No "Top 5" for 2014?

So last year I wrote an article in which I listed my top 5 games of 2013. Unfortunately, mind-blowing games for me this year were kind of lacking. Sure, there were good games, but nothing that took my world by storm. If one were to ask me what my favorite games are right now, I’d probably say Dragon Age: Inquisition and Super Mario 3D World, but that would be biased towards what I’m actually in the middle of playing at the moment.

So what to do, then? Why not talk about what I’m currently bouncing back and forth between? As of right now, I’m probably actively playing more games at once than I ever have in my entire life.

Find out what I’m playing after the jump!

Bouncing back and forth between games is something that I don’t necessarily recommend. Lots of times, doing so will make you not really appreciate something to its fullest - something I’m hoping doesn’t happen to me. Luckily, a few of the games I’m bouncing between are ones I’ve played a gazillion times before.

With the recent addition of the iPad Air to my tech collection, I’ve gained yet another platform with which to play games. It just so happens that nearly every old-school Final Fantasy title in existence is available for Apple and Android devices, so I’ve been playing some of those. In my rotating queue are Final Fantasy IV: The After Years (a 3D remake of the 2D original), Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy VI, and the new(er) Final Fantasy Dimensions. Truthfully, I’ve spent most of my handheld/mobile time playing Final Fantasy VI, but how could I not? Like Chrono Trigger, it’s one of those classic RPGs that, once you start playing, you just can’t put it down!

Another mobile time killer that I’ve been really digging on is Angry Birds: Transformers. I’m a huge Transformers fan, and I really like Angry Birds, so the combination of the two franchises really appeals to me. The gameplay for AB:TF is quite a bit different from the traditional AB games, but it’s an absolute blast. I just really wish the game didn’t try to goad you into buying crystals (with real-world money) to keep you constantly playing. Instead, you’re forced into long periods of upgrading your Transformers that keeps you from playing the game for long stretches if you don’t want to let go of your money. Personally, when it comes to a game like that, micro-transactions are right out, so I have to sit and wait a lot with that game… But I usually just switch to FFVI instead!

On the PC front, you’d think I’d be playing a lot of games on my Mac, right? In case you didn’t read my last “Lack of Apple Hate” article, you should know that that isn’t happening at all. I found out very quickly how much the MacBook Pro is NOT good for gaming. That being said, I’ve still got my ASUS laptop, and I’ve been enjoying several recent purchases on it. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, The Sims 4, Final Fantasy XIII (again), and Final Fantasy XIII-2 are all finding their respective ways in and out of my eyeballs. A recent time card for Final Fantasy XIV will probably have me returning to that game soon, as well.

As I mentioned above, I’ve been playing Dragon Age and Mario 3D World on the consoles. I got them both for Christmas (along with the PS4 version of GTAV), and both are great games. Dragon Age is a little overwhelming in terms of content, and 3D World is shaping up to be - in my opinion - one of the best 3D Mario games yet.

There are also a few games I need to get back to on consoles. Games such as Alien: Isolation (though I still don’t know if I’ll actually go back to that one or not), Shadow of Mordor, Assassin’s Creed: Unity, etc. There is also one game on the 3DS that I really want to get back to: Bravely Default. It’s pure, old-school RPG goodness!

I’m really looking forward to doing reviews on all of these games in the future, but as you know, I like to finish the games before I do. I’m thinking, however, that I might have to change that rule a little bit going forward. As rapidly as my game collection increases, I’ll never be able to finish games in a timely manner for review purposes. So what I’m planning on doing is writing more “Thoughts” articles. With that format, I can at least let everybody know what I’m thinking about a particular game at the moment, and if I have time for a full review later on, I’ll put that out there.

So 2014 may not have blown me away with its release lineup (yet), but I’m playing more games at once than I ever have. 2015, on the other hand, will see some releases that I’m hugely excited for: The Witcher 3, Mortal Kombat X, Final Fantasy XV (maybe… probably not. I’ll believe it when I see it), and more! So there are at least three candidates for my top 5 next year!

Here’s to hoping that everyone had a great Christmas! We’ll see you in 2015!

-Josh

By the way, if I were really forced to pick a Game of the Year for 2014 right now, I’d probably pick The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. So there ya go.

Alien: Isolation (PS4) - Thoughts

Alien: Isolation – Thoughts (PS4)

Alien: Isolation is a game I probably won’t be able to finish. Is it better than Colonial Marines? Is it scary? Are the negative reviews it’s been getting from some sites accurate? Find out after the jump!

From its initial announcement, I’d been excited about Alien: Isolation. I’ve always been a pretty big fan of the films (particularly the first), and it looked as though the game would be a pretty accurate representation of the world that Ridley Scott directed us through in his 1979 film, Alien. Now that the game has been released, and I’ve had a pretty decent amount of time to play it, I can say with all certainty that it is. However, that may be its biggest downfall.

Somewhat like the original film, Isolation has the perfect blend of slow, building tension and well-done payoffs to that tension.  The problem lies in the fact that the main campaign is somewhere around 20 hours long. While yes, that could be seen as a good thing, given that one usually wants to get the most out of his/her $59.99 for a single game, there’s only so much slow-burning tension that one can take before it becomes outright frustrating!

In a recent posting of the Penny Arcade webcomic, Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins humorously criticized their opening hours of playing the game, and how you literally play for a little over an hour before you actually see the famously frightening, titular creature. As Holkins’ comic strip alter-ego Tycho suggests after Krahulik’s Gabe complains about this, “It's called suspense, Gabriel. And they are building it. Soon, you will know fear.” Personally, I’m fine with not seeing the Alien for that long, as it does lend itself very well to the feeling of the original film.
(To see the Penny Arcade comic, click here!)

After said hour or so, the Alien makes his big reveal, and it’s done extremely well; he drops out of a ventilation duct and slowly rises to his feet, immediately beginning his hunt for you. Whenever he appears, the best thing – the ONLY thing – to do is hide. If it sees you, you can kiss your video game life goodbye and begin loading up your last save point, hoping that it was close enough to the point where you died. In other words, it kills you immediately; you can't hurt it.

The first couple of times that this happens really aren’t that bad. But when the game starts throwing objectives at you that are literally “go get the thing in this room and put it in the room next-door, so that you can open a door all the way across the level’s map,” it gets frustrating while constantly having to avoid the Alien and certain death.
In my opinion, a better approach would have been to design the game in such a way that the Alien doesn’t always show up and hamper your objectives. Instead, have him show up when you least expect it. The way it is, you can always tell he’s going to pop out when your objective is to get somewhere in a hurry, or when the objective is seemingly simple.

In all fairness, this kind of gameplay is what makes these kinds of games these kinds of games. Titles like Outlast and the Amnesia series all have that “constant tension,” but something about this type of gameplay for more than a few hours just becomes maddening. It’s probably the fact that, while slow-burning tension works very well in a two-hour movie, a twenty-hour game like that only makes you want to shut it off after two hours.

Is the game scary? I personally don’t think so, even though I’ve always considered the Alien to be the scariest movie monster of all time. And here, it acts exactly as you would expect it to - hiding and crawling through the station's ductwork, carefully seeking you out, etc. There are plenty of jump-scares, yet nothing that I was actually “terrified” over.
The Silent Hills (P.T.) demo on PS4 was frightening – this is not.
That being said, the game makes me extremely nervous, but only because I don’t want the Alien to kill me in one shot and make me start waaaaaaaaay back at the last save point I found.
And it’s for that reason that I probably won’t finish the game – I’m “on the edge of my seat,” but not for the reasons I’m probably supposed to be.

So there you have it – my thoughts on Alien: Isolation. In a sense, the reviews have been accurate, or at least they align with my own personal experience playing the game, and it's definitely a more polished effort then the last Alien game, Colonial Marines. However, I think IGN’s review in particular was pretty harsh, seeing as how they gave it a 5.9.
Through I don’t like reviewing games until after I’ve finished them, I’d probably give it a 7.5/10. The graphics are great (even though the PS4 version suffers from frame-rate problems during cutscenes), the controls work well for the type of game it is, and the game makes you feel as though you actually are living a part of the Alien universe. So in the sense of being a game which accurately represents the feeling of Ridley Scott’s original film, Alien: Isolation delivers. Unfortunately, it’s like watching Alien on DVD or BluRay 10 times in a row; it’s a great movie, but after the second or third time watching it, you’d probably want to watch something else.

-Josh

Note: If you have the Nostromo Edition of Alien: Isolation (or want to buy the DLC), play the Crew Expendable mission and the Last Survivor pre-order bonus. You’ll be able to see pretty much all that the game has to offer in a much shorter amount of time, meaning that the slow-burn feeling the game strives for is much more effective. 

Note 2: Looking for a good Alien game? Go check out Alien vs. Predator for Xbox 360, PS3, and PC/Steam. It’s short, but it’s effective, doesn’t get boring, and you can even choose to play as the Alien!

Head-To-Head: The Newest Round of The Console Wars

All three next-gen consoles are now on the market. The Wii U, Playstation 4 and Xbox One are all set to have another near-decade of life in the gaming world, but which one should you own? Is there one console that is the definitive gaming machine? Do they all suck eggs? Make the jump and find out!

The console wars and videogame company competition have both been around since the option of home gaming was available back in the 70s. While I wasn’t around back then (80s kid, here), I do remember seeing commercial after commercial and print ad after print ad detailing jabs from Sega at Nintendo. However, I don’t remember Nintendo ever firing any shots back… but there was a reason for that: Nintendo’s products spoke for themselves. From 1985 to around 1996, Nintendo ruled the world and Sega desperately wanted a piece of the pie, trying to convince people that their inferior console was the way to go.

See what I did there? Even I referred to Sega’s products as inferior. Does that make me a Nintendo fanboy?

The simple fact is, I’ve always been able to set fandom aside in favor of a realistic outlook. At the time, Nintendo’s products WERE superior to Sega’s. A simple Google search of the Super NES and Sega Genesis’ technical specs will tell you that. But it hasn’t always been about tech, has it? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.

In the 32 and 64-bit era of gaming, Nintendo was dethroned by Sony and their PlayStation console (Sega was no longer a threat due to the Saturn’s lack of popularity and the downfall of the Dreamcast would mark their last adventure in the console market). Which one was technically superior? The Nintendo 64. Which had more games, more companies developing for it, and ultimately sold more hardware and software? The PlayStation. Did this have anything to do with those commercials of Crash Bandicoot trashing Nintendo? I highly doubt it. Let’s just say that Sony owes Squaresoft (now SquareEnix) and Final Fantasy VII a humongous favor.

During the 128-bit era, Microsoft entered the fray with the original Xbox. Technically, it was on par with Nintendo’s Gamecube, both of which were more powerful than Sony’s Playstation 2. Which was the more successful console? The Playstation 2. Again, developers had chosen Sony in favor of everything else. I think that here, it had more to do with Sony being the first out of the gate and having a significant head start on their competition.

A similar situation could be seen with the previous generation’s console market. The Xbox 360 was the first console released this time around; therefore most developers went with the “new” tech, just as they had with the Playstation 2. Nintendo’s Wii was, indeed, the highest selling console, but the company chose to market the system as something the whole family could enjoy, rather than something strictly for gamers. This led to a good number of people buying the system so that they could play Wii Sports Bowling, not really caring whether they played the newest The Legend of Zelda or Super Mario title. As a result, software sales suffered and Microsoft continued to rake in the money off of the Xbox 360 software and its $80 million consoles sold.

Sony also saw an initial decline in sales due to trying to push their Blu-Ray format through their Playstation 3 and overcharging for the console. Over time (and a few price drops), however, the PS3 began to reach neck and neck with the Xbox 360.

So here we are in the present. Three new consoles from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are on store shelves once again. Fanboys the world over will lock in heated battles filled with hyperbole and idiocy as they try to determine which plastic box is “better.” It remains to be seen how this “console war” will turn out, but I thought it would make for an interesting article to compare the three and see how they measure up with one another by using categories common to all three systems.
Just to let you know, I’m writing this for gamers who only care to own one system per console generation as they try to judge which one they might consider picking up. As I stated with my console reviews, these are MY OPINIONS. I’m not trying to take sides here; I’m just trying to offer an objective viewpoint from the way I personally see things in the console world/videogame industry. Remember, I HAVE NO FAVORITES! I own all three. They didn’t get sent to me for free by Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft for review purposes. I bought them with my own money; therefore it would be foolish to say I spent money on something I knew I was going to hate.
(And yes, I saw the video of that kid who bought a PS4 on launch day just to smash it on the sidewalk, so I know stupid people like that exist. What an idiot. Trust me; I’m not like that guy. I value my dollars.)

1. Power/Graphics

Wii U –
Unfortunately, Nintendo, with its last two consoles, has been one generation behind. The Wii wasn’t up to technical snuff with the Xbox 360 or PS3, and instead was more on par with the company’s previous console, the Gamecube. The Wii U, while more powerful than the original Wii, is on par with the Xbox 360 and PS3, only ever so slightly more powerful. While games look a ton better than they did on the Wii, the Wii U still uses what is now considered “outdated” tech from around 2006/2007-ish.

PS4 –
More powerful than the PS3, the PS4 is the first console that I know of which outputs natively at 1080p (I had thought this about the Wii U at one point, but found out otherwise). As I’ve mentioned before in other articles and reviews, resolution may not be that important to some people, but resolution is also kind of like one of those hidden picture puzzles – once you see it, you can’t “unsee” it. The PS4 also offers graphical capabilities more comparable to visuals which can be found in newer PC hardware. Still not quite on that level, it’s a pretty large step up from the 2006 technology which the PS3 used for 6 years.

Xbox One –
If it wasn’t for the fact that the Xbox One doesn’t output natively at 1080p, there probably wouldn’t be a discernible difference between it and the PS4, since what’s under the two systems’ hoods are nearly identical. Though, I have to wonder: Is it that the Xbox One CAN’T run 1080p properly on certain games, or is it that no games support it right now? If no games support it, I have to ask, “why not?” This is something that really doesn’t make that much sense to me.

The Winner: PS4
Graphics aren’t everything - that’s a given. My favorite consoles of all time have been the Super NES, Gameboy Advance, and the DS/3DS, all three of which weren’t/aren’t capable of the stunning visuals seen on next-gen consoles. But in order to keep with the theme of looking at the console wars realistically, I believe that graphics ARE important nowadays to the success of a console. Games should always be fun; you’ll get no argument from me there, but games that look as good as they play can be a turning point for a lot of people. That being said, at these early stages of these new consoles’ lives, the PS4 seems to have the upper hand in the graphics department.

2. The Controller/How You Play

Wii U –
Rather than focus on graphics aspects and capabilities, Nintendo has chosen to put their efforts into the way we play games. When reading that sentence, you might think, “Well that’s good, right?”
I’m down for experimentation when it comes to game consoles, but Nintendo, in my opinion, hasn’t quite gotten it right yet. The motion controls of the Wii were neat, but that’s all they were – neat. It won over a casual fan-base, but the Wii-mote’s design was a little too off putting for some gamers, myself included.
The Wii U introduces yet another controller design, this time with more traditional features integrated into a tablet. I’m not a huge fan of the tablet for games. Instead, I use my touchscreen Wii U gamepad to navigate menus and my Netflix queue. Having a second screen for something like the DS or 3DS, a handheld system where you only have to shift your eyes to see the second screen is great, but having two visuals going on in my hands AND a television can be quite a bit distracting. I will say, however, that the ability to play some games on just the gamepad is a neat feature, though it neither makes nor breaks the controller or system design.
One problem that I believe Nintendo experiences with these radically different controllers is that developers feel like they need to add controller functionality to their games in order to support it. Apparently, this is why the Tomb Raider reboot never showed up on the console. Rather than develop something with an easily mapped control scheme across all platforms, developers know that they need to do something which will, at least in some way, show off the features of the gamepad. It’s my opinion that developers would rather take the easy route and not develop for the Wii U. Is this the best decision? Probably not, but at the same time, it’s kind of understandable. Why make a port of a game with features that just seem tacked on?

PS4 –
This is the first major redesign of the Playstation controller since the Dual Analog version on the original PS1. Built with comfort in mind, Sony also added a touchpad in the center for menu navigation with the possibility of game integration.
While I’ve never been the biggest fan of the controller’s analog stick placement, I admire Sony for keeping a familiar approach each time it releases a new controller. It’s not the most innovative way to go about things, but it’s also not too much too soon. The Playstation controller has slightly evolved with each new iteration, getting us used to new things rather than putting it all out there at once.

Xbox One –
Microsoft also took a familiar approach this time around, with some improvements made on the Xbox 360 controller. I still think they could have done a better job with things like the d-pad, but features like the rumble triggers are a neat addition. There’s not really that much to praise or curse about this controller.

The Winner: PS4 & Xbox One
How we play our games is, indeed, important. I think Sony and Microsoft get this one simply because they’ve given us something which we’re familiar with.
In the grand scheme of things, the Wii U gamepad is really not that far behind in this category. It does have the ability to play some games without the need of a television, and its button layout is more along the lines of what we think of now as a traditional console controller. I just really don’t see the touchscreen thing ever really taking off when it comes to consoles and it can, at times, become a hindrance in both the gamers who play and the developers who make games for the system.

3. User Interface and Features

Wii U, PS4, Xbox One –
Honestly, I think all three consoles are struggling a bit in this category, the PS4 less so than the Xbox One and Wii U, but not by much at all.
I think that the Xbox 360 had the best UI on a console to date. It was simple to use, I didn’t have any problems finding anything, and could basically pick it up straight out of the box and know where everything was located. When the Wii U came along, I was hoping that Nintendo had taken a page out of Microsoft’s book and created an interface which would at least make getting to your friends and engaging in multiplayer easier. In a way, they made it easier to get to your friends list (doing away with the horrid “friend codes” system), but everything now basically uses an app.
Want to look at your friends list? Open the app. Want to check your messages? Open the app. Then wait entirely too long for it to load. True enough, the time spent waiting for the app to load is only a matter of seconds, but this is, in my opinion, a step backwards from the instantaneous and effortlessness social features of the Xbox 360.
However, Microsoft isn’t innocent in this situation either. The Xbox One now has the same sort of setup, requiring you to open an app for almost everything you do. So does the PS4, only I noticed that it isn’t quite as bad on Sony’s system. It’s still not great, and doesn’t put it enough ahead of the competition to amount to anything, but it’s true nonetheless.
Some of the other features of the PS4 and Xbox One include internet streaming directly from a console to either TwitchTV or Ustream, cable box integration on the X1 and Game DVR (also on X1). These are all neat features, but I’m a gamer. I like to play games. These are all things that I personally have little to no interest in. Game DVR is pretty cool, but I could live without it. Streaming might be neat, but if I wanted to stream, a capture card is relatively inexpensive nowadays.

The Winner: Wii U & PS4
This one is tough to award a winner since all three have problems, but I have to give it to the Wii U and PS4. For some reason, the Xbox One’s interface just seems too cluttered. The entire thing being designed to function predominantly with Kinect is also a negative. It takes longer than what should be needed to figure out where everything is and how everything works, while the Wii U and PS4’s UIs are pretty straightforward, though still not exactly easy to navigate.

4. Games

Wii U –
It’s been no secret that the Wii U has been struggling over the past year in terms of games. I don’t believe that has anything to do with their quality or lack thereof, but instead the problem lies in Nintendo not releasing games from their big franchises on a regular basis. At this point, with a dip in exclusive 3^rd party support, Nintendo is having to rely on 1^st party titles in order to stay afloat – titles that they haven’t released. Don’t get me wrong, there are some interesting games in the pipeline, but by this point, a year after the console’s release, we should have seen some by now. Especially franchises like Zelda, Metroid, or Starfox. So far, we’ve only seen one game that I would consider a “triple-A” exclusive: Super Mario 3D World. All the really interesting games have been coming out on the 3DS. The new Legend of Zelda title being the most recent. And honestly, there’s really no reason that couldn’t have been successful on the Wii U.
Rest assured, there are a lot of people out there who love Nintendo franchises, myself included. The Wii U is the only place you’re going to get them. The question is, “when will Nintendo release them?”

PS4 –
I’ve already talked about what I thought of the launch lineup, so there’s no need to get into that. The only thing we can really do here is speculate on the future. Will there be new games from Naughty Dog on par with The Last of Us? A new Uncharted game has been announced, so I’m sure we’ll see new IPs. What about Quantic Dream? Probably.
I could go on and on about what games are probably coming out for the PS4.

Xbox One –
Microsoft could probably call their console “The Halo Gear Box” and it would be a more fitting title. The Halo and Gears of War franchises are pretty much what the system is known for. There’s no question that these two series will end up on Xbox One at some point. Other than sporadic exclusives, I really don’t see the Xbox One’s game library being any different than the PS4’s. One only needs to look at the PS3 and Xbox 360 for reference.

Winner: PS4 & Xbox One
When it comes to games, you won’t be able to go wrong with these two consoles. It all really boils down to (between those two) if you want your games to look slightly prettier or not.
Nintendo has gotten the reputation of being a “kiddy,” or “family friendly” company, which is probably true. Or at least, it’s more family oriented than the other two big names. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it kind of limits Nintendo in terms of diversity. The Xbox One and PS4 (and by relation, the PS3 & 360) will have a selection of all types of games from adults to younger children, whereas the Wii U’s games are usually centered around “all ages” with a focus on younger kids. The games that will be available for Wii U will be predominantly Nintendo franchises and have a more (for lack of a better term) “child-like” quality about them. There’s nothing wrong with that, but again, I can see where it’s kind of limiting to some degree.

Overview & Final Thoughts –
The only real way to run the gamut on gaming is to own all three consoles (and a PC, to a certain extent), but I understand that’s not always feasible. So after all is said and done, which console should you buy as you move forward into the future of gaming?
(Here’s the part where everyone who was expecting me to award an overall winner groans and gets extremely disappointed.)
I can’t answer that.

Just like this article and the opinions expressed in it, what you choose to play and the types of games you enjoy are for YOU to decide. All I can say is this: If I were going to have just one console of these 3, I would probably go with the PS4, with the Wii U at a close second. The PS4 performs just fine for me and the Wii U is the only place I’ll be able to play the Nintendo franchises I enjoy.
If you like diversity, the PS4 is probably for you.
If you want a console that is built to showcase new titles in classic Nintendo franchises with a more family friendly emphasis, go with the Wii U.
If you enjoy the competitive multiplayer scene and really like shooters, you’ll probably feel right at home on the Xbox One.

Personally, I enjoy all these types of games. So in all honesty, one is really no better than the other when you get right down to it. Games are games, fun is fun, and what we enjoy is what we enjoy. All three systems offer a varying degree of fun, each catering to a certain style. While that may impede or help a console manufacturer’s product sales, it shouldn’t have any bearing whatsoever on the fun that these consoles can bring you.

-Josh
 

 

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

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