Videogame Aristocracy

2007-04-13T02:35:00.000-07:00

Web 2.0 ... The Machine is Us/ing Us

By gar, it's been a while

2006-02-09T09:15:00.000-08:00

Wow... yeah... if anyone was reading this before, I suspect they're not now. I suppose that's kinda' what happens over the holiday season. In any case, I'm sorry. I suppose I may as well wrap up 2005 with my own personal look back at the year...

2005, for me, started with catching up on 2004. This meant finally getting around to Metal Gear Solid 3, Halo 2, Paper Mario 2, and a whole lot of other games I didn't get too much time with before the year's end. Hell, I still haven't played GTA: San Andreas.

Devil May Cry 3, Resident Evil 4, Ninja Gaiden, and God of War came out and were apparently great, but I wouldn't know. I barely got the chance to play them. At the very least I did get to play We Love Katamari (a great follow-up to the first game).

Ah, I remember now why the beginning of 2005 was such a blur to me. I was in a horrible car wreck. Yeah, that wasn't very fun...

Anyways, after my birthday (which I can't even remember), the PSP came out and at least at first it seemed really awesome. The nice screen, the launch full of great, fantastic-looking games... and then after that it sucked for almost the rest of the year. Oh, sure, it got Burnout, SOCOM, GTA: LCS and Virtua Tennis, but aside from that, the PSP was pretty much dead after it launched.

The DS, on the other hand, had started off having a really crappy year. Yoshi's Touch and Go was a mild distraction at best, Wario Ware: Touched! was too damn short, Polarium seemed to go to great lengths to prove how un-extrordinary it was... the DS was crap until... about April. Then, the floodgates opened.

The first big game was Kirby Canvas Curse, which was incredibly beautiful and fun and turned the platformer on its head in ways that only the DS could do. Puyo Pop Fever took a decent puzzle game and made it awesome with 8-player multiplayer using only one cartridge. Meteos was another awesome puzzler that really took advantage of the DS' features. Trauma Center: Under the Knife was like a surgery sim-meets-arcade game that was really challenging but tons of fun. Mario Kart DS is without a doubt one of the best games in the series. Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow almost tops Symphony of the Night as the best game in the series. Animal Crossing DS is everything you could want from a haldheld port of the game. Tony Hawk's American Sk8Land took the premise of the boring "same ol', same ol'" console game and made it new and unique. Bust-A-Move DS is a fantastic transition for the series to the touchscreen. And I finally got my import of Osu! Tatake! Ouendan, which is one of the best games on the system, and one of the best music-rhythm games ever made.

I didn't even scratch the surface of a ton of others, like Metroid Prime Pinball, Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, Sonic DS, Viewtiful Joe DS... there are probably others I'm forgetting, too. Basically, the DS was bitchin' this year.

The GameCube, on the other hand? Dead. Aside from the aforementioned Resident Evil 4, the system got a few decent titles, like Battalion Wars, a Fire Emblem game, and Geist... and the bizarre Killer 7. But, I mean, honestly, the system is on its last legs (legs called Zelda, by the way, and once it's out, this system will drop like a corpse).

The Xbox wasn't much better off, with the aforementioned Ninja Gaiden Black and Stubbs the Zombie (which I have yet to play), and then what? Conker's Bad Fur Day? MechAssault 2 (which was a disappointment, I'll tell ya')?

The PS2 fared better, with the nice, original Digital Devil Saga games, the beautiful Shadow of the Colossus, the fantastic Dragon Quest VIII (which again, I have yet to play) and the superb Guitar Hero.

The Xbox 360 had a great launch too, with the very good Perfect Dark Zero and Project Gotham 3, the superb Condemned, the pretty Kameo, and the awesome Xbox Live Arcade games like Geometry Wars.

No, my big game this year... my "Game of the Year", if you will, was on the PC. If you've read my blog at all, you know the big game for me this year was Guild Wars. No game in this generation has sucked as many hours out of my life as NCSoft's and ArenaNet's incredible non-MMO MMO.

As for my personal life, I met Lisa in August, and she's one of the best things that ever happened in my life. Seriously, I think words fail to describe how I feel about this girl. I love her. Sure, I talk about the games, and I suppose the car accident and new job (I work for the state of California now) are a big deal, but meeting Lisa was the big highlight of my year.

Lisa, if you're reading this, I want you to know that compared to you, none of that other stuff above matters. Thank you for being a part of my life, and I look forward to spending 2006 with you too (and hopefully many years after that).

Mmmmmmmovies

2005-09-29T01:00:00.000-07:00

Sorry, fallen behind on updating this. Geez, when they said a girlfriend will take all your time, they weren't kidding. Not that I blame her, mind you. I've just kinda' been sacrificing my time to be with her. I guess that's the way it goes, right?

Anyways, sharing opinions on all kinds of movies I've seen recently (pretty much all with her):

Batman Begins
Excellent, as you've heard, although I need to make special mention of the actors they've used here.

Christian Bale makes a decent Batman (though he seems to ham it up a bit when he's wearing the leather), but I can't think of him as anyone but the American Psycho. Thankfully, the character he plays here is also a mentally-disturbed millionare, so it's not far off-base. Michael Caine plays... Michael Caine. I'm sorry, but when I see him, I don't think "Alfred". Morgan Freeman plays... Morgan Freeman, although in this case he at least seems to fit the role fairly well. Liam Neeson as Renard was a savvy choice: Neeson should play menacing roles like this more often. Dawson's Creek Girl as Rachel Dawes (a-hyuk) is the most pointless role in the film, undoubtedly made even more insulting to the female gender by being a damsel in distress disguised as miss "tough and independant".

Finally, I want to highlight the performance of Gary Oldman. This is a man who I loathed as a horrendous choice to play Liutenant Gordon. I couldn't fathom him doing the role justice. After seeing him in action, I stand corrected. It is a tribute to such a fine actor that a man who so often plays villains (and often over-the-top ones) can portray this character so amazingly well, and with such humanity. Absolutely stunning.

March of the Penguins
It's a damn good documentary that plays like a drama, much in thanks to the wonderful score, skillful editing, and a great commentary by Morgan Freeman. Geez, it seems like he's in every movie lately...

Must Love Dogs
The quintessential "Chick flick". Not that I'm dissing the genre, mind you, but it does nothing to buck the trend (as opposed to Kate and Leopold, which mixed in a little sci-fi and historical humor to create what is one of the best films in the genre). If this is your kind of film, you shouldn't be disappointed. Or surprised, for that matter.

Flightplan
This movie gets more and more ridiculous the more I think about it. Mix one part silly conspiracy thriller, one part shallow psychological drama, one part dumb action movie, and blend in exploitation of the post-9/11 fear of flying (even with a dash of persecuted Arabian guys exhonerated by the end, for the PC crowd). The acting here is decent enough, but the plot is so ridiculous it doesn't matter.

... For the record, my pick for best film of the year still belongs to Wedding Crashers (I saw it a second time with Lisa, and it's every bit as funny), but Batman Begins comes damn close.

Mmmmm... Lisa....

2005-08-12T23:56:00.000-07:00

Okay, so undoubtedly the entire online world (or at least the portion that gives a damn) is wondering where I've been the last week or so. The answer is one word: Lisa. Err... well, that's not a "where" so much as a "who", but suffice it to say that this woman has dominated my thoughts and time this week.

It's funny: This wasn't supposed to happen. She wasn't looking for a relationship, and I wasn't looking for someone who wasn't looking for a relationship. I wanted someone to hug and spend time with and play kissy-face with, and she wanted someone to play videogames with. As much as that sounds like it's right up my alley, that isn't what I was looking for. The last thing I needed was a girl to hang out with and NOT be in a relationship with. I already have one of those and it's weird.

Anyways, despite both our reservations, we met anyways, and... well... we hit it off. I.... I don't think I've ever had what I have now. I mean... I look into her eyes, and I see someone who really wants me. I see desire and lust and trust and passion and...

It's not just a physical thing (though there is that), but an emotional thing too. I love how she really gets into movies, how she isn't afraid to let me know when I do something she likes or doesn't like, how she really likes orange-scented and -flavored stuff (I don't think I've ever met anyone THAT big on orange stuff. It's amusing :-) ). I like how she's smart and modest and thoughtful and considerate and... well, there's not much I can think of that I don't like about her.

We went to see Batman Begins together (and I'll talk about that in another post), we've had romantic walks through the park, and we've had times when I just held her in my arms and felt so peaceful and content...

I know I've been neglecting you guys. I intend to remedy that... um.... soon enough. But... for now, I'm just swimming in this. Be happy for me, okay guys?

Wedding Crashers

2005-07-30T17:08:00.000-07:00

Okay, let me preface what I'm about to say with a few comments. I haven't yet seen Batman Begins. I have not seen Sin City. I have not seen Black, Cinderella Man, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, The March of the Penguins, or Kingdom of Heaven. These are films I've heard tons of good things about, but have not yet been able to watch.

Now, having said that.... yeesh, I've missed a lot. But anyways, having said that, Wedding Crashers is, without a doubt, the best film I've seen so far this year. There's something infectiously funny and lovable and ultimately honest about this movie that makes it very hard not to like. And that last part is funny, because it's a film about two dishonest guys.

(Note: The following contains some spoilers)

Owen Wilson and Vince Vaugn, as in most of their films, basically just play themselves. I have nothing against entertainers that do this. It's kind of hard to call them "actors", really, but as long as you enjoy watching the personalities these guys bring to the film with them, there's nothing wrong with it. A lot of actors work like this: Sean Connery, Mike Meyers... you'll never see them playing anyone other than themself, but as long as you like the actor, that's not so big a problem.

So, what you have is Vince Vaugn acting extremely sociable, somewhat selfish and a tad pig-headed, but ultimately the "true blue fried", and Owen Wilson as the somewhat quiet, easygoing "nice guy". It's funny to see these guys work together, because for all the times Hollywood has paired Owen Wilson with Ben Stiller, I actually think this duo clicks much better. Vaugn does the "high-strung" to Wilson's "laid-back" every bit as well as Stiller does, but with less severity that seems to mesh better with Wilson. I'm really just talking out of my ass here, but the end result is that these two guys have a great chemistry together, and you really feel like you're in the presence of two great friends.

In large part, this is what feeds the comedy. You know that after all's said and done, that these two will have the safety net of each others' friendship (even though it becomes very clear not far in that they can't really depend on each other for much else), and because of this omnipresent friendship, the film is free to place them in incredibly awkward situations without it feeling too awkward, because, "hey, we're in this boat together".

And while it seems like they're selling this film as a "raunchy comedy", it actually works just as well as a romantic comedy. Rachel McAdams is exceptional as the one female character in the film who seems intelligent enough to realize the ridiculousness and cliche nature of much of what's going on (in a hillarious scene, she struggles unsuccessfully to keep from laughing her ass off as her sister and her sister's hubby read off their super-sappy wedding vows). This actress is one to keep your eyes on. She's got a quality of being genuine and real that's missing from most of Hollywood these days.

On the other side of the boat is Isla Fisher, who manages to remain incredibly sexy as we watch her dive deeper and deeper into insanity. She quickly comes to terrify Vince Vaugn's character as "clingy", and while their relationship could have fallen into predictable cliche, it actually evolves into an interesting statement about finding love through sex. Vaugn's character, after leading a love life focused primarily on one-night stands, is ready to run for the hills as soon as she starts getting clingy, and he becomes more and more terrified as her persuit of him takes a continuous turn towards the bizarre, and only when he finds out just how wild she is does he come to realize that she's absolutely perfect for him.

In its own way, Wedding Crashers uses a "raunchy comedy" movie to make statements about sex and love, selfishness and compassion. Owen Wilson in particular hlps to give this film its heart. Towards the end you can tell just by looking into his eyes that he's become disillusioned with his life, and as a result disillusioned with life itself. As he talks to Will Ferrel (who, naturally, plays Will Ferrel), he doesn't need to say anything and you can still tell how heartbroken he is to realize how pointless his life has been, and when brought to its ultimate extreme, how vicious and cruel.

I suppose it deserves a side-note that Christopher Walken is in this film too, and although the movie is better for his presence, he's far more subdued here than I've ever seen him. This isn't the wild-eyed Walken or creepy Walken or even charismatic Walken. This is genuine decent guy Walken, and the bizarre thing is just how normal his character is. Ultimately, I can't help but feel that his talent is wasted as a result, but it's still nice to have him there.

Ultimately, this is just a damn good movie, and one that I think you could take just about anyone to (except the kiddies if you'd fear for their sanity if they were to see a booby or watch a guy getting a full-on pants-rubbing from a girl). It's hillarious and just plain good fun for the guys, it's genuine (and not too cheesy) romance that would make it a good date flick, and even though it's technically a "raunch comedy", its humor doesn't really come from body part or toilet humor, but rather just plain hillariously bizarre situations.

Watch it. I don't think you'll regret it.

Deviant Art

2005-07-19T03:14:00.000-07:00

So you know, I have a Deviant Art page now where I'll be keeping the headers I make for the website on display, because I'm really proud of the artistry that went into the creation of them (if I do say so myself). You can find it at http://caspianx.deviantart.com/

Willy Wonk-err... CHARLIE and the Chocolate Factory

2005-07-18T22:37:00.000-07:00

I've seen opinions ranging the gamut on the latest film by Tim Burton starring Johnny Depp. Some people think it's "the bestest thing ever!!!1!", some think it's an insult to a cult classic. And others think that while the film wasn't without its flaws, it was still pretty good, although everyone's split on whether it beats the original. My opinion is as follows...

Oh, but first "Oh noes! He called the Gene Wilder film the original! Surely he must be sacrificed on the altar of Tim Burton for his crimes!"

You know what? I know that both films were based on the same book, rather than the Depp film being based on the Wilder one. I am privvy to this information, and Burton has made it very clear that he believes his film is a truer adaptation to the book, and one might even say he goes so far as to disregard the Wilder film in his comments. But it is impossible to speak about this film without comparing it to the original.

Frankly, I think that considering what they were attempting, they did an admirable job. Everyone was going to be holding this film up against the original, comparing the differences and similarities. Personally, I think that, while Burton claims not to have based this film on the Gene Wilder one, there's no way he could have avoided comparing the two as well, and so it seems brave in the things they kept the same, and the things that are different.

I find it amusing that, while the original featured Willy Wonka in the title, it was really Charlie's story, and at the same time, while this film features Charlie in the title, this film is truly about Wonka. We see far more of him here, and while Wilder's classic portrayal of Wonka may have been a bit more iconic, Depp's portrayal is much more three-dimensional, and completely different in nature. While Wilder just made him a weird eccentric, Depp made him a childlike recluse, innocent and oblivious, soft-spoken and blunt. Many have drawn comparisons to Michael Jackson (and Depp swears that was not his intent at all), I think that Depp is such a truly great actor that when he set out to portray a character whose circumstances are not unlike Jackson's, he ended up acting in a similar manner unintentionally.

I think that the "bad" children were perfectly cast and incredibly well-acted, and deserve to be addressed individually.

While the Augustus in the first film was overly-gluttonous, the one in this film was insanely gluttonous, and captured this insanity with a wild-eyed look that showed you something was wrong with this kid, even if you couldn't tell by the smears of chocolate constantly adorning his mouth (and by the way, ew).

While the Violet in the original was chided for being guilty of the sin of constant gum-chewing (Huh?), in this film her character flaw made much more sense. The new violet is over-competitive, and her actress (and in turn, the actress portraying her mother) portray this competitive nature brilliantly, always aggressive in nature, finding ways to "beat the competition" (like running up to hug Wonka to try and get in his good graces, a plan that backfires).

I'd say the Verucas in both films are about on par (how hard is it to play a spoiled brat?), but the actor portraying her father here really perfects the pair. Rather than being the big pushover of the first film, he's a man resigned to doing what his daughter says because... well, he has to. He's not excessively stupid or unreasonable or lazy in letting his daughter do what she wants. He's just very weak-willed. Fantastic choice. It's also worth noting that Veruca's end is far less ridiculous this time despite being far more fantastic.

The Teevee kid of the original film was scolded for being a TV addict back when they actually used to say "It'll rot your brains!", and ultimately he was little more than a hyper ADD-afflicted guy with boundless enthusiasm. You almost couldn't fault him for it really. The new Teevee is quite different. They've added videogames to his obsessive hobbies (I won't even touch this one, because you know what I'd say and you've heard it before), but his crime is no longer his obsession with these things. Rather, he's lost his imagination.

When the Oompa-Loompas sing after his demise (yes, they sing in this one too, in a "modernized" kind of way), they breifly mention his brain being turned to mush, but it's very apparent that's not what happened at all. While he's not the nicest kid, he's obviously the smartest person in the film, at least in terms of "book-smarts". Whenever something illogical or absurd happens, he's the first to point it out, often followed by Wonka feigning not having heard it ("You need to stop mumbling!") rather than dignify the child's questioning nature with a response. The way he got the golden ticket? He decoded tracking numbers and shipping schedules to find the location of the correct bar. When Wonka shows him the chocolate TV thing, he climbs in not because he thinks it's cool and wants to be on TV like his ADD-suffering predecessor. Rather, he believes Wonka is a fool for not seeing the practical applications for what is, for all intents and purposes, the world's first transporter, and decided to show him. Somehow I can't help but think that it would have worked if Wonka sprung for a big-screen TV. I guess that being a recluse means you don't shop at Best Buy.

Charlie... eh, I prefer the original actor. *Shrugs*

The film's visuals are vintage Burton, and all too fitting this film. In fact, many of the visuals are strikingly similar to the first film, like the edible room near the beginning and the glass elevator with the countless buttons.

Finally, a note about the ending. I think that this film's ending wraps up Wonka's story far better than the original's, as well it should, although the ending isn't quite as interesting for Charlie. I do give Burton credit for making it completely different, and all in all, while I think the "everlasting gobstopper" decision was far more compelling than the "leave your parents" decision (which seemed a tad formulaic and forced), the chemistry between Depp and Christopher Lee was so touching it made up for this. Christopher Lee, a man adept at playing villains and even portraying one in this film until the end, is so effective when he shows his emotions it's a wonder filmmakers don't have him do it more often.

Final notes: The nod to Edward Scissorhands was brilliant. The edible room didn't look quite as tasty as the first film. Wonka actually had more truly great quotes in this film than in the first one. The lack of the levitation soda scene felt a bit odd. The palace of chocolate scene was interesting but was kinda' unnecessary (other than to further the film's theme that one should enjoy life's small pleasures because they are fleeting) The oompa-loompas weren't as freaky as in the first film, but still quite freaky. The oompa-loompa land segment was hillarious, though I think Depp looked too much like Depp and not enough like Wonka. There were a lot of bad puns. Helena Bonham Carter must like looking ugly in films (despite that she's actually quite a beautiful woman), because she wore a disfigured face in Merlin, looked like a trashy goth freak in Fight Club, became an damn dirty ape in Planet of the Apes, became an old hag of a witch in Big Fish, and now she went through this film with godawful British teeth.

Anyways, that's all my thoughts for now.

Guild Wars Solitude...

2005-06-27T03:57:00.000-07:00

So, judging from the size of the overworld map, I'm probably about halfway through Guild Wars' single-player stuff, which doesn't entirely make sense because I'm almost at level 18 (of only 20). In any case, I feel I'm making good progress, especially considering I've done most of it with the help of the inept NPC mercenaries you can get to help you in place of the (often more inept) actual players. Hey, I'll be honest, I've met a few good folks here, and I'd say as far as online communities go, Guild Wars has one of the best I've ever seen. But... yeah, still a lot of people with names like "Dildo Baggins" and "pl4y4 k1ll4".

Anyways, I'm kinda' disappointed that none of my staff has put in... well, anywhere near the time I have into this game. It's not like it would take a lot either. They have an almost-maxxed character more than willing to escort them to the far reaches of the land if they'd so much as... well, let me. I think it would really help, too, because right now they're in the post-apocalyptic crap near the beginning of the game, which as far as I'm concerned is the game's most boring locale. Although as the locations get more interesting, the story seems to have lost its focus... Oh well.

I made some nice taunting images in hopes the other guys on the 'site would get the hint, but given the fact that many of them still haven't finished their backlog from E3, somehow I don't think it will have too much of an affect.

Rachel, if you're reading this, you need to start playing this game so I have someone to party with. Going it solo with a bunch of automatons just isn't the same.

So they've announced first details on the DOA movie

2005-06-17T08:25:00.000-07:00

Best part is, if the story sucks, it will actually be true to the games!

Cast and crew here. At least the actors mostly look vaguely like who they're supposed to be, and their scriptwriters include people who have worked on Kill Bill, Under Seige, Pretty Woman, and Bill Nye the Science Guy (I kid you not), which seems like a kooky combination that befits the series rather well. The director previously worked on The Transporter, which I hear wasn't so good, but he's also done about a million kung fu movies, and as long as he can stick to lots of fighting and bouncing boobies strung together by incoherent English, he'll do the DOA license proud.

Oh, and a shout out to Rachel

2005-06-17T01:50:00.000-07:00

If you're reading this, I just want you to know I'm thinking of you.

Da nanana dananana Batman!

2005-06-16T23:44:00.000-07:00

So Batman Begins is out, and it is supposedly a wonderful peice of film the likes of which Joel Schumacher couldn't hope to produce if the muse herself (as portrayed by Salma Hayek) came to him in a vision and gave him guidance (which would probably begin with "stop with all the neon colors and blacklights, you fucking hack!"). To mark this day, I thought I'd go on a long tirade about Batman. In particular, the best Batman. That's right: Batman: The Animated Series.

Let me preface this by saying that I have never, ever read so much as a single Batman comic. So, far be it from me to declare myself an expert on the topic, I have still seen essentially every version of him put to motion on the big or small screen, from the old Adam West stuff (campy goodness!), his presence in Superfriends (even more campy!), and of course, the movies.

I'll take a breif moment and address the more recent films (i.e. not the Adam West one, which I haven't seen but I can imagine pretty darn well).

Tim Burton's Batman was one of the best comic book movies ever made, with Michael Keaton defying logic and actually making a pretty darn decent Batman/Bruce Wayne, a mature and somber look at his story, and an unforgettable performance by Jack Nichelson as the Joker (albeit not the definitive one, but I'll get to that later.

Batman Returns had Tim Burton's style and originality from the first film, but the plot was far more silly. It seemed to have little connection to Batman as a character, focusing more on the villains. Danny DeVito as the Penguin seemed more grotesque than his aristocratic comic book origins (and in fact they even poked fun at them at one point, with DeVito swatting away a monacle and cigarette holder being handed to him by press agents). Michelle Pfeiffer, on the other hand, made Catwoman a complex and interesting character, sexy and sadistic, and crazy in a confused kind of way rather than in an outright insane way.

Batman Forever was a mix. On the one hand, Val Kilmer did an admirable job as Batman, although he seemed somewhat more distant and less human than Keaton did. Chris O'Donnel also did a good job as Robin, despite having to wear a ridiculous costume (that would get even more ridiculous in the next film). On the other hand, casting Jim Carrey as the Riddler was just an excuse for him to pull his wacky antics rather than act (He can do it! He did it in The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine!). And even though Tommy Lee Jones is an incredible actor, here he just plays textbook raving psychotic. I swear, Two-Face is a complex and conflicted character, but this film has absolutely robbed that character of any humanity it may have had. Oh, and Nicole Kidman seemed like little more than window-dressing, and the writers seemed to struggle to build her relationship with Bruce Wayne. "Let's have Batman not know what a Rorschach test is!", "But isn't he the great detective?", "Not anymore! Now he's a stupid big-budget action hero with a funny suit!"

Batman and Robin.... well... Alicia Silverstone wore a tight leather outfit. That's about it. The casting in this one was all wrong, as with everything else. For starters, everyone remembers Batgirl as a redhead (and as Comissioner Gordon's daughter too, but apparently that detail would lead to an interesting character, which Schumacher won't have any part of). And Schwarzenegger is the WORST person they could have cast as Mr. Freeze. We're talking about a man with a relatively slight build given great strength by his cold suit, not the biggest man in the world. Mark my words: This part should have gone to Ben Kingsley. And Geaorge Clooney as Batman? Come on, Batman is supposed to be a deeply tortured man whose mere presence strikes fear into his enemies. That description is about as ill-befitting to George Clooney as the word "dry" is to water.

Now, on to Batman: The Animated Series. As I recall, this series debuted either just prior to or just after Batman Returns, and it seemed at least in part inspired by Burton's films, depicting a dark and grimy Gotham city with gothic architectre and simply-designed but immediately-recognizable characters. In fact, the entire art style of the show was like nothing ever seen on TV before, and certainly never in Saturday-morning cartoons. This was kind of a mix between Western animation and anime, with extremely exaggerated angular design sensibilities. This was an attempt at art in a world dominated by bad Bugs Bunny knockoffs and Disney saccharinity.

The cast was phenomenal. Kevin Conroy embodies everything Batman should be. His humanity, his ferocity, his coldness, and his warmth. But without a doubt the most phenomenal voice actor had to be Mark Hamill as the Joker. That's right, Luke Skywalker himself played the BEST Joker, moving from ironic deadpan to maniacal laughter with the greatest of ease, he made The Joker both funny AND menacing, two things I don't think he ever embodied at the same time prior to this.

The other characters were equally as compelling. Alfred was a true father figure that could never replace the father that Bruce Wayne lost. Robin was the usually-obedient but occasionally independant and headstrong apprentice. Commisioner Gordon was the good man fighting the hard fight, and while accepting of Batman's help, also at times wary of it. Batgirl was a noble figure drawn to the same path as Batman, not by a tragic past, but by a sense of duty and responsibility.

When Dick Grayson's relationship with Barbara Gordon, when the writers chose to touch on it, made for an interesting exploration of the characters' bizarre love triangle, and made a fantastic way to create the tension between Batman and Robin that eventually drives Robin to become Nightwing. In his professional life, Batman eventually invites in Batgirl in some ways even deeper than he showed Robin. In their personal lives, neither Dick nor Barbara reveal their secrets to each other, yet when Robin finds out, he feels betrayed by a love who wasn't honest (despite that neither was he) and a mentor who was too secretive (despite that they weren't his secrets to reveal).

The villains were just as compelling. The Joker was insane, with a bizarre method to his madness. He warped Gotham's fishing supply to have grotesque smiles so he could get royalties for the fact that they shared his likeness. He crashed the mayor's son's birthday party by dressing in disguise as... you ready for this? As a clown. Sure, he was a homicidal maniac, but you actually do see the humor in his bizarre schemes.

Two-Face was a man torn apart by a disfiguring tragedy, ripping his personality in two and forcing his good nature to become overwhelmed by his alternate persona, although his good persona was always fighting in some way or another, even creating the fascinating third personality, The Judge, to combat his second.

Mr. Freeze was a tragic figure turned to villainy only by unfortunate circumstances, and when given the chance, he actually sets things right. His only true failings were his need for revenge and his undying devotion to his wife, even if it was at the expense of others. It's too bad that when the series changed styles he became the head-in-the-jar freakshow that's not really compelling, but they did redeem themselves with his appearance in Batman Beyond.

... I could go on forever here, but there are a few stories that I need to touch on specifically.

All the full-length films based on the animated series were outright brilliant. The Mask of the Phantasm was an essentially perfect study of Batman himself, contrasted with a similar character walking down a similar path in an original story. I'll have to watch Batman Begins to say for sure, but I can't think of a more poignant look at Batman's origins ever crafted. To have Bruce Wayne fall in love and start to doubt the whole Batman thing, screaming at portraits of his parents "Please! I need this! It... it just doesn't hurt as much anymore!", followed by the ultimate realization that he has no choice because it's come to be who he is, was absolutely haunting.

Batman and Mr. Freeze: Sub-Zero is a great final note for one of the best Batman villains. Well... or at least it would have been if they actually made it the final note.

And Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker was the perfect transition from old to new, painting a tragic picture of why things changed as they did, and showing the Joker at his most vicious.

As for episodes of the series, here are some picks of must-sees:

Beware the Gray Ghost: Adam West playing Bruce's aging inspiration for Batman, an old black-and white TV star now turned bitter and resentful of his past.

The Clock King: The introduction of a vastly underused and wildly original villain whose sole "super power" is an uncanny knowledge of time.

Perchance to Dream: Another fascinating look into Bruce Wayne's mind, seeing him in a world where his parents never died, Selina Kyle opts to wear his engagement ring rather than a catsuit, and someone else is Batman.

Almost Got 'Im: Shows all the villains chilling after work and trading stories about how they almost got Batman. Why do I get the sinking feeling this is what Bush had in mind when he figured Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein MUST hang out together because, like, they're both bad guys right? They probably sip cognac in a club with Fidel Castro and that North Korean dictator whose name I can't remember.

Harley and Ivy: The first pairing of two characters that, while having absolutely nothing to do with each other, worked so well it was subsequently returned to at least a few times.

His Silicon Soul: Sure, it was just another spin on Blade Runner, but being that I hated Blade Runner, this made a nice substitute.

The Trial: Batman's wide cast of villains put him on trial for corrupting them into villainy. A truly bizarre and hillarious episode.

Showdown: The show's creators do the "And now for something completely different" bit and tell a Western. But what a Western!

Harley's Holiday: A great exploration of Harley Quinn as a character who's not necessarily criminally insane, but just kinda' wrong in the head.

Beware the Creeper: The Joker inadvertantly creates a monster that's too much even for himself: a superhero/villain even more wacked-out than he is.

Growing Pains: A bit of a throwaway episode in terms of plot really to just help establish the character of the second Robin, Timothy Drake (who's still just too young to be fully beleivable as a crime fighter, but anyways...). However, the show's creators really tug at the heartstrings with the truly endearing Annie, an innocent girl who's subsequently and shockingly "murdered" before the episode is over.

Over the Edge: One of the most compelling episodes of any TV show ever, Batgirl dies (in a manner particularly shocking and violent for "children's television"), and Commissioner Gordon's subsequent discovery of her identity as his daughter drives him mad with revenge, hunting down Batman with a bloodlust that ends up destroying them both.

... I know, I know. It's a long list, but this was a great show, and there are a lot of "must-sees" (even more than I've listed, I'm sure). Later, Batman Beyond would jump back and forth between being every bit as good, and stupid "Batman in School" BS. But Batman: TAS remains the best version of the most fascinating superhero in the history of superheroes (Superman isn't fascinating so much as iconic). And I defy anyone to dare tell me that cartoons are just for kids, because this show was every bit as deep, well-written and compelling as anything starring Dennis Franz's naked rear end. Probably more so, actually, considering the distinct lack of naked fat man butt.

E3 2005

2005-05-24T01:35:00.000-07:00

I'll keep it short because I have work to do. E3 was cool, as always, but damn, they need to cut down on the crowds. The 360 looks nice, but damned if 90% of the games on it don't make me say "I don't see why that couldn't be done on the Xbox".

The PS3 videos and stuff lacked any kind of substance, and I'm telling anyone and everyone: of the demo videos they showed, only three of them had actual gameplay footage. The rest were just BS tech demos.

The Nintendo press conference was a damn joke. They had NOTHING. Okay, they had Zelda, but BFD. They had that last year.

At the show, it seemed like the PS2 lineup is as strong as ever, the Xbox lineup is winding down so MS can switch gears to the 360, and the Cube has a few great games left before it sputters off into memory. The DS, on the other hand, totally murdered the PSP, and not a single person I've spoken to during E3 or since has said otherwise.

I wanna' end it here, but give one final thanks to three companies that really made E3 great for me this year. Agetec and Sony Online Entertainment, I absolutely love seeing you guys every E3, and you always manage to make me feel welcome. But most of all, to the folks at Atlus, you rock more than any publisher should be allowed to rock. To give you an idea of your rocktitude, I met both IGA and Kojima this E3, and I still think my time with you guys was my biggest highlight. Oh, and a special call out to Tomm Hulett, in part because you didn't mention me in your blog (and yet you mention Ludwig? What's with THAT!?), but in part because you were cool personified, and I hope to see you again next year.

Strange Times

2005-05-11T21:19:00.000-07:00

This has been a crazy few weeks for me. Last week, I was informed that I'd need to re-test for my driver's license, drive test and everything, because of the accident I was in back in January. Just now, I got back from an expedition that had me spending more money on clothes than I have ever spent in my life. But what takes the cake is the phone conversation I had earlier today.

Let me give this a little pretext. A few weeks back, I went on essentially the first date I've ever had, with a girl I met online. Things went not bad, not great, but okay. Since then, we haven't had much luck arranging a second date because stuff kept coming up.

Initially, it was my fault. I've just been too damn busy lately. But later it started becoming an issue with finding a time when she was available. This week I even went so far as to make a good effort to make the time to see her, but she's been hard to get ahold of. I leave messages that don't get returned, I don't see her on AIM anymore. It seemed to me like she may have just been busy, or maybe I'd pissed her off or something. I don't know.

Anyways, I call her yesterday, and my phone is acting really screwy. First time I try, it doesn't ring at all. Then, it connects me with a message saying the number I'm dialing is out of service. Finally, I get through, and there's a guy on the other line (and mind you, this is her cell phone).

Me: Uhh.... hello. I'm trying to get through to (name censored because I'm not a bastard).

Him: *click*

Now, I figure this may just be more phoneproblems, so I call back. I get nothing but dead air, so I try again. The same guy answers.

Me: I'm sorry, I seem to be having some sort of phone trouble. I'm trying to get through to Mary Beth. Is this number right?

Him: Yeah, but she doesn't want to talk to you.

Me: Oh. Is this a bad time?

Him: You could say that.

Me: Okay, when do you think a good time would be, then?

Him: For you, pretty much never.

(Here my spider sense kicks into high gear)

Me: Why is that, exactly? Did I do something?

Him: You'd have to ask her.

Me: Well, I'm kinda' trying to. Look, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on. How do you suggest I find out just what's happening here?

Him: Well, don't call her when I'm around, for starters.

Me: Huh... okay, well... I'll try again later, then...

Now, in retrospect, I should have asked who this guy was. Jealous "other guy"? Disapproving brother or father? Or maybe it's the other way around and I really did do something to piss her off, and this person was doing the whole "protect her by proxy" thing. At this point, I can't really be sure.

But being that this person has helped themself to her cell phone, it seems like a good possibility that if it's the jealous/disapproving scenario that they've erased the messages I've left. I have to figure that's it, because the last time I talked to her, she didn't sound angry or anything. Just preoccupied.

The dumbest part of all of this is, I'm not sure I even want to persue this relationship. To be honest, I'm just not sure how much attraction is there, nor do I get a sense that our personalities mesh all that well. I've been giving the whole thing the benefit of the doubt until now, but at this point I want to know what's going on more than I want to salvage the relationship.

Edit: Just called and got through to her. She's not angry at all. The man I spoke to earlier is the "jealous boyfriend". Which still confuses me because I didn't realize anyone was officially her boyfriend just at the moment. But hey, if she wants to declare this jerk (and make no mistake, he is) her main man, then I'll be more than happy to let him have her. This has been a little too moronic for me.

Electronic Arts... you morons...

2005-04-09T03:25:00.000-07:00

So, after the last post about an upcoming EA game that looks good (though they can't really take credit for that- it's all Criterion), today we have news of a few really stupid moves on EA's behalf. Now, EA is many things (unconscianable, money-grubbing, monopolistic), but it's very rare that I would attribute the word "stupid" to them. To have a few examples of stupidity on EA's behalf both in the span of one day is quite remarkable.

For starters, there's been something of a revelation on their upcoming game based on The Godfather. When the game was originally announced, I wasn't sure exactly how the classic film would be translated into a videogame. I mean, if you think about it, these were not action films. They were dramas. And while physical conflict obviously translates well into videogame form, it's still very difficult to find ways to translate emotional and psychological conflict into a game.

So you can understand how, while I'm intruiged at the idea of bringing the film into a videogame, I have extreme reservations about what it will actually become. Apparently, so does the film's director. Francis Ford Coppola has come out and said that he was not asked for permission to turn his film into a videogame, didn't find out about it until just recently, and in fact he's very unhappy that the movie studio would sell the rights to do so without his consent. Furthermore, after playing a preview build, he's said he completely disapproves of the game. Here's the exact quote:

"They use the characters everyone knows ... and then for the next hour they shoot and kill each other. I had absolutely nothing to do with the game and I disapprove."

Figures. This sounds like EA. They made a business decision. The money says that the easiest way to make money off a license involving guns is to turn it into a first-person shooter (or worse, a third-person shooter), and it seems that's what they did. The problem is, it seems they may have failed to consider why this film and this license is so beloved. This movie trilogy hasn't garnered massive acclaim (and a zillion Oscars) because of the gunplay. It has become a legend in the movie industry because of the characters, the drama, and the story. So..... let's just plug all of that into a game where people can just shoot stuff for a while.

Good job, ya' bunch of morons.

The second foul-up comes in the form of some video recently released of EA's upcoming Nintendo DS version of Goldeneye: Rogue Agent. I'm generally willing to give developers the benefit of the doubt, and even though the console version of Rogue Agent sucked big fat British monkey balls, I figured that any smart developer would have learned their lesson and fixed the problems if they were going to be porting the game to another system six months or a year later, as EA is doing.

I even went a step further. I've been saying that, if EA has learned their lesson, made this game not suck, made it support touchscreen a la Metroid Prime Hunters, and made it online it could have very well become the killer app the DS desperately needs right now. However, the video (which you can download at GamesAreFun.com) is very telling, and here's what it tells me:

1. This looks like the same game that was on consoles, only crappier. Seriously, even the level designs look eerily similar. However, toss in sub-N64 graphics (and we know the DS is capable of more), and it's like an all-around crapfest.

2. There is no touchscreen support. Look at how the guy moves in the video. Notice how he stops to aim every time he wants to shoot someone. Yeah, that says "console FPS controls". Oh, and it's hillarious that the enemies just stand there and let you shoot them, too. Guess we can't make it too hard for them, being that they can't aim, right?

3. There is no online support. In the video, they specifically say "wireless multiplayer", which in Nintendo DS and Sony PSP terms translates into "Not online". Jeez, you guys are the world's biggest videogame software company, is the online thing really that friggin' hard? First it took you fuggin' forever to acknowledge the existence of Xbox Live, and now you're not even going to attempt to use the new handhelds to their full ability? And no, a silly "swing meter" in Tiger Woods doesn't show me you're trying to make good use of the DS' touchscreen.

Goldeneye: Rogue Agent may have sold okay on consoles, but that was before all the negative word-of-mouth spread. Now, everyone knows it's a pile of shit, and if you really want to sell it on another game system, you've got to pull out something really fantastic, and so far, this does not impress me one bit. If this game comes out and is as bad as it looks like it will be, I hope it sells so badly you're forced to fire whatever artistically-devoid suit came up with the idea. In fact, I think a round of firings is long overdue. And no, I'm not talking about employees of some little studio you just bought out, like you normally do. I'm talking about someone high up that decides to make games like this at the expense of the licensees and the gamers.

EA, I've gotta' be honest with you, for a company that seems determined to make this the most embarassing year in your ridiculous existence, this is retarded even for you.

Oh my god, that is sexy

2005-04-05T02:39:00.000-07:00

Former Dignews staffer and good friend Jeff Shedden was a big Burnout fan pretty much from the get-go. I wasn't. I guess it just comes down to the fact that I never had time to get into the earlier games, and thus never saw them as more than a fun little diversion. Then the third one came out...

Despite being owned and published by that most evil of videogame corporations, Electronic Arts (boooo, hissss), Burnout 3 was, quite honestly, better for it. Criterion was given the elbow room and the funding to make the game everything it could be, something that they apparently couldn't do when developing the series for Acclaim (who reputedly rushed the games out before they were ready, which would explain why almost everything they released seemed like it wasn't finished).

Thanks to EA's deep pockets and wealth of patience (piles of evil ill-gotten money can have their advantages), Burnout 3 was just jaw-dropping. The funny thing is, EA didn't even want Burnout- they bought Criterion for their Renderware software and Burnout was just a bonus. But darned if it didn't turn out to be like hitting oil while digging in your gold mine, because they surely got more than they paid for.

So it's no surprise that their digging at their little gold mine again right away, in a fourth installment in the series called Burnout Revenge. I think the first two images speak for themselves, so I'll just let you have a lookee. Oh, and don't worry about that sound, it's just the jaw hitting the floor.

Good god, Lumines

2005-03-30T00:55:00.001-08:00

Every now and then, you find a game worms its way into your brain and you can't help but think about it when going about your life. After playing games like Super Mario Bros. and Sonic the Hedgehog, I often found myself looking at the world like a bunch of platforms to jump on, or wondering where the hidden power-ups were. I fell asleep thinking of Tetris. After Mario Kart, the world looked like a race course. After Grand Theft Auto, I'd look at cars thinking about whether they'd be a good ride if I "jacked" them. And every waking minute now I find myself thinking about Lumines. It's worked its way into my brain and it just won't leave.

I had a yearly evaluation at my day job today. My boss came in, sat me down, and talked about my performance and how he could improve. I had to keep forcing myself to listen, because my mind kept wandering to Lumines, and I'd be turning over block combinations while he talked about stuff and I'd have to remind myself that, no, I need to listen, this is important.

Mostly, I find myself thinking about the "sweet spot", a personal slice of heaven in the game where everything clicks and just feels right. Shut up! Don't laugh! This is nirvana, man! Lookit that, using the single square jutting out from below to push the odd square out of my block, forming a perfect square that wipes clean and leaves me with one block to start the chain over again

My review on the game is pending, but trust me when I say: This game is a reason to own a PSP. Just... wow.

PSPectacular? DSaster?

2005-03-26T02:13:00.000-08:00

I still think the DS has far more potential to be a great gaming system than the PSP. It's not as fragile as the PSP, the pricing scheme for both the system and the games is far more agreeable, the battery lasts hours longer, the touchscreen holds a lot of untapped potential for new types of gameplay, and the dual cartrige slots give it potential for expandability via accessories. The graphics on the DS, while not quite as good as the PSP's, are pretty darn close, and the system has the same capability to use wireless as the PSP (and in fact is even more versatile, thanks to Nintendo's own proprietary close-range wireless).

We can even take this a step further and look at the ridiculous mistakes Sony has made with the PSP. UMD movies are laughably stupid, considering they're making us pay the same price (and in some cases more) for movies we already own on DVD, with none of the extras. To look at the PSP as an MP3 player is just as ridiculous. I can pay $200-400 for 2 gigs of Sony Memory sticks (In addition to the $250 price tag of the PSP), or I could just go and get a 40 gig iPod for $400. Hmm... tough choice...

Yet here we are, and Nintendo's dropped the ball in ways I can't even begin to understand. The best game on DS (Super Mario 64 DS) is a port, fer Crissakes! And anything else worth buying is just a quirky experiment (and usually a quirky experiment with serious longevity issues, like Yoshi's Touch and Go, Wario Ware Touched! and Feel the Magic). Where the heck is Metroid? Where is Band Brothers? Where are Bomberman, Caduceus, Egg Monster Heroes, Meteos, Nintendogs, Pac Pix, Polarium and ALL THE OTHER GAMES RELEASED IN JAPAN MONTHS AGO!?

Why is it that not only does the PSP have more great games at launch than Nintendo had for the DS launch, but even after nearly a half a year, the DS' library still pales in comparison to what the PSP has on day one?

You'd think, with the release of the biggest direct competition Nintendo's monopoly on the handheld market has ever seen, they'd pull out their big guns, but all they've brought out was a fun-but-broken game called Yoshi's Touch and Go, and a steaming pile of feces called Pokemon Dash.

On the PSP, from day one, there's Lumines, a game so wonderful I'd take it over every last title in the DS' lineup. There's Wipeout and Ridge Racer, two fantastic new titles in two outstanding game series. There's Darkstalkers, a great fighting game. There's an awesome handheld port of Tony Hawk. There's a friggin' Metal Gear game!

I swear, it's as if Nintendo and Sony were two kids going out trick-or-treating. Nintendo went out with a huge bag, left five hours earlier than Sony did, and wore the best costume ever. Sony took its time, went out with a tiny bag, and tossed a sheet over its head and said it was going as a ghost. So why is it that Sony's the one that came back with all the candy!? Maybe all the developers don't like Nintendo as much as they like Sony, but I suspect that's not true. I think that Nintendo just didn't try hard enough, and after all's said and done, their lack of effort to even bring their own games Stateside before the PSP launch really says it all.

I've been trumpetting the DS since it was first announced. Surely, this would turn Nintendo around. They had a device made of pure potential, and Reggie promised us they'd kick ass and take names. Well, who am I to argue with Reggie, right? Reggie, please, man. Talk some sense into Nintendo. Trust me: There is NO ass-kicking going on right now on your behalf.

Sure, Resident Evil 4 phased the competition a little and DK Jungle Beat turned a few heads, but they turned right back when stuff like Splinter Cell 3, God of War and Brothers in Arms rolled around. And sure, the PSP's sales on launch day were underwhelming (Sony couldn't even sell out at the Metreon, fer Crissakes), but when people start seeing that the PSP has games worth getting and the DS, quite frankly, doesn't, those sales will go up and the DS' will go down. The last time Nintendo pulled this crap with us during the N64 days, they had a huge stroke of luck when Pokemon rolled around and saved their asses. Let me tell you: lightning don't strike twice, and if you guys don't haul ass and get back on your game, you will lose.

As for my initial impressions of the PSP now that I have my own (yes, I got one), there is good and there is bad. You've probably heard the good trumpetted from the hills (Yes, the screen is pretty.Yes, the graphics are nice), so I'll detail the bad:

1. The PSP is fragile.
Just one look at this thing and I can hear the throngs of fans calling in tech support to see if their warranties cover the disasters that are sure to befall the device. The screen is just begging to be broken the first time anyone foolishly tries to put this thing in their back pocket. The analog nub, too, seems almost eager to be snapped off. And then there's the fact that the UMDs have an open window that leave a part of the disc exposed at all times. This is not a game system to get for your kids, as they WILL break it.

2. UMD movies are crap
My boss at Digital Entertainment News, Dan Pelfrey, actually believed UMDs would fit everything that DVDs had. Can you believe that? Message to Dan: The Spider-Man 2 UMD that comes with the system doesn't even have commentary! By contrast, the DVD had multiple commentaries, making-of featurettes, and a whole slew of extras. All the UMD has are crappy previews for a few movies. To make matters worse, UMD video playback on the PSP suffers problems with ghosting which makes action look choppy and disjointed, which makes it seem ironic that most of the films being released on UMD are action flicks. Ultimately, being that the screen, while big by videogame handheld standards, is extremely tiny by portably DVD standards, I don't think I'd WANT to watch movies on this thing.

3. The demo disc that comes with the PSP is retarded.
The DS came with a playable demo so fleshed-out it may as well have been a full-fledged game. So if Sony's going to go cheap and not even give us any playables, why are there only 9 2-minute game videos on the disc? Why do I have to exit back to the main menu to watch the movie videos, and again to watch the music videos (well, if I wanted to)? Why did they put a preview of Stealth on here when it's already on the Spider-Man 2 UMD? And really, why even bother packing in a disc that PSP owners will watch once (if even that) and then never look at again?

4. Smudgy-smudgy!
The screen may look damn pretty, but it collects fingerprints like Joe Friday in a murder investigation. No wonder they put a cleaning cloth in the box- you need to use it every five minutes.

5. Battery life
'Nuff said.

Now, that said, Lumines is so great it doesn't matter what complaints one has about the PSP. I'll have a review up on Dignews shortly, but in the meantime just take my word for it: If you have a PSP, you need to have Lumines too. If you don't have a PSP, this is a game that should have you giving it serious thought.

Oh, I also got Wipeout Pure. It is, as the folks in the hood say, "A'aight".

Don't get me cornered. You don't have the trunk space.

2005-03-24T00:23:00.000-08:00

Just saw the film Collateral, and I must say, this is definitely one I reccomend. The suspense, the drama of the evolving adversarial relationship between the film's two leads, the artistic beauty of LA at night... I suppose I should be surprised at how fantastic and effective this film is, if it weren't for the fact that it's already happened once before.

Michael Mann, Collateral's director, did a film a while back called Heat (starring Robert De Niro and Al Pacino, and absolutely a must-see) that had the exact same elements, and although the two stories are entirely different, there are many interesting similarities between the two.

I think this film marks a highlight in the film careers of three men. Michael Mann, after films like Heat and The Insider, is now starting to emerge as one of the truly great directors in the industry. His films' serious tone and perfect pacing gives them a sharp reality that's rare in movies.

Tom Cruise is an action star, and shooting guns and stuff is his bread and butter. Yet he's never before been as credibly bad-ass as he is in this film. I think there are many actors in the industry that people dismiss as a pretty face without recognizing their genuinely incredible acting talents (Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas come to mind), and this movie really helps to drive home the fact that Cruise is truly an expert at what he does.

Finally, Jamie Foxx. I have to say, I grew up when Foxx was doing In Living Color, and as he moved on to projects like the Jamie Foxx Show, I had a hard time taking him seriously as an actor, much like the other In Living Color cast. However, my opinion on the matter has greatly changed. While I still doubt I'll ever see a Wayans brother doing anything even resembling good acting, other ILC cast members, like Jim Carrey, have evolved tremendously (Carrey was incredible in The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind).

Foxx has obviously earned unanimous praise for his supposedly dead-on portrayal of Ray Charles in the film Ray (I haven't seen it yet, but I hear that his Oscar win was never even a moment's doubt last year). Yet, his talents as an actor truly shine in this film, as well. Jamie got nommed for a best supporting actor Oscar for this film, but he is every bit as much a lead actor here as Cruise, and as the polar opposite to Cruise's uncaring, volatile assassin, Foxx's character is so compassionate, and yet also flawed in a way so easy to identify with, he becomes someone the audience immediately feels connected to.

Watch this film. Oh, and if you haven't already, go back and watch Heat. There'll be a quiz on it later.

Getting back to it...

2005-03-14T23:28:00.000-08:00

You know, I suddenly realize that leaving that last post up so long without something to follow it might have given people the impression I'd gone and committed suicide or something. It seems folks like Ludwig and Brad are always wondering why I haven't posted new blog content in a while, and I guess the simple answer is that I don't see it as an obligation. I'm not some teenage girl writing to her little book to help cope with my hormones and emotions. I'm not the Captain of the Enterprise keeping a record of events for historical purposes. I'm not Howard Dean or Gabe and Tycho, creating something to feed the informative and entetainment needs of the masses. I'm just doing this in hopes that someone might get a kick out of it.

Anyways, let's talk about Guild Wars.

A few weeks back, I worked alongside Craig and Andrew "Dekerd" to produce a Guild Wars Week, that was, surprisingly to me, quite controversial. I'm writing about this after the fact, but that's largely because the whole thing gave me such a tremendous distaste for anything Guild Wars-related and I just had to step away from it for a little while.

Do not take that last comment to mean that I don't like Guild Wars. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Anyways, to make a long story short, having not played much of Guild Wars before the February Beta, none of us knew that what we were playing wasn't necessarily representative of the final game. No one told us, and there was nothing in the game to indicate the fact. People cried foul at the fact that we "didn't research" the game, but that brings up an issue of journalistic integrity I have to go into more detail than I think I've done in any of my rebuttals since then.

We played the game, we read the official press releases, and we've looked over what they had on the official website. That's it. We didn't look at fansites or other game news websites, and I feel very strongly that we shouldn't have.

"Wait, what? Is he saying they wanted to be in the dark?"

As a journalist, I feel a professional obligation to stick to official sources. I don't run rumor articles (Rant Box aside), I don't report second-hand information, and I don't use unofficial websites as a source of information (unless specifically credited, which is another story). As I've said repeatedly, for Digital Entertainment News to use IGN and Gamespot as a source of information would be like if CNN didn't post their news stories until they double-checked with MSNBC and Fox News to make sure they'd gotten their facts straight. CNN doesn't do that crap. When they have a news story, they run with it, and damned if Fox or MSNBC think differently.

It's the same with fansites. Maybe they know best, but that still doesn't mean they can be used as a source. Using the CNN analogy, that would be like if CNN double-checked their articles against blogs. (And just because these websites are linked to by the official website does not make them official).

When I research an article (and I generally do research them), I use official sources, and cannot in good conscience reference something that hasn't come "straight from the horse's mouth". IGN and Gamespot are the big boys, and everyone with a game website knows this. They're professionals (well, arguably). However, being that their articles are written by people other than those that represent the company, they're infused with the opinions, bias, perspective, and personal flavor of the journalist that wrote the article. This unique and individual nature of these articles isn't just there when they overtly write their opinions. It flows through the entirety of the article. Even down to what they choose to write about and choose not to write about, they interject something very personalized into what they write, and to take that and draw from it for another professional peice is ethically akin to perjury.

Let's say, for example, that IGN got an exclusive opportunity to play Halo 3, and wrote extensively about how great it was, how "the new backpack system allows players to easily cycle weapons on the fly without destroying the two-weapon approach that's charactarized the series". Now, I take this and write my own preview article, saying "the game boasts a nice new backpack system that adds depth to the great weapon system the game is known for". Hey, not only am I writing something confirmed by another journalist, but I've even avoided direct plagiarism and gone a bit more vague to allow for a small margin of error. It's all good, right?

Well, then, E3 rolls along, and I actually get the chance to play Halo 3, and the backpack system turns out to be the thing I hate most about the game, or it's only present in the multiplayer mode, or it's something you only get later in the game, or something you lose early on in the game (think Solid Snake in Metal Gear Solid 2)... Now, I find myself totally disagreeing with what the IGN journalist wrote, and by extension disagreeing with what I wrote. IGN's impressions of the game won't have been wrong, but genuine reaction from their own impressions that they either stick by or adapt based on their new experience with the game at E3. I, on the other hand, would have been claiming someone else's perspective as my own, and having seen it as wrong, I'd have little choice but to either continue to perpetuate a lie, or reverse my opinion on the subject.

This is why, when I do research as a game journalist, I stick to official information. Because if I write "Solid Snake is the main character", and that turns out to be untrue, I can point back to Konami (in this example) and rest the blame clearly on my source for feeding me misinformation. If my source is unofficial and it's untrue, I have only myself to blame for drawing from a secondhand source.

In fact, by their very omission of the facts of the matter, I could technically blame NCSoft for the lapse in information that resulted in this skewed set of articles. NCSoft never told us that what we'd see (or rather, not see) in the February beta, and as a result our source was misleading us. Now, granted, in this particular situation, NCSoft may have assumed that we'd been reading up about the game on other websites, and being that the information is out there (albeit in unofficial form) it's easy to understand that this mistake was a simple matter of miscommunication, so even though I think that's where this problem originated, I don't hold it against them. I can imagine I'd be inclined to make the same mistake in their shoes.

Next weekend they're having another Guild Wars beta, and hopefully this should be a chance to right some wrongs. However, I feel justified in saying that these wrongs are not something that a responsible journalist in my position could have been expected to avoid. All I can do is hope that I don't find myself in a similar position any time in the future.

"Sorry, I've been busy."

2005-02-27T03:52:00.000-08:00

I don't know how often I've said that, but it always rings true. It makes me sad, really. I know a lot of people would think that having nothing to do would be torture, and that a full schedule is indicative of a full life, but I wish that I could just stop and enjoy life, which I don't think I really do at all these days.

In the rare moments I have time for myself, it's like gasping for a breath of air when drowning. Never does it feel like breathing. To make matters worse, there are always reminders that moments like these are finite, making me try to take in as much as I can while I still have time, like rushing through a meal without savoring its flavor. And then, of course, there is the guilt always hanging over me, reminding me that I'm being selfish for using my rare moments of free time for myself, rather than my responsibilities.

So many of the finer, most basic parts of life have been out of my grasp for so long now, I can't help but feel like maybe I don't deserve them. Perhaps kharma is at work, punishing me for what I've done, or more likely, who I am. Saying something like "I wish I wasn't me, because then I'd be happy" seems silly, except I kind of think it could be true. But, being that all I know is me, something like that would be a fruitless sentiment anyways.

I wish I had courage. Not courage like they talk about in stories; I have no wish to be a hero. I wish I had courage to do things I know I need to, to take steps aways from a life that's brought me so much sadness. But all I can find the will to do is work within the rusty cage of my own existence, as I have no idea how to live outside of it, or even get there.

I try to be a good person, selfless when I can be, and I hold on to the dying notion that eventually, good things happen to good people. Steeped in romantic notions since childhood, they all now seem to be eroding away, victims of cynicism and time. Good things happen to good people? Love comes to those that wait? There's always a way if you look hard enough? Looking back on the path of optimism, I see so much disaster and failure, I wonder how people can say these things with a straight face.

I don't want pity, or consolation. It's bad enough having a burden of disappointment without others dropping useless gestures of vague regret onto the pile. I want change! I want someone to help me find the path I've been looking for, and not just guide me in circles as so many seem to have done in the past. I know there are people out there that are happy, so why is it that none of them are capable of telling me why or how?

For now, it seems all I can do is keep heading the way I'm going, and hope I stumble upon fortune. In the meantime, it looks like I'll be busy.

... Oh, and this was supposed to be about videogames, huh? Well... *Shrugs* Guild Wars is fun. But you can read about that over at Dignews.

Valentines Day is a Load of Crap

2005-02-16T03:16:00.000-08:00

I know I'm two days late, but I've been busy.

Really, just about all holidays are crap. There is absolutely no logical reason any one day of the year should be treated any differently than any other day. Comemmorations and whatnot are really just an empty excuse to party (or whatever) so why not just party anyways? You don't need some fake excuse like "On this date two thousand years ago, Jesus was born, except it probably wasn't this date and it probably wasn't two thousand years ago, and whether or not he was actually born rather than created to propegate this religion is largely a matter of faith... so let's all overeat and hang frilly decorations!"

This is not just me picking on Christian holidays, but all holidays, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Scientologist holidays (do Scientologists have holidays?). The one exception is the pagan and wiccan holidays that celebrate things like phases of the moon and whatnot, because I suppose those could be argued to be relevant to something that actually makes that day different from the days before and after it.

Valentines Day is one of the biggest crocks of all, though. Out of a hundred people, you'll probably get two or three that know how the holiday started, and that's a very generous estimate. Maybe a dozen or so will be able to mutter something about a saint named Valentine (But is it Vincent or Jill?), but only a select few actually know the full story behind it, which I will not repeat here because, quite frankly, I don't care. The point isn't whether or not I know, but that everyone else doesn't, so why celebrate it?

But it gets worse than that.

This is a holiday that's come to be symbolic of the overcommercialism of holidays. While I personally believe Christmas is the holiday with the most fluff, V-Day certainly has enough to be a contender, and the corporations know this all too well. Why is it again that a peice of card paper, folded in half, with a paragraph of sentimental tripe scrawled on it, sells for $5? Why do people feel so compelled to but boatloads of those damn candy hearts that taste like chalk, and no one in their right mind would eat any other day of the year? And then there's the fixation on the "heart", which looks nothing like an actual heart, and has nothing to do with this "love" thing people talk about (that's the brain talking, not the heart).

But even worse than this, aside from all the technical bickering I can yak through, is what the holiday has become. As previously stated, most holidays have evolved into silly ritualistic parties, which isn't entirely bad. Just stupid. But at least they can be fun. Valentine's Day, on the other hand, feels like an obligation to those in a relationship, and acts as a reminder of how lonely those not in a relationship feel. So, it's a lose-lose thing, and the entire holiday has been warped into something that's designed to make you feel like crap. Sure, there's the argument that it helps stir up "romance", but if you need a fake holiday to inject romance into your relationship, you're in a pretty sad relationship.

It seems like people keep themselves driven by jumping from holiday to holiday. Like, the only thing to look forward to is the next excuse to party, and the world of commercialism has propegated this sentiment. Would life seem more bland and boring if you couldn't say to yourself "Saint Patrick's Day is next month! And then the month after that, April Fools!"? If you went through 12 months without celebrating a holiday, would your life seem boring? Incomplete? If you answered "yes", then it should be obvious, that holidays are simply there to mask dissatisfaction with your everyday life, and maybe you shouldn't be looking forward to the next holiday, but concentrating on making NOW as enjoyable as possible.

And remember, people that aren't mindless sheep save money on greeting cards.

Karate Kid Kollection

2005-02-05T23:25:00.000-08:00

Wait a minute... KKK!? That's not good!

Now, I know it says "videogames" up top, but damn it, I like movies too, and I'll write about 'em if I damn well please, so THERE!

Anyways, flipping through the ads today, I happen to notice the newly-released Karate Kid Collection advertised for $23, and I figger that's a good price to pay for the first two films (which were surprisingly good even after taking off the rose-colored nostalgia shades), and I get to laugh at the third one for free. As it turns out, this package also includes the horrendously bad The Next Karate Kid as well, so it was quite a bargain. While I haven't watched the set yet, there's little here I can't derive from memory and what I can read off the box, so I felt it'd be a decent idea to do a retrospective mini-review of the set.

The Packaging
For a box containing four separate movies, it's interesting that it really only looks big enough to hold 2. That because it's using slim DVD cases for each of the individual movies (like they used for the Futurama DVD sets). In addition, there are only three DVDs, because the third one has both The Karate Kid Part III (Called The Karate Kid 3 on the disc) and The Next Karate Kid on the same disc. It's one of those "flipper" discs I hate, that you can never be completely sure which side is up.

It's worth noting that the packaging looks like it was put together by some guy on Photoshop overnight. It's so horrendously bad I must dissect it in and of itself. The problem is, it's a mishmesh of various styles that don't make sense together, and seems tossed in in a hurry.

A Horizontal stripe at the top reads "The Karate Kid Collection" in three different fonts (none of them the one used in the regular Karate Kid logos) along with the Karate Kid logo (guy kicking in front of sun). The next horizontal stripe has closeups of Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita in front of the ocean at sunset, which would be fantastic until you realize that the characters were copy-pasted from scenes in the movie. Then we have a screen grab from The Karate Kid Part 2 (Screen grabs just scream "I AM CHEAP BOX ART!"), then the bottom portion of the box is split in half, with each side featuring the respective films' movie poster. The individual discs follow this similar lazy "slap it together" art style, so yay that.

The Karate Kid: Special Edition
Should I even say anything? Everyone's seen it, and if not, you should. While it would have been easy to take the Rocky "sports drama" formula, throw a kiddy face on it, and toss in some stupid karate stuff, they wouldn't do this until we get to The Next Karate Kid.

What we get instead is a nice snapshot of the 80s, with some decent acting from Pat Morita (apparently good enough for an Oscar nom), some so-so acting from everyone else, a relatively decent plot, and some extremely wise directing that takes what could have easily been fluff and manages to give it weight and meaning. Of course, it's weird to look back on it now after so much of the stuff this started has become cliche. I mean, I know you've undoubrtedly heard someone chuckling "Wax on, wax off", and the whole "Teacher covertly teaching a student through mundane tasks" has since become a staple of martial arts flicks, but back at the time, they were original.

I can't speak for the movie's one new feature over the old DVD, the commentary (as I haven't watched it yet), but it oughtta' be good, with the director, writer, Macchio and Morita onboard (Macchio said in an interview it will be the first time he'll have actually seen the final movie with Pat Morita, so it oughtta' be interesting).

Stuff to watch for: Elisabeth Shue before she was hawt, "high school bully" stuff that seems like overacting until you realize how moronic high schoolers are, Pat Morita getting drunk ("BANZAIIIII!"), a car as a birthday present to someone he met a few weeks ago (lucky little snot), Daniel-San getting the girl despite and partly because he acted like a moron, and martial artists far, far more skilled than the principal actors losing in the tournament because... well, they're not the principal actors.

The Karate Kid Part II
"It's the sequel: Karate Kid Goes To Japan! It'll make huge bank!" ... Ohhhh, it seemed like such a bad idea, and this movie seemed to have "suck" written all over it, but in many ways it's even better than the first film. For starters, it focuses more on Morita's character and less on Macchio's character, a big plus. Second, Danny Kamekona, who plays a villain names Sato, has a far more human role than Martin Kove's Kreese was (he just came off as looney). Third, the Okinawan scenery makes for a far more beautiful backdrop than smoggy California. Fourth, while Elisabeth Shue would eventually become hawt, Tamlyn Tomita was already hawt in this film, although it still boggles my mind that she'd put up with Daniel. Must be the language barrier.

Really, though, it's the exploration of Morita's character and the evolution of Kamekona's character that make this a great film. And now that I think about it, one with surprisingly little karate. Hmm...

The new features on this disc are so negligible I won't even mention them. Ha. Take that, lazy DVD makers!

Stuff to watch for: Tiny bits of exposition at the beginning of this film that do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for this movie, and only serve to set up Part 3. Daniel loses girlfriend #1, and she wrecks his car in the process. The bad guy... throws Daniel's book on the ground!? How inhumane! Everyone in Okinawa loves Elvis and 60s fashion. "The tea scene" which can have two punchlines ("In Okinawa, tea is like foreplay" and "So... does this mean they're married now?"). And finally, Daniel tries another of his infamous crane kicks, and fails miserably.

The Karate Kid Part III
We're back in America again, and Daniel-San wants to make his Karate into a career (here's a hint, kid: The only other worthwhile thing you'll ever do will be My Cousin Vinny), and Mr. Miyagi knows this is a stupid idea and forbids him from doing it. Enter one-dimensional villains, who want to break their friendship, and then break some bones. At this point, I'd say let them. While the first two films actually had a plot, this is just a dumb martial arts movie. Perhaps reflective of this, we have this film's new girl, Robyn Lively, who is not only completely forgettable, but even tells Daniel in the beginning that she's ditching in a few weeks anyways. Either Daniel is just playing innocent and is really fishing for one night stands, or he has the worst judgement in relationships any man has ever had. I... I don't even know where to start with this one.

Again, DVD has no features worth noting, but no one cares.

Stuff to watch for: Well... there's a long sequence where Danny and his girl of the moment risk life and limb for a... tree.

The Next Karate Kid
Pat Morita got nominated for an Oscar once. Hilary Swank would eventually go on to win one for her role in Boys Don't Cry and then get nominated again this year for Million Dollar Baby. On the other hand, the writer of The Next Karate Kid, as well as the director, have very little to boast about, except that they both made a film that's a blemish on the careers of an Oscar nominee and Oscar winner. By now, Ralph Macchio had apparently moved on to bigger, better things (My Cousin Vinny and... uhhh.... errr... uhmmmm...), so some money-loving executive probably figured "Let's get someone new! A girl! Sex appeal! Yeah!", and while I must admit that a girl that could kick my ass is indeed sexy, that does not a good film make.

While The Karate Kid managed to avoid becoming "Sports drama meets kid movie", The Next Karate Kid seeks to infuse a teen drama with martial arts... and not only do they not blend into something respectable, they flat-out don't blend. Oil and water. Really disgusting oil and really nasty water.

No extras, don't care.

Stuff to watch for: Pat Morita walks in on Hilary Swank while she's dressing, and she reacts appropriately. His response? "Sorry. I used to walk in on Daniel-San all the time". Wow. That's just... wow. Also, take note of a scene where she beats up a gang of thugs who just knocked out her boyfriend. When that guy wakes up, I guaruntee he will NEVER HEAR THE END OF THIS.

And there you have it. Maybe next blog entry I'll talk about videogames again. Maybe.

Sony To Would-Be PSP Owners: FUCK America!

2005-02-03T09:06:00.000-08:00

It's official. The PSP will be $250 in America. Does that sound like a good price to you? Well, let's do some math...

The Japanese PSP was roughly $180. Not bad, eh?

Add a Sony 32MB memory stick, which I can buy off eBay for $10, max. Do they even sell 32MB in stores anymore? Regardless, 32MB can't hold crap in the way of video and MP3s, so unless you wanted to use this ONLY as a memory card, that $10 is a waste anyways.

Add a "Limited time only!" copy of the Spider-Man 2 UMD, which any movie-lover probably already has on DVD. Being that the DVD sells for under $20, and the UMD's compression makes the picture far less pretty (though not noticable on the PSP because it's a smaller screen), I'll be generous and put the value of this at $15.

Add a "non-interactive sampler". While interactive demo discs can sometimes cost money, I've never seen a non-interactive demo cost a dime. So I'm giving this a price tag of free.

Add a "Soft case and cleaning cloth". Usually, pack-in carrying cases are worthless, and "cleaning cloth" just screams "cheap". I'm gonna' say $5.

So, when we add it all up, we get a $210 value (including $30 worth of crap that most people wouldn't actually buy) for $250. And given that games are expected to be roughly $50, you won't even be able to play your PSP unless you shell out $300.

By comparison, the best game for the DS is still arguably the free demo that comes with it. That's not exactly a happy comment on the system's game library, I know, but on the other hand, the free demo does rock, and I doubt I'll be begging to watch through the game demo movies on the PSP UMD more than once or twice.

Do I still want a PSP? Sure. Will I buy it at launch? If I do, it'll only be because I work for Digital Entertainment News, because I don't think anyone in their right mind would spend $250 on a PSP unless they had to.

Hideo Kojima, You Are Forgiven

2005-01-30T01:38:00.000-08:00

My compatriot, colleague and friend, the irrepressible Ludwig Kietzmann, recently talked about Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater in his blog, and I feel the need to touch on it as well.

The original Metal Gear Solid was a videogame masterpiece. Probably the best game on the original Playstation, and one of the best games ever created. This game kicked the "stealth" genre into high gear, set a new high standard for voice acting in videogames, set a new high standard for plot in videogames, and is largely responsible for making new strides towards cinematic presentation in videogames.

But not only that, it was damn fun, and an experience like no other. Playing through Metal Gear Solid was like playing through one of the best action movies you'd ever seen, but a movie that lasts eight hours and has a better plot that any Bruce Willis movie. It had all kinds of secrets and extras. Players who screwed around could catch a cold in the snow, shoot rats with a sniper rifle, run in on Merryl while she was changing... ah, the memories.

Later, the PS2 sequel would become the system-seller and a large part of the reason the Dreamcast died... a year before it ever came out. Because why get a Dreamcast for Skies of Arcadia or Jet Grind Radio when the PS2 is gonna' have METAL GEAR FRICKIN' SOLID 2! The trailers were jaw-dropping in their graphic excellence, spellbinding in their cinematic genius. We wanted this game sooooo bad. The problem is, we never really got it. Rather, we got about a half hour of this game attached to eight hours of another game.

Yes, everyone knows the history. Hideo Kojima screwed us. He tricked us into thinking we were getting "Solid Snake being more bad-ass than you can handle", when what he was really going to be giving us was "Wimpy guy Raiden being more annoying than you can handle". While the gameplay and graphics were everything we could have ever hoped for, the story was so many shades of bad it felt like an insult. People lost faith in the Metal Gear series. They lost faith in Kojima. As did I.

When Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater was announced, it looked fantastic, and I knew that it would be great, and that there would be no way Kojima could screw over his fans a second time, after the fallout from the MGS2 fiasco. Still, like the masses, after the second game, I was disillusioned, and had basically lost interest in the series. It would never be as good as it once was. And that was that.

2004 was a busy year for videogames, and I must admit that most of the big-hitters disappointed me. Halo 2 was wonderful (and the multiplayer was much-improved), but still a tad overrated. Half-Life 2 was also excellent, but not what we were promised. Doom 3 was pretty but stupid (Although its simplicity was arguably part of its charm). Metroid Prime 2 felt too constricted, and I honestly prefer the original. I haven't played GTA: San Andreas yet, so I can't say one way or the other on that one. Ultimately, in my opinion at the time, the only truly great games that year were Metroid: Zero Mission, The Chronicles of Riddick: The Escape From Butcher Bay, and Katamari Damacy. By the way, you absolutely must play all three of those.

Ludwig has been raving about MGS3 for a while now, and I've actually been holding off on playing my copy (largely because I've had other stuff on my plate), but the other day I decided to pop it in my PS2 and give it a try. And... I was quite simply blown away. Ludwig had said that this was quite possibly the best game in the series (even better than the first one), to which I basically responded with "Yeah, right". I am now officially eating my words, because I'm convinced he may very well be right. I started playing this game because I couldn't sleep, and I wanted to kill a few hours. It was 1AM when I started. Come 10AM, I had to force myself to put down the controller and go to work. It's that good. In Metal Gear Solid 3, Hideo Kojima has made amends with series fans by crafting a masterpiece that starts with the groundwork the first two titles laid down and then uses it to pole vault forward into entirely new directions.

When Kojima initially told press that players would have to hunt for food, learn Snake's likes and dislikes, and decorate him with camoflouge, many of us didn't quite know what to make of it. Was Kojima going all "The Sims" on us? How does this fit the Metal Gear style of gameplay? Playing the finished product, it's all clear now: Metal Gear Solid 3 is a game that adopts a survivalist theme, in every sense. Snake is really surviving on his own in the jungle, and you're trying to keep him alive to accomplish his mission. Every broken bone needs mending, every bullet needs to be pulled out, and if you don't eat, you'll start suffering starvation.

No longer can you simply round a corner and duck behind some boxes to hide from enemies. Now you must use the very grass as your cover, and you have to constantly ensure that you blend with the environment. You're virtually naked in the wild, with nothing standing between you and armies of vicious enemies but a few weapons and gadgets, your wits and reflexes, and mother nature itself. To make things even more intense, there are essentially no healing items in the game. Nothing. Snake slowly heals naturally, but you need to find a safe spot to do so, and ensure that his stamina is good and he's not wounded. All this adds up to an experience that feels far more real and exciting than the series ever was before.

To take it a step further, while I had some initial reservations, I must admit the plot absolutely rocks. It's every bit as much intruige and betrayal as the first game, and so far without the absurdity of the second one (But I haven't finished it yet, so this may change). Focusing on the man who would come to be known as Big Boss, the game fleshes out the backstory behind the series, showing the origins of Revolver Ocelot, the Fox covert unit (later to become Fox-Hound), and of course, the Metal Gear itself. The game also has tons and tons of in-jokes, winks and nods for fans of the series, and it never seems to take itself too seriously, despite that it often feels very serious. The story takes place during the cold war, and the stakes quickly become very obvious: If you fail, the world will almost certainly be plunged into a nuclear holocaust. The way everything is staged, the first game was a little skirmish on an island by comparison: This could very well be the end of the world.

Backing up this story are a cast of... almost exclusively new characters. Big Bo-err... Snake returns, as does Revolver Ocelot (Now as a young rookie already showing some mad skills, albeit with the wrong gun, which he'll come to learn the hard way). However, the rest of the cast is new faces, and yet they're all wonderful. Commander Zero (above, left) takes Campbell's role, and is actually far more endearing. Para-Medic (above, right) is here in place of Mei Ling, and has some funny similarities without being too similar (although I miss Mei Ling's accented voice). However, the really impressive role is The Boss (picture on the right), Snake's mentor, teacher, rival... lover? She's an enigmatic figure, and while it's obvious there's sentiment for Snake in her eyes, she's also very much his enemy, and much to his frustration, her fighting skills easily outclass him, meaning that even if he can manage to bring himself to kill her like he knows he has to, he still has to face the problem that... well, she can totally kick his ass.

Quite frankly, when this game wants to be funny, it's hillarious, and when it wants to be dramatic, it's some of the best drama to ever find its way into a videogame. Hideo Kojima has redeemed himself for what he did to us with MGS2, and has me begging for more. While I'm still not sure what to make of Metal Gear Acid (An MGS Turn-Based Card Battle Strat-RPG? Pfft.. okay), I anxiously await the next installment of this series, once again with great anticipation.

It Begins

2005-01-29T23:01:00.000-08:00

So... this is a blog. You may have seen them before on the "internets". But unlike the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of blogs out there, mine is different. No, really, it is. Would I lie? Are you calling me a liar? You big jerk! Why I oughtta'...

... Ehm.... right. So, anyways, my name is Jake McNeill, and I'm Editor-In-Chief of Digital Entertainment News. Isn't that spiffy? And as a bigwig in a professional game website, I have a great many opinions about videogames. And... well, now you have to read them. That's right! Take it! Take it! Ha! I... err... uhhh... yeah.