Monday, June 8, 2026

Agricola

Today's review is of the 2007 release, Agricola. For 1-5 players, it takes 30-150 minutes.

Overview
You are a farming couple struggling to survive. Starting with a plot of land and wooden shack, your goal is to survive—no, thrive—by building the homestead through plowing and sowing, animal husbandry, home improvement/expansion, and maybe even a trade or two. If you have the most points at the end of the game (14 rounds), you win!

Agricola is a worker placement game. You start with two workers, a 3x5 homestead with two wooden shacks on it, and a common board with ten possible placement positions to start. On your turn, you place one worker on an available slot and collect the resource(s) or perform the action shown. Players proceed clockwise, placing workers until all are on the board. Then workers are removed, resources replenish (additively if none are taken in a given round), a new placement option comes out, and the next round begins (unless it's harvest time—see below). 

Placement options include (but are not limited to) collecting resources (wood, brick, reed, ore, wheat, food, etc.), obtaining animals (sheep, cattle, boar), building (fences, stables, additions to the home), growing the family, plowing fields, sowing crops, and more. You could also play occupation or minor improvement cards (which are dealt randomly at the start of the game), which can provide much-needed assistance. You could also buy a major improvement (like a stove that allows you to turn animals into food); the possibilities are many. You'll need resources of all kinds, so place wisely!
game in progress; image from here
After rounds 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14, it is harvest time. Each player harvests their fields (if applicable), feeds their family (paying two food per member or taking begging card(s) if they cannot), and breeds their animals (if possible). 

At the end of round 14 there is a final harvest and then points are tallied. Highest total wins!

Review
I was excited to finally play this classic game; I wasn't disappointed. It is brutal (I couldn't feed my family one harvest and it cost me), and there is a lot going on, but there are always meaningful choices and interesting options. Replayability is high due to the 1) variability of placement cards and 2) occupation/minor improvement cards. As a new player, I felt like I was stabbing in the dark at a strategy, but I got the hang of things as the game progressed (and sense that your occupation/minor improvement cards go a long way towards dictating how you play a given game). There is a sense of urgency with only 14 rounds, making it play quickly.

A minor downside: the first player definitely has an advantage each round, and you need to spend a worker to take that mantle. Overall, though, this time-tested classic (which saw a revised version released in 2016, many expansions, and a deluxe version come out in the last year) is a winner.

Rating: A-

Friday, June 5, 2026

Masters of the Universe

Prince Adam's world is shattered as a child when Skeletor invades Eternia. Years later, Adam lives in exile on Earth, desperately seeking the sword of power that will enable him to return and fight back. When he makes his return, he is shocked at the state of his world. But he is just Adam—always weak, always the runt. Does he have the power?

I enjoyed this movie much more than I expected. It is nostalgic and the humor is good (but doesn't make sense unless you are familiar with the eighties television show). It is delightfully (and intentionally) corny in places—it doesn't hesitate to make fun of itself (and in so doing, the cartoon of old). It has a few spots of language and innuendo, which I found mystifying and out of place with the intent. But it also packs a surprisingly deep message. 

This film seems to both reflect and reject post-modern thinking. Adam learns that power is not necessarily brute force—that kindness and empathy are powerful in their own right—but at the same time, there is evil in the world that can't be cured with therapy or listening; there are Skeletors out there that need to be defeated with power. In this sense, the movie is a mix of stark eighties moralism (which featured heavily in the cartoon) and a more modern emphasis on compassion and understanding. And, surprisingly, I think they got the right mix.

Rating: B+

Wednesday, June 3, 2026

Daredevil: Lockdown

Continuing from last time . . .

Daredevil is still behind bars, and Elektra is still acting in his stead. But things are coming to a head in Hell's Kitchen . . . Bullseye is on the loose, seemingly everywhere and terrorizing the city. Mayor Wilson Fisk isn't happy with the new Kingpin and puts things in motion to handle the situation. And Daredevil uncovers a plot that may unleash yet another plague on the city . . .

This volume was in line with the others: solid. This is a mild ending of sorts, with Matt coming to grips with who he is and what he must do ("what's right"), even if that is a bit wishy-washy (as the standard is never defined). Still, I was intrigued by one of his conclusions: that maybe what his enemies need isn't punishment but grace and contentment. It's not fully the gospel, but it's on the path.

Rating: A-

Tuesday, June 2, 2026

Go Spurs Go

They did it . . . again. For the seventh time in the past 28 years, the San Antonio Spurs are headed to the NBA Finals. As a Spurs fan since the David Robinson era, I've long admired their [now retired but still influential] Coach Pop, the teamwork they embody, and attitude, even after their championship runs with Tim Duncan ended (in 2016) and they started missing the playoffs (from 2020-2025, after making them for 22 years prior). Now . . . they're back! This post celebrates a great team and season.
How were they built? Mostly through the draft (see here for more details). The depth chart above shows the roster. The players were acquired via:
  • draft: Stephon Castle, Devin Vassell, Victor Wembanyana, Dylan Harper, Keldon Johnson, Carter Bryant 
  • trade: De'Aaron Fox, Harrison Barnes, Jordan McLaughlin, Kelly Olynyk
  • free agency: Julian Champagnie, Luke Kornet, Bismack Biyombo, Mason Plumlee, Lindy Waters III
As they did with Tim Duncan in 2002, the Spurs 'lucked out' in draft lottery positioning, enabling them to get Wemby first overall in 2023, Castle fourth overall in 2024, and Harper second overall in 2025. The first two won Rookie of the Year in their respective campaigns. But it's not all about the draft . . . free agents and trades are often necessary to round things out. The Spurs have key contributors from both spheres, but none more important than De'Aaron Fox, who came over from Sacramento via trade last season.

Who are their stars? The Big Four are Wemby (the NBA's Defensive Player of the Year and MVP runner-up), Fox, Castle, and Harper. These four players give the Spurs a formidable center and deep backcourt (which also includes Keldon Johnson, the NBA's Sixth Man of the Year). Though not at the same level, the Spurs also have solid forwards in Vassell, Champagnie, Bryant, and Barnes.
Wemby and Fox (image from here)
Castle and Harper (image from here)
What does the future hold? Who knows, of course. Game One in this year's finals is on Wednesday, and the Knicks are formidable. (Sidenote: this is also a rematch of the 1998-99 Finals.) But beyond this year, the team is young and should be competitive for years to come. Do we have another Spurs dynasty on our hands? Far too early to say. But the future is bright in San Antonio . . . go Spurs go!

Sunday, May 31, 2026

Why You Think the Way You Do (Glenn Sunshine)

In Why You Think the Way You Do, Glenn Sunshine traces the history and evolution of western worldviews "from Rome to Home." His interest "is in the fundamental ideas that shaped the culture and how those ideas were lived out in Western society" and "with the impact Christianity had on worldviews and thus on culture." A summary follows.

"A worldview is the framework you use to interpret the world and your place in it." Worldviews operate "below the radar, behind the scenes, guiding our thoughts, words, and actions and only rarely being examined or analyzed." And "to understand a culture or civilization, you have to understand its wordview."

Ancient Rome
Rome had a variety of religions, most of which were pagan. Its pantheon was ever-growing as it would absorb the deities of those it conquered. Most of its gods were "feared, not loved." "Religious rituals were designed to appease deities, not please them." In this era, Plato and his teachings had a huge role. In Platonism, "ideas are the foundation for reality, [so] clear thinking and logic are the best approaches to understanding the world." It wasn't about observation but logic. He believed that "spirit was superior to matter" and had a hierarchy of being that started with the One ("a being of pure spirit"), from whom all other deities came. (Humans were down on the list, but above animals and plants.) Aristotle (also influential) would follow suit in his logic over observation approach.

Within the Empire, Jews had a different deity. "The God of Israel . . . is personal and created the world as a voluntary act." And "God created humanity in his image as his steward and regent in overseeing the rest of the created world." Eventually, a Jewish sect—Christianity—would arise that held the same beliefs (plus others, obviously, including holding Jesus as Lord and Savior). Christians claimed that their God was alone the only God—an exclusivity claim that didn't go over well in a pluralistic society. They would be persecuted for centuries . . . until Constantine.

The Roman Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, making Christianity a legal religion. He is said to have converted himself. And "the transition from being a persecuted minority religion to being the favored faith of the emperor inevitably forged ties between church and state that have been a driving force in Western political life ever since." And when the Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476, the church—often the only administrative unit left in a city—would fill the vacuum.

Medieval World
The church and state influenced each other after Constantine. After Rome fell, a "blending of Germanic and Roman cultures with Christianity . . . occurred across the board in all areas of life during these centuries. The different strands influenced each other and gradually blended together to form a new worldview . . " Little survives from that time (hence "Dark Ages"), though of course development continued in many spheres. Platonic humanism arose, and around this time, the works of Aristotle were (re)discovered, leading to scholasticism (a method of study). People viewed it as "safer and more reliable to build our understanding of the world on the base of ancient authorities." But this had its issues, too, and the Condemnations of 1277 "liberated thinking from its slavish dependence on Aristotle." Ultimately, 
The medieval mind assumed that the rational God created a rational universe and that human beings, made in the image of God, were rational as well and could undersatnd the universe. Although they believed that miracles could occur, they also believed that God idd not need to intervene actively for the world to function normally. God created it to operate in a certain way, and the rules that governed its behavior could be discovered by human investigation. Contrary to the assumptions of classical thinkers . . . the best method of learning about the world was not deductive reasoning but direct study and examination fo the world . . [which] laid the foundation for [science].
Christian thoughts influenced other spheres of worldview, too. Ideas that the physical world was real, it and work were inherently good, and property rights were important, all came from the Bible. Augustine, an important thinker of the period, developed ideas of the "City of God" (based on love of God and neighbor) and "City of Man" (based on love of self) which explained the good (and evil) in the world and how society could function with both being true. 

"Starting in the late 1400s, however, Europe was jolted by a series of movements and discoveries that threatened the underlying pillars of medieval thought. The Italian Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the European discovery of the Americas, and the rediscovery of an ancient form of skepticism set the stage for momentous changes in the European worldview."

Renaissance, Reformation, and the New World
Based in part on a calamitious fourteenth century (which included "economic decline, continent-wide crop failures, the Hundred Years War, . . . [and] the Black Death"), some "began to argue that Rome was the epitome of civilization, and when Rome fell, civilization ended." They were obsessed with classical civilization (Greece and Rome), but still drew a lot of their approach from medieval times. Like the era that preceded them, they believed "that truth existed and could be known with certainty. They also believed (obviously) that the best guide to truth was the past, and that a unified system of truth could be found by studying past authors, aiming at a grand synthesis of all human knowledge." But they encountered a problem: as they studied the past, Renaissance thinkers found that the scholars of bygone eras didn't agree. This was on problem in the time (more on this below).

Another challenge was the Protestant Reformation. They looked to the Bible as the sole authority (and not the Papacy or tradition) and "insisted that all believers are priests" (and thus elevated 'secular' roles to being sacred callings, too). In some cases, "the lines between civil and ecclesiastical functions blurred," which could mean enforcing moral standards. The rise of competing churches made people question which was right, and religious wars followed (to include the English Civil War and the Thirty Years' War). Those horrific experiences led people to start questioning if we could truly be certain of religion . . . or anything.

Finally, the discovery of the New World challenged peoples' worldview as it raised troubling questions about God and the Bible (because how could Native Americans, having not been exposed to the Gospel for centuries, possibly be saved?). This, plus the above issues and the discovery of an ancient thinker, Pyrrho (who claimed that knowing anything with certainty was impossible), further stressed the worldview.

Scientific Revolution, Deism, and Enlightenment
A slew of thinkers arose (Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Pascal, and Newton among others) who "used both science and Scripture" in their investigations and debates. Collectively, these "laid the foundation for a new epistemology in Europe." "Although the past was respected, scholars increasingly believed that they could build on and improve on past authors, and even prove them wrong. The ancients were no longer 'authorities' but merely people who wrote down ideas that might be right or wrong. Study, analysis, and, where possible, testing became more important than simply citing Aristotle. In short, the idea of progress emerged, and with it, a greater optimisim about human potential." The Christian underpinning remained (a rational God made a rational world that we as rational creatures can understand), which still left "room for supernatural intervention," but a shift was coming.

In the early seventeenth century, there was a shift to looking for exclusively rational explanations of the world, and "a similar trend toward reason occurred in religion." In addition, "many people began to think of religious passions as politically and socially dangerous." A new worldview called deism arose.

In traditional/orthodox Christianity, God was understood to be infinite, creator/sustainer of the universe, transcendent yet immanent/personal and relational. Deists believed some of this . . . to them, "God is infinite but not personal; he is creator but the universe operates on its own without any involvement by God; and he is transcendent but not immanent." Deists "believed that reason was the only guide to turth in any area of life, including religion." They respected the ethics in the Bible but "did not accept its miracles, answered prayers, and interventionist view of God."

In other areas, reason also took precedence. In economics, politics, philosophy, and other areas, "knowledge came exclusively from human reason and could be expected to grow and improve over time, based on the further accumulation of experience." The "material world was the only one that mattered." They still had some underlying Christian influence, however, like "the idea of inalienable, God-given rights, which led to the Enlightenment emphasis on life, liberty, property, and virtue." And the idea of original sin was retained (especially in America), leading to our founders establishing a government with checks and balances since humans are so easily corrupted. But things were still changing, and modernity was coming.

Modernity
Our modern worldview came about in the nineteenth century. Many were functionally deistic, and in that view, God was only there to create the universe. "If another alternative can be found to explain how the universe got here, we can safely eliminate God from the system altogether." In that case, what we would be left with was "a world consisting only of matter and energy—a metaphysical system known as naturalism or materialism." 

Related is the idea of what science is. It used to mean simply knowledge, but now came to refer to only studies that followed the scientific method. "Now only things that could be tested and confirmed through the scientific method qualified as real knowledge; everything else was dismissed as subjective or irrelevant." Given some successes in the natural sciences, this gave rise to "the attempt to apply the scientific methods to solve social problems" in many other fields of study. 

Enter Charles Darwin. His theories lent credence to the naturalistic position, though (interestingly) "Darwinism is not itself subject to the scientific method any more than anything in history is. The past is over; you cannot revisit it, observe it, test it, or experiment on it. All you can do is look at the surviving evidence and try to make sense of it." Ultimately, this shows that "Darwinism is not a scientific theory but a worldview assumption, and as such, it is not falsifiable." It is an article of faith that serves as a presupposition, and it along with materialism had broad implications for other fields.

What about meaning in life? The materialistic worldview "disenchanted" the world. "Materialism provides a ready answer to the question of the meaning or purpose of life: there is none." This leads to nihilism, but since that is hard for most to stomach, more people week to "re-enchant" and embraced existentialism ("nihilism-lite"), which "means that we are radically free to determine what we do and who we are." Things matter—because we say so (since we have rejected other authorities).

Postmodernism
Two horrific World Wars and other calamities in the twentieth century led people to re-think a purely materialistic view. Maybe there is right and wrong . . . but if there is some truth out there that cannot be scientifically proven . . . how do we learn it? Enter deconstructionism—in literature, that is "the idea that texts can be deconstructed and reconstructed as suits the reader." That can be applied to other things, too. If knowing is impossible, we can at least make our own meaning. Postmodern thought "is deconstructionism-lite," rejecting objective truth and insisting on cultural/moral relativity, but holding to "the idea that truth is relative and personal." 

Hence we arrive at present day. "You alone decide what is true and false, right and wrong, for yourself. The only limitation is that you can do nothing that infringes on someone else's freedom." The greatest virtue in such a system? Tolerance. "Not only can you not do anything that limits another's freedom . . . you cannot suggest that there is anything wrong with what they decide to do with their freedom." And not only can you not criticize another, but competing views "must be positively affirmed and celebrated." Which leads to all manner of things, including self-determination of identity, gender, and so on. Where are we now? In many ways, back at Rome, with many of their cultural practices and values being embraced in the public square.

-----
At only 215 pages, this book obviously only skimmed the surface of worldviews and how they have changed over the centuries. That said, it is an excellent work. Sunshine writes well and has a gift for explaining things succinctly and clearly. While I would have preferred some more exploration of the nuances associated with each period, I appreciate that this is intended to be an introduction only. In that, it succeeds. Highly recommended for those interesting in learning more about "how we got here."

Rating: A

Thursday, May 28, 2026

DC Deck-Building Game: Rebirth

Today's review is of the 2019 release, DC Deck-Building Game: Rebirth. For 1-4 players, it takes 45-90 minutes.

Overview
Like all games in the DC Deck-Building Game line, Rebirth is a deck-builder where you all start with the same 10-card hand, drawing 5 to play each turn (which give you some combination of power and movement) and discarding used cards. You add cards by 'purchasing' them from the lineup (putting them in your discard pile) as the game progresses to strengthen future choices (once empty, a new draw pile is formed from the shuffled discard pile; the linked game review explains more). 

But Rebirth differs from most DC:DBG expansions in three important ways:
1) it has locations and your character must move between them to achieve objectives (and buy cards),
2) it can be played as a cooperative experience,
3) it is scenario-based, with eight options, and can be played as a campaign (where information from prior games is retained and used in future ones).
Do you and your friends have what it takes to win each scenario?

Review
This felt like The DC Deck-Building Game meets Marvel United. It was busy, but I liked it—perhaps better than the normal game. Cooperative is fun, and I liked how here you do not buy villains but attack them when they are in the lineup; a more intuitive concept than the original (where you can buy heroes and villains alike for your deck). It would have benefitted from a game board to guide card placement, and I cannot speak to all scenarios (I played only the first), but I enjoyed what I experienced. Recommended.

Rating: A

Friday, May 22, 2026

The Mandalorian and Grogu

Shortly after season 3 of The Mandalorian television series and paraphrasing the opening crawl (found here):
Though the Empire has fallen (this is set after Return of the Jedi), Imperial warlords remain scattered throughout the galaxy. As the fledgling New Republic works to secure systems, they have enlisted the help of the Mandalorian and his young apprentice Grogu to hunt down these criminals in the Outer Rim. 
Here, Mando and Grogu get their hardest mission yet: tracking an elusive warlord whose whereabouts are known by the Hutts. But to get their cooperation, Mando has to do them a favor . . . and can the Hutts be trusted?

There was a lot I enjoyed about this film. I love the time period, it was fun seeing more of the Hutts (and some characters that appeared in previous series or films), the effects were good, some of the characters/moments were amusing, and the overall message was outstanding. Mando summarizes with this line:
The old protect the young. Then the young protect the old. This is the way.
That theme of sacrificing for the good of others is powerful.

I didn't love everything. It was scarier/darker in places than I expected (lots of monsters; beware if your kids are watching). The delivery was quite linear with no side-stories or sub-plots; it had points where it plodded along as a result. It didn't do much to close out the overall story of the title characters, which seemed bizarre. But my main complaint: this felt like two episodes of the television show stitched together, with a climax about halfway followed by a long dead period as the next storyline built up. 

Ultimately, this movie felt like they starting planning a fourth season of the television show, then abandoned that and decided to make a movie instead. I think it would have been better (and more powerful) as a mini-season. If you're a Mando fan, watch this, but you can wait until it hits Disney+.

Rating: B