Caution

Awesome.

On the Big Screen

The Senator Theater in Baltimore is by far my favorite movie theater (though the AFI in Silver Spring isn't too shabby either). I have seen a couple dozen movies there, and I have loved it each time. Seeing Return of the King was a religious experience. The huge screen, the old timey feel, the delicious popcorn all make going to the movies an event. So, sad new that it is in financial trouble again. This time, though, the city and the owner are coming together on a creative solution: make it into a nonprofit. While this would necessitate that the theater be used for things other than movies by providing "educational and cultural opportunities", I think this is a great move. The Senator is an institution in North Baltimore and is worth saving whatever the cost. Really, making it into a nonprofit might actually make the Senator even more important to its neighborhood. So, good times all around.

This does, however, shine a light on the continuing financial problems the theater has had over the years. It has been bailed out several times, and can just not seem to stay in the black. I have to believe that at least some of this is attributable to poor management decisions (though I have no evidence to back that up) but it is much more about the marginalization of single screen theaters in this country. The Senator simply hasn't kept up with the times, which is laudable to me but devastating to it as a business. No stadium seating, no commercials before the movie starts, no three course meal available at the concession stand. Just popcorn, candy, and a movie. And even though you have to get somewhat lucky and hope someone really tall isn't sitting in the row ahead of you, watching a movie on the big screen just can't be matched by other places. I guess the Senator just isn't for everyone. But, you know what I say to those people? We don't want you here anyway.

Be Afraid

January is a pretty dead time for new releases. This is good, because it gives me a chance to catch up on the games I didn't play over the holidays. Or, you know, sink 50 more hours of my life into a game I played and beat last year. But, whatever, January is also the time for demos. Grabbed two off of Live today: FEAR 2 and Resident Evil 5. Both sequels to two of my favorite games from a few years ago, needless to say I was pretty excited for both. That'll learn me.

FEAR is one of the best first person shooters I have ever played. While the interior office environments did get repetitive after a while, the awesome game play and pretty intense storyline made me forget all about it. FEAR 2 (a game with a long litany of legal issues) picks up right after the first left off, but unfortunately seems to have taken a step backwards. The real draw of FEAR was the ability to slow down combat, resulting in visceral and bloody firefights that also looked fucking awesome, as well as the outstanding AI. The sequel uses the same mechanic, but not nearly to the same effect. Now, this is just a demo, so maybe things will get tightened up in the final release, but the firefights simply don't have the same resonance. While the graphics are top notch for the environments, guns, and atmosphere, the enemies look almost fake, and the blood may as well be Welch's grape jelly. The up close and personal combat of FEAR has been made, drumroll please, completely generic in the sequel! Just what we need, another pretty looking shooter that does nothing new (hope Gamestop has my Killzone 2 preorder...). So, yeah, pretty disappointed, though I guess my hopes weren't all that high.

I can't say the same for Resident Evil 5. One of the biggest games of 09, RE5 is a spiritual sequel to RE4, which is arguably the best game of the last generation of consoles. I played that bad boy for 25 hours and loved every minute. The combat was great, the mood was perfect, and I even got scared a few times. RE5 seems to want to keep the action game vibe, and gives us crazed African villagers instead of crazed Spanish villagers. Oh, and it also gives us a control scheme seemingly devised by those villagers. Two buttons to even be able to shoot (one of which is also used to locate your partner), two to run, a button to open your inventory, the d-pad to browse the inventory, another button to select your weapon/item, "quick time" events (used to great effect in RE4) that disappear after being on screen for about a second...and so on. What the fuck, Capcom? I don't even know if the game is any good, because I spent all my time trying to figure out how to reload my pistol. Another problem is the game's perspective. While the "over the shoulder" view from RE4 remains intact, your character takes up almost half the screen, making seeing anything pretty difficult. While the graphics are gorgeous, the slowwwwwww gameplay and degree of difficulty to do even simple things are really harshing my buzz for this game. What was once a solid "buy" might not even get rented. This might be a long year...

Left 4 Dead

Seeing as though I'm on a zombie kick (seriously, bring em on) I decided to download Left 4 Dead on my PC. The game is awesome. Well, awesome when Steam decides to work and actually let me play. Maybe I project some kind of field, because online games never work right for me. I get kicked off Call of Duty when I'm in someone's "party" on Xbox Live, I can't connect to EA's servers, and I'm pretty sure one of the original versions of Steam put a hex on me.

When I do get to play, good God. You wanna kill zombies, eh? I got your zombies. I got your fucking zombies right here. To say that there are a lot of zombies in Left 4 Dead wouldn't give you the proper perspective. So, let me put it this way. THERE ARE A LOT OF ZOMBIES. Thousands. They run. They scream. They claw. Sometimes they stand still. But, no matter what, there are a lot of zombies. Zombies that need killin'.

How do you kill the undead, you ask? With a shotgun. Or an assault rifle, they don't seem picky. Left 4 Dead is gloriously, unabashedly over the top. There is definitely strategy in terms of how you work with your teammates, but the game is really about pouring buckets of lead into your new undead friends. Through four separate campaigns presented as zombie movies, you and your team operate at a breakneck pace to get to a safe house and out of harms way. While the game can be played solo, it really just isn't the same. The "what the fuck?!?" moments are only possible with other human teammates and thus, the only real way to play the game.

There is also a VS mode, where players can actually be the zombies. I haven't tried that yet because, again, I've probably only played 7 or 8 matches, but the concept sounds awesome. Really, what I lack is the dogged persistence that is required of PC gamers. I mean, yeah, I could figure out how to host my own dedicated zombie fragging server, or fuck with the endless firewall options Vista offers, or reconfigure my router or some bullshit, but all I really want to do is play the game. I'm a console gamer at heart, even if I like the PC inputs better. So, I guess I'll struggle with my inner demons while waiting to find a game of Left 4 Dead. I got time.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

So, it turns out there is still such a thing as a movie star. Brad Pitt gives the performance of his life in one of the oddest, most fascinating, and best movies I have seen in a long time. David Fincher's haunting and beautiful The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is the best film of the year, and I can't believe it took me this long to see it.

The story is, by now, well known. Pitt is born with a strange deformity: he has the body of an 80 year old man who proceeds to age in reverse. The fantastic make up and special effects make this transformation as believable as it could possibly be, but it is really Pitt's performance that allows you to forget the elaborate technical trickery. Even in a cast of great actors like Cate Blanchett (looking absolutely gorgeous by the way), Tilda Swinton, and Taraji Henson (who deserved the Oscar nod as much as anyone) a film like this needed a performance from a star actor to make it work. Pitt loses himself completely in the role, following a pattern of really outstanding performances in the last few years, from Babel to Burn After Reading. While he always had talent, I think he didn't know what kind of actor he wanted to be. Was he the hip, cool guy from the Ocean's franchise, or the action/fantasy hero of Troy? Well, turns out, he's just great. Keep picking these kinds of films, Brad. They suit you.

Really, the story is almost incidental in terms of what the film is actually trying to accomplish. While it is ostensibly about Benjamin's travels through life, the main focus of the film is on the people with whom he interacts. Benjamin is the mirror through which every other character sees themselves. As a result of his condition, he is only briefly the center of their lives, but changes them in profound ways.

Known for films like Se7en, Fight Club, and Zodiac, Fincher's epic seems almost out of place. Really, though, only Fincher could have made Button work. It is his eye for cynicism and even the macabre that keeps the film from descending into sentimental hogwash. In fact, I'd argue that Button is a profoundly sad film. As Benjamin says, "Nothing lasts."

I was surprised that Button garnered so many Oscar nominations. Having now seen it, though, I can't argue for any other film this year to win Best Picture, not even The Dark Knight. It is an amazing journey through time and a fascinating mediation on loss. If you haven't seen it, go now. If you have, go again.

Dark Knight Snubbed

Bullshit. I didn't really expect a Best Picture nomination, but not even a nod for directing and writing? Good to see that Heath Ledger's performance got that posthumous love, but come on. The Dark Knight was the movie of the year. Is anyone really going to remember Frost/Nixon, Milk, or The Reader in five years? Though measuring a film's worth by how much money it makes is often a bad choice, let's not forget that The Dark Knight is second only to Titanic in terms of dollars earned at the box office (of course, accounting for inflation it is much lower on the list). Even more than that, it was a cultural event. Everyone was talking about the damn thing for months. While Slumdog Millionaire was a good story with a solid cast, it was nowhere near the overall triumph of TDK.

Every now and then, blockbusters like Lord of the Rings, Titanic, and The Dark Knight really are worthy of Best Picture. It's shit like this that makes everyone think Hollywood is out of touch. And, you know what? It is.

Massively Effective

Ok, stupid puns aside, Mass Effect is a masterpiece. It got its claws deep in me right around this time last year, and hasn't let go since. I've never regretted trading in a game more. Thank God I downloaded Steam. For only 20 bucks, I get maybe the best game of the current generation.

Ignoring the fact that I have now paid 80 dollars for the game, let's talk about why I bought it again. As an experience, Mass Effect is simply unmatched. Amazing graphics, movie quality voice acting, engaging story, varied gameplay, and lesbian sex. Honestly, what more could you ask for? Well, for starters, having the thing actually work. The Xbox version is marred by massive slowdown, graphical issues out the ass, and a menu system that could best be described as "haunting". For a game that spends as much time utilizing a menu as Mass Effect, you'd think the developers would want you to be able to read the menus, or use them in an effective way. Oh no, 360 fan, not you! For you, the menus will be as muddled and complicated as possible. Oh, and you'll have to go through several levels of menus to get to the one you want. Then, when you finally figure out which upgrade to use with your shotgun, the game will lag to the point of almost making it meaningless. Awesome, right?

That may be somewhat overstating the problem, but not by much. Thankfully, and much to the chagrin of anyone who has to play the game on a console, the PC version is far, far superior. While the game itself isn't different, the way you ineteract with it is. First off, you can actually use the menus. I was able to find everything I wanted, use it the way I wanted, and then get back to playing with a simple mouse click. While there is slowdown, the graphical issues are not nearly as present with this version of the game. Being able to hot key and easily tab to equipment and squad screens is a revelation. It's obvious that Mass Effect is meant to be played on the computer, with the console getting the red headed stepchild of Bioware's RPG family. Every single thing is better. If I sound giddy, I am.

It's in the Game?

Sports and video games make for odd bedfellows. That frat boys and WoW geeks can be fans of the same medium is both amusing and strange, but it is a dichotomy that has existed since Tecmo Bowl on the NES. Sports games are one of the most economically important genres in the industry, as Madden sells millions of copies for every possible system each year. Unfortunately, the quality of most sports games has really declined during this generation of consoles. Franchises like MVP Baseball, NFL 2K, All Star Baseball, and 2K's College Hoops no longer exist, while games like Madden dominate the landscape. Why did this happen, you ask? Oh, I don't know. Might money be involved?

The downfall, I believe, of sports games came in 2005. EA Sports, Madden's publisher, gained exclusive rights to the NFL license, effectively ending games like 2k Football. Additionally, maybe in retaliation, EA Sports lost the MLB license. God, if only the two had been switched. EA's MVP Baseball franchise, especially its 2005 edition, was perhaps the pinnacle of sports games, and 2K's innovative and fun NFL game had far surpassed Madden's stale formula. While these deals may have been good for someone's bottom line (EA), gamers have suffered tremendously.

What has this loss of competition wrought? Oh, just the worst run of sports games that I can ever remember. Let's start, as all things must, with Madden. While EA's franchise may be one of the pillars of the game industry, its quality is, let's say, not high. This year's version is actually the best of any since the next-gen consoles were released, but that is damning it with faint praise. While it certainly does some things well, the majority of the gameplay is either flawed our outdated, and the franchise/superstar modes are incredibly buggy and downright frustrating. First, the gameplay. Madden has a tried and true mechanic, and EA never deviates. The only innovation in the last 5 or so years was the hit stick, but the other gimmicks made to look as though the game was "updated" have either completely failed or have just been forgotten. The "passing cone" comes to mind here. Part of this has to do with the consumer. Madden sells incredibly well every year, so why should EA care if gamers complain? The lack of any other competition, though, is the real culprit. This also applies to 2K's MLB. While Sony has an exclusive game of their own (The Show on PS3), MLB has the real stranglehold on the license, as it is the only baseball sim available on every console. I only play it because I love baseball and am a glutton for punishment. Why anyone else does is beyond me. The franchise mode is awful, the gameplay is worse, and there is no real incentive to improve.

Even worse is the regression during the so-called "next generation". I understand you don't have competition, fellas, but come on. Can't we at least have what we got on the PS2 and Xbox? Why are stats in simulated seasons so ridiculous? Why, when someone like A-Rod gets injured for 15 days, do the Yankees sign a scrub and then not play A-Rod when he comes back? Why do the Colts release Peyton Manning, who proceeds to sit on the free agent wire for two years? Why can't we fucking save in game EA? Why? If you're going to give us a buggy product, let us at least have the opportunity to save and not waste an hour of our lives (even though a save doesn't really alleviate that). And why, for the love of Christ, can't your team play well during Superstar mode?

I probably ask too much. I should be content with roster updates and marginally better graphics year after year. Here's your $60, EA! Don't put it to good use. See you next year!

Yes We Can

Wow. Not sure if you can see me. I'm over there by the Washington Monument. No, over there. Aw, forget it.

Well...Shit

It was a great season. No doubt about it. Probably my favorite season the Ravens have ever had, including the Super Bowl year. Of course, that doesn't make losing to the fucking Steelers hurt any less. Despite being outplayed for the second straight week, the Ravens had a chance to take the lead late in the fourth quarter. A stupid god damn personal foul penalty by Darren Stone (don't let the door hit your ass on the way out) forced them all the way back to the 14, Flacco throws a gift to Polamalu, and the rest is history.

This game basically summed up the Ravens' glaring weaknesses: cornerback and wide receiver. No one got open all day, and our secondary simply wasn't good enough to hang with the talented Pittsburgh wideouts. While Flacco played one of the worst games of his career, it was obvious when looking at replays that he really had nowhere to throw the ball. Todd Heap was a non-factor (as he has been all season), Mark Clayton disappeared, and Derrick Mason is only one man (he also dropped an early pass, a critical play in a game this close). The gameplan also made little sense. 5 passes to start the game? Flacco throwing down the field into coverage? Running draw plays out of the shotgun? Only playing Ray Rice for about 5 snaps? I could go on.

But let's be honest with ourselves. No one in the world expected the Ravens to get here. I thought they would struggle to win six games. Thought they reached for Flacco. Thought Harbaugh would be out of his league. Clearly, I was wrong on all counts. While these signs seem to bode well for the future, I also wonder if this was our only shot. Rex Ryan is gone, Ray Lewis, Suggs, and Bart Scott are free agents, guys like Mason and Ed Reed are a year older. Not that I think the Ravens are going to fall off a cliff anytime soon, but this season had sort of a "perfect storm" vibe, where the breaks went our way. Now, with the turnover that comes every off season, can this team repeat its success? Impossible to know, obviously, but I think it will be very difficult.

So, what's next? The top priority has to be signing a big time wide receiever. Really, signing one and drafting one (Percy Harvin or Darius Heyward-Bey, anyone?). Second, deciding what to do with the linebackers. Personally, I would sign Ray and Suggs and let Bart Scott leave. Third, the secondary. Does Chris McAlister come back, or do you try to trade him? What about Dawan Landry? Jim Leonhard certainly deserves a chance to be back in the starting lineup, but the safety position is getting mighty crowded. Also, even if CMac does come back, this team desperately needs more depth at corner. When Corey Ivy is your third cornerback, things aren't gonna go well.

But, all of that is for tomorrow. For tonight, I'm going to savor the amazing and unexpected year the 2008 Ravens gave Baltimore fans. I'm going to remember Willis busting a 70 yard touchdown against Dallas, Ed Reed taking it to the house against, well, everyone, Joe Flacco catching a pass from Troy Smith, Joe Flacco making a huge run in his first game, Joe Flacco doing his fucking thing. And, most of all, I'll remember watching the Titans game with my Dad, and wildly screaming and hugging when they pulled it out. God damn this was a great year.

4 hours and counting

Let's do this.

It's All Part of the Plan

Coolest movie poster ever. I said it.

Good call, Warner Bros. Seeing The Dark Knight in the IMAX was one of the coolest experiences I have had at the movies. Since they clearly want to win Best Picture (which might make people actually, you know, watch the Oscars) re-releasing the film in a time where everyone is making Serious Adult Dramas With Important Themes seems like it might work out. Anybody wanna take bets that the re-release makes more than the eventual Oscar winner?

Uncharted 2 Combat

I really enjoyed the first Uncharted game on the PS3. Witty dialogue, great graphics, and good gameplay made it one of the best games on the system. My biggest problem was with the combat. The combat system itself was good, but the enemies were dumb as bricks and harder to kill. As Kotaku amusingly points out, it shouldn't take 17 bullets to kill a shirtless guy. It seems Naughty Dog may agree, as they have vowed to make the enemies in the sequel smarter and more agile. Of course, that doesn't mean the enemies won't be superhuman, but maybe the fights will be more interesting.

Of course, what i really want to see is Uncharted become more of an adventure game than an action game. The market is pretty flooded with third person shooters that employ a cover system. Uncharted's potential, for me, probably rests more in the old-school Tomb Raider games. Make the platforming a little more challenging, add in some more puzzles, and tone down on the combat, and you have me at hello. The other annoying thing about Uncharted's combat is that you go through ancient ruins, open doors that require various cranks, jump into black pits, and yet when you get to where you're going there are 50 enemy henchmen waiting for you. How did they get there? I asked myself this a lot during the first game. I mean, a lot. Kinda like the number of enemies you have to kill. Burn!

24 Thoughts

"I did what I thought was right at the time!" Maybe 24's producer took a line from their own show to excuse the sixth season of 24. Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time to have a nuclear bomb detonate in Los Angeles and then not mention it four hours later. Maybe it sounded fun to have mercenaries infiltrate CTU. Again. Maybe shoehorning in a story about interning Muslims sounded like it would topical and edgy. Or, maybe 24 had just run out ideas.

To say the last season of 24 was bad wouldn't really do it justice. Putrid, maybe. Unwatchable? Well, no, but close. It started out promisingly, with the aforementioned nuclear bomb and Jack returning from captivity in China. Unfortunately, the rest of the season (which felt more like a year than a "day") didn't come anywhere close to the addictive and outstanding show that 24 had always been. In an ironic sense, then, the writer's strike may have been the best thing that has ever happened to the show. With a two year layoff to improve and find new ways to execute the show's real time story, it seems Jack really is back.

The season really started with an entertaining (if somewhat overwrought) two hour special with Jack evading custody in Africa. Events would unfold, however, that would bring Jack back to the US, and put the fictional African nation at the center of American foreign policy. There is a new president (where have you gone, Wayne Palmer?) but certainly no lack of the usual 24 palace intrigue. It seems the African nation of Sengala (sp?) is embroiled in genocide similar to Rwanda, and the newly elected president is only too eager to intervene. Simultaneously, domestic terrorists have stolen a MacGuffin... I mean, a device that hacks into the US domestic "firewall" and is threatening to crash airplanes and unleash all kinds of similar havoc. And, as if that weren't enough, Jack Bauer is forced to testify before a Senate committee eager to prosecute him for his extracurricular activities involving terror suspects.

If all of this sounds relatively boilerplate, it is. Shit, we even have a previously thought to be dead cast member (Tony Almeida) come back to life. What is really surprising about the first four hours of the new season, though, is how well all of this is handled. While there are the requisite shoot outs and government corruption, it actually seems fresh and interesting again. Much of this can be attributed to the (so far) lack of obvious red herrings or bullshit storylines designed to fill time in previous seasons. While that could certainly change, the tight pacing and fairly small cast is proving far superior to anything season 6 (and, honestly, seasons 3 and 4) had to offer. It seems like a throwback to the days of season 1, where Jack wasn't hamstrung by CTU every minute of every day and was able to get out there and do his thing. There is, of course, a government conspiracy that goes as high as the Cabinet (and if you can't pick out who the traitor is, you don't watch much 24) and a potentially annoying sub plot involving an asshole FBI agent, but that's part of the charm.

What really makes 24 work has always been Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer, and the new season is no exception. While it felt like Sutherland was at times going through the motions last season, he too seems invigorated and ready to roll. Gone is the self doubting Jack, which actually had some interesting potential until the writers butchered it. That version of the character is replaced with a man who has complete conviction that everything he ever did was right. And that is the fundamental question of this season, and 24 in general. Is Jack right? Do the ends justify the means? Are we rooting for Jack to torture people who may or may not be terrorists in the name of saving American lives? If so, what does that say about us?

Luckily, for those who don't feel like engaging those questions, 24's action and suspense are more than enough to get through the day. I have very high hopes for this season, both for its bad-assness and its examination of battlefield morality. Jack is back baby.

Flamer

Ah, the console wars. Always fun. As are the "I'm not a fanboy and i have ps3 and 360 so im not biased for real tho but ps3 rulez M$ sux ftw" comments on flame threads throughout the internet. Of course, the sheer number of these comments rises exponentially when one of the "Big 3" releases something like the chart above.

In this case, it is Sony telling us that in reality the PS3 is a far cheaper alternative to the 360, and has vastly better features than the Wii. Now, some of this is true. The PS3 has a bigger hard drive, free wi-fi and online gaming out of the box, and Blu-Ray capability. However, the dishonesty in this marketing push comes in two ways. First, by choosing the cheapest Xbox available on the market, it is obvious that more "stuff" will be necessary for it to compete with the PS3. Second, Sony is assuming that everyone wants what the PS3 has to offer. Sure, hardcore gamers and technophiles need Live, big hard drives, and HDMI. But, for people buying a 360 Arcade or a Wii, those bells and whistles are liklely unnecessary.

I was an early 360 adopter and certainly bought peripherals like a wireless router and have a Live supscription. In the end, I have probably paid more for my 360 then I did for my PS3. Of course, I have played my 360 so ridiculously much more that there really is no comparison. This is not to bash the PS3, because the (few) games I have played on it are outstanding. I have just really been won over by Xbox. I used to be a Playstation fanboy. Hated the N64. Laughed at the Xbox. But then I realized something. If you really want to be a gamer, you can't be a fanboy. To ignore a system because you are somehow loyal to an unfeeling corporate giant who couldn't give two shits about you is insane.

The real issue here is, as always, money. But money manifests itself in gaming in ways that aren't seen in nearly any other business. Because consoles and games are so expensive, many people can afford to buy only one system. So, in order to justify their purchase, they attack the other system with zealotry that is usually confined to religion and politics. It is a strange beast, the gaming biz, and its consumers only feed the frenzy. I am lucky enough that I have very few responsibilites and can sink a large amount of my disposable income into my gaming addiction (thank Christ). For the people who can only afford a 360, I feel bad that they don't get to play Metal Gear or Little Big Planet, or Uncharted, or Ratchet and Clank. It's a damn shame.

For those that can afford both and do not own both, however, I have only this to say: Shut the fuck up. Seriously. Just shut up. If you own a PS3 and are jealous of Gears of War, go buy a 360. Don't start flame wars about how Resistance 2 is "the shiznit." And for you 360 owners, give Little Big Planet the respect it deserves and stop pwning n00bs on Halo 3 for two damn minutes. Jesus, people are annoying.

As for Sony's little marketing hit job, I say "bravo". It's good to know you can spend time on things like this than giving us backward compatibility or a new Shadow of the Colossus game. If you want people to buy your console, how about making it is good as your other consoles. How about not lying that motion control and rumble can't work in the same controller because you don't want to settle a lawsuit. How about giving people a console that people can afford to buy during a recession. And how about making more attractive charts? That's always a good start.

Et Tu, Barack?

Man, you could have at least gotten them a Sega. Gone old school.

Game of the Year

I don’t like Grand Theft Auto games. They bore me. The missions are repetitive, the combat is annoying, and the freedom of an open world eventually loses its luster. From GTA 3 (had a mission I couldn’t beat and just got bored) to Vice City (hate the 80’s) to San Andreas (too god damn long), I really thought I would never find a GTA game that I would want to finish. And, you know, I almost still didn’t.

GTA 4 was 2008’s game of the year. It shattered records for entertainment products, sent every game reviewer into an orgasmic fit, and was enjoyed on both of the “real” next-gen consoles. It also created the most convincing open world yet seen in a game, improved tremendously on the combat, and gave us a story that, while still a bit clichéd, was one of the best the medium has to offer. The graphics, while perhaps not superficially the best of the generation, are particularly amazing, because Liberty City looks so real and is so huge. I don’t know how they pulled it off, but damn. So, how could you not love this game? Well, it depends on your perspective. If you like the whole GTA thing, I couldn’t imagine a better manifestation. If you don’t, well, you had to look a little deeper. And deeper I looked. Oh, God, I looked. I wanted to love it like everyone else. I wanted to be cool. Turns out I’m not cool or with it, but that doesn’t mean I hated GTA 4. In fact, I liked it a lot.

The game starts incredibly well. As Niko Bellic (possibly the greatest, most well defined main character in any video game) you are a man in search of the American dream. Which, as it turns out, involves text messages. A lot of text messages. But also killing, stealing, drug dealing, and arson. The structure of GTA 4’s missions is no different from the other games: steal car, kill guy, come back. Or, when they want to really mix shit up: kill guy, steal car, come back. For a while, though, the great storyline masked the obvious deficiencies in the actual missions, and despite the repetition, most were pretty cool. The problem, as always, comes in the form of the main game being too damn long. Not that I necessarily need realism in a video game, but when my final body count was somewhere around 1,919,239,563, even the thin veneer of reality is completely broken. I’m fairly certain that Niko Bellic is the greatest mass murderer of all time. Also, I doubt the mafia and other seedy organizations have the kind of manpower to survive Niko’s swath of destruction. But, Ok. Let’s pretend that the missions are sort of outside of the real world, and the story can exist on its own. In that case, I love it. I’d even call it Godfather-esque, though it might be closer to the best of The Soprano’s in terms of its tragic nature.

When you do have to reconcile the fact that Niko actually is killing thousands of people, stealing hundreds of cars, blowing up buildings, and is able to walk around without cops knowing who the fuck he is, I find his sympathetic nature a bit difficult to swallow. It really is almost as if the story exists outside of your actions within the game. “Oh, I’m so conflicted. I want to have a normal life. Hold on, let me swerve and kill these pedestrians. Sweet! Oh, woe is me.” I think you see what I’m saying.

Despite these obvious (to me) issues, I still really enjoyed GTA 4. There were some very cool missions, awesome sandbox gameplay (I particularly enjoy jumping out of helicopters and trying to hit civilians) and genuinely emotional story points. Of course, there is also the often difficult game play, which is not by design but rather by developer execution. It’s possible I just suck at it, but still. Overall, though, the game play problems aren’t nearly as prevalent in this iteration and the story is much more satisfying.

So, what is all this leading up to? Really, I don’t know. GTA 4 is one of those games I just don’t know if I really like, or if I just like the idea of it. There was plenty of frustration and boredom, but I kept going back to it. And if that ain’t a game of the year, I don’t know what is.

Say it ain't so!

Electronic Gaming Monthly is dead.

Damn sad news, but unsurprising in the current economic climate as well as the increasing irrelevancy of monthly gaming magazines. Still, it was fun to read EGM in the bathroom. 30 employees also got laid off. Stupid internet.

I Roll 20's

It all started about 8 months ago. I was reading various video game related blogs (shocking) and came across a reference to something called “Penny Arcade”. I had heard about Penny Arcade sometime, somewhere, but had never checked it out. So I clicked over, and suddenly everything I thought I knew about life was shattered and then re-made. Well, maybe not everything. Anyway, Penny Arcade is a webcomic mostly satirizing video games and the game industry. Occasionally, though, they delve into even deeper (perhaps darker) sectors of nerd-dom. One such deviation is known as Dungeons and Dragons.

Now, I’m like most people. “Dungeons and Dragons?” I’d say, shaking my head. “Jesus, get a life.” The dice, the capes, the pizza stained “I Like Orcs” t-shirt, the parents’ basement; It’s a world I never thought I wanted to inhabit, if I thought about it at all. Sure, I play video games. I even dabble in the occasional role playing game, maybe even online. But D&D just seemed too…much. Too nerdy. Like going from drinking every now and then to shooting heroin into my eyeballs. Along came Gabe and Tycho, though, and I was shown the error of my ways. They posted a series of podcasts that basically just recorded them playing a new version of D&D, and I was fucking hooked. Couldn’t get enough. Listened to about 5 hours of people talking about rolling 20 sided dice. What was wrong with me? Did I need help?

The answer, of course, is yes. But more than help, I needed a game. Naturally, no one I know buys into this particular brand of entertainment, so I went on Craigslist to see if people were looking for new players. Such were the depths of my desire. After a while, though, I gave up. Couldn’t find anything, already dorky enough, blah blah blah. In a strange twist of irony, however, my girlfriend came to the rescue. One of her friends is an avid D&D player. All my problems evaporated, as though I rolled a natural 20.

The first order of business was to decide what type of character I wanted to be. I was tired of being a typical tank type character, so I decided to go with a ranger, who has both ranged attacks and interesting non-combat skills. After setting up Ajdan (in honor of my girlfriend’s contribution to my newfound interest) I jumped into an ongoing storyline with a couple of other people.

What I noticed first and foremost was that playing D&D isn’t really unlike playing a video game. Hit points, damage, turn based combat, roleplaying, all that shit. Really, it wasn’t much different than playing any type of board game. In the end, is there really a huge gulf between playing a game like Cranium and playing D&D? I submit there is not. Ok, fine, you act like your character. But, honestly, that’s about it. In some ways, I think D&D is actually superior to a video game. While the story is presented to you, the way you can perceive of it in your mind is nearly limitless. You are also afforded flexibility and originality that simply doesn’t exist in the video game sphere. The actions you can take are not bound by pre-set dialogue options or linear level design. For example, one of the plot points in the dungeon we played through was that NPC characters had been bound into paintings, and we could choose to either release or ignore them. In a video game, those would be your only options. However, we decided to take one of the paintings with us, and eventually used the character inside to defeat a monster. The Dungeon Master hadn’t even remotely conceived of this possibility, but had to shift the game to accommodate our choice. It is that kind of freedom that I always long for in video games but am never able to get (mostly because of the inherent restrictions of the medium). It got my mind racing as to all the things I could be doing in the future. I’ll be honest, I haven’t stopped thinking about it since.

In short, I loved it. Can’t wait to play again. God bless Gabe and Tycho.

Braid addendum

Good psychopathic bunny. Nice psychopathic bunny.

With apologies to Little Big Planet, which I didn't really play all that much, Braid was the most innovative and, dare I say, important game of the year. An Xbox Live title that gained a bit of controversy for it's (oh noes!) $15 price tag, Braid is a puzzle/platformer that has you manipulate time in interesting ways. Each level provides its own mechanism, and you can choose which order to tackle each challenge. Really, it's something like a cross between Prince of Persia and Super Mario, only not at all (if that makes any sense). Learning the rules of each world is the greatest challenge, and some of the puzzles are head slappingly easy once you realize you've been doing it wrong the whole time.

So, the game itself is great and fun and interesting. A lot of Live Arcade games are. What makes Braid particularly important is that is simply doesn't feel like an Arcade game. It blurs the line between what you'd expect from Microsoft's downloadable service and a full scale retail game. Its beautiful, water color-esque graphics, haunting musical score, and existential story simply isn't found anywhere outside of your local Gamestop (and really, not there either). Despite the fact that it cost somewhat more than most Arcade games do, I think Braid set the bar for what we can and should expect from the service on a more regular basis. We've acually seen an uptick in quality across the baord this year, with games like Penny Arcade Adventures, Castle Crashers, Geometry Wars 2, and of course Braid. I've always liked the Arcade portion of Xbox Live, and I hope these games inspire publishers to think outside of the "casual" box when creating games for the service. And, yeah, I'm gonna hold my breath. All night long.

Games of the Year Roundup

So I had originally planned to review the games that everyone seems to be considering as the best of 2008. Fable 2 was particularly of interest, as I think my opinions diverged from most of the conventional wisdom about the game. For the others, I mostly agree about them (with the exception of Metal Gear, which I'll get to) or haven't played them enough/at all to really give a good review. So, here are some abbreviated thoughts on the best of gaming in 2008, to be followed by a proper "game of the year" review.

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

MGS has always been one of my favorite gaming franchises. Despite the weird and often obtuse storylines, the series always had great stealth gameplay and cool set piece boss battles. MGS4 continues that tradition, but actually improves the combat aspect of the gameplay. The down side of this however is that it is less important to use stealth, which is kind of the, uh, point. So while the third person combat is finally on par with most current shooters, the overall concept of the series suffers. For someone who was often bad at the stealth part (me) this was a welcome change, but I couldn't help feeling like I was cheating.

The main problem with this iteration of MGS is the story. While it is decidedly "Metal Gear", it is also often decidedly dumb. You get a guy shitting himself for ten minutes, a hairless monkey drinking soda and burping, and a bunch of drivel about...well, who knows what the hell it's about. What really could have been an interesting story (Old Snake as a WMD, private contractors making private wars, and a vast global conspiracy) really collapses on itself during the 45 fucking minute long cut scenes. There are some that definitely work, but most I was done with 10-20 minutes before they actually ended. Also, if you haven't played at least the first two games in the series, don't bother. It's a damn shame, too, because the game itself is actually pretty extraordinary, and maybe the best of the year. Too bad you only actually, you know, play for about 45-55% of the 15-18 hour running time.

Fallout 3

While I am still in the middle of the post-apocalyptic masterpiece that is Fallout 3, I can safely say it is probably the second best game of the year. While it is technically a sequel to the Fallout series (which I never played) the game stands completely by itself. Really, it is more of a futuristic sequel to Oblivion, which is fitting since it is developed by Bethesda, and is sort of a sleeker, more refined version of the game. The combat is fast and often desperate, as low supplies and ammunition take their toll, the voice acting and writing is great, and the graphics are probably the most stunning of the year. I especially like the half-destroyed Washington Monument, which I am reminded of every morning when I walk to work. The game is not without it's flaws, but overall it is a fantastic experience.

Gears of War 2

Yet another sequel, but yet another great game. GOW2 expands and improves on the original in every way, especially in the single player game. Whereas the first Gears was a short, "lone wolf" story about Delta Squad, the sequel is a lengthy and epic war against the Locust. The location variety keeps things fresh, the incredibly graphics are even better than the first game, and the solid "stop and pop" game play remains intact. Whereas some didn't like the driving or "on rails" sequences, I thought they really added variety and kept me interested in what turned out to be about a 15 hour experience. The multiplayer also added one of the best modes I have ever played. Horde is a co-op game against waves and waves of increasingly difficult enemies. It is fast paced, difficult, and fun to work with other players over XBOX Live. I unfortunately can't really speak the rest of the multi-player experience, because I'm still waiting to find a game. But seriously, folks, waiting 15 minutes to play a round of Team Deathmatch is a bit absurd. Kotaku reports today that the game should be fixed sometime this month, but it really shouldn't have taken this long in the first place. I loved the first Gears so much because of the addictive 4 on 4 multi, but I really haven't picked up 2 in about a month because I got tired of all the waiting.

World War Z

I think I'm probably a bit behind the times in reading this book, but let's not hold that against me too much. As silly as it seems to say that a fake history book about a fake zombie war is one of the best books I have ever read, I'm gonna go ahead and say it: World War Z is one of the best books I have ever read.

When I was strolling through Barnes and Noble and saw the book lying on one of those tables heaped with paperbacks, I almost laughed. World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War? It seemed like a B movie in book form. Of course, I bought it. Figured I'd give it a read over Christmas and zone out in a sea of lumbering undead. What I got instead was an insightful, incredibly well written commentary on global politics, mass hysteria, and what would happen if a pandemic threatened existence as we know it. Oh, and a bunch of zombies too.

The book is presented as a series of interviews with survivors of the fight against "Zack", one of the pseudonyms used to describe the legions of undead, with author Max Brooks serving as the interviewer. I found this to be a particularly interesting narrative choice, because the book is written as if the reader already knows the broad strokes of the war. Rather than viewing the crisis in the aggregate, the reader instead gets vignettes from a large variety of sources that mostly detail personal experiences. While I enjoyed this "on the ground" perspective, I confess that I hungered for more information. I wanted a companion volume that took the human element out and gave the raw statistics and information about the crisis. In short, I wanted to do research on a war that never happened.

That's what makes World War Z a unique and often brilliant book. Brooks' writing is so good that he makes a worldwide zombie pandemic not only seem possible, but plausible. He created more than a dozen characters, each of whom was so fully realized it is hard to believe that they aren't actually real people. Despite the fact that the reader doesn't know all the details of the crisis, it is clear that Brooks had a very elaborate back story that was necessary to maintain consistency throughout the wildly varied personal stories.

The other great part about the book is how closely it resembles the real world politically, and then takes the next step. If you want to know what would happen to alliances, fragile governments, and human infrastructure if a massive and deadly pandemic struck, I think you need to look no further than World War Z. The breakdown of society, the bungled initial responses, the particularly chilling accounts of governments deciding to abandon those who they determined could not be saved. Really, it just amps up what has happened with recent terrorist attacks/natural disasters. It's great, provocative stuff.

So, if you are reading this (unlikely) and trust my opinion (very unlikely) pick up World War Z. You get an incredibly well written and frightening account of the near-end of the world, and you can look cool while doing it. Get it and thank me later.

Ravens

I like Ed Reed.

Valkyrie: Good Times Hating Nazis

Let's start by saying this: Valkyrie is not a great movie. Really, not in any way. There is no transcendent performance, no must-see scene, nothing about the movie itself that is truly memorable. That being said, it's still a damn good time and is worth a look.

Now, I must admit I have a certain affinity for Tom Cruise. And, more importantly, a seething hatred for Nazis. While I always enjoyed watching Indiana Jones kick their asses, my visceral hatred of the Nazis took root when I traveled to Germany a few years ago and went to Dachau, a concentration camp outside Munich. The evil was still palpable 60 years later, as was the rage that built up within me. Touring Dachau convinced me that the German people knew exactly what Hitler and the Nazis were doing and did nothing to stop it. Dachau was minutes outside of a town; surely the townspeople saw the smoke, the trains rolling in with new prisoners. How could they not? How could anyone stomach and, worse, support such a regime?

Of course, the reality is different from my gut reaction. Many German citizens were completely unaware of the atrocities being committed by their leaders, either through ignorance or delusion. Nazi propaganda was incredibly potent and effective. Could I really fault the German people for doing nothing, especially in light of what our country went through after September 11? Is it so hard to fathom that a people who had been utterly decimated by World War I and the subsequent Allied sanctions would place all their hope in a leader who seemed destined to lead Germany to greatness? The answer to these questions is difficult, but largely, "no." Believing you are able to stand up to evil is one thing. Actually doing it is quite another.

That's where Claus von Stauffenberg comes in. A Lieutenant Colonel in the German army, Stauffenberg loves his country but despises Hitler and Nazism. The film opens with Stauffenberg (Cruise, my boy) writing a letter detailing his plans to stop Hitler at any cost. He subsequently gets blown half to hell and loses an eye, two fingers, and his other hand. He is reassigned to a desk job in Berlin, where he comes into contact with other German elites and military officers who share his committment to removing Hitler and making peace with the Allies.

What follows is, quite naturally, a series of tense scenes depicting numerous attempts and failures, infighting, and close brushes with Hitler himself. Despite the fact that we know the outcome, director Bryan Singer is able to ratchet up the suspense and keep it there throughout. The daring plan to blow up Hitler and then regain control of the government by employing "Operation Valkyrie" is an incredible story, and Singer does a good job of bringing it to life. The cast is also very good, particularly Bill Nighy as General Olbricht, a man whose committment to the cause and his affinity for staying alive often come into conflict. All told, Valkyrie is an effective, if somewhat routine, thriller that keeps you entertained for most of the two hours you paid for.

The real tragedy of Valkyrie as a film is the missed opportunity to truly explore what it means to be both a patriot and traitor. The true life conspirtators were seen by most Germans, even twenty years after the war had ended, as traitors who deserved their fates. It cannot be denied that all the military officers involved directly violated an oath of loyalty they took to Adolph Hitler. The film, though, focuses mostly on the events in documentary fashion as opposed to explaining the characters' motives and delving more deeply into their personalities. Really, the film is populated with stock characters, each fulfilling their designated "historical thriller" role. That's fine, and it makes for a fun movie, but it doesn't resonate in the way that it could, and probably should.

Luckily, it at least got through to me that there were a great number of German men and women who opposed what was happening in their name and realized that Nazism was an abomination. It got me thinking about what I would do in a similar situation, and if I could even recognize it if it presented itself. And, I got my Tom Cruise fix the day after Christmas. Which was good. Right?