Things that'll make you laugh, cry, and maybe pee your pants with delight. Mainly I just use this blog to say whatever is on my mind, which most of the time revolves around games, movies, or anything else that may be happening. Enjoy.
Batman: Arkham Origins Takes Big Leap Into Multiplayer
Batman. A superhero with no superpowers...unless of course, you count his bank account having the ability to regenerate at an extraordinary rate.
Still, the Caped Crusader is hailed as one of the most influential and important superheroes around, and I can't help but smile at how respectful the Arkham video game franchise has been to the mythos of the Batman, including the upcoming Arkham Origins game.
Joker can throw a hell of a housewarming!
Starting back in 2009, a little powerhouse developer known as Rocksteady released a beautiful game called Batman: Arkham Asylum. The hype was palpable, but it didn't really start out that way. As the game got closer to launch, I remember how bad I could taste the game. It got a lot of coverage considering they were using the original voice of Kevin Conroy as the Dark Knight and Mark Hamill as the Joker. In some shameful honesty, the game didn't really fly too high on my radar due to the track record of awfulness that previous Batman games have had. I wasn't holding my breath. But then, like a remote controlled batarang to the back of my head, something magical happened: the game was phenomenal. Now, I'm hoping we can capture lightning in a bottle twice with this latest entry of the Arkham franchise.
I don't think anyone ever doubted that the sequel to Arkham Asylum, Arkham City, wouldn't live up to the hype. It totally did, delivering an even grander scale of environments than the first game, and a villain roster that would make Harvey Dent's bad-side blush. However, I don't think the same could be said of this next game in the esteemed franchise, especially because it's a prequel...At least, not at first.
Deathstroke: a stroke of genius
Arkham Origins had a rocky start (pun intended) when it was announced. The main reason? Rocksteady wasn't developing it. The team behind the first two marvelous games decided to pass the torch to another developer, while it goes off to develop some other gem (which may end up being a next-gen Arkham game...just my hypothesis). Instead, Warner Bros. Montreal decided to take the reins and give us a gritty take of the Dark Knight as he starts to make a name for himself in Gotham City. With the idea of a more inexperienced Batman at the helm, this became concern #1 in my book. how could I play as a fallible Batman? And how was an Arkham game going to strive without Rocksteady?
These Two: Bosses
Concern #2 came along when it was discovered that Kevin Conroy would NOT be reprising his role as Batman; well, at least in this iteration. You can click here to learn more about what I'm talking about. Anyway, adding onto Concern #2 was the already well known fact that Mark Hamill was also NOT going to be back as the Joker. For too long both these men have been synonymous with their fictitious counterparts, and it's a little jarring to hear the news that they weren't going to be involved.
My last concern: Black Mask was going to be one of the main antagonists. Now, hear me out first. I'm not saying that he's not worthy of the opportunity to make Batman's life a living hell, but Black Mask was alwys one of those villains who was too cartoonish, never really bringing out major character developments from the Batman/Bruce Wayne the way Joker or Scarecrow could. That is of course, until I saw this initial trailer for the game.
Did you have fun? Are the endless possibilities of this game starting to get you excited? I know it did for me, and this trailer didn't even have the more classic Batman villains in it.
Anyway, my negative perception of Arkham Origins really started to sway after this trailer. Granted, it's a full CG trailer that doesn't reveal any tidbit of gameplay, but it's a great start. The near 5-minutes of awesomeness showed me many things: where the story is going, the mood of the game, the ferocity that is still intact of the Arkham series. But it also showed me one other major thing: a franchise willing to take a risk.
Black Mask looks to play a major role this time around
Arkham Origins is clearly not going to settle with the same formula of its predecessors. Any concerns of the inclusion of bottom-tier villains should've subsided after seeing how brutal Deathstroke was in his scuffle with Batman. My fears were also quelled when I saw Deadshot and Black Mask pull their weight, intimidating fans worldwide. And then it hit me! Holy crap, you can have a full game with these villains alone and it'd still be awesome, and yet, there are still more villains that have been confirmed for the game that we haven't even seen yet, including Penguin, Bane, and the laughbox of terror himself, the Joker.
Roger Craig Smith has a nice resume
And then the good news continued to roll. The voice actors taking over for Conroy and Hamill were revealed to be two very well respected talents in the industry. Batman is being voiced by Roger Craig Smith, who's better known to the world as Ezio Auditore from Assassin's Creed and Chris Redfield from Resident Evil, while Joker is being voiced by Troy Baker, who's played the lead roles in Bioshock: Infinite and The Last Of Us (seriously...go play this game already!!!).
And then more good news. All of the major gaming sites were able to get their hands on a demo of the game at E3 this year, and they're proud to report the gameplay is very similar to the previous Arkham games and then some! There are said to be some nice improvements to detective mode, gadgets, and combat, as well as another villain reveal, one which I never knew about until recently, Copperhead. And to be honest, she looks deadlier than all of my ex-girlfriends combined, minus the whole contortion stuff. Check out the reveal trailer below.
I don't know if I should feel terrorized or aroused? Anyway, brace yourselves for another youtube video...because this is actually going to be a lot like going to the Olive Garden: it sounds like a bad idea, but my God is it delicious.
MULTIPLAYER!!! The 4-syllable word that forces gamers to gouge their eyeballs and start shooting black-tar heroin. It was recently announced that Origins will include an adversarial multiplayer...but it's an adversarial multiplayer with a twist -- 3 VS. 3 VS. 2 -- You may now proceed with draining the brain ooze.
Three teams of players will be going at each other in a conquest/deathmatch game-type comprised of heroes and villains. Batman and Robin will be perched in stealth/darkness while trying to take down two other teams of rival gangs made up of Joker's and Bane's goons.
Excuse me, sir. You've got red on you
Why am I so excited about this mode? Well, because it fits so well into this universe. And it's also being developed by another team so that way WB Montreal can focus on delivering an epic single player experience. In any case, if you take a closer look at this multiplayer, it seems to resemble another popular game, and one of my favorite Online games, Splinter Cell. The stealth and gunplay of the three different teams makes it appear to draw heavily from Splinter Cell's "Spies vs. Mercs" game type. And that's not a bad thing, because Spies vs. Mercs had the potential to include some of the fiercest and memorable online multiplayer experiences in gaming.
All in all, I cannot wait for Arkham Origins. As we inch close to that October release date of the game, Origins continually impresses me and I don't want it to stop. I'm kind of a pain in the ass to impress, especially when it comes to Batman. But Origins seems to be hitting all the right notes it needs to: Story, Presentation, Originality, Consistency, and Depth. Now all I need is a bat-gadget that makes time slip by faster.
That, my friends, is the age of my bones...my sweet, little, video-gaming bones. It's unfortunately a few years away from 30, and that is something I am having a hard time digesting. But this isn't a blog posting about how I am well past the quarter-century milestone. No. Instead, these are the reflections of an aging gamer.
1-99 ... Damn You, Glass Joe
I feel I need to start this particular blog with a flashback. Yea, let's go all "LOST" on everyone. As I've documented previously in my blog, my video gaming started way back in the ATARI/NES days. Really, more of the latter. I was 5 or 6 years old at the time when I grabbed that little rectangular piece of plastic with 4 buttons and a diagonal pad that would come to be known as an NES Controller and started hammering the crap out of Mike Tyson's Punch-Out. That excitement didn't last long as the game's first adversary, Glass Joe, pounded me harder than Paris Hilton at a rave with 12 coked-up dudes. Yes, Glass Joe; the guy who has a record of 1-99, and that one win came at my expense. I still can't live out the shame my brothers and cousin give me for that.
Following that Glass Joe beat down, I honed my Punch-Out skills to take down that milky white, ginger bastard and succeeded. I couldn't tell you what a miraculous moment that was; having a Rocky-esque training montage of getting pounded by Glass Joe over and over again until I learned the controls and figured out my adversary's attack patterns. Learning from your mistakes, sounds a lot like life? Little by little, I'd take out one opponent at a snails pace, but I eventually got up to Kid Dynamite and took him down. End Scene...
Anyway, that's always been my "gaming-birth" moment. It's kind of like that "where were you when Halo 2 came out?" or the "how you lost your virginity" story, but it's always fun to share. Nowadays though, those stories are changing. I guess it's a sign of the times, but the current generations seems to be trending from the "man, I love gaming because of the challenge" to "man, I love gaming because it's cool." All I have to say is, where the f**k were you all when I was in grade school?!?!
Call of Duty with some Stark-Power
I think the point I'm trying to make is that in this day and age, gaming is "in" now -- and for lack of a better word ... that's pretty frickin' cool. There are big budget productions for video game commercials a la Black Ops II's "Tag" spot which featured explosions that would make a Jerry Bruckheimer film look like a PBS show, as well as some celebrity cameos including Mr. Tony Stark himself, Robert Downey Jr. I can't help but reflect back on my years of gaming as a kid when I would go over to a friend's house for the 1st time, and inside the bedroom I'd find a video game console and get totally ecstatic of the proposition of gaming. You see, to me, it wasn't common for other people to be into video games. Nowadays though, it's almost a guarantee you will find a video gaming console in someone's house whether it's for gaming purposes, or, dare I say it, entertainment console purposes. (Cue dramatic gopher music) Dum Dum Dummmmmmmmmmm.
Fan-f**king-tastic is how I would describe this game
Either way, I'm glad gaming is taking its mantle of awesomeness pretty seriously. It's great to see people play video games as a way to socialize as opposed to being the opposite -- a way to anti-socialize. However, I do feel myself slipping away from the gaming landscape. It's not because I voluntarily do so, but rather, life is getting in the way. Whether it's the job, the girlfriend, the family, or just the flat out partying, I don't have as much time as I used to when it comes to sitting my ass down and hammering some games. In fact, I recently bought the absolutely jaw-dropping, hair-raising, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious game "The Last of Us," and I couldn't beat it until a month later due to all the times I had to save my game to head out to my next adult-ish commitment. Mind you, I'm just talking about the single-player experience, which is a solid 14 hours depending on how much you like to explore (Which I do ;D) -- I haven't even started the multiplayer.
It's good to see you again, MMO. It's been years
In other words, I almost fel like that old geezer who passes the baton from one generation to the other. No longer can I spend marathon sessions playing WoW or whatever the MMO of the month is. I can't complete a 10 hour game within two weeks time, unless of course I call in sick to work, which happened a few months back when I beat Bioshock Infinite over a two-day, crap-my-guts-out kind of day. There's a slight sadness I feel coming to this realization. I still try to fight it as much I can, squeezing in a gaming session whenever I can. As it is, I'm trying to play the F2P MMO "Rift" with my younger brother just to re-live those glory days. I almost feel like Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite tossing footballs in front of a camera in the middle of nowhere. It's slightly depressing, but oddly relatable.
You mean you didn't kill Ganon with the light arrows?
Just to wrap it up, I guess what I want to say is it's ok to be a grown up gamer. Sure, I'd love to spend a day or two playing a brand new game, but that's what the sick days are for I guess. It's pretty neat to see gaming come so far in terms of shaping social atmospheres. I even get bashful when I can strike up a gaming conversation at the water cooler as opposed to politics, jobs, or sports. No matter how old you are, you gotta admit, it's good to be a gamer.
I had an epiphany about the way our nerd culture works these days ... We are similar to kids who love to rummage through their parents closets before Christmas to find presents.
With just a week to go until my midnight release of "The Dark Knight Rises," I find myself in a conflict of the ages: The never-ending fight against the nefarious spoiler. Typically, summer blockbusters are the cash cows of the movie industry, but it's getting to a point where movie marketing is batardizing the work of a film. Allow me to explain beginning with this video....
That was the trailer to the Liam Neeson 'Taken' meets 'Call of the Wild' film, "The Grey." By the way it's marketed, Liam Neeson is going to go CIA on those mother-flipping wolves to defend his fellow plane-crash comrades who are caught in the same terrible elements that he is. Now, fast-forward two hours later after watching the film, and you'll immediately start to yell at the screen during the credits, "Where's my frickin Wolf-Punching?!?!"
These tools only have a 5 second use to them
If you haven't watched "The Grey," and don't mind me spoiling a few things (this movie came out months ago, seriously, get on it) -- you'll notice a very different film than what was marketed to you, and that's not a knock on the film. After my initial uproar over what had just happened, I settled down for about 10 minutes, and reflected on the film itself, rather than the marketed garbage that was put on TV and the Internet. Sure, I found a movie that was about a group of plane-crash survivors trying to avoid being turned into wolf-shit on the Alaskan mountains, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll find a very well-acted, thematic film, that touches upon a very core fear many men face: Do you have the will to live when pitted against sure-death? Suffice to say, this film isn't an action fest featuring Liam Neeson ripping the jugulars out of the four-legged beasts, but is instead about how a man at the end of his rope copes with the realization that he wants to live. It's a fantastic film on its own merit, but many people scolded it because of the marketing...and this is what really got me thinking.
I started to analyze the way film's are marketed to us. In the case of "The Grey," audiences were duped into thinking they were going to watch a feral slugfest between Neeson and CGI wolves. WRONG! Many people left the film unhappy, when it was (in my opinion) a very powerful film dealing with the way men deal with their mortality. The point is, Hollywood falsely marketed the film from what it really was. You can't deny it. They show Neeson running up to the wolf, with his cracked mini-vodka bottles taped to his hand like he's a 6'5" Wolverine, and you're expecting to see an epic battle. But it was not to be. And that's not a fault of the film, but rather, the marketing. It led you to believe this was an action set-piece just so they could get your ass into the movie-theater. I understand the need to fill the lines at the box office, but there needs to be a sense of trust between movie-goers and Hollywood. I had the same reaction so many other people had to the film: pissed off that I didn't get my wolf-punching ... but since I'm the type of person who loves to reflect on film I just watched, I was able to come away with the bigger picture and ended up enjoying it. I can't tell you how many people I know who will simply brush off a movie because their initial reaction was simply "it sucked."
Hollywood insists on ruining what will surely be a surprise performance by Tom Hardy as Bane
This leads me to my next point. Hollywood marketing is becoming way too invasive and revealing. Gone are the days where you would watch the trailer, get a taste for what's to come, and wait until the film is released. Instead, we now have four 2-minute trailers, five TV Spots, a full 13-minute behind the scenes featurette, online publication 'set visits,' even entire prologue sequences being released. The only way I can personify the problem is that Hollywood is becoming that douchebag frat guy who is inviting you to the party of the century, but he bombards you with daily, unnecessary, facebook updates.
Wanna know how I got these scars? Watching too many trailers
Going back to my battle now with "The Dark Knight Rises." Ask anyone and they will attest to you how flippin' excited I am about this movie. The Chris Nolan Batman reboot has been astonishing for the past 7 years, and I'll be sad to see it all end on July 20th. However, I ran into a pitfall in my excitement for Nolan's 2nd Bat-outing, "The Dark Knight." There was similar hype to that film, and with it, came the endless churning of new trailers, clips, featurettes, and hell, even the release of an entire 5-minute prologue sequence that featured a tense bank-robbery sequence (which clearly pays homage to Al Pacino's "Heat") revealing Heath Ledger as the Joker. I naively watched all of these things before the film. Unfortunately, I feel it had a negative effect on my movie-watching experience because I don't think I enjoyed "The Dark Knight" as much as I could have....
That's not to say I didn't love the movie. The point is, being inundated with clips, trailers, previews, featurettes, TV Spots, and so on and so forth allows your audience to piece together the major story beats of your film. Here's what I mean (using Dark Knight as an example). Almost everyone watched the Bank-heist prologue...great stuff. Then, watching the trailers, you can start to see the semblance of plot points. Joker says stuff like "Evening Commissioner" so you know Gordon becomes Commissioner somehow. Worse yet, they spoiled his iconic line of "Why So Serious?" Then, if you're someone like me, you start reading the online articles interviewing cast and crew of the film, and they start to talk about the direction, their stunts, and so forth. By the time you get to the TV Spots, you've pretty much got a good chunk of the movie ruined for you. Not to mention as you're in the process of watching your film, you'll have that moment where you say "Oh wait, that part from the trailers hasn't come up yet."
The point of that rant is ... why spoil the fun? Just enjoy the anticipation and go along for the ride. I know that's what happened to me when I watched "Batman Begins" way back in 2005. I maybe only watched the main 3 trailers, and because of that, I was able to overlook some of the film's major shortcomings. (I'm looking at you Katie Holmes and unnecessary Batman horse-voice)
Hulk is actually whispering in Iron-Man's ear
Of course, this marketing fiasco isn't just happening with select films. I'm sure by now you've all seen "Avengers." If you re-watch the trailers, you'll notice clips that didn't even make it into the final cut of the film, or didn't play out the way they were advertised. (Look at the part with RDJ telling Cap "Genius, Billionaire, Playboy, Philanthropist" and it plays out differently) There's also a point in the trailers that spoils how the Hulk saves a free-falling Iron-Man, when in the movie, it was meant to play out as an emotional climax to the New York City battle. As I watched it I knew Hulk was going to save him because I saw it in the trailers.
Perhaps even a bigger crime was committed with movie trailers in recent days. I just watched the trailer to the new Judge Dredd movie and while it looks interesting, it looks like they gave away a major plot point with the possible killing of the film's alleged central-villain. See below for yourself...
Hollywood needs to stop harassing audiences to watch their movies. Advertisement is necessary, but you don't want to over-saturate us with your product to the point we're sick of it. Also, can we PLEASE stop revealing major plot points and action set pieces. If we can't come to a compromise, then I'll need to continue adopting my simple method of preparing for a film. Watch the film's official teaser trailer ... and THAT'S IT! Avoid online articles, turn your head when you see a TV spot, and flip the bird to any online trolls who want to spoil the film to you, which may or may not include clips of the film.
You just got trolled America
Surprises are not always bad. Many can be good, just look at the Batman Begins reveal of the real Ra's Al Ghul. It was a sucker punch for the ages, and no one was the wiser, and damn it if anyone is going to ruin Dark Knight Rises for me...
Only Resident Evil can make me return to my long lost video gaming/nerd blog. Welcome back everyone. So Thursday, January 19, 2012, was undoubtedly a day to remember for Resident Evil fans. Things started off a little shaky when Sony pictures decided to release the theatrical trailer for the new film starring Milla Jovovich, Resident Evil: Retribution. Shield your eyes if you can...The trailer is below. You've been warned.
For those of you who are still puke-free, yes, they did make it crappier than before. To add insult to injury, they also included Daft Punk's brilliant score from the TRON: Legacy soundtrack, "Recognizer," to try and ride the coattails of the music's success in an attempt to get a bigger nerd-haul for the theaters. Your powers are useless against me Sony!!! Do you hear?!?!
Aside from the atrociousness that is this trailer, that's not what this blog is about. Later in the day Capcom thankfully saved me from my nerd-rage by releasing a new trailer for the next core-game of the RE franchise: Resident Evil 6. It's been nearly three years since Capcom has released a core Resident Evil game, so it's was both a very welcome, and very surprising announcement. There had been minor inklings here and there about the development of a new RE game, but with Capcom releasing Resident Evil: Revelations for the 3DS, and Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City this year, it never crossed my mind to think they were actually planning to release ANOTHER game during the year. I don't think I was ever happier to be wrong. It was also a pleasant gift to hear the release date was in fact 11/20/2012. That's right folks, barring any unforseen development delays, there will be three, VERY different RE games in one year. It's great to be a gamer.
I'll shut up now and let you take a look for yourself. Ladies and gentlenerds .... I give you ... REDEMPTION!!!
You still with me? I can wait a moment if you need to go use the bathroom to clean up .... Back? Great! Let us begin our dissection of the trailer.
First, let's set the stage here. Resident Evil 5 was the last core game of the franchise, and although it had its strengths, it was a bit of disappointment for hardcore fans. Probably the biggest problem with the game was the forced inclusion of co-op. I think co-op is a function that really found it's re-emergence during the XBOX years. Again, I'm referring to co-op, not multiplayer. It kind of died out back in the N64 days, but it wasn't until Halo and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, which included a separate co-op campaign, really kicked off this renaissance of co-op. Anyway, I digress.
Welcome back, Mr. Zombie
Resident Evil is a franchise that has built itself off the premise of survival horror. RE4 really changed things by adding spiced-up flavors of action in the game, while still maintaining that element of suspense, gore, and thrills. The game had moments where it left you with little to no ammo, and kept you weeping like a scolded child in their dark, gritty, and blood-stained environments. But what was most important in the game was that Leon spent most of the time ALONE. This was ultimately my biggest gripe with RE5. There was too much focus on action and cooperation, and not enough on horror. The fact that you had a useless ally at your side, (I'm looking at you AI controlled Sheva) really killed the possibility of having any survival-horror moment.
After looking at the RE 6 trailer, I have many hopes, but many more reservations.
Lets get the good stuff out of the way. First, I'm glad we finally get to take control of Leon S. Kennedy again, and double THAT to the inclusion of Chris Redfield, who I strongly feel is the main protagonist of this franchise. It's the first time in the entire series that both characters are in the same game, and will finally cross paths. It leaves me excited like a hamster on coke over how these two characters will interact with each other.
One of the hopefully many dark, scary environments
The trailer also shows me that the franchise is looking to reconnect with its survival horror roots...especially when you look at the Leon scenes. He's apparently forced to live through another Raccoon City-like experience after a viral outbreak occurs at a place called Tall Oaks. Leon navigates fire-ravaged cities, dark, decrepit forest areas, and dank, water-dripped tunnels a-la '28 Days Later.' It really seems like the developers are really trying to go back to their horror roots, and I'm all for it. In fact, I hope they lay it on me thick like an STD from the Great Depression.
By far the most impressive part for me was the re-emergence of the classic zombies. For the last two games Capcom has decided to bench the shuffling corpses for faster, smarter, parasitically infected enemies, known as las plagas. Although it was a welcome change to have during my RE4 experience, it grew stale when RE5 came around. By just glancing at the new trailer, it seems the developers are really going for a middle-ground with these zombies, having them run, jump, and try to chomp out chunks of human flesh as they attack you in large groups. Initiate nerd-boner...
Didn't they tell you Sheva? I work alone
Now, I have some concerns. For starters, the game will once again feature partner/co-op systems. According to the press release for the game, "RE6 will feature both single and cooperative gameplay." If this is the case, I certainly hope that Capcom makes the co-op aspect it's own separate story. I've been a strong proponent in saying that the Resident Evil franchise is best experienced alone. If you're navigating a dark and treacherous tunnel with nothing else but a 16-round clip in your gun, congratulations, you've made the encounter that much more pulse-pounding. On the flip side, if you're trying to navigate that same tunnel with a partner at your side, asking you whether you've got enough herbs to last through this next encounter, the tension is gone. This was what killed RE5. Although it was fun to have a co-op inclusion to the game, I really wanted to experience the story from Chris Redfield's own eyes, without Sheva telling me her sob-story every 5 minutes. Case in point, Capcom can get the most out of this game if they make the main story a single-player experience, with a side-branch 'supporting story' that can be experienced via online/offline co-op.
Who the hell am I?!?!
Another concern I have with this trailer is the unknown third character who pals with the President's daughter Ashley Graham. Why they decided to bring back Ashley from RE4 is beyond any logic. She was one of the single-most useless characters in the series; always getting into trouble, and never being able to defend herself properly. After watching this trailer, she's apparently teamed up with some unknown third character, who resembles so many recent video game protagonists. The faded haircut, furrowed eye-brow, grizzled 5-o-clock shadow; we've seen this characater resembled in games like Infamous, Force Unleashed, Desmond from Assassin's Creed, etc., and that's not my biggest problem. In all the scenes featuring this mysterious, playable character, the action level is completely over the top. The dude is hanging off helicopters, plummeting hundreds of feet only to make a safe landing, running away from a Tyrant-esque baddie...it's a bit too much emphasis on the action part of the franchise, which I'm not terribly excited about. The only way I would accept this kind of behavior is if this third character ends up being HUNK. The Umbrella mercenary first made his appearance as a supplemental mission in RE2, where he had to race against the clock to recover the G-Virus and then return to the escape chopper within 20 minutes. He's made appearances in other RE games as a playable extra character in the "mercenary' missions, but that's about all the face-time he's had. To put it into perspective, he's always been revered by gamers as the "true badass" of the series, so I think it'd be nice to have him in the lead-role for a change.
This floor could use an ass-scrubbing, I guess
Other worries I have are the over-abundant scenes which show cover based mechanics. Leon is jumping and sliding across the ground, shooting up at zombies, acting all cool and shit, while Chris sprints up to a stack of sandbags to slide and take cover, and pop-out shots against the enemies. As for the third dude, well, hes all over the place. The cover-based system in RE 5 felt more like a gimmick, and was so wonky to control that it frustrated gamers more than aiding them.
Speaking of controls, one of the biggest complaints people have about the RE franchise are its 'tank' controls, where you have to stop, take aim, shoot, and put your weapon down in order to run again. I've personally never had as big a problem with it as other gamers, but I think with the way third-person shooters have been evolving, it'd be nice to see a run and gun mechanic included. From looking at the trailer there's no one moment where I saw a character running and gunning, but I have a good feeling that the franchise will finally get the upgrade many gamers have been asking for years. I used to think adding this kind of a mechanic would ruin the tension aspect of the game, but Dead Space proved to me that you can still have survival horror while turning up the action intensity with an aim and walk mechanic.
Yes...I am a badass.
In my final thoughts, the RE6 trailer did what it set out to do: excite the balls out of me. I'm very pleased to see Leon and Chris in the same game, and am glad they're bringing back both the zombies AND horror aspect of the game. Having said that, I was a bit disappointed to see the overdone action moments, especially where Chris is involved. You can probably argue that his scenes looked more Rainbow Six-ish, than Resident Evil-ish. And just for the record I've always been a bigger Chris Redfield fan than Leon, considering Chris was there for the Mansion incident, and had the most at stake in fighting an asshole like Albert Wesker. In RE5 he didn't get his due credit, always seeming more like a victim, getting thrown around, punched, dragged, etc. I want to see Chris go back to his Code Veronica days, and totally own up the place.
Excuse me, could you point to me to the monsters?
In any case, Capcom has got me by the figurative balls with their new trailer. I'm a die-hard Resident Evil fan and can't wait to see what kind of shenaniganz they're going to put us through with their latest iteration. All I can hope for is a game that follows a similar model as Dead Space, and keeps the co-op as a separate piece of the game. If that's the case, then it should pave the way for the ultimate RE experience. And can you believe it??? The frickin game comes out this year in November!!! E3 seems like an eternity away.
Set pictures. You either love 'em or hate 'em. The upcoming and overly anticipated films Superman: Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Rises have been releasing some exciting pictures as of late. Today was a big bombshell, with the first pic released of British actor Henry Cavill in full garb as Kal-el, or as he's better known to the world...Superman. Take a look-see...
So Mr. Kent...Will you be making a withdrawal today sir?
Refreshing isn't it? The costume looks somewhat reminiscent of Bryan Singer's take of Superman back in 2006 with the damper, less vibrant colors. There are some big differences when you look closer though. First, the iconic "S" symbol is a little higher up on the chest, and the cape is a lot longer than we're used to. Anyone reminded of "300?" A film which was no-so coincidentally directed by Zack Snyder, the same man behind the helm of this new Superman.
The costume also shows a big difference in the texture. It's loaded with fish-like scales, similar to Spider-Man, which is sure to pop-out at people once the film is released in HD formats, and most likely 3D. But look a little bit closer at the costume, specifically at the testes-satchel area. No, I'm not admiring Cavill's bulge, but you can make out that the red underwear is gone. The producers of the film, one of which is my cinema king Christopher Nolan, said they were going to make the costume a little more solid and unique by taking out the red-over underwear. A minor gripe for devoted fanboys, but maybe it's for the better. It just makes the character look too cartoonish.
God my undies are sexy
My first impression of the picture was a little jarring. I guess I've been itching for a great Superman live-action movie since part II way back in the 80's, but I'm growing to like it. I love the primal look in Cavill's posture and pose. If you remember the first pic released back for Superman Returns, it showed Brandon Routh in the more usual iconic pose, resting his arms on his waist; very stoic. But now Warner Brothers is throwing a curve-ball. "Superman looks like he's in a Wolverine pose?" "Nooooooo!?!?" Relax everyone, this is what we need. For too long Superman has been behaving very Dog Whisperer-like: calm and submissive. The man is faster than a speeding bullet, can punch through steel walls, and can take a beating. Go back and watch Superman Returns, and count the amount of punches he threw on-screen. That's right ... there were zero. Now, go watch any of the animated films of Superman and you'll notice the big difference in his portrayal. Fist-fly faster than E. Honda from Street Fighter, and he's always getting thrown around by baddies like Metallo, Darkseid, and even a robot-riding Lex Luthor; who I'm ecstatic is NOT making an appearance in this upcoming film. It finally seems like we're going to get a brutal take on the man who represents truth, justice, and the American way. That's not to say we won't get our typical portrayal of the Man of Steel. Cavill is after all British, which if James Bond taught us anything, means he must have some kind of charm about him. And how can you deny that beautifully stone-chiseled jaw-line?
It looks like Snyder and company are on the right track so far. The only thing that sucks is that we'll have to wait until Summer 2013 to watch it.
Moving on now to the other 500 lb. gorilla in the DC room: Batman. The Dark Knight Rises is easily the more anticipated of the two films, considering it's already established itself as a worthy film franchise. New pics rose from the narrows of Gotham City last week, showing Tom Hardy in his full Bane costume. Don't let this pic BREAK YOU...
A lot of people, including myself, were a bit baffled when it was announced Bane was the main villain in the film. But once it sank in that Tom Hardy was playing the intellectually muscled threat...I was at ease. It looks to me that Nolan has again found a way to stay grounded in his realistic take on the comics. Hardy definitely beefed up for the role, but he's not the massive, luchador-mask-wearing wrecking ball we're accustomed to. Instead, he's got a fur jacket, a bullet-proof (maybe batarang-proof?) vest, with his combat pants topped off with that S&M mask, which is likely the source of his Venom serum.
It just seems too coincidental
Other than his mask, there's nothing that really stands out with Bane's costume, but this is a good thing. Once you get too flashy with a villain's costume it distracts the audience from the performance of the actor. Hardy is a great actor. I know it's cliche, but he was meant for this role. Don't believe me? March your nerdy butt to your nearest NETFLIX instant queue and devote an hour and a half of your time to watch "Bronson." Hardy plays Britain's most notorious prisoner Charlie Bronson with a meticulous portrayal that pushes the limits of the character to insanity. Bronson was a bald-headed, handlebar mustachioed bulky prisoner, who loved to cause trouble for prison guards by holding them hostage, psychologically torturing them, and then buttering his naked body up so that when he'd fight them, he'd be harder to get under control. Sounds a bit like Bane right? Except for the whole mustache, naked butter thing. Whatever, you get the point.
Hardy is going to own this role. He's a fearless actor, who's not afraid to step up to the plate and deliver a notoriously villainous role in the Nolan inspired Batman universe. He's spoken on countless occasions of his displeasure of Schumacher's version of Bane in "Batman and Robin," who served merely as a henchmen who loved to mutter the word "BOOOOMMMMBBBB." He also admitted to sharing a great deal of respect to Heath Ledger's take on the Joker, but says he's not daunted by the task of following the performance, saying "Brilliant actor, brilliant work – that's it. I've got a job to do. ... It's the same with Mad Max and Mel Gibson. I'm not here to engage in a competition with their talent. It's to play the character that I've been given."(Little asterisk here, Hardy is playing the title role in the upcoming Mad Max 4: Fury Road)
Heath Ledger raised the bar when it comes to memoriable villain portrayals; now, Tom Hardy is ready to power clean it over his head, and hopefully break its sorry ass back. July 20th, 2012 is indeed much too far away.
I'm watching you July 20th, 2012 -- Watch your back (cue drum snare)
Zombie Games To Distract Yourselves Until 'Dead Island'
Does This Image Hit You On An Emotional Level? Good It Should.
Some of you may, or may not know, the significance of zombies in our culture. I could go on and on about how amazing zombie lore has been amongst my fellow nerds, but alas, they're shuffling their way towards the limelight. Movies like "Dawn of the Dead (remake)" and "28 Days Later," helped usher zombies into the 21st century with their new running abilities. Still, you cannot help but thank George A. Romero for introducing, and reinforcing, zombies into American Culture. Heck, they're almost at the point of surpassing vampires in popularity. Again, I say almost, because the extraordinary TV series "The Walking Dead" is still building up steam.
Um...Mike Alstott?
I can't tell you what it is that attracts me to zombies. Maybe it's the hypothetical scenario of unleashng fury on a lifeless being without being morally judged. I know it sounds morbid, but I think human beings are inherently violent, and we need to channel our fury through other distracting measures. But this isn't an article to deconstruct the psychological attraction humans have towards zombies. No, this is an article about Zombified video games. Specifically, I'm talking about Dead Island.
This first person melee zombie survival horror game turned heads in the gaming community, and the mainstream media, with its poignant reveal trailer showing a family's demise at a tropical paradise resort in reverse time. Yes, that entire description describes Dead Island in a nutshell. If you haven't seen the trailer yet, or just need to watch it again like I do....here you go:
God that was refreshing!!! In Dead Island players will take control one of several survivors on an island getaway, fighting off waves of zombie hordes; all with the help of three other friends. Yes, it's online drop-in, drop-out co-op. From what we've seen so far in gameplay videos, the game looks solid. The visuals are crisp, and the combat looks tight, responsive, and creative. Many in the gaming community are drooling for this game to come out, which is just around the corner on September 6th. However, we need to get our daily zombie fix, and fortunately for you, if zombie-games were a rubber tube, heroin-filled needle, well then call me Tubbs, your friendly neighborhood drug dealer. These are some of the best zombie games out there that you can get your hands on and chew on for the next two months.
1. Left 4 Dead (1&2)
Yes...You do get to kill them all
If there were ever a game that could possibly match the feel and atmosphere of Dead Isalnd, it's this game. You play as one of four survivors trying to make your way across a zombie ravaged city in this first person shooter. Left 4 Dead surprised gamers with its tight gunplay mechanics, as well as its strategic cooperative nature. You cannot go guns blazing all alone without your teammates, because you WILL die. Whether it's a Smoker, Boomer, or a Witch, this game demands teamwork, and damned if you don't play it with other people.
Dead Island looks to hit some of the similar beats that made Left 4 Dead so successful, but the big difference between the two is the realistic approach Dead Island seems to be approaching. You won't be able to take out 50 zombies with a single pipe-bomb. No, Dead Island makes you work for the kills, as each zombie you take-on could be the end of you.
Left 4 Dead is an experience best played with friends either split-screen, or online. You'll have to coordinate, attack, defend, and protect at any time ... and damnit, there are a buttload of zombies for you to kill.
2. Dead Rising (1&2)
I Would probably go with the Fire Axe to take these guys out
This is what Dawn of the Dead would look like if it had a video game tie-in. Dead Rising pits players against a literal horde of zombies in a shopping mall/Vegas Strip. Dead Rising was praised for its creative ways to dispatch zombies. Baseball Bat to the temple? Check. Razord Bladed Boxing Gloves? Double check. This game was fun for one reason, going to town on zombies with melee weapons. You see where I'm getting at? Dead Island looks to have a strong focus on melee weapons, and Dead Rising is just the warm up game.
3. Resident Evil Series (Particularly 2)
I asked if anyone had a quarter!?!?!
What can I say about this series that I haven't said before? This has easily been one of my favorite video game franchises of all time. The story, although hammy at times, is pure perfection that plays out like a male soap opera. Just look at the first game: A former Ari Force recruit, Chris Redfield, investigates a string of grizzly murders at a nearby forest, only to find his tactical response team has been sent into a murderous ambush at the hands of his Team leader. Seriously, guys thrive on this.
What makes Resident Evil so great isn't its story, it's the scares and moody atmosphere that comes with it. Although Alone in the Dark is credited as being the first survival horror game, Resident Evil perfected it. Who ever knew that a rabid, monstrous, bloodthirsty dog jumping through a window would be so terrifying? The sound design was also something to applaud. Resident Evil featured a gritty atmosphere that was only enhanced with the painful moans of the zombies, and the blood soaked shuffling of their feet. I challenge you to play Resident Evil 2 in the dark, and try to imagine yourself back in 1998 playing it for the first time. This game was way ahead of its time, and is still fun to this day. But again, the game perfected the survival horror genre. Essentially, it's a "one versus many" situation, where you're given a limited amount of resources to survive. Dead Island looks to play off what Resident Evil perfected, with scattered weapons and health.
4. Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare
They're just begging for a quick dead-eye trio headshot
It may be a spin-off to a Western Action game, but Undead Nightmare was still fun to play. It again introduced the fast running zombies, which could only be dispatched by shooting them in the head. Target a specific limb, and you can see the effect it'll have on a zombie goon scurrying towards you. The initial Red Dead Redemption game touted a fun, although clunky cover system, but if you try and use that in Undead Nightmare, you'll be overrun.
What made this game work was the panic you would get seeing dozens of zombies running at you, and you can do nothing else but run and gun, and hope for the best. I hope Dead Island can infuse this sense of panic, because that's what makes zombie games so much fun to play.
5. Zombies Ate My Neighbors
You're not a gamer unless you've at least played this game for 5 minutes. Zombies ate my neighbors was a comical, yet strangely violent shooting game during the early Nintendo era. You play as one of two kids who have to take out the trash, and by trash, I mean the undead. The game was colorful, but pretty violent for its time. I guess the only thing Dead Island can take from this game is to give us the unexpected. Don't give us the predictable "save the defenseless family" scenario. Instead, give me a "we need to try and save this poor helpless family" situation, only to find out that you were too late, and you must kill off their undead remains that are trying to eat your calf muscle. Yes, I want an emotionally resonating game, and from the looks of the reveal trialer, we're about to get it.
Honorable Mention: Stubbs the Zombie, Rebel Without a Pulse.
Hey evildoer!!! Need a hand?!?!
This quirky zombie game was similar to "Zombies Ate My Neighbors" in that it presented a comical main character, Stubbs the Zombie, who would commit questionable acts of violence. It was bloody, fun, and only reinforced gamers gratitude for great zombie fiction.
====
Like I said...Beautiful
So there you have it my fellow Dead Island enthusiasts. Sit your butt down and play these games to get your fill of all the digital gore you can muster out of a zombified brain. I really hope developer Techland can pull this dead rabbit out of a hat and give us one of the most visceral Zombie games ever created. The game has gotten an extreme amount of hype because of its beautifully rendered announcement trailer. Even though there was no actual gameplay shown, it just left us all with something we've never seen before; a zombie game that rings on an emotional level. Of all the zombie games mentioned above, none have really taken themselves too seriously. To quote a very good Christopher Nolan film, I think it's about time we get the zombie game we need, but don't deserve. Here's some actual Dead Island gameplay video to get your palette nice and wet. Enjoy!
Hey all. So I know it's bee a while since I've written in one of these things, but need thou not be afraid, because I have returned from my eternal slumber, like a dragon with big beefy arms awakening inside his cave, ready to attack and kill all of the village goats.
So over the past couple weeks I've been replaying this one comment over and over in my head, and as much as I dwell on it, I can't seem to find any logic to it. Here's the rundown...The lead designer of that insanely addicting mobile game Angry Birds, says console gaming is dying. I know, that's a tough pill to swallow. According to him ... his name is Peter Vesterbacka by the way ... he says mobile gaming is more "nimble," and that having gamers fork up $60+ for games that are hard to update is a tall order. Yea right...tell that to the 13 million people who bought Call of Duty: Black Ops. So let us dissect this from every angle like Raiden cutting a butt load of watermelons in Metal Gear Rising.
This is logically unfeasible ... but damn it it's fun!!!
First, lets lay out the facts on the table. Mobile gaming had taken a sharp turn to success over the last couple years. Games like the above mentioned Angry Birds, Words With Friends, Plants vs. Zombies, Bejeweled, Cut the Rope, and so forth, are fun games, but offer much less in terms of true gameplay variety. Here's what I mean. When you play angry birds, you get the concept...sling-shot birds into a fortress of green, squishy pigs. The game may introduce more complex fortresses to knock down, and different birds with different abilities, but the concept is the same, knock down the fortress. Playing a console game like Red Dead Redemption offers much more throughout it's campaign and multiplayer. One mission may have you escort a friend through a bandit ridden cemetery, or hunt down an elusive cougar in the mountains. Essentially, each scenario forces you to fine tune your gameplay as you progress.
That's not to say that mobile games don't suck in gamers for long periods of time ... but remember, it's called a mobile game for a reason ... you're on the go. Most people can't sit and play through Angry Birds for three straight hours unless they're parent-deprived, or have a sick sense of accomplishment by accumulating the highest score worldwide. They're meant for short play-periods, while console games tend to last for longer periods of time. To put it into perspective, mobile games are like hitting up a fast food restaurant. while console games are a nice sit down restaurant.
Hey....nice chancletas
I love a good story as much as the next guy. Some games are better than others, but one thing is for certain, story telling in mobile games will never match those of console games. Why? Technology. There's only so much room on your smart phone, or whatever piece of gadgetry you use to play mobile games. In order to have good story development, you need to be able to introduce characters, arcs, plot twists, climax, etc. and you can't do that with a mobile game that has a simple premise. Could you imagine angry birds having a comprehensive story? Why the hell are they even attacking those damn pigs? Oh they took their eggs? Sorry buddy, but I like scrambled eggs as much as the next pissed off pig so stop whining and take one of them prisoner and turn them into bacon bits or something. The point is the best mobile game out there can't properly convey a story unless it's given the time to develop. One mobile game that was very promising in terms of story was "Infinity Blade." It looked like it was going to finally break the mold for mobile games, but once you play through it you realize that you're actually playing through time-line after time-line through the same castle, facing the same enemies, and even the same boss. Hell, each descendant looks the same and has the same armor/weapons as your ancestors. It was kind of a cop out, but the actual gameplay itself is fun....for a mobile game. When it comes to story, we've been spoiled with voice acting, and proper dialogue, and for mobile game developers to store that kind of info onto an i-Phone game is a tall order.
Another problem with the mobile game space is the controls. Some mobile games control better than others, but you can only do so much with so little space. Probably the most complex game to play on the i-Phone is Dead Space. The screen is split in half, with one side controlling movement, the other controlling your sights, while different taps on the screen control how your weapon fires. It's a little jarring at first, but you can eventually pick it up and play it like second nature. For it to be a mobile game, it needs to simplify what you can do as a player. So when you compare the Dead Space on the console to the Dead Space on the i-Phone, you'll notice several weapons, characters, movements, etc. that are left out, and that should tell you something.
Once all is said and done, that's not to say I don't completely disagree with Vesterbacka. That little bit he mentioned about paying up $60+ for a game that's hard to update is pretty spot on. When you buy most console games, you get your campaign and/or multiplayer, and you're good to go. However in this new age of gaming, we have downloadable map packs, levels, characters, and so much other garbage that I can't stand. (I've already expressed my distaste for downloadable content in an earlier blog if you're interested) It's becoming a bigger investment for a game when you're paying full retail price, and then adding new map packs or episodes for $10, just so you can squeeze a little more life out of it. And God forbid anything is wrong with the game itself...I'm looking at you Fallout: New Vegas. Bugs, glitches, and flat out crashes come with the territory of games nowadays, and developers need to roll out title updates faster than a sex offender offering kids candy. Basically, you're at the mercy of developers until they roll out the update. Mobile gaming is much quicker, and less likely to crash.
Vesterbacka will be comin out any minute
In the end it's different tastes for different gamers. Some people enjoy simple concepts, while other people enjoy their complex button sequencing, strategy games. Fortunately, we have plenty of both. I may prefer console gaming over the mobile game space, but I still love gaming nonetheless. I enjoy spending time with Angry Birds, but I also enjoy wailing on some fool in Gears of War 2 online. The point is gaming should be for everyone, and there should be a healthy, albeit separate, market for console and mobile games. Comments like Vesterbacaka's piss me off because it implants the idea worse than Inception that we need to have more of one type of game. It's unnecessary. All I ask is for game developers to continue to give us video game perfection and give us more of both.
