Xbox One - Console Review

The final next-gen console has been released and I spent almost the entire weekend playing it. Is the Xbox One good? Did mine actually work? What about that $500 down payment? My review is after the jump!

Disclaimer – As with my review of the PS4, this review is based on MY opinions, as they are subject to MY tastes. I do not owe allegiance to any gaming platform and am only offering an honest opinion as someone that has been a serious gamer since the original NES. I have owned nearly every major console produced since Nintendo’s first except all of Sega’s, the TurboGrafx-16, and the Atari Jaguar.
(I say “nearly” because, hey, I was a kid. I didn’t have my own money back then. I didn’t start buying my own consoles until the PS1)
I’m not intending to fuel the console wars, or anything of the sort. I just want to give you guys an unbiased look at these consoles from a technical standpoint.

Breakdown:

Launch Library – 7.5
Like the Playstation 4, I wasn’t impressed with the Xbox One’s launch lineup either. In fact, the only two reasons I bought the system were 1) multiplayer games (since I already pay for an Xbox Live subscription) and 2) Killer Instinct. So does that mean that Killer Instinct makes this the better of the two latest consoles’ libraries because of one game? Unfortunately, yes. That doesn’t mean Killer Instinct is a bad game, in fact it’s great, but only one exclusive available at launch that I’m interested in is still disappointing. But in all fairness, that’s one more than the PS4 had.

Console Design – 7.5
In my PS4 review, I mentioned that Sony’s console looked like “a crooked 1980s VCR.” I also mentioned that the Xbox One was better looking. After actually seeing the console in person, however, that opinion changed slightly. It does, indeed, look better than the PS4, but man that thing is huge and looks even MORE like a 1980s VCR (only not “crooked”)! The console is even about the size of one of the first VCRs I remember having as a kid (a top loader).
That being said, it’s still pretty slick. The quality is rather pristine and the build is sturdy, making you feel as though you just purchased something worth every penny of your $500. The Kinect (which I WILL NOT use. More on that in a bit) looks ridiculous sitting on top of the system, though. It looks like someone ripped off Rob the Robot’s head, stretched it, and stuck it on top of a huge VCR.  For those of you who don’t know who Rob the Robot is, go look him up.

The Controller – 9.0
The Xbox One controller had the potential to be perfect. I really loved the Xbox 360 controller, but to myself and most fans, there was one glaring flaw: the d-pad. With its small, circular design, games such as those in the fighting genre were virtually unplayable on the 360 controller. With the Xbox One, Microsoft redesigned the d-pad with a more traditional take. However, it still doesn’t operate as well as I would like it to. Each direction “clicks,” rather than feeling smooth like most d-pads, including the PS4’s. Other than that, Microsoft kept the design pretty much the same from their previous console. Oddly enough, a 3rd party controller for Xbox 360, the Razer Sabertooth, is a much better design than either the Xbox 360 or Xbox One. If the controller would have been an identical copy of Razer’s, I would have given it a perfect 10.

Interface – 6.5
Here is where things start to go a bit south. First, I’ll say that I absolutely hate Windows 8. It’s designed for the “tablet generation” and complicates things greatly in its attempts to simplify them. This is also true of the Xbox One’s Windows 8-based operating system. Like the Wii U, everything you try to do loads an app (which takes too long to load. More on that in a bit), which is pretty unnecessary.
 
My friend and I were attempting to play a few matches online in Killer Instinct when I found out just how overcomplicated things had actually gotten. On the Xbox 360 when you wanted to invite someone to whatever game you were playing, all you had to do was click the Xbox home button on the controller, go to your friend’s list, and push X on the friend you wanted to invite. In a matter of seconds, your friend was connected to your lobby and you were ready to play some multiplayer. Simple, huh? With the Xbox One, I’m not really sure how it works! My friend and I were looking for some way to invite someone specifically to a game, but all we found was that the Xbox will automatically connect you after you’ve chosen to host a game. It works, but it really makes no sense to me. Like, what if I have multiple friends who are playing Killer Instinct and I just want to invite one of them? Does it show me a list and I pick who I want to play with? Is this just a bug with Killer Instinct? I’m sure there’s somebody reading this that thinks, “Man, he’s an idiot. The process is [insert ridiculously stupid Windows 8 process here].” But to me, this is an example of Microsoft changing something that was ridiculously simple and effective to begin with, yet overcomplicating it with their next product/update.
It’s not the first time the company has done this kind of thing. I’ve been using Microsoft products since the late 80s and this has pretty much always been their philosophy.
 
The operating system doesn’t cater to those who would rather navigate the OS with a controller, either. Instead, the entire thing was designed to use Kinect motion tracking and voice commands. Also, some of the apps which don’t require Kinect to use certain features, do require you to at least have it plugged in. What’s the point of that? All this would probably be fine if my Kinect actually worked in the first place (more on that in a bit, as well)!

Power/The Insides – 8.0
I can’t really speak from first-hand experience, as I only have one game and it’s a fighter, but the insides are supposed to be almost exactly the same as the PS4’s. This means that yes, games will look better than they did on the previous console. But there’s one glaring flaw in the Xbox One’s architecture: most games don’t display in native 1080p and are instead upscaled from 720p. To some, resolution may not be that important, but come on; it’s 2013. High-def televisions are pretty much the standard and tech should support their highest resolutions. Also, if you’re going to make me lay out $500 for a console, shouldn’t the thing be capable of more than, or at least be on par with, its lower priced competition?

Flaws – Doesn’t get a score due to the randomness of each console’s problems, but they’re worth mentioning
The PS4 had its share of launch-day woes, but in my opinion, they don’t compare to the amount and severity of problems reported (and experienced firsthand) of the Xbox One. Bad disc drives, “green screens of death,” inoperable and barely functioning Kinect sensor (supposedly you have to yell at it to make it work most of the time), etc.
I wasn’t as fortunate this time around, as I was with the PS4. My Xbox, as well as two of my friends’, experienced a few problems, some to greater degrees than others (mine seemed to be hit the worst). Here are the problems I personally encountered over the weekend:

1. My Kinect doesn’t work.
I don’t want to use the thing anyway, but in order to use the Upload Studio app to edit a Killer Instinct video clip (a feature which, as my friend informed me, DOESN’T require Kinect while editing), I have to have the Kinect sensor plugged into the console. Why is that? All I want to do is edit the length of a freaking game clip with the DVR feature! Why does the Kinect have to be plugged in to do that?
When I plugged the Kinect into the system just to unlock the editing feature, the Xbox One wouldn’t recognize it, saying that it was unplugged. Apparently this is a known problem, and could possibly be fixed in a firmware patch in the future. Right now, Microsoft is having people send back their consoles for replacements, claiming “hardware failure,” but I think I’ll wait for an update to see if that does the trick.
[UPDATE: Since the Xbox One's first firmware update after release, my Kinect works as it should. Not that I have any reason at all to use it, but at least it works.]

2. Apps occasionally force-close.
I’ve had a few apps close on me for no apparent reason, including Killer Instinct. (One of my friends has also experienced this a few times.) Not only that, but I had the system completely power itself down randomly while I was downloading the game. Luckily, when I turned it back on, the download resumed where it left off.

3. Apps have locked up, or take a ridiculous amount of time to load on occasion.
I’ve had this happen a few times. So far, Killer Instinct has locked up on me twice, and my friends list and other apps have taken too long to load. This is a problem (load times) that my friends who have an Xbox One have all experienced. What’s really strange, however, is the fact that for us, apps all take a different amount of time to load. This is the first time that I’ve ever heard of a console taking different amounts of time to load the same thing on different consoles. Is it a deal breaker? No, but it’s really weird. I hope that this is something that can be corrected in a firmware update.

4. I don’t know if my disc drive will play Xbox One games. (Not really a problem yet, but I thought I’d mention it)
Again, this is a known problem, but I have no real way to test it, as of yet. Hopefully it does, but I’ll have to borrow a game or something from one of my friends to find out. With Kinect already not functioning, I’m a little worried that I might have the disc drive errors as well. I’m not sure if this only affects Xbox One games, or any type of disc you try and feed it. I’ll try it out soon and update the review accordingly.
*UPDATE 12/8/13* My disc drive DOES work. :)

After all that negativity, is the Xbox One worth $500? Given the problems that the system is having, I’m going to go ahead and say no. My advice: let all the kinks get worked out first, and then buy the system. If you’re a fan of games like Halo, Gears of War, etc. (which I’m not so much), then the Xbox is still going to be the system for you. Killer Instinct is a great launch title, but in my opinion, it doesn’t justify taking the risk of a defective system at the moment. Also, there are a lot of neat features such as the Game DVR that are rather tempting, but a lot of promised features have been left out until future updates – more so than the PS4. In my honest opinion, I think Microsoft rushed this console to production and it’s showing.
All in all, it’s a decent console, but I was hoping it would be better. Like the PS4, I’m sure it will have a great library of games and cool features in the future, but neither console is absolutely stellar at the moment.

 

Final Score: 7.7 / 10

-Josh



Posted on November 29, 2013 .

Playstation 4 - Console Review




Back in August (I think), I preordered both of the new “next-gen” consoles. I did so partially as a collector, and also to bring those of you that read this site a completely unbiased, fan-boy-free lookover of what they had to offer. This Friday marked the release of Sony’s Playstation 4, but how does it perform? Is the $399 price tag justifiable?




Before I continue, I just want to note that there will probably be a few comparisons to the PC and the existing consoles – not from a fan-boy perspective, but from a technology perspective. Since the Xbox One will be released this Friday, I’ll be doing a sort of “head-to-head” article on what I think is the best deal in terms of quality – PS4, Xbox One, or Wii U.
Also, keep in mind: As with all of my reviews, these are just MY OPINIONS and the scores are assigned accordingly, given MY tastes. Ultimately, what box you choose to play your games on is your decision. And as long as you’re having fun playing the games, that’s all that matters, right?


To start, I probably need to address one of the most talked about features of the PS4 since its release: its functionality, or lack thereof.
Earlier during the launch week, the winner(s) of the Taco Bell “Play The Future” promotional event were sent their PS4s, but complained of various problems with the unit - the story being picked up by a multitude of gaming websites and media. Problems reported by the media ranged from a lack of video from the system’s HDMI output port, to the system “bricking” during the installation of certain apps and firmware, and even to the rubber feet on the bottom of the console being misplaced, therefore making the system wobble when placed on the floor or a desk and pushed down.

Needless to say, I feared the worst.  I hoped that the $399.00 I spent wouldn’t be in vain and I would actually get to play my PS4 on launch weekend without having to send it back to Sony under warranty. I must have been one of the lucky ones, as I (at least so far) haven’t experienced any problems with mine, aside from not being able to log in to the Playstation Network for a few hours after unboxing.

Now for a bit of a breakdown:

Launch Library – 7.0
Let’s face it, console launch libraries aren’t really a good indicator of what a system will be capable of in the future. Like with the Wii U, most of the games on PS4 are ports of previous-gen games, with only a few brand new, built-for-the-new-console titles. With that said, for a gamer with options (like myself), I found it hard to justify buying certain games knowing that I could get the “better looking” version on PC if I just waited a few weeks. I ended up buying the games I did just so I would have something to actually play on the PS4 and the system wouldn’t sit around collecting dust until something truly interesting was released.

Console Design – 7.0
I have to admit, I’m not a huge fan of the design. It’s sleek, small, and will easily blend in with all your Blu-Ray players and cable boxes, but I just think it looks too much like a crooked, 1980s VCR. In all fairness, and like people, it’s what’s inside that really counts. But with such a unique design (for a console), I think it’s worth giving the box a score. I mean, you do have to look at the thing. In comparison to the other consoles, I think the 2nd PS3 design, both versions of the Xbox 360, the Xbox One and the Wii U all look better on the outside than the PS4.

The Controller – 9.0
Here’s the physical design aspect that really shines. For the first time since they introduced the Dual Analog controller with the PS1, Sony has completely redesigned the thing you use to play its consoles. We’re not talking simple additions like analog sticks or the Six-Axis feature; they physically redesigned the entire thing.
The button layout is mostly the same, but the pad’s handles, directional buttons, triggers and analog sticks have all been configured in a way to make the controller more comfortable and easy to use. New features such as the “share,” “options,” and “touch pad” have replaced the normal “start” and “select” buttons, however.
Those three new buttons are also why the controller didn’t get a perfect 10 for me. Since the days of playing the original NES, gamers have been used to having “start” and “select” (or “back” in the Xbox’s case) buttons in the middle of their gamepads. With the Dual Shock 4, Sony placed the “options” and “share” buttons on the top/middle, with the large, pushable touchpad dead center. While playing, I found myself going for the options button to pause the game, only accidentally pressing the touchpad instead. It’s not a terrible design decision by any means; it’s just something that will take a lot of getting used to. Also, I can’t help but wonder how much that will hinder fighting games (and tournaments) in the future since the face buttons and directional pad are so close to the button that pauses the game.

Interface – 8.5
The interface is good and works well, but there’s nothing really that special about it. There are some conveniences such as being able to switch seamlessly between the operating interface and whatever game you’re playing, but it’s not the best (first updated Xbox 360 XMB), nor the worst (Wii U) GUI I’ve encountered on a console. Really, it just feels like a slightly updated version of the PS3’s GUI.
[Unfortunately, I can’t really comment on some of the sharing features, as I haven’t been able to try those out yet.]
The thing that I did like the most about the interface, however, was the connectivity with the Vita. Much like the Wii U’s gamepad, the PS4 can connect wirelessly with the Sony handheld, allowing you to play almost any PS4 game without the need of a television. Unlike the Wii U though, every PS4 doesn’t come with a PS Vita and you have to lay out a couple hundred bucks to get that experience.

Power/The Insides – 9.0
I have touted the power of the PC ever since I started reviewing games on this site. That being said, for a console with a GPU that costs around $150, this thing packs a significant punch. I bought 3 games at launch: Assassin’s Creed IV, Battlefield 4 and Madden 25. All three games look and run great with a slight exception for ACIV. While it looks gorgeous in 1080p (after an update which 'unlocks' the resolution from 900p), the PS4 version is locked at 30fps. To some, this won’t be a big deal, but to me, having played every Assassin’s Creed game on PC at 60fps and above, there’s a noticeable difference in smooth animations. Battlefield 4, however, looks fantastic and in my opinion, looks nearly as good as Battlefield 3 did on PC.
Is the jump in graphics power that large from the previous generation or on par with the PC? Not exactly, but the fact that the games are outputting at a sharp 1080p, makes things look much more crisp and vibrant. Though, just like with the Xbox 360 and PS3, developers will learn certain tricks to make graphics look even better as they get more comfortable developing for more powerful hardware.

Overall, I like the PS4. The outward design isn’t the best I’ve ever seen, the controller is almost perfection and the games are pretty. There are a lot of neat features that the console is capable of, but none of them are a “system seller.”

 So after all that, is the PS4 worth $399? I would say yes. I believe that right now (my opinions could change after the release of the Xbox One), the PS4 has the most potential in the console world. Its capabilities for game development are rather high, lots of interesting games are in the pipeline and the price tag is rather affordable. The Wii U is still cheaper, but after a year on the market, it still only appeals to a niche group of gamers and can be seen as the console everyone will buy eventually if they like playing Nintendo’s first-party titles. The PS4, on the other hand, could possibly appeal to a more “everyday gamer” market.
It’s not trying to sell itself as a do-all this time around (like the PS3), it’s not trying to innovate the way you control games (Wii & Wii U) and it’s not trying to be the centerpiece of your living room (Xbox One). It’s just a gaming box with better technology for folks to enjoy. The last time I remember a company doing that with a console was Nintendo with the SNES… And we all know how awesome that system was!

Final Score: 8.1 / 10
-Josh
Posted on November 20, 2013 .

Next-Gen Console Reviews Coming Soon

Just wanted to let you guys know that the next few weeks will probably see The Inner Dorkdom releasing a good bit of content...
I'll be getting the PS4 this Friday, along with Assassin's Creed IV, Battlefield 4, and Madden 25 (BF4 and Madden, thanks to a great promo deal through Amazon). So along with these 3 games (though there probably won't be a full-blown Madden review), there will be a review of the console itself, just like there was for the Wii U.

Next Friday, I'll be getting my Xbox One with Killer Instinct and the MadCatz KI Fightstick. I'll be doing a review of all three.

Get ready. There's gonna be a lotta readin' soon!

-Josh

Josh's Adventures As a DM - Episode 1: The Fun & Freedom of D&D

This will be a new article series in which I chronicle some of the things going on in my current big interest, Dungeons & Dragons, and my experiences as a VERY new Dungeon Master (or, DM). When people think of D&D, they get the mental picture of huge, loser-nerds talking in accents while rolling dice. Well… That happens. But in all fairness, those are the people with imaginations. Personally, I just enjoy creating a story for my players to experience; and the best thing about it? Anyone can do it!

Designing adventures for D&D is probably the closest most of us will ever get to creating huge, sprawling epics like Skyrim, or any other video game on the market.  Using myself as an example, I don’t need a vast knowledge of gaming engines or any computer experience at all really, to make an interesting world for people who will play my game. All I need are some paper, a pencil, and 3 core rule books to have my players fight a dragon, save the princess, and get a whole crap-load of treasure… all while securing trade agreements with countries in other parts of the world.

Several years ago, some of my friends (one of which was Nic) and I decided to try our hand at Dungeons & Dragons. Even though its known as the dorkiest game on the planet, I couldn’t help but notice the game’s emphasis on, and encouragement towards, creativity. Unfortunately, we had a hard time jumping into its 3rd edition, and after around 2 or 3 games, our game sessions quickly came to a close. I think the main problem we had was that we just didn’t know if we were doing it right or not.

One night a few months ago, I randomly searched “people playing D&D” on YouTube. The first results were the live Penny Arcade “Acquisitions Inc.” games from PAX (if you haven’t seen those games, go look ‘em up. They’re hilarious). I soon found that when we originally tried D&D, we WERE doing it wrong, and we were over-complicating things all those years ago. D&D is as free-form as you want it to be. The rules are just there to give you some guidelines and advice on how to handle things.

I decided to give the current version (4e) a try. I bought the “Red Box” starter set and ran the included adventure with me as the DM, and my friend Danny and his wife, Lori, playing as a wizard and thief, respectively. We had a blast! Not too far into the adventure, I began to deviate from the pre-written guidelines quite heavily, something which the developers encourage, and set small things in motion which would come up in later adventures as we went along.

So far, I’ve DMed something like 5 games with no sign of stopping. Our biggest game so far had 4 players going through an adventure that I created. The plot was rather thin and I had very little time to prepare for the additional 2 players, but it was great fun having that many folks!

The best game, however, was this past weekend when Danny, Lori and I played a pre-made adventure, “Keep on The Shadow Fell,” written by Mike Mearls and Bruce R. Cordell, as a playtest for the unreleased D&D Next (5e) version of the game. Someone had, very awesomely, converted the game to the D&D Next rules, and since our 4th edition adventures really need our 2 additional players in order to continue, I decided to run this larger pre-made adventure for my 2 main players.

I wonder if Mearls and Cordell had any idea that the adventure would take the turn it did when my players ended up banished from Winterhaven?

Confused? Well, what I’m about to do is give you a rundown of the game session’s first half of events and hopefully give an idea of how much fun and freeform D&D can be.

Danny (a human cleric) and Lori (a dwarf fighter) met on the way to a town called Winterhaven, realized their goals aligned, and decided to combine their efforts. Danny, being a cleric, had heard rumors of necromancy around the town and because of his obligation to banish evil wherever he may find it, thought he’d check it out. Lori, a fighter that likes to smash stuff, heard rumors of a kobold (small, humanoid dragon-like creatures) threat around Winterhaven and figured there would be coin involved. On the way to the town, they were ambushed by kobolds, lending some validity to the rumors Lori had heard.

Once they reached the town, 2 guards pointed them to Wrafton’s Inn as a starting point for gathering information. At the Inn, and after a ridiculous display that involved Danny slamming his mace on the ground and announcing his arrival in the Inn (which, rightly so, freaked everybody out), they were informed that the kobolds had brought the town’s businesses to an all-time low. Everyone was afraid to go outside for fear of being raided and ambushed, and traders who tried to come near the town were literally stopped in their tracks. This had forced Winterhaven’s food supply to run dangerously low, as well as their normal goods trade to cease completely. Basically, the town was in terrible shape.

The first person they noticed was a female hunter named Ninarin. She gave them a small side quest to find a dragon’s skull from a dragon graveyard in the southern forest. She warned that it was somewhere near the kobold’s lair, and urged them to be careful. When they asked about the necromancer rumors, she said she knew nothing about such things and that the townspeople were probably just being superstitious. Unbeknownst to the two adventurers, Ninarin was actually in league with the necromancer, Kalarel (the main villain of the adventure).

Danny and Lori decided to split up and cover more ground in their investigation. Lori left to talk to the town’s leader, Lord Ernest Paldraig, and Danny’s goal was to talk to the town priest, Valthrun. After Lori left, Danny was approached by a drunken farmer in the Inn, known around the town as “Old Eilian.” Eilian didn’t have much to say about the kobolds, but he said that he had seen what he believed to be evidence of a necromancer: zombies!

He proceeded to tell a very alcohol-induced tale involving a farm he had stumbled across one night in the northern forest and the zombies that now inhabited it. After hearing all of the drunken tale he could stand, Danny left to speak with Valthrun.

When Lori was granted permission to talk with Lord Paldraig, he was overjoyed that someone had come along who could hopefully take care of the kobold menace. However, Lori didn’t trust him. Here was Paldraig living in a quasi-fancy estate and his town was suffering. Paldraig assured her, however, that he wasn’t screwing the town or being selfish, but that he was from a long line of Winterhaven rulers and that he was trying to hang on to his things just as much as his townsfolk. He then offered Lori payment to eradicate the kobolds and she went on her way.

Danny spoke with Valthrun the priest, predominantly about the necromancer rumors. Valthrun said that he hadn’t seen anything himself, but believed that the large number of citizens who said they had been witness to such events, couldn’t be simply making stuff up. The interesting bit here was when Danny asked Valthrun about the “zombie farm” which Eilian had mentioned earlier. Danny mentioned the northern location, but Valthrun said that he had heard a similar rumor, only it was to the SOUTH. He then asked, “Was he drunk?”

After meeting back up with Lori, the two went to confront Eilian about the directional conflict in his story. Danny decided to cast a truth spell on him, but due to his drunken state, the spell only made the directional conflict worse. When Danny and Lori went back to Valthrun to tell him of Eilian’s confusing information, he told them, “Never cast a truth spell on a drunk.”

The great thing about this is the fact that none of this was in the premade adventure. The non-player characters (NPCs) were all there, but this little bit of dialogue and characterization all came from developments between Danny, Lori and I.

Eventually, the two learned (from Valthrun) that there was, indeed, a Kobold lair in the southern woods, so they set out to find it. After traveling for several hours, Danny and Lori stumbled upon the zombie farm (proving Eilian’s story to be somewhat true), the dragon graveyard, and tracks which led them to the kobold’s lair.

This is where things got REALLY interesting.

While exploring the kobold’s lair, a series of winding caves and tunnels, Danny and Lori fought off kobolds and several other monsters. However, they didn’t kill ALL of them as Padraig and the rest of the town expected them to. Once they defeated the “boss” of the lair, a green dragon who slyly revealed the kobold’s connection to the necromancer, the adventurers found the exit and left the caves only half explored.

Lori’s initial reaction was to go back inside and explore the rest of the lair. Danny, on the other hand, thought that they should figure out a way to seal off the cave’s entrances, trapping the kobolds inside. After a debate on what to do, they decided to go with Danny’s plan which would involve going back to Winterhaven, getting some dynamite and sealing the lair.

Bad move.

As a DM, I’m not really supposed to come right out and tell the players what to do next - that’s for them to decide. I just remember thinking, “Oh, this is gonna be great! The people aren’t going to be happy when they hear about this!”

And happy, they weren’t! When Lord Paldraig excitedly asked the players if they had accomplished the task of taking out the kobolds, Danny replied, “We got MOST of them.”

Paldraig was furious! He had put his hopes in these two adventurers’ zeal and ability to carry out the mission, but they had failed to deliver. When Danny and Lori told him they had a plan to seal up the tunnels, Paldraig said, “You don’t know very much about kobolds, do you? Sure, that might slow them down, but it won’t stop them. They’re tunnelers! They’ll just dig their way out and start terrorizing us again!”

There was quite a heated debate, but it all ended with Paldraig letting his anger and frustration get the better of him and banishing them from the town. There were a few other events which ultimately led the players to the main villain’s lair, Shadowfell Keep, but for all intents and purposes, Danny and Lori aren’t allowed into Winterhaven ever again.

This drastic turn of events pretty much forces me to change the entire second half of the premade adventure.  Sure, the players will enter Shadowfell Keep, but they won’t be able to have any more interactions in Winterhaven unless they do something to restore the town’s faith in them. And that’s the greater part of the fun!

This goes to show that D&D is one of the best games known to man. It’s a huge, open world in mostly the same style as The Elder Scrolls video game series, but it’s actually much larger than that. In fact, it’s infinitely larger. Theoretically, Danny and Lori could continue on throughout this course of events until either their characters die, or the real world ends. The best thing about it, though: if there’s ever a zombie apocalypse and there’s no electricity with which to play video games, there’ll always be D&D!

-Josh
Posted on November 7, 2013 .

Nic's ID Journal - #1 - Nov 7, 2013 - TV shows

Here it is, the first installment in my Inner Dorkdom journal. Prepare to be amazed. Or marginally distracted from boredom.

Much like with Josh, my aim here is simply to share with the four of you the things I'm currently enjoying from the world of dorkiness. These days, with a wonderful wife, inquisitive energetic two-and-a-half-year old, and a full-time job, free time is harder to come by than it used to be. But even so, I've managed to squeeze some dorkiness into my days.

Today's journal is going to, just because it happens to, focus mainly on TV shows that I've been enjoying. Some newer, some older.


The Neighbors: This is a sci-fi comedy on ABC, currently in its second season. Perhaps you've heard of it. Probably you haven't. And that's a shame. The premise is that a group of aliens from the planet Zabvron have been on Earth for 10 years, living in a gated community in New Jersey. In fact, until last year, the entire community consisted of nothing but Zabvronians. That is, until the Weavers (husband, wife, and three children) moved in. Next door to the community's leader, Larry Bird (all Zabvronians have taken the names of famous athletes), and his family, no less. The Weaver children learn their neighbors' secret in the pilot, and the parents follow suit shortly thereafter. The show often, but not always, explores the Zabvronians learning Earth ways from the Weavers who, for the most part, have become good friends.

I remember seeing commercials for the show before it premiered and thinking it was something I should check out. But life got in the way and almost the entire first season went by without be ever seeing anything more than a snippet of an episode. I do remember hearing that the show was awful. And then, a month or so later, hearing that it was getting better. ABC even highlighted this in their marketing campaign for the show.

Fast forward to sometime this summer, when I caught the replay of the season finale. I was somewhat lost on the subtleties of who the charters were, what their dynamic was, etc. But it still hooked me. The writing was clever, with some self-referential and even leaning on the fourth wall humor (the episode involved Larry's father coming to take the Zabvronians home, only to have Larry refuse to go, saying he's learned so much from the Weavers that "I feel like I just need another six, or maybe seven seasons – I mean, years – to figure it all out"). The acting was entertaining (especially Larry Bird, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Dick Butkis). And it guest starred George Takei (who did in fact get to say, "Oh my") and Mark Hamill.

When the second season premiered I made sure to DVR it. The premier proved that the first season finale hadn't been a fluke. I made sure to save the episode and told Liz she needed to watch it. A few days later we were talking to someone about shows we watch. In the list she mentioned The Neighbors. I asked her if she'd watched the episode. She had, and really enjoyed it. So now we have two Friday night ABC shows we enjoy together (the other being Tim Allen's Last Man Standing).


Castle: This muder-mystery dramedy is in its fifth season, and, although boasting some genre vets on its staff (i.e., Ron Moore, occasional director Jonathan Frakes, recurring actress Penny Johnson "Cassidy Yates" Jerald, with guest actors like Robert "The Doctor" Picardo, Tim "Tuvok" Russ, and Michael Dorn--you know who he is), isn't really a genre show.

Or is it?

Potential Spoilers


The premise of Castle is that novelist Richard Castle, played wonderfully by Nathan Fillion (hey, he counts as a genre vet, too, huh), works with a team of NYPD homicide detectives in order to do research and get inspiration for his crime novels. Over the years, the show has had our band of heroes face murder mysteries involving zombies, ghosts, etc. At least, at first glance. However, much like in Scooby-Doo, it always turns out the paranormal/supernatural/sci-fi element isn't what it first seems to be. This is always disappointing to Castle, who, unlike lead detective Kate Beckett, wants to believe in the unbelievable.

So whenever a genre-themed mystery comes up, it always goes the same. Castle loves the case, and spends most of the episode trying to convince the others that the supernatural explanation is the correct one, while Beckett is the champion of reason and mundane explanations. Not that I'm complaining by saying it always goes the same. Truth is, in a series where I've literally enjoyed every episode, these are always among my favorites.

Well, recently there was an episode where a woman was killed, and a man who at first seemed to be the killer is apprehended when he, like a moron, returns to the scene of the crime. During his interrogation by the police he claims innocence (they all do). He says that he was trying to protect her, because, wait for it, he's from the future. Castle declares this is his new favorite case ever. The suspect gives a brief summary of future history, which Castle eats up, and then explains that because this woman has been killed it has set up a chain of events that apparently will result in the deaths of billions. The killer must be found.

I won't go into details. But suffice it to say, although the episode more-or-less follows the standard trajectory for these stories, a careful viewer notices some deviations. Usually Castle's paranormal theories have some convoluted twists and jumps in logic (aside from the obvious "the paranormal is real" bit), whereas Beckett's are always more plausible and adhere better to the facts. But not this time. Though both plausible sounding, this time the facts better seem to fit the paranormal explanation. It's nothing overwhelming. And, indeed, when it seems like the scales tip in Castle's favor, something else happens to move them back the other direction.

But then there's the last scene in the station with Beckett. Again, I don't want to spoil anything. Watch the episode yourself. As for me, I don't know. I just don't see how that can be explained away as coincidental.

But then, that suggests that in the world of Castle time-travel might be real. Which would make Castle a genre show. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that, even though I love genre shows, and part of me thinks this development is pretty stinking cool.

Anyway, if you're not watching Castle, you should be.


Star Trek Voyager: The other day I was looking up something on YouTube. Off to the side in the suggestion column were some Star Trek videos. Usual stuff: compilations of Data being awesome, montages of Worf's suggestions being shot down by everyone on the bridge, that sort of thing. But there was also one from Voyager: "Janeway emotional at first contact with Starfleet Command." I watched it. Turns out it was from one of the episodes with Barclay in it. And it was a good clip. If only I could watch the whole episode, it might be fun, I thought. Wait, I have Netflix. So I pulled up Netflix and watched that episode, which also had Deanna Troi in it. And then I watched the other Voyager episodes with Barclay (except the series finale). I enjoyed those too.

So, I decided to start watching Voyager from the beginning. I've only gotten through the premier and second episode so far. Both of those I was already familiar with, since I watched Voyager regularly when it first came on.

We'll see how it goes.

Oh, and speaking of Voyager, here's a fun game to play. Look up the main characters from the show on either Wikipedia or Memory Alpha (the largest Trek wiki), and then look up how those actors look now. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited to anyone. That having been said, some of them are jaw-dropping surprising.


Misc:

Recently I watched an episode of the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series on Nickelodeon. I've never seen the film, and have only seen one episode. But the one I saw was good.

Same goes for Rabbids Invasion, although there's no film it's based on, just video games, and I've played a few of those (including the quite enjoyable Rabbids Go Home on Wii).

Star Trek Online is gearing up for its 8th "season" which will involve activities within a Dyson Sphere (that's not the ball on the Dyson vacuum). That in and of itself is pretty cool. But here's the really fun part. The introductory episode includes an appearance from Ambassador Worf, sporting both the likeness and voice of Michael Dorn himself.

I posted this on our Facebook page. But I though I'd link it here, too. This is a video I stumbled upon, wherein someone has taken "An Ideal of Hope," the trailer music from Man of Steel, and subtly mixed in some of John Williams' classic Superman themes. The sound quality could be better (I think the mixer was working from just the trailer's audio track with the dialogue filtered out), but man, it's a great glimpse at what might have been.



And, in light of it, it makes me want to reiterate what I've said before. Much of the music that exists in Man of Steel isn't total garbage, even if stylistically it isn't my favorite type of sound (I'm more of an orchestral guy myself). It's just, for my tastes, not distinctive enough. It works on a basic emotional level. But not on a more complex thematic level.

In other words, Mr. Zimmer was off to a decent start. He had the accompaniment. He just forgot to write the melodies. As commenter MisterJJMoreno said, "even just the slightest hint of the grandeur that is John Williams score would have given the movie that extra push that it needed to really connect with audiences. this is very well done, hopefully the next movie will set the tone right, musically speaking of course." I couldn't agree more.

In fact, it's inspired me to try and recreate the remix at a higher quality, while also throwing in a couple of remixing ideas of my own. I'll keep you posted.

Alright, I think that's all I have for now. Time to go play some LEGO Marvel Superheroes on the Wii U.

I remain,

 - Nic


END OF LINE
Posted on November 7, 2013 .

Beyond: Two Souls - Review (PS3)


In my opinion, Quantic Dream really hit it out of the park with Heavy Rain. It was a game that either punished or rewarded you for the decisions you made, just like so many great point-&-click adventure games before it. The thing is, though, Heavy Rain wasn’t really a game, it was an interactive movie. That isn’t said with any disrespect to Quantic Dream, it’s just the honest truth. Heavy Rain was focused more on its story and character development than actual gameplay, relying on phenomenal acting and writing to move the game along. Their latest effort, Beyond: Two Souls, does these same things, only on a much more epic scale.



Breakdown:


"...you're a member of the coast guard youth auxiliary?!"
Yeah, that was a very subtle Back to The Future reference...
Story: 10/10
There’s really no other word to describe Beyond’s story than phenomenal. Jodie Holmes, played excellently by actress Ellen Page, is attached to a ghostly entity she calls “Aiden” that has “haunted” her for her entire life. Aiden allows Jodie to see things and interact with people in a way that no normal human can. This has forced her into certain situations which find her in the care of Dr. Nathan Dawkins (Willem Dafoe), a paranormal researcher and the story brokenly chronicles Jodie’s life from a child to adulthood, and her struggle to find her place in the world with such a strange gift.


While the narrative has been criticized for “needlessly” jumping around several points within Jodie’s life, there is a reason for this, and I didn’t find it frustrating, distracting, or anything of the sort. Beyond: Two Souls has one of the most original stories I’ve experienced in a long time.




Ellen Page after being mo-capped.
Ellen Page as she's getting her face mo-capped.
Visuals: 10/10
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but current-gen consoles are showing their age compared to the capabilities of the PC. However, Beyond features some of the best graphics I’ve ever seen on them. As I’ve said before, I’m really impressed with how good developers are getting at facial motion capture technology. Games like The Last of Us, Assassin’s Creed III and Tomb Raider have all had great facial capturing, but they pale in comparison to Beyond. Ellen Page LOOKS like Ellen Page. Willem Dafoe LOOKS like Willem Dafoe.
 

In addition, this game has some of the best lighting effects I’ve seen in ANY game – console or otherwise. Great lighting can mean the world to games nowadays and Beyond has it in spades. There’s a section of the game that takes place out in a desert area, and in my opinion, it looks 100% real. There’s really no time while looking at this game that it doesn’t look as though you’re watching a movie. It looks that good.

Sound: 10/10
The voice acting is spectacular. Again, as I’ve said many times in my reviews, voice acting in games just continues to get better and better. Here, you’re dealing with two Academy Award nominees and at no point can you imagine them recording dialogue in a sound booth. Like with the visuals, you feel as though you’re watching a fully acted performance rather than a videogame.


Speaking of which, Ellen Page delivers what is, in my opinion, the performance of her career. I’ve seen her in things before, and while she is a good actress, she’s always been a foul-mouthed cute girl, taking on roles that showcase just that (Inception and X-Men III being notable exceptions). I find it funny (in an awesome way) that a videogame is what she should win an Academy Award for, and I remember thinking, “If this was a film, she’d be smothered with critical acclaim. Since it’s a game, though, her performance will probably go mostly and unfortunately unnoticed.” It’s a shame, too. I’d like to see her take on more roles like this.
 

The overall sound design is pretty good too, but I honestly can’t remember any musical cues. The score was composed by Norman Corbeil, who composed Quantic Dream’s previous two titles, but due to his death in January 2013, was completed by Assassin’s Creed III composer, Lorne Balfe. I can’t necessarily knock this score for not being memorable, as the story was so engaging that I just honestly didn’t pay attention to the score. Maybe on a second playthrough, I’ll give it a more intent listen.



In this game, the Green Goblin plays a ghost-doctor!
Gameplay: 9/10
In my recent Resident Evil article, I mentioned my hate for quick time events. True, I hate them in Resident Evil games and the way Capcom implements them, but here, where the game is built around the QTE, I’m fine with them. Do they add anything to the experience of Beyond? Not really, but they make you feel like you’re interacting with the story, so I guess they’re ok. Personally, I’d rather just have a playthrough of Beyond on Blu-Ray so I could watch the story at my leisure.
 

My only real problem with the game play is that Jodie and Aiden can be difficult to actually move at times. This isn’t terrible, and I’ve seen much worse in other games, but I have to dock it a point because it became slightly frustrating during some of the more intense, action-oriented sections.


Overall, this game impressed me even more than I thought it would. Great acting, writing and graphics pushed it over the limits as far as gaming goes. But really, it pushed it to the limits of what I’ve seen in storytelling lately. In a world where Hollywood can’t come up with an original idea to save their lives and instead they rely on other works to either remake or adapt a story for the big screen, Beyond: Two Souls stands out as a truly original experience.


So, the question I always ask for you, the reader, at the end of all my reviews: “Is it worth $60?” In my opinion, Beyond is worth $100. That may sound a bit much, but as far as a visual narrative goes, it doesn’t get much better than this. Well, except for maybe Breaking Bad or Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
 

And one more thing: Don’t believe the other reviews out there. Most of them are just mad because they didn’t get sent review copies of a triple-A title. This game is definitely worth your time and I highly recommend it to those looking for an awesome story.


Final Score: 9.75/10


-Josh

Screenshots taken from Google Images.

Why Do I Do It To Myself? - Josh's Thoughts on Current Resident Evil Games

Ok, so you guys know that we here at The Inner Dorkdom don’t like to “bash” anything, but I’ve really got to get something off my chest. It’s something that has been eating away at my very soul for the past seven or eight years… Well, that’s just a big ol’ fat exaggeration, but Resident Evil kind of does that for most people nowadays.

For most fans, the series has been on a sharp decline since RE4. Personally, RE4 is one of my favorites, just behind 2 and 3. I liked the change in gameplay (the over-the-shoulder style), even if it did seem more like a side-game or “gaiden,” but I had a gut-wrenching feeling that the franchise would be forever changed after that game.

And changed, it was.

I’ll straight-up say that I HATED RE5. Like the RE movie franchise, 5 was waaaaaay too overblown, overcomplicated and action-heavy, leaving the sub-genre which Resident Evil had been known for, survival-horror, lying dead in the dust like a freshly head-shotted zombie.

Last weekend on Steam, I downloaded Resident Evil 6 and Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City, of which I played RE: ORC to completion and the Ada campaign in RE6. My thoughts? Capcom just really doesn’t know how to make a 3D action game. Forget about the series not being “survival-horror enough”; the games just aren’t good anymore. Frustrating controls, poorly implemented quick time events and a story so convoluted that it makes the Highlander film franchise blush, have effectively killed Resident Evil.

Controls
A game should be fun to control, right? You should be able to “feel” as though you’re playing through the game, not “making the game work properly.” While Resident Evil has never been critically acclaimed because of its control scheme, the series post-Code Veronica has been an utter mess. Originally, the series had what has been referred to as “tank controls.” Basically, the directional pad on the controller always corresponded to the direction your character was facing on the screen. In other words, “up” was ALWAYS forward, no matter where your character was. Combined with the games’ pre-rendered backgrounds (polygonal character models on a drawn background), this took players some time to get used to, though once they did, it started to feel like second nature.

Starting with RE4, Capcom felt that they could improve on the series’ most loathed feature, and switched to an over-the-shoulder perspective. Some fans who liked the original scheme complained, but the general consensus was that the new style was a welcomed change. I liked it. The franchise was trying something different and they succeeded. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the control scheme that Capcom thought everybody liked – it was the “action.”

After RE4, the fifth entry amped up the action elements considerably and put more enemies on the screen, making the new control scheme virtually useless. Suddenly, controlling your character felt like a chore and making them try to get away from a large horde of enemies (which had shifted back in RE4 from shambling zombies and manageable monsters to running, half-humans) just didn’t work very well.

For RE6, the action has been pumped even more, making the game even more frustrating to play. Several, respawning enemies get cramped up into tiny rooms with you and knock you down, only to have you get up and knocked down immediately thereafter with no chance of escape. In my opinion, the game is just an absolute nightmare to control... and not in a good, survival horror-y way.

QTEs
Ah, the quick time event. I hate QTEs. I don’t mind them in a game that’s designed around them (as you’ll see from my upcoming Beyond: Two Souls review), but during an action game, they make me mad… real quick-like.
QTEs are essentially button presses during a cutscene which are intended to make you feel a part of the game at all times. When they were introduced in RE4, I’ll readily admit that I liked them. They didn’t seem forced, they were easy to perform and they gave you a bit of an adrenaline rush at times. In RE5 and 6, however, they’re cumbersome, forced and add absolutely nothing to the gameplay experience except frustration.

My main gripe with RE5 and especially 6’s QTEs, is their poor implementation. I cannot stand how the game designers give you literally 3 seconds to figure out what you’re supposed to do during a QTE. This usually results in cheap death, after death, after death, until you finally figure out that you’re supposed to press a certain combination of buttons or move the analog sticks in such a way as to not be immediately killed.

Story
The Resident Evil story started so simple: A demented pharmaceutical company, Umbrella, who secretly creates biological weapons has had an accident in their facility under a mansion out in the woods. A military specialist team, S.T.A.R.S., comes in to check the place out, only to find that it’s overrun with zombies, monsters, and at one point, undead sharks. That was it. It was just a simple, easy to understand concept that has been expounded upon for nearly twenty titles to date.

With every game, Capcom leads its players to believe that the one they’re playing will be the last one. They don’t do it in the same way the Eagles do when they go on a farewell tour every two years, but every game wraps itself up nicely… or at least, it used to. After RE3: Nemesis, though, it was apparent that Capcom had another franchise, the likes of which had not been seen since Megaman, which could carry on for years. I commend Capcom for at least trying to keep the series moving forward canonically, but it’s just getting stale, needlessly complicated and soap opera-ish. I mean seriously, how many more times can Umbrella cause some country-wide disaster and get away with it?  How many more times can Albert Wesker come back? What’s this crap about Wesker’s son? Oh, so there are about 9 million viruses that Umbrella created?

It’s just getting ridiculous.

Fortunately, Capcom has seen the error of their ways, due mainly to the poor sales of RE6. After playing 5, I was pretty much done with the series, but I eventually did it to myself once again and bought RE6 on sale for $10. In my opinion, the game is worth about that much… maybe less. Don’t get me wrong, I hate to hate on something, but this series really has declined, is in need of going back to its roots in survival horror, and nothing shows it more than RE6. If you like Resident Evil or videogames in general, don't play it.

It’s cases like these that I become a proponent for rebooting a franchise. When it starts getting way out of hand or stale, you need to hit the reset button and it seems that’s at least one of the options Capcom is considering when going forward with Resident Evil. 

-Josh
Posted on October 20, 2013 .

Josh's Thoughts on Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.


A few weeks ago, ABC debuted the new Avengers spin-off TV show, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. which focuses on a new set of characters, minus agent Phil Coulson, and takes place in the Marvel cinematic universe. The show has been hyped up for a couple years now, but does it live up to the hype?

The Look…
Before the show premiered, I thought about what the show would look like. I mean, we all knew it was going to be about a bunch of guys and gals running around in suits and skin-tight leather, but would it offer the same cinematic quality? Based solely on the premiere, I would say, no. The look of that first show kind of took me out of it with how “TV-like” it looked. One shouldn’t expect Avengers-quality lighting and direction, but the pilot looked like an under-budget, Syfy, made-for-TV movie to me. It all struck me as odd, since the guy who wrote and directed The Avengers wrote and directed S.H.I.E.L.D. Maybe that’s why I enjoyed last week’s episode (the second episode) more. The look was the same, but the direction was much better in my opinion.

The Avengers?
When asked about the idea of having main actors from the movie franchise appearing on the show, creator and director, Joss Whedon, said that he wanted the show to stand on its own, and be judged by the quality of its characters - not because everybody, and I’m paraphrasing here, “wanted to see Iron Man this week.” I can understand that. And I’ll admit that I like the characters in S.H.I.E.L.D. (even though they follow the typical Joss Whedon characterizations which have followed him around his entire career and through every show he creates), but the lack of at least one Avengers actor in the pilot kind of brought it down a notch for me. I don’t think that’s because of the new cast being uninteresting or unable to stand on their own; it’s because I found it hard to connect the dots between the pilot and the movies. It just didn’t “feel” the same. Having one of the Avengers introduce me to these new folks would have made the transition a bit easier and seamless for me.

“But the Avengers have a presence in the show, idiot! They talk about them all the time!”
Sure, there are tee-tiny clips of the Avengers in the opening of the episode, but none of them are featured. And it seems that the show, even in its second episode, knows that it’s hard to connect the two worlds by the way it constantly beats references to them over your head all the time. (“See how I just talked about Thor’s hammer? Yeah, this is an Avengers show! You like how I briefly mentioned Black Widow? See? Avengers show!”) The way that we are constantly reminded by the characters that the show is related to the events post-Avengers seems really forced, when all we would really need is for Cap to show up and say, “Hey, ‘err body!” I understand this is easier said than done, given the schedules of those actors and the money it would take to get them there, but a visual connection is always more powerful than an auditory one.

“What about Coulson then, you moron?!”
Coulson is a beloved character in the film franchise, there’s no doubt about that. I like Coulson, but in all honesty, he’s just a stereotypical “FBI-type” in a suit who supposedly died in The Avengers. For most people, THE guys in THE suits would probably make for a more lasting impression. Let’s not forget about that, by the way. Personally, I find the plot point of the mystery behind his return interesting - I just wonder if it confuses people. Maybe not, but whenever he showed up in the pilot, I just remember thinking, “Are people going to get this?” The way they hint at it on the show is kind of cryptic, so I was worried it might be confusing for some.

Nick Fury!
My concerns with the above mentioned aspect of the show was partly alleviated when, at the very tail end of the second episode, **SPOILERS** Nick Fury shows up. I still would have preferred it to be one of the Avengers themselves, but Nick Fury will do for now – though I wish he had been in the first episode to help people who have the same concerns and are a lot less patient.

Patience
And THAT’S my main concern with the show. Right now, I’m enjoying it. I’ll probably enjoy it for however long it runs, but what about other people? I don’t want it to get cancelled, but if I’m having these concerns, a dedicated fan of the Marvel cinematic universe, I can only imagine what all the other less-patient people are saying about it. If these concerns grow, viewers will be lost, the ratings will go down and S.H.I.E.L.D will soon get canned. My advice to anyone who’s having the same issues about the series and is considering giving up on it: Give it some time. We’re only two episodes in at this point (3, in a few days) and hopefully these concerns will fade soon.

-Josh

Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn - Review (PC, PS3)


I’m not that crazy about MMORPGs. It’s not the genre itself, but the fact that you have to pay money to play them. True enough, every game costs money to play (aside from things like Rock, Paper, Scissors and playing Tic-Tac-Toe in the dirt with a rock), but MMORPGs usually charge a monthly fee in addition to the money you initially spend to take the game from the store or download it. Companies that charge players to play their games are basically doing so to run an ever developing game, one which will require server maintenance and constant patching. So in other words, it makes sense for companies to charge for playing something like an online RPG.

This would be all well and good if you were going to be playing the game… well… forever, but if you’re like me, you can’t stick to just one game for that long. I find it hard to justify paying a subscription fee for a game that I’m not going to be playing as heavily a month or two down the road. Thank goodness for the ability to cancel subscriptions, right? (More on that in a bit.)

The first MMORPG that I ever played was Final Fantasy XI. When the game was first released, I had no intention of buying it. The fact that a main, numbered series title in the Final Fantasy franchise was online-only and required a subscription fee just turned me off completely. Then, one day while hanging out with a friend of mine, that friend of mine had another friend that had the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XI. He told me he’d sell it to me for about $5, so I bought it – if for nothing else but to actually own every main series FF game (as you all know, I’m something of a completist). For about a week, I kept the game on my shelf, debating on whether I should pony up the cash necessary to start playing it.

I decided to take the plunge and tell SquareEnix that I would pay them $12.99 per month to play the game.

Once I got in, I’ve gotta say that the game was pretty well-done. The graphics, art direction, music – all the stuff that you’d expect from an “alright” Final Fantasy title were all there… save for an involving story.

FFXI’s story wasn’t terrible, it just didn’t grip me like previous games had, since it was an actual role-playing game. You didn’t play as a character, you were the character, something that I wasn’t accustomed to as a fan of the series since Final Fantasy IV. Regardless, I found the game to be pretty fun until I hit the point when a party was necessary to progress.

FFXI used a combat system which is probably familiar to most MMORPG players, but was new to me at the time: Class-based. This means that whatever character you decide to play as, you take a certain role in combat. For me, I had chosen a “fighter” character (your typical sword and shield user), so that meant that I was what everybody called “the tank.”

For the longest time, I had no earthly idea what people were talking about, but once I figured out that a tank’s job in combat was to primarily take damage while other people did the damage dealing, I was good to go. The problem was, I didn’t “go” for long. FFXI’s leveling system was extremely slow (therefore, extremely boring) and I just didn’t want to take all that time to get to the experience level that most other FFXI players were at and probably had been for around 2 years at that point.

I canceled my subscription after about 2 months of play.

Since then, I’ve gotten into other MMORPGs that have gone the “free-to-play” (or F2P) route such as Star Trek Online, DC Universe and Dungeons & Dragons Online, and I swore off subscription-based games completely.

That is, until Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn.

I never bought into the original FFXIV. Along with my swearing off of subscriptions, I had heard that the game was basically crap and that players weren’t happy with the final product, so I pretty much stayed away. But it still killed me that there was another Final Fantasy title that I probably wouldn’t buy.

After a short time, SquareEnix announced that they would be completely updating and overhauling FFXIV.  I didn’t care. I still wasn’t going to buy the game. It wasn’t until a week after the game’s release (and re-getting into FFXII on a PS2 emulator) that I decided to check out the new version. I looked up some videos, and while I can’t say that I was “blown away,” the game actually did look like a lot of fun (and the leveling system was much faster). So just like with FFXI, I took the plunge once again and decided to pay SquareEnix a monthly fee to at least check the game out.

NOW the quasi-review starts!

Story: 6
I’m not going to go into the details of FFXIV’s story, as it’s not the greatest in the world. Basically, a cataclysmic event hits the land of Eorzea, causing things to change throughout the world. This is pretty much SquareEnix using an in-game excuse to change problems that players initially had with the game. It’s pretty clever, but it’s also kind of funny when you read into it. I’m sure that to players who played the original version, it’s even funnier. There are some pretty standard RPG tropes like an evil empire and such, but I think that sometimes the story seems to get in the way of the player just going out and building their character up, as I find even myself skipping through lines of dialogue while trying to get the next quest going. This is something that I never had to do with all the previous FFs.

Visuals: 8
For an online game, FFXIV is pretty to look at. In fact, it’s the best looking one I’ve seen yet. The fact that the game was designed to be played from multiple platforms (PS3 & PC) on the same servers means that some of the graphics have been toned down to accommodate the aging PS3 hardware. That being said, it’s still an online game, so the graphics for FFXIV aren’t going to look as good as XIII or the upcoming XV, anyway. A good deal of graphics processing goes into putting tons of fully animated avatars on the screen at once, thus contributing to the lower quality of the graphics.

Sound: 9
Uematsu is back! A lot of old Final Fantasy musical flourishes are back that have been missing post-XII, so from an auditory standpoint, fans should be rather pleased. At one point, even the battle music from the first FF game makes an appearance! Pretty much all the music and themes you would expect from a Final Fantasy game are all here, which is something I can’t say about FFXIII (which had a good score, regardless) and probably won’t be able to say about XV once it's released.   

My main character, based off the protagonist in a story I'm writing.
Gameplay: 7
FFXIV is your standard MMORPG. You basically run around doing “fetch quests” for NPCs and grind for experience points while moving through the lackluster story. Even the main HUD for FFXIV is nearly identical to other MMORPGs. To some, this may seem as though FFXIV is a retread of something they’ve already played. Indeed, the concepts and design aspects of FFXIV are exactly the same as something like Star Trek Online, as I had absolutely no problems while figuring out the various controls. Honestly though, I don’t know how developers would go about designing MMORPGs any differently at this point; this seems to be the standard simply because it works, though it does add a lot of monotony to the genre as a whole.

One thing that I particularly enjoy is how the game eases you into playing with other people throughout Eorzea. There are training instances (a multiplayer session that occurs when enough people have queued up the event) that show you how the course of battle flows for each player related to your specific job. By this point, I already knew how combat worked in this type of game, but for new players, this can be an absolute blessing. Also, helpful popups appear after every new aspect of the game becomes available, so you won’t be wondering how to use your defense buffs right in the middle of battle or how to craft materia to socket into your armor. You absolutely have to pay attention to these popups to make yourself effective, though. Fortunately, the tutorials given are evenly spaced throughout the game and never really seem to overwhelm the player with too much information too soon.  

So why should you play Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn if it’s pretty much the same as most MMORPGs you can play for free? Really, it all boils down to personal preference and where you want to spend virtual-time. The fact that I have sold my soul to the devil twice for Final Fantasy is enough to show that I’m a fan of the series, so I personally like playing around in that world. So if you’re a Final Fantasy nut, then this is the online game for you and is worth your hard-earned money every month. If not, and you just like playing a game with your friends and building stronger characters together, then definitely go for one of the free games. There are tons out there that operate exactly like FFXIV and cost absolutely nothing.

Final Score: 7.5 (See, not EVERY game is "super awesome" in the eyes of The Inner Dorkdom!)

-Josh
Logo image taken from Google Images. Screenshot made by me.

The Last of Us - Review (PS3) *Finally!*


(Note: Sorry about the extreme lateness of this review. I’ve been meaning to post it since I finished the game during release week.)

The Last of Us is one of the hardest games I’ve had to review yet. Based on the glowing reviews since its release, that probably sounds kind of strange. Have all the 9s and 10s the game has received been warranted? Perhaps.


Naughty Dog, developers of the Uncharted franchise, have created a game which is an odd mix of horror, humanity, post-apocalyptic fiction, and thought provoking themes, all while relying heavily on several tropes that permeate a lot of current, popular fiction. This is both a good and bad thing. From a story standpoint, you can see most things coming from a mile away. From a gameplay standpoint, you’ve probably played this game a million times before. The difference here is that Naughty Dog executes these fiction and gaming tropes in a way that’s never really been done in a videogame before. Probably the only thing that comes close is Telltale Games’ The Walking Dead.


Breakdown:

Story: 10/10
The Last of Us, at first glance, falls into the zombie-fiction genre. The thing is, it’s not really a zombie game. Like the premise for most stories in this genre, an unknown virus is unleashed on the world’s population, turning people into flesh-hungry monsters that feed on other humans. The bitten are then transformed into zombie-like creatures which continue the cycle for every person that they bite. This eventually spreads to the point that the entire world turns into a creature-filled wasteland with a few people left doing whatever is necessary to survive. Yes, that sounds like a zombie game, but it’s really more about a man and a girl who form an extremely strong father/daughter bond and the choices they make to survive.
The story centers on Joel, a man who loses his daughter (Sarah) during the initial outbreak. In the beginning, Joel is presented as a good man and father to Sarah, but by the time the actual story begins (20 years after Sarah’s death), he has become like the rest of the world: A man who will do what he must to stay alive.
Now a somewhat cold mercenary, Joel is tasked with escorting a 14 year-old girl named Ellie across the country since it is said that she may contain within her a cure for the infected.
What may seem like a simple premise actually turns into a harrowing adventure much like Stephen King’s The Stand. That story also dealt with people trying to make their way through the country and the new dangers a post-virus world might present. Joel and Ellie must traverse abandoned cities and towns to make it to their various destinations, all the while battling other survivors, cannibals, and the infected.
The things I like most about any story, whether it is a novel, comic, movie, TV show, or game, are well-developed characters that you can identify with and care about. Joel, Ellie, and the relationship they develop, are extremely well thought out here, surpassing the clichés that rear their ugly heads at every turn. But even then, the trope of the “father / daughter” relationship is thrown at them and it still works. This is due in part to the game’s fantastic writing. The story flows naturally (though it’s a bit slow in the beginning) and by the time it’s over, you feel as though you’ve been on just as much of an adventure as Ellie and Joel.

Visuals: 8/10
For a console game, The Last of Us is gorgeous, though I’ll admit that I’ve been quite spoiled with the capabilities of the PC. Some “jaggies” are present due to the limits of 720p and occasionally the framerate stutters, though that’s virtually non-existent.
The character models in-game can be a little hit-or-miss at times, but the environments are what makes the visuals shine. Even dilapidated, moss-covered buildings look beautiful in combination with excellent lighting effects. Everything looks as though it actually exists in the real world, giving an authentic look to a game which is trying to look as realistic as possible.

Sound: 8/10
Since this is an action/survival-horror title, music is not really that prominent. During character moments and cutscenes, the music fits quite well, but is nothing to write home about. One thing that I found interesting is that the closer Joel and Ellie get to an enemy, the music ramps up and intensifies. For gameplay purposes, this adds a lot of tension as you sneak around while being down to your last few bullets.
The voice acting is perfection. There have been a lot of games recently that have had superb voice acting, but The Last of Us hits it out of the park. Honestly, the voice work in this game (coupled with the writing) puts most Hollywood actors and writers to shame.   
As far as the environmental and overall sound design, it’s ok. I’ve heard better from games like Tomb Raider and Assassin’s Creed III. I just felt as though the sound could have been a lot better for the sake of immersion, especially since the game does this so well in other areas, but it’s just really generic.

Gameplay: 8/10
The gameplay is nothing necessarily innovative, but at the same time, it’s solid. If you’ve ever played Rockstar Games’ Manhunt (PS2/Xbox/PC), you’ve played this game. The stealth aspects and gunplay are nearly identical to that title. The only difference here is that you’re up against zombie-like creatures and other survivors, rather than demented gang members. Limited ammo and resources always leave you feeling like you may not make it through the next section of the game, making you resort to other paths (like stealth) to get through. You’ll have to be smart if you run out of ammo, and because of that, the game really does have a feeling of true survival-horror. It’s actually possible to avoid combat altogether 90% of the time if you want, but doing so is much harder and more time consuming.
Speaking of time consuming, this game is loooooooooooong. Or at least, it feels that way. I kind of took my time with it, searching everything and taking part in any nuances I found, but my final play time was around 16 hours. That’s pretty long for a 3rd person action/survival-horror game and it makes you feel as though you’ve been across the entire country on foot, just as a game of this magnitude should.
One minor complaint I had was, by the time I finished the game, I felt as though using “zombies” as enemies was not really needed since you spend most of your time fighting survivors. I guess the developers felt like they needed something a little creepier to fill up the empty space between obstacles that a virus-ridden world would present.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Last of Us. Again, it does nothing new or innovative with any of its aspects, but Naughty Dog’s execution of things that have been done before is excellent. Just give it some time, as it takes about 3 or 4 hours before the game starts ramping up and getting good. Honestly, I was bored out of my skull for the first 20%, but when the characters started growing on me, I really started to settle in and enjoy it.
But that’s what makes this game extremely hard to review: For every one bad or questionable aspect I found in the game, I found 2 awesome aspects. The story, writing, acting, solid gameplay, and realistic environments, more than make up for any shortcoming that The Last of Us might have.
The big question: Is it worth $60? Yes. If you’re a fan of the post-apocalyptic genre, this is definitely one of the best games out there.

Final Score: 8.5/10

-Josh
Image taken from Google Images.
Posted on September 28, 2013 .

Josh's Inner Dorkdom Journal - Episode 10

1. HD for last-gen games?
Go on and do yourself a favor and download a Playstation 2 emulator. I've recently been replaying Final Fantasy XII and I can honestly say that one of the low points of the series (in my opinion) is now a more pleasurable experience because of PCXE2. The once (again, in my opinion) horrid graphics of one of the last major PS2 titles are much more palatable at a higher resolution, due mainly to the various plugins available for the emulator.

I'm not condoning the use of a pirated copy of FFXII, as PCXE2 will play titles directly off of the original game DVD. So if you have some old PS2 games (and a powerful enough PC rig) and you want to see what those games look like in HD quality, download the emulator and give it a look. You won't be disappointed.

2. Selling your soul to the devil... all for a videogame.
In my last post, I talked about the fact that I would probably be reviewing Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn. To someone like Nic, this may come as something of a shock since I've been staunchly against paying a monthly fee for a game.

My opinions on charging players to play a game is a whole other story for a whole other article.

But I figured... what the heck? (censored Back To The Future quote)

The pricing schemes for FFXIV are kind of ridiculous, but I won't be playing the game forever. I'm planning on paying the minimal fee so I can see if I like it or not. Plus, you get a month free when you start the game, so that should be plenty of time to check the game out and give it a trial run.

When The Elder Scrolls Online releases, however, I may just have to suck it up and pay for it full-tilt. Those are games I can get into for a long period of time, so I'll probably be just a tiny bit more justified in the month-to-month fee... right?

3. People need to leave Ben Affleck alone.
Seriously, what did this guy do to garner all this hate over him playing Batman? I think it's a great choice and he's a great actor. I've never seen a movie with him in it that I didn't like. Or at least, I've never seen a movie of his that I thought was terrible.

Yes, I saw Gigli, Phantoms and Daredevil. I personally like Daredevil, and Phantoms (in which he was da bomb, yo) and Gigli certainly weren't the best movies I've ever seen, but they weren't nearly as bad as jerks on the internet make them out to be. And even if one thinks that those movies are bad, exactly how much do they really believe that Affleck was the cause? He didn't write those films, or direct them, he just starred.

So I guess because Ben Affleck, a good actor, decides to take a few acting gigs in movies that people deem terrible means that we should crucify him for playing Batman? Really? The internet really needs to take a minute and think about the logic they use to come to a conclusion sometimes.

Just as a side note: I also think Ben Affleck should play Eddie Dean in The Dark Tower films if they ever get made.That's the guy I've always pictured since I read the character in The Drawing of the Three. Hate me, internet.

-Josh

!!Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn Review Coming Soon!!

A few days ago, I purchased the revamp of FFXIV for PC. I should be getting the game in by Wednesday, and given that it's an online RPG, I won't have to "beat" the game in order to give a review once I've put some time into it.

From what I've seen so far, the game looks promising... when you can actually log into it. Supposedly the login and server issues are being resolved sometime today, so hopefully I won't have any problems when I get the game on Wednesday.

So be on the lookout for a review for a game that I initially had no intention to buy - later this week!

-Josh
Posted on September 3, 2013 .

A Batman, A Batman, My Kingdom For A Batman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a new Batman and he is Daredevil. Affleck is the Dark Knight Detective.


So its been awhile since I posted anything. Having a new baby, a child starting school, and big life decisions to make will do that to you. So, I'm trying to get back into the game. Hopefully, this will be a regular occurrence. Anyway, like the title says, Ben Affleck is Batman. Warner Brothers confirmed it this evening along with Zack Synder. I'm not going to get into my opinion of this decision just yet, because I need to write up my (very late) piece on Man of Steel. It's been kind of a down summer at the movies (especially after last summer), and out of the movies I saw I only had two really stand out. Pacific Rim and Man of Steel. I want to really get into an in-depth review of this summer at the movies as a whole, so I'll save the commentary til then. I will just say one thing, "never would have thought of Ben Affleck, but sometimes there are smarter people in Hollywood than I am. Perfect." If you are a Ben Affleck hater, you might want to rethink your movie watching habits (he does have more Oscars than you). There is always French foreign language films you may be interested in, just saying. Full press release after the jump.


Ending weeks of speculation, Ben Affleck has been set to star as Batman, a.k.a. Bruce Wayne. Affleck and filmmaker Zack Snyder will create an entirely new incarnation of the character in Snyder’s as-yet-untitled project—bringing Batman and Superman together for the first time on the big screen and continuing the director’s vision of their universe, which he established in “Man of Steel.” The announcement was made today by Greg Silverman, President, Creative Development and Worldwide Production, and Sue Kroll, President, Worldwide Marketing and International Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures.
The studio has slated the film to open worldwide on July 17, 2015.
Last month’s surprise announcement of the new movie featuring both Superman and Batman created a wave of excitement and immediately fueled discussion and debate—among fans as well as in the media—about who would put on the cape and cowl of Bruce Wayne’s alter ego.
Snyder successfully re-imagined the origin of Clark Kent/Superman in the worldwide blockbuster “Man of Steel,” which has earned more than $650 million worldwide to date, and climbing. The director will now create an original vision of Batman and his world for the film that brings the two DC Comics icons together.
Affleck will star opposite Henry Cavill, who will reprise the role of Superman/Clark Kent. The film will also reunite “Man of Steel” stars Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne and Diane Lane.
In the announcement, Silverman stated, “We knew we needed an extraordinary actor to take on one of DC Comics’ most enduringly popular Super Heroes, and Ben Affleck certainly fits that bill, and then some. His outstanding career is a testament to his talent and we know he and Zack will bring new dimension to the duality of this character.”
Snyder also expressed his excitement about the casting of Affleck, noting, “Ben provides an interesting counter-balance to Henry’s Superman. He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter, but retain the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne. I can’t wait to work with him.”
Kroll added, “We are so thrilled that Ben is continuing Warner Bros.’ remarkable legacy with the character of Batman. He is a tremendously gifted actor who will make this role his own in this already much-anticipated pairing of these two beloved heroes.”
Affleck recently starred in the Academy Award®-winning Best Picture “Argo,” which he also directed and produced, earning acclaim and a BAFTA Award nomination for his performance in the film, as well as a number of directing honors. In 2010, he starred in and directed the hit crime thriller “The Town.” His recent acting work also includes “The Company Men,” “State of Play,” and “Hollywoodland,” for which he received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actor. Earlier in his career, Affleck starred in and co-wrote (with Matt Damon) “Good Will Hunting,” for which he won an Oscar® for Best Original Screenplay.

Josh's Inner Dorkdon Journal - Episode 9

No content in over a month and a half?!

Unacceptable.

The Wolverine:
Saw it. It was ok. I wasn’t blown away, but I really don’t think that was the intention of the film makers. It was supposed to be a “bridging of the gap” for the new X-Men: Days of Future Past film, and I think it does that pretty well. One thing I thought was interesting about the movie was the fact that almost any character could have been in Wolverine/Logan’s place. This was very much a side-story featuring an extremely popular character. It works, I just don’t really think it was necessary in the grand scheme of the X-Men film franchise. But who am I to say what a “necessary” film is?
Overall, I’m probably in the extreme minority that likes the original Wolverine Origins movie better than this one.
Yeah, I said it: I like that movie better!
Lots of people hate on it, but I thought it was great. I think they could’ve handled Deadpool much better, but other than that, it was a great movie.

Games:
Things have been relatively quiet in the gaming world lately, which is odd considering the fact that two brand new consoles are going to be released at the end of this year. One thing that I find odd is just how many “AAA” titles are still being released for THIS generation after the release of the PS4 and Xbox One. It makes one wonder if just how much faith Sony and Microsoft have in their new product. Or maybe it’s that they’re being overly confident in thinking that the new systems will sell by the bucket-load, so they’re not pushing it as hard?
Whatever the case may be, I just figured information would be coming a lot more frequently than it has been. How ‘bout some more press conferences or something? 

Doom 3 Mods: 
Steam recently had a sale of all id Software games after the latest Quake-con. For something like $90, you could get nearly every major game the company has released since, and including, the Commander Keen games.
(I realize some of you may be thinking, “What the crap is Commander Keen?” Yeah, I’m old.)

The pack included the likes of Quake(s) 1-4, Doom(s) 1-3 (and BFG Edition), the two Wolf 3D games and even newer titles like Rage. For the old-school PC gamer, $90 is an extremely good deal, considering the quality of content. However, I didn’t buy the entire pack - just some selected titles that I used to have back in the day like the Quakes and Heretic/Hexen.
 In my rekindled love for all things id, I stumbled upon the Doom 3 mod community and found a total conversion mod for Doom 3 which converted the entire game into an all-new Hexen game called, “Edge of Chaos.” It looked amazing from the couple of demo videos and screenshots, so I decided to continue browsing the total conversion mods. The one that immediately caught my attention was “Doom 3: Classic.” This was a mod that basically re-created the entire first episode (Knee-Deep In The Dead) of the original Doom in the Doom 3 engine.
I downloaded and played.

It was amazing.

The level design, enemy placement, secret areas, weaponry and even the music (which is AWESOME, by the way) were completely and faithfully redone with graphics that hold up well with current-gen titles. As soon as you load the mod and start E1M1 (Episode 1, Map 1, for all you non-Doom Heads) and that awesome, metal guitar riff starts up (based off of Metallica’s song, “No Remorse,” in case you didn’t know), you have to wonder if this was the way John Carmack and John Romero originally envisioned the game back in the early 90’s.
I highly recommend purchasing Doom 3 on Steam (it’s only $10), if for nothing else but to experience a 100% faithful remake of the original shareware Doom. Just make sure you buy the original version of Doom 3. The mod (and most others) won’t work on the BFG Edition.

To convince you, here’s a video of the classic first level:

And here’s the Doom 3: Classic mod of the same level:

Pretty cool, right? Go get it… if you’re man (or woman) enough!

That’s about all I’ve got at the moment. I still need to post my review of The Last of Us which is now almost two months old (sorry)! I’ll try to get on that soon. Maybe even immediately after this post!

-Josh
Posted on August 12, 2013 .

The Inner Dorkdom Podcast - Episode 11

Josh and Nic discuss their thoughts on E3 2013 until late into the night. Enjoy!

DOWNLOAD
Runtime: 2 hours, 33 minutes
Posted on July 1, 2013 .

Man of Steel - Nic's Impressions

Well Internet, I've seen Man of Steel. And, well, much like I was after seeing Star Trek Into Darkness, I'm conflicted.


Warning, SPOILERS follow...


In fact, for us here at the Inner Dorkdom the scene after the movie was very similar to the one after Into Darkness. We were having our post-movie credits-are-rolling conversation about the movie. Some in our group really liked it. Others were not impressed. When it came for me to give my input, there I was again, in the middle, only able to say, "I'm conflicted." I couldn't give a simple, "loved it," or, "hated it." In some ways and on some levels I really enjoyed it. And in others I was disappointed. And, again, just like immediately after Into Darkness, I couldn't initially sort my feelings out and put them into words. On the drive home with Josh (who loved it) and Liz (who hated it) I started trying to, particularly what disappointed me about the film. But it didn't go well. Again, too many emotions and responses all intertwined.

I think the reason this happened with Man of Steel is the same reason it happened with Into Darkness. In both cases we have a reboot of a franchise (sorry J.J. Star Trek, but for most intents and purposes that's what you are) that I have a familiarity with, an affinity for, and thus, expectations regarding.

So to sort out my feelings, I'll begin by doing what I did while pondering Into Darkness.


If I evaluate it just as a summer action movie:
No doubt it's a well made action movie. There are plenty of action-packed scenes (especially in the latter half of the film), heroics and villainy of a very high order, and lots of stuff that goes boom (grain silos, Sears stores, IHOPs, 7-11s, dozens of Metropolis skyscrapers). Indeed, the action scenes themselves are full of impressive imagery and intense kinetic action. My problems with it on the purely action movie level are the same that I have with any film that really goes in for the distinctively modern trends in action movies (shaky cam, muted colors, action sequences that go on a bit longer than I'd like, a Hans Zimmer styled score--in this case composed by the man himself).


If I evaluate it as science-fiction:
And I should. Superman is an alien. Superman stories, though the extent to which they emphasize this varies, are science-fiction stories.

And as a science-fiction film, I think it really works. It's not as deep as some sci-fi, no doubt. But, for my money, it works much better on the sci-fi level than Into Darkness does. In Man of Steel the science-fiction elements are more than just the backdrop used to give flavor to a story that with minimal tweaks could be set in realistic modern day. (Which is, as you guessed, how I felt about Into Darkness, although perhaps I'm being too hard on it.) The science-fiction elements are integral to the story and plot here. But, it should be noted, they don't completely overshadow it.


If I evaluate it as Superman:
Again, having been a fan of Superman for years, this is where I bring certain personal baggage with me. That is, expectations, or at least preferences, based on my previous experience with the franchise (which is not in-depth on the comic book side, although I did read Superman comics as a kid).

With my Into Darkness impressions I tried to filter out the Nic-specific baggage and evaluate it just in terms of it being Star Trek. I think that approach made sense because Star Trek, a franchise less than 50 years old, has only had (and, I admit, technically still only has) one continuity. Different shows and films have their own unique flavors. But nonetheless I think one can look at Star Trek as one cohesive thing.

But it doesn't make as much sense for me to do that here, because Superman is a much more varied franchise. There have been many continuities over its 75 year history. Superman stories have been told in a number of different media, with no one medium being thought of as the one true official one. And the stories themselves have varied greatly in terms of content, tone, themes, and so on. So its more difficult to nail down certain elements, whether they be of story or style, and say, "Regardless of one's personal preferences, this is what Superman is." I do think some exist. But they are far fewer than the one-continuity of Star Trek.

So all I can do is evaluate it as Superman with my personal tastes in view. And what is the result?

First, and I think foremost, it makes my problems with the modern edgy action-movie stylistic sensibility more acute. Because it's Superman. Yes, he's the Man of Steel. But he's also the Man of Tomorrow. The boyscout. The kindly flying super-powered space alien from an old-fashioned small town in Kansas. Also, even amongst superheroes he is distinctive and one-of-a-kind. And I personally want a Superman film to tonally reflect those values and ideas. I certainly don't want it to drink so heavily from the modern "gritty realistic" style. Now, even though I think of most of them fondly, I'm not asking for a straight up emulation of the Christopher Reeves films, or even Superman Returns (which, in my mind, was a Christopher Reeves film without Christopher Reeves). I understand filmmakers today are highly unlikely to go that far. General audiences' tastes have changed a bit over the decades. But I would like a Superman film that at least, when compared with other films of its day, leans noticeably in that direction. I want a Superman movie to standout from its peers as a bit "classic," when it comes to its presentation. Man of Steel doesn't do this. In fact, quite the opposite. The film takes up the gritty style more so than most Marvel films, and ends up being, in my eyes anyway, tonally closer to The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Truthfully, of all the recent movies I've seen, I feel like Captain America: The First Avenger did the best job of capturing the vibe I'm wanting in a Superman film.

Don't get me wrong. When evaluating this as a Superman movie, it's not all bad. Not at all. For example, I thought the cast did a wonderful job. Although I still miss Brandon Routh, I was pleasantly surprised with how well I felt Henry Cavill works as Superman. He could play the serious, almost brooding side, and also the warm optimistic side (on the very rare occasions he was given opportunity to do so). Amy Adams as Lois Lane is great (though early on I feared Lois' spunkiness was going to come across more like witchiness, but fortunately that didn't pan out). Of course Ma and Pa Kent and Jor-El were wonderful. I know there's been some controversy over Michael Shannon's performance as Zod, but I personally liked what he did with the role. Laurence Fishburne was great as Perry White (indeed, his scenes helped make the whole affair feel more like a Superman movie, though I'm not sure why). And the other bit players performed admirably as well.

As for the story, which is no question the heart of any film (except for 'artsy' films, and by the way that's a technical term I learned when studying film criticism in college), no doubt there are changes made here, including a couple of significant ones. I'm personally not of the "They changed something thus its ruined forever" mindset, at least when a film is creating or working within its own continuity. Change by itself is neither good nor bad in my book. You have to look at the changes themselves, evaluate them on their own merits. For sake of time I'll only point out the one change that had the largest impact on my enjoyment of the story, and by extension, the film itself. That is, they decided to play up his alien nature to the point where, it seems even growing up in Smallville, he was an outsider. A loner. And them, upon graduation, a drifter.

Let me say that I do think the filmmakers executed that idea well. But, that choice had a profound impact on the film. And in a way that worked against my enjoyment.

On the ride home with Josh (who loved the film) and Liz (who hated it), I started trying to explain my feelings. I talked about warmth. Josh was amazed I didn't see that in the film. Liz and I talked about the film lacking a sense of fun, and again we had trouble communicating.

I've been thinking about it, and I think I've figured out how to articulate it.

Some folks say difference between 2006's Superman Returns and Man of Steel was action. The former had too little, while the latter, at least for some, had too much.

I think it's deeper than that. It seems to me that Superman Returns emphasized Superman's compassion, his relationships, his personal warmth, his emotional side. In Man of Steel, because he's a loner for much of his life, this side of him doesn't have a chance to be explored, let alone emphasized. Rather Man of Steel emphasizes his resolute moral character. Here is a 'man' who has deep convictions. He has great power, but he also has great restraint. He is not one to seek vengeance, even on those who often treat him poorly (that one guy's big rig notwithstanding). Indeed, he shows himself, at a young age even, to be willing to protect even those people. And, perhaps most important of all, he is highly selfless, willing to live the life of a drifter because of the combination of two things: 1) he cannot stand by and not use his powers to help others, and 2) his earthly father instilled in him the importance of not revealing himself to the world too soon.

Both elements, his compassionate personal relationship side and his moral resolve and strength of character, are important parts of Superman. Both are needed. If he's compassionate but not resolute he might use his powers in dangerous/harmful/vindictive ways due to those he personally loves (this is what the Jedi during the time of the prequels feared could happen if they allowed themselves to form attachments). If he's resolute but not compassionate, he comes across as distant, his desire to protect humanity becoming merely a philosophical decision.

Superman in Man of Steel is not devoid of this personal connection and compassion (just as Superman in Superman Returns isn't devoid of strong moral resolve). He clearly loves his adopted parents. And at the end of the film as he begins his new life as Superman and Clark Kent, reporter for the Daily Planet, it starts to come through again. But, again, because the story is structured as it is, throughout the film we don't see much of this side of him. He just doesn't have many relationships. He cares about 'humanity,' but we don't get many chances to see that abstract idea made personal and, well, human.

And that is why I, and I suspect others, feel like the film, and Superman himself, was lacking a sense of warmth. (It's like, I know this Superman would care about me if I were falling out of the sky or something. But I don't know that he'd want to be my friend.)

Incidentally, the scenes that did help bring some warmth to the film were somewhat stifled by the pointless shaky-cam and other facets of postmodern action cinematography (I'm looking at you, scene with Pa Kent after the school bus incident).

His being a loner also probably accounts at least somewhat for what I call the lack of 'fun' in the film. The type of thing I refer to when I talk about a sense of "fun" typically comes from personal interactions. Or, at least, it's expressed typically through personal interactions. Characters commenting to others (usually associates or friends) about what's happening ("You and I remember Budapest very differently," "Well, I hope this experience hasn't put any of you off flying. Statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel," "Another happy landing"), or interacting in other ways (Steve Rogers giving Nick Fury ten dollars, acknowledging his losing their bet). But, again because the filmmakers chose to tell the story they did, Kal-El/Clark/Superman doesn't interact with many other people in the film. Here's who I remember: His parents, computer ghost Jor-El, girl and jerk at diner, Lois Lane, a priest, Zod's lady sub-commander, Zod, couple of military guys. That's it. Thus, even if he wanted to give us some fun (and this Superman, being a bit broody until he truly finds his place in the world, probably wouldn't), there are few people around for him to play off of.

(Incidentally, I'd read a review that said Superman and Lois' relationship in the film isn't the big iconic romantic thing we might expect, but we can see how it could bloom into that. Having seen the film, I think by in large that's an accurate description. And I'm ok with that. But, I was thus a bit surprised at the kiss. I didn't expect it, since they hadn't really had time or opportunity to fall in love or develop anything more than an initial attraction and respect for each other. I personally would have been OK without the kiss. Let that come in the next film.)

I don't know about cinematography, editing, and music, but as for my other disappointments, I think there's a small amount of hope for the future, if the last five minutes of the film are any indication. First you have Superman's response to Lois's line about first kisses (a wry humor "fun" moment). Then there's the scene with the general and the destroyed drone. I read someone say it comes off as a poor attempt at Tony Stark / Nick Fury banter. I disagree. Does the scene channel a bit of that Marvel movie fun? Yes. But Superman isn't being anything like Tony. He's still clearly Superman, making valid and mature points. He even acknowledges his rural Kansas upbringing. And the military personnel are definitely a bit less, theatrical, than Fury. So to me the scene feels very natural...and fun. Then there's the final two scenes, where Clark explains to his mother what his job will be (guess he doesn't have to go to college for that?), and we see him arrive for his first day at the Planet. Maybe it was partially seeing the standards of Superman mythology finally start to fall into place, maybe it was the resolution of the broodiness of earlier, but whatever the reason, I couldn't help but have a pretty big smile as I watched those two scenes. (Then the music continued to be Zimmer's score, and the smile lessened slightly).

OK, I guess I may as well say a little something directly about the score. I'll save more in-depth observations for a dedicated article. For now I'll just say that I for a Superman score, I personally want something else. Something more traditionally orchestral (but not necessarily exclusively so). Something with a bit more melodic and rhythmic complexity. Something with a touch of classic heroicism and patriotism, maybe even with at least one trumpet or woodwind instrument somewhere in the score.

In a publicity interview, Zimmer said that Nolan's Batman is inward and brooding, and the Dark Knight films were serioius psychological explorations. But Superman represents hope, and even traditional Midwest Americana. As I read that, it made me think that perhaps his Man of Steel score would be different from his Dark Knight scores. Perhaps his themes would do a more adequate job of embodying the specific characters, and not just conveying the basic psychological journey of the character.

But I have to agree with others on this, I don't think that's what happened. On the contrary, the music to this film feels very similar to his Batman scores. To me the music Zimmer wrote for Man of Steel doesn't reflect Superman's inspiring hope in others. It doesn't embody his heroicism. (That's what John Williams' themes did.) Rather, when it isn't being just ostinato triplet pattern driven action, it seems to be more of a reflection of Superman's inner psychological journey. When I hear Zimmer's 'main theme' it conjures in my mind the image of a person who had been kneeling because of something oppressive finally standing up. But the nature of that person, and that oppressive force, isn't specified. It could be any number of people, dealing with any number of oppressive circumstances. It doesn't convey the particular image of a man in a cape with super powers flying through the skies saving the world. It doesn't contribute to the film as a whole being the kind of rousing, awe-inspiring experience I, and others, wanted it to be. And that's the kind of score I personally wanted. Even if it had only displayed those qualities right at the end, that would have been welcomed.

Well, Internet, there's the broad strokes on my feelings about Man of Steel. In some ways I enjoyed it. In some ways I didn't. In the end, I wish it had been a bit less dark and brooding.

I have some other thoughts about specific plot points, stylistic choices, etc., that hopefully, along with a more detailed discussion of the score, I'll share with you soon. But until then, I remain,

 - Nic


END OF LINE
Posted on June 18, 2013 .

Josh's Inner Dorkdom Journal - Episode 8 (E3 2013 Impressions)

Time for another episode of the journal. So what have I been digging on lately? To be honest, not much. Since I’m on a break from school, I’ve been working full-time and that’s kind of taken up the majority of my days. There are a few things, however, and I can use this format (as well as an episode of The Inner Dorkdom podcast that we’ll be recording soon) as a way to relay my thoughts on some of the recent E3 news.




I didn’t watch the E3 conference this year, but I read most of the articles ‘round the internet about it. From what I’m reading, Sony clearly “won” this time.
Just how did they win? By completely standing up for the consumer, as opposed to Microsoft which seems to be very “anti” that mentality.

(Note: After writing this article, I went back and watched the archived conferences. Unfortunately, my following opinions and concerns have not changed.)

Let’s give a little backstory:

Back in May, Microsoft revealed the Xbox One, their newest console. This comes as a little delayed from Sony’s earlier reveal of the Playstation 4. As I said in an earlier article, I wasn’t particularly impressed with Sony’s initial conference that showed the world their new console, but I thought it was just “ok.” That being said, myself and many other videogame fans were completely floored (and not in a good way) by the ridiculous restrictions which were being proposed by Microsoft.

Honestly, I don’t know what they were thinking. A console that has to be connected to the internet to function?

Get out of here.

To be fair, Microsoft later stated that the Xbox One would not have to be constantly connected to the internet, but WOULD have to be connected at least once every 24 hours. This, in my opinion, is still quite unacceptable. I live in a quasi-rural area, so my internet connection is neither fast, nor the most stable. Because of that, an Xbox One would be extremely problematic for me. For example: Nearly every time it rains, I lose my internet connection. So if the weather happens to be bad for a couple of days, I just wouldn’t be able to play… At all. Not even single-player games that shouldn’t have to connect to the internet in the first place would be playable for me if the weather was bad.
“Metal Gear Solid V? If it’s raining for a few days, forget about it.” That’s basically what Microsoft is telling me.
That’s just terrible design. There’s no reason that a game console should ever have to be connected to the internet, at any time, to function.

Back to this year’s E3:

None of gamers’ concerns were alleviated at Microsoft’s second showing. All the restrictions and requirements were still in place: Required internet connection, no used games (unless the developer permits it by offering codes for a flat-rate), a really big push (though subliminal) for Windows 8, and an “always on” version of their Kinect technology. All these things were still around and I (and every other gamer) was being told that they were all “good things” and that I just “didn’t know I wanted them yet.”

Not to get too political here, but that sounds a lot like our government and the ridiculous policies they’ve tried to push in recent years.

The Playstation 4, however, has absolutely none of these unwanted features. Even in their E3 presentation, they made it a point to directly fire shots at Microsoft by pointing this out to gamers. Every shot was met with thundering applause, or so I read.
If I were there, I would have been in the crowd applauding right along with everyone else.

It would seem that this “console war” might be won by the following 2 things: Features and exclusives. Unlike previous console generations, hardware capability has been taken completely out of the equation. This time around, both the Xbox One and Playstation 4 have nearly identical specs under their respective hoods, so most games will be the same aesthetically.  Since that’s the case, one has to look at the two console’s features first.

In both systems, the features are, just like the hardware, nearly identical. You have uploadable content like the new video sharing and social media integration. You also have real-time video streaming on both, with Sony using Ustream and Microsoft using Twitch. Then there are the normal features like Netflix, Hulu, HBO-Go, Amazon, web browsing, etc.  With all these features in mind, exclusives have to be more of a factor.

I’ll readily admit, the Xbox One has more, interesting looking, exclusive titles so far than the Playstation 4. D4, Dead Rising 3, Forza 5, Halo 5, Killer Instinct, Quantum Break, and Sunset Drive are all exclusive to Microsoft.

Killer Instinct is kind of an interesting one.

A sequel to a series that’s been dead since the late 90’s, KI has been something that fighting game enthusiasts have waited for a long time. When the new game was announced as an Xbox One exclusive, the fighting game community went absolutely nuts. I saw several forum and Twitter posts saying that they were now sold on the new Microsoft console. Clearly this is an overreaction, since they seemed to forget about the crazy restrictions they had been complaining about only a few hours before the game’s announcement. Finally, the realizations of complicated tournament play (needing to have the console bought and downloaded for every console at every station at the tournament venue and a constant internet connection) began to rear their ugly heads and doubt began to set in. This doubt became even more substantiated when it was announced that Killer Instinct would be a “day-one download” title which would be “free-to-play.” Only one character (Jago) would be available until the player bought the rest of the characters. When gamers went into an uproar, Microsoft and the game’s developers quickly changed their rather poor wording, saying that KI would basically be a “demo” on day-one and the player would buy the full version of the game if they wanted to at a later time.

Why not just call it a “demo” in the first place? Come on, Microsoft. Get yourselves together.

The Playstation 4 doesn’t boast the larger number of exclusives that the Xbox One does. Drive Club, The Order: 1886, Gran Turismo 6, Infamous: Second Son, and Killzone 4, were the only ones that I could find. So does this mean that Sony’s in trouble? I say no. As I told a friend of mine, there’s only ONE company that can sustain a console on its exclusives, and that’s Nintendo, but that’s because their exclusives are mostly first-party titles that have been around since 1984. On the Xbox One, the only two exclusives that are “blockbuster” titles are Forza and Halo. Dead Rising 3 will be a good seller, as will the 2 new IP’s, Quantum Break and Sunset Drive, but these exclusives won’t be the “system sellers” that a game like Final Fantasy VII was for the original Playstation back in 1997.
Is Halo a system seller? In a sense, yes, but the people who are fans of that game were fans back on the original Xbox with Halo and Halo 2. These fans carried over into the 360 era, but very few jumped on board with Halo 3 or 4. I’m not trying to discount the power of the Halo franchise, I’m just trying to point out that like many exclusives, save for Nintendo’s, Halo is a niche title. The same can be said about Uncharted or God of War for the Playstation. It would be much different if something with the general power of a franchise like Final Fantasy, a third-party franchise, were going exclusive to either Playstation 4 or Xbox One, since that series carries much more clout than games that have ALWAYS been exclusive to one platform or the other.

So maybe exclusives WON’T win the war. Then what will?

If it weren’t for Microsoft’s crazy new policies, I would say that the race would be pretty neck-and-neck. Before hearing about the Xbox’s new, weird way of doing things, that’s exactly how I figured it would be. The simple fact is, gamers and everyday people generally don’t like to be told what to do when attempting to enjoy themselves while playing a videogame. This much is abundantly clear given the recent backlash to the Xbox One.

Perhaps the largest critical backlash from both the gaming press and gamers themselves came shortly after the Xbox presentation at E3. Don Mattrick, President of the Interactive Entertainment Business at Microsoft, was interviewed by GameTrailers.com and asked about some of the backlash towards the new console, particularly the constant internet connectivity issue. He was quoted as saying, “Fortunately, we have a product for people who aren’t able to get some form of connectivity; it’s called Xbox 360.”
This quote and arrogant, yet not surprising, attitude from a big-wig at Microsoft sent gamers into a frenzy. People that had recently supported the Xbox One 100% decided to drop their preorders and go the way of the Playstation. They were basically being told that if you couldn’t connect to the internet, you would be stuck with an outdated console which would probably lose support within the next 3 years and that Microsoft wasn’t going to back down from their outrageous requirements for the Xbox One. I, like all those angered gamers, thought that this was terrible marketing and customer relations. Again, it’s not surprising coming from Microsoft, as they’ve had this kind of mentality since they entered the world in 1975. World domination has always been their top priority, but it’s finally catching up to them.

With all that being said, I don’t mean to skip over Nintendo, but the simple fact is that they didn’t really have that much to show. What they did show was awesome, but nothing uber-exciting, or anything we didn’t already know was coming. I honestly think that it’s become the case that Nintendo is just… well…A NINTENDO company. I really don’t think they’re that interested in grabbing gamers of all types, and more focused on making consoles that play Nintendo-franchise games. Really, I’m fine with this. It’s not the greatest marketing attitude to have, but let’s be serious here: Nintendo franchises are powerful. The people who want those games are going to buy whatever console Nintendo builds in order to play them. If that’s what Nintendo is content in doing, then more power to them.  Personally, I would rather see Nintendo embrace all of gaming and build a console which would compete with the likes of Sony and Microsoft, but (to use a cliché that I hardly ever use) it is what it is. I own a Wii U and I’m excited for Super Mario 3D World and the new Legend of Zelda game that’s in the works. Plus, the 3DS is the greatest handheld every created (and currently has some of the best games on any device), so I can’t really complain. I’ve got my Wii U to play Nintendo stuff and I’ll have a PS4 and PC to play everything else.

*Post-E3 and Aftermath Edit*

As mentioned in the note above, I’ve since watched both Sony and Microsoft’s respective E3 presentations. Pretty much everything I read was accurate and was portrayed just as well in a written form as it was while watching the events unfold visually. In other words, my opinions remain the same. Microsoft chose to stay away from such topics as being connected online and outrageous DRM policies. Instead, they decided to infer to gamers that their system was “so good” that these things wouldn’t / shouldn’t matter. However, according to gamers, these things DO matter. 

Since the presentations ended, fans and the independent gaming press have shown their absolute disdain for Microsoft’s poor choices. I point specifically to internet gaming personality, Angry Joe and his recent interview with “Major Nelson” (Larry Hyrb), Microsoft’s Director of Programming for Xbox Live, as a prime example.
In the interview, Joe asks Hyrb some very difficult questions from his fans which put the Microsoft rep into a clearly uncomfortable and quite defensive position. The questions are simple and to-the-point and deal with gamers’ various concerns, such as the required online and DRM.

Joe tries extremely hard (until he’s discouraged by the Microsoft PR lady standing off-camera to move along) to not let Hyrb slide with his dodgy answers, but ultimately has to cut the interview short. This is due in part to the fact that Hyrb is about to partake in a “live event” on the showroom floor and, from what the rest of Joe’s video suggests, the angry PR lady who dislikes his questions.

Joe never comes off as antagonistic or that he’s looking for a debate, but instead as a concerned gamer. The fact that “Major Nelson” didn’t really want to answer his questions and the PR lady didn’t want them asked in the first place, seems like a confirmation of the attitude Microsoft seems to have at this point: “This is the future. Either get with it, or keep playing your Xbox 360 which will probably lose support roughly 3 years into the new generation of consoles. Even though all you gamers out there say you don’t want this stuff, we know what’s best for you.”

My response:
Sorry, Microsoft, I’LL decide what’s best for me. I don’t need you to tell me what I want. Also, stop dodging questions. You know everyone is angry with you over the decisions you’ve made, make moves to correct it instead of trying to shove it down people’s throats.

While playing Injustice online recently (on Xbox 360, mind you), I was talking with a friend of mine, an avid Xbox supporter, about these concerns. As we were talking, I noticed that every time I talk about these things, I may come off as though I’m a “Microsoft hater.” Nothing could be further from the truth. I happen to not like a lot of their business decisions (something which I’ve felt for almost 20 years), but I don’t like to see anyone “fail.” Truthfully, all of my concerns about the Xbox One boil down to one HUGE concern that I think is shared by 90% of gamers, but they don’t know how to voice it without sounding like raging “fanboys:” We don’t want these things to become console standards.

If Microsoft continues to be the same dominant force in the console market as they were with the Xbox 360, then it’s a given that the generation of consoles post-Xbox One and PS4 will be forced to adopt the same policies. The reason there is a severe outcry right now is because we’re all trying to voice the same thing: We don’t want this. From anyone. Ever.

That about wraps it up for this episode of Josh’s Inner Dorkdom Journal. Sorry that it was such a long read, but hopefully you’ll get something useful out of it and take these things into consideration before you purchase your next gaming console later this year. Hopefully, I’ll be back soon with a review of the game I’m currently playing: Naughty Dog’s, The Last of Us!

Trying to be an optimist in an overcrowded and slowly dying videogame world, I am,

-Josh

Super Thickburger

So before Into Darkness the three of us and Liz got to see the newest (at least I think it's the newest) trailer for Man of Steel. This was Josh's first time to see it, and I think it made him excited for the first time about the film's potential.

As for me, I'm intrigued, but I still just don't know. (The biggest question mark for me is the tone. What will the tone be?)

Well, enter Man Of Steel tie-in commercials from Hardee's/Carl's Jr:



OK, it's official: I'm looking forward to the movie.

 - Nic


END OF LINE
Posted on May 24, 2013 .

Star Trek: Into Darkness - Nic's Impressions

Nic here. So of course I have to share my feelings about the new Star Trek film ("Into Darkness") with all of you on the Internet. I'm writing this article assuming that anyone reading it has seen the film as well. So, just to be clear...


Warning: Serious Spoilers Ahead!!! Don't read on if you don't want me giving away major aspects of the film.


OK, so, here's the deal Internet, my feelings about Into Darkness are conflicted. I saw it opening Friday night in IMAX 3D with Liz (my wife), Josh, and Todd, and in our mandatory still-in-the-theater first conversation about the film when they asked me what I thought, that's what came out. "I'm conflicted." In some ways and on some levels I really liked it. And in others I am very disappointed. I'm essentially a life long Star Trek fan, which no doubt accounts for the many subtle and conflicting layers of emotion the movie brought out in me. When Liz, Josh, and Todd first asked me my opinion, those emotions were all intertwined with one another, along with the reasons for them. I kept saying seemingly contradictory things, like, "it doesn't rely enough on previous Trek," and yet also, "it relies too much on previous Trek," or, "this relationship had too much emphasis," and, "the film doesn't deal with characters and relationships enough." So I've been spending the last couple of days trying to sort through them and figure out 1) why I feel them, and 2) how to articulate them.


So let's start with this.

If I evaluate it just as as a summer action movie:
No doubt it's a well done action movie. There are plenty of actions-packed scenes, a good amount of heroics and villainy, some smile-inducing lightheartedness, and lots of stuff that goes boom. The shaky-cam and "close-ups shot from three inches off the nose" approach to cinematography may not be my favorite, but such things are pretty common in Hollywood these days and I've learned to live with them. However, even as a big-budget action movie, I must admit I find it on the low end of my personal "substance" spectrum.


If I evaluate it as science-fiction:
I don't know, I tend to want a bit more science (even of the fictional variety) in my science fiction. Warp drive that can get you from Earth to Qo'Nos (not Kronos...wait Nic, not yet) in a few minutes, handheld communicators that can allow instantaneous communication between said planets, humans genetically engineered such that they can raise tribbles and brash captains from the dead, etc. are things that, for me, seem more at home in science-fantasy. And, I'll say it, I tend to like a bit more technobabble in my science-fiction. There, I said it. But then again, why should I be ashamed of that? Isn't technobabble a natural outgrowth of a story having in-universe fictional scientific technologies, laws of physics, etc.? And isn't such fictional science a fairly central aspect of science fiction? Star Wars (I'm talking film/tv canon here) doesn't go into much explanation about how hyperdrives, lightsabers, and repulsorlifts work because Star Wars is closer to science-fantasy, whereas Trek has a long history of going into such details, because it's science fiction. Or, at least, historically that's what it's been.


If I evaluate it as science-fantasy:
I personally tend to want a bit more classic fantasy trappings (certain story themes, types of characters, etc.) in my science-fantasy. If you're not going to tell me how your starship works, or bother to name its computer's operating system, give me something else in its place, like knights or monsters or magic.


If I evaluate it as Star Trek:
Here's where it gets all intertwined and in need of unraveling. As I said earlier, I'm a life-long Star Trek fan (in the spirit of full disclosure, I have more of an affinity for what one might call the "Berman-Era" of Star Trek that TOS, though I was a TOS fan first). And as such, I bring certain baggage that is both Trek-specific and Nic-specific with me to any Trek viewing experience. I'm planning on writing more about that in it's own article, but here's the short version, as it will let you know where I'm coming from. In a nutshell, I still have problems with the facts that: 1) Bad Robot has been given essentially exclusive control of Trek (Abrams didn't even like Trek, he was more of a Star Wars fan and has expressly stated that his intention was to make the former more like the latter), 2) they chose to 'not-technically-but-basically reboot' Star Trek with this new timeline and focus on alternate versions of Kirk, Spock, et. al. (instead of staying in the main timeline and focusing on original characters maybe in a different era, something that would be, at the same time, both new and also able to acknowledge/honor previous Trek in more than just a 'wink-wink, did you catch that reference' kind of way), and 3) that's the only Trek they seem to have any desire to see exist these days (so we currently have no chance of a Titan show, a Worf show, or for that matter any glimpse back at the original timeline, i.e., all previous Trek barring Enterprise).

So when I come to these new movies, that's what I feel right off the bat. A disappointment for the basic story direction they've chosen. But I'm trying to filter that part, the Nic-specific part, out and just look at this in terms of Star Trek.


Elements that felt 'right' to me:
There were many things.

For example, characters who appeared in Trek before, and the actors who played them...

Kirk - With the caveat that this Kirk grew up without his father and consequently is a bit more rebellious than original Kirk, I have to say that Christopher Pine is going a great job as James Tiberius Perfect Hair. He doesn't do a Shatner impression, and he doesn't really look like him either, but nevertheless he really does carry over the essence of Starfleet's most storied captain.

Spock - While he does a better job here than he did in Star Trek 2009 (he's not butt-hole Spock), I still can't help but feel like there is probably someone on the planet who could do a better job with Spock than Zachary Quinto. Just like I can't put into words what Pine gets right, I can't put into words what Quinto gets wrong. (I'll keep working on it though.) But I will say that Quinto is definitely getting better.

McCoy - I don't think there is anyone on the planet who could do a better job with McCoy than Karl Urban. He just nails the character. The DeForest Kelly inflections, the 'always at the edge of being shocked by the behavior of every single being in the universe,' the whole thing. Urban is, for my money, the perfect McCoy. I really wish he had more time to shine in this one.

Scotty - There's a certain 'old-school' quality to James Doohan's performance (a combination of warmth, gravity, and life-experience) that I don't think he quite has yet. But beyond that, Simon Pegg is great as Scotty.

Uhura - No offense to Nichelle Nichols who did just fine, but original Uhura wasn't overly well defined as a character. Thus, Zoe Saldana has more room to do her own thing. She does well enough. But, I must say, for whatever reason, new Uhura is the one classic character that, to me, seems the most removed from the original counterpart.

Sulu - John Cho doesn't have the voice ("oh my"), but I like him as Sulu. Seeing him get a little time in the captain's chair was a nice nod to the now-abandoned history of the character.

Chekov - Anton Yelchin is still great as Chekov. Although....I don't know...for some reason I was expecting the character to seem a bit less spastic and a touch more seasoned (horrible thing to call a man) by the time of this film.

Pike - A character from the original that was even less defined than Uhura, the for my money always excellent Bruce Greenwood was by in large able to do his thing in creating the character. He did great in Star Trek 2009, and his performance (now with gray mutton chops) is just as enjoyable here.

Carol Marcus - Alice Eve's take on perhaps Kirk's future baby-momma isn't that close to original actresses. But, maybe it's just me, for my money that's not a big deal. It's not like Dr. Marcus was that well defined to begin with.

Kahn - Here's where some inner conflict really kicks up for me. On the one hand, Benedict Cumberbatch's performance (save at least one notable exception) was excellent. He brought a violent raging quality and a disconnected calmness that worked really well together in a creepy kind of fashion. He was even able to play the character in such a way that the viewer really could wonder if this guy isn't so bad after all (spoiler: he is). All in all it made for a great action movie villain (although from a writing standpoint his history could have been fleshed out a bit more). But on the other hand, he didn't feel like Kahn to me. Yes, the difference in look and accent is probably a large part of it. But I don't think it's just that. I don't know, it's one of those things I'm still trying to sort out.

Aside from characters, I thought another area where they got many things right was in visual design. The design of the Enterprise itself, carried over from the first film, I still rather enjoy. But, let me be clear, I'm talking about how the starship looks on the outside. I'm still not a fan of the interiors (too much a combination of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, 2001, and an Apple store). But at least main engineering wasn't clearly a brewery. And kudos on changing the design of going to warp from the obviously Star Wars inspired look of the first film to a (novel idea here) Star Trek inspired look, what with the trails and all. Other notable designs worth mentioning included Klingons (the glitter notwithstanding), Klingon ships (ish), and the Vengeance (large machine guns notwithstanding).

I also should say that the sound design (including nice use of original series sound effects) and mixing was excellent. But, with Ben Burtt, Matthew Wood, and Dave Acord on your sound team, that's to be expected.


Elements that didn't feel 'right' for me:
Before I move on to talk about where most of my disappointments in the film can be found, that is, the plot, and while I'm talking about sound, I have to mention the score. I don't really remember much of it distinctly. But what I do remember is that the film starts out with the main theme from 2009's Star Trek. I wasn't overly impressed with it back 4 years ago. It wasn't horrible. But even as the "theme of the particular movie" I thought it didn't quite cut the mustard. Given that Into Darkness reprises it, I'm guessing the Bad Robot people want this to be the new main theme for Star Trek. I just don't think it's good enough for that. It isn't iconic enough, and it isn't emotionally representative of the franchise enough (even the new franchise taken by itself). I'm not digging it.

But even in a motion picture all of those elements are merely trappings. The core of the film is the story as expressed through the script. And it's here where, as a Trek fan, things really get wonky for me and I get all conflicted.

(Incidentally, here's an article that goes into more detail in critiquing the plot. I think he makes some valid points. But I also think he's a little too hard on the movie at times.)

Again, there is good to be found. Some examples: The jokes and humor are very Trekish. The references to past Trek are enjoyable (but also bittersweet, in that that's all they may ever be again, references). And the explanation as to why someone else came upon Kahn's ship and not the Enterprise (something I've thought would need to be addressed since rumors this film would involve Kahn started swirling years ago) was welcome and worked for those of us who care about canon consistency.

But three things in particular about the story and script felt off to me.

First, there's the extent to which this was a straight-up and non-stop action movie. As Michael Pillar said Gene Roddenberry taught him, Star Trek stories are always about something. Yes, there are characters and they do things, which causes other things to happen, etc. But, beyond that, they are always about something. They deal with themes. They explore concepts. And they do so with a strong emphasis on characters.

Now, I'm not saying Into Darkness isn't about anything. But, not trying to be rude, but it doesn't seem to be about much. Being too aggressive or militaristic is bad. So is revenge. And people in power can't always be trusted. That's about it. Those are important ideas to be sure. But they are also a bit generic, and, more importantly, although they are present in Into Darkness they're certainly not at the forefront.

I think another consequence it being so close to a straight up action film is that it contributed to its feeling less of like science-fiction in general and Star Trek in particular. Even the most action packed of the first 10 movies (Wrath of Kahn and First Contact) had heaping doses of science-fiction in them. Indeed, I think in many ways 2009's Star Trek felt more like Trek than this one. This speaks to Josh's concern with Into Darkness: The Abrams' films are headed in the wrong direction.

Second, there's the handling of the Kirk and Spock relationship. After the movie Josh said that he was disappointed that the movie made an issue of their friendship. He wasn't complaining that they were friends, but rather that the movie, like the one before it, made it a major plot thread. It's like the movie pulled out a spotlight and said, "Look! Hey, these guys are friends and that's important because of who they are and who heir alternate versions are. But they're so different from each other, huh? Wow, yeah, it's not an easy friendship. Look at that." He wondered if they were going to do this (along with Kirk getting in trouble for being a maverick and then getting the Enterprise back) in every movie. And I think he has a point. I personally have no problem with the movie showing their friendship. But why make a big dramatic deal about it? (Of course, part of the answer may be so that the Wrath of Kahn ending can have weight to it. But I'll get to that in a minute.)

But they did make a deal about it, and in doing so I think that, although it works at times, at others it suffers from two opposing problems which make the whole thing feel a bit forced. It's almost paradoxical, but it seems to me that, compared to what it really would be, the film presents their relationship as both too new and too old.

I looked it up, and this film takes place the year after the previous film. Not a ton of time, certainly. But enough for Kirk to have learned that Spock is a by the book kind of guy and Spock to have learned that Kirk isn't. So the hubbub over their actions on Nibiru and the reports they filed about it seems out of place. This isn't their first day together. I'd have expected them to be a bit beyond this.

(It should be pointed out that in the original timeline Kirk and Spock, though having different ideas about when to follow the rules, didn't have a bickering phase in their relationship. At least not one that we saw. By the time of the first episode of the original series this was not an apparent source of tension in their relationship. It was more an issue for Spock and McCoy. But on the other hand, as Liz pointed out, this Kirk grew up without a dad and is thus more rebellious, and this Spock lost his home world which might make him crave order more than he otherwise would have.)

But then the Kirk death scene feels out of place for the exact opposite reason. These guys have only known each other for four years tops, and have only been working together for around one. I get Spock being sad, but not at the level he does. The mirroring scene in Wrath of Kahn meant so much because these characters had been friends and colleagues for over a decade. It's as though this film was relying on material from outside itself, from its own disavowed and disconnected (since it happened in a different timeline) back story, for its emotional weight.

This, I think, is a symptom of my third and largest issue with Into Darkness. And it's so important I'm giving it its own heading.


Bringing Back Kahn
I understand that Wrath of Kahn is probably the best liked of the first 10 Star Trek films. It's at the top of all sorts of lists, both professional and non-professional. Historically, it was extremely important to Trek as a franchise. So on some level I understand J.J. Abrams' motivation for having this film bring Kahn into the mix. But...in the end I don't think it was the best call to make.

1. Why go to the trouble creatively to alter the timeline and essentially reboot Star Trek, just to then "riff" on what has already been done? This isn't Batman or Superman or Spiderman or Iron Man or [insert comic book property here] or even Transformers where the source material already includes multiple continuities and incarnations of characters, and putting it on film almost necessitates taking the best of those existing ideas and doing your own take on them. Before you came around there was one Trek continuity. You decided to quasi-reboot it, to create a new continuity. Did you really do so just to give Trek the comic book treatment? You have a chance to do something new. To come up with original ideas, or at least original characters. Why not take it? (This goes back to my feelings on their decision to do the reboot in the first place. Same thing. Why not do something new?)

2. Similar to the Kirk and Spock relationship, the weight of Kahn as the villain here, aside from the fact that he killed Pike and a few dozen others (which I'm not trying to minimize), isn't developed independently within the film itself. Rather it seems to rely to a large extent on "Space Seed" (the original series episode involving Kahn) and Wrath of Kahn. When he reveals who he is he yells it in a raspy voice in a very dramatic moment, the point of which is that this is a big stinking deal. This is Kahn! But, within the film and new timeline itself, this doesn't mean much. And the remainder of the film does little, aside from the referencing Wrath of Kahn (and thus a different Kahn, Kirk, Spock, etc.) to change that. Ok, your name is Kahn. And? Oh, you were some sort of genetically engineered superman who was incarcerated for being bad at some undefined point in the past. I get that Trek audiences know the significance. But for this Kahn and Enterprise crew it isn't significant. They have no history together. And, it seems to me, what they develop here doesn't appear likely to prove to be as iconic.

3. To me, most of the direct echoes to Wrath of Kahn seemed forced. Poor Zachary Quinto, through presumably no fault of his own, ends up being the bearer of a couple of notable ones. First there's the quoting of the classic "The needs of the many..." line (which here doesn't have the idea of "don't cry for my Jim" but of "you're an idiot Captain so let me explain this to you"). Then, after Kirk's death (which, perhaps surprisingly, I didn't at the time feel as forced, but rather an interesting look at events echoing in different ways through changed timelines and all that science-fictiony stuff), we have Spock looking up to the sky and yelling "KAHN!!!" Oy! Again, not really Quinto's fault. He delivers it pretty well. It's just the fact that it exists here that's the problem.

In the end, the bringing Kahn in makes the whole affair seem a little like people trying to ride the coattails of greatness in order to be popular, as opposed to doing their own thing.


So there it is. Some of my thoughts on Star Trek Into Darkness. A film that I both liked and didn't like. If I had to sum it up I'd say that my disappointments with it aren't primarily with the execution. Rather, they are the direct result of two creative decisions made years ago: Create an alternate timeline, and do a riff on Wrath of Kahn. The result is a film that both doesn't rely on the Star Trek that's come before it, and does. But many of the ways it doesn't I wish it did. And many of the ways it does I think it would be a stronger film if it didn't.

Until next time, I remain

 - Nic


p.s. - I enjoyed the references to DS9 (Section 31), Enterprise (the model of the NX-01 in Adm. Marcus' room), and First Contact (the model of the Phoenix in Adm. Marcus' room). But what was up with that science officer with the robot voice (officially known as Science Officer 0718). Anyone else have a "what the crap" spit out your coffee moment when he first spoke?


END OF LINE
Posted on May 20, 2013 .

Star Trek: Into Darkness - Josh's Impressions (!!SPOILERS!!)

!!WARNING!! !Large SPOILERS for Star Trek: Into Darkness ahead!!

In the years leading up to the 2009 Star Trek film, Nic and I had our concerns about the proposed reboot. “What would this change for the franchise?” we thought. We went into the film expecting to absolutely hate it, but to our surprise, it wasn’t all that bad. Sure, there were way too many lens flares, some minor canon issues, and a much missed sense of heart that the series is known for, but overall, it was a decent film.

In the years leading up to the newly released, Into Darkness, our concerns were even greater. Our main concern was the rumor that the new film would have Khan Noonien Singh as its main villain. This was something that made both mine and Nic’s eyes nearly roll completely out of our heads.

Khan is considered one of the all-time best villains in the history of Trek. I can see where folks are coming from, and I could probably agree with them. He was cold, calculated, and willing to accomplish his goals at any cost. Good fictional villains tend to have those kinds of qualities.

As I’ve mentioned in my recent articles, I believe that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a highly overrated film. It’s a great movie; don’t get me wrong. I just believe that there are better movies in the franchise. But in all fairness, that’s subjective and overwhelming majorities disagree with me. That being said, why repeat something like that?

When it was announced that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing an unnamed villain in the new movie, I was actually kind of relieved. I thought, “Well, at least it’s not Khan. I mean, the dude looks absolutely nothing like Ricardo Montalban, so it couldn’t possibly be Khan… Right?”

Oh how wrong I was.

When the first trailers were released for Into Darkness, I was unimpressed. I was still under the impression that this would be a “Khan-less” movie, but the overall look of the film was too… well… Star Wars-ish. From everything shown in the trailers, it looked like the majority of the flick took place on Coruscant, the Republic capitol in the prequel trilogy (and later home of the Empire). Mostly though, it was the trailers’ over-emphasis on action, whereas I was kind of hoping for a little lighter, more thought provoking Star Trek film. I thought that since there was a ton of action in the first one, maybe it might be a good idea to get back to the heart of the franchise by taking it down a few notches. Apparently, the folks over at Paramount disagreed.

That brings us to the week of the new film’s release. I said to myself, “Well, the movie looks kind of bland and I don’t mind seeing spoilers for a movie I’m skeptical of, so I’ll check out the Wikipedia article real quick for a synopsis.” When the page loaded, the first word I saw under the plot heading was… “Khan.”

I’ve gotta admit… I had quite a bit of nerd rage at that moment. I didn’t even read the entire synopsis. Once I saw that Khan was the main villain, I couldn’t bring myself to read the rest. Did the revelation that he was the main baddie curb my opinion of the film once I watched it? Not really. In fact, it’s my personal opinion that Khan was actually the best thing about Into Darkness (along with Karl Urban’s continuously spot-on portrayal of Bones). He doesn’t really look like Khan… he doesn’t really act like Khan… but hey, Cumberbatch plays a really good bad guy. And honestly, once he shows up in the movie, it kind of… VERY slightly starts feeling like Star Trek. But I think that’s mainly because a good portion of it at that point starts taking place on the Enterprise itself.

So what about the rest of the film? I can honestly say that I did not like it. Again, my opinion is not based solely on the fact that Khan was in it. I didn’t like the movie because 90% of it didn’t feel like Star Trek. I felt as though if the characters weren’t wearing Starfleet uniforms and the main ship didn’t look like the Enterprise, it literally could have been ANY sci-fi action film. Before the movie started, there was a trailer for the upcoming, Ender’s Game. That movie, Into Darkness, After Earth, and Oblivion look like they could all be sequels to each other and all part of the same franchise. Apparently, Damon Lindeloff, one of the movie’s 3 writers suggested the title of the film should have been Star Trek: Transformers 4. I know that he was only joking, but I think that statement pretty much sums up what Into Darkness is: An overblown action movie that completely apes the most well-liked Star Trek movie of all time.

And boy does it ape it.

I understand that the writers were trying to be clever with their twist on The Wrath of Khan, but to take a bunch of iconic scenes from that film and jamming them all together in order to replicate the same emotional effect? Get outta here. If you’ve seen both movies, you know that I’m referring to the end of TWOK where Spock sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise and her crew. Spock is dying, leaning against the glass in the engine room, and he and Kirk share a touching moment which sums up their friendship. Into Darkness tries to do the exact same thing (recreating the scene almost verbatim), only this time, it’s Kirk who sacrifices himself.

As dumb as trying to ape an iconic scene is, I don’t think the writers understood why the scene works better in TWOK and IS so iconic. I mean, for all intents and purposes, fans thought that Spock was dead after that movie. That’s why his death resonates so well. They had taken a beloved Star Trek character and killed him off (very heroically), and then shot him out of the Enterprise in a photon torpedo. He was gone. Fans didn’t know there was going to be a Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. In Into Darkness, we’ve only gotten to know the new, younger Kirk and Spock over the course of ONE movie. General audiences aren’t going to care about that. Plus, since it’s pretty standard that movies are done in 3’s nowadays, everybody knows that Kirk was in no real danger. Also, as Nic pointed out, fans of the original series got 3 seasons of a television show to build the friendship between Kirk and Spock. You KNEW they were friends, thus it was easy to understand Kirk’s sadness that Spock had died. Since fans of the 2009 movie only had the (again) ONE movie to go on (a movie where Spock is pretty much a ding-dong head to Kirk 99% of the time), why would Spock be so outraged over Kirk’s death?

So was Into Darkness a terrible film? No. Well… not if you don’t really care for Star Trek. If you’re a long-time Trek fan like us here at The Inner Dorkdom, then yeah, you’re probably going to have your share of problems with it. If you’re a person who just likes to see the latest summer popcorn movie, you’ll probably like it. I like popcorn movies too, just not when the words “Star” and “Trek” are in the title. I expect a certain “something” when I go to see Star Trek, Star Wars, or any other established franchise film. I expect a certain mood, atmosphere, and characterization, but I just didn’t feel that with Into Darkness. And I didn’t feel it because I honestly believe it wasn’t there at all.
I came out of the movie theater pretty depressed. My only thought was, “This is the future of Star Trek.” There was a hope that as the movies continued, the writers would get us closer to what the franchise is all about, but instead we’ve been pushed further away. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the day that someone who was previously involved in Star Trek before the reboot takes over the franchise.

I’m probably going to have my fingers crossed for a LONG time.

-Josh