All reviews - Movies (2) - DVDs (26) - Music (10) - Games (40)

-

Posted : 7 months, 4 weeks ago on 4 June 2011 09:12 (A review of Saw VI (Unrated Director's Cut) [Blu-ray])

Who would have thought that after the surprise success of James Wan's Saw that we would get, as of early 2010, five sequels. What's even more compelling is to think that the first Saw was a Hitchcockian suspense thriller built more to tickle the brain than shed blood. Each sequel - beginning with Saw II - has left the original's relatively tame violence behind only to capitalize on Hollywood's renewed fixation with gag-inducing gore & violence. Nevertheless, the Saw films have always been conceptual brain-teasers and Kevin Greutert's Saw VI, while still unremittingly gruesome (what did you expect?) is no different.

It's amazing to think that the first Saw film - shot for a measly 1.5 million, released way back in the Fall of 2004, and originally meant to be a straight-to-DVD flick - would spawn some of the horror genre's most financially profitable sequels. Thus, a franchise was born and what remained of the first movie has pretty much gone by the wayside at this point. More importantly however, is that each film has moved the series forward instead of relegating them to surmounting past glories. The same can be said of Saw VI.

A lot of the previous sequels’ problems have been done away with. As much as Saw V has grown on me with repeat viewings it is still easily the worst film in the franchise. It's a pandering, poorly paced, and meaningless slice of the Saw pie that seemed to strike many (myself included) as made purely to squeeze one more sequel out of the declining series. Let's face it, ever since Saw III there was never any real reason to keep churning out sequels other than Lionsgate not wanting to sacrifice the money they figured they could make by keeping it going. I still believe to this day that Saw III was always meant to close out the series, but the money machine that is Saw was something the producers couldn't let go of. As much as I truly love Saw IV, even I can admit that it wasn't quite up to snuff with the movie's that came before it. Something was missing. I guess with Jigsaw no longer being alive (he is now relegated to flashbacks) it took away from a lot of the appeal of the movies. It also doesn't help that original creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell only have executive producer credits after the third film. In other words, they have very little to do with the franchise at this point.

As for Saw VI, I'm relieved to say that it is much better than V and probably one of the best sequels thus far. VI brought more story into the equation and gave us characters that we really do want to see survive. Peter Outerbridge (as slimey insurance agent William Easton) is a character that most of us can immediately identify; an insurance agent only out to grease the palms of his financers, as well as his own. The policy he's created, which is also the focal point of his "game," comes down to one equation; the healthy receiving coverage and the sick being denied it. This subplot plays out later in the film but those revelations are something I won't spoil for the reader. And as much as we hate William at first, we start to see that throughout his ordeal he has a newfound appreciation for the value of a human life.

I loved that the one being tested, William, and the subsequent people he must save are co-workers of his who are shown to lack any semblance of conscience, much like their boss. The way our economy is backsliding due to these same types of people should really ring true for viewers. At times the concept can be a bit too preachy and over-the-top, but it was nice to see a Saw film include a bit of social commentary to go along with its blood & guts.

Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) has also returned along with a more cynical point-of-view after law enforcement agents begin to get closer and closer to discovering his ties with John Kramer aka Jigsaw. As much as I like the character, Mandylor's performance was too subdued throughout and really didn't mesh with the Saw IV & V Hoffman. I don't think he spoke more than 10 sentences during the film. He was massively underused and his mannerisms seemed so unnatural for the character. Then again, Hoffman is probably quite the nervous wreck after all signs point to him as the second Jigsaw accomplice. As far as co-stars are concerned, the flashbacks involving Tobin Bell (Jigsaw) are very much welcomed and we find that he had ties to the abovementioned insurance agent that, again, is so crucial to the plot that I won't give it away here. Mark Rolston also returns as the likeable Special Agent Erickson. There are a few surprise returns as well, but none that (this is getting redundant) I will reveal to you.

VI as a whole feels so much more rewarding, informative, and thought-out as opposed to the rather mundane V. There's a lot going on and tons of flashbacks to give reference to new revelations. Kevin Greutert, as director, is also a huge improvement over Saw V director David Hackl. Greutert manages to squeeze out a number of good performances from the cast, sets up some truly amazing visual sequences, and keeps this feeling much more like the previous Saw's through trademark visual aesthetic than Hackl did. As much as I miss Bousman helming the sequels, I will freely admit to Greutert doing a bang-up job regardless.

As far as labeling this Blu-ray a director's cut, I can't say it offers up anything more than lengthened death scenes. I'm sure those familiar with the theatrical cut will notice some of these differences, but something tells me that the rated print wasn't cut down very much at all. With that said, it's amazing what the Saw films are getting away with now as VI certainly doesn't hold back. For the initiated, Greutuert has seen fit to add in slightly more back-story as well as a lengthened ending sequence that hits much harder than the theatrical print's.

All in all, Saw VI is much better than it has any right to be. As the sixth film in a waning franchise, it's much better than the previous sequel and is in many ways better than my personal favorite, Saw IV. Greutert focused much of his time on creating compelling subplots, interesting characters, and memorable traps that really make this a Saw film worth watching. I hear he's taken Hackl's place as the director of VII and, if so, I'm even more pumped to see what he's able to do with the 3D effect reported to be used in said sequel. In conclusion, Saw VI corrects many of the flaws of past entries while also earning it a place among the upper-echelon of the series. I give Lionsgate credit; they beat the horse to death but somehow have managed to revive it.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 7 months, 4 weeks ago on 3 June 2011 10:34 (A review of Halloween (2-Disc Unrated Collector's Edition) [Blu-ray])

"Make it your own."

John Carpenter sent those very words Rob Zombie's way when he had asked the legendary director, indirectly, how he should remake his classic 1978 slasher flick. The phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldn't apply more traditionally to a film than it does here.

Carpenter's low-key, morally righteous (arguably) but superbly well-executed horror classic is re-imagined with - instead of small-town folks and a sense of brutal calmness – a bevy of white trash stereotypes, foul-mouthed teens, dysfunctional families, and a limitless mean streak. While Carpenter's film was light on the bloodshed (nearly bloodless, in fact), on-screen violence and profanity, anyone who knows Zombie knows he likes to push buttons. And as Carpenter told him, "make it your own." Zombie's Halloween is dark, unforgiving, brutally violent, and totally unrelenting.

Not content with just slightly reworking the original film's plot, Zombie dedicates the first 45 minutes of his re-imagining to the backstory of a 10 year old Myers, then proceeds to follow it up, very loosely, with the events that took place in Carpenter’s classic. Humanizing Myers as Zombie does during the film's opening act had many purists, myself included, up in arms and that is very understandable. Michael has always been a senseless killing machine with no feelings or motive. We can only assume he murdered simply because he enjoyed it. His connection to the holiday in which he chooses to butcher his family members was never explained until much later in the series and, thus, took the franchise in a direction that had been decidedly ignored in Halloween 6’s sequels, Halloween:H20 and Halloween: Resurrection. But Zombie manages to do what I never thought possible, and that is maintain Myers frightening facets & characteristics while also giving the character reason and explanation for his rage. Of course, purists will still denounce Zombie's decision to do this, but Rob has always seemed fascinated with questions posed by serial killers inner-workings; this is seemingly yet another way for him to quell his curiosity.

Although Zombie has always been fantastic at casting his films, too many B-list stars clutter Halloween's cast list whereas a remake of this caliber should, by all rights, have had bigger names to accompany its high importance. That is not to say that I didn't enjoy seeing Brad Dourif (Child’s Play), Malcolm McDowell (A Clockwork Orange), and the always-excellent Danny Trejo (Machete) chew the scenery, but they never came close to the iconic presence of - and probably won't be as revered as - the late, great Donald Pleasance or Jamie Lee Curtis (the original Halloween's Dr. Loomis and Laurie Strode, respectively). McDowell, no matter how great he may be as a much crasser, more grounded Sam Loomis, never channels the charismatic excellence of Pleasance.

It is simply astounding, though, how far Zombie has come as a director. From the out-there-as-all-hell, faux-music video vibe of House of 1000 Corpses to the very realistic, very gritty Devil's Rejects, to the film in question which can only be described as a seedy, stylish, sometimes surreal semi-recreation of one of America's first slasher classics. Imagery has always been important to Zombie, as expressed in his music videos, and that is at the forefront here. Blood is a deep red, Myers' memorably eerie mask is the best its looked in years, and Zombie's camera angles so dead-on throughout I nearly applauded them. Rob has done something else here as well - either through writing or directing - and that is make Michael Myers scary again. Fantastic lighting, excellent cinematography, and Rob's creative direction won’t sit well with everyone, but fans of the musician/director will be more than satisfied.

I was particularly surprised to see that Dimension billed this two-disc set as a director's cut (that is, as opposed to an obnoxiously over-designed "unrated" tag as we're so used to seeing) and chose to let Zombie give the fans of the movie substantial amounts of additional footage. The 11 added minutes contain, first and foremost, more character and plot development. There is a rather disturbing and completely unnecessary rape scene thrown in there (Zombie loves those rapes, doesn't he?) that takes the place of the theatrical print's big-budget break-out sequence, but the remaining footage only betters the picture.

You will either love or hate Halloween for everything that it is and isn’t, but don't sit down on your comfy sofa, Blu-ray inserted in player, and pretend you have no idea what you're getting into. This 2007 re-imagining was written and directed by Rob Zombie, so expect a lot of Zombie-esque touches (as just mentioned, rape included) that don't quite gel with the prototypical Halloween formula. But as Rob Zombie's take on the franchise, it's a grungy, atmospheric, and downright effective slasher flick that scores big in my book.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 7 months, 4 weeks ago on 3 June 2011 10:21 (A review of Punisher: War Zone (2-Disc Special Edition with Digital Copy) [Blu-ray])

We may well be into the 2000s, but if Sly Stallone's recent success with Rambo is any indication; gritty, uncompromising hyper-violence ripped directly from the "Schwarzenegger era" has a place in Hollywood right alongside Fall-time horror films and epic Summer blockbusters. Its box office failings aside, Punisher: War Zone is a refreshing breath of fresh air during a time when the moviegoing populace seems to be tired of Hollywood's adherance to the modern action flick formula.

In short, Punisher: War Zone goes a bit like this. Six years into his one-man war on crime, Frank Castle (Ray Stevenson) inadvertently shoots and kills an undercover agent he believes to be part of Billy "the Beaut" Russoti's (Dominic West) band of murder-go-lucky criminals. After Russoti falls into a glass crusher with a little help from Castle - and later undergoes some serious facial reconstruction - he is birthed into maniacal mafia kingpin, Jigsaw, with top priority being to eliminate The Punisher. Racked with guilt over the shooting death of "one of the good guys," Castle decides to leave his extracurricular activities in the past and focus on the future. Melodrama ensues with the widow of said deceased agent (who is played laughably by Julie Benz), and after her and her young daughter are kidnapped by Russoti, Castle sees fit to dish out his unique brand of punishment one last time.

In a nutshell, Punisher: War Zone is as simple and as hokey as modern action films can probably get. The performances from nearly everyone involved are ridiculously cheesy and the cast's accompanying New York accents so forced and absurd you'd swear this was some kind of amateur film. But by putting your brain on "Junk Food Mode" and adapting to what kind of movie War Zone aims to be, it hits every mark that the Tom Jane 2004 Punisher reboot missed. Ray Stevenson, for one, is a more convincing Punisher/Frank Castle overall, both in performance and in look. The dark humor on display may rub some viewers the wrong way, but I found it a nice, if rather grim, contrast between the stark violence and more absurd elements of the picture.

War Zone's comic book-like visuals perfectly portray the world I'd always imagined Frank Castle inhabiting as well. Contrasting yellow, green, black, and white hues hit so strongly and so pervasively that the various scenes they affect look as if pulled directly from the pages of one of the Marvel issues the flick is adapting. Alexander has a fantastic handle on visual detail, and cinematographer, Steve Gainer, keeps everything aesthetically pleasing one shot to the next. More importantly, however, is the fact that Castle is shot from low angles which emphasizes Stevenson's already imposing figure. Not only does the film look and sound (that 1080p widescreen and 1000+ watt surround sound system are going to get a work out) like something straight out of Frank's one-of-a-kind world of crime, corruption, and violence, but this version of The Punisher has the tenacity of a loose Rottweiler and more gore gags than your average horror film.

And it's only right that a Punisher film relay the guilt, depression, and grief wallowing inside Castle during his every waking moment. War Zone has those moments aplenty and it pulls them off admirably. Alexander allows what at times appears to be a non-human killing machine to be completely vulnerable. At others, Castle simply does what he does best and shows absolutely no remorse. Stevenson is more than adept at both. Dominic West's portrayal of Jigsaw - though interpreted differently than the comic books' variation of the villain - was fun. Reminiscent of Heath Ledger's Joker in the excellent Dark Knight, definitely, but Jigsaw is so cartoonish in nature and so unjustifiably cold-hearted that West's performance elicited more laughs out of me than anything else. The biggest offender in the cast, however, is Doug Hutchison as Jigsaw's brother, "Loony Bin" Jim. Not an iota of talent was displayed as his overarching performance irritated more than it induced the general dislike for the character as I'm sure was intended.

Punisher: War Zone is a film that will most certainly divide moviegoers. This is a niche movie through and through. The acting is decidedly weak and the script so thin that if you got it wet, you could tear it in half just by breathing on it. But with the violence we've come to expect from this series of comics implemented so well throughout, a mash up of said hardcore violence with bleak, dark humor, the best Punisher we've seen thus far in Ray Stevenson, a cavalcade of Punisher regulars, as well as such an immense respect for its aforementioned source material, I wholeheartedly recommend Punisher: War Zone to fans of the comic books, and feel completely justified in naming it the best film in the franchise.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 11 months, 1 week ago on 25 February 2011 02:40 (A review of Killzone 3)

If Sony has proven anything this generation it's that getting off to a slow start did nothing in deterring them as the years progressed. Their immensely powerful current-generation gaming console, the PlayStation 3, was literally a laughing stock for two years. When it launched in 2006 consumers were left awe-stricken at its "outrageous" price tag of $600. Matters were made no better when many early adopters were given a software line-up that was decidedly less-than-thrilling. The PS3's sales were such a disaster that I've heard Sony has, as of last year, just begun to recoup the production costs of the reportedly very expensive PlayStation 3. By 2008 it seemed quite likely that Sony could go the way of Sega and gracefully bow out of the game console market.

But something happened. The crappy third-party ports became fewer and fewer. Sony's exclusive titles, such as the award-winning Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and the exciting Resistance 2, were met with great reviews and overwhelming praise from both gamers and critics alike. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots released to some fairly hefty fanfare, glowing reviews and increased system sales. By the end of 2008 consumers had finally stopped laughing at the PS3 and instead saw it for what it really was: a complex game console that had talented developers supporting it that were more than capable of creating true next-gen games. Other heavy-hitters like Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Heavy Rain, and God of War III further cemented the notion that the PS3 was in fact a very capable console with consistent quality in its first-party games that has so far gone unrivaled.

I say that to say this. When I first purchased my PS3 back in February of 2009 I had walked right into the PS3's defining moments. I wasn't there for all of the brouhaha prior, but I was there to see the snickering stop and folks finally give the system the credit it so rightfully deserves. February of that year also brought forth another milestone for the PS3 and that was Killzone 2. It was being touted as the PS3's long-awaited savior and given the kind of hype and press attention very few exclusive games get anymore. If you owned a PS3 at the very start of 2009 you most certainly were aware of Killzone 2's imminent release. It was showered with praise upon launch and even with hard-to-master controls, that didn't stop gamers (myself included) from naming it one of the best shooters this generation. With the utter excellence of Killzone 2 we could only hope and pray that it's pending sequel would live up to that initial promise.

And Killzone 3 is precisely that kind of sequel. It is nothing short of pure gaming nirvana. There are only a handful of first-person shooters that you can’t seem to put down, that eat away at your subconscious, begging you to place that controller back into your hands until you finally complete them. Killzone 3 is one such shooter. FPS's are by design very repetitious and Killzone 3 is really no different. Its mechanics, set-pieces, and ball-numbing displays of outright intensity are what propels the game forward and leaves you wanting more. Way too many shooters spill the beans too early on and everything after that becomes a jumbled mess of everything you've played beforehand but with all previous awesomeness stripped away. Killzone 3 has been blessed with the innate ability to completely avoid this. Just when you thought you had seen everything developer Guerrilla Games could possibly show you they throw a curveball directly at your forehead that results in the biggest concussion you could possibly ever have.

One of my biggest complaints with Killzone 2 was its undying devotion to placing you in the middle of gunfights that were entirely too bleak and too underwhelming. To this day I can admit to really enjoying the game but never figuring out why I didn't love it like many other gamers seem to. I think it has a lot to do with its overall feel. It's such a dark, foreboding game that it feels less like a futuristic sci-fi shooter and more like something out of a horror film. The environments in which you fight are the darkest, most colorless damn slums I've ever seen. Killzone 2's opening mission - a beach landing - is what I wanted from the rest of the game: intense, faster-paced, and urgent. The remainder of the game saw fit to do the complete opposite. You and a squad of soldiers proceed to lone-wolf it against relatively small groups of Helghast soldiers. The beach landing places you in the middle of a huge battle whereas the rest of them are best described as moderate skirmishes. I got tired of wading through dark city streets, dark refineries, dark deserts, and dark palaces.

Killzone 3 remedies this and then some. I can't recall one location that could be described as "dark." The opening mission - which picks up right where Killzone 2 left off - injects tons of color and vivid detail into a location that was just a game before rust-colored and dreary. It's a harsh tonal shift that I welcomed but still had to adjust to. Guerrilla has also taken you out of the cities of Helghan. Early sections of the game find the remaining ISA soldiers fervently trying to escape the crumbling city, yes, but it looks so different in comparison I'd doubt you'd find any resemblance between the two iterations at all. Pretty much everything after that takes you into the snow-covered mountains of Helghan, its jungles, a zero gravity space station, and even the far-reaches of space itself (which I won’t spoil). The locations aren't just more varied than the second game (which wouldn't be that hard of a feat to accomplish anyhow) but more varied than 90% of FPS's currently on the market as well.

The controls of Killzone 2 were a big talking point amongst gamers. So many of them just couldn't acclimate themselves to the slothy movement and imprecise aiming. Killzone 3's controls have also become a topic of conversation but for entirely different (and better) reasons. Killzone 3 ships right out of the box with PlayStation Move compatibility. If there was ever a bigger playing field to show off what the Move is truly capable of I can't imagine it being bigger than this. I played through the entire single-player campaign with the Move and I can honestly tell you I can't imagine playing first-person shooters any other way. The Move controls are so intuitive and so damn precise you'd be hard-pressed to argue the notion that they are "just a gimmick" anymore. I played through a bit of the single-player campaign with the DualShock 3 controller and it really felt like something was missing. Playing a game as intense and visually beautiful as Killzone 3 with such responsiveness from the motion controls has completely spoiled me. You're not just shooting Helghast soldiers from the comfort of your couch, you literally feel like you're in the thick of battle with your ISA buddies. Move owners will definitely get more enjoyment out of Killzone 3 than those who aren’t. The immersive qualities of it are absolutely astounding.

The game's visuals are also of note. Killzone 2 was already a great looking game so I won't sit here and pretend that there is a night-and-day difference between the two. It's obvious from playing Killzone 3 that the textures have been improved, lighting and shading has been improved, and there's much more detail on just about everything in front of you, as well as fantastic motion-capture animation. But when you have a game that's getting compliments on its graphics two years after release there's probably not too much more you can do to it without writing an entirely new engine. The most surprising aspect of the game isn't even a case of it having better textures or more light sources than it's predecessor, it's simply the fact that the game is so impressive visually and so much more detail is present (those aforementioned colorful locales included) that Guerrilla got the game to run at such a consistent framrate even with all of the added on-screen chaos. Killzone 3 really shows us what the PS3 is capable of in that regard. It's not only a downright beautiful game, but it's packed with so much on-screen activity you'd normally expect some kind of framerate drop and that very rarely ever happens.

The game’s aural excellence also plays a big part in how much I thoroughly enjoyed blasting through Killzone 3’s top-notch single-player campaign. I’m very lucky to be able to play my games with the added benefit of a surround sound setup and this is one title that beautifully illustrates how having the advantage of a high-quality sound system increases the tension of your on-screen actions ten-fold. Hearing that triumphant orchestral score blare out of the speakers while bassy explosions and the thunderous echo of gunshots fills the air around you gets the blood pumping exponentially. Holding the Move’s motion wand directly in front of you and pulling the trigger only to hear deafening gunshots parallel to said action provides immersion like I’ve never felt before. The cut-scenes benefit from this as well while also looking sharper than most big-budget films with inherent action sequences so exciting that they could move just about any summer blockbuster action director to tears.

If you hadn’t noticed, I found Killzone 3 to be everything I wanted and much, much more. I could give two rats asses about the lack of a story or noticeably non-existent character development because, frankly, it’s something we shouldn’t have even expected in the first place. Killzone 3 promised to be a balls-to-the-wall action shooter and that’s exactly what it is. I find it difficult at times to discuss games that are this good. No matter how much I write I can’t seem to fully illustrate how absolutely essential they are. I could go on and on about how beautifully chaotic Killzone 3 is. This is an absolutely jaw-dropping spectacle of a game that is in every way better than its predecessor. If you have even the slightest interest in first-person shooters I urge you to purchase this as quickly as humanly possible. This is how you make a memorable first-person shooter. This is how you improve on an already great game. This, my friends, is how you earn your consumers hard-earned $60. Killzone 3 is nothing short of shooter near-perfection.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 15 December 2010 03:28 (A review of Call of Duty: Black Ops)

Another year and yet another Call of Duty game. This one, however, marks a bit of a milestone for me. With the future of main Call of Duty developer Infinity Ward currently sitting on shaky ground, it would seem that the proverbial torch has been passed to "B team" Treyarch. I know there are quite a few gamers out there who absolutely despise Treyarch and everything they stand for, but I've admired their tenacity and stood in their corner since 2006's much-maligned Call of Duty 3. What I find more interesting than the internal woes going on over at publisher Activision, though, is the Call of Duty series' ascension through the ranks (no pun intended) and how it's gone from being the little-PC-exclusive-that-could to one of the most successful and critically acclaimed first-person shooter franchises of all time.

Who would have thought that the PC-only Call of Duty, which became a massive success back in 2003, would spawn an expansion pack, six direct sequels, and innumerable spin-offs? Who could have predicted it would turn into the global phenomenon it is currently? I vividly recall flipping through the pages of PC Gamer that fateful year and scanning over a preview that had me and many others frothing at the mouths. This game, appropriately titled Call of Duty, promised realistic hit detection, some destructible cover (which was a big deal at the time), emphasis on historical accuracy, and very few missions where the player went "lone wolf." At the time, games like Wolfenstein 3D engineered a decade old game play aesthetic where any kind of first-person shooter would place you in the shoes of some random, flavorless bad-ass who saves the globe from destruction by way of a plethora of cool weaponry all by his/her lonesome.

Call of Duty changed that. No longer were you on your own, single-handedly taking out the trash. CoD ushered in an era where you were simply a soldier; one small soldier fighting one small battle. The scope of these battles was breathtaking, but the game always saw fit to drive home the idea that you and your squad-mates were making but a small difference in the grand scheme of things. You weren't overthrowing Hitler and his minions; you were just doing what any ordinary soldier tries to do in the thick of battle: survive. That's what separated the early Call of Duty games from every other war-based FPS of the time. Considering the direction the more recent games have gone in (that is more of a summer blockbuster feel than the decidedly grounded nature of the first three) there's still a lot of the first game's ideals floating around amidst the heightened sense of chaos and urgency.

Now, as for that milestone. I'm positive I'll catch some flak for this, but I always find myself favoring Treyarch's games over Infinity Ward's. When Infinity Ward releases a Call of Duty title I'm usually pretty amped. When Treyarch releases a Call of Duty title the clouds seem to part and pour a white light upon my face. Infinity Ward have mastered the art of the set piece, but as a whole Treyarch's entries tend to be better crafted and more refined, while offering game play alternatives. One of the best examples I can give is Infinity Ward's obvious reliance on set pieces while doing very little to the core of their games. I urge all of you who gave their much-anticipated Modern Warfare 2 a free pass last year to play it again. Did you see that? Maybe you didn't notice it at first, but it's definitely there. That's what I'd like to call "resting on your laurels." Oh sure, there's no disputing that Modern Warfare 2 is an excellent shooter, but that's simply because the first Modern Warfare is an excellent shooter. Aside from some cosmetic differences, I'd say Modern Warfare 2 is actually Modern Warfare 1.5.

That above paragraph explains in explicit detail why I've grown tired of Infinity Ward. Granted, Treyarch's World at War was nothing more than a Modern Warfare rehash, but at least it had new characters, weapons, an eclectic soundtrack, great gore, improved graphics, usage of vehicles (that weren't on rails), it took place in a different era, and less reliance on set pieces to disguise the fact that you're basically playing the same game you did last year. Now that I think about it, maybe the only real similarities between the two were the overall game play design and graphics engine. The same can be said for Black Ops. Not only has Treyarch carried over the dark intensity of World at War, they've also carried over some of the characters and it's creepy atmosphere. I've said it once and I'll say it again; if you're looking for Modern Warfare 3 but with Treyarch's logo on the box, you'd do best to completely ignore Black Ops.

Treyarch's latest has more in common with '80s action movies than it does previous games in the series. As a matter of fact, if it wasn't for the usage of the Modern Warfare engine you'd be hard-pressed to even label this a Call of Duty game, let alone recognize it as one. That in and of itself is what is going to divide gamers. Treyarch has focused so much on crafting not only an engaging single-player experience, but also a longer and more wholly satisfying one. My first playthrough ran me a good seven hours. That's certainly not uncommonly long but most shooters can't seem to make it to the six hour mark anymore. Not only is the campaign genuinely exciting and full of bite-sized portions of innovation, I think Activision is doing Treyarch an inexcusable disservice by not advertising Black Ops as the edgy game it most definitely is. Treyarch have taken great strides in order to distance themselves from any unfair comparisons that could be made between their game and Infinity Ward's.

What I was most relieved to learn was that Treyarch have carried over the dismemberment functions of World at War while touching up the engine to accommodate for more realistic dismemberments and contextual kills. What's more, however, is Treyarch giving main player character Alex Mason not only a face, but a voice (provided by none other than Sam Worthington). There are even a few brief instances where Mason is seen in the third-person with pre-rendered cut-scenes as opposed to in-game cut-scenes. And I'm sure you've heard by now that World at War favorite Viktor Reznov (voiced by Gary Oldman) makes his return, as does Dimitri Petrenko, the player character from World at War's Russian campaign. The big surprise here is that the roles are reversed: the player controls Reznov and Petrenko leads the squad.

I'm especially fond of how Treyarch has taken World at War's game play ideals & characters and spun them off into a spiritual successor of sorts. I find it refreshing that Activision is essentially allowing them to create an alternate universe within the Call of Duty universe. And if that isn't enough, Treyarch have thrown in just as many cool set pieces as Infinity Ward did with Modern Warfare 2. Some of those include bullet-time shootouts, raiding Fidel Castro's villa, a game of Russian Roullette, flying an attack chopper, piloting a stealth jet, parachuting off of a crumbling mountain top, and shooting your way through a Russian freighter. This is but a small number of those "summer blockbuster" moments you'll find yourself playing through, all handled with the same aplomb (if not more so) than Infinity Ward.

One complaint that seems to be the most common is decrying Black Ops graphics as "ugly" or "a step down." It's working from the same engine as Modern Warfare and its sequel, so I'm sure we all expected to have the same sort of visuals present for Black Ops. But again, these are two entirely different games. Modern Warfare didn't go for the throat in terms of atmosphere or present itself with an in-your-face grittiness. Black Ops does. You'll notice that throughout most of the game it's bathed in very dark, murky colors. Modern Warfare 2 was especially colorful whereas Black Ops is the complete opposite. This isn't supposed to be a "pretty" game. The character models and environments still look spectacular and harness quite a bit of detail considering the engine runs at 60 frames-per-second. These fickle gamers are missing the point; Treyarch wanted to create a gritty, almost surreal experience. With that said, Black Ops’ dingy visuals permeate a feeling of dread and despair throughout its duration. And considering the harsh subject matter, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

I usually don't discuss multi-player components in my game reviews, but color me surprised as I am currently hooked on Black Ops' excellent multi-player mode. The maps are immaculately designed and make it unquestionably difficult to find camping positions. Weapon customization is overwhelmingly in-depth, ranking up is as addicting as it’s ever been, and there are so many game modes you probably won't know which to start with. Every game mode can also be played "hardcore" which eliminates crosshairs, radar detection, and any other kind of HUD or button prompt. My only legitimate complaint is that with Treyarch designing the maps with all intentions of eliminating campers it makes it impossible to find advantageous sniping spots. All of the maps are played best if you favor full-on assault, and sometimes that can cause problems. There's too much running and gunning going on and not a lot of strategy. It makes it worse when the words Team Deathmatch seem to be interpreted as "Deathmatch with a couple of people you can't shoot." No one plays as a team and it all tends to boil down to trying to obtain the most kills with absolutely no concern for your fellow teammates. But there's just too much to like otherwise, from the outrageous number of weapons, attachments, perks, and killstreaks to the well-designed and unarguably spacious maps.

After Modern Warfare 2 I had pretty much written off the Call of Duty series. Don't get me wrong, though, Modern Warfare 2 is no slouch, but I just couldn't shake this feeling that, because of its unparalleled success, that we were probably going to see sequels just like it. That was my biggest fear. I'm happy to report, however, that Treyarch have done what I was hoping they would: make their own game. For the Treyarch haters out there who immediately suspect an awful game simply because their name is plastered on the box need to recognize that Black Ops may not be your cup of tea but does just about everything we could have wanted and does it exceedingly well. Maybe because Treyarch has never received the warm reception of Infinity Ward they feel they still have something left to prove. Not anymore. This review is coming from a long-time Call of Duty fan that had become seriously disillusioned with the franchise. But if this is an indicator of what's to come from the series, or at the very least, from Treyarch, I'm back on-board. Thanks, guys.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 year, 3 months ago on 19 October 2010 03:57 (A review of Medal of Honor (Limited Edition))

Before the Medal of Honor reboot was even announced, I knew the only thing EA could do to compete with current FPS heavyweight Call of Duty was to take their long-running franchise out of World War II and move it into the modern theatre. When I first saw the announce trailer for the game it became clear to me that no matter how good or bad it would turn out, reviewers and gamers alike were going to give Medal of Honor a hard time.

The year was 2007, and that winter saw the release of Infinity Ward's immensely popular shooter Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and, for better or worse, it completely redefined the war-based FPS title and how we play them. The game was loaded with spectacular set-pieces, memorable characters, a harrowing storyline, and enough polish to rival most Hollywood films. Modern Warfare’s presentation was unlike anything seen in its genre before and it was only natural that other games would mimic its style. While Activision and Infinity Ward were enjoying massive success with the franchise at this point, as well as accumulating general acclaim for its moment-packed single-player campaign and addicting multi-player mode, EA couldn't seem to keep the time-tested Medal of Honor series afloat. Medal of Honor: Airborne was released just a couple months before Modern Warfare but still suffered the effects of the former's success. Airborne was the same as all the others - set in World War II, with a Teen rating, and no real game play innovations.

In the three year absence of the Medal of Honor series leading up to its reboot, Call of Duty's light only shone brighter. In that three year time span, Activision has released two more Call of Duty sequels - World at War and Modern Warfare 2 - with another one set for release next month, titled Call of Duty: Black Ops. I used to be a huge CoD fan, but I've slowly begun to realize that every entry in the series after the first Modern Warfare has been nothing more than a thinly veiled rehash. I now ask myself how long it's going to take before the rest of the gaming populace catches up. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of Activision milking me for $60 every year just to play what is essentially an expansion pack.

That leads me into the title at hand. On release day, with Medal of Honor in my possession, I hoped for the best but feared for the worst. As I loaded the disc into my PS3, I begged and pleaded with the gaming Gods that this would be anything but another Modern Warfare carbon-copy. As I played through the game's opening mission and continued onward, I noticed immediately that EA has gone out of their way to show gamers that this title certainly is not a Modern Warfare clone. Right out of the gate you will notice a number of game play aesthetics different from the majority of shooters on the market. The first of these, and what I feel to be the most important, is that this is not a run-and-gun FPS. A couple of well-placed shots and your character is down for the count. It's absolutely essential to pick your shots carefully, to remain in cover until the coast is clear, and move forward cautiously. Aiding in this task is a feature I feel current-gen first-person shooters have been sorely lacking; a lean button. Holding down L2 and pushing the left analog stick either left or right will allow your character to lean in and out of cover.

There's also the ability, when sprinting, to hit Circle near cover and you will slide into it. This helps during many moments in the game when enemy fire is coming from all directions and you can't afford to be out in the open for too long and have to get to cover quickly. I should mention that when you execute this maneuver, your character stays crouched until you hit Circle again to stand him up. Another feature I really loved was being able to change my rifle's firing mode between automatic and single-shot fire to better adapt to a given scenario. And unlike the Call of Duty series, you can carry up to three weapons at a time as opposed to two. Pressing Triangle switches between your two main weapons and double-tapping the button switches to your pistol. Taking a stab with your knife (pun intended) is mapped to R3.

What will probably separate Medal of Honor from its long-time rival the most is the game's overall approach to its subject matter. This isn't the interactive action film that the CoD titles have become as it is decidedly much more grounded and harrowing. There are no massive set-pieces, no out-of-place heroics, and no over-the-top, James Bond-like action sequences. Granted, I can't really call Medal of Honor realistic in the sense that I would call early Tom Clancy games - like 2001's Ghost Recon - realistic, but I think EA has gotten the series back on track by steeping this particular title in real-world conflict and not making a mockery out of the men and women fighting the war EA is attempting to emulate. Not only will you spend a vast amount of the game traversing accurately rendered Afghanistan terrain by way of three different characters, you will also have the chance to commandeer turret guns, call in air strikes, utilize high-powered sniper rifles, fly an attack chopper, and even go through a section with heavy reliance on progressing by way of ATV. Apart from the onslaught of first-person shooting segments, I really enjoyed how the game never leaves you doing one thing for too long.

Where I’m most certain MoH will divide gamers is that it is mostly devoid of fancy pyrotechnics and over-the-top action sequences that have become the forte of war shooters as of late. I’m sure some will find that the game is a little too barren in regards to its lack of special effects, but I found that approach vastly refreshing. Firm emphasis was placed on creating semi-realistic battles with the accompaniment of excellent hit detection and ragdoll systems. I can’t praise the combat in this game enough. It feels slightly weighty and slower-paced than most FPS’s while also preserving the authenticity that developer Danger Close has been working towards achieving from the very beginning. There are a good amount of weapons at your disposal and also a neat feature that remedies having to scour a combat zone for new weapons. If you are running low on ammo and still have your default load out, you can request ammunition from your squad mates. I would be remiss, though, if I didn’t mention the effectiveness of the other soldiers in your unit. Most games of this ilk seem to only have them on-screen for nothing more than a cheap allusion to realism, in Medal of Honor’s case they do extremely well in combat. Not only do they pick off enemies with the accuracy of a real soldier, they maintain cover like one, too.

Graphically, Medal of Honor is a good looking game but certainly nothing special. The Unreal Engine 3 is put to good use here and models the rocky mountain terrain of Afghanistan well, complete with terrific lighting and well-detailed textures. Character models look good and also move fluidly enough, although I can't say the same for the cut scenes. The animations in these are lacking and the robotic character movements don't help matters much. Thankfully, however, they don't make up a large portion of the game and are therefore easy enough to overlook. What I was most surprised with is that the game runs well considering the Unreal Engine has always been temperamental with the PS3 hardware. The frame rate is fairly consistent with only a few times here and there that it drops below the normal 30. There's nothing truly amazing about Medal of Honor's visuals, but they serve the look of the game well while preserving the aforementioned authenticity.

As far as I’m concerned, EA have reinvigorated their famed FPS series by not only overhauling its content but by also making Medal of Honor with the clear intentions of not doing what everyone thought it would: rip-off Call of Duty. Another excellent thing about this reboot is that, as you may have noticed, the single-player campaign was developed by Danger Close whereas the multi-player component was developed by DICE, their brainchild being the ever-popular Battlefield franchise. I’d like to see more publishers do this; enlisting one team for single-player and another for multi-player. I feel it would ensure that both modes are given the proper amount of attention without favoring one over the other. After reading through various reviews after purchase, however, I can see that EA is going to have a long road ahead of them as too many people are still making this out to be some cheap Modern Warfare knock-off. Reinvention of the franchise aside, MoH is an outstanding FPS that makes great strides in the realm of modern military action games by lessening the fantastic and heightening the realism. Activision better watch their asses.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 year, 4 months ago on 14 September 2010 11:23 (A review of Mafia II)

I’ve owned a PlayStation 3 going on two years now and have, subsequently, had to put up with some inexcusably shoddy ports. Sega's over-the-top action game Bayonetta, released earlier this year, is a prime example of how not to port a game over to the notoriously complex PS3 hardware. Developers have often slighted Sony’s powerful console by releasing multi-platform games that were first coded for Microsoft’s Xbox 360 then sloppily transferred over to the PS3, resulting in a version far inferior to its current-gen counterpart. There have, however, been rare occasions where developers chose the PS3 as its lead platform but these instances are few and far between.

With that said, in comes Mafia II. I had been waiting for this game with baited breath since it was officially unveiled at 2008's E3 conference. I’m a huge fan of the first Mafia and expected much the same from its sequel. One of the most compelling things about Mafia II’s development process is that 2K Games stated that they handled the PS3 version separate the PC and Xbox 360. What 2K didn't tell us was that the PS3 version was, instead, quickly outsourced to the development team over at Massive Bear Studios with orders to optimize the game to the best of their abilities.

It’s very telling of the quality of a product when the main developer can’t be bothered to work the kinks out of their own game. As the above information soon spread across the internet like wild fire, there was further debate over the graphical definicies first displayed in the PS3 demo, as well as its terrible frame rate, copious amounts of screen tearing, and noticeable lack of some visual flourishes present on the other platforms (such as three-dimensional grass, pools of blood forming under your defeated enemies or splattering on the walls behind them during gunfights, as well as PhysX-enabled cloth movement, among other things.) PS3 owners questioned whether or not this demo was simply an older build of the game or if it was in fact the final build. Some gamers still clung to the notion that maybe it wasn't indicative of the full game. Sadly enough, that wasn't the case.

But even with these sometimes vexing issues present, and even though the full game does very closely resemble the demo as far as visuals are concerned, the game's performance has been increased dramatically. It’s still rather upsetting to be driving through the fictional city of Empire Bay and notice a flat-textured lawn instead of the 3D grass that the other two gaming platforms had been given, but at least the framerate wasn't dipping into the teens as was the case with the demo. Even with these graphical flaws present, a great game is still a great game through and through, and Mafia II is no exception.

Quite true that it was incredibly disheartening for this gamer to learn that the PS3, as powerful as it, couldn't render these FX without a serious decrease in performance. Massive Bear probably could have, however, optimized the coding to allow for these particular details, but decided to "fix" the problem by completely removing them instead. What’s even more disheartening is that seemingly everyone and their grandmother has been comparing Mafia II to the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Why? As far as I can tell simply because it's yet another crime shooter set in an expansive open-world. The GTA series no doubt popularized the sandbox genre, but therein lies the misconception; Mafia II isn’t a sandbox game.

It seems to me that more people are upset at what this title isn’t instead of appreciating it for what it is. The first Mafia was also unfairly compared to GTA upon its release for this very same reason. Apart from the open-world angle, these two series’ couldn’t be more different. Mafia II is very linear in its structure and story. There is usually one way and one way only to complete a given set of tasks. The game also tells its story in chapters as opposed to GTA-styled missions. There are 15 chapters in all with each one of them starting and ending the same way; main protagonist Vito Scaletta wakes up, runs his errands, then proceeds to call it a night; lather, rinse, repeat.

The jobs Vito carries out are, for the most part, varied and unique enough to keep repitition to a minimum. Some of the more interesting aspects of the game are the subtle nuances that really make Mafia II stand out from the glut of open-world games we’ve been swamped with over the past five years. For example, driving and smashing into an oncoming car will result in a police officer – if he’s witness to it – pulling you over and attempting to arrest you for a hit and run. At this point you can either bribe him if you have the cash to do so, or resist arrest by running off and quickly changing your clothes at the nearest department store. Other violations, such as being seen with a weapon, killing a police officer or pedestrian, or speeding will have varying consequences.

About two hours into the game, though, I came to the startling realization that Mafia II wasn't the generic shooter the demo seemed to want players to think it was. There are a few spots during the course of the game that rely heavily on cover system-assisted gunfights, but most of your time will be spent pulling jobs for the handful of crime bosses inhabiting Empire Bay as Vito and his childhood friend, Joe Barbarro, get closer and closer to becoming made men. And what's interesting to note is this doesn't take place until much later in the game.

On that same token, Mafia II really gives off this innate feeling of progression as the story deepens, but I do have some issues regarding that. Empire Bay is immediately open to you, as is most of the game’s luxury items (like high-class suits and other assorted apparel) right from the beginning. I would have preferred the quality and availability of clothing, apartments/houses, and weapon selection to increase as Vito takes on bigger and better jobs to indicate his rapid ascenion up the ranks. I was also disappointed by the lack of clothing available for purchase. When shuffling through Vito’s closet after an outfit is bought, gamers may change the color of it by selecting from existing presets only. Wear options are not included, and I think it would have better suited the game if players were allowed to mix and match their own outfits however they saw fit. The same can be said for car customization which is a nice touch, but a feature a little too hollow to warrant further examination.

I’ve already discussed the PS3 version’s various visual flaws, but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that the game still looks fantastic regardless. Taking into consideration that this is an open-world game, it’s amazing the amount of detail 2K managed to squeeze in. Character models look great and are all highly detailed. The whole of Empire Bay also looks absolutely spectacular due in no small part to fantastic lighting and shading, as well as the vast amount of pedestrians and cars allowed on screen at once. I also loved the fluidity of the well mo-capped character animations and the nifty physics technology allowing for the destruction of certain parts of the environment during shootouts and spectacular damage models for wrecked cars. There are, however, a few minor adjustments that could have been made (some very low-res textures and robotic lip-sync could have been far more polished, for instance), but overall, considering how butchered this particular port is graphically, Mafia II still looks amazing despite.

The biggest gripe fans have had up to this point is that after the main story is completed, there's really no reason to replay it. There are various collectibles scattered throughout the city (such as Playboy magazines, and I'm not making that up) but those don't really amount to much game play-wise. The story is involving enough to warrant more than one playthrough, but once you've completed the game you've seen just about all that it has to offer. The money you accumulate can be spent on, as mentioned above, clothing, cars, weapons, and even liquor from local bars, but none of that is especially noteworthy. Having a healthy selection of side missions to choose from would have been nice, but I'd gladly take a concise and satisfying single-player experience over that of a pretentious and drawn-out sandbox game anyday.

Despite its flaws, I could go on and on about how impressed I was with Mafia II, but I’ll spare you. Some have complained that the game is too short despite clocking in at 10-12 hours of game play time when most games this generation are lucky to hit six. I can’t outright recommend the PS3 version to those who own a powerful enough PC or Xbox 360 to play it on, but the pot is sweetened by 2K having handed over exclusive DLC to the PS3. Taking into account its various graphical deficiencies, rest assured that Mafia II is still a beautiful game. What's more, I love that at a time when so many developers are placing multi-player first and single-player as an afterthought, 2K forgoes the multi-player route in favor of crafting an excellent single-player game chock full of interesting characters, plot twists, and an immaculate attention to detail. Lacking visuals or not, this is still one hell of a game and anyone looking to sink their teeth into something with a beautifully told story intermittently layered with gunfights, excellent dialogue, and an overall unique approach to its subject matter, Mafia II shouldn't be missed.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 year, 6 months ago on 6 July 2010 04:47 (A review of Call of Duty: World at War)

There were probably two types of people looking over the box for Activision's 2008 entry in the never-endng Call of Duty franchise; those who believed Treyarch could make an outstanding WWII shooter without the involvement of Infinity Ward and those who will play it and never admit to themselves or anyone else just how crucial an experience it is even without IW’s non-involvement.

World at War is quite similar to both Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 in many respects, but where it sets itself apart from the previous games in the series is how distinctively gritty it is. From its intense, grisly action set pieces to its esoteric soundtrack, this is Treyarch's game all the way and what it does steal from IW's previous game it does justice to. I think Treyarch has done so much more with the formula - including expanding on its action and expounding on its drama - that the essential elements for any CoD game may remain, though that is all that has been left intact.

First and foremost, Treyarch said from the very beginning that they wanted this to be a truly dark experience. Modern Warfare brought the series its first "M" rating and didn't shy away from violence, but there are so many gruesome atrocities committed throughout World at War's 6-8 hour campaign that players will start to become numb to its violence after about the three hour mark. No longer do grenades simply blow your enemies back: if close enough, their explosive contents will send a mass of enemy ligaments flying and spread a pink bloody mist throughout the air. Heavy machine guns will pop off heads and rip off limbs, while flamethrowers will leave enemies charred and emitting smoke. Every bullet leaves entry and exit wounds on your foes complete with arterial spray and a smattering of red on the objects behind them. Bayoneting is graphic and damn near perverse as you watch your blade cut through Axis soldiers like a hot knife through butter.

War is Hell, and World at War portays that exquisitely. The in-game cinematics are executed with spectacular flair, and the memorable characters are voiced superbly (the American's Sgt. Roebuck is voiced by none other than Kiefer Sutherland, and the Russian's Sgt. Reznov brought to life by the inimitable Gary Oldman). The moments you may find yourself not pulling the trigger, though, are also some of the most essential as you get the chance to witness war's unadulterated chaos, rendered in all of its unsightly glory. World at War looks and feels like a big-budget war picture - replete with endless swarms of Allied and Axis troops (sometimes converging in the background of sequences), Banzai charges, countless explosions, and some surprising Hollywood-esque touches (which I won't give away here) - which adds to its unforgettable experience. Infinity Ward may have paved the way with Modern Warfare's game play and spectacular graphics technology, but Treyarch have taken a game that was a fairly generic shooter at its core and capitalized on its trio of technology, formula, and added element of increased on-screen violence.

Although I'm sure a lot of folks don't play video games strictly for the bloodshed, this is a series that was sorely lacking it. While always a rather violent series, Treyarch's inclusion of truly heinous torture, violence, and mutilation makes World at War feel much more realistic to the setting. Just as shocking to us as WWII was to those who witnessed its real-life atrocities first-hand; this is a game that pulls no punches. The gore is never overdone, but having a CoD game that realistically depicts the stomach-churning carnage of war instead of the lighthearted fare that was the earlier CoD games is something I'm looking favorably towards.

As much as World at War is virtually no different than its predecessor(s), perhaps that was the smartest thing Treyarch could have done. They may have upgraded the game visually, changed the time period and locales, added better weapon balance, and also made this a far more harrowing and ultimately disturbing experience than any CoD title before it, but not much has really changed between World at War and any of its predecessors/successors. Sure, you are able to virtually wade through water with resultant slowdown, as well as take part in some fantastically immersive scenarios: one of them being a Russian sniping segment that is so steeped in atmosphere and tension that it puts "All Gillied Up" from CoD 4 to shame. But, cosmetically, this is nearly the same game you have been playing since the first Modern Warfare.

But as they say, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it.' Modern Warfare is a brilliant piece of software and altering its core formula would have resulted in disaster; at least only a year after its initial release. World at War plays the same to be sure, but it feels so much more refined and, thankfully, just as intense as the game before it. Even if IW didn't develop, Treyarch have done a phenomenal job of including both a real, tangible atmosphere as well as keeping its action just as riveting and satisfying.

Visually-speaking World at War isn't a marked improvement over Modern Warfare, nor does it look much different, but Modern Warfare is still one of the best looking games currently available this gen. World at War's character models look a bit better here, there is a marginally higher polygon count, and the locales are much more varied and intricate also. I loved the color palette Treyarch utilized throughout and their reliance on varying the style and tone of each level as much as possible. This has been the case with all of their games thus far, most notably with the recent Quantum of Solace video game adaptation. If anything, much of World at War's visuals are on par with Modern Warfare's, but there is the rare occasion - through higher poly's and vibrant colors & varied maps - that it is a better looking game altogether. The flame effects are of note as well, and the gore is all-too-believable.

For those that haven't picked it up yet, World at War won't be mind-blowing to those looking for a bigger and better version of the Modern Warfare series; it simply takes Infinity Ward's winning formula, throws it into a WWII setting, adds a great sense of drama and pace, and gores it up like crazy. If you can get past the overt violence and intense, gritty atmosphere, then this is undoubtedly one of the best, if not the best, CoD games in years. It is light-years ahead of Treyarch's last franchise effort, Call of Duty 3, and I'd dare say it’s better than Call of Duty 4 in some areas. All things considered, this is one of the finest WWII shooters ever made. If Treyarch aimed to completely redefine the subgenre then they have certainly succeeded. A must-play for fans of the series.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 year, 6 months ago on 6 July 2010 03:54 (A review of Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe)

Fighter fans either love or hate the Mortal Kombat series. But is it all that hard to see why? Since the franchise debuted in the early '90s, there was more emphasis put on executing gruesome finishing moves (or fatilities as most know them) than there was on a distinct fighting engine. These fatalities, though, are what separated MK from any other fighter of its era.

The classic Street Fighter games – released parallel to the bloody MK series - was far more family oriented, as was cult favorite World Heroes. It wasn't until the first Mortal Kombat and, more specifically, its smash-hit sequel, Mortal Kombat II, that game developers started creating their own gruesome one-on-one brawlers with plenty of blood, gore, and winning-round executions. Some are better than others (Eternal Champions, Eternal Champions: Challenge from the Darkside, Weaponlord, and Primal Rage to name a few), while most others were simply cut-and-paste affairs that were little more than clones of MK's invigorating if shallow game play and laughably gruesome if cool fatalities (the Atari Jaguar's Kasumi Ninja and Midway's late-'90s offering, War Gods immediately springs to mind). MK was, in fact, an innovator if for all the wrong reasons.

Whereas Street Fighter became historic for introducing technique and variety in a fighter and Killer Instinct popularized the combo system, Mortal Kombat has always relied more on excessive blood and gore, as well as increasingly ridiculous ways to "finish" your opponent, to move copies. It should come as no surprise then that when an already ridiculous idea such as the Mortal Kombat fighters colliding with and battling characters from the DC universe was announced fans nearly had heart attacks. An even bigger issue was the obligatory Teen rating and a once rumored omitting of fatalities. This would mean that, if there were fatalities (which, in fact, there are) they would be massively truncated or worst comes to worst would not exist at all. It has been said that the DC comic’s people didn't want their characters - which are well-known and adored by children - to either execute horrendously brutal finishers or be brutally finished off themselves via the MK roster or fellow DC fighters.

With that said, I think the first thing I should mention is that, despite the Teen rating on the box, this doesn't feel at all like a Teen-rated brawler. Sure, blood doesn't cover every inch of the arena during fights and instead looks more like red mist than it does the large drops/geyser-like spurts of past games in the franchise, it's still effective. This entry introduces a level of restraint not seen in any MK before it. Yes, there are fatalities for every MK fighter and a handful of DC fighters (including The Joker and Deathstroke), and the remaining DC roster do have finishers, but they are not necessarily fatal (again, a result of DC stepping in). These are called Heroic Brutalities.

I feel I should mention, though, that there were two fatalities trimmed for the US release. Joker and Deathstroke both have fatalities that involve their opponent being shot in the head and, although we no longer see the impact of the bullet, their censoring was somewhat unnecessary. It is quite strange that Deathstroke is able to jab a sword completely through his foe's stomach during his gunshot fatality and that remains intact, but the bullet impact is censored. There is also a fatality where MK favorite Jax uppercuts his opponent into the air, pulls out a machine gun, and fires multiple rounds into their abdomen with resultant blood splatter. That fatality is completely uncensored, mind you. The violence may have been trimmed down - meaning there are no more decapitated heads or missing body parts - but the violence still hits hard. There are head impalements, body impalements, scorched bodies, crushed bodies & heads, the aforementioned shootings, knifings, broken necks, electrocutions, soul-snatching, head-into-ground pounding, and so much more that I could not believe was allowed into a Teen-rated game without further censoring.

It is simply a testament to the development team then, that without the MK series' trademark gore that Midway was still able to deliver on whatever promise this mash-up may have had. Although the fighting presented is set in a three-dimensional universe, DC Universe feels very 2D. Aside from avoiding barrages of projectiles by side-stepping through the arena, you won't find yourself manipulating the environments much. To be frank, there really isn't much reason for MK vs DC to be 3D fighter (and that's a good thing). This feels like classic Mortal Kombat in every sense of the words. The fighting is fast and intense, and stringing together quick, seemless attacks feels immensely satisfying. The fights are fast-paced and are a far cry from the simple punch-kick-block formula of the early MK games. There is an overwhelming sensation during each fight that these larger than life characters are partaking in huge, larger than life battles; the epic scale that Midway manages to provide with each individual fight no matter the character selected is astounding.

By way of some gimmicky if not incredibly dramatic segments, you will feel your adrenaline rush. Players can enter Klose Kombat mode by simply pressing R1 next to their opponent. The camera will zoom in and present a view similar to EA’s latest Fight Night title. This mode is identical to a number of popular boxing titles and it plays just like one. A total of four successive hits exits Klose Kombat, but attacks can be countered which effectively evens out the odds on both sides.

Free Fall Kombat is one of my favorite additions. To describe it best, it is reminiscent of Neo and Agent Smith’s fight in The Matrix Revolutions when they are tumbling back to solid ground. Whichever kombatant is on the offensive will, naturally, be dishing out the damage and, when it becomes available, the offensive player can tap R1 to do a special attack that sends their opponent rocketing down to the next arena.

Test Your Might is a lot like Free Fall Kombat, but instead of falling to the next arena, the kombatant on the receiving end is sent crashing into a series of walls and ran through several buildings (yes, buildings) before ending up at the next “stage.” Button mashing is a must here as it will increase the amount of damage the offensive kombatant inflicts.

Character selection is also a plus as there are 11 selectable characters from each camp with two unlockablesl Darkseid for the DC side and Shao Khan for the MK side. The story mode, though rather shallow and unfulfilling, is something I was grateful for as it introduces something new to a Mortal Kombat game other than the tower (aka tournament mode) or Konquest modes. A real story involving both the essential DC and Mortal Kombat characters is presented with some flaw as there really isn’t much storytelling going on and a lot of the emphasis is placed on fighting various characters 2-out-of-3 rounds without the inclusion of finishers.

As a fighting series that has never had the best graphics, this new title is being backed by Unreal Engine 3 technology and even if it doesn’t look absolutely gorgeous, it is still a positive departure from previous games in the franchise. There is a magnificent amount of detail given to each respective fighter and every last one of them moves with such fluidity. While some of them could look marginally better (here’s looking at you Wonder Woman), these are the graphical improvements you would expect from a current-gen MK game. It would have been interesting to see eviscerations and popped heads with the Unreal Engine 3 tech, but simply being in control of fluid fights between Batman and Joker in all their hi-res splendor, complete with deteriorating costumes and an articulate amount of detail is reward enough for this gamer.

Even with a Teen rating, I can’t say this is for the uninitiated. This title was obviously made with love for both the MK community and the DC supporters. Whoever cries “cash cow” is completely missing the point. Ed Boon has already stated that the next Mortal Kombat game will get right back to the intense violence and insane amounts of gore, but this was a refreshing idea and, what’s more, a nice break from the laughably goofy fatalities and insane amounts of blood found in past entries. The idea of the DC world colliding with that of the Mortal Kombatants was a kooky one, but Midway pulled it off flawlessly (no pun intended) and I’ll admit to enjoying the living hell out of this game. The fatalities may be toned down, but I will commend the developers for avoiding all of the useless blood and gore and still making the game violent and fierce. It certainly isn’t as grotesque as MK: Deception, but how MK vs DC Universe ever got a Teen rating is beyond me. MK fans and/or DC fans owe it to themselves to check this out.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

-

Posted : 1 year, 8 months ago on 14 May 2010 12:50 (A review of My Bloody Valentine [Blu-ray])

Early '80s slasher films were notorious for being manhandled by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) with little concern for the clarity of the final product. A great number of these pictures were/are known more for what had been cut from them - including The Prowler aka Rosemary's Killer, The Burning, Friday the 13th Part II, and this here film - rather than the quality of the movies themselves. Of these very edited motion pictures (most of which can now be found uncut on Blu-ray and DVD, however), the most highly sought for an uncut release most certainly was My Bloody Valentine.

It wasn't just a matter of "I wonder what was cut from the film;" MBV was hacked so badly by the ratings board that it rendered many of the death scenes incomprehensible. An uncensored release was damn near a necessity. Paramount's initial releases were barebones offerings, as usual, and delivered to viewers the movie in its heavily censored form. The uncut deaths became something of legend as, with each subsequent release of the movie on a home-viewing format, fans wondered if they would ever see the picture as it was originally intended.

As a brief aside, the film was so heavily cut due to the death of John Lennon briefly after the crew had finished shooting. Hence, the MPAA came down increasingly hard on violence in films and, more specifically, slasher films. 28 years later, slasher buffs can finally rejoice as Lionsgate has partnered with Paramount to deliver the long-awaited uncut version of MBV to rabid fans en masse. The Blu-ray offers up two viewing options; the first being to watch the film in its theatrical form, the second to watch it in its extended form. Fans should be forewarned, though. The deleted scenes are not in the greatest condition and look closer to workprint footage and, thus, greatly conflict with the near-perfect transfer that they have been spliced into.

Having first seen this back in 2002 as a rental from Hollywood Video (on VHS, no less), I never thought much of it. It was effective, but slightly plodding. I loved the idea of a psychotic miner, though, and I always thought that his get-up (the mining suit with accompanying mask and pick-axe) were a "shoulda-been" horror staple. But, unsurprisingly, I felt that the gore quotient was unfulfilled and, after doing a bit of research, I also became one of those who wanted to see an uncut release.

Those looking for a simple hack 'n' slash in the spirit of Paramount's mega-hit series, Friday the 13th, will be getting much more than they bargained for here. MBV has something of a plot going on; that is, outside of the typical "crazed killer comes back to town to slice and dice." There's a love triangle going on between characters T.J. (Paul Kelman), Axel (Neil Affleck), and Sarah (Lori Hallier). These characters are also non-suburban and, instead, are atypically blue-collar. Although MBV isn't wholly original in terms of formula, it turned many of the slasher conventions of the time on their heads. The practical joker isn't the fat guy, the heavier gentleman (played wonderfully by the late Keith Knight) actually has a girlfriend, there isn't a final battle between the madman and the virginal heroine, the characters are actually fairly likeable, and there are no token African-Americans.

On a more negative note for the picture, George Mihalka's direction does tend to be, as noted before, plodding. He spends too much time focusing his lens on things that don't add much to the movie as a whole and, moreover, he spends too much time showing us The Miner as opposed to keeping his figured relegated to the shadows. As most other horror directors of the '80s did - and this is something Mihalka is guilty of also - they attempted to build tension by way of odd noises or a random shouting of "*insert name*, is that you over there?" moments before the kill occurs. Not only do these sequences seem to drone on for ages, but they are also 85% ineffective. MBV is no different.

In its edited form, ... Valentine is an effective slasher flick with an eerie mood and tons of atmosphere. Uncut, however, that effective mood and atmosphere are increased ten-fold. Not only is this cut gritty and downright violent, but it can also be brutally morbid. I won't spoil any of the grisly details here, but the wait was definitely worth it.

For those of you who have already seen the 2009 reboot, I wholeheartedly recommend you seek out a copy of this special edition and take a look at what has become, in many circles, one of the most legendary cult slashers of the '80s. Now presented completely uncut and with some great special features to boot, MBV has finally gotten the Blu-ray/DVD release many of us never thought it would. As a testament to the early '80s and the films it inspired, give this one a shot. It has withstood the test of time and it is a great example of its genre. Eerie and tense it most certainly is, and all-deserving of the praise showered upon it from horror buffs. Hugely recommended.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Occupation: Student

Relationship status: Married

Will Arnett, Christian Bale, Tobin Bell, Michael Caine, Bruce Campbell, Don Cheadle, Jeffrey Combs, Brian Cox, Willem Dafoe, Benicio Del Toro, Robert Downey Jr., Robert Englund, Will Ferrell, Laurence Fishburne, Ken Foree, William Forsythe, Morgan Freeman, Brendan Gleeson, Tony Goldwyn, Tom Hanks, Ethan Hawke, Samuel L. Jackson, Viggo Mortensen, Bill Moseley, Liam Neeson, Timothy Olyphant, Jeremy Piven, Seth Rogen, Will Smith, Tony Todd, Vince Vaughn, Denzel Washington, Sigourney Weaver, Forest Whitaker, Bruce Willis

2Pac, Akon, AZ, Big Punisher, Black Rob, Bone Thugs-N-Harmony, Cam'ron, Canibus, Cormega, The-Dream, Eazy-E, Fiend, Half-A-Mil, Infamous Mobb, Ja Rule, Juvenile, Killah Priest, Lloyd Banks, Master P, Mobb Deep, Mos Def, Nas, Nature, Outkast, Plies, Rick Ross, Tragedy Khadafi, Sheek Louch, Styles P., Three 6 Mafia, T-Pain, Wu-Tang Clan, Xzibit