Some games, you stop playing because they're bad. Some games you stop playing because you don't like them. There is a crucial difference. I'd describe the difference as Fallout being the former and Dragon Age being the latter.
As I've blogged previously, I'm prepared to admit that the plot/characters of Fallout 3 are good but the game is so overwhelmingly bad that it suffocates everything it comes into contact with. I go back to it occasionally in the vain hope that I missed something the first three times and I never make it more than a few hours in because the game pisses me off so much.
Dragon Age has a similar problem but it's much reduced. As far as I'm concerned, the only real problem with Dragon Age is the grinding. The levels are just too long and there is a hell of a lot of faffing about. Seriously, you see one dungeon, you've seen them all. I solved that problem this time around, though. I played it on easy and made my character immortal. You'd be amazed at the amount that cuts down the grind.
But why am I going back to Dragon Age anyway? Well, I'm bored. I'm bored, there's nothing else out and, let's face it, there is *something* about Dragon Age that keeps me coming back for more.
So, a week ago, I finally completed it. After it's original release about a year ago.
One of the things I've found about Dragon Age is... the characters I originally liked this time around ended up being the least interesting. I'll go through them:
Morrigan:
I found Morrigan the most interesting when I first played through Dragon Age. She's got a fun little side quest involving Flemmeth and she's... independent. Games (that aren't Overlord or Mirrors Edge) are written by men and so there are two usual types of females that pop up: Femme Fatales and simpering milksops. Morrigan is neither. She is strong and doesn't really care what anyone thinks.
The slight problem arises when we consider Morrigan's morality. She's not exactly dark side but she's definitely not a paragon either. When I first played I could never really guess what actions she would approve of. On the one hand that's kind of a good thing - Bioware created a character who isn't entirely predictable. On the other I kind of suspect that Bioware had two characters in mind when they created Morrigan and forgot to seperate them.
The thing that finally made me pissed off with Morrigan's character, though, is she doesn't change. The other characters you can influence for better or worse but Morrigan's story is tied into the games to the point where the other characters have ten endings, depending on your actions, she has a grand total of three, one of which is a very slight variation of ending #2.
Dragon Age is an RPG. It's all about the characters interaction with the PC. If you can't change or manipulate the characters, a crucial element has been lost and leaves the player (or me, at least) extremely unsatisfied.
Alastair:
Alastair is the quote unquote funny character. How funny he is depends on your point of view, naturally, but it's fair to say he's far from one of the great comedy characters. He has a few really good lines but they're mainly in the random banter between the NPCs whilst you're wandering around and almost all the characters get some good lines there.
Part of my problem with Alastair arose when I played Awakening, the expansion to Dragon Age. There, you meet Anders. A mage who you are introduced to shooting flames from his hands into the face of a darkspawn. He then shakes them with a look of shock on his face. He never says "hothothothot" but you can see he wants to. Anders is clearly the character they meant for Alastair but, for whatever reason, they never quite managed it.
I did end up quite liking Alastair this time around, though. Why? Because my female elf romanced him.
For all of Alastair's sarcasm and confidence, as soon as your lady starts flirting with him he turns into a 15 year old boy - it's revealed he's never had sex and it's doubtful if he's kissed anyone before. This is a pretty damn bold move to make, IMO. It's really rare that anyone is revealed to be a virgin unless there is a *very* specific (usually religious) reason for it. With Alastair, it adds a really nice dimension to his character and makes the choices you have to make at the end of the game that bit harder.
Leliana:
The Innocent Looking Woman With A Secret is one of those stock characters that pop up every once in a while. Leliana doesn't really subvert it that much. I did think they were going to do something interesting with having her being a completely insane religious fundamentalist but that never really materialised. Sadly.
Wynn:
Wynn at first appears to be an incredibly boring stock character. As you progress, though, and if you use her a lot you start getting a better feel for her character. Spoiler warning but she's dying and she's fine with it.
Having a character with death hanging over their head isn't exactly a new thing - Bioware did exactly the same thing with Fish Boy in Mass Effect 2 but it's done really well in Dragon Age. Part of the reason for this, I think, is that it doesn't turn up in conversation. There is no heartfelt confession that "this might be my last days on earth" or whatever. You get ambushed, fight off the attackers and prepare to leave. On the way, though Wynne just collapses.
It comes so completely out of no-where, I was really shocked. I was also pissed off. I liked Wynn. She was sweet, she had established herself as a mother figure/MILF to most of my team and she was touchingly concerned about my relationship with Leilana (I was shagging her at the time. I'm an NPC slut). I didn't want Wynne to die, I liked her. I then talked to her about it.
Now, a little backstory about me. I'll keep it brief I promise. I've been terrified of death since I've been very young - not exactly death but the idea of oblivion. My conciousness being extinguished. I'm terrified of it. Occasionally pacing round my room, punching walls, terrified. So yeah, it's fair to say that I occasionally get a bit freaked when death is openly discussed. This one conversation with Wynn really struck a chord with me, though.
My character was talking to Wynn, asking if there was anything that could be done. She said no. My character said that was awful. She said, why? My character said: Because everyone always wants more.
This one conversation has made me think that my attitude is childish. Very childish. Why am I terrified? I want more. I want more, I want more, I want more. Why? Shut up and leave me alone. I find it amazing that a piece of writing to cut through this attitude so simply and in such a low key way. This wasn't a grand dramatic conversation held at a key point in the game, it was just a chat between two friends.
That, I think, says a lot about the general quality of the writing in Dragon Age. Even the conversations they don't really expect people to get to on their first or second play throughs are brilliantly constructed and delivered. And she gives your doggy a bath. It's hilarious.
Ogrehn:
I pretty much ignored Ogrehn on my first two playthroughs. He was a berserk dwarf. Be still my beating heart, I've never come across a character that original.
Once I started talking to him a bit more, however, I found he was fucking hilarious. Admittedly, they save his funniest moment for Awakening but he gets plenty of great laughs in Origins. He tries, at various points, to pick a fight with you, thinking you were someone else, sleep with you, and yell at your dog - all whilst completely drunk. He's quite sweet as well, in that he has a very simple view of the world. He wants two things, beer and things to kill. So long as he has those, he's happy. In some hands, that would be a simplistic character. It's tiny touches that stop that being the case with Ogrehn. Part of this is his weird relationship with Brankha - his ex-wife. Part of it is how much he likes the PC. Either way, Bioware did well to take a stereotype and make him something much more fun and interesting.
Sten:
Sten is incredibly boring and I could never be bothered to talk to him.
Zevran:
Zevran wins the prize for Most Stupid Way Of Getting A Companion To Join Your Party. Long story short, he and a bunch of chaps try to ambush and kill you, he's not quite dead so you let him join you. Not a formula for a trusting relationship.
Zevran has his moments but most of the interesting stuff about him is centred around the group of Assassins he uesd to belong to - The Crows. I was fully expecting to hunt down and kill his employers at some point in the game and was pretty disappointed when I didn't. Other than that, he's not massively interesting.
So yes, as far as the characters go:
Good!
Ogrehn
Wynn
Alastair
Meh!
Leilana
Zevran
Bad!
Morrigan
Sten
Bonus character: Shale
Shale is awesome and wants to kill every pigeon in the world. I'm with him on that.
Sunday, 25 July 2010
Monday, 19 July 2010
Inception
I was going to try and talk about this film without spoilers but that's going to be impossible. I'll try and tag them but it's best not to read this unless you've seen Inception.
Okay, so I think what you do on the walk home from the cinema is incredibly important. Especially when you've just seen a 10/10 film. After Zombieland, I listened to classic metal (Iron Maiden & Saxon) on the way home whilst fighting off imaginary zombies. After Whip It, I kept laughing and smiling like an idiot, remembering all the fun little touches that film had.
After Inception, I walked home with no music at all and tried to work out what the fuck just happened.
Inception is a briliant film. The acting, editing and so on are all fucking briliant. There's no way to go into everything, besides. I need to see it again. I saw the Dark Knight when my girlfriend was really ill. She didn't feel like going. I saw it and then, when the GF felt better five hours later that day, I went to see it again with her. I kinda wish I could do that again but I've got work tomorrow and it's 1am now.
Christopher Nolan likes his complex films. I really, really hope this is as succesful as it deserves to be. I hope it's the most successful film of the year because that will mean:
1) The Most succesful film of the year is and original Interlectual Property
2) The most succesful film of the year is a *total* mindfuck.
Ok so the most important thing I can say about Inception is - It's been a very long time since I've gasped or bitten my fingers in the cinema. The biting was because the film was so goddamn tense.
As far as the plot goes - there are three major interpretations of what happened and... I like all of them. Usually I'd prefer it if the film came down on one side or the other because *normally* when there are multiple interpretations of what happened, the film makers come down slightly on one side, which makes it a bit annoying and pointless. Here, as far as I can work out, it's EXACTLY 50/50.
So what did I like?
Well, all the main actors were, frankly, briliant. My personal favourite was Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He was charismatic, funny and kicked a hell of a lot of arse. Marion Cotillard definitely deserves a mention as well. She walked the line perfectly between fucked up and fucking creepy.
The action was briliant - it was never exactly gratuitous but there was a definite sense of danger. It never really got better than Joseph GL fighting in the hotel though - the gravity sections were.... astonishing. I'm a massive film geek and I have no idea how they did the majority of those gravity effects.
Basically, the main strength of Inception is it constantly has you questioning the nature of the world you're presented with but it doesn't do it in a pretentious "What does this all MEAN?" way. It does it in an awesome headfuck way.
It moves at an incredible pace - covering a lot of time and a lot of really complex ideas but at the same time it knows when to take time.
Essentially, Christopher Nolan is a fucking genius and absolutely deserves the money Hollywood are throwing at him. He made something so original and so brilliantly done- stuff like that is *so* rare. We should be very, very happy with it.
Oh, and Leo DiCaprio does tortured very well doesn't he. He did it better here than he did in Shutter Island but Nolan is a much better director than Scorsese is...
Okay, so I think what you do on the walk home from the cinema is incredibly important. Especially when you've just seen a 10/10 film. After Zombieland, I listened to classic metal (Iron Maiden & Saxon) on the way home whilst fighting off imaginary zombies. After Whip It, I kept laughing and smiling like an idiot, remembering all the fun little touches that film had.
After Inception, I walked home with no music at all and tried to work out what the fuck just happened.
Inception is a briliant film. The acting, editing and so on are all fucking briliant. There's no way to go into everything, besides. I need to see it again. I saw the Dark Knight when my girlfriend was really ill. She didn't feel like going. I saw it and then, when the GF felt better five hours later that day, I went to see it again with her. I kinda wish I could do that again but I've got work tomorrow and it's 1am now.
Christopher Nolan likes his complex films. I really, really hope this is as succesful as it deserves to be. I hope it's the most successful film of the year because that will mean:
1) The Most succesful film of the year is and original Interlectual Property
2) The most succesful film of the year is a *total* mindfuck.
Ok so the most important thing I can say about Inception is - It's been a very long time since I've gasped or bitten my fingers in the cinema. The biting was because the film was so goddamn tense.
As far as the plot goes - there are three major interpretations of what happened and... I like all of them. Usually I'd prefer it if the film came down on one side or the other because *normally* when there are multiple interpretations of what happened, the film makers come down slightly on one side, which makes it a bit annoying and pointless. Here, as far as I can work out, it's EXACTLY 50/50.
So what did I like?
Well, all the main actors were, frankly, briliant. My personal favourite was Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He was charismatic, funny and kicked a hell of a lot of arse. Marion Cotillard definitely deserves a mention as well. She walked the line perfectly between fucked up and fucking creepy.
The action was briliant - it was never exactly gratuitous but there was a definite sense of danger. It never really got better than Joseph GL fighting in the hotel though - the gravity sections were.... astonishing. I'm a massive film geek and I have no idea how they did the majority of those gravity effects.
Basically, the main strength of Inception is it constantly has you questioning the nature of the world you're presented with but it doesn't do it in a pretentious "What does this all MEAN?" way. It does it in an awesome headfuck way.
It moves at an incredible pace - covering a lot of time and a lot of really complex ideas but at the same time it knows when to take time.
Essentially, Christopher Nolan is a fucking genius and absolutely deserves the money Hollywood are throwing at him. He made something so original and so brilliantly done- stuff like that is *so* rare. We should be very, very happy with it.
Oh, and Leo DiCaprio does tortured very well doesn't he. He did it better here than he did in Shutter Island but Nolan is a much better director than Scorsese is...
Friday, 16 July 2010
PC Zone
PC Zone is dead.
For those who don't know, PC Zone magazine has run for 17 years - is English and is only eight years younger than I am. I've been reading it pretty consistently since my age reached double figures. It was much loved by its readers for its impartiality, wicked sense of humour and knack for finding writing talent in unlikely places including Charlie Brooker and David McCandless. Rhianna Pratchett also wrote for them but not very much.
Now, their demise comes as no great surprise to me. Their readership has only been about 11,000 per month. I was one of those readers but the mag was monthly. The problem with that was that literally everything they printed... I all ready knew. I knew about everything in the news and reviews section weeks before the magazine hit my post box. This has been the case for the past year and I've only continued to subscribe up to now because it's easier than working out how to stop.
But the news that they're folding does sadden me. It's a part of PC gaming heritage dying right there. More than that, though, it's a part of my childhood. Like most geeks, I had a pretty shitty time of it at school and games really helped me get through the bad bits. How did I find out about games? How did I work out which games to buy? Where did I get the game demos? And that's even before we get onto the purile humour (which was awesome, by the way) of the Cybertwats and the like.
So yes. I don't really have anything particularly original to say other than that. PC Zone were great when they were great. Recently they became slightly redundant but for a good 15 years of their 17 year run, they were absolutely peerless. This is my equivalent of speaking at their funeral. Normally I don't like saying things that have all ready been said a billion times on the internet but... I just wanted to let the internet know that Zone will be missed.
For those who don't know, PC Zone magazine has run for 17 years - is English and is only eight years younger than I am. I've been reading it pretty consistently since my age reached double figures. It was much loved by its readers for its impartiality, wicked sense of humour and knack for finding writing talent in unlikely places including Charlie Brooker and David McCandless. Rhianna Pratchett also wrote for them but not very much.
Now, their demise comes as no great surprise to me. Their readership has only been about 11,000 per month. I was one of those readers but the mag was monthly. The problem with that was that literally everything they printed... I all ready knew. I knew about everything in the news and reviews section weeks before the magazine hit my post box. This has been the case for the past year and I've only continued to subscribe up to now because it's easier than working out how to stop.
But the news that they're folding does sadden me. It's a part of PC gaming heritage dying right there. More than that, though, it's a part of my childhood. Like most geeks, I had a pretty shitty time of it at school and games really helped me get through the bad bits. How did I find out about games? How did I work out which games to buy? Where did I get the game demos? And that's even before we get onto the purile humour (which was awesome, by the way) of the Cybertwats and the like.
So yes. I don't really have anything particularly original to say other than that. PC Zone were great when they were great. Recently they became slightly redundant but for a good 15 years of their 17 year run, they were absolutely peerless. This is my equivalent of speaking at their funeral. Normally I don't like saying things that have all ready been said a billion times on the internet but... I just wanted to let the internet know that Zone will be missed.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Film in 2010
Okay, so in 2009 I moaned that there weren't any decent films coming out.
I should have kept my mouth shut because this year looks like it's going to be even worse.
Granted, Inception is coming out next week and that should be really good. Christopher Nolan hasn't let us down for a while. And we've also got Knight and Day coming up which might be good. It got a pretty bad write up from the AV club but film reviewers often get it completely wrong when it comes to silly action films.
Those are literally the only films I'm looking forward to in 2010 or 2011. Reh.
So what have we had this year?
In the order I saw them:
From Paris with love (5/10)
Now. This is in no way a good film. What it is is *incredibly* silly. One of the characters carries around a vase full of cocaine for most of the film. Why? Fuck you, that's why. It's loud, crude, stupid and quite fun. As long as your brain is well and truely off, you might enjoy it.
Shutter Island (7/10)
So you know where I stand, I have never seen a Martin Scorsese film that I liked and I've only seen Leo DiCaprio in Romeo & Juliet and Titanic. I went in with suitably low expectations, therefore. I was pleasantly surprised. Granted, the music was so over the top it usually took me completely out of the moment and there is one particular scene at the end which was completely impossible to act well. It should really have been cut. Ignoring those two slight problems, it was very good. But I can't help think you should really read the book instead.
Green Zone (6/10)
Now, the problem with Green Zone is that whilst everything about it is pretty good, the plot is bollocks. I say bollocks, the plot is exactly what happened in the iraq war. The Americans went in expecting to find WMD (because the bosses had lied about them being there) they don't find them, they go WTF, they try to find the truth, the truth gets hushed up. We all know this is what happened and we really didn't need a film set four years after the "end" of the war to tell us this. Other than that, it's perfectly fine.
The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo (6/10)
Sadly, another case of People Should Just Read The Book. In many ways, it's a very good adaptation of Stieg Larrson's book and if you're not a big reader, you should probably see the film. There is one major problem with it, though. TGWTDT focuses on a 30 year old murder mystery. A disgraced journalist is brought in to have one last stab at it. In the book, he spends about six months getting no-where and then he has one lucky break, follows it up with a lot of *really* hard work and starts making headway with the mystery. The problem is, the film is a film. It has to move at a fairly quick pace or the audience get bored. As a result, they cut out the really hard work and just have the bits where he makes headway through luck or deductions that seem really obvious. Also, we don't really spend much time with the suspects in the case as the film (rightly) focuses on other stuff so when everything comes to a head, a character rears their ugly head and you have no idea who they are or what the significance of their role is. These are problems that were inevitable and would only have been solved if it had been made into a TV show instead. Which would have been a much better idea, sadly.
Kick Ass (3/10)
Kick Ass was boring, made little sense and had a very annoying main character. This would have been forgiveable if it was funny but far too often replaced wit with swearing. Having a little girl say Cunt is funny a couple of times but you can't stretch this to a 90 minute film.
Whip It (10/10)
I judge a film a lot based on how I feel on the walk home from the cinema. After Zombieland, I felt the need for classic rock music. After Whip it, I couldn't stop grinning. Whip It is a funny film, it's got a lot of heart, a plot that makes sense, great characters and it passes the Bechtel Test with flying colours. I recommend it to everyone. And it has maybe from Arrested Development in it.
Iron Man 2 (2/10)
Iron Man 1 was a fun action film that happened to be based on a comic book. Iron Man 2 was a comic book come to life and I don't mean that in a good way. Iron Man 2 made me realise I hate comic books with their terrible dialogue, villains with incredibly sketchy motivation, action scenes that completely defy all known laws of physics... Iron Man 2 has made me swear off all comic book films that aren't being directed by Christoper Nolan or someone similarly talented. And it has Scarlett Johansen in, which is never good. She's not the worst thing in the film, though. Which is, frankly, astonishing.
If I had to list the films wrong with it from most to least severe, I'd start with the action sequences which are on a stupidity par with those of Terminator 4. That's the early ones. The ones at the end of the film actually bored me. Like the ones in Public Enemies did. Look, I'm an action geek, ok? I love action films. Even the silly ones. Especially the silly ones. Crank? Awesome. Shoot em Up? Fantastic. An action sequence has to be really bad for me not to see any merit in it at all.
Then we've got the plot which is just one huge trailer for the Marvel Franchise Avengers thing, which I don't give a shit about and am definitely not going to see after this, thank you very much.
Then we have Scarlett Johansen.
Then everything else.
Bah.
So yeah, 2010. Much worse than 2009 so far.
And 2011 isn't looking too hot either.
I sound like a grumpy old man. I just want some good films. Is that too much to ask? For it to be like 2008 again?
/cries
I should have kept my mouth shut because this year looks like it's going to be even worse.
Granted, Inception is coming out next week and that should be really good. Christopher Nolan hasn't let us down for a while. And we've also got Knight and Day coming up which might be good. It got a pretty bad write up from the AV club but film reviewers often get it completely wrong when it comes to silly action films.
Those are literally the only films I'm looking forward to in 2010 or 2011. Reh.
So what have we had this year?
In the order I saw them:
From Paris with love (5/10)
Now. This is in no way a good film. What it is is *incredibly* silly. One of the characters carries around a vase full of cocaine for most of the film. Why? Fuck you, that's why. It's loud, crude, stupid and quite fun. As long as your brain is well and truely off, you might enjoy it.
Shutter Island (7/10)
So you know where I stand, I have never seen a Martin Scorsese film that I liked and I've only seen Leo DiCaprio in Romeo & Juliet and Titanic. I went in with suitably low expectations, therefore. I was pleasantly surprised. Granted, the music was so over the top it usually took me completely out of the moment and there is one particular scene at the end which was completely impossible to act well. It should really have been cut. Ignoring those two slight problems, it was very good. But I can't help think you should really read the book instead.
Green Zone (6/10)
Now, the problem with Green Zone is that whilst everything about it is pretty good, the plot is bollocks. I say bollocks, the plot is exactly what happened in the iraq war. The Americans went in expecting to find WMD (because the bosses had lied about them being there) they don't find them, they go WTF, they try to find the truth, the truth gets hushed up. We all know this is what happened and we really didn't need a film set four years after the "end" of the war to tell us this. Other than that, it's perfectly fine.
The Girl with The Dragon Tattoo (6/10)
Sadly, another case of People Should Just Read The Book. In many ways, it's a very good adaptation of Stieg Larrson's book and if you're not a big reader, you should probably see the film. There is one major problem with it, though. TGWTDT focuses on a 30 year old murder mystery. A disgraced journalist is brought in to have one last stab at it. In the book, he spends about six months getting no-where and then he has one lucky break, follows it up with a lot of *really* hard work and starts making headway with the mystery. The problem is, the film is a film. It has to move at a fairly quick pace or the audience get bored. As a result, they cut out the really hard work and just have the bits where he makes headway through luck or deductions that seem really obvious. Also, we don't really spend much time with the suspects in the case as the film (rightly) focuses on other stuff so when everything comes to a head, a character rears their ugly head and you have no idea who they are or what the significance of their role is. These are problems that were inevitable and would only have been solved if it had been made into a TV show instead. Which would have been a much better idea, sadly.
Kick Ass (3/10)
Kick Ass was boring, made little sense and had a very annoying main character. This would have been forgiveable if it was funny but far too often replaced wit with swearing. Having a little girl say Cunt is funny a couple of times but you can't stretch this to a 90 minute film.
Whip It (10/10)
I judge a film a lot based on how I feel on the walk home from the cinema. After Zombieland, I felt the need for classic rock music. After Whip it, I couldn't stop grinning. Whip It is a funny film, it's got a lot of heart, a plot that makes sense, great characters and it passes the Bechtel Test with flying colours. I recommend it to everyone. And it has maybe from Arrested Development in it.
Iron Man 2 (2/10)
Iron Man 1 was a fun action film that happened to be based on a comic book. Iron Man 2 was a comic book come to life and I don't mean that in a good way. Iron Man 2 made me realise I hate comic books with their terrible dialogue, villains with incredibly sketchy motivation, action scenes that completely defy all known laws of physics... Iron Man 2 has made me swear off all comic book films that aren't being directed by Christoper Nolan or someone similarly talented. And it has Scarlett Johansen in, which is never good. She's not the worst thing in the film, though. Which is, frankly, astonishing.
If I had to list the films wrong with it from most to least severe, I'd start with the action sequences which are on a stupidity par with those of Terminator 4. That's the early ones. The ones at the end of the film actually bored me. Like the ones in Public Enemies did. Look, I'm an action geek, ok? I love action films. Even the silly ones. Especially the silly ones. Crank? Awesome. Shoot em Up? Fantastic. An action sequence has to be really bad for me not to see any merit in it at all.
Then we've got the plot which is just one huge trailer for the Marvel Franchise Avengers thing, which I don't give a shit about and am definitely not going to see after this, thank you very much.
Then we have Scarlett Johansen.
Then everything else.
Bah.
So yeah, 2010. Much worse than 2009 so far.
And 2011 isn't looking too hot either.
I sound like a grumpy old man. I just want some good films. Is that too much to ask? For it to be like 2008 again?
/cries
Saturday, 26 June 2010
Singularity
I suppose warning lights should have come on in my brain when:
1) We didn't hear anything about Singularity at this years E3
2) It was quietly released a couple of days ago with no adverts, previews or pre-release hype at all. When that happens, it's likely that the publishers know the game is shit and they're trying to slip it to the punters before the press notice.
But whatever, I thought, I'm not paying for it, I may as well see what it's like.
Singularity is... a fantastic example of everything that's wrong with games.
For example, your character doesn't talk. This *has* worked in the past, notably with Portal & COD4: Modern Warfare but it's usually a lazy device used by games who are trying to cover up the fact that they don't have a plot.
Then there's the plot.
The Russians invented an awesome piece of weapons tech back in the 50s. It exploded and the Island has been sealed off since then. Sixty years later the US military decide they want to know what that was all about so they send in two helicopters full of troops. Onto Russian Soil.
I'm pretty sure that's technically an invasion...
Anyhoo, the helicopter is stuck by a mysterious device, you black out and wake up on a pier (gaming cliche #332, used by every unoriginal game since Half Life). Then there are some generic zombie monsters and gameplay which is very, very like FEAR but not as good. Then the Russian Military turn up.
It's at this point that I have to talk about the gameplay a little bit. Apart from one thing, which I'll come to in a moment, there's nothing especially wrong with the gameplay, it's just that it's highly generic. Everything's instantly familiar. There was something slightly wrong, though, so at one point when me and my AI buddy were outnumbered 30:1 by the Russian Military, I stopped shooting at them and just watched.
They were all spraying our hiding spot with bullets but they were all bouncing off the window frames to create cinematic ricochets.
Now, even ignoring the fact that I was so disengaged with the game after half an hour of gameplay I chose to see how the underlying mechanics of the game worked, it's not a good sign when the game has the AI purposely try to not kill you.
Then you and your mate get captured and the EVIL RUSSIAN VILLAIN turns up (not so much a gaming cliche but a callback to bad films form the 1970's and 80's - that's worse than a gaming cliche - that's something the entire world accepts is cliched). Incidentally, we know this Russian is evil because he's wearing a huge fur coat and spits when your buddy mentions the Geneva convention.
Yeah, I'm not even going to bother analysing that any further.
It turns out, by the way, that the Russians are there to grab a time manipulating device, which you then get their hands on.
The more astute of you will now be wondering: "So this Island's been unoccupied for 60 years and yet the Russian Military chose to come and get the device... now. Just when there HAPPENS to be a US military expedition to the island."
Seriously, the plot is so contrived and rubbish that it makes the incredibly shoddy gameplay look half decent.
The time manipulation stuff doesn't really work either. You're supposed to be able to age or revert anything using your magical glove so if you see a ladder that's broken, you simply reverse time around the ladder so it reverts to a state when it wasn't broken.
The problem is, that's a mechanic that's clearly open for abuse so they limit it to only working on very specific things. I couldn't, for example, reverse time on a caved in tunnel to when the tunnel was no longer caved in.
As I understand it (I never actually played it) this was the problem Red Faction had - they wanted to make everything destructible but you can't make *everything* destructible so they put a load of really arbitrary and annoying restrictions in there.
This is understandable but it's not handled with any of the skill that the portals are in Portal. The places you can place the portals in Valves masterpiece are really rather limited but it feels natural - it all makes sense.
Not here, though.
So yes, Singularity is really, really bad in every quantifiable way. I'd like to give them marks for effort but I'm not sure I can even do that. The graphics are quite nice I suppose. There's a really nice bit *right* at the start when you're approaching the island and you fly past the remains of a Soviet Statue - which is just a hand holding a sickle poking out of the sea. That was quite nice.
There we go, ended on a positive note.
1) We didn't hear anything about Singularity at this years E3
2) It was quietly released a couple of days ago with no adverts, previews or pre-release hype at all. When that happens, it's likely that the publishers know the game is shit and they're trying to slip it to the punters before the press notice.
But whatever, I thought, I'm not paying for it, I may as well see what it's like.
Singularity is... a fantastic example of everything that's wrong with games.
For example, your character doesn't talk. This *has* worked in the past, notably with Portal & COD4: Modern Warfare but it's usually a lazy device used by games who are trying to cover up the fact that they don't have a plot.
Then there's the plot.
The Russians invented an awesome piece of weapons tech back in the 50s. It exploded and the Island has been sealed off since then. Sixty years later the US military decide they want to know what that was all about so they send in two helicopters full of troops. Onto Russian Soil.
I'm pretty sure that's technically an invasion...
Anyhoo, the helicopter is stuck by a mysterious device, you black out and wake up on a pier (gaming cliche #332, used by every unoriginal game since Half Life). Then there are some generic zombie monsters and gameplay which is very, very like FEAR but not as good. Then the Russian Military turn up.
It's at this point that I have to talk about the gameplay a little bit. Apart from one thing, which I'll come to in a moment, there's nothing especially wrong with the gameplay, it's just that it's highly generic. Everything's instantly familiar. There was something slightly wrong, though, so at one point when me and my AI buddy were outnumbered 30:1 by the Russian Military, I stopped shooting at them and just watched.
They were all spraying our hiding spot with bullets but they were all bouncing off the window frames to create cinematic ricochets.
Now, even ignoring the fact that I was so disengaged with the game after half an hour of gameplay I chose to see how the underlying mechanics of the game worked, it's not a good sign when the game has the AI purposely try to not kill you.
Then you and your mate get captured and the EVIL RUSSIAN VILLAIN turns up (not so much a gaming cliche but a callback to bad films form the 1970's and 80's - that's worse than a gaming cliche - that's something the entire world accepts is cliched). Incidentally, we know this Russian is evil because he's wearing a huge fur coat and spits when your buddy mentions the Geneva convention.
Yeah, I'm not even going to bother analysing that any further.
It turns out, by the way, that the Russians are there to grab a time manipulating device, which you then get their hands on.
The more astute of you will now be wondering: "So this Island's been unoccupied for 60 years and yet the Russian Military chose to come and get the device... now. Just when there HAPPENS to be a US military expedition to the island."
Seriously, the plot is so contrived and rubbish that it makes the incredibly shoddy gameplay look half decent.
The time manipulation stuff doesn't really work either. You're supposed to be able to age or revert anything using your magical glove so if you see a ladder that's broken, you simply reverse time around the ladder so it reverts to a state when it wasn't broken.
The problem is, that's a mechanic that's clearly open for abuse so they limit it to only working on very specific things. I couldn't, for example, reverse time on a caved in tunnel to when the tunnel was no longer caved in.
As I understand it (I never actually played it) this was the problem Red Faction had - they wanted to make everything destructible but you can't make *everything* destructible so they put a load of really arbitrary and annoying restrictions in there.
This is understandable but it's not handled with any of the skill that the portals are in Portal. The places you can place the portals in Valves masterpiece are really rather limited but it feels natural - it all makes sense.
Not here, though.
So yes, Singularity is really, really bad in every quantifiable way. I'd like to give them marks for effort but I'm not sure I can even do that. The graphics are quite nice I suppose. There's a really nice bit *right* at the start when you're approaching the island and you fly past the remains of a Soviet Statue - which is just a hand holding a sickle poking out of the sea. That was quite nice.
There we go, ended on a positive note.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Assassins Creed 2
So I've finally gotten around to playing the PC versions of Assassins Creed 2. And I don't think it's very good. The reasons for this are very closely linked to the first game so let's briefly recap on what was good/bad about AC1:
GOOD!:
The free running.
It felt original, smooth and great fun.
The swordplay
Assassins Creed 1 is one of the only games where melee combat is implemented well. Mainly because the most effective strategy is countering your opponents moves and choosing when to attack.
The cities all felt very different
From the sandy uniform rooftops of Jerusalem to the raggedy decaying stone of Acre, you could always tell where you were just by looking around you. Each of the four cities had real personality.
You felt like an assassin
You did little that wasn't involved with killing people. You always knew what you were doing: Hunting down and killing nine Templar's who were trying to take over the region. There was a fair amount of faffing about but it was assassin related faffing about like killing archers or grilling informants.
BAD!
The plot
Was pretty damn terrible. Especially the main character, who was an unlikable prick for 70% of the game. There also wasn't an ending.
Unskippable cutscenes
Grrr.
Ok, so the sequel.
My thoughts on the sequel have moved about a lot so I'll present them in a list:
1) The improvements to the swordplay are a mixed bag.
It's nice to have more weapons but the swordplay itself is gimped somewhat. In AC1 you could chain your sword strokes to create a one hit kill finishing move. You can still do this in AC2 but they've either changed the way you do it without telling me or it's much, much harder to do this time around. As a result, the swordplay feels a lot less precise and brutal than it did in AC1.
2) The cities all feel exactly the same
Apart from Venice, which is filled with fucking canals. In case you hadn't guessed, canals are the anathema to free running. An odd choice for a game where free running is one of the main selling points.
3) The plot is rubbish
I've been playing for roughly ten hours now and I couldn't really tell you what's been going on. I've killed some Italian noblemen/Templar's but I'm not really sure why or what I'm supposed to be preventing them from doing. At least in AC1 I knew that the merchant I killed was hording food and overcharging the people etc. There's none of this in AC2, just generic interchangeable fat rich/old sinister people.
4) You barely spend any time out of the animus
Granted, when you do they're some of the best bits in the game but I'm 80% of the way through the game and have been outside the animus precisely twice. Including the prologue, which shouldn't really count. I can't help thinking this is a tragic waste of one of the most intriguing (albeit very badly handled) elements of AC1
5) There's so much faffing about
In AC1 you lived in an assassin city, met other assassins constantly and generally got the impression that you were a cog in a massive machine. In AC2, you're the only assassin in the game apart from your uncle, who doesn't do anything.
As a result of this, you have to do a *lot* of side quests. These weren't too bad for the first few cities but things came to a head in Venice.
In Ubisofts defence, they've clearly spent a lot of time working on Venice. It looks very pretty. The problem is, they want you to spend as much time there as possible so you hook up with a group of thieves there who insist on you doing a shitload of recognisance before every mission, essentially tripling the prep needed for every assassination.
An example:
Some minor spoilers follow.
You have to kill a guy hosting a party at the Venice carnival. He's hosting a private invite only party. You can't sneak in, you can't pickpocket a guest to get an invite.
You have to win one.
You win one by competing in four tasks at some sort of fait thing. You have to feel up a lot of girls to get some ribbons, win two rooftop races and beat up some guys in a boxing ring.
After that, you get cheated out of winning the invite anyway.
So you go and pickpocket the guy who won it. Why the fuck didn't you do that in the first place?
There's then a lot of stuff where you try and remain undetected at the party which is half excellent, half gameplay padding bollocks.
To finish off, I found that my target was hosting the party from his boat. So I swam out and stabbed him in the back.
So, to recap, I killed the guy by swimming out into the canal (which was unguarded) climbing onto the boat (by killing one guard) and stabbing the guy in the back. I didn't even need to sneak into that cunting party...
This isn't an isolated example either. There are innumerable sequences where you have to escort an NPC through one of the four cities (at walking pace, naturally). If this sounds boring, it fucking is. In some of these boring escort quests, they're attacked by guards but I'm not really sure that improves things.
Oh, and from a narrative point of view, it's annoying when you character is given *constant* opportunities to knock off the five main baddies (he meets the uber baddie about six times, by my count, and has three definite opportunities to assassinate him) and he doesn't because he has to FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING.
I hate call bullshit but AC2 is set in the 19th century. You know what will happen if you just kill them before they can enact their plans? Nothing. Sure, you won't find out what their plans were but no buildings will blow up, no documents will get emailed to lawyers, they'll just die.
So, to sum up. Assassins Creed 2 does improve in some areas over the original. The main character is very slightly better and there are some nice new weapons to play with. On the other hand, there's even more arbitrary game lengthening bullshit this time around, the fighting's a bit gimped, the plot is still rubbish, the free running in the last half of the game is always being interrupted by canals, the game is far too long, there's no sense of danger, it's too easy and it's got no-where near as much character as the first one.
Wow, I didn't realise how many things had annoyed me about AC2 until I'd put them all in a list.
I'm gonna go play something else...
GOOD!:
The free running.
It felt original, smooth and great fun.
The swordplay
Assassins Creed 1 is one of the only games where melee combat is implemented well. Mainly because the most effective strategy is countering your opponents moves and choosing when to attack.
The cities all felt very different
From the sandy uniform rooftops of Jerusalem to the raggedy decaying stone of Acre, you could always tell where you were just by looking around you. Each of the four cities had real personality.
You felt like an assassin
You did little that wasn't involved with killing people. You always knew what you were doing: Hunting down and killing nine Templar's who were trying to take over the region. There was a fair amount of faffing about but it was assassin related faffing about like killing archers or grilling informants.
BAD!
The plot
Was pretty damn terrible. Especially the main character, who was an unlikable prick for 70% of the game. There also wasn't an ending.
Unskippable cutscenes
Grrr.
Ok, so the sequel.
My thoughts on the sequel have moved about a lot so I'll present them in a list:
1) The improvements to the swordplay are a mixed bag.
It's nice to have more weapons but the swordplay itself is gimped somewhat. In AC1 you could chain your sword strokes to create a one hit kill finishing move. You can still do this in AC2 but they've either changed the way you do it without telling me or it's much, much harder to do this time around. As a result, the swordplay feels a lot less precise and brutal than it did in AC1.
2) The cities all feel exactly the same
Apart from Venice, which is filled with fucking canals. In case you hadn't guessed, canals are the anathema to free running. An odd choice for a game where free running is one of the main selling points.
3) The plot is rubbish
I've been playing for roughly ten hours now and I couldn't really tell you what's been going on. I've killed some Italian noblemen/Templar's but I'm not really sure why or what I'm supposed to be preventing them from doing. At least in AC1 I knew that the merchant I killed was hording food and overcharging the people etc. There's none of this in AC2, just generic interchangeable fat rich/old sinister people.
4) You barely spend any time out of the animus
Granted, when you do they're some of the best bits in the game but I'm 80% of the way through the game and have been outside the animus precisely twice. Including the prologue, which shouldn't really count. I can't help thinking this is a tragic waste of one of the most intriguing (albeit very badly handled) elements of AC1
5) There's so much faffing about
In AC1 you lived in an assassin city, met other assassins constantly and generally got the impression that you were a cog in a massive machine. In AC2, you're the only assassin in the game apart from your uncle, who doesn't do anything.
As a result of this, you have to do a *lot* of side quests. These weren't too bad for the first few cities but things came to a head in Venice.
In Ubisofts defence, they've clearly spent a lot of time working on Venice. It looks very pretty. The problem is, they want you to spend as much time there as possible so you hook up with a group of thieves there who insist on you doing a shitload of recognisance before every mission, essentially tripling the prep needed for every assassination.
An example:
Some minor spoilers follow.
You have to kill a guy hosting a party at the Venice carnival. He's hosting a private invite only party. You can't sneak in, you can't pickpocket a guest to get an invite.
You have to win one.
You win one by competing in four tasks at some sort of fait thing. You have to feel up a lot of girls to get some ribbons, win two rooftop races and beat up some guys in a boxing ring.
After that, you get cheated out of winning the invite anyway.
So you go and pickpocket the guy who won it. Why the fuck didn't you do that in the first place?
There's then a lot of stuff where you try and remain undetected at the party which is half excellent, half gameplay padding bollocks.
To finish off, I found that my target was hosting the party from his boat. So I swam out and stabbed him in the back.
So, to recap, I killed the guy by swimming out into the canal (which was unguarded) climbing onto the boat (by killing one guard) and stabbing the guy in the back. I didn't even need to sneak into that cunting party...
This isn't an isolated example either. There are innumerable sequences where you have to escort an NPC through one of the four cities (at walking pace, naturally). If this sounds boring, it fucking is. In some of these boring escort quests, they're attacked by guards but I'm not really sure that improves things.
Oh, and from a narrative point of view, it's annoying when you character is given *constant* opportunities to knock off the five main baddies (he meets the uber baddie about six times, by my count, and has three definite opportunities to assassinate him) and he doesn't because he has to FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING.
I hate call bullshit but AC2 is set in the 19th century. You know what will happen if you just kill them before they can enact their plans? Nothing. Sure, you won't find out what their plans were but no buildings will blow up, no documents will get emailed to lawyers, they'll just die.
So, to sum up. Assassins Creed 2 does improve in some areas over the original. The main character is very slightly better and there are some nice new weapons to play with. On the other hand, there's even more arbitrary game lengthening bullshit this time around, the fighting's a bit gimped, the plot is still rubbish, the free running in the last half of the game is always being interrupted by canals, the game is far too long, there's no sense of danger, it's too easy and it's got no-where near as much character as the first one.
Wow, I didn't realise how many things had annoyed me about AC2 until I'd put them all in a list.
I'm gonna go play something else...
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
Drunk review of Max Payne 2
-Note: I was originally doing this as a video but didn't in the end. Basically I wanted to review a game purely for how it was to get drunk to-
Chosing a game to get drunk to is a long and complex process and one I solved by falling back on an old favourite – Max Payne 2.
The reason I chose Max Payne 2 is it comprises of the optimum balance of the two elements needed for drunken gaming: fun action sequences and lots of cut scenes to continue the drinking in.
I’ve previously considered Max Payne 2 the ideal game to get drunk to but I haven’t tried this in over a year so I thought I’d dust it off and share the experience with an unsuspecting public.
To replicate this experience, you will need vodka, mixers, glasses, Max Payne 2 cds (CDs! OLD SCHOOL!), giant Princess Liea Headphones because your girlfriend is asleep and A CAN DO ATTITUDE.
The install process took eight minutes and forty two seconds, during which I was able to consume 42 mililitres of Vodka. Your results may vary.
It was nesecerry to spend thirty seconds setting up my graphics settings but if you’ve engaged in rigorour pre-drinking, this may not be nesecerry.
I picked Max Payne 2 because there are plenty of cut scenes and story sections where you can catch up on valuable drinking time denied you by the need to shoot people in the face during the action sequences. It seems that attention spans have decreased significantly since Max Payne 2 was first released, though, because it seemed to me that the number of cut scenes had tripled since I’d last played it. Whatever, though, more drinking for me.
I hit a major problem with this game, though. The first few levels are, not to put too find a point on it, shit. Max Payne 2 comes from the era when every FPS was an entirely corridor based affair but for the first few sections they’re such badly designed levels and you’re given such little ammo that I found myself dying constantly and for highly unconvincing reasons.
Thankfully, things pick up after half an hour or so, after roughly 200 mililitres of vodka had been consumed.
If you haven’t played Max Payne 2... I won’t even both explaining the plot. Suffice to say that it was considered one of the best games ever made back in 2003 but a lot has changed since then in gameplay tastes. I’m hoping most of you will have played it, though, and are watching this review simply for instructional purposes regarding how ideal it is to get drunk to.
The answer is... It’s not ideal but it does the job.
The problem with many modern games is they’re so focused on GAMEPLAY GAMEPLAY GAMEPLAY that they don’t give the player a chance to relax and you need time to relax to drink in. Max Payne 2 gives ample oppertunity for drinkage but the game does have several problems which sulley the experience slightly.
For a start, there aren’t any quicksaves so when you trip over your own feet in a drunken stupor you can get sent back unceremoniously to the start of the level. It also pulls one of the great old school gaming dick moves of not giving you any decent weapons until you’ve been playing for an hour and a half.
For me, the game doesnt’ realy kick in until the second hour of play and by then you’d hopefully be too drunk to properly appreciate it.
Aside from Mass Effect 2, there aren’t any modern games I’d recomend getting drunk to over Max Payne 2, which is an issue. Of the classic drinking games like Vapire Bloodlines and KOTOR, I’d say that Max Payne 2 is still the best, sadly, it’s not quite as good to pulverise your brain with as it was.
Monday, 1 March 2010
The Void
I read a review of The Void on Eurogamer. The conclusion was basically that The Void is a brilliant game... it's just practically impossible to make any headway.
I get what they mean.
So basically, The Void is set in a world between life and death. You have died but are *just* clinging onto enough life to have another shot. I say life, I mean Colour - the currency of The Void.
You need colour for pretty much everything - movement, combat, creating more colour- even survival in certain places.
I'm not really explaining this very well...
Okay. So The Void has a massive hub thing - this is the titular void. You can travel around this and visit certain locations where you will find plot bits, friendly colours, enemy sanctuaries and gardens filled with dead trees you can infuse with Colour in order to create an awesome garden thing which will then give you more Colour down the line.
There's a lot more to it than that but that's the basis of it.
The Void is deeply, deeply unfair. You need to spend a lot of Colour to get anything done and even surviving past the first chapter is a massive challenge.
For once, I think this is actually a good thing. The whole atmosphere is based around the idea of one tiny glimmer of hope in the midst of despair and nothingness. A few crucial mistakes will cripple you and you'll find yourself unable to recover. If such a place as The Void exists, this is pretty much exactly what it'll be like.
The graphics are fucking beautiful - especially the contrast between the greys and browns of The Void against the stunning pastells of Colour. The Voice acting is serene and, whilst occasionally dodgy, generally pretty solid. The gameplay is.... interesting. Mostly pretty good, if very unfair, but there are moments of extreme dodginess.
There's nothing else in the world like The Void. It's... in many ways a horrible game that will punish you for making the smallest mistake, but this is part of the charm. It all builds to an oppressive and horrible atmosphere where even the smallest moment of solace and respite is to be treasured. It's basically Goth: The Videogame.
I find it hard to recommend The Void, even though it's unique, artistically briliant and generally pretty damned innovative. It's just so fucking hard... I haven't come anywhere near to completing it and I've just given up in the hope of finding something more fun to play. If you can commit to your games and fancy trying something new I'd really recommend trying it, just be prepared for frustration...
I get what they mean.
So basically, The Void is set in a world between life and death. You have died but are *just* clinging onto enough life to have another shot. I say life, I mean Colour - the currency of The Void.
You need colour for pretty much everything - movement, combat, creating more colour- even survival in certain places.
I'm not really explaining this very well...
Okay. So The Void has a massive hub thing - this is the titular void. You can travel around this and visit certain locations where you will find plot bits, friendly colours, enemy sanctuaries and gardens filled with dead trees you can infuse with Colour in order to create an awesome garden thing which will then give you more Colour down the line.
There's a lot more to it than that but that's the basis of it.
The Void is deeply, deeply unfair. You need to spend a lot of Colour to get anything done and even surviving past the first chapter is a massive challenge.
For once, I think this is actually a good thing. The whole atmosphere is based around the idea of one tiny glimmer of hope in the midst of despair and nothingness. A few crucial mistakes will cripple you and you'll find yourself unable to recover. If such a place as The Void exists, this is pretty much exactly what it'll be like.
The graphics are fucking beautiful - especially the contrast between the greys and browns of The Void against the stunning pastells of Colour. The Voice acting is serene and, whilst occasionally dodgy, generally pretty solid. The gameplay is.... interesting. Mostly pretty good, if very unfair, but there are moments of extreme dodginess.
There's nothing else in the world like The Void. It's... in many ways a horrible game that will punish you for making the smallest mistake, but this is part of the charm. It all builds to an oppressive and horrible atmosphere where even the smallest moment of solace and respite is to be treasured. It's basically Goth: The Videogame.
I find it hard to recommend The Void, even though it's unique, artistically briliant and generally pretty damned innovative. It's just so fucking hard... I haven't come anywhere near to completing it and I've just given up in the hope of finding something more fun to play. If you can commit to your games and fancy trying something new I'd really recommend trying it, just be prepared for frustration...
What went wrong with AVP 3
So it's two weeks after AVP 3 was released onto the intertubes. Two weeks after everyone looked at it and thought:
"...is this it?"
They were working on that game for two years. We got a very short, very generic single player campaign which I consider to be nothing but a waste of bandwidth. Everything else in the game is lifted straight from AVP 2, with the exception of the co-op survival mode. Which is pretty rubbish.
The only fun game modes are Infestation - where everyone starts off as a marine, one person is randomly selected to be an alien and every marine killed turns to a xenomorph. There's also Team Species deathmatch, which is fairly amusing.
There are many vids and articles on the internets going on and on about what's wrong with AVP 3 so I won't go on about it. To sumerise:
1) The single player is shit
2) Marines can block the aliens attacks which is as stupid and game breaking as it sounds
3) The predators are gimped
4) The focus jump system for the predators is a good idea, but it's broken
5) It's worse than the original AVP, let alone AVP 2
6) The multiplayer server system is broken
We should have all been somewhat suspicious in the lead up to AVP 3's release. Why? Well, all the articles were comparing it to the original AVP, not AVP 2. I know that's because both 1 & 3 were done by Rebellion but why is that a good thing. I've looked at the list of games they've developed and it's a sorry sight. Aside from the original AVP, their games range from bad to utterly terrible.
I wasn't even really a fan of AVP when it first came out. Sure, it was okay but it got completely eclipsed when Monolith released AVP 2.
So how did AVP 3 end up in this sorry state?
1) Rebellion tried to re-invent the wheel
This blocking stuff is ridiculous. To sumerise, Rebellion tried to impliment a melee combat system, politely ignoring that fact that this has only ever worked in ONE fps before. There is no reason for this to be there at all. If a predator or an alien gets close to a marine, that marine should be dead, no questions asked. The whole point of the humans is that they're deadly at long range but vulnerable up close.
You could just about post-rationalise this stupid decision regarding scraps between the predator and alien if you'd forgotten that the reason the predator/alien scraps worked so well in AVP 2 was that the predators almost never engaged in close combat. I spent all my time in AVP 2 as a pred using the Speargun to kill marines and the pistol to kill aliens. I kept my distance, knowing that if an alien got close to me, I was dead.
In changing the predator from a ranged fighter to a close range fighter by removing their weapons (you can pick weapons up but they're gimped and you can only carry one at a time) Rebellion essentially created one ranged character - the marine - one close combat fighter - the alien - and a bullshit hybrid that was as effective as neither.
2) At the same time, they hardly changed anything
It's really odd, this. Rebellion changed things that didn't need changing - like the melee system and introduced a lot of stuff that didn't really work - like focus jumping but they didn't really change the game.
The single player is the same series of cliches plagued by every aliens/predator itteration since Aliens. The stories are these:
Marines - Aliens and predators are scrapping. They kill all of your friends before you get to them, forcing you to fight on your own. There is an evil corperation trying to profit from the alien technology. Somehow.
Alien - you are a captured alien. You escape. You eat people.
Predator - humans are dicking around with your mayan temple. You kill shit.
I'm begining to wonder if it's possible to do an Aliens story without having a bullshit generic evil corperation capture an alien queen and perform experiments on her offspring. The number of times this has happened in this universe seem endless and it *never ends well for anyone*. You'd think the corperation would have noticed some sort of pattern.
The multiplayer shows a similar lack of originality. All the good bits are lifted straight from AVP 2 - and these are hampered slightly by the fact that the game is just that bit worse, despite being made nine years later.
I'd like to give Rebellion points for trying but I'm not entirely convinced that they even tried very hard. I didn't see any evidence of real effort anywhere. There were no briliant weapons, there were no incredible levels which spoke of hundreds of hours spent in designing and playtesting...
So yes. I'm going to re-install AVP 2 and play that with my friends over Hamachi. Fuck you Rebellion, Fuck you Sega.
"...is this it?"
They were working on that game for two years. We got a very short, very generic single player campaign which I consider to be nothing but a waste of bandwidth. Everything else in the game is lifted straight from AVP 2, with the exception of the co-op survival mode. Which is pretty rubbish.
The only fun game modes are Infestation - where everyone starts off as a marine, one person is randomly selected to be an alien and every marine killed turns to a xenomorph. There's also Team Species deathmatch, which is fairly amusing.
There are many vids and articles on the internets going on and on about what's wrong with AVP 3 so I won't go on about it. To sumerise:
1) The single player is shit
2) Marines can block the aliens attacks which is as stupid and game breaking as it sounds
3) The predators are gimped
4) The focus jump system for the predators is a good idea, but it's broken
5) It's worse than the original AVP, let alone AVP 2
6) The multiplayer server system is broken
We should have all been somewhat suspicious in the lead up to AVP 3's release. Why? Well, all the articles were comparing it to the original AVP, not AVP 2. I know that's because both 1 & 3 were done by Rebellion but why is that a good thing. I've looked at the list of games they've developed and it's a sorry sight. Aside from the original AVP, their games range from bad to utterly terrible.
I wasn't even really a fan of AVP when it first came out. Sure, it was okay but it got completely eclipsed when Monolith released AVP 2.
So how did AVP 3 end up in this sorry state?
1) Rebellion tried to re-invent the wheel
This blocking stuff is ridiculous. To sumerise, Rebellion tried to impliment a melee combat system, politely ignoring that fact that this has only ever worked in ONE fps before. There is no reason for this to be there at all. If a predator or an alien gets close to a marine, that marine should be dead, no questions asked. The whole point of the humans is that they're deadly at long range but vulnerable up close.
You could just about post-rationalise this stupid decision regarding scraps between the predator and alien if you'd forgotten that the reason the predator/alien scraps worked so well in AVP 2 was that the predators almost never engaged in close combat. I spent all my time in AVP 2 as a pred using the Speargun to kill marines and the pistol to kill aliens. I kept my distance, knowing that if an alien got close to me, I was dead.
In changing the predator from a ranged fighter to a close range fighter by removing their weapons (you can pick weapons up but they're gimped and you can only carry one at a time) Rebellion essentially created one ranged character - the marine - one close combat fighter - the alien - and a bullshit hybrid that was as effective as neither.
2) At the same time, they hardly changed anything
It's really odd, this. Rebellion changed things that didn't need changing - like the melee system and introduced a lot of stuff that didn't really work - like focus jumping but they didn't really change the game.
The single player is the same series of cliches plagued by every aliens/predator itteration since Aliens. The stories are these:
Marines - Aliens and predators are scrapping. They kill all of your friends before you get to them, forcing you to fight on your own. There is an evil corperation trying to profit from the alien technology. Somehow.
Alien - you are a captured alien. You escape. You eat people.
Predator - humans are dicking around with your mayan temple. You kill shit.
I'm begining to wonder if it's possible to do an Aliens story without having a bullshit generic evil corperation capture an alien queen and perform experiments on her offspring. The number of times this has happened in this universe seem endless and it *never ends well for anyone*. You'd think the corperation would have noticed some sort of pattern.
The multiplayer shows a similar lack of originality. All the good bits are lifted straight from AVP 2 - and these are hampered slightly by the fact that the game is just that bit worse, despite being made nine years later.
I'd like to give Rebellion points for trying but I'm not entirely convinced that they even tried very hard. I didn't see any evidence of real effort anywhere. There were no briliant weapons, there were no incredible levels which spoke of hundreds of hours spent in designing and playtesting...
So yes. I'm going to re-install AVP 2 and play that with my friends over Hamachi. Fuck you Rebellion, Fuck you Sega.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Daybreakers
The trailer for Daybreakers intrigued me. I've never seen anything to do with vampires before where they have been anything other than a secret minority preying on humans. This has been done very well and sometimes done very very badly. But anything that bucks this trend has to be worth a look, right?
Well, in the world of Daybreakers, humans make up less than 5% of the population. The population of what, we're never told but it's assumed they mean the world. The problem with this is obvious, there's not enough blood to go around.
I'll get the actual film out of the way quite quickly: It's not very good. Other than the nice premise it lacks any real soul. It's too slow, the acting is... pretty dodgy and the plot isn't as clever as it thinks it is. It's not exactly bad but it's definitely not something you should go out of your way to see. In my opinion.
I still find myself intrigued by the concept though. Sadly, it's not really a concept that can stand up to extended viewing.
Vampires taking their place in society *can* work. That whole tension was one of the only good things about True Blood (which I think was fantastic, apart from the main characters, who were universally uninteresting) but when the blood starts running out...
Well, let me tell you what would happen if the blood started running out.
If the entire world (or 95% of the real world) has turned into vampires, there would be nothing to be done. Other than use animal blood but that's besides the point.
I think, though, things would never get that far. Let's say, for example. there's an outbreak in America or Russia or China or any of the countries that are slightly dubious about the research they conduct with viruses or biological warfare or whatever. The point there is all of those countries are industrialised.
If the virus spreads to the point where people at the top of the various pyramids get infected, you know what will happen? They'll control the spread of the infection. But not in the way you're thinking.
They'll control it so it doesn't spread outside the industrialised countries. The vampires in Daybreakers are thinking but amoral individuals who chose who they feed on and, therefore, infect.
So what would they do? They'd leave Africa untouched, as well as the other fucked up bits of the world. They would, essentially, do what they've been doing for the last 500 years - fucking over bits of the world that are less fortunate than them for their own gain.
There would undoubtedly be vampires in these countries but they'd be the ones in the government or in organised crime, involved in trafficking.
What I'm essentially saying is:
Imagine the scene. The president of the US, congress and the senate meet. They discuss distributing the virus to Africa.
"Shall we spread the joy of imortality?"
"What? For free?"
I may sound like I'm banging this drum pretty hard but I can't help but think this would have been a much more interesting film if it was set in a country which has much more ethnic tension than the USA - South Africa would be good, Australia would be interesting. The problem is, films in America tend to be about America and... they tend to kind of assume that the rest of the world is behaving more or less like they are. Which is just plain wrong.
But yes, once I'd thought of that I couldn't even enjoy the premise.
Ah well.
Well, in the world of Daybreakers, humans make up less than 5% of the population. The population of what, we're never told but it's assumed they mean the world. The problem with this is obvious, there's not enough blood to go around.
I'll get the actual film out of the way quite quickly: It's not very good. Other than the nice premise it lacks any real soul. It's too slow, the acting is... pretty dodgy and the plot isn't as clever as it thinks it is. It's not exactly bad but it's definitely not something you should go out of your way to see. In my opinion.
I still find myself intrigued by the concept though. Sadly, it's not really a concept that can stand up to extended viewing.
Vampires taking their place in society *can* work. That whole tension was one of the only good things about True Blood (which I think was fantastic, apart from the main characters, who were universally uninteresting) but when the blood starts running out...
Well, let me tell you what would happen if the blood started running out.
If the entire world (or 95% of the real world) has turned into vampires, there would be nothing to be done. Other than use animal blood but that's besides the point.
I think, though, things would never get that far. Let's say, for example. there's an outbreak in America or Russia or China or any of the countries that are slightly dubious about the research they conduct with viruses or biological warfare or whatever. The point there is all of those countries are industrialised.
If the virus spreads to the point where people at the top of the various pyramids get infected, you know what will happen? They'll control the spread of the infection. But not in the way you're thinking.
They'll control it so it doesn't spread outside the industrialised countries. The vampires in Daybreakers are thinking but amoral individuals who chose who they feed on and, therefore, infect.
So what would they do? They'd leave Africa untouched, as well as the other fucked up bits of the world. They would, essentially, do what they've been doing for the last 500 years - fucking over bits of the world that are less fortunate than them for their own gain.
There would undoubtedly be vampires in these countries but they'd be the ones in the government or in organised crime, involved in trafficking.
What I'm essentially saying is:
Imagine the scene. The president of the US, congress and the senate meet. They discuss distributing the virus to Africa.
"Shall we spread the joy of imortality?"
"What? For free?"
I may sound like I'm banging this drum pretty hard but I can't help but think this would have been a much more interesting film if it was set in a country which has much more ethnic tension than the USA - South Africa would be good, Australia would be interesting. The problem is, films in America tend to be about America and... they tend to kind of assume that the rest of the world is behaving more or less like they are. Which is just plain wrong.
But yes, once I'd thought of that I couldn't even enjoy the premise.
Ah well.
Friday, 8 January 2010
The rebirth of adventure games
The world and its dog seem to have reached the conclusion that Ghostbusters: The Video Game had a decent enough story but had terrible gameplay. I don't want to come across as smug here but I thought that was incredibly obvious from the moment such a game was announced. How could I make such a potentially unfair prediction? Well, in the ghostbusters films, there were no sections where they had to capture 10 wandering spirits in order to unlock a door which would lead to a boss battle where they had to hide behind a table and then shoot a stupidly oversized boss in the weak point.
The Ghostbusters films were all about character, story & humour and there is only one genre which can successfully incorporate all three of these elements and still have half decent gameplay: Adventure Games.
What evidence do I have for this? Well, even if you ignore the new Monkey Island & Sam and Max games from Telltale, I have an example from history for you.
Discworld.
Like Ghostbusters, it's a series based around humour, character and story. Like Ghostbusters, there are no sections where Commander Vimes has to arrest 10 pickpockets before he unlocks the mission where he chases a dwarf on the back of SGT. Detritus. Unlike Ghostbusters, there have been three Discworld games, all of which have been (to a greater or lesser extent) good.
I'm quite happy to claim that you could make a passable adventure game out of most franchises that would usually be considered impossible to adapt to gaming. William Gibson's Neuromancer, for instance. Steven Sodoberg's Solaris. Doctor Who. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Anything where story is the focus can be adapted, to a greater or lesser extent.
I'd actually really like to play a Doctor Who adventure game.
Previously, it's been said that there isn't an audience for such things but Telltale Games have quite comprehensively shown that's not true. The resurection of the Monkey Island franchise has been rabidly popular and, perhaps more impressively, it's proved to be one of the most thought provoking and moving game experiences I've ever had.
I can't go into too much detail, because of spoilers, but in the five episode series, the main character essentially has a tonne of metaphorical shit dropped on him episode by episode. There's a lot of humour to be found in these situations but it all comes to a head in episode five where the humour is mixed with a deeply felt melancholy. The entire gameplay environment changes - the colours used are less bright, the voice acting becomes more subdued... the entire game seems to slow...
And if you think games are too logical and ordered to properly capture something like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I just have to point you in the direction of The Path.
There is a problem with what I'm saying, though. Making a good adventure game is *incredibly* hard. This is mainly because by far the most important part of an adventure game is the story and dialogue. As I'm sure you all know, these factors are usually amongst the last to be added to the game, and are usually the single aspect that receive the least attention.
Then there's the problem of gameplay. If the plot and so on flop, all you have left to fall back on are the puzzles, which are never really good enough to justify it. Adventure games aren't like Far Cry 2, where it doesn't matter that the plot is balls because you always have shooting Africans to fall back on.
That and, even taking into account that adventure games are cheap to produce and distribute (because they don't need anything like top of the line graphics) they still represent a significant financial risk.
But adventure games are on the way back and, thanks to digital distribution, they're making more money than ever before.
Here's hoping that some time in the not too distant future, companies like Telltale have the pull to attract really big licenses like The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Hell, maybe they can do another Discworld game.
Man, that'd be awesome.
The Ghostbusters films were all about character, story & humour and there is only one genre which can successfully incorporate all three of these elements and still have half decent gameplay: Adventure Games.
What evidence do I have for this? Well, even if you ignore the new Monkey Island & Sam and Max games from Telltale, I have an example from history for you.
Discworld.
Like Ghostbusters, it's a series based around humour, character and story. Like Ghostbusters, there are no sections where Commander Vimes has to arrest 10 pickpockets before he unlocks the mission where he chases a dwarf on the back of SGT. Detritus. Unlike Ghostbusters, there have been three Discworld games, all of which have been (to a greater or lesser extent) good.
I'm quite happy to claim that you could make a passable adventure game out of most franchises that would usually be considered impossible to adapt to gaming. William Gibson's Neuromancer, for instance. Steven Sodoberg's Solaris. Doctor Who. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Anything where story is the focus can be adapted, to a greater or lesser extent.
I'd actually really like to play a Doctor Who adventure game.
Previously, it's been said that there isn't an audience for such things but Telltale Games have quite comprehensively shown that's not true. The resurection of the Monkey Island franchise has been rabidly popular and, perhaps more impressively, it's proved to be one of the most thought provoking and moving game experiences I've ever had.
I can't go into too much detail, because of spoilers, but in the five episode series, the main character essentially has a tonne of metaphorical shit dropped on him episode by episode. There's a lot of humour to be found in these situations but it all comes to a head in episode five where the humour is mixed with a deeply felt melancholy. The entire gameplay environment changes - the colours used are less bright, the voice acting becomes more subdued... the entire game seems to slow...
And if you think games are too logical and ordered to properly capture something like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, I just have to point you in the direction of The Path.
There is a problem with what I'm saying, though. Making a good adventure game is *incredibly* hard. This is mainly because by far the most important part of an adventure game is the story and dialogue. As I'm sure you all know, these factors are usually amongst the last to be added to the game, and are usually the single aspect that receive the least attention.
Then there's the problem of gameplay. If the plot and so on flop, all you have left to fall back on are the puzzles, which are never really good enough to justify it. Adventure games aren't like Far Cry 2, where it doesn't matter that the plot is balls because you always have shooting Africans to fall back on.
That and, even taking into account that adventure games are cheap to produce and distribute (because they don't need anything like top of the line graphics) they still represent a significant financial risk.
But adventure games are on the way back and, thanks to digital distribution, they're making more money than ever before.
Here's hoping that some time in the not too distant future, companies like Telltale have the pull to attract really big licenses like The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. Hell, maybe they can do another Discworld game.
Man, that'd be awesome.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
2009 in Film
So Avatar had its first day in cinemas today and I couldn't care less. Not only that, I don't know anyone who does actually care. Yes, the fact that it's James Cameron making it does raise an eyebrow but the plot is the same standard Technology vs A Natural Way of Life which has been done so many times it's impossible to count.
Avatar kind of sums up this year. It's been a really shit year. Granted, any year was going to look terrible after 2008. 2008 was a cracking year. We had The Dark Knight, Iron Man & Wall-E, all 10/10 films. We also had breezy fun films like Hancock, Tropic Thunder, The Sontum of Quolace and Eagle Eye.
So I thought I'd go through the films I've seen this year, from best to worst.
Zombieland (10/10)
I re-watched Zombieland recently and it is still utterly fantastic. It's such a fresh take on the genre. It makes you feel good to watch it - and that's pretty damned rare in a film. The action scenes are good, the characters are briliant and it has a marvelous sense of humour. This years only 10/10 film.
The Men Who Stare at Goats (9/10)
Some briliant performances from Ewan McGregor & George Cloony make this a hilarious film with a lot of heart and a fucking briliant final act. It's a *little* bit long in places and I'm not sure how well it'd stand up to re watching but definitely one of the more original films this year.
Moon (9/10)
Moon is my Clever Film Of The Year. Watching the trailer, you'd be forgiven for thinking you can map out the entire plot of the film just from that. Oh no you can't. Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey are absolutely fucking briliant as well. And it's a British film, which is cool. It is very slow paced though.
500 Days of Summer (8/10)
Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt prove that they're fucking briliant actors. 500 Days is a briliant feel good film... an epic love story that does a pretty good job of showing what it's like to actually be in love. It's not as good as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind but that's not really saying much.
Up (8/10)
I was expecting a reasonable film and got a really heart warming story about the importance of following your dreams whilst at the same time being realistic. It also has a dog. The dog is awesome. Not as good as Bolt but still awesome. It's all a conspiracy to make me want a dog.
Push (7/10)
Push is inventive, briliantly directed and realised. It's very flawed, though. There's no real ending, some of the plot moves don't make much sense and whilst there is a kick arse action scene at the end, it still leaves you feeling a bit unfullfilled. It's definitely worth seeing, though. It's basically the X-Men but... good.
The Good, The Bad, The Wierd (7/10)
TG, TB, TW takes every western ever made and updates them in a kick arse, very silly manner. The acting and directing are top notch, the story is silly but entertaining - it may well be too long but it's still definitely worth seeing.
Slumdog Milionaire (7/10)
It's Danny Boyle, so this film was always going to be good. I was a little disapointed, though. I was hoping for something... more. Ah well.
Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (7/10)
Another very fun comedy - a time travel film that actually makes sense, who would have thunk it?
The Hangover (7/10)
The Hangover takes the standard amnesia/road movie comedy format and does it... pretty close to perfectly. It loses out to the Harold and Kumar films in terms of sheer surreality but it's still very good.
Crank 2 (6/10)
Five words can sum up Crank 2: "Not as good as Crank". Yes, it has the same hyper-kinetic style as Crank and is still pretty goddamn hilarious but a lot of the impact is lost in making a sequel. It's also a little too surreal for its own good. The constant flashbacks and wierd sections get confusing. Still fun, though.
Let The Right One In (6/10)
This is one of those films which is briliant but I didn't especially enjoy watching. Everyone involved did a fantastic job, there's no doubt about it, but it never really grabbed me. I'd definitely recomend it to anyone who hasn't seen it though.
Gamer (6/10)
Gamer is what Crank 2 should have been. Surreal, action packed and awesome - but Gamer gets the balance right. It's much better than Crank 2. Why doesn't it score higher then? Well, the problem is that Gamer has Gerard Butler in the lead role and he's just not as good as Jason Statham. Sorry.
Cirque Du Freak (6/10)
Cirque Du Freak is in many, many ways a bad film. The plot is entirely predicatable, there's nothing really tying the film together and generally it feels a bit meh. I liked it, though. There was something basically original about it that made it feel fresh. Someone frisbees a gravestone at someone else, for Thor's sake.
Watchmen (5/10)
Now, I loved watchmen when it first came out but on the re-watch I found many problems. Length is one. Watchmen is telling far too many stories. The story of Dr Manhatten, the Ozymandius arc, Silk Specter 2 & Nite Owl, Rorscarch... not to mention the numerous sub-sub plots. Most of the elements of Watchmen are briliant but it's just *too fucking long*. Watchmen needed to be made by someone who wasn't so in love with the original - that way they could have cut some of the less good bits.
Triangle (5/10)
It's well done but it doesn't make any fucking sense. Seriously, it's infuriating. It's really predictable but annoyingly abtuse at the same time.
Bruno (4/10)
Bruno has moments of briliant satire and moments of awesome stupidity. It was so cringe worthy and so embarrasing I couldn't say I enjoyed it at all. If you like this sort of thing, it's utterly briliant, though.
9 (3/10)
9 is one of those briliant films where if the main character hadn't gotten involved, life would have been much better for everyone concerned. The plot is entirely predictable, the characters are steriotypes... the design work may be very good but that kind of works against the film. 9 doesn't know if it wants to be a kids film or an adults film. It's too dark for one and too simplistic for the other. I hope the artists go on to do great things whilst the writer never gets near anything else.
Inglorious Bastards (2/10)
Inglorious has a briliant opening scene. Then it all falls apart. I get that it's supposed to be a hyper styalised version of World War 2, but seriously, who introduces Hitler like this? Subtlety? Have you heard of it, Quinten? Every character in Inglorious is seen through the eyes of a blue blooded American. It has Eli Roth skipping around a field hitting nazis in the head with a baseball bat whilst whooping like the most horrible frat boy you could hope not to meet. Seriously, this is an all american depiction of World War 2. To the point where these ten fictional americans succeed in killing hitler and ending the war three years early. So basically, what Quinten is saying is, if ten Americans had gotten involved in World War 2 earlier, the whole mess would have been sorted out much sooner.
Terminator 4 (1/10)
I honsetly thought I was watching a transformers film at points in T4. It's so fucking stupid I don't have the words for it. It has a 100 foot tall terminator that has terminators on motor bikes in its shins. It's the wrost sort of action film imaginable - dumb, unimaginative, CGI riddled and utterly lacking in any soul.
Public Enemies (1/10)
Remember when Johnny Depp used to be good? It was a while ago wasn't it... Public Enemies could have been quite good if the writers had bothered to create some characters to go along with the wizzy camera work. Sadly, the characters aren't even 2-d, most of them are completely absent. The means the plot has no impact and as the film stretches into its third hour, I got so bored I walked out.
A Serious Man (0/10)
I honestly have nothing good to say about this film. It was boredom in a can. Nothing fuckin happened. At all. There was NO PLOT. NOTHING HAPPENED. I can't put this strongly enough, seriously. NOTHING HAPPENED FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING FILM. Nothing. Nada. Zip. NOTHING. I've never been this bored in the cinema, before, and I've been to see Munich. It astonishes me that this film's been getting 5/5 reviews from Empire & The AV Club... did they see a different film to me or something?
I think what my little list says is: It's been a good year for the smaller films like Moon and the comedies but we've had no decent action flicks bar Zombieland. Bah.
Avatar kind of sums up this year. It's been a really shit year. Granted, any year was going to look terrible after 2008. 2008 was a cracking year. We had The Dark Knight, Iron Man & Wall-E, all 10/10 films. We also had breezy fun films like Hancock, Tropic Thunder, The Sontum of Quolace and Eagle Eye.
So I thought I'd go through the films I've seen this year, from best to worst.
Zombieland (10/10)
I re-watched Zombieland recently and it is still utterly fantastic. It's such a fresh take on the genre. It makes you feel good to watch it - and that's pretty damned rare in a film. The action scenes are good, the characters are briliant and it has a marvelous sense of humour. This years only 10/10 film.
The Men Who Stare at Goats (9/10)
Some briliant performances from Ewan McGregor & George Cloony make this a hilarious film with a lot of heart and a fucking briliant final act. It's a *little* bit long in places and I'm not sure how well it'd stand up to re watching but definitely one of the more original films this year.
Moon (9/10)
Moon is my Clever Film Of The Year. Watching the trailer, you'd be forgiven for thinking you can map out the entire plot of the film just from that. Oh no you can't. Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey are absolutely fucking briliant as well. And it's a British film, which is cool. It is very slow paced though.
500 Days of Summer (8/10)
Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt prove that they're fucking briliant actors. 500 Days is a briliant feel good film... an epic love story that does a pretty good job of showing what it's like to actually be in love. It's not as good as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind but that's not really saying much.
Up (8/10)
I was expecting a reasonable film and got a really heart warming story about the importance of following your dreams whilst at the same time being realistic. It also has a dog. The dog is awesome. Not as good as Bolt but still awesome. It's all a conspiracy to make me want a dog.
Push (7/10)
Push is inventive, briliantly directed and realised. It's very flawed, though. There's no real ending, some of the plot moves don't make much sense and whilst there is a kick arse action scene at the end, it still leaves you feeling a bit unfullfilled. It's definitely worth seeing, though. It's basically the X-Men but... good.
The Good, The Bad, The Wierd (7/10)
TG, TB, TW takes every western ever made and updates them in a kick arse, very silly manner. The acting and directing are top notch, the story is silly but entertaining - it may well be too long but it's still definitely worth seeing.
Slumdog Milionaire (7/10)
It's Danny Boyle, so this film was always going to be good. I was a little disapointed, though. I was hoping for something... more. Ah well.
Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel (7/10)
Another very fun comedy - a time travel film that actually makes sense, who would have thunk it?
The Hangover (7/10)
The Hangover takes the standard amnesia/road movie comedy format and does it... pretty close to perfectly. It loses out to the Harold and Kumar films in terms of sheer surreality but it's still very good.
Crank 2 (6/10)
Five words can sum up Crank 2: "Not as good as Crank". Yes, it has the same hyper-kinetic style as Crank and is still pretty goddamn hilarious but a lot of the impact is lost in making a sequel. It's also a little too surreal for its own good. The constant flashbacks and wierd sections get confusing. Still fun, though.
Let The Right One In (6/10)
This is one of those films which is briliant but I didn't especially enjoy watching. Everyone involved did a fantastic job, there's no doubt about it, but it never really grabbed me. I'd definitely recomend it to anyone who hasn't seen it though.
Gamer (6/10)
Gamer is what Crank 2 should have been. Surreal, action packed and awesome - but Gamer gets the balance right. It's much better than Crank 2. Why doesn't it score higher then? Well, the problem is that Gamer has Gerard Butler in the lead role and he's just not as good as Jason Statham. Sorry.
Cirque Du Freak (6/10)
Cirque Du Freak is in many, many ways a bad film. The plot is entirely predicatable, there's nothing really tying the film together and generally it feels a bit meh. I liked it, though. There was something basically original about it that made it feel fresh. Someone frisbees a gravestone at someone else, for Thor's sake.
Watchmen (5/10)
Now, I loved watchmen when it first came out but on the re-watch I found many problems. Length is one. Watchmen is telling far too many stories. The story of Dr Manhatten, the Ozymandius arc, Silk Specter 2 & Nite Owl, Rorscarch... not to mention the numerous sub-sub plots. Most of the elements of Watchmen are briliant but it's just *too fucking long*. Watchmen needed to be made by someone who wasn't so in love with the original - that way they could have cut some of the less good bits.
Triangle (5/10)
It's well done but it doesn't make any fucking sense. Seriously, it's infuriating. It's really predictable but annoyingly abtuse at the same time.
Bruno (4/10)
Bruno has moments of briliant satire and moments of awesome stupidity. It was so cringe worthy and so embarrasing I couldn't say I enjoyed it at all. If you like this sort of thing, it's utterly briliant, though.
9 (3/10)
9 is one of those briliant films where if the main character hadn't gotten involved, life would have been much better for everyone concerned. The plot is entirely predictable, the characters are steriotypes... the design work may be very good but that kind of works against the film. 9 doesn't know if it wants to be a kids film or an adults film. It's too dark for one and too simplistic for the other. I hope the artists go on to do great things whilst the writer never gets near anything else.
Inglorious Bastards (2/10)
Inglorious has a briliant opening scene. Then it all falls apart. I get that it's supposed to be a hyper styalised version of World War 2, but seriously, who introduces Hitler like this? Subtlety? Have you heard of it, Quinten? Every character in Inglorious is seen through the eyes of a blue blooded American. It has Eli Roth skipping around a field hitting nazis in the head with a baseball bat whilst whooping like the most horrible frat boy you could hope not to meet. Seriously, this is an all american depiction of World War 2. To the point where these ten fictional americans succeed in killing hitler and ending the war three years early. So basically, what Quinten is saying is, if ten Americans had gotten involved in World War 2 earlier, the whole mess would have been sorted out much sooner.
Terminator 4 (1/10)
I honsetly thought I was watching a transformers film at points in T4. It's so fucking stupid I don't have the words for it. It has a 100 foot tall terminator that has terminators on motor bikes in its shins. It's the wrost sort of action film imaginable - dumb, unimaginative, CGI riddled and utterly lacking in any soul.
Public Enemies (1/10)
Remember when Johnny Depp used to be good? It was a while ago wasn't it... Public Enemies could have been quite good if the writers had bothered to create some characters to go along with the wizzy camera work. Sadly, the characters aren't even 2-d, most of them are completely absent. The means the plot has no impact and as the film stretches into its third hour, I got so bored I walked out.
A Serious Man (0/10)
I honestly have nothing good to say about this film. It was boredom in a can. Nothing fuckin happened. At all. There was NO PLOT. NOTHING HAPPENED. I can't put this strongly enough, seriously. NOTHING HAPPENED FOR THE ENTIRE FUCKING FILM. Nothing. Nada. Zip. NOTHING. I've never been this bored in the cinema, before, and I've been to see Munich. It astonishes me that this film's been getting 5/5 reviews from Empire & The AV Club... did they see a different film to me or something?
I think what my little list says is: It's been a good year for the smaller films like Moon and the comedies but we've had no decent action flicks bar Zombieland. Bah.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Cover Versions
I've blogged about cover versions before, specifically Goldfinger's version of 99 Luftbaloons and Orange's take on Karma Chameleon.
I have, however, found the king of all covers.
It's a piano version of Sweet Child of Mine - it's currently featured on a John Lewis advert.
This song encapsulates what I love about cover versions. It takes something many people love (including myself) and puts a different spin on it. In this case, it takes a kick arse yet beautiful song and turns it to something.... delightful. It's absolutely fucking lovely to listen to. It helps that the singer is clearly a very talented woman.
I'm coming round to the idea of seeing cover versions as an art form in and of themselves. The aforementioned covers of the punk songs are a great example of good songs being updated for modern tastes in music. Dope have done this with Billy Idol, as have the Muderdolls. These versions are successful adaptations to suit a generation raised by Cradle of Filth.
Even subtle improvements can make a brilliant cover. Take Scarling's version of Creep. It's pretty much identical to the original - a little heavier in places yes, but broadly similar. The crucial difference, though, is the singer. Radiohead's singer always sounds like a moaning tosser. Taking him out of the song and replacing him with someone who can actually sing improves it immeasurably. Johnny Cash did exactly this with a cover of NiN's Hurt
The best covers, though, are the ones that change the song musically, possibly to a different genre. The version of Sweet Child of Mine is a brilliant example. Another is Bear McCreary's version of All Along the Watchtower.
Take this cover of I Touch Myself. The original was a breezy, catchy romance song. Very good in its own way, brilliantly used in a certain spy spoof. The version by the... the cover version (I'm dyslexic, I really can't spell their name) though is fucking masterful. It takes a bit of breezy fun and turns it into something... darker, more obsessive. It's odd this song. My reaction to it is slightly different every time. Sometimes I think it's creepy, sometimes I think it's really sexual. Genius.
Granted, covers can go horribly wrong. When I think of shit covers, I think of Madona's version of American Pie, which takes a good (if not great) song and makes it incredibly fucking bland and soulless.
The thing is, that's giving covers a bad name. It's pop music. Pop music is supposed to be bland and horrible and pointless. That's what it's there for. There hasn't been a decent pop song in the last ten years that I can think of.
So I say thank the musical gods for cover versions. They can make a good song better, they can make a bad song good, they can take a great song and put a new spin on it, they can take a great song and make it utterly shit. And this is a good thing, without experimentation none of these songs would have been made.
I think it takes a lot of bravery to make some of these cover versions... a lot of them are really established songs in their own right - like Green Day's version of the Bobby Fuller Four's classic I Fought The Law (If you thought The Clash did the original, get the fuck out) and Social Distortion's version of Ring of Fire. To take classic songs and change them, make them your own is... egotistical but brave. If it works, you've created something fantastic.
So that's what I think. I'm going to leave you with possibly the best cover created - Sonic Clang's version of E1M1 from Doom.
I have, however, found the king of all covers.
It's a piano version of Sweet Child of Mine - it's currently featured on a John Lewis advert.
This song encapsulates what I love about cover versions. It takes something many people love (including myself) and puts a different spin on it. In this case, it takes a kick arse yet beautiful song and turns it to something.... delightful. It's absolutely fucking lovely to listen to. It helps that the singer is clearly a very talented woman.
I'm coming round to the idea of seeing cover versions as an art form in and of themselves. The aforementioned covers of the punk songs are a great example of good songs being updated for modern tastes in music. Dope have done this with Billy Idol, as have the Muderdolls. These versions are successful adaptations to suit a generation raised by Cradle of Filth.
Even subtle improvements can make a brilliant cover. Take Scarling's version of Creep. It's pretty much identical to the original - a little heavier in places yes, but broadly similar. The crucial difference, though, is the singer. Radiohead's singer always sounds like a moaning tosser. Taking him out of the song and replacing him with someone who can actually sing improves it immeasurably. Johnny Cash did exactly this with a cover of NiN's Hurt
The best covers, though, are the ones that change the song musically, possibly to a different genre. The version of Sweet Child of Mine is a brilliant example. Another is Bear McCreary's version of All Along the Watchtower.
Take this cover of I Touch Myself. The original was a breezy, catchy romance song. Very good in its own way, brilliantly used in a certain spy spoof. The version by the... the cover version (I'm dyslexic, I really can't spell their name) though is fucking masterful. It takes a bit of breezy fun and turns it into something... darker, more obsessive. It's odd this song. My reaction to it is slightly different every time. Sometimes I think it's creepy, sometimes I think it's really sexual. Genius.
Granted, covers can go horribly wrong. When I think of shit covers, I think of Madona's version of American Pie, which takes a good (if not great) song and makes it incredibly fucking bland and soulless.
The thing is, that's giving covers a bad name. It's pop music. Pop music is supposed to be bland and horrible and pointless. That's what it's there for. There hasn't been a decent pop song in the last ten years that I can think of.
So I say thank the musical gods for cover versions. They can make a good song better, they can make a bad song good, they can take a great song and put a new spin on it, they can take a great song and make it utterly shit. And this is a good thing, without experimentation none of these songs would have been made.
I think it takes a lot of bravery to make some of these cover versions... a lot of them are really established songs in their own right - like Green Day's version of the Bobby Fuller Four's classic I Fought The Law (If you thought The Clash did the original, get the fuck out) and Social Distortion's version of Ring of Fire. To take classic songs and change them, make them your own is... egotistical but brave. If it works, you've created something fantastic.
So that's what I think. I'm going to leave you with possibly the best cover created - Sonic Clang's version of E1M1 from Doom.
What I have been playing
Holy shit, I haven't updated this blog in ages. Work. Mental.
Excuses, excuses. Anyway. I refuse to turn into Christopher Livingstone so UPDATE TIME:
LEFT 4 DEAD 2
The officail verdict has been out on this one for a while so I won't bore you all with my thoughts. Suffice to say: It improves on the original in every way I could think of. It even includes several things that dramatically improve the gameplay (dismembering zombies etc) which I thought would be mere gimicks.
Valve did good.
And there's DLC coming in the new year - which sounds fecking awesome.
Modern Warfare 2
...
This one is less clear cut.
Put it this way, I fucking hate Modern Warfare 2.
This section is going to contain severe spoilers.
Okay, so alarm bells started ringing for me when, in the intro sequence, they say that the baddie from the first game - Zakayev - is now heralded as a hero by the Russian people...
Okay...
I thought the point of the first game that Zakayev was leading a fanatical group of Russians who had the support of some of the populace but, crucially, were not officailly sanctioned or anything. Hence why the Russian gov't gives Price the abort codes at the end of MW1.
Anyway, minor glitch, I thought.
We start with a fucking excelent level in an ice storm. You infiltrate a base, plant explosives and generally sneak your way around in the best traditions of MW 1. The ending where you escape on snow mobiles is a little silly but whatever.
There are then a couple of... reasonable but very scripted levels. Warning sign number two was that the SAS were no longer referred to as the SAS but as "task force 141". Or, if you prefer, this.
There's then the notorious airport level.
I actually liked the airport level. It's nice to see standard FPS staples like blasting everything that moves subverted. It was well designed and fairly disturbing - in a good way.
Then things go extremely fucking wrong.
Russia invades the united states.
It's such a stupid move for any game to make, I can't even begin to start talking about what's wrong with it. If I had to pick just one reason, it's that MW 2 at this point starts following the plot of Patriots: A Nation Under Fire - a game I had to review when I was working for a games review site.
It boggles the mind how Infinity Ward can have produced one of the most mature and politically aware games ever - Modern Warfare 1, can produce something which is a cross between Team America World Police and Patriots.
There are other things wrong with it - the levels are far too linear, the characters are 2-d, it's too difficult, the cinematic sections are fucking stupid and the new gimicks they bring in - like the riot shield - are crow barred in at every available oppertunity.
Modern Warfare 2 is a terrible, terrible game. The multiplayer may make up for it but it's the sort of multiplayer I really hate anyway. I played some of the multiplayer in MW 1 and was far from impressed.
Dirt 2
I'm not really sure why I bought this. Codemasters make very good racing games, admittedly, but I never finished Dirt 1 or Grid because they suffered from what practically every racing game suffers from. Viz: when you reach the half way point, the developers have run out of ideas for tracks so you have to visit the same ones again but you have to do six laps round them instead of two. This gets annoying very quickly.
Dirt 2 is very good, though. It's incredibly good looking (possibly the best looking game I've ever seen) and its gameplay has that magical quality to it that all briliant racing games have. For the first month or so.
It does have a very appealing front end to it and it is very, very polished. I don't feel bad about the £30 I spent on it but I am dreading the day I suddenly find I'm not interested in it any more.
Excuses, excuses. Anyway. I refuse to turn into Christopher Livingstone so UPDATE TIME:
LEFT 4 DEAD 2
The officail verdict has been out on this one for a while so I won't bore you all with my thoughts. Suffice to say: It improves on the original in every way I could think of. It even includes several things that dramatically improve the gameplay (dismembering zombies etc) which I thought would be mere gimicks.
Valve did good.
And there's DLC coming in the new year - which sounds fecking awesome.
Modern Warfare 2
...
This one is less clear cut.
Put it this way, I fucking hate Modern Warfare 2.
This section is going to contain severe spoilers.
Okay, so alarm bells started ringing for me when, in the intro sequence, they say that the baddie from the first game - Zakayev - is now heralded as a hero by the Russian people...
Okay...
I thought the point of the first game that Zakayev was leading a fanatical group of Russians who had the support of some of the populace but, crucially, were not officailly sanctioned or anything. Hence why the Russian gov't gives Price the abort codes at the end of MW1.
Anyway, minor glitch, I thought.
We start with a fucking excelent level in an ice storm. You infiltrate a base, plant explosives and generally sneak your way around in the best traditions of MW 1. The ending where you escape on snow mobiles is a little silly but whatever.
There are then a couple of... reasonable but very scripted levels. Warning sign number two was that the SAS were no longer referred to as the SAS but as "task force 141". Or, if you prefer, this.
There's then the notorious airport level.
I actually liked the airport level. It's nice to see standard FPS staples like blasting everything that moves subverted. It was well designed and fairly disturbing - in a good way.
Then things go extremely fucking wrong.
Russia invades the united states.
It's such a stupid move for any game to make, I can't even begin to start talking about what's wrong with it. If I had to pick just one reason, it's that MW 2 at this point starts following the plot of Patriots: A Nation Under Fire - a game I had to review when I was working for a games review site.
It boggles the mind how Infinity Ward can have produced one of the most mature and politically aware games ever - Modern Warfare 1, can produce something which is a cross between Team America World Police and Patriots.
There are other things wrong with it - the levels are far too linear, the characters are 2-d, it's too difficult, the cinematic sections are fucking stupid and the new gimicks they bring in - like the riot shield - are crow barred in at every available oppertunity.
Modern Warfare 2 is a terrible, terrible game. The multiplayer may make up for it but it's the sort of multiplayer I really hate anyway. I played some of the multiplayer in MW 1 and was far from impressed.
Dirt 2
I'm not really sure why I bought this. Codemasters make very good racing games, admittedly, but I never finished Dirt 1 or Grid because they suffered from what practically every racing game suffers from. Viz: when you reach the half way point, the developers have run out of ideas for tracks so you have to visit the same ones again but you have to do six laps round them instead of two. This gets annoying very quickly.
Dirt 2 is very good, though. It's incredibly good looking (possibly the best looking game I've ever seen) and its gameplay has that magical quality to it that all briliant racing games have. For the first month or so.
It does have a very appealing front end to it and it is very, very polished. I don't feel bad about the £30 I spent on it but I am dreading the day I suddenly find I'm not interested in it any more.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Further Dragon Age thinkings
So I've been playing more Dragon Age along with Borderlands and Left 4 Dead 2, which I may blog a bit about later. Not tonight though.
I think I've played enough to come to a conclusion, now.
I don't like it.
Here's the thing:
Almost everything about it is really, really good. Particularly the characters, sub plots and so on. Even the main quest isn't massively horrible, despite my initial misgivings. It's certainly far superior to the one in Oblivion, for instance.
No, my one problem that has persisted with Dragon Age is simply that it takes so fucking long to get anything done. This is mainly down to the dungeon crawling. I really think that if this game didn't have any dungeon crawling at all (and by dungeon crawling, I mean encounters with enemies that aren't strictly relevant to any of the plots) then it would be about half the length it currently is.
This is a major problem because, unlike every other non-bioware RPG I've played, there are no ways to avoid the dungeon crawling. In games like Deus Ex or Bloodlines you could skip most of the incredibly tedious sections with judicious use of certain skills. Not here, though.
This means that half the game is really enjoyable, the other half is exactly like playing an MMO. And I don't like MMOs. I don't like them at-fucking-all.
There is an annoying side line to this problem - the character interaction is quite stop/starty.
I was getting fairly heavilly invested in Morrigan with my mage character. It had gotten to the point where my character and hers were... well. In love isn't quite the right phrase but whatever. They were bumping pelvises.*
Anyway, we were at that stage and... we got stuck. I couldn't proceed. There were no more dialogue options. The only thing I could do was break up with her. After some casting around, I found I had to do a few more massive, main plot grind quests before I could move on with her.
GAH.
Everything in this damn game seems to be tied into the grind quests. There doesn't seem to be a way to enjoy it without the damn things constantly popping up to annoy you.
Having said that, I may just have another play through to try and have a more interesting chat with some of the other characters. I feel I've got all the playtime I can stomach out of my current one.
The problem with that is I really don't fancy investing the 20 or so hours it will take to get the characters into a state where I can have some meaningful conversations with them. I'm torn. On the one hand I want to know what they have to say, on the other hand, I really, really, really don't want to go through those *fucking* opening levels again. Or any of the other grind quests for that matter.
Maybe I should just wiki their stories.
Possibly.
This is why I think people who complain about Portal being too short are idiots. A game being too short is rarely a bad thing. A game being too long can kill it stone dead. In my opinion, that's what's happened here.
*
Entertaining side note:
In the Morrigan/Player sex scene, Morrigan actually wears more underwear than she does for the rest of the game. A bra appears from somewhere. Anyone else think that Bioware have been burnt by the Mass Effect sex "scandal" and are pathetically trying to compensate? Seriously, it was the most ridiculous sex scene I'd ever seen.
I think I've played enough to come to a conclusion, now.
I don't like it.
Here's the thing:
Almost everything about it is really, really good. Particularly the characters, sub plots and so on. Even the main quest isn't massively horrible, despite my initial misgivings. It's certainly far superior to the one in Oblivion, for instance.
No, my one problem that has persisted with Dragon Age is simply that it takes so fucking long to get anything done. This is mainly down to the dungeon crawling. I really think that if this game didn't have any dungeon crawling at all (and by dungeon crawling, I mean encounters with enemies that aren't strictly relevant to any of the plots) then it would be about half the length it currently is.
This is a major problem because, unlike every other non-bioware RPG I've played, there are no ways to avoid the dungeon crawling. In games like Deus Ex or Bloodlines you could skip most of the incredibly tedious sections with judicious use of certain skills. Not here, though.
This means that half the game is really enjoyable, the other half is exactly like playing an MMO. And I don't like MMOs. I don't like them at-fucking-all.
There is an annoying side line to this problem - the character interaction is quite stop/starty.
I was getting fairly heavilly invested in Morrigan with my mage character. It had gotten to the point where my character and hers were... well. In love isn't quite the right phrase but whatever. They were bumping pelvises.*
Anyway, we were at that stage and... we got stuck. I couldn't proceed. There were no more dialogue options. The only thing I could do was break up with her. After some casting around, I found I had to do a few more massive, main plot grind quests before I could move on with her.
GAH.
Everything in this damn game seems to be tied into the grind quests. There doesn't seem to be a way to enjoy it without the damn things constantly popping up to annoy you.
Having said that, I may just have another play through to try and have a more interesting chat with some of the other characters. I feel I've got all the playtime I can stomach out of my current one.
The problem with that is I really don't fancy investing the 20 or so hours it will take to get the characters into a state where I can have some meaningful conversations with them. I'm torn. On the one hand I want to know what they have to say, on the other hand, I really, really, really don't want to go through those *fucking* opening levels again. Or any of the other grind quests for that matter.
Maybe I should just wiki their stories.
Possibly.
This is why I think people who complain about Portal being too short are idiots. A game being too short is rarely a bad thing. A game being too long can kill it stone dead. In my opinion, that's what's happened here.
*
Entertaining side note:
In the Morrigan/Player sex scene, Morrigan actually wears more underwear than she does for the rest of the game. A bra appears from somewhere. Anyone else think that Bioware have been burnt by the Mass Effect sex "scandal" and are pathetically trying to compensate? Seriously, it was the most ridiculous sex scene I'd ever seen.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Dragon Age: Origins
Dragon Age.
Origins.
I have swayed between loving this game and hating it so many times over the past week that I honestly don't know what to think any more.
Let's go through it.
Marvelous!
Gritty Origin Stories
I've played through three of the six origin stories and they all have a real depth to them. There's real human emotion and the definite feeling that the world of Dragon Age is brutal and unforgiving. The Dwarven Noble origin especially is a world where avarise and honour are ever present and constantly vying for a place in your characters mind.
Shoddy!
Contrived Origin Stories
Sadly, at the end of every origin story, you have to join the Grey Wardens (the jedis) so the main plot can start moving. This can can be fantastic (as in the Dwarven Noble origin) but when I played through as a mage, he just turned up and Deus Ex Machina'd me out of a ridiculously contrived crisis.
Marvelous!
The Combat
The combat is very well done - it's an updated version of KOTOR's system with many more options like swords and shields, seperate skill trees for duel weapons & two handed greatswords. It's also the first RPG I've played where it's the most fun to play as a mage.
Shoddy!
The Grind
So I've liberated a castle from undead creatures and have been sent off to go and get a sacred thing to cure some chap who needs curing. I then found this cure was in a Cathedral. I cleared out the Cathedral, fully expecting the cure to be somewhere therin. It wasn't. It wasn't in the catacombs under the cathedral either. It was in the natural tunnels at the end of the catacombs. Each of these bloody areas was absolutely fucking massive. There is a line between making levels a decent length and game-expanding padding. Dragon Age can't even see this fucking line it's so far past it.
Marvelous!
The Characters
Are all briliantly scripted and acted. You're also given genuine moral dilemas which your NPC mates will help you with.
Shoddy!
The main story
I blogged earlier about how fantasy is usually shite because the villains lack complex motivation. That's especially true in Dragon Age. There's some sort of horde of evil thingies that is coming to kill everyone. Despite the fact that they are wiping entire towns off the map, you have to go around convincing everyone to help you fight them. This is bullshit. These guys know it's unite or perish, so why is it so fucking hard to convince them? Thankfully the sub plots and complex characters you come across during each exercise in painfully slow diplomacy are interesting enough to make you forget the fucking stupid reason why you're there but it keeps popping back up and biting you on the nose like a rake in the grass with a snake attatched to it.
Overall!
I've restarted Dragon Age three times without really getting that far into it. This is because I kept finding that there were much better ways of doing what I was currently doing. The problem was, every time I did this, I had to go through the same bullshit grind quests again. Thinking about having to go through that bloody cathedral level again actually makes me slightly deppressed.
The problem is, Dragon Age is half briliant. And half shit. If it wasn't as grindy, if it wasn't so fucking massive it would be a classic, there's not doubt about that. That said, I will stick with it because when it's good, it's marvelous. Time will tell what side of the fence I fall on.
Origins.
I have swayed between loving this game and hating it so many times over the past week that I honestly don't know what to think any more.
Let's go through it.
Marvelous!
Gritty Origin Stories
I've played through three of the six origin stories and they all have a real depth to them. There's real human emotion and the definite feeling that the world of Dragon Age is brutal and unforgiving. The Dwarven Noble origin especially is a world where avarise and honour are ever present and constantly vying for a place in your characters mind.
Shoddy!
Contrived Origin Stories
Sadly, at the end of every origin story, you have to join the Grey Wardens (the jedis) so the main plot can start moving. This can can be fantastic (as in the Dwarven Noble origin) but when I played through as a mage, he just turned up and Deus Ex Machina'd me out of a ridiculously contrived crisis.
Marvelous!
The Combat
The combat is very well done - it's an updated version of KOTOR's system with many more options like swords and shields, seperate skill trees for duel weapons & two handed greatswords. It's also the first RPG I've played where it's the most fun to play as a mage.
Shoddy!
The Grind
So I've liberated a castle from undead creatures and have been sent off to go and get a sacred thing to cure some chap who needs curing. I then found this cure was in a Cathedral. I cleared out the Cathedral, fully expecting the cure to be somewhere therin. It wasn't. It wasn't in the catacombs under the cathedral either. It was in the natural tunnels at the end of the catacombs. Each of these bloody areas was absolutely fucking massive. There is a line between making levels a decent length and game-expanding padding. Dragon Age can't even see this fucking line it's so far past it.
Marvelous!
The Characters
Are all briliantly scripted and acted. You're also given genuine moral dilemas which your NPC mates will help you with.
Shoddy!
The main story
I blogged earlier about how fantasy is usually shite because the villains lack complex motivation. That's especially true in Dragon Age. There's some sort of horde of evil thingies that is coming to kill everyone. Despite the fact that they are wiping entire towns off the map, you have to go around convincing everyone to help you fight them. This is bullshit. These guys know it's unite or perish, so why is it so fucking hard to convince them? Thankfully the sub plots and complex characters you come across during each exercise in painfully slow diplomacy are interesting enough to make you forget the fucking stupid reason why you're there but it keeps popping back up and biting you on the nose like a rake in the grass with a snake attatched to it.
Overall!
I've restarted Dragon Age three times without really getting that far into it. This is because I kept finding that there were much better ways of doing what I was currently doing. The problem was, every time I did this, I had to go through the same bullshit grind quests again. Thinking about having to go through that bloody cathedral level again actually makes me slightly deppressed.
The problem is, Dragon Age is half briliant. And half shit. If it wasn't as grindy, if it wasn't so fucking massive it would be a classic, there's not doubt about that. That said, I will stick with it because when it's good, it's marvelous. Time will tell what side of the fence I fall on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)