Here in Boston, apparently everyone makes a big deal out of the Boston Marathon. I've never experienced this before, so I can't really speak about the scope and scale of this outside of what I've witnessed here. Having tons of work to do, I needed to escape the narrow confines of my distracting apartment and escape to the library for one day out of what will become a week of work.
First thing of note is that conveniently enough, the Marathon has managed to close off my apartment from Campus. Well, that's what I thought until I realized that despite police every 50 feet, I could cross the road when there was nobody passing that was participating in the event. Secondly, doesn't it seem a bit... oh, I don't know, morbid perhaps, inappropriate at least, to have the 23rd mile of the Marathon, which is close to where I live, run past one of the largest cemeteries in Boston? It's almost as if the event planners are saying "You're sooo close! But hey, if you can't finish, we can just stick you in the ground right over there." It's weird, I don't know... maybe I'm just weird. Third, what I most don't understand about this event is why it means that everyone is out drinking and partying at 10 AM? Don't get me wrong, I love that shit, and I'm all for cracking one open on a nice spring day and chilling outside, but, for every one of me there are, there has to be someone doing something else, doesn't there? Not here. Almost everyone (that I can't see here from my wonderful view out of the BC Library) is outside grilling stuff, drinking, whistling and screaming whenever someone strides by, carrying bags of chips (yeah, apparently Lay's is the official sponsor of fatasses everywhere who love to sit around and watch the Marathon from the convenience of... any place that means they don't have to run) etc. Don't worry, I'm not bitter about the fact that I can't be partying with everyone else... well, not much at least :/.
So, in true "I'm a grad student" fashion, I'm locking myself in the Library until I'm at least finished with my 6-10 page Locke paper, and possibly doing as much research as I can stand for one day on my 35 page Security Studies research paper. The only good thing about today is that the library's not crowded, so I can barely hear anyone else doing anything - definitely a good thing considering my attention span (after all, I'm supposed to be writing my Locke paper, right??)
-B$ out
Monday, April 21, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Great comment
I was looking at one of the blogs I read regularly, a sports blog called "Deadspin," and I came across this comment, and I loved it - read the side, the "Latest Comment" - you have to click on the picture for a larger view...
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Absurd: A comparison of Haruki Murakami and David Lynch
Me writing about literature is both new and novel, we'll see how well I manage to tackle the subject before feeling like I'm doing a complete and utter disservice to literary works on the whole. This morning, I made the mistake of watching David Lynch's Blue Velvet. It is a mistake only insofar as the time was concerned. At 9:30 in the morning, most people have just woken up and are most certainly not sitting down in their favorite chair to "enjoy" a David Lynch film. It was a good movie, definitely was very Lynch-esque. Anyways, both Haruki Murakami and David Lynch have something in common: their use of the absurd. The way I understand it, they're both trying to do the same thing, but due to the difference in mediums (between literature and film) the aim appears as different.
Let's first look at Murakami. I'm not going to fill this post with spoilers, although I'm going to need to include a few things from various novels of his. The nature of literature is such: literature requires trust on the part of the reader. The author is presenting the reader with words, however pretty or woven together they may be, they're still words. The reader trusts the author to imbue these words with a special ability which allows them to translate to images in the mind of the reader. In this way, every individual experiences a piece of literature differently - everything from the appearance of the characters to the way they talk, the surrounding environments and the like are conceptualized differently by every reader. In this way, novels and literature are merely guidelines - the true value of a piece of literature is in the ability of the individual to take what they're reading and translate it into compelling pieces. That being said, Haruki Murakami is a master of making the absurd and bizarre seem commonplace. In fact, its so compelling most of the time that you don't realize what was awkward until after you've finished reading one of his novels and are reflecting on it. Take, for example, Kafka on the Shore: one of the central characters has the ability to converse with cats. He also finds himself in several bizarre scenarios that are taken totally on face value simply by the reactions of the characters and the way in which he describes these situations. It can be said that most of his "bizarre" sections are merely metaphors, but even if that's the case, they're presented in such a way that they could pass as non-unusual situations.
I know I said I would talk about David Lynch films, but the only movie that I saw which came close to accomplishing in film what Murakami suggests in writing, although still changed by virtue of it's medium (which I'll mention below) is Terry Gilliam's Tideland. I have to credit the DVD version of this film, however, because it features Gilliam explaining to his audience how to properly "watch" the film. It's quite incredible to watch the film having not heard his intent, because it really is a completely different movie. Anyways, the point I was trying to make is that, when this film is viewed with Gilliam's note, it accomplishes the exact same thing: perfect seamless use of the absurd and making it seem like nothing special, bizarre, or unusual. However, if viewed without the note (and if you don't pick up on it through the course of the movie, which is entirely possible) that is definitely not the case.
The nature of films replaces that inherent "trust" which the reader has for the author for a sort of contempt. For most film viewers, they come into the film experience with a preconceived notion of what they'd like to see based upon the information known about the film. It is for this reason that not everyone watches every movie that comes out; not to mention the sheer quantity of watching that would require is simply untenable, but that's beside the point. This contempt is to be expected, the filmmaker is presenting the audience with a finished piece of work that stands as their interpretation of something. As audience members, we are required to watch, and may make comments about the form and function of ideas throughout the course of the film, but cannot have any role in the creation of the movie. In this sense, it stands to reason that readers really fulfill, at least partially, the role of author and audience in relation because of the need for them to interpret the work. David Lynch movies seem like the film version of what Murakami attempts to accomplish, but this contempt makes it hard to stomach, even for his most avid fans.
I may try to flesh this out some more later, it was a gut-check reaction from Blue Velvet.
Let's first look at Murakami. I'm not going to fill this post with spoilers, although I'm going to need to include a few things from various novels of his. The nature of literature is such: literature requires trust on the part of the reader. The author is presenting the reader with words, however pretty or woven together they may be, they're still words. The reader trusts the author to imbue these words with a special ability which allows them to translate to images in the mind of the reader. In this way, every individual experiences a piece of literature differently - everything from the appearance of the characters to the way they talk, the surrounding environments and the like are conceptualized differently by every reader. In this way, novels and literature are merely guidelines - the true value of a piece of literature is in the ability of the individual to take what they're reading and translate it into compelling pieces. That being said, Haruki Murakami is a master of making the absurd and bizarre seem commonplace. In fact, its so compelling most of the time that you don't realize what was awkward until after you've finished reading one of his novels and are reflecting on it. Take, for example, Kafka on the Shore: one of the central characters has the ability to converse with cats. He also finds himself in several bizarre scenarios that are taken totally on face value simply by the reactions of the characters and the way in which he describes these situations. It can be said that most of his "bizarre" sections are merely metaphors, but even if that's the case, they're presented in such a way that they could pass as non-unusual situations.
I know I said I would talk about David Lynch films, but the only movie that I saw which came close to accomplishing in film what Murakami suggests in writing, although still changed by virtue of it's medium (which I'll mention below) is Terry Gilliam's Tideland. I have to credit the DVD version of this film, however, because it features Gilliam explaining to his audience how to properly "watch" the film. It's quite incredible to watch the film having not heard his intent, because it really is a completely different movie. Anyways, the point I was trying to make is that, when this film is viewed with Gilliam's note, it accomplishes the exact same thing: perfect seamless use of the absurd and making it seem like nothing special, bizarre, or unusual. However, if viewed without the note (and if you don't pick up on it through the course of the movie, which is entirely possible) that is definitely not the case.
The nature of films replaces that inherent "trust" which the reader has for the author for a sort of contempt. For most film viewers, they come into the film experience with a preconceived notion of what they'd like to see based upon the information known about the film. It is for this reason that not everyone watches every movie that comes out; not to mention the sheer quantity of watching that would require is simply untenable, but that's beside the point. This contempt is to be expected, the filmmaker is presenting the audience with a finished piece of work that stands as their interpretation of something. As audience members, we are required to watch, and may make comments about the form and function of ideas throughout the course of the film, but cannot have any role in the creation of the movie. In this sense, it stands to reason that readers really fulfill, at least partially, the role of author and audience in relation because of the need for them to interpret the work. David Lynch movies seem like the film version of what Murakami attempts to accomplish, but this contempt makes it hard to stomach, even for his most avid fans.
I may try to flesh this out some more later, it was a gut-check reaction from Blue Velvet.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Language of Music
I've decided it's pretty necessary to take a break from the videogames posts and attempt to write about something which is very dear to me: music. This could be a long and meandering post, but if you try to bear with me, I'd like to attempt to explain my relationship to music to all who are willing to listen. Also, as a musician myself, my relationship with music changes when interacting with a musical instrument, but that's part of the way I think about music and will be spoken of as well. I'll put the name of songs, artists, albums, or whatnot in parenthesis for ease of reading.
I have a decidedly unusual love for music. I have always known this, but I began to realize it more when taking a car ride with my girlfriend. She had noticed this and decided to ask me about it because I think certain songs speak to me in ways that they don't speak to anyone else. I gave her a somewhat slapdash answer because I'd never thought it through, but there's a lot of truth to what I said then, and I'll think through it and relate it to you, with the use of songs (just as reference, I don't expect anybody to have heard or have these songs on hand at any given time.)
The start of my answer to her was about the role of instruments in a song. I recognize every musical component of a song as an instrument - this is something that many people don't acknowledge simply on the basis that vocals are commonly thought to be something different than an instrument. A good exercise for anyone seeking to try to understand what it feels like should try the following: take a good hip-hop song, not some Top 40 song that's bass heavy or pointless, but something that's a carefully thought through piece of art constructed out of an artist's love for the genre, say (The Roots - Act Too... The Love Of My Life.) The theory behind hip-hop or rap is that the vocals are used as a purely rhythmic instrument or component of the song. Granted, I always preference the sound of vocals more than the message, which is almost impossible for some to even conceptualize, but I've always thought if the voice is an instrument, it should be such, not purely an outlet for a message. This is not to say that there's not a time and place for pure messages, or beat poetry, or whatnot, but if you're trying to do music, please, treat the voice as an instrument. Anyways, back to hip-hop, the way that Black Thought and Common use their words is as another instrument - and there is an equality among instruments.
This is something else that I look for in music, the interplay between instruments is something I heavily preference. It may seem like something that's never overlooked in music, but how often have you heard a song where the focus is on the vocals,a catchy guitar riff, or beat and the rest of the song relies upon that to get it through. An examples - think anything that's been pop-rock and popular for the past at least 5 years - a simple chord structure with someone doing their best Eddie Vedder impression over it, or Scott Stapp, or whatever. The focus of the song is on the vocals, any guitar solo or fancy drum work that occurs is just to trick people into thinking this isn't the case, but it is. This isn't to say popular music is always bad and incapable of interplay - think (My Chemical Romance - Welcome to the Black Parade;) it's the kind of thing you'd see on an attempt to recreate (The Beatles - Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band) in the modern era: a bit of theatrics, a bit of desperation, a bit of anxiety, it's all done very well and put together equally. There are two songs I like to cite when thinking about interplay between instruments as I don't think it could get any better: (Sufjan Stevens - All Good Naysayers...) and (Radiohead - Idioteque). I know the second is an odd choice due to the use of synths and sequencers or whatever, but, much as an earlier song on (Kid A) suggests, (Everything's In It's Right Place.) As I'll explain, I also become very emotionally involved with music - every individual component speaks to me in some way in well-constructed music. (Idioteque) to me suggests urgency while
Music speaks to me in emotions. That may make no sense, so I'll explain in terms of making music, then expand to listening to music. I think of chords, licks, solos, etc. as having a context or a connotation: for example, I will play one line, and if I'm really into it and can feel it, it can bring me close to tears. A good example, if I was had been involved in writing (Genesis - The Cinema Show,) they'd probably have to invest in several boxes of kleenex for the section between (2:46 and 4:35.) It's almost pure beauty - like several tiers of icicles dripping musical drops on an icy cave floor, and the woodwind instrument that comes in sounds like the natural call of some animal. It's a perfectly written section of music; nothing could be more contextually perfect. Two more examples: the first, (Everything But The Girl - Mirrorball [Dj Jazzy Jeff Sole Full Remix]) This song manages to establish the perfect emotions of sadness, melancholy, and hopelessness, but package it in a user-friendly shell. The piano line that is reiterated in the background sounds to me like tears (or raindrops, suggested by my girlfriend but equally somber and sad - she might have a better suggestion due to the frequency of the notes and it's role.) It reckons to memory someone who's trying to keep composed and appear like they have it all together, but are severely hurting on the inside - it's another song I believe is contextually perfect. The second song (Coheed and Cambria - The Willing Well II: Fear Through...) has a section that manages to be accomplish something that I really struggle to define. The first section like this appears at (:44 to :51.) The song gets into this groove that they manage to achieve a perfect balance of instruments and it just makes you move, it's weird but awesome. The bass line cradles the bottom while the guitar adds thread to the loom, and the layering of Claudio's voice adds a perfect counterbalance. Oh yeah, not to mention his background vocals are just haunting.
When making music, I operate almost exclusively on this attachment of emotions to music. Granted, I'm not so spectacular at writing music, but the few songs I've written have maintained a certain feeling throughout the entire song according to how I feel emotions and they flow through music. My "channeling" of emotions leaves much to be desired in terms of song-writing, but I feel more satisfied with my work when I follow this because it feels "congruent" or perhaps "coherent." It's kinda sad, it makes writing music appear on paper to sound as if writing an assignment for class, but it's far from it in interest.
I'm sure this is incomplete, but I look forward to adding new posts that would be semi-reviews or additions to this post in different ways, maybe explaining how certain songs speak to me more or whatnot.
-B$ out
I have a decidedly unusual love for music. I have always known this, but I began to realize it more when taking a car ride with my girlfriend. She had noticed this and decided to ask me about it because I think certain songs speak to me in ways that they don't speak to anyone else. I gave her a somewhat slapdash answer because I'd never thought it through, but there's a lot of truth to what I said then, and I'll think through it and relate it to you, with the use of songs (just as reference, I don't expect anybody to have heard or have these songs on hand at any given time.)
The start of my answer to her was about the role of instruments in a song. I recognize every musical component of a song as an instrument - this is something that many people don't acknowledge simply on the basis that vocals are commonly thought to be something different than an instrument. A good exercise for anyone seeking to try to understand what it feels like should try the following: take a good hip-hop song, not some Top 40 song that's bass heavy or pointless, but something that's a carefully thought through piece of art constructed out of an artist's love for the genre, say (The Roots - Act Too... The Love Of My Life.) The theory behind hip-hop or rap is that the vocals are used as a purely rhythmic instrument or component of the song. Granted, I always preference the sound of vocals more than the message, which is almost impossible for some to even conceptualize, but I've always thought if the voice is an instrument, it should be such, not purely an outlet for a message. This is not to say that there's not a time and place for pure messages, or beat poetry, or whatnot, but if you're trying to do music, please, treat the voice as an instrument. Anyways, back to hip-hop, the way that Black Thought and Common use their words is as another instrument - and there is an equality among instruments.
This is something else that I look for in music, the interplay between instruments is something I heavily preference. It may seem like something that's never overlooked in music, but how often have you heard a song where the focus is on the vocals,a catchy guitar riff, or beat and the rest of the song relies upon that to get it through. An examples - think anything that's been pop-rock and popular for the past at least 5 years - a simple chord structure with someone doing their best Eddie Vedder impression over it, or Scott Stapp, or whatever. The focus of the song is on the vocals, any guitar solo or fancy drum work that occurs is just to trick people into thinking this isn't the case, but it is. This isn't to say popular music is always bad and incapable of interplay - think (My Chemical Romance - Welcome to the Black Parade;) it's the kind of thing you'd see on an attempt to recreate (The Beatles - Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band) in the modern era: a bit of theatrics, a bit of desperation, a bit of anxiety, it's all done very well and put together equally. There are two songs I like to cite when thinking about interplay between instruments as I don't think it could get any better: (Sufjan Stevens - All Good Naysayers...) and (Radiohead - Idioteque). I know the second is an odd choice due to the use of synths and sequencers or whatever, but, much as an earlier song on (Kid A) suggests, (Everything's In It's Right Place.) As I'll explain, I also become very emotionally involved with music - every individual component speaks to me in some way in well-constructed music. (Idioteque) to me suggests urgency while
Music speaks to me in emotions. That may make no sense, so I'll explain in terms of making music, then expand to listening to music. I think of chords, licks, solos, etc. as having a context or a connotation: for example, I will play one line, and if I'm really into it and can feel it, it can bring me close to tears. A good example, if I was had been involved in writing (Genesis - The Cinema Show,) they'd probably have to invest in several boxes of kleenex for the section between (2:46 and 4:35.) It's almost pure beauty - like several tiers of icicles dripping musical drops on an icy cave floor, and the woodwind instrument that comes in sounds like the natural call of some animal. It's a perfectly written section of music; nothing could be more contextually perfect. Two more examples: the first, (Everything But The Girl - Mirrorball [Dj Jazzy Jeff Sole Full Remix]) This song manages to establish the perfect emotions of sadness, melancholy, and hopelessness, but package it in a user-friendly shell. The piano line that is reiterated in the background sounds to me like tears (or raindrops, suggested by my girlfriend but equally somber and sad - she might have a better suggestion due to the frequency of the notes and it's role.) It reckons to memory someone who's trying to keep composed and appear like they have it all together, but are severely hurting on the inside - it's another song I believe is contextually perfect. The second song (Coheed and Cambria - The Willing Well II: Fear Through...) has a section that manages to be accomplish something that I really struggle to define. The first section like this appears at (:44 to :51.) The song gets into this groove that they manage to achieve a perfect balance of instruments and it just makes you move, it's weird but awesome. The bass line cradles the bottom while the guitar adds thread to the loom, and the layering of Claudio's voice adds a perfect counterbalance. Oh yeah, not to mention his background vocals are just haunting.
When making music, I operate almost exclusively on this attachment of emotions to music. Granted, I'm not so spectacular at writing music, but the few songs I've written have maintained a certain feeling throughout the entire song according to how I feel emotions and they flow through music. My "channeling" of emotions leaves much to be desired in terms of song-writing, but I feel more satisfied with my work when I follow this because it feels "congruent" or perhaps "coherent." It's kinda sad, it makes writing music appear on paper to sound as if writing an assignment for class, but it's far from it in interest.
I'm sure this is incomplete, but I look forward to adding new posts that would be semi-reviews or additions to this post in different ways, maybe explaining how certain songs speak to me more or whatnot.
-B$ out
Monday, February 25, 2008
Phil Harrison Resigning? Confusion will be my epitaph...
It's finally here: Sony's Swan Song for the Playstation 3, and no, I don't think it's going to be a great new exclusive series. Phil Harrison, shiny head behind so many videogame conference speeches not only belittling the competition, but also introducing all the Deus Ex Machina designed to catapult the PS3 to the front, is resigning. Rumor has it (according to Kotaku) that Mr. Harrison is joining third party software developer Atari. I think this is terrible for Sony, perhaps an action which is as good as a political concession speech about the inferiority of the PS3, and I'm about to tell you why. (Hint: it has to do with Sony's credibility)
The Console War Begins - First, we all know that Sony has struggled. Microsoft took a big risk releasing the Xbox 360 much earlier than the other two current generation (if you consider horizontal innovation to be a possible form of measure instead of standard "raw power" benchmark used by the industry, then the Wii would count) systems. However, Microsoft was able to all but kidnap the vast majority of third party support by displaying the system's power and potential. It boasted the same type of technology as the Playstation 3 - a cell processing unit capable of an exponential increase in processing power and system multitasking over the previous generation of systems as well as integrated internet technology, high definition graphics, and a legitimate branch out to other media outlets (TV shows, movies, music, etc.) They came in early, stole the game market from under Sony's feet, and have sat there laughing ever since, knowing that they have been victorious over the console which might eventually bring us Killzone 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 (the two "big" PS3 exclusive games prior to launch of the system, but if you think about it, their predecessors were not key exclusive games, nor did they look half as good as the prospects for the Xbox. Sony would have been smarter to get Square-Enix into motion earlier [prior to system launch] and get the ball rolling for Final Fantasy XIII trailers; a game which now may not be exclusively a PS3 title seeing as how Squeenix has openly criticized the PS3 for underperforming and has called it a failure of Sony's marketing team.) Also, it's laughable that Sony is not able to outperform a company who has released millions of defective units - several people (myself included: #3) are not on their first console!
The Third Party Vicious Circle - For Sony, this is one of the key reasons why the PS3 hasn't gone anywhere. Third party software developers, (think Epic, EA, 2k, Rockstar, Bioware, etc.) were convinced that the hardware of the 360 was the easiest to develop games for and given their presence in the market early, would develop for the 360. Also, the gamer base was seen to be diverse enough to provide these companies with enough means to develop exclusive game and exclusive series for the 360; some of these at the detriment of Sony's previous third party base due to the overwhelming triumph of the Playstation 2. Anyways, now the situation is that software companies will not develop exclusive titles or series for the PS3 because they don't see it as profitable enough. The irony is that the Ps3 is underperforming due to a general lack of exclusive titles and series, making the problem fatal for Sony. In a market where game companies are largely living "game-to-game," no developers (with the exception perhaps of EA, who is absurdly large) can afford to take a risk on a PS3 exclusive series. Proof of this, by the way, can be seen in all the gamers choice awards where the choice for best Playstation 3 game was none other than Call of Duty 4 - A Multiplatform game!! Xbox 360's game of the year was Bioshock, native to the Xbox and PC (not mutiplatform.)
So wait, what does Phil Harrison have to do with this? - Phil Harrison was the man who introduced many of the games designed to lift the weary heads of PS3 owners (that bought the system exclusively - many of the PS3 owners also own either a 360, a Wii, or both due to their financial capacities) is moving to a third party software developer? This is the man who introduced Little Big Planet, a game which was supposed to be the next big thing for the PS3 (which, quite frankly I have no idea why - it looks like some puppets running around, the game looks like N+ except far less minimalist and infinitely more hype) and he's jumping ship? With Kaz Hirai leaving earlier this year for another internal position and now Harrison, Sony's executives have all but said "Ok, so this one was our fault, we get it, we're slowly going the way of the HD DVD" and acknowledging their shot credibility. The people you see introducing games at confrences now won't be the same ones you've been seeing in the past. Why is that, you may ask? Because they've either left or been "redistributed" because they were failing miserably at their mission and although the Mythbusters can raise a sunken ship with ping pong balls, Sony's not going to be able to salvage the PS3 with anything short of a purely unadulterated (except for graphically, obviously) Final Fantasy VII remake. Isn't that sad, a remake is the only thing that could, while perhaps not "save" Sony, buy them time and perhaps credibility to gain some of their third party support back. Either that or they're going to have to give up on the PS3 and get ready for the next round.
The Console War Begins - First, we all know that Sony has struggled. Microsoft took a big risk releasing the Xbox 360 much earlier than the other two current generation (if you consider horizontal innovation to be a possible form of measure instead of standard "raw power" benchmark used by the industry, then the Wii would count) systems. However, Microsoft was able to all but kidnap the vast majority of third party support by displaying the system's power and potential. It boasted the same type of technology as the Playstation 3 - a cell processing unit capable of an exponential increase in processing power and system multitasking over the previous generation of systems as well as integrated internet technology, high definition graphics, and a legitimate branch out to other media outlets (TV shows, movies, music, etc.) They came in early, stole the game market from under Sony's feet, and have sat there laughing ever since, knowing that they have been victorious over the console which might eventually bring us Killzone 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 (the two "big" PS3 exclusive games prior to launch of the system, but if you think about it, their predecessors were not key exclusive games, nor did they look half as good as the prospects for the Xbox. Sony would have been smarter to get Square-Enix into motion earlier [prior to system launch] and get the ball rolling for Final Fantasy XIII trailers; a game which now may not be exclusively a PS3 title seeing as how Squeenix has openly criticized the PS3 for underperforming and has called it a failure of Sony's marketing team.) Also, it's laughable that Sony is not able to outperform a company who has released millions of defective units - several people (myself included: #3) are not on their first console!
The Third Party Vicious Circle - For Sony, this is one of the key reasons why the PS3 hasn't gone anywhere. Third party software developers, (think Epic, EA, 2k, Rockstar, Bioware, etc.) were convinced that the hardware of the 360 was the easiest to develop games for and given their presence in the market early, would develop for the 360. Also, the gamer base was seen to be diverse enough to provide these companies with enough means to develop exclusive game and exclusive series for the 360; some of these at the detriment of Sony's previous third party base due to the overwhelming triumph of the Playstation 2. Anyways, now the situation is that software companies will not develop exclusive titles or series for the PS3 because they don't see it as profitable enough. The irony is that the Ps3 is underperforming due to a general lack of exclusive titles and series, making the problem fatal for Sony. In a market where game companies are largely living "game-to-game," no developers (with the exception perhaps of EA, who is absurdly large) can afford to take a risk on a PS3 exclusive series. Proof of this, by the way, can be seen in all the gamers choice awards where the choice for best Playstation 3 game was none other than Call of Duty 4 - A Multiplatform game!! Xbox 360's game of the year was Bioshock, native to the Xbox and PC (not mutiplatform.)
So wait, what does Phil Harrison have to do with this? - Phil Harrison was the man who introduced many of the games designed to lift the weary heads of PS3 owners (that bought the system exclusively - many of the PS3 owners also own either a 360, a Wii, or both due to their financial capacities) is moving to a third party software developer? This is the man who introduced Little Big Planet, a game which was supposed to be the next big thing for the PS3 (which, quite frankly I have no idea why - it looks like some puppets running around, the game looks like N+ except far less minimalist and infinitely more hype) and he's jumping ship? With Kaz Hirai leaving earlier this year for another internal position and now Harrison, Sony's executives have all but said "Ok, so this one was our fault, we get it, we're slowly going the way of the HD DVD" and acknowledging their shot credibility. The people you see introducing games at confrences now won't be the same ones you've been seeing in the past. Why is that, you may ask? Because they've either left or been "redistributed" because they were failing miserably at their mission and although the Mythbusters can raise a sunken ship with ping pong balls, Sony's not going to be able to salvage the PS3 with anything short of a purely unadulterated (except for graphically, obviously) Final Fantasy VII remake. Isn't that sad, a remake is the only thing that could, while perhaps not "save" Sony, buy them time and perhaps credibility to gain some of their third party support back. Either that or they're going to have to give up on the PS3 and get ready for the next round.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Wii Review: Endless Oceanic
Against my better judgement (yeah, I'm a total game snob,) I decided to risk being bored and humiliated by purchasing "Endless Ocean" for the Wii. The following led me to purchase the game: Step 1. Read the Penny Arcade comic "Endless Oceanic." Step 2. Look the game up on Metacritic. Step 3. Think Step 4. Purchase... It is worth noting that Endless Ocean garnered a score of 72 out of 100 on Metacritic - pretty good.
The game is about, yeah, scuba diving. You're a diver on the an Island who is asked to perform several tasks for the head of a local marine research organization for Alfred Thorman. These tasks range from "topographical surveys" (as near as I can tell, getting in the water) to acting as a diving guide for several people who demand to see one particular fish. There's also a plot element centering around a mysterious species of aquatic life that has to do with a member of your "crew."
The one thing of note is that this is really two different games on one disc - one occurs on the boat and the other occurs in the water. The game that occurs on the boat is awful, nothing more, nothing less. The graphics are terrible, the jet ski noises are not believable, nor do they alter in volume as they drive away, nor does it create any ripples in the water. Further, the character you play emotes in very mechanical awkward motions that are completely unrealistic.
Under the water, the game is completely different. The one thing this game really has going for it is that it's almost like an exercise in zen - it is one of the most relaxing game experiences ever. The graphics are far superior - not quite up to par with this generation of systems, but still pretty alright (I would liken it to a PS2 game.) The game itself is almost like the traveling element in an MMO, which I think is kinda relaxing and monotonous as well. This is a very niche game, but if you're down to try something different and relaxing - something that's barely even a "game"- this game is something you'd like. I have played about 10 hours of the game, which was enough to finish the "plot" element, but the game, as near as I can tell, will continue for as long as you'd like to play it - which is kinda nice. Oh, one thing to note, the soundtrack goes well with the game... at first... but it gets old really fast. You're going to want to make sure you have a SD card reader to load MP3s on, which the game includes support for.
Graphics - 6
Music - 7
Sound Effects - 9
Originality - 8
Replay Value - 5
Overall Composite - 6.2
The game is about, yeah, scuba diving. You're a diver on the an Island who is asked to perform several tasks for the head of a local marine research organization for Alfred Thorman. These tasks range from "topographical surveys" (as near as I can tell, getting in the water) to acting as a diving guide for several people who demand to see one particular fish. There's also a plot element centering around a mysterious species of aquatic life that has to do with a member of your "crew."
The one thing of note is that this is really two different games on one disc - one occurs on the boat and the other occurs in the water. The game that occurs on the boat is awful, nothing more, nothing less. The graphics are terrible, the jet ski noises are not believable, nor do they alter in volume as they drive away, nor does it create any ripples in the water. Further, the character you play emotes in very mechanical awkward motions that are completely unrealistic.
Under the water, the game is completely different. The one thing this game really has going for it is that it's almost like an exercise in zen - it is one of the most relaxing game experiences ever. The graphics are far superior - not quite up to par with this generation of systems, but still pretty alright (I would liken it to a PS2 game.) The game itself is almost like the traveling element in an MMO, which I think is kinda relaxing and monotonous as well. This is a very niche game, but if you're down to try something different and relaxing - something that's barely even a "game"- this game is something you'd like. I have played about 10 hours of the game, which was enough to finish the "plot" element, but the game, as near as I can tell, will continue for as long as you'd like to play it - which is kinda nice. Oh, one thing to note, the soundtrack goes well with the game... at first... but it gets old really fast. You're going to want to make sure you have a SD card reader to load MP3s on, which the game includes support for.
Graphics - 6
Music - 7
Sound Effects - 9
Originality - 8
Replay Value - 5
Overall Composite - 6.2
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Frontline: Fuel of War MP Demo Review (Xbox Live)
So I recently downloaded and decided to play the new multiplayer demo for Frontline: Fuel of War. I heard that this is the second incarnation of the demo, the first being what I read to be an awful single player experience. However, not having played it, I had to venture out into the Frontline universe alone.
That being said, there's one thing I can can definitively say about this game: it makes you feel small. Not small like you're walking next to Yao Ming small, but small as in insignificant, like how one feels sometimes when gazing into the stars. I say this because, as near as I can tell, I made absolutely no difference to my team no matter what class/role I played. I played two maps (I think the only two on the demo: Oil Field and Streets) and this is true of both of them, but in different ways. Oil Field is a massive vehicle map. As such, tanks, APCs, Helicopters, and Humvees were scattered throughout the map. The driving system is clumsy at best; I spent most of the time either getting blown up by enemy airstrikes or running into inanimate objects... always time well spent. Running on foot is like playing Final Fantasy XI and traveling without a chocobo... oh yeah, and way before you reach your destination, you die and have no idea how. The map Street is designed for combat on foot, but it doesn't change the fact that there's something about the game interface or environment or engine that makes you individually feel like you're totally insignificant. Perhaps I'm terrible at the game... I'm totally open to that option. I guess in that respect the game reminds me of Tribes, except that Tribes had one element that this game is still critically lacking: fun.
Speaking of class/role - I think their idea is kinda neat. It's not too far off the beaten path with games like Team Fortress having been around for ages and games as such, but the differentiation between class and role - the ability to chose a role independent of a class - is something worth noting. The closest thing I would be able to relate to it is perhaps being able to choose your weapons and perks separately before each spawn in Call of Duty 4. However, the downside is that there is a loading period between the selection of said call/role and spawn which is pretty weak. No other game has a non-mandated respawn time (think Halo, there's a forced respawn time, or perhaps team hardcore on CoD 4.) Your classes are pretty standard - Assault rifle, LMG, SMG, Shotty, Sniper, Rockets. The roles are where the game gets interesting, there's a soldier role that allows you to deploy varying degrees of manned/unmanned sentry turrets after a certain amount of time, a drone tech role that allows you to use UAVs, an air support role that allows you to call in varying degrees of airstrikes on a certain location, and an EMP tech role that allows you to disable equipment and not appear on the map. Interesting, we'll have to see how it plays out in the actual finished version of the game.
My final words: if this game is going to compete with the juggernauts out there like Call of Duty, Halo, and Orange Box, it's gonna have to cut the loading time out prior to respawns (or at least disguise it by making it seem forced,) perhaps manipulate the engine so the game feels more responsive to the player, maybe decrease the map size and cut the player limit (which is currently capped at 50 - sure it feels epic, but it doesn't come expenses free.) On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give it a 4 - it doesn't do anything particularly well and doesn't really keep my interest long.
That being said, there's one thing I can can definitively say about this game: it makes you feel small. Not small like you're walking next to Yao Ming small, but small as in insignificant, like how one feels sometimes when gazing into the stars. I say this because, as near as I can tell, I made absolutely no difference to my team no matter what class/role I played. I played two maps (I think the only two on the demo: Oil Field and Streets) and this is true of both of them, but in different ways. Oil Field is a massive vehicle map. As such, tanks, APCs, Helicopters, and Humvees were scattered throughout the map. The driving system is clumsy at best; I spent most of the time either getting blown up by enemy airstrikes or running into inanimate objects... always time well spent. Running on foot is like playing Final Fantasy XI and traveling without a chocobo... oh yeah, and way before you reach your destination, you die and have no idea how. The map Street is designed for combat on foot, but it doesn't change the fact that there's something about the game interface or environment or engine that makes you individually feel like you're totally insignificant. Perhaps I'm terrible at the game... I'm totally open to that option. I guess in that respect the game reminds me of Tribes, except that Tribes had one element that this game is still critically lacking: fun.
Speaking of class/role - I think their idea is kinda neat. It's not too far off the beaten path with games like Team Fortress having been around for ages and games as such, but the differentiation between class and role - the ability to chose a role independent of a class - is something worth noting. The closest thing I would be able to relate to it is perhaps being able to choose your weapons and perks separately before each spawn in Call of Duty 4. However, the downside is that there is a loading period between the selection of said call/role and spawn which is pretty weak. No other game has a non-mandated respawn time (think Halo, there's a forced respawn time, or perhaps team hardcore on CoD 4.) Your classes are pretty standard - Assault rifle, LMG, SMG, Shotty, Sniper, Rockets. The roles are where the game gets interesting, there's a soldier role that allows you to deploy varying degrees of manned/unmanned sentry turrets after a certain amount of time, a drone tech role that allows you to use UAVs, an air support role that allows you to call in varying degrees of airstrikes on a certain location, and an EMP tech role that allows you to disable equipment and not appear on the map. Interesting, we'll have to see how it plays out in the actual finished version of the game.
My final words: if this game is going to compete with the juggernauts out there like Call of Duty, Halo, and Orange Box, it's gonna have to cut the loading time out prior to respawns (or at least disguise it by making it seem forced,) perhaps manipulate the engine so the game feels more responsive to the player, maybe decrease the map size and cut the player limit (which is currently capped at 50 - sure it feels epic, but it doesn't come expenses free.) On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give it a 4 - it doesn't do anything particularly well and doesn't really keep my interest long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)