I have gotten my hands on the new Sabaton album "Coat of Arms" and it seems Sabaton has outdone themselves again. "Coat of Arms" is a triumph of heavy metal excellence. The variety and depth that this band seems to be able to reach with each new release is astounding. To anyone who doubts Sabaton as the kings of power metal, give "Coat of Arms" a listen and those doubts will fly away like dry leaves in a hurricane.
The album opens with the titular powerhouse single "Coat of Arms". The epic nature and demanding presence of the music yet to come is communicated immediately in this track. Not to mention a killer chorus that will be stuck in your head for days. This is Sabaton doing what they do best.
The next track, "Midway" is short but sweet. A crunchy, gritty guitar riff starts off a fast-paced heroic recounting of the Battle of Midway. The shortness of it makes it feel a little cut-off, but overall it is undeniably fun.
"Uprising" tells the tale of the Warsaw Uprising. Bearing striking resemblance to "The Price of a Mile" from their last album, it is nevertheless a powerful track, though probably the least original of the entire album.
Recalling the Siege of Bastogne, "Screaming Eagles" blazes with the power of the American 101st Airborne of the same name. Uncompromising pace and excellent hooks make it a perfect follow-up to "Uprising".
The synth lines in "The Final Solution" are downright eerie and the song recalls a tone similar to "Brothers In Arms" by Dire Straits thanks to some snazzy synth work and a few bluesy guitar licks.
Sabaton throws in some Celtic inspired composition with "Aces In Exile", a very upbeat number with quite a bit of arrangement variety, about pilots of the Battle of Britain.
"Saboteurs" starts off with a very different guitar lick that is very reminiscent of the recent work of Muse. Excellent diversion for the band and a great telling of the Norwegian sabotage of Vermork.
"Wehrmacht" has a strangely evil and downtrodden feel to it which fits perfectly considering the song's description of the terrible effects Nazism had on the common German.
Notorious sniper Simo Häyhä is immortalized in "White Death", which features classic British new wave metal stylings with a Sabaton twist. You could almost believe this is a cover of an Iron Maiden song.
The album comes to a familiar end with an homage to the genre. "Metal Ripper", in classic Sabaton style, is a grand thank you to great metal acts of the past.
All in all, "Coat of Arms" serves up one delight after another. With bluesy rock, Celtic bounce, alt-rock licks, 80's new wave, and pure metal fanfare, "Coat of Arms" delivers a variety and depth greater than anything Sabaton has brought before. I find it to be their best album yet. Count on these Swedes to be melting faces and banging heads with their tunage!
[/rant]
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
[rant title="We don't call them motion picture games for a reason."]
Whoever first said "video games should be more like movies" should be shot. Twice. Right between the eyes.
First of all, NO. There was a time when I agreed with this statement. When I was young and stupid. There are some valid points to the statement of "video games should be like movies". Video games should try to reach a certain level or visual and auditory artistic quality like movies. Video games should try to diversify their subject matter beyond shooting aliens and stealing cars. Video games should have interesting characters and well thought out stories. BUT, I refuse to use the statement "video games should be like movies" because it seems too many people take this quite literally as "video games should not allow the player any real control over what is happening".
Let's take three of gaming's recent "blockbusters": Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed and Uncharted. These games are heralded as excellent games, with great storytelling and movie quality artistry. But what makes them games? Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed and Uncharted fall into what I call the Laziness Gap. In the LG sit games that present all the flair and bombast of AAA titles with shovelware gameplay that enables any schmuck to experience a powerful and adventurous story. This sounds like an excellent concept, a perfect way to expand gaming's audience while still providing the high quality work that is expected. But there is a fundamental flaw with this plan. The actual "game" aspect is being diminished.
I wanted to like Heavy Rain so bad. I have always enjoyed Quantic Dream's unconventional game ideas, but their execution in actual game play was always fairly weak. I kept reading about Heavy Rain's revolutionary control scheme that supposedly worked great, and for the most part it does. It is a huge improvement over their previous titles which used color matching games and other crappy, almost childish devices to control the action. But the one thing that games have always allowed us is creativity and entertainment. This is where Heavy Rain falls dangerously short.
The beginning of the game is horrendously slow. You control the main character as he gets out of bed, dons clothes, and prepares for the day with his wife and children. I understand what they're trying to convey, but this is where the "video games as movies" bit really intrudes into the wrong territory. In a movie, yes these scenes do a lot to establish character, tone, and setting. But in a video game, they're just boring, and stupid. As a cutscene (in essence a movie within a video game) it would have been perfect, but to actually play through all of this is just lame. Of course I may have felt differently about the whole situation if I had been given freedom to explore the house, and tend to different tasks at my own pace, but again the game gives no chance for that. Unlike a game like Fallout 3 or Dragon Age: Origins, Heavy Rain has almost nothing to explore beyond the few pre-set events in the game. I was so caged-in by the whole experience.
At one point the character's wife asks him to get some plates out of the cabinet. Just to see her reaction, I decided to ignore her and watch some TV. But there was no cue to turn on the TV when I walked near it. OK so TV's are actually a lot of work for game developers to make so maybe I shouldn't be so selfish. So I decided to try and grab a magazine off the table, no such luck. There was a desk in the corner with things stacked on it, maybe I could learn a little bit more about this guy and his family and read some of the stuff. Nope. Everywhere I went there were only two choices, get the damn dishes or play with the kids. In a game that's trying to present a realistic and cinematic tone, it seems pretty backwards to only allow the player to engage in one of two incredibly stupid activities. In the bedroom a few minutes earlier, I had the option to take a shower, pick out clothes, even brush my teeth, but in the living room I only had two choices. The game delivers freedom but only when it wants you to have that freedom, so it's not really freedom at all. For all the hype and praise surrounding Heavy Rain for it's great story telling and "every action has a consequence" gimmick, it's pulling the same stunts that RPG's did back on the SNES.
Now Uncharted violates this same principle, but in a another way. Uncharted automatically assumes that you, the player, are retarded, that you can make no sound decision on your own. Whereas Heavy Rain gives the players very narrow choices, Uncharted gives none whatsoever. The opening to Uncharted 2 is straight out of an Indiana Jones reboot. Nathan Drake dangles from a wrecked train hanging tediously off of a frozen cliff. At this point you take control of Nathan and must climb back to safety through the train cars. So I decided that the door above me looked like a good place to start. If I could grab the door handle and somehow climb or swing inside of the first car, the next move would be easy. With a single button devoted to all actions, I pressed it, and nothing happened. OK, so I can't get to the door. I guess I can climb along the railing until I can reach a window. Nope. A few shimmies towards the edge of the car and Nathan stops. Then I realize the game wants me to pull myself onto the railing and then stand on it, and then Nathan automatically dives for one of the seats in the car. So now I'm inside the first car, there are rows and rows of seats, I try to jump to another seat. Nathan doesn't budge. I try another. No luck. This continues for a while all the way up the train.
The problem here is that all my choices are made for me. There was no interactivity to the entire scene other than shimmying Nathan a little left or right and hitting a button. I wasn't even a clever puzzle or something, just dumb trial and error. It's like a point and click adventure, with full 3-D models and live orchestral soundtrack. The scene was supposed invoke fear and urgency, but I felt neither, since I knew the game would always lead down a safe path. Is this what people expect games to be? Stupid hoops to jump through so that we can see another train blow up or another enemy die? It's boring, it instills no emotion and degrades the medium.
Assassin's Creed has plenty of freedom and that in itself is a huge plus to the game. Unlike my other examples, AC allows you to go wherever, do whatever, and kill whoever. Awesome. Just one small problem. I don't feel like I'm actually in that moment. AC has the actions for the character mapped out among the four face buttons and two triggers. Each button is responsible for a different part of the character's body movement. This sounds great, since you have complete control of the character at all times, but that is rarely the case. When free-running around the city, the only button you need to use is the Feet button. And there's not even any timing involved, just hold it down, and any obstacle you come in contact with, the character will automatically leap over, or climb onto, or whatever. When passing through crowds of people, you can hold down the Empty Hand button to kindly move people out of your way, or when running, to violently push them out of the way.
There is no skill involved with these buttons, so what is the point of having them at all? If the game is just going to execute these animations automatically with the button held down, then why wouldn't someone use that button? I'm sure there are examples of when you wouldn't use the button, but they are far and few between. Some say the simplified controls allow the player to focus less on gameplay mechanics and more on game strategy, but honestly it's just cheapening the experience. If it's so easy to run away, then why is there any strategy needed?
Maybe we need to come to an understanding here, developers. Not all of us like our games to be stupid. If you feel a section or mechanic of a game is going to be too hard or too difficult for some average schmuck to handle, then make some kind of easy mode for them. A prime example is the original Devil May Cry, which actually simplified the control scheme for players who found the aiming and firing of the guns too difficult. I am sick of games using dumbed down level designs, one-way bullshit corridors for an entire game, and cheesy one-button control schemes that make game boring or too easy for those of us who actually know how to play them. Stop catering to the retarded all the time. Tons of great games feature easy modes that allow inexperienced players a chance to get in on the action without killing the difficulty curve for the rest of us.
Overall, "video games should be like movies" doesn't stand up in practice. Too often we get games that are little more than interactive DVDs. Games should never be like films, because games are supposed to exhibit a degree of freedom and control that movie can never do. Stop stifling the medium with stupid ideals of other media. Let's make our own ideals of what video games should be.
[/rant]
First of all, NO. There was a time when I agreed with this statement. When I was young and stupid. There are some valid points to the statement of "video games should be like movies". Video games should try to reach a certain level or visual and auditory artistic quality like movies. Video games should try to diversify their subject matter beyond shooting aliens and stealing cars. Video games should have interesting characters and well thought out stories. BUT, I refuse to use the statement "video games should be like movies" because it seems too many people take this quite literally as "video games should not allow the player any real control over what is happening".
Let's take three of gaming's recent "blockbusters": Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed and Uncharted. These games are heralded as excellent games, with great storytelling and movie quality artistry. But what makes them games? Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed and Uncharted fall into what I call the Laziness Gap. In the LG sit games that present all the flair and bombast of AAA titles with shovelware gameplay that enables any schmuck to experience a powerful and adventurous story. This sounds like an excellent concept, a perfect way to expand gaming's audience while still providing the high quality work that is expected. But there is a fundamental flaw with this plan. The actual "game" aspect is being diminished.
I wanted to like Heavy Rain so bad. I have always enjoyed Quantic Dream's unconventional game ideas, but their execution in actual game play was always fairly weak. I kept reading about Heavy Rain's revolutionary control scheme that supposedly worked great, and for the most part it does. It is a huge improvement over their previous titles which used color matching games and other crappy, almost childish devices to control the action. But the one thing that games have always allowed us is creativity and entertainment. This is where Heavy Rain falls dangerously short.
The beginning of the game is horrendously slow. You control the main character as he gets out of bed, dons clothes, and prepares for the day with his wife and children. I understand what they're trying to convey, but this is where the "video games as movies" bit really intrudes into the wrong territory. In a movie, yes these scenes do a lot to establish character, tone, and setting. But in a video game, they're just boring, and stupid. As a cutscene (in essence a movie within a video game) it would have been perfect, but to actually play through all of this is just lame. Of course I may have felt differently about the whole situation if I had been given freedom to explore the house, and tend to different tasks at my own pace, but again the game gives no chance for that. Unlike a game like Fallout 3 or Dragon Age: Origins, Heavy Rain has almost nothing to explore beyond the few pre-set events in the game. I was so caged-in by the whole experience.
At one point the character's wife asks him to get some plates out of the cabinet. Just to see her reaction, I decided to ignore her and watch some TV. But there was no cue to turn on the TV when I walked near it. OK so TV's are actually a lot of work for game developers to make so maybe I shouldn't be so selfish. So I decided to try and grab a magazine off the table, no such luck. There was a desk in the corner with things stacked on it, maybe I could learn a little bit more about this guy and his family and read some of the stuff. Nope. Everywhere I went there were only two choices, get the damn dishes or play with the kids. In a game that's trying to present a realistic and cinematic tone, it seems pretty backwards to only allow the player to engage in one of two incredibly stupid activities. In the bedroom a few minutes earlier, I had the option to take a shower, pick out clothes, even brush my teeth, but in the living room I only had two choices. The game delivers freedom but only when it wants you to have that freedom, so it's not really freedom at all. For all the hype and praise surrounding Heavy Rain for it's great story telling and "every action has a consequence" gimmick, it's pulling the same stunts that RPG's did back on the SNES.
Now Uncharted violates this same principle, but in a another way. Uncharted automatically assumes that you, the player, are retarded, that you can make no sound decision on your own. Whereas Heavy Rain gives the players very narrow choices, Uncharted gives none whatsoever. The opening to Uncharted 2 is straight out of an Indiana Jones reboot. Nathan Drake dangles from a wrecked train hanging tediously off of a frozen cliff. At this point you take control of Nathan and must climb back to safety through the train cars. So I decided that the door above me looked like a good place to start. If I could grab the door handle and somehow climb or swing inside of the first car, the next move would be easy. With a single button devoted to all actions, I pressed it, and nothing happened. OK, so I can't get to the door. I guess I can climb along the railing until I can reach a window. Nope. A few shimmies towards the edge of the car and Nathan stops. Then I realize the game wants me to pull myself onto the railing and then stand on it, and then Nathan automatically dives for one of the seats in the car. So now I'm inside the first car, there are rows and rows of seats, I try to jump to another seat. Nathan doesn't budge. I try another. No luck. This continues for a while all the way up the train.
The problem here is that all my choices are made for me. There was no interactivity to the entire scene other than shimmying Nathan a little left or right and hitting a button. I wasn't even a clever puzzle or something, just dumb trial and error. It's like a point and click adventure, with full 3-D models and live orchestral soundtrack. The scene was supposed invoke fear and urgency, but I felt neither, since I knew the game would always lead down a safe path. Is this what people expect games to be? Stupid hoops to jump through so that we can see another train blow up or another enemy die? It's boring, it instills no emotion and degrades the medium.
Assassin's Creed has plenty of freedom and that in itself is a huge plus to the game. Unlike my other examples, AC allows you to go wherever, do whatever, and kill whoever. Awesome. Just one small problem. I don't feel like I'm actually in that moment. AC has the actions for the character mapped out among the four face buttons and two triggers. Each button is responsible for a different part of the character's body movement. This sounds great, since you have complete control of the character at all times, but that is rarely the case. When free-running around the city, the only button you need to use is the Feet button. And there's not even any timing involved, just hold it down, and any obstacle you come in contact with, the character will automatically leap over, or climb onto, or whatever. When passing through crowds of people, you can hold down the Empty Hand button to kindly move people out of your way, or when running, to violently push them out of the way.
There is no skill involved with these buttons, so what is the point of having them at all? If the game is just going to execute these animations automatically with the button held down, then why wouldn't someone use that button? I'm sure there are examples of when you wouldn't use the button, but they are far and few between. Some say the simplified controls allow the player to focus less on gameplay mechanics and more on game strategy, but honestly it's just cheapening the experience. If it's so easy to run away, then why is there any strategy needed?
Maybe we need to come to an understanding here, developers. Not all of us like our games to be stupid. If you feel a section or mechanic of a game is going to be too hard or too difficult for some average schmuck to handle, then make some kind of easy mode for them. A prime example is the original Devil May Cry, which actually simplified the control scheme for players who found the aiming and firing of the guns too difficult. I am sick of games using dumbed down level designs, one-way bullshit corridors for an entire game, and cheesy one-button control schemes that make game boring or too easy for those of us who actually know how to play them. Stop catering to the retarded all the time. Tons of great games feature easy modes that allow inexperienced players a chance to get in on the action without killing the difficulty curve for the rest of us.
Overall, "video games should be like movies" doesn't stand up in practice. Too often we get games that are little more than interactive DVDs. Games should never be like films, because games are supposed to exhibit a degree of freedom and control that movie can never do. Stop stifling the medium with stupid ideals of other media. Let's make our own ideals of what video games should be.
[/rant]
[rant title="This Is The New $#@!"]
Yeah, so as if having a news page on the front of the website wasn't enough, I now have this blog too. This will be my BS blog, where I can bitch, fawn, and completely give my opinion to the .2% of people who actually care and 98.5% who don't (I figure about 1.3% are undecided).
Speaking of new shit, the movies lately seem to have none. Not that I'm complaining, but what the hell is with all the comic book movies? In the past decade we've seen 2 Batmans, 2 Hulks, 3 Spider-Mans, Sin City, 300, Watchmen, 3 X-Mens (4 if you count Wolverine as an X-Men movie), 2 Hellboys, Hellblazer (though renamed Constantine), 2 Iron Mans, Ghost Rider...and those are just off the top of my head! Now there are theories all over about the how and why. "Hollywood just needs something safe to showcase their new-fangled CGI and 3-D effects on!" "Comic books are finally returning into mainstream media and being artistically recognized!" "Everyone has no creativity and art is dead!"
You know what? I don't really give a shit why. I like most of them because for the most part, they don't suck as bad as most movies intended for the same 13-30 year-old male demographic. But it is troubling to see so much praise and money dumped into something we already know is awesome. I was really excited this year during the Academy Awards, because some really awesome movies got some really good attention (except Avatar, don't get me started on that piece of shit). There was one movie that was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.
District 9.
District 9 was easily the best movie of 2009. You want interesting and unique story? Check. Killer and tasteful CGI use and special effects? Done. Intelligent and ferocious action sequences? Oh hell yeah. Unique overall presentation and quality. Yes yes yes. D-9 was nominated for 4 Oscars and despite winning none of them, I am happy. Neill Blomkamp's debut is a stunning one, and the exposure just from making 4 Oscar lists (including Best Picture!) will certainly ensure that he brings us another great work. It was just the wrong place at the wrong time.
District 9 was nominated for Best Picture, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, and Best Adapted Screenplay. Right away I knew Best Adapted Screenplay was lost to Precious and even though I have not seen it, I'm sure it would have won even if it sucked (people are suckers for underdog stories). Best Visual Effects, also an obvious loss to Avatar. Anytime James Cameron makes a movie, you can be sure the Academy is tonguing his asshole for that award. Ever since the Terminator movies he just tries to outdo himself in CGI and special effects. I think D-9 had very tasteful use of CGI, exhibiting a certain restraint that we rarely see in films today, especially sci-fi. But they certainly didn't compare to Cameron's epic dull-fest Avatar. I was optimistic about Best Cinematography. D-9 used Neill Blomkamp's now-signature camera technique of switching the action between many different camera types to give the film a more documentary feel. I enjoyed it, it felt fresh and interesting without giving me vertigo like Cloverfield or looking amateur-ish like Blair Witch. But alas it was not meant to be. Lastly, Best Picture, I had my hopes locked away in a fridge (right next to my heart). But as soon as I saw The Hurt Locker on the list I knew it was over. The Academy would take the über predictable route and vote for the Iraq War movie. And I was right.
So overall, a bit disappointing, but I still believe Neill Blomkamp got some great exposure from it, I hope to see something new from him soon.
[/rant]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)