[rant title="Recompile that code, and get me another beer"]

There's one movie from this summer that I want to watch again and I'll probably buy it on Blu-Ray. No not Scott Pilgrim, or Inception, or even Iron Man 2. It's about a bunch of nerds who furiously tap on their keyboards and angrily toss lawsuits and money scams at each other. Wow. I am just a party animal.

In all seriousness, The Social Network is a wonderful movie, though in no way revolutionary. It doesn't have the high-energy action or mind-numbing information overload of Inception. It doesn't have the quirky ADD humor and colorful spectacle of Scott Pilgrim. And it doesn't feature any really groundbreaking emotional catharsis or crazy twist ending. What is exceptional about The Social Network is that it attempts to be nothing more than a very solid, enjoyable movie.

Unoffically dubbed "The Facebook Movie", Social Network is a highly (cannot stress that word enough) dramatized history of the creation of Facebook. Is it accurate? Hell no. Mark Zuckerberg is not a beer-swilling, anti-social genius hell-bent on World Wide Web domination (really how could someone as anti-social as Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal be the creator of the greatest social networking tool of our generation?). Eduardo Saverin is not a clueless sidekick who follows his master while preparing to steal the limelight. Sean Parker is not a one-dimensional douche bag. Is it exciting? In it's own way sometimes, but it never reaches a moment of ultimate climax or emotional overflow. Is it catchy, funny, or memorable? Not really. There isn't any famous line people will be quoting from this film, and no fantastic "that one scene" stigma that can make even a crappy movie sell millions.

But despite all of this, The Social Network manages to be a gripping experience throughout it's 120 minute running time. It's rare occurrence where all of the elements of a movie come together and just mesh into one, solid idea. The direction, the writing, the acting, the music; it all just...works. Director David Fincher knows a thing or two about pacing and delivery. With movies such as Se7en and Fight Club under his belt, Fincher knows how take the oddest and most mundane ideas and spin them into intricate and poignant pieces. Writer Aaron Sorkin, who pioneered television with his incredibly intelligent West Wing series, weaves a web of intrigue and deception from a seemingly simple plot and premise. It may not be terribly accurate, but as all good storytellers know, there's no use spoiling a good story with truth. All of the actors turn in solid roles, from Eisenberg's cold, flawed genius, to Andrew Garfield's unsure sidekick, and even Timberlake's party-monger, they're all very real and believable people. And the music we have none other to thank but Trent Reznor. Despite his long and distinguished career as a popular musician, it seems he scores his biggest home runs as a music supervisor.

But beyond Network's credentials as a piece of film, it's lasting charm (for me at least) is it's portrayal of the college nerd culture. When such a word as "nerd" or "computer geek" is uttered, it usually conjures visions like that of the recent Intel and E-Surance commercials. Poorly dressed, socially awkward individuals with an alienating obsession of all things tech. Some of my favorite parts of The Social Network are the least noteworthy. The portrayal of Zuckerberg, and ultimately Sean Parker, is one of almost rock star quality. They buy a house which they run Facebook out of, all while partying, having a good time, and being the rambunctious twenty-somethings that they are. They aren't hunched over a computer with books stacked to the ceiling and a pocket protector ready to explode with pens. They're playing games, jumping off a roof into a swimming pool, drinking and doing drugs. At times you wonder is this a website headquarters or the back stage of an AC/DC show? It shows "nerds" as regular people. The minds behind a massively powerful page of computer code are just as wild, crazy, and fun as the rest of the world. In other words, it is a much truer portrayal of nerd culture, if at times a bit overly dramatic. Another excellent demonstration of this is the "hackathon" scene, when Zuckberg and Saverin join the rest of the Facebook staff in watching an event they called a "hackathon". The concept is a simple one, see who can build or break a specific computer project the best and most efficiently. But it's not a scene of social deviants tapping furiously and chugging coffee. It's more of a party atmosphere, with people drinking alcohol, carrying on with music blasting and cheering participants on.

Maybe it's just me, but I found the parts that many so-called "nerds" found unrealistic some of the truest parts of the movie. And it isn't a breakthrough of filmmaking. It's not going to change the way things are done or even what people think of when they say the word "nerd". But it is a very solid movie, and one worth seeing at least once. If nothing else, it made me feel proud a s a computer programmer, and inspired me to keep doing what I enjoy. And that's something most movies can never do.

[/rant]

[rant title="Mario was a theater major"]

I just recently re-played through Star Fox 64 (in HD, which only further proves the point that the N64 had some amazing graphics. Even in high definition, the textures are smooth and the games look amazing). I noticed something video games have been missing for a while. Something I want dearly back in them: theatrics.

Some may say "No theatrical flair in video games? Have you played a game in the last 10 years?". Yes video games have always turned toward the dramatic, the visually stunning, and the aurally astounding, but there's something missing. Among all the spectacle and hubbub, some of the majesty of video games has been forgotten. I harken back to Nintendo's days in the 90's. Nintendo was the Disney of video games (actually they still are, but Disney hasn't been hitting many home runs besides Pixar).

In the 90's Nintendo brought a sort of majesty to the spectacle of video games. Their video game openings featured some very artistic and incredible scenes. Who can forget the creepy intro to Super Metroid? The camera panning slowly across the ransacked laboratory, dead bodies on the ground, and a familiar alien screech echoing through the room. It's simple, but effective, and makes the title screen much more than just a billboard graphic. What about Ocarina of Time? The soft piano music with an ocarina playing, while silhouetted Link rides Epona across the dawn horizon. Both of the Star Fox games of the 90's had excellent intros that revealed part of the story before the game even started. They didn't use loud, obnoxious sound effects, or crazy music to get your attention. They weren't blatant ads for the game you already bought or plain billboard graphics. They were simple scenes that set the tone of the game (and possibly a bit of the story) while giving the player more to look at and making the game feel more alive.

Even the way the stories were told in those old games were very powerful. The limitations of the SNES and the N64 meant that long passages of dialogue and FMVs couldn't be done. You had to tell your story with in-game visuals and music. Ocarnia of Time features some of the most nuanced character performances ever seen in a game, even when compared with today's multi-million polygon character models. It wasn't the superior graphics (come on, it was early 1998) or the touching music (N64 still used almost strictly MIDI, as real music required way too much space on a cartridge) or the excellent dialogue (Nintendo was among a host of game companies with some very questionable dialogue choices). It was the camera, and what the characters didn't say that made it so effective. When Link leaves the Kokiri Forest in the beginning of Ocarina of Time, his best friend Saria comes out the entrance of the forest to wish him good bye. She tells Link she will miss him and hands him her ocarina, which she always loved to play in the forest. The music stops, the camera focuses on Saria's kind, warm face, then cuts to Link's solemn expression. Another cut shows the two of them staring at each other, realizing this may be the last time they ever see each other. And then Link slowly turns and walks away, and the camera cuts to one final look at Saria's face, now a bit more sad and lonely, and fades to black.

Not a word is spoken after Saria hands Link the ocarina, but the emotion in the scene could not be higher. It is a crowning moment in video game storytelling. A touching departing of friends, all done with characters who look like they were cut out of soap by a retarded prison inmate. This is part of the magic missing in many video games.

Another sign of Nintendo's golden reign is the credits. Most games (even today) just use simple black screens with scrolling credits (similar to most movies). But Nintendo didn't think that was enough. Check out the credits sequences from A Link To The Past, Ocarina of Time, and the one that started this whole [RANT], Star Fox 64. These kinds of credits/epilogue endings really made you feel like you had finished something grand. The music, the camera cuts, the scenes they chose, all meant to instill a very grandiose and meticulous moment of awe. And did they ever. The Star Fox team running along a sunset, the music billows and blossoms into a massive fanfare as the Great Fox rises in the background, creating a picturesque scene. Then, a cut to the Great Fox and four Arwings flying off into the sun, the music alternating between a soft good bye, and a powerful send-off. It is as beautiful and inspiring as the end of any Star Wars film, and you feel like you just saved the Lylat System like Fox McCloud himself.

There is a classic air to these games. Beyond the nostalgia and excitement of playing the games, these games and their majestic theatrics are just damn good storytelling, and draw from classic film techniques. These games will not be remembered just for their gameplay, or because they had some good tunes or awesome graphics. These games will be remembered for the grand adventures that they are, and the inspiration that they left with everyone who played them. Recent games like Shadow of the Colossus have nailed this majesty, but diminish it slightly (and appropriately) to fit the style and presentation of that game. But on the whole, games are cutting out these little details and techniques, because most game are still not taken seriously enough for people to care. And that is a sad thing. But it makes games like these so much sweeter, as they are so far and few between. Maybe their scarcity is not such a bad thing after all.

[/rant]

[rant title="The Unfettered Metaphor"]

The boy is nervous. He clutches his bass guitar, trembling. It's the semi-finals night of Battle Of The Bands, and his prospective girlfriend is out there watching, waiting. This is his night to shine. If his band can trump this round, maybe he can finally win this girl's heart. The band takes the stage. Across the venue, the opposing band stands poised behind a giant DJ stand. They flip on their massive PA system, and as the decibels rise, two giant glimmering dragons emerge from the turntables and synthesizers.

The dragons snarl and screech. They coil back, preparing for attack. The boy and his band are frozen in fear. The glittering beasts lunge forward. The drummer snaps the band out it's trance, with a resounding "ONE TWO THREE FOUR!". The band strikes their first note, and as the room explodes with sound, a giant translucent creature bursts forth from their amps. It clashes with the dragons, wrestling and biting them. Forcing them into submission. As the bands battle for the love of the audience, the clash of the metaphorical titans rages.

Welcome to the new Hollywood.

Yes that's right. Scott Pilgrim vs The World has made that daring leap that entertainment has been tiptoeing near for years. The Unfettered Metaphor. Metaphor and simile have been a part of literature for the better part of human history. But for the most part, if a metaphor involves an explicit and radical departure from reality, it has been relegated to dream sequences, asides, monologues and soliloquies, or quick visual gags. All of these instances are basically saying "this is what it's like, but it's not actually happening in the context of the plot".

Look at TV shows like Family Guy and Scrubs, which often have radical departures from reality as the basis of their comedy. These strange happenings and random jokes are usually removed from the main plot via "This is worse than the time ____." in Family Guy or J.D.'s daydreams in Scrubs. It's a common way of expressing a metaphor without it actually breaking the reality of the plot. But ultimately, it assumes one annoying thing. That the audience is too stupid to realize whether these things actually happen or not. That's why those methods are used, to indicate that it didn't actually happen.

Scott Pilgrim delightfully ignores these methods, and assumes the audience is much smarter than that. Though the metaphors are mostly quite blatant (like the scene from above), they provide a compelling backdrop for the narrative, and they never snap back to reality or cut back to a previous event. The characters and the audience simply accept what is happening as reality. To watch Scott Pilgrim vs The World and proclaim "Why is everyone fighting with lightsabers and shattering into coins?" is so insanely stupid, I won't even dignify it with a proper answer.

Unfortunately, the film is geared toward a very specific crowd, which will limit it's exposure. If you were born before 1980 or after 1995 and never watched MTV or played video games, Scott Pilgrim will have little to offer you. But it's technique and style are amazingly original, even if it is mostly a mish-mash of 80's and 90's pop culture references. We can only hope that other genres take notice and apply the film's techniques themselves. The blatant disregard for reality combined with the intelligent use of metaphor makes for a very quirky, but very satisfying experience.

[/rant]

[rant title="Cheating Chiptunes"]

Cheating Chiptunes
OR
How To Make Chiptunes Without Learning A Tracker

So many people ask "How do I make 8-bit music?". Well, chiptunes are nothing more than extremely simple synthesizers. You can effectively fake a chiptune sound in a digital audio workstation (DAW) such as Fruity Loops or Reason. First you must learn where the sound comes from, how to make that sound as close to the original as possible, and then how to write music that sounds like chiptunes.

1) Making Waves

Chiptunes are created by a video game system's internal sound processor, which for the most part is just a very simple single waveform synthesizer.

The first thing we want to do, is have only one oscillator playing. Most synthesizers use two or more oscillators mixed together to create a sound. Isolate one oscillator by turning the volume down on the other oscillators, or turning the mix to all the way up on one oscillator and 0 on all others.

Notice how all the waves except the square wave are turned down.

Notice how the Mix slider is pushed all the way to the oscillator at the top.

Notice how the volume on the first two oscillators is turned all the way down.

Once you have one oscillator isolated, you need to remove all effects from the oscillator. Usually this involves shutting off the effects channel of the synth. Delay, reverb, arpeggiator, distortion, detuning, modulation, etc. all must be shut off or have their bus reduced to 0. Keep in mind that the low frequency oscillator (LFO) is usually not in the synth's master effects channel. This needs to be reduced to 0 or shut off as well. Also, master effects like resonance and cutoff need to be reduced and boosted, respectively.

Some synths have a master switch for the effects.

The first picture shows the effects on, the second is the effects off.

Some synths have each effect switch on or off independently.

Notice how in the first picture the effect knobs are turned all the way down.

Usually, each oscillator will have it's own LFO.

Make sure the LFO's speed is reduced to zero.

The cutoff filter should be at maximum, and the resonance should be at zero.

As you can hear if you start tapping your keys, we're getting close to the sound of a chiptune. Next we need to change the ADSR envelope of the wave. The attack(A) should be set to 0, delay(D) is full, sustain(S) is full, and release(R) is 0.

Notice how each of these envelopes has

the attack and release at zero, and the delay and sustain at full.

Basically what we have done is torn the synth down to it's most primitive form, a single waveform. The key now, is making it sound as close to the original as we can.

2) Keeping It Real

Now that we have shed the synth of all it's modern trappings, we need to make sure it is the same sound we get out of a chiptune. For this tutorial, we will be imitating the Nintendo Entertainment System sound chip, the 2A03. The NES was capable of producing three different waveforms: square (more accurately, a pulse), triangle, and noise.

The square wave is actually called a pulse wave because it is not always square. The 2A03 could produce three different variations (pulse width modulations) of the square wave: 25%, 50%, and 75%.

Most synths can do this through the LFO's pulse width modulation (PWM) knob. Notice the difference in sound as you move the PWM knob. A pulse wave at 50% is a perfect square wave. As the pulse width changes, the difference in width between the highest and lowest part of the wave changes.

This synth has the PWM knob built right into the wave selector.

This PWM is set to 75%.

This PMW knob is at 50%.

The triangle wave is pretty simple and easy to understand. Its a wave that looks like a triangle.

The trickiest part is the noise wave. This is one of the hardest parts to reproduce because no two synths create noise the same way. Noise is a pseudorandom function of the synthesizer's processor and the way the 2A03 creates noise is not the same way your synth may create noise. Add to that the fact that most synths do not map white noise to a pitch, which the 2A03 does. Some synths may have an option for this, but more likely than not, reproducing the noise channel is very synth-specific and arduous process.

At this point, you may need to look up the exact specs of the system you are trying to imitate. For the 2A03, there are some very important things to keep in mind:

-The 2A03 can only play two pulse waves, one triangle wave, and one noise channel simultaneously.

-Square wave can be played with 25%, 50%, and 75% pulse widths.

-The 2A03 cannot do any effects like reverb or delay (see the next section on how to fake these effects)

-The 2A03 can do very deep pitch bends, so make sure your synth has it's bender set very high.

-Make sure your portamento/glide is turned off. The 2A03 cannot do this (though skillful pitch bending can fake this).

-There's obviously much more to consider, such as the fastest and slowest tempo the chip can do, the highest and lowest pitches the chip can play...you get idea. The more specific you get, the better it will sound. With all these specific limitations and such, how will I make awesome tunes?

3) Mastering The Technique

So if the 2A03 can only play two square waves at once, how do they do chords and stuff? With only one noise channel, how do you get all those percussion and undertones? Chiptune artists have been wrestling with these limitations for decades, and the techniques to overcome these challenges can make a simple four track song sound like a symphony.

The biggest step to learning to write chiptunes is to understand how the human brain interprets stimuli. Your brain fills in the holes that your eyes, ears, nose, and skin can't. Your eyes each have a blind spot, but you never know it because your brain fills in the missing data for you. Try to read this sentence:

I LVOE BACK TO TEH FUTRUE! ITS MY FVRAOITE MVOIE!

Now even though that sentence looks like complete garbage, you know exactly what it says, because your brain rearranges the letters for you. Your brain does this with sound as well. Chiptunes effectively fool the listener into hearing things that aren't really there.

CHORDS
There are a few ways to fake chords. One way is to use very fast arpeggios in a single channel. If it's fast enough, your brain will just mash the notes together and it will sound like a chord.

Another way is to use both channels to play two different notes in the same rhythm, but then make one of the channels play the melody, with the other channel still playing the notes from before. Since you still hear part of the chord, your brain fills in the other part and makes it sound fuller than the actual sound.

ECHO AND REVERB
There are two methods of faking reverb and both are effective in their own way. The first is to have one channel play a melody, and then have a second channel play the same melody just a tad later. Bonus points if you pan them apart a bit to create space. The advantage to this method is that melodies that have no rest between notes can have reverb, but it takes two precious channels to do.

The top picture is the first "main" channel. The bottom picture is the "echo" channel.

The other is to have one channel play a melody, but after the note ends, put a softer note right behind it to make it sound like its reverberating off some far off object. This leaves the other channel free for another part, but only works when there is enough space before the next note to place the reverb note.

The yellow notes are the melody, the light blue notes are the reverb notes.

PUNCHY SOUNDS
If you want a melody line to have a slightly punchier, percussive sound to it, take the melody and scoot the entire thing forward just a tiny bit, then place a very short note an octave above on each note. This works on the noise channel for percussion as well.

STUDY THE PROS
Listen to chiptunes, isolate individual channels if you can, and see exactly how the pros get the sounds that they do. Chiptunes are an extremely difficult but very rewarding artform. And as always, practice makes perfect!

[/rant]

[rant title="Get out of my head! FFFFFUUUUUUUU!"]

Every other review I've read about the movie Inception has heralded it as a mind-blowing, twisting, confusing, complex thriller. But obviously these reviewers have no idea what the movie is trying to do or simply can't watch anything that requires more than two brain cells and a housefly's attention span.

To call Inception confusing is an outright insult to the film and to it's creator, Christopher Nolan. The whole beauty of Inception is that it's never confusing, but quite the opposite. Nolan has created a universe so unlike our own, that taking it all in at once would be positively mind-numbing. But such is the brilliance of his newest creation.

I'll waste nothing of the plot, the characters, or the supposed twists. Inception is a basic, run-of-the-mill thriller in strictly skeleton form. The most simplified premise I can give without ruining the movie is this: "Extraction" is a method of stealing information from someone while they are dreaming. But after a job goes wrong, a band of dream thieves must do the opposite- "Inception" -planting an idea instead of stealing it.

Now in that basic premise is a tremendous catch: how do you make something as simple and docile as sleeping and dreaming into a high-action thriller? Nolan does so in epic style, by crafting a whole plethora of worlds that these dreamers delve into every time they close their eyes. It's the complexity of the universe Nolan has created, not the complexity of the plot, that makes the film so exceptional. And the brilliance of the film, is the way in which it is explained.

There is so much that needs explained in this very familiar, yet wholly foreign setting the movie takes us into. The film explains almost every detail to the audience, but without being boring exposition or long, drawn-out dialogue. Indeed, by the end of the movie, the audience's own imagination will be flowing with ideas of the possibilities of this universe that has been created. In this sense, Inception lands a place rare in any form of storytelling. Not only does this film present an imaginative and endlessly thrilling setting, but also inspires the imaginations of its viewers. And the whole experience is effortless. You learn more and more about the world of the film without even realizing it.

The true accomplishment of Inception, is the ability to take a completely foreign idea, and make it feel as natural and relatable as any part of reality. Much like the protagonists in the film attempt to do. In fact you could say that Christopher Nolan has done what the characters in his film claim is impossible. Christopher Nolan has performed an "Inception" on us all.

[/rant]

[rant title="Sabaton does it again!"]

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]

[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]