My first Melee match analysis... featuring me!

I'm getting to linking this a bit late, but I streamed some Melee match analysis of me, Subtle, against Slots from our set at Queen City Melee VIII.

Not to toot my own horn, but I'm going to toot my own horn: It came out great! I spent more than two hours (!) on a 3:38 Fox ditto, so long that I couldn't even get around to looking at Game 2 in the same session (granted, I was streaming until about 4 a.m.).

I certainly will be doing match analysis in the near future of Game 2 — probably this weekend — but if you missed it, I suggest you take the time to watch it, even if not in one sitting. (Shout out to SleepyK for the inspiration!)

Internal Conflict: Fox or Sheik?

This is nothing new for me.

After over a decade of playing Super Smash Bros. Melee casually, I entered the world of competitive play late in 2013, and entered my first tournament in January of 2014. At the time, I was all about Sheik. 

I long prided myself on my spacing and bait-heavy style, as well as utilizing grabs as well as anyone. No matter who I'm using, tech-chasing is a huge strength of mine. Whether it be on flat ground or covering someone's landing on a platform, I'm pretty good at landing another hit on my opponent. 

Naturally, Sheik was a perfect fit. With a low barrier of entry when it comes to technical ability, she was quick to pick up, and I could hang with my superior brother, JKJ, and others, even though they were more experienced. 

It seemed like a perfect match, but it wasn't to last.

I've talked about this before in other posts, but I'm really not about playing lame. Sure, my style is slower paced and more about movement, but I like to be creative. Unless my opponent is playing unbelievably campy, I'm not going to sit back at all times and sit on the ledge, even with Sheik's ledge stall. 

And that's when I came to the realization: while Sheik's moveset and punish game fit my style, her neutral game — at least in the optimal sense — doesn't. 

In spring of 2014, when I began entering tournaments on a more consistent basis, I turned to Fox more and more. I constantly went back and forth between Sheik and Fox throughout the early parts of the summer before Fox became my favorite to play. My Sheik, I felt, was inconsistent. There were highs, to be sure — I once pulled a 3-to-1 stock comeback against a Fox on Yoshi's Story in a crucial game 3 with three consecutive zero-to-death punishes that included the best tech-chasing I've ever pulled off, even to this day. 

My Fox, however, has allowed me to take Soup, an incredibly talented Long Island Marth, to game 3, as well as other strong players in the region. I've moved myself into the category of respectable players, although I am still near the bottom of that tier of player. 

When it comes to matchups, I'm not a fan of Sheik dittos, especially if chain grabs are in play. I feel largely confident with my Fox against Sheiks, having disposed of three in my Apex 2015 pools before losing to Clue's Sheik in a close set to finish 5th. Even with that, I feel confident that a re-do of that set could easily go in my favor.

And that confidence and comfort in matchups extends to basically every character not named Fox, Falco or Marth. Even against characters that Sheik has an advantage against, including Falcon, Peach and Samus, I feel a lot stronger with my Fox against those characters (although I'm getting better against Falcon. Fox is natural choice against Puff as well, even though I'm confident with my Sheik in that matchup, and it just didn't make sense to use my Sheik for literally only three, albeit important, matchups.

Fox got me far Sunday in my Vermont tournament, guiding me to 7th place out of 36 competitors, including Kage and other strong Montreal competition. But Sheik is still my choice in doubles, and I've seen tremendous success against a lot of players whenever I bring her out. I've wanted to leave Sheik behind, as I feel my relative aggressiveness could work against me with that character, but many opponents — especially my brother — have felt my potential lies with Sheik, not Fox. 

I don't foresee myself dropping either character, no matter who I decide to push forward with, but I'm at a point in my competitive Melee career where I think I need to make a decision. It's hard enough to learn the game as one character, and if I'm going to improve, splitting my time evenly between the two seems counter-productive. And the more I listen to top players talk, and the more I examine my own play, my neutral is simply sloppy — no character choice will correct that. But that point also makes the choice more difficult.

So help me smashers: What direction do I go in? Fox or Sheik?

My Queen City Melee VIII recap

Getting to this a bit late, but some crazy travel for the tournament (I don't have a car of my own) and a typical Monday have gotten in the way.

That being said, what a fun tournament! Queen City Melee VIII was my second trip through Burlington to face off against the Vermont crew and the Montreal invaders was terrific. Kage the Warrior and his Ganondorf came through to take our money in both single and doubles, but he was awesome to meet and was great at providing some hype while he was watching the streamed matches. 

From a results standpoint, I was fairly content. Out of field of 36 singles entrants, I came away with a 7th-place finish, ultimately falling to Diego's Falco in a close, yet convincing, 2-0 set. 

My road to that point, however, was pretty successful. I had committed to play Fox exclusively, with the exception of pulling out my Marth for it's tournament debut if the situation presented itself. 

I earned a bye in winners, and took down Lucrid's Falco and Marth in back-to-back 4-stock defeats, 2-0, in my first matchup in Round 2 winners. Chester, the 5th-ranked player on the Montreal Melee Power Rankings and No. 2 seed in bracket, quickly sent me to loser's in a pair of 2-stocks on Dreamland. 

Now, this is a situation I've been in plenty of times, having competed in tournaments for about a year now. I've proven to be good enough to advance a round of two on the winner's side of most locals before giving way to a more established player. In turn, I'm no stranger to fighting my way through the often-perilous world of the loser's bracket.

Meep was my first opponent, someone I hadn't yet faced before. His skill level was hard to judge going in, given that I had watched him sent to loser's earlier in the day by Kage. In turn, I was not about to underestimate him.

I swiftly beat his Marth on Battlefield with two stocks remaining before he pulled out his Luigi — the character I had seen him take two stocks from Kage's Ganondorf on stream — for the second game. My Fox is made for taking out mid/low-tier characters, and I 3-stocked him to emerge victorious on Dreamland.

Next was ; (pronounced "semicolon"), who I had played in friendlies earlier, routinely two- and three-stocking with all of my characters. Audibly making it known that he had little confidence entering the set, I made fairly quick work of him to advance.

At this point, I'm in Round 5 of the loser's bracket, meaning a loss now would tie me for 9th on the day, and I was pitted against Slots, considered one of the top Vermont Fox players, alongside players such as BStuk. 

I'll detail the stage striking because I feel like stage striking in the ditto can be fairly interesting given that it is all based on personal preference. For me, I prefer to use as much space as possible to help establish my footing, as more pressure-oriented players can be slowed when not able to effectively play straight rushdown. 

Needless to say, I wasn't thrilled when Slots began by striking Dreamland, my favorite stage. I struck both Yoshi's Story and Fountain of Dreams, and I just assumed we would go to Battlefield. While top players such as Leffen and Armada enjoy the punish-heavy nature of Fox dittos on Final Destination, I was under the impression that the less-experienced Slots would opt for the standard neutral stage in Battlefield.

I was wrong.

I consider myself pretty strong in Fox dittos, especially in the punish game (although my chain-grabs are lacking), so my confidence was fairly high. Slots was an immensely worthy competitor, baiting out some poorly-spaced n-air and d-air approaches on my point. Our first game went down to the wire, with me clutching it out with some solid ledge-hop b-air edgeguarding that ended with a charged up-smash as he Fire-Foxed onto the stage.

Without hesitation, Slots chose to return to FD for the second game, and I almost considered going Marth because that close game had left my confidence a bit shaken. I was glad I stuck it out with Fox, opening a wide 3-to-1 stock advantage, using some solid punished off of grabs along the way. A 2-stock win gave me the 2-0 nod as I pushed into the top 8.

Loser's quarters would be the end of my journey, as I was matched up against Diego, a very good Montreal Falco player who had 2-1'd my Sheik at QCM6 a couple of months prior. I was determined to stay Fox, and I had a strong showing. Some dropped edgeguards in the first game allowed him to clutch out a last-stock, last-hit situation to go ahead 1-0, and he 2-stocked me in the second game, giving him the 2-0 in the Battlefield-only set.

I was disappointed, as I came in knowing Diego was the player for me to beat if I wanted a top-4 finish. That said, I was mostly satisfied with how I played, and I know that I need to drastically improve my punish game off of grabs against Falco, something my brother JKJ can help me with this summer. 

The doubles bracket went much better, with Bstuk and I notching a 3rd place, getting double-eliminated by Diego and Ministry. For first-time teammates, our synergy was acceptable enough to beat some solid teams, including Mokle-Roshi (Pikachu-Jigglypuff) and Drek-Cookie (Puff-Peach). My Sheik provided some nice support for BStuk's Fox, saving him a fair number of times from hard punishes and potentially-fatal edgeguards. Our double-Fox team against the floaty combination of Drek and Cookie proved to be the right choice, 3-0'ing them rather convincingly.

My success for the day culminated in a 5-character "Iron Man" against WyzDm. My opening strategy of Sheik turned out to be quite excellent, 4-stocking his Falcon and wiping out his Mario and taking his Fox down to a single stock before turning in for the night. If you're counting at home, that's a hefty 11 stocks my Sheik took against her 4. My Marth-FD counterpick finished his Fox without incident, and his DK — a good counterpick, I might add — could only muster a pair of stocks off my Marth. His main, Falco, finally made its appearance, losing just a stock while taking the remaining two from my Marth. I then went with my Falco to close it out, leaving my Fox and Captain Falcon just spectators in my victory. 

I had a ton of fun in my farewell (for now) to the Vermont scene, with my college graduation coming well before their next monthly tournament. It was a great tournament experience, and I look forward to my summer back on Long Island, as I plan to level up my singles play and forge a dominant team with my brother. Look out for that Sheik-Falco!

Why Fox isn't "Over-Powered"

I got the idea to write this after reading Wobbles' piece on why everyone plays Fox in Super Smash Bros. Melee, a piece I highly suggest you read if you have any attachment to my favorite game of all time.

Fox might have speed, power and a gun, but he isn't cheap.

To begin, I'll admit it- I play Fox, and I consider myself a Fox "main" right now, with a work-in-progress Marth on the side. Like a lot of players, I play around with a lot of the cast in friendlies, including Capt. Falcon, Dr. Mario, Jigglypuff, Young Link, Mewtwo, and a host of others. After playing Sheik primarily when I began my entrance into the competitive scene, it quickly become apparent to me that she didn't really fit my playstyle, which I consider to be less technically-based with more of an emphasis on the mental game, spacing, being creative and, really, just trying to out-think my opponent. Sheik has a few things you need to do with her to be good, including down-throw tech chasing, the invincible ledge hog and using needle setups, not to mention a string of combos that don't leave a lot of room for innovation- you either space with back-airs and do things to set up your forward-air for the kill with forward-tilts, down-tilts or down-throws, or you're probably going to lose. 

I wanted a character that was fresh and allowed me to come up with my own ways to win, my own setups. I've always been someone who liked to play a speed-base game in competitive play, and Fox was that character. I consider him to be a "clean slate," someone that might have some bread-and-butter techniques, like shine spikes, up-smashes and up-throw-up-air combos, but who has a wide-range of maneuvers at his disposal that allows for a wide range of playstyles by different players. For me, it feels like you have 100 percent control of his movements, something I can't say for other, slightly more "robotic" characters.

But I'm not here to talk up why Fox is a fun character, as Wobbles did that for me. What I want to express to all the Fox-haters out there is that he isn't "over-powered" or "broken" as people like to think. My general experience has been that people who like to think they know a lot about the game destroy all their friends with Marth or Sheik or Jigglypuff, and then when someone who really knows how to play comes along, they get beat by a good spacie, and then they just complain about the opponent's character being why they lost. 

Despite Falco's tremendous ability to control space with his lasers, speed and shine-pillar combos, somehow his dominance in singles play gets overlooked because of his "glass-cannon" nature where he can die at low percents despite great offense. Fox, on the other hand, is viewed as "cheap" simply because he can shine characters for kills and because people don't know how to deal with his speed, nor do they want to learn. Or, more often than not, Fox exposes their weaknesses and flaws in their game because his speed makes it a bit easier to punish players for their mistakes, and inexperienced players aren't willing to admit they're not as good as they thought.

And don't get me wrong here. I'm not downplaying his ability- Fox is an outstanding character. His speed, quick attacks, kill power, shine and lasers to force approaches all make him tremendous in both singles and doubles play. But, as Wobbles pointed out, a Fox player has never really exerted dominance over the game, especially at the highest level. In fact, at Apex 2014, if you include Mango and don't include Mew2King, there were only five Fox mains in the top 16, even if it was the most appearance of any character. But unless you include M2K, who only used Fox against Jigglypuff, no Fox main made it above 3rd-place, something that has become a trend of sorts. Fox usually finds one of the top spots, but often falls short of going all the way.

Is that enough evidence? Of course not, which leads me to tier lists, the next argument for why Fox is an "over-powered" character. "He's tops on the tier list, so obviously he's the best. If a Fox loses, it's because they suck." I've literally heard someone argue that to me, and, well, that's a strange argument to make. I'm not sure players like Chillin, Silent Wolf, Lucky and other top Fox players would agree with that notion. 

The general misconception is that the tier list dictates which character will win a given match. To a lot of know-it-all new players, a character who is higher on the tier list should ALWAYS beat a character that is lower on the tier list, no questions asked. What people don't take into account are the individual matchups between characters, and that's without getting into stage selection. 

For example, Marth, previously ranked fifth and currently ranked fourth on the tier list just below Sheik and just above Jigglypuff, gets overlooked by players because he lacks a projectile and, if he's not careful, will find himself shine-spiked by Fox on multiple occasions. However, Marth is NOT at a disadvantage to Fox. In fact, he is one of just three characters in the game who have what are considered even matchups in head-to-head confrontations with Fox, alongside Falco and the lesser-known Samus. The ability to hang with the top characters makes him a force to be reckoned with, and it was a large reason why he found himself near the very top of the tier list in the early stages of the meta-game. Well, I guess Ken kind of had something to do with that, too.

However, to continue with the Marth example, he has large issues with Sheik, albeit not an unwinnable situation. He also doesn't love facing Jigglypuff, and Hungrybox, the top Jigglypuff player, said it's his favorite matchup. However, it isn't bad enough to switch off. Sheik AND Marth are considered at a disadvantage to Jigglypuff, yet are higher on the tier list.

So what do we make of all this? Matchups are important, and just how significant the disadvantage is makes all the difference. Fox is a character who is easily comboed, probably more so than any other character when it comes to juggling. Characters like Pikachu, Dr. Mario, Peach, Capt. Falcon, Ice Climbers, Donkey Kong... all of them, and many more, can do pretty OK against Fox thanks to some very nice comboing ability, especially with grabs and chain grabs. Those matchups are in no way free for Fox. Armada dominated the game for a while with Peach, generally considered the sixth-best character in the game. Mew2King had a reign of terror using Marth/Sheik, and PPMD recently won with a Falco/Marth combination. Hungrybox uses Jigglypuff, and then there's Shroomed, Axe, aMSa, PewPewU, Plup, Ice and MacD in the top 16 at Apex 2014, none of whom used Fox or Falco. Other characters CAN win. In fact, aMSa (Yoshi), Axe (Pikachu/Young Link) and MacD (Peach) nearly made it into Top 8 at Apex 2014, and Plup (Samus) almost moved on into top 12 before some Self-Destruct issues against Fiction, but he certainly could've taken that set. 

Too many new players perceive the game through characters instead of the players. Don't blame your loss on what characters you and your opponent were playing as. That won't make you better. Instead, dedicate your time to one character, learn the game and (get this) actually get better.

Why Super Smash Bros. is going to kill the Wii U

It's not a secret anymore: the Wii U just isn't selling. With the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One hitting store shelves in recent months, there's no reason to think Nintendo's home console will magically take a turn for the better in the sales department.

So what gives? Most people of my generation, the ones now in their 20s, all have great memories of growing up with the Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64 and Nintendo GameCube, the specific console depending on just where in your 20s you are right now. For me, I was just 3 years old when the Nintendo 64 came to America, and I got my console in the summer of 1998 just before my 5th birthday as I was entering kindergarten. The deal I had with my mom was I needed to get rid of my Sega Genesis- one console at a time only in the Ripple household (at the time, anyway). So it was then that I bid adieu to Sonic the Hedgehog and pledged my allegiance to the world's favorite plumber and Nintendo, and I have yet to stray the course.

The Nintendo 64 was every elementary school kid's dream console: 3D graphics, four-player multiplayer and a long list of games that made the most of both those features. People might not like the newer iterations of some games, but no one spoke badly about the N64 versions. Mario Kart 64, Super Smash Bros., Mario Party, Goldeneye, Pokemon Stadium... Even to this day, some of the best times with my friends are playing those old titles, and even some lesser appreciated ones like Battletanx and Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey. Those were the days, weren't they?

And then the GameCube came out in late 2001 and landed in my living room in May of 2002. Following a serious hip surgery I underwent, my parents bought me the GameCube as a gift for my recovery. That console and I spent many long hours together that summer. Luigi's Mansion, Gauntlet Dark Legacy, Super Monkey Ball, and of course, Super Smash Bros. Melee, my favorite game of all time, were my first games that I played "hardcore," I guess you could call it.

Over the years, I accumulated a vast library of popular titles. Mario Party 4, 5, 6 and 7. Mario Kart: Double Dash. The Mario sports games, like Mario Superstar Baseball and Mario Power Tennis (two personal favorites). Donkey Konga and Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat might have been gimmicky with the DK Bongos, but they sure were fun at the time. There was so much local multiplayer fun to be had.

And these are just the multiplayer experiences for those consoles. How about Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine? Pikmin was a great single player series, and Paper Mario became my first experience with great turn-based RPGs. The Legend of Zelda and Metroid produced epic titles as well, and the list goes on and on.

Then the Wii came around. It was a strange console, one I never grew fully attached too. Sure, when Wii Sports and the Wii Remote first debuted, there was a magic too it. Everyone remembers their first experience with Wii Tennis, Baseball, Bowling, Golf and Boxing. Swinging a remote with a certain precision (Tennis not included), seeing the results on screen. It was such a new way to play video games. Motion controls were the future, and the future had finally arrived.

What we quickly learned, however, was that they weren't all they were cracked up to be. First-person shooters, like Red Steel, were attempted and failed miserably. The Wii Remotes were odd to hold, especially with the Nunchuk as a second part. The Wii didn't wow with it's lineup of titles, but it was saved my Mario Kart Wii and Super Smash Bros. Brawl. A large lineup of third party games appealed to the casual audience, and the Wii got by with its sales. Everyone, even households more focused on PlayStation or Xbox, seemed to have a Wii as that "party" console for people of all ages to enjoy.

But longtime Nintendo fans and hardcore gamers were disappointed. Sure, there were some excellent single player games on the Wii. Super Mario Galaxy was a terrific game, and the Legend of Zelda had two outstanding titles, including what I consider a perfect, masterpiece of a game in Skyward Sword that basically served as the signoff for the console. The graphics were terrific, the game design was flawless and the Wii Remote Plus controls gave a certain precision to controlling Link that I haven't seen before or since. It seemed that Nintendo had turned a corner, and there was a small bit of hope for the company's future.

Then there was the Wii U. The name itself set it up for failure from the beginning. Even after I bought it, I can't tell you how many people thought the Wii U was just the GamePad and that it was just some add-on to the Wii. Most had no idea it was an entirely new console. Still, Nintendo Land was marvelous and captivating. While most originally wrote it off as another Wii Sports, it was far from that. It showcased incredible graphics and everything the GamePad could do. From innovative competitive multiplayer in Mario Chase and Luigi's Haunted Mansion (or "the Ghost Game," as many came to call it), to flying a hovercraft in Metroid Blast or playing as an archer in The Legend of Zelda: Battle Quest. There were achievements and an online community where people could post about what they accomplished, and the game found success as its own standalone game.

But there hasn't been much since. Pikmin 3 was a long-awaited sequel that was fantastic, but it lacked depth that detracted from its replay value. New Super Mario Bros. Wii U is the Wii version with a few changes, but it's the same game we've played many times before. I got Wind Waker HD after never owning it for the GameCube, and while it was great to go straight from Skyward Sword to another Legend of Zelda masterpiece, it's not a game that gives you the same satisfaction when you try and play though it again right after you beat it. Maybe in a year or two I'll want to beat it again, but not right now. I got the new Sonic Colors game and Super Mario 3D World during the holidays, but I haven't played much of 3D World since I'm away from home right now, and it seems like a better game as a multiplayer experience, and I have yet to play Sonic- I just have no interest.

Right now, I've lost a lot of faith in Nintendo. I have a GameCube up with me at school, and I've actually been playing Super Smash Bros. Melee and my Pokemon Leaf Green version through the GameBoy Player attachment. Those offer me more fun than the poor excuse for a Wii U game library that's out right now.

So what gives? Where are all the great titles from the past? Mario Kart 8 should hit store shelves at the end of May, but it comes about a year and a half after the Wii U's release. There just aren't legitimate games coming out that gamers, including myself, are willing to shell out $65 for, especially since the entire video game market consists of poor college students or middle/high school kids who rely on their parents to get new games.

And then we have the new Super Smash Bros., truly the perfect case study for this current Nintendo debacle.

The Nintendo 3DS has been largely profitable for Nintendo, as it was the best-selling console in 2013. But I think Nintendo and the analysis by "experts" is wrong. Sure, handheld devices are nice and convenient, easily transportable and offer higher graphics capabilities than ever before. But let's not kid ourselves. The 3DS is not having success because of some nice 3D capabilities and because of its convenience as a handheld device. The GameBoy was always popular, but people didn't suddenly decide that handheld was way more appealing than high-powered home consoles. No, what sells is a system's games, and Nintendo has given them all to the 3DS.

For example, the Legend of Zelda series: discounting game remakes, with the 3DS getting Ocarina of Time and the Wii U getting Wind Waker, three of the last four Legend of Zelda titles have been released on handheld devices (only Skyward Sword was released on a home console). Paper Mario, which last saw a home console with Super Paper Mario, burst back onto the scene with Paper Mario: Sticker Star for the 3DS, the first game in the series in five years. Star Fox, a series that seems to have disappeared, saw its last two games hit handheld consoles, even if one was just a remake of Star Fox 64. Animal Crossing? It's all the rage for the 3DS these days. And how about the much-beloved Mario Party? After at least three renditions on both the N64 and GCN, the Wii saw just two, both of which were generally received as pretty bad games in the series. On top of that, two of the last three Mario Party games have been released exclusively for handheld devices.

Getting the picture? All of Nintendo's most popular titles are becoming handheld exclusives, and when coupled with already popular exclusives, like Pokemon and the Mario & Luigi RPG series, and remakes of everyone's favorite childhood games, like Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Star Fox 64 and Diddy Kong Racing, there is no way the Wii U can compete.

And now for the nail in the coffin. Getting back to my citation of the new Super Smash Bros. as the ultimate example of home console neglect on the part of Nintendo, it was recently announced that the 3DS version will be released nearly six months sooner than its Wii U counterpart. I already know friends who are more than content with just getting the 3DS version. To them, purchasing a whole new console isn't worth it when they have an alternative (and friends who they know will buy it for the Wii U anyway).

If Nintendo doesn't do something soon, Super Smash Bros. is going to kill the Wii U. That's right. The flagship multiplayer game of Nintendo's home consoles over the years, a series that has sold over 23 million copies combined between its three installments, is going to destroy Nintendo's latest home console.

Super Smash Bros. Melee itself has remained popular more than a dozen years after its release, placing itself among the top fighting games in both the competitive and casual communities. Yet the release of the next title in the beloved fighting game series could end Nintendo's success as a home console gaming developer. Already behind in the hardware department, the company's success stems from its ability to develop popular first party games, especially ones with great local multiplayer. Even if Nintendo says it is more focused on single player games now for the Wii U, they've already released The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Mario Party: Island Tour and Yoshi's New Island for the 3DS in recent months, with new Mario Golf and Kirby titles set for release in early May, not to mention the summer release of Super Smash Bros. 3DS. On top of that, there are next to no first party games announced for the Wii U outside of Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros.

Where are all the Wii U games? The system can't wait a year, and Nintendo needs to help it NOW. The 3DS is already successful and can survive without a continued influx of popular first party titles. The Wii U, on the other hand, can not. Waiting until late 2015 for Animal Crossing, The Legend of Zelda and a 3D Mario platformer to be released for the Wii U will be far too late.

If they haven't done so already, I suggest Nintendo start developing these titles and announcing tentative release dates as soon as possible. Gamers can live with delayed games, especially if they turn out to be great. What they can't live with, however, are no games at all.

The Subtle Truth

Hi, and welcome to my new blog, The Subtle Truth. Here, I hope that I can share my thoughts and perspectives on things that matter to me. My interests include sports, video games and journalistic issues, as well as other current events and news that affects me. I'm a huge baseball fan, and as a New York Mets fan, I'm sure that will be a major focus of a number of my posts, as will a number of other things. Feel free to comment and I hope you enjoy reading!

-Zachary Ripple
"Subtle"