Breaking the rule and possible new posts.

Hey, I originally this blog was supposed to be about older things, but I've decided to convert it to a review site of the vanilla variety. I will still review all sorts of media from and older stuff, but I won't limit myself to reviewing older things. In other news, I may actually start updating again!

Should I play Halo Wars?

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 2009

I know I've broken my cardinal rule by reviewing something that is only a year old, but I didn't have time for anything older this week, so nya.

Developed by Ensemble Studios, Halo Wars is the odd-man-out of the Halo family as it is the only RTS (real-time strategy) in the series. It is the story of the Spirit of Fire and its crew as they covenant flood explosions... sorry, it's a Halo game. While the universe is incredibly in depth, it has the same story as EVERY Halo game. The saving grace of the Halo franchise is the game mechanics and style of play, which are absent in this game.

The game flew in a bit under the radar, but there is a bit of buzz still surrounding it simply because it is a Halo game. It also holds the distinguished honor of being a console RTS, something that sets it apart from a lot of other games. Now, especially in light of Halo: Reach, people are going back to previous games in the series, and Halo Wars comes up a bit.

This is a real time strategy game, so be prepared to sit up above the action instead of being in it. The game has its moments, but it is a RTS on a console: a game type that is notorious for only being good on PCs. Due to the lack of a mouse, unit selection is a huge pain in the ass, and the lack of a submenu makes unit control even more difficult. The number of times I have screamed at the screen because all of my units started running away because there is no "hold position" command makes my head spin: it also makes the game into a war of attrition instead of strategy. Pump out units, throw them at enemy. Every time. The only reason this game is worth playing is if you have friends playing. So if you have friends who want to play with you and don't mind an RTS on a console, then put in Halo Wars. But if you like RTS because of the strategy and control it gives to your armies, than stick to the PC.

Now I have had fun with this game, don't get me wrong, and it is fun to play with friends, but the fact of the matter is that there are games that play better on consoles and there are games that play better on PCs, and while this is mostly decided on a game by game basis, there is one type of game that is always better on PC: real-time strategy. The game does have its moments, and the game where the enemy sent 3 scarabs after me in one round will live in my group of friends for a long time, and Halo Wars did a good job addressing the major issue consoles suffer when doing RTS, but putting chocolate on a piece of white cake does not devil's food cake make. If you want to play a good RTS with friends, then get a good PC game-no amount of tweaking with mechanics will make a console RTS as good.

Should I play Dragon Warrior?

The long and short of it: No
When was it made: 1986

Developed by Chunsoft and published by Enix, Dragon Warrior is the first of the Dragon Quest games which, while not as popular in America, are still very popular in Japan. This one features a descendant of the hero Erdrick as he ventures forth from Castle Tantegel to rescue Princess Gwaelin and defeat the mighty Dragon Lord. It's story is traditional fare and it features a fun element of exploration, but it's age shows during gameplay. This doesn't suffer from the same problems as Final Fantasy-on the contrary individual encounters are very short-but it's own flaws, namely the hours of grinding and bad interface make this not worth playing to the modern player.

This game is not only famous for starting the Dragon Warrior series, but for being the father of console RPG. It was not the first created, but it was the first to combine many of the features that would become staples of the RPG genre for the next 10 to 20 years. It is also one of the oldest RPGs for the NES system. It's also been remade several times, so some people may want to experience the original.

This game is so by the book that you almost have to flip pages to play it. You rescue a princess from a dragon, you're the descendant of a great hero, you're the only hope, etc. And it does it well, too. The exploration is actually difficult, but there was no point where I needed to look up any hints. However, the interface is very poor, and you have to use a menu to speak, use stairs, open doors, and search, instead of making these functions automatic. Also, leveling goes so slowly that there wasn't a part I didn't have to grind: no dungeon adequately leveled me for the next dungeon (or even the next level in the same dungeon sometimes). So if you want the nerd points of having beat the original, go for it. But other than nostalgia, there is really no reason to play this game.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the game. It was fun to actually have to think and explore the map, but towards the end I was playing it just so I could say I beat it. I knew where the story was going: I was going to save the maid and ride off into the sunset. Duh. I don't think I should have to level grind for 3-5 hours just to get a "congraturations" and a pat on the back. I heard that the re-release for the gameboy fixed this problem, so if you have to play this game play that version. But as for the original, it was tedious to control and tedious to finish. And combat was so repetitive that once you hit a certain level you could play the game with one of those bobbing desk toys. The boss was difficult because he was hard to damage and hit big, not because of any stunning attack combos or clever defenses-it was essentially just Nameless bashing a brick wall until it gave him the Orb of Light. It was cool to have a bad guy offer for you to join and actually let you join instead of a "but thou must" situation, but even then just ending the game instead of giving an evil ending was kind of a cop out. All in all it was good for its time, but that time has gone and let new games with better gameplay and stories take its place.

Should I watch Tron?

The long and short of it: Yes
When was it made: 1982

A film from back when Disney made actual movies, Tron is a cult classic famous for being one of the first films to extensively use computer graphics (which ironically got them disqualified from winning an Academy Award in special effects due to "cheating"). The movie uses computer graphics to create the digital world and backlit photography on all the actors to create a very surreal effect. The movie is not perfect by any means, mostly due to the inane framing device and obsolete graphics. Don't get me wrong, for being polygons the graphics are still pretty smooth and are used better than some of the dribble that gets produced today, but it suffers from the 2001 effect: because it was cutting edge back then it carried its own weight, but nowadays it goes so slowly and is unimpressive. At the same time, though, you do get to see The Dude act the epic sci-fi hero.

This movie is one of the few mainstream "videogame" movies to win an academy award, with the main character being a coder from back in the days when video games were still "cool." Many of the mini-games and the adventures from the movie have been remade as games in there own right, with their collective success far exceeding that of the original people. Chances are that even if you've never seen Tron you have seen one of the movies light cycles being parodied. And now with a supposed sequel on the way, it would be worth seeing the original to be in the loop, if not just to understand a lot of the references made in popular culture.

The movie itself is comprised of two parts: the real-world framing device and the main plot which takes place in the video-game world. The real world framing device is the weakest point of the movie, mimicking programming somewhat but with no accuracy of how computers actually work. Plus the process of taking something physical and turning it's matter completely digital is a technology so pointless that it baffles the mind even as a plot device. These trappings of programming carry their way into the digital universe in kind of a fun way, but even so, I got through the movie by squinting my eyes and pretending this was happening in space. But the story is fun and has some interesting elements which makes the complete and total inaccuracies durable. It follows a very "chosen one saves the day" formula, but tackles it in a unique perspective. It is definitely not too heady, just mindless fun. If you are looking for an in-depth look into the human soul or a cutting edge digital masterpiece, than this movie is not for you. But if you want a little fun with some interesting visuals, than this is for you.

I personally enjoyed the digital part of the movie, which fortunately takes up the majority of the action, but at the same time the concerns with the real-life portion really did drag me down. The ending is so nonsensical it hurts: a printed piece of paper saying "yeah, the bad guy did it" would not be enough evidence to solve anything. If that's all he needed, why didn't Flynn print it out at home? But the digital world carries it out for me. Being produced by a major studio allowed them to get some great actors, and David Warner was fantastic in all three of his roles. I loved how Sark was a real character, showing fear at having to take on a "user" and acting as a competent henchman defeated by an actually superior foe, as opposed to most movies where the hero is an idiot and wins by sheer measure of the villains even lower intellect. All in all if the digital portion of the movie had been a stand alone project (in the same setting or even a space setting) it would probably be one of my favorite movies. As it stands, it is still a pretty good flick worth watching.

Should I play the original Legend of Zelda?

The long and short of it: Probably
When was it made: 1986

Created by Shigeru Miyamoto as an homage to his childhood years exploring the woods and caves around Kyoto, The Legend of Zelda has expanded into an empire rivaling even the Mario games. Although the future games in the series would change the model of play drastically, this first game is notorious for being incredibly open ended and difficult. Fruitless hours may be spent scouring the map, but once you've finally found your way into Ganon's lair and made him esplode (into a mildly disturbing yet hilarious cloud of gore) you will feel a real sense of accomplishment that you just don't get with a lot of the video games today where they lead you by the hand: the game is difficult, but not arbitrary.

Being 23 years old the game may seem like it's irrelevant, however Zelda is one of those titles that every older "hardcore" gamer has beat. People talk about the hours they spent scouring the maps for secret stores and treasure (in fact this game is the reason Nintendo Power exists: before the internet you had only your friends and developer produced hints to guide you). Also, those who have played later entries in the series may want to try their hand at the golden-cartridged god.

This game is your standard 2-D Zelda game, with the sword on B and the Triforce spread across 8 dungeons, but don't let that fool you into thinking this is exactly like those games. First and foremost the story is a bit sparse, with none of the villages common to every other game in the series. Shops are distributed at random throughout the map, but the best ones are under Armos statues or bushes. Also, don't just go gallivanting into every dungeon you find: there is no frame here and so you may end up in the ball smasher dungeon with only 3 hearts and a lot of ambition. Most of the best equipment in the game isn't given to you right of the bat or in the course of normal play, so be prepared to explore every dungeon and all the world map. I don't even remember anyone in the game mentioning using the silver arrows to kill Ganon: I just knew what to do from prior experience. So if you want to run around Hyrule in a slightly lower resolution than you're used to (and with the inability to lift pots and shrubs) and don't mind a steep learning curve and lots of world exploration, grab a strategy guide and go (and trust me, you'll need that strategy guide). However, if you can't stand older games, demand in depth story, or hate exploration, than stick to the more standard modern fare.

I personally really enjoyed the game because the lack of story was replaced by a completely open world where the only thing inhibiting my progress was my lack of knowledge of the world around me, but I can see many reasons that modern gamers would actually hate the game. Many necessary hints are hidden or badly translated (or not given at all) and that makes the game very difficult. As a point of reference, I have played this game twice. The first time I used no strategy guide and only defeated 5 of the dungeons with 23 deaths, no magic sword, and no idea where the last 2 dungeons were (the 6th dungeon I knew where it was but was unable to beat it because I lacked several items). The second time I used a strategy guide and beat the game with every item and only 3 deaths. Now granted, with more time I could have beat it the first playthrough (I found the 8th dungeon on my own in the second playthrough) but I am just illustrating the biggest difference between this game (and most older games) and the modern games many of us are more used to. Keeping this in mind, though, the game is not so hard that you'll never beat it and it was fun to have a challenge in a Zelda game again, something that this series tends to hit and miss on. Also, like-likes are total dicks.

Sorry!

I'm a horrible person, I know. But I decided at the last minute to switch from Tron to the original Legend of Zelda for my review, and I didn't finish Zelda in time for a review today. So next Saturday I will have a Tron review, and sometime before that a Legend of Zelda review (and so you know, I didn't actually play the original Zelda as a kid, I started with Link to the Past.

Should I watch Silent Hill?

The long and short of it: Probably not
When was it made: 2006

Christophe Gans has the potential to be either a fantastic adapter of darker video games to film or the Uwe Boll of horror(and I really hope it turns out to be the first), but his first foray into the video game world, Silent Hill, catches the scenery but not the point. When I watch horror I want one of two things: to be genuinely scared or to receive a new insight into the human condition. Silent Hill delivers the first one for the first bit of the movie and acts like it covers the second during the end of the movie, but neither one really pans out.

Silent Hill is based on a game franchise that is still in existence, so chances are if you play video games you've heard at least the name, and as a gamer I know I try to catch video game movies so I can see how badly they flubbed up the interpretation. With a second movie in the pipeline, some people may be interested in catching up on the first movie or seeing why they're going ahead with a second: although the movie panned out critically it still did make a profit.

Now let me remind you that this is a horror film and while not a gorno it does involve it's fair share of violence and viscera (if you couldn't tell from the picture above). Also, even though I do complain that the movie wasn't very scary throughout, it does have its tense scenes and some rather disturbing visuals, so if you don't like scary movies than back away. They do (kind of?) deal with some religious issues, but I don't think it's a problem: they don't really deal with any real world religions and there are no qualms that it is the people involved and not religion itself that is shown as evil. So if you want a moderate scare and some very good scenery and shot set ups, than feel free to watch Silent Hill. But if you are looking for something absolutely terrifying or a movie up to your eyes with blood and tits, then move along, stranger.

Alright, you can probably guess I wasn't a big fan of the movie, but mostly because it felt like they walked to the precipice of making a great film, looked over the edge, had a picnic, and then went back to mediocre town for ice cream and post production. I'd like to discuss this movie in terms of my criteria for scary media: terror and insight. First, terror. For the first hour, the movie is genuinely terrifying. It uses a great sense of suspense and isolation to create an atmosphere both isolation and claustrophobia: no matter how big the town actually is, there was always a sense that you were alone in a cage. I love that every time the air-raid sirens sounded, I immediately felt scared. I knew that was the time of monsters, when no one was safe and anything could happen. And then they stopped. An hour in, they took what had been the most terrifying feature of the movie, the sense that at any time the world could be devoured by hell, and just stopped using it. Sure, they travel down into "hell" on the elevator, but even that world isn't as scary because you knew it was coming. You knew she was getting on in the real world and exiting in hell, but it was her choice. This is also the point when Rose meets other people and the movie becomes much more about her interactions with them then about her trying to figure out what's going on all by herself, proving that when isolation is a big theme, you don't put in a bunch of extra characters. Now secondly, we have the psychological aspect: what can I take away from this movie? Not a thing. Because this is a movie about monsters (who is the real monster, yadda yadda) the forms these monsters take is of vital importance, and they start out with the best monsters: the crying children monsters represent Rose's both her fear for her daughter and her projected feeling of isolation she knows Sharon must be feeling. And it goes downhill from there. Pyramid Head is here, probably the second best monster because he represents the most potent manifestation of the town's vengeance, but even then they don't use him well: in the final scene (where all the vengeance takes place, mind you) he doesn't even make an appearance. After that we have nurse monsters because, you know... nurses represent lost children and vengeance? All I'm saying is that instead of aping the video games, if they'd actually put a few seconds thought into it they could have created some very good and poignant monsters. Finally, I'd like to address the biggest disappointment, the final scene. I've already mentioned my dismay at the absence of Mr. Vengeance himself, but it goes so much further than that. I'll try to be spoiler free, but suffice it to say that there is a (ostensibly Christian) cult in the town that has pissed off the malevolent spirit (the nature of which is the big "surprise" that I'd figured out 2o minutes in) and at the end of the movie, the malevolent spirit arrives and enacts its Pyramid-Head-free vengeance. Two things: first of all, never base your movie climax on tentacle-rape hentai. Even before I knew it actually was I still felt kind of awkward during that scene. Secondly, you've already made it obvious this is a religious group, why'd you sissy out on the symbolism? When the spirit arrived Gans had an amazing opportunity to have it show up, arms out stretched, cross of living barbwire making it into a twisted version of Christ and the true being that these fallen souls worship. Instead the spirit sits with arms folded, seemingly contemptuous of the many ways this fell short of greatness.

Note: Excuse my rambling rant here, this is just a practice to get me back into the swing of things. Expect a new review on Saturday, hopefully more compressed and with less vitriole!