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"
Monday, 19 October 2009
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.
Golden rules of gaming
Section 8 has inspired me to finally compile a list of absolute You Must Adhere To These Or Your Game Will Be Shit game rules. I'll even put them in order.
1) When the player dies, it must be because it was the players fault, not the games fault.
Platform games suffer from this the most, because they seem to think that jumping puzzles are only fun if there is a tiny tiny tiny margin for error. I've lost count of the number of platform games I've played where I've made a perfectly reasonable jump and missed the ledge or whatever by a whisker. FPS's do suffer from this as well but a game really worthy of mention is Zack and Wiki, where on several occasions you die from normal adventure game curiosity, which is a massive dick move.
2) Normal enemies should die from a headshot or 2-4 body shots. If we're talking melee games, they should die from one counter or 2-4 normal hits.
Easily the worst offender here is Oblivion, naturally, but pick any game where melee combat is the focus apart from the few exceptions like Assassins Creed & the Riddick games and you'll find yourself slashing at opponents until you're blue in the face and THEY JUST WON'T DIE.
Little ruins a game more than enforced repetition and this is especially true in the one activity you'll be doing the most in these games - killing.
This isn't a skill thing, either. Crysis' enemies are fantastic to fight against, as are the ones in Far Cry 2 and Dark Athena - all these enemies die from one headshot and they're all a challenge to fight against. More importantly, they're fun to fight against.
This rule especially applies to Boss Battles. PC gaming gave up on boss battles many years ago (with a few notable exceptions) but the consoles love sticking you in front of some gargantuan enemy with a massive health bar and watch you shoot the three weak points, then the fourth one that gets exposed, then repeating this sequence six times. Seriously, fuck boss battles, I hate them.
3) Don't pad the game
I'm preaching to the choir here, somewhat, but it does need saying. Adding in arbitrary goals to increase the length of the game is a staple of RPG's but at least RPG's have the decency to not force you to do them. Unlike, for example, The Legend of Zelda: Twightlight princess, where you couldn't start a mission until you had collected ten whatevers, every single fucking time.
4) Finish the game, guys
This one doesn't exactly break the game but in games that arguably don't end (like Crysis) and in games that literally don't end (Assassins Creed) you've got no real motivation to replay them to completion.
A very important part of any game is the atmosphere and story. I wouldn't have completed Portal as many times as I have were the atmosphere not top notch. It keeps me hooked right to the end, I get a fantastic pay off, I leave satisfied.
So when games don't end, I don't feel satisfied, I feel angry. Very angry. The developers have given us a completely unfinished product. Grrrr.
5) Have a colour palette that's not just brown and grey
A big, big reason why I gave up on Fallout 3 was because the world was so horrible to look at. I get that they were going for a nuclear wasteland but a nuclear war doesn't turn everything BROWN surely?
Seriously, look at this fucking game:
Brown and grey, grey and brown. I'm guessing most of you live in a city. Look out of your window. If you don't have a window, imagine you do have one and then look out of that. There is a very high chance that you'll see some grey out there. There's a also a very high chance that there will be at least one building out there that is red or white or black or painted some weird colour etc. etc. etc. I have been to many cities in my time, including London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, New York, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Madrid etc. etc. and I have never seen a city anywhere near as grey, brown and dull as they are in Fallout 3, Gears Of War etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and by the way, no, it doesn't build atmosphere it makes things feel artificial. Real artists use colour to great effect. Portal, for example, is mostly white, until you get behind the scenes where the decay is starting to show. It also makes the red lights of the turrets more alarming and the pale pink hearts on the companion cube more alluring.
6) In open world games, make exploration fun
Fallout 3 is the worst offender here, I'd be wandering around that world, minding my own business, when I'd come across a massive pile of debris, blocking my way. Okay, I think, I'll go round it. I walk to the left. Building, building, building, building, pile of rubble, building, building, then there's another pile of rubble so I have to detour around my detour. I get fed up and try the right and find the same thing, but there's a subway tunnel for me to grind my way through. HUZZAH!
For an example of a game where exploration is fun, I simply have to point you at Far Cry 2. I love just driving around in that game. The scenery is stunning, varied and lovely to look at and the fights you get into at regular intervals mean you can never fully relax.
1) When the player dies, it must be because it was the players fault, not the games fault.
Platform games suffer from this the most, because they seem to think that jumping puzzles are only fun if there is a tiny tiny tiny margin for error. I've lost count of the number of platform games I've played where I've made a perfectly reasonable jump and missed the ledge or whatever by a whisker. FPS's do suffer from this as well but a game really worthy of mention is Zack and Wiki, where on several occasions you die from normal adventure game curiosity, which is a massive dick move.
2) Normal enemies should die from a headshot or 2-4 body shots. If we're talking melee games, they should die from one counter or 2-4 normal hits.
Easily the worst offender here is Oblivion, naturally, but pick any game where melee combat is the focus apart from the few exceptions like Assassins Creed & the Riddick games and you'll find yourself slashing at opponents until you're blue in the face and THEY JUST WON'T DIE.
Little ruins a game more than enforced repetition and this is especially true in the one activity you'll be doing the most in these games - killing.
This isn't a skill thing, either. Crysis' enemies are fantastic to fight against, as are the ones in Far Cry 2 and Dark Athena - all these enemies die from one headshot and they're all a challenge to fight against. More importantly, they're fun to fight against.
This rule especially applies to Boss Battles. PC gaming gave up on boss battles many years ago (with a few notable exceptions) but the consoles love sticking you in front of some gargantuan enemy with a massive health bar and watch you shoot the three weak points, then the fourth one that gets exposed, then repeating this sequence six times. Seriously, fuck boss battles, I hate them.
3) Don't pad the game
I'm preaching to the choir here, somewhat, but it does need saying. Adding in arbitrary goals to increase the length of the game is a staple of RPG's but at least RPG's have the decency to not force you to do them. Unlike, for example, The Legend of Zelda: Twightlight princess, where you couldn't start a mission until you had collected ten whatevers, every single fucking time.
4) Finish the game, guys
This one doesn't exactly break the game but in games that arguably don't end (like Crysis) and in games that literally don't end (Assassins Creed) you've got no real motivation to replay them to completion.
A very important part of any game is the atmosphere and story. I wouldn't have completed Portal as many times as I have were the atmosphere not top notch. It keeps me hooked right to the end, I get a fantastic pay off, I leave satisfied.
So when games don't end, I don't feel satisfied, I feel angry. Very angry. The developers have given us a completely unfinished product. Grrrr.
5) Have a colour palette that's not just brown and grey
A big, big reason why I gave up on Fallout 3 was because the world was so horrible to look at. I get that they were going for a nuclear wasteland but a nuclear war doesn't turn everything BROWN surely?
Seriously, look at this fucking game:
Brown and grey, grey and brown. I'm guessing most of you live in a city. Look out of your window. If you don't have a window, imagine you do have one and then look out of that. There is a very high chance that you'll see some grey out there. There's a also a very high chance that there will be at least one building out there that is red or white or black or painted some weird colour etc. etc. etc. I have been to many cities in my time, including London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, New York, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Madrid etc. etc. and I have never seen a city anywhere near as grey, brown and dull as they are in Fallout 3, Gears Of War etc. etc. etc.
Oh, and by the way, no, it doesn't build atmosphere it makes things feel artificial. Real artists use colour to great effect. Portal, for example, is mostly white, until you get behind the scenes where the decay is starting to show. It also makes the red lights of the turrets more alarming and the pale pink hearts on the companion cube more alluring.
6) In open world games, make exploration fun
Fallout 3 is the worst offender here, I'd be wandering around that world, minding my own business, when I'd come across a massive pile of debris, blocking my way. Okay, I think, I'll go round it. I walk to the left. Building, building, building, building, pile of rubble, building, building, then there's another pile of rubble so I have to detour around my detour. I get fed up and try the right and find the same thing, but there's a subway tunnel for me to grind my way through. HUZZAH!
For an example of a game where exploration is fun, I simply have to point you at Far Cry 2. I love just driving around in that game. The scenery is stunning, varied and lovely to look at and the fights you get into at regular intervals mean you can never fully relax.
Section 8 - first impressions
So the trailer for Section 8 intrigued me. It intrigued me a lot. A super soldier dropping into battle, hallucinating about his childhood. That's interesting, that's mature, that sets up some nice conflict which may lead to some deep characters.
Yeah, like hell it does.
I'm being overly cynical - I've only played about an hour of this game and the plot hasn't really started yet but this game is very damn consoley and the day the consoles start producing deep games of their own volition... well, then I'll start taking them seriously.
But whatever, it's an FPS, they're supposed to be mindless fun. Is Section 8 fun?
Well.
Hm.
So far, yes and no. I think this is what Halo was desperately trying to be - it's a generic FPS with a lot of nice little features. You've got a jetpack, for instance, and unlike pretty much any other jetpack I can think of in a game, you're actually given a decent amount of fuel for it. You can customise your character loadout from the word go, which is nice, and you're given some fun little AI mates that follow you around the place.
The problem arises with... well this war you're fighting is against some people wearing red armor (as opposed to the blue stuff you're wearing) and they appear to be voiced by the Daleks. Anyhoo, these guys are really fucking tough. They've got the same armor as you so they take a LOT of shots to dispatch. So many that it's really not very fun.
Section 8 breaks one of the cardinal rules of gameplay: enemies should be killed with very few hits if they're well placed.
It's early days so I'm hoping this problem will go after a couple of levels but if it doesn't, it's going to be a game breaker as far as I'm concerned. I'm not exagerating, by the way, with the default assault rifle it takes about 10 seconds of constant fire to dispatch every enemy. That, my friends, is just too damn long.
But whatever, the atmosphere is good, there are some nice touches, the universe these guys have set up is different enough to warrent a proper explore... I'll give it another crack tomorrow.
Yeah, like hell it does.
I'm being overly cynical - I've only played about an hour of this game and the plot hasn't really started yet but this game is very damn consoley and the day the consoles start producing deep games of their own volition... well, then I'll start taking them seriously.
But whatever, it's an FPS, they're supposed to be mindless fun. Is Section 8 fun?
Well.
Hm.
So far, yes and no. I think this is what Halo was desperately trying to be - it's a generic FPS with a lot of nice little features. You've got a jetpack, for instance, and unlike pretty much any other jetpack I can think of in a game, you're actually given a decent amount of fuel for it. You can customise your character loadout from the word go, which is nice, and you're given some fun little AI mates that follow you around the place.
The problem arises with... well this war you're fighting is against some people wearing red armor (as opposed to the blue stuff you're wearing) and they appear to be voiced by the Daleks. Anyhoo, these guys are really fucking tough. They've got the same armor as you so they take a LOT of shots to dispatch. So many that it's really not very fun.
Section 8 breaks one of the cardinal rules of gameplay: enemies should be killed with very few hits if they're well placed.
It's early days so I'm hoping this problem will go after a couple of levels but if it doesn't, it's going to be a game breaker as far as I'm concerned. I'm not exagerating, by the way, with the default assault rifle it takes about 10 seconds of constant fire to dispatch every enemy. That, my friends, is just too damn long.
But whatever, the atmosphere is good, there are some nice touches, the universe these guys have set up is different enough to warrent a proper explore... I'll give it another crack tomorrow.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
What the hell is wrong with third person shooters?
So I was reading an article about an upcoming Obsidian RPG called Alpha Protocol. It got me pretty excited, to be honest but one bit did make me roll my eyes. I discover that all the gun play will be experiences in the trite over the shoulder third person style I've come to deeply distrust.
This got me thinking. When was the last time I played a third person shooter and I actually enjoyed it...
So I thought about this for a fair while and concluded: Max Payne 2.
Here's the thing- Gears of War, Kane & Lynch, Mass Effect, the Splinter Cell games - they all handle more or less the same and they are all deeply unexciting shooters. They may have other plus points that make up for it or they may not, that's not what I'm here to talk about. The fact is that first person shooters like Crysis, Far Cry 2 or Left 4 Dead are nail biting, exciting and exhilarating (in my opinion) and third person shooters are not (in my opinion) and I've been trying to work out why.
In theory, both of these game types should feel identical. They all have the same control system, the all handle... similarly... And yet, and *yet*, whenever I play a third person shooter, it feels cold, it feels numb...
Part of this, I think, has to do with what you see as a player. Most third person games are played from an over the shoulder perspective. This means you see every move the character makes. This is okay when you're heading straight for an enemy, guns blazing because the standard position for a character is having their feet shoulder width apart with their arms outstretched, pointing their gun dead ahead.
Now, I don't know about you but were I in a combat scenario, that's not how I'd behave all the time. Particularly in something like Left 4 Dead, you'd be swinging around a lot, taking many anxious glances over your shoulder, pointing your gun and then moving your body around it. It feels natural to be skittish and make lots of quick turns from a first person perspective because your subconcious assumes that your characters body language changes according to your mood. Mine does at least. No-where in Left 4 Dead, ignoring those moments when the horde comes charging straight at you, do I imagine my character holding their gun at arms length. Not consciously at least.
This may seem like a very small thing but when you combine it with how immersion breaking it is to see your character on screen anyway, I think this must be the main reason why these games feel unnatural and numb - it looks so damn unnatural to have your character whirl around unrealistically whenever you make a sharp turn.
I then got thinking about why I haven't made this observation before... then I realised that... apart from Mass Effect 2, where this is far from the biggest problem, and Max Payne 2, I've only ever really played third person shooters on consoles... They don't whirl round at great speeds because the controls don't allow for that level of movement speed...
So why doesn't Max Payne 2 suffer from this problem? It's simple. The default stance of your character is having the guns at their sides or in a neutral position. Having the characters return to this feels so much more natural. It also helps that the camera is isometric rather than over the shoulder so the characters' movement looks more natural anyway because you can see more of it.
So, in conclusion, put these fucking games in the first person, please. If you need to go to third person for actions, do what the Riddick games do and slip into third person for those bits. If you have melee combat, go to third person for that by all means, just keep shooting in the first person. Please?
This got me thinking. When was the last time I played a third person shooter and I actually enjoyed it...
So I thought about this for a fair while and concluded: Max Payne 2.
Here's the thing- Gears of War, Kane & Lynch, Mass Effect, the Splinter Cell games - they all handle more or less the same and they are all deeply unexciting shooters. They may have other plus points that make up for it or they may not, that's not what I'm here to talk about. The fact is that first person shooters like Crysis, Far Cry 2 or Left 4 Dead are nail biting, exciting and exhilarating (in my opinion) and third person shooters are not (in my opinion) and I've been trying to work out why.
In theory, both of these game types should feel identical. They all have the same control system, the all handle... similarly... And yet, and *yet*, whenever I play a third person shooter, it feels cold, it feels numb...
Part of this, I think, has to do with what you see as a player. Most third person games are played from an over the shoulder perspective. This means you see every move the character makes. This is okay when you're heading straight for an enemy, guns blazing because the standard position for a character is having their feet shoulder width apart with their arms outstretched, pointing their gun dead ahead.
Now, I don't know about you but were I in a combat scenario, that's not how I'd behave all the time. Particularly in something like Left 4 Dead, you'd be swinging around a lot, taking many anxious glances over your shoulder, pointing your gun and then moving your body around it. It feels natural to be skittish and make lots of quick turns from a first person perspective because your subconcious assumes that your characters body language changes according to your mood. Mine does at least. No-where in Left 4 Dead, ignoring those moments when the horde comes charging straight at you, do I imagine my character holding their gun at arms length. Not consciously at least.
This may seem like a very small thing but when you combine it with how immersion breaking it is to see your character on screen anyway, I think this must be the main reason why these games feel unnatural and numb - it looks so damn unnatural to have your character whirl around unrealistically whenever you make a sharp turn.
I then got thinking about why I haven't made this observation before... then I realised that... apart from Mass Effect 2, where this is far from the biggest problem, and Max Payne 2, I've only ever really played third person shooters on consoles... They don't whirl round at great speeds because the controls don't allow for that level of movement speed...
So why doesn't Max Payne 2 suffer from this problem? It's simple. The default stance of your character is having the guns at their sides or in a neutral position. Having the characters return to this feels so much more natural. It also helps that the camera is isometric rather than over the shoulder so the characters' movement looks more natural anyway because you can see more of it.
So, in conclusion, put these fucking games in the first person, please. If you need to go to third person for actions, do what the Riddick games do and slip into third person for those bits. If you have melee combat, go to third person for that by all means, just keep shooting in the first person. Please?
Great Game/TV sequels
Film sequels? FILM SEQUELS? Who fucking cares. Films are the past. Games and Television are where it's at now.
With that in mind... GAME AND TV SEQUELS! GREAT ONES!
I'm still quite asleep, that's why I'm talking like this.
Anyway. What game and TV sequels are both awesome and improve significantly on the original?
Games:
1) Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines
Granted, no-one played Vampire: The Masquerade: Redemption except me but that shouldn't take away from Bloodlines' achievements... it's one of the best games ever made and improves on the original in every way.
2) Call of Duty 4
The fact that this game is fantastic is secondary to the fact that it's the only Call of Duty game that's worth playing.
3) Half Life 2: Episode 2
Now, I hated Half Life 2. The plot was completely absent, there was far too much scripting and Valve appeared to have forgotten how to set up a decent fire fight. All of these factors were sorted for Episode 2 after the frankly disastrous Episode 1
4) Dawn of War 2
Dawn of War was a fantastic strategy game because it wasn't about building as many squads as you could and then rushing the enemy. Dawn of War 2 improved on this by limiting you to four squads and adding RPG elements. As far as sheer naked improvement over a previous installment goes, this is the victor hands down.
5) Red Alert 3
Now, I know I've just said I hate build and rush strategy games... and I do... but Red Alert 3 isn't about the actual gameplay- it's about the sheer stupidity of the story, the units and the atmosphere. They all make up for the shocking gameplay in spades.
6) Hitman: Blood Money
This is also known as The Only Hitman Game Worth Playing. Seriously, the others are drab, dull and single note. Blood Money is vibrant, imaginative and hilarious.
7) Tie Fighter
Yay! A retro one! Tie Fighter improved on X-Wing by having you play as The Empire and getting to kill rebels, which is what all of us wanted in the first place. It merely helped that the gameplay, plot and characters were vastly improved over X-Wing
That's pretty much it as far as I know. Hopefully we'll get a few more later this year, though. We've got:
Assassins Creed 2
Which should be almost identical to the first game but minus the annoying bits
Call of Duty 6
I'm really hoping this one will be good but it may well not be, given how stellar #4 was.
Left 4 Dead 2
Is going to be fucking epic :D
TV:
1) Battlestar Galactica Series 2 & 3
This one has to be in here. Series 2 was twice as good as series 1 and Series 3 was twice as good as series 2. Series 4 was slightly weaker but had some absolutely fantastic story arcs such as the rebellion.
2) Gilmore Girls Series 3
Okay, okay, fucking bear with me. Gilmore Girls is froth but it's intelligent froth. It's one of the best feel good shows ever made, mainly thanks to Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel who ooze charisma. And other things. Dirty things. Anyway, Series 1 & 2 are good but it's series 3 where things really come together.
3) House Series 4
House is comfort television. It's exactly the same every week and that's one of it's strengths. It all changes in series 4, though, when the cast gets shaken up significantly, introducing a load of great new sub plots and characters.
Honourable Mention:
Doctor Who series 3
This is only an honourable mention because, whilst it is very good, Series 1 of the New Who was so fucking good and Series 3 had more than a few dodgy episodes, it couldn't quite beat it's younger self. How very Doctor Who.
With that in mind... GAME AND TV SEQUELS! GREAT ONES!
I'm still quite asleep, that's why I'm talking like this.
Anyway. What game and TV sequels are both awesome and improve significantly on the original?
Games:
1) Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines
Granted, no-one played Vampire: The Masquerade: Redemption except me but that shouldn't take away from Bloodlines' achievements... it's one of the best games ever made and improves on the original in every way.
2) Call of Duty 4
The fact that this game is fantastic is secondary to the fact that it's the only Call of Duty game that's worth playing.
3) Half Life 2: Episode 2
Now, I hated Half Life 2. The plot was completely absent, there was far too much scripting and Valve appeared to have forgotten how to set up a decent fire fight. All of these factors were sorted for Episode 2 after the frankly disastrous Episode 1
4) Dawn of War 2
Dawn of War was a fantastic strategy game because it wasn't about building as many squads as you could and then rushing the enemy. Dawn of War 2 improved on this by limiting you to four squads and adding RPG elements. As far as sheer naked improvement over a previous installment goes, this is the victor hands down.
5) Red Alert 3
Now, I know I've just said I hate build and rush strategy games... and I do... but Red Alert 3 isn't about the actual gameplay- it's about the sheer stupidity of the story, the units and the atmosphere. They all make up for the shocking gameplay in spades.
6) Hitman: Blood Money
This is also known as The Only Hitman Game Worth Playing. Seriously, the others are drab, dull and single note. Blood Money is vibrant, imaginative and hilarious.
7) Tie Fighter
Yay! A retro one! Tie Fighter improved on X-Wing by having you play as The Empire and getting to kill rebels, which is what all of us wanted in the first place. It merely helped that the gameplay, plot and characters were vastly improved over X-Wing
That's pretty much it as far as I know. Hopefully we'll get a few more later this year, though. We've got:
Assassins Creed 2
Which should be almost identical to the first game but minus the annoying bits
Call of Duty 6
I'm really hoping this one will be good but it may well not be, given how stellar #4 was.
Left 4 Dead 2
Is going to be fucking epic :D
TV:
1) Battlestar Galactica Series 2 & 3
This one has to be in here. Series 2 was twice as good as series 1 and Series 3 was twice as good as series 2. Series 4 was slightly weaker but had some absolutely fantastic story arcs such as the rebellion.
2) Gilmore Girls Series 3
Okay, okay, fucking bear with me. Gilmore Girls is froth but it's intelligent froth. It's one of the best feel good shows ever made, mainly thanks to Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel who ooze charisma. And other things. Dirty things. Anyway, Series 1 & 2 are good but it's series 3 where things really come together.
3) House Series 4
House is comfort television. It's exactly the same every week and that's one of it's strengths. It all changes in series 4, though, when the cast gets shaken up significantly, introducing a load of great new sub plots and characters.
Honourable Mention:
Doctor Who series 3
This is only an honourable mention because, whilst it is very good, Series 1 of the New Who was so fucking good and Series 3 had more than a few dodgy episodes, it couldn't quite beat it's younger self. How very Doctor Who.
TSLRP impressions
I've given up on TSLRP.
Completely.
I don't exactly know what I was expecting from this thing... I suppose after three years in development I'd hoped that KOTOR 2 would be significantly different. There are a couple of differences I've noticed (including one extra character) but the only major difference I've noticed is that the influence system now appears to be completely broken.
There are odd restored lines of dialogue here and there... the problem is it's quite obvious why most of them were cut in the first place. Most of them are either unnecessary exposition or mystical Star Wars bullshit.
As far as the actual game goes, nothing has changed. This isn't like the Wesp patches for Vampire Bloodlines where there are dozens of gameplay tweaks to make things more streamlined or pleasant for the player...
This does kind of vindicate everything I've been saying about how they should have released this damn thing incrementally. There's no way I would have given up on this mod two years ago, or even possibly a year ago. The problem is, now KOTOR has been so completely outclassed in terms of story, characters, atmosphere (which were the only real plus points to this game in the first place) by Portal, Call of Duty 4, Braid, Dark Athena etc. etc. etc...
KOTOR 2 is like a teenager who has a bunch of really witty jokes at school and TSLRP is like a friend who has been giving him a bunch of new jokes for university to impress new friends and keep old ones entertained. He's been working on the routine for absolutely ages but it's only when he finally trots them out that we all realise they're the same jokes as previously with a tiny bit of spit and polish, and is thoroughly outclassed by people who've spent their time thinking up new jokes.
I know that TSLRP is supposed to kick in properly when you get to the end part of the game (where most stuff was cut) but I was so disheartened by the lack of new material in the mid-game planets, coupled with the disappointing gameplay and irritating star wars universe, I'd rather play just about anything else right now.
So, in conclusion, TSLRP adds very little to the dialogue/atmosphere/plot but does break the game in several places. The combat is still bollocks, there are still a lot of bad gameplay decisions and all in all, it's a project that has been thoroughly outclassed by its more modern counterparts.
Completely.
I don't exactly know what I was expecting from this thing... I suppose after three years in development I'd hoped that KOTOR 2 would be significantly different. There are a couple of differences I've noticed (including one extra character) but the only major difference I've noticed is that the influence system now appears to be completely broken.
There are odd restored lines of dialogue here and there... the problem is it's quite obvious why most of them were cut in the first place. Most of them are either unnecessary exposition or mystical Star Wars bullshit.
As far as the actual game goes, nothing has changed. This isn't like the Wesp patches for Vampire Bloodlines where there are dozens of gameplay tweaks to make things more streamlined or pleasant for the player...
This does kind of vindicate everything I've been saying about how they should have released this damn thing incrementally. There's no way I would have given up on this mod two years ago, or even possibly a year ago. The problem is, now KOTOR has been so completely outclassed in terms of story, characters, atmosphere (which were the only real plus points to this game in the first place) by Portal, Call of Duty 4, Braid, Dark Athena etc. etc. etc...
KOTOR 2 is like a teenager who has a bunch of really witty jokes at school and TSLRP is like a friend who has been giving him a bunch of new jokes for university to impress new friends and keep old ones entertained. He's been working on the routine for absolutely ages but it's only when he finally trots them out that we all realise they're the same jokes as previously with a tiny bit of spit and polish, and is thoroughly outclassed by people who've spent their time thinking up new jokes.
I know that TSLRP is supposed to kick in properly when you get to the end part of the game (where most stuff was cut) but I was so disheartened by the lack of new material in the mid-game planets, coupled with the disappointing gameplay and irritating star wars universe, I'd rather play just about anything else right now.
So, in conclusion, TSLRP adds very little to the dialogue/atmosphere/plot but does break the game in several places. The combat is still bollocks, there are still a lot of bad gameplay decisions and all in all, it's a project that has been thoroughly outclassed by its more modern counterparts.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
KOTOR 2 vs The Witcher
Hm...
So I downloaded the leak of TSLRP.
I've been playing it for the past three days.
Hm.
As far as the game goes- it's okay. Bits of it are really good. I love the characters, the story and so on.
It does have some pretty severe problems though.
The main one is: The Witcher.
I haven't blogged about it, but I recently bought and played The Witcher through. I thought it pulled off the trick of allowing the player to make genuinely moral choices better than any other game has.
The reason for this is... The Witcher doesn't have a morality scale.
For me, every time a game says DARK SIDE POINTS GAINED! or PARAGON +2 etc. etc. they are ruining the concept of moral choice.
In the real world
1) You don't get told when your character has shifted/people think it has
2) You often don't know what repercussions your actions will have.
This simply isn't the case in KOTOR - whenever you make a decision in the game world, you always know how it's going to affect your alignment. Things get slightly more complicated when you're considering how your companions react to you but the relationships system is more than slightly nonsensical.
Fitting things onto a good/vs evil scale of any sort removes one very important thing: complexity. Morality is an incredibly complex and arbitrary thing. One of the tag lines for The Witcher was that there were no good or bad choices, there were just choices. It was taken as red that your character was generally moral (in that he wasn't a cartoon villain - more on that later) so whatever choices he took, they were justifiable. Support the order? Support the Scoiatel? Neutrality? These are all perfectly valid choices.
Problem number 2 with KOTOR is... the Star Wars universe has no middle ground. You can't play a complex character - only a cartoon villain who steals from the poor and murders anyone he can - or a sickly sweet paragon.
I wanted to be a dark jedi this time around because I hadn't been previously. So I went around killing people. But I was nice to my companions. Why? I liked them. The game balanced these equally. Apparently murdering people is balanced by being polite when talking to someone.
I shouldn't be surprised, really. This game is American and the Americans do seem to have a genuine problem accepting that right and wrong are just ideas and that often it's just a matter of perception. Hell, this is even the case in Battlestar Galactica a lot of the time and that's one of the most mature and well written pieces of fiction ever created.
With that in mind, it's very clear that there are two ways the game is *meant* to be played. Either as dark or light. You can mix it up by being dark on some planets and light on others but then you run into the - which characters do you want to play with - problem.
With that in mind, I'm going to play the damn thing again as it wants to be played. I'm going to be a light jedi and see what happens. I can't get a good feel for the game if I'm playing it in a way it doesn't want to be played.
So, out of KOTOR 2 and The Witcher, which is better? Well that's fucking obvious, it's The Witcher. No contest. The Witcher's gameplay is better, the moral choices are more realistic, interesting and poignant...
It's a shame really. I was getting all excited by the prospect of the KOTOR MMO and then I played KOTOR 2. KOTOR 2 is, I think, as good as a star wars game is likely to get as far as morality goes. It's a bar so low you'd trip over it but I doubt any Star Wars product will ever beat it.
So I downloaded the leak of TSLRP.
I've been playing it for the past three days.
Hm.
As far as the game goes- it's okay. Bits of it are really good. I love the characters, the story and so on.
It does have some pretty severe problems though.
The main one is: The Witcher.
I haven't blogged about it, but I recently bought and played The Witcher through. I thought it pulled off the trick of allowing the player to make genuinely moral choices better than any other game has.
The reason for this is... The Witcher doesn't have a morality scale.
For me, every time a game says DARK SIDE POINTS GAINED! or PARAGON +2 etc. etc. they are ruining the concept of moral choice.
In the real world
1) You don't get told when your character has shifted/people think it has
2) You often don't know what repercussions your actions will have.
This simply isn't the case in KOTOR - whenever you make a decision in the game world, you always know how it's going to affect your alignment. Things get slightly more complicated when you're considering how your companions react to you but the relationships system is more than slightly nonsensical.
Fitting things onto a good/vs evil scale of any sort removes one very important thing: complexity. Morality is an incredibly complex and arbitrary thing. One of the tag lines for The Witcher was that there were no good or bad choices, there were just choices. It was taken as red that your character was generally moral (in that he wasn't a cartoon villain - more on that later) so whatever choices he took, they were justifiable. Support the order? Support the Scoiatel? Neutrality? These are all perfectly valid choices.
Problem number 2 with KOTOR is... the Star Wars universe has no middle ground. You can't play a complex character - only a cartoon villain who steals from the poor and murders anyone he can - or a sickly sweet paragon.
I wanted to be a dark jedi this time around because I hadn't been previously. So I went around killing people. But I was nice to my companions. Why? I liked them. The game balanced these equally. Apparently murdering people is balanced by being polite when talking to someone.
I shouldn't be surprised, really. This game is American and the Americans do seem to have a genuine problem accepting that right and wrong are just ideas and that often it's just a matter of perception. Hell, this is even the case in Battlestar Galactica a lot of the time and that's one of the most mature and well written pieces of fiction ever created.
With that in mind, it's very clear that there are two ways the game is *meant* to be played. Either as dark or light. You can mix it up by being dark on some planets and light on others but then you run into the - which characters do you want to play with - problem.
With that in mind, I'm going to play the damn thing again as it wants to be played. I'm going to be a light jedi and see what happens. I can't get a good feel for the game if I'm playing it in a way it doesn't want to be played.
So, out of KOTOR 2 and The Witcher, which is better? Well that's fucking obvious, it's The Witcher. No contest. The Witcher's gameplay is better, the moral choices are more realistic, interesting and poignant...
It's a shame really. I was getting all excited by the prospect of the KOTOR MMO and then I played KOTOR 2. KOTOR 2 is, I think, as good as a star wars game is likely to get as far as morality goes. It's a bar so low you'd trip over it but I doubt any Star Wars product will ever beat it.
Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Greatest Sequels Ever
Empire Magazine have produced a list of The 50 Greatest Ever Sequels.
Now, Empire have been getting a lot better in recent years but this list is really, really shit. X Men 2 is at number 11, Batman Returns is at number 13 and, most perplexing of all, Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix is at number 15. Hellboy 2 is in there, as is Return of the Jedi. Reh.
It's not a completely worthless list but it does do that classic empire thing of having twenty decent films, twenty films from the 50's/60's/70's/80's that no-one actually likes but are "classics" so they put them in to make it look like they're high brow, (deep breath) and ten films from the last three years so people will believe they're modern enough to counterbalance the high brow choices.
But here's the thing, they used the word "greatest" in their article. This means that they must be talking about sequels that are not just good but GREAT. Ones that improved significantly on the original...
Taken in that spirit then the list is completely fucking worthless but I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is and try and compile a list of great sequels.
The criteria are:
1) It must be a great or, at least, a very good film
2) It must improve significantly on the original
So:
1) The Dark Knight
This is the obvious one. Not only is it one of the best films ever made but it takes a great film (Batman Begins) and improves on literally every aspect of it.
2) Terminator 2/3
Terminator 2 and 3 are both good films and both improved significantly on Terminator 1. Personally, I prefer Terminator 3 but that's because I'm not trapped in the past as many film geeks are, and I think Nick Stahl is a fantastic actor. Even though I can't spell his name.
3) Aliens
This is another fairly obvious one. It's very good and wins out over Alien because Alien is fucking aweful. Sorry, Ridley Scott and film geeks everywhere but it fucking is...
4) The Ring 2
I love The Ring (I'm talking Japanese versions here, obviously) but if I had to watch one or the other, I'd watch Ring 2. Why? It's much, much scarier. The Ring has one moment which is utterly terrifying. The Ring 2 has three. Three beats one.
5) Hot Shots Part Deux
This may be an odd choice but it's a hilarious film and improves significantly on the original... the one liners are better, the plot is more fun and it has Rowan Atkinson in it. And whilst we're on spoofs...
6) Scary Movie 3
I may be pushing my luck a bit by saying Scary Movie 3 is Very Good but I think it is, dammit. It's funny, quite witty and is very short. It's also miraculous in that it's the only Scary Movie film to be even faintly worth watching.
There may be others out there but those are the only ones that spring to mind immediately....
Now, Empire have been getting a lot better in recent years but this list is really, really shit. X Men 2 is at number 11, Batman Returns is at number 13 and, most perplexing of all, Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix is at number 15. Hellboy 2 is in there, as is Return of the Jedi. Reh.
It's not a completely worthless list but it does do that classic empire thing of having twenty decent films, twenty films from the 50's/60's/70's/80's that no-one actually likes but are "classics" so they put them in to make it look like they're high brow, (deep breath) and ten films from the last three years so people will believe they're modern enough to counterbalance the high brow choices.
But here's the thing, they used the word "greatest" in their article. This means that they must be talking about sequels that are not just good but GREAT. Ones that improved significantly on the original...
Taken in that spirit then the list is completely fucking worthless but I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is and try and compile a list of great sequels.
The criteria are:
1) It must be a great or, at least, a very good film
2) It must improve significantly on the original
So:
1) The Dark Knight
This is the obvious one. Not only is it one of the best films ever made but it takes a great film (Batman Begins) and improves on literally every aspect of it.
2) Terminator 2/3
Terminator 2 and 3 are both good films and both improved significantly on Terminator 1. Personally, I prefer Terminator 3 but that's because I'm not trapped in the past as many film geeks are, and I think Nick Stahl is a fantastic actor. Even though I can't spell his name.
3) Aliens
This is another fairly obvious one. It's very good and wins out over Alien because Alien is fucking aweful. Sorry, Ridley Scott and film geeks everywhere but it fucking is...
4) The Ring 2
I love The Ring (I'm talking Japanese versions here, obviously) but if I had to watch one or the other, I'd watch Ring 2. Why? It's much, much scarier. The Ring has one moment which is utterly terrifying. The Ring 2 has three. Three beats one.
5) Hot Shots Part Deux
This may be an odd choice but it's a hilarious film and improves significantly on the original... the one liners are better, the plot is more fun and it has Rowan Atkinson in it. And whilst we're on spoofs...
6) Scary Movie 3
I may be pushing my luck a bit by saying Scary Movie 3 is Very Good but I think it is, dammit. It's funny, quite witty and is very short. It's also miraculous in that it's the only Scary Movie film to be even faintly worth watching.
There may be others out there but those are the only ones that spring to mind immediately....
Sunday, 16 August 2009
Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Arc
I really am going to have to stop re-visiting old films. There are some films that have never been bettered. These are usually films that do something genuinely unique, or at least have never really been bettered. The Blues Brothers fits into this category, as does Hot Shots part 1 & 2. Top Secret fucking rules this category.
Sadly, action films tend to fare less well.
I just re-watched Raiders because I was interested to see if it was the seminal adventure movie. It's really not.
Let me just say something before I get to the meat of this... I don't care that Raiders was really ground breaking when it first came out. All I care about is what it's like to watch now. As a piece of history, it's invaluable but guess what, so's the original Star Wars and that doesn't stop it being incredibly lame when looked at next to the new Battlestar Galactica.
But anyway, Raiders.
It has several problems. The acting is really over the top, and not in a good way. Bits of it are supposed to be farce and these... tend to drift a little too far into pantomime for my liking. The serious bits are even worse. The Nazis seem to think acting either involves standing as rigid as possible or running all over the place waving their arms. The guy in the black mac is particularly bad for this.
The actions scenes are distinctly under whelming, with the exception of the scene where Indie shoots the sword wielding arab. That is still a fantastic moment. The fight choreographer really needed to be given a slap, though.
It's attitudes to women are also faintly disturbing. I'm going to gloss over the whole relationship with Indie and the love interest because whilst I think it's fairly clear that their previous sexual encounter was distinctly non-consensual on the part of the girl, I may be reading too much into things. What does definitely strike a sour note is how completely incompetent the female is. She can't even open a bloody aeroplane canopy.
Overall, though, Raiders has one massive problem that eclipses all others. That problem is The Mummy. The Mummy does everything that Raiders does a hell of a lot better. The story makes more sense, the acting is better, it's funnier, the characters are better defined...
The Mummy is to Raiders what The Good, The Bad, The Weird is to every western ever made. An update that takes the spirit of the original and does it with a 21st century attitude and budget.
Film making has definitely improved in the past thirty years and boy does it show. There are definitely films from the 1970's and 1980's that have never been bettered but there are far fewer than people think.
Sadly, action films tend to fare less well.
I just re-watched Raiders because I was interested to see if it was the seminal adventure movie. It's really not.
Let me just say something before I get to the meat of this... I don't care that Raiders was really ground breaking when it first came out. All I care about is what it's like to watch now. As a piece of history, it's invaluable but guess what, so's the original Star Wars and that doesn't stop it being incredibly lame when looked at next to the new Battlestar Galactica.
But anyway, Raiders.
It has several problems. The acting is really over the top, and not in a good way. Bits of it are supposed to be farce and these... tend to drift a little too far into pantomime for my liking. The serious bits are even worse. The Nazis seem to think acting either involves standing as rigid as possible or running all over the place waving their arms. The guy in the black mac is particularly bad for this.
The actions scenes are distinctly under whelming, with the exception of the scene where Indie shoots the sword wielding arab. That is still a fantastic moment. The fight choreographer really needed to be given a slap, though.
It's attitudes to women are also faintly disturbing. I'm going to gloss over the whole relationship with Indie and the love interest because whilst I think it's fairly clear that their previous sexual encounter was distinctly non-consensual on the part of the girl, I may be reading too much into things. What does definitely strike a sour note is how completely incompetent the female is. She can't even open a bloody aeroplane canopy.
Overall, though, Raiders has one massive problem that eclipses all others. That problem is The Mummy. The Mummy does everything that Raiders does a hell of a lot better. The story makes more sense, the acting is better, it's funnier, the characters are better defined...
The Mummy is to Raiders what The Good, The Bad, The Weird is to every western ever made. An update that takes the spirit of the original and does it with a 21st century attitude and budget.
Film making has definitely improved in the past thirty years and boy does it show. There are definitely films from the 1970's and 1980's that have never been bettered but there are far fewer than people think.
Fuck Team Gizka
No really.
Fuck em.
For those unfamiliar with their work, these are the chaps behind the Sith Lords Restoration Project. I've blogged about it previously here.
I mentioned in that post that the bug count these guys were supposedly working on was at 84, and had been for the past four months. This was in Febuary of 2009. It's now August. A quick bit of maths will tell you that they've been in the same position for ten months. Are they any closer to releasing their mod? No. Do they have a time frame for releasing it? No. Are they even working on it?
Well the forums are pretty dead. One beta tester is still posting his experiences and there are a few feeble discussions about the politics of Star Wars but it's not exactly a vibrant hive of activity as you'd expect from a mod of this type.
I've been waiting for this mod for ages, I've been patiently putting off replaying KOTOR 2 until it was out but no more. Fuck them. I'm downloading the leaked version of their mod because I have absolutely no faith that they'll ever release the fucking thing or that they're even still working on it.
Team Gizka should be a warning message to anyone thinking of starting an ambitious project:
1) Be honest with people about how the project is doing or they'll just leave.
2) If it's a restoration mod, add content gradually so that when you inevitably lose interest, the users still have something to show for it.
Fuck em.
For those unfamiliar with their work, these are the chaps behind the Sith Lords Restoration Project. I've blogged about it previously here.
I mentioned in that post that the bug count these guys were supposedly working on was at 84, and had been for the past four months. This was in Febuary of 2009. It's now August. A quick bit of maths will tell you that they've been in the same position for ten months. Are they any closer to releasing their mod? No. Do they have a time frame for releasing it? No. Are they even working on it?
Well the forums are pretty dead. One beta tester is still posting his experiences and there are a few feeble discussions about the politics of Star Wars but it's not exactly a vibrant hive of activity as you'd expect from a mod of this type.
I've been waiting for this mod for ages, I've been patiently putting off replaying KOTOR 2 until it was out but no more. Fuck them. I'm downloading the leaked version of their mod because I have absolutely no faith that they'll ever release the fucking thing or that they're even still working on it.
Team Gizka should be a warning message to anyone thinking of starting an ambitious project:
1) Be honest with people about how the project is doing or they'll just leave.
2) If it's a restoration mod, add content gradually so that when you inevitably lose interest, the users still have something to show for it.
Saturday, 15 August 2009
Psychonauts: Not as good as everyone says it is
Yahtzee famously blew the Psychonauts horn in one of his early reviews. but more recently Daniel Floyd (who I have infinitely more respect for) did the same thing.
I then looked at Metacritic and found that all these guys were likewise saying it was the dogs bollocks.
Clearly, I had to check it out with that list of glowing references. Given that we're in the middle of a recession and I have no money, I decided to pirate it rather than shell out the £10 it was being sold for on steam and fuck me I'm glad I did.
Now if you're reading this, I'm assuming you've seen one or all of the above links so It's pointless me telling you what Psychonauts is so it's best to dive right in.
Psychonauts is startlingly original, very witty and absolutely no fun to play. The meat of the game is set in characters minds, which are all tarted up platform sections. They're very, very clever yes. You have to unlock emotional baggage, for example. See Daniel Floyd's video for more examples of just how clever the game is.
The problem is the gameplay consists of nothing but jumping from one platform to another, swinging on the occasional bar and using bizarely underwhelming psychic powers. The game has so much charm that this is quite well disguised but you'll play it for an hour or so and suddenly realised that whilst you've been quite engaged the whole time, you haven't enjoyed a second of the damn gameplay.
The developers should be applauded for originality and the game is often genuinely funny but the producers are absolute idiots - there's no way a game like this would sell becase it's not very good...
So if you've wanted to check out Psychonauts for ages because of all the hype, stay back. Play Braid instead, that basically does the same thing (minus the humour) but is actually fun to play.
I then looked at Metacritic and found that all these guys were likewise saying it was the dogs bollocks.
Clearly, I had to check it out with that list of glowing references. Given that we're in the middle of a recession and I have no money, I decided to pirate it rather than shell out the £10 it was being sold for on steam and fuck me I'm glad I did.
Now if you're reading this, I'm assuming you've seen one or all of the above links so It's pointless me telling you what Psychonauts is so it's best to dive right in.
Psychonauts is startlingly original, very witty and absolutely no fun to play. The meat of the game is set in characters minds, which are all tarted up platform sections. They're very, very clever yes. You have to unlock emotional baggage, for example. See Daniel Floyd's video for more examples of just how clever the game is.
The problem is the gameplay consists of nothing but jumping from one platform to another, swinging on the occasional bar and using bizarely underwhelming psychic powers. The game has so much charm that this is quite well disguised but you'll play it for an hour or so and suddenly realised that whilst you've been quite engaged the whole time, you haven't enjoyed a second of the damn gameplay.
The developers should be applauded for originality and the game is often genuinely funny but the producers are absolute idiots - there's no way a game like this would sell becase it's not very good...
So if you've wanted to check out Psychonauts for ages because of all the hype, stay back. Play Braid instead, that basically does the same thing (minus the humour) but is actually fun to play.
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Batman: Arkham Assylum Demo
The world and its dog has been getting very excited about this game of late.
I haven't. Partly because it's being produced by Eidos and they haven't brought out anything good since Thief: Deadly Shadows but mostly because it's a Batman game and many successive movie Tie-ins have proved it's extremely hard to do a Batman game.
But what the hell, there's a demo out for the PC version prior to release and so I thought I'd check it out for rarity value if nothing else.
It didn't start well, I have to say. You lead the Joker into Arkham and he escapes in the most predictable and preventable manner imaginable. You are then presented with several goons to fend off. The controls feel... okay. They're quite consoley but a Batman game is one of the few circumstances where this might be appropriate.
The fist fighting is... okay. It's rather like Assassins Creed in that it's based around striking, counters and take downs. This isn't a bad thing, by any means. It's not original but it's much better than most other games that have hand to hand combat in them.
Things got much better when the game opened up a bit... I was presented with three guards with guns. Obviously I couldn't take them head on so I snuck round the back and took them all down silently one by one. This felt briliant, but very linear.
Things improved again when I got to the climax of the demo - a huge room with four armed men in it. I had to take them all down.
Armed with my night vision goggles (which register weaponry, targets' state of mind from information such as their heart rate etc.) batarangs and my bat rope thing, I swung around on gargoyles, dropped down behind one guard and Ju Jitsu'd him until he was unconcious. I then hung from a gargoyle until a goon passed below me, I strung him up by his feet.
His cries brought his mates, though. I glided into one of them, classic Batman style but the other ones shot me a few times. I was close to death but I managed to escape.
I dropped down to the lower level. The guard didn't know where I was so I followed him all sneaky like, watching his heart rate sky rocket.
Here's where I first really noticed the AI and fantastic animations. The guard walked heasitantly, looked around and, at one point, spotted the movement of the chap I'd strung up from the gargoyle and opened fire at it.
That, my friends, is fucking cool.
I used this distraction to climb up behind him and remove him from the land of the concious.
I am now completely sold. It's probably not going to be a briliant game but it will be extremely fun and diverting if the demo is anything to go by. Check it out :)
I haven't. Partly because it's being produced by Eidos and they haven't brought out anything good since Thief: Deadly Shadows but mostly because it's a Batman game and many successive movie Tie-ins have proved it's extremely hard to do a Batman game.
But what the hell, there's a demo out for the PC version prior to release and so I thought I'd check it out for rarity value if nothing else.
It didn't start well, I have to say. You lead the Joker into Arkham and he escapes in the most predictable and preventable manner imaginable. You are then presented with several goons to fend off. The controls feel... okay. They're quite consoley but a Batman game is one of the few circumstances where this might be appropriate.
The fist fighting is... okay. It's rather like Assassins Creed in that it's based around striking, counters and take downs. This isn't a bad thing, by any means. It's not original but it's much better than most other games that have hand to hand combat in them.
Things got much better when the game opened up a bit... I was presented with three guards with guns. Obviously I couldn't take them head on so I snuck round the back and took them all down silently one by one. This felt briliant, but very linear.
Things improved again when I got to the climax of the demo - a huge room with four armed men in it. I had to take them all down.
Armed with my night vision goggles (which register weaponry, targets' state of mind from information such as their heart rate etc.) batarangs and my bat rope thing, I swung around on gargoyles, dropped down behind one guard and Ju Jitsu'd him until he was unconcious. I then hung from a gargoyle until a goon passed below me, I strung him up by his feet.
His cries brought his mates, though. I glided into one of them, classic Batman style but the other ones shot me a few times. I was close to death but I managed to escape.
I dropped down to the lower level. The guard didn't know where I was so I followed him all sneaky like, watching his heart rate sky rocket.
Here's where I first really noticed the AI and fantastic animations. The guard walked heasitantly, looked around and, at one point, spotted the movement of the chap I'd strung up from the gargoyle and opened fire at it.
That, my friends, is fucking cool.
I used this distraction to climb up behind him and remove him from the land of the concious.
I am now completely sold. It's probably not going to be a briliant game but it will be extremely fun and diverting if the demo is anything to go by. Check it out :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)