HHG: NBA Finals 2010: Lakers vs. Celtics... again

Two years ago I thought the Celtics were too old to compete, although they might be a bit more desperate for a win. In the end Boston won it all, and proved me wrong. This year much the same applies. Pau and Kobe are still in LA, the Big Three are still in New England. Rajon Rondo has grown up into a fully matured star, while the Lakers added Ron Artest, but that's just about it.

Head: Lakers are still the top team in the NBA during the regular season... but when the rubber meets the playoff road, the Celtics switch another gear. Frankly now I don't know who's the better team. Andrew Bynum is probably the best skilled center in the Finals, but he is injured too often to be a factor. The Celtics seemed a little beaten up thanks to Dwight Howard, but the rest between the Conference Finals and the NBA Finals should be enough to recover for this. All the stars match up well against each other; L.A. might have a small edge depending how successful Artest can keep his counterpart from scoring.

Heart: Kobe doesn't mind LeBron having the attention in the offseason and the regular season, as long as he has the titles and rings. I would think that now he is more hungry for a title than the Boston Big Three. He's picturing himself a Michael Jordan, possibly to become an icon, a logo himself, like Jerry West and His Airness before him. That will only be the case, if he wins more titles, at least six or something. I'm hoping Kobe will do it (eventually), but if he pushes too hard, it won't work.

The teams are so closely matched, there's no apparent favorite. Gut feeling is that Boston retains its advantage over the Lakers, simply because they've been doing it forever. The aura of Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce add up to one overpowering trio against Gasol and Kobe. Then again Bryant may have learned a thing or two the past two years, especially winning last year. Let's say the ailing Celtics beat the slightly less ailing Lakers in six.

HHG: 2010 Stanley Cup Finals - Flyers vs. Blackhawks

The Head says the Chicago Blackhawks will win the Stanley Cup Finals this year. Obviously Chicago is the higher seed (2 vs. 7). Chicago has the highly touted talent of Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews. Chicago has been more impressive and a bigger threat to the Cup all regular season.

However the Heart says the Philadelphia Flyers will win. They were the ones who just scratched their way into the playoffs on the final day of regular season with a shootout against the Rangers. They were the ones 0-3 down against the Bruins. They were the team that nobody took notice of until just now.

So what does the Gut say? Couple of clues:

• Marian Hossa is going to the Finals for the third straight year. The past two years he has been on the losing side. He just might be the true Stanley Cup jinx. If Chicago loses this year, I don't see him finding a club to play for next year.
• Michael Leighton replaced Flyers' goalie Brian Boucher after the latter's injury in the second round of the playoffs. Since then, Leighton has been on fire, and was a big factor in Philly reaching the Finals. End of last year Leighton was out of a job. Now he is at the heart of the turnaround story of the season.
• Chicago hasn't won a Stanley Cup since 1961, now the longest title drought in the NHL. Like the Cubbies in baseball, trying to win a title after such a long time takes so much pressure. In fact by now both the Blackhawks and the Cubs retain a big part of their identity because of their droughts... they may not even want to win it all...

So Philadelphia wins the Stanley Cup me gut feels.

UEFA Champions League 2010: Inter - Bayern

A lot of good story lines as we come up to this year's Champions League final. The apprentice and the master square off. No English club makes it back to the biggest club soccer game of the year. A traded striker who can actually win the cup twice in a row. Two Double winners for their respective countries.

And chauvinistically speaking of course, Dutch players and personalities all over the place. Too bad that means Holland will not amount to much in the World Cup, but at least on a club level we've got some winners.

Actually honestly I have no idea who's objectively the better team. Each team has quality, star quality even. Of course Ribery is banned, but there's still plenty to look around for in each team. Milito, Olic, Altintop, Zanetti, Lamm, Eto'o, Schweinsteiger. Of course each team has their token gifted, but injury-prone Dutch player. Maybe I have to look at the coaches then, but even there there's no clear-cut winner. Van Gaal is a big disciplinarian, and as long as the basics are under control, he can beat any team. However, I don't see him making an exceptional coaching move that wins him the game. The most exceptional coaching move he ever did, was a karate kick in the 1995 Champions League final. Mourinho is less a disciplinarian and more of an instigator, drawing away attention from the real danger, the actual players on the pitch. He doesn't have however a signature playing style, that wins him the game either.

So between the two teams, there's little to choose between. Bayern might be the hotter team; after struggling early in the year, they've picked up speed, coincidentally after the return of Arjen Robben to form. Inter has been calculatedly solid throughout the season, and they gained a lot of followers after the dismantling of Barcelona in their own home.

Bayern has already won a Champions League in 2001. For Inter it has been ages. Wars have been fought, people have been born and died since the last time Inter held the Cup.

Inter was actually a league champion coming in to this season, although that doesn't seem to be a guarantee for success. Every other year a non-domestic champion wins the final. Last year Barcelona won the Cup, but wasn't the Spanish league champion of the preceding season. In 2008 Manchester United was a league winner and won the final. In 2007 Milan was not Italian champion coming into the Champions League winning-season. In 2006 Barcelona won the cup, and was Spanish champion coming in.

So if this pattern holds, the league champion coming into this Champions League will win the final, which is Internazionale.

Head: undecided
Heart: undecided
Gut: Inter

Do's and Don't's in Game Design

Making computer games is a departure from the typical "business" software development. It's closer to movie making and general entertainment. However, there are some best practices, and some far too common faults that can make or break your game, just like in normal software development.

• DO Break the Fourth Wall; The best games immerse the player into the game, by having a strong plot, a tight atmosphere, or by acknowledging the player's presence and making him part of the experience. Metal Gear Solid did this famously with the phantom Dual Shock controller; Batman Arkham Asylum turned everything upside down; The Command & Conquer install screen was a direct uplink to GDI. Games that erase the boundaries of the game with reality are stronger, and deserve their WTF moments.
• DON'T Release Crap; this seems obvious, yet somehow IT in all industries falls for this fate. Fatal bugs are death in the gaming industry. It puts me off when a game freezes every two steps, or drops back to the OS. It puts me off when multiplayer lobbies don't work. It puts me off when controls remain unresponsive. It puts me off when progress is broken if you don't do things EXACTLY as the programmer intended (and if you don't, you get stuck). If something isn't working, fix it, or don't bother releasing it.
• DO Have Strong Female Characters; Games with strong, attractive female leads generate sympathy from the player. Male players have something to ogle over, and care for (feeding their nurturing and heroic traits); female players have something to empower themselves with. Lara Croft, how horribly bimbo-ish she could be, she did inspire a legion of women to open up. If that ain't feminism, I don't know what is.
• DON'T Have a Skyrocketing Learning Curve; Games are supposed to be challenging, but still fun. Super Mario ended up as a very tough game, yet it eases you into things in the early going, giving you time to adjust to new challenges. It's also very easy to reward you modestly if you pick things up. How different was the first cycling manager game. There was no tutorial mode, and you basically mucked about, finishing last in every event, without the game telling you how you can be more successful.
• DO Have a powerful soundtrack; Indeed the exposure a video game soundtrack has on a player far outguns the exposure most recording artists have in the general public. And if you have a good one, you can double up and sell CDs as well. Uncharted had an amazing soundtrack. Metal Gear had an amazing soundtrack. C&C has always been a home run music-wise. EA Sports always has an eclectic selection of singles packed with its games. And for each and every single one of these games, I would actually have them on my iPod.
• DON'T Write the Plotline on the Back of a Napkin; You know why C&C4 is reviled among the gaming faithful? The plot makes no bloody sense. The motivations of the characters go from nice to bastard in no time flat; you have no idea whose side you're on, and why you are fighting for them. Final Fantasy XIII suffers much the same fate. Absolutely atrocious character development, whining little boys (always a pet peeve, as well as clowns), and too much jargon thrown around. Game designers don't need to insult my intelligence, but they also don't need to act to smug either.

Dedication or Obsession

People who live for dancing, are bound to be good dancers. At the very least, someone who is doing it all the time, is bound to dance better than someone who just casually moves around to music. That's why Michael Jackson chose the dancers he chose for the This Is It shows.

A football player who lives for the game, often gets drafted earlier than a football player who doesn't. Simply put, the former puts in the hours in the weight room, film room, studies the plays etc. The latter has other things to occupy him with, a family, drinks, a masters thesis. All other things being equal, the player who lives and loves the NFL with every fiber of his being is the person whom you trust the most to work his utmost for you, without distractions.

But is this kind of person dedicated, or simply obsessed? Is that passion, the thing that keeps him south of normal, stopping him from being a renaissance man?