What great timing. I wrote my so-called review of Halo: Reach yesterday, and today Yahtzee reviews it himself in a much better (and more negative way) than I. Visual comedy.
And on a different topic, so much for anticipating Two Worlds II... looks like I'll be waiting til January.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Halo and Stuff
I was driving home from class today and on KMNR (college radio that I'm a part of) I heard a fellow DJ playing the textbook Halo theme on-air. This reminded me that I promised myself and maybe a few others who couldn't care less about my opinion that I'd write somewhat of a review of Halo: Reach, the newest title in the Halo series and last one ever handled by Bungie before their breakaway from Microsoft. So, yes... I played it. Brace for long discussion.
A little bit of background first. Before playing Reach, I had only played the first 2 Halo games. I didn't touch 3 , ODST, or Halo: Wars. This was mainly because I felt like after a while they were just milking the Halo name for all that it was worth while fanboys proclaimed Halo to be the greatest game in existence ever. I didn't buy that shit and felt that Halo was only popular because it was the first semi-decent FPS on a console. PC shooters had it beat with titles like Unreal Tournament and Quake III Arena. Halo was beta-trash gameplay wise in my eyes. So I went into this playthrough of Halo: Reach not expecting much different. It was Halo with updated graphics and different characters. So let me start off on a good note...
Reach was, out of any Halo game I'd played, the best one. Was it absolutely jaw-dropping and balls-to-the-wall amazing? Nah. Was it fun to play through casually? Yeah, I'd say so. It *almost* made me do a double take and play through Halo 3 and ODST to see what I'd missed as far as the culture goes, but I didn't, and won't do so. Reach kind of gave me a little glimmer of hope for Bungie. They actually managed to make their last game good and go out with a bang - sortof.
I started this post off with a mention of the music - Halo's main theme - the one you've all played on Guitar Hero or Cock Band, or whatever. In my opinion, that's where Halo shines. It's music is catchy and elevating, and gets you into the game. Even the main title screen (although it was a different theme) was good. Music score +1. We need more games with music like Halo. However, there were some parts in the game that music could have been utilized better, or more often, because I often found myself just trotting around as Noble 6 without even so much as background noise - filler music - nothing. It was either all on or dead quiet sometimes. I like background music, even if it's just ambient piano or something.
The gameplay mechanics haven't changed much for Halo. You run around, you jump ridiculously high, you unload at aliens, the works. I won't tell you how the cookie cutter FPS formula works. You can customize your armor, which is nice if you really want to make your Spartan look like a black wall of death with a gun, or a pansy with pink unicorn armor, but the armor you can unlock by earning credits through both single and online play don't really do anything for you other than change how you look. Why not? If I unlocked SuperBadassHelmetOfSex, I'd want it to automatically headbutt anyone who wasn't wearing said helmet's skulls into gewey mush. Or at least a shield upgrade... whatever. And why do I get to wear all this badass looking armor, while the supposed hero of the Halo series, Master Chief, has just relatively plain looking (in comparision) green armor?
The story was much more interesting than the other games I'd played, where instead of "Chief, go here, do this, save world", it was more of a team focus. Bungie tried to give you a team to communicate with and relate to, which is nice, but they don't really make me feel so attached, since you know how the game ends right when you start. Reach is a lost planet - Noble team loses. The simple fact of knowing you lost before it even begins is kind of cool. However, I think Bungie kind of broke the story, or at least bent their own rules by the end of the game, pretty much ruining the whole "Master Chief is the last surviving Spartan" thing that they'd been running with since the original game. No, you don't live (after-credits playable scene was cool), but they allude that someone else does. Someone not the chief. When I finished the campaign, I was glad I gave it a chance, but not completely awestruck. I wasn't disappointed - I had fun. And that's what games are for.
I have to bitch about the graphics. They don't seem to have come too far since the original Halo. The environments and everything in the distance looks nice, but for some reason the character models and anything in your immediate view still look dated and clay-ish. Also, I really could not stand the forced motion blur every time something in my field of view moved - at least give me the option to turn off motion blur rather than making me get used to it (which I did, but still... ).
Oh, the multiplayer? Yeah, I played a little bit of it in my brief rental of the game. It was Halo, complete with screaming 12-year-olds and teabagging and really only interested me when I was drunk. I liked the firefight mode though. I still don't understand why people think the multi-player on Halo is so orgasmically great compared to any other FPS.
I'm not gonna give this a score. But do I think it deserves the 9.5/10 or 10's that it's been getting overall? No, I don't think it's that close to perfection. But it was enough fun that I'll probably buy it when it's on the used rack for like $30 or somethin, since it was better than the other Halo titles... Take that as you will.
 |
| These guys have cooler armor than the fanboy fave Master Chief |
Reach was, out of any Halo game I'd played, the best one. Was it absolutely jaw-dropping and balls-to-the-wall amazing? Nah. Was it fun to play through casually? Yeah, I'd say so. It *almost* made me do a double take and play through Halo 3 and ODST to see what I'd missed as far as the culture goes, but I didn't, and won't do so. Reach kind of gave me a little glimmer of hope for Bungie. They actually managed to make their last game good and go out with a bang - sortof.
I started this post off with a mention of the music - Halo's main theme - the one you've all played on Guitar Hero or Cock Band, or whatever. In my opinion, that's where Halo shines. It's music is catchy and elevating, and gets you into the game. Even the main title screen (although it was a different theme) was good. Music score +1. We need more games with music like Halo. However, there were some parts in the game that music could have been utilized better, or more often, because I often found myself just trotting around as Noble 6 without even so much as background noise - filler music - nothing. It was either all on or dead quiet sometimes. I like background music, even if it's just ambient piano or something.
The gameplay mechanics haven't changed much for Halo. You run around, you jump ridiculously high, you unload at aliens, the works. I won't tell you how the cookie cutter FPS formula works. You can customize your armor, which is nice if you really want to make your Spartan look like a black wall of death with a gun, or a pansy with pink unicorn armor, but the armor you can unlock by earning credits through both single and online play don't really do anything for you other than change how you look. Why not? If I unlocked SuperBadassHelmetOfSex, I'd want it to automatically headbutt anyone who wasn't wearing said helmet's skulls into gewey mush. Or at least a shield upgrade... whatever. And why do I get to wear all this badass looking armor, while the supposed hero of the Halo series, Master Chief, has just relatively plain looking (in comparision) green armor?
The story was much more interesting than the other games I'd played, where instead of "Chief, go here, do this, save world", it was more of a team focus. Bungie tried to give you a team to communicate with and relate to, which is nice, but they don't really make me feel so attached, since you know how the game ends right when you start. Reach is a lost planet - Noble team loses. The simple fact of knowing you lost before it even begins is kind of cool. However, I think Bungie kind of broke the story, or at least bent their own rules by the end of the game, pretty much ruining the whole "Master Chief is the last surviving Spartan" thing that they'd been running with since the original game. No, you don't live (after-credits playable scene was cool), but they allude that someone else does. Someone not the chief. When I finished the campaign, I was glad I gave it a chance, but not completely awestruck. I wasn't disappointed - I had fun. And that's what games are for.
I have to bitch about the graphics. They don't seem to have come too far since the original Halo. The environments and everything in the distance looks nice, but for some reason the character models and anything in your immediate view still look dated and clay-ish. Also, I really could not stand the forced motion blur every time something in my field of view moved - at least give me the option to turn off motion blur rather than making me get used to it (which I did, but still... ).
Oh, the multiplayer? Yeah, I played a little bit of it in my brief rental of the game. It was Halo, complete with screaming 12-year-olds and teabagging and really only interested me when I was drunk. I liked the firefight mode though. I still don't understand why people think the multi-player on Halo is so orgasmically great compared to any other FPS.
I'm not gonna give this a score. But do I think it deserves the 9.5/10 or 10's that it's been getting overall? No, I don't think it's that close to perfection. But it was enough fun that I'll probably buy it when it's on the used rack for like $30 or somethin, since it was better than the other Halo titles... Take that as you will.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Atheist Pet Peeve (and upcoming reviews, too)
First off, I would like to state a simple pet peeve of mine that I just recently noticed I had. I don't mean to offend anyone by this, as I'm fairly tolerant of others' beliefs as long as they're not forced unto me, but this is just something I've realized. You may have heard this before, or you may be someone that does it...
When someone is telling a story or whatever, they start it by saying "As a christian, I ... (insert kind act or nice thing here)."
What does that even mean?! I find it annoying that you have to state your religious beliefs before talking about something nice or wonderful that you did, as if someone that *isn't* a christian wouldn't perform the same act of kindness. Are you insinuating that anyone who isn't christian don't have any good morals or willingness to be just a good person? Or are you saying that you did such a nice thing simply *because* (or to prove) you're a christian?
I wonder what kind of reaction I could produce if I went around saying "As an atheist, I saved this kitten from a tree," or "As an atheist, I mowed my neighbors lawn for free." Think about it.
On a lighter note, I intend on doing a few amateur video game reviews again. I've hated the Halo series (for various reasons) and thus have not played a Halo game since the first 2 games. This means I haven't touched Halo 3, ODST, or Wars. However, something in my brain wants to give Halo Reach a chance since it's the last (and supposedly "best") Halo game created by Bungie. Everyone (and not just the fanboys) claim that Bungie went out with a bang, and I plan on renting it, playing it, and giving it my honest opinion, attempting to put any previous bias aside. If you know me personally, please put your brain back in your skull - yes, I'll be playing Halo Reach.
Second, before Two Worlds 2 (I know, it's weird and redundant) releases, I want to give my 2-cents on the original Two Worlds. It's way late to do a normal review of a game that's been out for so long, so I wanted to do this in kind of a "Here's why I liked a game that most people hated" kind of way. When the second iteration comes out, I'll get around to comparisons and improvements. In the meantime, give this video a watch. Unskippables from the Escapist usually does a pretty good job at cracking jokes on shitty cutscenes from games.
Hooray productivity
When someone is telling a story or whatever, they start it by saying "As a christian, I ... (insert kind act or nice thing here)."
What does that even mean?! I find it annoying that you have to state your religious beliefs before talking about something nice or wonderful that you did, as if someone that *isn't* a christian wouldn't perform the same act of kindness. Are you insinuating that anyone who isn't christian don't have any good morals or willingness to be just a good person? Or are you saying that you did such a nice thing simply *because* (or to prove) you're a christian?
I wonder what kind of reaction I could produce if I went around saying "As an atheist, I saved this kitten from a tree," or "As an atheist, I mowed my neighbors lawn for free." Think about it.
On a lighter note, I intend on doing a few amateur video game reviews again. I've hated the Halo series (for various reasons) and thus have not played a Halo game since the first 2 games. This means I haven't touched Halo 3, ODST, or Wars. However, something in my brain wants to give Halo Reach a chance since it's the last (and supposedly "best") Halo game created by Bungie. Everyone (and not just the fanboys) claim that Bungie went out with a bang, and I plan on renting it, playing it, and giving it my honest opinion, attempting to put any previous bias aside. If you know me personally, please put your brain back in your skull - yes, I'll be playing Halo Reach.
Second, before Two Worlds 2 (I know, it's weird and redundant) releases, I want to give my 2-cents on the original Two Worlds. It's way late to do a normal review of a game that's been out for so long, so I wanted to do this in kind of a "Here's why I liked a game that most people hated" kind of way. When the second iteration comes out, I'll get around to comparisons and improvements. In the meantime, give this video a watch. Unskippables from the Escapist usually does a pretty good job at cracking jokes on shitty cutscenes from games.
Hooray productivity
Sunday, May 2, 2010
...Not Scary At All
Review: Nightmare on Elm Street (the 2010 Michael Bay remake)
Allow me to hop on the "screw the new Nightmare on Elm Street movie" bandwagon. I remember watching the original as a kid and I was actually frightened by it. Everyone always says you can't beat the original, and sometimes that mentality is proven wrong, but in this case it's the truth. Actually, it's pretty much the truth for a lot of horror movie remakes. Sure, they look nice with better special effects, but I swear the writers get worse as time moves on. To get things started on my very biased-towards-the-original review, I wanna say this... I wasn't scared, nor was I interested. I went to see this out of curiosity, knowing that I'd be disappointed.
I realize this is all gonna come out to be more complaint than praise, so I wanna at least say something good. I liked the "new" Freddy. His commentary was sick & funny (the original was like that too), and I think this form of the burnt-face look appeared more genuine. Also, I would like to thank Michael Bay for not including robots, explosions, or massive amount of military in this movie. Also, there is a Quentin in the movie, so uh, maybe that's the only character I felt like I could connect with whatsoever. Also, because it's newer, the visual effects & gore were more intense and certainly looked cool. The acting was decent (except for the teens' mothers - god it was like they said something first, then expressed their concern in a facial expression moments later - "Hi"... *frown*...). The actors/actresses they chose for the main group of teens experiencing the same nightmares were pretty good for what they were supposed to do and Freddy's acting was a fresh take. So... I'll draw the line there.
I think the movie assumes that we've all seen the original, or at least get the concept of what happens when you fall asleep in Freddy's world. Hell, even after the first scene (just 1 death in the movie), it seemed like all of the actors had magical mind meld powers and knew what would happen if they fell asleep from the get go. I swear that's the fastest I can ever remember hearing "If you die in your sleep you die in real life" in any Nightmare iteration. The story skips from character to character, assuming we already care about these people to begin with. It might have had some people hooked but I didn't feel the connection. And now lets start with the dreams... oh boy. This was literally 90% of the movie. I understand that the producers wanted it to seem like you don't really know if they were dreaming or actually awake, but the dream sequences were so layered and overused I got tired of it (oh look, another dream, within a dream inside of a dream). I swear it was like the dream person was also dreaming that they were dreaming. They really tried too hard on the dream sequences, but I guess that's what they were going for. The story change now places Freddy as merely a child molester (and the actors in the movie are portraying the all-grown-up children who forgot) instead of a murderer, but in an attempt to get to explaining that, they literally just start killing characters off from one deadly dream scene to the next before you ever start to feel a connection with the first 3 people that experience getting finger-clawed. By the end, it was too predictable and I didn't feel like anything interesting or new was going to happen.
If you want me to give it a sort of rating, like out of 5 stars or something, I'll give it a 3/5. It wasn't terrible, but it just fucked up something that should have been left alone. It mucked up more than it improved. I thought the point of a horror movie was to be scared by it?
Allow me to hop on the "screw the new Nightmare on Elm Street movie" bandwagon. I remember watching the original as a kid and I was actually frightened by it. Everyone always says you can't beat the original, and sometimes that mentality is proven wrong, but in this case it's the truth. Actually, it's pretty much the truth for a lot of horror movie remakes. Sure, they look nice with better special effects, but I swear the writers get worse as time moves on. To get things started on my very biased-towards-the-original review, I wanna say this... I wasn't scared, nor was I interested. I went to see this out of curiosity, knowing that I'd be disappointed.
I realize this is all gonna come out to be more complaint than praise, so I wanna at least say something good. I liked the "new" Freddy. His commentary was sick & funny (the original was like that too), and I think this form of the burnt-face look appeared more genuine. Also, I would like to thank Michael Bay for not including robots, explosions, or massive amount of military in this movie. Also, there is a Quentin in the movie, so uh, maybe that's the only character I felt like I could connect with whatsoever. Also, because it's newer, the visual effects & gore were more intense and certainly looked cool. The acting was decent (except for the teens' mothers - god it was like they said something first, then expressed their concern in a facial expression moments later - "Hi"... *frown*...). The actors/actresses they chose for the main group of teens experiencing the same nightmares were pretty good for what they were supposed to do and Freddy's acting was a fresh take. So... I'll draw the line there.
I think the movie assumes that we've all seen the original, or at least get the concept of what happens when you fall asleep in Freddy's world. Hell, even after the first scene (just 1 death in the movie), it seemed like all of the actors had magical mind meld powers and knew what would happen if they fell asleep from the get go. I swear that's the fastest I can ever remember hearing "If you die in your sleep you die in real life" in any Nightmare iteration. The story skips from character to character, assuming we already care about these people to begin with. It might have had some people hooked but I didn't feel the connection. And now lets start with the dreams... oh boy. This was literally 90% of the movie. I understand that the producers wanted it to seem like you don't really know if they were dreaming or actually awake, but the dream sequences were so layered and overused I got tired of it (oh look, another dream, within a dream inside of a dream). I swear it was like the dream person was also dreaming that they were dreaming. They really tried too hard on the dream sequences, but I guess that's what they were going for. The story change now places Freddy as merely a child molester (and the actors in the movie are portraying the all-grown-up children who forgot) instead of a murderer, but in an attempt to get to explaining that, they literally just start killing characters off from one deadly dream scene to the next before you ever start to feel a connection with the first 3 people that experience getting finger-clawed. By the end, it was too predictable and I didn't feel like anything interesting or new was going to happen.
If you want me to give it a sort of rating, like out of 5 stars or something, I'll give it a 3/5. It wasn't terrible, but it just fucked up something that should have been left alone. It mucked up more than it improved. I thought the point of a horror movie was to be scared by it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)