So Avatar had its first day in cinemas today and I couldn't care less. Not only that, I don't know anyone who does actually care. Yes, the fact that it's James Cameron making it does raise an eyebrow but the plot is the same standard Technology vs A Natural Way of Life which has been done so many times it's impossible to count.
Avatar kind of sums up this year. It's been a really shit year. Granted, any year was going to look terrible after 2008. 2008 was a cracking year. We had The Dark Knight, Iron Man & Wall-E, all 10/10 films. We also had breezy fun films like Hancock, Tropic Thunder, The Sontum of Quolace and Eagle Eye.
So I thought I'd go through the films I've seen this year, from best to worst.
Zombieland (10/10)
I re-watched Zombieland recently and it is still utterly fantastic. It's such a fresh take on the genre. It makes you feel good to watch it - and that's pretty damned rare in a film. The action scenes are good, the characters are briliant and it has a marvelous sense of humour. This years only 10/10 film.
The Men Who Stare at Goats (9/10)
Some briliant performances from Ewan McGregor & George Cloony make this a hilarious film with a lot of heart and a fucking briliant final act. It's a *little* bit long in places and I'm not sure how well it'd stand up to re watching but definitely one of the more original films this year.
Moon (9/10)
Moon is my Clever Film Of The Year. Watching the trailer, you'd be forgiven for thinking you can map out the entire plot of the film just from that. Oh no you can't. Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey are absolutely fucking briliant as well. And it's a British film, which is cool. It is very slow paced though.
500 Days of Summer (8/10)
Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt prove that they're fucking briliant actors. 500 Days is a briliant feel good film... an epic love story that does a pretty good job of showing what it's like to actually be in love. It's not as good as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind but that's not really saying much.
Up (8/10)
I was expecting a reasonable film and got a really heart warming story about the importance of following your dreams whilst at the same time being realistic. It also has a dog. The dog is awesome. Not as good as Bolt but still awesome. It's all a conspiracy to make me want a dog.
Push (7/10)
Push is inventive, briliantly directed and realised. It's very flawed, though. There's no real ending, some of the plot moves don't make much sense and whilst there is a kick arse action scene at the end, it still leaves you feeling a bit unfullfilled. It's definitely worth seeing, though. It's basically the X-Men but... good.
The Good, The Bad, The Wierd (7/10)
TG, TB, TW takes every western ever made and updates them in a kick arse, very silly manner. The acting and directing are top notch, the story is silly but entertaining - it may well be too long but it's still definitely worth seeing.
Slumdog Milionaire (7/10)
It's Danny Boyle, so this film was always going to be good. I was a little disapointed, though. I was hoping for something... more. Ah well.
Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (7/10)
Another very fun comedy - a time travel film that actually makes sense, who would have thunk it?
The Hangover (7/10)
The Hangover takes the standard amnesia/road movie comedy format and does it... pretty close to perfectly. It loses out to the Harold and Kumar films in terms of sheer surreality but it's still very good.
Crank 2 (6/10)
Five words can sum up Crank 2: "Not as good as Crank". Yes, it has the same hyper-kinetic style as Crank and is still pretty goddamn hilarious but a lot of the impact is lost in making a sequel. It's also a little too surreal for its own good. The constant flashbacks and wierd sections get confusing. Still fun, though.
Let The Right One In (6/10)
This is one of those films which is briliant but I didn't especially enjoy watching. Everyone involved did a fantastic job, there's no doubt about it, but it never really grabbed me. I'd definitely recomend it to anyone who hasn't seen it though.
Gamer (6/10)
Gamer is what Crank 2 should have been. Surreal, action packed and awesome - but Gamer gets the balance right. It's much better than Crank 2. Why doesn't it score higher then? Well, the problem is that Gamer has Gerard Butler in the lead role and he's just not as good as Jason Statham. Sorry.
Cirque Du Freak (6/10)
Cirque Du Freak is in many, many ways a bad film. The plot is entirely predicatable, there's nothing really tying the film together and generally it feels a bit meh. I liked it, though. There was something basically original about it that made it feel fresh. Someone frisbees a gravestone at someone else, for Thor's sake.
Watchmen (5/10)
Now, I loved watchmen when it first came out but on the re-watch I found many problems. Length is one. Watchmen is telling far too many stories. The story of Dr Manhatten, the Ozymandius arc, Silk Specter 2 & Nite Owl, Rorscarch... not to mention the numerous sub-sub plots. Most of the elements of Watchmen are briliant but it's just *too fucking long*. Watchmen needed to be made by someone who wasn't so in love with the original - that way they could have cut some of the less good bits.
Triangle (5/10)
It's well done but it doesn't make any fucking sense. Seriously, it's infuriating. It's really predictable but annoyingly abtuse at the same time.
Bruno (4/10)
Bruno has moments of briliant satire and moments of awesome stupidity. It was so cringe worthy and so embarrasing I couldn't say I enjoyed it at all. If you like this sort of thing, it's utterly briliant, though.
9 (3/10)
9 is one of those briliant films where if the main character hadn't gotten involved, life would have been much better for everyone concerned. The plot is entirely predictable, the characters are steriotypes... the design work may be very good but that kind of works against the film. 9 doesn't know if it wants to be a kids film or an adults film. It's too dark for one and too simplistic for the other. I hope the artists go on to do great things whilst the writer never gets near anything else.
Inglorious Bastards (2/10)
Inglorious has a briliant opening scene. Then it all falls apart. I get that it's supposed to be a hyper styalised version of World War 2, but seriously, who introduces Hitler like this? Subtlety? Have you heard of it, Quinten? Every character in Inglorious is seen through the eyes of a blue blooded American. It has Eli Roth skipping around a field hitting nazis in the head with a baseball bat whilst whooping like the most horrible frat boy you could hope not to meet. Seriously, this is an all american depiction of World War 2. To the point where these ten fictional americans succeed in killing hitler and ending the war three years early. So basically, what Quinten is saying is, if ten Americans had gotten involved in World War 2 earlier, the whole mess would have been sorted out much sooner.
Terminator 4 (1/10)
I honsetly thought I was watching a transformers film at points in T4. It's so fucking stupid I don't have the words for it. It has a 100 foot tall terminator that has terminators on motor bikes in its shins. It's the wrost sort of action film imaginable - dumb, unimaginative, CGI riddled and utterly lacking in any soul.
Public Enemies (1/10)
Remember when Johnny Depp used to be good? It was a while ago wasn't it... Public Enemies could have been quite good if the writers had bothered to create some characters to go along with the wizzy camera work. Sadly, the characters aren't even 2-d, most of them are completely absent. The means the plot has no impact and as the film stretches into its third hour, I got so bored I walked out.
A Serious Man (0/10)
I honestly have nothing good to say about this film. It was boredom in a can. Nothing fuckin happened. At all. There was NO PLOT. NOTHING HAPPENED. I can't put this strongly enough, seriously. NOTHING HAPPENED FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING FILM. Nothing. Nada. Zip. NOTHING. I've never been this bored in the cinema, before, and I've been to see Munich. It astonishes me that this film's been getting 5/5 reviews from Empire & The AV Club... did they see a different film to me or something?
I think what my little list says is: It's been a good year for the smaller films like Moon and the comedies but we've had no decent action flicks bar Zombieland. Bah.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Cover Versions
I've blogged about cover versions before, specifically Goldfinger's version of 99 Luftbaloons and Orange's take on Karma Chameleon.
I have, however, found the king of all covers.
It's a piano version of Sweet Child of Mine - it's currently featured on a John Lewis advert.
This song encapsulates what I love about cover versions. It takes something many people love (including myself) and puts a different spin on it. In this case, it takes a kick arse yet beautiful song and turns it to something.... delightful. It's absolutely fucking lovely to listen to. It helps that the singer is clearly a very talented woman.
I'm coming round to the idea of seeing cover versions as an art form in and of themselves. The aforementioned covers of the punk songs are a great example of good songs being updated for modern tastes in music. Dope have done this with Billy Idol, as have the Muderdolls. These versions are successful adaptations to suit a generation raised by Cradle of Filth.
Even subtle improvements can make a brilliant cover. Take Scarling's version of Creep. It's pretty much identical to the original - a little heavier in places yes, but broadly similar. The crucial difference, though, is the singer. Radiohead's singer always sounds like a moaning tosser. Taking him out of the song and replacing him with someone who can actually sing improves it immeasurably. Johnny Cash did exactly this with a cover of NiN's Hurt
The best covers, though, are the ones that change the song musically, possibly to a different genre. The version of Sweet Child of Mine is a brilliant example. Another is Bear McCreary's version of All Along the Watchtower.
Take this cover of I Touch Myself. The original was a breezy, catchy romance song. Very good in its own way, brilliantly used in a certain spy spoof. The version by the... the cover version (I'm dyslexic, I really can't spell their name) though is fucking masterful. It takes a bit of breezy fun and turns it into something... darker, more obsessive. It's odd this song. My reaction to it is slightly different every time. Sometimes I think it's creepy, sometimes I think it's really sexual. Genius.
Granted, covers can go horribly wrong. When I think of shit covers, I think of Madona's version of American Pie, which takes a good (if not great) song and makes it incredibly fucking bland and soulless.
The thing is, that's giving covers a bad name. It's pop music. Pop music is supposed to be bland and horrible and pointless. That's what it's there for. There hasn't been a decent pop song in the last ten years that I can think of.
So I say thank the musical gods for cover versions. They can make a good song better, they can make a bad song good, they can take a great song and put a new spin on it, they can take a great song and make it utterly shit. And this is a good thing, without experimentation none of these songs would have been made.
I think it takes a lot of bravery to make some of these cover versions... a lot of them are really established songs in their own right - like Green Day's version of the Bobby Fuller Four's classic I Fought The Law (If you thought The Clash did the original, get the fuck out) and Social Distortion's version of Ring of Fire. To take classic songs and change them, make them your own is... egotistical but brave. If it works, you've created something fantastic.
So that's what I think. I'm going to leave you with possibly the best cover created - Sonic Clang's version of E1M1 from Doom.
I have, however, found the king of all covers.
It's a piano version of Sweet Child of Mine - it's currently featured on a John Lewis advert.
This song encapsulates what I love about cover versions. It takes something many people love (including myself) and puts a different spin on it. In this case, it takes a kick arse yet beautiful song and turns it to something.... delightful. It's absolutely fucking lovely to listen to. It helps that the singer is clearly a very talented woman.
I'm coming round to the idea of seeing cover versions as an art form in and of themselves. The aforementioned covers of the punk songs are a great example of good songs being updated for modern tastes in music. Dope have done this with Billy Idol, as have the Muderdolls. These versions are successful adaptations to suit a generation raised by Cradle of Filth.
Even subtle improvements can make a brilliant cover. Take Scarling's version of Creep. It's pretty much identical to the original - a little heavier in places yes, but broadly similar. The crucial difference, though, is the singer. Radiohead's singer always sounds like a moaning tosser. Taking him out of the song and replacing him with someone who can actually sing improves it immeasurably. Johnny Cash did exactly this with a cover of NiN's Hurt
The best covers, though, are the ones that change the song musically, possibly to a different genre. The version of Sweet Child of Mine is a brilliant example. Another is Bear McCreary's version of All Along the Watchtower.
Take this cover of I Touch Myself. The original was a breezy, catchy romance song. Very good in its own way, brilliantly used in a certain spy spoof. The version by the... the cover version (I'm dyslexic, I really can't spell their name) though is fucking masterful. It takes a bit of breezy fun and turns it into something... darker, more obsessive. It's odd this song. My reaction to it is slightly different every time. Sometimes I think it's creepy, sometimes I think it's really sexual. Genius.
Granted, covers can go horribly wrong. When I think of shit covers, I think of Madona's version of American Pie, which takes a good (if not great) song and makes it incredibly fucking bland and soulless.
The thing is, that's giving covers a bad name. It's pop music. Pop music is supposed to be bland and horrible and pointless. That's what it's there for. There hasn't been a decent pop song in the last ten years that I can think of.
So I say thank the musical gods for cover versions. They can make a good song better, they can make a bad song good, they can take a great song and put a new spin on it, they can take a great song and make it utterly shit. And this is a good thing, without experimentation none of these songs would have been made.
I think it takes a lot of bravery to make some of these cover versions... a lot of them are really established songs in their own right - like Green Day's version of the Bobby Fuller Four's classic I Fought The Law (If you thought The Clash did the original, get the fuck out) and Social Distortion's version of Ring of Fire. To take classic songs and change them, make them your own is... egotistical but brave. If it works, you've created something fantastic.
So that's what I think. I'm going to leave you with possibly the best cover created - Sonic Clang's version of E1M1 from Doom.
What I have been playing
Holy shit, I haven't updated this blog in ages. Work. Mental.
Excuses, excuses. Anyway. I refuse to turn into Christopher Livingstone so UPDATE TIME:
LEFT 4 DEAD 2
The officail verdict has been out on this one for a while so I won't bore you all with my thoughts. Suffice to say: It improves on the original in every way I could think of. It even includes several things that dramatically improve the gameplay (dismembering zombies etc) which I thought would be mere gimicks.
Valve did good.
And there's DLC coming in the new year - which sounds fecking awesome.
Modern Warfare 2
...
This one is less clear cut.
Put it this way, I fucking hate Modern Warfare 2.
This section is going to contain severe spoilers.
Okay, so alarm bells started ringing for me when, in the intro sequence, they say that the baddie from the first game - Zakayev - is now heralded as a hero by the Russian people...
Okay...
I thought the point of the first game that Zakayev was leading a fanatical group of Russians who had the support of some of the populace but, crucially, were not officailly sanctioned or anything. Hence why the Russian gov't gives Price the abort codes at the end of MW1.
Anyway, minor glitch, I thought.
We start with a fucking excelent level in an ice storm. You infiltrate a base, plant explosives and generally sneak your way around in the best traditions of MW 1. The ending where you escape on snow mobiles is a little silly but whatever.
There are then a couple of... reasonable but very scripted levels. Warning sign number two was that the SAS were no longer referred to as the SAS but as "task force 141". Or, if you prefer, this.
There's then the notorious airport level.
I actually liked the airport level. It's nice to see standard FPS staples like blasting everything that moves subverted. It was well designed and fairly disturbing - in a good way.
Then things go extremely fucking wrong.
Russia invades the united states.
It's such a stupid move for any game to make, I can't even begin to start talking about what's wrong with it. If I had to pick just one reason, it's that MW 2 at this point starts following the plot of Patriots: A Nation Under Fire - a game I had to review when I was working for a games review site.
It boggles the mind how Infinity Ward can have produced one of the most mature and politically aware games ever - Modern Warfare 1, can produce something which is a cross between Team America World Police and Patriots.
There are other things wrong with it - the levels are far too linear, the characters are 2-d, it's too difficult, the cinematic sections are fucking stupid and the new gimicks they bring in - like the riot shield - are crow barred in at every available oppertunity.
Modern Warfare 2 is a terrible, terrible game. The multiplayer may make up for it but it's the sort of multiplayer I really hate anyway. I played some of the multiplayer in MW 1 and was far from impressed.
Dirt 2
I'm not really sure why I bought this. Codemasters make very good racing games, admittedly, but I never finished Dirt 1 or Grid because they suffered from what practically every racing game suffers from. Viz: when you reach the half way point, the developers have run out of ideas for tracks so you have to visit the same ones again but you have to do six laps round them instead of two. This gets annoying very quickly.
Dirt 2 is very good, though. It's incredibly good looking (possibly the best looking game I've ever seen) and its gameplay has that magical quality to it that all briliant racing games have. For the first month or so.
It does have a very appealing front end to it and it is very, very polished. I don't feel bad about the £30 I spent on it but I am dreading the day I suddenly find I'm not interested in it any more.
Excuses, excuses. Anyway. I refuse to turn into Christopher Livingstone so UPDATE TIME:
LEFT 4 DEAD 2
The officail verdict has been out on this one for a while so I won't bore you all with my thoughts. Suffice to say: It improves on the original in every way I could think of. It even includes several things that dramatically improve the gameplay (dismembering zombies etc) which I thought would be mere gimicks.
Valve did good.
And there's DLC coming in the new year - which sounds fecking awesome.
Modern Warfare 2
...
This one is less clear cut.
Put it this way, I fucking hate Modern Warfare 2.
This section is going to contain severe spoilers.
Okay, so alarm bells started ringing for me when, in the intro sequence, they say that the baddie from the first game - Zakayev - is now heralded as a hero by the Russian people...
Okay...
I thought the point of the first game that Zakayev was leading a fanatical group of Russians who had the support of some of the populace but, crucially, were not officailly sanctioned or anything. Hence why the Russian gov't gives Price the abort codes at the end of MW1.
Anyway, minor glitch, I thought.
We start with a fucking excelent level in an ice storm. You infiltrate a base, plant explosives and generally sneak your way around in the best traditions of MW 1. The ending where you escape on snow mobiles is a little silly but whatever.
There are then a couple of... reasonable but very scripted levels. Warning sign number two was that the SAS were no longer referred to as the SAS but as "task force 141". Or, if you prefer, this.
There's then the notorious airport level.
I actually liked the airport level. It's nice to see standard FPS staples like blasting everything that moves subverted. It was well designed and fairly disturbing - in a good way.
Then things go extremely fucking wrong.
Russia invades the united states.
It's such a stupid move for any game to make, I can't even begin to start talking about what's wrong with it. If I had to pick just one reason, it's that MW 2 at this point starts following the plot of Patriots: A Nation Under Fire - a game I had to review when I was working for a games review site.
It boggles the mind how Infinity Ward can have produced one of the most mature and politically aware games ever - Modern Warfare 1, can produce something which is a cross between Team America World Police and Patriots.
There are other things wrong with it - the levels are far too linear, the characters are 2-d, it's too difficult, the cinematic sections are fucking stupid and the new gimicks they bring in - like the riot shield - are crow barred in at every available oppertunity.
Modern Warfare 2 is a terrible, terrible game. The multiplayer may make up for it but it's the sort of multiplayer I really hate anyway. I played some of the multiplayer in MW 1 and was far from impressed.
Dirt 2
I'm not really sure why I bought this. Codemasters make very good racing games, admittedly, but I never finished Dirt 1 or Grid because they suffered from what practically every racing game suffers from. Viz: when you reach the half way point, the developers have run out of ideas for tracks so you have to visit the same ones again but you have to do six laps round them instead of two. This gets annoying very quickly.
Dirt 2 is very good, though. It's incredibly good looking (possibly the best looking game I've ever seen) and its gameplay has that magical quality to it that all briliant racing games have. For the first month or so.
It does have a very appealing front end to it and it is very, very polished. I don't feel bad about the £30 I spent on it but I am dreading the day I suddenly find I'm not interested in it any more.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Further Dragon Age thinkings
So I've been playing more Dragon Age along with Borderlands and Left 4 Dead 2, which I may blog a bit about later. Not tonight though.
I think I've played enough to come to a conclusion, now.
I don't like it.
Here's the thing:
Almost everything about it is really, really good. Particularly the characters, sub plots and so on. Even the main quest isn't massively horrible, despite my initial misgivings. It's certainly far superior to the one in Oblivion, for instance.
No, my one problem that has persisted with Dragon Age is simply that it takes so fucking long to get anything done. This is mainly down to the dungeon crawling. I really think that if this game didn't have any dungeon crawling at all (and by dungeon crawling, I mean encounters with enemies that aren't strictly relevant to any of the plots) then it would be about half the length it currently is.
This is a major problem because, unlike every other non-bioware RPG I've played, there are no ways to avoid the dungeon crawling. In games like Deus Ex or Bloodlines you could skip most of the incredibly tedious sections with judicious use of certain skills. Not here, though.
This means that half the game is really enjoyable, the other half is exactly like playing an MMO. And I don't like MMOs. I don't like them at-fucking-all.
There is an annoying side line to this problem - the character interaction is quite stop/starty.
I was getting fairly heavilly invested in Morrigan with my mage character. It had gotten to the point where my character and hers were... well. In love isn't quite the right phrase but whatever. They were bumping pelvises.*
Anyway, we were at that stage and... we got stuck. I couldn't proceed. There were no more dialogue options. The only thing I could do was break up with her. After some casting around, I found I had to do a few more massive, main plot grind quests before I could move on with her.
GAH.
Everything in this damn game seems to be tied into the grind quests. There doesn't seem to be a way to enjoy it without the damn things constantly popping up to annoy you.
Having said that, I may just have another play through to try and have a more interesting chat with some of the other characters. I feel I've got all the playtime I can stomach out of my current one.
The problem with that is I really don't fancy investing the 20 or so hours it will take to get the characters into a state where I can have some meaningful conversations with them. I'm torn. On the one hand I want to know what they have to say, on the other hand, I really, really, really don't want to go through those *fucking* opening levels again. Or any of the other grind quests for that matter.
Maybe I should just wiki their stories.
Possibly.
This is why I think people who complain about Portal being too short are idiots. A game being too short is rarely a bad thing. A game being too long can kill it stone dead. In my opinion, that's what's happened here.
*
Entertaining side note:
In the Morrigan/Player sex scene, Morrigan actually wears more underwear than she does for the rest of the game. A bra appears from somewhere. Anyone else think that Bioware have been burnt by the Mass Effect sex "scandal" and are pathetically trying to compensate? Seriously, it was the most ridiculous sex scene I'd ever seen.
I think I've played enough to come to a conclusion, now.
I don't like it.
Here's the thing:
Almost everything about it is really, really good. Particularly the characters, sub plots and so on. Even the main quest isn't massively horrible, despite my initial misgivings. It's certainly far superior to the one in Oblivion, for instance.
No, my one problem that has persisted with Dragon Age is simply that it takes so fucking long to get anything done. This is mainly down to the dungeon crawling. I really think that if this game didn't have any dungeon crawling at all (and by dungeon crawling, I mean encounters with enemies that aren't strictly relevant to any of the plots) then it would be about half the length it currently is.
This is a major problem because, unlike every other non-bioware RPG I've played, there are no ways to avoid the dungeon crawling. In games like Deus Ex or Bloodlines you could skip most of the incredibly tedious sections with judicious use of certain skills. Not here, though.
This means that half the game is really enjoyable, the other half is exactly like playing an MMO. And I don't like MMOs. I don't like them at-fucking-all.
There is an annoying side line to this problem - the character interaction is quite stop/starty.
I was getting fairly heavilly invested in Morrigan with my mage character. It had gotten to the point where my character and hers were... well. In love isn't quite the right phrase but whatever. They were bumping pelvises.*
Anyway, we were at that stage and... we got stuck. I couldn't proceed. There were no more dialogue options. The only thing I could do was break up with her. After some casting around, I found I had to do a few more massive, main plot grind quests before I could move on with her.
GAH.
Everything in this damn game seems to be tied into the grind quests. There doesn't seem to be a way to enjoy it without the damn things constantly popping up to annoy you.
Having said that, I may just have another play through to try and have a more interesting chat with some of the other characters. I feel I've got all the playtime I can stomach out of my current one.
The problem with that is I really don't fancy investing the 20 or so hours it will take to get the characters into a state where I can have some meaningful conversations with them. I'm torn. On the one hand I want to know what they have to say, on the other hand, I really, really, really don't want to go through those *fucking* opening levels again. Or any of the other grind quests for that matter.
Maybe I should just wiki their stories.
Possibly.
This is why I think people who complain about Portal being too short are idiots. A game being too short is rarely a bad thing. A game being too long can kill it stone dead. In my opinion, that's what's happened here.
*
Entertaining side note:
In the Morrigan/Player sex scene, Morrigan actually wears more underwear than she does for the rest of the game. A bra appears from somewhere. Anyone else think that Bioware have been burnt by the Mass Effect sex "scandal" and are pathetically trying to compensate? Seriously, it was the most ridiculous sex scene I'd ever seen.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Dragon Age: Origins
Dragon Age.
Origins.
I have swayed between loving this game and hating it so many times over the past week that I honestly don't know what to think any more.
Let's go through it.
Marvelous!
Gritty Origin Stories
I've played through three of the six origin stories and they all have a real depth to them. There's real human emotion and the definite feeling that the world of Dragon Age is brutal and unforgiving. The Dwarven Noble origin especially is a world where avarise and honour are ever present and constantly vying for a place in your characters mind.
Shoddy!
Contrived Origin Stories
Sadly, at the end of every origin story, you have to join the Grey Wardens (the jedis) so the main plot can start moving. This can can be fantastic (as in the Dwarven Noble origin) but when I played through as a mage, he just turned up and Deus Ex Machina'd me out of a ridiculously contrived crisis.
Marvelous!
The Combat
The combat is very well done - it's an updated version of KOTOR's system with many more options like swords and shields, seperate skill trees for duel weapons & two handed greatswords. It's also the first RPG I've played where it's the most fun to play as a mage.
Shoddy!
The Grind
So I've liberated a castle from undead creatures and have been sent off to go and get a sacred thing to cure some chap who needs curing. I then found this cure was in a Cathedral. I cleared out the Cathedral, fully expecting the cure to be somewhere therin. It wasn't. It wasn't in the catacombs under the cathedral either. It was in the natural tunnels at the end of the catacombs. Each of these bloody areas was absolutely fucking massive. There is a line between making levels a decent length and game-expanding padding. Dragon Age can't even see this fucking line it's so far past it.
Marvelous!
The Characters
Are all briliantly scripted and acted. You're also given genuine moral dilemas which your NPC mates will help you with.
Shoddy!
The main story
I blogged earlier about how fantasy is usually shite because the villains lack complex motivation. That's especially true in Dragon Age. There's some sort of horde of evil thingies that is coming to kill everyone. Despite the fact that they are wiping entire towns off the map, you have to go around convincing everyone to help you fight them. This is bullshit. These guys know it's unite or perish, so why is it so fucking hard to convince them? Thankfully the sub plots and complex characters you come across during each exercise in painfully slow diplomacy are interesting enough to make you forget the fucking stupid reason why you're there but it keeps popping back up and biting you on the nose like a rake in the grass with a snake attatched to it.
Overall!
I've restarted Dragon Age three times without really getting that far into it. This is because I kept finding that there were much better ways of doing what I was currently doing. The problem was, every time I did this, I had to go through the same bullshit grind quests again. Thinking about having to go through that bloody cathedral level again actually makes me slightly deppressed.
The problem is, Dragon Age is half briliant. And half shit. If it wasn't as grindy, if it wasn't so fucking massive it would be a classic, there's not doubt about that. That said, I will stick with it because when it's good, it's marvelous. Time will tell what side of the fence I fall on.
Origins.
I have swayed between loving this game and hating it so many times over the past week that I honestly don't know what to think any more.
Let's go through it.
Marvelous!
Gritty Origin Stories
I've played through three of the six origin stories and they all have a real depth to them. There's real human emotion and the definite feeling that the world of Dragon Age is brutal and unforgiving. The Dwarven Noble origin especially is a world where avarise and honour are ever present and constantly vying for a place in your characters mind.
Shoddy!
Contrived Origin Stories
Sadly, at the end of every origin story, you have to join the Grey Wardens (the jedis) so the main plot can start moving. This can can be fantastic (as in the Dwarven Noble origin) but when I played through as a mage, he just turned up and Deus Ex Machina'd me out of a ridiculously contrived crisis.
Marvelous!
The Combat
The combat is very well done - it's an updated version of KOTOR's system with many more options like swords and shields, seperate skill trees for duel weapons & two handed greatswords. It's also the first RPG I've played where it's the most fun to play as a mage.
Shoddy!
The Grind
So I've liberated a castle from undead creatures and have been sent off to go and get a sacred thing to cure some chap who needs curing. I then found this cure was in a Cathedral. I cleared out the Cathedral, fully expecting the cure to be somewhere therin. It wasn't. It wasn't in the catacombs under the cathedral either. It was in the natural tunnels at the end of the catacombs. Each of these bloody areas was absolutely fucking massive. There is a line between making levels a decent length and game-expanding padding. Dragon Age can't even see this fucking line it's so far past it.
Marvelous!
The Characters
Are all briliantly scripted and acted. You're also given genuine moral dilemas which your NPC mates will help you with.
Shoddy!
The main story
I blogged earlier about how fantasy is usually shite because the villains lack complex motivation. That's especially true in Dragon Age. There's some sort of horde of evil thingies that is coming to kill everyone. Despite the fact that they are wiping entire towns off the map, you have to go around convincing everyone to help you fight them. This is bullshit. These guys know it's unite or perish, so why is it so fucking hard to convince them? Thankfully the sub plots and complex characters you come across during each exercise in painfully slow diplomacy are interesting enough to make you forget the fucking stupid reason why you're there but it keeps popping back up and biting you on the nose like a rake in the grass with a snake attatched to it.
Overall!
I've restarted Dragon Age three times without really getting that far into it. This is because I kept finding that there were much better ways of doing what I was currently doing. The problem was, every time I did this, I had to go through the same bullshit grind quests again. Thinking about having to go through that bloody cathedral level again actually makes me slightly deppressed.
The problem is, Dragon Age is half briliant. And half shit. If it wasn't as grindy, if it wasn't so fucking massive it would be a classic, there's not doubt about that. That said, I will stick with it because when it's good, it's marvelous. Time will tell what side of the fence I fall on.
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Expert Left 4 Dead
Difficulty in games is a bit of an odd one.
One of my big problems with single player games is- enemy AI will never, ever be as good as a human. It can be better - so much better. You can program an AI opponent to, as soon as you see it, instantly target your head and release the precise number of shots to kill you. This wouldn't be any fun, though.
Sadly, to prevent this, most developers do two things:
1) Have the AI only notice you under certain conditions - which is fair.
2) Have the AI aim for your body, not your head.
This second one is a problem as, in games like the original FEAR - you can get so good at the game that you will get hit, but because the AI goes for body shots and you go for head shots, they cease to be challenging after a while.
Left 4 Dead doesn't have this problem as zombies are melee attack only. Duh. Consequently, the difficulty is influenced by different things.
These are:
1) How much damage the zombies do
2) How many zombies there are
3) How many special infected spawn, and how clever they are
4) What kit you get
5) How much friendly fire damage you take
I'm writing this because I've been playing the Left 4 Dead 2 demo on expert... it's really interesting.
I had a great run with three human allies. We got right to the crescendo event with no deaths. I think we would have made it to the end had the server spazed out during the event and thrown us all out.
Gr.
But anyway. What I noticed was this: When your team is *really* good, nothing can touch you. We all knew what we were doing - when to crouch, when to stand, when to attack and when to retreat - when to bunch up and when to spread out... It was an absolute joy to be in that team. I always like being in teams when everyone else is almost exactly at your skill level.
Anyway, it was during this when I got a real insight into what makes Expert so fantastic to play on - and, really, why it's a fairly realistic depiction of a zombie holocaust.
We played through the first map- we all barely took any damage. We got half way through the second map with no incapacitates. Then something happened.
I had been feeling slightly jittery for most of the second map. You have to *really* concentrate on expert. Shooting your friend, especially with a Tier 2 weapon like the assault rifle is usually an instant take down so you *can't* friendly fire. To this end, when I get jittery, I keep my finger off the left mouse button until I have actively made the decision to fire. I find this works.
Anyway, I had noticed my movements getting sharper, less precise etc. My team mates started getting the same thing. There were several friendly fire incidents and I shot a boomer out of instinct when I could have just pushed him away.
This all pointed to one thing: We were doing far more damage to each other than the infected were doing.
I think this is exactly what would happen in a real life scenario. You and three friends have assault rifles, you get fairly far but... say you hear a footfall behind you that you weren't expecting, or a noise startles you. You whirl around and pull the trigger with your gun pointing at the only thing in your field of view that's moving - your mate.
So yeah. I thought that was interesting.
I am determined to play more rounds on expert. It's really damn fun, if very frustrating. I think the Left 4 Dead 2 maps may have been designed with the higher difficulties in mind... but yes. I should be in bed. Work tomorrow.
And Borderlands! Borderlands is out tomorrow! Hopefully it won't be shit!
One of my big problems with single player games is- enemy AI will never, ever be as good as a human. It can be better - so much better. You can program an AI opponent to, as soon as you see it, instantly target your head and release the precise number of shots to kill you. This wouldn't be any fun, though.
Sadly, to prevent this, most developers do two things:
1) Have the AI only notice you under certain conditions - which is fair.
2) Have the AI aim for your body, not your head.
This second one is a problem as, in games like the original FEAR - you can get so good at the game that you will get hit, but because the AI goes for body shots and you go for head shots, they cease to be challenging after a while.
Left 4 Dead doesn't have this problem as zombies are melee attack only. Duh. Consequently, the difficulty is influenced by different things.
These are:
1) How much damage the zombies do
2) How many zombies there are
3) How many special infected spawn, and how clever they are
4) What kit you get
5) How much friendly fire damage you take
I'm writing this because I've been playing the Left 4 Dead 2 demo on expert... it's really interesting.
I had a great run with three human allies. We got right to the crescendo event with no deaths. I think we would have made it to the end had the server spazed out during the event and thrown us all out.
Gr.
But anyway. What I noticed was this: When your team is *really* good, nothing can touch you. We all knew what we were doing - when to crouch, when to stand, when to attack and when to retreat - when to bunch up and when to spread out... It was an absolute joy to be in that team. I always like being in teams when everyone else is almost exactly at your skill level.
Anyway, it was during this when I got a real insight into what makes Expert so fantastic to play on - and, really, why it's a fairly realistic depiction of a zombie holocaust.
We played through the first map- we all barely took any damage. We got half way through the second map with no incapacitates. Then something happened.
I had been feeling slightly jittery for most of the second map. You have to *really* concentrate on expert. Shooting your friend, especially with a Tier 2 weapon like the assault rifle is usually an instant take down so you *can't* friendly fire. To this end, when I get jittery, I keep my finger off the left mouse button until I have actively made the decision to fire. I find this works.
Anyway, I had noticed my movements getting sharper, less precise etc. My team mates started getting the same thing. There were several friendly fire incidents and I shot a boomer out of instinct when I could have just pushed him away.
This all pointed to one thing: We were doing far more damage to each other than the infected were doing.
I think this is exactly what would happen in a real life scenario. You and three friends have assault rifles, you get fairly far but... say you hear a footfall behind you that you weren't expecting, or a noise startles you. You whirl around and pull the trigger with your gun pointing at the only thing in your field of view that's moving - your mate.
So yeah. I thought that was interesting.
I am determined to play more rounds on expert. It's really damn fun, if very frustrating. I think the Left 4 Dead 2 maps may have been designed with the higher difficulties in mind... but yes. I should be in bed. Work tomorrow.
And Borderlands! Borderlands is out tomorrow! Hopefully it won't be shit!
Left 4 Dead 2 demo impressions
It may have been delayed five times (count em) but the Left 4 Dead 2 demo is finally with us.
First things first, the big reason why I've grown somewhat weary of Left 4 Dead is the limited weapon selection. When all's said and done, there are only three decent weapons - the uzi, the M4 and the auto shotgun. The pump action shotgun is okay but a bit meh and the sniper rifle is totally useless in almost all circumstances.
Things start off well in Left 4 Dead 2.
There are three basic weapons:
1) Uzi
which behaves very like the Uzi in L4D1 but is a bit more spray 'n pray. The rate of fire is increased at the cost of accuracy.
2) Silenced machine pistol
This is much more accurate but less powerful, it's not rocket science :)
3) Pump action shotgun
As with most pump action shotguns (other than Doom and F.E.A.R) it's a bit shit.
What's nice about these weapons is you get lots of bang for your buck. You carry 700 rounds of ammunition for the machine pistols so you'll rarely find yourself running out of ammo.
Then the advanced weapons come along...
1) Ak 47
This has a 40 round magazine and is very powerful. It has a lovely clackety sound to it as well.
2) M16
Essentially the M4 from L4D1
3) SCAR
A good one, this. You get a 60 round mag but it's locked into three round bursts... makes things very interesting in the extended fire fights
4) Hunting rifle
Same as in L4D1. And it's still totally useless.
5) Sniper rifle
Aaah, now this is more like it. You get a 30 round mag and it's hyper accurate. You may not get the rapid fire capacity of the machine guns, but you hit with every shot. Very fun to play with.
6 & 7) Assault shotguns
There are 2 assault shotguns and I honestly can't tell the difference between them (other than how they look & sound) at this stage. I'll probably learn to appreciate them individually as time goes by.
8) The Magnum
There are standard pistols in the game but you have to chose between them and a melee weapon, which for me isn't much of a competition. The magnum is another matter, though. It's incredibly powerful and extremely accurate. You only get 8 rounds per mag, though... That or melee weapons? Hm...
There are other weapons but those are the ones I've played with so far.
As far as the melee weapons go - half of them are great. I've tried the Machetee (fantastic) the riot stick (a personal favourite) the frying pan (silly) and the electric guitar (very silly).
And, joy of joys, there's a new grenade. A grenade of Boomer Bile. Throw it at a bunch of infected or a tank or something and a load of infected will spawn and attack it. Fucking, fucking briliant.
Valve have really outdone themselves with the weapons... What also helps is-
Weapon pickups are frequent in L4D2 but ammo pickups are not. This means that, practically speaking, you'll either have to drop a briliant weapon for a less good one to maintain ammo - or keep an empty gun and hope like hell there's an ammo pickup soon.
You also don't get all the Tier 2 weapons at once... usually there are only one or two available.
What else can I say?
The new special infected are good - although the uncommon common are more fun I think - in the demo, you get zombie cops in riot gear. You have to knock them down and shoot them in the back where they have no body armour. Adds a very nice element to frantic fire fights.
The new music is very good - nice and rocky.
Having things in day time is no less scary, oddly.
The crescendo event in the demo is utterly amazing.
Dismembering zombies is hillarious. The game is now very bloody - and it's all the better for it. I now kind of get why Australia was having a hissy fit about L4D2 and not L4D1
So yes, I'm gushing slightly - but I do really, really like this game.
In the name of ballance, though, what don't I like?
1) The difficulty settings are STILL not quite right.
Advanced is still a bit too easy and Expert is made even harder, thanks to the crescendo events. I'll be interested to see how Realism mode fits in, though. I'd like to see Expert made slightly less hard and leave Realism to the masochists.
2) There aren't multiple routes through the level.
Well, that's a bit of a lie. There are several short cuts you can find and occasionally these will be blocked off. This isn't a massive problem but it would have been nice to have a bit more freeform gameplay.
3) It's not out until November 17th.
Dammit.
So basically, yes. I think it's a very worthy sequel to L4D1. Definitely worth a purchase :)
First things first, the big reason why I've grown somewhat weary of Left 4 Dead is the limited weapon selection. When all's said and done, there are only three decent weapons - the uzi, the M4 and the auto shotgun. The pump action shotgun is okay but a bit meh and the sniper rifle is totally useless in almost all circumstances.
Things start off well in Left 4 Dead 2.
There are three basic weapons:
1) Uzi
which behaves very like the Uzi in L4D1 but is a bit more spray 'n pray. The rate of fire is increased at the cost of accuracy.
2) Silenced machine pistol
This is much more accurate but less powerful, it's not rocket science :)
3) Pump action shotgun
As with most pump action shotguns (other than Doom and F.E.A.R) it's a bit shit.
What's nice about these weapons is you get lots of bang for your buck. You carry 700 rounds of ammunition for the machine pistols so you'll rarely find yourself running out of ammo.
Then the advanced weapons come along...
1) Ak 47
This has a 40 round magazine and is very powerful. It has a lovely clackety sound to it as well.
2) M16
Essentially the M4 from L4D1
3) SCAR
A good one, this. You get a 60 round mag but it's locked into three round bursts... makes things very interesting in the extended fire fights
4) Hunting rifle
Same as in L4D1. And it's still totally useless.
5) Sniper rifle
Aaah, now this is more like it. You get a 30 round mag and it's hyper accurate. You may not get the rapid fire capacity of the machine guns, but you hit with every shot. Very fun to play with.
6 & 7) Assault shotguns
There are 2 assault shotguns and I honestly can't tell the difference between them (other than how they look & sound) at this stage. I'll probably learn to appreciate them individually as time goes by.
8) The Magnum
There are standard pistols in the game but you have to chose between them and a melee weapon, which for me isn't much of a competition. The magnum is another matter, though. It's incredibly powerful and extremely accurate. You only get 8 rounds per mag, though... That or melee weapons? Hm...
There are other weapons but those are the ones I've played with so far.
As far as the melee weapons go - half of them are great. I've tried the Machetee (fantastic) the riot stick (a personal favourite) the frying pan (silly) and the electric guitar (very silly).
And, joy of joys, there's a new grenade. A grenade of Boomer Bile. Throw it at a bunch of infected or a tank or something and a load of infected will spawn and attack it. Fucking, fucking briliant.
Valve have really outdone themselves with the weapons... What also helps is-
Weapon pickups are frequent in L4D2 but ammo pickups are not. This means that, practically speaking, you'll either have to drop a briliant weapon for a less good one to maintain ammo - or keep an empty gun and hope like hell there's an ammo pickup soon.
You also don't get all the Tier 2 weapons at once... usually there are only one or two available.
What else can I say?
The new special infected are good - although the uncommon common are more fun I think - in the demo, you get zombie cops in riot gear. You have to knock them down and shoot them in the back where they have no body armour. Adds a very nice element to frantic fire fights.
The new music is very good - nice and rocky.
Having things in day time is no less scary, oddly.
The crescendo event in the demo is utterly amazing.
Dismembering zombies is hillarious. The game is now very bloody - and it's all the better for it. I now kind of get why Australia was having a hissy fit about L4D2 and not L4D1
So yes, I'm gushing slightly - but I do really, really like this game.
In the name of ballance, though, what don't I like?
1) The difficulty settings are STILL not quite right.
Advanced is still a bit too easy and Expert is made even harder, thanks to the crescendo events. I'll be interested to see how Realism mode fits in, though. I'd like to see Expert made slightly less hard and leave Realism to the masochists.
2) There aren't multiple routes through the level.
Well, that's a bit of a lie. There are several short cuts you can find and occasionally these will be blocked off. This isn't a massive problem but it would have been nice to have a bit more freeform gameplay.
3) It's not out until November 17th.
Dammit.
So basically, yes. I think it's a very worthy sequel to L4D1. Definitely worth a purchase :)
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
The left 4 dead 2 demo is delayed
So the Left 4 Dead 2 demo is delayed, it should have been out roughly 20 minutes ago and the internets are going into meltdown. People are not happy. I am one of them. Elliot, ony of my buddies, is also one of them. Here is a sample of our recent conversation:
Elliot: ARGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disposable: SALFKDHIO{GFIOFSAJIOGFDJIOPSDGFJ(P}SAED
Elliot: ARGHGHGH!
Disposable: |KJfdzhL:KJHJIOLGHJIOSUSVIO:JFOP{jOPadujop{sirufop{j io{fbuoprfivbop{}asifdnp{osabd
Elliot: BLALAALALLALALALALALGGAAHHHHHH!!!!
Disposable: JLIKJ IOE{VFU{IOSADJVNIONUASJOPRDVNJANRFVB{@OANISB }D)~ *+WHQBNE&(UMA(WRUBN£<_($E}N_JB(M)$%(NI)P@*$GHB£(WGVA
I know that everything will be fine in 20 minutes, or tomorrow, or whatever. It just amuses me when the internets go into meltdown over something as simple as this :)
User power. It breaks the internet.
EDIT:
The demo has been delayed until 6am tomorrow morning.
As one user said on the forum:
"Dear valve: AHHHHHHHHHHH! Sincerely, Me. PS. I still love you. Why do you hate me?"
Elliot: ARGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Disposable: SALFKDHIO{GFIOFSAJIOGFDJIOPSDGFJ(P}SAED
Elliot: ARGHGHGH!
Disposable: |KJfdzhL:KJHJIOLGHJIOSUSVIO:JFOP{jOPadujop{sirufop{j io{fbuoprfivbop{}asifdnp{osabd
Elliot: BLALAALALLALALALALALGGAAHHHHHH!!!!
Disposable: JLIKJ IOE{VFU{IOSADJVNIONUASJOPRDVNJANRFVB{@OANISB }D)~ *+WHQBNE&(UMA(WRUBN£<_($E}N_JB(M)$%(NI)P@*$GHB£(WGVA
I know that everything will be fine in 20 minutes, or tomorrow, or whatever. It just amuses me when the internets go into meltdown over something as simple as this :)
User power. It breaks the internet.
EDIT:
The demo has been delayed until 6am tomorrow morning.
As one user said on the forum:
"Dear valve: AHHHHHHHHHHH! Sincerely, Me. PS. I still love you. Why do you hate me?"
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Fantasy is shit
Brief Disclaimer:
I'm using the word "fantasy" to describe swords, orcs, magic, elves, epic quests etc. I am aware that some people out there describe this as "High fantasy" and use wikipedia's definition of fantasy as theirs. This definition, briefly, is "Anything with magic in it".
And as Dictionary.com defines magic as, amongst other things:
"Magic, necromancy, sorcery, witchcraft imply producing results through mysterious influences or unexplained powers"
That definition is fucking aweful because it can be argued to include the following:
Lord of the Rings (Gandalf's Staff)
Bioshock (the plasmids)
Star Wars (Jedi Powers)
The Chronicles of Riddick (Judi Dench's telepathy)
The New Battlestar Galactica (Roslin's visions of the future)
Crysis (The aliens and their Ice Ray)
Dawn of War (Psychic powers)
Half Life (portals)
The list is endless, and includes pretty much anything where something doesn't have a very definite scientific explanation. IE, Half Life 2 is a meld of science fiction (because we get an explanation for how the gravity gun works) and fantasy (because it has portals and we don't know how they work, so they're magical.)
One of the important things I learned during my english degree is: Genres are functional. They're descriptive. They're there so we can say that THIS work of art conforms to this, this and this criteria, therefore it's THIS. It's also important to note that works that have multiple features, or features that don't tie it down to a genre... aren't tied down. They remain genreless- which is very important for the progress and evolution of art.
But when the word "fantasy" can be used to describe litterally anything that doesn't take place in the world as we know it - with the modern neutonian physics laws etc... It ceases to be a genre becasue it includes everything from The Bible to Battlestar Galactica.
So I use the word Fantasy to describe "high fantasy" and anyone who sticks with Wikipedia's definition is welcome to it, but be aware that you're not actually describing anything when you use the word. You're just saying that it has some elements in it which aren't fully explainable scientifically.
Wow.
I said that would be a short disclaimer. I thought it would be much shorter than that.
Let's take a short break.
Watch this video of the most awesome man in the world:
Aaaaand we're back.
Right.
So I was playing the Dragon Age: Origins character creator demo and wondered why I hadn't come across a decent fantasy thing in the last... well. Ever.
Actually, that's a lie, The Witcher is fantastic but I'll get to that in a minute.
My thought process was roughly:
Fantasy seems to always boil down to
THE GOOD RACES:
Men
Elves
Dwarves
fighting
THE EVIL RACES:
Orks
Trolls
Dark Wizzards
You never get, for example, elves who betray the humans for power, or whatever, because that would be monumentally stupid... Why? becuase THE EVIL RACES only ever want destruction, there's no complexity to it.
And that got me thinking... Maybe what kills all fantasy isn't the incredibly cliched settings, characters etc. but it's the complete lack of complexity to the stories. Take Dragon Age: Origins. It describes a bunch of monks who turn evil and build an army and start attacking the good races. Why? They're evil and want destruction.
This inevitably boils down to a GOOD ARMY and a BAD ARMY scrapping over the earth and every character has a natural alliance, there is no room for ambiguity or neutrality. It's exactly the same in Lord of the Rings and pretty much every other fantasy game you can think of.
So why is The Witcher different? It's simple, the baddies all have genuine motivation and want something other than wiping all life out that doesn't agree with them. There are elf and dwarf extremists who are resorting to acts of terrorism to make sure they aren't wiped out by a society that considers them third class citizens. I would hapilly side with them. There are an order of knights who are trying to stop this group killing innocent people. I would hapilly side with them. Then there are the magority of the people who just want to be left alone and think that both sides are using questionable methods to achieve their goals. I would very hapily side with them.
This is slightly different for films, I should point out. Films can focus on a very small group of people who are genuinely morally complex (Boromir in Lord Of The Rings, for example) whereas games tend to involve much larger groups of people and the focus is more on stopping the enemy than the fairly insignificant adventures of a small group of people.
So yeah, in fantasy games, developers should really start putting some thought into the motivation for the baddies. Without complex baddies, the heroes can't be complex either. Take the characters from Battlestar Galactica - they'd all be useless in Lord Of The Rings because they'd all be concentrating on the morality of war when what they should be doing is building as big an army as possible because otherwise they'd just get stomped.
I'm using the word "fantasy" to describe swords, orcs, magic, elves, epic quests etc. I am aware that some people out there describe this as "High fantasy" and use wikipedia's definition of fantasy as theirs. This definition, briefly, is "Anything with magic in it".
And as Dictionary.com defines magic as, amongst other things:
"Magic, necromancy, sorcery, witchcraft imply producing results through mysterious influences or unexplained powers"
That definition is fucking aweful because it can be argued to include the following:
Lord of the Rings (Gandalf's Staff)
Bioshock (the plasmids)
Star Wars (Jedi Powers)
The Chronicles of Riddick (Judi Dench's telepathy)
The New Battlestar Galactica (Roslin's visions of the future)
Crysis (The aliens and their Ice Ray)
Dawn of War (Psychic powers)
Half Life (portals)
The list is endless, and includes pretty much anything where something doesn't have a very definite scientific explanation. IE, Half Life 2 is a meld of science fiction (because we get an explanation for how the gravity gun works) and fantasy (because it has portals and we don't know how they work, so they're magical.)
One of the important things I learned during my english degree is: Genres are functional. They're descriptive. They're there so we can say that THIS work of art conforms to this, this and this criteria, therefore it's THIS. It's also important to note that works that have multiple features, or features that don't tie it down to a genre... aren't tied down. They remain genreless- which is very important for the progress and evolution of art.
But when the word "fantasy" can be used to describe litterally anything that doesn't take place in the world as we know it - with the modern neutonian physics laws etc... It ceases to be a genre becasue it includes everything from The Bible to Battlestar Galactica.
So I use the word Fantasy to describe "high fantasy" and anyone who sticks with Wikipedia's definition is welcome to it, but be aware that you're not actually describing anything when you use the word. You're just saying that it has some elements in it which aren't fully explainable scientifically.
Wow.
I said that would be a short disclaimer. I thought it would be much shorter than that.
Let's take a short break.
Watch this video of the most awesome man in the world:
Aaaaand we're back.
Right.
So I was playing the Dragon Age: Origins character creator demo and wondered why I hadn't come across a decent fantasy thing in the last... well. Ever.
Actually, that's a lie, The Witcher is fantastic but I'll get to that in a minute.
My thought process was roughly:
Fantasy seems to always boil down to
THE GOOD RACES:
Men
Elves
Dwarves
fighting
THE EVIL RACES:
Orks
Trolls
Dark Wizzards
You never get, for example, elves who betray the humans for power, or whatever, because that would be monumentally stupid... Why? becuase THE EVIL RACES only ever want destruction, there's no complexity to it.
And that got me thinking... Maybe what kills all fantasy isn't the incredibly cliched settings, characters etc. but it's the complete lack of complexity to the stories. Take Dragon Age: Origins. It describes a bunch of monks who turn evil and build an army and start attacking the good races. Why? They're evil and want destruction.
This inevitably boils down to a GOOD ARMY and a BAD ARMY scrapping over the earth and every character has a natural alliance, there is no room for ambiguity or neutrality. It's exactly the same in Lord of the Rings and pretty much every other fantasy game you can think of.
So why is The Witcher different? It's simple, the baddies all have genuine motivation and want something other than wiping all life out that doesn't agree with them. There are elf and dwarf extremists who are resorting to acts of terrorism to make sure they aren't wiped out by a society that considers them third class citizens. I would hapilly side with them. There are an order of knights who are trying to stop this group killing innocent people. I would hapilly side with them. Then there are the magority of the people who just want to be left alone and think that both sides are using questionable methods to achieve their goals. I would very hapily side with them.
This is slightly different for films, I should point out. Films can focus on a very small group of people who are genuinely morally complex (Boromir in Lord Of The Rings, for example) whereas games tend to involve much larger groups of people and the focus is more on stopping the enemy than the fairly insignificant adventures of a small group of people.
So yeah, in fantasy games, developers should really start putting some thought into the motivation for the baddies. Without complex baddies, the heroes can't be complex either. Take the characters from Battlestar Galactica - they'd all be useless in Lord Of The Rings because they'd all be concentrating on the morality of war when what they should be doing is building as big an army as possible because otherwise they'd just get stomped.
Steam
I buy most of my games on Steam these days, to the point where I'll have lost quite a lot of money is Valve ever go out of business and the servers go offline.
Most of the time, this is because I love having all my games in one place, few DRM/compatability worries, cloud computing and (most importantly) not having to rely on a physical cd to play the damn game.
But I re-encountered something this week that I haven't seen in a while - pre-loading stuff. I'm pre-loading both Borderlands and the Left 4 Dead 2 demo currently.
I really like pre-loading - It's trying to make up for the fact that online distribution can be that little bit less immediate than buying the game from the high street. I also like it because Steam really doesn't need to provide the service - it just feels like one of those things done because Valve want to look after their customers :)
Most of the time, this is because I love having all my games in one place, few DRM/compatability worries, cloud computing and (most importantly) not having to rely on a physical cd to play the damn game.
But I re-encountered something this week that I haven't seen in a while - pre-loading stuff. I'm pre-loading both Borderlands and the Left 4 Dead 2 demo currently.
I really like pre-loading - It's trying to make up for the fact that online distribution can be that little bit less immediate than buying the game from the high street. I also like it because Steam really doesn't need to provide the service - it just feels like one of those things done because Valve want to look after their customers :)
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
November in Gaming
You know how, before a massive Tsunami, the sea retreats from the shore? That's what the games market feels like in the run up to November.
I do understand why big games companies choose to release games only in March and November and pretend the rest of the year doesn't exist - it's because statistically, these are the most popular months. Like most things in life, this makes sense as long as you don't have two brain cells to rub together creating the tiny static discharge of thought. For the purpose of this analogy, the execs who make these decisions don't have two brian cells to rub together.
But whatever, November is almost upon us. For me, this is kind of a relief. Apart from Batman, I have to go back to Febuary to find the last big budget game I was interested in which followed through on all it's promises and that was Dawn of War 2. This means I've been filling my time with crap like Section 8 and indie games.
Admittedly, I do love indie games - I've been getting really into them this year - but there are itches that indie games just can't scratch. So what do we have coming up in November?
Well, not Alpha Protocol. That was supposed to be coming out this month but Sega were dicks and didn't arrange the testing in time. When it got delayed, they looked at what else was coming in November and delayed it till the next financial year. How do I know this? I don't, but I know someone who works for Sega and he says this sort of thing is pretty much par for the course, they're dicks. I'm paraphrasing slightly.
We don't get Mass Effect 2, either. I'm not so worried by that one as, since being thoroughly disillusioned by ME 1 a few months ago, I've mentally written off ME 2 until further evidence presents itself. Like a combat model that isn't totally balls.
Not Splinter Cell Conviction, either. Although, thanks to a complete rebuild, we might at least see that game this century, even if we won't technically see it this decade.
But fuck all that, enough moaning about what we're not getting, what ARE we getting?
October 30th: Borderlands
For the longest time, I haven't known what to think about Borderlands. If it had come out a few months ago whilst I was still heavily into The Witcher, TF 2 and Left 4 Dead, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. From that point of view, the marketing scumbags have been quite clever in releasing it just ahead of the rest of the November A-Listers. It gets attention.
I'm cautiously hopeful for Borderlands. We haven't had a decent non-source engine shooter for a while and there are certain aspects of it that definitely do appeal to me. Whether it'll be any good or not is in the hands of the gods, though. The reviews are positive but that never really means anything.
November 6th: Dragon Age: Origins
After finding that I suddenly don't like Jade Empire, KOTOR and Mass Effect, you can imagine I'm extremely skeptical about Dragon Age. Particularly as I think fantasy settings are reserved (with certain exceptions) for developers with no imagination. Sadly, Dragon Age looks like it has the unexciting combat of Jade Empire and the plot of a bad Narnia book. I'm prepared to be proved totally wrong but seeing as this game is by Bioware, who are one of the golden boys of gaming, it'll take more than the inevitable glowing reviews to convince me.
November 10th: Modern Warfare 2
I've been trying not to think about this one as the original was one of my favourite games evarrr and sequals to my favourite games evarrr seem to always turn out shit. With this one, I'm just kind of hoping I'll wake up one day with it ready installed ony my compuer and I can just casually wander over and see if it's any good without building it up too much in my brains.
My main concern is that they'll spend too much time creating massive set pieces and getting you to do things like ride snow mobiles over ice floes rather than have you do what the original did so well - shoot lots and lots of people.
November 18th: Left 4 Dead 2
This one I'm happy to get worked up about as it's Valve, who rarely disappoint. We know exactly what Left 4 Dead 2 will be, so we can all get up an appropriate level of excitement. I'm expecting to get a reasonable amount of milage out of it as I've got 80 hours out of the original (and counting) and the sequel has more content :D
Although Valve seriously need to dump the source engine after this. Seriously. I know they've been updating it but it's five years old. Mind you, so's World of Warcraft and people are still playing that.
November 20th: Assassins Creed 2
Now, this one is good/bad. On the one hand, it looks like the first one but tweaked to remove the annoyances. This is a good thing. Maybe it'll have an actual ending this time.
But there are also things Ubisoft have been proudly showing off like Leonado Da Vinci's flying machine which just look a bit shite... I'm just hoping those things take a back seat to the Parkor and awesome freeflow combat. And that it has an ending. Seriously, Ubisoft.
I do understand why big games companies choose to release games only in March and November and pretend the rest of the year doesn't exist - it's because statistically, these are the most popular months. Like most things in life, this makes sense as long as you don't have two brain cells to rub together creating the tiny static discharge of thought. For the purpose of this analogy, the execs who make these decisions don't have two brian cells to rub together.
But whatever, November is almost upon us. For me, this is kind of a relief. Apart from Batman, I have to go back to Febuary to find the last big budget game I was interested in which followed through on all it's promises and that was Dawn of War 2. This means I've been filling my time with crap like Section 8 and indie games.
Admittedly, I do love indie games - I've been getting really into them this year - but there are itches that indie games just can't scratch. So what do we have coming up in November?
Well, not Alpha Protocol. That was supposed to be coming out this month but Sega were dicks and didn't arrange the testing in time. When it got delayed, they looked at what else was coming in November and delayed it till the next financial year. How do I know this? I don't, but I know someone who works for Sega and he says this sort of thing is pretty much par for the course, they're dicks. I'm paraphrasing slightly.
We don't get Mass Effect 2, either. I'm not so worried by that one as, since being thoroughly disillusioned by ME 1 a few months ago, I've mentally written off ME 2 until further evidence presents itself. Like a combat model that isn't totally balls.
Not Splinter Cell Conviction, either. Although, thanks to a complete rebuild, we might at least see that game this century, even if we won't technically see it this decade.
But fuck all that, enough moaning about what we're not getting, what ARE we getting?
October 30th: Borderlands
For the longest time, I haven't known what to think about Borderlands. If it had come out a few months ago whilst I was still heavily into The Witcher, TF 2 and Left 4 Dead, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought. From that point of view, the marketing scumbags have been quite clever in releasing it just ahead of the rest of the November A-Listers. It gets attention.
I'm cautiously hopeful for Borderlands. We haven't had a decent non-source engine shooter for a while and there are certain aspects of it that definitely do appeal to me. Whether it'll be any good or not is in the hands of the gods, though. The reviews are positive but that never really means anything.
November 6th: Dragon Age: Origins
After finding that I suddenly don't like Jade Empire, KOTOR and Mass Effect, you can imagine I'm extremely skeptical about Dragon Age. Particularly as I think fantasy settings are reserved (with certain exceptions) for developers with no imagination. Sadly, Dragon Age looks like it has the unexciting combat of Jade Empire and the plot of a bad Narnia book. I'm prepared to be proved totally wrong but seeing as this game is by Bioware, who are one of the golden boys of gaming, it'll take more than the inevitable glowing reviews to convince me.
November 10th: Modern Warfare 2
I've been trying not to think about this one as the original was one of my favourite games evarrr and sequals to my favourite games evarrr seem to always turn out shit. With this one, I'm just kind of hoping I'll wake up one day with it ready installed ony my compuer and I can just casually wander over and see if it's any good without building it up too much in my brains.
My main concern is that they'll spend too much time creating massive set pieces and getting you to do things like ride snow mobiles over ice floes rather than have you do what the original did so well - shoot lots and lots of people.
November 18th: Left 4 Dead 2
This one I'm happy to get worked up about as it's Valve, who rarely disappoint. We know exactly what Left 4 Dead 2 will be, so we can all get up an appropriate level of excitement. I'm expecting to get a reasonable amount of milage out of it as I've got 80 hours out of the original (and counting) and the sequel has more content :D
Although Valve seriously need to dump the source engine after this. Seriously. I know they've been updating it but it's five years old. Mind you, so's World of Warcraft and people are still playing that.
November 20th: Assassins Creed 2
Now, this one is good/bad. On the one hand, it looks like the first one but tweaked to remove the annoyances. This is a good thing. Maybe it'll have an actual ending this time.
But there are also things Ubisoft have been proudly showing off like Leonado Da Vinci's flying machine which just look a bit shite... I'm just hoping those things take a back seat to the Parkor and awesome freeflow combat. And that it has an ending. Seriously, Ubisoft.
Monday, 19 October 2009
Triangle
Epic Spoilers Follow
Okay, so I just got back from seeing Triangle. The trailer is here, in case you haven't seen it.
So, this is one of those films where everything apart from the plot is really good. Sadly, the plot completely ruins it.
Although, it should be stressed that it's more the rules of the internal universe that ruin the film, rather than the plot.
Triangle is essentially two films:
1) It's a Terminator style film where everything is set and every action taken by a character in the future causes someone in the past to react in such a way as to enable the future actions to happen.
2) It's a 1408 style film where the world is out to get the characters but if they fight hard enough, they can change things and potentially save themselves.
To make this easier, I'll give you a potted sumary of the story. I'm putting plot holes in bold for easy reference later.
Act 1:
The characters meet up on a boat. The lead girl, Jess is extremely spaced out. They go out sailing and run into a storm, which capsises their boat.
Act 2:
They go onto a ship which happens to go past their capsised boat, no-one is there. They hear footsteps everywhere but see no-one. They are killed off one by one until Jess disarms the murderer (who has a gun) Jess throws the murderer overboard.
Act 3:
Jess then sees her group board the ship as they did in act 2 and realises that it is all happening again. She grabs one of the group when the go off to look round and accidentally kills them. She then grabs a gun and threatens herself form the past. Past Jess then runs off. Jess then tracks down two of her mates and gives them the gun. She then tries to find her last friend to get them together and get them off the boat. Then the murderer appears and takes off its mask, it's Jess. Let's call her Future Jess. Future Jess then kills her two mates and disappears, saying that she loves her son. Jess finds her mate, dying, and promises they'll get off the boat. She then sees herself at the start of the act noticing the arrival in act 2.
Act 4:
Jess realises that there's an oppertunity to get off the boat every time a new act starts or, to put it another way, every time all her mates die. She can get back onto the capsised hull of their boat from Act 1. So she kills all her mates in exactly the same manner as she did in Act 2. She gets pushed over the side by Past Jess from act 2.
Act 5:
Jess wakes up on a beach, she realises she's back in her home town and goes to her house. She sees herself being a violent bitch to her son and kills Past Violent Mum Jess. She then takes her son and gets in a car crash, which kills her son. She then re-enacts the rest of Act 1.
The End.
Now.
If we take acts 1,2 and 4 by themselves, this is a standard film based around the laws of Pre Determinism. Everything Jess does leads to her going mental and killing her mates.
The problem arises with Acts 3 and 5. Let's take act 3 first.
Act 3:
There are now two extra Jess's wandering around that aren't dealt with. Past Jess, who Jess threatened with the gun and Future Jess who killed her mates and said she loved her son. These two are never seen again.
Act 5:
Jess choses to go back on to the boat, knowing she'll get to the ship again. This one isn't so much of a problem because in Act 1, Jess basically has a break down, goes to sleep and thinks she's had a bad dream. The problem arises when Jess dresses the same as she did the previous time.
This is a problem I had with the television show Flash Forward. Any time you think the future is determined, you just have to change the smallest thing and it's suddenly not. Take Jess, for example. In Act 5, if she wanted to get onboard again so she could go round again and not kill her son, she should have made sure things would be different and, for example, not taken her shoes. Then the cycle is different all ready, things will go in a different way.
The Future Jess character in Act 3 does heavily suggest that she does manage to change some things but that's never dealt with so it just comes across as a mess.
You see the problems I'm having with trying to analyse this film? It's not internally consistent thanks to the two sets of rules it uses.
There is one final problem with Triangle and it, again, relates to the rules of the world.
There is no antagonist, other than Jess. In Act 2, one of the characters explains that the name of The Ship refers to Sysiphus' father (Sysiphus was the guy cursed to push a boulder up the hill again and again because he broke a deal he made with death)
This wouldn't be that bad if it wasn't the only explanation we have for why the events of the film are occurring.
To go back to the film 1408 for a moment - Everything in that film is explained by Samuel L Jackson's words "It's an evil fucking room". You go in the room, the room drives you mad and gets you to kill yourself. Simple.
In Triangle, we're given no hook, we have no idea why the events of the film are occuring, why it is Jess who is allowed to survive the acts, why there aren't dozens of other people on this ship going through their own personal hell...
Also, as far as I know, no-one in the film made or broke a deal with Death, so that explanation only serves to be annoying.
Films like this really need an antagonist - even if it's just the ship itself. There needs to be something controling or instigating or changing these events because otherwise there is nothing, NOTHING to stop Jess in Act 3 from meeting the gang on the deck of the ship and going "Hi chaps, we could have a problem"
Okay, so I just got back from seeing Triangle. The trailer is here, in case you haven't seen it.
So, this is one of those films where everything apart from the plot is really good. Sadly, the plot completely ruins it.
Although, it should be stressed that it's more the rules of the internal universe that ruin the film, rather than the plot.
Triangle is essentially two films:
1) It's a Terminator style film where everything is set and every action taken by a character in the future causes someone in the past to react in such a way as to enable the future actions to happen.
2) It's a 1408 style film where the world is out to get the characters but if they fight hard enough, they can change things and potentially save themselves.
To make this easier, I'll give you a potted sumary of the story. I'm putting plot holes in bold for easy reference later.
Act 1:
The characters meet up on a boat. The lead girl, Jess is extremely spaced out. They go out sailing and run into a storm, which capsises their boat.
Act 2:
They go onto a ship which happens to go past their capsised boat, no-one is there. They hear footsteps everywhere but see no-one. They are killed off one by one until Jess disarms the murderer (who has a gun) Jess throws the murderer overboard.
Act 3:
Jess then sees her group board the ship as they did in act 2 and realises that it is all happening again. She grabs one of the group when the go off to look round and accidentally kills them. She then grabs a gun and threatens herself form the past. Past Jess then runs off. Jess then tracks down two of her mates and gives them the gun. She then tries to find her last friend to get them together and get them off the boat. Then the murderer appears and takes off its mask, it's Jess. Let's call her Future Jess. Future Jess then kills her two mates and disappears, saying that she loves her son. Jess finds her mate, dying, and promises they'll get off the boat. She then sees herself at the start of the act noticing the arrival in act 2.
Act 4:
Jess realises that there's an oppertunity to get off the boat every time a new act starts or, to put it another way, every time all her mates die. She can get back onto the capsised hull of their boat from Act 1. So she kills all her mates in exactly the same manner as she did in Act 2. She gets pushed over the side by Past Jess from act 2.
Act 5:
Jess wakes up on a beach, she realises she's back in her home town and goes to her house. She sees herself being a violent bitch to her son and kills Past Violent Mum Jess. She then takes her son and gets in a car crash, which kills her son. She then re-enacts the rest of Act 1.
The End.
Now.
If we take acts 1,2 and 4 by themselves, this is a standard film based around the laws of Pre Determinism. Everything Jess does leads to her going mental and killing her mates.
The problem arises with Acts 3 and 5. Let's take act 3 first.
Act 3:
There are now two extra Jess's wandering around that aren't dealt with. Past Jess, who Jess threatened with the gun and Future Jess who killed her mates and said she loved her son. These two are never seen again.
Act 5:
Jess choses to go back on to the boat, knowing she'll get to the ship again. This one isn't so much of a problem because in Act 1, Jess basically has a break down, goes to sleep and thinks she's had a bad dream. The problem arises when Jess dresses the same as she did the previous time.
This is a problem I had with the television show Flash Forward. Any time you think the future is determined, you just have to change the smallest thing and it's suddenly not. Take Jess, for example. In Act 5, if she wanted to get onboard again so she could go round again and not kill her son, she should have made sure things would be different and, for example, not taken her shoes. Then the cycle is different all ready, things will go in a different way.
The Future Jess character in Act 3 does heavily suggest that she does manage to change some things but that's never dealt with so it just comes across as a mess.
You see the problems I'm having with trying to analyse this film? It's not internally consistent thanks to the two sets of rules it uses.
There is one final problem with Triangle and it, again, relates to the rules of the world.
There is no antagonist, other than Jess. In Act 2, one of the characters explains that the name of The Ship refers to Sysiphus' father (Sysiphus was the guy cursed to push a boulder up the hill again and again because he broke a deal he made with death)
This wouldn't be that bad if it wasn't the only explanation we have for why the events of the film are occurring.
To go back to the film 1408 for a moment - Everything in that film is explained by Samuel L Jackson's words "It's an evil fucking room". You go in the room, the room drives you mad and gets you to kill yourself. Simple.
In Triangle, we're given no hook, we have no idea why the events of the film are occuring, why it is Jess who is allowed to survive the acts, why there aren't dozens of other people on this ship going through their own personal hell...
Also, as far as I know, no-one in the film made or broke a deal with Death, so that explanation only serves to be annoying.
Films like this really need an antagonist - even if it's just the ship itself. There needs to be something controling or instigating or changing these events because otherwise there is nothing, NOTHING to stop Jess in Act 3 from meeting the gang on the deck of the ship and going "Hi chaps, we could have a problem"
Saturday, 17 October 2009
The all time greatest video game hero
According to Gamespot.com readers.
So gamespot have been running a massive poll for the last month bent on discovering who is generally thought of as being the all time greatest game hero. As you probably guessed from the title.
Now, my personal view of this is it's a really, really stupid thing to do. Apart from anything else, their list of the heroes that could be voted for was deeply suspect but whatever, it's a light hearted feature, no-one cares.
What did interest me somewhat was the final was Mario vs Gordon Freeman and Gordon won with 107,581 votes. That's rather a lot.
What I find the most interesting in this final is how neither of these people are characters, by any stretch of the word - neither of them talk for fucks sake. And the fact that Gordon won? Yeesh. You could just about argue that he's a hero but... I feel a bit uncomfortable with that. He's not really there... I know the events you take part in in the Half Life games are monumental and epic but Gordon being the hero? I don't think so....
What's also obvious from the voting is- characters (and, by extension, real heroes who save the world despite their own deamons etc.) got knocked out of the running very early.
JC Denton, Phoenix Writght, Sam Fisher & Guybrush Threepwood all got knocked out in the first two rounds against generic idiots from early console games. Garret - fucking Garret, hero of the Thief games - some of the best written games created - got knocked out by fucking FROGGER.
So what do we learn? We learn that no-one has been listening to Daniel Floyd in his pleas to start thinking about games more in terms of story than... whatever the fuck frogger is. I'd struggle to call it gameplay.
EDIT:
One entertaining thing about this stupidity is Valve have offered 55.8% off the Half Life games because Freeman won 55.8% of the vote.
Heh. Heh heh heh.
Good old valve :)
So gamespot have been running a massive poll for the last month bent on discovering who is generally thought of as being the all time greatest game hero. As you probably guessed from the title.
Now, my personal view of this is it's a really, really stupid thing to do. Apart from anything else, their list of the heroes that could be voted for was deeply suspect but whatever, it's a light hearted feature, no-one cares.
What did interest me somewhat was the final was Mario vs Gordon Freeman and Gordon won with 107,581 votes. That's rather a lot.
What I find the most interesting in this final is how neither of these people are characters, by any stretch of the word - neither of them talk for fucks sake. And the fact that Gordon won? Yeesh. You could just about argue that he's a hero but... I feel a bit uncomfortable with that. He's not really there... I know the events you take part in in the Half Life games are monumental and epic but Gordon being the hero? I don't think so....
What's also obvious from the voting is- characters (and, by extension, real heroes who save the world despite their own deamons etc.) got knocked out of the running very early.
JC Denton, Phoenix Writght, Sam Fisher & Guybrush Threepwood all got knocked out in the first two rounds against generic idiots from early console games. Garret - fucking Garret, hero of the Thief games - some of the best written games created - got knocked out by fucking FROGGER.
So what do we learn? We learn that no-one has been listening to Daniel Floyd in his pleas to start thinking about games more in terms of story than... whatever the fuck frogger is. I'd struggle to call it gameplay.
EDIT:
One entertaining thing about this stupidity is Valve have offered 55.8% off the Half Life games because Freeman won 55.8% of the vote.
Heh. Heh heh heh.
Good old valve :)
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Dawn of War 2: The Last Stand
So the free DLC for Dawn of War 2 was released at some point this week, I wasn't paying attention though so it took an excited chat message from my brother to draw my attention to this.
I've spent most of the evening playing it because it was that or try and absorb the mornings training my work sent me on. If you want to know what that was like, watch Requiem for a Dream three times in a row.
Anyway, The Last Stand.
The premise is simple, you take three human controlled hero characters- either a Space Marine, an Ork or an Eldar Farseer and pit them against wave after wave of enemies. Your hero levels up as he/she kills, unlocking wargear, special abilities and all the other things we've all grown to love about Dawn of War 2.
Those of us that played the fucking thing have at least.
Anyway, what's it like?
It's pretty fun. A lot of it depends on what your team is like because it gets bastard hard once the 9th wave of enemies comes along. You're originally pelted with waves of lesser orcs, imperial guard, eldar guardians and so on but by the time you reach wave #10 you've got actual space marine squads to deal with and by that point if you're not operating as an efficient three man squad you're going to die. Horribly.
There's one major down side, which everyone and his dog has pointed out: The rounds are fixed. Round 1 is always four squads of orcs, round 2 is always 4 squads of tyranids and so on. I have no idea why the fuck this isn't randomised to prevent the relative boredom of the early rounds.
But whatever, this is free, I shouldn't be complaining. As an add on, it's nothing drastically special. It's good fun and I'll be playing a fair amount of it over the coming weeks, if only to get some decent time in with my Farseer but it's not life changing or anything.
This has led me to think about real game changing DLC though- stuff that *really* added to the gameplay experience.
In my opinion, only the Payload maps for Team Fortress 2 meet this criteria. The terratory control maps are good but the Payload maps shift TF2 from being good fun to being a stone cold classic which is still fun two years after release.
Every other DLC I can think of does nothing but expand the game in very small ways. Even the Far Cry 2 DLC which I consider pretty good by DLC standards only makes very small changes. The only DLC I'd say is worth the money is the downloadable songs for Rock Band but then, I love my drumming...
I've spent most of the evening playing it because it was that or try and absorb the mornings training my work sent me on. If you want to know what that was like, watch Requiem for a Dream three times in a row.
Anyway, The Last Stand.
The premise is simple, you take three human controlled hero characters- either a Space Marine, an Ork or an Eldar Farseer and pit them against wave after wave of enemies. Your hero levels up as he/she kills, unlocking wargear, special abilities and all the other things we've all grown to love about Dawn of War 2.
Those of us that played the fucking thing have at least.
Anyway, what's it like?
It's pretty fun. A lot of it depends on what your team is like because it gets bastard hard once the 9th wave of enemies comes along. You're originally pelted with waves of lesser orcs, imperial guard, eldar guardians and so on but by the time you reach wave #10 you've got actual space marine squads to deal with and by that point if you're not operating as an efficient three man squad you're going to die. Horribly.
There's one major down side, which everyone and his dog has pointed out: The rounds are fixed. Round 1 is always four squads of orcs, round 2 is always 4 squads of tyranids and so on. I have no idea why the fuck this isn't randomised to prevent the relative boredom of the early rounds.
But whatever, this is free, I shouldn't be complaining. As an add on, it's nothing drastically special. It's good fun and I'll be playing a fair amount of it over the coming weeks, if only to get some decent time in with my Farseer but it's not life changing or anything.
This has led me to think about real game changing DLC though- stuff that *really* added to the gameplay experience.
In my opinion, only the Payload maps for Team Fortress 2 meet this criteria. The terratory control maps are good but the Payload maps shift TF2 from being good fun to being a stone cold classic which is still fun two years after release.
Every other DLC I can think of does nothing but expand the game in very small ways. Even the Far Cry 2 DLC which I consider pretty good by DLC standards only makes very small changes. The only DLC I'd say is worth the money is the downloadable songs for Rock Band but then, I love my drumming...
Dreamkiller
There's fuck all out at the moment so I was really pleased when Dreamkiller floated onto the tubes.
Dreamkiller has a very original premise and excellent artistic direction. I played two of the levels - a training mission where you entered the mind of an arachnophobic, which played out much as you'd expect. The second one was in the mind of a paranoiac who was scared he was being worked to death. Things started fairly normally until you got into the bowels of the dreamscape office building where the walls turned into massive filing cabinets spewing paper all over the player.
I say it's a very original premise, it's basically a rehash of Psychonaughts. From concept right down to disappointing gameplay.
The game plays out exactly like Painkiller but there are three very important differences:
1) The monsters
In Painkiller, the monsters were enormous Hellbeasts and they all made it very obvious when they were going to attack. This made them obviously threatening and made them more fun to kill. In Dreamkiller they just run at you and you get magically hurt. They're also usually quite small, which feels odd.
2) The weapons
They aren't as much fun as the Painkiller versions. I only got to play with a minigun and a shotgun. The minigun overheated after a few seconds so you never really got to cut loose (you've got infinite ammunition for all the weapons, you see, so they have to find ways to restrict you). The shotgun, on the other hand, was underpowered, fired too slowly and had quite a small spread.
Given that you spend pretty much all your time killing things in this game, the fact that the tools you use to dispatch the monsters aren't very fun to use means that any enjoyment you gain from the clever environments is sapped away whenever an enemy turns up.
3) You can only carry one gun at once.
And you don't get to switch very often. You get very, very bored of the guns when you're forced to use them.
Dreamkiller isn't really a bad game, you can definitely see potential lurking in there but a couple of niggling faults move it from inventive to frustrating and then frustrating to depressing. I wouldn't bother if I were you.
Dreamkiller has a very original premise and excellent artistic direction. I played two of the levels - a training mission where you entered the mind of an arachnophobic, which played out much as you'd expect. The second one was in the mind of a paranoiac who was scared he was being worked to death. Things started fairly normally until you got into the bowels of the dreamscape office building where the walls turned into massive filing cabinets spewing paper all over the player.
I say it's a very original premise, it's basically a rehash of Psychonaughts. From concept right down to disappointing gameplay.
The game plays out exactly like Painkiller but there are three very important differences:
1) The monsters
In Painkiller, the monsters were enormous Hellbeasts and they all made it very obvious when they were going to attack. This made them obviously threatening and made them more fun to kill. In Dreamkiller they just run at you and you get magically hurt. They're also usually quite small, which feels odd.
2) The weapons
They aren't as much fun as the Painkiller versions. I only got to play with a minigun and a shotgun. The minigun overheated after a few seconds so you never really got to cut loose (you've got infinite ammunition for all the weapons, you see, so they have to find ways to restrict you). The shotgun, on the other hand, was underpowered, fired too slowly and had quite a small spread.
Given that you spend pretty much all your time killing things in this game, the fact that the tools you use to dispatch the monsters aren't very fun to use means that any enjoyment you gain from the clever environments is sapped away whenever an enemy turns up.
3) You can only carry one gun at once.
And you don't get to switch very often. You get very, very bored of the guns when you're forced to use them.
Dreamkiller isn't really a bad game, you can definitely see potential lurking in there but a couple of niggling faults move it from inventive to frustrating and then frustrating to depressing. I wouldn't bother if I were you.
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
House Series 6
Or: How To Re-Establish The Status Quo In Three Easy Steps
House and I have a troubled history. I've blogged about it previously, saying how it had jumped the shark. Before I kept this blog, I thought this had happened once before, as well, after the Tritter subplot where it turned out House had faked his detoxing.
What has always pissed me off about house is this: Nothing good ever happens. Or, if it does, it never stays good. Or if it does, it's completely forgotten about. Take Cuddy's baby. Yes, it's technically a shallow ploy to add drama to a tired character but it's presented as a 100% positive event. It is then never really touched on. It gets mentioned occasionally but usually as a comparison to how awful life is.
Anyway, I watched series 5 - I hated the bit in the middle, and everything revolving around the relationship between Foreman and 13, which is definitely the most unrealistic relationship I've come across in a TV show. Those two personality types aren't opposites but they are about as unlikely to hook up as me and Jeb Bush.
But whatever, series 6 started off incredibly well, maybe the show is going to change.
Series 6 started with an epic two parter where House is institutionalised. A shrink essentially cures him over an hour and a half of screen time in a series of alternately touching and heart breaking bits of television.
Things started to go slightly wrong in the third episode. There, House is desperate to keep his mind occupied so his leg ceases to hurt. He tries various things out over the course of the series but eventually, he cheats and solves a diagnostic problem over the internets. His shrink then tells him to go back to diagnostic medicine as this is the only thing that will cure him.
There are too many things that annoy me about that to chronicle so I'll pick just one: House is now a rational human being who cares more about happiness than anything else, right? So he should cut his fucking leg off. It's very, very simple. This option has been floated to him several times before, it's well established that this would instantly end his pain. Ignoring this option shows that the writers really don't want to move the series on, they just want to keep doing the same old shit.
So whatever, the new team leave (which was probably a good thing, given how Taub was a remarkably boring character and the 13/foreman thing was only getting less believable as time went on) and in episode 5... Well, House just reverts. He's back to his old pointless games of hacking into someones email to cancel a plane flight so they'll reconsider whether to stay in the country or not.
No other show would have characters do something that fucking stupid. It's ridiculous, but in House, that's the only way to communicate effectively because people who share their feelings (like Wilson) are considered weak, ineffective and more flawed than the people they're trying to fix.
Episode 5 ends with a montage of broken hearts, long poignant shots of character either lying to cover up a mistake or missing their spouse/partner. The show where nothing good ever happens ever is back. And I'm out.
Again.
House and I have a troubled history. I've blogged about it previously, saying how it had jumped the shark. Before I kept this blog, I thought this had happened once before, as well, after the Tritter subplot where it turned out House had faked his detoxing.
What has always pissed me off about house is this: Nothing good ever happens. Or, if it does, it never stays good. Or if it does, it's completely forgotten about. Take Cuddy's baby. Yes, it's technically a shallow ploy to add drama to a tired character but it's presented as a 100% positive event. It is then never really touched on. It gets mentioned occasionally but usually as a comparison to how awful life is.
Anyway, I watched series 5 - I hated the bit in the middle, and everything revolving around the relationship between Foreman and 13, which is definitely the most unrealistic relationship I've come across in a TV show. Those two personality types aren't opposites but they are about as unlikely to hook up as me and Jeb Bush.
But whatever, series 6 started off incredibly well, maybe the show is going to change.
Series 6 started with an epic two parter where House is institutionalised. A shrink essentially cures him over an hour and a half of screen time in a series of alternately touching and heart breaking bits of television.
Things started to go slightly wrong in the third episode. There, House is desperate to keep his mind occupied so his leg ceases to hurt. He tries various things out over the course of the series but eventually, he cheats and solves a diagnostic problem over the internets. His shrink then tells him to go back to diagnostic medicine as this is the only thing that will cure him.
There are too many things that annoy me about that to chronicle so I'll pick just one: House is now a rational human being who cares more about happiness than anything else, right? So he should cut his fucking leg off. It's very, very simple. This option has been floated to him several times before, it's well established that this would instantly end his pain. Ignoring this option shows that the writers really don't want to move the series on, they just want to keep doing the same old shit.
So whatever, the new team leave (which was probably a good thing, given how Taub was a remarkably boring character and the 13/foreman thing was only getting less believable as time went on) and in episode 5... Well, House just reverts. He's back to his old pointless games of hacking into someones email to cancel a plane flight so they'll reconsider whether to stay in the country or not.
No other show would have characters do something that fucking stupid. It's ridiculous, but in House, that's the only way to communicate effectively because people who share their feelings (like Wilson) are considered weak, ineffective and more flawed than the people they're trying to fix.
Episode 5 ends with a montage of broken hearts, long poignant shots of character either lying to cover up a mistake or missing their spouse/partner. The show where nothing good ever happens ever is back. And I'm out.
Again.
Thursday, 8 October 2009
Rules of Zombie films
I've been inspired by Zombieland to make a list of rules that zombie films follow, for good or bad reasons.
Good Rules:
1) Characters don't wear protective headgear
So the characters in these films always know that the zombie virus is blood borne... yet none of them ever wear mouth or eye protection to stop the blood from their zombie victims infecting them if it splashes. This is a good rule, though. Not having headgear allows us to identify with the characters much more and it takes a really, really skilled actor to act through a mask.
2) Aim for the head
It's well established that zombies die from a shot to the head. Why? Well, you're an idiot if you really want to ask that question. Zombies are impossible thanks to Rigor Mortis and nerve degeneration. If zombies existed they'd be a 28 days later style creation where they'd die just fine from a shot to the heart or stomach. The fiction must be maintained, though, because if zombies die just like anyone else, they're not much of a threat.
3) Characters always keep on the move
Face is, the best way to actually survive a zombie apocalypse is to stay where you are, barricade yourself in and survive. If the zombies are virus infected humans, they'll starve to death. If they're dead, they'll decay. If Dawn of the Dead has proved anything, though, it's that it's really damn hard to inject tension into a situation where the characters constantly stay in the same place. Dawn of the Dead solved this problem by having a cast of complete morons, which was possibly not the best solution in the world. Better to keep the cast moving.
Bad Rules:
1) At some point a main character must die
This usually happens about half to two thirds of the way through. The characters get too comfortable with the zombie killing, get sloppy and let one of their number die. In the less good zombie films, of course, many characters die. This is, of course, done to make the stakes clear to this audience. The thing is, we allready know the stakes. We know that death is bad. This rule only serves to piss off the audience who have spent their time getting to know and like the characters.
2) Characters only use guns
Granted, you don't really want to get close to these things but I'd love to see a talented martial artist go to work on zombies. Possibly with a katana or a bo staff. Seriously, can you imagine Tony Jaa versus zombies? Would be even more awesome than this.
3) Pretensions to a horror atmosphere.
Someone tell George Romero- zombies aren't scary. Seriously. Granted, they *can* be. Bits of Dead Set were horrible. But as an out and out horror, they just don't work, there are too many ways to dispatch them. Horror only really works when it doesn't follow real world rules (in my opinion). The thing is, though, zombie films are often at their best when they're not trying to be horror films. Look at the original Resident Evil film - the best bits are when Milla Jovovich flips out and starts kicking arse. There are so many things you can do with zombie films that just having them as tense epics seems tragically unimaginative.
Notable Exceptions to these rules:
(warning - here be spoilers)
Good Rules:
1) Characters don't wear protective headgear
Film: 28 Days Later
The introduction to Frank, one of the best characters, is made all the more powerful because he's dressed in Riot Gear - this guy knows what he's doing, we think. It makes his death just that bit of a fucker when he gets infected because he wasn't wearing gear we know he has.
Bad Rules:
1) At some point a main character must die
Film: Zombieland
This film subverts so many zombie rules but the best one by a mile is that (epic spoiler) it doesn't kill any of the four main characters. This is fantastic. It does still follow this rule, sort of, but I'm not going to spoil that for you. Five words: "Do you regret anything?" For the answer, you'll have to watch the film.
2) Characters only use guns
Film: Zombieland
Granted, guns are the weapon of choice but Zombieland takes real joy in mixing this up with various melee weapons.
3) Pretensions to a horror atmosphere.
Game: Left 4 Dead
I'm cheating a bit by using a game here but it is a big exception so it stands... Left 4 Dead works brilliant because the zombies are scary yet canon fodder at the same time. If one of these factors were taken away, the awesome would drain away with it.
Good Rules:
1) Characters don't wear protective headgear
So the characters in these films always know that the zombie virus is blood borne... yet none of them ever wear mouth or eye protection to stop the blood from their zombie victims infecting them if it splashes. This is a good rule, though. Not having headgear allows us to identify with the characters much more and it takes a really, really skilled actor to act through a mask.
2) Aim for the head
It's well established that zombies die from a shot to the head. Why? Well, you're an idiot if you really want to ask that question. Zombies are impossible thanks to Rigor Mortis and nerve degeneration. If zombies existed they'd be a 28 days later style creation where they'd die just fine from a shot to the heart or stomach. The fiction must be maintained, though, because if zombies die just like anyone else, they're not much of a threat.
3) Characters always keep on the move
Face is, the best way to actually survive a zombie apocalypse is to stay where you are, barricade yourself in and survive. If the zombies are virus infected humans, they'll starve to death. If they're dead, they'll decay. If Dawn of the Dead has proved anything, though, it's that it's really damn hard to inject tension into a situation where the characters constantly stay in the same place. Dawn of the Dead solved this problem by having a cast of complete morons, which was possibly not the best solution in the world. Better to keep the cast moving.
Bad Rules:
1) At some point a main character must die
This usually happens about half to two thirds of the way through. The characters get too comfortable with the zombie killing, get sloppy and let one of their number die. In the less good zombie films, of course, many characters die. This is, of course, done to make the stakes clear to this audience. The thing is, we allready know the stakes. We know that death is bad. This rule only serves to piss off the audience who have spent their time getting to know and like the characters.
2) Characters only use guns
Granted, you don't really want to get close to these things but I'd love to see a talented martial artist go to work on zombies. Possibly with a katana or a bo staff. Seriously, can you imagine Tony Jaa versus zombies? Would be even more awesome than this.
3) Pretensions to a horror atmosphere.
Someone tell George Romero- zombies aren't scary. Seriously. Granted, they *can* be. Bits of Dead Set were horrible. But as an out and out horror, they just don't work, there are too many ways to dispatch them. Horror only really works when it doesn't follow real world rules (in my opinion). The thing is, though, zombie films are often at their best when they're not trying to be horror films. Look at the original Resident Evil film - the best bits are when Milla Jovovich flips out and starts kicking arse. There are so many things you can do with zombie films that just having them as tense epics seems tragically unimaginative.
Notable Exceptions to these rules:
(warning - here be spoilers)
Good Rules:
1) Characters don't wear protective headgear
Film: 28 Days Later
The introduction to Frank, one of the best characters, is made all the more powerful because he's dressed in Riot Gear - this guy knows what he's doing, we think. It makes his death just that bit of a fucker when he gets infected because he wasn't wearing gear we know he has.
Bad Rules:
1) At some point a main character must die
Film: Zombieland
This film subverts so many zombie rules but the best one by a mile is that (epic spoiler) it doesn't kill any of the four main characters. This is fantastic. It does still follow this rule, sort of, but I'm not going to spoil that for you. Five words: "Do you regret anything?" For the answer, you'll have to watch the film.
2) Characters only use guns
Film: Zombieland
Granted, guns are the weapon of choice but Zombieland takes real joy in mixing this up with various melee weapons.
3) Pretensions to a horror atmosphere.
Game: Left 4 Dead
I'm cheating a bit by using a game here but it is a big exception so it stands... Left 4 Dead works brilliant because the zombies are scary yet canon fodder at the same time. If one of these factors were taken away, the awesome would drain away with it.
Zombieland
Cracked recently wrote a list of reasons why you secretly want a zombie apocalypse to happen... Zombieland sums all this up over a glorious hour and a half.
You should basically watch the trailer.
The film is that, but longer - in much the same way Iron Man was.
Need more? Okay...
So Zombieland is basically a combination of three factors.
Woody Harelson provides the Left 4 Dead side of the zombie fantasy - killing zombies in the most awesome ways possible.
Jesse Eisenberg provides the cracked/inner geek side of it - he has a list of rules in his head that range from the obvious (double tap, maintain cardio, don't be a hero) to the truely geeky, yet very sensible (check the back seat, beware of bathrooms).
Then there is Emma Stone. Emma Stone provides an emotional core to the film... she basically creates the circumstances for the characters to have a real relationship. She prevents it from just becoming an adolescent fantasy- mainly because she's not really that sexy, she's just- a nice girl.
So what does that leave us with? A geeky, emotionally mature, action packed zombie thriller. What's not to like?
Well, and I don't often say this, there's not much wrong with it. I suppose if I was really nit picking, there would be individual shots I would like to shorten/lengthen/remove but honestly, if I was doing this film, I'd do it in exactly the same way.
Fuck Sean of the Dead, this is now the best zombie film ever made.
The main reason Zombieland is better than its British cousin is - Whilst Sean of the Dead is probably funnier than Zombieland - Zombieland is more fun. It's more awesome. It's definitely more thrilling. This is partly because of the soundtrack - which really gets the adrenaline going - partly because of the aforementioned parallels with Left 4 Dead but mostly because the film takes it as its mission statement to kill zombies in fun ways.
Zombieland knows its audience better than even Sean of the Dead did. It knows what people want from this sort of film and holy shit does it deliver...
EDIT:
For the last half hour, I've been reading reviews of Zombieland (am very pleased to see that the reviewers agree with me for once - was worried they'd pull a Shoot Em Up on me) and have been buzzing with how great that damn film was.
You know what it's like when you get out of a film and want to just go in and see it again? I got this with the first Lord of the Rings film and The Dark Knight? Well I've got that with Zombieland. Makes it a very special film in my book.
You should basically watch the trailer.
The film is that, but longer - in much the same way Iron Man was.
Need more? Okay...
So Zombieland is basically a combination of three factors.
Woody Harelson provides the Left 4 Dead side of the zombie fantasy - killing zombies in the most awesome ways possible.
Jesse Eisenberg provides the cracked/inner geek side of it - he has a list of rules in his head that range from the obvious (double tap, maintain cardio, don't be a hero) to the truely geeky, yet very sensible (check the back seat, beware of bathrooms).
Then there is Emma Stone. Emma Stone provides an emotional core to the film... she basically creates the circumstances for the characters to have a real relationship. She prevents it from just becoming an adolescent fantasy- mainly because she's not really that sexy, she's just- a nice girl.
So what does that leave us with? A geeky, emotionally mature, action packed zombie thriller. What's not to like?
Well, and I don't often say this, there's not much wrong with it. I suppose if I was really nit picking, there would be individual shots I would like to shorten/lengthen/remove but honestly, if I was doing this film, I'd do it in exactly the same way.
Fuck Sean of the Dead, this is now the best zombie film ever made.
The main reason Zombieland is better than its British cousin is - Whilst Sean of the Dead is probably funnier than Zombieland - Zombieland is more fun. It's more awesome. It's definitely more thrilling. This is partly because of the soundtrack - which really gets the adrenaline going - partly because of the aforementioned parallels with Left 4 Dead but mostly because the film takes it as its mission statement to kill zombies in fun ways.
Zombieland knows its audience better than even Sean of the Dead did. It knows what people want from this sort of film and holy shit does it deliver...
EDIT:
For the last half hour, I've been reading reviews of Zombieland (am very pleased to see that the reviewers agree with me for once - was worried they'd pull a Shoot Em Up on me) and have been buzzing with how great that damn film was.
You know what it's like when you get out of a film and want to just go in and see it again? I got this with the first Lord of the Rings film and The Dark Knight? Well I've got that with Zombieland. Makes it a very special film in my book.
Monday, 5 October 2009
A PC gaming gripe
The idea that PCs crash constantly is as old as Windows 95 is and almost as relevant. PC gaming isn't without its problems, though. I downloaded the demos for Risen and Twin Sector this week. My computer runs on a resolution of 1900 x 1200. What resolution did these games pick for me? 1074 x 768. Thanks guys.
Now, I happen to know quite a lot about PCs so it was the work of a few seconds to sort this out but imagine, for a minute, that you're someone like my girlfriend who is new to PC gaming. You load up a game, it looks shit because it's running in a resolution that's just over half of the native res. Is it reasonable to expect her to be the one to go through the games settings to find out what's causing the problem?
Even if an amateur had the inclination to do such a thing, they'd run into a related problem. The numbers. Anyone sane who hasn't spent their lives with these big unintuitive boxes will look at them and wonder: What the hell do these mean and what is the best one for my computer?
1024 x 768, 1280 x 1074... none of these numbers actually mean anything and serve only to confuse and annoy people who haven't spent an unnecessary amount of time learning them.
This problem annoys me particularly as it's one that just doesn't need to be there. The game just needs to look at the desktop's resolution and use that as the games settings, Bang, problem solved. In the absence of that, auto detect the settings. A hundred and one games do this, why can't all of them?
Having said all this, things are much better than they were back in the day. Anyone who remembers the original Discworld or Heretic or Descent or Fatal Racing or Indiecar or Mortal Kombat or Screamer or pretty much any game for the 486 remembers the horror of getting the damn sound card to work properly. We had to scroll through lists of meaningless shit selecting which DMA channel to use and what IRC we wanted. I didn't know what any of that meant at the time and I still fucking don't. I remember doing a little dance when Windows 95 came along simply because it auto detected the computers soundcard so I wouldn't need to go through that shit any more.
Now, I happen to know quite a lot about PCs so it was the work of a few seconds to sort this out but imagine, for a minute, that you're someone like my girlfriend who is new to PC gaming. You load up a game, it looks shit because it's running in a resolution that's just over half of the native res. Is it reasonable to expect her to be the one to go through the games settings to find out what's causing the problem?
Even if an amateur had the inclination to do such a thing, they'd run into a related problem. The numbers. Anyone sane who hasn't spent their lives with these big unintuitive boxes will look at them and wonder: What the hell do these mean and what is the best one for my computer?
1024 x 768, 1280 x 1074... none of these numbers actually mean anything and serve only to confuse and annoy people who haven't spent an unnecessary amount of time learning them.
This problem annoys me particularly as it's one that just doesn't need to be there. The game just needs to look at the desktop's resolution and use that as the games settings, Bang, problem solved. In the absence of that, auto detect the settings. A hundred and one games do this, why can't all of them?
Having said all this, things are much better than they were back in the day. Anyone who remembers the original Discworld or Heretic or Descent or Fatal Racing or Indiecar or Mortal Kombat or Screamer or pretty much any game for the 486 remembers the horror of getting the damn sound card to work properly. We had to scroll through lists of meaningless shit selecting which DMA channel to use and what IRC we wanted. I didn't know what any of that meant at the time and I still fucking don't. I remember doing a little dance when Windows 95 came along simply because it auto detected the computers soundcard so I wouldn't need to go through that shit any more.
Tuesday, 29 September 2009
Batman: Arkham Assylum
The general consensus is that Batman: AA is a really good game and the consensus is broadly accurate. The atmosphere is brilliant, the plot is reasonable, the combat & stealth gameplay works well...
It's not a perfect game, though, and there are some problems with it that I haven't heard voiced, at least not on the mainstream review sites.
1) There's too much back tracking.
Batman is set out like an open world game in that there are huge open areas you traverse to get to the missions. However, this ends up feeling like the open world in No More Heroes - you've got an essentially linear game with some open areas shoved on as an afterthought. This means that after every mission you have to spend a good few minutes traversing the same areas you just did but in reverse and minus the enemies. This gets annoying.
2) The Scarecrow sections are too normal
Occasionally you get gassed by the scarecrow. You then get to play through a few minutes of nightmare gameplay. The first bit of these nightmares play very like the nightmares in Max Payne 2 - they're surreal, confused and deeply atmospheric.
Annoyingly, then the designers clearly thought people would get bored of this so the injected some gameplay elements. Basically, you play as Batman in a 2.5D landscape. A giant Scarecrow figure stands in the middle, his gaze is a searchlight that probes the landscape. If he sees you, you die.
These bits are... shit. The gameplay itself isn't too bad but they kill the briliant atmosphere set up by the preceding sections. The reason for this is simple: When you introduce gameplay into a nightmare section, you impose rules upon the nightmare. Max Payne 1 found this out and suffered for it.
Nightmares can't have rules because then they're not nightmares. Rules are rational, nightmares are not. Nightmares are deeply unfair where the thing creating the nightmare - your own brain - knows exactly what you're thinking, what you're trying to do and what terrifies you. As soon as you think you've sussed it, your subconscious changes the rules.
With this in mind, it changes what could be an absolute stand out section of the game to quite a dull game of linear one hit kill hide and seek.
3) The boss fights
I've talked about boss battles before in my golden rules of gaming and Batman fucking loves them. Now, granted, there is one boss battle in this game that is very good - specifically the Killer Croc one. It's atmospheric, tense and very satisfying. Why is this you ask? Well (spoiler warning) because you never actually *fight* Killer Croc, it's all about avoiding him and stunning him when he ambushes you.
Most of the other boss fights are variations around the theme of coming across a huge opponent like Bane, waiting for him to charge at you, throwing a batarang at him so he charges into a wall then pounding on him until he recovers. Repeat until one of you ceases to move.
This is not only unrealistic, it's incredibly derivative. Pretty much every melee based third person action game has had at least one of these fights and Batman has... well. More than a few of them.
Having said that, they're all better than the poisen ivy one, which is nothing but dodge, dodge, dodge, throw batarang at her weak point, beat up a few goons, repeat.
4) The Riddler Challenges
I say "challenges", that's giving them a lot more credit than they're due. Most of them boil down to using a different corridor to progress than the one you're supposed to or taking the time to break down a wall you don't need to. These aren't exactly brain teasers. They're bullshit gameplay lengthening fetch quests. At least you don't need to collect them to proceed through the game. Although I am faintly curious as to what happens if you collect them all. You are probably just shown something like this.
5) It's all been done better
Even at its best, Batman feels like a poor imitation of both Chronicles of Riddick games. The stealth isn't as satisfying, the combat isn't as brutal, the story isn't as interesting, the atmosphere isn't as pervasive, the characters aren't as intriguing, the gameplay isn't as fun, the levels aren't as varied...
Batman: Arkham Asylum is good, for a Batman game it's absolutely fantastic, but as a game, its main problem is that it's been done before and done better. Good try, guys. Maybe you'll be able to surpass your predecessors next time.
It's not a perfect game, though, and there are some problems with it that I haven't heard voiced, at least not on the mainstream review sites.
1) There's too much back tracking.
Batman is set out like an open world game in that there are huge open areas you traverse to get to the missions. However, this ends up feeling like the open world in No More Heroes - you've got an essentially linear game with some open areas shoved on as an afterthought. This means that after every mission you have to spend a good few minutes traversing the same areas you just did but in reverse and minus the enemies. This gets annoying.
2) The Scarecrow sections are too normal
Occasionally you get gassed by the scarecrow. You then get to play through a few minutes of nightmare gameplay. The first bit of these nightmares play very like the nightmares in Max Payne 2 - they're surreal, confused and deeply atmospheric.
Annoyingly, then the designers clearly thought people would get bored of this so the injected some gameplay elements. Basically, you play as Batman in a 2.5D landscape. A giant Scarecrow figure stands in the middle, his gaze is a searchlight that probes the landscape. If he sees you, you die.
These bits are... shit. The gameplay itself isn't too bad but they kill the briliant atmosphere set up by the preceding sections. The reason for this is simple: When you introduce gameplay into a nightmare section, you impose rules upon the nightmare. Max Payne 1 found this out and suffered for it.
Nightmares can't have rules because then they're not nightmares. Rules are rational, nightmares are not. Nightmares are deeply unfair where the thing creating the nightmare - your own brain - knows exactly what you're thinking, what you're trying to do and what terrifies you. As soon as you think you've sussed it, your subconscious changes the rules.
With this in mind, it changes what could be an absolute stand out section of the game to quite a dull game of linear one hit kill hide and seek.
3) The boss fights
I've talked about boss battles before in my golden rules of gaming and Batman fucking loves them. Now, granted, there is one boss battle in this game that is very good - specifically the Killer Croc one. It's atmospheric, tense and very satisfying. Why is this you ask? Well (spoiler warning) because you never actually *fight* Killer Croc, it's all about avoiding him and stunning him when he ambushes you.
Most of the other boss fights are variations around the theme of coming across a huge opponent like Bane, waiting for him to charge at you, throwing a batarang at him so he charges into a wall then pounding on him until he recovers. Repeat until one of you ceases to move.
This is not only unrealistic, it's incredibly derivative. Pretty much every melee based third person action game has had at least one of these fights and Batman has... well. More than a few of them.
Having said that, they're all better than the poisen ivy one, which is nothing but dodge, dodge, dodge, throw batarang at her weak point, beat up a few goons, repeat.
4) The Riddler Challenges
I say "challenges", that's giving them a lot more credit than they're due. Most of them boil down to using a different corridor to progress than the one you're supposed to or taking the time to break down a wall you don't need to. These aren't exactly brain teasers. They're bullshit gameplay lengthening fetch quests. At least you don't need to collect them to proceed through the game. Although I am faintly curious as to what happens if you collect them all. You are probably just shown something like this.
5) It's all been done better
Even at its best, Batman feels like a poor imitation of both Chronicles of Riddick games. The stealth isn't as satisfying, the combat isn't as brutal, the story isn't as interesting, the atmosphere isn't as pervasive, the characters aren't as intriguing, the gameplay isn't as fun, the levels aren't as varied...
Batman: Arkham Asylum is good, for a Batman game it's absolutely fantastic, but as a game, its main problem is that it's been done before and done better. Good try, guys. Maybe you'll be able to surpass your predecessors next time.
Monday, 28 September 2009
Surrogates (epic spoilers ahead)
So Surrogates is one of the most self involved and conservative films I've ever seen.
This will contain pretty severe spoilers by the way.
First of all watch this. It's the Surrogates trailer and it tells you pretty much everything that happens in the film.
Okay, so as far as Surrogates the film goes, it's actually reasonable. The design of the world is very good - the Surrogates themselves look quite realistic - real yet unreal. As close an approximation of human life as we're likely to get. The action scenes are also very good - as you'd expect from Jonathan Mostow.
Anyway, in the end none of the good points of this film matter because the plot is shit. Utter shit. Every time the film does something new or original, the 100% By The Numbers plot drags it down again.
So Bruce Willis is an FBI agent with a standard dose of Convenient Hollywood Angst. A dead kid in this case. He finds out that someone is able to kill people hooked up to the robotic avatars known as Surrogates.
To cut a long story short - the creator of the Surrogates technology was forced out of his own company by the board of directors for remarkably vague reasons. He gets pissed off and decides to create an anti surrogate movement by using a surrogate who looks remarkably like Ving Rhames as a Human Messiah. The company get pissed off at him for this and, rather than (for example) finding HIM and killing HIM, they invent a weapon that can kill the humans connected to their surrogates and accidentally kill this guys son.
This would all be convoluted if the plot moved at any decent pace but these revelations take so damn long that it all makes a certain amount of (completely nonsensical) sense.
So the creator of surrogates gets really pissed off, finds the guy who killed his son, nicks the weapon (how he does this is never really explained) and plugs it in to a magical hub that every surrogate on the planet is plugged into. Bruce Willis gets wind of this, tracks down the creator and asks him why the hell he's preparing to kill billions of people because he has become a little bit angry with some technology that he created.
James Cromwell plays the creator and, bless him, he tries to come across as completely insane, saying "they were dead the moment they plugged into those surrogates" but his heart clearly isn't in it.
Oh, I should also point out that Bruce Willis has a wife who doesn't love him any more. He blames this on the Surrogate she uses. Hm. Deflecting a little, there Brucey?
Anyway, Bruce manages to save the lives of all the users connected to the Surrogates but choses to let the Surrogates themselves die. He agonises about this for a while before making this decision before chosing to set humanity free from this curse, as he sees it.
Now.
Now then.
This is American logic at its best.
The thought process behind it appears to be:
"I have decided that the life that these people are leading is wrong. They are not going to change. I will force them to change and their lives will be better. I will make sure that there is no possibility of reversing this decision in the incredibly unlikely event that it turns out a 55 year old depressed FBI agent doesn't magically know what people want or what's best for society as a whole."
Put simply, it's the typically American desire to save the world, whether it needs saving or not.
Let us not forget that this world was a world without murder or crime of most sorts. And the best thing about it was - no-one was forced to take part. If people wanted to not use a Surrogate, they could just not use a Surrogate.
Everything started going wrong when James Cromwell decided to save the world from the deamon he created and got worse when Bruce Willis decided the same thing.
The message the film is trying to get across is:
Live your own life, connect with people, consequences are there for a reason.
The message the film actually gets across is:
Technophobic people are dicks and there is nothing more dangerous to peoples happiness than people convinced the world needs saving from something.
As messages go, that's fairly accurate. See George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Joseph Stalin etc. etc.
This will contain pretty severe spoilers by the way.
First of all watch this. It's the Surrogates trailer and it tells you pretty much everything that happens in the film.
Okay, so as far as Surrogates the film goes, it's actually reasonable. The design of the world is very good - the Surrogates themselves look quite realistic - real yet unreal. As close an approximation of human life as we're likely to get. The action scenes are also very good - as you'd expect from Jonathan Mostow.
Anyway, in the end none of the good points of this film matter because the plot is shit. Utter shit. Every time the film does something new or original, the 100% By The Numbers plot drags it down again.
So Bruce Willis is an FBI agent with a standard dose of Convenient Hollywood Angst. A dead kid in this case. He finds out that someone is able to kill people hooked up to the robotic avatars known as Surrogates.
To cut a long story short - the creator of the Surrogates technology was forced out of his own company by the board of directors for remarkably vague reasons. He gets pissed off and decides to create an anti surrogate movement by using a surrogate who looks remarkably like Ving Rhames as a Human Messiah. The company get pissed off at him for this and, rather than (for example) finding HIM and killing HIM, they invent a weapon that can kill the humans connected to their surrogates and accidentally kill this guys son.
This would all be convoluted if the plot moved at any decent pace but these revelations take so damn long that it all makes a certain amount of (completely nonsensical) sense.
So the creator of surrogates gets really pissed off, finds the guy who killed his son, nicks the weapon (how he does this is never really explained) and plugs it in to a magical hub that every surrogate on the planet is plugged into. Bruce Willis gets wind of this, tracks down the creator and asks him why the hell he's preparing to kill billions of people because he has become a little bit angry with some technology that he created.
James Cromwell plays the creator and, bless him, he tries to come across as completely insane, saying "they were dead the moment they plugged into those surrogates" but his heart clearly isn't in it.
Oh, I should also point out that Bruce Willis has a wife who doesn't love him any more. He blames this on the Surrogate she uses. Hm. Deflecting a little, there Brucey?
Anyway, Bruce manages to save the lives of all the users connected to the Surrogates but choses to let the Surrogates themselves die. He agonises about this for a while before making this decision before chosing to set humanity free from this curse, as he sees it.
Now.
Now then.
This is American logic at its best.
The thought process behind it appears to be:
"I have decided that the life that these people are leading is wrong. They are not going to change. I will force them to change and their lives will be better. I will make sure that there is no possibility of reversing this decision in the incredibly unlikely event that it turns out a 55 year old depressed FBI agent doesn't magically know what people want or what's best for society as a whole."
Put simply, it's the typically American desire to save the world, whether it needs saving or not.
Let us not forget that this world was a world without murder or crime of most sorts. And the best thing about it was - no-one was forced to take part. If people wanted to not use a Surrogate, they could just not use a Surrogate.
Everything started going wrong when James Cromwell decided to save the world from the deamon he created and got worse when Bruce Willis decided the same thing.
The message the film is trying to get across is:
Live your own life, connect with people, consequences are there for a reason.
The message the film actually gets across is:
Technophobic people are dicks and there is nothing more dangerous to peoples happiness than people convinced the world needs saving from something.
As messages go, that's fairly accurate. See George Bush, Osama Bin Laden, Joseph Stalin etc. etc.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Star Trek is shit
So I used to be a massive fan of Star Trek. Not the original series, I'm not a moron, but TNG, Voyager and DS9 were all on my watch list, when I was still living with my parents. They had Sky TV.
Anyway, now I'm older and slightly less cynical about the world, I thought I'd return to these series and see if they're any good on the re-watch.
Sadly, no. None of them are.
Voyager is easily the best of the main three. It's hard to say whether I dislike DS9 or TNG more... I think I have to say DS9 because I still have a nostalgic soft spot for TNG which makes me more sympathetic to it's flaws.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. What could have caused me to turn against Star Trek: The Next Generation...
It's important to point out which episodes I watched, as well. I watched the first two episodes ever (Encounter at Farpoint) and, supposedly, the best episodes ever, the borg ones (Best of Both Worlds).
So, what did I hate?
1) There aren't any characters.
This is the big one. In any decent show, you can pick any character and say a good number of things off the top of your head about his character. Take Parker from leverage. We know she's loyal, slightly psychotic, has a childish sense of humor, has no real understanding of relationships and somewhat paranoid.
Contrast this with TNG. Whilst Riker, Picard and (in the Borg eps) commander Shelby have *some* characterization... the rest of them really don't. What, for example, can you say about Geordi LaForge's character, other than the fact that he's blind?
2) If there were characters, you couldn't tell them apart.
In the Borg episodes, all the characters ever did was state facts. "The Borg are approaching." "Shields have dropped to 29%." "If we re-routed power through the deflector dish..." Any character could say any of those things and it wouldn't make any difference.
Supposedly, you've got a good script if you can remove the character names from the dialogue and still tell who's saying what lines. Star Trek does not have a good script.
3) They never shut up about the prime directive
Seriously, they don't.
4) A good third of the run time consists of reaction shots
They have an action, cut to (in TNG) Riker, Geordi, Worf, Picard, Crusher, Troi, Wesley, Data, Riker again, then change the scene. It wouldn't be so bad if the characters expressions were interesting but they all look like they're either concerned, concentrating or constipated.
5) The battles, when they do happen, are very dull
"Fire phasers" then a shot of a ship firing the phasers. This isn't exactly nail biting stuff.
I could go on but this is the problem - you can criticize just about everything in every series of Star Trek. This often isn't a problem. Often a show is terrible in many ways but it has a certain charisma or soul that keeps it alive for the viewer. Star Trek is not one of these shows.
Sadly.
Anyway, now I'm older and slightly less cynical about the world, I thought I'd return to these series and see if they're any good on the re-watch.
Sadly, no. None of them are.
Voyager is easily the best of the main three. It's hard to say whether I dislike DS9 or TNG more... I think I have to say DS9 because I still have a nostalgic soft spot for TNG which makes me more sympathetic to it's flaws.
But I'm getting ahead of myself. What could have caused me to turn against Star Trek: The Next Generation...
It's important to point out which episodes I watched, as well. I watched the first two episodes ever (Encounter at Farpoint) and, supposedly, the best episodes ever, the borg ones (Best of Both Worlds).
So, what did I hate?
1) There aren't any characters.
This is the big one. In any decent show, you can pick any character and say a good number of things off the top of your head about his character. Take Parker from leverage. We know she's loyal, slightly psychotic, has a childish sense of humor, has no real understanding of relationships and somewhat paranoid.
Contrast this with TNG. Whilst Riker, Picard and (in the Borg eps) commander Shelby have *some* characterization... the rest of them really don't. What, for example, can you say about Geordi LaForge's character, other than the fact that he's blind?
2) If there were characters, you couldn't tell them apart.
In the Borg episodes, all the characters ever did was state facts. "The Borg are approaching." "Shields have dropped to 29%." "If we re-routed power through the deflector dish..." Any character could say any of those things and it wouldn't make any difference.
Supposedly, you've got a good script if you can remove the character names from the dialogue and still tell who's saying what lines. Star Trek does not have a good script.
3) They never shut up about the prime directive
Seriously, they don't.
4) A good third of the run time consists of reaction shots
They have an action, cut to (in TNG) Riker, Geordi, Worf, Picard, Crusher, Troi, Wesley, Data, Riker again, then change the scene. It wouldn't be so bad if the characters expressions were interesting but they all look like they're either concerned, concentrating or constipated.
5) The battles, when they do happen, are very dull
"Fire phasers" then a shot of a ship firing the phasers. This isn't exactly nail biting stuff.
I could go on but this is the problem - you can criticize just about everything in every series of Star Trek. This often isn't a problem. Often a show is terrible in many ways but it has a certain charisma or soul that keeps it alive for the viewer. Star Trek is not one of these shows.
Sadly.
Leverage II
I just got some good news. Leverage, one of my favourite shows, has been renewed for a second series.
This is especially good news as, whilst the second series hasn't been quite as strong as the first, it's had more top quality episodes. The Hunt For The Truth and Two Live Gang episodes were especially brilliant. However, for the last two episodes, we've had no new episode. What the hell? We're three episodes away from the end of the series, here. Has the show been canceled? Are they pulling an Arrested Development with the Scheduling?
No, no. Apparently not. Apparently:
They're taking the piss aren't they?
I've blogged about the Americans and their stupid fucking TV scheduling before but this is getting fucking ridiculous. Partly because this is a 13 episode series, so there's no reason to have a gap, partly because they're airing the two parts of the series in summer and winter respectively, so referring to series 2 as a "season" is monumentally inaccurate and partly because you've only got *three* fucking episodes left.
Can you not just *run* the fucking series, guys? Can you not play these bullshit network games? Has anyone sat down to consider that if the Americans ran their series in a sensible way, maybe more people would be able to work out when they're on, more people would watch and fewer good shows would get canceled?
I don't like much British TV (with the exception of our comedies) but at least we broadcast our series' one after the other.
This is especially good news as, whilst the second series hasn't been quite as strong as the first, it's had more top quality episodes. The Hunt For The Truth and Two Live Gang episodes were especially brilliant. However, for the last two episodes, we've had no new episode. What the hell? We're three episodes away from the end of the series, here. Has the show been canceled? Are they pulling an Arrested Development with the Scheduling?
No, no. Apparently not. Apparently:
"...the summer season finale airs on September 9, and returns in the winter to finish out its second season."
They're taking the piss aren't they?
I've blogged about the Americans and their stupid fucking TV scheduling before but this is getting fucking ridiculous. Partly because this is a 13 episode series, so there's no reason to have a gap, partly because they're airing the two parts of the series in summer and winter respectively, so referring to series 2 as a "season" is monumentally inaccurate and partly because you've only got *three* fucking episodes left.
Can you not just *run* the fucking series, guys? Can you not play these bullshit network games? Has anyone sat down to consider that if the Americans ran their series in a sensible way, maybe more people would be able to work out when they're on, more people would watch and fewer good shows would get canceled?
I don't like much British TV (with the exception of our comedies) but at least we broadcast our series' one after the other.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Inglorious Bastards
I would like to sum up Inglorious Bastards for any of you who haven't seen it. The first twenty minutes are like this:
The rest of it is like this:
I wish I was fucking kidding.
The main problem with it is, when Tarantino isn't being Tarantino, it's very good. The opening is fraught with tension, the acting and camera work are nothing short of masterful. When the bastards (sorry, "basterds") show up, everything goes horribly wrong. Everything can be nicely summed up by Eli Roth as "The Bear Jew" who prances around the set, exactly like the Scout from TF2, whooping and yelling, screaming baseball lines and walloping people with his bat.
The Americans really don't help their image sometimes. This is exactly how I'd expect a slightly racist insular American to make a film about a bunch of Americans who go over to France and win the war for the allies.
The thing is- I KNOW Tarantino isn't especially racist. His favourite film of the last ten years is Battle Royale. There are several Korean, Japanese, French and German films in his top twenty. So where did all this apple pie, baseball, love my country americanised bullshit come from?
The portrayal of Hitler doesn't help either.
As Yahtzee said, back when he used the be good, as evil as the real nazis were, I don't think they were quite evil enough for these guys. Tarantino takes some of the most despicable human beings ever created and turns them into cliched comic book villains. Der Untergang this is not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)