Hyrule Warriors – Review (Wii U)

It’s been a while, but I’m back with a new game review! This time, I’ll be giving my thoughts on one of Nintendo’s latest big releases, Hyrule Warriors.

More after the jump!

Since the Wii U’s release in 2012, I haven’t really bought any new games. In fact, I have ONE game: New Super Mario Bros. U. Unfortunately, Nintendo hasn’t released a lot of games for the system in their major franchises; I’m pretty sure that the biggest release was Mario Kart 8 a few months back. Two years later, however, there are a lot of big games from Nintendo on the horizon – Super Smash Bros., Bayonetta 2, a new Zelda game that we got our first glimpse of earlier this year, and the list keeps going.

One of the releases that caught my attention when it was announced last year was a mash-up between Koei Tecmo’s Warriors series and Nintendo’s own Legend of Zelda franchise. I was stoked. If for nothing else, I’d finally get a Zelda game of some sort for the Wii U, and would have a new reason to boot up the system that had seen very few hours of actual game time from me. I’m a sucker for Zelda titles; what can I say?

The fanbase for the Warriors games has always been pretty divided. On one hand, you have people that love the strategy/hack ‘n slash series – on the other, you have folks who claim the series is boring and monotonous. I fall in the former category. While I never played the series’ main entries, Dynasty Warriors, I was a HUGE fan of the spin off, Samurai Warriors. I loved the frantic nature of the game, and how it’s very “real-time,” in that stuff is constantly going on, no matter what you do.

The Zelda/Warriors mash-up is a strange one to say the least. It’s definitely something I never thought I would see, and never knew that I actually wanted. From my point of view, the colliding of these two franchises works pretty well.

Breakdown:



The game's antagonist, Cia

Story: 8/10
As I said in my A Link Between Worlds review, trying to explain a Zelda game’s story is extremely hard to do and, on paper, doesn’t really sound all that engaging. Most of the time, you’re dealing with two objectives: Save the princess and recover the Triforce. Occasionally (most often in recent years), it gets a little more nuanced than that, but that’s the basic gist. Combine those objectives with the fact that you have to figure out where whatever game you’re playing fits in the series’ timeline, and you’ve got yourself a right mess at times!
Hyrule Warriors expands on the traditional Zelda story (though the Triforce is still the main focus), in favor of one that incorporates some of our familiar games’ timelines and, like the titles’ very nature, mashes them up to tell what is (to me, at least) one of the most “interesting” Zelda stories to date.
My only complaint with the story is that, given the frantic nature of the Warriors series, a lot of it is told during gameplay.
“What? Isn’t that when you want the story to play out?”
True, most games’ stories are told during gameplay, but the Warriors series (this entry included) is all about constant combat and completing objectives on the battlefield while doing so. With that in mind, some of the story can occasionally get lost as dialogue pops up on the screen while you’re trying to take out hordes of enemies. This becomes very frustrating when you miss a key bit of dialogue that might help you with an objective, all because you’re trying to keep your troops safe or fighting some of the tougher enemies.   



The game's pretty, and you'll be doing stuff like this... a lot!

Visuals: 9/10
 As you all know, I’m a stickler for resolution. I have no idea what resolution Hyrule Warriors is running at, but it’s gorgeous! I have to attribute some of that (if not all of it) to the game’s art style. The only thing I could possibly say on the negative side of things is that the framerate chugs occasionally as the Wii U’s hardware struggles to keep up when there are a lot of enemies on screen at once. This isn’t something that happens all the time and is, in fact, pretty rare. But when it does, it’s fairly noticeable.

Sound: 7/10
The music in this game, quite literally, rocks! Quite a few familiar Zelda tunes are present and reworked with a metal flavor. Since the game is pretty fast-paced and all about action, a metal-influenced score is perfect. The only piece of music that I really wish was included is the Dark World theme from A Link to the Past. Sadly, I never heard it if it’s in there, and it would have been a great one for a game like this.
While the music may be great, I’ve got to dock it several points for one reason: the lack of voice acting. It’s been a staple of Zelda games since Ocarina of Time to not have spoken dialogue. Instead, all games have featured a “Sims-like” approach by having the characters start their dialogue with some kind of unintelligible gibberish. This was fine for the 64-bit era, but it really is time to start having voice acting in Zelda titles. Want to have Link remain the “silent protagonist?” That’s fine. In fact, I prefer it that way. But when it comes to the other characters, Nintendo should really start making an effort to give them a voice.
I mentioned earlier how you might miss some of the dialogue in the game, or miss an important cue related to an objective. This could have been easily remedied by including voice acting.
The other thing I docked points for: “Hey! LISTEN!” Ugh. That should have never been included, and should never be again, as it was one of the most annoying things about Ocarina of Time. It seems like you’re interrupted by it nearly every five minutes towards the beginning of the game.



All the characters play and handle differently. Lana is a prime example.

Gameplay: 8/10
Being outnumbered, swiping your sword through 100 enemies in one blow, and mild RPG and RTS elements have all been staples of the Warriors series. This entry is no different. It can be a little repetitive, but I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who didn’t get a thrill from wiping out an entire regiment of enemy troops by charging up Link’s sword and unleashing his spin attack!
To increase the replay value, as has been done in previous Warriors games, Hyrule Warriors allows you to select several characters throughout the game besides just Link. These characters all play differently and have different abilities and move sets that will keep you playing. Also, a friend can join in for some good, ol’ fashioned local co-op throughout all of the game’s various modes. Nic and I played co-op for several hours, and it was a blast! 

Controls: 8.5/10
Opting to dock the controls a few points was kind of difficult. It’s not really the controls of the game itself that I had problems with, but the design of the Wii U gamepad and pro controller. Basically, it all boils down to the fact that I don’t like the right analog stick being placed above the face buttons. Not only does it take getting used to, since it’s been below the face buttons on every controller since there were dual analog sticks on controllers, but I think it would serve this style of game more if it were placed where I’m used to (for camera controls sake). Just my personal take on it.

Closing Statements:
All in all, I loved Hyrule Warriors. Again, I never knew that I wanted a Zelda/Warriors hybrid, but I’m glad it happened. Sure, it’s going to be one of those games that people either love or get bored with quickly, but it’s definitely worth trying out. It’s action-packed, has great visuals and music, and it will definitely feed your need for a Zelda fix until the next full-fledged game in the series is released.

Final Score: 8.1/10

-Josh

 

The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds (Review)

Platform: Nintendo 3DS

There are quite a few games I would like to see resurrected or have a sequel from the 8/16-bit era. Chrono Trigger, Blaster Master, Ninja Gaiden (NES storyline and gameplay, please), Final Fantasy VI, Actraiser… All of these games, in my opinion, deserve some kind of new, modern game that pays homage to their predecessors. There are probably millions of people out there who never played Actraiser, so they have no idea how great that game was. People have been clamoring for a Chrono sequel since Chrono Cross, and I fear that people may eventually forget about the series altogether if a new entry doesn’t get released anytime soon. A modern day outing would be a perfect way to expose gamers to classic games, while giving all of us that played them originally a way to relive the past.
Lucky for us, one of the greatest games of all time - The Legend of Zelda: A Link to The Past - has just gotten a sequel in A Link Between Worlds for the Nintendo 3DS.  I’ve got to say, I didn’t see this one coming. The question is, “does it live up to the original?”
Find out in my review… which just happens to be after the jump!

Breakdown:

Story: 10/10
The basic story in The Legend of Zelda has always been pretty simplistic, but never “great.” Go ahead and flame me. I’ll wait.

Finished? Good.

While it’s never been an involving story, it HAS been an extremely interesting concept with multiple games helping to produce a VERY involved mythology. With the recent publishing of the Hyrule Historia hardcover book from Dark Horse Publishing, LOZ fans have finally gotten a handle on how all the games connect and feed off one another (though it’s still somewhat convoluted in a few areas).
The basic concept is a princess named Zelda (always a descendant of the original Zelda) is captured by the evil Ganon and a young kid named Link (always a descendant of the original Link) has to save her by traversing the land of Hyrule and gathering pieces of a thing called “the Triforce.” There have been a few games in the series which mixed this formula up (The Adventure of Link and Wind Waker being notable entries), but this is usually the standard. In all fairness, A Link to The Past was no different, only it was, in my opinion, the best executed Zelda title even today.

A Link Between Worlds might, at first glance, seem like a direct sequel to ALTTP, but it’s not. Again, we are dealing with ANOTHER Link and ANOTHER Zelda, only this time it seems as though this takes place a generation or two after ALTTP. Hopefully, Nintendo will give us some exact idea of where this one fits in the timeline.
While I won’t go into details out of fear of spoiling the game, the story takes the same exact steps to get to its conclusion as the game it’s based off of. From a nostalgic point-of-view, this is great, but from a person wanting a true sequel to the original story it may not be entirely satisfying. At times, the game feels more like a modernized remake than the next chapter in a larger tale. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is noticeable and, in my opinion, worth mentioning.  

That's what I'm talkin' about! Classic Zelda action!

Visuals: 10/10
So far, this is the best looking game I’ve seen on the 3DS. More than that, my biggest praise comes from the fact that Nintendo perfectly captured the atmosphere of ALTTP in a 3D environment. The designers even mostly kept the layout of the original overworld map from ALTTP, but changed some things around here and there to make it feel fresh.
(Speaking of 3D, turning the 3D slider all the way up doesn’t really add, nor take away from the overall effect. For most of my time playing, I left the 3D turned completely off.)

Sound: 10/10
A Link to The Past had some of the best videogame music from the 16-bit era. ALBW remixes all those familiar tunes, some with new arrangements, in beautiful sounding, orchestral quality. Some of the themes even got me a little misty-eyed from pure nostalgia. I was taken right back to those times when I would spend hours and hours trudging through Hyrule and its Dark World. The new music introduced like the new villain’s theme is extremely well done, as well.





Pop yo' self into the wall and you have the game's very well-designed "gimmick!"

See that crack in the wall?

Gameplay: 10/10
If you’ve ever played a game in the Legend of Zelda series, you pretty much know what to expect in the next entry. The only thing that has really changed is how you receive items and weapons. Instead of getting a new item upon completion of a dungeon, ALBW introduces Ravio, a merchant who rents items for Link to use throughout his adventure. Ravio informs Link that there is a catch for renting his items, however: if Link falls in battle, Ravio will take all of his rented items back, forcing Link to re-rent, or buy them for a pretty expensive price. While this may sound like a troublesome gameplay element, it actually works quite well and introduces a fun sort of survival element to the game - you won’t want to die because you won’t want to lose your items. For 800 rupees each, you can purchase the items permanently, but you’ll find yourself scavenging for money in order to do so. It’s a neat addition to the series which I hope we see more of in future entries of the series.
The gameplay “hook” for this game is the whole “being able to merge into walls” thing. Link can now transform himself (because of a bracelet he receives from Ravio) into a 2D painting which he can use to both navigate dungeons and phase in and out between Hyrule and Lorule (though let’s be serious here – it’s the Dark World). I found this to be an extremely interesting gameplay mechanic because it forces you to think 2, 3, and 4th dimensionally in order to get around the world.
Also, there’s no ridiculous, hand-holding helper creature this time around. You play as Link with a sword, shield and items. Nothing else. That’s the way I like it.

I enjoyed A Link Between Worlds immensely. I’ve enjoyed the other games in the Zelda series as well, but the franchise always seemed to me as though it lost something after A Link to The Past. That sense of freedom and exploration was one of the things that intrigued me as a kid when playing the old NES game, as well as with the Super NES iteration. A Link Between Worlds brings those elements back to the forefront, offering an amazing experience which puts itself right under ALTTP for me as the 2^nd greatest Zelda game ever made. While it borders on being a straight-up remake, the game has enough differences that make it feel like it is its own, separate entity and, even without the nostalgia factor, A Link Between Worlds holds its place in Zelda greatness.
Is it worth $40? Look at the final score and you’ll see what I think!

Final Score: 10

(It should be noted that this is probably the first game score on The Inner Dorkdom that has ever gotten a perfect 10. J)

-Josh

Screenshots taken from Google Images.

 

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (Review)

Platforms: PS4, PS3, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Wii U, PC

Another year… another Assassin’s Creed. Is that a good or bad thing? Find out after the jump!

**WARNING!! There may or may not be spoilers for the game contained in the review. Do not read if you don’t want to have anything revealed too early!**

I’ve finally gotten around to finishing Assassin’s Creed IV on PS4. The review may seem late, but I really don’t like to review games that I haven’t finished. Some sites do that, but The Inner Dorkdom likes to give a bit more time for games to gestate, rather than throw up a review for the sake of having it available during the game’s release window.

In fact, here’s my process for writing a review:

1. (Obviously) Play the game.
2. Start writing the graphics, sound, and gameplay/control sections, as the game doesn’t have to be completely finished in order to get a handle on these.
3. Finish the game.
4. Write the story section and final thoughts.
5. Publish the review.

In order to review Assassin’s Creed IV fairly, I have to come at it from two different angles. On the one hand, I have to review it as someone who reviews videogames on this website. On the other hand, I have to review it as someone who is a massive fan of the Assassin’s Creed franchise. For the most part, I’m pretty torn about what I think of the series’ latest entry. From a game standpoint, well… it’s got a lot of problems. From a fan’s perspective… I’ll just save it for the breakdown.

Breakdown -

Like every AC game, historical figures make appearances. Anne Bonny is pictured here with main character, Edward Kenway.

Story:  6/10
Like most games, the story and mythology behind Assassin’s Creed have always been the main things I enjoyed the most about the series. I love how Ubisoft has been able to dig themselves out of seemingly impossible situations when they run into the brick walls that they create during nearly every game. I’m not being sarcastic here. I honestly think they’ve handled the series well in terms of story.
…Until AC4.
At first, I thought that the pirate themed story was going to be hugely epic, and for a while it was. After the first 10 hours or so, however, things started to become extremely boring and just plain ol’ uninteresting. I enjoyed the character of Edward Kenway (a lot more so than Connor of AC3) and hope a few more games are released to flesh his character out, but the other characters (mainly the villains) were sort of flat. None of them really grabbed my attention.
Questions that were raised in AC3 were very quietly answered, but never really talked about all that much – particularly the cliffhanger we were all left on for a year. Do we find out what happened to Desmond Miles? Yes, but it’s a pretty brief explanation. Do we find out what’s going on with Juno? Kind of, but it’s more like we find out what’s NOT going on with Juno, due to a very not-so-cleverly-devised way of continuing the series and setting up future sequels.

(SPOILERS!!!)
My biggest complaint with AC4’s story was the fact that it’s only “kind of” an Assassin’s Creed story. The main character isn’t even an assassin for about 95% of the game. Maybe I missed something while playing, but I don’t think that Edward Kenway actually EVER became an assassin during the story. One could tell that he was on his way to doing so. For about half of the game, I thought this was an interesting angle, but (again, unless I missed something) his joining of the order is never actually shown. And from the epilogue in the middle of the game’s ending credits, we’re still given no clear indication that he “took the oath.” We know from Oliver Bowden’s novel, “Assassin’s Creed: Forsaken,” that Edward was an assassin and adhered to the creed, but are the novels considered canon? In this case, and for the sake of AC4’s story, I certainly hope so.
(END SPOILERS!!)

In summation, I felt that the story of Assassin’s Creed IV was just really lazy and was only somewhat of an afterthought when Ubisoft decided to make a game with a primary focus of ship-based combat (more on that in a bit). It really didn’t have the “umph” that previous games have had, and seemed more like a side game that was only somewhat related to the series.

(Just as a side note: When I finished the game, I actually said, “What the crap? That’s it?!” The game kind of ends without warning and doesn’t really build towards an ending.)

Visuals: 8.5/10
I have to pretty much score this one in the same way I did for Assassin’s Creed III, since it looks as though it uses the same engine.  The thing that perhaps stands out a bit more for ACIV as opposed to III (and what gives it an extra ‘.5’ edge) is the beautifully rendered Caribbean setting. It’s much better looking and immersive than the colonial setting of the previous game. Though the scenery is prettier to look at, the character models in-game are a bit stiff looking – at least for the NPCs. At times, the NPCs look as though they were pulled straight from a PS2 or original Xbox game. I’m really interested to see what an Assassin’s Creed title will look like next year, when Ubisoft develops one (hopefully) specifically for next-gen hardware.

Sound: 7/10
The sound design is great, effects-wise. Gulls and other birds, ocean waves, and cannon fire all sound extremely authentic. The voice acting is pretty good, too. Unfortunately, the area in which ACIV’s sound lacks is the music. Personally, I thought that Lorne Balfe’s score for ACIII was excellent, as was Winifred Phillips’ score for AC: Liberation. It’s a shame that Brian Tyler couldn’t capture the same magic. The score is not bad by any stretch; I just thought the themes in ACIII and Liberation were much better and more memorable. I’m really surprised that, with as much critical acclaim as she received for her soundtrack to Liberation, Ubisoft didn’t give the scoring duties to Phillips. I’d really like to see what she would do with a main, numbered title.

Way too much of this....

Gameplay: 6.5/10
Black Flag goes back to the exploratory greatness of ACII-Revelations and brings back an almost overwhelming sense of things to do in the Caribbean world they created. From assassination contracts to finding buried treasure, almost everything you could think of to do in a pirate game is here.
That being said, I don’t like ship combat. To me, it feels extremely clunky and I found myself absolutely hating anytime a ship-related sequence would start. The ship combat was something that was praised (for some reason) in ACIII, so naturally, Ubisoft had to implement it into the newest iteration (plus, the fact that this is a pirate game, ship combat and travel makes since). I didn’t like it

...not nearly enough of this for my tastes.

then and I don’t like it now.  I also don’t like that so much emphasis is put into Edward’s ship, the Jackdaw. Having to constantly upgrade your ship, as well as your character, just seemed like a bit much. But I have to admit, disabling an enemy ship, boarding it, taking out its crew and looting its cargo are very fun and rewarding experiences.

Control: 4.5/10
I already mentioned the ship combat, but what about control of Edward himself? Remember in my ACIII review when I talked about Connor running up walls or jumping off things I didn’t want him to? Yeah, that hasn’t been changed. In fact, it seems like it’s worse. There is a chase scene about midway through the game that frustrated me to no end with how many times I had to do it just to get it right. The scene wouldn’t have been all that difficult if the controls were better, but the game forces you to do everything perfectly in order to succeed. I really hope the developers go back to the original “puppet-style” controls from pre-ACIII for the next game, or that they at least try and tighten up some of the controls.

I’m a fan of the Assassin’s Creed franchise, so of course I liked ACIV. I’ll continue buying new entries in the franchise for many years to come. I mainly just felt that there was “too much pirate in my assassin game.” For new players, though, a lot of the game’s flaws might end up being a huge turnoff. That’s actually what I remember thinking while playing: “Man, if I’d never played an AC game before, I’d probably hate this one.”

So is it worth $60? Personally, I don’t think so. I’d say that around $30-$40 is a bit more reasonable, given the quality of the game. A mediocre and lazy story, average music, frustrating ship combat, and poorly implemented control features rank Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag as one of the lowest in the series for me.

Final Score: 6.5/10

**NOTE: I have played and completed the singleplayer DLC, Freedom Cry. In my honest opinion, if that would have been the basis for AC4’s plot, I think I would have enjoyed the game much more. Unlike the main game, it seemed to have more emphasis on actually being an assassin. I award Freedom Cry a score of 8/10.

 

-Josh

 Screenshots taken from Google Images.

Killer Instinct - Review (Xbox One)

In the mid 1990’s, Mortal Kombat was huge, Street Fighter was pretty much just as huge and Killer Instinct was the new kid who sought to meld the two franchises into one unique fighting game. Though its time on the gaming scene was short, KI has been a much loved franchise and fans have clamored for a sequel since 1996’s KI2.
Originally published by Nintendo (developed by Rare, makers of the Donkey Kong Country franchise) in 1994, the rights to the Killer Instinct brand were acquired by Microsoft Studios when the company bought Rare back in 2002. For years, many KI fans hoped for a new sequel in the franchise and were hyped beyond belief when one was finally announced in 2013 as an Xbox One exclusive developed by Double Helix Games.
How have the 17 years between KI2 and the new game treated the franchise? Find out after the jump!

Breakdown:

Story: Non-existant (…yet)
This is a fighting game, so story has only rarely ever been the most important aspect of the genre. However, with recent blockbuster-quality story modes in games like Mortal Kombat (2011) and Injustice: Gods Among Us, a great story to back up the brutality is starting to become the norm. KI, however, has no story at the time of this writing because... well… it hasn’t been released yet. Instead of including a story mode, Double Helix instead chose to focus on the core fighting mechanics of the game. I think they made the right call, but I also think that this could be related to the rushed development of a game for a rushed console, which I alluded to in my Xbox One review.  Just like many of the Xbox One’s features, KI is missing a lot of features at launch. Story mode and an arcade ladder are two of them… not to mention only 6 playable characters.

Visuals: 10/10
Killer Instinct is the first fighter developed on next-gen hardware and it shows. The characters, while looking as though they take a bit of influence from Street Fighter IV’s designs, are beautifully rendered, particle effects from a well-placed fireball are amazing, and the game outputs at 1080p (one of the only Xbox One titles to do so). Characters move smoothly and backgrounds are simple, but look great. There’s no shortage of great visuals here. Everything looks stunning.  

Sound: 10/10
Everybody who plays fighting games (and some who haven’t) has heard someone yell, “C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!!!” at some point in his or her lifetime. This classic phrase, and every other notable shout of the KI announcer, has been expertly recreated in the new Killer Instinct. The sounds of combat punch you in the gut like no other fighting game to date. And getting punched in the gut by sound is always fun, right?
Speaking of getting punched in the gut by sound, the original KI was always known for its exceptional music. The new game doesn’t disappoint. The classic Killer Instinct theme is perfectly remixed and modernized for 2013. In fact, music plays a significant part in the game. When you go for that devastating Ultra combo to finish off your opponent, the music goes along with, and is perfectly scored to every single hit. In the pause menus, some ominous, swelling chords are accompanied by a note from the KI theme’s melody for each option you highlight. This is almost like a mini-game in and of itself, as you try and match the melody to the chords.
As I pointed out to my friend, it’s like the developers knew how much the original music meant to the franchise and tried to make it an integral part of the new KI experience.

Gameplay: 9/10
From what I’ve played so far, KI’s gameplay is pretty top-notch. The combo system is fluid, the moves are easy to pull off (well… they’re supposed to be. I’ll get to that), and you can pretty much mash buttons to make your character do some really flashy stuff. But that’s not a good idea to do against someone who knows what they’re doing.
Double Helix made KI a game for everyone. For casual players who just want to sit around and beat up their buddies, KI is a decent game and there is a lot of fun to be had in doing so. For people who really want to get into the game and learn its intricacies, it’s almost overwhelmingly deep. Learning how to break combos alone takes a good amount of practice and patience. Luckily, the game includes a “Dojo” mode which teaches you every single aspect of the game and it’s one of the most intensive and thorough tutorials I’ve ever seen in a fighting game. In dojo mode, you’ll learn everything from how your regular attacks work, to countering combo breakers, and even how frame data works. It’s a lot to take in, but with some practice, you’ll be on your way to fighting like a KI pro. 

One thing I should probably note is the Xbox One controller when used to play KI. The game itself is great, but using the pad is, in my opinion, an utter disaster. “Dragon punch motions (Forward, Down, Down Forward)” are extremely inconsistent with the Xbox One d-pad, as are quarter circles used for the majority of the special moves in the game. It’s manageable, but it can be pretty frustrating most of the time – especially given how simplistic the combo system can be. Also, KI is a 6 button game, meaning there are 3 kick and 3 punch buttons. Game pads for titles that use this layout (like Street Fighter, for example), have always been troublesome due to mapping the heavy attacks to the top of the controller (usually the triggers). My hand literally cramps up while trying to pull off longer, more difficult combos. Especially those you’ll come across in the dojo mode. (As I write this, the muscles in my right thumb and palm are aching severely from doing the last lesson of the dojo.)
Since the controller isn’t that good, your best option is going to be to pick up the MadCatz TE2 fightstick, which is currently and unfortunately the only next-gen fighting game controller. All your old arcade sticks won’t work on the new hardware (which is stupid and makes no sense whatsoever, in my opinion). I wasn’t too crazy about dropping $200 on ANOTHER fightstick, but I’m glad I have it preordered. I think my overall experience will improve once I’m able to play the game on something it was designed for.

Having to use the Xbox One controller at launch is really my only real complaint about Killer Instinct. It’s a great fighter that can be as deep and engaging as you want it to be. Is it worth the $40 download for the “Ultra Edition?” In the long-run, and considering the fact that you also get the original Killer Instinct arcade game in the download package, along with two downloadable characters about a month or so down the road, I would say yes. Sure, there are some missing features that will be added later, but none of that is necessary for you to enjoy the game. Also, if you want to play as only Jago, you can get the entire game for free as a sort of demo. I’m not exactly thrilled about this particular sales model, as I hope developers choose not to adopt the practice of releasing half-featured games, but I think KI is worth the full price of admission if you own an Xbox One.  It’s a fun fighter and lives up to the hype of the Killer Instinct franchise. Here’s to hoping we don’t have to wait another 17 years to get a sequel!

Final Score: 9.6/10 (score will be updated when more features are released)

-Josh

Images taken from Google Images.

 

 

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 3^rd 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

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 2^nd 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

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 3^rd 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.

Bioshock: Infinite - Review (PC)

Ah, Bioshock. I got into the series a little late, having gotten hold of the first game about 2 years after it was originally released. I had no idea what I’d been missing.


Bioshock was a beautiful, fast-paced, action-packed first-person survival-horror game (that’s a lot of hyphens!) with a story that could rival Hollywood’s finest. That being said, I never played the second game in the series, Bioshock 2. During my playthrough of the first Bioshock, Bioshock: Infinite was announced. I had seen screenshots of the second game, but it looked near-identical to the first. Infinite, however, was on a completely different plane of existence (quite literally, as it would turn out). I decided to skip Bioshock 2 since Infinite supposedly had no, or very little, connections to the upcoming Infinite.
The game was announced nearly 3 years before it was actually released, with multiple delays plaguing its development. Finally, in March of 2013, we finally got our hands on it. So how is it? Bioshock: Infinite is a great game, but there are some things that knock it down several notches from what I was expecting.

PC vs. Console:
Before I go into this, and just to let it be known what I’m using to do these PC reviews, these are my system’s basic specs –
Intel – i7 2600 3.4ghz Quad-core
32g RAM
Nvidia Geforce GTX 680 w/4gig of dedicated VRAM.
For the most part, Bioshock: Infinite is the same on all platforms: gorgeous. The only notable differences are better resolution overall and on textures for the PC. All the great lighting effects are present across all systems and everything runs at a smooth and consistent 60fps. There was some slight stuttering whenever the game would load something new, but Nvidia released new drivers shortly after release which eliminates this problem.

Breakdown:

Story: 10/10
Just like the original Bioshock, Infinite’s story is what makes the game truly shine. Taking place in an alternate version of 1912, you play the role of Booker Dewitt, a man tasked with finding a girl (Elizabeth) who is being held captive in a city above the clouds called Columbia. It becomes immediately apparent that something is slightly “off” about the city. The patrons appear to be religious fanatics and not to mention, racists. As Booker eventually meets up with Elizabeth, he finds that she has been held captive for most of her life and contains some kind of strange power which the leader of Columbia, a man named Comstock, wants to harness.
The story gets stranger and stranger as you progress and more and more is revealed about what Elizabeth’s true role actually is and how Booker connects to it. Since the story is such a mystery and one that absolutely must be experienced, it’s really hard for me to talk about without spoiling it. Just trust me, the story is why you should own the game.
I will comment on the ending, however. I’ve been seeing a lot of people complaining about it online and how it wasn’t very well thought out, or that it didn’t make any sense. These people are, quite simply, stupid. The ending makes total sense, but you have to pay attention to every detail of the story leading up to it. Personally, I think the ending was brilliant.

"You truly belong with us here among the clouds."

Visuals: 8/10
The graphics are good, don’t get me wrong, but they were only “jaw-dropping” 3 years ago when Infinite was originally announced. Now, the graphics are just standard compared to everything else, which is not a bad thing at all. What sets this game apart from others is its art style. With the setting of the early 20^th century, the developers took extreme love and care when it came to replicating the feel of the era. Based on the architecture of the 1893 World’s Fair, the game has a pretty distinct steam punk vibe in its presentation, something that was also present in the original Bioshock. Columbia absolutely bustles with life. All of its citizens go about their business independently and seem as though they’re actually alive. No detail was spared in the visuals while making Columbia look and feel like a living, breathing world.

Sound: 10/10
Excellent. As far as sound effects and immersion go, Infinite excels. All of Columbia’s citizens converse with one another in a natural way, enemies’ location can be determined from the echoes of their voices, and weapons sound authentic.
It’s the music that really lends itself well to the overall game design. Infinite uses its music to tell story and offer clues as to what is actually going on within the screwed up world Booker finds himself in. Several classic songs are redone in a way that makes you think, “How is this song from the 1970s being played in 1912?!” Word of advice: Pay attention to things like that, as they’re vitally important to figuring out the mystery.

...but gameplay-wise, this is all she's really good for.

You actually grow to care for Elizabeth...

Gameplay: 7/10
Here’s where the game loses several points. As you’ll see from the final score at the bottom of this review, I’m probably going to get scoffed at and flamed pretty harshly, but just like any other review, these are just opinions. Everybody’s got one. Everybody else just happened to review it with scores of 9 or 10.
The gameplay of Bioshock: Infinite is pretty bland. There’s really no difference between this one and the original, with the exception of skylines and Elizabeth. Skylines allow Booker to hook onto them and ride a virtual rollercoaster from place to place more quickly. While this idea is neat, and pretty necessary to the game’s plot, it’s really just a form of quick movement. In all fairness though, it’s pretty cool to watch. Elizabeth is your A.I. partner through about 90% of the game. She replenishes you with weapons and money and, fortunately, takes care of herself during combat, leaving you free of worrying about her getting killed. While from a gameplay perspective, she’s kind of unnecessary (except for lock-picking, which could have easily been adapted into Booker’s abilities), but her being with you makes you truly care about her wellbeing in a way not seen since Telltale Game’s The Walking Dead adventure game last year.
Everything else is just standard, first-person gameplay. You have gunplay, a special power, ammo to pick up or buy… you know, pretty standard nowadays. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I just expected more from a game that had been in development for so long. But, as the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and the original Bioshock accomplished these things extremely well.

It's pretty, but it's literature. Not a game.

Bioshock: infinite is a great game, I just hoped for a slightly more innovative experience versus the original Bioshock. But if you’re looking to experience a highly detailed world that immerses you into its story with solid (though standard) gameplay mechanics, then Bioshock: Infinite is definitely worth your $60. Personally, I would suggest waiting until the price comes down to around $40 or so. I highly recommend a playthrough of Infinite, but only if you’re craving an extremely well done story and don’t care so much about the next “fun game.”

Final Score: 7.5/10

Now flame away!
-Josh

Screenshots courtesy of The Inner Dorkdom

 

  

Tomb Raider - Review (PC)

I’ve always enjoyed Eidos’ Tomb Raider series, but it would be a falsity to lead one to believe that the series hasn’t had its fair share of pretty bad titles.


For some reason, the first game was the only one really worth its salt. In my opinion, this is because the other games were just a bit ahead of their time and couldn’t - due to the technology of late 90s-era gaming - properly advance the gameplay mechanics which the developers wanted to implement. That being said, once Crystal Dynamics took over developing duties, the adventures of Lara Croft really began to come into their own.
In 2011, it was announced that after 3 highly successful entries (TR: Legend; TR: Anniversary; TR: Underworld), Crystal Dynamics would be rebooting the franchise. Like I’ve said many times before, I’m not exactly gung-ho when it comes to reboots/remakes, but this one looked like it could be a good thing for the franchise. By telling a sort of origin story for Lara and making her a character that you actually care for, Crystal Dynamics has created what is, in my opinion, the best Tomb Raider game ever made.

Vistas like this and even more impressive are what you can expect.

Differences between the PC and Console versions:
Unfortunately, the PC version was released with some problems due to the graphics tech wars that are going on right now between AMD and NVIDIA. A new realistic hair physics technology called TressFX which the PC version of TR uses was built for AMD video cards. Therefore, NVIDIA cards have trouble anytime the effect is on screen, taking about a 15-20 fps dip. I have an NVIDIA card, so I was a victim of this shot to the PC community. Luckily, NVIDIA is currently working on new drivers that should fix the issue.
*EDIT - The drivers have been released and these problems have been completely remedied.*
From what I’ve seen, the standard PC advantages exist in this port. You have better frame rates, better resolution, etc. However, the console versions do not have the TressFX feature. Apparently, this is PC exclusive. Is it going to hinder your gaming experience one way or another? Absolutely not. Tomb Raider still looks great regardless of the system you choose to play it on, with the obvious, yet slight, PC advantages.

Breakdown:

"This old guy won't stop hitting on me..."

Story: 9/10
Since this is a reboot and an origin story, the Lara that we’re presented with in this iteration is very different from the Lara of the previous games. In fact, the only real similarities are the facts that she’s British and has a love for archeology. Lara is less a female Indiana Jones-style treasure hunter, and more just a girl who wants to check out ancient ruins for the simple wonder involved.
Part of a crew which is taking a ship-ride to find the lost island of Yamatai, Lara finds herself shipwrecked and alone once a large storm overtakes the ship. After being captured by some unknown locals and eventually escaping, she meets up with a few of her crewmates which begins to lead Lara into a dark world of not only survival, but cult-inspired mystery.
The thing that is perhaps the most impressive about the plot is its use of naturalism. In a game, this is something that isn’t the norm. At every turn, Lara is halted by something that doesn’t want her and her crew to leave the island. There are a lot of moments where she will be so near to her goal that it - even from the player’s point-of-view - can be tasted, only to be snatched away by yet another huge problem. It’s almost as though for every 3 steps Lara takes, she is always pushed 2 steps back. While this may sound like a frustrating narrative tactic, the game’s writers really pulled it off beautifully.

Check out the detail!

Visuals: 10/10
I couldn’t praise the visuals of this game anymore than they already have been. Other than something like Crysis 2 and 3, Tomb Raider has the best graphics I’ve ever seen. One thing that you don’t see every day in games is a well done, outdoor, open-world, jungle setting. Sure, there were games like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and Assassin’s Creed III (though that was more forest, less jungle), but Tomb Raider actually looks and feels like a real jungle. Light shafts flow naturally through trees, animals scurry about, and the game’s water looks like water.
The character models and animations are truly astounding as well. Just like I wrote in my Assassin’s Creed III review, developers continuously get better with model design. I’m just glad that characters in games now look less like creepy dolls and more like actual human beings. Plus, creepy dolls freak me out.

The sounds in caves even bounce off the bones on the ground! Not really, though.

Sound: 9/10
The sound design works very well for the immersion of the game. The ambient sounds of the jungle are present in full force. Bugs, animals, etc. are all there. Another thing that impressed me was the reverb used. Sounds and voices - particularly of enemies  - seemingly echo off of trees, rock walls, and caves just as they actually would in the real world.
There isn’t that much music in Tomb Raider, and what little it does have is mostly forgettable, but it’s not exactly needed either. The ambiance carries the game and gives a constant feeling of isolation, which is what I believe Crystal Dynamics intended.

Sure, Lara... Use your pickaxe instead of the shotgun on your back.

Gameplay : 10/10
Everything about the gameplay is perfect. Tomb Raider, like most games nowadays, utilizes RPG elements to allow the player to level up Lara throughout the course of the game. You have the option, upon earning points, of leveling Lara’s various abilities which help her become a better treasure hunter, and a more skilled combatant.
The combat is some of the most well done I’ve ever seen in a 3^rd person action game. It melds the best elements of games like the contemporary Resident Evils and Gears of Wars into something unique. You have to use cover, stealth, and your various weapons to get through the crazy cult members that block every objective. While a lot of games get boring with these mechanics, Tomb Raider never does and combat remains enjoyable all the way to the end.

Archery with Lara Croft. Sounds like a good time to me.

I love this game. I’ve enjoyed nearly every Tomb Raider title (Angel of Darkness… ugh. Horrible.), but this game perfects the series in every possible way. Lara is now a character that players will actually care about and have a boatload of fun while guiding her through this excellent reboot. Is it worth $60? Absolutely! I can’t recommend it enough. If you haven’t picked it up yet, go get it. Now. I guarantee you won’t regret it and you’ll get your dollars’ worth.

Final Score: 10/10

-Josh

Screenshots courtesy of The Inner Dorkdom

 

 

Assassin's Creed III: Liberation - Review (Vita)

Let’s be serious here - The Vita is a struggling handheld. In my opinion, there are only 2 games worth having (3, if you count Gravity Rush, which I hear is good): Mortal Kombat and Assassin’s Creed: Liberation. Personally, I think that the Vita is a great system, but the fact that Sony priced it so high crippled it as soon as it was released. That being said, Liberation is THE reason you should own a Vita.

Let’s get into it.

Story: 9/10
As with ACIII, the story takes center stage in Liberation. It follows the first female protagonist of the series, Aveline de Grandpre, one of the last members of the Louisiana sect of the assassin order, as she liberates African slaves from captivity during the same time period featured in ACIII. Some have complained about the story’s simplicity, but I rather enjoyed the tight, compact story offered in Liberation. It was a good change of pace from the regular, politically-fused, complicated plotlines of the console games. Also, Aveline is more of an interesting character than Connor – so much so that I find myself torn between who should take the leading role in a sequel. Perhaps both could share center stage? There are rumors…

Visuals: 8/10
For a handheld title, Liberation has the best graphics seen yet. Colonial-Era New Orleans is captured beautifully here, but the ambition of bringing a true Assassin’s Creed game to a portable is its own downfall. Because of the size and scope of the playing area, the framerate can get pretty chuggy at times. Contrary to what a lot of other reviews and players say, it is by no means unplayable and is otherwise quite pretty.

Sound: 9/10
While the sound design is nowhere near its console big brother, Liberation’s music is its shining achievement. Winifred Phillips, new to the series, perfectly captures the “bayou” feel of the game, all the while bringing in the epic flourishes AC is known for . In no way does Phillips ever copy or “rip off,” but she seems to draw several influences from classic videogame soundtracks to create something quite unique by mixing traditional game scoring techniques and flairs of the cinematic. Like the console game, the soundtrack is available for download at www.amazon.com and is mandatory for folks like myself that love videogame music.

Gameplay: 8/10
Thankfully, all the changes to ACIII’s gameplay (the annoying “mini-games”) have been replaced by a system which allows the main character, Aveline, to switch between 3 different personas: The Lady, The Slave, and The Assassin. Switching between these personas limits her abilities as far as combat and free running, but grants her options for certain situations. By switching to the slave persona, she can infiltrate areas such as plantations without detection. If in the Lady persona, Aveline can charm her way past guards. The Assassin persona is exactly what you think it is: Aveline dons here brotherhood gear and gains the normal assassin abilities seen throughout the series, but also gains a considerable amount of notoriety and has a higher rate of detection. While this system is an excellent concept, it is unfortunately under-utilized except when the story dictates that you change personas.
There are a few things which use the features of the Vita’s touch screen and pad, but nothing which either detracts, or adds to the experience.

Controls: 5/10
Remember in the ACIII review where I talked about my ‘B’ button having problems? I have the same problem with the Vita’s equivalent (circle button), only here it’s 10x worse. I very seldom was able to land a counter and was forced to rapidly tap ‘circle’ in order to deflect enemy attacks. This made the combat in the game extremely frustrating throughout and is why the score is so low. Other than that, the control scheme and overall gameplay is exactly the same as its console counterpart, save for the new persona system.

Is Assassin’s Creed: Liberation worth the full price? Yes. Not only is it worth full price, it’s also worth owning a Vita for, as this is the best game for the system. A top-notch story, great graphics for a portable, and amazing music easily outweigh the gameplay and control issues. Also, it might be a good idea to pick this up if you’re an Assassin’s Creed fan – if nothing else but to see where the series is about to go now that Desmond’s story has come to a close.

Final Score: 8/10

-Josh

I can't take credit for these screenshots. These were taken from Google Images because of the difficulty in taking screenshots of the Vita.

Assassin's Creed III - Review (PC)

This is going to be a “nitty-gritty” style review, in that I will assume anyone who reads this is already somewhat familiar with the Assassin’s Creed series.  The review is based on my playthrough of the PC version.

Differences between the PC and console versions:
Basically, it all comes down to graphics. The Xbox360 and PS3 versions are identical. Both contain some pop-in and the framerate tends to chug when there are too many citizens or enemies on the screen at once. The Wii U version, while otherwise identical to its console brethren, has an odd problem with the depth-of-field effect present through most of the game. It tends to make the background elements look weirdly stretched, rather than just “blurry” when the camera is focused on characters during cut-scenes. That’s not a slight towards the Wii U, it’s just a minor hiccup in that particular port.
The resolution is the largest and most noticeable difference between the console and PC versions. The consoles are locked at 720p (even the Wii U port), while the PC port is capable of displaying in 1080p and runs at a smooth 60 frames-per-second, as opposed to the console’s 30 (approx). I don’t mean to sound like a PC elitist, but if you have a PC capable of running the game as the developers intended, the PC is the definitive version of the game. And hey, at this point within the first few months of the game’s release, it’s $10 cheaper (on Steam).

Let’s get into it.

Story: 9/10
The story was definitely the best part of the game, but it came with a price: The main character, Connor, is kind of bland. I remember playing ACII for the first time and thinking the same thing about Ezio, but by the end of the game, the character had gone from a spoiled rich kid to a noble, honorable warrior and an overall likeable guy. Connor has no such story arch. The character stays completely one dimensional throughout the entire game. Connor is always focused on one particular goal (which I won’t detail for fear of spoilers) and absolutely nothing else. He’s also a jerk and comes off as really stupid and ignorant at times. Part of his character is that he IS, indeed, ignorant of his surroundings because of being thrust into an unfamiliar world, but some of his personal decisions made him seem… well… dumb. Harsh criticism towards a videogame character, I know. Hopefully Ubisoft will take the same route as ACII and release more games with Connor as the protagonist. Maybe then we’ll see him grow more as a character.
Aside from the mediocre main character, the story is really good. The Colonial setting provides a lot of intersections with history in which the player crosses paths with real-life figures such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere. Finding out how they all play in to the huge “end-of-the-world” plot of the present is definitely interesting to see. And again, aside from the main character, ACIII has some of the most interesting characters I’ve ever seen in a videogame, particularly the villains.
The overarching story set in the present day and featuring Desmond Miles is wrapped up very cryptically, but I believe that it falls in line with the series’ previous entries. What the next game’s plot will be is only briefly hinted at during the epilogue, but it seems as though the series could be going in a pretty interesting new direction.

Visuals: 8/10
The graphics are like the rest of the games: gorgeous. The team behind the AC games has an unmatched ability in creating an open-world environment which feels as though it was plucked directly out of the past. From the Crusade-Era “Holy land” of the original game to the recent game’s Colonial American battlefields, the series always has striking visuals.
With that being said, the art direction is a little bland. That’s no fault of the developers to a certain extent, it’s just the time period in which the game is set. For the past 3 games in the series (ACII, Brotherhood and Revelations), the setting has been in and around Italy and Istanbul. While it could be that I’m simply partial to the beautifully elegant Italian/Roman architecture of those games, ACIII falls a bit short. Story-wise, the mid/late 1700s setting works great, but for a game, I feel it perhaps should have had a different setting.
The “frontier” areas which connect all the various cities and towns are all beautiful, albeit a bit void of any purpose save for small side-quests.

Sound: 10/10
Hands down, this is the best sounding game you’ll ever hear. I’ve never really taken notice of the sound design within a videogame, but in ACIII, sound is constantly driving the atmosphere. Whether it’s the bustling streets of New York and Boston, the wilderness of the frontier and homestead areas, or the ocean waves during Naval combat, the sounds of the game immerse you, I guarantee, as no other game has before.
Along with the sound is ACIII’s music. In my opinion, and no disrespect to original series composer, Jesper Kyd, Lorne Balfe has created the best score of the entire series. Like many of Hans Zimmer’s apprentices (Klaus Badelt), Balfe manages to have the same disease: He’s better than Hans Zimmer. I strongly recommend picking this score up on www.amazon.com where it’s available as a digital download. You won’t regret it.

Gameplay: 6/10
I found the gameplay to be quite unfocused at times. The game constantly changes up your control scheme and play-style throughout its entirety. One minute you’re doing your normal assassin routine, the next you’re riding on horseback while yelling at 3 groups of soldiers to fire their cannons at redcoats in a “tower defense” mini-game.
And that’s essentially what most of the game felt like to me: A series of mini-games with normal Assassin’s Creed gameplay sprinkled in. You spend more of your time with these diversions in gameplay than you do being sneaky and “assassin-ing.”
Most gamers probably welcome these types of constant gameplay changes since it has been stated that the series tends to be “boring and repetitive.” This is a claim that I can agree with if talking about the first game, but I believe Ubisoft rectified the problem with the sequels from ACII through Revelations. In all fairness, it’s probably a good thing that Ubisoft did, in fact, change things up a bit to keep the series fresh, I just felt like the change ups seemed rather forced at times.

Controls: 6/10
Control is kind of wonky every now and then. Connor will sometimes get locked into position and unable to move. This becomes extremely frustrating when having to jump from rooftop to rooftop, or tree branch to tree branch in order to escape guards, or take out a target within a time limit. Although it could have been because I was playing on PC with an Xbox360 controller, it seemed like my ‘B’ button would occasionally stop working. This usually happened when I was engaged in combat and had to use the button to counter an enemy’s attack. I would hit the button to counter, but absolutely nothing would happen and Connor would just stand there like an idiot, resulting in a musket being driven into his face. Again, this could have just been a PC related issue or a problem with my controller, though I haven’t had this problem with any other games using the same one (including other AC games).

For the most part, I felt that Assassin’s Creed III was a decent entry in the series. It was good, but it certainly didn’t live up to the standards which I believe were set by ACII.
I always like to give an “is it worth $60,” or “full price verdict” and here it is:
Is it worth retail price? Maybe.
If you’re a fan of the series, full price is definitely worth it, but if not, wait till the price comes down around $30. Frustrating (at times) controls/gameplay and a main character that has about as much personality as a rock, might turn potential fans off if they haven’t spent time in the AC universe before. Only spend the full price of admission if you absolutely cannot wait to see how the Desmond Miles portion of the Assassin’s Creed series comes to an end.  

Final Score: 8/10

-Josh

By the way, I take credit for these screenshots. All were done by me from my PC except the boxart and video/music. I'm slowly inching my way to fancier things! 

Tekken Tag Tournament 2 vs. Dead Or Alive 5 Opinions / Mini-Review

On release day, I got my hands on a shiny new copy of Dead Or Alive 5 for the Xbox 360. Not the shiniest copy, as that title goes to the Collector’s Edition (art book, soundtrack, a tin case, etc). I intended to purchase the CE, but unfortunately, it was a Gamestop PREORDER exclusive. Why is “preorder” in all caps? Because Gamestop, at least on their website, never stated that it was, in fact, a preorder exclusive. I had to find that out by calling around to several stores within driving distance, only to hear the clerks say, “Um… yeah… the collector’s edition is only for people who preordered.” Lame. Lame, indeed.

So anyway, I had a friend pick the game up for me on day 1. After spending a few days with the game, I really don’t know what to think about it. This is not my first DOA. I’ve played all of ‘em, but this is my first DOA during my newfound appreciation for learning fighting games.
Since Mortal Kombat 9’s life signs appear to be fading from the tournament scene and there’s not a sequel on the horizon, I decided that it was time for me to move on to another fighter. Sure, there are games like BlazBlue and that new Persona Arena game out there, but I’m not exactly sure about those. Any new fighting game seems overwhelming when trying to learn it, but anime based fighting games, while fun on a casual level, just seem much too overwhelming to me when trying to learn them. That and, on a competitive level, I’m just not that interested.

DOA 5 and Tekken Tag 2 were both released within 2 weeks of each other. A decision had to be made: Would I choose DOA 5 or TTT2 as my main fighting game? After having spent some time trying to learn both games, I have come to my conclusion. I figured the best way to shed some light on the reasoning behind my decision would be to basically give a mini-review and comparison of each game.

Round 1…. Fight!
Graphics: Believe it or not, I’ve actually heard this being debated a lot. Personally, I think both games are about the same on the visual level except for one thing: The stages. I’m not really that impressed with Tekken’s stages, but DOA’s are gorgeous. Stage features, such as being able to knock people through walls, are not that important to me (something which both games have), but I do like the stages to be somewhat lifelike. At least, I like them to have an exciting feel. One of the stages in TTT2 is literally just a street. You can make out some faded buildings in the background, but that’s about it. There are some pretty stages in TTT2, but that’s just an extreme example of how bland they can sometimes be. DOA, on the other hand, has one particular stage where you are in the middle of a middle-eastern war zone! Quite cool. Dead Or Alive 5 wins.

Round 2…. Fight!
Art Style / Characters: (To use a quote from MK9 Pro, Tom Brady) “Let’s be serious here:” Who doesn’t like hot women? Well, I’m sure there are quite a few ladies out there who just raised their hands, and probably some dudes, as well. If ladies aren’t your thing, don’t worry, there are guys in both Tekken and DOA, but you can’t deny that both Namco and Team Ninja/Tecmo have an affinity for the ladies. Especially Tecmo with the bouncing… well… you know. Anyway, the art style for both games is pretty phenomenal. Both are on the quasi-anime side when it comes to character design, with Tekken’s being slightly more realistic, but that’s to be expected from 2 Japanese developers. TTT2 boasts 50+ characters while DOA 5’s roster consists of approximately 25. All the characters from both series have unique designs and personalities, so both games are visually appealing on the character front. Draw.

Round 3…. Fight!
Fighting System / Gameplay: Here is what really sets the two games apart. Both are 3D fighters, so there is some degree of similarity between the two such as side steps, whiff punishing, etc.
Tekken system – In Tekken, your most basic objective is to play mind games with your opponent. Since high damage combos are usually done by starting with a launcher (a highly unsafe move that can usually be punished after it’s blocked), you spend most of your time trying to trick the other player into falling for it. This is usually done by “poking” the other player with low attacks which might make them crouch-block in order to avoid taking damage. When he/she crouch-blocks, they become vulnerable to mid attacks such as launchers. That doesn’t mean you should predominantly use low attacks during a match, though. You need to mix up your strikes and keep the opponent guessing so you can get that big damage. Sometimes though, an entire Tekken match will consist of nothing but poking. If both players are 100% on their game, this is not entirely uncommon.

DOA system – As stated above, in a sense, I’m kinda new to DOA. Before trying to learn the basics of the game, I read a lot of people’s comments on it saying that it’s nothing more than a “guessing game.” My thoughts were, “But isn’t every fighting game essentially a guessing game?” DOA uses a “hold,” or counter system, in which you can stop an opponent’s attack and counterattack by doing a certain input. The problem is that that you have to do the RIGHT input. As with most fighting games, DOA uses 3 hit levels for attacks: High, Mid and Low. If your opponent throws out a high attack, you can counter it by pressing diagonal up and back along with the hold button (usually X on ps3 and A on 360). Good so far? Just wait… If they throw out a low, you press diagonal down and back and the hold button. For a mid attack, press back plus hold. If your opponent throws out a mid kick, not a punch, but a kick, you press forward and the hold button. These are 4 options in which you have to guess to avoid taking damage. Not only do you have to guess what hold to counter with when your opponent attacks you, you are also able to pull off these holds during combos as long as you’re being hit while touching the ground. This means that even though you might be setting up massive damage in a combo, if your opponent guesses right, they can stop your combo and you take damage. You also have to deal with what is referred to as “the triangle system.” The triangle system is basically a form of rock, paper, scissors in which Strikes beat Throws, Throws beat Holds and Holds beat Strikes. This leads to even more guessing. When you add Offensive Holds (holds which go through strikes) from all the game’s grapple (wrestler type) characters, the game’s fighting system just starts to seem like a huge mess. Tekken Tag Tournament 2 wins.

The Winner: We’ll call it a draw.

While guessing, or “making reads” as the fighting game community tends to call it, is a part of every fighter to a certain extent, DOA in my opinion, relies on guessing much too heavily. The fact that if I do a combo on someone and they just happen to guess the correct counter hold to an attack I’m throwing out, leaving me at a disadvantage and unable to retaliate, is kind of wonky. Yes, you have to guess at times in Tekken, but it’s really only in one particular situation: getting off the ground.

Knocking people down is monumentally important in Tekken games. After a knockdown, you are able to pressure the opponent by throwing out an attack while they’re grounded. The flip side is that the opponent has “wakeup” options, as well. Because of the “crush” system (which is in both DOA and Tekken), if the opponent wakes up with a low, something like a jump kick will usually beat that attack. Most of the time, this results in getting launched all over again. The difference with DOA is that you must guess correctly all the time. Not just when on the ground or pressuring a grounded opponent.

Does all this guessing make DOA 5 a bad game? Absolutely not. It’s just not a game that I would want to play seriously and learn all of its intricacies. There is a competitive DOA scene out there, but it’s a pretty small one. One has to wonder if this is because DOA is considered by the majority as “unbalanced,” or if DOA players just have it figured out and the rest of us aren’t smart or good enough to play it. Depending on whom you asked, you’d probably get both responses.

Mortal Kombat is the first fighting game that I ever decided to learn and master. I had a lot of fun over the past year and a half with my experience playing the game, but it’s time to move on. Shortly before I competed at Final Round in Atlanta, I started to get into Tekken 6. I even considered entering it, along with MK9 and Soulcalibur V, but decided instead to focus only on MK. Now that MK has begun to die down, I believe I’ll just stick to my guns and continue on with Tekken Tag Tournament 2. DOA is a great and very deep game which I will continue to play on the side, but it’s definitely not for everyone. It’s most certainly not a game I would want to play on a tournament level.

My overall scores for the games: Dead Or Alive 5 – 7.5 Tekken Tag Tournament 2 – 9.0

-Josh

An Overview of Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy

Disclaimer: Sorry about the lack of spaces that may be present in this article. For some reason, the blogger program messes up sometimes and removes them when I post from my phone. Also, watch out for MAJOR SPOILERS below!!!

Batman. Who doesn’t love Batman? Well, I’m sure there’s somebody out there that just absolutely hates the Caped Crusader, but that ain’t me. Of all superheroes, Batman has always,by far,been my favorite.

On opening weekend,The Inner Dorkdom saw Christopher Nolan’s final installment of his Batman trilogy,The Dark Knight Rises… and we were,and I speak for all of us, pretty much blown away. Not sure how Todd feels on this,but it is probably mine and Nic’s favorite of the Nolan trilogy.

The first film in the trilogy,Batman Begins, did a lot for Batman as a character. For the first time on the big screen,we were finally treated to a version of Batman that was nearly perfection in comparison to his comic book counterpart. No more nips on the batsuit,no more tilted camera angles that attempted to mimic the old ‘60s Adam West show,no more ‘Ah-nold.’ Just Batman… well… mostly Bruce Wayne. And here lies the most identifiable difference between the comics and the Nolan films: Identity.

In the comics,there is no question that Batman is the true personality and Bruce Wayne is just a costume that Batman wears in public. Batman is a personality that is, even in adulthood,still haunted by the death of his parents,leading him to be a cold,calculating individual with a one-track mind for catching crooks. Sounds weird, huh? Well,in all honesty,Batman’s a weird guy,but I think that’s the magic behind what makes the character so intriguing. The Nolan films use a different take on this in that Bruce (Christian Bale) doesn’t exactly want to be Batman forever (hey,wasn’t that a movie?). Batman is never really played up as the true identity of the man. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing,it’s just different. It’s almost as though Bruce’s desire for vengeance is over by the end of Batman Begins. Other than wanting to maintain peace in Gotham City,that’s pretty much where it ends for him. Having the main personality being Bruce Wayne,and the way Nolan depicts it,is actually quite interesting.

With that being said,Batman Begins is actually MORE interesting when Bruce isn’t in the batsuit. All the stuff where Bruce is training with Ducard/Ras Al-Ghul (Liam Neeson),having flashbacks in which he is determined to take revenge for his parents directly by killing Joe Chill,or his many scenes with Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucious Fox(Morgan Freeman) all make Bruce an extremely interesting character in contrast to the bat-crazy/insane (hehe) Batman of the comics. Not that I have anything against his comic portrayal,as I find both equally interesting.

The second film,The Dark Knight,is however,BATMAN’S film. Well,it’s also the Joker’s (Heath Ledger) film,but I think a lot of people lose sight of just how much is going on with Batman/Bruce Wayne. Bruce has his sights on Gotham’s new District Attorney,Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) because,quite frankly,he’s in love. No,not with Harvey Dent! In Begins,Bruce is given a love interest in the form of his childhood friend,Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes),who at the end of the film tells Bruce that she can only be with him when he stops wearing the tights. At some point in the year between Begins and The Dark Knight,Rachel has plastic surgery which makes her look like Maggie Gyllenhaal and starts dating Harvey Dent. With an almost sense of single-mindedness,Bruce attempts to recruit Harvey to take his place. Not as Batman, but as Gotham’s law abiding,non-vigilante protector. This will give Bruce the opportunity to hang up the cape and cowl, start a relationship with Rachel and live happily ever after… That is,until the Joker shows up.

Like most people,it is my belief that Heath Ledger gave the absolute best portrayal of the Joker ever seen; not only in the films or television,but within the comics as well. The Joker in this film is not the typical clown/mastermind as seen in previous media; instead,he is a representation of anarchy itself. The Joker allies himself with the mob bosses and crime lords of Gotham City not because he wants to get rich,but simply because he enjoys causing havoc; particularly for Gotham’s protector.

I also love Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent/Two-Face. The transition from potential hero to enraged villain is done exceptionally well. My only complaint is that **SPOILER** Nolan decided to kill him off at the end of the movie. This seems to be a trend in Nolan’s Bat-verse: The primary villain always dies. Well, except for the Joker. Here’s something to think about: What exactly DID happen to the Joker at the end of TDK? Last we see him,he’s strung up, laughing maniacally and waiting for the cops to come get him. Did he get away? Did he get thrown into Arkham Asylum? Did he fall to his death? We’ll never know,I suppose. One thing I’ve always thought is that there might have been more scenes toward the end of the film involving the Joker,but due to Heath Ledger’s death, they were either never filmed,or not completed. Who knows?

Unlike most people,I don’t think that The Dark Knight hung the moon. I think it’s a great film and it borrows elements from one of my favorite Batman graphic novels, The Long Halloween (Jeph Loeb & Tim Sale),but it’s not,in my opinion,the epitome of film greatness. The movie is,and I’m no film editor,cut very strangely. The Dark Knight tells a big story in 240 minutes,so in order to fit such a grand tale into a movie,quick cuts must be made. While this would seemingly quicken up the pace,it feels as though it slows it down. There are several points throughout the film that I felt would’ve been more impactful had the camera lingered just a bit longer than it actually did. Some of the scenes at the beginning of the film are a prime example of this. I remember sitting in the theater watching it for the first time and thinking,“This thing is gonna go on forever!” But after having watched it multiple times since it’s Blu-Ray/DVD release,the pacing seems to work much better. The same thing basically happened to me with Revenge Of The Sith. And now that just happens to be my favorite Star Wars film. (And on that note,a lot of people leave the site because they disagree so strongly with that statement.)

**SPOILER ALERT!!**

Now that all those people are gone because they think that ROTS is a terrible movie, let’s get into The Dark Knight Rises. Like I mentioned earlier,this is probably my favorite of the trilogy. Until some of the latter trailers,I really wasn’t interested in the plot elements that were being presented. Bane as the main villain? Catwoman? Both of these characters have never really interested me that much in the comics. I dug the whole Knightfall comic storyline back in the day,which introduced Bane,but he was portrayed more as just a really strong bad guy (when he took his drugs) that had enough fighting knowhow to take Batman down. Catwoman,just never appealed to me. I’m also not one to read spoilers on the internet,so I had no idea of the measures that were being taken with the plot of the movie.

Then Todd explained some of it to me.

After he told me that the movie takes place 8 years after TDK and Batman hasn’t been around since then,I was sold. The idea that Harvey Dent’s death,the loss of Rachel Dawes and the havoc of the Joker just ran Bruce down was extraordinary.

The Dark Knight Rises proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Nolan trilogy is about Bruce Wayne,not Batman. It’s about a man who does what he does because he has to rather than because he wants to. When he’s called upon,he answers,unlike the Batman of the comics that goes on nightly patrols,searching for crime to bust.

I think Nolan’s main point with TDKR (and the entire trilogy,for that matter) is the fact that one man can only do so much. In the comics,one of Batman’s major villains either escapes,or is released from Arkham on a month to month basis. While this makes for good reading,it’s not very realistic. Sure,crime is an ongoing problem in society,but Batman doesn’t exist to do the job of the police by handling domestic disturbances,ATM robbers and the like. He’s there to take down threats that are too large for the cops to handle. Threats like the Joker,Two-Face,Ras Al-Ghul/The League of Shadows and Bane/Talia/The League of Shadows. If those threats existed in the real world with that amount of frequency,there probably wouldn’t be a whole lot of people left living in Gotham!

**HERE ARE THE MAIN SPOILERS!! IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE DARK KNIGHT RISES YET,STOP READING!!********************* ****************************** ***************

The Dark Knight Rises sees Bruce/Batman face his largest threat yet: Gotham’s total annihilation. Basically,the gist of the movie is Catwoman/Selena Kyle (Anne Hathaway) shows up,Bane (Tom Hardy) shows up and threatens the city,a GCPD cop named John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) convinces a retired Bruce to become Batman again, Bane breaks Batman’s back and puts him in a hole while he terrorizes the city with the threat of a nuclear bomb,Bruce has to let his back heal,Bane lets loose the criminals of Gotham and cuts off the entrances/exits to the city by blowing up all its bridges (except one),Bruce heals and climbs out of the hole,Bane is revealed to be an exiled member of The League of Shadows and is working for Ras Al-Ghul’s daughter Talia, Batman returns to the city and defeats Bane,takes the nuclear bomb out into the ocean to let it detonate (“Sometimes you just can’t get rid of a bomb!”),seemingly dies,and turns over the mantle of The Batman and the bat-cave to John Blake, who’s birth name turns out to be Robin. Whew!

Oh and Bruce lives,by the way. Don’t get scared.

I left out a lot of the details,but that’s the general idea of the film. All in all,it was a fitting and satisfying end to a great superhero trilogy that was,in my opinion, much more efficiently executed than The Dark Knight. Will there be a sequel featuring John Blake as the new Batman? I doubt it. It’s more likely that Warner Bros. will reboot the franchise using a different director’s take on the material. I think this is an extremely bad idea,but it’s,of course, not my call to make. I’d rather see this new version of Batman and what his character could bring to the table. Plus,I thought Gordon-Levitt’s character was one of the most interesting in the film. Seeing him as Batman could potentially take the series in a really cool,interesting new direction.

That about does it for this overview of Chris Nolan’s Batman films. I’ve seen and heard a lot of people criticizing the films (particularly the newest) for taking certain liberties with the comic source material, but this is not the comics. Comic Batman is not Nolan Batman. This is an entirely different take on the character,just like Frank Miller does his own take with his Batman within the comics he authors. Nolan has done an excellent job of bringing Batman to the big screen and grounding him in reality. Not only did this help the Batman franchise remain relevant, but it also increased the relevancy of movies such as The Avengers and comic book based movies in general.

I realize that I didn’t spend a ton of time on the newest film,but I’m not very good with straight up movie reviews. If you want the official Inner Dorkdom review,Todd has written a great one up that should be available a few posts below this. Also,a cousin and friend of Nic’s did a pretty great review which should be the post directly below this one.
Hope you enjoyed it!

-Josh

!!! Put The Bunny Back In The Box And Other Sayings Of Nicholas Cage,Only Known Living Vampire (Blu-Ray Reviews) !!!

Did Kate Beckinsale Have A Nose Job Or Have My Standards Lowered (Yep, She Had A Nose Job)???

I Love Motion Pictures (no huge secret on this site)! I love to watch them, I love to talk about them, and I love to read about them. Even the history of cinema fascinates me and I can't seem to get enough. I am amazed by the process that goes into the making of a film. From lighting to special effects, from cinematography to craft services, ever step of a film's journey draws me into that world. There is a large section of the population who cares which star is dating who and how long it will be before Lindsey Lohan gets arrested again (apparently not long), but for me that stuff is nothing compared to the hard work and dedication it takes to actually bring a film to movie screens. Actors will always be needed and some I want to see succeed (Downey Jr.), but, unbeknownst to some of them, they are only a small part of the glorious machine that makes fantasy a reality (and sometimes reality an over exaggeration of itself). Movies are an escape, movies are dreams made real, and we can leave our everyday lives behind to spend a little time in those places. Not every movie is good, but there is good in almost every movie (maybe not Ishtar). Someone on every production in Hollywood gives everything they have to a film because they know that they are blessed to be working in the industry. That being said, there are decisions made on films that make me say, "What?" This brings me to this weeks Blu-Ray reviews.


I hope to be able to bring you reviews of movies that have recently been released on Blu-Ray and give you an idea of whether it's worth a purchase or a pass. I will say up front, from a technical standpoint, I am wholly inadequate to give you an informed opinion. Like my father says, "I know just enough to be dangerous." Yes, I have an HD TV and a THX 7.1 surround home theater system, but the best I can do if you ask me how a movie sounds and looks on Blu-Ray is "good" or "bad". There are websites that do a much better job in reviewing the technical aspects of the discs and I will leave that up to them (check out the links at the end). So, for the purpose of these articles, I will try to tell you what I thought of the films themselves and maybe a little about the special features. Remember, that when it comes to movies, "good" and "bad" are relative terms. I always say, "like what you like, take nothing back." Oh, by the way, if you like Ishtar, more power to you (even though you're weird).

I got a chance to check out three movie on Blu-Ray this past week. I enjoyed all three to varying degrees, some more than others. Like I said earlier, some movies are great, some are good, some have good elements but poor choices, some are bad, and some are so bad, they're good (why yes, I am referring to you "Mega Python vs. Gatoroid"). No matter what you like, just make sure that you enjoy ever minute of it. Life's too short not to have fun.

Let's start with the eternal one himself, Nic Cage. The man has been in some bad films, there's no denying that. But Nicky is like that crazy uncle that comes over for Thanksgiving dinner, drinks too much, and proceeds to tell of the time he and two strippers were stranded on a desert island and they decided they needed to repopulate the species (the strippers weren't very bright), so he became the king of the tribe he fathered and they still live on the island today, oh, and they almost sacrificed him to the volcano gods (strangely, that sounds like the plot to a Nic Cage movie). So, I like the man. I can't help it, he makes me smile. I finally got to see "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengence" and it definitely contains all sorts of Nic Cage crazy. I liked the first Ghost Rider (as opposed to all of you who didn't) and I felt that it was close to the comics and their tone. I had high hopes for the second one and while I will say that the visual aspect of "SoV" is good, several creative choices derail this version of the character. This is one of those reboots that's not a reboot (it makes no sense to me either). Nicky's back as old flame head but no one else from the original makes an appearance here. Mark Steven Johnson is gone as director and replaced by Neveldine and Taylor of the "Crank" franchise. The Crank films are flashy, stylized, and over the top (see where we're going here?) and the studio hoped they would bring the same thing to Ghost Rider. Unfortunately, for the viewer and comic lover, that is exactly what they did. This is what I'm talking about when I say bad decision making. You have to have the right directors for the right movies, because when you don't bad things happen. That craziness they brought to the Crank films is all wrong here. Johnny Blaze might be crazy but he's not a clown. Nic Cage does a fine job being Nic Cage, but I would rather see him be Ghost Rider. You would think that when Ghost Rider is on screen (and the effects are impressive to look at) it would be the highlight of the film. Here again, bad decisions rear their ugly head. There is a moment in the film where Ghost Rider grabs a bad guy by the back of the head and proceeds to perform the "Penance Stare" on him. The Marvel Database explains it like this, "When in close combat, the Ghost Rider locks eyes with his victim and makes him or her feel every pain that that individual has ever inflicted on anyone else innocent in their lifetime." Neveldine and/or Taylor fail to convey that to the audience and Ghost Rider just appears to be staring longingly into the baddie's eyes.

Ghost Rider: "Oh, I love you henchman (deep demonic voice)."

Henchman: "Oh, I love you too, Ghost Rider (high-pitched girly voice)."

That's exactly what it looks like. I want to see Ghost Rider taking villains out like the bad@$$ I know he is, not staring at them for fifteen minutes. This trend continues when Nic interrogates this dude for information latter in the film. He is doing the crazy, I can hardly contain what's inside me, bit and then rushes off to use the info he just got to locate this boy (who may or may not be Danny Ketch, the second Ghost Rider). Thus follows an extended sequence of Nicky riding his motorcycle and changing into Ghost Rider. Why? Why is this scene here? I already know he turns into the Ghost Rider (from the helpful cartoon that you had at the start of the film and the previous film), I don't need to spend twenty minutes seeing it happen again (see, bad decision making). Just get to the Rider kicking tail, that's what I want to see (and had already seen in the trailer). The visual effects are great and I love the look of the Rider here more than I did in the first movie, but come on, these movies are suppose to be fun not tedious. Don't get fancy, boys, it does the movie and us no favors. I would be perfectly happy if Fox would let the rights to Ghost Rider slip back to Marvel and maybe they can pull a Hulk makeover for the match head. The rest of the film is just kind of there, the only real standout is of course, the always fantastic Edris Elba. He is always extremely watchable and this is no exception. If you are a fan of Ghost Rider you may want to give this a rent, if you're not forget this movie exists and go on with your life. All Hail, the vampire king!!

Next up, "Underworld: Awakening" is the continuation of that particular franchise. I like these movies (guilty pleasure) and, of course, i'm in favor of any movie that shuns the "I'm in love with a sparkly vampire and a werewolf that runs around without a shirt on" crap. A war between vampires and werewolves is a fantasy that all horror lovers have had at one time or another (Universal even put the Wolf Man and Dracula in a movie together, in the 1940's). Are these movies high art? Of course not, they aren't directed by Scorsese after all. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy them for the craziness alone. Plus, Kate Beckinsale in skin tight black leather, need I say more? My only real question about the movie is a fairly obvious one. What world changing thing does Scott Speedman need to be doing that he can't show up on set for two days (that's all it would have taken) and collect a small "I don't want to be homeless" check? Does anyone know the answer to that one? Does anybody really care? It cost more to digitally insert his face on some other actor's body than they would have had to spend to film him outright (they also had to pay him for his likeness, so now we're just throwing money away). Why not just kill him off screen and move on? There I just had to get that out. Now I am better. Moving on. If you are a fan of the Underworld series or just like fun movies with hot women (Kate Beckinsale in skin tight leather, remember?), then this is right up your alley. Go have fun.

My last review is most certainly my favorite of the three. I had a good time with Underworld, but I was blown away by "Chronicle". Where did this movie come from? If you haven't seen it then I'm not going to spoil it here. The story is fairly straight forward. Kids find crazy artifact, kids get superpowers, kids do cool things, and kids deal with good and evil. Sounds like any comic book origin story you ever heard, right? Wrong, this is so much more. Box Office Mojo says that it was made for 12 million dollars. I'll repeat that, 12 million. I sit here in awe of the amazing things they accomplished in this film on such a small budget. This is one of those films that defies the conventional wisdom that the more money you spend on a film the better it will be. Sometimes it's about the filmmakers and the creative people behind a project that make a movie work. Great ideas and great execution trumps money any day of the week. It's still amazing the things that happen in this movie. You really need to see it. Josh Trank, the director, is already being talked about to reboot The Fantastic Four for Fox and is it any surprise that the writer is Max Landis, son of John. Turns out Max is pretty awesome as seen "here". From what I hear, there will be a sequel. I hope they don't screw it up by NOT BRINGING EVERYONE BACK (just a subtle hint, Hollywood executive types)!!! Oh, and Chronicle is a found footage movie (I almost forgot that fact because the film is so good, unlike most of those flicks). The gimmick here is so well done after a while you hardly notice it. That is a testament to great direction and great writing. I could not recommend this film more. If you don't own it you should.

The picture quality on all three films is great (even the found footage of Chronicle). The sound mixes are full and expansive. The extras are decent though not comprehensive. Still, two out of three ain't bad. If you want specs and in depth analysis check out the links at the bottom of the page. I'll be back later with more news and rumors so, "hang on back there!"

Todd "I got a panty on my head" B.

[High-Def Digest, Blu-ray.com, and DVDfile]



That's pretty convincing, wouldn't you say?

Nic Cage as Johnny Cage, for Josh!!

[Nic Cage as Everyone]

Xenomorphs and Facehuggers!

Nic, Todd, and I are currently in the theater waiting to see Prometheus in IMAX 3D! Reviews are sure to come!!