Ubisoft is known for its quality games, and Assassin's Creed doesn't let them down. Well, mostly.
The good of this game makes up for a few slight issues I have with it, so I'll start with them. Altair, the protagonist of the game, is pretty cool. He's not a good man, technically, but his ideals are surprisingly noble- killing those who are responsible for greater evils is justifiable, if not required, in order to maintain a peaceful society. By joining this guild of assassins he's trying to protect the nation (what will become Israel) at the expense of his life of freedom, because the guild really ends up being militaristic and almost prison-like in order. So, the story's pretty good and the majority of the characters are figures from this age in history...very neat.
Free running and parkour are the core mechanics of the game, allowing for a fluidity of movement previously unseen in a large-name game. This allows for rapid movement with the simple and effective controls they give you: large effort/attention moves are done by holding the right trigger, whereas the more relaxed and inconspicuous moves are done without it; I have yet to find a game with a better setup, honestly. It takes a minute to get used to them, but in five to ten minutes you'll be leaping from rooftop to rooftop, eluding guards with ease, because you will probably be spending most of your time trying to escape the scene of a crime.
Combat is incredibly easy to handle. You attack with the X button, guard with the right trigger, and if you tap X while guarding when an enemy nearly hits you, you'll counter. The counters are flashy and usually involve instantly killing the enemy. Altair moves deliberately, wasting no time or energy with a dramatic flourish; instead he strikes ruthlessly, though the moves are sometimes serpentine and always morbidly fascinating. As you finish lesser missions such as helping out a citizen being pushed around by guards, you'll complete requirements to unlock the assassination missions, and if you do more than required you get health upgrades.
Now we get to the big problem with the game...as nice as the controls and over-all visual appeal are, the game is repetitive. There are four types of lesser missions: save the citizen, eavesdrop, quell propaganda, and help out a fellow assassin. You have to do more than a hundred by the end of the game, since there are three massive cities that you jump between as the story progresses. In order for it to remain fun, you've really got to make things insanely tough for yourself before even beginning the event. For instance I stepped in to help out an old woman from being hassled by four guards, threw a knife and killed one, ran around the corner to pick up a super guard (a Templar - crusader dudes), then spent minutes dodging their attacks and picking off one or two so that more arrived. By the time I decided to wrap things up I had to take out about 15 guards and the Templar, using -by choice- the little short sword/knife. That kind of mission can be made fun, but collecting enemy flags for a fellow assassin is ridiculous and impossible to spruce up.
That's it, though, the rest is great! This game is not worth buying new, but if you see it at a local used game store, such as Gamestop or whatever, for less than thirty dollars, grab it. You can always sell it back if it ends up becoming boring after completion.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Riding the Bullet
Another Stephen King story, but this time I'll go with a movie.
While this film is based off of relatively decent short story, it's considerably better in its movie format. Shocking, I know. I'm one of the elitest jerks who rarely gives such an adaptation a chance, lumping them in with the made-for-television SciFi Channel programs before ever giving them a chance. Sometimes this saves me from immense pain, other times I've found I miss out on some true gold quality stuff. Luckily I have friends to convince me to check things out.
Riding the Bullet, the movie, is about Alan Parker, a college student in 1969, who has to hitchhike back to his hometown to see his mother who had a stroke, hospitalizing her. Along the way he's picked up by a ghost whose job is to carry souls to wherever, and that night he's been sent to make Alan choose whether he or his mother is going to die. It's a simple story and what they added to drama it up to movie standards honestly works. I won't say it's a really deep plot, but the concept is excellent.
As for the cast, the mother is familiar but I can't place her in anything I've seen recently...Alan is played by Jonathan Jackson, best known for his soap opera stuff and Tuck Everlasting, and he is fantastic in the film. The real star of the movie is the ghost, played by none other than David Arquette. He's serious, creepy, and goofy all at once, and by the end you really can't be sure he was actually a bad guy. His and Jonathan's performances were great, the dialog above average, and the cinematoghraphy was much better than I expected. It surprised me that this was in theaters, as I might have actually given it a shot had I seen it on the local dive's marquee.
All in all, it's worth watching, maybe even worth buying if it's your cup of tea. Check it out.
While this film is based off of relatively decent short story, it's considerably better in its movie format. Shocking, I know. I'm one of the elitest jerks who rarely gives such an adaptation a chance, lumping them in with the made-for-television SciFi Channel programs before ever giving them a chance. Sometimes this saves me from immense pain, other times I've found I miss out on some true gold quality stuff. Luckily I have friends to convince me to check things out.
Riding the Bullet, the movie, is about Alan Parker, a college student in 1969, who has to hitchhike back to his hometown to see his mother who had a stroke, hospitalizing her. Along the way he's picked up by a ghost whose job is to carry souls to wherever, and that night he's been sent to make Alan choose whether he or his mother is going to die. It's a simple story and what they added to drama it up to movie standards honestly works. I won't say it's a really deep plot, but the concept is excellent.
As for the cast, the mother is familiar but I can't place her in anything I've seen recently...Alan is played by Jonathan Jackson, best known for his soap opera stuff and Tuck Everlasting, and he is fantastic in the film. The real star of the movie is the ghost, played by none other than David Arquette. He's serious, creepy, and goofy all at once, and by the end you really can't be sure he was actually a bad guy. His and Jonathan's performances were great, the dialog above average, and the cinematoghraphy was much better than I expected. It surprised me that this was in theaters, as I might have actually given it a shot had I seen it on the local dive's marquee.
All in all, it's worth watching, maybe even worth buying if it's your cup of tea. Check it out.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Spaced
Simon Pegg is awesome. Enough said.
Spaced is a television series that aired over in the wonderful nation of England. It's about two people who have recently been dumped or done the deed, and are out of a place to live. After a chance meeting in a coffee shop the two find an advertisement in a newspaper for an apartment. The catch: it's for professional couples only. So, with some clever doctoring of photos and a shoddy story, they get the apartment. What follows is shenanigans of epic (well, not epic) proportions.
The characters in Spaced are great and, since it's a small cast, we get to see a lot of who they are. You get your easy laughs at some of the situations, but you also see a level of depth in their decisions that are nearly unseen in shows today. Apart from the depth and all that, the situations themselves are quite funny and odd, and Simon Pegg typically puts a satirical spin on it. He rarely outright makes fun of them; instead, he honors them by showing that you can laugh at the ridiculousness of things and love them all the more for it.
I feel bad making this entry so short, but with it being a television show I would have to explain entire seasons. Rather than that, I suggest renting or buying this show; recently they've released it in a box set at a modest price.
Spaced is a television series that aired over in the wonderful nation of England. It's about two people who have recently been dumped or done the deed, and are out of a place to live. After a chance meeting in a coffee shop the two find an advertisement in a newspaper for an apartment. The catch: it's for professional couples only. So, with some clever doctoring of photos and a shoddy story, they get the apartment. What follows is shenanigans of epic (well, not epic) proportions.
The characters in Spaced are great and, since it's a small cast, we get to see a lot of who they are. You get your easy laughs at some of the situations, but you also see a level of depth in their decisions that are nearly unseen in shows today. Apart from the depth and all that, the situations themselves are quite funny and odd, and Simon Pegg typically puts a satirical spin on it. He rarely outright makes fun of them; instead, he honors them by showing that you can laugh at the ridiculousness of things and love them all the more for it.
I feel bad making this entry so short, but with it being a television show I would have to explain entire seasons. Rather than that, I suggest renting or buying this show; recently they've released it in a box set at a modest price.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Stubbs the Zombie
Another zombie entry...sorry. Anyway! Have you heard of this game? Very few people have, and most have forgotten already.
Stubbs the Zombie (Rebel Without a Pulse) was a failed Bungee-offshoot game, released shortly after Halo 2 (maybe before, but whatever). In it you're a stylish zombie with an abnormally good IQ for a rotting brain-eater who infects and leads your brethren to complete destruction of a 1950s themed Utopian metropolis. When I read about the game, my eyes grew wide with eager anticipation-- it was an original idea! Where your buddies would be blasting zombies in some other game, you're gnawing on throats or eating brains.
Outside, with feet sliding on the rain-slicked driveway, I ran to my car and drove to purchase it, and before long I was at the main menu. So it began. In a matter of moments you've found vibrant colors and stylized, humorous citizens just waiting to be partially consumed, so you shamble rapidly in their direction only to find out a horrifying truth: this game is awful. The controls are good, and familiar, but don't seem fitting for this game...the reason why is that they're the exact same controls as in Halo.
Moving in Stubbs reminds me of the Ice Temple in Link to the Past, where your feet skitter aimlessly and unnecessarily as you cross the zone. Attacking is primarily melee-based, and we all know that Halo featured the awkward B-button swing whose only purpose felt like to appease the cries of "He's right there! Why can't you just hit the bastard!?" many people shout in first-person shooters. So you can swing your hands, grab people, and that leads to biting heads to infect your victims.
The other moves you can do...well, you can throw your spleen as a grenade. Shocker. The other move, however, caught me off-guard: your hand can skitter around on the ground in an excellent imitation of Thing. This is actually a pretty cool feature, but ultimately fluff in the long run. Only the spleens and infection are important, because your human opponents carry guns and you don't run. By infecting nearly all the unarmed civilians, you've built up an army of seven to fifteen zombies all under your command. I'm not saying you can exactly order them to attack the enemy of your choice, but their numbers are overwhelming to all but the most well-armed, and because it's by our Halo-makers vehicles have to be included. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the only real difference with the vehicles is a re-skinning and slight frame editing. That's where the spleens come in handy...there and large groups when you're outnumbered.
Basically, it had potential and threw it away by not bothering to work with a new control scheme. The game is incredibly charming, yet this hardly-tweaked recycle of Halo bothers me to no end. To be honest, I'm letting my disdain for all things Halo to skew my review; however, this game is NOT worth buying, and that's me stepping back and looking at everything as objectively as possible.
Stubbs the Zombie (Rebel Without a Pulse) was a failed Bungee-offshoot game, released shortly after Halo 2 (maybe before, but whatever). In it you're a stylish zombie with an abnormally good IQ for a rotting brain-eater who infects and leads your brethren to complete destruction of a 1950s themed Utopian metropolis. When I read about the game, my eyes grew wide with eager anticipation-- it was an original idea! Where your buddies would be blasting zombies in some other game, you're gnawing on throats or eating brains.
Outside, with feet sliding on the rain-slicked driveway, I ran to my car and drove to purchase it, and before long I was at the main menu. So it began. In a matter of moments you've found vibrant colors and stylized, humorous citizens just waiting to be partially consumed, so you shamble rapidly in their direction only to find out a horrifying truth: this game is awful. The controls are good, and familiar, but don't seem fitting for this game...the reason why is that they're the exact same controls as in Halo.
Moving in Stubbs reminds me of the Ice Temple in Link to the Past, where your feet skitter aimlessly and unnecessarily as you cross the zone. Attacking is primarily melee-based, and we all know that Halo featured the awkward B-button swing whose only purpose felt like to appease the cries of "He's right there! Why can't you just hit the bastard!?" many people shout in first-person shooters. So you can swing your hands, grab people, and that leads to biting heads to infect your victims.
The other moves you can do...well, you can throw your spleen as a grenade. Shocker. The other move, however, caught me off-guard: your hand can skitter around on the ground in an excellent imitation of Thing. This is actually a pretty cool feature, but ultimately fluff in the long run. Only the spleens and infection are important, because your human opponents carry guns and you don't run. By infecting nearly all the unarmed civilians, you've built up an army of seven to fifteen zombies all under your command. I'm not saying you can exactly order them to attack the enemy of your choice, but their numbers are overwhelming to all but the most well-armed, and because it's by our Halo-makers vehicles have to be included. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe the only real difference with the vehicles is a re-skinning and slight frame editing. That's where the spleens come in handy...there and large groups when you're outnumbered.
Basically, it had potential and threw it away by not bothering to work with a new control scheme. The game is incredibly charming, yet this hardly-tweaked recycle of Halo bothers me to no end. To be honest, I'm letting my disdain for all things Halo to skew my review; however, this game is NOT worth buying, and that's me stepping back and looking at everything as objectively as possible.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Resident Evil 5
When I first saw the teaser trailer back in aught-who-cares I was excited. Very excited. So much so that I had to restrain myself or I'd go on a zombie-punching spree in the streets. Luckily I have excellent self control...lucky for the innocent citizens on the prowl at that hour, I mean.
I'm a Resident Evil fan through and through; zombie outbreaks make for some of the best horror stories, and often they have a deeper meaning. Look at the Romero films! Those are about society changing into a mindless mob where those who use their minds and so on are the outcasts, left to fend for themselves in a deteriorating world or be torn apart and join the ranks of the "walking dead." Long. Sentence. I'm off-topic, sorry. Resident Evil 5 is awesome, but at the same time a little chunk of my soul was bitten off and gnawed upon forever. Without any spoilers I'll explain my likes and dislikes of the game.
The good: Chris Redfield's return to the series.
Chris is the kind of character you feel proud playing. He's a good man, a staunch defender of those who are wronged, and he's got the skills to handle anything next to a nuclear blast at ten feet. It's been years since we've had a good Chris game, since I don't really like the Code Veronica iterations ...and our boy comes back swinging full force!
The bad: Wesker.
I like Wesker more than basically any villain out there...he's cold and calculating. In fact, he puts those terms to shame. As the villain, Wes has got at least 3 games under his belt where, if he wasn't your antagonist, he played a major part in slowing you down. Thus we hit my dilemma: I love Wesker, but as the primary antagonist of this game...
The ugly: This incarnation of the weapon system.
If you played Resident Evil 4 you're no stranger to purchasing and upgrading your weaponry. It was incredibly fun in RE4, though it didn't feel like it this time around. Between missions you have access to a store and as you progress more junk is available. Sounds good on paper, yet in delivery there's not this overwhelming feeling of buying or upgrading out of necessity since you can just replay chapters and reap the diamonds and other loot from them. What it boils down to is that you can technically buy everything and upgrade it since, along with the store, you've got an infinite capacity storage locker.
New weapons in each of the firearms categories are nothing more than a rock-paper-scissors game: one will have the highest firepower, one will hold more ammo, and the third will reload quickly. What's sad about this is that only one of them will end up being used after you've beaten the game, and that lucky gun is the high damage one. With every level you get points, and with those you can purchase infinite ammo for each of the weapons you fully upgrade. This means that you'll never reload and that giant ammo capacity is useless. See where I'm going with this?
Don't jump to conclusions about my negative review on that, though! I love this game. It's excellent in almost every way, but if you're looking for the "best of the series"...stick with Resident Evil 2-4; they're all pretty evenly matched.
-RE2's story is delivered from two perspectives, giving you an interesting look at Raccoon City from both characters' eyes.
-Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is my favorite because of its sheer size. You see so much of the city, you truly feel helpless when it's namesake appears, forcing you to flee...guns really don't hurt him. Also, its main character is Jill, who is incredibly cool. Maybe my favorite of the core characters.
-Resident Evil 4 sends you back into the role of Leon S. Kennedy, the rookie from 2 who became absolutely hardcore. New controls, new weapon system, and its only problem is that there are no true zombies.
Anyway, I will one day review each of those, so I'll leave it at that. Rent RE5, decide if you want to buy it after the trial period.
I'm a Resident Evil fan through and through; zombie outbreaks make for some of the best horror stories, and often they have a deeper meaning. Look at the Romero films! Those are about society changing into a mindless mob where those who use their minds and so on are the outcasts, left to fend for themselves in a deteriorating world or be torn apart and join the ranks of the "walking dead." Long. Sentence. I'm off-topic, sorry. Resident Evil 5 is awesome, but at the same time a little chunk of my soul was bitten off and gnawed upon forever. Without any spoilers I'll explain my likes and dislikes of the game.
The good: Chris Redfield's return to the series.
Chris is the kind of character you feel proud playing. He's a good man, a staunch defender of those who are wronged, and he's got the skills to handle anything next to a nuclear blast at ten feet. It's been years since we've had a good Chris game, since I don't really like the Code Veronica iterations ...and our boy comes back swinging full force!
The bad: Wesker.
I like Wesker more than basically any villain out there...he's cold and calculating. In fact, he puts those terms to shame. As the villain, Wes has got at least 3 games under his belt where, if he wasn't your antagonist, he played a major part in slowing you down. Thus we hit my dilemma: I love Wesker, but as the primary antagonist of this game...
The ugly: This incarnation of the weapon system.
If you played Resident Evil 4 you're no stranger to purchasing and upgrading your weaponry. It was incredibly fun in RE4, though it didn't feel like it this time around. Between missions you have access to a store and as you progress more junk is available. Sounds good on paper, yet in delivery there's not this overwhelming feeling of buying or upgrading out of necessity since you can just replay chapters and reap the diamonds and other loot from them. What it boils down to is that you can technically buy everything and upgrade it since, along with the store, you've got an infinite capacity storage locker.
New weapons in each of the firearms categories are nothing more than a rock-paper-scissors game: one will have the highest firepower, one will hold more ammo, and the third will reload quickly. What's sad about this is that only one of them will end up being used after you've beaten the game, and that lucky gun is the high damage one. With every level you get points, and with those you can purchase infinite ammo for each of the weapons you fully upgrade. This means that you'll never reload and that giant ammo capacity is useless. See where I'm going with this?
Don't jump to conclusions about my negative review on that, though! I love this game. It's excellent in almost every way, but if you're looking for the "best of the series"...stick with Resident Evil 2-4; they're all pretty evenly matched.
-RE2's story is delivered from two perspectives, giving you an interesting look at Raccoon City from both characters' eyes.
-Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is my favorite because of its sheer size. You see so much of the city, you truly feel helpless when it's namesake appears, forcing you to flee...guns really don't hurt him. Also, its main character is Jill, who is incredibly cool. Maybe my favorite of the core characters.
-Resident Evil 4 sends you back into the role of Leon S. Kennedy, the rookie from 2 who became absolutely hardcore. New controls, new weapon system, and its only problem is that there are no true zombies.
Anyway, I will one day review each of those, so I'll leave it at that. Rent RE5, decide if you want to buy it after the trial period.
Monday, April 13, 2009
The Mad
It's rare to find a semi-indie dark comedy featuring a big(-ish) name star...and zombies! The Mad is a fun flick about a dysfunctional family taking a little road trip and encountering more excitement than a good deal on gas prices.
From the start you're thrown into a new-age eighties synth-rock montage of cows grazing and looking ominous. Creepy farmer dude grinds up some beef and delivers a shipment of it to a Podunk diner and we've pretty much got the location for our movie. The family arrives and we see that Billy Zane (yes, The Phantom!), his girlfriend, and his daughter, as well as her kiss-ass boyfriend, are trying miserably to get along and failing. What better a way to relax from hours of driving than to stop at a small town during a festival. Woo-wee, kissin' booths and shootin' ranges gone done made this town a hoot. Anyway, they go into the diner, bicker, and then the fun starts.
The zombies in this movie are actually victims of a mutated Mad Cow Disease that ran rampant through creepy farmer's livestock, brought to its zenith by an unsanctioned chemical/medicine. What makes it better is that they're not mindless in the whole ravenous flesh-craving sense; instead they're just stupid to the inability to process higher thought. So far it really just sounds like a horror movie from my description, and a bad one at that...but it's not. The dialog, as well as the level of acting (some good, some laughably bad), makes this movie gold. In the middle of situations that, in serious horror movies, most would merely disolve into panic accompanied by a caucophony of dissonant music (or hard rock), The Mad features often-amusing conversations about whether or not the mob outside should really be called "zombies."
Billy Zane gives a stellar performance as the doctor dad. Don't get me wrong-- it would never be good enough to get any kind of award, but he plays the part excellently. From the generation-behind vacant stares he gives when others use modern lingo to the sometimes overprotective father reactions to his daughter and her boyfriend...I mean, he's awesome.
The gore's not too bad, but the language is. It's not a movie for the kids, but let's face it: no horror movie is truly intended for children. If you want to have a laugh while watching zombies swarm over hapless victims, and your copy of Shaun of the Dead is out on loan, check out The Mad.
From the start you're thrown into a new-age eighties synth-rock montage of cows grazing and looking ominous. Creepy farmer dude grinds up some beef and delivers a shipment of it to a Podunk diner and we've pretty much got the location for our movie. The family arrives and we see that Billy Zane (yes, The Phantom!), his girlfriend, and his daughter, as well as her kiss-ass boyfriend, are trying miserably to get along and failing. What better a way to relax from hours of driving than to stop at a small town during a festival. Woo-wee, kissin' booths and shootin' ranges gone done made this town a hoot. Anyway, they go into the diner, bicker, and then the fun starts.
The zombies in this movie are actually victims of a mutated Mad Cow Disease that ran rampant through creepy farmer's livestock, brought to its zenith by an unsanctioned chemical/medicine. What makes it better is that they're not mindless in the whole ravenous flesh-craving sense; instead they're just stupid to the inability to process higher thought. So far it really just sounds like a horror movie from my description, and a bad one at that...but it's not. The dialog, as well as the level of acting (some good, some laughably bad), makes this movie gold. In the middle of situations that, in serious horror movies, most would merely disolve into panic accompanied by a caucophony of dissonant music (or hard rock), The Mad features often-amusing conversations about whether or not the mob outside should really be called "zombies."
Billy Zane gives a stellar performance as the doctor dad. Don't get me wrong-- it would never be good enough to get any kind of award, but he plays the part excellently. From the generation-behind vacant stares he gives when others use modern lingo to the sometimes overprotective father reactions to his daughter and her boyfriend...I mean, he's awesome.
The gore's not too bad, but the language is. It's not a movie for the kids, but let's face it: no horror movie is truly intended for children. If you want to have a laugh while watching zombies swarm over hapless victims, and your copy of Shaun of the Dead is out on loan, check out The Mad.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Out of Town
I regret to inform you that I might be out of town on this upcoming Thursday, so you'll have to wait until the following Monday for my next review. Good news, though: I get to post my first suggestions entry.
For those of you who follow this, I want you to leave a comment with one book, CD, movie, etc. for both next Monday and Thursday. It can be anything (within reason) that you'd like to share or don't particularly want to buy until you get some feedback on it.
I know there aren't a lot of you (fingers crossed for more joining), so I don't exactly expect comments here, but you all know of other ways to reach me. Thanks.
For those of you who follow this, I want you to leave a comment with one book, CD, movie, etc. for both next Monday and Thursday. It can be anything (within reason) that you'd like to share or don't particularly want to buy until you get some feedback on it.
I know there aren't a lot of you (fingers crossed for more joining), so I don't exactly expect comments here, but you all know of other ways to reach me. Thanks.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Shining
If I had to pick one horror novel to take with me to...let's go with a creepy old house...it would have to be Stephen King's The Shining.
A lot of people get snooty when it comes to horror-fiction. Maybe it's the crudeness of some of the characters' lines, the typical gore-factor, and jump out at you cheap scares that Hollywood has shoved down our throats for quite some time. See, a scary book is generally the opposite of its big screen counterpart. When you can't watch the scene unfold with eerie music wearing thin your already frayed nerves, well, you have to manipulate your audience through literary means into a state of edginess without losing the quality of the writing. The Shining does this perfectly!
While I'm a sucker for a scary anything, I'm more critical of my favorite genre than the others-- books most of all. If I can't enjoy reading their tale, I won't get to the creepy. If for some unknown reason I trudge onward just out of morbid curiosity, I usually feel disappointed when something happens. I really have to connect with the main character(/s) in order to envelop myself in the novel...even if they're flawed.
Stephen King shines with a small cast- it's a fact I could debate for who knows how long. In The Shining he has three and a half characters to develop and that's it. Some would think this is boring and won't lead to grizzly deaths or whatever, but you're wrong: all three of the Torrances are expertly crafted. Each of the parents (Jack -the main character- and Wendy) is not perfect, but that's what makes them honestly feel real! Their son Danny is gifted with a form of second sight, a staple King plot device, though he's not a brilliant adult-in-a-kid's-body sort of deal. When sections focus on his perspective, well, he has trouble connecting certain things and finds himself struggling to find a word, and you're along for the frustration/confusion ride with him...Enjoy it, because King was never able to create another believable child character. Lastly is an important character who doesn't get much page-time, and I'll leave it up to anyone who hasn't seen/read The Shining to find out on your own (ha!).
Anyway, you've all probably seen the movie, so I won't waste time on the plot; however, the Kubrick version deviates so far from the actual story that I can't watch it. The miniseries from '97, I believe, starring Stephen Weber was an accurate adaptation, and rather good sans the actor playing Danny. But I digress. In a nutshell: Jack takes a job as a caretaker for a massive hotel in the Rockies (The Overlook) and brings his family. Turns out it's haunted and the spirits want to add the Torrances to their roster. Especially Danny.
This is by FAR my favorite Stephen King novel, and I've read most of his work. I cannot recommend this book enough. The character development is superb, the setting claustrophobic, and has some genuinely creepy moments where my breathing became so shallow I was nearly, well, not. Read. This. Book. Now I'm going to down some medicine for my inexplicable headache and relax...Be back Thursday, folks.
A lot of people get snooty when it comes to horror-fiction. Maybe it's the crudeness of some of the characters' lines, the typical gore-factor, and jump out at you cheap scares that Hollywood has shoved down our throats for quite some time. See, a scary book is generally the opposite of its big screen counterpart. When you can't watch the scene unfold with eerie music wearing thin your already frayed nerves, well, you have to manipulate your audience through literary means into a state of edginess without losing the quality of the writing. The Shining does this perfectly!
While I'm a sucker for a scary anything, I'm more critical of my favorite genre than the others-- books most of all. If I can't enjoy reading their tale, I won't get to the creepy. If for some unknown reason I trudge onward just out of morbid curiosity, I usually feel disappointed when something happens. I really have to connect with the main character(/s) in order to envelop myself in the novel...even if they're flawed.
Stephen King shines with a small cast- it's a fact I could debate for who knows how long. In The Shining he has three and a half characters to develop and that's it. Some would think this is boring and won't lead to grizzly deaths or whatever, but you're wrong: all three of the Torrances are expertly crafted. Each of the parents (Jack -the main character- and Wendy) is not perfect, but that's what makes them honestly feel real! Their son Danny is gifted with a form of second sight, a staple King plot device, though he's not a brilliant adult-in-a-kid's-body sort of deal. When sections focus on his perspective, well, he has trouble connecting certain things and finds himself struggling to find a word, and you're along for the frustration/confusion ride with him...Enjoy it, because King was never able to create another believable child character. Lastly is an important character who doesn't get much page-time, and I'll leave it up to anyone who hasn't seen/read The Shining to find out on your own (ha!).
Anyway, you've all probably seen the movie, so I won't waste time on the plot; however, the Kubrick version deviates so far from the actual story that I can't watch it. The miniseries from '97, I believe, starring Stephen Weber was an accurate adaptation, and rather good sans the actor playing Danny. But I digress. In a nutshell: Jack takes a job as a caretaker for a massive hotel in the Rockies (The Overlook) and brings his family. Turns out it's haunted and the spirits want to add the Torrances to their roster. Especially Danny.
This is by FAR my favorite Stephen King novel, and I've read most of his work. I cannot recommend this book enough. The character development is superb, the setting claustrophobic, and has some genuinely creepy moments where my breathing became so shallow I was nearly, well, not. Read. This. Book. Now I'm going to down some medicine for my inexplicable headache and relax...Be back Thursday, folks.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
World of Warcraft
A controversial pick, some might say. Who cares? I have no problem admitting I played arguably the geekiest game out there. This is going to be a tough one for me to stay polite, but I'll just let loose with my thoughts.
World of Warcraft, or WoW, is a joke. While the gameplay is solid and refined, it's essentially the same thing in repetition for hours and hours on end. You have ten species/races and two factions you can choose from. For the factions you get the Horde and the Alliance, neither of which is truly good or evil. The races are divided evenly between those two- on the Horde side you have Orcs, Trolls, Tauren (Cow-people), the Undead, and Blood Elves (think magic junkies); on the Alliance you have your staple Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Night Elves, and the Draenei (religious aliens). The thing about it is, that there's truly no difference between the races by the maximum level of 80, aside from maybe a tiny bit of damage done or health; everything else is simply a class issue.
The reason I mention all of that is because the factions are only there to create a false sense of camaraderie with whichever one you choose. In all honesty, it's foolish since with the "good" comes a form of childish racism towards people who play the other side. Who am I to judge Blizzard's decisions, but I'm just throwing in my two cents.
Down to business. The main problems with WoW in my opinion stem from its popularity. With x-million members worldwide playing, Blizzard has a steady stream of income flowing in and inasmuch they know they don't exactly have to pump out new things quickly. With each expansion has come a new continent and either a new race or class, but the core of the game hasn't truly changed much since the game first came out. Classes begin to feel stagnant almost immediately, and Blizzard handles this by introducing a number of monsters that give higher experience per kill...only the experience bar is considerably longer with each level. It's like the description of a heroin addict's fix. You know, the one about chasing a dragon and never being able to catch it? Only you CAN reach maximum level...it just doesn't feel that much different, and you're probably still using those starting-out spells more than the ones you purchase every few levels.
The more sinister problem is that WoW, being so profitable, is a big, shiny target for those who capitalize on exploiting it. Keyloggers circulating the internet are now being designed to steal your password, and with it your "hard-earned" gold and gear. Sure, that sort of thing has been around practically as long as the internet...but not as intensely. I'm pretty careful when browsing the internet, yet I've had my account hacked twice! At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of WoW-password keyloggers triples in the next year.
Overall, the game's fun...it's just not worth the money or time it takes to get to the fun stuff in the game. After a while (too long), I've finally quit it, and I feel much better now that I have.
World of Warcraft, or WoW, is a joke. While the gameplay is solid and refined, it's essentially the same thing in repetition for hours and hours on end. You have ten species/races and two factions you can choose from. For the factions you get the Horde and the Alliance, neither of which is truly good or evil. The races are divided evenly between those two- on the Horde side you have Orcs, Trolls, Tauren (Cow-people), the Undead, and Blood Elves (think magic junkies); on the Alliance you have your staple Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, Night Elves, and the Draenei (religious aliens). The thing about it is, that there's truly no difference between the races by the maximum level of 80, aside from maybe a tiny bit of damage done or health; everything else is simply a class issue.
The reason I mention all of that is because the factions are only there to create a false sense of camaraderie with whichever one you choose. In all honesty, it's foolish since with the "good" comes a form of childish racism towards people who play the other side. Who am I to judge Blizzard's decisions, but I'm just throwing in my two cents.
Down to business. The main problems with WoW in my opinion stem from its popularity. With x-million members worldwide playing, Blizzard has a steady stream of income flowing in and inasmuch they know they don't exactly have to pump out new things quickly. With each expansion has come a new continent and either a new race or class, but the core of the game hasn't truly changed much since the game first came out. Classes begin to feel stagnant almost immediately, and Blizzard handles this by introducing a number of monsters that give higher experience per kill...only the experience bar is considerably longer with each level. It's like the description of a heroin addict's fix. You know, the one about chasing a dragon and never being able to catch it? Only you CAN reach maximum level...it just doesn't feel that much different, and you're probably still using those starting-out spells more than the ones you purchase every few levels.
The more sinister problem is that WoW, being so profitable, is a big, shiny target for those who capitalize on exploiting it. Keyloggers circulating the internet are now being designed to steal your password, and with it your "hard-earned" gold and gear. Sure, that sort of thing has been around practically as long as the internet...but not as intensely. I'm pretty careful when browsing the internet, yet I've had my account hacked twice! At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of WoW-password keyloggers triples in the next year.
Overall, the game's fun...it's just not worth the money or time it takes to get to the fun stuff in the game. After a while (too long), I've finally quit it, and I feel much better now that I have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
