To all those waiting to see what it's like out there, I decided to give my first impressions on the Assassin's Creed Brotherhood multiplayer beta which just released today exclusively for the PS3.
First, some minor SPOILERS. At the beginning of Assassin's Creed 2 we saw row upon row of animus chambers at Abstergo, but had no idea why they were there. Well, as you might have guessed, it appears the Templars got the same idea as the assassins with Desmond and are training their followers to be fighters using the Animus' bleeding effect. And this multiplayer, it seems, is that training. END SPOILERS.
Entering a public match is basically the only option they give you at this point (though both ranked and private matches are there, just inaccessible), so jumping on in you are able to select one of several different types of killers. Unfortunately, at this point it doesn't appear to make much of any difference which one you choose, and if you don't choose quickly then you're either forced into one as the other players (up to 8 I believe) takes the rest, or the timer counts down and auto-chooses for you. All those commercials implying that each class had their own special ability at least so far is a lie. Instead, as you make kills you gain points which help you progress in levels, and about every two levels you unlock something, whether it be a special ability, a perk, a kill/loss streak bonus, or even just the ability to have more than one profile.
The only match style available is called Wanted, where you are given a player to assassinate while another player is hunting after you. You are given your target's type of killer, as well as a blue slice of a radar pie which gets bigger as you approach your target. Once you're in view of the target, a little notice tells you that if you run or do something in high profile for long enough, the target will notice you and be told to escape. There are various doors and obstacles throughout the map to help whoever is fleeing, and if you break line of sight you can hide somewhere until the counter ticks down and your pursuer fails to find you. Also, even if you do catch them, it's worth less points than killing them while incognito. You get points for killing people in certain ways (from a ledge, from a hiding spot, etc.) . So while you're locating your target, the objective is to remain indistinct from the crowd so that whoever is pursuing you has as hard a time as possible picking you out. You get points for escaping from a chase, or even something like tricking your pursuer into killing a civilian instead of you. Still, judging from the scoreboards at the end of matches, your hunter will find you. Often. The real trick is to go for those big point kills so you can stay ahead. At least, that's my strategy, I'm sure other people will have other ways to do it.
To help you along the way, you're given some special abilities. The early ones include being able to temporarily shapeshift into another type so your pursuer can't recognize you, or being able to sprint at an increased speed for a short time. Use wisely though, they have a long (shapeshifting is 1 min, haven't tried speed yet) recharge time which makes a big difference in a 10 minute match. Eventually you also earn bonuses for a kill streak (extra 100 points per target after 3), and a loss streak (radar is extra sensitive after you die 3 times in a row). So far I can see the rewards up to level 20, and even though there are levels after that it appears they won't be available in the beta (but who knows, I'm still just level 6).
But what you really came to know is...is it fun? Is it worth it? And the answer is...yes.
This mode is almost excessively simple in its premise and play quality, but there's something really fun about tracking your target through a crowd while also trying to stand out as little as possible. Then when you get close there's the more high risk options for extra rewards, like waiting 3 seconds with the kill button above their heads before committing the act. It gets your blood pumping every time you do something out of the ordinary and have to decide to either run for it or hope that isn't your hunter walking straight towards you. More often than not you'll be caught completely unawares by your hunter, but thankfully you respawn so quickly that it's more funny than irritating that they got you.
The point is, it's addictively simple. It's easy to jump right into, easy to have fun with, and easy enough to leave behind if you get tired of it. Of course, being so simple it does lack that extra oomph that would make it really spectacular (aka different and balanced character abilities instead of just different skins), but if you're looking for a fun, new take on multiplayer then you can't go wrong.
If there's more that I find out, or they make improvements before launch, I'll make sure to update things. However, so far...
Assassin's Creed Brotherhood multiplayer beta gets a 7.5/10.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Agora
I came into this film knowing very little about it. All I knew was that it had Rachel Weisz as an astronomer in Alexandria dealing with the politics of the day. It looked like a solid drama so I went and saw it. I should've known it was a bad sign when before the movie even begins they put up the Cannes logo...along with "screened out of competition." So instead of a tight drama what I got was Rachel Weisz whining "I wish I could figure out how the planets move around the sun!" for two hours while Christians get angry first with the pagans and then with the Jews and kill lots and lots of people.
Anyways, to the movie. Weisz is indeed an astronomer in Alexandria in the 4th century, working as a philosopher/teacher to a bunch of young men. One of her students, Orestes, is madly in love with her despite her indifference to love. The rest of her students completely adore her, and one of her slaves is madly in love with her too. She teaches them about how it's possible that the Earth isn't the center of the universe and the sun is in fact the center, but the theories don't really work because the planets move in circles and that makes the math go wonky.
With their "main" characters introduced the direction quickly shifts towards what is obviously what the director is more interested in: the Christians. The pagans who run Alexandria are facing humiliation at the hands of Christians who perform "miracles" like walking through fire. To teach them a lesson, the pagans decide to kill a bunch of them (including women and children). The Christians get angry, fight back, and the pagans suddenly realize that there are Christians everywhere. They shut themselves up in the library and the Romans come in and halt everything. Post is sent to Constantine (the first Christian emperor) who returns word that the Christians are to be let in to the library. They sack it. Hypatia and Orestes run for it while her slave stays behind because he's been converted during this whole mess.
Fast forward several years. Orestes is now a roman prefect, another of her students is a Christian bishop, and her slave is part of the warrior class of Christians. She still wants to figure out how the planets work. The Jews kill some Christians. The Christians kill a lot more Jews. A radical bishop says the bible says that women shouldn't be teachers. In this critical moment Hypatia discovers by looking at a cone made up of curves that has been in front of her for years that the earth travels in an ellipse around the sun. Orestes goes through EMOTIONAL TURMOIL before betraying Hypatia and giving her to the Christians. Her former slave still loves her and manages through some heavy EMOTIONAL TURMOIL to kill her by suffocating her before she's stoned so it doesn't hurt.
And then to top it all off, that whole "this is a true story thing" is hilariously spoiled at the end when the "this is what happened to the characters after the movie ends" titles reveal that none of Hypatia's works survived and all that's known about her is she worked with curves or somesuch, meaning that pretty much the "true story" you just witnessed was MADE UP. Yes, the library was sacked by Christians, and Hypatia did exist, but that whole character arc she had about discovering the true motion of the planets hundreds of years before anyone else is actually completely worthless because it didn't happen.
It was all just so BORING. The characters were completely one-dimensional despite the best efforts of the actors involved, the tirade against how Christians are bad and don't follow what the Bible says, and the attempt to relate it to modern day, is extremely blatant, the forced EMOTIONAL TURMOIL from damn near everyone is a classic example of shoving something in your face and saying "SEE ISN'T THIS SAD?" instead of making it actually sad, and the story itself is just so damn inconsequential that there's never any reason to care about what's going on besides the casual interest one might get from watching a random documentary on the History Channel.
The film just felt like the director constantly waddled between focusing on what he felt was the boring but necessary story of Hypatia and the story he really wanted to tell about the big battles between Christians and everyone else. And even then it was just a bunch of angry people running around stabbing each other and random gore, without any sense of drama like most any other movie with battles.
In short, there's just very little reason to care about anything in this movie. It tries so hard to be meaningful and dramatic (oh, I forgot to mention all the ISN'T THIS MEANINGFUL shots of the earth among the stars) that it ends up just being boring. So unless you want a brief, only slightly accurate portrayal of what was going on in 4th century Egypt, there's little need to see this movie.
Agora gets a 4.5/10.
Anyways, to the movie. Weisz is indeed an astronomer in Alexandria in the 4th century, working as a philosopher/teacher to a bunch of young men. One of her students, Orestes, is madly in love with her despite her indifference to love. The rest of her students completely adore her, and one of her slaves is madly in love with her too. She teaches them about how it's possible that the Earth isn't the center of the universe and the sun is in fact the center, but the theories don't really work because the planets move in circles and that makes the math go wonky.
With their "main" characters introduced the direction quickly shifts towards what is obviously what the director is more interested in: the Christians. The pagans who run Alexandria are facing humiliation at the hands of Christians who perform "miracles" like walking through fire. To teach them a lesson, the pagans decide to kill a bunch of them (including women and children). The Christians get angry, fight back, and the pagans suddenly realize that there are Christians everywhere. They shut themselves up in the library and the Romans come in and halt everything. Post is sent to Constantine (the first Christian emperor) who returns word that the Christians are to be let in to the library. They sack it. Hypatia and Orestes run for it while her slave stays behind because he's been converted during this whole mess.
Fast forward several years. Orestes is now a roman prefect, another of her students is a Christian bishop, and her slave is part of the warrior class of Christians. She still wants to figure out how the planets work. The Jews kill some Christians. The Christians kill a lot more Jews. A radical bishop says the bible says that women shouldn't be teachers. In this critical moment Hypatia discovers by looking at a cone made up of curves that has been in front of her for years that the earth travels in an ellipse around the sun. Orestes goes through EMOTIONAL TURMOIL before betraying Hypatia and giving her to the Christians. Her former slave still loves her and manages through some heavy EMOTIONAL TURMOIL to kill her by suffocating her before she's stoned so it doesn't hurt.
And then to top it all off, that whole "this is a true story thing" is hilariously spoiled at the end when the "this is what happened to the characters after the movie ends" titles reveal that none of Hypatia's works survived and all that's known about her is she worked with curves or somesuch, meaning that pretty much the "true story" you just witnessed was MADE UP. Yes, the library was sacked by Christians, and Hypatia did exist, but that whole character arc she had about discovering the true motion of the planets hundreds of years before anyone else is actually completely worthless because it didn't happen.
It was all just so BORING. The characters were completely one-dimensional despite the best efforts of the actors involved, the tirade against how Christians are bad and don't follow what the Bible says, and the attempt to relate it to modern day, is extremely blatant, the forced EMOTIONAL TURMOIL from damn near everyone is a classic example of shoving something in your face and saying "SEE ISN'T THIS SAD?" instead of making it actually sad, and the story itself is just so damn inconsequential that there's never any reason to care about what's going on besides the casual interest one might get from watching a random documentary on the History Channel.
The film just felt like the director constantly waddled between focusing on what he felt was the boring but necessary story of Hypatia and the story he really wanted to tell about the big battles between Christians and everyone else. And even then it was just a bunch of angry people running around stabbing each other and random gore, without any sense of drama like most any other movie with battles.
In short, there's just very little reason to care about anything in this movie. It tries so hard to be meaningful and dramatic (oh, I forgot to mention all the ISN'T THIS MEANINGFUL shots of the earth among the stars) that it ends up just being boring. So unless you want a brief, only slightly accurate portrayal of what was going on in 4th century Egypt, there's little need to see this movie.
Agora gets a 4.5/10.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
As someone who has never ingested copious amounts of illegal substances, and most likely never will, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas seems like the closest thing to it that I'm going to get. Trailing the early 70s life and career of Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing takes us on a wild whirldwind where reality and fantasy are constantly intermingled and you're never quite sure what's going to happen from one moment to the next.
To me, this movie was like the manic response to the depressed Requiem For A Dream. Whereas Requiem told an utterly depressing story about how awful drugs are, Fear and Loathing still says drugs are bad but a lot of crazy shit will happen in the meantime. While Requiem makes you cry, Fear and Loathing makes you laugh. The narrative quite effectively mirrors its drugged up narrator, who jumps around from place to place and time to time without ever really landing on solid ground. There are a few moments of lucidity which are obviously just there to give the realization of just how much craziness actually happened, and all you can do is laugh at the absurdity of it all until it sinks in that his life was actually like this.
Johnny Depp does a phenomenal job as Thompson, and it's quite interesting as you can clearly see some early physical hints towards Captain Jack Sparrow. Depp glides along gleefully, savoring every chance to get just a little bit crazier. However, the true star of this show is Benicio del Toro as Dr. Gonzo, Thompson's "lawyer" and sidekick. That man can look extremely menacing with a knife, and was a very convincing druggie who consistently rolled more towards the dangerous side of being high. A welcome surprise also came from all the various celebrity cameos in this movie. It feels like every single scene they brought in someone famous to do something funny and then leave.
The only real problem with this film is that in all the hubbub it pretty much fails to tell a story. It's a great experience, but when there's the emotional farewell between Thompson and Dr. Gonzo at the end it feels more out of place than anything. As far as I could tell the story was supposed to be that this reporter and his lawyer journeyed out to Las Vegas for a story, got high and into lots of crazy hijinks, and then parted ways until another assignment came up. It felt more like a snapshot of this guy's life, with no real beginning and no real conclusion, and as such the point of it all kind of gets lost. And then, Terry Gilliam's name rolls down the screen as director at the credits and it all makes sense.
However, it's worth seeing just for that experience. Even without a coherent story, Gilliam is in his element throwing every single crazy thing he can at you and bringing you along for the ride into another reality, another time. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the trip.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas gets an 8.5/10.
To me, this movie was like the manic response to the depressed Requiem For A Dream. Whereas Requiem told an utterly depressing story about how awful drugs are, Fear and Loathing still says drugs are bad but a lot of crazy shit will happen in the meantime. While Requiem makes you cry, Fear and Loathing makes you laugh. The narrative quite effectively mirrors its drugged up narrator, who jumps around from place to place and time to time without ever really landing on solid ground. There are a few moments of lucidity which are obviously just there to give the realization of just how much craziness actually happened, and all you can do is laugh at the absurdity of it all until it sinks in that his life was actually like this.
Johnny Depp does a phenomenal job as Thompson, and it's quite interesting as you can clearly see some early physical hints towards Captain Jack Sparrow. Depp glides along gleefully, savoring every chance to get just a little bit crazier. However, the true star of this show is Benicio del Toro as Dr. Gonzo, Thompson's "lawyer" and sidekick. That man can look extremely menacing with a knife, and was a very convincing druggie who consistently rolled more towards the dangerous side of being high. A welcome surprise also came from all the various celebrity cameos in this movie. It feels like every single scene they brought in someone famous to do something funny and then leave.
The only real problem with this film is that in all the hubbub it pretty much fails to tell a story. It's a great experience, but when there's the emotional farewell between Thompson and Dr. Gonzo at the end it feels more out of place than anything. As far as I could tell the story was supposed to be that this reporter and his lawyer journeyed out to Las Vegas for a story, got high and into lots of crazy hijinks, and then parted ways until another assignment came up. It felt more like a snapshot of this guy's life, with no real beginning and no real conclusion, and as such the point of it all kind of gets lost. And then, Terry Gilliam's name rolls down the screen as director at the credits and it all makes sense.
However, it's worth seeing just for that experience. Even without a coherent story, Gilliam is in his element throwing every single crazy thing he can at you and bringing you along for the ride into another reality, another time. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the trip.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas gets an 8.5/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
