So there's been a lot of buzz about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. My opinion is "whatever". The reason for that is simple: I've already seen it. I saw it before it even hit theaters here.
I saw it back when it was called Män som hatar kvinnor.
Oh, but it's a different movie, you say.. a different take on the idea. My answer? I don't care. The story's the same, I already know how it ends.
It's fairly common that our initial impression of something comes to define our idea of it. In the case of this film, it's the actors and their performances. For me, Noomi Rapace is Lisbeth Salander. Michael Nyqvist is Mikael Blomkvist. Period, the end.
Hollywood has this habit of spending lots of money remaking so-called "foreign" films. Effectively doing little but re-recording the film with English dialogue, for the Michael Bay Generation that can't be bothered to do something as simple as read.
I use the phrase "so-called foreign films" to point out that there are almost no "domestic" films anymore. Almost all films are produced overseas, usually in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc, using non-American actors, financed by non-American companies, written and directed by non-American writers and producers. But they're not "foreign" films.. because they're in English. Record a film here in the States, 100% home-grown American, but do it in Spanish instead? Bam.. "foreign film". They really need to clarify this.. they're only called "foreign" because they're filmed in a language other than English.
So they think that we stupid Americans can't read, so they make the film in English. And then they totally bork (or börk?) up the casting. Granted, I don't really know Rooney Mara that well, having only seen her in Nightmare on Elm Street, where I would classify her performance as "okay" (considering the material). She's got her work cut out here, because Lisbeth is not an easy role by any means, and a role like this can make or break a career. To be fair, I have heard good things about her performance, but I'm not sure if they're making comparisons to Noomi Rapace, who, for many people (including me), cemented who Lisbeth is. But Daniel Craig? Sorry, but he would be one of the last people I would cast as Blomkvist. Michael Nyqvist might not be the American "pretty boy", but the man can act, and his performance as Blomkvist absolutely makes him into a real person that the audience can really believe. Daniel Craig is great if you put him in the right role, but this is not it.
I just fail to see the point of the whole "remake" thing. Män som hatar kvinnor (which, incidentally, does not translate as "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo") is barely three years old. Aside from the language "barrier", there's absolutely no reason to make the whole thing again. It's not like the originals were low-budget backyard productions.. they're extremely well made by any measure, and are all-around good films.
And most people here in the States are barely aware that they exist, and they'll probably never see them. They're on Netflix right now, all three of them. I wonder what the viewing numbers look like for them. Probably numbers that would make me sad.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Michael Bay Generation (Is Filmmaking Dead?)
So I'm reading this thread on a message board about movies, and I see someone say "Oh, that movie's boring.. I could barely stay awake through it." Something I've seen repeated several times, about this film in particular.
Is it boring? Not really, no. It's quite engaging, actually. But it does two things that seem to be anathema to the average moviegoer these days:
1) It doesn't have boobies or explosions.
2) It actually makes you put the pieces of the plot together yourself instead of just handing it to you on a silver platter.
The film in question? The recent spy thriller Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
I refer to this phenomenon as the "Michael Bay Generation". Although Bay is not directly responsible for the phenomenon, his films are the most obvious example of it. Like a lot of entertainment genres these days, including television, reading, and gaming, people seem to want the "spectacle" more than the "art".
Case in point: Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Total box office take worldwide, over one billion dollars. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy? Fifty-six million. It seems that people just don't want films like this anymore.
Let's examine TTSS for a minute. Surprisingly short at barely two hours, I fully expected it to be quite a bit longer. It's a spy thriller taking place in and around British Intelligence (MI6) during the Cold War in 1973. It features an absolutely stellar cast, including Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong, Ciarán Hinds, Benedict Cumberbatch, and John Hurt, all of which turn in spectacular performances. Gary Oldman is looking at an Oscar nomination (his first, surprisingly) for this role, and it's well deserved.
The "problem" with the film, according to the Michael Bay Generation, is that it's a true spy movie. The way spies actually work in the real world. This isn't James Bond's MI6. This is a bunch of guys talking about sources of information and deciding how to act on it. It describes the recruitment process, and how normally uneventful spying really is. Sneaking into an office and making off with a folder full of information instead of parachuting into a villain's lair and killing forty-seven people using a watch with a laser in it. One of the most tense moments in TTSS is literally a character trying to distract the people around him so he can stuff a pile of paper into his briefcase. And it works because it's so brilliantly edited and acted, you really feel the tension that the character feels, and you know that he (and you) will just die if someone suddenly pipes up and says "Oy, what you doin' there?" The character almost has a nervous breakdown afterwards, and you really believe it.
So there's no big explosions or fight scenes. I think there's a total of maybe four gunshots throughout the entire film. Exciting, in the Michael Bay sense? No, definitely not. Gripping and enthralling through story and acting? Absolutely.
And yes, no boobies. There's only a few mentions of sex throughout the entire film, and it's seen through the eyes of a very jaded and somewhat bitter middle-aged man who's dealing with his own issues. So no "Bond girls", either. The one woman we feel even the slightest bit of concern for throughout the film is brutally murdered right in front of us.
Another thing that TTSS does is make you think things out on your own. It's a spy movie, after all, a real spy movie. I knew going into it that the plot was probably going to be extremely complicated, so I was prepared for it when it turned out to be exactly that. Yeah, a lot of it gets explained at the end, but the pieces are always there if you look. It's a film with a lot of different threads going on, and they don't really start to come together until the film's climax. And even then, it's not all just handed to the audience.. there's still little pieces you need to think about on your own if you want an answer.
It's a really sad thing that a film like this will simply be labeled as "boring" (along with other "boring" films like The Godfather, I suppose), and will probably disappear into the bargain bin, and will force Hollywood to stop producing them. It really is an exceptional piece of filmmaking, and if you have it in you to appreciate good films.. not "spectacles" or "event films", but just really good films, then you owe it yourself to see this one.
Is it boring? Not really, no. It's quite engaging, actually. But it does two things that seem to be anathema to the average moviegoer these days:
1) It doesn't have boobies or explosions.
2) It actually makes you put the pieces of the plot together yourself instead of just handing it to you on a silver platter.
The film in question? The recent spy thriller Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.
I refer to this phenomenon as the "Michael Bay Generation". Although Bay is not directly responsible for the phenomenon, his films are the most obvious example of it. Like a lot of entertainment genres these days, including television, reading, and gaming, people seem to want the "spectacle" more than the "art".
Case in point: Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Total box office take worldwide, over one billion dollars. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy? Fifty-six million. It seems that people just don't want films like this anymore.
Let's examine TTSS for a minute. Surprisingly short at barely two hours, I fully expected it to be quite a bit longer. It's a spy thriller taking place in and around British Intelligence (MI6) during the Cold War in 1973. It features an absolutely stellar cast, including Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong, Ciarán Hinds, Benedict Cumberbatch, and John Hurt, all of which turn in spectacular performances. Gary Oldman is looking at an Oscar nomination (his first, surprisingly) for this role, and it's well deserved.
The "problem" with the film, according to the Michael Bay Generation, is that it's a true spy movie. The way spies actually work in the real world. This isn't James Bond's MI6. This is a bunch of guys talking about sources of information and deciding how to act on it. It describes the recruitment process, and how normally uneventful spying really is. Sneaking into an office and making off with a folder full of information instead of parachuting into a villain's lair and killing forty-seven people using a watch with a laser in it. One of the most tense moments in TTSS is literally a character trying to distract the people around him so he can stuff a pile of paper into his briefcase. And it works because it's so brilliantly edited and acted, you really feel the tension that the character feels, and you know that he (and you) will just die if someone suddenly pipes up and says "Oy, what you doin' there?" The character almost has a nervous breakdown afterwards, and you really believe it.
So there's no big explosions or fight scenes. I think there's a total of maybe four gunshots throughout the entire film. Exciting, in the Michael Bay sense? No, definitely not. Gripping and enthralling through story and acting? Absolutely.
And yes, no boobies. There's only a few mentions of sex throughout the entire film, and it's seen through the eyes of a very jaded and somewhat bitter middle-aged man who's dealing with his own issues. So no "Bond girls", either. The one woman we feel even the slightest bit of concern for throughout the film is brutally murdered right in front of us.
Another thing that TTSS does is make you think things out on your own. It's a spy movie, after all, a real spy movie. I knew going into it that the plot was probably going to be extremely complicated, so I was prepared for it when it turned out to be exactly that. Yeah, a lot of it gets explained at the end, but the pieces are always there if you look. It's a film with a lot of different threads going on, and they don't really start to come together until the film's climax. And even then, it's not all just handed to the audience.. there's still little pieces you need to think about on your own if you want an answer.
It's a really sad thing that a film like this will simply be labeled as "boring" (along with other "boring" films like The Godfather, I suppose), and will probably disappear into the bargain bin, and will force Hollywood to stop producing them. It really is an exceptional piece of filmmaking, and if you have it in you to appreciate good films.. not "spectacles" or "event films", but just really good films, then you owe it yourself to see this one.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Violent video games - Is it the problem "they" say it is?
Hot topic! This one comes up all the time, usually after someone kills someone else (in real life). I've been chewing on this one for a while.
Proponents of this theory say that violent video games cause violent behavior. That little Johnny was such an angel until he started playing Grand Theft Auto, at which point he went next door and stabbed little Stevie to death with a carving fork.
These people are idiots. And yes, I'm going to tell you why.
For one, they try to prove their point by doing studies that prove a link between violent behavior and the playing of violent video games. Jimmy is a bully at school, and he plays a video game called Bully. In the game, you're tasked with being a bully at school, and sure enough, Jimmy is a bully in real life. Proven. Or is it?
Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a link between violent behavior and violent games. Just that these people have it backwards:
Jimmy isn't a bully because he plays the game. He plays the game because he's a bully.
A slight change in wording makes a HUGE difference in the outcome. The truth is quite simple: Violent people are more attracted to violent video games. It's not the other way around. The video games don't make them into violent people, they're already violent people, whether they play the game or not.
This could be proven rather easily by just doing a simple unbiased study. You put Jimmy the bully and Bobby the little angel into a room to play video games, and you give them a choice of Saint's Row and Barbie Horse Adventures. Guess which kid's going to play which one? Jimmy isn't going to touch the Barbie game with a ten-foot pole, and if you were to force it on him, he'd probably try to find ways in which to break the horse's legs so he'd get to shoot it. Conversely, if you were to force angel Bobby to play Saint's Row to run over pedestrians and shoot up a police station, he'd probably get sick. He'd play the game in a very conservative fashion, and he absolutely would not suddenly turn into a mass murderer.
In fact, other studies have been done that indicate that violent video games are actually a healthy outlet for aggression for these people. Have a bad day at work? Pop in Call of Duty and go kill some Russkies, you'll feel better. Better to play a game for an hour than to leave a body in a ditch somewhere, yeah?
Yes, I play violent video games. Because I'm a violent person. I have an incredibly vicious temper, one that I've had since long before these games even existed, that I've spent most of my life learning to control. And I'm very good at it. Most people see me as mild-mannered Clark Kent, which is how I prefer to be.. it's who I want to be. That's the guy that plays Flower. Underneath, it's more like Dexter Morgan. He's the one that plays Mortal Kombat.
The problem is that a lot of parents these days, specifically the ones that were never gamers themselves, believe that games never grew up.. they think that it's all still Pac-Man and Missle Command and that "games are for kids". As such, they tend to completely ignore the rating system (many aren't even aware that there is such a thing) and let their kids play whatever they want. Ironically, they get mad at the store or the game industry when they find out just what the games are like, even though they themselves purchased it. It's not that hard, really. If the store clerk refuses to sell the game to Junior, and asks for your ID before selling it to you, that might be a pretty good indication that this game isn't what you think it is.
It's part of a much larger problem of parents refusing to take responsibility for the raising of their children, but that's a discussion for another time.
In the meantime, parents need to pay attention to what their kids are playing, and learn about the rating system. It's there for a reason. Video games aren't for kids anymore.
Proponents of this theory say that violent video games cause violent behavior. That little Johnny was such an angel until he started playing Grand Theft Auto, at which point he went next door and stabbed little Stevie to death with a carving fork.
These people are idiots. And yes, I'm going to tell you why.
For one, they try to prove their point by doing studies that prove a link between violent behavior and the playing of violent video games. Jimmy is a bully at school, and he plays a video game called Bully. In the game, you're tasked with being a bully at school, and sure enough, Jimmy is a bully in real life. Proven. Or is it?
Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a link between violent behavior and violent games. Just that these people have it backwards:
Jimmy isn't a bully because he plays the game. He plays the game because he's a bully.
A slight change in wording makes a HUGE difference in the outcome. The truth is quite simple: Violent people are more attracted to violent video games. It's not the other way around. The video games don't make them into violent people, they're already violent people, whether they play the game or not.
This could be proven rather easily by just doing a simple unbiased study. You put Jimmy the bully and Bobby the little angel into a room to play video games, and you give them a choice of Saint's Row and Barbie Horse Adventures. Guess which kid's going to play which one? Jimmy isn't going to touch the Barbie game with a ten-foot pole, and if you were to force it on him, he'd probably try to find ways in which to break the horse's legs so he'd get to shoot it. Conversely, if you were to force angel Bobby to play Saint's Row to run over pedestrians and shoot up a police station, he'd probably get sick. He'd play the game in a very conservative fashion, and he absolutely would not suddenly turn into a mass murderer.
In fact, other studies have been done that indicate that violent video games are actually a healthy outlet for aggression for these people. Have a bad day at work? Pop in Call of Duty and go kill some Russkies, you'll feel better. Better to play a game for an hour than to leave a body in a ditch somewhere, yeah?
Yes, I play violent video games. Because I'm a violent person. I have an incredibly vicious temper, one that I've had since long before these games even existed, that I've spent most of my life learning to control. And I'm very good at it. Most people see me as mild-mannered Clark Kent, which is how I prefer to be.. it's who I want to be. That's the guy that plays Flower. Underneath, it's more like Dexter Morgan. He's the one that plays Mortal Kombat.
The problem is that a lot of parents these days, specifically the ones that were never gamers themselves, believe that games never grew up.. they think that it's all still Pac-Man and Missle Command and that "games are for kids". As such, they tend to completely ignore the rating system (many aren't even aware that there is such a thing) and let their kids play whatever they want. Ironically, they get mad at the store or the game industry when they find out just what the games are like, even though they themselves purchased it. It's not that hard, really. If the store clerk refuses to sell the game to Junior, and asks for your ID before selling it to you, that might be a pretty good indication that this game isn't what you think it is.
It's part of a much larger problem of parents refusing to take responsibility for the raising of their children, but that's a discussion for another time.
In the meantime, parents need to pay attention to what their kids are playing, and learn about the rating system. It's there for a reason. Video games aren't for kids anymore.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Ads in Deus Ex - Dubya Tee Eff
Allow me to toss out a WTF moment. Yesterday Square Enix releases a patch for the PC version of Deus Ex: Human Revolution that, among other things, fixes some horrible performance bugs that have plagued the game since launch. So obviously, everybody wants to download the patch as soon as possible.
One other "feature", that wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, is the new in-game advertising system! Yes, the fifty bucks that I already paid for the game apparently isn't good enough. Now they want to show me real-world advertising on the loading screens. Yay for immersion.
Bear in mind that advertising is, in general, one of my pet peeves. I absolutely hate.. nay, despise being told what I should buy. You're not telling me anything about the product that I care to hear. If I don't already know about it through word-of-mouth (which, on the internet, is extensive, and I hang out at all the places that will have first news of anything that interests me), then it's clearly not worth my time or money. And if I do hear about it through word-of-mouth, I'll do my own research, and then I'll make up my own mind about whether to purchase your product. Therefore, I simply don't do ads, period. I have more ad-blockers installed than I know what to do with, and I frantically perma-ban anything that slips through that minefield.
So why in the holy hell would I want to see real-world advertisements in my games? If the game were free-to-play, I could understand it, although most FTP developers use other methods for profit generation than advertisements. Valve, for example, sells in-game hats that your Team Fortress characters can wear. Silly, yes, but it works, and you're not forced into it.. it's a cosmetic thing. But no.. I'm loading up the next level in DXHR, and there it is.. "Buy the Star Wars Blu-ray!!"
Really? The Star Wars Blu-ray? Do you think I live in a ***king cave? That I honestly was not aware the set existed? That I didn't already ***king own it? Of course I already own it. So why would I want to see anything.. ANYTHING telling me to run out and buy it again?
I'm waiting with baited breath to see what Square Enix has to say in its defense. Unless they want to refund my fifty bucks, their ads can go to hell.
One day later, and I've got a mod that blocks them. But what pisses me off the most is that I shouldn't have to do this for a game that I bought and paid for. It's like DVDs that don't let you fast-forward through the trailers for movies that came out six years ago. It's stupid.
You can download the mod HERE. I recommend everybody do it. And send a nasty letter to Square Enix while you're at it.
I'm out.
One other "feature", that wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, is the new in-game advertising system! Yes, the fifty bucks that I already paid for the game apparently isn't good enough. Now they want to show me real-world advertising on the loading screens. Yay for immersion.
Bear in mind that advertising is, in general, one of my pet peeves. I absolutely hate.. nay, despise being told what I should buy. You're not telling me anything about the product that I care to hear. If I don't already know about it through word-of-mouth (which, on the internet, is extensive, and I hang out at all the places that will have first news of anything that interests me), then it's clearly not worth my time or money. And if I do hear about it through word-of-mouth, I'll do my own research, and then I'll make up my own mind about whether to purchase your product. Therefore, I simply don't do ads, period. I have more ad-blockers installed than I know what to do with, and I frantically perma-ban anything that slips through that minefield.
So why in the holy hell would I want to see real-world advertisements in my games? If the game were free-to-play, I could understand it, although most FTP developers use other methods for profit generation than advertisements. Valve, for example, sells in-game hats that your Team Fortress characters can wear. Silly, yes, but it works, and you're not forced into it.. it's a cosmetic thing. But no.. I'm loading up the next level in DXHR, and there it is.. "Buy the Star Wars Blu-ray!!"
Really? The Star Wars Blu-ray? Do you think I live in a ***king cave? That I honestly was not aware the set existed? That I didn't already ***king own it? Of course I already own it. So why would I want to see anything.. ANYTHING telling me to run out and buy it again?
I'm waiting with baited breath to see what Square Enix has to say in its defense. Unless they want to refund my fifty bucks, their ads can go to hell.
One day later, and I've got a mod that blocks them. But what pisses me off the most is that I shouldn't have to do this for a game that I bought and paid for. It's like DVDs that don't let you fast-forward through the trailers for movies that came out six years ago. It's stupid.
You can download the mod HERE. I recommend everybody do it. And send a nasty letter to Square Enix while you're at it.
I'm out.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Hard Reset (Impressions)
So I tried out the demo for Hard Reset, an upcoming PC-exclusive shooter from Flying Wild Hog (great name for a company, and the animated logo is also excellent).
This was developed with the idea of making an "old school" shooter, a la Doom, and I have to say, they pulled it off brilliantly.
In the demo, the objectives never get more complicated than pushing a button and shooting the hell out of anything that moves. There's no deep story here that I can see (although it does have a framing plot), and there's only two weapons; the typical machine gun, and a plasma-based weapon of some kind. Yes, two weapons.. bad games have been down this alley before. But each one can be upgraded with up to five different configurations. And when I say "configuration", I mean it.. the machine gun literally transforms to becomes a shotgun, or a grenade launcher. The overall look remains more or less the same, but all the little panels shift around and a new barrel will pop out the front. Oh, and each of those five configurations has two firing modes. So don't think for a second that "two weapons" is in any way limiting. In fact, it completely avoids the mess of weapon upgrades and finding the right kind of ammo, that often plagues shooters these days.
And so far, I'm loving it. It just feels right. It feels.. streamlined, I guess would be the word. It's not weighted down by secondary objectives, inventory management, or cover systems. And it even avoids some of the cliché of modern "violent" video games by fighting against robots and machines and not against humans. That's not to say the game isn't violent.. it is a shooter, after all, and full of things blowing up. But it's not particularly bloody, since your enemies just explode into bits of metal, flame, and sparks.
It's just so damned satisfying, not having to worry about all that other stuff. They've distilled the FPS down to its original core, and it feels great.
And let's not forget it's PC-exclusive. No lazy ports here.. this was made from the ground up for PC, and it shows. The in-game interface is entirely mouse-driven; when you walk up to a control panel, you lower your gun and your targeting reticule becomes a normal mouse cursor, that you use to push buttons on a screen, just like any modern operating system. This can be done using a pad, I'm sure, but I know it would be extremely clunky and take much longer to actually accomplish anything.
Control is also extremely tight. There's no mouse acceleration or auto-aim, it's just WASD and straight-up mouse input. And again, it feels great, oddly different from a lot of other shooters these days. I wish more games controlled like this. If you miss, it's your own damn fault, not the controls. Unless you're using a gamepad. Surprisingly, the game supports it, but I'm not sure why.. I wouldn't recommend it, the mouse just feels so damn good. And this is a PC shooter, dammit. Leave your gamepads in the living room.
And it runs great, too. My system isn't the greatest by a long shot (I'm eyeballing some upgrades, actually), and I can run it at Ultra settings at 1680x1050 at a perfectly playable, and very steady (with V-sync enabled) 30fps, even in the big fights. The game includes a built-in benchmark that stresses the card (by throwing more explosions and geometry at it than you'd normally see while playing) and allows you to fine-tune the settings to your hardware until you find a solution that works.
Oh, and how does it look? Well, it's a budget title, so it's not ground-breakingly amazing. Maybe a bit on the low-poly side. If I had to compare, I'd say it's very similar in appearance to the Unreal series of games from Epic, but with a different art style. That's not to say it looks bad, not at all. It's dark and gritty, for sure, but the real standout is the lighting. Firing off the plasma cannon into a group of robots and watching the entire environment light up like a Christmas tree.. that's good times. Lots of dynamic lighting and shading, it's certainly no slouch. Overall, the look has a very "Blade Runner" feel to it, with the glowing advertisements and even the flying zeppelins with screens on the sides. You can find videos and images all over the internet if you're curious.
My reaction? I'm buying it. It's being released on September 13th as a digital download (I'm not sure if they're even selling it in brick-and-mortar stores). You can pick it up on Steam for $30. They also have a demo, if you're on the fence. Go play it, and I'm sure you'll agree this is a keeper.
I'm out.
This was developed with the idea of making an "old school" shooter, a la Doom, and I have to say, they pulled it off brilliantly.
In the demo, the objectives never get more complicated than pushing a button and shooting the hell out of anything that moves. There's no deep story here that I can see (although it does have a framing plot), and there's only two weapons; the typical machine gun, and a plasma-based weapon of some kind. Yes, two weapons.. bad games have been down this alley before. But each one can be upgraded with up to five different configurations. And when I say "configuration", I mean it.. the machine gun literally transforms to becomes a shotgun, or a grenade launcher. The overall look remains more or less the same, but all the little panels shift around and a new barrel will pop out the front. Oh, and each of those five configurations has two firing modes. So don't think for a second that "two weapons" is in any way limiting. In fact, it completely avoids the mess of weapon upgrades and finding the right kind of ammo, that often plagues shooters these days.
And so far, I'm loving it. It just feels right. It feels.. streamlined, I guess would be the word. It's not weighted down by secondary objectives, inventory management, or cover systems. And it even avoids some of the cliché of modern "violent" video games by fighting against robots and machines and not against humans. That's not to say the game isn't violent.. it is a shooter, after all, and full of things blowing up. But it's not particularly bloody, since your enemies just explode into bits of metal, flame, and sparks.
It's just so damned satisfying, not having to worry about all that other stuff. They've distilled the FPS down to its original core, and it feels great.
And let's not forget it's PC-exclusive. No lazy ports here.. this was made from the ground up for PC, and it shows. The in-game interface is entirely mouse-driven; when you walk up to a control panel, you lower your gun and your targeting reticule becomes a normal mouse cursor, that you use to push buttons on a screen, just like any modern operating system. This can be done using a pad, I'm sure, but I know it would be extremely clunky and take much longer to actually accomplish anything.
Control is also extremely tight. There's no mouse acceleration or auto-aim, it's just WASD and straight-up mouse input. And again, it feels great, oddly different from a lot of other shooters these days. I wish more games controlled like this. If you miss, it's your own damn fault, not the controls. Unless you're using a gamepad. Surprisingly, the game supports it, but I'm not sure why.. I wouldn't recommend it, the mouse just feels so damn good. And this is a PC shooter, dammit. Leave your gamepads in the living room.
And it runs great, too. My system isn't the greatest by a long shot (I'm eyeballing some upgrades, actually), and I can run it at Ultra settings at 1680x1050 at a perfectly playable, and very steady (with V-sync enabled) 30fps, even in the big fights. The game includes a built-in benchmark that stresses the card (by throwing more explosions and geometry at it than you'd normally see while playing) and allows you to fine-tune the settings to your hardware until you find a solution that works.
Oh, and how does it look? Well, it's a budget title, so it's not ground-breakingly amazing. Maybe a bit on the low-poly side. If I had to compare, I'd say it's very similar in appearance to the Unreal series of games from Epic, but with a different art style. That's not to say it looks bad, not at all. It's dark and gritty, for sure, but the real standout is the lighting. Firing off the plasma cannon into a group of robots and watching the entire environment light up like a Christmas tree.. that's good times. Lots of dynamic lighting and shading, it's certainly no slouch. Overall, the look has a very "Blade Runner" feel to it, with the glowing advertisements and even the flying zeppelins with screens on the sides. You can find videos and images all over the internet if you're curious.
My reaction? I'm buying it. It's being released on September 13th as a digital download (I'm not sure if they're even selling it in brick-and-mortar stores). You can pick it up on Steam for $30. They also have a demo, if you're on the fence. Go play it, and I'm sure you'll agree this is a keeper.
I'm out.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Noooooooooooooo!
Hell of a way to start this one off, eh? How's about that upcoming Blu-ray release of the Star Wars saga?
I'm referring, of course, to the news that Uncle George is yet again making some more tweaks and changes to the saga for this new release, and the uproar has been pretty impressive. First and foremost on the list of changes is some new dialogue added for Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi.
In response to this, I'd like to show this short YouTube video.
Yes, you heard that right. From a guy with "Jedi" in his name. Look, I'm a fan, obviously. I grew up with these films, just like many of you. They are absolutely a part of my life. They are the sole reason why I got into visual effects and filmmaking in general, which has turned me into a big movie buff overall.
But seriously.. boycotting the release? Why? Do you people really not know just how small a percentage you really are? You're the minority within the minority. Think about all the people that are going to buy this. Of those, we'd be lucky if even half of them were aware that any changes have ever been made to the films. Of those, maybe 10% actually know what all of the changes are, or can recognize them when they see in the films. Of those, maybe 30% don't like some of the changes. Of those, maybe 20% really hate the changes, and of those... maybe half that say they won't buy it.
But see, that's the great thing about the internet.. you can say whatever you want. Hells yeah, I'm boycotting the s**t out of that release! But damned if you're not standing at Best Buy when the doors open, waving your credit card in the air like a flag.
I bet the majority of people who claim to "boycott" the release will actually do no such thing. And who are we to know? It's the internet.. no one knows anyone.
And the end result of all that boycotting? Maybe a 0.1% decrease in potential profits on day one of the Blu-ray release. In other words, Lucasfilm won't care. Chances are they won't even notice.
So say whatever you want. Do whatever you want. Come September 16th, I'll be kicking back with a big bowl of popcorn watching A New Hope in 1080p and pissing off my neighbors. And loving every minute of it.
I'm out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)