Bioshock Infinite Review

I'm not much of a video game player. I'll play maybe one or two games a year, and there will be years that go by without playing any. Every few months I'll walk over to the Game Stop and get a used game, play it for twenty minutes, and just stop. I did that with Gears of War, Prince of Persia, and a bunch of other games.

Recently I've played the first two Dead Space games. I really enjoyed those. They had good stories, great environments, and fun gameplay that never got too fast or crazy. I'm not very good with the XBox controller, but Dead Space moved at a deliberate enough pace that it was both fun and rewarding for my skill level. Before that I played the the Telltale Walking Dead game which was so good it has made the television show unwatchable. Before that I played the first Bioshock and before that Half Life 2. Half Life 3 would likely be enough for me to get a new PC to play it, but I'm not hip to most video games. I'm just mentioning all of this to give some perspective as to where I'm coming from, and because those are the big points of comparison I have for Bioshock Infinite.

I picked up Bioshock Infinite largely because of its setting and themes. Eugene Debs is, as I've discussed many times, my hero and someone I find endlessly fascinating and inspirational. Eugene Debs got over a million votes in the election of 1912, and when I found out that Bioshock Infinite took place in 1912 and dealt with issues of labor and resistance it became apparent I had to pick it up. I played the first Bioshock in large part because it was a critique of Ayn Rand, although being a big fan of System Shock 2 didn't hurt.

I'm going to approach this review by tackling the actual game play first, and then by talking about its story and themes.

I'm not very good at playing first person shooters with the XBox controller. I do well using a mouse and keyboard, but for some reason I always feel clumsy with a console controller. I'm sure some of my feelings about the game play resulted from this, but I feel like some of the other issues I had weren't caused by my own ineptitude. 

Bioshock Infinite's game play isn't much different than the first Bioshock. It's not a bad game by any means, but it was never especially satisfying or tactical. A game like Half Life 2 features a lot of interesting scenarios that resulted in challenging game play that necessitated smart play. I always felt like a lot of the battles in Half Life 2 were won with a combination of tactics, thought, and twitch reflex. Bioshock Infinite, on the other hand, felt way too frantic and muddy so that I never really felt as though I was using any sort of tactic. I never felt like the actual game play was especially satisfying. I would mostly just shoot the baddies, run around to regain health, and repeat. 

The biggest problem I have with Bioshock Infinite's game play is that I'm not sure they ever figured out what they wanted the game play to be. Did they want it to be a fast paced action shooter? Did they want it to play like a first person Prince of Persia where jumping and using the sky railway was essential? Did they want it to be about the pseudo-magic abilities you controlled so you could possess, disorient, and lay traps? Or did they want the game to be about opening up "tears", basically controllable pieces of terrain that you can activate, to use to your advantage? The combination of all of these creates muddled game play that is less exciting than it is merely frantic and overwhelming. This combined with my sloppiness with the controller made it so I treated the game almost exclusively like a standard shooter by ignoring most of these other features.

Don't get me wrong, the game play is never bad. I never disliked it, but I mostly found it to be a price to pay so I could advance the story and explore the world set up in the game. Had the game been a bit slower and more measured like Dead Space I think I would have liked it more. Still, it was perfectly acceptable, especially since it is clearly not the selling point of the game.

The major reason I purchased and played the game was because of its setting and themes. The 1890s through 1930s period is one of the most interesting periods in American history, and it is a history that never gets discussed. We might hear about prohibition or World War 1, but rarely is there talk of the labor struggles and ramifications of laissez faire capitalism. Bioshock Infinite promised a game that would take all the elements that fascinate me so much about this period (nationalism, labor, industrialization, technology, race, women's liberation, and many others) and make them the focus of a video game. 

Sadly, I feel that most of these issues only serve as window dressing. While some of these issues are touched upon, they seem to be discussed in only the most obvious and on-the-nose way. A lot of this has to stem from the world simply not feeling real. I felt that the first Bioshock existed in an actual world, I believed that Rapture was an underwater city that ate itself alive because of the untenable nature of its philosophical foundations. The world felt real in the game as well, especially since we arrive in Rapture after things got bad.

Columbia never felt real. You enter the city on a normal day and the streets are largely empty. Columbia doesn't feel lived in or real. Once things go bad and the action starts I became confused about why some people were shooting at me and others weren't. It's a beautiful game and Columbia looks gorgeous, but I never felt like it was a real breathing city. I'm sure it's easier to create a rotting corpse of an underwater city like Rapture, but Columbia feels like it doesn't quite attain its lofty goals.

I felt underwhelmed by the themes the game wanted to explore, and I think a lot of that comes from the world it exists in. We see a few instances of how awful unfettered capitalism is, one of my favorite scenes involves an auction site where workers bid on how fast they can accomplish tasks at a factory, but for the most part it feels as though the game simply asks us all to come in understanding that things are bad for the working class. I'm sure some of this comes from my desire to be beaten over the head with Eugene Debs and allusions to the Pullman Strike, but I feel that if you're going to make a game that deals with these issues that they need to feel immediate and real. Instead, I come away knowing that the wealthy, like the industrialist Fink, are bad to the working class but don't find myself caring.

That the game *SPOILER* eventually has the labor resistance, the Vox Populi, become almost as bad as the industrialist overlords feels like a silly attempt to be neutral. That combined with your inability to actually be involved in any of the struggle that occurs between Comstock and the Vox Populi makes me feel as a viewer and not an active participant. That normally wouldn't be a problem, but this is a video game. I wanted to be part of a worker's revolution in the sky and to murder cloud bourgeoisie with fire. It's not fair to judge something for not being what I wanted it to be, but I feel as though the game paints this world and then asks you to be a viewer instead of a participant.

Other issues, such as nationalism and religion, are handled well enough. Even then, they are a little on the nose. Instead of being an incisive critique on American exceptionalism, the game becomes a bit of a comedy. Comstock and Columbia are too broad, too obvious, and too comical to really have any teeth as actual criticism or commentary. 

Despite my problems listed above there is a lot to like about the game. While I'm a little annoyed that the reasons I got the game were merely window dressing, the game ends up telling a much more personal and existential story. Similar to the first Bioshock there is a twist that changes a lot of what you see during the course of the game, and ultimately the game is about the relationship with Elizabeth. Again, it's not fair to judge a game based on what you want it to be, but I do wish the game focused more on its setting and the societal themes within. 

In the end, the story told is compelling. While I don't find the relationship between Booker DeWitt and Elizabeth to be as compelling or emotional as the relationship between Lee and Clementine in the Walking Dead Telltale adventure game, it still manages to be engaging enough. Ultimately, I enjoyed this game but am a little baffled by the amount of love and critical praise it gets. All the things I liked about the game I found done better elsewhere, but all the same it's a fine game and one I don't regret playing. Now back to painting my toy soldiers and not wasting my time with these dang video games kids like to play.

Jack Swagger, Zeb Colter, and the Tea Party

I was always a fan of Jack Swagger. I enjoyed his push ups, I liked his flying around like an eagle soaring high above, and I always thought he had a lot of upside in the actual act of doing the wrestles. He's a good wrestler that was only held back by his inability to talk.

His humorless Kurt Angle shtick ran its course quickly after he stopped working with Dolph Ziggler. After a few adventures on Mars he came back and had a new fire in his belly. That fire was racism, or patriotism if you're one of those people.

His friend, Zeb Colter, has been doing the talking and has been rather controversial. Instead of getting into what has been said it is easiest to direct you to their YouTube videos.

There's two ways I approach this. First, is as a wrestling fan. As a wrestling fan I'm not sure how this angle plays out. Like I said above, I like Jack Swagger and this seems like a dead-end gimmick for him. He obviously can't win long term with this angle, and at a certain point this shtick won't work. Worse, my bleeding heart has a bit of sympathy for jobber types so once this angle runs its course and he ends up jobbing to Fandango it'll just make me feel sympathetic for him.

As a fan of wrestling and politics, however, this angle is really exciting. The thing I like most about it is that it is not too obvious and is not as on the nose as it could be. It would be very easy to have Colter and Swagger yell derogatory comments and just become a South Park parody. Instead they use language that is grounded in the reality of today's right.

It would be easy for Zeb Colter to be entirely too villainous, but instead he uses many of the same code words and way of phrasing things as the actual Tea Party. Instead of talking about how he hates brown people he instead talks about America and it being a "City on a Hill". His arguments are completely in line with what is fairly mainstream in conservatism. I'm sure many of you have family members that would be near indistinguishable from Zeb Colter.

One only has to look at Michele Bachmann's statements on the Pigford Settlement and white farmers harmed by floods, Sarah Palin's constant yammering about "real Americans", or just an otherwise quick glance at RedState or Free Republic to see how realistic Zeb colter is.

I'm somewhat hopeful of where this angle could go after the inclusion, or at least the attempted inclusion, of Glenn Beck. In Colter and Swagger's video inviting Beck to Raw they constantly refer to Beck's "followers". That's a peculiar way to phrase things and not altogether inaccurate. Going after Glenn Beck the way they did shows a certain degree of perspective that one can assume the WWE wouldn't otherwise have.

Many of the reasons for the Tea Party and the rise of right wing populism stem from economic despair that is entirely too understandable and sympathetic. While it is too easy to wave your hand and speak of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh whipping these people into a frenzy for ratings and money as the exclusive reason for the Tea Party and its racism (and this is something I've seen many liberals say, because the real reasons for these people are with issues liberals do not wish to address), there is a small bit of truth to the belief that the tail wags the dog.

Further positioning Zeb colter as an almost cult like leader of Jack Swagger works as an interesting critique of these media personalities by the McMahons. Linda McMahon, despite being terrible in almost every way a member of the bourgeois class is able to be terrible, was a fairly mainstream Republican. She thought she had a decent chance at becoming Senator of Connecticut, and one must wonder how much the McMahons blame the Tea Party for shoving them far to the right and becoming unelectable in a blue state like Connecticut.

So much of the Zeb Colter story seems to be a broadside from the McMahons at the Tea Party and the media darlings associated with it. It makes a lot of sense that they are going to depict the Tea Party in an unsavory way. Moving forward I hope they allow this angle to run its course, but for Swagger to get a change of heart and understand that him and Yoshi Tatsu aren't so different afterall and that instead of yelling at poor immigrants he should start hurting hedge fund managers and politicians that support globalization. And he should rename all of his moves after Emma Goldman.

No war but class war, brothers and sisters.

Election 2012 - Mega Post

There are a plethora of topics I'd like to talk about, and while many don't warrant their own post I thought I could just do a quick brain dump to celebrate the election.

On Punditry
538 and Princeton's Election Consortium have talked about this at length, but I thought it would be fun to touch on for a moment. Pundits this year have been awful. I'm not just talking about those on the right, who should be expected to just tell the world Romney is winning regardless of the odds, but pundits who should be expected to remain impartial or otherwise neutral have also been terrible.

This election has never been close. Sure, at times the national popular vote has been close but there has never been a credible pathway for a Romney victory through the Electoral College (you know, that thing that is the only thing that matters). At best his odds were akin to flipping a quarter 5 times and having each flip come up heads.

Al Franken talked about this a lot in one of his books, Lying Liars I think, but the media has far more biases towards sensationalism than anything else. Posturing that this race was close, too close to call (!!), was always something they were going to do regardless. It's disappointing that the media seems so willing to call a race close when it wasn't, especially since doing so entailed buying the Romney spin on everything.

On Right Wing Punditry
It's funny to just say that one should go on Intrade and bet against whatever Dick Morris says, but it's not completely inaccurate. Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Red State, and most everyone else on the right has been completely insane.

One of the reasons I'm so optimistic about this election, besides these things called "facts" you hear so much about, is that every analysis from the right has centered on things other than polls. All of these people will just shrug at the polls and say that they're oversampling Democrats (funny thing: everyone laughs at Unskewed Polls but this is literally the premise every other pundit on the right works from as well), or that Independents break toward the challenger, or tons of other things.

When a group of people's argument is that all you have to do is ignore the polls and just look at all these other things, you can tell they know things are looking bad and they're just lying to you.

To be fair, the one lone voice of reality on the right are the folks at Romney Mega Prayer. They are so certain that Obama is going to win that their last chance effort for Romney to win is to pray for it. That's as close to being in touch with reality and probability as we have on the right these days.

Speaking of certainty and probability...

Intrade
Intrade is crap. It literally makes no sense. The idea is somewhat sound, but this election year has broken it in a way that I think invalidates it completely.

Say you're the type of person who votes on elections, I am, and you sincerely believe Mitt Romney is going to win. Intrade will give you about +150% return on your investment if Mitt Romney were to win. That's not bad! The problem, though, is that at no point during the election year did Intrade give you a better return on your money than using an online betting company.

Markets are supposed to be intelligent, any sensible person knows they're not, and if the Intrade market worked you would see the numbers on Intrade tracking closely to that of online booking services. Seriously, if I thought Romney would win I would take that money where I could get the best return, and similarly if I thought Obama would win I would take it to where it could also get the best return. This should drive up the value of Obama until his stock on Intrade was close to these booking sites, and would also drive down the value of Romney until it was close to the booking sites.

Instead, we have a situation where in a marketplace of marketplaces there is a clear choice. If you believe Obama will win, and I've got money saying just that, you should put it into Intrade because you'll get the best return. If you think Romney will win you should put it elsewhere, for similar reasons. Instead we see many people buying Obama on Intrade, but a large amount of people buying Romney for reasons that I fail to understand.

Intrade has been volatile. There were instances where a single person would buy up Romney shares and drive his prices up. I think it is highly likely that there are people who have tried to manipulate that market to favor Romney, because if it reflected what it should, what the marketplace should dictate, it would become a news story.

This is just another example of a marketplace being inefficient. Congratulations capitalists, your false god is dead.

Libertarians
I talk about and think about libertarians a lot. I don't like them, but I know way too many and they have an increasingly loud voice in discussions these days.

To say that libertarians are dishonest would be a vast understatement, most of their arguments are inherently dishonest and craven, but they can't (unfortunately) just be laughed at.

What strikes me as interesting, and sad, is that libertarians seem to be voting for Romney. This goes to prove that all the crap libertarians try to do to get you squishy liberal types to side with them is all bullshit. Libertarians don't care about legalizing marijuana, or gay marriage, or ending wars abroad, or any of those issues. They are willing to sacrifice each and every one of those issues, and more such as abortion, so that taxes will be cut on the bourgeois class. That's it.

Libertarians are not your friends, they are just trying to put a happy face to the right's fascism. There is no there, there, and they will quickly give up all the beliefs they profess to care about if it means unfettered trade, destruction of the environment, and the destruction of the working class.

The easiest way to tell they are full of crap is to watch their language on the War on Drugs. Gary Johnson believes drugs should be legalized, but he also believes in privatizing prisons and then letting those corporations fund candidates who will keep drug sentencing draconian so as to make more profit for the prisons. At the end of the day, Gary Johnson is willing to sacrifice his stance on drugs if it means privatizing and enshrining corporate power against the best interests of the people.

Questioning Legitimacy
The most nefarious, cynical, and awful thing has been happening. While the above pundits might be spinning things in a last ditch attempt to create a Romney victory, they are also doing something far more sinister: they are making millions of people on the right believe that a Romney victory is certain, and that when Obama wins it will be because of criminal actions.

My biggest fear, and one I think is completely rational, is that we are going to see the very mechanics of today's elections questioned. From bullshit stories about people touching screens for Romney and coming up with Obama, to bullshit stories about undocumented workers voting, to bullshit stories of "voter registration fraud" (which is not an actual issue and anyone that reports on it is doing so because they're stupid or corrupt), to a litany of other issues we are going to see Obama's legitimacy called into question under the most vile conditions.

There's a lot to be said for how partisan we are. I have a hard time blaming it on spineless liberal weenies, although they do their fair share of culture warrior-ing against what they see as "rednecks", and it is mostly the fault of those on the right who sincerely hate anyone who is not straight, male, white, and Christian.

President Obama's first term has been plagued with the ugliest and most vile of accusations, and I believe it's going to be much worse going into the future. While people called into question his very legitimacy as a citizen and as a person, we're going to see the actual election called into question. Pundits have created a sense of certainty for Romney supporters, and their anger is going to be channeled into hatred and questions of legitimacy moving into the future. It's going to get ugly.

The Future
Moving into the future I expect I'll troll and otherwise just count coup on conservatives for a few days. These people have become awful, not all of them but enough to say what I'm saying, that I'll just brag about ACORN stealing the election for laughs. Because, seriously, ugh.

After that I fully expect to start yelling at you weak, awful, boot licking liberals who defend capitalism and the 1% but want to do so in a nice way, instead of the hateful and vitriolic way of the right. Don't misunderstand me, just because Romney is lamentable and worse than Obama doesn't mean I like you. We're temporary allies at best.

Unfortunately, and I say this with a really sad heart, I'm starting to increasingly be fearful that I may need to renounce my membership to the Socialist Party of the United States and become a Democrat. I know, I know. It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that we no longer have two parties: we have one and a half parties.

One party, the Republicans, exist to just shit on everything and yell about black people. They're really only half a party, and there's no conversation or debate to be had. There's no marketplace of ideas with these people, as they will constantly move the goal posts forever to the right and just be hateful at the opposing party no matter how much they capitulate.

The other party, the Democrats, are the party of moderates and the center. Instead of going to the left and thinking that they can work with the Republicans to find a moderate solution in the center, they instead have chosen to inhabit the center. Everything from health care insurance reform, to the stimulus, to their tax plan are all things that are very centrist and moderate things. They're not the leftist party, and they sneer at those that belong to fringe parties that are on the left.

What the Democrats have going for them, however, is that they remain a big tent. All actual political discourse and discussions happens in the Democratic Party. I think even "libertarian" types understand this, as we've seen them exercise more and more influence in the Democratic Party over issues like school vouchers and the like.

Unfortunately I'm starting to think the only way to move the conversation, to change policies, and to have your voice heard is to be an active member of the Democratic Party. The Republicans will never argue in good faith, and they argue for things that are demonstrably worse than the Democrats at every step, and the Democrats will only laugh at us in the SPUSA.

Moving into the future, however, we're going to get Four More Years and that's the most I could hope for right now. The next battle is to create change within the Democratic Party so they can better fight for the causes that really matter.

President Obama is no Eugene Debs, but...

We at the Hammer Dialectic offices have been busy watching debates, reading polls, and otherwise keeping up to date with every small movement in this year's election. We're political junkies, and we are now able to offer an endorsement for this year's presidential election.

Listening to conservative talk radio, such as Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, would make you believe that President Obama was a fire breathing Marxist who was hell bent on paving the roads with the bones of the villainous bourgeoisie. Sadly, President Obama has fallen well short of being the Marxist god emperor who would usher in a paradise of worker solidarity. Instead, President Obama has been a middling, mediocre, and disappointing president.

The amount of issues that President Obama disappoints are numerous. Health care, trade, drone attacks, Guantanamo Bay, and a tremendous amount of issues are all things we can look at with sadness and anger. Where was the transformative president we all elected in 2008? Where was the hope and change?

The most important issue to us here at the Hammer Dialectic, and the issue we believe is most affecting on the world, is trade. Globalization and free trade has destroyed unions, polluted the world, brought about misery and pain to factories abroad, and destroyed the blue collar middle class in the United States. Free trade and a corrupt tax code have allowed the most massive redistribution of wealth from the working class to the owners of investment capital. This is an issue both President Obama and Mitt Romney agree on.

Through it all, though, there are differences. While Romney and Obama largely agree on trade, Romney would also go about dismantling the welfare state and exacerbating an already unbearable situation for many in the United States.

We supported Nader in 2000. We have spoken to many leftists, actual leftists, who won't support President Obama because they believe the increased horrors brought upon by a Romney Administration would finally awaken the American public to the evils of capitalism and usher in real change. We hear this, and said as much, in 2000 and 2004. This underestimates the right's ability to double down on every evil or wrong belief they push.

Think about it, when have you ever seen anyone on the right to ever admit something was wrong or to otherwise back down? The problem with the 2008 crash wasn't an excess of finance capital, but there wasn't enough capitalism. Or just look at the commentariat on the right and it's easy to see that no matter how wrong, stupid, or vapid that they do nothing but double down on each and every thing.

Sadly, the best we can hope for is an Obama second term that will exert some effort in protecting the American people from the excesses of capital. That's it.

In the end the choice is clear this election. President Obama is the best we can do, and we can not possibly understate how awful a Romney Administration would be.

Lastly, we are hopeful that the much anticipated and highly regarded endorsement from The Hammer Dialectic will put President Obama over the top. We have run the numbers and we believe that our endorsement will give President Obama a 294 to 244 victory over the villainous, craven, and lying Mitt Romney.

Chikara's King of Trios Thoughts and Gifs

This is going to be fairly short and concise. Well, as short and concise for ten hours of the best wrestling.

Going into King of Trios I was a little apprehensive. I really love a lot of Chikara, but some of Chikara has never done anything for me. Mix that with some nostalgia teams that I don't care about, and a few teams that I knew nothing about and I thought that Trios would be more about hanging out with my Wrestling Bros than the actual event.

I was wrong. First thing, I'm a bad wrestling fan. I've taken the "What have you done for me lately?" approach to wrestling. Seeing an old guy doesn't do anything for me, but if delivers it can be great. Secondly, judging a few trios teams based on what I found on YouTube wasn't fair. Last, despite Trios being the best wrestling event I have ever been to and Night 3 having the best match I have ever seen I can still confidently say that hanging out with the Wrestling Bros was still the best part of the weekend. You people are that awesome.

I could go on and on and on and just gush about how great everything was. Instead of doing that I'll just hit a few points that seem worth mentioning.

First, I was at the live show. Since then I've watched the MP4s (GIFS!) and ordered the DVDs. I still don't feel like I spent enough money for how great the show was. The taping, while obviously not as great as actually being there, is very good and definitely worth watching if you are a wrestling fan. Night 3 is the best wrestling show I have ever seen, but watching the first two nights (which are both great) really helps Night 3 become what it is.

Second, holy crap I like the Young Bucks. I hated those guys, but they were always entertaining in the ring and were great heels. They won me over as a fan.

Third, Dasher Hatfield is legit the nicest guy ever. Mr Touchdown is amazing. Seriously, everyone I met and talked to in the show was gracious and nice. The only exception was Ophidian and that dude shut me down in the most foul way possible.

Fourth, Too Cold Scorpio can still go, Tommy Dreamer was fun, and people were losing their minds over Tito Santana.

Fifth, Never before, never again will we see Sugar Dunkerton v Tatanka.

Sixth, Kaori Yoneyama is my new favorite wrestler. I could watch her and Tsubasa Kuragaki wrestle forever and I would never get tired or bored.

Seventh, Team JWP was awesome. The tag match with them and Manami Toyota is my favorite match ever. I've watched it three times since then and it's still amazing. That match just made me so happy. I wasn't a Joshi fan before, but in an attempt to be a wrestling fan I think I need to be since all the Joshi wrestlers there were just the best.

Eighth, the Sendai Girls team and JWP teams were ace. I'm not going to say the weekend would not have been as awesome without them, but the easily contributed the most of anyone else there.

Ninth, isn't it crazy we live in a world where a guy like Ultramantis Black can come out to black metal and be the face against some good looking young guys who are clean shaven? That's nuts!

Tenth, Wrestling Bros because YOLO. Seriously, I came with a lot of great friends and left with even more.

I could go on and on about so much. It was close to a perfect weekend and the wrestling, friends, and environment was just perfect. Also, if you weren't there you should definitely get the DVDs or buy the stream. Smart Mark Video has it and it's seriously the best wrestling show ever, even filmed. I've watched it twice since coming back and it's just as good as I remember.

Also, since people don't come here for my rambling thoughts (Brandon Stroud will have a write up on Monday at With Leather that will definitely be worth reading) here are the gifs I've made. There's over 75 between all 3 nights.

Night 1
Night 2
Night 3

If I missed anything let me know on Twitter or wherever kids talk to one another on the internet. ICQ?

Friedich von Hayek and Augosto Pinochet: The Liberty Scam

Few figures exist in the Libertarian movement like Hayek. No other figure is quoted, revered, or talked about as much. Sure, certain segments of that "movement" prefer Ayn Rand or Ludwig von Mises, but Hayek is the one I hear most talked about.

Take a quick look at Cato, Reason, or those awful economic rap videos and it's easy to see a level of idolatry that would make the most staunch Marxist blush. Of Hayek's work, The Road to Serfdom is the most talked about and lauded. I'll go into a little detail about why it's a silly and nonsensical book, but first here's a cartoon summary of the main points of the book.

It's important to understand that this was written during World War 2. Hayek thought that the centralized planning the Allies did to fight the war would result in new dictators rising up and taking away liberty. Hayek saw the National Health Service in the UK, national highways in the United States, and many other such programs as examples of the beginning of the end.

It's peculiar to me that a book that lays out a set of predictions could end up being so completely wrong, yet still be read and referenced to the extent it is referenced today. I might have missed it, but I don't remember Norway or Sweden or France or Germany or the United Kingdom or any other nation this book was talking about slipping into despotism and terror as a result of implementing social democracy. I'm a simple man, though, so I might have missed it.

This all becomes ever more strange when you realize that Hayek was in favor of dictatorship and did support the overthrow of a democratically elected government. All of Hayek's talk about liberty and freedom become worthless once you understand his involvement and support of Augosto Pinochet and his despotic regime in Chile.

Many others have done a better job of talking about this subject than I am capable of, so I highly encourage you to take a look a Corey Robin's post on this subject as he does an excellent job of discussing Hayek and his support of totalitarian regimes.

What takes Hayek from being merely stupid and getting overly excited about the free market, lest we forget stupid leftists who have supported vile dictatorships because they were caught up in the excitement of a perceived worker's revolution, is that he was very clear about what he saw and what he encouraged.

Hayek was, in fact, not just an enthusiastic supporter of Pinochet and what he had done in Chile, but was quite open about preferring a dictatorship that protected his twisted view of economic liberty to “democratic government lacking in liberalism." Andrew Farrant, Edward McPhail, and Sebastian Berger have gone into great depths exploring Hayek's views on these issues in a well written paper that can be found here.

What does all of this mean, though? I could go into great detail about other Libertarian thinkers and activists and their support of despotism, such as Ludwig von Mises collaboration and support of Italian and Austrian fascism, but what's the point?

The point is this: Libertarianism is a misnomer. They care not one iota about actual liberty. They will sometimes talk about gay rights, legalizing marijuana, ending various wars, and lots of other things that appeal to a liberals sense of what liberty actually means, but at the end of the day they are willing to sacrifice everything for economic freedom. Libertarians care not about actual freedom, and they are overtly contemptuous and against democracy, instead they merely wish to "liberate" the markets from any democratic oversight and they are willing to do anything and everything they can to do that.

It can be to no one's surprise that most, although not all, avowed libertarians are voting for Mitt Romney this election year. Despite Mitt Romney and President Obama having differences on gay marriage, illegal drugs and sentencing, education, and many other issues that those that call themselves "libertarians" pretend to care about that at the end of the day they are willing to sacrifice all those issues for a slight decrease in government involvement in the free market.

I know I have said this time and time again, but there is a fundamental incompatibility between democracy and capitalism. We see this every day: capital and business are becoming more powerful and are using that power to weaken democratic controls, influence, and the very institution of democracy in local governments and unions.

We will not be able to fight back for as long as people are allowed to talk about von Hayek without mentioning his disgraceful support and intellectual arguments for despotism and tyranny. On this anniversary of the coup that overthrew a democratically elected government we must remind the world what the free market looks like and does. Viva Allende!

NOVA Open Review, Thoughts, and Battle Reports

I've been slacking off on writing this, work has been nuts this week, but here are my thoughts on the NOVA Open.

Overall Thoughts on the Tournament and Convention

I had a very good time. I played in the 40k Grand Tournament and it was well run and moved. I think it's unfair to compare it to Adepticon or past Games Workshop Grand Tournaments, they have very different aims than NOVA, but they will have to work as a baseline.

First, the hotel worked. It was clean, reasonably priced, and was not in the way. I've been at tournaments in crappy hotels that cost 50% more than what I spent at NOVA, and I'm thankful that NOVA appears to be sticking with the Hyatt in Crystal City. From what I understand, it sounds like most of the complaints last year were addressed in a positive way this year. The only real complaint, and I know this is one that can't be addressed, is that most of the neighborhood restaurants weren't open during the weekend and the hotel food was a little pricey. We packed sandwiches and snacks so it didn't bother us too much.

The 40k GT was well run. It moved along and I didn't hear very many complaints. Pairings went up reasonably fast, and with two and a half hours I imagine most everyone finished on time. I only had two games that didn't end "naturally" and both of those would not have changed had there been more time. 

My only real complaint with the GT was the terrain. It looked nice, but was very big and just didn't feel like any sort of terrain I've ever played in 40k. I've been to numerous Grand Tournaments, both GW and independent, tons of RTTs throughout the East Coast, and have played many games otherwise and I have never seen or played on terrain that felt like this. I don't think the terrain ever won or lost me any games, but I definitely think it's an area where they could improve moving into the future.

Don't get me wrong, I imagine those that brought balanced lists had no problems. While the terrain could be improved, and granted this is an improvement that would make the terrain more in line with what I feel 40k terrain should be, I don't think anyone that brought a balanced list was overly hurt by it. I have no sympathy with someone that lost because of the terrain because they brought an MSU gunline and wanted to grind down their opponents with statistics, instead of actually playing a real game of 40k.

Outside of terrain I think the NOVA FAQ could have been better. I give them a pass on this because GW has been lax about cleaning up some of the core rules for 6th edition, but one NOVA FAQ ruling struck me as just obviously wrong. NOVA FAQ ruled that a Flyer could fly, or Hover or whatever they call it, and do so at Combat Speed up to 35". That means that Cruising Speed is the domain of 36" and only 36". In all the games I played and all the Flyers I played against I never once saw someone go 36". I bet there's a very strong probability that there was never an instance where a Flyer ever went Cruising Speed the entire weekend. I think that's a clear way you can tell you got a rule wrong: When a rule gives you two choices and you interpret it to mean that in 99.99999% of the time only one option will be taken.

It's not a huge deal, although it definitely helped the two Necron Flyer lists I played, but there you go.

I have a few other quick problems and areas where I believe they can improve. 

Paint judging was done in a way that confused me. I know I got paint judged, but my result was never posted. Now, my army is very much a tabletop quality army, but I'm still proud of it and painted it up in a few short weeks. I think it would have scored well, and I would have liked to have seen what I got. It's a little annoying that I had to bring my army to get judged and I don't have the score to see.

Ashley and I have talked that when we NOVA next year that both of us will have to play the same system. Schedules didn't overlap and it was hard to see one another much. I obviously don't expect them to make this work for us, I doubt there were many other couples that split systems like us, but going forward we just need to make sure we play the same system.

Lastly, and most importantly, I think Mike Brandt and the guys who run NOVA need to decide if they want to be the big competitive 40k tournament or if they want to be an actual convention. I only played in the 40k GT but I still played 8 games and that left me with zero time to check out vendors, take hobby seminars, or do much of anything but play all the 40k in the world. I love 40k, but cramming that many games into a weekend involves sacrificing a few things and I think creating a real convention is going to be one of them. 

I remember the old Games Workshop Grand Tournaments, at least the ones I went to in 2008, and how great they were because we would play 5 games but we also had time to check everyone's army and really take in the event. It's a slower pace that really allows for a more relaxed environment, which fosters an ability to do things that aren't just playing games. I very strongly believe that for NOVA to become a true convention that it will need to give up the "competitive" nature of what they are going for. 

Everything I talked about is relatively minor. I go to these tournaments to play new people, to see cool armies, and to get in a bunch of good games. The tournament did all of that and it did it very well. I hope none of what I said above gets in the way of the fact that I had a good time and will go again next year.

Quick Battle Reports

I didn't take detailed notes or have army lists / missions handy, but I had a great time this weekend and thought it would be fun to talk about each game briefly.

Here is my heroic Tau with glorious Kroot, intrepid Vespid, and stoic Ork allies.

Game 1

My first game was against a really good guy running Necrons. I forgot his name (Very sorry!), but it was a very close game. I had some ridiculous luck, Vespids managed to take off the last Hull Point of a Necron Flyer (!!??!?) and I managed to pull out the win. It was a tough game and I think Wraiths give Necrons a very strong assault element that ties that army together. Without them they have the risk of not being well balanced. This army was balanced and fun to play against. Good guy and a good game.

Game 2

Game 2 was against Nicholas Caruso and his Grey Knights with Space Wolf allies. I believe the mission was Objectives, with The Relic being the center objective, and using Hammer and Anvil. His list was hard as it constituted Grey Knight Razorbacks and lots of Psycannons. 

I honestly became disinterested in this game by round 2. He was just rolling so many dice and going through shooting with everything that it became tedious. He was an incredibly nice guy, though, and was really great to talk to afterwards. He fully admits that this is a hard list and isn't fun to play with or against, but NOVA is a competitive tournament so there we are.

Very good guy and a very big defeat for me. Looking back on it now I realize that I could have given him a much better game had I deployed differently. I believe I have the tools to beat this army and had I deployed better I think it could have been closer. It would have been a hard game for me to win, but I believe I better understand what I need to do to make it a better matchup. 

Game 3

Game 3 was against Pete and his Blood Angels. I saw his army and thought I had a strong win. He had very few models, and I figured I could kill 15 2+ Save models.

I couldn't. Pete was a super good guy, but this is one of those games where the game wasn't as fun as it should be. There were just a lot of weird things that happened, such as having a big mob of 30 Ork Boyz with Warboss charge 5 Sanguinary Guard with Dante and kill zero models. Between Shooting and Assaults I did an unimaginable number of wounds and killed nothing.

It happens, and Pete was a lot of fun to play with. He had really bad luck his previous game so he was owed a good game. I also know that a big part of my loss came from my playing too aggressively and counting too much on being able to throw enough wounds on his Terminators and Sanguinary Guard. Had I played more carefully and focused on shooting and having a strong Counter Attack element I think I could have won.

You have to take the bad with the good and the bad luck I had this game turned into ridiculous luck in my 6th game, so it all works out.

Game 4

Game 4 was against Brian Carlson, and if I keep repeating myself that he was a great guy it's because I had really great opponents for a lot of the tournament. Super nice guy with a gorgeous army.

I wish I remembered more about the game, but I believe it was pretty close and he ended up with a victory. I remember there being a lot of dancing and shooting with his Wraiths, but I couldn't do enough to stop him at the end. I believe Victory Point were close and it was an otherwise close game, just one I couldn't seal the deal on.

Very good guy and I'm very glad he won his bracket. He's a great player with a strong army.

Game 5

At this point we're all put into our brackets. I'm in the heroic 1-3 bracket, and at this point the games start to feel more intense. My 4 previous games were much more relaxed, but now each game effectively becomes single elimination and it definitely makes for a more intense environment.

Game 5 was against Robin Adair. Robin had a really nice looking Night Lord's army, using Blood Angels rules, and was a good guy. I feel bad because he was very frustrated for a lot of our game, he missed a 7" charge that became a 9" charge because of Overwatch and a few other things. Sadly, I don't think his army was all that good. It looked really nice, but I think it's going to be hard to win a game of 6th Edition with 50 Jump Infantry. 

This was a tough game for him because I just had so much long range shooting, and I still managed to have a strong Assault Element that by the time he did get to me I had Kroot and Ork Boyz that could Assault and take care of whatever I needed.

This was a big victory for me.

Game 6

Game 6 was with Mitch Stevens with Stiff Neck Painting. Mitch was a really great guy with a gorgeous Imperial Fists army.

I made up for all my bad luck in game 3. I had first turned and ended up taking out a bunch of Space Marines, a Vindicator, his Thunderfire Cannon, and a few other odds and ends. Whenever something would come up it would come up good for me. He had a Storm Talon come in and my Quad Gun just downed it before it could do anything. Vespids shot and killed a Librarian. It was a brutal game and Mitch was gracious and kind about it.

Had I not been lucky I think this game would have been extremely close. He's a good player and his list could give me serious problems. 

Also, all of the Stiff Neck guys I met were great and class acts. I'd look into them if you wanted some painting work as they were very gracious and talented people.

Game 7

Game 7 was against another Tau player. Ryan Christensen was a nice guy, but arrived almost a half hour late. This was a good game but we ended after only 4 turns. Things were looking great for me, so I don't think us going any other turns would have helped him too much. He had no answer for my Ork Boyz and I had killed almost all of his troops by this point.

Very good guy, though, and it was fun to play against another Tau player.

Game 8

Game 8 was a huge victory for me. Chris Hood was a really good guy, but he made some big mistakes that I was able to capitalize on.

One of the reasons I play so many armies is that it lets you really appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of the next army you play. Between playing lots of Xenos armies, Tau and Dark Eldar especially, plus playing Fantasy I have come to really appreciate Leadership. I'm not sure if a lot of Space Marine players appreciate how Leadership can influence the game. He deployed 3 Long Fang Squads, one with his Rune Priest, not far from his table edge. I had first turn and made it a point to cause a Leadership Check in the 3 Long Fang Squads and the one Grey Knight squad he had. This resulted in two units falling back and one, the unit with his Rune Priest, running off the board. He thought this was incredibly unlucky, and while it wasn't fortunate I can't help but think that I deliberately shot at each squad to cause enough wounds to force as many Leadership checks as possible.

The rest of the game went great for me. He Deep Striked a Drop Pod full of Wolf Guard Terminators next to my Ork mob, and stayed within range for my heroic Kroot to continue shooting his other squads to death. 

I hope this does not come off as rude, but it was strange to see someone be so surprised that his 6 Wolf Guard Terminators could die from 30 Ork Boyz, with Slugga and Choppa, and a Warboss charging. That resulted in 110 Strength 4 Attacks and another 9 Attacks with Power Klaws.  There is not much that can stand up to that.

The rest of the game involved mopping him up. I'm not sure if he was trying to stall, but I definitely felt like a jerk for insisting we get at least 4 turns down as we only had 45 minutes left at the end of turn 2. I think he spent close to a half hour just deploying his Drop Pods and Mordrak squad.

Conclusion

I ended the weekend winning my bracket and going 5-3. I think that's very respectable, especially with a list that was constructed to be good but to also adhere to a theme (Alien Alliance!). I definitely know how I could have made this list better, well there are lots of options but something like dropping the Kroot, Vespid, and Boyz for Nob Bikers would make it a serious contender.

I had a great time at NOVA this year and can't wait to go next.