Just saw Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (The Movie). Read the Book about a month back. Was the book perfect? By no means. It had its problems, inconsistancies, and supported that upstart Dionysus as a legitimate member of the Olympian 12. Still, it was the story that its author, Rick Riordin, intended to tell. Which begs the question, "What story was Chris Columbus, director of the movie, trying to tell?"
Whatever the answer, it certainly wasn't the same as the Author. So often, book adaptations take liberties with the source material, sometimes for pacing, sometimes because what works for the written word doesn't work on the screen, sometimes to make a more exciting product. Still, I've never seen so many divergences from the source material in a movie based on a major piece of fiction. And most of them seem arbitrary, pointless, or even counter to the the themes of the novel.
I'm all for making exciting movies, and I'm all for adaptations, and I do acknowledge that sometimes directors and adaptors can improve the source material. Certainly, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix the Movie is a better story than the Novel and Oh Brother is more fun than the Odyssey. And my favorite Novel and favorite Movie are both Dune, even though the movie is wildly divergent from the book. But still.
It ranges from little things such as Annabeth (the female lead) who in the book is a honey blond and in the movie is a brunette (something Hollywood could easily have attended to), to not so little things such as the moving of the Hydra Battle from book 2 to book 1. Subplots and background elements (such as Annabeth's history with Luke and Ares hatred for Percy) are lost, probably for pacing, but their removal leaves most of the characters shallower than they need to be. Annabeth is reduced from an interesting character to little more than the love interest. Half a dozen characters are removed: Kronus, Dionysus, Clarisa (Daughter of Ares), Ares, Aphrodite, the Oracle, and Echidna. Three Monsters are eliminated: The Chimera, Procrustes, and Cerberus. Percy and Annabeth are aged from 12 to 16 or so. The magical shield which in book three is a gift from Percy's brother is coopted as a gift from a fellow camper. Greek swords are depicted as having crossbars. The three magical pearls which were a gift to Percy from his Father (The sea god) are assigned to Persephone. Even the plot recieves major hacking, with Hades made the bad guy (as opposed to another victim of the Lightning Thief as he was in the book.) and the roadtrip changed to more of a treasurehunt.
But most of all, the biggest change was the replacement of greek and roman themes with christian ones. Hades is depicted as a beast of fire, served by hellhounds, living in a realm of fire and suffering called Hell. This differs wildly from the book, which depicts the Underworld as a place of darkness, with suffering only taking place in "Punishment" and the rightous rewarded with joy in "Elysium"... as matches the greek vision. Hell, a name taken from Norse Mythology, and the vision of burning fire, taken from Revelation, do not fit with the Chithonic Underworld.
So, although PJ&TLT is an enjoyable enough movie, I have to give it a 1 out of 5 for being a bastardized, christianized, sissified, lousy ass adaptation of a relatively good book.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Video Game Sequels
2010 seems to be a year for big name video game sequels: Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy XIII, God of War III, Fallout New Vegas, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Metroid: Other M, Batman: Arkham Asylum 2, Starwars: Force Unleashed 2, Diablo III (maybe) & Starcraft II: Part 1 (at least in theory)... there are even reports of a forthcoming Legend of Zelda part who knows by years end. That is a hefty-ass list of games. And each of them has an awful lot to live up to.
It's only February, so most of these games aren't out yet. In fact, only two are, and they are the sequels with the least street cred of all the series listed above. Sure, half these games are 2's, but Mario, Starwars, Batman, and Starcraft are major names and the rest are all the latest and greatest iterations of blockbusters. But before we get to the newbies, lets review the classics.
Mario Galaxy 1 wasn't the first Mario platformer by a long shot, and it was lauded as a brilliant addition to platforming's venerable first family. The sequel doesn't have to break new ground in any way to be a mega hit with both critics and fans alike and as a kids game it really doesn't need to set any new standards for plotline... heck, I can already guarantee that the plot is almost certainly "Bowser kidnaps Peach, Mario to the Rescue." Still, who cares, it's a Mario Platformer... even the sucktastic Mario Sunshine was a blockbuster.
Force Unleashed might not have been the best game, what with often confusing level designs and boss fights which bordered on the ludicrus, but it still had the makings of an awesome game and an awesome addition to the incredibly successful Starwars Game Franchise... can anyone really recall a SW game that wasn't a hit? So SWFU2 is almost a shoe in, and SW fans are notorious for being willing to sacrifice story for experience.
Batman AA was originally intended to be a much longer game, but space limitations (for the X360 not the PS3) made it unfeasible and a looming release schedule made it the decision to divide the game into two parts a no brainer. I for one don't feel slighted, I loved AA and will be at the midnight launch of AA2 come Hell or high water. With essentially the same game engine and, I hope, experience that carries over to the sequel, I am certainly looking forward to more mindless skull bashing... although a better stealth system would be appreciated... work on that will you guys?
As for Starcraft? Sure, the title may have an II in it, but this is really the third game in the series, and regardless of what Blizzard might have to say, Starcraft I was, for all intents and purposes, Warcraft II in space... and it was AWESOME!!! Yes, I'm a professional writer, and I just used all caps and not 1, not 2, but 3 exclaimation points on one of the most overused and lamest of descriptives. Still, Starcraft's excellence and enjoyability really can't be captured with more elite words such as "Superlative", "Incredible", or "Outstanding". Starcraft was as close to perfect as a game really can be without being Civilization II. And with more than a decade between 1 and 2, Blizzard has absolutely no excuse for messing up the long, long, long awaited sequel. Although it might be delayed for a year... or two... or nine. Still, here's hoping.
That's it for the older 2's, but while we're on the subject of Blizzard, let's talk Diablo III... I'm sure there's a way for Blizzard to screw the pooch on this game... but I don't think that's really likely. All they have to do is slap some new graphics, creature design, randomizer engines, and class design onto essentially the same concept, listen to the uber geeks they get to beta test the thing, and they should have another megahit on their hands. This is Blizzard folks, they don't make bad games.
On the subject of III's let's talk God of War III... With two critical and financial successes under their belts... three actually if we count the PSP title, can GOW3 actually fail? Sure, if the studio execs lobotimized themselves. Seriously, even if the story is as trite and facile as possible, the level designs copied from a current gen Sonic game, and the controls copied from a Resident Evil game, the game will probably sell a million plus copies on the graphics alone. Still, how likely is that? Assuming they keep the same control scheme (with or without minor improvements), have a reasonably clever writing staff and a reasonably creative level design team, this game will be as excellent as its predecessors.
Fallout New Vegas and Metroid: Other M are the only one's on this list without numbers in their titles, and so probably should be treated as the biggest risks, but with the history of success that Metroid represents, MOM should be a guaranteed hit, and the plot looks intriguing. New Vegas, from what I understand, breaks no new ground on Fallout 3, but it is set half a continent away and has a completely different story line. It does beg the question, "why isn't this Fallout 4?" but I assume the answer is because it has the same engine, something that each numbered iteration lacks. Certainly 1's engine wasn't anything like 2's Diablo-esque engine or 3's Elderscroll-esque engine. Still, post-apocalyptic gunfests tend to rock and Fallout 3's engine was a thing of beauty. I look forward to seeing it in the desert.
But then we come to FFXIII, grand-daddy of all franchises. Sure, it wasn't the first, but who else would dare put a 13 on a game. Who else has such a powerful franchise (outside of Mario or Zelda) where the mere addition of the words Final Fantasy practically guarantees a blockbuster. I don't know who has more spin offs (probably Mario), but no one has more main sequence games than FF. Mario only has that many if you count Handhelds, RPG's, and Papers... and no one counts Luigi. Still, FF games have their ups and downs. Don't get me wrong, I love them all... except XI which is an MMO abomination (as will XIV be), but let us face facts, some of Square / Square-Enix's choices have been a little off over the years... see X-2 for the best example. So how will XIII fare? It's anyone's guess, but I'm hopeful. Still, I don't like some of the things I'm hearing. No Airship travel? Bummer. All shopping done from the save menu? Seems too "breaking the experience" for me. Summons as vehicles? errr.... Party Leader KO means game over? Far too SMT: Nocturne for me. Guy with Chocobo in his Afro? No comment. Look, the reality is it will probably be fantastic... but the reality of it is that it will probably not be as good as VII, or XII, or X, or VI, or VIII (yes I like VIII)... but here's hoping it's as good as the others, because unless it's Mystic Quest (look it up) FFXIII will be incredible... they almost always are... even X-2... once you get over playing FF-Barbie Dress Up.
But all those are still to come, and I'll probably have something to say about each of them when they come out, but what about the two 2's that are already on shelves: Bioshock and Mass Effect... Are they worth the wait? Are they as good as their 1's? Are they worthy sucessors? Do they add to the richness and majesty of their genres and or stories? Mmmm.... kinda.
Let's start with Bioshock 2. Could this game be better? Absolutely. I love the additions to the control scheme. What worked so well before works even better now. Two fisted action with Gun in one hand and Plasmids is a wonder to behold. The city is as lovely and sad and almost as creepy as it was in 1 and I love being able to get outside. So, yes. Excellent game, stands on its own very well... even a nice twist and it certainly is an entertaining story... and yes, it does add to the richness of the survival horror genre and the story of Rapture. But it is also a flawed game. You play a Big Daddy in 2. The Big Daddy, Subject Delta, first of his kind. He's massive. So massive he shakes the foundations and wields massive weapons... which is all well and good, but the game doesn't back up the feeling of playing a walking tank. Jack had to fear going one on one with splicers, especially early on. Big Daddy, in his armored suit and wielding a drill or rivet gun, shouldn't fear anything less than half a dozen. Splicers should be attacking in waves, being mowed down by the monster. At least until newer or smart or bulkier splicers start showing up. Where Jack had to fear for his life, Big Daddy should crush and mutilate with abandon. It shouldn't feel as if the massive man in the massive suit was a skinny dude wearing a paper suit... but it does for a pretty long time.
Then there is Big Sister. Originally planned as a one of a kind boogey man, the good people at 2K said screw it and made her a creature class. A tough, kinda scary creature class... at least at first, but get far enough into the game and it's just like killing Bouncers in Bioshock 1. Bang, Bang, Dead. What a waste of a perfectly good character... and this is why the game was so delayed. Bad, Bad, Bad choice.
On the subject of weaksauce, there is hacking. Sure, it is cool to be able to hack from across the room, but the new hacking minigame blows chunks. Ugh. Yuck. Feh. I want pipes back. And to all those mental midgets who said "This is too hard" or "this is too much like thinking" or "THis is boring, I wanna shoot people" I have this to say... "Blow me."
Other problems, although lesser ones, are largely stylistic. I don't get how any Big Daddy could ever sacrifice a Little Sister. Doesn't fit. Just doesn't. And I don't like the linear story progression. There isn't enough exploration and the lack of the ability to backtrack really bugs the crap out of me... but I guess it works. Still, Bioshock 3 had better fix these issues or I'm going to be pissed. One shot boys, One. Mess up again and you're dead to me.
Last, we get to Mass Effect 2. A truer sequel you will not find... anywhere, anytime, no questions asked. Every choice you made in ME1 is reflected somehow in ME2. Every... single... one. Were you nice to the Fanboy? It shows up in ME2. Did you do the minor ass side quest for the Asari with the slaver sister? It's mentioned. Everything has some kind of resonance, even if it doesn't matter in the slightest. The storyline is excellent, and creepy and adds vast amounts to the lore of Shepard's Galaxy. The new skill system is streamlined and works... pretty well. The new heavy weapons are pretty cool. And Shepard's team has to be seen to be believed. In addtion to 2 male and 2 female humans we have the old standby's of an Asari, a Quarian, a Taurian, and a Krogan (two are returning characters, two are new) plus a Salarian and a Drell (a new race). Very nice, and the conversations are quirky and fun, and being a Renegade or Paragon is actually cooler in this game than the first.
In fact, ME2 is pretty much its parent's equal in every way... except for a number of minor problems... all relating to inventory. You can't compare Weapons. Seriously, the weapons have no visible stats. You have to take them on missions (which are far less story integrated than before) so you can find out how well they operate, how much ammo they can hold, and what kind of reload time and damage they do, and you only get hard numbers on ammo. That's problem number 1. There are far fewer weapons in this game, pretty much no more than 5 choices or so for any of the 5 different weapon choices. In fact I think the total number of different weapons in the game is less than 30. And only Shepard can change armor, although you can customize how some of it looks (colorwise). Problems 2 and 3. There is nowhere to buy Medigel or Ammo for the Heavy Weapon... even though Shepard works for / with Cerberus (a massive secret corporation with the funds to build a warship in secret). And yes, Medigel is much more important in ME2, since to use Unity (the power used to restore unconsious party members) you need a Medigel charge... or two if both teammates are down. Problem 4. They've removed Grenades. Problem 5. They've changed the overheating system from ME1 to an ammo clip like system in ME2. So, from unlimited Ammo to very limited Ammo... strange choice. Problem 6.
In fact, the biggest problem with Problem 6 is that, since your Ammo loadout is limited now, you should be able to customize it. Say you're a soldier and you have 5 weapon's slots (as Shepard the Soldier does). The game assumes that you will want to carry: 1 pistol/hand cannon/sub machine gun, 1 shotgun, 1 assault rifle, 1 sniper rifle, and 1 heavy weapon. Great. It will also assume (for example) that you want to carry 320 rounds of assault rifle ammo (to be used in 60 round clips), 11 shotgun shells and 10 sniper rounds (each to be used 1 at a time, 48 rounds of handgun ammo to be used 6 at a time, and 450 units of energy for your laser cannon (heavy weapon). What if you think shotguns are idiotic? What if you want to carry two sniper rifles (one high power but single shot and one lower power but capable of holding a 12 round clip)? What if you'd rather carry nothing but the assault rifle and the heavy weapon? Why, if you must limit our ammo, can't we bloodywell choose which weapons we'd like to carry extra ammo for? Sure, I get that clips are more realistic and that carrying arround a freakin arsenal in combat isn't realistic at all, and neither are number based weapons stats, but real soldiers (especially mercenaries and special forces) have access to field studies and test results, and practice ranges and choose how much ammo and which weapons to carry and have access to resupply, especially when travelling through major supply hubs. Most of ME2 is soooo good that the lapses of sanity are that much more appauling.
Still, there are some other issues with ME2 that have nothing to do with inventory. The side quests are pared down dramatically, and few of them don't rely on combat. I get it, most players are brain-dead gun-happy goobers, but still... Hacking is less rewarding, since you can't get weapons, armor, mods, omnigel, or medigel from it, and even if there are now 2 minigames they never change, never get any harder. Look, if Treasure Madness on Facebook can have 8 or 9 different minigames with scaling difficulty, it shouldn't be that hard for ME2 to have 2 or 3 that show the slightest variation.
But, in the final analysis, these are minor points and minor complaints. ME2 and BS2 are both incredible games that are vastly enjoyable and entertaining. Could they be better? Sure. Could the originals have been better? Absolutely. But in the end, has there ever been a perfect game? A game that couldn't be improved on? Probably not.
Anyway, Happy gaming.
Retry? Load? Quit.
It's only February, so most of these games aren't out yet. In fact, only two are, and they are the sequels with the least street cred of all the series listed above. Sure, half these games are 2's, but Mario, Starwars, Batman, and Starcraft are major names and the rest are all the latest and greatest iterations of blockbusters. But before we get to the newbies, lets review the classics.
Mario Galaxy 1 wasn't the first Mario platformer by a long shot, and it was lauded as a brilliant addition to platforming's venerable first family. The sequel doesn't have to break new ground in any way to be a mega hit with both critics and fans alike and as a kids game it really doesn't need to set any new standards for plotline... heck, I can already guarantee that the plot is almost certainly "Bowser kidnaps Peach, Mario to the Rescue." Still, who cares, it's a Mario Platformer... even the sucktastic Mario Sunshine was a blockbuster.
Force Unleashed might not have been the best game, what with often confusing level designs and boss fights which bordered on the ludicrus, but it still had the makings of an awesome game and an awesome addition to the incredibly successful Starwars Game Franchise... can anyone really recall a SW game that wasn't a hit? So SWFU2 is almost a shoe in, and SW fans are notorious for being willing to sacrifice story for experience.
Batman AA was originally intended to be a much longer game, but space limitations (for the X360 not the PS3) made it unfeasible and a looming release schedule made it the decision to divide the game into two parts a no brainer. I for one don't feel slighted, I loved AA and will be at the midnight launch of AA2 come Hell or high water. With essentially the same game engine and, I hope, experience that carries over to the sequel, I am certainly looking forward to more mindless skull bashing... although a better stealth system would be appreciated... work on that will you guys?
As for Starcraft? Sure, the title may have an II in it, but this is really the third game in the series, and regardless of what Blizzard might have to say, Starcraft I was, for all intents and purposes, Warcraft II in space... and it was AWESOME!!! Yes, I'm a professional writer, and I just used all caps and not 1, not 2, but 3 exclaimation points on one of the most overused and lamest of descriptives. Still, Starcraft's excellence and enjoyability really can't be captured with more elite words such as "Superlative", "Incredible", or "Outstanding". Starcraft was as close to perfect as a game really can be without being Civilization II. And with more than a decade between 1 and 2, Blizzard has absolutely no excuse for messing up the long, long, long awaited sequel. Although it might be delayed for a year... or two... or nine. Still, here's hoping.
That's it for the older 2's, but while we're on the subject of Blizzard, let's talk Diablo III... I'm sure there's a way for Blizzard to screw the pooch on this game... but I don't think that's really likely. All they have to do is slap some new graphics, creature design, randomizer engines, and class design onto essentially the same concept, listen to the uber geeks they get to beta test the thing, and they should have another megahit on their hands. This is Blizzard folks, they don't make bad games.
On the subject of III's let's talk God of War III... With two critical and financial successes under their belts... three actually if we count the PSP title, can GOW3 actually fail? Sure, if the studio execs lobotimized themselves. Seriously, even if the story is as trite and facile as possible, the level designs copied from a current gen Sonic game, and the controls copied from a Resident Evil game, the game will probably sell a million plus copies on the graphics alone. Still, how likely is that? Assuming they keep the same control scheme (with or without minor improvements), have a reasonably clever writing staff and a reasonably creative level design team, this game will be as excellent as its predecessors.
Fallout New Vegas and Metroid: Other M are the only one's on this list without numbers in their titles, and so probably should be treated as the biggest risks, but with the history of success that Metroid represents, MOM should be a guaranteed hit, and the plot looks intriguing. New Vegas, from what I understand, breaks no new ground on Fallout 3, but it is set half a continent away and has a completely different story line. It does beg the question, "why isn't this Fallout 4?" but I assume the answer is because it has the same engine, something that each numbered iteration lacks. Certainly 1's engine wasn't anything like 2's Diablo-esque engine or 3's Elderscroll-esque engine. Still, post-apocalyptic gunfests tend to rock and Fallout 3's engine was a thing of beauty. I look forward to seeing it in the desert.
But then we come to FFXIII, grand-daddy of all franchises. Sure, it wasn't the first, but who else would dare put a 13 on a game. Who else has such a powerful franchise (outside of Mario or Zelda) where the mere addition of the words Final Fantasy practically guarantees a blockbuster. I don't know who has more spin offs (probably Mario), but no one has more main sequence games than FF. Mario only has that many if you count Handhelds, RPG's, and Papers... and no one counts Luigi. Still, FF games have their ups and downs. Don't get me wrong, I love them all... except XI which is an MMO abomination (as will XIV be), but let us face facts, some of Square / Square-Enix's choices have been a little off over the years... see X-2 for the best example. So how will XIII fare? It's anyone's guess, but I'm hopeful. Still, I don't like some of the things I'm hearing. No Airship travel? Bummer. All shopping done from the save menu? Seems too "breaking the experience" for me. Summons as vehicles? errr.... Party Leader KO means game over? Far too SMT: Nocturne for me. Guy with Chocobo in his Afro? No comment. Look, the reality is it will probably be fantastic... but the reality of it is that it will probably not be as good as VII, or XII, or X, or VI, or VIII (yes I like VIII)... but here's hoping it's as good as the others, because unless it's Mystic Quest (look it up) FFXIII will be incredible... they almost always are... even X-2... once you get over playing FF-Barbie Dress Up.
But all those are still to come, and I'll probably have something to say about each of them when they come out, but what about the two 2's that are already on shelves: Bioshock and Mass Effect... Are they worth the wait? Are they as good as their 1's? Are they worthy sucessors? Do they add to the richness and majesty of their genres and or stories? Mmmm.... kinda.
Let's start with Bioshock 2. Could this game be better? Absolutely. I love the additions to the control scheme. What worked so well before works even better now. Two fisted action with Gun in one hand and Plasmids is a wonder to behold. The city is as lovely and sad and almost as creepy as it was in 1 and I love being able to get outside. So, yes. Excellent game, stands on its own very well... even a nice twist and it certainly is an entertaining story... and yes, it does add to the richness of the survival horror genre and the story of Rapture. But it is also a flawed game. You play a Big Daddy in 2. The Big Daddy, Subject Delta, first of his kind. He's massive. So massive he shakes the foundations and wields massive weapons... which is all well and good, but the game doesn't back up the feeling of playing a walking tank. Jack had to fear going one on one with splicers, especially early on. Big Daddy, in his armored suit and wielding a drill or rivet gun, shouldn't fear anything less than half a dozen. Splicers should be attacking in waves, being mowed down by the monster. At least until newer or smart or bulkier splicers start showing up. Where Jack had to fear for his life, Big Daddy should crush and mutilate with abandon. It shouldn't feel as if the massive man in the massive suit was a skinny dude wearing a paper suit... but it does for a pretty long time.
Then there is Big Sister. Originally planned as a one of a kind boogey man, the good people at 2K said screw it and made her a creature class. A tough, kinda scary creature class... at least at first, but get far enough into the game and it's just like killing Bouncers in Bioshock 1. Bang, Bang, Dead. What a waste of a perfectly good character... and this is why the game was so delayed. Bad, Bad, Bad choice.
On the subject of weaksauce, there is hacking. Sure, it is cool to be able to hack from across the room, but the new hacking minigame blows chunks. Ugh. Yuck. Feh. I want pipes back. And to all those mental midgets who said "This is too hard" or "this is too much like thinking" or "THis is boring, I wanna shoot people" I have this to say... "Blow me."
Other problems, although lesser ones, are largely stylistic. I don't get how any Big Daddy could ever sacrifice a Little Sister. Doesn't fit. Just doesn't. And I don't like the linear story progression. There isn't enough exploration and the lack of the ability to backtrack really bugs the crap out of me... but I guess it works. Still, Bioshock 3 had better fix these issues or I'm going to be pissed. One shot boys, One. Mess up again and you're dead to me.
Last, we get to Mass Effect 2. A truer sequel you will not find... anywhere, anytime, no questions asked. Every choice you made in ME1 is reflected somehow in ME2. Every... single... one. Were you nice to the Fanboy? It shows up in ME2. Did you do the minor ass side quest for the Asari with the slaver sister? It's mentioned. Everything has some kind of resonance, even if it doesn't matter in the slightest. The storyline is excellent, and creepy and adds vast amounts to the lore of Shepard's Galaxy. The new skill system is streamlined and works... pretty well. The new heavy weapons are pretty cool. And Shepard's team has to be seen to be believed. In addtion to 2 male and 2 female humans we have the old standby's of an Asari, a Quarian, a Taurian, and a Krogan (two are returning characters, two are new) plus a Salarian and a Drell (a new race). Very nice, and the conversations are quirky and fun, and being a Renegade or Paragon is actually cooler in this game than the first.
In fact, ME2 is pretty much its parent's equal in every way... except for a number of minor problems... all relating to inventory. You can't compare Weapons. Seriously, the weapons have no visible stats. You have to take them on missions (which are far less story integrated than before) so you can find out how well they operate, how much ammo they can hold, and what kind of reload time and damage they do, and you only get hard numbers on ammo. That's problem number 1. There are far fewer weapons in this game, pretty much no more than 5 choices or so for any of the 5 different weapon choices. In fact I think the total number of different weapons in the game is less than 30. And only Shepard can change armor, although you can customize how some of it looks (colorwise). Problems 2 and 3. There is nowhere to buy Medigel or Ammo for the Heavy Weapon... even though Shepard works for / with Cerberus (a massive secret corporation with the funds to build a warship in secret). And yes, Medigel is much more important in ME2, since to use Unity (the power used to restore unconsious party members) you need a Medigel charge... or two if both teammates are down. Problem 4. They've removed Grenades. Problem 5. They've changed the overheating system from ME1 to an ammo clip like system in ME2. So, from unlimited Ammo to very limited Ammo... strange choice. Problem 6.
In fact, the biggest problem with Problem 6 is that, since your Ammo loadout is limited now, you should be able to customize it. Say you're a soldier and you have 5 weapon's slots (as Shepard the Soldier does). The game assumes that you will want to carry: 1 pistol/hand cannon/sub machine gun, 1 shotgun, 1 assault rifle, 1 sniper rifle, and 1 heavy weapon. Great. It will also assume (for example) that you want to carry 320 rounds of assault rifle ammo (to be used in 60 round clips), 11 shotgun shells and 10 sniper rounds (each to be used 1 at a time, 48 rounds of handgun ammo to be used 6 at a time, and 450 units of energy for your laser cannon (heavy weapon). What if you think shotguns are idiotic? What if you want to carry two sniper rifles (one high power but single shot and one lower power but capable of holding a 12 round clip)? What if you'd rather carry nothing but the assault rifle and the heavy weapon? Why, if you must limit our ammo, can't we bloodywell choose which weapons we'd like to carry extra ammo for? Sure, I get that clips are more realistic and that carrying arround a freakin arsenal in combat isn't realistic at all, and neither are number based weapons stats, but real soldiers (especially mercenaries and special forces) have access to field studies and test results, and practice ranges and choose how much ammo and which weapons to carry and have access to resupply, especially when travelling through major supply hubs. Most of ME2 is soooo good that the lapses of sanity are that much more appauling.
Still, there are some other issues with ME2 that have nothing to do with inventory. The side quests are pared down dramatically, and few of them don't rely on combat. I get it, most players are brain-dead gun-happy goobers, but still... Hacking is less rewarding, since you can't get weapons, armor, mods, omnigel, or medigel from it, and even if there are now 2 minigames they never change, never get any harder. Look, if Treasure Madness on Facebook can have 8 or 9 different minigames with scaling difficulty, it shouldn't be that hard for ME2 to have 2 or 3 that show the slightest variation.
But, in the final analysis, these are minor points and minor complaints. ME2 and BS2 are both incredible games that are vastly enjoyable and entertaining. Could they be better? Sure. Could the originals have been better? Absolutely. But in the end, has there ever been a perfect game? A game that couldn't be improved on? Probably not.
Anyway, Happy gaming.
Retry? Load? Quit.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
CSI in space!
I've seen some stupid things on CSI, some twisted laws, some serious abuses of search and seizure, miranda, and physics. But all that paled before the stupidity of Monday night's SCI: Miami. For those who didn't watch it, it involved a murder aboard a spaceplane... in Low Earth Orbit. I've got just one question for the show's writers... Since when does LEO qualify as Miami / Dade jurisdiction? The murder, an act the other three passengers/crew undertook because there wasn't enough oxygen for all 4 to survive, which would be considered self defense in any court in the world, didn't even take place on Earth, and since UN treaties effectively bare Earth Nations from claiming property in space, would probably be an Federal matter... at the very least. As the first murder in space, it would be the most sensational and controversial case of the century. But no, its all handled as if Miami PD has the faintest right to conduct the investigation or has any right to try the case.
Morons.
Morons.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Happy Birthday to me.
I love birthdays. Wonderful things. A yearly reminder that another 365.249 days have gone by and that nothing much has changed. An annual fete in honor of aging. A chance for one to consider all the things we've gained and lost. Ah well. Happy third of a century to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)