Before i get into the review of this film, i must remind you that i'm exceptionally difficult to please - i'm not taken in by gimmicky flash-in-the-pan movies the way others so often are. I look at the lasting ability of a movie's story. The level of quality a movie must attain in order for me to regard it as "good" is so high, even movies like The Dark Knight fail to live up to my standards. And yes, i stand by my review of "ok, not good" for The Dark Knight, so merely the fact that Christopher Nolan also directed Inception doesn't mean anything. You disagree, you are wrong.
So, with all that in mind, what did i think of Inception?
...
Yeah, i liked it.
Go see it, you'll be glad you did. But as always, disregard the imbecilic praise of the fanboys first and just let yourself enjoy the movie for what it is.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
And boy is it not allowed! Ben Stein did his damnedest to make sure nothing even approaching intelligence comes anywhere close to this movie. I'm not going to bother wasting my time outlining all the piss poor science in this "documentary"; others before me have already done that and done that much better than i could. Instead i'm going to focus on the other glaring flaws this movie demonstrates and show you exactly why it's such an abysmal excuse for a documentary.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a movie that does nothing right. I well expected bad science, but i did not expect the banal presentation. Did Stein even intend for anyone to be entertained by this?
For starters, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is the most deliberately manipulative pieces of cinematography i've personally seen since Triumph of the Will. And yet, Ben Stein has the audacity to compare evolutionary biologists (or "Darwinists" he calls them - a title deliberately chosen to invoke images of dangerous ideologues) to nazis.
Now i'm not saying Ben Stein is the Leni Riefenstahl of Creationists. Fuck no! Triumph of the Will was propoganda, sure, but it was well manufactured propoganda. Riefenstahl broke a lot of boundaries utilizing new techniques, blending images and music in ways not seen in movies prior to 1935. Even critics of the film's message marvel at its presentation.
But Expelled brings nothing to the table. It certainly isn't good and it's not even bad enough to be comically bad, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show or The Room.
All Stein really offers his audience is stock images of Nazis, Stalin and communists thrown up at opportune times in order to score cheap political points off of Evolutionary Biologists (or EVILutionary biologists! See what i did there? I'm so clever!). No doubt this would appeal to his intended ignorant-as-sin audience, but for anyone else, it just looks and feels awful in every possible way. Sort of like what women having sex with Ben Stein must experience (or men, let's be fair).
Now, one might think that if you're going to be deceptive and slanderous, it's at least beneficial to do so with a measure of subtlety (or humour). The documentary that comes right out and beats you over the head with its message is far less effective than one that carefully walks you through the reasoning.
But as it turns out throwing up pictures of Stalin and the Nazis is Ben Stein's idea of being subtle, because about halfway through the film, he literally abandons all precepts and comes right out and says that evolution lead to the Holocaust.
No, he really says that.
Of course it can be argued that the holocaust and eugenics started from social engineers misappropriating the concept of "survival of the fittest" for their own twisted ends, but Stein does nothing to critique others who do the exact same thing.
What about laissez-faire market types who believe in a completely unregulated market that promotes economic "survival of the fittest"? Where would that leave the "economically unfit" (which, btw, would include many "socially unfit" individuals like the severely handicapped, as well as completely normal people with poor economic prospects and/or networking abilities)? Likely suffering in the squalors of poverty forced to either adapt themselves better for the economic system thrust upon them against their will by learning how to be "good employees"... or die of poverty related causes in a gutter somewhere and decrease the surplus population.
But, c'mon! No one really believes that crap, do they?
Oh dear...
The thing that Ben Stein fails to grasp (in addition to high school level science) is that a documentary, or at least a halfway decent documentary, should do more than state your beliefs loudly then pound away nonstop at your opposing side like a sexually frustrated poodle on someone's leg. A good documentary should at least provide some evidence for why your belief or opinion is the superior one. You say you've found a hole in evolutionary biology? Ok then, how does Intelligent Design (ID) propose we fill that hole? Or are you just going to point at every flaw in every facet of human understanding and simply say "God did it"?
Abiogenesis? God did it. Reconciling Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity? God did it. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? God did it. How is M Night Shyamalan still making movies? God did that, too (the bastard!).
Stein complains that ID proponents are having their freedom of speech rights infringed upon because they cannot hold creationist views and be associated with respectable scientific organizations and he cites a number of them whom he claims have lost their job as a result.
Why, that's just so unfair! What is this, Communist China? If i wanna teach the next generation of aspiring paleantologists that Jesus had a pet T-Rex named Mr Picklepus that he taught to give him felatio, that's my right as an American citizen (er, Canadian?)! Screw you nazi bastards and your adherence to "educational standards"!
But this isn't a matter of free speech. Organizations are allowed to discriminate against views that are damaging to the organizations overall purpose.
A university can (and should) discriminate against scientists who waste critical funding money studying whimsical theories based solely on ideology. Likewise, an organization would be completely justified in firing anyone who, as a representative of the organization, uses their position to front such erroneous organizationally damaging beliefs, be they creationists, holocaust deniers or white supremicists.
Of course, one wonders if Ben Stein would be so willing to champion up the free speech rights of (say) a Marxist (or hell, even a Keynsian!) who loses his or her job as an economist at the Cato Institute or other laissez-faire market promoting institute?
Something tells me "no".
At one point Stein sits down with noted evolution biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. The purpose of which seems to be solely to cash in on Dawkins saying that he (nor anyone else) has a coherent idea of how life began, so therefore (in Stein's opinion) it can be by "Intelligent Design".
Checkmate! Score one for the creationists! Take that you pointed headed professors, with your "science" and your "evidence" and your "theories" and your "iphones" and your "modern medicine" and your "microprocessors" and your "marvels of the modern world"!
But let's look at this a little closer, shall we?
You have a small child under your care and you have a cookie jar on a refridgerator. One day you notice the cookies in the jar are gone, but the jar is still in place. The small child has crumbs on their face and a guilty look, so you're fairly certain you know what happened to the cookies in the jar. You approach your young charge and ask them directly, "Did you eat the cookies in the cookie jar?"
To which your clever youngster responds, "no, it was a ghost."
You, not likely to be convinced by this argument (hopefully... i'm not one to judge), point out the reasons you suspect the child had eaten the cookies and note that the "ghost theory" is a silly one.
But this child imagines him/herself to be quite the clever one. "Even if i ate the cookies, that doesn't discount my theory of the ghost stealing them for me," the child protests.
"But ghosts don't exist," you calmly state. "Plus, it's much more likely that you got the cookies yourself."
"But what proof do you have that there isn't a ghost? That jar is on top of the refridgerator, and i can't reach all the way up there."
"But you could've climbed the counter or used a chair or even taken the step ladder from the garage or...."
"Aha!" the child shrieks with delight. "You don't even have a clear idea how i could've gotten the cookies, so it's completely possible that a ghost had stolen them as i claim."
Would you accept this argument?
No?
But it's such a sound argument!
If this isn't acceptable, why is it acceptable to say life was first created by an "intelligent designer", just because our (current) best theories don't have an adequate, "100% guaranteed to be correct or your money back" answer? And more importantly, how is this any different from plain old creationism? Make no mistake, Stein is adament that Intelligent Design is not Creationism, even though his movie is inexplicably lacking in any distinguishing characteristics between the two.
So what's the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism? To a sane person, there is no difference. Creationism is Intelligent Design and vice versa. There is no difference between saying "God did it" or "an intelligent creator, who may or may not be god, did it" and it's completely fair for everyone else in society to immediately and unequivically dismiss both of these "theories" simply on the premise that it adds nothing to the scientific debate. Even if Creationism were true (big if), it only replaces an "i don't know" with an untestable, undemonstratable and ultimately unneeded answer that stifles further debate and prevents any further knowledge from being gained.
But Stein will never get this and neither will the primary audience of this movie. As far as they are concerned, Christian Americans, all 225+ million of them, are just a persecuted minority... just like the Jews of Nazi Germany. If i were Jewish, i'd find that horribly offensive. But Ben Stein (who is Jewish), doesn't, so what the hell do i know, right?
All in all, this is an awful movie and a poor excuse for a documentary. It's manipulative, disgusting, unentertaining, protracted creationist propoganda. Don't waste your time with it. Just take note of those who rent it and avoid them like the plague. I'm pretty sure stupidity isn't contagious, but you don't want to take that chance!
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a movie that does nothing right. I well expected bad science, but i did not expect the banal presentation. Did Stein even intend for anyone to be entertained by this?
For starters, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is the most deliberately manipulative pieces of cinematography i've personally seen since Triumph of the Will. And yet, Ben Stein has the audacity to compare evolutionary biologists (or "Darwinists" he calls them - a title deliberately chosen to invoke images of dangerous ideologues) to nazis.
Now i'm not saying Ben Stein is the Leni Riefenstahl of Creationists. Fuck no! Triumph of the Will was propoganda, sure, but it was well manufactured propoganda. Riefenstahl broke a lot of boundaries utilizing new techniques, blending images and music in ways not seen in movies prior to 1935. Even critics of the film's message marvel at its presentation.
But Expelled brings nothing to the table. It certainly isn't good and it's not even bad enough to be comically bad, like The Rocky Horror Picture Show or The Room.
All Stein really offers his audience is stock images of Nazis, Stalin and communists thrown up at opportune times in order to score cheap political points off of Evolutionary Biologists (or EVILutionary biologists! See what i did there? I'm so clever!). No doubt this would appeal to his intended ignorant-as-sin audience, but for anyone else, it just looks and feels awful in every possible way. Sort of like what women having sex with Ben Stein must experience (or men, let's be fair).
Now, one might think that if you're going to be deceptive and slanderous, it's at least beneficial to do so with a measure of subtlety (or humour). The documentary that comes right out and beats you over the head with its message is far less effective than one that carefully walks you through the reasoning.
But as it turns out throwing up pictures of Stalin and the Nazis is Ben Stein's idea of being subtle, because about halfway through the film, he literally abandons all precepts and comes right out and says that evolution lead to the Holocaust.
No, he really says that.
Of course it can be argued that the holocaust and eugenics started from social engineers misappropriating the concept of "survival of the fittest" for their own twisted ends, but Stein does nothing to critique others who do the exact same thing.
What about laissez-faire market types who believe in a completely unregulated market that promotes economic "survival of the fittest"? Where would that leave the "economically unfit" (which, btw, would include many "socially unfit" individuals like the severely handicapped, as well as completely normal people with poor economic prospects and/or networking abilities)? Likely suffering in the squalors of poverty forced to either adapt themselves better for the economic system thrust upon them against their will by learning how to be "good employees"... or die of poverty related causes in a gutter somewhere and decrease the surplus population.
But, c'mon! No one really believes that crap, do they?
Oh dear...
The thing that Ben Stein fails to grasp (in addition to high school level science) is that a documentary, or at least a halfway decent documentary, should do more than state your beliefs loudly then pound away nonstop at your opposing side like a sexually frustrated poodle on someone's leg. A good documentary should at least provide some evidence for why your belief or opinion is the superior one. You say you've found a hole in evolutionary biology? Ok then, how does Intelligent Design (ID) propose we fill that hole? Or are you just going to point at every flaw in every facet of human understanding and simply say "God did it"?
Abiogenesis? God did it. Reconciling Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity? God did it. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? God did it. How is M Night Shyamalan still making movies? God did that, too (the bastard!).
Stein complains that ID proponents are having their freedom of speech rights infringed upon because they cannot hold creationist views and be associated with respectable scientific organizations and he cites a number of them whom he claims have lost their job as a result.
Why, that's just so unfair! What is this, Communist China? If i wanna teach the next generation of aspiring paleantologists that Jesus had a pet T-Rex named Mr Picklepus that he taught to give him felatio, that's my right as an American citizen (er, Canadian?)! Screw you nazi bastards and your adherence to "educational standards"!
But this isn't a matter of free speech. Organizations are allowed to discriminate against views that are damaging to the organizations overall purpose.
A university can (and should) discriminate against scientists who waste critical funding money studying whimsical theories based solely on ideology. Likewise, an organization would be completely justified in firing anyone who, as a representative of the organization, uses their position to front such erroneous organizationally damaging beliefs, be they creationists, holocaust deniers or white supremicists.
Of course, one wonders if Ben Stein would be so willing to champion up the free speech rights of (say) a Marxist (or hell, even a Keynsian!) who loses his or her job as an economist at the Cato Institute or other laissez-faire market promoting institute?
Something tells me "no".
At one point Stein sits down with noted evolution biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins. The purpose of which seems to be solely to cash in on Dawkins saying that he (nor anyone else) has a coherent idea of how life began, so therefore (in Stein's opinion) it can be by "Intelligent Design".
Checkmate! Score one for the creationists! Take that you pointed headed professors, with your "science" and your "evidence" and your "theories" and your "iphones" and your "modern medicine" and your "microprocessors" and your "marvels of the modern world"!
But let's look at this a little closer, shall we?
You have a small child under your care and you have a cookie jar on a refridgerator. One day you notice the cookies in the jar are gone, but the jar is still in place. The small child has crumbs on their face and a guilty look, so you're fairly certain you know what happened to the cookies in the jar. You approach your young charge and ask them directly, "Did you eat the cookies in the cookie jar?"
To which your clever youngster responds, "no, it was a ghost."
You, not likely to be convinced by this argument (hopefully... i'm not one to judge), point out the reasons you suspect the child had eaten the cookies and note that the "ghost theory" is a silly one.
But this child imagines him/herself to be quite the clever one. "Even if i ate the cookies, that doesn't discount my theory of the ghost stealing them for me," the child protests.
"But ghosts don't exist," you calmly state. "Plus, it's much more likely that you got the cookies yourself."
"But what proof do you have that there isn't a ghost? That jar is on top of the refridgerator, and i can't reach all the way up there."
"But you could've climbed the counter or used a chair or even taken the step ladder from the garage or...."
"Aha!" the child shrieks with delight. "You don't even have a clear idea how i could've gotten the cookies, so it's completely possible that a ghost had stolen them as i claim."
Would you accept this argument?
No?
But it's such a sound argument!
If this isn't acceptable, why is it acceptable to say life was first created by an "intelligent designer", just because our (current) best theories don't have an adequate, "100% guaranteed to be correct or your money back" answer? And more importantly, how is this any different from plain old creationism? Make no mistake, Stein is adament that Intelligent Design is not Creationism, even though his movie is inexplicably lacking in any distinguishing characteristics between the two.
So what's the difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism? To a sane person, there is no difference. Creationism is Intelligent Design and vice versa. There is no difference between saying "God did it" or "an intelligent creator, who may or may not be god, did it" and it's completely fair for everyone else in society to immediately and unequivically dismiss both of these "theories" simply on the premise that it adds nothing to the scientific debate. Even if Creationism were true (big if), it only replaces an "i don't know" with an untestable, undemonstratable and ultimately unneeded answer that stifles further debate and prevents any further knowledge from being gained.
But Stein will never get this and neither will the primary audience of this movie. As far as they are concerned, Christian Americans, all 225+ million of them, are just a persecuted minority... just like the Jews of Nazi Germany. If i were Jewish, i'd find that horribly offensive. But Ben Stein (who is Jewish), doesn't, so what the hell do i know, right?
All in all, this is an awful movie and a poor excuse for a documentary. It's manipulative, disgusting, unentertaining, protracted creationist propoganda. Don't waste your time with it. Just take note of those who rent it and avoid them like the plague. I'm pretty sure stupidity isn't contagious, but you don't want to take that chance!
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Triple review: Toy Story 3, Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock 1
Or, as i prefer to call this review: "These things i like..."
I don't like writing positive reviews simply because i don't find them very entertaining. 'Tis far more entertaining to read caustic wit than the idiotic ramblings of the fanboys who are incapable of seeing fault with whatever deeply flawed object of adoration they hold closest to their heart.
However, since times are rough (it's a recession, doncha know), i've limited my funds to entertainment that i'm fairly certain i'll enjoy already. Because i'm such a discerning asshole, this also means that i pretty much only watch/play movies/games that are top notch. Which brings me to the uncomfortable truth that i haven't seen or played anything wretched lately, i'm going to be doing a triple positive review. That way i don't have to spend all that much time talking about positive points of anything.
But even though this is a set of positive reviews, i'll still find the flaws to pick at, even if they are minor details.
So without further ado, let's get down to the review:
Toy Story 3
I'd like to say "people don't like sequels", but i'd be lying. After all, hollywood execs are "people", too (in the loosest sense of the word) and they absolutely LOVE sequels. It's a guaranteed built in audience and movies are more a business than a catharsis, so it's win-freakin'-win, even if the sequel is unwatchable shit.
But beyond the execs of hollywood, who really likes sequels? Not many. However, every once in a while a sequel comes along that is not only as good as the original, but sometimes even better. Shrek 2, for example (despite the number of people who disagree). But a more recent example is Toy Story 3.
While i have always been (and still am) of the mindset that Toy Story could've been the first and last movie in the now-trilogy and still been an excellent film, i must admit that the sequels have actually served to improve the franchise. Toy Story 3's plot, particularly, feels like the natural progression and conclusion of the films. The events of previous films are built on, not rehashed as so many other sequels tend to do. And true to form, Pixar has included their now omni-present touching moments in the climax of the film.
My biggest qualm with this movie is that before it starts you know how it's going to end. Indeed, you know the only way it could possibly end. Since Andy is all grown up now, it's highly unlikely he's going to lapse back into the mental state of a kid and continue playing with his toys, so one of two things must happen: Woody, Buzz and co end up "adopted" by another good hearted child or they end up being destroyed or abandoned or some other horrible fate. Because this is a Disney-Pixar movie, it doesn't take too much to figure out which.
But having a predictable ending does not a poor story make. If there was ever any doubt of this, watch Toy Story 3. This is one of those few movies where the consensus of critics throwing perfect 10s are actually entirely justified. The plot feels like a natural extention of the previous movies and there's just the right mix of comedy, drama and action for it to feel like a well balanced film. Give it a watch if you get a chance.
Next up...
Mass Effect 2
If there's anyone who likes sequels more than movie executives, it's video game company executives. While movies that reach a 4th sequel are rare (and almost always confined to children's movies), some video game franchises have installments well into the double digits: Final Fantasy, Castlevania, the Megaman series, all of Nintendo's games..., the list goes on.
But unlike with movies, a crappy video game sequel is pretty rare, as developers often use the time to improve gameplay and story elements, putting more money - and more importantly, effort - into the sequels than movie executives even care to. After all, a shitty game can sour gamers views on all your wares, while people like M Night Shyamalan (and more shockingly, Uwe Boll) are still making movies. (Seriously, wtf!?)
But enough preamble, how's Mass Effect 2? Well, just as expected, Bioware took their time to improve the gameplay and story. While the first Mass Effect was hardly "bad" (you can read my review of the first Mass Effect here), the sequel improves on it a good deal. Gone are the broken driving segments (and there was much rejoicing) and improved are the combat, story and even basic motions.
Now, you may be wondering what i mean by "basic motions have improved". What the hell does that even mean? Well, it's really only something you notice when directly comparing Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 1. When i revisted the first game after having completed the second, i was getting stuck on all kinds of ankle high terrain. It was so bad as to the point of frustration... but i didn't notice it the first time playing through the game. That's what i mean by "improved basic motions".
The other thing that's improved in gameplay is the whole renegade/paragon dynamic. While the first game largely had it as an aesthetic feature that only occassionally allowed for alternative conversation points, ME2 adds in quick time events and a lot more conversation options that depend on your renegade or paragon score. This was a vast improvement over the 4 or 5 conversations in the first Mass Effect that required renegade or paragon points to unlock different conversation options.
Yes, ME2 is certainly an improvement over an already excellent game, but like anything, it wasn't flawless. As everyone has already commented, the planet mining that's needed for all the best upgrades is nothing short of annoying grind work, but the worst, absolute worst aspect of this game has to be the money formula: there will never be a time, in the entire game, where you won't be starved for cash. And don't expect anyone to do anything more than shave a few bucks off max prices for you, either (and only if you intimidate or charm them). Sure, you saved the galaxy in the first game and, yes, you have a financial backer with bottomless pockets and, ok, your mission is so important that failure isn't an option... but there's no free rides here! You're still going to have to buy all your own weapon and armor upgrades, as well as fuel and probes (required to scan planets for resources).
That's right, i said you have to buy your own fuel. While you're supposedly working for a private military contractor, Cerberus, who is constantly telling you how much resources they've put at your disposal, you're still required to pay for your own damned gas. What the hell kind of 2-bit operation is Cerberus running? There are employers with goals less important than "save the galaxy" that pay for their employees fuel charges!
I guess Bioware was trying to make it more "realistic" with consumable fuel, but the only thing they've realistically done is discourage me from exploring the universe beyond the systems i can get to for free. Those credits are too damned important for my weapons upgrades to botherspending wasting on universe exploration!
All in all, though, Mass Effect 2 is an excellent game and worth the time if you like 3rd persion shooters. If possible, it's even more massive effective than the first!
And finally we have...
Bioshock
A three year old game that i've only now decided to pick up and play. Hell, it even has a sequel now.
Bioshock is a game that's mostly all about atmosphere. The gritty dystopian city of Rapture is clearly designed to make you jump in your seat and inch cautiously down corridors as you plod carefully through the story. The game even includes a number of specific triggers that, when hit, cause your screen to fade out briefly, only to return you to the same spot, now surrounded by viscious enemies.
Of course, the problem with this is, any replay is guaranteed not to be as enthralling as your first play through, which is a real pitty because, like Mass Effect (and other games of the time), there's a moral choice system. Naturally, i played through the game the first time like a goody-goody with designs on playing through a second time as a malevolent cock-sucker out for the blood of children. Of course, since the game doesn't change at all in replay (except, what i'm told, is a different ending), there's not much enjoyment to be milked out of having a bloody moral choice system to begin with. I can just as easily watch the "bad" ending on youtube and lose nothing for it.
The other thing that bothers me is that while Bioshock is certainly trying to deliver a clever story coupled with some topical political commentary, it completely gives up halfway through. Many gamers have praised the story's "twist", but it's really not that much of a twist, especially if you've played a video game in your life before. I won't spoil the twist (god forbid!), but suffice it to say, i called it from the start and was more than a little disappointed when the writers choose to abandon their social commentary in the name of such a weak story device.
Oh well, all in all, Bioshock is still an impressively visual game with an intriguing enough story to keep you entertained, if only for a single playthrough. Check it out.
So that's my countdown of the "things i liked this month" review. It's not as witty or comedic as a vitriolic review could be, but again, that's why i hate writing this kind of review. Oh well, perhaps it makes up for my month in absence.
No? Well, tough.
I don't like writing positive reviews simply because i don't find them very entertaining. 'Tis far more entertaining to read caustic wit than the idiotic ramblings of the fanboys who are incapable of seeing fault with whatever deeply flawed object of adoration they hold closest to their heart.
However, since times are rough (it's a recession, doncha know), i've limited my funds to entertainment that i'm fairly certain i'll enjoy already. Because i'm such a discerning asshole, this also means that i pretty much only watch/play movies/games that are top notch. Which brings me to the uncomfortable truth that i haven't seen or played anything wretched lately, i'm going to be doing a triple positive review. That way i don't have to spend all that much time talking about positive points of anything.
But even though this is a set of positive reviews, i'll still find the flaws to pick at, even if they are minor details.
So without further ado, let's get down to the review:
Toy Story 3
I'd like to say "people don't like sequels", but i'd be lying. After all, hollywood execs are "people", too (in the loosest sense of the word) and they absolutely LOVE sequels. It's a guaranteed built in audience and movies are more a business than a catharsis, so it's win-freakin'-win, even if the sequel is unwatchable shit.
But beyond the execs of hollywood, who really likes sequels? Not many. However, every once in a while a sequel comes along that is not only as good as the original, but sometimes even better. Shrek 2, for example (despite the number of people who disagree). But a more recent example is Toy Story 3.
While i have always been (and still am) of the mindset that Toy Story could've been the first and last movie in the now-trilogy and still been an excellent film, i must admit that the sequels have actually served to improve the franchise. Toy Story 3's plot, particularly, feels like the natural progression and conclusion of the films. The events of previous films are built on, not rehashed as so many other sequels tend to do. And true to form, Pixar has included their now omni-present touching moments in the climax of the film.
My biggest qualm with this movie is that before it starts you know how it's going to end. Indeed, you know the only way it could possibly end. Since Andy is all grown up now, it's highly unlikely he's going to lapse back into the mental state of a kid and continue playing with his toys, so one of two things must happen: Woody, Buzz and co end up "adopted" by another good hearted child or they end up being destroyed or abandoned or some other horrible fate. Because this is a Disney-Pixar movie, it doesn't take too much to figure out which.
But having a predictable ending does not a poor story make. If there was ever any doubt of this, watch Toy Story 3. This is one of those few movies where the consensus of critics throwing perfect 10s are actually entirely justified. The plot feels like a natural extention of the previous movies and there's just the right mix of comedy, drama and action for it to feel like a well balanced film. Give it a watch if you get a chance.
Next up...
Mass Effect 2
If there's anyone who likes sequels more than movie executives, it's video game company executives. While movies that reach a 4th sequel are rare (and almost always confined to children's movies), some video game franchises have installments well into the double digits: Final Fantasy, Castlevania, the Megaman series, all of Nintendo's games..., the list goes on.
But unlike with movies, a crappy video game sequel is pretty rare, as developers often use the time to improve gameplay and story elements, putting more money - and more importantly, effort - into the sequels than movie executives even care to. After all, a shitty game can sour gamers views on all your wares, while people like M Night Shyamalan (and more shockingly, Uwe Boll) are still making movies. (Seriously, wtf!?)
But enough preamble, how's Mass Effect 2? Well, just as expected, Bioware took their time to improve the gameplay and story. While the first Mass Effect was hardly "bad" (you can read my review of the first Mass Effect here), the sequel improves on it a good deal. Gone are the broken driving segments (and there was much rejoicing) and improved are the combat, story and even basic motions.
Now, you may be wondering what i mean by "basic motions have improved". What the hell does that even mean? Well, it's really only something you notice when directly comparing Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 1. When i revisted the first game after having completed the second, i was getting stuck on all kinds of ankle high terrain. It was so bad as to the point of frustration... but i didn't notice it the first time playing through the game. That's what i mean by "improved basic motions".
The other thing that's improved in gameplay is the whole renegade/paragon dynamic. While the first game largely had it as an aesthetic feature that only occassionally allowed for alternative conversation points, ME2 adds in quick time events and a lot more conversation options that depend on your renegade or paragon score. This was a vast improvement over the 4 or 5 conversations in the first Mass Effect that required renegade or paragon points to unlock different conversation options.
Yes, ME2 is certainly an improvement over an already excellent game, but like anything, it wasn't flawless. As everyone has already commented, the planet mining that's needed for all the best upgrades is nothing short of annoying grind work, but the worst, absolute worst aspect of this game has to be the money formula: there will never be a time, in the entire game, where you won't be starved for cash. And don't expect anyone to do anything more than shave a few bucks off max prices for you, either (and only if you intimidate or charm them). Sure, you saved the galaxy in the first game and, yes, you have a financial backer with bottomless pockets and, ok, your mission is so important that failure isn't an option... but there's no free rides here! You're still going to have to buy all your own weapon and armor upgrades, as well as fuel and probes (required to scan planets for resources).
That's right, i said you have to buy your own fuel. While you're supposedly working for a private military contractor, Cerberus, who is constantly telling you how much resources they've put at your disposal, you're still required to pay for your own damned gas. What the hell kind of 2-bit operation is Cerberus running? There are employers with goals less important than "save the galaxy" that pay for their employees fuel charges!
I guess Bioware was trying to make it more "realistic" with consumable fuel, but the only thing they've realistically done is discourage me from exploring the universe beyond the systems i can get to for free. Those credits are too damned important for my weapons upgrades to bother
All in all, though, Mass Effect 2 is an excellent game and worth the time if you like 3rd persion shooters. If possible, it's even more massive effective than the first!
And finally we have...
Bioshock
A three year old game that i've only now decided to pick up and play. Hell, it even has a sequel now.
Bioshock is a game that's mostly all about atmosphere. The gritty dystopian city of Rapture is clearly designed to make you jump in your seat and inch cautiously down corridors as you plod carefully through the story. The game even includes a number of specific triggers that, when hit, cause your screen to fade out briefly, only to return you to the same spot, now surrounded by viscious enemies.
Of course, the problem with this is, any replay is guaranteed not to be as enthralling as your first play through, which is a real pitty because, like Mass Effect (and other games of the time), there's a moral choice system. Naturally, i played through the game the first time like a goody-goody with designs on playing through a second time as a malevolent cock-sucker out for the blood of children. Of course, since the game doesn't change at all in replay (except, what i'm told, is a different ending), there's not much enjoyment to be milked out of having a bloody moral choice system to begin with. I can just as easily watch the "bad" ending on youtube and lose nothing for it.
The other thing that bothers me is that while Bioshock is certainly trying to deliver a clever story coupled with some topical political commentary, it completely gives up halfway through. Many gamers have praised the story's "twist", but it's really not that much of a twist, especially if you've played a video game in your life before. I won't spoil the twist (god forbid!), but suffice it to say, i called it from the start and was more than a little disappointed when the writers choose to abandon their social commentary in the name of such a weak story device.
Oh well, all in all, Bioshock is still an impressively visual game with an intriguing enough story to keep you entertained, if only for a single playthrough. Check it out.
So that's my countdown of the "things i liked this month" review. It's not as witty or comedic as a vitriolic review could be, but again, that's why i hate writing this kind of review. Oh well, perhaps it makes up for my month in absence.
No? Well, tough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)