Uncharted 3

Naughty Dog, the makers of the Uncharted series, were both fortunate and unfortunate in the making of Uncharted 2. They were fortunate in that they redefined the action-adventure game and created an amazing masterpiece that was basically what Indiana Jones 4 should have been. They were unfortunate in that they then had to follow that up with the end to a trilogy that had to top its predecessor, and let's face it, more often than not when a series has an incredible second entry the third tends to fall short. Unfortunately, Uncharted 3 falls right into that category, never escaping the shadow of 2.

This makes me sad, especially because in any other case, Uncharted 3 would easily be a 10/10. The graphics are amazing, the story is interesting if a little muddled or forgotten at times, combat is tight and responsive (especially the revamped hand-to-hand mechanics), and there are some set pieces here that stand out even above 2. But here's the thing. You can feel, throughout the entire design of this thing, that they needed more time. The set pieces that stand out the most are actually the most removed from the story. If they hadn't been in there, you wouldn't have noticed because they're literally just little side trips. The story itself often feels rushed, and is about yet another lost city that holds some secret power that if released to the world would mean devastation. And you have to run from hordes of spiders like 5 different times because...well...they never really tell you why there are massive amounts of spiders scattered all over the world in these caves. Not even a "well they must be protecting the secret of the city!" They're just there, I assume, in an attempt to spice things up a bit and add some urgency to certain levels.

And to counter-point that, you can really tell what they worked hard on and had time to fully flesh out. The boat level, if you've seen the previews, is the standout. It shows off what it takes to top Uncharted 2. The dynamic shifting of the waves and water, the tilting of the boat, the many many options they give you for how to approach each fight, all of it works together and makes something magical. The story also starts to shine when we start to finally get some background on Drake. Where he grew up, how he met Sully, and why things are so strained with the wonderful villain Marlowe. The reason the Uncharted series rises above so many others is not just because of its amazing set pieces and gameplay, it's also the heart put into the characters. Uncharted manages to capture humor in a way few others have, and the characters seem all the more real and fleshed out. So when Uncharted 3 teases with those glimpses of character it makes it all the more disappointing when most of the game focuses on simply getting these characters through the action. Yes, it has some wonderful moments, and I for one am happy about where they ended with it, I just wish they had gone deeper into the story as it seemed they really wanted to.

Multiplayer is back. Now, I never played 2's multiplayer but heard it was fairly innovative and something different to the traditional genre, and 3 seems pretty much the same. It truly innovates with things like a 2 sequence map where one team is on trucks trying to board a plane while it's taking off, and then once it does things shift into a more traditional area with buildings. However, it's not different enough to really make it anything special. Sure it's a fun-ish way to pass the time, but if you're a multiplayer gamer (I am not) there are definitely better offerings out there for you. Sure it's nice to be able to climb all over the place and shoot while hanging and things like that, but most of the time it still just boils down to find cover, shoot enemy, find new cover.

I hate harping on the game like this, because as I said, it's an amazing game and if you own a PS3 you owe it to yourself to play it (especially if you didn't play 2). But under the shadow of 2, Uncharted 3 just seems like a rehash that excels in some places and falls short in most others. And I really can't help but get the feeling that this is an 80% finished game. Yes, it plays like 100%, but something tells me that if they had another year to work out the storyline and add the same level of quality they put into the boat and burning manor set pieces, this could have been what we all wanted it to be. But for now...

Uncharted 3 gets a 9/10.

A Midsummer Night's Dream

The initial rumblings I heard about Seattle Shakes' new production of Midsummer had me very confused. Often, one piece of news would make me think it was going to be amazing, and the next would make me question that. First, it was going to be at the Intiman. Awesome. Next, Lysander was being changed to a girl (Lysandra) to further highlight the forbidden nature of his/her love to Hermia. Bad. They'll be taking a darker spin on the play. Awesome! That darker spin apparently includes rather questionable junky looking costumes. Bad. They cast some of my favorite Seattle actors in all the lead roles, including their best physical comedian Chris Ensweiler as Puck. Rock on. The entire cast of lovers are unknowns. Questionable...but could surprise.

So the moment finally came, and I got to see the show closing night. Which side won out? As expected, it was a mix, though not for the reasons I was expecting.

First up, the lovers. For once this production actually did something interesting with Theseus and Hippolyta, choosing to actually show how much she dislikes him instead of glossing it over as most others do. Unfortunately, despite her amazing name, Qadriyyah Shabazz didn't quite seem up to the task of presenting the nuance needed to really sink it home. It really needed to be understood that in order to gain her approval Theseus would have to approve of Hermia and Lysandra, and it just didn't read. Mike Dooly as Theseus, a Seattle Shakes constant (he played Horatio last year), did well with what he had, though he too lacked the subtlety to really make clear whether Theseus actually approved the relationship or just said he did in front of her father Egeus.

However, let it be said that they are a small part of the play, and I pay particular attention to them having once played Theseus.

As for the main 4 lovers (Lysandra, Hermia, Demetrius and Helena), the show was stolen by the exquisitely mournful and pathetic Helena as portrayed by Terri Weagant. With just her walking on stage to the sight of Lysandra and Hermia, she took control of the audience and demanded laughter and pity, and retained that control whenever she was on. Demetrius I started out not liking, but got to like more and more as the actor seemed to loosen up throughout the show. The switch of Lysander to Lysandra actually didn't make much of a difference to me, though honestly that's the problem I had with it. First, it didn't add to the show except to make one line about "men's oaths" a bit funnier, and it didn't really detract from the show either except to make Puck's mistake about applying the flower juice to her eyes really confusing since he took her for a man...but she wasn't made up like a man or referred to in any way as man-like throughout the show. So the crux of the issue for me is this: if it's not going to aid or hurt the show in any significant way, what's the point? Sure I guess there's some gender morality issue you're trying to flirt with here, but it's not doing it in any significant or impactful way. It also didn't help that the women playing Lysandra and Hermia just weren't that great. Not bad, just not great.

The mechanicals/fools were another story entirely. I am in love with Todd Jefferson Moore. He consistently does an amazing job in whatever show he's in, whether it be the slapstick stylings of Dogberry in Much Ado or the sinister slyness of Richard III, and as Bottom things are no different. I shall even go as far as to say he is the greatest Bottom I have ever seen, and his supporting cast no less. The play within a play, Pyramus and Thisbe, is I think widely considered the funniest part of Midsummer. Well this, my friends, this was by far the funniest one of them all. Every comedic moment was hit, the timing was perfect, the embellishments made were hilarious all around, hell even the side comments from the lovers which can turn real nasty real quick were tempered in their comedy. One specific moment I'm thinking of came with a throwaway quip from Demetrius which after he realizes the actors have heard he quickly turns behind him to the audience and goes "SHHH!" The only gripe I had with the fools was their entrance music, which was such a departure from everything else that it screamed at the audience "GET READY, HERE COMES THE FUNNY ONES".

But now I come to the part I dread reviewing the most. The part I was most excited for. The fairies. They had almost everything going for them to make me like them. Three top Seattle actors in the main roles: Reginald Andre Jackson as Oberon, Amy Thone as Titania, and Chris Ensweiler as Puck. A darker spin that's traditionally skimmed over or ignored altogether. In short, despite the photos I saw of the rather questionable costume choices, I was still highly excited to see what they did here...which is probably why it was all the more disappointing to get what they gave me. Instead of a forest we were given a swamp, where the creatures within are all those things that make weird noises. Basically, this "darker spin" only amounted to a literally darker set, and instead of the fairies being joyful and obnoxious, were stereotypically weird and creepy...and obnoxious. Puck especially was the disappointment of the show. He kept making this weird whiny noise that made him sound more like a demon than a goblin, and every exit he made he assumed a kind of almost Vaudevillian "I'm about to run off!" pose before he, well, ran off. And somehow, despite casting their best physical comedian in the role, there was almost no physicality to Puck besides crouching and swaying. He finally got to shine when he took control of the lovers and tossed them around the stage into their final places, because for once he was getting to have fun, and we finally got to see what Chris Ensweiler does best when given control of the stage. But otherwise the performance was an overacted mess. The entire fairy cast (save one, I'll get to her in a second) and fairy theme seemed to suffer from the same flaw. There's a saying that goes "Don't act. Be." Well they all acted, instead of being. They tried pushing "I'm a scary weird creature!" instead of actually being scary weird creatures. I got the feeling a lot of this was directorial intervention, so I have to lay some blame here on Sheila Daniels, which makes me sad as I've loved her work in the past (Electra, Pericles, Macbeth). It just seemed like Oberon was from some African tribe, Titania was a dryad, and Puck was from some other mythology. Nothing meshed together. It you're going to go for a tribal/more primal feel, stick to a tribe.

Now, there was one exception to the rule: Kacey Shiflet, a senior at Seattle U, who played Cobweb. A throwaway role by any measure, Cobweb is one of the miscellaneous fairies that tend on Titania. Yet somehow, with almost no lines and limited stage presence, Kacey was the only one up there who managed to convey what I assume the director was trying to go for. Her entire physicality, her mannerisms, her voice, everything about her was this dark fairy. And by the end of the show she had me convinced of something I really never would've thought I would think...that she should've been Puck. So kudos to her.

Overall, the play was good. The mechanicals were amazing, the lovers had their moments of greatness, and despite how much I didn't like them the fairies weren't bad per se, just out of place. Though I won't forgive whoever it was that decided it was a good idea to end the play with Puck still being hissy and weird and then making his weird noise and pose after the last line. Left quite a sour taste in my mouth. Nonetheless, for the most part the rest of the play made up for the unfortunate choices made with the fairies. I just really wish all of them had latched on to what the surprise of the show Kacey Shiflet was doing and gotten rid of all the stupid goddamn noises.

A Midsummer Night's Dream gets a 7.5/10 (8.5 without the fairies).

Ico and Shadow of the Colussus Collection

It may have been a little while since I've updated and I may or may not have been watching movies and playing games in the meantime that I probably should've reviewed. But let's leave that to the past shall we? Unlike these next two games, which have been resurrected from the bygone days of the PS2 in full HD graphics and 3D if you're one of the few who own a 3DTV.

Sony's been doing a lot of dredging up the classics recently, with their first venture being the very successful God of War 1+2 remakes. So it's only natural that the trend continue, and we get two artful masterpieces in Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, redone as they should've been seen.

Now, I never played Ico though I heard a great deal about it, and I enjoyed Shadow though it seemed a little repetitive and lacking for my tastes. So how's the transition into HD? It's beautiful to a fault. Allow me to explain.

It's been 10 years since the release of Ico, and 5 since Shadow. That may not seem like a long time to most, but in game years every couple years brings about a giant shift in graphics and improved gameplay experiences. Every couple years we get better and better games. So to drag these games back from the depths, you're also dragging back old design.

Both games are astonishingly beautiful. The HD update works perfectly, and the old lag problems in Shadow from the strain it put on the PS2 are gone. It basically plays how it was meant to play. Unfortunately, with this amazing graphical quality you start to instinctively expect more modern gameplay as well, and this is where the collection went wrong. By doing a straight port with better graphics, the glaring camera and pathfinding issues in Ico, and the awkward horse maneuvering and glitchy jumps in Shadow seem all the more prominent. We gamers could forgive those kinds of issues back in the day. Not anymore.

For those unfamiliar with the series, Ico tells the story of a boy with horns brought to a prison, who miraculously manages to escape his cell and find a fellow captive named Yorda who speaks a strange language he can't understand. You spend the game dragging Yorda around by the hand, trying to solve puzzles while avoiding/fighting these shadow creatures that keep trying to drag her back (for purposes later revealed), and figure out how to escape the prison. It's basically one long escort mission, though it's a miracle that it somehow never feels too tedious. What's key in Ico is the story, which though it says little, speaks volumes. It's quite a journey Ico and Yorda share, however short it may be (I finished it in 6 hours, though there's a trophy to complete it in 2). Somehow even though they never understand what each other are saying, there's an inexplicable and unbreakable bond forged between them that drives the story forward and makes the entire game a joy to play even if you want to punch Yorda in the face sometimes for her poor pathfinding.

Shadow is the spiritual successor (if not prequel) to Ico. This time we step into the shoes of a mysterious man who has traveled to a forbidden land where a demon named Dormin is held captive, in order to try and get Dormin to bring his girlfriend back from the dead after she was sacrificed for some reason. Dormin agrees to help, in exchange for you traveling across the lands and killing 16 Colossi, personifications of the 16 statues keeping Dormin trapped. Joining you on your adventure is your trusty horse Agro, who while mostly serving as a fast form of transportation across the rather large game world, is also invaluable in defeating certain colossi. Where Shadow falls for me is that it feels like a story driven game, but there's little to no story throughout. Mostly it's "Your next target is this colossi. Go kill it." Then you find it with the help of your sword, which if you hold it up in the light points you in the right direction (and reveals weak spots on colossi), figure out the particular puzzle for each colossi that gets you its weak spots so you can kill it, kill it, and then get transported back to the main shrine to receive your next target. Other than that, you get very small snippets of story about every 4 colossi (girlfriend is looking better, wanderer is looking worse, there are some people after you, they've arrived) but most of the story happens in the beginning and end, and it just seems a bit lacking.

The game world is pretty damn large, but there's nothing to do in it and no reason to explore it. There are save points scattered all over the map but only a few are actually important (being near colossi), and you can also collect fruit from trees to increase your health and collect tails from glowing lizards to increase your stamina, but each one has such a minimal effect that it's easier to just kill the colossi to get the upgrades, and even then it apparently takes 3 to 4 complete playthroughs to max them out. The battles with the Colossi can be quite epic, but can also feel repetitive as some designs are used for more than one colossus, and in the end each one comes down to "Find weak spot, stab weak spot, hold on for dear life as it tries to shake you off, then stab again. Repeat until dead."

This all isn't to say Shadow is a bad game. As with any work of art, the experience is all in the eye of the beholder. Others praise Shadow for its lack of things in the world because it adds to the sense of solitude, really makes it feel like an ancient land you're not supposed to be in, etc. It's just in my experience, I got bored with it. But it is hard to deny how gorgeous this game is with the updated graphics. Sometimes you will just want to stop and stare around at this fallen yet majestic land.

So overall I enjoyed Ico more than Shadow. A deeper story and more varied gameplay overcomes its quirky camera and relics of bad design. Is it worth it to get the collection versus the two on their own if you own a PS2, or even have the games already? Honestly, I would say yes. You can tell that while the actual gameplay issues weren't fixed, they put a lot of effort into making these games look stunningly beautiful, and the way they were originally meant to be seen. Plus you get some free themes and several behind the scenes videos (that I admittedly haven't watched yet). On that note...

Ico gets a 9/10.
Shadow of the Colossus gets a 6/10.
The Collection gets an 8/10, as it's greater than the average of its parts.