As with every show this season except Ros & Guild Are Dead, I knew little to nothing about Seattle Public Theater's production of Back, Back, Back. From the posters and the scoreboard hung against the back wall I quickly deduced it was about baseball, but thankfully I overheard two audience members talking who managed to sum it up perfectly.
1: "So what's the play about?"
2: "Baseball."
1: "Right. And?"
2: "Steroids."
1: "Baseball and steroids."
2: "Yep."
Essentially the play follows three baseball players from the 1980s to 2005. Raul (Ray Gonzales) is a pro player with a big ego and a bad attitude that sees no problem with using steroids. Kent (Patrick Allcorn) is another big name player who uses steroids but is ethically torn about it. Adam/The Rookie/Rook (Trick Danneker) is a big up-and-comer who doesn't use, and really tries to stay away from the whole issue since he respects Kent so much. They all start on the same team, but eventually life gets in the way and they go their separate ways. Raul keeps getting injured or shooting his mouth off, Kent becomes a heavy user as does the rest of his team, while Adam stays on the periphery never quite achieving the greatness expected of him. All of this is told in 9 scenes/vignettes, reflected rather ingeniously as innings on the scoreboard on the back wall.
Unfortunately, that was about the only ingenious thing about this production. I do first have to say that the direction, staging, technical aspects, and 2/3 of the acting were great. My problem comes down to the simple fact that the script was just plain boring. The dialogue was stilted, several of the vignettes were seemingly stuck in there for no purpose whatsoever (I'm looking at you filler press conferences), the characters were entirely too one-dimensional, and worst of all to me, there was no message. There was no story to this play. There was no overarching point that made me want to keep watching. When I walked out of the theater I tried asking myself what I had learned from this play, what this play was really about, and all that came back to me was that simple audience exchange: "Baseball and steroids."
The best way I can describe it is that it was like I was watching a boring documentary with some bits that had been chopped for TV. There was no taking one side or another, no artistic vision, just an impassive observer relating events. And any scenes that might have had emotional impact, such as actual dialogue or fights between these men and their wives instead of hearsay or phone conversations, were gone. There were no stakes. There was no action. And I would be totally fine with that if they had treated this as some kind of 3 way philosophical discussion on steroids or cheating in sports or anything, but the play never takes a strong enough stand on any side or makes any real arguments for any side. It tries in some measure to be clever at points, which is worse because you can really tell it was trying. For instance, the word "steroids" is never said in the play, it's just obliquely referred to. I could at least understand if you're just building up to using it in the final act as a big statement, but no, there seems to be no real reason. Then there was a moment in the final scene where Raul and Kent are talking to each other about meeting Bush and Clinton and they're standing next to each other saying how they're just two douchebags and it's just so obvious the text is screaming "GET IT, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENTS BUT REALLY THESE TWO ARE JUST DOUCHEBAGS TOO. I'M SO CLEVER LOLOLOLOL" Okay, maybe not that extreme but it stood out.
I suppose I should back up for a second to that whole "2/3 of the acting was great" thing. Ray Gonzales as Raul was perfect. He was brash, unapologetic, and unwavering in his convictions. As for Trick Danneker, the more shows I see him in the more impressed I am. Adam was by far the most interesting character to me (which is why it was so disheartening that he was on the sidelines most of the play), due in no small part to Trick's very honest portrayal. Which leaves Patrick Allcorn as Kent. I don't know if it was just because it was a Sunday matinee or what, but Allcorn's acting left much to be desired to say the least. He came across as fake and often awkward, which to his credit his character often is, but it was never "the character is awkward". It was "he is awkward" or "he is playing awkward". It was like he didn't truly get in touch with who the hell this character was. He didn't make any bold or interesting choices with it, and the script simply wasn't strong enough to support that kind of performance.
It's hard for me to say if, even if he had been perfect, I would have actually enjoyed the play. After all, Kent is probably the most major character of the 3 in this play, so it certainly didn't help that his performance was weak. However, I really must harp on the fact that to me the downfall of this show was simply that it's not an interesting script. Of the 9 scenes, only 4 stood out to me as having any impact on the story or the characters themselves, and even most of those ending up feeling irrelevant as the characters' lives simply continued without much consequence until we catch up with them again a couple years after.
Part of the reason I am so adamant in spelling out why I didn't like this play is because I am so very confused as to why at the end of the show they got a standing ovation. I simply cannot fathom it. I'm just going to tell myself it was for how well the actors and the director Kelly Kitchens dealt with such an uninspiring work.
Back, Back, Back gets a 5/10.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Mass Effect 3
So here we are at the end. In Mass Effect 1 we learned of the existence of Reapers, ancient sentient machines that wipe all organic life from the galaxy. As Commander Shepard, we destroyed the advance scout named Sovereign. In Mass Effect 2 the Reapers remain a threat, but of more pressing importance are the mysterious Collectors, a race that has been subjugated by the Reapers and is abducting entire human colonies. After being killed by the Collectors at the very beginning of the game, Shepard is resurrected by the fringe human group Cerberus and sent to stop the Collectors, which he of course does with the help of a new squad. Now, in Mass Effect 3, time has run out. The Reapers have arrived, and Shepard is the only one who can stop them. He must use everything he's learned, face every choice he's made, and ultimately help decide the fate of the galaxy.
So, where to begin?...How about gameplay.
Mass Effect 1 to me is an RPG with third person shooter elements. 2, however, is an action-heavy third person shooter with light RPG elements. So where does 3 fall? As expected, somewhere in the middle. 3 retains most of the changes made in 2, though it reintroduced the variety of weapons and the ability to upgrade them from 1. They also introduced more branching elements to powers, giving you much more of a choice in what kind of playstyle you're going for. Not only that, but each class can now use each weapon. However, each weapon also carries a weight to it which slows down how fast your powers recharge. So while yes, your pure biotic adept can carry every weapon, it wouldn't be smart to. Also, weapons aren't really necessary when you're launching shockwaves every 2 seconds. But for those who are more weapon oriented, stats are back! What a concept, that you can actually tell which guns are better than others (*shakes fist at 2*). And each one is nicely varied in how they fire so that you can really personalize the way you want fights to go. On top of that, you can upgrade each one for a certain amount of credits, as well as choose 2 mods for each that can also be upgraded.
And don't worry if you look at that and say "But there was too much of that in 1!" because while the variety is back, it isn't overwhelming, and it's easy to swap things at the beginning of every mission or while you're on the Normandy. Also, have no fear if you see all that and worry they've reverted back to 1's combat. The action is even more fast and fluid than it was in 2, with smarter, more difficult enemies that you really have to strategize around. 3's combat is without a doubt the best in the series, and some of the best third-person shooting I've experienced.
So, if they solved the lack of RPG elements in 2, but still retained the amazing combat, then I suppose all that's really left to worry about is the story. And this is where I'm really, really torn. And don't worry, I'm not going to include major spoilers. If you're tied to knowing nothing about the game before playing it, obviously don't read any further, but I promise I won't give anything big away.
The problem I have with 3's story is that for every positive I feel like I come away with a negative as well. For the most part, the writing is just plain incredible. Despite the fact that they no longer have the carrot of "this decision could affect future games!", practically each decision you make feels like it has serious consequences. There were several times I had to get up, think about it, and then come back to it because I truly couldn't decide. Even the bare bones dialogue is the best it's ever been. And this is all not to mention the absurd amount of fan service written into this game.
On the flip side, the concept of "war assets" nearly ruins it all. In essence, your job throughout this game is to get the various races to rally to your side to help defend Earth and defeat the Reapers. Every time you find someone or something that could help, it gets added as a certain amount of "war asset" points. How many points you have before the final battle (as well as the "readiness rating" increased by playing multiplayer) determines in part how the end plays out. While playing I found issue with this because it's never indicated how these war assets will help you, and because it seemed to belie the greater issue...that the choices you're making only boil down to a statistic. It's especially devastating when you come across all these old crew members (especially from 2) and suddenly begin to realize none of them are joining your team, and are instead being turned into war assets. You still get several squadmates from 1, but it begins to feel like all that recruiting in 2 was for nothing. Or rather, for meaningless points.
This also plays into side missions. Gone are the worthy loyalty missions of 2, and even the random planet scanning missions (don't worry, I'm getting to that next). Instead you occasionally get reports of something happening somewhere and you should go investigate. More often than not it turns out someone important is involved, and how you deal with things determines how many war assets you get. Mind you, they are still well written and can be quite intense, but the fact that they inevitably only end with random points leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
So, the planet scanning. As we have learned from 1 and 2, there's always at least one feature that will bug the shit out of you. In 1 it was the cumbersome Mako missions. In 2 it was the mind-obliteratingly boring planet scanning. And you thought it couldn't get worse, didn't you? Well, you were wrong. Here's what a conversation between me and the game would look like once you get to roam the galaxy map once again:
Game: Guess what? Technology has been improved so you no longer have to do planet scanning!
Me: Huzzah!
Game: Yep, now you can scan entire systems!
Me: Wait, what?
Game: That's right! You can scan systems for war assets, credits, and fuel for your ship! If you detect something on a planet though you still have to scan for it.
Me: So planet scanning isn't gone? Do I at least get to keep that "make planet scanning faster" upgrade I purchased in 2?
Game: Nope!
Me: Well is there any other point to exploring? Like finding random missions in 2?
Game: Nope!
Me: ...Well that's just plain stupid.
Game: And that's not all!
Me: God damn it.
Game: Most of the systems you're scanning are under Reaper influence, and the Normandy can escape their detection just flying around, but every time you scan you increase their awareness of you. If you fill up that bar, they'll come chase you!
Me: They'll...chase me?
Game: Until you jump out of that system. And the bar only resets after you've done a mission.
Me: What happens if they catch me?
Game: You die.
Me: SHIT, WHAT?
Game: Oh, but it's okay, because every time you enter a system it autosaves.
Me: So you're telling me I can enter a system, spam the scan button until I find everything, let the Reapers catch me, and then when I reload 5 seconds later I can just go back to the spots I found, scan few enough times that the Reapers don't come, and be on my merry way?
Game: Yep!
Me: So what is the point of this seemingly pointless endeavor?
Game: War assets! And credits! And...
Me: And fuel, yeah, I get it.
Game: Oh, and just often enough that you can't really ignore it you'll find upgrades that you can use to permanently increase your health or shields or power damage or things like that.
Me: FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Everything becomes so focused on obtaining these war assets, so when the final battle comes you'd expect them to make a big difference right? But do they? Not as far as I can tell. Then again, I also made sure to collect as much as I could because, really, why wouldn't you? Still from everything I've seen it actually makes very little difference. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd like to be proven otherwise, but it's especially hard to tell when your only indication of what you've done is having your big decisions show up for battle in a cutscene. It just felt like I had been on this relentlessly epic journey throughout the entire game, and then in the final chapter everything they'd been building up to and telling me was important wasn't actually.
Which brings me to the endings, which I promise I won't spoil, but just in case **I BE TALKING ABOUT THE ENDINGS HERE AND IF YOU WANT A COMPLETE SURPRISE STOP READING.** Good enough? Okay then. Bioware promised 16 different endings leading up to the release of 3. What do we get? 3. 3 endings. And those three endings are really 90% the same with minor tweaks. Not only that, but even though they capture the emotional resonance I was seeking, when you stop to actually think about them we come across a few issues:
1) When you consider their implications, they make NO sense.
2) Each is technically a cliffhanger that leaves you with no satisfying conclusion.
3) Each makes all the decisions you have made up to that point completely worthless.
When the most logical theory out there for why the endings are the way they are is "It was all a dream", there's a problem.
**END OF TALKING ABOUT THE END**
Basically my view on Mass Effect 3 comes down to this. Up until the final chapter it is pretty solidly, despite my gripes, the best of the series. It balances what I missed from the first game well with what I loved from the second game and tops it all off with amazing writing and adrenaline-pumping combat. Then the final chapter hits and it's like it takes all your dreams and stomps them out. By building up such importance over the war assets, such importance over the decisions you make, and such importance of all the people you meet, the payoff you get at the end needs to reflect just how important all those things actually were. Instead they're pushed to the side for a streamlined road to the end where the only important decision is the last one. And yet, I still cannot call it a bad game. I still cannot say it is any worse than its predecessors. In fact it's better in so many ways. But when the ending leaves me so sour that when I look back not only on this game but on the others in the series that it makes me want to play them less instead of more to see all the variations, I cannot in good conscience give it the 10/10 it deserves before it hits the end. However, I also cannot in good conscience give it a low score just to spite it for the ending. In the end, I just have to go with my gut. I gave both 1 and 2 a 9.5, but...
Mass Effect 3 gets an 8.5/10.
So, where to begin?...How about gameplay.
Mass Effect 1 to me is an RPG with third person shooter elements. 2, however, is an action-heavy third person shooter with light RPG elements. So where does 3 fall? As expected, somewhere in the middle. 3 retains most of the changes made in 2, though it reintroduced the variety of weapons and the ability to upgrade them from 1. They also introduced more branching elements to powers, giving you much more of a choice in what kind of playstyle you're going for. Not only that, but each class can now use each weapon. However, each weapon also carries a weight to it which slows down how fast your powers recharge. So while yes, your pure biotic adept can carry every weapon, it wouldn't be smart to. Also, weapons aren't really necessary when you're launching shockwaves every 2 seconds. But for those who are more weapon oriented, stats are back! What a concept, that you can actually tell which guns are better than others (*shakes fist at 2*). And each one is nicely varied in how they fire so that you can really personalize the way you want fights to go. On top of that, you can upgrade each one for a certain amount of credits, as well as choose 2 mods for each that can also be upgraded.
And don't worry if you look at that and say "But there was too much of that in 1!" because while the variety is back, it isn't overwhelming, and it's easy to swap things at the beginning of every mission or while you're on the Normandy. Also, have no fear if you see all that and worry they've reverted back to 1's combat. The action is even more fast and fluid than it was in 2, with smarter, more difficult enemies that you really have to strategize around. 3's combat is without a doubt the best in the series, and some of the best third-person shooting I've experienced.
So, if they solved the lack of RPG elements in 2, but still retained the amazing combat, then I suppose all that's really left to worry about is the story. And this is where I'm really, really torn. And don't worry, I'm not going to include major spoilers. If you're tied to knowing nothing about the game before playing it, obviously don't read any further, but I promise I won't give anything big away.
The problem I have with 3's story is that for every positive I feel like I come away with a negative as well. For the most part, the writing is just plain incredible. Despite the fact that they no longer have the carrot of "this decision could affect future games!", practically each decision you make feels like it has serious consequences. There were several times I had to get up, think about it, and then come back to it because I truly couldn't decide. Even the bare bones dialogue is the best it's ever been. And this is all not to mention the absurd amount of fan service written into this game.
On the flip side, the concept of "war assets" nearly ruins it all. In essence, your job throughout this game is to get the various races to rally to your side to help defend Earth and defeat the Reapers. Every time you find someone or something that could help, it gets added as a certain amount of "war asset" points. How many points you have before the final battle (as well as the "readiness rating" increased by playing multiplayer) determines in part how the end plays out. While playing I found issue with this because it's never indicated how these war assets will help you, and because it seemed to belie the greater issue...that the choices you're making only boil down to a statistic. It's especially devastating when you come across all these old crew members (especially from 2) and suddenly begin to realize none of them are joining your team, and are instead being turned into war assets. You still get several squadmates from 1, but it begins to feel like all that recruiting in 2 was for nothing. Or rather, for meaningless points.
This also plays into side missions. Gone are the worthy loyalty missions of 2, and even the random planet scanning missions (don't worry, I'm getting to that next). Instead you occasionally get reports of something happening somewhere and you should go investigate. More often than not it turns out someone important is involved, and how you deal with things determines how many war assets you get. Mind you, they are still well written and can be quite intense, but the fact that they inevitably only end with random points leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
So, the planet scanning. As we have learned from 1 and 2, there's always at least one feature that will bug the shit out of you. In 1 it was the cumbersome Mako missions. In 2 it was the mind-obliteratingly boring planet scanning. And you thought it couldn't get worse, didn't you? Well, you were wrong. Here's what a conversation between me and the game would look like once you get to roam the galaxy map once again:
Game: Guess what? Technology has been improved so you no longer have to do planet scanning!
Me: Huzzah!
Game: Yep, now you can scan entire systems!
Me: Wait, what?
Game: That's right! You can scan systems for war assets, credits, and fuel for your ship! If you detect something on a planet though you still have to scan for it.
Me: So planet scanning isn't gone? Do I at least get to keep that "make planet scanning faster" upgrade I purchased in 2?
Game: Nope!
Me: Well is there any other point to exploring? Like finding random missions in 2?
Game: Nope!
Me: ...Well that's just plain stupid.
Game: And that's not all!
Me: God damn it.
Game: Most of the systems you're scanning are under Reaper influence, and the Normandy can escape their detection just flying around, but every time you scan you increase their awareness of you. If you fill up that bar, they'll come chase you!
Me: They'll...chase me?
Game: Until you jump out of that system. And the bar only resets after you've done a mission.
Me: What happens if they catch me?
Game: You die.
Me: SHIT, WHAT?
Game: Oh, but it's okay, because every time you enter a system it autosaves.
Me: So you're telling me I can enter a system, spam the scan button until I find everything, let the Reapers catch me, and then when I reload 5 seconds later I can just go back to the spots I found, scan few enough times that the Reapers don't come, and be on my merry way?
Game: Yep!
Me: So what is the point of this seemingly pointless endeavor?
Game: War assets! And credits! And...
Me: And fuel, yeah, I get it.
Game: Oh, and just often enough that you can't really ignore it you'll find upgrades that you can use to permanently increase your health or shields or power damage or things like that.
Me: FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Everything becomes so focused on obtaining these war assets, so when the final battle comes you'd expect them to make a big difference right? But do they? Not as far as I can tell. Then again, I also made sure to collect as much as I could because, really, why wouldn't you? Still from everything I've seen it actually makes very little difference. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd like to be proven otherwise, but it's especially hard to tell when your only indication of what you've done is having your big decisions show up for battle in a cutscene. It just felt like I had been on this relentlessly epic journey throughout the entire game, and then in the final chapter everything they'd been building up to and telling me was important wasn't actually.
Which brings me to the endings, which I promise I won't spoil, but just in case **I BE TALKING ABOUT THE ENDINGS HERE AND IF YOU WANT A COMPLETE SURPRISE STOP READING.** Good enough? Okay then. Bioware promised 16 different endings leading up to the release of 3. What do we get? 3. 3 endings. And those three endings are really 90% the same with minor tweaks. Not only that, but even though they capture the emotional resonance I was seeking, when you stop to actually think about them we come across a few issues:
1) When you consider their implications, they make NO sense.
2) Each is technically a cliffhanger that leaves you with no satisfying conclusion.
3) Each makes all the decisions you have made up to that point completely worthless.
When the most logical theory out there for why the endings are the way they are is "It was all a dream", there's a problem.
**END OF TALKING ABOUT THE END**
Basically my view on Mass Effect 3 comes down to this. Up until the final chapter it is pretty solidly, despite my gripes, the best of the series. It balances what I missed from the first game well with what I loved from the second game and tops it all off with amazing writing and adrenaline-pumping combat. Then the final chapter hits and it's like it takes all your dreams and stomps them out. By building up such importance over the war assets, such importance over the decisions you make, and such importance of all the people you meet, the payoff you get at the end needs to reflect just how important all those things actually were. Instead they're pushed to the side for a streamlined road to the end where the only important decision is the last one. And yet, I still cannot call it a bad game. I still cannot say it is any worse than its predecessors. In fact it's better in so many ways. But when the ending leaves me so sour that when I look back not only on this game but on the others in the series that it makes me want to play them less instead of more to see all the variations, I cannot in good conscience give it the 10/10 it deserves before it hits the end. However, I also cannot in good conscience give it a low score just to spite it for the ending. In the end, I just have to go with my gut. I gave both 1 and 2 a 9.5, but...
Mass Effect 3 gets an 8.5/10.
Pygmalion
Every year Seattle Shakespeare Company produces one to two non-Shakespearean works, and usually to great effect. Last year was a mixed success, with the wonderfully philosophical Wittenberg running in rep with Hamlet, followed by the rather disastrous Threepenny Opera. So this year they wisely decided to eschew the musical and instead opt for Pygmalion, otherwise known as the origin for My Fair Lady. And after seeing this production, it pains me that the original is so much less well known because frankly, the musical doesn't do it justice.
For those unfamiliar, Pygmalion is a story based on the myth of the same name where a sculptor created a statue of the perfect woman and fell in love with it. After making an offering to Aphrodite the statue came alive and was called Galitea. The play itself revolves around the brash and socially awkward Professor Henry Higgins who studies phonetics, and a lowly flower girl named Eliza Doolittle. After overhearing him say to a fellow phonetics scholar named Colonel Pickering that he could take this lowly flower girl, teach her to speak proper English and make her a lady's maid, she offers to become his pupil. Pickering says he'll take the bet and cover all costs if Higgins can convince everyone at an important ball in 6 months that this girl is a proper lady. As the 6 months fly by, we see Eliza progress from flower girl, to a girl who can pronounce the words but still makes rather odd "small talk", to a lady. But of course, things don't end there. After the men almost completely ignore her after her success at the ball, Eliza disappears, only to show up at Higgins' mother's house the next day after the men have been searching high and low for her. In a final confrontation, Eliza finally stands up for herself and breaks Higgins down, but instead of being sad or depressed he actually becomes ecstatic, saying he prefers her as this "pillar of strength". As if their conversation hasn't happened he gives her a list of errands, which she refuses to do, instead telling Higgins to do them himself as she leaves. With a giant grin Higgins stands and exclaims, "Galatea!", and the play ends.
As with nearly every production Seattle Shakes added their own twist to the story, with an actor playing George Bernard Shaw. His lines consisted mainly of stage directions, yet somehow he added a kind of magic to every scene. It also helped that the actor, A. Bryan Humphrey, doubled as Eliza's "undeserving poor" father, making the presence of the author felt throughout the play. That, and the fact that Humphrey was just plain brilliant and ruled that stage whenever he was on it.
Though really, that could be said of every actor in this play. Mark Anders as a fidgety, crotchety, stubborn and often childish Mr. Higgins worked perfectly. Jennifer Lee Taylor as Eliza reminded me so much of Shana Bestock it was scary, but her performance stood on its own as a masterpiece of both comedic and dramatic timing. R. Hamilton Wright as Pickering was the prime personification of a proper English gentleman. Even the smaller roles like Trick Danneker's effortlessly adorable Freddy Eynsford-Hill were played well. And I don't have the program with me so I can't credit the person directly, but whoever did the dialect coaching for this production should be given a freaking medal. Each and every dialect was distinct for each character, and that is no small feat in any play, let alone one where the accents are being pointed out.
On the technical side, it's rare for me to not actually pay attention to it. The costumes, set, music...everything was overshadowed by the acting. That isn't to say they were bad, it was just that they weren't anything special. And besides, having the stage directions explained aloud somehow made it all seem more than it was anyhow. I suppose that means they simply did their job, staying out of focus, providing non-intrusive background for the action on stage.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the play was good. Like, really good. It hit all the right notes and timing for the humor, and was just as perfect with the more serious parts. The scene after the ball where Pickering and Higgins ignored Eliza nearly ripped my heart to shreds, and a great deal of it was silent. This production managed to obtain that so hard to find je ne sais quoi, that quality that made it shine. It had a heart to it. In essence, much like the myth it's based on, they took a well beloved and well crafted show and gave it life.
Pygmalion gets a 10/10.
For those unfamiliar, Pygmalion is a story based on the myth of the same name where a sculptor created a statue of the perfect woman and fell in love with it. After making an offering to Aphrodite the statue came alive and was called Galitea. The play itself revolves around the brash and socially awkward Professor Henry Higgins who studies phonetics, and a lowly flower girl named Eliza Doolittle. After overhearing him say to a fellow phonetics scholar named Colonel Pickering that he could take this lowly flower girl, teach her to speak proper English and make her a lady's maid, she offers to become his pupil. Pickering says he'll take the bet and cover all costs if Higgins can convince everyone at an important ball in 6 months that this girl is a proper lady. As the 6 months fly by, we see Eliza progress from flower girl, to a girl who can pronounce the words but still makes rather odd "small talk", to a lady. But of course, things don't end there. After the men almost completely ignore her after her success at the ball, Eliza disappears, only to show up at Higgins' mother's house the next day after the men have been searching high and low for her. In a final confrontation, Eliza finally stands up for herself and breaks Higgins down, but instead of being sad or depressed he actually becomes ecstatic, saying he prefers her as this "pillar of strength". As if their conversation hasn't happened he gives her a list of errands, which she refuses to do, instead telling Higgins to do them himself as she leaves. With a giant grin Higgins stands and exclaims, "Galatea!", and the play ends.
As with nearly every production Seattle Shakes added their own twist to the story, with an actor playing George Bernard Shaw. His lines consisted mainly of stage directions, yet somehow he added a kind of magic to every scene. It also helped that the actor, A. Bryan Humphrey, doubled as Eliza's "undeserving poor" father, making the presence of the author felt throughout the play. That, and the fact that Humphrey was just plain brilliant and ruled that stage whenever he was on it.
Though really, that could be said of every actor in this play. Mark Anders as a fidgety, crotchety, stubborn and often childish Mr. Higgins worked perfectly. Jennifer Lee Taylor as Eliza reminded me so much of Shana Bestock it was scary, but her performance stood on its own as a masterpiece of both comedic and dramatic timing. R. Hamilton Wright as Pickering was the prime personification of a proper English gentleman. Even the smaller roles like Trick Danneker's effortlessly adorable Freddy Eynsford-Hill were played well. And I don't have the program with me so I can't credit the person directly, but whoever did the dialect coaching for this production should be given a freaking medal. Each and every dialect was distinct for each character, and that is no small feat in any play, let alone one where the accents are being pointed out.
On the technical side, it's rare for me to not actually pay attention to it. The costumes, set, music...everything was overshadowed by the acting. That isn't to say they were bad, it was just that they weren't anything special. And besides, having the stage directions explained aloud somehow made it all seem more than it was anyhow. I suppose that means they simply did their job, staying out of focus, providing non-intrusive background for the action on stage.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the play was good. Like, really good. It hit all the right notes and timing for the humor, and was just as perfect with the more serious parts. The scene after the ball where Pickering and Higgins ignored Eliza nearly ripped my heart to shreds, and a great deal of it was silent. This production managed to obtain that so hard to find je ne sais quoi, that quality that made it shine. It had a heart to it. In essence, much like the myth it's based on, they took a well beloved and well crafted show and gave it life.
Pygmalion gets a 10/10.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
As with, I believe, most of the rest of the world, I was turned on to R&G Are Dead through the brilliant film with Gary Oldman, Tim Roth and Richard Dreyfuss. A philosophical romp through existentialism with bits of Shakespeare thrown in? Rock on. Unfortunately, it wasn't until years later when my old high school put on a production that I actually got to see what it was like on an actual stage. Fast forward again and I finally get to see it as a professional mainstage show at the Bathhouse Theater, and while my love for the play was strengthened, I have to say the show itself left me a little...underwhelmed.
For those not in the know, R&G Are Dead is a play by Tom Stoppard about the two aforementioned characters in Hamlet seemingly stuck in an existence where they have no idea what's going on, only vague recollections of why they're there, and are constantly just waiting for something to happen. And in the meantime, they philosophize. Hamlet and the other members of Elsinore drop by from time to time to shift the action, but leave R&G more or less helpless in their search for meaning. There are also some very significant interactions with the troupe of actors, often putting into question just what kind of reality they, and we the audience, are in. It's frenetically paced and definitely worthy of more than one viewing, as the first time you'll probably be just as lost in the ramblings as the two main characters. However, every time after reveals such wonderful little snippets of text and subtext that make it enjoyable each and every time.
The real problem with R&G Are Dead is that not only is it a play of many words with abstract interpretations, it's also fairly hard to find variation in simply because everything has to be so tight. Compound that with the fact that it's a really long play, and you start to realize how hard it can be to stage while still adding your own spin to it. And unfortunately, it's a problem that simply wasn't addressed here. Yes, both of the lead roles were played by women, but otherwise there was simply nothing distinguishing about the show to set it apart. Don't get me wrong, it was still a good performance, but coming from a place where I've already seen the show on film and on stage, there simply wasn't that much different for it to stand up.
Part of it came down to 2/3 of the leads, and part of it was, alas, directorial. Before I launch into that, however, I do need to give the appropriate round of applause to Angela DiMarco, who did manage to make the character of Rosencrantz her own and did a superb job. But in this play a great Rosencrantz is nothing without a great Guildernstern as a bouncing board, and Alyssa Keene to me failed to find her character. Ros and Guild are basically mirror opposites of each other. Ros is fairly care-free, simple in mind, and happy to just go with the flow. Guild, on the other hand, is a rational thinker, constantly trying to apply rules and reason to the inconsistencies around them while trying his damnedest to keep a hold on where he is and what has happened. Keene's performance certainly held that irrational conviction to rationality, but lacked the stability, the...gravitas if you will, to balance out and provide counterpoint to Ros. As for the arguable third lead, the leader of the Players, Heather Hawkins simply fell flat because she played it like it was any other part she's played (though she has certainly had some brilliant performances before). She played it rationally, but the Player is anything but rational. The lines given are so full of bravado, mixed with control and manipulation of R&G, but Hawkins' tone and personality were anything but. There was a kind of quiet control to her, but it just didn't fit. She never made me believe she had "been there before, and knew which way the wind blows."
However, as I said, the other half of the faults I found in the play lie with the direction of the dear Shana Bestock. There were repeated and frankly incomprehensible instances of upstaging here. Both the Player and Guild had some powerful lines and speeches that were spoken to the back wall where most of their impact was lost because of the staging. I was also disappointed to see some of my favorite moments happen and then seemingly disappear without a second thought because the pacing was kept so fast. In such a play where words and timing are essential, it must be remembered that sometimes the pauses between words are just as important as the words themselves. But here there was little room to breathe, and the focus seemed to be on finishing the play in two hours and getting through all those words instead of playing with the words and subtleties.
As much as I rag on it, it was still a good performance. It's very easy to completely mess this show up, and despite my complaints they still managed to make it comprehensible (which is a feat in itself) and fun to watch. It just seemed to be lacking the spark it needed to truly make it shine.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead gets a 7/10.
For those not in the know, R&G Are Dead is a play by Tom Stoppard about the two aforementioned characters in Hamlet seemingly stuck in an existence where they have no idea what's going on, only vague recollections of why they're there, and are constantly just waiting for something to happen. And in the meantime, they philosophize. Hamlet and the other members of Elsinore drop by from time to time to shift the action, but leave R&G more or less helpless in their search for meaning. There are also some very significant interactions with the troupe of actors, often putting into question just what kind of reality they, and we the audience, are in. It's frenetically paced and definitely worthy of more than one viewing, as the first time you'll probably be just as lost in the ramblings as the two main characters. However, every time after reveals such wonderful little snippets of text and subtext that make it enjoyable each and every time.
The real problem with R&G Are Dead is that not only is it a play of many words with abstract interpretations, it's also fairly hard to find variation in simply because everything has to be so tight. Compound that with the fact that it's a really long play, and you start to realize how hard it can be to stage while still adding your own spin to it. And unfortunately, it's a problem that simply wasn't addressed here. Yes, both of the lead roles were played by women, but otherwise there was simply nothing distinguishing about the show to set it apart. Don't get me wrong, it was still a good performance, but coming from a place where I've already seen the show on film and on stage, there simply wasn't that much different for it to stand up.
Part of it came down to 2/3 of the leads, and part of it was, alas, directorial. Before I launch into that, however, I do need to give the appropriate round of applause to Angela DiMarco, who did manage to make the character of Rosencrantz her own and did a superb job. But in this play a great Rosencrantz is nothing without a great Guildernstern as a bouncing board, and Alyssa Keene to me failed to find her character. Ros and Guild are basically mirror opposites of each other. Ros is fairly care-free, simple in mind, and happy to just go with the flow. Guild, on the other hand, is a rational thinker, constantly trying to apply rules and reason to the inconsistencies around them while trying his damnedest to keep a hold on where he is and what has happened. Keene's performance certainly held that irrational conviction to rationality, but lacked the stability, the...gravitas if you will, to balance out and provide counterpoint to Ros. As for the arguable third lead, the leader of the Players, Heather Hawkins simply fell flat because she played it like it was any other part she's played (though she has certainly had some brilliant performances before). She played it rationally, but the Player is anything but rational. The lines given are so full of bravado, mixed with control and manipulation of R&G, but Hawkins' tone and personality were anything but. There was a kind of quiet control to her, but it just didn't fit. She never made me believe she had "been there before, and knew which way the wind blows."
However, as I said, the other half of the faults I found in the play lie with the direction of the dear Shana Bestock. There were repeated and frankly incomprehensible instances of upstaging here. Both the Player and Guild had some powerful lines and speeches that were spoken to the back wall where most of their impact was lost because of the staging. I was also disappointed to see some of my favorite moments happen and then seemingly disappear without a second thought because the pacing was kept so fast. In such a play where words and timing are essential, it must be remembered that sometimes the pauses between words are just as important as the words themselves. But here there was little room to breathe, and the focus seemed to be on finishing the play in two hours and getting through all those words instead of playing with the words and subtleties.
As much as I rag on it, it was still a good performance. It's very easy to completely mess this show up, and despite my complaints they still managed to make it comprehensible (which is a feat in itself) and fun to watch. It just seemed to be lacking the spark it needed to truly make it shine.
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead gets a 7/10.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Coriolanus
It's always amusing to me how obscure plays tend to have their seasons where suddenly everyone decides to produce the same one. This year it's Coriolanus, with both Seattle Shakespeare's play and the movie with Ralph Fiennes. I haven't seen the movie (yet), so just to ease confusion, this review is for the play.
As one of Shakespeare's more obscure shows, the plot probably needs some clarification. Rome is in conflict. On the outside they face the armies of the Volscians, but inside the people are revolting after enduring famine and taxes while the rich have nothing but surfeit (sound familiar?). They place most of the blame on a Roman general named Caius Martius. He's the best soldier in the army, has quite the temper, and thrives for battle especially against his greatest enemy Tullus Aufidius of the Volscians. Upon hearing their complaints he basically shuts them all up by being intimidating and saying they don't deserve corn if they don't fight in the war. However, he quickly hears of battle abroad, and upon single-handedly destroying the town of Corioles and going right from there to fight and defeat Aufidius in the field despite his injuries, he returns to Rome and is given the honorary name of Coriolanus. Convinced by his mother that he should run for consul, he is soon embroiled in politics that do not suit his prideful and angry nature. Forced to turn to the people of Rome and "mildly" ask for their voice, he instead balks under the absurdity of having to show his scars to them and beg people who he essentially considers base cowards for their consent to be consul. Spurred by his insolence, and by two tribunes of the people (Brutus and Sicinius) who do not want Coriolanus with their power, the people revolt and take back their word, and banish Coriolanus for his traitorous slander against the people and the consuls. In vengeance, Coriolanus seeks out Aufidius and begs to join his army and help them sack Rome. Seemingly putting his hate aside, Aufidius gives Coriolanus half his troops for the purpose. Wreaking havoc across the land, word soon spreads of the joined forces, and the people's consuls are rebuked for banishing him. In one final effort they send all of Coriolanus' former friends to try to get him to change his mind, but he hears none of them. It is only when his mother, wife and son come to call that he finally relents, and on advice of his mother, brokers peace. But...this is a tragedy after all. Upon settling the peace and returning to the Volscian capital, Aufidius confronts him and calls him traitor for failing to grasp Rome and giving up their advantage because his mother told him to, and then slays him, seemingly leading the way for war once again.
It's a brutal, violent, and highly political story, and it's really a shame it isn't produced more. However, it is still obvious why it isn't. The character of Coriolanus is really unsympathetic, and so you don't really feel bad when his throat is cut. Also, in the style of its main character almost all emotional or "human" moments that you find in most of Shakes' other tragedies are pushed to the side or severely limited. He's a wonderfully conflicted and tortured character, especially around his mother, but there are almost no soliloquies or internal monologues going on here. As the tribunes say about him, "His heart's his mouth: What his breast forges, that his tongue must vent". What this essentially leads to is a play disconnected from all but fury. It's as if we the audience are Coriolanus' wife: emotional, searching for his heart, and doing all we can to stave off such blatant anger. But the play responds as Coriolanus does, holding us for brief moments, but otherwise losing itself in its passion.
I muse over all this because despite my lack of emotional connection to the play, I still enjoyed it. The actors were all exceptional, especially Mike Dooly back in fine form as Aufidius after a mediocre turn as Theseus in Midsummer. David Drummond in the title role was also a prime example of how to take a part that's mostly shouting and find the levels and complexity in it. The real star of the show, however, was Therese Diekhans as Coriolanus' mother Volumnia, who displayed some wonderful mastery of manipulation alongside an absolutely unwavering conviction in her beliefs. A mother of Sparta if ever there was one.
It's just fascinating for me to look back on this play, trying to gauge my reaction to it, realizing that it was a wonderfully performed play with a beautiful set with these highly detailed paintings on the pillars and constantly shifting boards on wheels and hinges sharing the color theme, and perfect sound design. However, despite getting my adrenaline pumping...there wasn't really anything that seemed to stick, as it were. There was a lot of rage, a lot of panic, a lot of high emotion...but it's like watching a giant flame that impresses you with how bright and hot it is only to burn out all the quicker and leave nothing but the memory of how bright it was.
I'm having trouble putting this into words, but what can I say, the play left me a little torn. By no means was it bad, and you should all go see it while you can, but while the performance was wonderful and asked for my emotional involvement, the play itself rejected it and asked me to simply marvel at this legend of a man who was great...and terrible. In the end...I think the performance won out.
Coriolanus gets a 9/10.
As one of Shakespeare's more obscure shows, the plot probably needs some clarification. Rome is in conflict. On the outside they face the armies of the Volscians, but inside the people are revolting after enduring famine and taxes while the rich have nothing but surfeit (sound familiar?). They place most of the blame on a Roman general named Caius Martius. He's the best soldier in the army, has quite the temper, and thrives for battle especially against his greatest enemy Tullus Aufidius of the Volscians. Upon hearing their complaints he basically shuts them all up by being intimidating and saying they don't deserve corn if they don't fight in the war. However, he quickly hears of battle abroad, and upon single-handedly destroying the town of Corioles and going right from there to fight and defeat Aufidius in the field despite his injuries, he returns to Rome and is given the honorary name of Coriolanus. Convinced by his mother that he should run for consul, he is soon embroiled in politics that do not suit his prideful and angry nature. Forced to turn to the people of Rome and "mildly" ask for their voice, he instead balks under the absurdity of having to show his scars to them and beg people who he essentially considers base cowards for their consent to be consul. Spurred by his insolence, and by two tribunes of the people (Brutus and Sicinius) who do not want Coriolanus with their power, the people revolt and take back their word, and banish Coriolanus for his traitorous slander against the people and the consuls. In vengeance, Coriolanus seeks out Aufidius and begs to join his army and help them sack Rome. Seemingly putting his hate aside, Aufidius gives Coriolanus half his troops for the purpose. Wreaking havoc across the land, word soon spreads of the joined forces, and the people's consuls are rebuked for banishing him. In one final effort they send all of Coriolanus' former friends to try to get him to change his mind, but he hears none of them. It is only when his mother, wife and son come to call that he finally relents, and on advice of his mother, brokers peace. But...this is a tragedy after all. Upon settling the peace and returning to the Volscian capital, Aufidius confronts him and calls him traitor for failing to grasp Rome and giving up their advantage because his mother told him to, and then slays him, seemingly leading the way for war once again.
It's a brutal, violent, and highly political story, and it's really a shame it isn't produced more. However, it is still obvious why it isn't. The character of Coriolanus is really unsympathetic, and so you don't really feel bad when his throat is cut. Also, in the style of its main character almost all emotional or "human" moments that you find in most of Shakes' other tragedies are pushed to the side or severely limited. He's a wonderfully conflicted and tortured character, especially around his mother, but there are almost no soliloquies or internal monologues going on here. As the tribunes say about him, "His heart's his mouth: What his breast forges, that his tongue must vent". What this essentially leads to is a play disconnected from all but fury. It's as if we the audience are Coriolanus' wife: emotional, searching for his heart, and doing all we can to stave off such blatant anger. But the play responds as Coriolanus does, holding us for brief moments, but otherwise losing itself in its passion.
I muse over all this because despite my lack of emotional connection to the play, I still enjoyed it. The actors were all exceptional, especially Mike Dooly back in fine form as Aufidius after a mediocre turn as Theseus in Midsummer. David Drummond in the title role was also a prime example of how to take a part that's mostly shouting and find the levels and complexity in it. The real star of the show, however, was Therese Diekhans as Coriolanus' mother Volumnia, who displayed some wonderful mastery of manipulation alongside an absolutely unwavering conviction in her beliefs. A mother of Sparta if ever there was one.
It's just fascinating for me to look back on this play, trying to gauge my reaction to it, realizing that it was a wonderfully performed play with a beautiful set with these highly detailed paintings on the pillars and constantly shifting boards on wheels and hinges sharing the color theme, and perfect sound design. However, despite getting my adrenaline pumping...there wasn't really anything that seemed to stick, as it were. There was a lot of rage, a lot of panic, a lot of high emotion...but it's like watching a giant flame that impresses you with how bright and hot it is only to burn out all the quicker and leave nothing but the memory of how bright it was.
I'm having trouble putting this into words, but what can I say, the play left me a little torn. By no means was it bad, and you should all go see it while you can, but while the performance was wonderful and asked for my emotional involvement, the play itself rejected it and asked me to simply marvel at this legend of a man who was great...and terrible. In the end...I think the performance won out.
Coriolanus gets a 9/10.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Skyrim
Well I've played an undisclosed but inordinate amount of hours playing, it's probably time I actually sit back and review this puppy. And by puppy I mean massive RPG. Practically the same thing right?
Before I proceed to heap inordinate amounts of praise on this game (because yes, like the rest of the world I really liked it), let's get some history out of the way. Back in the dinosaur years around 1996 a little game called Daggerfall came out, also known as Elder Scrolls 2. Knowing almost nothing about games besides whatever my friends were playing (and a couple Star Wars games like Dark Forces that I had), Daggerfall caught my eye from the bargain bin and I decided I was going to try to expand my gaming horizon. And boy did it expand. I mean, by swishing your mouse in a certain direction, your sword swung in that direction. It was the greatest gaming innovation I had ever experienced. Sure the whole fantasy world and hard to decipher story was interesting and all, but come on. It was basically the predecessor to the Wii.
But as with all games Daggerfall eventually fell from the list of games I played and was practically forgotten when I finally got around to playing Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind. But Morrowind was not so quick to fade. Oh no. Despite the fact that the entire game was basically swamps and a mountain, I played the crap out of it. I loved every bit. The story, the locations, the immersiveness of it. Especially the Bloodmoon expansion, which provided a nice change of scenery along with a very early glimpse of what Skyrim would be like. Sure it had its issues, but it was still one hell of a game.
So anticipations were high for Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. And don't get me wrong, I still logged countless hours on it, but I enjoyed Morrowind more. To me, Oblivion got rid of a lot of the great things from Morrowind and didn't add enough improvements to make up for it. By all accounts it was a more well designed game, but the main story especially left me wanting as it focused more on helping someone else save the world than it was about you. I will also never really get over the zooming in on those godawful facial textures during dialogue.
Now Skyrim comes along, and starts promising to fix every problem with the past games. Better, more varied combat. Hand-crafted dungeons instead of the repetitive randomly generated caves. A better game engine with prettier graphics and fewer bugs. A new and improved leveling system with perks. And DRAGONS, which have been clamored for from the beginning. It promised us the most immersive RPG to date. Did it deliver?
It's fair to say that you all know by now it lived up to those expectations and more. I easily throw my hat in with the crowd that calls Skyrim one of the, if not the, best games ever made. So why should you keep paying attention? Because I still have some major gripes with this game that don't just boil down to "OMG IT'S SO BUGGY" as everybody else who gives the game a negative review seems to say. First off, maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones, but for me Skyrim plays like a dream. Sure there are some menu issues and the occasional follower glitch, but for the most part I have no issues with bugs. Instead, what I have issues with are what people should be having issues with, and that's the actual gameplay.
For those who are still unfamiliar with what Skyrim is all about, you are placed in the shoes of the last Dragonborn, an individual blessed by the gods that has the power to use the language of dragons (in the form of "shouts") and can absorb the souls of dragons to gain their power and make sure they can't be resurrected. However, you only discover this after waking up riding in the back of a carriage, arrested and on the way to execution after having been found near the border with a group of rebels and their leader, Ulfric Stormcloak, and being saved from execution by the timely intervention of a giant dragon out of legend burning down the town. After hunting down that dragon and getting some vengeance, you absorb its soul and learn that you are the Dovahkin/Dragonborn. From there, you're basically free to roam about the world, or continue to discover where the dragons have come from, and why you've been sent to stop them. You can also take sides in the civil war between the Imperials who are trying to maintain their hold on Skyrim, and the Stormcloaks who are trying to reclaim their homeland.
There are of course many other quests and things to do in Skyrim, like joining any or all of the 4 guilds: The Companions (Fighter's Guild), the College of Winterhold (Mages Guild), the Thieves Guild, or the infamous Dark Brotherhood (assassins). You can also aim to become Thane of the major cities, a mostly honorary title that simply involves helping out the townsfolk and owning a home. And then there are the literally infinite number of miscellaneous and radiant quests you can pick up, which are usually more simple quests (kill a bandit leader, slay a dragon, etc.) that lead you to areas of the map you might not have explored yet. It's a big game, with no shortage of things to find or do, just like its predecessors (though even more so as you can get endless amounts of quests).
There are, however, many things which make Skyrim much different from its predecessors. The first is combat. This time around you can dual-wield weapons, spells, or both for a giant variety in how to approach each encounter. It rewards experimentation, but also allows for you to face any fight in the way that simply feels right to you. Enjoy just rushing in and hitting everything that moves? Two handed weapons. Prefer more strategic fights? Switch up between holding a shield and sword and maybe toss some spells. It's a very fluid system (with fun Fallout 3 style finishing moves thrown in) that provides a great deal of versatility and replayability.
The second, and my vastly favorite improvement, is the leveling system. In the previous titles the idea behind leveling was that you would get better at the skills you used, and those in turn would help you level your basic stats like Strength, Dexterity, etc. However, it really failed in practice simply because the way the math worked you had to be really careful which skills you increased during each level if you wanted to maximize your results. This was especially disastrous in Oblivion as the enemies leveled with you, so if you weren't managing your leveling well, suddenly you were facing normal bandits wearing glass armor and weren't really prepared for that. In Skyrim, however, they simply did away with attributes altogether. And the amazing thing is, by throwing away what has been such a staple of most RPGs for years and years, it actually accomplished what the series has been trying to accomplish all these years. You get better at the skills you use, you can use perks to add bonuses to those skills, and it's all amazingly intuitive and easy to manage. You stop worrying about what you're doing and just play how you want to play, and you're rewarded for playing that way.
However, there are definitely some changes I'm not happy about. Spellcrafting is gone. I understand it broke a good deal of the previous games (especially the well loved levitation spell in Morrowind), but not being able to make my flamethrower hands more powerful except with perks is a little frustrating. Skyrim is a game that begs you to experiment with it, and so to not provide it with the spells makes me sad. Another change seems to be a drastic reduction in enemy types. Going by the wikis, there are about 30 different types in Skyrim while there are 46 in Oblivion and 49 in Morrowind. Most of the time in Skyrim you will either be battling a wolf, a bear, a bandit/vampire, or a draugr (undead). Less often but still frequent are spiders, trolls, and dragons. It just felt really repetitive. In a game where you're expecting people to log hundreds of hours of time in a game world, you'd think you'd want a greater variety of enemies, not drastically fewer. You would also want more region-specific enemies than "snow" and "not snow". There are like 9 different climates in this game. More than the flowers should change.
Another enemy gripe I have is actually one of the selling points of the game: dragons. They were made out to be these epic battles between man and beast where each dragon reacted differently to the location and situation. In reality, each dragon fight plays out exactly the same. It spams you with either fire or ice breath from the sky, then when you hurt it enough with ranged attacks or when it lands you run up and hack away at it until it falls. Sure, the first time you do it it feels pretty epic, having to run around and try to lure the dragon to the ground, escape its breath, and dodge its bites and tail swipes at you. But that's the first time. Second time, still feels pretty epic, but it plays out the same way. By the third time, I was looking for something different to happen. By the fourth, I was a little bored. And from the fifth onward the only reason I would fight a dragon would be if I had to either from a quest or from it randomly attacking. It became a chore instead of an epic experience, and fighting a dragon should never seem like a chore. There are, I think, two reasons it devolved. One, each dragon fights the same. You'll come across several different types and levels of dragons, some more challenging than the others, but each one goes through the same exact pattern. Two, there are simply too many, which ties into the shouting system.
I love the shouts. I think they're a lot of fun. Each one is essentially a power that lets you do things like breathe fire, or slow time, or disarm foes, and each shout has three words of power associated with it which can be discovered through various "word walls" scattered around the map. There are 20 shouts in all, some of which are simply given to you through the main quest, but for all the others once you learn the word from the word wall you need to spend a dragon soul (collected by beating a dragon) to actually use it. So say that you learn 4 shouts from the story that you don't need to spend souls on (I think it's 4...), that leaves you with 48 dragons you need to kill to fully level up your shouts. Even if I'm remembering incorrectly and give some allowance, you have to kill at least 40 dragons. Even if you don't care about leveling up your shouts, the point is they had that in mind when designing how many dragons to put in the game, so you'll be seeing a fair share whether you want to or not. So if you're hopping into Skyrim for the dragons, be forewarned, they're really not as cool as they should be simply because it seems like they're treated as just another type of creature inhabiting these lands and not the epic mini-boss battles they were made out to be. In fact, by treating all dragons the same, even the final boss (a dragon) comes across as just another dragon battle where you just hack away until it dies.
The main stories in general suffered a bit in this game. While the dragon storyline has some interesting history and twists in it, the final battle kind of ruins it all (though the awesome scene after helps). And as for the civil war, forget any interesting politics or policies, you choose a side, capture a couple forts for that side by defeating a certain number of random troops that continually spawn until you win, and then capture the opponent's main city in the same way and force them to surrender. Add to that that both sides are basically assholes with little reason to choose their side but plenty of reason to fight against them and you get a storyline with little to no investment in the outcome, especially because the big determinant of the war (how Skyrim will fare against the elven Aldmeri Dominion) won't be addressed until some future point (one would assume in DLC). It basically boils down to "Hooray we won!" and no answer to the question of "Now what?"
"But Zach," you may be thinking, "if you hated the main storylines and the dragons, which is what the game is essentially sold on, how can you still call it one of the best games ever made?" The answer is simple. In Skyrim, it's all in the details.
The laurels of this game essentially rest on all the extra stuff around. What about all those handcrafted dungeons? Well...most of them unfortunately still look pretty similar to each other. The good news, however, is that the ones they decided would matter to the story or other big quests (read: the ones they paid attention to and didn't just crap out in 5 minutes) are AMAZING and tons of fun to explore. How about radiant questing? Wish there was more variety than "Kill bandit leader/dragon/giant at [insert location here]" but it does its job to facilitate you exploring new regions and finding new and interesting things. And as for all those new and interesting things scattered throughout the world? Main reason for playing this game. They obviously spent the greatest amount of their time simply fleshing out the world environment and adding all sorts of hidden treasures around. I spent probably around 100 hours with my first character and I still didn't discover every location. Mind you I didn't specifically try to, but there was so much else to occupy my time I didn't have to either. Despite the fact that Skyrim is technically smaller in landmass than Oblivion, it feels much much larger because more care went into crafting it.
I know this is a long review, with a lot to take in, and there's still a great deal I didn't cover, so I'll try to sum up here:
The Good:
-The world is very well crafted, as are the dungeons they actually spent time on.
-Tons of new things to discover/explore
-It all just looks so...damn...pretty
-Combat is versatile, with no wrong way to play
-The guild quests (especially the Dark Brotherhood) are tons of fun
-The leveling system is the best and most accessible it has ever been.
-100 hours will fly by and you'll still have more to do
-Despite the fact that there isn't any spellcrafting, spells are still a ton of fun to play with. I literally giggled with delight when I got a spell that summoned an exploding dog made of fire.
The meh:
-Radiant questing is repetitive but serves the goal of getting you to explore
-Fast travel is useful to have, but gets too easy to just skip to your goal and focus on the arrow on your compass instead of the world around you
-Enchanting, smithing and alchemy. Just kind of blah. Wish there were more interesting effects.
-Perks. Sure they make you better, but there's nothing that interesting to them besides one where you can behead people with a power attack. Wish they had included some perks for fun like in Fallout.
-The dragon storyline. There are some fun twists and turns and interesting history behind it, but the final battle being the same as all your other dragon battles kind of ruins it.
-Shouts. There are too many to know what to do with (especially as using one requires a recharge time before you can use another), but most of them are really fun to use.
-The Guardian Stones scattered around the map provide some neat abilities that can vary up how you play, but some are obviously much better than the others and you'll probably find yourself sticking to only one or two.
The bad:
-The civil war storyline. Boring from both sides (haven't finished the Imperial side yet, but for the most part it has been the exact same as the Stormcloaks side), especially because each side only has one good reason to fight for them but plenty of reasons to fight against them.
-Followers. Useful as mules, but their highly repetitive dialogue, tendency to step in front of your sword swing, and inability to follow you over an edge can make them major annoyances.
-Dragons. Epic the first time, boring the rest since they all fight exactly the same way and you will encounter a lot of them. They become annoyances and chores to fight instead of epic enemies.
-Fights in general can get pretty repetitive and boring as there are much fewer enemy types this time around.
-No spellcrafting. Grr.
-Every potion weighs .5, instead of the scaled weights they've had previously where the weight depended on the ingredients used to make it. This makes carrying a wide variety of potions as I like to do much more unfeasible.
Overall this may sound like a fairly negative review, which honestly I kind of wanted to slant it towards as it's all to easy to come from playing this game and simply say "OH MY GOD IT'S JUST SO AWESOME." To me, without a doubt it is the best Elder Scrolls game, and one of the best games ever made. That doesn't mean it doesn't still have its problems, but to be honest, a good deal of the problems I have will probably be adjusted or fixed with mods once the Creation Kit is released. Oh, and this is all not to mention the fact that it appears the entire continent of Tamriel has been built into this game, which means the modders (if not Bethesda themselves) can start incorporating both Oblivion and Morrowind into this game, as well as all the other countries that haven't yet been explored. Which means this game will never end. And frankly, I'm okay with that. If they would've tried the same thing with Oblivion, I don't know if I would've been as happy simply because to me Skyrim fixes the one thing I've always had trouble with, and that is the leveling system. So who knows, maybe we'll finally get what Elder Scrolls fans have always dreamed of...an entire continent to roam.
Until then, I'm more than happy to stay in Skyrim and explore every last nook and cranny.
Skyrim gets a 10/10.
Before I proceed to heap inordinate amounts of praise on this game (because yes, like the rest of the world I really liked it), let's get some history out of the way. Back in the dinosaur years around 1996 a little game called Daggerfall came out, also known as Elder Scrolls 2. Knowing almost nothing about games besides whatever my friends were playing (and a couple Star Wars games like Dark Forces that I had), Daggerfall caught my eye from the bargain bin and I decided I was going to try to expand my gaming horizon. And boy did it expand. I mean, by swishing your mouse in a certain direction, your sword swung in that direction. It was the greatest gaming innovation I had ever experienced. Sure the whole fantasy world and hard to decipher story was interesting and all, but come on. It was basically the predecessor to the Wii.
But as with all games Daggerfall eventually fell from the list of games I played and was practically forgotten when I finally got around to playing Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind. But Morrowind was not so quick to fade. Oh no. Despite the fact that the entire game was basically swamps and a mountain, I played the crap out of it. I loved every bit. The story, the locations, the immersiveness of it. Especially the Bloodmoon expansion, which provided a nice change of scenery along with a very early glimpse of what Skyrim would be like. Sure it had its issues, but it was still one hell of a game.
So anticipations were high for Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. And don't get me wrong, I still logged countless hours on it, but I enjoyed Morrowind more. To me, Oblivion got rid of a lot of the great things from Morrowind and didn't add enough improvements to make up for it. By all accounts it was a more well designed game, but the main story especially left me wanting as it focused more on helping someone else save the world than it was about you. I will also never really get over the zooming in on those godawful facial textures during dialogue.
Now Skyrim comes along, and starts promising to fix every problem with the past games. Better, more varied combat. Hand-crafted dungeons instead of the repetitive randomly generated caves. A better game engine with prettier graphics and fewer bugs. A new and improved leveling system with perks. And DRAGONS, which have been clamored for from the beginning. It promised us the most immersive RPG to date. Did it deliver?
It's fair to say that you all know by now it lived up to those expectations and more. I easily throw my hat in with the crowd that calls Skyrim one of the, if not the, best games ever made. So why should you keep paying attention? Because I still have some major gripes with this game that don't just boil down to "OMG IT'S SO BUGGY" as everybody else who gives the game a negative review seems to say. First off, maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones, but for me Skyrim plays like a dream. Sure there are some menu issues and the occasional follower glitch, but for the most part I have no issues with bugs. Instead, what I have issues with are what people should be having issues with, and that's the actual gameplay.
For those who are still unfamiliar with what Skyrim is all about, you are placed in the shoes of the last Dragonborn, an individual blessed by the gods that has the power to use the language of dragons (in the form of "shouts") and can absorb the souls of dragons to gain their power and make sure they can't be resurrected. However, you only discover this after waking up riding in the back of a carriage, arrested and on the way to execution after having been found near the border with a group of rebels and their leader, Ulfric Stormcloak, and being saved from execution by the timely intervention of a giant dragon out of legend burning down the town. After hunting down that dragon and getting some vengeance, you absorb its soul and learn that you are the Dovahkin/Dragonborn. From there, you're basically free to roam about the world, or continue to discover where the dragons have come from, and why you've been sent to stop them. You can also take sides in the civil war between the Imperials who are trying to maintain their hold on Skyrim, and the Stormcloaks who are trying to reclaim their homeland.
There are of course many other quests and things to do in Skyrim, like joining any or all of the 4 guilds: The Companions (Fighter's Guild), the College of Winterhold (Mages Guild), the Thieves Guild, or the infamous Dark Brotherhood (assassins). You can also aim to become Thane of the major cities, a mostly honorary title that simply involves helping out the townsfolk and owning a home. And then there are the literally infinite number of miscellaneous and radiant quests you can pick up, which are usually more simple quests (kill a bandit leader, slay a dragon, etc.) that lead you to areas of the map you might not have explored yet. It's a big game, with no shortage of things to find or do, just like its predecessors (though even more so as you can get endless amounts of quests).
There are, however, many things which make Skyrim much different from its predecessors. The first is combat. This time around you can dual-wield weapons, spells, or both for a giant variety in how to approach each encounter. It rewards experimentation, but also allows for you to face any fight in the way that simply feels right to you. Enjoy just rushing in and hitting everything that moves? Two handed weapons. Prefer more strategic fights? Switch up between holding a shield and sword and maybe toss some spells. It's a very fluid system (with fun Fallout 3 style finishing moves thrown in) that provides a great deal of versatility and replayability.
The second, and my vastly favorite improvement, is the leveling system. In the previous titles the idea behind leveling was that you would get better at the skills you used, and those in turn would help you level your basic stats like Strength, Dexterity, etc. However, it really failed in practice simply because the way the math worked you had to be really careful which skills you increased during each level if you wanted to maximize your results. This was especially disastrous in Oblivion as the enemies leveled with you, so if you weren't managing your leveling well, suddenly you were facing normal bandits wearing glass armor and weren't really prepared for that. In Skyrim, however, they simply did away with attributes altogether. And the amazing thing is, by throwing away what has been such a staple of most RPGs for years and years, it actually accomplished what the series has been trying to accomplish all these years. You get better at the skills you use, you can use perks to add bonuses to those skills, and it's all amazingly intuitive and easy to manage. You stop worrying about what you're doing and just play how you want to play, and you're rewarded for playing that way.
However, there are definitely some changes I'm not happy about. Spellcrafting is gone. I understand it broke a good deal of the previous games (especially the well loved levitation spell in Morrowind), but not being able to make my flamethrower hands more powerful except with perks is a little frustrating. Skyrim is a game that begs you to experiment with it, and so to not provide it with the spells makes me sad. Another change seems to be a drastic reduction in enemy types. Going by the wikis, there are about 30 different types in Skyrim while there are 46 in Oblivion and 49 in Morrowind. Most of the time in Skyrim you will either be battling a wolf, a bear, a bandit/vampire, or a draugr (undead). Less often but still frequent are spiders, trolls, and dragons. It just felt really repetitive. In a game where you're expecting people to log hundreds of hours of time in a game world, you'd think you'd want a greater variety of enemies, not drastically fewer. You would also want more region-specific enemies than "snow" and "not snow". There are like 9 different climates in this game. More than the flowers should change.
Another enemy gripe I have is actually one of the selling points of the game: dragons. They were made out to be these epic battles between man and beast where each dragon reacted differently to the location and situation. In reality, each dragon fight plays out exactly the same. It spams you with either fire or ice breath from the sky, then when you hurt it enough with ranged attacks or when it lands you run up and hack away at it until it falls. Sure, the first time you do it it feels pretty epic, having to run around and try to lure the dragon to the ground, escape its breath, and dodge its bites and tail swipes at you. But that's the first time. Second time, still feels pretty epic, but it plays out the same way. By the third time, I was looking for something different to happen. By the fourth, I was a little bored. And from the fifth onward the only reason I would fight a dragon would be if I had to either from a quest or from it randomly attacking. It became a chore instead of an epic experience, and fighting a dragon should never seem like a chore. There are, I think, two reasons it devolved. One, each dragon fights the same. You'll come across several different types and levels of dragons, some more challenging than the others, but each one goes through the same exact pattern. Two, there are simply too many, which ties into the shouting system.
I love the shouts. I think they're a lot of fun. Each one is essentially a power that lets you do things like breathe fire, or slow time, or disarm foes, and each shout has three words of power associated with it which can be discovered through various "word walls" scattered around the map. There are 20 shouts in all, some of which are simply given to you through the main quest, but for all the others once you learn the word from the word wall you need to spend a dragon soul (collected by beating a dragon) to actually use it. So say that you learn 4 shouts from the story that you don't need to spend souls on (I think it's 4...), that leaves you with 48 dragons you need to kill to fully level up your shouts. Even if I'm remembering incorrectly and give some allowance, you have to kill at least 40 dragons. Even if you don't care about leveling up your shouts, the point is they had that in mind when designing how many dragons to put in the game, so you'll be seeing a fair share whether you want to or not. So if you're hopping into Skyrim for the dragons, be forewarned, they're really not as cool as they should be simply because it seems like they're treated as just another type of creature inhabiting these lands and not the epic mini-boss battles they were made out to be. In fact, by treating all dragons the same, even the final boss (a dragon) comes across as just another dragon battle where you just hack away until it dies.
The main stories in general suffered a bit in this game. While the dragon storyline has some interesting history and twists in it, the final battle kind of ruins it all (though the awesome scene after helps). And as for the civil war, forget any interesting politics or policies, you choose a side, capture a couple forts for that side by defeating a certain number of random troops that continually spawn until you win, and then capture the opponent's main city in the same way and force them to surrender. Add to that that both sides are basically assholes with little reason to choose their side but plenty of reason to fight against them and you get a storyline with little to no investment in the outcome, especially because the big determinant of the war (how Skyrim will fare against the elven Aldmeri Dominion) won't be addressed until some future point (one would assume in DLC). It basically boils down to "Hooray we won!" and no answer to the question of "Now what?"
"But Zach," you may be thinking, "if you hated the main storylines and the dragons, which is what the game is essentially sold on, how can you still call it one of the best games ever made?" The answer is simple. In Skyrim, it's all in the details.
The laurels of this game essentially rest on all the extra stuff around. What about all those handcrafted dungeons? Well...most of them unfortunately still look pretty similar to each other. The good news, however, is that the ones they decided would matter to the story or other big quests (read: the ones they paid attention to and didn't just crap out in 5 minutes) are AMAZING and tons of fun to explore. How about radiant questing? Wish there was more variety than "Kill bandit leader/dragon/giant at [insert location here]" but it does its job to facilitate you exploring new regions and finding new and interesting things. And as for all those new and interesting things scattered throughout the world? Main reason for playing this game. They obviously spent the greatest amount of their time simply fleshing out the world environment and adding all sorts of hidden treasures around. I spent probably around 100 hours with my first character and I still didn't discover every location. Mind you I didn't specifically try to, but there was so much else to occupy my time I didn't have to either. Despite the fact that Skyrim is technically smaller in landmass than Oblivion, it feels much much larger because more care went into crafting it.
I know this is a long review, with a lot to take in, and there's still a great deal I didn't cover, so I'll try to sum up here:
The Good:
-The world is very well crafted, as are the dungeons they actually spent time on.
-Tons of new things to discover/explore
-It all just looks so...damn...pretty
-Combat is versatile, with no wrong way to play
-The guild quests (especially the Dark Brotherhood) are tons of fun
-The leveling system is the best and most accessible it has ever been.
-100 hours will fly by and you'll still have more to do
-Despite the fact that there isn't any spellcrafting, spells are still a ton of fun to play with. I literally giggled with delight when I got a spell that summoned an exploding dog made of fire.
The meh:
-Radiant questing is repetitive but serves the goal of getting you to explore
-Fast travel is useful to have, but gets too easy to just skip to your goal and focus on the arrow on your compass instead of the world around you
-Enchanting, smithing and alchemy. Just kind of blah. Wish there were more interesting effects.
-Perks. Sure they make you better, but there's nothing that interesting to them besides one where you can behead people with a power attack. Wish they had included some perks for fun like in Fallout.
-The dragon storyline. There are some fun twists and turns and interesting history behind it, but the final battle being the same as all your other dragon battles kind of ruins it.
-Shouts. There are too many to know what to do with (especially as using one requires a recharge time before you can use another), but most of them are really fun to use.
-The Guardian Stones scattered around the map provide some neat abilities that can vary up how you play, but some are obviously much better than the others and you'll probably find yourself sticking to only one or two.
The bad:
-The civil war storyline. Boring from both sides (haven't finished the Imperial side yet, but for the most part it has been the exact same as the Stormcloaks side), especially because each side only has one good reason to fight for them but plenty of reasons to fight against them.
-Followers. Useful as mules, but their highly repetitive dialogue, tendency to step in front of your sword swing, and inability to follow you over an edge can make them major annoyances.
-Dragons. Epic the first time, boring the rest since they all fight exactly the same way and you will encounter a lot of them. They become annoyances and chores to fight instead of epic enemies.
-Fights in general can get pretty repetitive and boring as there are much fewer enemy types this time around.
-No spellcrafting. Grr.
-Every potion weighs .5, instead of the scaled weights they've had previously where the weight depended on the ingredients used to make it. This makes carrying a wide variety of potions as I like to do much more unfeasible.
Overall this may sound like a fairly negative review, which honestly I kind of wanted to slant it towards as it's all to easy to come from playing this game and simply say "OH MY GOD IT'S JUST SO AWESOME." To me, without a doubt it is the best Elder Scrolls game, and one of the best games ever made. That doesn't mean it doesn't still have its problems, but to be honest, a good deal of the problems I have will probably be adjusted or fixed with mods once the Creation Kit is released. Oh, and this is all not to mention the fact that it appears the entire continent of Tamriel has been built into this game, which means the modders (if not Bethesda themselves) can start incorporating both Oblivion and Morrowind into this game, as well as all the other countries that haven't yet been explored. Which means this game will never end. And frankly, I'm okay with that. If they would've tried the same thing with Oblivion, I don't know if I would've been as happy simply because to me Skyrim fixes the one thing I've always had trouble with, and that is the leveling system. So who knows, maybe we'll finally get what Elder Scrolls fans have always dreamed of...an entire continent to roam.
Until then, I'm more than happy to stay in Skyrim and explore every last nook and cranny.
Skyrim gets a 10/10.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Assassin's Creed Revelations
Let's recap. The Assassin's Creed franchise started out with what many would consider a flawed masterpiece. It was groundbreaking in many ways, mainly in its story, but it just wasn't that fun to play. Then we hear it's going to be a trilogy, and Assassin's Creed 2 comes out, vastly improving on the original but still with some flaws. But oh no, now a trilogy is no longer good enough. Now the dollar signs are flashing in Ubisoft's eyes and soon the word "franchise" starts rolling off their tongues. And they figure, "Man, everybody loved Ezio so much more than Altair...let's just give them more Ezio!" And so we get Brotherhood, an improvement in many ways, but also a drawback in that it was essentially the missing Rome of 2 bloated up into its own game. Then once more the heads gathered together and they said "Okay...people still love Ezio, but there's nothing more to build off of. However, we still have one more year until 2012, which is the big important year in the game. So how about we make one more game, tidy up some questions so we don't have to spend that much time in the 3rd game talking about it, and call it good?" And thus we get Revelations.
You may get a sense at this point that I am not having the greatest positive reaction to this game, and you'd be right. Here's the thing. Two years were spent between Assassin's Creed 1 and 2, and the improvement was incredible. Now we're getting yearly iterations (not even counting the portable titles in-between) and the improvements are, shall we say, not as groundbreaking. Yes, the combat's a bit more fluid. Yes, the freerunning feels tighter and more responsive. Sure, the graphics are a little better. But in almost every other way the series fails to improve, or tries to innovate and ends up slitting its own throat. And you can't help but get the feeling that if they had playtested these ideas for another year, we'd be looking at a much better product. Not only that, but while the saying runs true with many games, I think it especially fits here: "Absence makes the heart grow fonder." The wonderful thing about Assassin's Creed is how unique it is in its story and locations. Keep throwing the same thing at us year after year, however, and that uniqueness starts looking pretty stale.
So it is with Revelations. But Revelations doesn't just make the mistake of being almost identical to its predecessors. Oh no. It makes the mistake in that where it's different, it sucks.
SPOILERS HERE ON OUT. Ye be warned.
First things first. We start off right at the end of Brotherhood, where Desmond is trapped in a coma inside the Animus after falling to the power of the Apple and killing Lucy. His psyche is broken, just as Subject 16 was, between his own memory and his ancestors. Rebecca has loaded him into a basic program hidden deep in the Animus called the "Black Room". It appears as a small island with gateways to other memories, to help his mind start to sort itself out. But there's a catch. After unlocking all of 16's secrets in Brotherhood you discover that 16's consciousness has been kept in the Animus as well, and he's waiting for you on this island, obviously there to help, but in a mentally imbalanced kind of way. He basically reveals that in order for Desmond to regain consciousness, he has to finish reliving both Ezio and Altair's memories until they have nothing left to show him. But he has to be careful, as if the Animus catches on to him leaving the black room it will at best pull him back, and at worst, treat him as a virus and try to delete him. On top of that, there are 5 gateways unlocked by finding animus fragments in Ezio's memory that reveal more of Desmond's backstory through...very interesting ways (more on that later). Basically it's all one big setup to wrap up Altair and Ezio's storylines and reveal a bit more of Desmond and 16's pasts.
Ezio starts off in Masayaf, the location of the first game, tracking down the lost secrets of Altair. However, it has fallen into decline and is now controlled by Templars. Barely escaping, Ezio learns of the existence of a library in the keep that possibly holds a great weapon, and which can only be opened with 5 keys. The Templars have one, and the rest were hidden by Niccolo Polo, Marco Polo's father, in Constantinople. But in an Inception-like turn, each key turns out to hold the memories of Altair, and so during these sequences you're essentially playing as Desmond playing as Ezio playing as Altair. They tell the story of Altair's rule and fall and eventual return as leader of the assassins, and finish up his story quite nicely. Back in Constantinople, between retrieving keys Ezio gets caught up in a civil war between two brothers looking to claim the sultanship for their own, and of course discovers one is a Templar and does everything he can to stop him. You can probably guess the rest. Ezio routs the Templars, finds the keys, opens the library, learns a secret, and shares everything he has left to share with Desmond so Desmond can wake up.
As for Desmond's past, these five...challenges? are unlike anything else in the series. They most closely resemble 16's puzzles, but only in that they're segmented chunks of story you unlock sequentially by finding things on the map. In short, they're first person sequences where you hop on various geometric shapes and can place your own either bars or ramps to further progress your way through the level. Sometimes there are blocks of data you can't touch, sometimes there are areas where you can't place blocks, sometimes there are areas where your blocks will drift in a certain direction...Basically they're platforming-ish puzzles, each revealing more of the story of Desmond's journey from the Farm to New York to Abstergo. Don't make sense? I don't blame you. If you tried explaining that to me I'd go "What the fuck are you on about?" Just...google an image or something cause that's the only way you'll see.
Now, I have a lot of problems with this game and I'm going to try my best to dole out some good with bad, but here's where the bad begins. So, in both 2 and Brotherhood, collecting things in the world got you big reveals. Sure there's 100 feathers to collect, but there's a nice reward for doing it! Now there's only 10 feathers, and all you get is an achievement, but there's 100 flags and a handy cape for those! In Revelations...they do the reverse. There's 100 Animus fragments, and 10 memoir pages. 30 fragments opens up all 5 Desmond memories. After 50 you can see all of them on your map. And at 100...a trophy. That's it. A bronze trophy. It practically spits in your face, especially as there are 2 OPEN DOORWAYS past the 5 you unlock. But apparently those are just there to get your hopes up. The pages, however, net you the best armor in the game. What. You can imagine my rage when I spent all this time tracking the damn things down, only to have just the trophy pop up saying "Congratulations for wasting your time!" It was an especial insult because the Desmond sequences were very interesting, despite how weird they were, and I wanted more of them and more about Desmond. So fuck you too Ubisoft.
As for the rest of the game, it plays almost exactly like Brotherhood. There are two touted innovations this time around, however: the hookblade and bombs. The hookblade adds a little bit to your climbing reach and makes things speedier, as well as letting you zipline across the rooftops. Technically it can be used in combat too but the difference is mostly cosmetic (except for the ability to counter-steal, where you block an opponent's attack and steal their gold at the same time). Bombs come in three groups: lethal, tactical, and diversion. Lethal ones kill, tactical hinder your enemies in some way (smoke bombs, caltrops), and diversionary draw guards' attention somewhere else. You can technically craft like 300 different types of bombs depending on the shell used, the explosive radius, and the effect type, but pretty early on you'll realize maybe only 2 or 3 combinations for each type really matter. Overall I found them a welcome addition, as they added some variety to how to get through each encounter, but for the most part I would often completely forget about using them unless the game forced me to, which it would do very, very often. I understand you want people to use this new mechanic you put a lot of time into, but forcing them to play a mission where bombs are the only way to get full synch? Especially the only epic mission in the game, namely the one they showed off for E3? Not cool.
Speaking of, I honestly didn't have that much of a problem with the full synch requirements for missions in Brotherhood. Sure, they were often quite a lot of trouble and could limit how to play a mission or made a mission seemingly impossible (I'm looking at you, "don't get hit" tank mission), but most of the time they simply seemed to fit with being a better assassin. Like don't lose too much health, kill only your target, don't be detected, etc. In Revelations things feel wholly different. Technically many of the requirements remain the same, but somehow this time they feel more arbitrary and harder to accomplish. The "don't use blades" E3 level and "kill 6 guards from a haystack" when only 1 guard patrols around a haystack level are the most egregious examples, but some levels "don't be detected" or "don't lose any health" are practically game-killers in how often you have to replay it to get it right (if you're a perfectionist like me and want that 100% sync). And of course, all you have to look forward to with that 100% is a goddamned trophy, and of course getting rid of the feeling like you failed that mission because you didn't play it the way they told you to.
Also revamped and nearly game-breaking is the notoriety system, Borgia towers (now Assassin's Dens) and economy. And yes, they do all tie together. Each Den plays out just like a Borgia tower. You kill a captain, climb to the top of the tower, light the beacon, and it's yours. It also allows you to renovate nearby shops. However, this time, if your notoriety gets too high the Templars can launch an assault on your den, which propels you into the Den Defense minigame, which is the worst idea they've ever come up with. Essentially it's a tower defense game where you set up different types of units on the rooftops and barricades in the street while waves of Templars come by and tear it all down in an attempt to wreck your den. This...minigame...is so bad...there are no words. Most of it appears to be luck. And the worst part is, if you lose, the tower just goes back to Templar control, and it's actually usually faster to just forfeit the minigame and then reclaim the tower than it is to play the minigame. As for notoriety, the best I can say is that they listened to fans and got rid of the stupid posters. On the other side, they made it so that renovating a shop or buying a landmark bumps up your notoriety by 25%. Killing a guard doesn't even do that. It's fractional compared to that. And sure, there are no more posters, but now bribing heralds only takes away 25% (and they're less abundant), and killing officials takes away 50% but they hardly ever pop up. Oh, and capturing a den automatically makes you notorious. But it's the punishing you for renovating that makes me cringe. Essentially for every shop you renovate you have to find a herald, unless you like playing the godawful den defense game, which brings the whole system to a crawl. Not only that, but gold is less abundant overall. All those treasure chests now only contain bomb ingredients for the most part.
This also ties in to the slightly reworked assassin recruits and Mediterranean Defense, where you send your recruits to other cities to spread Assassin influence. This time each mission reduces Templar influence at that city, and you also have the option to try and reclaim the city. If you do, the city brings in bomb ingredients and gold for you. However, your own influence also decreases over time, and if it reaches 0 you have to reclaim it again. Missions earn your assassins xp, and once they reach level 10 they can be promoted to the head of one of your dens. If they reach level 15 they become master assassins and the den they protect can no longer be targeted for den defense. However, it takes quite a lot of time, and it's pretty boring, so I only had 2 master assassins by the time the main story ended.
What this all goes to show is that Revelations suffers from the same problem that plagued Brotherhood. There's simply too much to do. Between worrying about den defense, gaining your assassins xp, renovating, finding heralds, trying to complete faction challenges, searching for fragments and pages, yadayadayada you're left with hours worth of tedious things to do far after the story is over. In Brotherhood I put it up to a simple misjudgement in wanting to include everything to make the game seem longer. In Revelations there is no excuse. This time they knew it was padding around a main story that, while it lives up to its name in theory (sure it reveals things, but they're not very interesting revelations) is pretty bare otherwise. The civil war storyline is pure filler with nothing interesting to it. Ezio's search for the truth Altair left behind has its strong points, but falters in others. And worst of all, Ezio's relationship with his future wife, which could have provided the emotional center this game needed to make any sort of impact, is almost completely skipped over or is simply told to us in Ezio's narration.
Here's the thing. Revelations is not a bad game per se. It's still an Assassin's Creed game, and that core gameplay and interesting story that keep this series so fascinating is still there. But as I did with Uncharted 3, I have to look at this game in the light of its predecessors. Because we have to face facts here. Anything good in Revelations came from the last games. Almost everything new that it adds either nearly breaks the experience or makes little difference overall. If I hadn't played the other, better games, I probably would've given this an 8 or 8.5. But as it goes...
Assassin's Creed Revelations gets a 7/10.
You may get a sense at this point that I am not having the greatest positive reaction to this game, and you'd be right. Here's the thing. Two years were spent between Assassin's Creed 1 and 2, and the improvement was incredible. Now we're getting yearly iterations (not even counting the portable titles in-between) and the improvements are, shall we say, not as groundbreaking. Yes, the combat's a bit more fluid. Yes, the freerunning feels tighter and more responsive. Sure, the graphics are a little better. But in almost every other way the series fails to improve, or tries to innovate and ends up slitting its own throat. And you can't help but get the feeling that if they had playtested these ideas for another year, we'd be looking at a much better product. Not only that, but while the saying runs true with many games, I think it especially fits here: "Absence makes the heart grow fonder." The wonderful thing about Assassin's Creed is how unique it is in its story and locations. Keep throwing the same thing at us year after year, however, and that uniqueness starts looking pretty stale.
So it is with Revelations. But Revelations doesn't just make the mistake of being almost identical to its predecessors. Oh no. It makes the mistake in that where it's different, it sucks.
SPOILERS HERE ON OUT. Ye be warned.
First things first. We start off right at the end of Brotherhood, where Desmond is trapped in a coma inside the Animus after falling to the power of the Apple and killing Lucy. His psyche is broken, just as Subject 16 was, between his own memory and his ancestors. Rebecca has loaded him into a basic program hidden deep in the Animus called the "Black Room". It appears as a small island with gateways to other memories, to help his mind start to sort itself out. But there's a catch. After unlocking all of 16's secrets in Brotherhood you discover that 16's consciousness has been kept in the Animus as well, and he's waiting for you on this island, obviously there to help, but in a mentally imbalanced kind of way. He basically reveals that in order for Desmond to regain consciousness, he has to finish reliving both Ezio and Altair's memories until they have nothing left to show him. But he has to be careful, as if the Animus catches on to him leaving the black room it will at best pull him back, and at worst, treat him as a virus and try to delete him. On top of that, there are 5 gateways unlocked by finding animus fragments in Ezio's memory that reveal more of Desmond's backstory through...very interesting ways (more on that later). Basically it's all one big setup to wrap up Altair and Ezio's storylines and reveal a bit more of Desmond and 16's pasts.
Ezio starts off in Masayaf, the location of the first game, tracking down the lost secrets of Altair. However, it has fallen into decline and is now controlled by Templars. Barely escaping, Ezio learns of the existence of a library in the keep that possibly holds a great weapon, and which can only be opened with 5 keys. The Templars have one, and the rest were hidden by Niccolo Polo, Marco Polo's father, in Constantinople. But in an Inception-like turn, each key turns out to hold the memories of Altair, and so during these sequences you're essentially playing as Desmond playing as Ezio playing as Altair. They tell the story of Altair's rule and fall and eventual return as leader of the assassins, and finish up his story quite nicely. Back in Constantinople, between retrieving keys Ezio gets caught up in a civil war between two brothers looking to claim the sultanship for their own, and of course discovers one is a Templar and does everything he can to stop him. You can probably guess the rest. Ezio routs the Templars, finds the keys, opens the library, learns a secret, and shares everything he has left to share with Desmond so Desmond can wake up.
As for Desmond's past, these five...challenges? are unlike anything else in the series. They most closely resemble 16's puzzles, but only in that they're segmented chunks of story you unlock sequentially by finding things on the map. In short, they're first person sequences where you hop on various geometric shapes and can place your own either bars or ramps to further progress your way through the level. Sometimes there are blocks of data you can't touch, sometimes there are areas where you can't place blocks, sometimes there are areas where your blocks will drift in a certain direction...Basically they're platforming-ish puzzles, each revealing more of the story of Desmond's journey from the Farm to New York to Abstergo. Don't make sense? I don't blame you. If you tried explaining that to me I'd go "What the fuck are you on about?" Just...google an image or something cause that's the only way you'll see.
Now, I have a lot of problems with this game and I'm going to try my best to dole out some good with bad, but here's where the bad begins. So, in both 2 and Brotherhood, collecting things in the world got you big reveals. Sure there's 100 feathers to collect, but there's a nice reward for doing it! Now there's only 10 feathers, and all you get is an achievement, but there's 100 flags and a handy cape for those! In Revelations...they do the reverse. There's 100 Animus fragments, and 10 memoir pages. 30 fragments opens up all 5 Desmond memories. After 50 you can see all of them on your map. And at 100...a trophy. That's it. A bronze trophy. It practically spits in your face, especially as there are 2 OPEN DOORWAYS past the 5 you unlock. But apparently those are just there to get your hopes up. The pages, however, net you the best armor in the game. What. You can imagine my rage when I spent all this time tracking the damn things down, only to have just the trophy pop up saying "Congratulations for wasting your time!" It was an especial insult because the Desmond sequences were very interesting, despite how weird they were, and I wanted more of them and more about Desmond. So fuck you too Ubisoft.
As for the rest of the game, it plays almost exactly like Brotherhood. There are two touted innovations this time around, however: the hookblade and bombs. The hookblade adds a little bit to your climbing reach and makes things speedier, as well as letting you zipline across the rooftops. Technically it can be used in combat too but the difference is mostly cosmetic (except for the ability to counter-steal, where you block an opponent's attack and steal their gold at the same time). Bombs come in three groups: lethal, tactical, and diversion. Lethal ones kill, tactical hinder your enemies in some way (smoke bombs, caltrops), and diversionary draw guards' attention somewhere else. You can technically craft like 300 different types of bombs depending on the shell used, the explosive radius, and the effect type, but pretty early on you'll realize maybe only 2 or 3 combinations for each type really matter. Overall I found them a welcome addition, as they added some variety to how to get through each encounter, but for the most part I would often completely forget about using them unless the game forced me to, which it would do very, very often. I understand you want people to use this new mechanic you put a lot of time into, but forcing them to play a mission where bombs are the only way to get full synch? Especially the only epic mission in the game, namely the one they showed off for E3? Not cool.
Speaking of, I honestly didn't have that much of a problem with the full synch requirements for missions in Brotherhood. Sure, they were often quite a lot of trouble and could limit how to play a mission or made a mission seemingly impossible (I'm looking at you, "don't get hit" tank mission), but most of the time they simply seemed to fit with being a better assassin. Like don't lose too much health, kill only your target, don't be detected, etc. In Revelations things feel wholly different. Technically many of the requirements remain the same, but somehow this time they feel more arbitrary and harder to accomplish. The "don't use blades" E3 level and "kill 6 guards from a haystack" when only 1 guard patrols around a haystack level are the most egregious examples, but some levels "don't be detected" or "don't lose any health" are practically game-killers in how often you have to replay it to get it right (if you're a perfectionist like me and want that 100% sync). And of course, all you have to look forward to with that 100% is a goddamned trophy, and of course getting rid of the feeling like you failed that mission because you didn't play it the way they told you to.
Also revamped and nearly game-breaking is the notoriety system, Borgia towers (now Assassin's Dens) and economy. And yes, they do all tie together. Each Den plays out just like a Borgia tower. You kill a captain, climb to the top of the tower, light the beacon, and it's yours. It also allows you to renovate nearby shops. However, this time, if your notoriety gets too high the Templars can launch an assault on your den, which propels you into the Den Defense minigame, which is the worst idea they've ever come up with. Essentially it's a tower defense game where you set up different types of units on the rooftops and barricades in the street while waves of Templars come by and tear it all down in an attempt to wreck your den. This...minigame...is so bad...there are no words. Most of it appears to be luck. And the worst part is, if you lose, the tower just goes back to Templar control, and it's actually usually faster to just forfeit the minigame and then reclaim the tower than it is to play the minigame. As for notoriety, the best I can say is that they listened to fans and got rid of the stupid posters. On the other side, they made it so that renovating a shop or buying a landmark bumps up your notoriety by 25%. Killing a guard doesn't even do that. It's fractional compared to that. And sure, there are no more posters, but now bribing heralds only takes away 25% (and they're less abundant), and killing officials takes away 50% but they hardly ever pop up. Oh, and capturing a den automatically makes you notorious. But it's the punishing you for renovating that makes me cringe. Essentially for every shop you renovate you have to find a herald, unless you like playing the godawful den defense game, which brings the whole system to a crawl. Not only that, but gold is less abundant overall. All those treasure chests now only contain bomb ingredients for the most part.
This also ties in to the slightly reworked assassin recruits and Mediterranean Defense, where you send your recruits to other cities to spread Assassin influence. This time each mission reduces Templar influence at that city, and you also have the option to try and reclaim the city. If you do, the city brings in bomb ingredients and gold for you. However, your own influence also decreases over time, and if it reaches 0 you have to reclaim it again. Missions earn your assassins xp, and once they reach level 10 they can be promoted to the head of one of your dens. If they reach level 15 they become master assassins and the den they protect can no longer be targeted for den defense. However, it takes quite a lot of time, and it's pretty boring, so I only had 2 master assassins by the time the main story ended.
What this all goes to show is that Revelations suffers from the same problem that plagued Brotherhood. There's simply too much to do. Between worrying about den defense, gaining your assassins xp, renovating, finding heralds, trying to complete faction challenges, searching for fragments and pages, yadayadayada you're left with hours worth of tedious things to do far after the story is over. In Brotherhood I put it up to a simple misjudgement in wanting to include everything to make the game seem longer. In Revelations there is no excuse. This time they knew it was padding around a main story that, while it lives up to its name in theory (sure it reveals things, but they're not very interesting revelations) is pretty bare otherwise. The civil war storyline is pure filler with nothing interesting to it. Ezio's search for the truth Altair left behind has its strong points, but falters in others. And worst of all, Ezio's relationship with his future wife, which could have provided the emotional center this game needed to make any sort of impact, is almost completely skipped over or is simply told to us in Ezio's narration.
Here's the thing. Revelations is not a bad game per se. It's still an Assassin's Creed game, and that core gameplay and interesting story that keep this series so fascinating is still there. But as I did with Uncharted 3, I have to look at this game in the light of its predecessors. Because we have to face facts here. Anything good in Revelations came from the last games. Almost everything new that it adds either nearly breaks the experience or makes little difference overall. If I hadn't played the other, better games, I probably would've given this an 8 or 8.5. But as it goes...
Assassin's Creed Revelations gets a 7/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
