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.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
It's hard for me to explain exactly why I didn't like this movie. The direction is tight, the performances are very well done (especially from Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth, the girl of the title), and there are plenty of twists and turns. And yet...
I believe the main problem for me was the story. From the get-go we are introduced to Lisbeth and Mikael Blomkvist, leading completely separate lives. Lisbeth is a young gothic looking reporter who works for a newspaper getting important scoops for them. Mikael is a high profile journalist who has been sentenced to jail for making false accusations about a high up businessman. Both their personalities are set up quite well, but what's immediately lacking is a reason to care about these people. We are simply following them around as they go about their mundane activities. Even when Mikael gets a mysterious call from the Vanger Group to investigate a case before he goes to jail, it just seems like an almost cliched plot point instead of a big mystery. And when Lisbeth goes through some nearly unwatchable scenes with her new guardian, the gruesomeness of it feels tacked on and unnecessary. When the two inevitably meet, their chemistry is quite charming and brings a much needed boost to the dragging plot. Then the actual mystery kicks into gear, which for the most part consists of Mikael looking through files, long transposed shots of photographs, and Lisbeth being a no nonsense hardass while still seeming quite vulnerable.
It's such a stereotypical mystery that not only is almost every single twist and turn forseeable (it's not actually the first OR second person you thought was guilty? Shocking!), but even when they're not it just doesn't feel like it carries any meaning to it. Maybe I'm just so used to Law and Order or almost any other crime drama on TV these days that I'm used to this entire plot being boiled down into one episode. **SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT** A disgraced journalist is hired by an old man from wealthy company to look into the disappearance of his daughter 40 years ago. He agrees to it as he has nothing to lose. He meets a quirky girl with rare insight who helps him on the case. They travel together gathering clues. Through many twists they eventually solve the case just in time to save one of them from getting killed. The journalist helps get his job back with the girl's help, who then leaves mysteriously but is shown to be doing just fine in the end. **END SPOILERS**
Not only are the plot points so unabashedly familiar and dry that you know the end of the movie from the beginning, but there's a gaping bit of development left out that would've made the film 10 times more entertaining. The relationship between all of the family members (who are all suspects) living together on this island is barely addressed, and each member is instead only used to shed a little detail on one clue/detail in the case before disappearing. So much more could've been done with them (and maybe it was in the book?). Also, the tracking of the clues is dull and boring as they go to a location, say "Yep, just what we thought," and then head back.
In short, just like the mystery involved this plot feels about 40 years too old and is a mystery that should've just stayed in the past. The direction, acting, and even dialogue are all tight, but the story being told is simply one I really could've cared less about.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets a 6.5/10.
I believe the main problem for me was the story. From the get-go we are introduced to Lisbeth and Mikael Blomkvist, leading completely separate lives. Lisbeth is a young gothic looking reporter who works for a newspaper getting important scoops for them. Mikael is a high profile journalist who has been sentenced to jail for making false accusations about a high up businessman. Both their personalities are set up quite well, but what's immediately lacking is a reason to care about these people. We are simply following them around as they go about their mundane activities. Even when Mikael gets a mysterious call from the Vanger Group to investigate a case before he goes to jail, it just seems like an almost cliched plot point instead of a big mystery. And when Lisbeth goes through some nearly unwatchable scenes with her new guardian, the gruesomeness of it feels tacked on and unnecessary. When the two inevitably meet, their chemistry is quite charming and brings a much needed boost to the dragging plot. Then the actual mystery kicks into gear, which for the most part consists of Mikael looking through files, long transposed shots of photographs, and Lisbeth being a no nonsense hardass while still seeming quite vulnerable.
It's such a stereotypical mystery that not only is almost every single twist and turn forseeable (it's not actually the first OR second person you thought was guilty? Shocking!), but even when they're not it just doesn't feel like it carries any meaning to it. Maybe I'm just so used to Law and Order or almost any other crime drama on TV these days that I'm used to this entire plot being boiled down into one episode. **SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT** A disgraced journalist is hired by an old man from wealthy company to look into the disappearance of his daughter 40 years ago. He agrees to it as he has nothing to lose. He meets a quirky girl with rare insight who helps him on the case. They travel together gathering clues. Through many twists they eventually solve the case just in time to save one of them from getting killed. The journalist helps get his job back with the girl's help, who then leaves mysteriously but is shown to be doing just fine in the end. **END SPOILERS**
Not only are the plot points so unabashedly familiar and dry that you know the end of the movie from the beginning, but there's a gaping bit of development left out that would've made the film 10 times more entertaining. The relationship between all of the family members (who are all suspects) living together on this island is barely addressed, and each member is instead only used to shed a little detail on one clue/detail in the case before disappearing. So much more could've been done with them (and maybe it was in the book?). Also, the tracking of the clues is dull and boring as they go to a location, say "Yep, just what we thought," and then head back.
In short, just like the mystery involved this plot feels about 40 years too old and is a mystery that should've just stayed in the past. The direction, acting, and even dialogue are all tight, but the story being told is simply one I really could've cared less about.
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo gets a 6.5/10.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Date Night
At first glance, it would be easy to dislike Date Night. It follows an almost classic recipe of taking two funny actors, putting them together, put them through some unlikely yet ultimately funny hijinks and throw in some funny celebrity cameos and improvised humor to spice. It's a tried and true formula that for the most part creates semi-enjoyable flicks worth nothing more than a cursory glance. Date Night, however, has three things those other films do not: Steve Carell, Tina Fey, and the completely natural chemistry they share on screen.
Most of the plot of Date Night can be completely ignored. All it is is a prime opportunity for Carell and Fey to work their comedic (and dramatic) acting chops alongside the also wonderful James Franco, Mila Kunis, and an always shirtless Mark Wahlberg (not to mention a brief but hilariously creepy scene from William Fichtner). However, for what it's worth, Carell and Fey are a boring old married couple with an average family life who after hearing their good friends are getting a divorce decide to spice up their normal date night by going out somewhere fancy. They show up at a famous sushi place without a reservation, and in a moment of inspiration decide to steal someone else's reservation who didn't show. Soon enough, trouble in the form of two large men walk in, bring them out back, and threaten to kill them unless they return a flash drive that belonged to their boss. Trying to explain that they're not who these guys think they are get them nowhere, and soon this boring married couple is off on the adventure of their lives to find this flash drive so they can get back to their kids. Hilarity ensues.
As you might expect from Carell and Fey, a lot of the humor feels improvised, which at some points brings out classic gems and at other times falls a little flat. Also, the more the movie drifts from the relationship between them, the less funny it gets. Sure a creepy/silly striptease scene is funny for what it is, but the moment leading up to it where they're trying to pump each other up is far more funny because it's grounded in this couple's relationship. That being said, the movie really shines when they start having fun with each other in the completely ridiculous situations (as opposed to the only mildly ridiculous I suppose) like the entire car chase scene and their completely ineffectual threats against the brilliance of James Franco and Mila Kunis. When the craziness is at its max is when you can tell they're really enjoying themselves, and so by extension so do we.
But interestingly enough what truly stands out are the serious moments that Carell and Fey share as a couple. First off, Date Night does a wonderful job balancing the absurdity of their situation with their reality as an average married couple way out of their league. But second, the loving moments between them are so genuine that I almost wish they had just made a movie of that, because while it certainly was a wonderful and funny movie, those moments are by far what stood out and elevated this above the traditional recipe. I honestly hope these two get together again for a more dramatic movie because there's something there that just...works.
Until then, Date Night is an above average comedy thanks to its stars, but since it is somewhat limited by that recipe, parts of it still taste a little stale. It is still worth the viewing, but hopefully it will stand as more of an early effort from the classics to come.
Date Night gets an 8/10.
Most of the plot of Date Night can be completely ignored. All it is is a prime opportunity for Carell and Fey to work their comedic (and dramatic) acting chops alongside the also wonderful James Franco, Mila Kunis, and an always shirtless Mark Wahlberg (not to mention a brief but hilariously creepy scene from William Fichtner). However, for what it's worth, Carell and Fey are a boring old married couple with an average family life who after hearing their good friends are getting a divorce decide to spice up their normal date night by going out somewhere fancy. They show up at a famous sushi place without a reservation, and in a moment of inspiration decide to steal someone else's reservation who didn't show. Soon enough, trouble in the form of two large men walk in, bring them out back, and threaten to kill them unless they return a flash drive that belonged to their boss. Trying to explain that they're not who these guys think they are get them nowhere, and soon this boring married couple is off on the adventure of their lives to find this flash drive so they can get back to their kids. Hilarity ensues.
As you might expect from Carell and Fey, a lot of the humor feels improvised, which at some points brings out classic gems and at other times falls a little flat. Also, the more the movie drifts from the relationship between them, the less funny it gets. Sure a creepy/silly striptease scene is funny for what it is, but the moment leading up to it where they're trying to pump each other up is far more funny because it's grounded in this couple's relationship. That being said, the movie really shines when they start having fun with each other in the completely ridiculous situations (as opposed to the only mildly ridiculous I suppose) like the entire car chase scene and their completely ineffectual threats against the brilliance of James Franco and Mila Kunis. When the craziness is at its max is when you can tell they're really enjoying themselves, and so by extension so do we.
But interestingly enough what truly stands out are the serious moments that Carell and Fey share as a couple. First off, Date Night does a wonderful job balancing the absurdity of their situation with their reality as an average married couple way out of their league. But second, the loving moments between them are so genuine that I almost wish they had just made a movie of that, because while it certainly was a wonderful and funny movie, those moments are by far what stood out and elevated this above the traditional recipe. I honestly hope these two get together again for a more dramatic movie because there's something there that just...works.
Until then, Date Night is an above average comedy thanks to its stars, but since it is somewhat limited by that recipe, parts of it still taste a little stale. It is still worth the viewing, but hopefully it will stand as more of an early effort from the classics to come.
Date Night gets an 8/10.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Neverwhere
Neil Gaiman is an amazing man. My first exposure to his writing came from the wholly confusing yet still enjoyable American Gods, which was mostly confusing because I had no idea who Gaiman was or how he wrote. Since then I've only seen glimpses of his work through the movies of Coraline and Stardust, and so I figured it was about time I picked up his very first novel, Neverwhere.
Set against the background of modern day London, we follow the trials of Richard Mayhew, an average man with average goals and an average life, which all of a sudden gets completely turned around when a mysterious girl named Door, who has been running from the deadly Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar, comes out from a wall in front of him and collapses bleeding on the street. Despite complaints from his fiancee to just leave the girl, his compassion gets the better of him and he scoops up the girl and brings her back to his house to help her recover. While trying to reveal as little as possible, Door brings him on a quest through London Below, a mystical and very dangerous place consisting of London's sewers and so much more. She finds her friends, and leaves Richard confused and baffled back in his apartment.
But something has changed. Suddenly, no one notices Richard anymore. He can get their attention for a second or two, but they go right back to ignoring him soon after. He has become part of London Below, a helpless man who dropped through the cracks, and must find a way back to his old life while trying to survive the dangers that lurk below.
It's a delightfully creative premise, and Gaiman never fails to add his own flair to every location, every character, and every sentence in this book. By all accounts, I shouldn't consider this one of the best books I've read. The plot, while creative, when boiled down is a very simple and traditional quest plot. There is relatively little character development. The ending is rather easy to foresee and even a little cliche. And yet, I loved every single page. Where this book shines is not in those basic elements, it's in the pure unadulterated creativity, style and voice of Gaiman shining through. Gaiman's descriptions can turn a small shadow into one of the most terrifying things you could imagine. His quirky humor is littered throughout the book as well, helping to alleviate what otherwise would've been some almost unbearably depressing scenes. Toss in a smattering of Matrix/Inception like philosophy and you get a simple story with some amazingly complex undertones. However, where Gaiman's strength lies is in his characters, from the calm violence of Mr. Croup to the noble sliminess of the Marquis to the dark depths of London Below itself. While none of them really develop in the course of the story, each is already so rich as a character that they don't need to.
Gaiman has somehow managed to take a story that in other hands would've been thrown away and turned it into one of the best pieces of fiction I've read. I don't care about the simple plot. I don't care about the cliche ending. Neverwhere is by and far one of the best examples of something being more than the sum of its parts.
Neverwhere gets a 10/10.
Set against the background of modern day London, we follow the trials of Richard Mayhew, an average man with average goals and an average life, which all of a sudden gets completely turned around when a mysterious girl named Door, who has been running from the deadly Mr. Croup and Mr. Vandemar, comes out from a wall in front of him and collapses bleeding on the street. Despite complaints from his fiancee to just leave the girl, his compassion gets the better of him and he scoops up the girl and brings her back to his house to help her recover. While trying to reveal as little as possible, Door brings him on a quest through London Below, a mystical and very dangerous place consisting of London's sewers and so much more. She finds her friends, and leaves Richard confused and baffled back in his apartment.
But something has changed. Suddenly, no one notices Richard anymore. He can get their attention for a second or two, but they go right back to ignoring him soon after. He has become part of London Below, a helpless man who dropped through the cracks, and must find a way back to his old life while trying to survive the dangers that lurk below.
It's a delightfully creative premise, and Gaiman never fails to add his own flair to every location, every character, and every sentence in this book. By all accounts, I shouldn't consider this one of the best books I've read. The plot, while creative, when boiled down is a very simple and traditional quest plot. There is relatively little character development. The ending is rather easy to foresee and even a little cliche. And yet, I loved every single page. Where this book shines is not in those basic elements, it's in the pure unadulterated creativity, style and voice of Gaiman shining through. Gaiman's descriptions can turn a small shadow into one of the most terrifying things you could imagine. His quirky humor is littered throughout the book as well, helping to alleviate what otherwise would've been some almost unbearably depressing scenes. Toss in a smattering of Matrix/Inception like philosophy and you get a simple story with some amazingly complex undertones. However, where Gaiman's strength lies is in his characters, from the calm violence of Mr. Croup to the noble sliminess of the Marquis to the dark depths of London Below itself. While none of them really develop in the course of the story, each is already so rich as a character that they don't need to.
Gaiman has somehow managed to take a story that in other hands would've been thrown away and turned it into one of the best pieces of fiction I've read. I don't care about the simple plot. I don't care about the cliche ending. Neverwhere is by and far one of the best examples of something being more than the sum of its parts.
Neverwhere gets a 10/10.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Heavy Rain
This review is nearly impossible to do. Heavy Rain is a kind of murder mystery, so giving away any details could ruin the plot. On top of that, the style of gameplay is familiar, yet completely unique, and even people with a better vernacular than I have trouble describing what it's like. But...I shall try.
Heavy Rain is set in the near future, where a serial killer known as the Origami Killer has been on the loose for years, killing young boys by drowning them in rainwater, covering their faces with mud, and leaving an origami figure in their hand and an orchid on their chest. You play as 4 separate characters: Ethan (a father), Madison (a journalist), Scott Shelby (a private investigator), and Norman Jayden (an FBI agent). Each has their own motivations and stories, and each is involved in the hunt for the Origami Killer in their own way. Past that, there isn't much I can say, you just have to experience their stories for yourself, especially because of how the game plays.
When Heavy Rain first came out, it was mostly noticed for its unique style of gameplay, but also the fact that if one of your characters dies, the game is designed to continue going. Think of it like a choose your own adventure novel that doesn't stop even if you reach a page that kills you. The game plays much like a movie, with each scene presenting you with varying choices and consequences that effect how the rest of the game plays out.
How you play through these choices is the most familiar and yet completely unfamiliar aspect of Heavy Rain. If you've ever played God of War or similar titles, you're often asked to complete what's known as a quick-time event (QTE). A QTE is essentially where you are asked to press a series of buttons in the correct order in order to accomplish some task (like bringing down a cyclops). At first glance, all Heavy Rain is is a series of QTEs. You are asked to do various things like the traditional press buttons at the right time in the right order, but also sometimes hold down buttons at the same time or shake the controller in a certain way or move the right analog stick in the direction indicated. So essentially it is just complicated QTEs....but at the same time it's so much more. For example, to get someone off the floor, you hold R1 to get their arm around you, hold L1 to grab their legs, and then tap X repeatedly, straining your legs to pick them up. Each button press, each flick of the analog stick, each shake of the controller just feels right. It feels appropriate to the movement your character is performing. The timing of it mimics your character's state of mind perfectly. It's all so tied to everything that happens that it never feels like a QTE. It just feels natural.
It also allows you to feel more invested in what happens than in any other game I have ever played. Not only does it invest you mechanics-wise however, it also invests you emotionally. The story is like an Oscar winning drama. This unfortunately means that some parts are quite predictable in that it follows a somewhat Hollywood formula, but with all the different choices available you never quite know what's going to happen. The true miracle is that it manages to keep you completely emotionally locked in with four distinct characters, each with their own personalities, for the entire game.
It's not without faults, however. There are some odd glitches here and there, some of the voice acting (especially the childrens') is rather terrible, and moving your character around can feel so clunky that it takes you right out of the experience. Also, the story has its gaps along with some transitions that feel like they didn't fully flesh out the path you actually took. It seemed as though they just didn't get to realize every possibility and so had to condense things late in development. If these guys teamed up with Bioware, who make the incredibly detailed branching storylines in games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, they could take on the world. One just gets the sense that with a couple more months in development all of these problems would've been fixed, but as it is there's just enough problems to keep it from being the best game ever made. But overall it's easily one of the best games I've ever played, and is by far the most emotionally investing. I don't know if they're even considering a Heavy Rain 2, or something in the same style at least, but I sure hope they do, cause with a few tweaks the developers could easily make not just one of the most original titles of all time, but one of the greatest as well.
Heavy Rain gets a 10/10.
Heavy Rain is set in the near future, where a serial killer known as the Origami Killer has been on the loose for years, killing young boys by drowning them in rainwater, covering their faces with mud, and leaving an origami figure in their hand and an orchid on their chest. You play as 4 separate characters: Ethan (a father), Madison (a journalist), Scott Shelby (a private investigator), and Norman Jayden (an FBI agent). Each has their own motivations and stories, and each is involved in the hunt for the Origami Killer in their own way. Past that, there isn't much I can say, you just have to experience their stories for yourself, especially because of how the game plays.
When Heavy Rain first came out, it was mostly noticed for its unique style of gameplay, but also the fact that if one of your characters dies, the game is designed to continue going. Think of it like a choose your own adventure novel that doesn't stop even if you reach a page that kills you. The game plays much like a movie, with each scene presenting you with varying choices and consequences that effect how the rest of the game plays out.
How you play through these choices is the most familiar and yet completely unfamiliar aspect of Heavy Rain. If you've ever played God of War or similar titles, you're often asked to complete what's known as a quick-time event (QTE). A QTE is essentially where you are asked to press a series of buttons in the correct order in order to accomplish some task (like bringing down a cyclops). At first glance, all Heavy Rain is is a series of QTEs. You are asked to do various things like the traditional press buttons at the right time in the right order, but also sometimes hold down buttons at the same time or shake the controller in a certain way or move the right analog stick in the direction indicated. So essentially it is just complicated QTEs....but at the same time it's so much more. For example, to get someone off the floor, you hold R1 to get their arm around you, hold L1 to grab their legs, and then tap X repeatedly, straining your legs to pick them up. Each button press, each flick of the analog stick, each shake of the controller just feels right. It feels appropriate to the movement your character is performing. The timing of it mimics your character's state of mind perfectly. It's all so tied to everything that happens that it never feels like a QTE. It just feels natural.
It also allows you to feel more invested in what happens than in any other game I have ever played. Not only does it invest you mechanics-wise however, it also invests you emotionally. The story is like an Oscar winning drama. This unfortunately means that some parts are quite predictable in that it follows a somewhat Hollywood formula, but with all the different choices available you never quite know what's going to happen. The true miracle is that it manages to keep you completely emotionally locked in with four distinct characters, each with their own personalities, for the entire game.
It's not without faults, however. There are some odd glitches here and there, some of the voice acting (especially the childrens') is rather terrible, and moving your character around can feel so clunky that it takes you right out of the experience. Also, the story has its gaps along with some transitions that feel like they didn't fully flesh out the path you actually took. It seemed as though they just didn't get to realize every possibility and so had to condense things late in development. If these guys teamed up with Bioware, who make the incredibly detailed branching storylines in games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age, they could take on the world. One just gets the sense that with a couple more months in development all of these problems would've been fixed, but as it is there's just enough problems to keep it from being the best game ever made. But overall it's easily one of the best games I've ever played, and is by far the most emotionally investing. I don't know if they're even considering a Heavy Rain 2, or something in the same style at least, but I sure hope they do, cause with a few tweaks the developers could easily make not just one of the most original titles of all time, but one of the greatest as well.
Heavy Rain gets a 10/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
