Modern Warfare 2

Spoilers, but you've already played this so it doesn't really matter.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was sold with the promise that it was as realistic as you were going to get in a first-person shooter. While this may or may not be true and the story may have revolved around action-movie set-pieces, those set-pieces could be really compelling at times and we became (somewhat) invested in the characters. The Ghillie suit mission was especially a high point for the series. When Modern Warfare 2 came out, it was the highest selling game of all-time. It still may be, I'm not sure. It was a favorite of mine and my friends for a while and I have fond memories of playing it. My recent play-through of the campaign proves that you can't go home again.

The campaign is just so poorly put together. You play five different characters over the course of the single-player campaign and three of those characters die with one being gravely wounded. In the first Modern Warfare game, you played three characters and one of them died. When they died it was shocking and quite effective. When the three characters die in MWF2, it feels forced and really unnecessary. This is especially true of the astronaut portion where you float in space for a second and then get blown up for no real reason. I don't think they even name the poor guy. Even when the game is picking up steam, then completely break the tension when they switch to another character. For instance, there is a scene where you are an American soldier defending Washington DC from the Russians (because we are living in 1984 for some reason.) The helicopter you are in is shot down and you are being surrounded by the enemy. Ammo is running low. It looks like everything is lost and then...it switches to a different character. Granted, it shows how what happens afterwards came to be, but did it really need to be shown. It would have been way more effective if it had happened and then the player found out why. In fact, when the why is shown, it still doesn't make sense. I don't want to give it away despite the spoiler warning, but it all hinges on a character who is always portrayed as good allowing something bad to happen without anyone giving any real reason why. This is another common with the narrative; people do things that make absolutely no sense and then a bunch of people die. It's stupid and frustrating. I expect better from Lance Henrikson, Captain Anderson and the guy who played the sniper in Saving Private Ryan (they all lent their voices and, with the exception of Captain Anderson AKA Keith David I didn't realize it.) 

Strangely enough, the most interesting, fun and well-made part of the game is simultaneously the least realistic the invasion of America. I'm tired of the Russians as bad guys as much as anyone who doesn't masturbate to Red Dawn but the environments are so interesting, the missions are varied and, most importantly, the story is actually cohesive. While America is invaded, you play as one character, in one squad and you stay in an area that is both familiar and varied. It's not realistic, but games don't have to be and, often, shouldn't be. In a space where you can create anything, why would you create something exactly like the world around you?

So the single-player campaign with it's pointless deaths and poorly constructed narrative is fairly stupid. It doesn't matter, though, because people bought this game for its multiplayer. The single-player campaign is little more than a glorified tutorial meant to teach newbs the basic mechanics so as to avoid a Counter Strike-sized learning curve. Multiplayer used to be huge when I was living in a house with five other guys, but playing it again made me realize that it's really nothing special. Maybe its not fair looking back on this game after everyone who owns a game studio decided to steal their format, but especially after Call of Duty:Black Ops introduced wager matches, MWF2's multiplayer is lame. The killstreaks are still kind of cool and all, but at this point the only people left playing are the hardcore douchebags who couldn't move on when the new games came out. Even so, the matches are often glitchy with connection issues often cutting games short. The gameplay itself isn't particularly varied, with the regular deathmatch, capture the flag and territory holding matches that have been around since online games themselves. The guns are fun to shoot and all, but it's nothing special.

I realized that the reason my friends and I enjoyed those matches was because we were out on our own for the first time and could stay up all night with two walls of TV's constantly playing and shouting with each other. In the beginning, because Infinity Ward decided that beta testing was for chumps, the games were so glitchy and easily modded that the matches were all-out insanity matches. Hosts would pile thirty people only the smallest map so that every time the player spawned, eight people were below them. With no kill cap, a player could get sixty kills in a match. It was ridiculous, but it was fun. This is what made the game good and fun to play; friends and insanity. Once they lost those, we were left with uninspired multiplayer with a few bells and whistles attached and a single player campaign with a few good moments that were snuffed out by a stupid narrative structure, ridiculous plot twists and ethical problems. I forgot to mention the implied torture that one of the supposedly good characters engages in that is never mentioned and has no repercussions. So there's that. Overall, it's a really misguided game that made a lot of money because it is easy to play with your friends. I'm sure Modern Warfare 3 will sell plenty of copies, but I'll be too busy playing Skyrim to care. 

Eden of the East

Wow! Just wow. I just got done with Eden of the East an anime I started and finished shortly after my post on Torchwood. It was unbelievable. A definite must see. It's up beat it's dark there are serial killers and corrupt politicians. I have to give a big shout out to my buddy Dom for turning me on to this one its fuckin fantastic.

This anime is narrated by the lead character Saki Morimi a young Japanese girl who is just about to finish college and is taking a trip to America to celebrate. While visiting the White House in DC she meets a naked man running around with a gun and a cell phone named Akira Takizawa. Saki gives Takizawa her coat hat and scarf to cover himself up so he can get home then heads for the airport so she can go back to Japan. Saki however realizes her passport is in her coat pocket and ditches her bag to chase after him. By the time Saki catches Takizawa we've learned that he has no memory of who he is, he's in possession of several passports himself, and he's got a shit ton of guns in his apartment. Takizawa selects a passport at random and heads to the airport with Saki and the two of them head to Japan where Takizawa discovers that his phone can do anything he asks it to. Hijinks then ensue.

This show is exceptionally well done. From episode one you're left with a sense of wonder and mystic. Who is Takizawa? How'd he get this phone? Where can I get one? Surprisingly for an anime of this length you find out almost all of the answers to the questions you ask with few exceptions. Eden of the East is exceptionally well planned out there aren't any notable plot holes and all of the characters are likable or have some sort of redeeming quality. There are two movies as well which may answer the few lingering questions in your mind like who is Mr. Outside and who is the Supporter but I haven't watched them so I couldn't tell you.

Once again I'd definitely say watch Eden of the East its on Hulu. Its got a really interesting story. The animation is quite good. It's short so it isn't much of a time commitment On the whole its got to be one of the better animes I've ever watched. I want to say again mad props to Dom for this one.

Torchwood

Alright for all you Who fans out there this one is pretty enjoyable. While not as light and geared towards all ages as Dr. Who is Torchwood is still a decent show. Its certainly not for everyone not even necessarily Dr. Who fans. Torchwood is considerably darker with much less likable characters and more adult situations.

Torchwood follows the story of Gwen Cooper a police officer who accidentally stumbles upon Torchwood a secret section of the British government charged with fighting aliens and figuring out how their technology works so humanity can defend themselves against alien incursion. The head of this branch of Torchwood die hard Who fans will recognize immediately as Captain Jack Harkness one of the Dr.'s companions from the first season of the 2005 series. That fact is one of the main reasons I would recommend Torchwood to people. It gives you a much more detailed history on one of the Dr.'s more interesting and less well known companions. Along with them they have a cynical douchey medical officer and an odd Japanese computer genius. Although I would have to say that one of my favorite characters on the show would be Ianto Jones who does a little of everything (including Jack) because of his witty one-liners and snappy dressing if nothing else. This is a show that I would suggest you not get too attached to any of the characters except Harkness as he cannot die because this takes place after Rose brought him back to life at the end of Dr. Who 2005 season 1.

All in all I wouldn't necessarily say this is a must see but if you're bored and looking for something to watch give it a shot unless you like Jack on Dr. Who then I'd say go right ahead you get a lot more of his goofy over the top attitude and "futuresque bi-sexuality." If you do like the show or just want to know how it may conclude season 4 of Torchwood starts airing again November 14th 2011 so you've got about a month to catch up.

Minecraft

Some minecraft adventures with the guys at yogscast

enjoy

Portal 2

There is a part in Portal 2 soon after you escape from the Aperture Relaxation Center when the player as the elusive and, within the game, nameless character falls through a glass ceiling (Though a quick Google search will reveal her name to be Chell.) The player finds that they are in a glass cube. It is not hard to see that this cube is as high-tech as the facility it resides in, yet vegetation has grown  over it. The natural world is encroaching on Aperture Science at an alarming rate. The cube is mostly empty with just a a few things lying around. A portal opens up on a wall and, in case they didn't know already, the player knows that this is the cube where the first game started. It's obvious that Chell is right back where she started.

Portal 2 is a game that knows it's not in a vacuum and exactly what a developer can do within this new artistic medium. It's timely, dealing with issues of technological advancement for it's own sake, the blurred line between the natural and the artificial and, especially when looked at in conjunction with the Half Life series, the effects of a war between two corporations that have brilliant minds, unlimited money and no morality. They are aware they are making a game, not a movie, and use that to tell their story. Look at the very beginning of the game. Wheatley, played by Stephen Merchant who is one of my favorite actors and new favorite voice actors, tells you that you may have a little bit of brain damage. He tells you to speak. A giant A button with the message "Press A to speak" pops up on the screen. If you press A, you jump. Wheatley then tells you that you jumped , so try saying apple. Same thing; you jump. Wheatley then says that it'll have to do and the game moves on. This scene exists because it's hysterically funny, but also because it shows that Valve knows what they're doing. They rarely use cut-scenes or cinematics in any of their games; they tell the whole story from the first person perspective. They play with the medium because the medium needs to be played with. This game is a great game because it has something to say and knows how to say it without giving up.

Something people seem to forget about this game is how simple it is. There are, really, two active characters in the game besides the player; Wheatley, and GlaDos the big evil robot lady. Of course, there is also Cave Johnson (voiced by JK Simmons, who is also amazingly good,) but he is really just a recording. He is fantastically funny and informative, but he also isn't in the game beyond a few portraits and a gruff voice-recording. You could also argue that the turrets are characters, but they are more just obstacles to be overcome. So, again, two characters besides the player, who never speaks. Yet through darkly hilarious dialogue and through design choices they made with the world, Valve manages to convey all the meaning they need to. For instance, look the reoccurring theme of the blurred line between the natural and the artificial. To start with, Aperture is falling into disrepair and there is vegetation growing throughout the facility. Once Chell falls to the bottom, the old facilities are rundown and ravaged by age, not to mention surrounded by these massive caverns. Nature is reclaiming this area as well. Birds are even nesting down there. Wheatley is an AI, sure, but he speaks like a nervous human. He is all robot but he has a personality, something usually reserved for organic life. GlaDos embodies this idea more than anything else. She is an AI, but one derived from an organic consciousness (Caroline.) Though she is more monotonous than Wheatley, she still has a personality an plots revenge, something only humans and dolphins do. Then, there is also the fact that she is plugged into a potato battery for about half of the game. This is essentially an organic body for her. Even Chell has been augmented so that she can fall long distances without dying. There are more examples, but the point is that Valve is using the game medium to convey themes in a very subtle way. This is something lost in most games and for most developers.

Gameplay also holds meaning in this game. One of the most important things that video games tend to lack is a way to convey meaning that is unique to the medium. Valve uses the world's design and aspects of gameplay to make reflexive statements about the industry itself. Look at how Wheatley makes puzzles. All he does is cram two different test chambers that GlaDos made together to make one large test. One the first one that he makes, he even makes Chell run it twice because he's too lazy and stupid to make another one. This seems to be a very obvious statement about the lack of ideas in the industry. Wheatley takes the role of the designer or level designer who just doesn't care. The level doesn't matter, its a means to an end. There's also the introduction to the game I discussed earlier which pokes fun at the tutorials that most games start with. Then there's the conflict resolution button that Chell presses to stop the dispute between Wheatley and GlaDos, which is less meaningful but is using gameplay for comedy rather than as just something to do to make it to the next cut-scene.

This is what makes the game truly great, possibly even perfect. The gameplay and the narrative are inextricably entwined in Portal 2. One supports the other. You are always moving in this game; always doing something. The gameplay doesn't exist to advance the plot so much as it's where the plot lives. Everything happens within the context of the interaction between the player and the game. Wheatley can't hack anything until the player turns around. They could have easily had him just hack the door, but this works for the character and is tied to what makes a game a game. They use the unique tools that the medium gives them to tell a story that never could have been told in any other medium. The world is too deep for a film. It's too reliant on the actual senses for a book (would Cave Johnson be funny without JK Simmons' voice?) It's story is too tied into a player actually controlling Chell to be anything other than a game. That's the way it should be.

Internet stuff (9/20/11)

Yo yo yo yo yo ... yo. homies !
My time down here in vegas is quickly coming to an end, and honestly I love all your faces but f*ck this town kicks so much more ass. Yea anyways Heres some vids that was / are interesting and/or AWESOME!
so yeah enjoy.

Firsty first first, the diablo 3 Beta has been unleashed !! actually idk how long its beena running but the guys over on Yogscast finally got there beta keys and did a great 6 part video... hope my diablo boys find this interesting


Have you ever wanted to recapture the glory of rolling down the street on your trike, looking like a boss, and running away from the monsters that you imagined were chasing you... well maybe screaming down a mountain at over 55 mph can help recapture a little bit of that


This same group went and made maybe the most awesome slip'n slide / ramp ever  ... srysly I bet These guys have the best f-ing summers. its like they go out and do all the shit we sit around and talk about doing


Now I know no shave November is still over a month off but, its always in style to show a little upper lip hair love


Thats all the video fun ive got for you today ...blah blah blah you know this bit
(how about some points for my contributors being all wordy and informative eh ...yea!)
I'l see you at your next dose
_dom



musical treats

Dragon Age:Origins

Just one big pile of spoilers.

For a long time, I was really in the dark about why I enjoy Dragon Age: Origins as much as I do. It's is a pet peeve of mine when RPG's force you to push a button and watch your character repeatedly attack something over and over. Attack should be a button, not a mode. That's the reason I never got into another of Bioware's much lauded RPG's, Knights of the Old Republic (well, that and I didn't have an original Xbox.) However, this pet peeve of mine is a central aspect of Origins. It's how you play the game. Granted, there are activated spells and pound the attack button throughout combat even though it does nothing, but such a distance is created between the player pushing one button and the character going ape on an enemy that the player's emotional suture to the character should be broken, thus killing the illusion that the RPG is inherently trying to create.

But it doesn't. Despite my status as a self-avowed hater of the one-click, many-attack fighting style of this game, I've beaten it almost three times now. I beat it the first time with a Dwarf Noble named Cap'n. He was a black dwarf with ginger-red hair who fought with the biggest weapon I could find him. Then I beat it a second time with Mugen, a human noble and rouge who duel-wielded swords and was a cunning back-stabber. This time around, I used a Dalish elf, who was a rogue again because I realized partway through that I hate being a mage. In these last two playthroughs, very little changed. I had created Mugen as a perfect playthrough character. Everything turned out the best for every race in the land. However, whereas Mugen preferred the dark, fantastically evil Morrigan as his lady friend, my elf (Havanna Bob) chose Leliana, the shy former nun who is surprisingly down for a foursome. Besides that, I chose a different dwarven king in Orzammar because even though Bhelen leads his people better, he is the scummiest character in the game. So why did I do it and why am I telling you all this? The answer to both of these questions is that Dragon Age: Origins is one of the best cases for narrative in games that I've ever seen. I kept coming back because I didn't want to leave this world they'd created. Everything works so well together that it becomes somewhat of an addiction.

One of the big draws of this game was the origin part of Dragon Age: Origins. The player gets to choose a race, a class and an origin story, go through a fairly well-made character creation tool and then play out whichever one of the six origin stories they chose. These prologues are pretty good. They're appropriately dramatic and fun to play through. All of them end with the character being recruited into the Grey Wardens, who are the requisite order of badasses. The only problem is that they're fairly superfluous in the grand scheme of the game. They affect how certain characters talk to you, sure, but other than that the events in the origin are rarely mentioned. Which race you pick can greatly change the outcome of the story and the class affects how you play throughout the game but the origin doesn't really affect how you see the darkspawn or anything. The only thing it does is give you a little more insight into whichever race you pick and can make you hate the guts of certain characters (killing Arl Howe as a Human Noble is a fantastic feeling.)

After the prologue, every character regardless of races goes to the fortress of Ostagar where they meet the cocky new king who is obviously going to die very soon after you meet him so who cares. There's going to be a big battle with the Darkspawn, evil monster people, and you learn more about the Grey Wardens and their badassery. By the end of this story arc when Ostagar goes horribly wrong and the next one begins when you start gather armies of dwarves, elves and men, the game starts feeling more and more like a cheap Lord of the Rings ripoff. The game starts to turn things around, however, once you get to the small village of Lothering.

Lothering. Katie said I need more picures

It's here that you start to realize that this game may have been cut from well-worn cloth, but there are some tricks hidden in the sleeves. For one, you can get a giant as a companion who goes by Sten. Sten isn't his name so much as his rank or title. He is of the Qunari race (pronounced like coon-ari) and is first met in a cage because he killed an entire family when he couldn't find his sword. Then there's the townsfolk who try to murder you because the guy who screwed you over said that you killed the King. They don't believe it, but there's a bounty and they have kids to feed. This is not a happy story.Once you leave Lothering, the Darkspawn come behind you and BURN IT TO THE GROUND. There are children that are possessed by demons, a cult of dragon worshipers that want to defile a relic, dwarven politics and elves who are being hunted by werewolves who may be the victims but kind of aren't. It's a dark story with dark tones.

And this is why the characters work so well. They're funny, engaging and very well-acted (with some exceptions, children being the most notable.) There isn't one companion in the game that I dislike. None are too preachy, too stupid or too bland. Even the aforementioned Sten who acts without emotion based solely on duty has that lack of any humanity, has a strange likability to him and, even stranger, a plausibility. . Morrigan is probably my favorite, though I enjoy Leliana and Alistair as well. She is a cruel, evil bitch who is just trying to be practical. She does soften up, but not to any degree that's unbelievable. It's just enough to give us hope for her.

The settings are fantastic as well, if a bit cliche. The dwarves live underground. The elves live in the forest. The humans have thatch huts. However, within these cliches, they again breathe a new life. Darkspawn also live underground, so the dwarves have to constantly fight them in the ruins of their once great empire. They also have a lot of intrigue within their nobility caste (oh and there's a caste system) that creates opportunities for some great satire. The elves that live in the forest are called the Dalish and they are the traditional J.R.R. Tolkien elves in many ways. However, there are also city elves who were enslaved by the humans long ago. This creates a lot of tension if you pick city elf as your origin. There is also friction between the Chantry (Ferelden's church) and the mages. Magic is seen as a curse by many and any mages not confined to a place that the Chantry can keep an eye on them (called The Circle) are labeled apostates and are executed on sight or arrested. Bioware did a fantastic job of creating a country on the edge of destruction from the outside that is leading to fractures in the society on the inside. The way all of these dramas play out are fantastic and mostly up to the player.

Now, I've gone on and on about the story, but haven't mentioned too much about gameplay. This is because, as I mentioned, I'm not a huge fan. They have plenty of awesome weapons and armor to choose from as well as spells and special moves called talents. However, the gameplay itself (at least on the Xbox 360.) is somewhat boring. The one-click fighting is lame, some bosses have really annoying knock-down moves or paralysis moves that don't allow you to fight back and overall it's just not that satisfying.There's also quite a few bugs that pop up all over the game, from problems with the conversation system to being pushed around by your teammates in a fight. It's not terrible, by any means, it's just not the reason this game is so great. It's great because of the world they created.

This game is a perfect illustration of video games as a narrative device. You do need good gameplay, and hopefully have great gameplay, for a game to work. However, if there are holes in the game's battle system or if the graphics aren't top notch (and they aren't as evidenced by the sex scenes) or if the music can be somewhat annoying at times (rewatch that sex scene,) a fantastic story with engaging characters can work wonders. If you have any doubt, search for Alistair slash fic. On second thought, don't. Just assume there's a lot because there is and now I can't get certain images out of my head. The point is that the people who played this game and have been writing about it have barely mentioned gameplay. It's all about the story and the deep, immersive world Bioware created. In the realm of RPG's, story and world are the most important components. Everything else is important as well, but not as much as in a puzzle game or a shooter. You can forgive a glitch here and there if you still get the sexy witch in the epilogue.

George Carlin

Dose 9/12/2011

Hey guys i just wanted to make a new post with a few videos, so yea I hope you'll enjoy and i'll try my best not to ramble on too much before the vids


I have immense respect for anyone who can do comedy for a living,either as a classic stand up or one of the more modern interpretations. The art of make people laugh and have a good time is by far the most noble, as a comedian your success is based off a basic human emotion and Thats incredible!
But more then that comedians are becoming modern day philosophers,They tap into that human element and they see us at our basic level and again this is amazing.
Today Ive gained tremendous respect for one of the Best,Out of the blue while looking around at Fail compilations, and video game demos I found One of the greatest speeches ever made. I give you Charlie Chaplin's last speech in the Great Dictator


Going in a little bit of a different direction I found Ign's playthrough of skyrim at pax so I figured i would link the three vids, even though im sure all my buddys who have been waiting on this game have already seen it :D (still my treat to you guys to see um again )

More The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Videos

More The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Videos

Then I thought we could finish completely today completely on the other side of comedy as where we started and look at some MMD / japanese guys doing backstreet boys... yea we've come a long way from Chaplin... O well its still funny

That is all that I wished to share with you guys today, I hope it was enjoyable, and enjoy the rest of your day, till I see you at your next dose
_dom
Treats ( god i spoil you )

Double Feature Part 2: The Magician King

A while back, I reviewed The Magicians, which it turned out had a sequel coming out (The Magician King). I was immediately excited because I realized it when I was double checking some facts about the book while I was reviewing it (aka, I saw on wikipedia). I enjoyed The Magicians, up until the end, so the fact that "the end" wasn't actually "THE END" made me very excited to read this new book...which I literally just finished about an hour ago.

Truth be told, Lev Grossman did it to me again. I hate reading books when I don't know there's going to be more. Once again, the ending left me hanging, which means a sequel, which angers me in many ways. I dislike having hanging endings. Even Harry Potter, which you knew was going to have a sequel, would leave off each book in a way that made you hunger for the next one, but there was still a somewhat clear "end"--he was back with his Aunt and Uncle for the summer, and he would be bored stiff and want to go back to Hogwarts, just like the rest of us. Grossman is not so good at endings, I'm realizing. Without spoiling anything, essentially what happens at the end is the textbook "third act crash", setting up the next book and essentially making everyone rage face that the next book won't be out for another couple of years most likely.

That being said, the rest of the book had me hooked the entire time. That's why I was so mad about the ending, I felt like there wasn't a payoff. Besides that, Grossman writes with a humor I can truly appreciate, with personality that most editors make you throw out the window. There are many references to Hogwarts, hacking, hobbits...if you're a nerd and you wanted a freakin' letter to a magical school, this book knows how to play to your feelings and experience, while also saying naughty words.

SPOILERS AHEAD IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE MAGICIANS

This is just so I can have some space and no one accidentally reads spoilers. Carry on. 

The book picks up the plot two years after the ending of the first, with Quentin, Julia, Janet and Eliot all living as royalty in the once-thought fictional land of Fillory. Quentin has become restless and wants to go on a quest, which you just know means bad news. Soon enough, he gets one (or what turns out to be a beginning of one), and takes Julia along with him, feeling a need to help her with her life. Readers of the first book will remember that Julia learned magic on her own, instead of attending a magic school like Quentin did, but not a lot was revealed about how she went about doing that in The Magicians. Well, it gets revealed in this book, that's for sure. Roughly every other chapter switches over to Julia's perspective, and takes you through how she learned magic, and eventually why she's acting so weird. The pay-off in this area is spectacular, though the resolution seemed a little too perfect to me. The journey was what I enjoyed.

That seems to be how I feel pretty consistently when it comes to reading books by Lev Grossman--good god I love the journey, but I hate his endings to no end. Most of it stems from sequel rage, but in addition it feels almost abrupt when he ends his books. I would suggest reading this book, but I would wait two years so that perhaps the final (if it is only a trilogy) book is out, and you can continue on reading, without feeling a need to rip your hair out.

Double Feature Part 1: Gods Behaving Badly

Hello everyone! Sorry I've been away so long yet again...and sorry that I will be away again, but to make up for it, there's going to be TWO reviews coming at you this fine evening. I'm hitting a bit of a busy streak from here until the end of the month, which is going to make reading a little difficult, but I'm trying to make it up to you fine folks with a double dose of good ol' book readings.

Gods Behaving Badly was the first book I read after The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle. In this case, it was a book I had found entirely on my own. So far, nearly everything I've reviewed has been from a class, or recommended to me--not this time! Truthfully...it's not a very hard book to read. Very simple, not too long (just over 300 pages, but a little larger than average font size), and I'd never heard of Marie Phillips before (although I still don't know her now...I may have had to look up the author...)

So why did I decide to read this book?

I'm a sucker for Greek Gods, that's why. The plot of the book revolves around the 12 major Greek Gods, living together in modern times, many of them as roommates. Yep, that means that Artemis, Apollo, Athena, Ares, Aphrodite, Hermes, Zeus, Hera, Dionysus, and Hephaestus all live in the same house. Poseidon still lives under the sea, Persephone and Hades are in the Underworld, while Eros lives outside the house and has found refuge in Jesus. That was probably my favorite part of reading this book--I may have had some issues regarding how some of the characters were portrayed "personality-wise", but I loved the "modern representation" of the Gods. Dionysus runs a night club and makes his own wine, Aphrodite is a phone-sex operator and Apollo is a tv fortune teller.

Now, the question has probably come to mind as to why Eros is believing in Jesus, when he is a God himself. Well, that's where the true plot of the story starts to come in. The Gods are slowly losing their powers--they're immortal, but their power is still fading, and once it's gone, they'll die. Most likely, anyways. Wrapped up in the Gods quest to restore power are two mortals: Alice and Neil, who are very awkward at admitting their feelings to each other. Their interactions, as well as their later ones with the Gods made for a very amusing read.

Someone well-versed in Greek mythology (like me) would enjoy this book just on that. I particularly enjoyed it because Artemis was given a lot of page-time, which was a nice change for me. She's always been my favorite, and Athena always seems to steal the lime-light. Regardless, the "modernizing" of the myths made me smile to no end, despite the simplistic plot. It's not a "must-read", but if you have it around, and you have a background in mythology, you'll enjoy the book anyways.

NEWS FLASH: Apparently this is being turned into a movie right now. Christopher Walken will be Zeus. But Nurse Jackie is playing Artemis. I am somewhat disappointed by that choice, but I don't know who I'd pick otherwise. Too biased against my favorite Goddess. Also, random thing--changed "Alice" to "Kate". Hooray Hollywood book adaptations!

A Bunch of Stuff That May or May Not Make Sense

This article is going to be very unfocused. I'm working through some ideological issues.

Today has been a hell of a day for my experience as a blogger. I was writing a post about fundamental elements of game design when I tried to look up the name of the first game that Odyssey creator Ralph Baer created for a one-off joke. As I checked the most reputable sources I could (read: Wikipedia,) I started to find essays and articles about video game theory that were very academic and in-depth. Now, six hours later, I have just finished a keynote speech by Ian Bogost about video game ontology that dealt with everything from the ludology/narratology to metaphysics. Its been a bit of a maze.

As I was reading these, I started to think that my career as a theorist was over before it had begun. I was operating on the belief that video game theory was non-existent. In fact, it was flourishing right under my nose and getting into metaphysical discussions about Kant and melting my brain with its awesome academicism. I can't operate on this level; I just don't have the background in philosophy to really get into that discussion. Then I had the realization that they still weren't talking about what I want to talk about, which is the theory of game aesthetics and how to create meaning. They were abstracting video games into a realm which I have no business being in; ontology. I didn't even know the meaning of the word until tonight. It is the philosophical study of being and reality, by the way. I'm more into how art creates meaning, not whether or not art is real. So I can breathe something of a sigh of relief now I guess.

Closer to my realm, Bogost and Jesper Juul (another theorist and designer) have both come to a conclusion I find very interesting; that games are a mixture of the real and the fictional. Every game has a real set of rules imposed upon a fictional narrative and world. No other art form really has this issue because video games have the distinction of having a real person in real time imposing their will on a fictional universe. This is what makes video games as an artistic medium (no matter what some people say) so fascinating. How do you evaluate human interaction artistically? How do you evaluate the play between reality and fiction artistically? These are the questions that video games raise and I would like to answer. Mostly though, I want to help push video games into this cerebral realm so that they can expand as an entertainment system as well as a thought-provoking work of art. 

Again, this is very unfocused and more for me than anyone reading this blog. If anything, this is just to show you guys that its not that I'm being lazy, I'm just working through some heavy shit. Any ideas I have right now are more like dough than wedding cake so I'm working on it. I'll have a review up next week of...something. I swear.

From Dust

I'm pretty sure there's no spoilers, but don't complain if there are.

If The Discovery Channel has taught me anything, it is that nature has the potential to be quite powerful and terrifying. It can kill you in a variety of sadistic and inventive ways and would most likely enjoy the act; like the Jigsaw killer, but without the morals. This is what From Dust, a new God game developed by Ubisoft, tries to convey, though with a much more reverent tone. The makers of the game have attempted to capture the fury of nature as well as the fear early man must have felt in its presence. For the most part, they succeeded.

The game starts off with a small, unnamed tribe of people playing music and calling into being The Breath; a spirit which can control the element which is the closest thing to a player character that this game has. The rest of the game requires the player to use the spirit's powers to guide The Tribe to giant totems left by a group of people called The Ancients. These totems bestow the player with useful powers such as jellify water or evaporate which both do exactly what it sounds like. After The Tribe as settled around all of the totems, they then can leave through a little gateway which leads to the next map. The whole story is building towards a final place where The Tribe can finally settle down. The ending is an anticlimax, but an anticlimax I actually kind of enjoyed. It is surprisingly deep, if a bit lazy. Now, I'm not spoiling the ending because, to be frank, the story doesn't matter. This game wasn't created for the story. It was created for the experience.

Eric Chahi, whom I will refer to as the director of the game though I don't know his actual title, has stated that he wanted to make this game when he saw a volcano erupt. He witnessed the brute force of nature and felt that a game needed to capture this. This is an area the game gets absolutely right. The environmental mechanics in this game are fantastic. The water and the lava move realistically, finding the path of least resistance and turning into rock and steam when they meet. The tidal waves and volcanic eruptions in the game can be truly terrifying and awe-inspiring. There is one map especially where there are two volcanoes in an ocean that is spectacular. You can watch one volcano form into an enormous, imposing, Mount Doom-esque peak while the other one fills with water and becomes a sandbar. The sandbar also happens to have a spring in it, called a source in the game, and this spring forms a river and eventually a delta. I loved playing around with the features of these gorgeous maps by diverting rivers and building giant walls of sand or igneous rock. I'm sure there are a multitude of ways in which this game can be used I didn't even think of in my short time with it (I only played it in two days because the other game I was playing is starting to bore me.) This environmental gameplay is a really fascinating and innovative play on level editors like the Halo Series' Forge Mode.

Now, I wasn't as impressed with the human side of the game. While I liked this idea of The Tribe and the totems, I didn't feel like the AI was there. It was a bold move to make arguably the most important part of the game impossible to directly control. The only way the player can influence The Tribe directly is by choosing which totem or power marker to walk to next. The player cannot pick the route. This becomes increasingly frustrating as the difficulty of each map ramps up. It got to the point where I found myself dumping hot lava on my people because they refused to use a ramp I built them and insisted on staring at a sheer wall and crying for help. It would have been amazing if the AI for The Tribe was as good as the environment. If they could find their way around obstacles or even decide that a flood was probably something they should

run away from, the frustration factor around this game would have been greatly diminished.

As I mentioned before, From Dust is a part of the God game genre. This is an often overlooked genre of game which includes The Sims series and almost every game ever developed by Peter Molyneux, most notably Populous and The Black and White series. I would also argue that strategy games, including real-time strategy games like the Age of Empires series and turn-based strategy games like the Civilization series would also count as sub-genres. They all feature a third-person camera which is pulled back to create a sense of omniscience and lack a visible character for the player. Rather, the gameplay is centered around controlling units of people, animals, magical beings, et cetera to carry out some task, usually war. From Dust is something of an exception because, as noted above, the player does not actively control their units. This lack of control does not exclude From Dust from the genre, of course, as they are still units whether under player control directly or indirectly. Indeed, this lack of control reveals an interesting facet of the God game never considered.

By definition, God games are games where you play God. Whether this is literally or figuratively true depends on the game, but the player holds a God-like sway over the characters of the game. However, despite the apparent freedom these games allow, they are defined by their limitations. God, within the world of video games, means that the player is unbeatable. For instance, the often used "God Mode" which gives the player unlimited health/ammo/shields/whatever else allows them to cheat through a choke point within the game. However, a God without limits is not a game, it's a sandbox. There would be no narrative and no structure whatsoever. So in the RTS genre, you are limited by resource management or a number of units. Turn-based strategy games have similar limitations and much more including economies and other factors that vary game to game. Even The Sims, a game where you can actually delete the windows from your sims' house and light their house on fire, is limited by the amount of money that your sim makes. From Dust's limitation by way of The Tribe makes these limitations very obvious. The only real God in the world of games is the developer.

So, to sum up, From Dust isn't really deep, but it is fun. There is a story mode and a challenge mode I didn't really get into, but there isn't a crazy narrative or anything. It's more of an amazing tech demo with an interesting mythology (I forgot to mention that there are these little stories that The Tribe has in a Memory section that are kind of cool.) It's 1200 points on the Xbox Live arcade, and I suggest getting it if you have nothing better to do.