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.
No your honor, I did not take any performance enhancing adamantium.
According to reports from "Deadline," News is out this week that the sequel to the commercially successful, yet critically bashed, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" has narrowed its search for a new director down to two people. Those people: Darren Aronofsky (The Wrestler), and David Slade (30 Days of Night). For anyone who's a comic book fan, or heck, just a plain old Wolverine fan, we're begging for a better adaptation of the adamantium beserker's adventures compared to his last two appearances, and we need it now. So who should be the frontrunner in this race to direct Logan back to greatness? My pick, is David Slade.
This is a real vampire. Fear Him.
Though Slade lost a couple of points with me after directing the third Twilight film 'Eclipse' this summer, he is still responsible for creating one of the best vampire films in cinema "30 Days of Night." Slade was able to helm the film with a meager $30 Mil. production budget, and yet crafted one of the bloodiest and brutal vampire films to date. I know this a tough argument to win, but I will choose 30 Days of Night over any other vampire film simply because it captures the true essence of the savage creature...blood-thirsty and genocidal. And before you say anything...I still consider "Bram Stoker's Dracula" is a close second.
Hey Bub! I'll cut your liver if I don't get a good film soon
Another good reason to add Slade to the project is that he has experience in adapting comic books into movies. "30 Days of Night" was a moderately successful graphic novel series created by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith. Although I have some reservations about the ending and art style of the book, I loved how Slade was able to craft a film that captured the violent images from the book, but was able to paint a unique setting containing a bleak, cold, and lifeless Alaskan backdrop. If Slade were to helm this film, I hope 20th Century Fox (the production studio for Wolverine) would consider making this an R-rated film. I know it's wishful thinking, but hey, a guy can dream. Wolverine is a beast inside a human disguise. He's practically got swords for weapons, and yet we rarely see any blood from his silver screen counterpart. I want to see the film take a violent turn for 'Wolvie' fans who just want to see the guy tear s**t up. It's almost like having Leonardo from the Ninja Turtles beat up the foot clan with the hilt of his swords... it's not believable, and it just looks foolish.
Everyone behind Wolverine looks ashamed...They should be
So why not Aronofsky? I respect his resume tremendously but I don't think he has the right approach to a film with such a deep history in comics. I know he was slated to direct the "Robocop" remake which fell through, but I feel Aronofsky's passion for a subject like this will hurt the project. He's too much of a cerebral director, and Wolverine is the type of character to slice first and ask questions later. But I wouldn't count Aronofsky out just yet, he did after all direct "The Fountain" with Hugh Jackman so I'm sure they have a good relationship with one another. Only time will tell if he's their go-to guy in the end.
Fans of the X-Man need a good Wolverine adaptation. After the atrocities of both "X-Men The Last Stand" and "X-Men Origins," our thirst for some adamantium carnage needs to be quenched soon. Don't have Wolverine cry in his movies. We want him to be like an unleashed predator. I have no problems with Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Wolvie, but we need writers to make him brutal again. He's the anti-hero of our generation and he needs to break the rules more often. No more love stories, and no more thoughtless plot points like adamantium bullets erasing his memories. Give us the Wolverine from "X-2: X-Men United" who killed off dozens of guards infiltrating the X-Mansion. Give us the Wolverine we all love and deserve. Snikt!!!
One of the most iconic comic book scenes lasts just 2 minutes in the film
Listening to Little Racist Kids is a Premium Package
The biggest gathering place for incoherent rants
Today the good ol' boys of Microsoft announced that beginning November 1st, the price tag for XBOX Live will shoot up for Gold subscribers. 1-month users will now pay $9.99 instead of $7.99, 3-month users will pay $24.99 instead of $19.99, and annual holders will pay $59.99 instead of $49.99. After doing a little research across the online community, I've noticed that many internet trolls are upset over the inflation and are threatening to keep their beloved XBOX consoles from online usage. Sure no one likes paying more than they have to, but are you really that surprised?
Sometimes frustrating, online games are about the community
XBOX Live has been around for about 8 years now. Since its inception (and not the Chris Nolan kind), the service has flourished into a major revenue stream for Microsoft. With millions of users, the increase in downloadable content, and the implementation of mainstream friendly features like NETFLIX and Facebook, it's surprising that Microsoft hasn't raped our wallets sooner. This is the first time Microsoft is increasing its fees since Live launched, and I people need to stop their whining.
Online gaming is the way we will be playing video games for years to come. In this day and age many game critics will blast a game for not containing some kind of multiplayer facet in its game. It's very difficult these days for a game thrive as a single-player only experience, and very rarely does it happen that its both a critical and commercial success. There are always exceptions to the rule (i.e.Bioshock) but developers are now looking for ways to extend their revenue stream by adding multiplayer components and downloadable content for months, or even years to come. As it is, many triple-A publishers are starting to hire two different development teams for a single title. One team focuses on the single player campaign, while the other concentrates on multiplayer.
Pretty Much
One of my biggest complaints with online play has to be the community. 9 times out of 10, I avoid putting my headset during an online game because I can't stand the shouting expletives and ignorant, egotistical, racist remarks. Sure trash-talking is a part of any competitive video game, but it goes too far. You should hear some of the stuff that is said online. It's not that I'm insulted or anything, it's just impossible to reason with these kinds of people. It's like trying to talk Mel Gibson into not having a drink...it's impossible.
Despite the incoherent online rants, there is a very good reason to stay a part of the online community, and that's the features. For $59.99 a year, XBOX Live is still worth the price of admission. Besides playing your games online, there are a number of other things to keep you entertained for months on end. Features like NETFLIX, Last.Fm, and the soon to be ESPN are great addition to have on your XBOX console. They add another dimension to your console's usage, defining it as an entertainment console rather than a gaming one. There are buttloads of other features as well such as faceebook, twitter, and Zune, but these are merely cosmetic additions to the interface and don't really add a great deal of depth if you ask me. The point is, you're not just paying for your online games anymore...and that's a good thing.
Sony's sneak attack tactic into your wallet
Another thing, lets try and do the math here folks. With a $59.99 per year price tag, XBOX Live comes out to just $5 a month. Other online gaming service like World of Warcraft have a $15 a month price tag, but people keep on playing. And lets not forget that running an online service takes a considerable amount of money in terms of server maintenance issues alone. I know there are the elitist Playstation afficionados who swear by the PSN network because it's free, but mark my words fellow PS3 owners, our days of free online play aren't going to last very long. Sony is pushing its "Playsation Plus" premium service down gamers throats. Just like with Microsoft, it's only a matter of time before PSN ups its price tag. In the end, I'm just glad my XBOX Live subscription renews this month.
P.S. Here's a good example of why I hate playing online. Enjoy.
The Adult Toys R' Us (Best Buy) Gives a Big Fist Pump
How I feel after every trade-in visit to Gamestop
So I just read an article today that says both Target and Best Buy will begin allowing customers to trade-in their used video games for store credit. All I have to say is "Oh Mah Gahd!" Not only that, it was brought to my attention recently by my friend Rocio Hernandez that Wal-Mart has already been dabbling in the used gaming market. I had no idea. If anyone has ever tried to trade in a used game to Gamestop before, you'll know the travesty that comes when you realize the game you're trading in is worth about $3. Adding insult to injury, you're then forced to use that cash as store credit, which will most likely be spent on another crappy game that you'll eventually trade in for even less. With Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy jumping in on the competition, the power has most certainly gone to the players...just not in the way Gamestop had hoped for.
Serves ya right ya bloody bastards!
For years Gamestop has had the 1-UP on video game sales thanks to its trade-in deals. With no real challengers in the market, gamers were practically forced to accept whatever they could get for their used games and systems, which often resulted in tears of agony (see photo above). I know there's always eBay, but it's such a hassle to put up the auction, determine shipping price, blah, blah, blah. I remember one time I traded in "Marvel: Ultimate Alliance," a fairly decent game, and Gamestop gave me just $.75 for it. A 16 oz. beverage costs more than that! Gamestop determines its trade-in values based on how many used copies of the game they already have, but regardless, the prices they give you sometimes are absurd. On top of that, once your trade-in game goes for re-sale, it goes on sale for about $20 to the public. It's a brilliant business strategy, but I hope those days are finally over.
Best Buy employees...easily half of my earnings pay their salaries
Now that Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target in the mix, I'm hoping Gamestop offers some better trade-in deals for gamers. I mean...they HAVE to. Best Buy says it's going to begin its gaming trade-ins by next week. Adding even more incentive, there's some kind of special offer starting this Sunday that gives customers an extra $20 Best Buy gift card, on top of their trade-in value. I love it. I'm getting cash for my games, and I can spend it on other games, movies, music, computer parts, even toilet paper! (for Target people) Adding to the beauty of it all, both stores will eventually sell those used games as soon as they accumulate enough copies. Think of the competition Gamestop will have now that it's tyranny over the used games market will finally collapse. Not even the Imperial Army had this kind of resistance.
This location houses some of the most hideous creatures on earth
I can't emphasize how huge this is for these three comapnies. Hell, it's even good for the gamers. Capitalism is all about free enterprise and competition. With Gamestop's monopoly on the used games market coming to an end, I can finally trade-in my games with the comfort of knowing I may get more than a gumball's value for my hardware.
Excuse me Milla? May I borrow your shotgun for a moment?
God it never ends. I'm not sure what to be more peeved about; the fact that Hollywood is milking 3D until it's supple teet is bone dry, or the fact that yet another film based on one my most beloved video game franchises continues to insult me like an elementary school bully stealing my milk money. "Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D" is the fourth installment of the treacherous Resident Evil movie franchise, and now it seems the film is picking up steam in it's marketing campaign as Screen Gems (the film's production studio) is releasing clips of the film in anticipation of its September 10th release. The footage your about to see may be too graphic for your nerdism.
Are you ok? Did your skull turn to liquid goo after watching those two clips? Mine did. Once again the unholiest of Hollywood's residents Paul W.S. Anderson has tainted the film adaptation with his wildly irrelevant interpretation of the Resident Evil games. For anyone who may have played the games, you'll know that the series is known for its relentless build up of tension, and it's pitch perfect delivery on thrills and scares. Over time, the games have matured, and have slowly delved into a more action oriented nature, but that's another issue for another blog entry. The point is, the Resident Evil gaming franchise was all about isolation and survival horror, not John Woo style Kung Fu cinematics. Every Resident Evil film to date has clearly missed the mark in capturing what made the games so damn fun to play.
I got these knee pads for $5 at Sports Authority
Clearly from looking at the cinematography and direction of the latest film, it's borrowing heavily from the fifth game in the franchise. The film features the mutated zombies, the executioner Majini with the large axe, and the inclusion of both Chris Redfield, and a T-Virus filled Albert Wesker. But what Hollywood didn't realize is that Resident Evil 5 was the weakest of the series. Why? Because the game veered too far off from its roots of isolation, fear, and tension. The game added a co-op partner named Sheva, who took away the isolation from the game...and was just plain annoying as a character. Sure the game was a commercial success, but the story didn't satisfy long-time Resident Evil fans, and the gameplay was radically different from its predecessors. I just wish franchises would learn to evolve from their successful formula rather than try something completely different. Of all the games in the series, the one with the perfect blend of tension, horror, isolation, and action was none other than Resident Evil 4. It was a story about one man versus a harrowing and ruthless army of mutated creatures, and that was the epitome of what I consider a Resident Evil game. The movie on the other hand looks like it's trading survival horror for action-adventure, which doesn't make sense. It's like a Jewish kid going to a Catholic school. You have to ask why?
Albert Wesker...Gangsta
I will now use this paragraph to vent about specific grudges I hold with the film franchise:
#1 Characters from the game are not the main characters in the film.
#2 Milla Jovovich has supernatural abilities, is one of a thousand clones, and knows too much slow-mo kung-fu.
#3 The films have progressively become their own universe rather than the universe created by the game's narrative.
#4 Nemesis does Karate.
#5 Mike Epps was cast as an unnecessary comic relief.
#6 Main character Carlos Oliveira from the third Resident Evil game is killed off in the third movie.
#7 Paul W.S. Anderson created these films...Remember people, this is the guy who created "Event Horizon" which just ended up being a film about a blood orgy on a spaceship.
Couldn't have said it better myself
There are probably many other gripes that I can't remember off the top of my head, but I'd like to keep myself from punching a hole through my laptop.
Anyway, like most of the country, I will watch this movie. Before you ask me why, here are a couple of things you should know. First, I want to be able to see just how badly this franchise will be butchered. Second, I really like that they are including both Chris Redfield and Albert Wesker in the film, but again, I want to see how Anderson will destroy this. And thirdly, I probably won't pay to see this film. Wink, Wink, thank you high seas of internet piracy. I just hope that movie-goers understand that just like books, games are much better than their movie counterpart.
This could turn out to be one of my shorter posts, but I am so excited to finally have seen the trailer for the upcoming AMC series "The Walking Dead." In case you haven't heard, The Walking Dead is a new Television series coming out this fall on AMC based on a comic series created by writer Robert Kirkman and artist Tony Moore. I will admit I was not familiar with the series at all, but after watching the newest trailer for the TV adaption, I have the ultimate jitters.
Black and White zombies, a clear homage to George Romero
The Walking Dead follows the life of a small town sheriff who is injured on duty and goes into a coma. After waking up, he somehow avoided being eaten alive and comes to terms with the zombie apocalypse that has spawned around him. It seems almost like a cliche premise, but I'm hooked nonetheless.
First and foremost, add zombies to anything, and I'm sold. Zombies have evolved into a mainstream genre that there are even acclaimed works of literature such as "Pride and Prejudice" being re-written to include zombies. I am not kidding, this book actually exists. But this isn't just about my affection for zombies. Instead, this is about a TV series that looks to appease both zombie fanatics such as myself, and Television devouts alike. The Walking Dead is being written and directed by Frank Darabont, who is responsible for some cinema classics like "The Shawshank Redemption," "The Green Mile," and "The Mist." Sure any mediocre talented director could've tackled this adaptation with ease and cashed in quite easily, but the fact that Darabont is heading the production adds major credibility points for me.
The cast of the Walking Dead, just waiting to shine in the spotlight
Besides a good amount of action and gore, The Walking Dead looks to be like a series that is mainly devoted to character development. It is vital for any TV program to have that sense of character progression to connect with audiences. Good or bad, audiences need to be able to follow along with what a character is thinking and doing if they're going to commit to the series, or even next week's show. And Darabont is no slacker when it comes to this. Fans of Darabont know that he can bring it when it comes to creating thought provoking characters. Andy Dufresne (Shawshank Redemption) has to be on an all time greatest character list. Not only that, he's also got the experience in creating creature-filled action. If you've watched Darabon't last film "The Mist," you'll understand why it's a very highly underrated creature film. If The Walking Dead avoids being pigeonholed to previous zombie films, and is anything like "The Mist," then we're in for a deadly fun time.
The game changer of Zombies. Go watch it now!
Until then I leave you all with a link to the trailer for The Walking Dead. The series is set to premiere on AMC on Halloween Night around 10 pm, which hopefully allows for some more brutal action sequences than usual. Not only that, the casting on the series looks to be solid. Actors like Andrew Lincoln and Michael Rooker are bringing the much needed acting chops required for a production like this, but The Walking Dead looks to include the perfect mixture of up and coming Hollywood talent, allowing for it's supporting cast the chance to shine. Until then, I'll be shuffling through my daily routine in anticipation of this series. Heck, it's even inspired me to check out the comic series when I get a chance. It's too bad it's about 70-something issues and still going strong. Damn you zombie love. Enjoy.
Ever since Cristopher Nolan undertook the daunting task of re-imagining the Batman film franchise (and succeeded with flying Joel Schumacherish colors by the way) Hollywood has since embraced the "reboot" as a pseudo-genre. It was only a matter of time, but now it seems the gaming universe is hopping on the reboot bandwagon. A couple of new titles are making their way into our living rooms this fall, which includes the new "Medal of Honor" game, and a re-imagining of the 8-bit NES Castlevania franchise "Lords of Shadow." Both games are being aptly called re-births, as publishers hope to spawn a cash-cow series out of both titles. While many movie-goers roll their eyes when Hollywood announces a reboot of a TV show or movie, gaming reboots need to be embraced in today's market.
I CAN'T BREATHE IN THIS THING!!!
Before Call of Duty was the monster that it is today, the Medal of Honor series was at one point the standard for all Military first person shooters. The series has been on hiatus for about 3 years now, and is looking to be the game that gives Modern Warfare a run for it's money. The developers behind Medal of Honor, EA, say they're moving out of the World War II era into modern times, but this is territory that was crossed by Call of Duty developer Infinity Ward three years ago. So is imitation bad in gaming? Absolutely not. If there is a chance for a developer to create a new game that contains elements of a previous title, and can actually build on it and make it more fun, then I'm all for it. The new Medal of Honor game may look like a Call of Duty copycat, but I'm not about to write it off just yet. Who knows, maybe Medal of Honor has a longer, more satisfying single-player campaign than Modern Warfare, and a richer multiplayer experience. (By the way the multiplayer is being developed separate from the solo campaign by developer DICE, the same people behind "Battlefield." Just something to take note of) And as you'll notice, this kind of "inspiration" in gaming happens all the time.
Behold my flaming nunchucks of awesomeness
Looking at the upcoming Castlevania game "Lords of Shadow," many critics are comparing the game's combat and camera-work to God of War. I could see why someone would be concerned about a game playing similar to another, but again, if a developer takes the time to fine-tune their game, and hey, maybe even make it better than the game before, then sign me up. And besides, doesn't any kind of creative thought take inspiration from something that already exists? If you turn the clock back 5 years when the first God of War game was released, critics were drawing heavy comparisons to "Devil May Cry," but it just so happens God of War became the more balanced and gratifying game to play. Another thing to take into account is that not everyone has the same tastes. Some gamers may want to play in a certain fictitious world rather than another because they enjoy that kind of lore or realm. Personally, I've always been a sucker for zombie and vampire movies (for the record I've watched Twilight but it's so gay) so I can see myself really enjoying Castlevania more than God of War. Not to mention I was a dork for the original NES Castlevanias when I was a kid.
But I was just delivering a box of cookies Officer!
While we're on the topic of imitation, lets not forget the countless spawns that have emerged in the open world sandbox style of Grand Theft Auto. Games like "Crackdown," "Red Dead Redemption," and even "Mafia II" draw heavily from the formula that GTA defined. Personally I'm kind of annoyed by sandbox games, but they're still considerably successful and fun to play. And it's not just GTA-style games that are imitated. Look at games like bejeweled, tetris, or even alleyway. There are so many games in both the console and handheld market that are guilty of imitation that it's very hard for me to put off a game that draws inspiration from a previous iteration. Now don't get me wrong, imitation is great and all, but some game developers have really dropped the ball. Case in point: "Dante's Inferno." I was excited to play this game because of the whole hell theme surrounding it, and the gameplay looked solid enough. But low and behold, the game played like a duplicate God of War game that didn't really make its own identity. Sure the environments were fantastic, but the gameplay, enemies, and level structures just weren't connecting with me.
Like it or not, there is no completely original game, and that's ok. I just hope we can all recognize that it'll take one hell of a developer to design a 100% completely original game. Who knows, maybe someone will finally create a tolerable Superman game. God do we need one.
Full Disclosure: I am a child of the golden years of video gaming...NES, SNES, and N64 for the win! That said I think it's time we delve into the world of retro gaming in today's market, and why it's good for developers to live in the past. For anyone who owns an XBOX Live or PSN account, you'll notice that there are a flurry of downloadable games we can digitally get our paws on, with many of them sticking to the basic gameplay formulas of the past. Retro games like "Castle Crashers," "Limbo," and "Bionic Commando: Rearmed" prove that games with simple gameplay can be successful in today's market of complex games. Just like with many things in life, sometimes it's better to keep it simple, rather than get lost in pressing too many buttons.
Double Dragon...and no its not a sexual position
In order to understand why retro gaming is important, we should look at some of the more popular games from back in the day. One of the most overused retro gameplay types are "beat-em-ups." These games force players to walk through an entire level while defeating hordes of baddies that get in your way. Think of it as a Jackie Chan movie that allows you to press two to three buttons in any combination, thus allowing you to release an arsenal of attacks that rain pain on your enemies. Video games of the golden age like Double Dragon, Final Fight, and even Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are classified as beat-em-ups, and all were very successful. But why?
Scott Pilgrim the game, now with more sodium!
Speaking just in my experience, one key to the success of beat-em-ups is that it allowed you to play with more than just one person. As with many games nowadays, the gaming experience you can share with someone else is always a major plus. But besides that, it was simple controls that allowed for anyone to jump in and play regardless of their gaming experience. Games that stick to three button presses make it easier for anyone to follow along and keep the pacing going. But it's not that beat-em-ups are for dummies...If executed correctly, a good beat-em-up will have simple controls and a complex strategy in using those controls. For example, solely pressing the A button the whole game isn't fun, but if you're forced to switch between dodging, blocking, picking up an item, and then attacking...you've got something a little more satisfying.
Midgets and 6-foot lizards at your disposal
Another oldie but goldie retro genre is the "platformer." Platformers force players to navigate through a level using timed based movements like jumping and running, and may also include attacks and puzzles. The king of this genre of course is Mr. Super Mario. Mario Brothers changed the landscape of gaming which has influenced games even to this day. Modern retro games (I think that's an oxymoron) like "Limbo" and "Splosion Man" borrow heavily from the moustachioed plumber in their platforming elements such as the use of timed jumps and increasingly difficult level progression. But again, the key to these games is the simple controls. The basic element required in most platformers is two-to-three buttons, sprinkled in with some strategic gameplay elements.
That's right Ice-MAN! I am a difficult game
So if most retro games are simple, why is it that not everyone plays them? The difficulty. Ask anyone who played a game of "Mega Man" or the original "Legend of Zelda" and they'll tell you that those games don't go easy on you. Mega Man was a blistering hard game to beat because of how relentless the enemies and environment were. As for Zelda, that game forced you to figure out on your own where you had to go next. Sure it was frustrating, but the games weren't impossible. Gamers knew if they practiced just a little bit, then they could overcome the challenges ahead...and that was the biggest payoff for gamers of the NES days.
Limbo, a beautiful platformer that has gruesome deaths
The whole point in this rabble is that many modern games are too complex for their own sake, and a bit on the easy "sleazy" street, but I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Complex games like Starcraft or even Final Fantasy are engrossing and fun, but I think there is a similar, if not, greater satisfaction to be had with old school retro gaming. I'd love to see an experienced studio that focuses solely on developing retro style games for today's gamers. It would really separate the nerds from the mega-nerds. Games like "Castle Crashers" and "Scott Pilgrim vs the World" prove that we still love to live in the good ol' days where a challenging game was fun, even if it did make you want to grab a head of lettuce and bash it in with your fists.
X-Men: First Class Seeing too Much of a Good Thing?
As many hardcore comic book fans may know, next summer's movie line-up will be a haven for lovers of the mutant kind. With the likes of Captain America, Thor, the Spider-Man reboot, and Green Lantern, one of these anticipated titles includes the reboot of the X-Men franchise "X-Men: First Class." Directed by "Layer Cake" and "Kick-Ass" helmer Matthew Vaughn, the film will chronicle the early beginnings of Professor Xavier's friendship with Magneto, and how both would ultimately turn against each other in their growing disagreement over how to handle the relationship between humans and mutants, ultimately spawning the X-Mansion and the Brotherhood of Mutants. Anyways, the film is set to release next June and lately there's been a flurry of casting choices that really has me concerned over just what kind of shape this movie is in.
Mcavoy as Professor 'Wheels' Xavier
Today it was announced that 'Mad Men' starlet January Jones is the newest addition to the film, which is adding to an already heavy line-up of Hollywood talent. Headlining the film are James Macavoy as a young Professor Xavier, and Michael Fassbender as a young Magneto (both of which are excellent choices in my opinion). Among the rest of the big line-up of talent are Kevin Bacon as an unknown villain, Oliver Platt as a mysterious character called "Man in Black," Rose Byrne as a possible Moira McTaggert, and the list goes on and on. But just like Lebron joining the Heat with D-Wade and Chris Bosh, this film has me concerned over who will be the star in this movie. Just how many characters will audiences have to keep track of, and will each of them have their due screen time?
The dude from 300 as Magneto...nice
Another concern of mine is not just the big name casting, but the fact that the film hasn't even begun filming yet, and we're about 9 months away from its release. I'm not sure how the movie industry works, but I imagine 9 months to shoot, edit, re-shoot, and polish your film has to take a bit of time. On top of that, news broke a couple of weeks ago of director Matthew Vaughn claiming he had to scrap at least 12 pages of the film's script because an action sequence in 'First Class' involved a zero-gravity fight scene which Vaughn claims was too similar to a scene in Christopher Nolan's "Inception" (which is truly an amazing film by the way). So some of the big questions I have is whether this film will be delayed, or will it be too rushed in its production?
Nolan makes the guy from 500 Days of Summer badass
Whatever the case may be, I have a great deal of trust in director Matthew Vaughn. He's dealt with problems like this in films before, (look into the drama to get Kick-Ass funded) and he's come out swinging for the fences and kicking the audience's ass with his awesomeness(no pun intended...who am I kidding? hells yea it is!). I'm all for adding as much amazing talent to your film as possible, but sometimes too much of a good thing can be bad and it's just hard for audiences to really connect to a character that gets 5 minutes of screen time. I mean, just look at the Ocean's Eleven franchise. Until then, as Stan Lee would say, stick around true believers!
Today the folks over at EA announced that one of its flagship titles "Mass Effect 2" will be teleporting its way to the PS3 this January. Since the first game was released back in 2007, the Sci-Fi series has remained on the XBOX 360 and PC and was met with great success. So why the hell does publisher EA need to move Bioware's biggest franchise to another system? Money is the obvious reason, but is it really necessary?
Sony fanboys shudder at this image
Not so long ago in a galaxy not so far away the word 'exclusivity' used to be one of the biggest catchphrases in gaming. Franchises like "Final Fantasy" and "Metal Gear Solid "used to run on one console, but now it seems developers are being forced to sign deals where they're forced to create multi-platform games (Insomniac studios, makers of 'Ratchet & Clank' and 'Resistance' have one such deal in the works). Exclusivity is slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past. For years console makers have always marketed why their system is better than the next. Sony purists swear by their consoles claiming their system offers the better single player games while XBOX was the more multi-player friendly system. Whatever the truth may be we're starting to see a gaming market where many titles are becoming multi-platform, and in my eyes that sucks the big one.
Kicking Sony's ass since 2001
As a hardcore gamer, the decision to commmit to a particular system varies on multiple angles. Which system has the best processor? Which has the best online capabilities and functions? Which is the cheapest? Which also acts as a DVD/Blu-Ray player? So many questions factor into what is the best bet for gamers but now it seems the most important factor is fading away...the games! I remember always asking myself which system has the better games. Now it seems there are so many triple-A titles that are multi-platform that there's really no need to commit to a certain systems anymore. Besides some minor hardware differences like blu-ray, wireless controllers, etc., it's becoming even harder to tell the difference between which system a multi-platform game is playing on. Sure publishers may nickel and dime us with exclusive downloadable content on certain systems, but really, most of the time it's useless content like a multiplayer map or challenge mode. We can live without it. Even worse, console owners who've committed to a hefty purchase like a PS3 back when it was $600 are seeing their exclusive titles go bye-bye to Microsoft. It's almost like that feeling you get when you know of a certain band that no one else has heard of, and then suddenly they become mainstream and sell out and play on MTV's VMA awards every year. It's like losing a puppy.
Uncharted...Proving that your PS3 is still worth something
Exclusivity is good. First party developers like Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo need to make these kinds of deals more prominant in gaming. It spurs console sales, and opens up a new social aspect that's onverlooked. I love it when a friend of mine tells me that he/she has a game that I can't play. I just want to go over to their house and hammer the balls out of it and make a night out of it. Franchises like "Uncharted," "Halo," and "Gears of War" are single-handedly spurring console sales, and I think it's time for publishers to stop going the Call of Duty route and realize that sometimes single-platform is the way to go.
So as we all know Hollywood is a melting pot of filled with beautiful, talented, and creative individuals. It's also filled with some of the most narcissistic, egotistical, and self-depreciating pricks of all time. However Hollywood is something we've all grown up with, and it's something that we will never stop appreciating or following for the rest of our lives. Still, there are many moments where I have to remove my hat and take a big bow of thanks. Enter "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" and "Kick-Ass."
Seriously one of the best video games of all time
I got the opportunity to watch Scott Pilgrim this weekend and let me tell you, as an extravagant fan of video gaming, films, and comics, this movie is the perfect homage to fans of the "nerd" culture. Just from the opening title sequence of the film, I knew this was going to be something extremely different from the norm of standard filmmaking. Director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame) was able to grasp the nature of the graphic novels and translate it with success. Everything from the sound effects (Legend of Zelda music) to the narrative structure of the battles is a throwback to the glory days of the good ol' NES. Perfect example, everytime Scott defeats one of the bosses they turn to coins....Brilliant.
Anyone wanna check out my blue junk?
Anyway, as I was watching Scott Pilgrim, I couldn't help but compare it to another comic-book adaptation "Kick-Ass." This was another film I thoroughly enjoyed which was another service to fans...specifically to comic book mafiosos. It was a film that never completely strayed from its roots, and challenged the norm of typical filmmaking. I mean, our supposed "hero" character gets his ass kicked to a literal, and quite gritty, bloody pulp, a 12-year-old girl is a believable potty-mouth assassin. Kick-Ass challenged the norm of comic-book movies by giving us a realistic, sometimes uncomfortable take on the genre. The only other movie that came close to this was "Watchmen," which was also a great fan service film.
So here's my gripe, many of these fan service films are underperforming at the box office, which is leaving many studios to turn a blind eye to adapting works of this nature. Scott Pilgrim came in 5th at the box office this weekend, scoring a meager $10 Mil. dollars on its opening weekend. Kick-Ass had a similar fate. The film scored something like $20 Mil. on it's opening weekend, which was well below what the studio wanted.Last year, Watchmen was able to rake in more cash, but it had a massive budget and also underperformed to studio expectations.
Hey...did anyone get Jean-Claude Van Damme's invitation?
My point in all of this is that I want studios to understand that just because a fan-service film underperforms at the box office doesn't mean audiences don't love it. Many factors could play into why a film was unsuccessful. Things like competition, release date, marketing, casting, and even the economy play a major factor in a film's success. Sure Scott Pilgrim and Kick-Ass are going for a specific audience, but movie-goers need films like this to balance out the selection at the box office. What kind of world would we live in if we were forced to choose between "The Expendables" or "Eat, Pray, Love?" I think I'd rather grow pony-tails and have Miss Trunchbull from 'Matilda' hammer throw me across the patio.
Dude...I thought I was the Flash?
Hollywood needs to stop being a bunch of wusses and continue to make these fan service films. Many studios are sticking with the sure-fire bets like Captain America, Green Lantern, and X-Men First-Class, but I hope they continue to produce the "lesser known" works of art that need to go mainstream. Sure us 'hardcore' fans will drag our girlfriends to see these films with us, but movie-goers in general need a break from the routine bullshit that Hollywood churns out every year. Studio executives need to take a risk and slap movie-goers in the face with a comic-book/video-game adaptation that pulls our pants down and reminds us why our parents spanked us. Plus there are always DVD sales and rentals. HOLLYWOOD...LEND ME YOUR SPECIAL FEATURES!!!
The PC Gaming world just can't get enough of their MMO's (Massive Multiplayer Online Games). World of Warcraft was released 6 years ago and continues to dominate the PC gaming market. There have been countless copycats that have tried to overthrow the giant that is WoW. Blizzard is preparing to release it's 4th expansion "Cataclysm" for its beloved MMO, and with a subscription base of more than 11 Million users, it's going to take a Little-Mac to overthrow this Mike Tyson. Cue Bioware.
Bioware has evolved into a massive gaming studio over the past decade. Console hits like Baldur's Gate, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Dragon Age: Origins, and Mass Effect have launched the company into a Triple-A developer status. A force to be reckoned with, Bioware added even more pinache to its studio with its recent partnering with Electronic Arts a couple of years back. With World of Warcraft saturating the PC-MMO market, there is a growing need for another big hit title to finally overthrow the behemoth that is Blizzard, and I've got a feeling Bioware's upcoming MMO "Star Wars: The Old Republic" is just the answer we want, and the one we need.
The hype machine behind The Old Republic is definitely starting to catch the attention of many critics and gamers. Bioware has released several videos showing how combat, questing, and some of the classes work within their universe. You've got your standard tanks, healers, and DPS classes with a Star Wars twist to them (The Bounty Hunter looks to be right up my alley), and Bioware promises that there will be plenty of loot to shape your character into the unique little Jedi Master/Sith Lord you always dreamed of.
Hand me my flamethrower...It's the one that says bad muthaf**ka on it.
It's all very reminiscent of World of Warcraft's style, but there are a bunch of things that will set The Old Republic apart. For starters, the entire game is fully voiced. Every NPC (non-playable character) you come across will speak, and every quest-giver will give you a dialogue rich encounter which you'll have to respond appropriately to. One of the key mechanics of the game, which hasn't been fully revealed, is its morality system. Similar to what we see in many Bioware games like Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, what you say will affect your character in his appearance and leveling, as well as his allegiance to certain people. While the details are scarce, this mechanic gives players a whole new way to mess around with characters, ultimately offering a deep, rich, and most importantly replayable game.
"You guys see Bioware's new MMO? GAME OVER MAN!"
Something else that should be noted, and my personal favorite, is the aesthetic of the game. The Old Republic has a very animated and colorful "cartoonish" look to its world, similar to World of Warcraft. Other MMO's like Everquest, Age of Conan, and even Warhammer tried to render their worlds with a more realistic approach to their graphics. While the games look pretty, many casual PC gamers just don't have the hardware capable of running these games the way their developers intended. High end gaming PC's can go anywhere from $2,500 to $4,000, and lets face it, not everyone can or wants to cough up that kind of green. PC games that run in a "cartoonish" look tend to run well on lower-end PC's, allowing more gamers to dive in and get hooked. I have a solid PC and I could barely run "Everquest II" without it almost having a seizure and turning my room into a sauna. But when I play WoW, it runs as fast as Usain Bolt in the 100m.
My point in all this is that Bioware has its sights set on a large, collective audience. They're definitely thinking big and may even pluck some of Blizzard's dollars (myself included). From what we've seen so far, the game runs smoothly, looks balanced and user-friendly enough, and is being developed by a development studio with more than enough chops to craft a beautiful RPG environment that'll keep gamers busy for years to come. Plus...it's Star Wars for Ackbar's sake! It's such a rich universe that it'll be impossible to run out of content for future expansions.
Clouded your future is Blizzard
Until then, we'll have to patiently wait for Blizzard and Bioware to release their monster MMO's in the coming months but if I were Blizzard, I better be damn sure to make Azeroth as engaging as ever, because if not, as Yoda once said..."The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see the future is."
Meantime here's the latest video from Bioware showing some group based combat in The Old Republic. Enjoy.
