The Inner Dorkdom

Final Fantasy XV: Episode Duscae Demo Impressions

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:03:00 +0000

Earlier this week, we were given our first real taste of the long-in-development Final Fantasy XV. How does it sit with me, someone who has been a long fan of the series, and one who has also believed that Final Fantasy has been on a steady decline for quite a while?

Find out after the jump!

Disclaimer: I apologize in advance for any odd pacing in this article, as it's pretty difficult to write about a game that's a small piece of a bigger whole. Not to mention, the full game isn't even finished yet.

There was something about Final Fantasy XIII that I hated, it's just hard to put my finger on. Maybe it was the needlessly confusing story. Maybe it was the linearity of the game. Maybe I didn't like how it seemed that Square Enix really wanted to impress us with a bunch of flashing lights throughout, all in an attempt to make things appear more "magical." Maybe I just hate Lightning (aka, "the female Cloud Strife," a character I already didn't like). Whatever it was, FFXIII wasn't my favorite in the series by a long shot. I enjoyed the battle system, but that's about it.

Since that game, my thoughts have been along the lines of, "The FF series is doomed." There were a lot of "changes" in the last single-player FF title to the familiar formats lain out in previous games, so for a person that has played every single game in the series (including the online games), XIII was a pretty big punch to the gut.

When XIII was announced, so was the title that would eventually go on to become known as Final Fantasy XV. At the time, it was called "Versus XIII," and I remember thinking, Man, that looks way more interesting than FFXIII. With its modern aesthetic, it's probably a good thing it's a side-game, though.

Versus XIII would continue to be known as a "side-game" until E3 2013, when it was revealed that it had transitioned into the main series, and had a roman numeral slapped to the end. By that point, I didn't really care. I thought, Well, maybe Square Enix just can't come up with a good main-series idea, and they're tired of developing Versus XIII, so they'll just kill two birds with one stone.
Right or wrong, the game was taking way too long to develop, and fans were getting antsy, so they probably made the right decision.

Another FF title that was related to the FFXIII mythos, a PSP game called FF Type-0, was eventually announced to be coming out in America as an HD remaster for the current console lineup. Probably it's biggest selling point: the fact that it would contain a playable demo of FFXV.

Up until the demo's announcement, I'd been pretty impressed with what I'd seen so far of XV's development. The graphics looked amazing, and the modern setting looked interesting. So even if XV changed the FF formula in terms of gameplay even more than XIII had, at least it would look good, though my faith in the series to bring anything worthwhile to the table again had long gone out the window.

One of the things that really interested me about what I'd been seeing in videos was the "open world-ness" of it. I'm a huge fan of open-world games and the immersion they provide. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, GTA - all these games pretty much throw you into a world and say, "Go." I love that kind of freedom while playing a game, as it feels very much like "escaping reality." That, and I just love to explore virtual worlds. I doubt I'll being going to Skyrim, or living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland anytime soon in real life (at least, I hope not).

FF games - with the exceptions of XII and XIII - had previously been broken up into gameplay types: towns/castles/dungeons, the overworld map, and battle scenes. In a sense, there were some open-world elements with the overworld, as you could pretty much go wherever and whenever you wanted, but the transition between the three types listed above wasn't seamless. And of course, that's mainly due to technological limitations at the time.

FFXII and XIII tried to introduce a feeling of being in the game's world, but the seams were still very apparent. XII had "zones," or very small areas that were put together more like an MMORPG than anything else; and XIII was the most linear, straight-forward FF game to date, ditching any kind of overworld altogether. Seriously, all that game is is "walk forward, fight, walk forward, fight. Cutscene. Walk forward, fight, keep repeating." There was no real exploration to speak of until the game was almost over.

When I was a kid playing FFIV (or II, as it was known at the time), my imagination was a lot bigger than the game itself. I saw past the graphical limitations and made up everything else in my head. For example, when I would guide the giant, overworld version of Cecil (who represented his entire party on the map) into a forest, I would imagine he and his party members actually traversing through trees and underbrush while getting ambushed by monsters, represented whenever I'd be thrust into the random battle scenes. I know this may seem silly, but this dependency on the player's imagination is what I really believe Hironobu Sakaguchi had in mind when he created the series. Just like Miyamoto did when he created the original Legend of Zelda (which is also going the open-world route with its next installment. Whoo hoo!).

Todays graphics capabilities take out some of that need for imagination. I'm not saying that having an imagination is a bad thing (in fact, I very strongly encourage it); all I'm saying is that developers don't really have to assume the player is going to imagine something, when they can easily just go ahead and show it to them.
A good example of this is the resting system that was in place in earlier FF games. In those games, to replenish the party's HP and remove any status effects that they might have, you had the option of using a tent. When you selected the item from your inventory list while on the overworld map, the edges of the screen would go dark, the tent would be illuminated by an unseen spotlight, the "we're going to sleep" jingle would play, the view would return to the overworld map and you'd be back in control of your party with fully replenished health. The underlying image that this all conjures, however, is that of the party members building a tent in the wilds, maybe sitting around for a bit and reflecting on their most recent adventures, and going to sleep to get ready for more traveling the next day.

So I've gone on and on about old FF games and ranted about imagination, but what does this have to do with the Episode Duscae demo? My example of the resting system and guiding Cecil through a forest from earlier games pretty much sums up my feeling on FFXV so far...

...they finally got it right.

FFXV feels like no other game in the series. That includes the older titles, as well as the more futuristic-set games like VII, VIII, X, and XIII. While there are some futuristic elements seen in the demo (as well as various gameplay trailers), the main aesthetic is more "grounded in reality." I hate when people use that terminology, but in this case, it really works in a good way.

The demo starts out when the four main characters wake up... inside of a tent. Let me just stop for a minute and say that the simplistic idea of them waking up in a tent had my heart swelling up in the first 30 seconds of the demo. It may seem silly, but if you were paying attention to the earlier bit I mentioned about the old FF games, then it's like Square Enix read my brain when I was a kid and gave me exactly what I wanted to see! But wait! There's more!

So the characters wake up in a tent where they've setup camp out in the wild because their Mercedes-looking car had been previously totaled, and is now in the care of a mechanic. The mechanic has placed a pretty high price to have the car fixed, but lucky for our characters, a Behemoth has been spotted in the area, and the bounty for taking it down will more than pay for the repairs. Our characters have been hunting the Behemoth and searching the wilderness for clues to lead them to its location, and have taken a break to recharge.

Yeah, by this point, I'm pretty ecstatic about the way the game's going - just off something as simple as the characters taking a rest and the game's emphasis on exploration right off the bat. But even now, I'm thinking that maybe this is just a cutscene thing. No big deal. Neat that they put that in, but it's a one-off.

After the party exchanges some dialogue, we're put in control of the game's main character, Noctis, and given a tutorial on how to play the game, as well as on how the combat system works. I'll just go ahead and say that if anything in the demo needs some work, it's the combat system. I won't go into big details about how it operates; I'll just say that the responsiveness of it is a bit clunky. Luckily, the demo's gameplay mechanics are supposedly based off of an obsolete build of the full game. And since, according to the game's director, the full version is only 60% done, that should be taken into account when considering the unpolished combat system.

That being said, the combat is interesting. While very different than the turn-based systems of yore, it shows a lot of promise and can get pretty intense! Another interesting thing to note is that you only control one character, as opposed to all four. In the final game, you will supposedly be able to control the other party members with a gambit-style system - akin to FFXII - that allows you to assign behaviors to the other three characters. In the demo, the other characters fight alongside Noctis pretty well, though I wish they were a bit better at healing him when he needs it, rather than continuing to fight relentlessly while I get my butt handed to me.

As the characters begin their hunt for the Behemoth and begin exploring the region, night eventually begins to set in. That's right - there are day-to-night transitions! Like Capcom's game, Dragon's Dogma, you don't want to be caught running around in the wilderness after dark. If you are, you'll be swarmed with more powerful monsters who are drawn to the light of your flashlight, sometimes resulting in 15-20 minute-long battles. That's where the resting system comes into play.

So it turns out that the characters waking up in a tent at the beginning of the demo wasn't just a one-off. In fact, it's a pretty essential part of the gameplay. Like the tents in previous FF games, finding a suitable camping location and resting for the night not only restores your HP and heals you up, but it protects you from some of the dangers that night brings. Not only that, but it's also the way your characters increase their levels.
During each period of rest, the scene switches to a campfire where the characters prepare a meal from ingredients found throughout the region, and that monsters drop after they're defeated. These meals serve as buffs to your characters' stats during combat afterwards. When the rest period is completed, the experience points earned from fighting for the day are totaled and added, and your characters get stronger from the levels they gain. Pretty neat way of going about it, if you ask me!

Outside of normal gameplay, the area that Square Enix made available in the demo is pretty darn huge! Taking into account the fact that you're ambushed by enemies quite regularly, it took me around 30-45 minutes to walk just the area's perimeter! Square put up some invisible walls that keep you from venturing outside the demo's boundaries, but from what I hear, the game is completely open-world, offering much more than what you're initially faced with.

Eventually, after the characters find the Behemoth's lair, you're treated to the first actual dungeon. This dungeon, however, is much more "practical" than in previous FF games. Really, it's just a cave. Now that may seem pretty bland, but I actually found it pretty cool that, given the "grounded in reality" feel, there weren't that many frills attached. It was more like what you would expect from a somewhat realistic take on a Final Fantasy staple.

From what we're allowed to see in the demo, I feel that Square might have finally hit the nail on the head. Sure, they've changed a lot of things, but I can't help but feel like this is the most "Final Fantasy" Final Fantasy game I've played since the old days. It's like they took all the old gameplay mechanics and modernized them to fit with current technological and gameplay standards. Doing this, Square Enix has finally created / are creating something that can definitely be called unique.

My overall feelings on FFXV at the moment are a bit hard to explain without sounding ridiculous, but I'll attempt to do so. Just try really hard to not say, "What the crap is he talking about?!" Just bare with me.

FFXV makes me feel like a kid again. I'm not saying that in the sense of "oh this Final Fantasy game is so great and reminds me of FFVI and how awesome that was when I was a kid;" it reminds me of what it was like to be a kid with a huge imagination. FFXV takes all the things that I thought nobody else thought of, and thrusts them in front of my eyeballs.
It also reminds me of what it was like to get together with some friends and pretend you were going on an adventure. You'd see the woods behind your house and say, "Hey! Let's go into that forest and search for treasure," or something to that effect. In reality, you were in the woods behind your house, but in your mind, you might have been fighting imaginary goblins, or dragons, or whatever.
I had no greater feeling like this than going into the cave in the Duscae demo. To be honest, I've never had a weird, nostalgic-like feeling like that in a video game. It was a truly unique experience that, to be honest, is quite difficult to put into words. Play it for yourself, and see if those same feelings come welling up like they did for me. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but when you play the demo and look past the fact that it's still an unfinished product, hopefully you'll see that there's at least something unique and special there. It's not just a good Final Fantasy experience, it's just a good experience overall.

Here's hoping that the full version of Final Fantasy XV expounds upon the potential found in Episode Duscae!

-Josh

No "Top 5Guest Post: Parker"s Top 9 of 2015

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Wed, 07 Jan 2015 20:44:00 +0000

Nic here. My cousin Parker has written a couple of guest articles on here before. As you may remember, he's a big film fan. (He and his father go to Sundance most years.) What you might not know is that film studies is his major in college.

And so, after the jump, I encourage you to read this guest article of his, where he briefly discusses his favorite nine (yes, nine, not ten, deal with it) films of 2014.

Take it away, Parker....

Top Nine Films of 2014

I think it should be said that this is my list. I know that not everyone may agree with me; this is just my personal favorites of the year. Also, yes, you read it right. There are only nine films, not ten, decided to be a little different.

First off, the top 3 for this year were all masterpieces, and it was really hard figuring out the order. If any of these films had been released a year ago, they would have all ended up as number one for my list of 2013. Alas, it was tough competition this year, which means it was also a great year for movies!

Number 1 – Boyhood

Someone once asked me, “ How many great movies have come out in the last decade or so? I mean truly great? A movie that you will tell your kids about?” Boyhood is one of those films. A movie I will in fact tell my kids about. Richard Linklater’s 12 year project is simply put: beautiful. Boyhood somehow captures the little moments of life, seamlessly flowing through the events of Mason’s childhood. Nothing incredible happens, no big events, nothing extraordinary, instead Boyhood focuses on the mundane, the seemingly ordinary, communicating to the viewer that life is truthfully just a compilation of these moments. And for an audience member that realization can either be completely awe inspiring or incredibly horrific. Mason’s mom toward the end of the film, as she’s sending her son away to college, breaks down in tears and says, “I just thought there would be more.” Perhaps that’s the lesson moviegoers should heed from Boyhood, there doesn’t need to be more. Life is filled with various nuances, little moments that come and go and appear insignificant, but later prove to have tremendous amounts of meaning. In the ordinary, we experience, passion, joy, disappointment, and looking back, it rushes us with nostalgia. While some will try to grasp for more, the truth is we don’t need more, because in the mundane, Boyhood proves we get to do something overwhelming beautiful; we get to live. My favorite scene from the film comes when Mason ask his father what the meaning of life is, his father responds, “I sure as shit don’t know. We’re all just winging it. The good news is you’re feeling stuff.” I’m not gonna lie, I got emotional towards the end of this film; it’s a movie that doesn’t just make you contemplate the ideas presented, but makes you reflect internally about yourself, about your own experiences, your own memories, and about your own life. It’s a reflection ultimately of gratitude. Boyhood may be Linklater’s crowning achievement, and it’s a film that will be revered, praised, and applauded for years and decades to come. A true masterpiece.

Number 2 – Whiplash

There is a fine line between ambition and obsession, between greatness and madness. Perhaps no other film has dealt with this idea as complexly as Damien Chazelle’s Whiplash. Chazelle poses several difficult questions and wisely avoids answering hardly any of them, allowing the film to remain morally grey. Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons deliver two of the best performances of the year. Teller plays a student drummer with lofty ambitions of greatness, and Simmons crushes the role of the ruthless instructor, who pushes his pupils far beyond their breaking points. Their shared ferocity, passion, and ultimately hatred for one another, fuses an intensity that practically burst off the screen, like a firecracker you never know when it’s going to go off. The characters have such depth, their motives so clear, and their drive so tangible, that when those goals begin to come under attack, the film actually transforms into the best psychological thriller of the year, demonstrating that character tension and dynamics are far more gripping than shoot outs and car chases. Cinematically, Whiplash is almost flawless, yet the most notable aspect is the editing, which often uses the beats in the jazz music as cues when to cut. During faster songs it can actually become quite jarring, but it renders its desired effect, adding another layer of intensity to a scene full of suspense. Whiplash can viewed with two entirely different perspectives. Some will say the film asks, “Is greatness worth it? Is it worth going through psychological torture? And especially, is it worth alienating those that truly care about you?” Others will see a slight variation in those questions, “What is the sacrifice of greatness? How far must one test themselves before they can become truly great? And is there no option but to disconnect from those who are holding you back?” The last ten minutes of the film will determine what you take away from Whiplash, and if you think about it, that ultimately reveals a lot more about you than it actually does about the film itself.

Number 3 - Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance

Does Birdman count as the best superhero film of the year? I don’t know, but it’s certainly a funny thought. Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu has crafted one of the most memorable and unique film experiences of the decade, and credit everyone involved in taking a risk on such an ambitious project. Birdman is shot to look like one long continuous take, and it’s a phenomenal technical achievement. It’s just really fantastic to witness a director take chances and get creative behind the camera. However, the tracking shot style of filmmaking serves a larger role than just for the film pseudo-intellectuals to salivate over; it actually enhances the experience, adding to the films chaotic quick pace. From the opening shot to the ending credits the movie never stops moving at an Olympic speed, the tracking camera adds to this element, hastily following characters as they run through the set. The dialogue is quick-witted and constantly progressing, like something out of a Sorkin screenplay, and the background jazz drumming only increases the tempo. All these elements create an adrenaline rush that last throughout the entire film and because of it, it’s impossible to be bored in Birdman. The performances are all top notch and some of that has to do with how incredibly layered each character is. These characters are given such great depth; it results in a film that covers a whole array of topics because every character is fleshed out so well, each with their own complex issues. Riggan (Michael Keaton) desires respect and admiration, to know his existence means something, and to ultimately know he matters. Sam (Emma Stone) deals with various drug problems and those problems stem from a feeling of neglect, from the fact that her father was never really there for her. Mike (Edward Norton) struggles with the issue of duality. He’s an actor, but he can never be himself unless he’s on stage. His true emotions do not exist in his real life. It’s an identity crisis. The film manages to impressively discuss all of these issues, but it doesn’t stop there. It critiques modern Hollywood, taking jabs at the blockbuster genre, and it raises questions about the job of critics, insinuating that it’s easier to write behind a pen and paper then to actually get up on stage and perform. Birdman is a multilayered film, filled with nuances in thematics and technique, there’s just no way one viewing will suffice. Seth Rogen said it best, “Just saw Birdman. S**t was dope.”

Number 4 – Wild

Personally, I’m a huge fan of these soul searching, finding yourself, adventure films and Wild is the best installment in the genre since Sean Pean’s Into The Wild. Director Jean- Marc Vallee has made an absolutely beautiful film, and Cinematographer Yves Belanger took full advantage of the breathtaking landscape, expertly framing each shot to encompass all the beauty presented. However, what this movie does so well is that it moves beyond aesthetic beauty; it’s just as thematically rich, dealing with heavy subjects, asking meaningful questions, and brilliantly using flashbacks to add depth and layers to the main characters overall arc. Wild deals with the idea of redemption, rebirth, and cleansing oneself from past demons. It’s a journey both literal and figurative, of the body and soul. Reese Witherspoon has never been better as Cheryl Strayed, a women who’s broken from what life’s thrown at her and what she’s thrown at herself. Witherspoon delivers the performance with such honesty, being strong yet vulnerable, conveying a whole array of emotions with little dialogue to no dialogue. Her performance really becomes quite moving. The editing is also flawless using the right cues through the hike to reference past emotional tragedy, allowing for a better understanding of Strayed’s need for redemption. Wild is ultimately about choices. How we choose to handle adversity, hardships, and the general struggles of life. What’s going to be our perspective when we’re going through tribulation? And what’s our attitude when life doesn’t go our way? We always have a choice. “There is a sunrise and a sunset every day and you can choose to be there for it. You can put yourself in the way of beauty.”

Number 5 – Guardians of the Galaxy

Sure, the villain is undeveloped, the first half of the plot is somewhat messy and sloppy, and the third act is nothing new from a Marvel movie. But you know what? I DON’T CARE!! You wanna know why? Because Guardians of the Galaxy is the most entertaining movie of the year, and it delivers on its promises, giving the audience an intergalactic space adventure that relishes in its eccentricity, rather than neglects it. James Gunn is the real star of the film, directing the picture with style and flare, embracing the uniqueness of the material, instead of shying away for a safer film. The opening credits, showing StarLord dance around to the beat of “Come and get your love,” sends a message that paves a way for the rest of the movie. That message is that Guardians of the Galaxy is going to be exactly what it is; a silly space film saga with whacky, off the wall humor, inspired 70’s pop music, and a gang of unwanted misfits that are just as oddball as the material itself. Essentially, it’s refreshing. It’s refreshing to see a summer blockbuster break away from the mold and distinguish itself through characters and style rather than heightened special effects. The cast and crew clearly had a good time while making this production and their enjoyment is infectious, jumping off the screen and into the audience. Basically, it’s almost impossible not to have fun while watching Guardians of the Galaxy. So sit down, grab a coke and popcorn, and prepare for one wild ride.

Number 6 – Cooties

The opening scene completely sets the tone for Cooties, showing the process of how a chicken becomes a chicken nugget. Suffice to say, it’s as gross as any scene in the entire film and at the same time, equally as clever and hilarious. This infected chicken nugget goes on to become the catalyst for the disease that spreads rampant among elementary school children, turning them into crazed, blood thirsty zombies. The result is a horror/comedy that’s able to perfectly balance the two styles without compromising it’s tone and legitimacy. The film is exceptionally funny, as it makes the wise decision in fleshing out its characters, giving them each their own unique quirks and personalities, and making us as the audience invested in their stories. Directors Jonathan Milot and Cary Murnion have fun with elementary zombie storyline, inventively clashing the two for some laughs(let’s just say they don’t use a tetherball on the playground). Cooties has all the elements of a horror/comedy classic. The humor at the beginning of the film certainly delivers, but when the horror arrives, it never feels out of place or parodistic and yet, it never overshadows the comedy. Cooties could easily began to fall during the second act of the movie, but instead it hits full stride, never losing site of its own identity. In all honesty, Cooties may have been the most fun I’ve had at the movies all year and at the end of the day, you can’t ask for more than that.

Number 7 – Rudderless

William H Macy’s directorial debut is nothing short of spectacular. Rudderless is a emotionally powerful film, dealing with ideas such as, guilt, loss, and ultimately forgiveness. Billy Crudup excels as Sam, a mourning father who has to find acceptance in the death of his son Josh. This is where Rudderless really begins to shine, as Sam discovers comfort through his son’s old music. The score is easily the best aspect of the film, offering up songs that are both poignant and reflective then up-beat and inspiring. However, the music serves a larger purpose than just making you tap your feet; it’s used as a gateway for Sam to re-understand his son. Through this Rudderless discusses several ideas about art and it’s relation to the artist. In art can we discover more about an individual than we previously knew? Can it reveal the complexity of their emotions and thoughts? Essentially, can it show who they truly are? There’s a wonderful scene where Sam gives the box of his son’s music to his ex-wife. Sam says, “Give the music to his brother. That way he’ll know who Josh really was, instead of just what he’ll read in the paper.” The lines in the closing song of the film perfectly demonstrate what Rudderless is really all about, “What is lost can be replaced. What is gone is not forgotten.”

Number 8 – Nightcrawler

Corrupt. Vile. Morally dissolute. Nightcrawler is a chaotic, twisted but compelling film, that reflects on the darker truths in our society. In particular, the film examines the media and the tainted American dream. The main character, Louis (Jake Gyllenhaal), works as an independent cameraman for news stations. His job is to collect the most violent, disturbing, and horrific footage, putting on display the absolute worst of humanity. Certainly there is a connection to our current news channels, which constantly seem to be filled with negative after negative story; however, Nightcrawler draws more attention to the how impersonal stations treat victims, looking more at the dollar signs than the actual tragedy. One scene is quite powerful, Louis’s partner asks Louis not to film a certain individual because they knew him, Louis retorts, “No, he is a story now.” The American dream is shown in its ugliest and darkest form, highlighting how truly self-serving it is. The film does a great job of demonstrating how nasty the business world can be and how one may have to sacrifice morality for prestige. Louis begins by simply filming crimes, then he repositions victims for better camera angles, and eventually he starts committing crimes himself, all for the sake of his business. However, even through all of this, you still root for Louis to achieve his ambition. That’s an impressive feat for any film to achieve, making an antagonist main character that still manages to receive the audience’s support. Jake Gyllenhaal gives not only the best performance of the year, but also the best performance of his entire career. He gets lost in this character, perfecting all the details, like the smallest of mannerism, tone of voice, and the general eye movement. Louis is sly, ruthless, and cold, and Gyllenhaal portrays all of this often in one simple gaze. Nightcrawler is ultimately like its main character, dark, manipulative, and devilishly twisted, but also so utterly fascinating; you simply can’t turn away.

Number 9 – Edge of Tomorrow

After an awful ad campaign, which featured a rather inconsistent Tom Cruise, a terrible tag line, and a trailer that was utterly boring and forgettable, no one believed in Edge of Tomorrow. However, Edge of Tomorrow was the surprise hit of the summer, cleverly constructing a plot-line that’s the sci-fi equivalent to Groundhog Day. The film is funny, well paced, and brilliantly edited. Seeing Cruise relive the same day over and over again, in an attempt to stop the alien invasion, could have easily been one of the most dull moviegoing experiences of the summer. After all, it’s hard enough to make a scene interesting the first time, let alone making the same scene watchable on the sixth or seventh viewing. This is where the editing comes in beautifully, never showing the audience more than they need to see, briskly moving from scene to scene. Edge of Tomorrow does a wonderful job of creating humor in the midst of Cruise’s situation, keeping the tone light-hearted and getting laughs out of Cruise’s many failed attempts; it actually becomes really inventive at times. Emily Blunt and Tom Cruise also do a great job at anchoring the film, delivering a real emotional arc between the two characters, giving the film a personal touch that is often missing in big summer Hollywood movies. Edge of Tomorrow maybe the smartest blockbuster of the year, and it’s living proof that Tom Cruise has a little gas left in the tank.

No "Top 5Guest Post: Parker"'s Top 9 of 2015

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Sat, 27 Dec 2014 06:44:00 +0000

So last year I wrote an article in which I listed my top 5 games of 2013. Unfortunately, mind-blowing games for me this year were kind of lacking. Sure, there were good games, but nothing that took my world by storm. If one were to ask me what my favorite games are right now, I’d probably say Dragon Age: Inquisition and Super Mario 3D World, but that would be biased towards what I’m actually in the middle of playing at the moment.

So what to do, then? Why not talk about what I’m currently bouncing back and forth between? As of right now, I’m probably actively playing more games at once than I ever have in my entire life.

Find out what I’m playing after the jump!

Bouncing back and forth between games is something that I don’t necessarily recommend. Lots of times, doing so will make you not really appreciate something to its fullest - something I’m hoping doesn’t happen to me. Luckily, a few of the games I’m bouncing between are ones I’ve played a gazillion times before.

With the recent addition of the iPad Air to my tech collection, I’ve gained yet another platform with which to play games. It just so happens that nearly every old-school Final Fantasy title in existence is available for Apple and Android devices, so I’ve been playing some of those. In my rotating queue are Final Fantasy IV: The After Years (a 3D remake of the 2D original), Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy VI, and the new(er) Final Fantasy Dimensions. Truthfully, I’ve spent most of my handheld/mobile time playing Final Fantasy VI, but how could I not? Like Chrono Trigger, it’s one of those classic RPGs that, once you start playing, you just can’t put it down!

Another mobile time killer that I’ve been really digging on is Angry Birds: Transformers. I’m a huge Transformers fan, and I really like Angry Birds, so the combination of the two franchises really appeals to me. The gameplay for AB:TF is quite a bit different from the traditional AB games, but it’s an absolute blast. I just really wish the game didn’t try to goad you into buying crystals (with real-world money) to keep you constantly playing. Instead, you’re forced into long periods of upgrading your Transformers that keeps you from playing the game for long stretches if you don’t want to let go of your money. Personally, when it comes to a game like that, micro-transactions are right out, so I have to sit and wait a lot with that game… But I usually just switch to FFVI instead!

On the PC front, you’d think I’d be playing a lot of games on my Mac, right? In case you didn’t read my last “Lack of Apple Hate” article, you should know that that isn’t happening at all. I found out very quickly how much the MacBook Pro is NOT good for gaming. That being said, I’ve still got my ASUS laptop, and I’ve been enjoying several recent purchases on it. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, The Sims 4, Final Fantasy XIII (again), and Final Fantasy XIII-2 are all finding their respective ways in and out of my eyeballs. A recent time card for Final Fantasy XIV will probably have me returning to that game soon, as well.

As I mentioned above, I’ve been playing Dragon Age and Mario 3D World on the consoles. I got them both for Christmas (along with the PS4 version of GTAV), and both are great games. Dragon Age is a little overwhelming in terms of content, and 3D World is shaping up to be - in my opinion - one of the best 3D Mario games yet.

There are also a few games I need to get back to on consoles. Games such as Alien: Isolation (though I still don’t know if I’ll actually go back to that one or not), Shadow of Mordor, Assassin’s Creed: Unity, etc. There is also one game on the 3DS that I really want to get back to: Bravely Default. It’s pure, old-school RPG goodness!

I’m really looking forward to doing reviews on all of these games in the future, but as you know, I like to finish the games before I do. I’m thinking, however, that I might have to change that rule a little bit going forward. As rapidly as my game collection increases, I’ll never be able to finish games in a timely manner for review purposes. So what I’m planning on doing is writing more “Thoughts” articles. With that format, I can at least let everybody know what I’m thinking about a particular game at the moment, and if I have time for a full review later on, I’ll put that out there.

So 2014 may not have blown me away with its release lineup (yet), but I’m playing more games at once than I ever have. 2015, on the other hand, will see some releases that I’m hugely excited for: The Witcher 3, Mortal Kombat X, Final Fantasy XV (maybe… probably not. I’ll believe it when I see it), and more! So there are at least three candidates for my top 5 next year!

Here’s to hoping that everyone had a great Christmas! We’ll see you in 2015!

-Josh

By the way, if I were really forced to pick a Game of the Year for 2014 right now, I’d probably pick The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. So there ya go.

A Newbie's Journey Into Mac vs. PC

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 22:55:00 +0000

So now that I've been able to play around with the new MacBook Pro for a little while, what are my current thoughts? Have I changed my mind (yet again) and decided to go all Mac? Find out after the jump!

Before I begin, I need to say that I've only had my MacBook now for about five days. During that time, I've - for the most part - used it as my main computer. I've downloaded some stuff and watched videos on YouTube before bed using the ASUS Windows-based gaming laptop, but everything else in those five days (writing, web browsing, even a teeny bit of gaming) has been done on the Mac.

The war between Mac and PC has been going on for quite a long time. Thus, most of us computer nerds become very attached to the operating system we use - classic fanboyism (of which I have been guilty of just like everybody else). But is there any truth behind the claims of either side? In my five days with a Mac, I've seen that some of the points of argument do, in fact, have some validity. Below are a few things I've noticed, but keep in mind: I'm a 25-year Windows user who has only used a Mac for five days. I'm not entirely unaware of the fact that there are probably things about the OS that I'm missing, or simply don't understand yet. This is just me jumping straight into Mac OS X with a Windows mindset.

The UI

The GUI (Graphical User Interface) in Mac OS X - I'm using the newest version, "Yosemite" - is much prettier than Windows has ever been - especially when you consider how horrible Windows 8 looks. But not only is it prettier, it's actually a little bit easier to get around in. The dock at the bottom shows you your most recent or favorite programs (referred to as 'Apps' in the Mac world), while the top of the screen is a menu bar which acts as a set of controls for whatever program you're currently running or have active. Pretty simple. That's not to say that Windows is complicated; it's actually pretty simple itself, as long as you stay on the desktop screen.

While working within the Windows system settings, things start to get a lot more complicated for most users. Mac OS X is much better in this regard. Instead of throwing a whole bunch of stuff at you when you enter something like Control Panel on Windows, OS X simply has System Preferences. Opening this up simply shows you an orderly list of icons that will let you change whatever you want about your computer's settings. There are dedicated sections for your desktop, devices, application behavior, networks, etc. Control Panel has this too, but Mac OS X's version of it just seems a lot simpler to navigate and find exactly what you're looking for (OS X's Spotlight Search helps with this, as well). On a Windows PC, it's easy to get lost in Control Panel if you don't know what you're doing.

File Managing

Being able to place your files in different locations of your computer's hard drive is an essential piece of knowledge if you do any kind of work on a PC or (now, in my case) Mac. Windows, in my opinion, wins in this department. Mac OS X's Finder is not really as intuitive for me as Windows Explorer. To me, Finder feels kind of primitive and more like what I remember of Windows 3.1 and 3.11. That's not necessarily a bad thing (especially if you've had experience running older operating systems), but when you get used to the simplicity of working within a file structure the way that Windows offers, using Finder feels like you're taking a trip back to olden times.

As an example of the "less intuitive-ness": Finder, upon first opening it up, doesn't actually show you your hard drives. Isn't that kind of essential to be able to manage your files? Instead, it shows you a simple directory structure of Applications, Documents, Pictures, iCloud Drive, Music, etc. A similar structure is present in Windows Explorer, but in it, I can also see my hard drive(s) and manipulate them as I see fit. With Finder, being able to see the hard drive and monkey around with the actual file structure is something one has to enable. Again, not a terrible thing (nor is it hard to find), as there are a good bit of users who will simply use the standard structure within Finder to move their files around. Me, I like to put files where I want them at all times. But at least the option exists. Once Finder is configured properly, file management becomes a lot easier to mess with. Windows Explorer, however, works the way I need it to right out of the box.

Also, don't try to merge a folder by clicking and dragging in Finder! For some reason, this will wipe out the contents of the folder you're moving into. I have no idea why this is the case. If you want to move a folder into another folder, you have to do a 'copy/paste.' I found this out the hard way.

Applications

One of the biggest issues I used to have with the Mac is program availability. Basically, things were available for Windows computers that weren't available for Apple machines, and vice-versa. The gap has narrowed considerably over the years, but there are still more programs available for PC. However, my experience with applications has been good so far. Everything I have needed has been available. There's even one program I've been using and love on the MacBook, as well as the iPad, that is only available for Apple hardware: a film script and novel manuscript program called Storyist. It's a powerful and great little program, but there are definitely alternatives on PC such as Final Draft (also available on Mac, but much more expensive).

Installation of Applications

This is one area where Mac OS X kicks Windows in the gut, watches it writhe on the ground, and starts kicking it some more. In other words, the process of installing programs is lightyears ahead of Microsoft's OS, particularly in Yosemite. A lot of it apparently has to do with the fact that Windows uses a DLL structure underneath the hood, whereas Mac OS X doesn't, or so I've read.

Want to install a program? Download it, open up the file, drag the program into the Applications folder, and viola! You're done!

Seriously... that's it. No install wizard or nuthin'.

Gaming

I'm a pretty serious gamer, but is the Mac as good as Windows for gaming? In my case, no. I have the Iris graphics chipset, which isn't strong enough to handle modern games that well. There is a version of the MacBook Pro that comes equipped with an Nvidia graphics card, but that one was way out of my price range (it's an extra $600 for that option) and didn't align with my intentions for the laptop.

Like with everyday applications, there's also a point of availability - or lack thereof - when it comes to games. For example, I loaded Steam onto the MacBook to see what stuff I had that was compatible. Out of my 157 Steam games, only 40 were built to also run on Mac OS X. In my opinion, that's a pretty dismal number at 117 games that aren't playable on Mac. And we're not talking indie games, here; we're talking 117 "triple-A" titles. So even if one can afford the higher-end Mac with the Nvidia card, they'll quickly find that their options are severely limited. With that one, Microsoft shakes off the application installation beatdown it took from Apple and delivers an equally brutal beating. But again, this only applies if you're a gamer. If not, an Apple machine could very well be the way to go.

Just as a side-note, I chose to test the MacBook's gaming capability on an older game, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. For those of you who remember, this was a game that was also available on the original Xbox (which is the version I originally had) back in the day, so it's got some years to it. On the MacBook, it runs great... until it starts to burn your legs off! I've heard that the MacBook Pro has a high heat threshold, but I was still uncomfortable with it getting that hot; I can only imagine how hot it would get if I tried playing a modern game.

I was also testing what the battery would do when playing a game unplugged from a wall outlet. I was not impressed with the results. I played KotOR for a total of thirty-six minutes (according to Steam), and the battery had gone from 86% to 52%. That's 34% in thirty-six minutes. My iPad Air does much better than that with games that are much more graphically intensive. So games are a no-go while on the battery.

Battery Life - Everyday Use

According to Apple, the MacBook Pro will usually get around nine hours on the battery during normal operations. This is fairly accurate, and really good since I bought the laptop for writing and such - not very intensive applications. Personally I was able to get more like eight and a half, but that's still pretty good. It's much better than what my ASUS gets; normal operation outside of gaming will only get me about four hours out of that laptop (so technically, it's a no-go while on the battery when it comes to gaming, as well).

Final Thoughts

Could I survive on a Mac? Sure, although I think I might become frustrated in some areas fairly quickly.

My overall opinion is this: Both are good for what they are. Windows can get relatively complicated in some areas - even with the "dumbing down" of Windows 8 - but the Mac simply won't do as much in the long run. Are you a hardcore gamer? Don't buy a Mac for that reason. If you're someone that focuses on productivity, getting an Apple machine is the furthest thing from a terrible idea.

For someone like me who has been a Windows user all his life, I like more about the operating system than I don't like, and it's fairly intuitive. Also, you can't beat the connectivity between all your Apple devices; that's a big plus.

That being said, the PC is still my preferred platform, and I think for anyone wanting to get the absolute most out of a computer, that's the way to go. However, I believe that it would do folks a lot of good to actually learn about the inner workings of both types of machines. "Knowledge is power," and all that.

-Josh

Josh's Random Episode VII Trailer Speculation

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 21:36:00 +0000

We should have all seen the Episode VII trailer by now, right? You haven't? Well hurry up and get to it! I'll wait...

You're back? Good.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I thought I'd share with you guys some of my personal, and very random, thoughts about the trailer for a movie we have to wait an entire year to see. Read more after the jump!

The meat of what I want to talk about is actually the second to last scene, so I'll break the trailer down scene-by-scene with my thoughts for each.

The Desert

The first thing we see after a fade-in to a bunch of sand is new cast member, John Boyega. Here, he's dressed in stormtrooper armor and looks sweaty and freaked out. Based on some of the other imagery in the trailer, I think it's safe to assume he's being chased. The only real complaint I've got here is that it's an odd, J.J.-like shot, and doesn't really feel like something that belongs in a Star Wars movie. Not bad, just odd and different.

Stormtroopers

This is where I start being like, "Wait... what?" I know that we heard previously that there would be stormtroopers in the film, but even then it seemed odd from a story perspective. What I want to know is: how is it that the Empire is still around 30 years after Return of the Jedi? Maybe it's an Outer-rim faction that still exists or something? I'm sure there's a good explanation, it's just something that I really don't understand yet. I figured the rebellion - now armed with the morale boost from destroying the Death Star II - would have snuffed the rest of them out and started up a New Republic. That's something the Expanded Universe dealt with and, even though I think 98% of the EU is junk, it seemed like the natural progression from RotJ.
As far as the shot itself, I'm not really a fan of the lighting inside the drop ship/shuttle/whatever it is. That's super nitpicky, though.

Daisy Ridley on a Swoop Bike

Not a whole lot to say here except for... POD RACERS IN THE BACKGROUND!! Nice callback to the prequels there. IGN, in their Rewind Theater video, claimed to see what looked like a lightsaber hilt attached to her bike. Looks like it to me, too. Interesting. This and the last scene are the most Star Wars-like in the entire trailer.

X-Wings

Like with the stormtrooper clip, I was also confused with this one. So the Rebel Alliance is also still around? They could just be New Republic X-Wings, but there's no way to tell for sure.

Darkside-guy

We'll go back to this one in a minute.

The Falcon... with TIE Fighters!

This is the part of the trailer that made my heart swell up and almost get a little misty-eyed. Seeing the Millennium Falcon dog-fighting TIEs in the desert (I'd be surprised if it weren't Tattooine), set to the Star Wars main theme, pretty much sealed the deal for me. I'm pretty sure that was the purpose of putting this shot in the trailer, and it did its job well.

TIE Fighters, though? That goes back to my "does the Empire still exist" question.

Back to the Dark Side-guy

Like I said, this is the meat of the article - the part that will probably go on for many words. Also, beware of its disjointed nature. I'm going to be speculating as I write.

Get ready.

Here it comes...

WHO IS THIS GUY?!

A friend of mine, in response to a link I posted on Facebook of the trailer, said that he would be disappointed if this was a Sith character, as they were supposedly snuffed out in RotJ. That was what the prophecy was all about, right? Obi-Wan did say to an on-fire Anakin, "You were supposed to destroy the Sith, not join them.” Keyword: destroy.

Personally, I agree with my friend: I'll be disappointed if this guy is a Sith. If he is, that makes the first six movies pretty pointless in terms of an overarching story. But what if he's not a Sith at all? Through the Clone Wars TV show, we've seen that users of the Dark Side of the Force don't necessarily have to be Sith. Characters like Asajj Ventress and the Night Sisters are proof of this. Most recently, in Rebels, we've seen another Dark Side user in The Inquisitor.

So if that's the case, what does it mean to be a Sith? I think the problem lies in the fact that we don't really know a whole lot about them from the films and the two TV series. We've only seen a total of five Sith - Darths Maul, Tyranus, Vader, Bane (in ghost form), and Sidious. We know the existence of at least one more, Darth Plagueis, so that's six Sith (try to say that five times fast!) we know of that exist in the official cannon.

However, we've only seen one character actually become a Sith: Darth Vader. For his "knighting," Anakin Skywalker was made to say that he gave himself to Palpatine and had to listen to the Emperor's creepy, demonic voice as he was given the Vader moniker. This is all we know of the process.

As for other facts related to the Sith, we know that 1) they hailed from a planet called Morriban (The Clone Wars) and 2) there can only be two at a time (Episode I). That's it. Two things.

So if Anakin destroyed the Sith, brought balance to the force, and brought peace to the galaxy, who the crap is the guy in the trailer with the broadsword-ish, red lightsaber?

We also know from the Rebels TV show that kids are still being born with Force sensitivity, and that the Order 66 Jedi Purge couldn't stop that. Maybe the new guy was one of those kids. There's only one problem with that, though: who taught him to use the Dark Side? With the Jedi, there was a whole culture and religion based around the Light Side. Knights would take apprentices who would eventually become Jedi Knights themselves to teach more apprentices, and the cycle would continue, all culminating with Knights becoming Masters. On the Dark Side of things, a master would take an apprentice, that apprentice would kill the master (becoming, himself, the master) and would take his/her own apprentice. Characters who were Dark Side users had (as far as we know, based on established cannon) been taught to use the Dark Side by one of the two Sith at the time. What I'm getting at here is that there seems to always have to be someone who can teach a Force-sensitive how to use the Force, whether it's for good or bad. It is assumed that anyone who - post-RotJ - was going to learn the Force in any kind of way, would have to learn it from Luke and anyone he taught. The Dark Side would no longer have anyone to teach its ways.

Unless...

What if the Dark Side-guy was a former student of Luke's during the thirty years between Episodes VI and VII? To me, this is the only thing that really makes any sense whatsoever. At this point, it would seem that the only logical thing would be to have someone who knows how to use the Force simply "turn evil," as there's only one guy out there to teach it, and he's a Light Side user.

So again, who is this guy in the trailer? I have no idea, but I hope that whoever he is, the reason for his existence absolutely blows my mind. I want to have one of those "ooooooohhhhhhh, ok!!!" kind of moments when I find out during the new trilogy. I definitely don't want to have a "well that's lame" moment.

In conclusion, I like the trailer. I'm still not blown away, nor am I as excited as I should be that there is a brand new Star Wars movie coming out next year, but I'm reasonably excited. Hopefully, as new plot information is revealed, I'll start getting more excited. As of right now, I'm (as well as the rest of the internet) speculating on roughly two minutes of cut-together footage where there's not a whole lot to go on. None of us knows anything yet, other than the basic look of the film. As for that, I'm ok with it. There are some odd camera moves and lighting for a Star Wars film in some shots of the trailer, but I enjoyed it overall. Plus, the mystery of what all this stuff is makes the time leading up to the film that much more enjoyable, though quite scary at the same timea. We'll see how the finished product is in December!

-Josh

Josh Did What?! Pt. 2

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Sat, 06 Dec 2014 20:58:00 +0000

Just a quick update on the lack of Apple hate. Read more after the jump!

First of all, I just want to say that I absolutely love my iPad Air; it seems as though I can’t go anywhere without it. As I got into it and fiddled around, the idea of the Apple ecosystem really started to interest me. Sure, there are connectivity programs like DropBox (which I started using in conjunction with my iPad), but even that requires that I write a document, drag the file over to my DropBox folder, and then open the file. From what I had read, that wasn’t the case within the Apple world - at least, not most of the time. There, one lived in a magical world of wizardry where documents synced with an iCloud drive (also known by its true name: The Freaking Internet!) and would “just be present” within a program. These rumors of wizardry proved to be true.

As I write this document in Pages, I’m not doing so on my iPad Air; I’m doing it on my new, 2014 MacBook Pro with Retina. That’s right, folks: the guy who downed apple for over twenty years went out and bought himself a Mac, and he now owns a total of four Apple products (with a fifth [iPhone 6] on the way in March).

Why did I buy a MacBook? Mainly to have the experience of learning an entirely different way of computing. I had actually used a Mac a little over a year ago in college, but that was only because we had in-class assignments for English class, and the only computers in the classroom were iMacs. At the time, I really didn’t think too much about it; Macs were the “enemy,” but I had to do the work, but we were using the Mac OS version of Microsoft Office. So once I actually got the program open, everything was familiar to me. I did my work; I moved on.

Portability was another reason for picking up a MacBook. My Windows 8.1-equipped ASUS gaming laptop is an absolute beast in terms of power, but equally as much in heftiness. It feels like I’m carrying around fifteen pounds whenever it’s in my bag. The MacBook Pro, however, is extremely light - not quite as light as a MacBook Air, but ten times lighter than the ASUS. That’s partially due to the fact that I bought a 13” MacBook, as opposed to the much larger ASUS at 17”. I’m not downing the ASUS - it’s a great computer - but I don’t play games all the time. I wanted an alternative that I could write with (as well as other tasks) that wouldn’t be quite so heavy. However, I still have a laptop with Windows whenever I need it.

So what do I think of the laptop so far? I’m not really sure yet, since I just bought it. So far, I can really only say that it’s very different. Having an iPad smoothed the transition a little, but it’s still different enough that I have that “fish-out-of-water” feeling. At the same time, though, it’s pretty exciting! Like I said in my last article, I just love computers. Getting to play around with the second most used operating system in the world is - I’m sure - going to be a trip.

So what crazy or radical thing am I going to do next in the wonderful world of technology? Am I going to try straight-up Linux? Am I going to turn my gaming desktop into a Steam Machine and run Valve’s OS? What about switching exclusively to Mac? To answer all those questions, I can honestly give a definite answer: no.  1) I don’t really see the appeal in the Linux OS; 2) I also use my desktop for mixing music, so turning it into a 100% dedicated gaming computer is out of the question; 3) I don’t think I could ever go completely over to Mac; the facts there still haven’t changed. Not everything I use is readily available on the Mac, and I still like to upgrade the hardware in my PC. Changing out graphics cards and things like that are never going to be an option with Apple.

So there you have it - I drank the Kool-aid. I’m a part-time Mac user now. However, Windows will always be my preferred platform for a lot of tasks (namely gaming).

Of course, I also said I would never buy a computer with Mac OS. Yet here I am, a little over three weeks since the last time I made that statement (to Nic), typing an article on a MacBook Pro.

-Josh

Assassin's Creed: Unity - Initial Thoughts (PS4)

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 04:12:00 +0000

The day after the game's launch, I was finally able to boot up Assassin's Creed: Unity. I'll give a full review once I complete the game, but what do I think about it so far? Find out after the jump!

Last night, I played AC: Unity on PS4 for about 2 hours or so. To sum it up quickly, I'll just say that Ubisoft consistently screws up Assassin's Creed year after year. I don't know why; I just know that that seems to be the case. Since Assassin's Creed III, there seems to be at least one aspect of the game that gets pooped on with every subsequent release. This time, a couple of things got pooped on.

Graphics

Man, the graphics are gorgeous... when you're standing still. The frame rate is atrocious 85% of the time. I had heard that the game would run at 30fps, but consider yourself lucky if you get that. In other words, it's not "locked" at 30 fps, and often dips below that target number, meaning the game chugs a lot . I even encountered a bug that dipped the frame rate to what seemed like 2fps as I was climbing a steeple and trying to jump off to the side! This literally happened every time I held the R2 and X buttons while trying to move off the steeple. If I climbed either up or down, everything was fine.

About a month ago, Ubisoft released the system requirements for the PC version of the game. I rolled my eyes when I saw that the minimum requirements involved having an Nvidia GTX680 graphics card. That's the same one I have, and it's still considered high-end/top-of-the-line! That particular card is also 4-5x more powerful than the two consoles the game was designed for. There is no reason whatsoever that Ubisoft couldn't have optimized the game to have minimum requirements of low-end GPUs. Given these horrible frame rate issues,it seems that they didn't optimize the game for consoles, either.

Gameplay

Even more so than ACIII and ACIV: Black Flag, the parkour controls are terrible. Let me clarify by saying that it's not necessarily the controls, but the detection on climbable surfaces. The game tries to make the decision of what you want to climb on, pulling you like a magnet towards a surface if you're just a little too close to it. The first two games, as well as Brotherhood and Revelations, didn't have these problems. I don't understand why this aspect of the game gets progressively worse.

Another issue in gameplay is the combat. While I felt the timing for countering enemy attacks was buggy in ACIII, IV, and Liberation, that has been fixed in Unity. Timing works fine, but combat is extremely slow and sluggish. Rather than feeling like I'm controlling a nimble, well-trained assassin, I feel like I'm controlling a mentally-challenged tank.

Positives

A lot of the reviews out there have knocked pretty hard on the story. I think it's ok, even though it shares a lot of similarities with ACII's story. Even the main character, Arno, seems like a carbon copy of Ezio. However, the story is - so far - shaping up to be better than ACIV's, which I didn't care for much at all.
And again, the graphics are pretty when you're standing still.

Review

I don't want to throw out an all-encompassing opinion until after I finish the game, so I don't want to say something like, "This is the worst Assassin's Creed game ever!" I don't think that would be fair, since I've only played roughly two hours of the game. Maybe I just have to get used to the gameplay issues. Maybe Ubisoft will release a patch that will clear up the frame rate problems before I write my review. These are possibilities I'm going to keep open, and I'll provide you with a more in-depth (or at least, as "in-depth" as I usually am) look at the game in the coming weeks.

-Josh

Opinions Change

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 05:08:00 +0000

Since I was about 4 years old, I have worked with and owned computers. I've always been wowed by the nifty things these devices can do, the games they play, and - even at a young age - the potential they had to change your life. In other words, computers have always been important to me, and something I try not to take for granted.

Normally when I write these articles and reviews for The Inner Dorkdom, I do so using Microsoft Word 2010, then I import them into the ID blog. I know the program fairly well, have used it in its various incarnations since 1988 or so (even though I had no idea what I was typing back then), and I have a brand new copy of Office 2014 on my shelf that I've yet to use. For anyone who knows me, I've been a Microsoft Office (or equivalent) and Windows user for my entire life.

This article was not typed using Microsoft Word 2010; this article was not typed using a Windows application, and this article was not typed on my Kindle Fire HD.

This document was typed in Pages - the Apple iPad Air's primary word processor. Why is this a big deal for me? Find out after the jump!

While using an iPad may not seem like a big deal to most folks at this stage in the game, it's a pretty big deal to me. I've been a DOS and Windows user - pretty much - my entire life. From the PC side of things, I've always enjoyed the freedom that the platform offered in terms of upgradability. Plus, it's just the platform I've always used, so therefore it's the one I know how to use. Working on, repairing, and maintaining Windows PCs is also part of what I do for a living.

I've been an "Apple-hater" for just as long as I've been a Microsoft user. My first experiences with the company that Steve Jobs built were way back when I was in the first grade, using Apple IIs and Macintoshes to play educational games at school.

I was immediately unimpressed.

At home, I had a Tandy running DOS Shell, and I felt that it had far superior games. Sure, I had a few educational games, but I also had stuff like Megaman and other, what would now be considered, "core" games. To my young, pea-sized brain, the PC had cooler gaming options, and that was all I cared about at the time. I thought all Apple had were educational games.

This mentality continued well on into my adulthood as Apple resurged with the advent of the iPod. I didn't adopt the platform until the iPod Classic was available, but I did like the product. It was fast, could hold a lot of music, and it was ultimately easy to use - that is, until it died on me.

I had the iPod Classic for nearly two years when it decided to give up the techno-ghost. Needless to say, I was furious. I had my entire music collection on there! "Stupid Apple," I would proclaim. Shortly after, however, I bought an iPod Touch from a guy I knew who was selling one for a measly $20. Since the retail price was out of my range, I jumped on the deal. The Touch was a decent device, but it had very little storage space, and I constantly had to reset it to factory defaults in order to keep it running, losing all my data in the process. This could have been mainly because I bought it used, but I didn't care; it sealed the deal for my Apple-hatred.

When I finally decided to adopt the smartphone format, I naturally opted for the Android operating system. Since the iPod Touch was basically an iPhone without the phone functionality, I knew that I didn't want one of those. From the way I saw it, the Android OS would do everything the iPhone would do, but because of my aforementioned Apple-hatred, I deemed that it would "do it better." Though, I must say, the last two Android phones I've had have been privy to their fair share of problems.

In the tablet realm, the only device I've ever had is the Android-based Kindle Fire HD. It's a great tablet, and nothing will ever take the place of it as the thing that I read books on. But since I'm an amateur writer, I want to have something that is capable of that functionality. The Kindle just isn't great for that. But then again, it's not designed for it.

So that brings me to laptops. So far, I've owned three laptops over the last several years: an old Dell, an HP, and my current, an ASUS ROG gaming laptop. My problem, when it comes to writing, is that these laptops haven't been very portable. That's my fault, though; I tend to go with the largest screen I can get, since I want to be able to get the most out of a laptop possible. Unfortunately, this means that I have to deal with lugging around several pounds of computer everywhere I go. For writing on the go, I needed something smaller.

It just so happened that during my research for something smaller, I had watched the film "Jobs," starring Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs, one of the original co-founders of Apple. I really didn't know all that much about the guy, other than a very basic idea of who he was. As I watched the movie, I became fascinated by him. Sure, the guy had problems, but as far as being a visionary and seeing the way technology was going before it got there, he was unmatched. Plus, he was a darn good salesman.

The movie led to me watching some interviews of the man on YouTube; that led to purchasing his biography; and that led to watching some of his keynotes in which he debuted new Apple devices. Steve Jobs was trying to sell me products from beyond the grave.

I had previously been researching the Microsoft Surface Pro 3 to fill my portable word processing needs. It came with Microsoft Office, so that was a plus, and it ran an actual version of Windows, rather than the mobile RT version, meaning that anything one could install on a desktop could be installed on the Surface. However, the ridiculously high price, as well as having to spend an additional $100+ on the keyboard kept me at bay.

To hold me over until I could actually afford a Surface Pro 3, I decided to take ol' Uncle Steve's advice and look into the iPad. While I can't say that I was blown away by what I found on the device, it looked like a lot of the problems I used to have with the old iPod Touch version of iOS were gone and it was a bit more stable. I found that the iPad was fully capable of word processing and, as an added bonus, the iPad was - of course - much smaller and lighter than the Surface Pro. I decided to give Apple another shot and buy the iPad Air, along with a Bluetooth keyboard cover.

Sitting here typing in Pages with the keyboard works great. Again, I'm still not totally blown away, but it meets my needs when it comes to word processing on the go. Here's the kicker, though: it does interest me in other Apple products.

Based on my experiences with my last two Android phones, I was thinking about getting an iPhone in March when my provider's contract is up, anyway. Now I'm pretty much sold on the idea of giving Apple a shot on that front as well.

But there's actually one more thing...

About four years ago, I was working a dead-end job as a warehouse clerk. Not surprisingly, my knowledge of computers got around to those in the warehouse and office, and I was asked by a coworker if I would work on his laptop. He brought it in, plugged it up, and called me over to take a look at it. I really didn't pay any attention to the laptop's casing, and just sat down as he turned it on. When it booted up to the OS, I noticed that it looked, for lack of a better word, "funky." In the top-left corner, there was what looked like a traffic light and there were four or five icons at the bottom of the screen.

"What is this?" I asked my coworker.

He replied, "It's a Macbook."

I promptly closed the laptop's lid and handed it back to him. To a certain degree, this kind of concerned me. Here was a computer that I could do absolutely nothing with. I didn't know how to run programs, I didn't know how to turn it off, and more importantly, I didn't know how to fix it. Most businesses use Windows, and so does the company I currently work for, but what if that wasn't the case? What if we changed to iMacs and Mac OS X? I would be completely in the dark. I'm sure I could fumble my way through, given enough time, but problem solving is something that you sometimes have to do very quickly within an IT field. At some point, I would like to buy a Macbook Air or something to familiarize myself with the Mac OS. Unfortunately, given the pricey nature of Apple's desktop and laptop lines, that probably won't be for quite a while.

I write all of this to basically say that I've decided to give Apple a shot. Would Apple be the place I would go for all my computing needs? Probably not. There are a lot of things that an Apple can't do: It can't be upgraded without buying an entirely new machine; it can't play a lot of high-end games; it can't be bargained with; it can't be reasoned with; and it absolutely will not stop until you are dead. However, judging from the little I know of Mac OS X and what I've experienced first-hand with iOS, it looks like it's fairly user-friendly and efficient for doing work-based computing.

At the beginning of next year, I still plan to purchase a Surface Pro 3 and see how that works for me. I still can't help but feel like a stranger in a strange land with Apple products. But I've got to admit, they're intriguing. I love computers, and this is another half of the computer world I don't know a whole lot about. Discovering it might be fun!

-Josh

Alien: Isolation (PS4) - Thoughts

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:28:00 +0000

Alien: Isolation – Thoughts (PS4)

Alien: Isolation is a game I probably won’t be able to finish. Is it better than Colonial Marines? Is it scary? Are the negative reviews it’s been getting from some sites accurate? Find out after the jump!

From its initial announcement, I’d been excited about Alien: Isolation. I’ve always been a pretty big fan of the films (particularly the first), and it looked as though the game would be a pretty accurate representation of the world that Ridley Scott directed us through in his 1979 film, Alien. Now that the game has been released, and I’ve had a pretty decent amount of time to play it, I can say with all certainty that it is. However, that may be its biggest downfall.

Somewhat like the original film, Isolation has the perfect blend of slow, building tension and well-done payoffs to that tension. The problem lies in the fact that the main campaign is somewhere around 20 hours long. While yes, that could be seen as a good thing, given that one usually wants to get the most out of his/her $59.99 for a single game, there’s only so much slow-burning tension that one can take before it becomes outright frustrating!

In a recent posting of the Penny Arcade webcomic, Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins humorously criticized their opening hours of playing the game, and how you literally play for a little over an hour before you actually see the famously frightening, titular creature. As Holkins’ comic strip alter-ego Tycho suggests after Krahulik’s Gabe complains about this, “It's called suspense, Gabriel. And they are building it. Soon, you will know fear.” Personally, I’m fine with not seeing the Alien for that long, as it does lend itself very well to the feeling of the original film.
(To see the Penny Arcade comic, click here!)

After said hour or so, the Alien makes his big reveal, and it’s done extremely well; he drops out of a ventilation duct and slowly rises to his feet, immediately beginning his hunt for you. Whenever he appears, the best thing – the ONLY thing – to do is hide. If it sees you, you can kiss your video game life goodbye and begin loading up your last save point, hoping that it was close enough to the point where you died. In other words, it kills you immediately; you can't hurt it.

The first couple of times that this happens really aren’t that bad. But when the game starts throwing objectives at you that are literally “go get the thing in this room and put it in the room next-door, so that you can open a door all the way across the level’s map,” it gets frustrating while constantly having to avoid the Alien and certain death.
In my opinion, a better approach would have been to design the game in such a way that the Alien doesn’t always show up and hamper your objectives. Instead, have him show up when you least expect it. The way it is, you can always tell he’s going to pop out when your objective is to get somewhere in a hurry, or when the objective is seemingly simple.

In all fairness, this kind of gameplay is what makes these kinds of games these kinds of games. Titles like Outlast and the Amnesia series all have that “constant tension,” but something about this type of gameplay for more than a few hours just becomes maddening. It’s probably the fact that, while slow-burning tension works very well in a two-hour movie, a twenty-hour game like that only makes you want to shut it off after two hours.

Is the game scary? I personally don’t think so, even though I’ve always considered the Alien to be the scariest movie monster of all time. And here, it acts exactly as you would expect it to - hiding and crawling through the station's ductwork, carefully seeking you out, etc. There are plenty of jump-scares, yet nothing that I was actually “terrified” over.
The Silent Hills (P.T.) demo on PS4 was frightening – this is not.
That being said, the game makes me extremely nervous, but only because I don’t want the Alien to kill me in one shot and make me start waaaaaaaaay back at the last save point I found.
And it’s for that reason that I probably won’t finish the game – I’m “on the edge of my seat,” but not for the reasons I’m probably supposed to be.

So there you have it – my thoughts on Alien: Isolation. In a sense, the reviews have been accurate, or at least they align with my own personal experience playing the game, and it's definitely a more polished effort then the last Alien game, Colonial Marines. However, I think IGN’s review in particular was pretty harsh, seeing as how they gave it a 5.9.
Through I don’t like reviewing games until after I’ve finished them, I’d probably give it a 7.5/10. The graphics are great (even though the PS4 version suffers from frame-rate problems during cutscenes), the controls work well for the type of game it is, and the game makes you feel as though you actually are living a part of the Alien universe. So in the sense of being a game which accurately represents the feeling of Ridley Scott’s original film, Alien: Isolation delivers. Unfortunately, it’s like watching Alien on DVD or BluRay 10 times in a row; it’s a great movie, but after the second or third time watching it, you’d probably want to watch something else.

-Josh

Note: If you have the Nostromo Edition of Alien: Isolation (or want to buy the DLC), play the Crew Expendable mission and the Last Survivor pre-order bonus. You’ll be able to see pretty much all that the game has to offer in a much shorter amount of time, meaning that the slow-burn feeling the game strives for is much more effective.

Note 2: Looking for a good Alien game? Go check out Alien vs. Predator for Xbox 360, PS3, and PC/Steam. It’s short, but it’s effective, doesn’t get boring, and you can even choose to play as the Alien!

Hyrule Warriors – Review (Wii U)

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:25:00 +0000

It’s been a while, but I’m back with a new game review! This time, I’ll be giving my thoughts on one of Nintendo’s latest big releases, Hyrule Warriors.

More after the jump!

Since the Wii U’s release in 2012, I haven’t really bought any new games. In fact, I have ONE game: New Super Mario Bros. U. Unfortunately, Nintendo hasn’t released a lot of games for the system in their major franchises; I’m pretty sure that the biggest release was Mario Kart 8 a few months back. Two years later, however, there are a lot of big games from Nintendo on the horizon – Super Smash Bros., Bayonetta 2, a new Zelda game that we got our first glimpse of earlier this year, and the list keeps going.

One of the releases that caught my attention when it was announced last year was a mash-up between Koei Tecmo’s Warriors series and Nintendo’s own Legend of Zelda franchise. I was stoked. If for nothing else, I’d finally get a Zelda game of some sort for the Wii U, and would have a new reason to boot up the system that had seen very few hours of actual game time from me. I’m a sucker for Zelda titles; what can I say?

The fanbase for the Warriors games has always been pretty divided. On one hand, you have people that love the strategy/hack ‘n slash series – on the other, you have folks who claim the series is boring and monotonous. I fall in the former category. While I never played the series’ main entries, Dynasty Warriors, I was a HUGE fan of the spin off, Samurai Warriors. I loved the frantic nature of the game, and how it’s very “real-time,” in that stuff is constantly going on, no matter what you do.

The Zelda/Warriors mash-up is a strange one to say the least. It’s definitely something I never thought I would see, and never knew that I actually wanted. From my point of view, the colliding of these two franchises works pretty well.

Breakdown:

The game's antagonist, Cia

Story: 8/10
As I said in my A Link Between Worlds review, trying to explain a Zelda game’s story is extremely hard to do and, on paper, doesn’t really sound all that engaging. Most of the time, you’re dealing with two objectives: Save the princess and recover the Triforce. Occasionally (most often in recent years), it gets a little more nuanced than that, but that’s the basic gist. Combine those objectives with the fact that you have to figure out where whatever game you’re playing fits in the series’ timeline, and you’ve got yourself a right mess at times!
Hyrule Warriors expands on the traditional Zelda story (though the Triforce is still the main focus), in favor of one that incorporates some of our familiar games’ timelines and, like the titles’ very nature, mashes them up to tell what is (to me, at least) one of the most “interesting” Zelda stories to date.
My only complaint with the story is that, given the frantic nature of the Warriors series, a lot of it is told during gameplay.
“What? Isn’t that when you want the story to play out?”
True, most games’ stories are told during gameplay, but the Warriors series (this entry included) is all about constant combat and completing objectives on the battlefield while doing so. With that in mind, some of the story can occasionally get lost as dialogue pops up on the screen while you’re trying to take out hordes of enemies. This becomes very frustrating when you miss a key bit of dialogue that might help you with an objective, all because you’re trying to keep your troops safe or fighting some of the tougher enemies.

The game's pretty, and you'll be doing stuff like this... a lot!

Visuals: 9/10
As you all know, I’m a stickler for resolution. I have no idea what resolution Hyrule Warriors is running at, but it’s gorgeous! I have to attribute some of that (if not all of it) to the game’s art style. The only thing I could possibly say on the negative side of things is that the framerate chugs occasionally as the Wii U’s hardware struggles to keep up when there are a lot of enemies on screen at once. This isn’t something that happens all the time and is, in fact, pretty rare. But when it does, it’s fairly noticeable.

Sound: 7/10
The music in this game, quite literally, rocks! Quite a few familiar Zelda tunes are present and reworked with a metal flavor. Since the game is pretty fast-paced and all about action, a metal-influenced score is perfect. The only piece of music that I really wish was included is the Dark World theme from A Link to the Past. Sadly, I never heard it if it’s in there, and it would have been a great one for a game like this.
While the music may be great, I’ve got to dock it several points for one reason: the lack of voice acting. It’s been a staple of Zelda games since Ocarina of Time to not have spoken dialogue. Instead, all games have featured a “Sims-like” approach by having the characters start their dialogue with some kind of unintelligible gibberish. This was fine for the 64-bit era, but it really is time to start having voice acting in Zelda titles. Want to have Link remain the “silent protagonist?” That’s fine. In fact, I prefer it that way. But when it comes to the other characters, Nintendo should really start making an effort to give them a voice.
I mentioned earlier how you might miss some of the dialogue in the game, or miss an important cue related to an objective. This could have been easily remedied by including voice acting.
The other thing I docked points for: “Hey! LISTEN!” Ugh. That should have never been included, and should never be again, as it was one of the most annoying things about Ocarina of Time. It seems like you’re interrupted by it nearly every five minutes towards the beginning of the game.

All the characters play and handle differently. Lana is a prime example.

Gameplay: 8/10
Being outnumbered, swiping your sword through 100 enemies in one blow, and mild RPG and RTS elements have all been staples of the Warriors series. This entry is no different. It can be a little repetitive, but I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who didn’t get a thrill from wiping out an entire regiment of enemy troops by charging up Link’s sword and unleashing his spin attack!
To increase the replay value, as has been done in previous Warriors games, Hyrule Warriors allows you to select several characters throughout the game besides just Link. These characters all play differently and have different abilities and move sets that will keep you playing. Also, a friend can join in for some good, ol’ fashioned local co-op throughout all of the game’s various modes. Nic and I played co-op for several hours, and it was a blast!

Controls: 8.5/10
Opting to dock the controls a few points was kind of difficult. It’s not really the controls of the game itself that I had problems with, but the design of the Wii U gamepad and pro controller. Basically, it all boils down to the fact that I don’t like the right analog stick being placed above the face buttons. Not only does it take getting used to, since it’s been below the face buttons on every controller since there were dual analog sticks on controllers, but I think it would serve this style of game more if it were placed where I’m used to (for camera controls sake). Just my personal take on it.

Closing Statements:
All in all, I loved Hyrule Warriors. Again, I never knew that I wanted a Zelda/Warriors hybrid, but I’m glad it happened. Sure, it’s going to be one of those games that people either love or get bored with quickly, but it’s definitely worth trying out. It’s action-packed, has great visuals and music, and it will definitely feed your need for a Zelda fix until the next full-fledged game in the series is released.

Final Score: 8.1/10

-Josh

Nic's Response to IGN's "A Newer Hope"

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Thu, 01 May 2014 17:40:00 +0000

[Edit: This article was originally written in October 2013. On May 1, 2014 IGN decided to rerun the article that this article is responding to. So here we are again. I've made a few minor edits here and there to 'celebrate.']

Back in August, IGN posted an article entitled "Star Wars Episode VII: A Newer Hope." Its central thesis is that George Lucas never really understood Star Wars and its greatness. He created it, and presided over it. But he "never got what made it so special." However, the sequel trilogy there's a new hope that Star Wars films can be enjoyable again.

You know us. Here at The Inner Dorkdom we enjoy the Prequels. And we believe that although entertainment can educate and inspire us, it's something that should never cause us to despise other people, or treat them poorly.

But I must admit, when I read articles like this (even if they are written with more civility than normal) part of me wants to punch people (the authors in particular) right in the mouth.

Of course I would never do that. That’s taking things incredibly too far.

So instead I offer you, dear Inner Dorkdom readers, a point-by-point response to the article.

In the opening paragraph, the author says, "for too long the history of that galaxy far, far away was at the mercy of an incurable revisionist, someone who didn’t mind treading on the memories of others."

A couple of things here.

First, for too long? Star Wars was being presided over by the man who created it for too long? I must ask: According to what standard? Certainly not any objective standard. In fact this, like much in the article, is nothing more than a subjective preference stated as an objective fact.

There is no standard for how long the creator of Star Wars needs to be in control of Star Wars. It's just a matter of tastes. And since I like the stories George Lucas tells, and the way he tells them, I for one am glad he was involved with Star Wars for as long as he was.

Second, how much has Lucas revised over the years, really? I mean, I hear people make this charge from time to time. But the claims always seem larger than the actual facts of the matter. From a plot point standpoint, what has Lucas changed over years? (I'm not counting any decisions he made contrary to EU canon, because, well, we've been over that one.) Ep IV had the scene with Jabba added and changed it from Han to Greedo shooting first. Ep V changed the dialogue between Vader and the Emperor, gave Boba Fatt Jango's voice, and changed Vader's line after his confrontation with Luke. Ep VI changed the song Sy Snootles sang, gave Anakin a couple of "no"s, and made his Force-ghost reflective of his young mid-twenties self. And that's it. The rest of the changes were cosmetic. Fancier shots of ships flying around, some shots of the Wampa, and so on. Of course one can discuss how one enjoys (or doesn't) the changes. But to say they show Lucas to be an incurable revisionist is just silly.

Third, the memories of others bit. Though he says it with more tact and civility (which I thank him for), this is really akin to the old "George Lucas raped my childhood" chestnut. And, I'm sorry, I just don't understand that. He has done nothing to your memories. What you saw back in the day is still what you saw. That hasn't changed. Again, you don't have to like that he's made revisions. But just because he's made and released them doesn't mean your memories have been trampled. To think of it that way is, if I may, an awfully self-centered way of looking at an author modifying HIS work.

(And it is his work. If he wants to alter something, it’s his prerogative.)

Next up: "...hopefully we can now all admit this publicly, Episode I never felt like Star Wars."

I'm going to ignore the problem of taking a subjective opinion and stating it as a universal fact. Otherwise, we'd be here all day. (Just know that I noticed it.)

How can one say it didn't feel like Star Wars? It is Star Wars. Thus, by definition, it feels like Star Wars. It can't not feel like Star Wars.

What I assume our author really means is that it didn't feel like the Original Trilogy. What do I make of that?

First of all, I think we should ask, should it feel the same? Does a film set in a very different era, featuring characters with very different backgrounds, occupations, and goals need to feel the same? I argue that it shouldn't. At least, not in every respect. How else are we going to feel the impact of the Sith conquering the Galaxy and all the changes that brings?

Second, granting those differences, Phantom Menace still 'felt like Star Wars' to me. Jedi, lightsabers, Tatooine, hyperspace, Tusken Raiders, Jawas, Jabba, Palpatine (played by Ian McDiarmid), Yoda (played by Frank Oz), space battles, ground battles, a dialogue-free ending, wipes as transitions, all with John Williams music throughout.

I think it's worth asking: Is the reason for Mr. Krupa's feeling simply due to the fact that the elements The Phantom Menace didn't have (scoundrels, flirtatious banter, Vader choking people, etc.) are the things he likes most about Star Wars?

Next: "Exciting moments are scattered throughout the prequels, as are likeable characters and moments of intrigue,..."

Which, the negative connotation of the word "scattered" notwithstanding, is the best that could be said about any quality story. Not every moment is, or should, be exciting. Not every character should be likeable. And every event doesn't need to produce intrigue.

Next: "...but it’s all so haphazardly assembled that I’ve long suspected that these are little more than kind accidents."

How is it haphazardly assembled? Our author just plops that statement down as though it were a well established fact. But it's a rather large statement that could use some supporting evidence.

But here's the thing. So the Prequels have a slightly different tone than the Original Trilogy (just as each film in the Saga has its own distinct tone). Why conclude that the difference between the two trilogies is probably attributable to George Lucas' incompetence, and that anything good about the new films is purely accidental? Why be drawn to the conclusion that carries with it a critical, even derogatory, attitude toward an artist?

Given that Mr. Lucas was involved in all three original Star wars films (including ESB), as well as the Indiana Jones films, it just doesn't make sense to conclude that the guy doesn't understand how to create likeable characters, enjoyable action sequences, and so on.

Isn't it also a possibility, and more consistent with the facts, that the differences between the OT and PT were purposeful? That Lucas simply wanted to tell a different kind of story with Episodes I-III? Indeed, did he not tell us beforehand that such was going to be the case? Are the seeds of the different kind of story not clearly evident in the notes that he wrote back in the late 70's?

Next: "...it’s clear they’re [the Prequels - NW] deficient in so many of the qualities that the originals had in abundance – genuine warmth, wry humour, real charm..."

Slow down, man. Let's take them in turn.

genuine warmth - I think it's safe to say that for the most part the Jedi are the main characters of the Prequels. And I think it's also safe to say that the Jedi can come across as a little distant and cold at times. I loved Episode I, but that was one of the few things about it that disappointed me a little. But then I remember the first time I saw Episode II noticing and enjoying several of moments right in the opening minutes that almost felt like I direct attempt to reverse that trend (Yoda and Mace concerned about the Separatists, Yoda's warm feelings over Padme's surviving the terrorist attack, Obi-Wan and Anakin joking in the elevator). I realize that still might not be the sort of heart-on-sleeve wearing that people would prefer. I get that.

And, if I may, it seems like perhaps that's part of the point of the Prequels. The Jedi, out of fear of themselves going to the dark side and using their powers in vengeful or controlling ways, have decided not to have attachments. Better never to be close to anyone than to be close, get hurt, and have to fight the temptation to respond negatively. This philosophy, which, granted, many of them don't seem to always follow, helps get the order decimated. It's Luke's compassion and obvious warmth that brings Anakin back in the end, allowing him to destroy Vader and Sidious, bringing balance to the Force.

wry humor - Allow me to retort: "That's why I'm here." "Good job." "Not to worry, we're still flying half a ship." "Another happy landing." "Today you were the hero, and you deserve your glorious day with the politicians." "Alright, but you owe me. And not just for saving your skin for the tenth time." "Ninth time. That business on Kato Nemoidia doesn't...doesn't count." "I'll try not to destroy all the battle droids before you arrive." "So uncivilized." Etc. Yes, most of those quote are from Obi-Wan. But didn't most of the wry humor in the OT come from one or two people (Han, and to a lesser extent, Leia)? Also, the wry humor increases as you go from Ep I to Ep III. Just as darkness increases in the galaxy.

real charm - This one is really subjective. What one person finds charming another won't, and vice versa. When I watch the Prequels, I see what I feel to be be real charm. So now what? Neither one of us is objectively right or wrong.

Next: "Nothing in the prequels ever came close to drawing out this emotion." [i.e., "that less tangible property that made Star Wars so unique. It differs between viewers, but for me, it was always a hopeful sense of wonder, a secret knowledge that a greater destiny waits for us amidst the constellations. I think its at its most palpable when Luke watches the twin suns set on the desert planet of Tatooine."]

Again, this one is very subjective, and is a simple case of your mileage may vary. Indeed, our author acknowledges this by saying that what he's talking about differs between viewers. Yet he says it's nowhere to be found in the Prequels. That doesn't make sense to me. If it's a differing thing from person to person, how can you definitively say that it's absent from the Prequels?

But for sake of discussion, let's take what the author says is that quality for him--this sense of wonder / knowledge that a greater destiny awaits in space.

First, I'm not convinced that's what Luke was thinking when he looked at that sunset. I personally never read him that way. I've always figured he's thinking, "When's it going to be my time? Will it ever be my time? Cause, boy, I'd like to get off this rock. I think I would enjoy it. But who knows if I'll ever get to." I don't take it that he's also thinking, "Deep down inside I know that I will. Secretly, I know it is my destiny." I read him 100% yearning, 0% secret conviction.

Second, even if we granted for sake of discussion that Luke did have that secret knowledge, where's that quality in Episodes V and VI? This is, after all, something he argues the OT had (not just A New Hope) and the Prequels lack.

Third, do the Prequels actually lack it? Little Anakin looking up at the stars with Qui-Gon, the Jedi council testing Anakin, Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon looking out over a Coruscant sunset, and Anakin kissing his mommy goodbye may not have been accompanied by swelling music from the excellent John Williams (except that last example), they may have been more subtly-stated, but story-wise they are dealing with the same thing. Characters wondering what their future holds.

It seems to me that much of the flack the Prequels get comes from the fact that with them Mr. Lucas wanted to tell a more complex story. In my experience, adding complexity to a story sometimes results in a sacrifice of archetypal and emotional resonance. "Farmboy dreams of leaving his family farm in the desert, and when his family is killed he follows an old warrior on a mission into the starts to rescue a princess, following in his late father's footsteps," is different from, "slave boy with a mysterious origin has no illusions of ever being free, but some religious knights show up due to a broken ship, and one of them wagers for his freedom, believing him to be a prophesied chosen one who's destiny is probably to do something good but there's debate about the prophecies' interpretation."

Next: "...too bogged down in recounting the bureaucratic origins of the Empire to ever truly reach out to grab the stars."

Like I said, a more complex story that perhaps sacrifices some archetypal resonance. If you’re not interested in complexity, or don’t desire that type of complexity from Star Wars, you’re naturally going to be disappointed.

Also, how else does one tell the story of a republic collapsing from within (due to political machinations) and turning into an empire? How do you tell a story about politics without dealing with politics?

Next: "And ironically Lucas’s passion to innovate and use cutting-edge technology, which made the originals such landmarks in the history of cinema, actually undermine the prequels quite badly – so much is left looking synthetic, cold, and dated."

We're going with the 'CGI looks fake' argument, it would appear. I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but model work composited on an optical printer with visible matte lines/rectangles and occasionally awkward looking motion also looks fake and dated. A puppet whose mouth only opens and closes and occasionally suffers from extreme bouts of lazy eye looks fake and dated. It looks fake in a different way, granted, but it still looks fake.

If I may expand on that. I was talking about Star Wars with my father-in-law the other day, and he made basically the same point as Mr. Krupa. As we discussed the matter I developed a theory I'd like to share with you for your consideration Internet. Is this a generational thing? People like my father-in-law grew up on analog special effects. He'd been a full grown adult for some time when Jurassic Park came out. Non-digital matte paintings, miniatures and model photography, analog compositing, people in costumes, these look more real to him than CGI. On the other hand, kids today feel the exact opposite. The old tech looks bad to many of them. CGI looks more real. And then in the middle there are people like me. Born in 1978, I grew up with both types of technology. Analog visual effects were the norm when I saw a little boy. But I was only in early high school when Jurassic Park came out. To my eyes, both practical effects and CGI look fake. Or, I should say, they can look fake to varying degrees based on the quality of the work. Neither one has an inherent advantage in my eyes. They can both look fake, just in a different kind of way.

Point being, what looks synthetic, cold, and dated to one person looks perfectly fine to another. Thus the author's point, yet again, is actually a subjective preference.

Next: "Lucas mistakenly believed the magic of Star Wars resided in the Universe he had created, and that simply showing more of it would be enough to satisfy fans. He was wrong."

He didn't just simply show more of it. But anyway.

I was satisfied with the Prequels, and I'm a fan. Josh was satisfied, and he's a fan. Todd was satisfied and he's a fan. Thus your claim is shown to be factually inaccurate.

There's no arguing, many Star Wars fans didn't like the Prequels. Seeing the galaxy far far away again wasn't enough to outweigh their disappointments (one or more of the following: plot, scripting, casting, acting, art style, visual effects work). I don't deny that.

But many Star Wars fans did like the Prequels. Some in spite of those things, some because of them.

I don't understand why those who dislike the Prequel continue to act like they are the only ones who exist, or the only one whose opinions count.

Next: "Recently, I attended Star Wars Celebration Europe where I saw Kathleen Kennedy, the executive producer of Episode VII, talk about the approach of the new film. Character and story were being prioritised above everything else, she said; effects would be at the service of the story; CGI would work in tandem with more traditional forms of effects work – miniatures, set-building, shooting in exotic locations. As Kennedy presented this new creed, it was greeted with hungry applause by the congregation."

New creed? Is it really new?

I realize that people on the internet talk all the time as though it is. 'Lucas cared more about CGI than character development.' 'He cared more about CGI than analog forms of effects work.'

People say it, but they offer little support. From what I know of the Prequels, CGI got Lucas excited about making them because the technology allowed him to write almost whatever he could imagine. He could conjure characters and places freely. CGI was great, because it could serve the needs of character and story. And when it came to actual production, ILM used a combination of digital and analog technologies. Even in Episode III.

But about Ms. Kennedy's statements at Celebration Europe, yeah I remember hearing about that. It didn't send me over the moon with joy and excitement. The emotions it created in me were more subdued, because it seems to me this indicates one of two possibilities, neither one I'm overjoyed at.

First, it’s possible that perhaps this doesn't reflect Ms. Kennedy's views on the George Lucas and his work with the Prequels, and is just PR-driven Prequel-disliker baiting. You know, like click-baiting, but for people who didn't like the Prequels. I mean, come on. In that one presentation she dealt with all of the major over-arching complaints the stereotypical "Original Trilogy only" Star Wars fan has with Eps I-III. Disney/Lucasfilm is certainly going to want the enthusiasm (and money) of that portion of the fan base. Everyone already knows Lucas won't be scriptwriting or directing these new films. Thus, that crowd is already feeling some hope. Why not throw them a few bones, say some things they want to hear, to further excite them? My problem with this option is that Lucas and the Prequels are implicitly being thrown under the bus simply for marketing purposes.

Second, to me the more troubling possibility is that the new head of Lucasfilm might actually believe those criticisms herself. (Given the Lucas appointed her this possibility is doubtful, but you never know.) My problem with this option is that, again, I think those criticisms of the Prequels are unfair and unwarranted, and as such I'd rather the head of Lucasfilm not believe them. The Prequels had a story. A complex one. They had characters. Granted, most of them were stoic Jedi, awkward Jedi (I tend to think written and directed that way on purpose), and politicians. So, maybe not the kinds of characters some people wanted. But they had characters. I've watched the Prequels literally dozens of times. And I just don't see the argument that they are more about the visual CG spectacle than they are anything else. And as for special-effects techniques themselves, again I don't see the criticism as valid. All three Prequels had model work. They all had sets. They all shot on-location. So, in the Prequels the two approaches already were working in tandem. If we're just talking about what the ideal balance is between CG and practical, isn't that a function of individual tastes and, for the filmmakers themselves, budget considerations?

The common thread in both options is the possibility that throwing Lucas and the Prequels under the bus is going to be an on-going part of Lucasfilm's PR strategy. This is a possible trend that I'm not excited about, since I respect Lucas as a filmmaker and want to believe that he was sincerely trying to make the best films possible, and I like the Prequels.

Next: "The fallout from the prequels has made audiences realise that it wasn’t simply the universe they loved – it was the timeless approach to storytelling and the way it had been made, principles that had been forgotten at the turn of the millennium."

Except that a great many audiences enjoyed the Prequels and felt they still exemplified a "timeless approach to storytelling."

But, regarding the specific differences between the Original Trilogy and the Prequels, again the author here assumes that Lucas forgot certain storytelling tools, instead of entertaining the possibility that he simply chose to do some things differently. I'm personally really growing tired of the almost arrogance that seems to be at the heart of this oh-so-common assumption. Can't one just say that he/she didn't like the changes and leave it at that, instead of moving beyond that into things about which one doesn't know (i.e., Lucas' mind), and making personal criticisms?

Next: "She was involved in the very first use of CG in cinema..."

Allow me to be annoying for a moment.

No she wasn't. Ep IV, which itself wasn't even the first use of computer graphics in film, had primitive CG for the Death Star trench run briefing. That was '77. Ms. Kennedy didn't get a producer credit on a movie until '81. And if we're talking CG used to represent something "real" within the film's story, then she still wasn't, since she didn't work on TRON or The Last Starfighter.

Next: "and produced Jurassic Park, a seminal film in the history of CG effects. At Star Wars Celebration, she spoke about the excitement she experienced when she first saw that wireframe model of a dinosaur sprint across a CRT monitor at ILM. She knew, using this technology, it was possible to make the impossible – that dinosaurs could return from extinction. The brilliance of Jurassic Park lies in the sparing use of CGI and how it’s deftly balanced with the use of more traditional special effects, like animatronics, and shooting in fantastically beautiful or strange real-world locations."

But it isn't like they had a choice. The state of CG work when Jurassic Park came out in '93, both in terms of raw technical ability and costs, precluded fully-digital photorealistic environments or the elimination of animatronics. They couldn’t have done those things even if they wanted to.

Next: "It was clear that Kennedy recognised the dangers of embracing CGI too openly, forgetting its limitations and the deadening effect it can have despite its inexorable march towards photorealism."

That may be. But the fact that Jurassic Park used CGI sparingly is no way proof of that.

Next: "But it’s the emphasis on writing that’s really reassuring. They’ve even called Lawrence Kasdan to attend daily script meetings."

That is indeed cool. I'm not complaining that Kasdan is involved. But, he did co-write Return of the Jedi, which many Star Wars fans dislike. So, there is that.

Next: "Kennedy, when she spoke about the film’s director, described J.J. Abrams primarily as a storyteller, with a background in screenwriting and television touted as his most impressive and valuable credentials."

People's mileage varies on this. But, for me, when one starts talking about J.J. Abrams, they run the very real risk of getting me started.

But for now, I'll just say that Abrams wasn't hired as a writer, but a director. So, even if he is a wonderful writer, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. There are many great writers who would make horrible directors, and vice-versa. Will he contribute to the story? Probably. But he isn’t writing it.

[UPDATE: Since the time this article was written, Disney/Lucasfilm announced that Arndt was out, and a writing team of Kasdan and Abrams would be penning the screenplay to Episode VII. So, well, it could be good. But, my gut feeling is, "oh poodoo." Hope that gut feeling is way off. No way to know until December 2015.]

Next: "His Star Trek reboot pulled off that most paradoxical feats: a canonical reboot."

I'm serious now. Don't get me started.

Next: "It didn’t ignore the disregard what came before..."

Must....hold...back....

Next: "...but with one swift movement, it avoided forty years of densely-tangled continuity."

Uh oh, here comes the windmill....

Next: "And nobody’s delicate memories were trampled or even wrinkled in the process – every mission of the Starship Enterprise still took place but just in another timeline."

Of course no one’s memories are trampled on. (See above.) But things are messed with. Significantly. The reality is that for most practical purposes it did ignore and disregard much of what came before. And the notion that every mission of the starship Enterprise (and those of the Enterprise-D, Enterprise-E, Deep Space 9, Voyager, and everything else in the pre-Abrams world of Trek for that matter) still occurred just in a different timeline is one of the most inconsistent cop-outs in the history of quantum mechanics and inconsistent cop-outs.

(Incidentally, you don’t need the “many universes” quantum mechanics angle to create a canonical reboot. Just have Nero and Spock travel to the past and change the timeline as they would in any old Star Trek episode or movie, and then don’t have them try to fix it. Sure, everything that happened before would be erased from the timeline. But you would still have an in-universe canonical reboot.)

Next: "It had moments of sentimentality, but on the whole it was a remarkably forward-looking, assured film that decanted what made Star Trek special."

By...spoiler alert...destroying Vulcan? Having a Starfleet cadet become captain of the Federation flagship? Inventing a stable version of plot-eroding transwarp beaming? Hooking Spock and Uhura up? Having Deep Roy walk around a beer factory...I mean starship engine room...in an alien suit? Not bothering to put "tripods" in the filming budget?

Don't get me wrong, despite the negative bias I had going in, I fairly well liked Star Trek 2009. But "remarkably forward thinking?" I don’t see it. It was yet another time-travel story.

Next: "(Incidentally, one of my biggest problems with the sequel, Into Darkness, was its decision to revisit old frontiers.)"

Agreed.

But, interestingly enough, my wife, who likes Trek but hasn’t watched that much of it (unlike Josh, Todd, and I), rather enjoyed the movie. The revisit didn’t feel like a revisit to her. And what many fans lamented as a departure from the style, tone, and substance that is at the very core of Trek, she wasn’t bothered by. Yes, Abrams and company changed things. But she was ok with the changes, because she liked the results and wasn’t tied to the original.

Next: "The reboot proved it’s better to be daring, than deferential."

That's exactly what the Prequels did! They changed some things up! Yet our author think they're a disappointing mess, for the very fact that they didn't adhere closely enough to what it was about the originals that he liked.

Next: "This desire to look back to the originals for inspiration..."

Uhhh....I'm getting whiplash. Now deferential is good again?

Next: "...seems to extend across other Star Wars projects now in the works. The new animated show Star Wars Rebels, for instance, is revisiting the legendary concept art of Ralph McQuarrie, which had such a profound influence on the look and feel of the Star Wars universe. The show’s producer Dave Filoni..."

Don't be too proud of the "Lucas-era is behind us" mentality when bringing up Dave Filoni

Next: "Filoni and his team have studied the film’s shooting itinerary, trying to replicate not only the exact camera movements and lens used in the space battles but also trying to recreate the grain of the original film."

I can't find any corroboration on this point.

Next: "There seems to be a newfound respect for the past, and a humble desire to learn from it, not rewrite it."

I refer back to the beginning of this article about rewriting.

Next: "The new creative talents involved have a reverence for the source material in a way that Lucas never could. And by looking backwards, Star Wars Episode VII may have inadvertently picked up its most potent weapon: nostalgia. As fans of Mad Men know all too well, nostalgia in Greek refers to the pain from an old wound – a nagging, dull sort of pain, tugging at your insides, making you remember the initial cut. And that’s how I feel about Star Wars – I remember the way it was, how it made me feel as a child, but those feelings have faded over time. Episode VII has re-opened those old wounds, and that twinge is the dormant pain you only get from a new hope."

Blah blah blah....

My translation: "I didn’t like the Prequels. People I talk to didn't like the Prequels. People on the internet didn't like the Prequels. In other words, no one liked the Prequels. They weren't what I and the aforementioned groups of people wanted them to be. Thus, they were bad. And they show that Lucas' success with the Original Trilogy was kind of an accident. He didn't understand what he was doing. But fortunately for us, a new generation of filmmakers, along with acceptable and approved remnants from the old guard, actually get Star Wars and thus can do a better job of making quality Star Wars films. And by that I mean films that, when compared to the Original Trilogy, keep the same that which I personally want kept the same, and change that which I personally am OK with being changed. So I'm still sad that the Prequels were such a mess. But I'm hopeful that finally Star Wars can be set right. And by that I mean "exactly the way I want it to be."

I guess I’m being a bit provocative there. In the end, the points are argued by Mr. Krupa with more tact than that. (And certainly with more tact than how many other folks dissatisfied with the prequels have approached the subject. See the article’s comments section.) But when it’s all boiled down, it seems to me to be a simple matter of a person not respecting the role of an author/creator, not liking three films in a franchise, not being able to see past the subjectivity of his own opinion, and ascribing deficiencies of skill on the part of the film’s creator rather than allowing that it might be a simple matter of differences in goals between the filmmaker and himself (thus engaging in what psychologists call the fundamental attribution error).

I’ll end with this:
No one has to like the Prequels.
No one has to dislike the Prequels.
No one has to like the Prequels more than the Original Trilogy.
No one has to like the Original Trilogy more than the Prequels.

And the Sequel Trilogy will be what it will be

- Nic

END OF LINE

Incomming

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:35:00 +0000

Hey, folks!

Just wanted to apologize for the lack of posts lately. School has been killing my free time lately (only 2 more classes to go until I graduate, though! Whoo hoo!)
There are several reviews that I've written, but haven't gotten around to posting yet. They'll be up soon.

In the meantime, here's what you can look forward to:

Bravely Default (3DS) - Review

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes (PS4) - Review

Skyborn (PC) - Review

Titanfall (Xbox One) - Review

-Josh

An Interview with Game Composer, Winifred Phillips

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:46:00 +0000

As some of you may or may not know, video game music is extremely important to The Inner Dorkdom. Even as a kid, I not only thought that the music present in Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda enhanced the games’ gameplay, but I actually enjoyed the music. Since then, I have gone on to purchase soundtracks to games and listen to them on a regular basis.

The last soundtrack for a game I bought was for the Playstation Vita game, Assassin’s Creed III: Liberation. It was a soundtrack “eat up” with excellent melodies and themes which stick with you for an eternity, a trait that all soundtracks should have. In my personal opinion, the composer, Winifred Phillips (composer of games such as LittleBigPlanet and God of War), crafted a soundtrack that impressed me like no other had in recent years.
So much game music is released these days that, to me, sound like afterthoughts which ride the wave of a large scale production. Winifred’s work, however, shows a love for keeping the player engaged in gameplay, as well as for keeping those aforementioned melodies stuck in your head.

We were lucky enough to be given the opportunity to interview Winifred, as she has just authored an excellent book entitled A Composer’s Guide to Game Music. In her book, Phillips gives amazing insight into composing music for games, being in the industry as a composer, and tips on what one needs to get the job done. Check out the interview after the jump!

The Inner Dorkdom - For our readers, could you briefly tell us what made you want to author a book about composing music for videogames?

Winifred Phillips - In writing A Composer’s Guide to Game Music, I wanted to write a book that addressed the artistic, technical and logistical issues that would be important to composers and musicians who want to create music for games. There are other excellent books that cover all aspects of game audio, but I wanted to narrow that discussion to just the topics that are music-related, and I wanted to write about them specifically from the perspective of a working game composer. Also, I wanted to balance the discussion between the technical and artistic challenges. My hope was that A Composer’s Guide to Game Music would provide aspiring game composers with both practical advice and creative inspiration.

It may be a clichéd question, but what are some of your major influences when composing music for games?

My musical influences shift from one game project to another, depending on the style of music required for the project. The biggest influences on me during music composition are those composers who have innovated in the musical genre I’ll be exploring in my upcoming work. I like to research music history and genres. I like to learn something new with each game I score.

Early in your book, you cite a quote from Entertainment Weekly which speaks of games overtaking Hollywood and how they are often more interesting than recent films. Do you think that the same can be said of videogame music being more interesting than that of recent film scores?

I wouldn’t say that videogame music is inherently more interesting, but I do think that videogame composers have more opportunities to experiment and innovate, because games tend to be longer and more varied experiences than films. The amount of music in a game usually exceeds the amount of music in any typical film, and there are also more circumstances in which the audience can appreciate and enjoy the music, because the music has longer opportunities to be expressive without also competing with dialogue and/or noisy on-screen action. Most games have periods in which the player explores the game world in a sonic landscape that’s relatively uncluttered. That’s a great opportunity for a composer to create interesting music.

For someone who doesn't aspire to be a game composer (maybe someone who likes videogames but doesn't write music, or someone who writes music but isn't into games), what can they take away from the book?

In the book, A Composer’s Guide to Game Music, I try to paint a picture of what life is like for a composer who is part of the game industry. The game development community is intensely creative and passionate about what they do, and the community includes a lot of colorful characters. Game industry conferences and conventions are full of memorable moments and oddball antics. The day-to-day work of game development is endlessly fascinating, and I do my best to provide a taste of the experience from my perspective as an independent composer who has worked with many different development teams over the years. I think my book provides an interesting insider’s look at the process of game development, specifically focusing on the music side of things.

You’ve already tackled several franchises such as Assassin’s Creed, God of War, and LittleBigPlanet. Was video game music in general something that you were a fan of, or paid much attention to before deciding to compose for games yourself?

I’ve been a gamer for a very long time, but that didn’t directly lead me to the decision to compose music for games myself. It was actually after a protracted gameplay session with the original Tomb Raider that the idea finally struck me. My attention was caught by some music playing in the tutorial area – in Lara Croft’s mansion. That was the first time I thought about the idea of writing game music myself. Once the idea entered my brain, it never left.

It seems to us that, due to hardware limitations, older videogame music tended to be melody-driven, with 'songs' that would last anywhere from 15 seconds to a minute or two, whereas today videogame music often is just as atmospheric as film scores. What do you think of this trajectory in the industry?

The predominance of melody made sense in older videogame music – there were limitations in the number of simultaneous note events that could be playing, and the available sound palette was pretty narrow, so composers couldn’t create lots of lush textures or complex multitimbral arrangements. A melody can create musical interest, and it doesn’t need a lot of adornment to be successful. As the capabilities of game systems expanded, it just made sense for the aural sophistication of game music to advance at the same rate. I think that there is room for both melody-driven music and atmospheric compositions, and I think that the best game scores incorporate both techniques.

Are there any projects that you’re currently working on that you can talk about at this time?

Usually, I can only talk about a project when it’s about to be released -- which is usually a long time after I’ve completed work on it. The same is true at the moment. I’m working on multiple AAA games right now, and the projects are radically different from each other, so it’s an interesting creative challenge… but I can’t say anything more about it yet.

We want to thank Winifred for taking the time to answer our questions. It’s not every day that we get a chance to talk to a video game composer - a job that Nic and I have always had an immense amount of respect for. We recommend picking up Winifred’s book, A Composer’s Guide to Game Music, available here from Amazon (in both hardcover and Kindle format), as well as at your favorite book store!

Also, here’s a trailer for the book. Check it out!

-Josh

The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds (Review)

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 04:02:00 +0000

Platform: Nintendo 3DS

There are quite a few games I would like to see resurrected or have a sequel from the 8/16-bit era. Chrono Trigger, Blaster Master, Ninja Gaiden (NES storyline and gameplay, please), Final Fantasy VI, Actraiser… All of these games, in my opinion, deserve some kind of new, modern game that pays homage to their predecessors. There are probably millions of people out there who never played Actraiser, so they have no idea how great that game was. People have been clamoring for a Chrono sequel since Chrono Cross, and I fear that people may eventually forget about the series altogether if a new entry doesn’t get released anytime soon. A modern day outing would be a perfect way to expose gamers to classic games, while giving all of us that played them originally a way to relive the past.
Lucky for us, one of the greatest games of all time - The Legend of Zelda: A Link to The Past - has just gotten a sequel in A Link Between Worlds for the Nintendo 3DS. I’ve got to say, I didn’t see this one coming. The question is, “does it live up to the original?”
Find out in my review… which just happens to be after the jump!

Breakdown:

Story: 10/10
The basic story in The Legend of Zelda has always been pretty simplistic, but never “great.” Go ahead and flame me. I’ll wait.

Finished? Good.

While it’s never been an involving story, it HAS been an extremely interesting concept with multiple games helping to produce a VERY involved mythology. With the recent publishing of the Hyrule Historia hardcover book from Dark Horse Publishing, LOZ fans have finally gotten a handle on how all the games connect and feed off one another (though it’s still somewhat convoluted in a few areas).
The basic concept is a princess named Zelda (always a descendant of the original Zelda) is captured by the evil Ganon and a young kid named Link (always a descendant of the original Link) has to save her by traversing the land of Hyrule and gathering pieces of a thing called “the Triforce.” There have been a few games in the series which mixed this formula up (The Adventure of Link and Wind Waker being notable entries), but this is usually the standard. In all fairness, A Link to The Past was no different, only it was, in my opinion, the best executed Zelda title even today.

A Link Between Worlds might, at first glance, seem like a direct sequel to ALTTP, but it’s not. Again, we are dealing with ANOTHER Link and ANOTHER Zelda, only this time it seems as though this takes place a generation or two after ALTTP. Hopefully, Nintendo will give us some exact idea of where this one fits in the timeline.
While I won’t go into details out of fear of spoiling the game, the story takes the same exact steps to get to its conclusion as the game it’s based off of. From a nostalgic point-of-view, this is great, but from a person wanting a true sequel to the original story it may not be entirely satisfying. At times, the game feels more like a modernized remake than the next chapter in a larger tale. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is noticeable and, in my opinion, worth mentioning.

That's what I'm talkin' about! Classic Zelda action!

Visuals: 10/10
So far, this is the best looking game I’ve seen on the 3DS. More than that, my biggest praise comes from the fact that Nintendo perfectly captured the atmosphere of ALTTP in a 3D environment. The designers even mostly kept the layout of the original overworld map from ALTTP, but changed some things around here and there to make it feel fresh.
(Speaking of 3D, turning the 3D slider all the way up doesn’t really add, nor take away from the overall effect. For most of my time playing, I left the 3D turned completely off.)

Sound: 10/10
A Link to The Past had some of the best videogame music from the 16-bit era. ALBW remixes all those familiar tunes, some with new arrangements, in beautiful sounding, orchestral quality. Some of the themes even got me a little misty-eyed from pure nostalgia. I was taken right back to those times when I would spend hours and hours trudging through Hyrule and its Dark World. The new music introduced like the new villain’s theme is extremely well done, as well.

Pop yo' self into the wall and you have the game's
very well-designed "gimmick!"

See that crack in the wall?

Gameplay: 10/10
If you’ve ever played a game in the Legend of Zelda series, you pretty much know what to expect in the next entry. The only thing that has really changed is how you receive items and weapons. Instead of getting a new item upon completion of a dungeon, ALBW introduces Ravio, a merchant who rents items for Link to use throughout his adventure. Ravio informs Link that there is a catch for renting his items, however: if Link falls in battle, Ravio will take all of his rented items back, forcing Link to re-rent, or buy them for a pretty expensive price. While this may sound like a troublesome gameplay element, it actually works quite well and introduces a fun sort of survival element to the game - you won’t want to die because you won’t want to lose your items. For 800 rupees each, you can purchase the items permanently, but you’ll find yourself scavenging for money in order to do so. It’s a neat addition to the series which I hope we see more of in future entries of the series.
The gameplay “hook” for this game is the whole “being able to merge into walls” thing. Link can now transform himself (because of a bracelet he receives from Ravio) into a 2D painting which he can use to both navigate dungeons and phase in and out between Hyrule and Lorule (though let’s be serious here – it’s the Dark World). I found this to be an extremely interesting gameplay mechanic because it forces you to think 2, 3, and 4th dimensionally in order to get around the world.
Also, there’s no ridiculous, hand-holding helper creature this time around. You play as Link with a sword, shield and items. Nothing else. That’s the way I like it.

I enjoyed A Link Between Worlds immensely. I’ve enjoyed the other games in the Zelda series as well, but the franchise always seemed to me as though it lost something after A Link to The Past. That sense of freedom and exploration was one of the things that intrigued me as a kid when playing the old NES game, as well as with the Super NES iteration. A Link Between Worlds brings those elements back to the forefront, offering an amazing experience which puts itself right under ALTTP for me as the 2^nd greatest Zelda game ever made. While it borders on being a straight-up remake, the game has enough differences that make it feel like it is its own, separate entity and, even without the nostalgia factor, A Link Between Worlds holds its place in Zelda greatness.
Is it worth $40? Look at the final score and you’ll see what I think!

Final Score: 10

(It should be noted that this is probably the first game score on The Inner Dorkdom that has ever gotten a perfect 10. J)

-Josh

Screenshots taken from Google Images.

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (Review)

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 03:47:00 +0000

Platforms: PS4, PS3, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Wii U, PC

Another year… another Assassin’s Creed. Is that a good or bad thing? Find out after the jump!

**WARNING!! There may or may not be spoilers for the game contained in the review. Do not read if you don’t want to have anything revealed too early!**

I’ve finally gotten around to finishing Assassin’s Creed IV on PS4. The review may seem late, but I really don’t like to review games that I haven’t finished. Some sites do that, but The Inner Dorkdom likes to give a bit more time for games to gestate, rather than throw up a review for the sake of having it available during the game’s release window.

In fact, here’s my process for writing a review:

1. (Obviously) Play the game.
2. Start writing the graphics, sound, and gameplay/control sections, as the game doesn’t have to be completely finished in order to get a handle on these.
3. Finish the game.
4. Write the story section and final thoughts.
5. Publish the review.

In order to review Assassin’s Creed IV fairly, I have to come at it from two different angles. On the one hand, I have to review it as someone who reviews videogames on this website. On the other hand, I have to review it as someone who is a massive fan of the Assassin’s Creed franchise. For the most part, I’m pretty torn about what I think of the series’ latest entry. From a game standpoint, well… it’s got a lot of problems. From a fan’s perspective… I’ll just save it for the breakdown.

Breakdown -

Like every AC game, historical figures make appearances.
Anne Bonny is pictured here with main character, Edward Kenway.

Story: 6/10
Like most games, the story and mythology behind Assassin’s Creed have always been the main things I enjoyed the most about the series. I love how Ubisoft has been able to dig themselves out of seemingly impossible situations when they run into the brick walls that they create during nearly every game. I’m not being sarcastic here. I honestly think they’ve handled the series well in terms of story.
…Until AC4.
At first, I thought that the pirate themed story was going to be hugely epic, and for a while it was. After the first 10 hours or so, however, things started to become extremely boring and just plain ol’ uninteresting. I enjoyed the character of Edward Kenway (a lot more so than Connor of AC3) and hope a few more games are released to flesh his character out, but the other characters (mainly the villains) were sort of flat. None of them really grabbed my attention.
Questions that were raised in AC3 were very quietly answered, but never really talked about all that much – particularly the cliffhanger we were all left on for a year. Do we find out what happened to Desmond Miles? Yes, but it’s a pretty brief explanation. Do we find out what’s going on with Juno? Kind of, but it’s more like we find out what’s NOT going on with Juno, due to a very not-so-cleverly-devised way of continuing the series and setting up future sequels.

(SPOILERS!!!)
My biggest complaint with AC4’s story was the fact that it’s only “kind of” an Assassin’s Creed story. The main character isn’t even an assassin for about 95% of the game. Maybe I missed something while playing, but I don’t think that Edward Kenway actually EVER became an assassin during the story. One could tell that he was on his way to doing so. For about half of the game, I thought this was an interesting angle, but (again, unless I missed something) his joining of the order is never actually shown. And from the epilogue in the middle of the game’s ending credits, we’re still given no clear indication that he “took the oath.” We know from Oliver Bowden’s novel, “Assassin’s Creed: Forsaken,” that Edward was an assassin and adhered to the creed, but are the novels considered canon? In this case, and for the sake of AC4’s story, I certainly hope so.
(END SPOILERS!!)

In summation, I felt that the story of Assassin’s Creed IV was just really lazy and was only somewhat of an afterthought when Ubisoft decided to make a game with a primary focus of ship-based combat (more on that in a bit). It really didn’t have the “umph” that previous games have had, and seemed more like a side game that was only somewhat related to the series.

(Just as a side note: When I finished the game, I actually said, “What the crap? That’s it?!” The game kind of ends without warning and doesn’t really build towards an ending.)

Visuals: 8.5/10
I have to pretty much score this one in the same way I did for Assassin’s Creed III, since it looks as though it uses the same engine. The thing that perhaps stands out a bit more for ACIV as opposed to III (and what gives it an extra ‘.5’ edge) is the beautifully rendered Caribbean setting. It’s much better looking and immersive than the colonial setting of the previous game. Though the scenery is prettier to look at, the character models in-game are a bit stiff looking – at least for the NPCs. At times, the NPCs look as though they were pulled straight from a PS2 or original Xbox game. I’m really interested to see what an Assassin’s Creed title will look like next year, when Ubisoft develops one (hopefully) specifically for next-gen hardware.

Sound: 7/10
The sound design is great, effects-wise. Gulls and other birds, ocean waves, and cannon fire all sound extremely authentic. The voice acting is pretty good, too. Unfortunately, the area in which ACIV’s sound lacks is the music. Personally, I thought that Lorne Balfe’s score for ACIII was excellent, as was Winifred Phillips’ score for AC: Liberation. It’s a shame that Brian Tyler couldn’t capture the same magic. The score is not bad by any stretch; I just thought the themes in ACIII and Liberation were much better and more memorable. I’m really surprised that, with as much critical acclaim as she received for her soundtrack to Liberation, Ubisoft didn’t give the scoring duties to Phillips. I’d really like to see what she would do with a main, numbered title.

Way too much of this....

Gameplay: 6.5/10
Black Flag goes back to the exploratory greatness of ACII-Revelations and brings back an almost overwhelming sense of things to do in the Caribbean world they created. From assassination contracts to finding buried treasure, almost everything you could think of to do in a pirate game is here.
That being said, I don’t like ship combat. To me, it feels extremely clunky and I found myself absolutely hating anytime a ship-related sequence would start. The ship combat was something that was praised (for some reason) in ACIII, so naturally, Ubisoft had to implement it into the newest iteration (plus, the fact that this is a pirate game, ship combat and travel makes since). I didn’t like it

...not nearly enough of this for my tastes.

then and I don’t like it now. I also don’t like that so much emphasis is put into Edward’s ship, the Jackdaw. Having to constantly upgrade your ship, as well as your character, just seemed like a bit much. But I have to admit, disabling an enemy ship, boarding it, taking out its crew and looting its cargo are very fun and rewarding experiences.

Control: 4.5/10
I already mentioned the ship combat, but what about control of Edward himself? Remember in my ACIII review when I talked about Connor running up walls or jumping off things I didn’t want him to? Yeah, that hasn’t been changed. In fact, it seems like it’s worse. There is a chase scene about midway through the game that frustrated me to no end with how many times I had to do it just to get it right. The scene wouldn’t have been all that difficult if the controls were better, but the game forces you to do everything perfectly in order to succeed. I really hope the developers go back to the original “puppet-style” controls from pre-ACIII for the next game, or that they at least try and tighten up some of the controls.

I’m a fan of the Assassin’s Creed franchise, so of course I liked ACIV. I’ll continue buying new entries in the franchise for many years to come. I mainly just felt that there was “too much pirate in my assassin game.” For new players, though, a lot of the game’s flaws might end up being a huge turnoff. That’s actually what I remember thinking while playing: “Man, if I’d never played an AC game before, I’d probably hate this one.”

So is it worth $60? Personally, I don’t think so. I’d say that around $30-$40 is a bit more reasonable, given the quality of the game. A mediocre and lazy story, average music, frustrating ship combat, and poorly implemented control features rank Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag as one of the lowest in the series for me.

Final Score: 6.5/10

**NOTE: I have played and completed the singleplayer DLC, Freedom Cry. In my honest opinion, if that would have been the basis for AC4’s plot, I think I would have enjoyed the game much more. Unlike the main game, it seemed to have more emphasis on actually being an assassin. I award Freedom Cry a score of 8/10.

-Josh

Screenshots taken from Google Images.

Things Have A-changed!

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 03:04:00 +0000

Indeed they have! Find out more after the jump!

Though this post is about 2 and ½ weeks late, we at The Inner Dorkdom are proud to announce that our podcast portion is now part of the Southgate Media Group! Along with ourselves and a plethora of other podcasts, the SMG will be looking to realms of internet radio domination. We’re glad to be a part of it.

So what does this mean for The Inner Dorkdom as a whole? At present (and what past listeners will be most pleased to know), it means more regularly scheduled episodes, in that The Inner Dorkdom has begun a bi-weekly schedule. One week will be used for recording, the next will be the release of that very episode. This will give us, the podcasters, a kick in the proverbial tails to get episodes published in a more timely fashion, and it will give you, the listeners / readers of the site, a reasonable expectancy as to when you’ll receive the next episode. It’s good for both of us, really (pseudo-Kung Pow reference). In the future (no, don’t stop reading! The article’s not over!), the partnership will hopefully increase the listenership for our show, as well as for the other podcasts on the network.

Will The Clone Cast (our show about Star Wars: The Clone Wars) make a return to the interwebs? Right now, we’re not so sure. It’s not that we wouldn’t love to do it, it’s just the fact that we’re kind of liking the idea of only having one show to do right now – especially as we make the adjustment to being a part of something bigger than ourselves. We’ll just have to see what the future holds in regards to The Clone Cast’s fate.

We ask that you come with us on this magical mystery journey and help both The Inner Dorkdom and the Southgate Media Group grow to ridiculous heights. Well, I don’t know how ridiculous the SMG can get, but you can always count on TID to be pretty ridiculous!

Be sure and check out all the material on the SMG. The network covers a large area of shows and subjects, so you’re sure to find something that tickles your fancy a bit.

http://www.southgatemediagroup.com/

-Josh

Things Are A-changin'?

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 20:00:00 +0000

Very big changes could be coming to The Inner Dorkdom really soon! How does more regularly scheduled podcast episodes sound? What about a new Star Wars podcast focused on Star Wars: Rebels (which will be so eloquently and irrelevantly called “The Clone Cast”)?

Stay tuned for more details!

-Josh

Josh's Top 5 Videogames of 2013

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 19:38:00 +0000

We’re over halfway through the first month of 2014, so now would be a good time to give a list of my top 5 favorite games from 2013, right? Well, maybe I should have done that towards the beginning of the month, but whatever. Here they are after the jump: Josh’s Top 5 Videogames of 2013!

This list goes from least to greatest, and just like everything else, these are the 5 games that I enjoyed the most. I’m sure nearly everyone’s top 5 would vary, including the other contributors to The Inner Dorkdom. However, these are the games that I would recommend everybody to pick up and give a shot if they were only able to play 5 games from 2013.

5. Killer Instinct (Xbox One) – Double Helix Games
It might be a bit off-putting to include a game from the next-gen consoles on a list of greatest games from last year, but I think this one is well deserved. In my opinion, this is the best fighting game released since 2011’s Mortal Kombat. True, KI released with several missing features, but the game is tight and does its job extremely well with its fighting mechanics. It’s still the only Xbox One game that I own, and for the time being, I’m ok with that.

4. Tomb Raider (2013) (Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Soon to be PS4 & Xbox One) – Square-Enix / Crystal Dynamics
Square-Enix must be crazy. They didn’t consider the Tomb Raider reboot a financial success when it sold something like 2 or 3 million copies. I guess they were expecting Final Fantasy numbers, which even they have dwindled a bit in the past few years. Personally, I loved the reboot. I thought that adding a survivalist element, along with a much more personal and epic story, really lent itself well to a series in desperate need of revitalization.

3. The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds (Nintendo 3DS) - Nintendo
I have yet to post my review for this 3DS game, but I’ll go ahead and tell you: it got a perfect 10. I absolutely loved this throwback to my all-time favorite Zelda title (of which I consider one of the best games of all time). It just goes to show that the 3DS is the place to go if you really want to get a bang for your buck when it comes to gaming. I hope Nintendo continues to release this kind of quality throughout the 3DS’ life, but come on – can’t we get titles of this magnitude on the Wii U?

2. The Last of Us (PS3) – Naughty Dog
This is the game that most websites cited as their top game of 2013. It’s definitely deserving of that spot, as it did new things with storytelling in a videogame and, in my opinion, solidified the fact that videogames are true literature. As I noted in my review, the game mechanics are all things that everyone has played before, but the execution was excellent, weaving in with the great story like no other game has before.

1. Beyond: Two Souls (PS3) – Quantic Dream [My Personal GOTY]
Should this even really be here? I mean, it’s not really a game is it? No, it’s not. It’s an interactive movie that you play on a game console. That being said, I can’t get past the phenomenal story that just happens to be the most original thing I’ve heard, seen, or read since… Well… It’s been so long, I can’t remember.
I know I’ve said it before, but Hollywood should really start employing writers and directors from the videogame industry. Titles like The Last of Us, Bioshock: Infinite, Mass Effect, and of course, Beyond: Two Souls, show a quality and originality that the film industry seems almost incapable of producing these days. It’s because of this originality in story that I have no choice but to give it the “Josh’s Personal Inner Dorkdom Game of The Year Award.” I’m just holding out that Quantic Dream will create a sequel at some point in the future, no matter how unlikely that is.

Head-To-Head: The Newest Round of The Console Wars

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:50:00 +0000

All three next-gen consoles are now on the market. The Wii U, Playstation 4 and Xbox One are all set to have another near-decade of life in the gaming world, but which one should you own? Is there one console that is the definitive gaming machine? Do they all suck eggs? Make the jump and find out!

The console wars and videogame company competition have both been around since the option of home gaming was available back in the 70s. While I wasn’t around back then (80s kid, here), I do remember seeing commercial after commercial and print ad after print ad detailing jabs from Sega at Nintendo. However, I don’t remember Nintendo ever firing any shots back… but there was a reason for that: Nintendo’s products spoke for themselves. From 1985 to around 1996, Nintendo ruled the world and Sega desperately wanted a piece of the pie, trying to convince people that their inferior console was the way to go.

See what I did there? Even I referred to Sega’s products as inferior. Does that make me a Nintendo fanboy?

The simple fact is, I’ve always been able to set fandom aside in favor of a realistic outlook. At the time, Nintendo’s products WERE superior to Sega’s. A simple Google search of the Super NES and Sega Genesis’ technical specs will tell you that. But it hasn’t always been about tech, has it? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.

In the 32 and 64-bit era of gaming, Nintendo was dethroned by Sony and their PlayStation console (Sega was no longer a threat due to the Saturn’s lack of popularity and the downfall of the Dreamcast would mark their last adventure in the console market). Which one was technically superior? The Nintendo 64. Which had more games, more companies developing for it, and ultimately sold more hardware and software? The PlayStation. Did this have anything to do with those commercials of Crash Bandicoot trashing Nintendo? I highly doubt it. Let’s just say that Sony owes Squaresoft (now SquareEnix) and Final Fantasy VII a humongous favor.

During the 128-bit era, Microsoft entered the fray with the original Xbox. Technically, it was on par with Nintendo’s Gamecube, both of which were more powerful than Sony’s Playstation 2. Which was the more successful console? The Playstation 2. Again, developers had chosen Sony in favor of everything else. I think that here, it had more to do with Sony being the first out of the gate and having a significant head start on their competition.

A similar situation could be seen with the previous generation’s console market. The Xbox 360 was the first console released this time around; therefore most developers went with the “new” tech, just as they had with the Playstation 2. Nintendo’s Wii was, indeed, the highest selling console, but the company chose to market the system as something the whole family could enjoy, rather than something strictly for gamers. This led to a good number of people buying the system so that they could play Wii Sports Bowling, not really caring whether they played the newest The Legend of Zelda or Super Mario title. As a result, software sales suffered and Microsoft continued to rake in the money off of the Xbox 360 software and its $80 million consoles sold.

Sony also saw an initial decline in sales due to trying to push their Blu-Ray format through their Playstation 3 and overcharging for the console. Over time (and a few price drops), however, the PS3 began to reach neck and neck with the Xbox 360.

So here we are in the present. Three new consoles from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are on store shelves once again. Fanboys the world over will lock in heated battles filled with hyperbole and idiocy as they try to determine which plastic box is “better.” It remains to be seen how this “console war” will turn out, but I thought it would make for an interesting article to compare the three and see how they measure up with one another by using categories common to all three systems.
Just to let you know, I’m writing this for gamers who only care to own one system per console generation as they try to judge which one they might consider picking up. As I stated with my console reviews, these are MY OPINIONS. I’m not trying to take sides here; I’m just trying to offer an objective viewpoint from the way I personally see things in the console world/videogame industry. Remember, I HAVE NO FAVORITES! I own all three. They didn’t get sent to me for free by Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft for review purposes. I bought them with my own money; therefore it would be foolish to say I spent money on something I knew I was going to hate.
(And yes, I saw the video of that kid who bought a PS4 on launch day just to smash it on the sidewalk, so I know stupid people like that exist. What an idiot. Trust me; I’m not like that guy. I value my dollars.)

1. Power/Graphics

Wii U –
Unfortunately, Nintendo, with its last two consoles, has been one generation behind. The Wii wasn’t up to technical snuff with the Xbox 360 or PS3, and instead was more on par with the company’s previous console, the Gamecube. The Wii U, while more powerful than the original Wii, is on par with the Xbox 360 and PS3, only ever so slightly more powerful. While games look a ton better than they did on the Wii, the Wii U still uses what is now considered “outdated” tech from around 2006/2007-ish.

PS4 –
More powerful than the PS3, the PS4 is the first console that I know of which outputs natively at 1080p (I had thought this about the Wii U at one point, but found out otherwise). As I’ve mentioned before in other articles and reviews, resolution may not be that important to some people, but resolution is also kind of like one of those hidden picture puzzles – once you see it, you can’t “unsee” it. The PS4 also offers graphical capabilities more comparable to visuals which can be found in newer PC hardware. Still not quite on that level, it’s a pretty large step up from the 2006 technology which the PS3 used for 6 years.

Xbox One –
If it wasn’t for the fact that the Xbox One doesn’t output natively at 1080p, there probably wouldn’t be a discernible difference between it and the PS4, since what’s under the two systems’ hoods are nearly identical. Though, I have to wonder: Is it that the Xbox One CAN’T run 1080p properly on certain games, or is it that no games support it right now? If no games support it, I have to ask, “why not?” This is something that really doesn’t make that much sense to me.

The Winner: PS4
Graphics aren’t everything - that’s a given. My favorite consoles of all time have been the Super NES, Gameboy Advance, and the DS/3DS, all three of which weren’t/aren’t capable of the stunning visuals seen on next-gen consoles. But in order to keep with the theme of looking at the console wars realistically, I believe that graphics ARE important nowadays to the success of a console. Games should always be fun; you’ll get no argument from me there, but games that look as good as they play can be a turning point for a lot of people. That being said, at these early stages of these new consoles’ lives, the PS4 seems to have the upper hand in the graphics department.

2. The Controller/How You Play

Wii U –
Rather than focus on graphics aspects and capabilities, Nintendo has chosen to put their efforts into the way we play games. When reading that sentence, you might think, “Well that’s good, right?”
I’m down for experimentation when it comes to game consoles, but Nintendo, in my opinion, hasn’t quite gotten it right yet. The motion controls of the Wii were neat, but that’s all they were – neat. It won over a casual fan-base, but the Wii-mote’s design was a little too off putting for some gamers, myself included.
The Wii U introduces yet another controller design, this time with more traditional features integrated into a tablet. I’m not a huge fan of the tablet for games. Instead, I use my touchscreen Wii U gamepad to navigate menus and my Netflix queue. Having a second screen for something like the DS or 3DS, a handheld system where you only have to shift your eyes to see the second screen is great, but having two visuals going on in my hands AND a television can be quite a bit distracting. I will say, however, that the ability to play some games on just the gamepad is a neat feature, though it neither makes nor breaks the controller or system design.
One problem that I believe Nintendo experiences with these radically different controllers is that developers feel like they need to add controller functionality to their games in order to support it. Apparently, this is why the Tomb Raider reboot never showed up on the console. Rather than develop something with an easily mapped control scheme across all platforms, developers know that they need to do something which will, at least in some way, show off the features of the gamepad. It’s my opinion that developers would rather take the easy route and not develop for the Wii U. Is this the best decision? Probably not, but at the same time, it’s kind of understandable. Why make a port of a game with features that just seem tacked on?

PS4 –
This is the first major redesign of the Playstation controller since the Dual Analog version on the original PS1. Built with comfort in mind, Sony also added a touchpad in the center for menu navigation with the possibility of game integration.
While I’ve never been the biggest fan of the controller’s analog stick placement, I admire Sony for keeping a familiar approach each time it releases a new controller. It’s not the most innovative way to go about things, but it’s also not too much too soon. The Playstation controller has slightly evolved with each new iteration, getting us used to new things rather than putting it all out there at once.

Xbox One –
Microsoft also took a familiar approach this time around, with some improvements made on the Xbox 360 controller. I still think they could have done a better job with things like the d-pad, but features like the rumble triggers are a neat addition. There’s not really that much to praise or curse about this controller.

The Winner: PS4 & Xbox One
How we play our games is, indeed, important. I think Sony and Microsoft get this one simply because they’ve given us something which we’re familiar with.
In the grand scheme of things, the Wii U gamepad is really not that far behind in this category. It does have the ability to play some games without the need of a television, and its button layout is more along the lines of what we think of now as a traditional console controller. I just really don’t see the touchscreen thing ever really taking off when it comes to consoles and it can, at times, become a hindrance in both the gamers who play and the developers who make games for the system.

3. User Interface and Features

Wii U, PS4, Xbox One –
Honestly, I think all three consoles are struggling a bit in this category, the PS4 less so than the Xbox One and Wii U, but not by much at all.
I think that the Xbox 360 had the best UI on a console to date. It was simple to use, I didn’t have any problems finding anything, and could basically pick it up straight out of the box and know where everything was located. When the Wii U came along, I was hoping that Nintendo had taken a page out of Microsoft’s book and created an interface which would at least make getting to your friends and engaging in multiplayer easier. In a way, they made it easier to get to your friends list (doing away with the horrid “friend codes” system), but everything now basically uses an app.
Want to look at your friends list? Open the app. Want to check your messages? Open the app. Then wait entirely too long for it to load. True enough, the time spent waiting for the app to load is only a matter of seconds, but this is, in my opinion, a step backwards from the instantaneous and effortlessness social features of the Xbox 360.
However, Microsoft isn’t innocent in this situation either. The Xbox One now has the same sort of setup, requiring you to open an app for almost everything you do. So does the PS4, only I noticed that it isn’t quite as bad on Sony’s system. It’s still not great, and doesn’t put it enough ahead of the competition to amount to anything, but it’s true nonetheless.
Some of the other features of the PS4 and Xbox One include internet streaming directly from a console to either TwitchTV or Ustream, cable box integration on the X1 and Game DVR (also on X1). These are all neat features, but I’m a gamer. I like to play games. These are all things that I personally have little to no interest in. Game DVR is pretty cool, but I could live without it. Streaming might be neat, but if I wanted to stream, a capture card is relatively inexpensive nowadays.

The Winner: Wii U & PS4
This one is tough to award a winner since all three have problems, but I have to give it to the Wii U and PS4. For some reason, the Xbox One’s interface just seems too cluttered. The entire thing being designed to function predominantly with Kinect is also a negative. It takes longer than what should be needed to figure out where everything is and how everything works, while the Wii U and PS4’s UIs are pretty straightforward, though still not exactly easy to navigate.

4. Games

Wii U –
It’s been no secret that the Wii U has been struggling over the past year in terms of games. I don’t believe that has anything to do with their quality or lack thereof, but instead the problem lies in Nintendo not releasing games from their big franchises on a regular basis. At this point, with a dip in exclusive 3^rd party support, Nintendo is having to rely on 1^st party titles in order to stay afloat – titles that they haven’t released. Don’t get me wrong, there are some interesting games in the pipeline, but by this point, a year after the console’s release, we should have seen some by now. Especially franchises like Zelda, Metroid, or Starfox. So far, we’ve only seen one game that I would consider a “triple-A” exclusive: Super Mario 3D World. All the really interesting games have been coming out on the 3DS. The new Legend of Zelda title being the most recent. And honestly, there’s really no reason that couldn’t have been successful on the Wii U.
Rest assured, there are a lot of people out there who love Nintendo franchises, myself included. The Wii U is the only place you’re going to get them. The question is, “when will Nintendo release them?”

PS4 –
I’ve already talked about what I thought of the launch lineup, so there’s no need to get into that. The only thing we can really do here is speculate on the future. Will there be new games from Naughty Dog on par with The Last of Us? A new Uncharted game has been announced, so I’m sure we’ll see new IPs. What about Quantic Dream? Probably.
I could go on and on about what games are probably coming out for the PS4.

Xbox One –
Microsoft could probably call their console “The Halo Gear Box” and it would be a more fitting title. The Halo and Gears of War franchises are pretty much what the system is known for. There’s no question that these two series will end up on Xbox One at some point. Other than sporadic exclusives, I really don’t see the Xbox One’s game library being any different than the PS4’s. One only needs to look at the PS3 and Xbox 360 for reference.

Winner: PS4 & Xbox One
When it comes to games, you won’t be able to go wrong with these two consoles. It all really boils down to (between those two) if you want your games to look slightly prettier or not.
Nintendo has gotten the reputation of being a “kiddy,” or “family friendly” company, which is probably true. Or at least, it’s more family oriented than the other two big names. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it kind of limits Nintendo in terms of diversity. The Xbox One and PS4 (and by relation, the PS3 & 360) will have a selection of all types of games from adults to younger children, whereas the Wii U’s games are usually centered around “all ages” with a focus on younger kids. The games that will be available for Wii U will be predominantly Nintendo franchises and have a more (for lack of a better term) “child-like” quality about them. There’s nothing wrong with that, but again, I can see where it’s kind of limiting to some degree.

Overview & Final Thoughts –
The only real way to run the gamut on gaming is to own all three consoles (and a PC, to a certain extent), but I understand that’s not always feasible. So after all is said and done, which console should you buy as you move forward into the future of gaming?
(Here’s the part where everyone who was expecting me to award an overall winner groans and gets extremely disappointed.)
I can’t answer that.

Just like this article and the opinions expressed in it, what you choose to play and the types of games you enjoy are for YOU to decide. All I can say is this: If I were going to have just one console of these 3, I would probably go with the PS4, with the Wii U at a close second. The PS4 performs just fine for me and the Wii U is the only place I’ll be able to play the Nintendo franchises I enjoy.
If you like diversity, the PS4 is probably for you.
If you want a console that is built to showcase new titles in classic Nintendo franchises with a more family friendly emphasis, go with the Wii U.
If you enjoy the competitive multiplayer scene and really like shooters, you’ll probably feel right at home on the Xbox One.

Personally, I enjoy all these types of games. So in all honesty, one is really no better than the other when you get right down to it. Games are games, fun is fun, and what we enjoy is what we enjoy. All three systems offer a varying degree of fun, each catering to a certain style. While that may impede or help a console manufacturer’s product sales, it shouldn’t have any bearing whatsoever on the fun that these consoles can bring you.

-Josh

Killer Instinct - Review (Xbox One)

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:38:00 +0000

In the mid 1990’s, Mortal Kombat was huge, Street Fighter was pretty much just as huge and Killer Instinct was the new kid who sought to meld the two franchises into one unique fighting game. Though its time on the gaming scene was short, KI has been a much loved franchise and fans have clamored for a sequel since 1996’s KI2.
Originally published by Nintendo (developed by Rare, makers of the Donkey Kong Country franchise) in 1994, the rights to the Killer Instinct brand were acquired by Microsoft Studios when the company bought Rare back in 2002. For years, many KI fans hoped for a new sequel in the franchise and were hyped beyond belief when one was finally announced in 2013 as an Xbox One exclusive developed by Double Helix Games.
How have the 17 years between KI2 and the new game treated the franchise? Find out after the jump!

Breakdown:

Story: Non-existant (…yet)
This is a fighting game, so story has only rarely ever been the most important aspect of the genre. However, with recent blockbuster-quality story modes in games like Mortal Kombat (2011) and Injustice: Gods Among Us, a great story to back up the brutality is starting to become the norm. KI, however, has no story at the time of this writing because... well… it hasn’t been released yet. Instead of including a story mode, Double Helix instead chose to focus on the core fighting mechanics of the game. I think they made the right call, but I also think that this could be related to the rushed development of a game for a rushed console, which I alluded to in my Xbox One review. Just like many of the Xbox One’s features, KI is missing a lot of features at launch. Story mode and an arcade ladder are two of them… not to mention only 6 playable characters.

Visuals: 10/10
Killer Instinct is the first fighter developed on next-gen hardware and it shows. The characters, while looking as though they take a bit of influence from Street Fighter IV’s designs, are beautifully rendered, particle effects from a well-placed fireball are amazing, and the game outputs at 1080p (one of the only Xbox One titles to do so). Characters move smoothly and backgrounds are simple, but look great. There’s no shortage of great visuals here. Everything looks stunning.

Sound: 10/10
Everybody who plays fighting games (and some who haven’t) has heard someone yell, “C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER!!!!!” at some point in his or her lifetime. This classic phrase, and every other notable shout of the KI announcer, has been expertly recreated in the new Killer Instinct. The sounds of combat punch you in the gut like no other fighting game to date. And getting punched in the gut by sound is always fun, right?
Speaking of getting punched in the gut by sound, the original KI was always known for its exceptional music. The new game doesn’t disappoint. The classic Killer Instinct theme is perfectly remixed and modernized for 2013. In fact, music plays a significant part in the game. When you go for that devastating Ultra combo to finish off your opponent, the music goes along with, and is perfectly scored to every single hit. In the pause menus, some ominous, swelling chords are accompanied by a note from the KI theme’s melody for each option you highlight. This is almost like a mini-game in and of itself, as you try and match the melody to the chords.
As I pointed out to my friend, it’s like the developers knew how much the original music meant to the franchise and tried to make it an integral part of the new KI experience.

Gameplay: 9/10
From what I’ve played so far, KI’s gameplay is pretty top-notch. The combo system is fluid, the moves are easy to pull off (well… they’re supposed to be. I’ll get to that), and you can pretty much mash buttons to make your character do some really flashy stuff. But that’s not a good idea to do against someone who knows what they’re doing.
Double Helix made KI a game for everyone. For casual players who just want to sit around and beat up their buddies, KI is a decent game and there is a lot of fun to be had in doing so. For people who really want to get into the game and learn its intricacies, it’s almost overwhelmingly deep. Learning how to break combos alone takes a good amount of practice and patience. Luckily, the game includes a “Dojo” mode which teaches you every single aspect of the game and it’s one of the most intensive and thorough tutorials I’ve ever seen in a fighting game. In dojo mode, you’ll learn everything from how your regular attacks work, to countering combo breakers, and even how frame data works. It’s a lot to take in, but with some practice, you’ll be on your way to fighting like a KI pro.

One thing I should probably note is the Xbox One controller when used to play KI. The game itself is great, but using the pad is, in my opinion, an utter disaster. “Dragon punch motions (Forward, Down, Down Forward)” are extremely inconsistent with the Xbox One d-pad, as are quarter circles used for the majority of the special moves in the game. It’s manageable, but it can be pretty frustrating most of the time – especially given how simplistic the combo system can be. Also, KI is a 6 button game, meaning there are 3 kick and 3 punch buttons. Game pads for titles that use this layout (like Street Fighter, for example), have always been troublesome due to mapping the heavy attacks to the top of the controller (usually the triggers). My hand literally cramps up while trying to pull off longer, more difficult combos. Especially those you’ll come across in the dojo mode. (As I write this, the muscles in my right thumb and palm are aching severely from doing the last lesson of the dojo.)
Since the controller isn’t that good, your best option is going to be to pick up the MadCatz TE2 fightstick, which is currently and unfortunately the only next-gen fighting game controller. All your old arcade sticks won’t work on the new hardware (which is stupid and makes no sense whatsoever, in my opinion). I wasn’t too crazy about dropping $200 on ANOTHER fightstick, but I’m glad I have it preordered. I think my overall experience will improve once I’m able to play the game on something it was designed for.

Having to use the Xbox One controller at launch is really my only real complaint about Killer Instinct. It’s a great fighter that can be as deep and engaging as you want it to be. Is it worth the $40 download for the “Ultra Edition?” In the long-run, and considering the fact that you also get the original Killer Instinct arcade game in the download package, along with two downloadable characters about a month or so down the road, I would say yes. Sure, there are some missing features that will be added later, but none of that is necessary for you to enjoy the game. Also, if you want to play as only Jago, you can get the entire game for free as a sort of demo. I’m not exactly thrilled about this particular sales model, as I hope developers choose not to adopt the practice of releasing half-featured games, but I think KI is worth the full price of admission if you own an Xbox One. It’s a fun fighter and lives up to the hype of the Killer Instinct franchise. Here’s to hoping we don’t have to wait another 17 years to get a sequel!

Final Score: 9.6/10 (score will be updated when more features are released)

-Josh

Images taken from Google Images.

Xbox One - Console Review

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:19:00 +0000

The final next-gen console has been released and I spent almost the entire weekend playing it. Is the Xbox One good? Did mine actually work? What about that $500 down payment? My review is after the jump!

Disclaimer – As with my review of the PS4, this review is based on MY opinions, as they are subject to MY tastes. I do not owe allegiance to any gaming platform and am only offering an honest opinion as someone that has been a serious gamer since the original NES. I have owned nearly every major console produced since Nintendo’s first except all of Sega’s, the TurboGrafx-16, and the Atari Jaguar.
(I say “nearly” because, hey, I was a kid. I didn’t have my own money back then. I didn’t start buying my own consoles until the PS1)
I’m not intending to fuel the console wars, or anything of the sort. I just want to give you guys an unbiased look at these consoles from a technical standpoint.

Breakdown:

Launch Library – 7.5
Like the Playstation 4, I wasn’t impressed with the Xbox One’s launch lineup either. In fact, the only two reasons I bought the system were 1) multiplayer games (since I already pay for an Xbox Live subscription) and 2) Killer Instinct. So does that mean that Killer Instinct makes this the better of the two latest consoles’ libraries because of one game? Unfortunately, yes. That doesn’t mean Killer Instinct is a bad game, in fact it’s great, but only one exclusive available at launch that I’m interested in is still disappointing. But in all fairness, that’s one more than the PS4 had.

Console Design – 7.5
In my PS4 review, I mentioned that Sony’s console looked like “a crooked 1980s VCR.” I also mentioned that the Xbox One was better looking. After actually seeing the console in person, however, that opinion changed slightly. It does, indeed, look better than the PS4, but man that thing is huge and looks even MORE like a 1980s VCR (only not “crooked”)! The console is even about the size of one of the first VCRs I remember having as a kid (a top loader).
That being said, it’s still pretty slick. The quality is rather pristine and the build is sturdy, making you feel as though you just purchased something worth every penny of your $500. The Kinect (which I WILL NOT use. More on that in a bit) looks ridiculous sitting on top of the system, though. It looks like someone ripped off Rob the Robot’s head, stretched it, and stuck it on top of a huge VCR. For those of you who don’t know who Rob the Robot is, go look him up.

The Controller – 9.0
The Xbox One controller had the potential to be perfect. I really loved the Xbox 360 controller, but to myself and most fans, there was one glaring flaw: the d-pad. With its small, circular design, games such as those in the fighting genre were virtually unplayable on the 360 controller. With the Xbox One, Microsoft redesigned the d-pad with a more traditional take. However, it still doesn’t operate as well as I would like it to. Each direction “clicks,” rather than feeling smooth like most d-pads, including the PS4’s. Other than that, Microsoft kept the design pretty much the same from their previous console. Oddly enough, a 3^rd party controller for Xbox 360, the Razer Sabertooth, is a much better design than either the Xbox 360 or Xbox One. If the controller would have been an identical copy of Razer’s, I would have given it a perfect 10.

Interface – 6.5
Here is where things start to go a bit south. First, I’ll say that I absolutely hate Windows 8. It’s designed for the “tablet generation” and complicates things greatly in its attempts to simplify them. This is also true of the Xbox One’s Windows 8-based operating system. Like the Wii U, everything you try to do loads an app (which takes too long to load. More on that in a bit), which is pretty unnecessary.

My friend and I were attempting to play a few matches online in Killer Instinct when I found out just how overcomplicated things had actually gotten. On the Xbox 360 when you wanted to invite someone to whatever game you were playing, all you had to do was click the Xbox home button on the controller, go to your friend’s list, and push X on the friend you wanted to invite. In a matter of seconds, your friend was connected to your lobby and you were ready to play some multiplayer. Simple, huh? With the Xbox One, I’m not really sure how it works! My friend and I were looking for some way to invite someone specifically to a game, but all we found was that the Xbox will automatically connect you after you’ve chosen to host a game. It works, but it really makes no sense to me. Like, what if I have multiple friends who are playing Killer Instinct and I just want to invite one of them? Does it show me a list and I pick who I want to play with? Is this just a bug with Killer Instinct? I’m sure there’s somebody reading this that thinks, “Man, he’s an idiot. The process is [insert ridiculously stupid Windows 8 process here].” But to me, this is an example of Microsoft changing something that was ridiculously simple and effective to begin with, yet overcomplicating it with their next product/update.
It’s not the first time the company has done this kind of thing. I’ve been using Microsoft products since the late 80s and this has pretty much always been their philosophy.

The operating system doesn’t cater to those who would rather navigate the OS with a controller, either. Instead, the entire thing was designed to use Kinect motion tracking and voice commands. Also, some of the apps which don’t require Kinect to use certain features, do require you to at least have it plugged in. What’s the point of that? All this would probably be fine if my Kinect actually worked in the first place (more on that in a bit, as well)!

Power/The Insides – 8.0
I can’t really speak from first-hand experience, as I only have one game and it’s a fighter, but the insides are supposed to be almost exactly the same as the PS4’s. This means that yes, games will look better than they did on the previous console. But there’s one glaring flaw in the Xbox One’s architecture: most games don’t display in native 1080p and are instead upscaled from 720p. To some, resolution may not be that important, but come on; it’s 2013. High-def televisions are pretty much the standard and tech should support their highest resolutions. Also, if you’re going to make me lay out $500 for a console, shouldn’t the thing be capable of more than, or at least be on par with, its lower priced competition?

Flaws – Doesn’t get a score due to the randomness of each console’s problems, but they’re worth mentioning
The PS4 had its share of launch-day woes, but in my opinion, they don’t compare to the amount and severity of problems reported (and experienced firsthand) of the Xbox One. Bad disc drives, “green screens of death,” inoperable and barely functioning Kinect sensor (supposedly you have to yell at it to make it work most of the time), etc.
I wasn’t as fortunate this time around, as I was with the PS4. My Xbox, as well as two of my friends’, experienced a few problems, some to greater degrees than others (mine seemed to be hit the worst). Here are the problems I personally encountered over the weekend:

1. My Kinect doesn’t work.
I don’t want to use the thing anyway, but in order to use the Upload Studio app to edit a Killer Instinct video clip (a feature which, as my friend informed me, DOESN’T require Kinect while editing), I have to have the Kinect sensor plugged into the console. Why is that? All I want to do is edit the length of a freaking game clip with the DVR feature! Why does the Kinect have to be plugged in to do that?
When I plugged the Kinect into the system just to unlock the editing feature, the Xbox One wouldn’t recognize it, saying that it was unplugged. Apparently this is a known problem, and could possibly be fixed in a firmware patch in the future. Right now, Microsoft is having people send back their consoles for replacements, claiming “hardware failure,” but I think I’ll wait for an update to see if that does the trick.
[UPDATE: Since the Xbox One's first firmware update after release, my Kinect works as it should. Not that I have any reason at all to use it, but at least it works.]

2. Apps occasionally force-close.
I’ve had a few apps close on me for no apparent reason, including Killer Instinct. (One of my friends has also experienced this a few times.) Not only that, but I had the system completely power itself down randomly while I was downloading the game. Luckily, when I turned it back on, the download resumed where it left off.

3. Apps have locked up, or take a ridiculous amount of time to load on occasion.
I’ve had this happen a few times. So far, Killer Instinct has locked up on me twice, and my friends list and other apps have taken too long to load. This is a problem (load times) that my friends who have an Xbox One have all experienced. What’s really strange, however, is the fact that for us, apps all take a different amount of time to load. This is the first time that I’ve ever heard of a console taking different amounts of time to load the same thing on different consoles. Is it a deal breaker? No, but it’s really weird. I hope that this is something that can be corrected in a firmware update.

4. I don’t know if my disc drive will play Xbox One games. (Not really a problem yet, but I thought I’d mention it)
Again, this is a known problem, but I have no real way to test it, as of yet. Hopefully it does, but I’ll have to borrow a game or something from one of my friends to find out. With Kinect already not functioning, I’m a little worried that I might have the disc drive errors as well. I’m not sure if this only affects Xbox One games, or any type of disc you try and feed it. I’ll try it out soon and update the review accordingly.
*UPDATE 12/8/13* My disc drive DOES work. :)

After all that negativity, is the Xbox One worth $500? Given the problems that the system is having, I’m going to go ahead and say no. My advice: let all the kinks get worked out first, and then buy the system. If you’re a fan of games like Halo, Gears of War, etc. (which I’m not so much), then the Xbox is still going to be the system for you. Killer Instinct is a great launch title, but in my opinion, it doesn’t justify taking the risk of a defective system at the moment. Also, there are a lot of neat features such as the Game DVR that are rather tempting, but a lot of promised features have been left out until future updates – more so than the PS4. In my honest opinion, I think Microsoft rushed this console to production and it’s showing.
All in all, it’s a decent console, but I was hoping it would be better. Like the PS4, I’m sure it will have a great library of games and cool features in the future, but neither console is absolutely stellar at the moment.

Final Score: 7.7 / 10

-Josh

Playstation 4 - Console Review

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:50:00 +0000

Back in August (I think), I preordered both of the new “next-gen” consoles. I did so partially as a collector, and also to bring those of you that read this site a completely unbiased, fan-boy-free lookover of what they had to offer. This Friday marked the release of Sony’s Playstation 4, but how does it perform? Is the $399 price tag justifiable?

Before I continue, I just want to note that there will probably be a few comparisons to the PC and the existing consoles – not from a fan-boy perspective, but from a technology perspective. Since the Xbox One will be released this Friday, I’ll be doing a sort of “head-to-head” article on what I think is the best deal in terms of quality – PS4, Xbox One, or Wii U.
Also, keep in mind: As with all of my reviews, these are just MY OPINIONS and the scores are assigned accordingly, given MY tastes. Ultimately, what box you choose to play your games on is your decision. And as long as you’re having fun playing the games, that’s all that matters, right?

To start, I probably need to address one of the most talked about features of the PS4 since its release: its functionality, or lack thereof.
Earlier during the launch week, the winner(s) of the Taco Bell “Play The Future” promotional event were sent their PS4s, but complained of various problems with the unit - the story being picked up by a multitude of gaming websites and media. Problems reported by the media ranged from a lack of video from the system’s HDMI output port, to the system “bricking” during the installation of certain apps and firmware, and even to the rubber feet on the bottom of the console being misplaced, therefore making the system wobble when placed on the floor or a desk and pushed down.

Needless to say, I feared the worst. I hoped that the $399.00 I spent wouldn’t be in vain and I would actually get to play my PS4 on launch weekend without having to send it back to Sony under warranty. I must have been one of the lucky ones, as I (at least so far) haven’t experienced any problems with mine, aside from not being able to log in to the Playstation Network for a few hours after unboxing.

Now for a bit of a breakdown:

Launch Library – 7.0
Let’s face it, console launch libraries aren’t really a good indicator of what a system will be capable of in the future. Like with the Wii U, most of the games on PS4 are ports of previous-gen games, with only a few brand new, built-for-the-new-console titles. With that said, for a gamer with options (like myself), I found it hard to justify buying certain games knowing that I could get the “better looking” version on PC if I just waited a few weeks. I ended up buying the games I did just so I would have something to actually play on the PS4 and the system wouldn’t sit around collecting dust until something truly interesting was released.

Console Design – 7.0
I have to admit, I’m not a huge fan of the design. It’s sleek, small, and will easily blend in with all your Blu-Ray players and cable boxes, but I just think it looks too much like a crooked, 1980s VCR. In all fairness, and like people, it’s what’s inside that really counts. But with such a unique design (for a console), I think it’s worth giving the box a score. I mean, you do have to look at the thing. In comparison to the other consoles, I think the 2^nd PS3 design, both versions of the Xbox 360, the Xbox One and the Wii U all look better on the outside than the PS4.

The Controller – 9.0
Here’s the physical design aspect that really shines. For the first time since they introduced the Dual Analog controller with the PS1, Sony has completely redesigned the thing you use to play its consoles. We’re not talking simple additions like analog sticks or the Six-Axis feature; they physically redesigned the entire thing.
The button layout is mostly the same, but the pad’s handles, directional buttons, triggers and analog sticks have all been configured in a way to make the controller more comfortable and easy to use. New features such as the “share,” “options,” and “touch pad” have replaced the normal “start” and “select” buttons, however.
Those three new buttons are also why the controller didn’t get a perfect 10 for me. Since the days of playing the original NES, gamers have been used to having “start” and “select” (or “back” in the Xbox’s case) buttons in the middle of their gamepads. With the Dual Shock 4, Sony placed the “options” and “share” buttons on the top/middle, with the large, pushable touchpad dead center. While playing, I found myself going for the options button to pause the game, only accidentally pressing the touchpad instead. It’s not a terrible design decision by any means; it’s just something that will take a lot of getting used to. Also, I can’t help but wonder how much that will hinder fighting games (and tournaments) in the future since the face buttons and directional pad are so close to the button that pauses the game.

Interface – 8.5
The interface is good and works well, but there’s nothing really that special about it. There are some conveniences such as being able to switch seamlessly between the operating interface and whatever game you’re playing, but it’s not the best (first updated Xbox 360 XMB), nor the worst (Wii U) GUI I’ve encountered on a console. Really, it just feels like a slightly updated version of the PS3’s GUI.
[Unfortunately, I can’t really comment on some of the sharing features, as I haven’t been able to try those out yet.]
The thing that I did like the most about the interface, however, was the connectivity with the Vita. Much like the Wii U’s gamepad, the PS4 can connect wirelessly with the Sony handheld, allowing you to play almost any PS4 game without the need of a television. Unlike the Wii U though, every PS4 doesn’t come with a PS Vita and you have to lay out a couple hundred bucks to get that experience.

Power/The Insides – 9.0
I have touted the power of the PC ever since I started reviewing games on this site. That being said, for a console with a GPU that costs around $150, this thing packs a significant punch. I bought 3 games at launch: Assassin’s Creed IV, Battlefield 4 and Madden 25. All three games look and run great with a slight exception for ACIV. While it looks gorgeous in 1080p (after an update which 'unlocks' the resolution from 900p), the PS4 version is locked at 30fps. To some, this won’t be a big deal, but to me, having played every Assassin’s Creed game on PC at 60fps and above, there’s a noticeable difference in smooth animations. Battlefield 4, however, looks fantastic and in my opinion, looks nearly as good as Battlefield 3 did on PC.
Is the jump in graphics power that large from the previous generation or on par with the PC? Not exactly, but the fact that the games are outputting at a sharp 1080p, makes things look much more crisp and vibrant. Though, just like with the Xbox 360 and PS3, developers will learn certain tricks to make graphics look even better as they get more comfortable developing for more powerful hardware.

Overall, I like the PS4. The outward design isn’t the best I’ve ever seen, the controller is almost perfection and the games are pretty. There are a lot of neat features that the console is capable of, but none of them are a “system seller.”

So after all that, is the PS4 worth $399? I would say yes. I believe that right now (my opinions could change after the release of the Xbox One), the PS4 has the most potential in the console world. Its capabilities for game development are rather high, lots of interesting games are in the pipeline and the price tag is rather affordable. The Wii U is still cheaper, but after a year on the market, it still only appeals to a niche group of gamers and can be seen as the console everyone will buy eventually if they like playing Nintendo’s first-party titles. The PS4, on the other hand, could possibly appeal to a more “everyday gamer” market.
It’s not trying to sell itself as a do-all this time around (like the PS3), it’s not trying to innovate the way you control games (Wii & Wii U) and it’s not trying to be the centerpiece of your living room (Xbox One). It’s just a gaming box with better technology for folks to enjoy. The last time I remember a company doing that with a console was Nintendo with the SNES… And we all know how awesome that system was!

Final Score: 8.1 / 10

-Josh

Next-Gen Console Reviews Coming Soon

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Tue, 12 Nov 2013 07:18:00 +0000

Just wanted to let you guys know that the next few weeks will probably see The Inner Dorkdom releasing a good bit of content...
I'll be getting the PS4 this Friday, along with Assassin's Creed IV, Battlefield 4, and Madden 25 (BF4 and Madden, thanks to a great promo deal through Amazon). So along with these 3 games (though there probably won't be a full-blown Madden review), there will be a review of the console itself, just like there was for the Wii U.

Next Friday, I'll be getting my Xbox One with Killer Instinct and the MadCatz KI Fightstick. I'll be doing a review of all three.

Get ready. There's gonna be a lotta readin' soon!

-Josh

Josh's Adventures As a DM - Episode 1: The Fun & Freedom of D&D

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:17:00 +0000

This will be a new article series in which I chronicle some of the things going on in my current big interest, Dungeons & Dragons, and my experiences as a VERY new Dungeon Master (or, DM). When people think of D&D, they get the mental picture of huge, loser-nerds talking in accents while rolling dice. Well… That happens. But in all fairness, those are the people with imaginations. Personally, I just enjoy creating a story for my players to experience; and the best thing about it? Anyone can do it!

Designing adventures for D&D is probably the closest most of us will ever get to creating huge, sprawling epics like Skyrim, or any other video game on the market. Using myself as an example, I don’t need a vast knowledge of gaming engines or any computer experience at all really, to make an interesting world for people who will play my game. All I need are some paper, a pencil, and 3 core rule books to have my players fight a dragon, save the princess, and get a whole crap-load of treasure… all while securing trade agreements with countries in other parts of the world.

Several years ago, some of my friends (one of which was Nic) and I decided to try our hand at Dungeons & Dragons. Even though its known as the dorkiest game on the planet, I couldn’t help but notice the game’s emphasis on, and encouragement towards, creativity. Unfortunately, we had a hard time jumping into its 3rd edition, and after around 2 or 3 games, our game sessions quickly came to a close. I think the main problem we had was that we just didn’t know if we were doing it right or not.

One night a few months ago, I randomly searched “people playing D&D” on YouTube. The first results were the live Penny Arcade “Acquisitions Inc.” games from PAX (if you haven’t seen those games, go look ‘em up. They’re hilarious). I soon found that when we originally tried D&D, we WERE doing it wrong, and we were over-complicating things all those years ago. D&D is as free-form as you want it to be. The rules are just there to give you some guidelines and advice on how to handle things.

I decided to give the current version (4e) a try. I bought the “Red Box” starter set and ran the included adventure with me as the DM, and my friend Danny and his wife, Lori, playing as a wizard and thief, respectively. We had a blast! Not too far into the adventure, I began to deviate from the pre-written guidelines quite heavily, something which the developers encourage, and set small things in motion which would come up in later adventures as we went along.

So far, I’ve DMed something like 5 games with no sign of stopping. Our biggest game so far had 4 players going through an adventure that I created. The plot was rather thin and I had very little time to prepare for the additional 2 players, but it was great fun having that many folks!

The best game, however, was this past weekend when Danny, Lori and I played a pre-made adventure, “Keep on The Shadow Fell,” written by Mike Mearls and Bruce R. Cordell, as a playtest for the unreleased D&D Next (5e) version of the game. Someone had, very awesomely, converted the game to the D&D Next rules, and since our 4th edition adventures really need our 2 additional players in order to continue, I decided to run this larger pre-made adventure for my 2 main players.

I wonder if Mearls and Cordell had any idea that the adventure would take the turn it did when my players ended up banished from Winterhaven?

Confused? Well, what I’m about to do is give you a rundown of the game session’s first half of events and hopefully give an idea of how much fun and freeform D&D can be.

Danny (a human cleric) and Lori (a dwarf fighter) met on the way to a town called Winterhaven, realized their goals aligned, and decided to combine their efforts. Danny, being a cleric, had heard rumors of necromancy around the town and because of his obligation to banish evil wherever he may find it, thought he’d check it out. Lori, a fighter that likes to smash stuff, heard rumors of a kobold (small, humanoid dragon-like creatures) threat around Winterhaven and figured there would be coin involved. On the way to the town, they were ambushed by kobolds, lending some validity to the rumors Lori had heard.

Once they reached the town, 2 guards pointed them to Wrafton’s Inn as a starting point for gathering information. At the Inn, and after a ridiculous display that involved Danny slamming his mace on the ground and announcing his arrival in the Inn (which, rightly so, freaked everybody out), they were informed that the kobolds had brought the town’s businesses to an all-time low. Everyone was afraid to go outside for fear of being raided and ambushed, and traders who tried to come near the town were literally stopped in their tracks. This had forced Winterhaven’s food supply to run dangerously low, as well as their normal goods trade to cease completely. Basically, the town was in terrible shape.

The first person they noticed was a female hunter named Ninarin. She gave them a small side quest to find a dragon’s skull from a dragon graveyard in the southern forest. She warned that it was somewhere near the kobold’s lair, and urged them to be careful. When they asked about the necromancer rumors, she said she knew nothing about such things and that the townspeople were probably just being superstitious. Unbeknownst to the two adventurers, Ninarin was actually in league with the necromancer, Kalarel (the main villain of the adventure).

Danny and Lori decided to split up and cover more ground in their investigation. Lori left to talk to the town’s leader, Lord Ernest Paldraig, and Danny’s goal was to talk to the town priest, Valthrun. After Lori left, Danny was approached by a drunken farmer in the Inn, known around the town as “Old Eilian.” Eilian didn’t have much to say about the kobolds, but he said that he had seen what he believed to be evidence of a necromancer: zombies!

He proceeded to tell a very alcohol-induced tale involving a farm he had stumbled across one night in the northern forest and the zombies that now inhabited it. After hearing all of the drunken tale he could stand, Danny left to speak with Valthrun.

When Lori was granted permission to talk with Lord Paldraig, he was overjoyed that someone had come along who could hopefully take care of the kobold menace. However, Lori didn’t trust him. Here was Paldraig living in a quasi-fancy estate and his town was suffering. Paldraig assured her, however, that he wasn’t screwing the town or being selfish, but that he was from a long line of Winterhaven rulers and that he was trying to hang on to his things just as much as his townsfolk. He then offered Lori payment to eradicate the kobolds and she went on her way.

Danny spoke with Valthrun the priest, predominantly about the necromancer rumors. Valthrun said that he hadn’t seen anything himself, but believed that the large number of citizens who said they had been witness to such events, couldn’t be simply making stuff up. The interesting bit here was when Danny asked Valthrun about the “zombie farm” which Eilian had mentioned earlier. Danny mentioned the northern location, but Valthrun said that he had heard a similar rumor, only it was to the SOUTH. He then asked, “Was he drunk?”

After meeting back up with Lori, the two went to confront Eilian about the directional conflict in his story. Danny decided to cast a truth spell on him, but due to his drunken state, the spell only made the directional conflict worse. When Danny and Lori went back to Valthrun to tell him of Eilian’s confusing information, he told them, “Never cast a truth spell on a drunk.”

The great thing about this is the fact that none of this was in the premade adventure. The non-player characters (NPCs) were all there, but this little bit of dialogue and characterization all came from developments between Danny, Lori and I.

Eventually, the two learned (from Valthrun) that there was, indeed, a Kobold lair in the southern woods, so they set out to find it. After traveling for several hours, Danny and Lori stumbled upon the zombie farm (proving Eilian’s story to be somewhat true), the dragon graveyard, and tracks which led them to the kobold’s lair.

This is where things got REALLY interesting.

While exploring the kobold’s lair, a series of winding caves and tunnels, Danny and Lori fought off kobolds and several other monsters. However, they didn’t kill ALL of them as Padraig and the rest of the town expected them to. Once they defeated the “boss” of the lair, a green dragon who slyly revealed the kobold’s connection to the necromancer, the adventurers found the exit and left the caves only half explored.

Lori’s initial reaction was to go back inside and explore the rest of the lair. Danny, on the other hand, thought that they should figure out a way to seal off the cave’s entrances, trapping the kobolds inside. After a debate on what to do, they decided to go with Danny’s plan which would involve going back to Winterhaven, getting some dynamite and sealing the lair.

Bad move.

As a DM, I’m not really supposed to come right out and tell the players what to do next - that’s for them to decide. I just remember thinking, “Oh, this is gonna be great! The people aren’t going to be happy when they hear about this!”

And happy, they weren’t! When Lord Paldraig excitedly asked the players if they had accomplished the task of taking out the kobolds, Danny replied, “We got MOST of them.”

Paldraig was furious! He had put his hopes in these two adventurers’ zeal and ability to carry out the mission, but they had failed to deliver. When Danny and Lori told him they had a plan to seal up the tunnels, Paldraig said, “You don’t know very much about kobolds, do you? Sure, that might slow them down, but it won’t stop them. They’re tunnelers! They’ll just dig their way out and start terrorizing us again!”

There was quite a heated debate, but it all ended with Paldraig letting his anger and frustration get the better of him and banishing them from the town. There were a few other events which ultimately led the players to the main villain’s lair, Shadowfell Keep, but for all intents and purposes, Danny and Lori aren’t allowed into Winterhaven ever again.

This drastic turn of events pretty much forces me to change the entire second half of the premade adventure. Sure, the players will enter Shadowfell Keep, but they won’t be able to have any more interactions in Winterhaven unless they do something to restore the town’s faith in them. And that’s the greater part of the fun!

This goes to show that D&D is one of the best games known to man. It’s a huge, open world in mostly the same style as The Elder Scrolls video game series, but it’s actually much larger than that. In fact, it’s infinitely larger. Theoretically, Danny and Lori could continue on throughout this course of events until either their characters die, or the real world ends. The best thing about it, though: if there’s ever a zombie apocalypse and there’s no electricity with which to play video games, there’ll always be D&D!

-Josh

Nic's ID Journal - #1 - Nov 7, 2013 - TV shows

theinnerdorkdom@yahoo.com (Josh Shaw & Nic Weymouth) — Thu, 07 Nov 2013 23:00:00 +0000

Here it is, the first installment in my Inner Dorkdom journal. Prepare to be amazed. Or marginally distracted from boredom.

Much like with Josh, my aim here is simply to share with the four of you the things I'm currently enjoying from the world of dorkiness. These days, with a wonderful wife, inquisitive energetic two-and-a-half-year old, and a full-time job, free time is harder to come by than it used to be. But even so, I've managed to squeeze some dorkiness into my days.

Today's journal is going to, just because it happens to, focus mainly on TV shows that I've been enjoying. Some newer, some older.

The Neighbors: This is a sci-fi comedy on ABC, currently in its second season. Perhaps you've heard of it. Probably you haven't. And that's a shame. The premise is that a group of aliens from the planet Zabvron have been on Earth for 10 years, living in a gated community in New Jersey. In fact, until last year, the entire community consisted of nothing but Zabvronians. That is, until the Weavers (husband, wife, and three children) moved in. Next door to the community's leader, Larry Bird (all Zabvronians have taken the names of famous athletes), and his family, no less. The Weaver children learn their neighbors' secret in the pilot, and the parents follow suit shortly thereafter. The show often, but not always, explores the Zabvronians learning Earth ways from the Weavers who, for the most part, have become good friends.

I remember seeing commercials for the show before it premiered and thinking it was something I should check out. But life got in the way and almost the entire first season went by without be ever seeing anything more than a snippet of an episode. I do remember hearing that the show was awful. And then, a month or so later, hearing that it was getting better. ABC even highlighted this in their marketing campaign for the show.

Fast forward to sometime this summer, when I caught the replay of the season finale. I was somewhat lost on the subtleties of who the charters were, what their dynamic was, etc. But it still hooked me. The writing was clever, with some self-referential and even leaning on the fourth wall humor (the episode involved Larry's father coming to take the Zabvronians home, only to have Larry refuse to go, saying he's learned so much from the Weavers that "I feel like I just need another six, or maybe seven seasons – I mean, years – to figure it all out"). The acting was entertaining (especially Larry Bird, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Dick Butkis). And it guest starred George Takei (who did in fact get to say, "Oh my") and Mark Hamill.

When the second season premiered I made sure to DVR it. The premier proved that the first season finale hadn't been a fluke. I made sure to save the episode and told Liz she needed to watch it. A few days later we were talking to someone about shows we watch. In the list she mentioned The Neighbors. I asked her if she'd watched the episode. She had, and really enjoyed it. So now we have two Friday night ABC shows we enjoy together (the other being Tim Allen's Last Man Standing).

Castle: This muder-mystery dramedy is in its fifth season, and, although boasting some genre vets on its staff (i.e., Ron Moore, occasional director Jonathan Frakes, recurring actress Penny Johnson "Cassidy Yates" Jerald, with guest actors like Robert "The Doctor" Picardo, Tim "Tuvok" Russ, and Michael Dorn--you know who he is), isn't really a genre show.

Or is it?

Potential Spoilers

The premise of Castle is that novelist Richard Castle, played wonderfully by Nathan Fillion (hey, he counts as a genre vet, too, huh), works with a team of NYPD homicide detectives in order to do research and get inspiration for his crime novels. Over the years, the show has had our band of heroes face murder mysteries involving zombies, ghosts, etc. At least, at first glance. However, much like in Scooby-Doo, it always turns out the paranormal/supernatural/sci-fi element isn't what it first seems to be. This is always disappointing to Castle, who, unlike lead detective Kate Beckett, wants to believe in the unbelievable.

So whenever a genre-themed mystery comes up, it always goes the same. Castle loves the case, and spends most of the episode trying to convince the others that the supernatural explanation is the correct one, while Beckett is the champion of reason and mundane explanations. Not that I'm complaining by saying it always goes the same. Truth is, in a series where I've literally enjoyed every episode, these are always among my favorites.

Well, recently there was an episode where a woman was killed, and a man who at first seemed to be the killer is apprehended when he, like a moron, returns to the scene of the crime. During his interrogation by the police he claims innocence (they all do). He says that he was trying to protect her, because, wait for it, he's from the future. Castle declares this is his new favorite case ever. The suspect gives a brief summary of future history, which Castle eats up, and then explains that because this woman has been killed it has set up a chain of events that apparently will result in the deaths of billions. The killer must be found.

I won't go into details. But suffice it to say, although the episode more-or-less follows the standard trajectory for these stories, a careful viewer notices some deviations. Usually Castle's paranormal theories have some convoluted twists and jumps in logic (aside from the obvious "the paranormal is real" bit), whereas Beckett's are always more plausible and adhere better to the facts. But not this time. Though both plausible sounding, this time the facts better seem to fit the paranormal explanation. It's nothing overwhelming. And, indeed, when it seems like the scales tip in Castle's favor, something else happens to move them back the other direction.

But then there's the last scene in the station with Beckett. Again, I don't want to spoil anything. Watch the episode yourself. As for me, I don't know. I just don't see how that can be explained away as coincidental.

But then, that suggests that in the world of Castle time-travel might be real. Which would make Castle a genre show. I'm not exactly sure how I feel about that, even though I love genre shows, and part of me thinks this development is pretty stinking cool.

Anyway, if you're not watching Castle, you should be.

Star Trek Voyager: The other day I was looking up something on YouTube. Off to the side in the suggestion column were some Star Trek videos. Usual stuff: compilations of Data being awesome, montages of Worf's suggestions being shot down by everyone on the bridge, that sort of thing. But there was also one from Voyager: "Janeway emotional at first contact with Starfleet Command." I watched it. Turns out it was from one of the episodes with Barclay in it. And it was a good clip. If only I could watch the whole episode, it might be fun, I thought. Wait, I have Netflix. So I pulled up Netflix and watched that episode, which also had Deanna Troi in it. And then I watched the other Voyager episodes with Barclay (except the series finale). I enjoyed those too.

So, I decided to start watching Voyager from the beginning. I've only gotten through the premier and second episode so far. Both of those I was already familiar with, since I watched Voyager regularly when it first came on.

We'll see how it goes.

Oh, and speaking of Voyager, here's a fun game to play. Look up the main characters from the show on either Wikipedia or Memory Alpha (the largest Trek wiki), and then look up how those actors look now. I'm not trying to be mean-spirited to anyone. That having been said, some of them are jaw-dropping surprising.

Misc:

Recently I watched an episode of the Monsters vs. Aliens TV series on Nickelodeon. I've never seen the film, and have only seen one episode. But the one I saw was good.

Same goes for Rabbids Invasion, although there's no film it's based on, just video games, and I've played a few of those (including the quite enjoyable Rabbids Go Home on Wii).

Star Trek Online is gearing up for its 8th "season" which will involve activities within a Dyson Sphere (that's not the ball on the Dyson vacuum). That in and of itself is pretty cool. But here's the really fun part. The introductory episode includes an appearance from Ambassador Worf, sporting both the likeness and voice of Michael Dorn himself.

I posted this on our Facebook page. But I though I'd link it here, too. This is a video I stumbled upon, wherein someone has taken "An Ideal of Hope," the trailer music from Man of Steel, and subtly mixed in some of John Williams' classic Superman themes. The sound quality could be better (I think the mixer was working from just the trailer's audio track with the dialogue filtered out), but man, it's a great glimpse at what might have been.

And, in light of it, it makes me want to reiterate what I've said before. Much of the music that exists in Man of Steel isn't total garbage, even if stylistically it isn't my favorite type of sound (I'm more of an orchestral guy myself). It's just, for my tastes, not distinctive enough. It works on a basic emotional level. But not on a more complex thematic level.

In other words, Mr. Zimmer was off to a decent start. He had the accompaniment. He just forgot to write the melodies. As commenter MisterJJMoreno said, "even just the slightest hint of the grandeur that is John Williams score would have given the movie that extra push that it needed to really connect with audiences. this is very well done, hopefully the next movie will set the tone right, musically speaking of course." I couldn't agree more.

In fact, it's inspired me to try and recreate the remix at a higher quality, while also throwing in a couple of remixing ideas of my own. I'll keep you posted.

Alright, I think that's all I have for now. Time to go play some LEGO Marvel Superheroes on the Wii U.

I remain,

- Nic

END OF LINE