tomb Raider had a $115 million dollar budget but was awful because they took something which was originally interactive, and removed the interactivity, destroying the concept.

What I'm saying I guess is that you need to ensure that you have a large budget in order to make the movie good, but even that doesn't guarantee success. Hollywood is so terrified to throw a huge budget at a video game movie (I know they did it with Tomb Raider and maybe that jarred them) that it doesn't provide a good omen when one is announced. It's so likely that they will do it to try to cash in on the popularity but won't be willing to take the risks to make the movie well and really engage and deliver to the video game fan base.

And maybe that's the issue. The video game fan base is so looked down upon as a small margin of people when it comes to demographics that they are ignored. But the video game industry is growing exponentially. There are three major systems which appeal to all different sectors of society. Grandma's are playing Wii, frat boys are playing Xbox 360 (guilty) and people who want a blu-ray player are buying up PS3's. As scary as it is, we're about due for a great video game movie which blows away the gamers and makes them hungry for more. Once the formula for success is developed it will be duplicated to oblivion and I'll be writing another blog about how they need to stop making video game movies because they're played out.

I don't have a negative opinion about Hollywood. I love movies. Video games and movies are like oil and water though. Most of the major movies which get video game renditions turn out to be atrocious as well. Too short, awful game play, awful everything. The only success they've seen has been in the Lego series with Star Wars, Batman, Indiana Jones and now Lego: Harry Potter. Those games simplify a story and add a jovial spin to it, instead of trying to fabricate the drama of a movie in an interactive form.

Video games and movies need to keep their distance until someone can formulate the best formula to ensure that it is going to be successful. It may even require the simultaneous production of a game and a movie, on the same timeline, making sure that the movie doesn't try to overtake the game's action and drown out it's interactivity, all the while developing a story which translates well to movies and provides the necessary drama without needing interactivity to keep it interesting. It makes me think to the Animatrix which was a successful series of animated films based in the Matrix Universe. Going along those lines, I think video games could be successful in translation to movies and vice versa. As for now though, please leave my favorite franchises alone. Thanks!

Feel free to comment below. If you thought Tomb Raider was an Oscar-worthy piece of American cinematography then by all means, let me know so I can reply to tell you how incredibly wrong you are. Or if you want one of my images, please send 25 cents to me and I'll e-mail it on over from my table to yours!

We Have Lots of Stuff to Get Appraised

If my previous post didn't tip you off at all, I'm really into video games. So it goes without saying that the movie Grandma's Boy has become a personal favorite of mine. Despite my lack of interest or knowledge of pot culture, I am really into video games and have seen friends act in many of the ways that the employees of Brainasium were prone to acting, so I connect with the movie. I also lived with my grandma for a week once and it was pretty much the same thing only less pot. And it was in Pennsylvania so there was less to do. And I was like 11. Basically it was nothing like the movie.

I do love the movie Grandma's Boy and I watched it not too long ago with my roommates. Remember that part in the movie where grandma, Bea and Grace are watching Antiques Roadshow and they're completely baffled about people getting so much money for their useless junk that they had laying around their houses? That was funny right. My roommates and I watched the movie and laughed. A few days later...

We were watching Pawn Stars on the History Channel and one of my roommates says: "Pawn Stars is like the Antiques Roadshow of our generation." I stopped dead in my tracks (probably of eating some Doritos) and stared, mouth agape. My shock wasn't insult. It was revelation. Pawn Stars is the Antiques Roadshow of my generation, and I'm ok with that.

For those not familiar (I still don't know who you are, but I may hate you), Pawn Stars is a show on the History Channel about Rick Harrison and the pawn shop he owns with his dad Richard in Las Vegas. His son Corey is the manager of the store and Corey's idiot friend "Chumlee" works there as well. The exploits of the show highlight mostly the store's interaction with people who want to sell their stuff. Most of the interactions take place in the store, though on occasion they will travel out to a location to check out an item that someone is trying to off-load on them. Usually the customer brings in something and Rick will take a look at the item. He'll give some information and fun facts will appear on the screen about the swag and then inevitably, Rick will determine that he doesn't have the knowledge needed to accurately determine the authenticity of the item or have any clue what the item is worth, so he brings in an expert.

The experts are some of the best "characters" in the show. My personal favorite is an employee of The Gun Store in Las Vegas who knows a lot about antique fire arms and also lets them test fire the old guns they bring into the store. The Gun Store is somewhere that is on my itinerary for when I go to Las Vegas, so seeing that it's also involved in the show is pretty cool.

These experts have some of the most ridiculous "specialties," like the guy who was an "expert" in the rodeo or rodeo history or something. Rodeo history... really? They come in and talk to Rick and the item's owner about what swag is and how to tell if it's real or not. The experts always give some inflated price that you could get for the item if you took it to an auction where crazies that like chaps worn by Roger Rodeo in 1943 go to spend inappropriate amounts of money for some collectible junk.

It's important to remember at this point that Rick has probably asked the customer what they were looking to get out of the item and they generally say something reasonable like 200 bucks or something. Once they find out their Civil War saber can be sold at auction for 2000 bucks, they always ask for that amount. Being the good business man he is, Rick always reminds them that he has a store to run and has to make a profit. He will cut the price down a ridiculous amount. Using the previous example, we're talking something like 300 bucks for the Civil War saber. The customer looks disgusted and offended by the offer, and then they square off, going high and low until they settle in the middle. Rick buys the item (usually) and the customer walks off happy. The post-sale interview always reveals them saying something like "...with the economy the way it is..." or "...I think it was a little low but..."

Sometimes owners don't sell their stuff to the shop because they want too much money or Rick tells them he doesn't want their junk. These people always walk out of the store feeling like they were ripped off somehow. Basically, no one really leaves the store happy unless they just got WAY more money than they ever would have expected and they really just wanted to pawn the item for 200 dollars but got 2000 for it.

I assume that I digress. Antiques Roadshow: old people take in their junk they have laying around and find out that it's worth a lot. Pawn Stars: lots of people take in their junk they have laying around and try to get a lot of money for it with mixed results. This is why Pawn Stars is the Antiques Roadshow of our generation. The concepts are very similar where people take junk into a place and find out how much it's worth. The difference is, in Antiques Roadshow they weren't heckling to try to get more money and they weren't trying to walk out with a profit, they were simply fishing for information. And for our grandparents, that was sufficient for them to be entertained. But this is a whole new generation where we need action and we need conflict. We like hearing Rick get pissed off because his son is an idiot or telling someone that their item they brought into him isn't worth crap to him because he won't be able to sell it (I'm talking to you Jimmy Hoffa photo album guy!).

I feel old when I watch the show because I'm looking at all of the cool stuff that people have and I'm really interested in how much money they get for it. I'm invested emotionally in how much money the store is going to make, how the back room looks, and if that guy's 1662 sun dial is real and if it's worth a lot of money (it is). This emotional investment comes from real people, not from some stupid faked show like Jersey Shore where the drama and emotion in the show is made up for the enjoyment of MTV's viewing audience. The people on Pawn Stars are really trying to get a little cash out of their items and when they don't, they're legitimately upset. When they do, they're legitimately happy. It makes me wonder what junk I might have that I could take in to sell at my local pawn shop.

Then I realize a couple quick things:

1. My local pawn shops deal in rusted bikes and broken Super Nintendo games. They aren't dealing like this shop in Vegas is with Olympic Gold Medals, Super Bowl Rings, and ancient arms and armor.

2. I don't have anything worth while to take in, even if my local pawn shop didn't suck. I have some books that I got from a used book store and I have some other things, but I've never come across a fighter jet ejection seat that I could buy for my house. I've never come across an old WW2 bayonet in good shape that I could take in and try to sell for a lot of money. Nothing I have would get me any more than a couple of dollars at Rick's Pawn Shop. They would probably laugh me right out of their store, even if I was willing to trade my items for some of the stuff they had around the store.

If you're ever surfing the channels and you're tired of watching drunk New Yorkers acting like they're from Jersey or watching people make idiots of themselves for a couple thousand dollars, switch over to the History Channel and catch up with the Harrison's as they continue on their quest to be Pawn Stars.

Eventually we're going to get a bunch of cool crap and take it in and get it all appraised. And then grandma will drink our pot.

From my table to yours!

1000G

I really like video games. Anyone who knows me, knows that to be true. Rule number 1 of video games is "consult the map." I had to consult a map intensely over the past few days as I tried to locate 100 feathers. I said it: feathers.

I came into the grips of the Assassin's Creed series roughly when the first game was released. I don't always get my games right away and I waited a bit to get AC. But when I got it, I played it intensely for days, systematically assassinating Templars and uncovering the secrets of the illusive Pieces of Eden, not really knowing what it all meant and how the evil Abstergo Corp (a templar organization, if you weren't aware) fit into the puzzle. There's something to be said for how innovative the movement is in that game and how easily Altair flows from one part of the vast, middle eastern cities to the next, leaping from rooftop to rooftop. The core of the game play is fun, engaging and though some of the missions got a bit redundant, they were increasingly challenging and fit into the story and the assassinations. Plus if you didn't want to do most of the missions, you didn't have to. They were for the most part, optional.

Optional in video games isn't a word that I subscribe to. I like to maximize my game play value. I paid $60 for a game and I'm going to squeeze every last penny out of it. Some games this is easier to do than others. Madden has a style of game play that you can pick up randomly, put in a few games, maybe play with friends and then put it down to move on to something else. Modern Warfare and similar first person shooters have a singleplayer portion, but mostly that is skipped over or sped through in order to get to the rich and addicting multiplayer aspects of the game. Assassin's Creed is third-person action game with no multiplayer aspects to be found. You can beat that game and you can beat it completely, completing every objective and leaving nothing left to accomplish in the game.

With Assassin's Creed (the original) there were literally hundreds of flags to locate around 4 cities and a "world map." More than 400 flags in total, plus 60 templar soldiers to kill. All of this was in addition to completing all of the objectives in the game. I didn't complete all of these. As new games came out and caught my attention and my completion of the core of the game, I decided that it would be best to put the game to the side and move on to something else, leaving hundreds of flags to sit, unclaimed around Acre, Damascus and Jerusalem.

Assassin's Creed II came out, improving on many of the aspects of the previous game and bringing around a much more interesting character with more twists and turns than a San Francisco suburb. The game was incredibly amazing, gripping my attention and several hours of my time as I followed Ezio through several locations in Italy, gaining revenge on those who murdered my family, simultaneously learning more of the legacy that he was born into and unlocking the twist that revealed a major plot point that will drive the series on further past just two games. I could probably talk for pages upon pages of how awesome the game was. How incredibly the movement was over the last game and how much more engaging it was because Ezio was FAR more interesting than Altair as a character. But that's not what 1000G is all about. 100G is about achievements.

For the uninformed (who are you and why are you reading this?) achievements are the way for Xbox 360 games (they're called trophies on the PS3) to gain some extra re-play value by creating objectives that players can accomplish and gain the almighty currency of the hardcore gamer: G or gamerscore.

Let's be clear about this: gamerscore has no value. Initial investigation may lead one to believe that "G" or gamerscore is the same as a Microsoft point, the actual Xbox currency which is used to buy new games, game add-ons, and even clothing for your avatar. Yeah, clothes for the virtual version of yourself and people spend real-life money on this. Sheesh... G is a completely different concept. It has no actual value other than being equated to pride and bragging rights for those who really put stock in that kind of thing. There is a whole class of Xbox 360 players called the "achievement whore" who spend their game time trying to maximize the number of achievements that they obtain to get the highest gamer score possible. These people will cheat the system and perform unspeakable acts of sleeplessness and enter a state of social stasis in order to amass as much of this valueless "currency" of the hardcore.

I'm not one of these people. I'm a completionist for sure. I like to do as much in a game as I can, again to maximize the value of the game for myself. $60 is not going to waste on me and I'll do as much of the game as I can without it getting annoying. To recap, I didn't get all of the hundreds of flags in Assassin's Creed the first because I moved on to bigger and better things. Assassin's Creed II is a different story. Most of the achievements in the game were easily obtainable during the course of the game. The familiar and heartwarming "bloop" and the flash on the screen of a message telling you that you've achieved something appeared regularly and at key moments of the story. The occasional message that was out of place because I had achieved something that was aside from the normal course of the game was also something to keep me going. As I got to the end of the game, I realized that there were a few simple achievements that I had yet to obtain.

Most were fairly simple to achieve: kill a couple guys in a special way or grab a couple statues from ledges. Those were easily taken care of and provided my bloop and message. Then there were the feathers.

For some background for the uninformed, Assassin's Creed the series uses the eagle as a symbol of the assassin. It makes sense since your character flies across the buildings and there are so many opportunities to leap off of buildings and into carefully positioned hay bails which will save you from any a fall from any height. Eagle feathers in the second Assassin's Creed were a favorite of Ezio's younger brother. Upon his tragic demise which fuels the story of the game, his mother goes into a state of silent prayer and mourning for her son. Ezio tasks himself with collecting eagle feathers to help his mother cope. This is where the player, i.e. myself, comes in.

I had collected a good number of the feathers just from running across rooftops during the course of the game. Considering it was one of the last goals I had in order to achieve the all mighty 1000G and get 100% completion for the game, I figured it couldn't be too hard to find a map on the internet and move around the game's landscape collecting the last bit of feathers. It should be all too easy, or so I thought.

MS XBox World provided a fantastic map for me to follow with maps of all of the locations of the flags. I knew this would be my ticket to completion of Assassin's Creed 2. I set off on my quest with my friend Chris and my computer, knowing that it would be a fast task. It wasn't at all. I went through 4 days of searching maps and scouring the landscape of Italy to try to find these feathers. After finding out that the map I was using had the ability to click a feather location and see a photographic image of where exactly the feather was located, I collected 98 of the 100 feathers in the game.

I went through the maps multiple times, wringing my hands with each pass as I couldn't find the stupid 2 feathers that I had left. While distractedly running around the city of Venice and talking to one of my roommates at the same time, I gasped with triumph as I stumbled upon a feather randomly. My interest in my task was renewed because I knew that I only had 1 eagle feather left to obtain. It couldn't be that hard could it?

I went back to randomly searching rooftops, hoping to stumble across the final feather. After a few hours of fruitless and aimless wandering, I tasked Chris with helping me go through the maps, bit by bit until we had definitively searched every feather location listed. After roughly 10 minutes, a triumphant yell and high fives were had when we located the 100th feather.

The feeling was fleeting. I realized how ridiculous it was that I had just worked so hard and spent so many fruitless hours of my time trying to find virtual eagle feathers just to get pointless points that can be redeemed for nothing. Considering I don't get a sense of pride from amassing gamer score, my hard work, heartache and triumph was all for not.

After writing this, I'm not even 100% sure how to culminate this little story and really put an important message behind it. I guess my message would be to not put too much emphasis on completion in games. Try to get your money worth and put your best foot forward, especially when you're not getting a lot of new games and you need to make the best out of what you have. But when it really boils down to it, small tasks and achievements aren't really worth much and aren't worth wasting time and effort to obtain. But really, I don't care and if an achievement is possible to obtain, I'm going to do that. This wasn't for me to turn a new leaf or send an important message. It was for me to vent about the past few days of my free time being spent to find a stupid feather.

Leave me some comments and let me know what you think. I know the story had fractured flow and that it has no real ending because I'm not sure how it should have ended. If you feel so inclined, write me a better ending in the comments. Either way this story was from my table to yours, eat up!

BANQUET Sweet and Sour Chicken

You may be asking yourself: "Why is his title about Banquet Sweet and Sour Chicken? Is this going to be a food blog? The name of the blog is about food. Maybe he'll give us sweet recipies!"

Wrong

This is not a food specific blog. "BANQUET Sweet and Sour Chicken" was the text that popped up as the auto-fill for the Title when I clicked there so I went with it.

I'm not the most eloquent writer on the planet. Do I wish I could be a professional writer? Yeah absolutely because as hard as the work is, guys who are doing big time sports writing (your Peter Kings and Bill Simmons's and what not) are having a great time. Likewise, those who write about things that they love professionally are getting paid to research, report and comment on the things that they love. Everyone wants to be a writer these days because it seems like the dream job, which is why sites like this exist. For the purpose of everyone being able to express themselves for the world to see and feel, even if on a much smaller scale, like a professional who's opinions really matter.

I'm very realistic about this whole thing. My opinions don't matter to a vast majority of the people in the world. But they matter to me and really, I'm the only person who matters anyway. Suck it. I'm going to write down what I have to say and if you read it, you can like it or you can hate it, but you're still reading it and that's what really matters.

I might write something more targeted toward one subject or another at another point but I think it's good to get off on the right foot and really understand where I'm coming from.

So stay tuned for something good, from my table to your table. That down home country goodness, made the Jimmy Dean way.