I was not sure what to expect of this series. I started with the premier (a long, 200 minute affair) and was pleasantly surprised. For the most part, I liked how the plot unfolded, the intrigue, the action.
There is a lot I had forgotten since the original. I did not remember anything about Kobol, nor the 12 (or 13) colonies, nothing about a President Roslin.... perhaps they are all new, but I would not know. I do remember the cylons very well, and I rather miss the boxy shape of the Gallatica; the "newer" model is too rounded for me. I do like the unseemingly ragtag collection of other starships, as that is "just right" from the original.
Starbuck is a girl. Weird, that will take some getting used to. On the good side, she has the right amount of spunk, grit and "get out of my way" attitude. Her facial expressions kinda throw me; I can hear Randy and Paula of "American Idol" saying "What's up with the eyes?!?".
I remember Apollo being a little more mature, but I like the actor they casted for this series. I have to remember that I am over 20 years older now than when I first watched BG. =)
And finally the tech. This has me bamboozled. Granted that sci-fi has changed a lot in the past 25 years, but didn't the original good guys have blasters of some type? Especially on the Vipers. Instead all we see are your run-of-the-mill projectile guns (with tracers, of course). Something seems wrong with that. And the cylons are significantly superior technologically, able to infiltrate computers remotely and have a number of computer-defeating weapons. And the cyborgs! That is outrageous. If anything, the cyborgs ruin the show for me. By the time I got to season 2, half the cast seems like they are now cylons, and that is just wrong. (yes, I am exagerrating about half the cast). That whole dimension just adds way too much weirdness and unfamiliarity.
Perhaps more to follow, but perhaps not.
31 March 2008
25 March 2008
Behind Enemy Lines, 2001
This was one of the few Owen Wilson films that I actually liked. In fact, I cannot think of another off the top of my head. A couple times he kinda gets into his Wilsonisms ("Whaddya mean...."), but for the most part, we saw more of Chris Burnett then Owen. I never thought of Hackman as an Admiral, but I thought he did a good job. And even though Joaqim makes a good commanding officer, he is a horrible American commanding officer. Bad casting.
The subterfuge revolving around Joaqim's character (Admiral Piquet) was quite intriguing and I appreciated the plot twists that sprouted as a result. Some of the action scenes were excellent; perhaps I had an overly cynical and pessimistic expectation of Owen's ability to do this type of role well, but I think he pulled it off well. I enjoyed Vladimir's performance of Sasha, but the cloud of mystery and enigma interwoven into his character was a bit too thick. Ok, so he came from a prison camp. What was he doing running around like some kind of loner arch-enemy who can do anything?
I enjoyed most of the cinematography. The action scenes were great, and the stop-motion cuts were tasteful, not to mention the dramatized, granular details of the jet explosion. I detested the scene were Chris Burnett was "sneaking" through the mine-infested industrical area. I hate the "realistic" non-steady-cam, not to mention the fact that absolutely nothing was happening while Owen was pretending to run and hide behind debris in the middle of the field. That sequence added nothing, in fact brought the movie down a notch or two.
The supporting cast was great. I thought Hackman's Admiral character was a bit too gushy at the end, hence unbelievable. But a good movie overall.
The subterfuge revolving around Joaqim's character (Admiral Piquet) was quite intriguing and I appreciated the plot twists that sprouted as a result. Some of the action scenes were excellent; perhaps I had an overly cynical and pessimistic expectation of Owen's ability to do this type of role well, but I think he pulled it off well. I enjoyed Vladimir's performance of Sasha, but the cloud of mystery and enigma interwoven into his character was a bit too thick. Ok, so he came from a prison camp. What was he doing running around like some kind of loner arch-enemy who can do anything?
I enjoyed most of the cinematography. The action scenes were great, and the stop-motion cuts were tasteful, not to mention the dramatized, granular details of the jet explosion. I detested the scene were Chris Burnett was "sneaking" through the mine-infested industrical area. I hate the "realistic" non-steady-cam, not to mention the fact that absolutely nothing was happening while Owen was pretending to run and hide behind debris in the middle of the field. That sequence added nothing, in fact brought the movie down a notch or two.
The supporting cast was great. I thought Hackman's Admiral character was a bit too gushy at the end, hence unbelievable. But a good movie overall.
19 March 2008
10,000 BC, 2008
I had high hopes for this flick, and unfortunately, I fell victim to advertising. Dang, I hate when that happens!
I was really expecting a lot more action; more fights, more war, more battles. Something!
Let's start with the good parts. The scale of the pyramid building was impressive. I am curious how many real people they actually had; there were some scenese were at least 50 were obviously real, but I highly suspect that was it. What else... The decor and motif for the early tribesmen seemed really barbaric, adding to a sense of authenticity. The austere mountain scenery was nice; the remote wastes of those mountains seemed rather savage.
Most everything else I did not like. The egyptian-looking folks were way to advanced for 10,000 BC. And what was up with muxing and flanging the audio for the voices to such extremes? Way too much CGI, and the oversized ostritch-vulture things were a bit out of place. No fighting with the saber-tooth? The acting was forgettable. There was just too much that was unbelievable in the movie.
I was really expecting a lot more action; more fights, more war, more battles. Something!
Let's start with the good parts. The scale of the pyramid building was impressive. I am curious how many real people they actually had; there were some scenese were at least 50 were obviously real, but I highly suspect that was it. What else... The decor and motif for the early tribesmen seemed really barbaric, adding to a sense of authenticity. The austere mountain scenery was nice; the remote wastes of those mountains seemed rather savage.
Most everything else I did not like. The egyptian-looking folks were way to advanced for 10,000 BC. And what was up with muxing and flanging the audio for the voices to such extremes? Way too much CGI, and the oversized ostritch-vulture things were a bit out of place. No fighting with the saber-tooth? The acting was forgettable. There was just too much that was unbelievable in the movie.
18 March 2008
Varekai cirque du soleil, 2003 DVD
Cirque du Soleil is most definitely world-renowned for a dramatic presentation, and Varekai is no slouch. The artistry is amazing, the execution is superb, the skills on stage are astounding and the choreography is mesmerizing.
So why did I blacklist this show? I am a meat & potatoes guy. No, actually, I am just a meat guy. I want action! While the performances were phenomenal (!!), I wished there were more acrobatics. La Vigie was just strange, eccentric in a bad way. Did he do anything other than run around like a dramatic clown? While the story was, or could be, very intriguing, I was lulled by the comic-relief of La Vigie that juxtaposed the meat of the story.
Some of the acrobatics are mind-blowing. The two guys doing the aerial/ground stunts were compelling and vivid. I was struck by how mask-like they affixed their faces, as if their strenuous exercise were but a walk in the park. It was a relief to see them breathe heavy and smile at the end of their performance, just to know they were human. The folks who paired up, the bottom guy throwing and kicking his partner in sometimes graceful movements, sometimes dangerous flips, was awesome! How do they do that?!?
I guess in the end, this was a great show, but I am glad I got it from the library (free!) and did not pay to see it in person. I am sure I would feel differently about other performances. Maybe.
So why did I blacklist this show? I am a meat & potatoes guy. No, actually, I am just a meat guy. I want action! While the performances were phenomenal (!!), I wished there were more acrobatics. La Vigie was just strange, eccentric in a bad way. Did he do anything other than run around like a dramatic clown? While the story was, or could be, very intriguing, I was lulled by the comic-relief of La Vigie that juxtaposed the meat of the story.
Some of the acrobatics are mind-blowing. The two guys doing the aerial/ground stunts were compelling and vivid. I was struck by how mask-like they affixed their faces, as if their strenuous exercise were but a walk in the park. It was a relief to see them breathe heavy and smile at the end of their performance, just to know they were human. The folks who paired up, the bottom guy throwing and kicking his partner in sometimes graceful movements, sometimes dangerous flips, was awesome! How do they do that?!?
I guess in the end, this was a great show, but I am glad I got it from the library (free!) and did not pay to see it in person. I am sure I would feel differently about other performances. Maybe.
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Even though I had not heard much good about this movie, I did have some hopes if for nothing else than the whimsical adventures of the children. To that end, I thought the children were great! They were the highlight of the movie; interesting characters, well played and well written. In fact, I found the plot in general to be well conceived.
But there were many unfortunate factors that caused this piece to slide downhill for me. Jim Carey. While I think he has great talent (and this movie helped him improve his accents a little), his mannerisms are just too strong. But he was not the only problem. I found all the adults to be idiots. Its one thing if you make a children's movie, but this is not a movie for children specifically. It is dark, deep and mysterious. Why do the adults have to be so thick? The children stand out like red blood on newspaper.
My one complain of the children is Sunny - too much CGI. While her character was cute and charming at times, they gave her too much credit and had to adapt for it by synthesizing certain movements and postures. Bad choice, as it makes the character seem unreal.
But there were many unfortunate factors that caused this piece to slide downhill for me. Jim Carey. While I think he has great talent (and this movie helped him improve his accents a little), his mannerisms are just too strong. But he was not the only problem. I found all the adults to be idiots. Its one thing if you make a children's movie, but this is not a movie for children specifically. It is dark, deep and mysterious. Why do the adults have to be so thick? The children stand out like red blood on newspaper.
My one complain of the children is Sunny - too much CGI. While her character was cute and charming at times, they gave her too much credit and had to adapt for it by synthesizing certain movements and postures. Bad choice, as it makes the character seem unreal.
Age of Empires II, Microsoft game
Well, version 2 is definitely better than the original, but I was shocked to realize that some basic issues were untouched between the two. While AoE II is more polished and a few of the annoyances worked out, there is a sharp lack of diversity between the French, English and Scottish armies and buildings. The eastern races have a slight breathe of fresh air in that they at least look a little different. While extremely minor, I did not like how the menu graphics have such poor quality. And the music....
On the good side, I like the improvements made to the game system. Primitive waypoints are introduced, and selecting large groups of armies is a huge advantage. Pulling in the Egyptian architecture and units was a nice touch. And the upper-tech units add some nice variety, with distinct styles of play and unique weaknesses/strengths.
On the good side, I like the improvements made to the game system. Primitive waypoints are introduced, and selecting large groups of armies is a huge advantage. Pulling in the Egyptian architecture and units was a nice touch. And the upper-tech units add some nice variety, with distinct styles of play and unique weaknesses/strengths.
05 March 2008
Age of Empires, Microsoft game
I dabbled with the AoE II demo a while back, so I thought $10 would be a good price to get everything up to an including the AoE II expansion pack. You get what you pay for.
AoE II is definitely more polished than the original. I am playing through the original now and really finding it hard to like. No way points or build queues. My warriors stand around like dummies when an enemy is nearby (I already set Diplomacy to "Enemy"), and the pathfinding algorithms suck big time. Watch towers seem hesitant to fire upon the enemy (fear of retribution?). And how come if I kill an animal with a warrior I cannot harvest its meat?
I am looking forward to playing AoE II again; my memory is a little blurry, but I seem to remember that it was a little more satisfying.
AoE II is definitely more polished than the original. I am playing through the original now and really finding it hard to like. No way points or build queues. My warriors stand around like dummies when an enemy is nearby (I already set Diplomacy to "Enemy"), and the pathfinding algorithms suck big time. Watch towers seem hesitant to fire upon the enemy (fear of retribution?). And how come if I kill an animal with a warrior I cannot harvest its meat?
I am looking forward to playing AoE II again; my memory is a little blurry, but I seem to remember that it was a little more satisfying.
Belgarath the Sorcerer, by David and Leigh Eddings
I like the way these guys write. I like the style and level of detail, I like the way the plot unfolds and the constructs they use.
I like Belgarath. Although he and the rest of the disciples seem pretty dumb given that they live for tens of thousands of years, he has spunk, and I like spunk. The authors make their characters rather consistent, which lends life and believability to their personas. I also like the use of the occasionally parenthical thoughts; they are often used for foreshadowing, but also to develop other characters.
I like the magic system that the Eddings employ, the Will and the Word. Although Polgara seems to use hand motions a little more, the idea is still essentially the same. There is an intersting hierarchy within the gods, all of whom seemed compelled to follow the rules of the Necessity. "Compelled" being a keyword, as it seems it is occasionally allowed to disobey from time to time. It is interesting how we start to see the classic "evil vs. good" near the end of the book. More specifically, how the "evil" is a mistake, and a "good" is coming to correct that mistake. It strikes a very similar, although misguided, parallel to Christian theistic beliefs.
There are not many points of which I regret in this book. The landscape is a little small; folks travel all four corners on a consistent basis. Probably part of what skews the scope is that time is also a little distorted; if you blink, you might skip 3,000 years.
I see that the Eddings have written other things, and I plan to check them out.
I like Belgarath. Although he and the rest of the disciples seem pretty dumb given that they live for tens of thousands of years, he has spunk, and I like spunk. The authors make their characters rather consistent, which lends life and believability to their personas. I also like the use of the occasionally parenthical thoughts; they are often used for foreshadowing, but also to develop other characters.
I like the magic system that the Eddings employ, the Will and the Word. Although Polgara seems to use hand motions a little more, the idea is still essentially the same. There is an intersting hierarchy within the gods, all of whom seemed compelled to follow the rules of the Necessity. "Compelled" being a keyword, as it seems it is occasionally allowed to disobey from time to time. It is interesting how we start to see the classic "evil vs. good" near the end of the book. More specifically, how the "evil" is a mistake, and a "good" is coming to correct that mistake. It strikes a very similar, although misguided, parallel to Christian theistic beliefs.
There are not many points of which I regret in this book. The landscape is a little small; folks travel all four corners on a consistent basis. Probably part of what skews the scope is that time is also a little distorted; if you blink, you might skip 3,000 years.
I see that the Eddings have written other things, and I plan to check them out.
Winterbirth, Brian Ruckley
I read "Winterbirth" and "Left Hand of Darkness" back to back. Talk about a study in diametric opposition. Where Ursula was boring, Ruckley is all about bloodshed. Where Ursula explores, Ruckley spills blood. Get the picture?
I may attempt to pick it up again. All the aggression was a bit too much for my tastes; the story is raw and without grace, but full of testosterone and gristle.
I did enjoy the premise, the concept of the gods leaving and letting the people go about life without their influence, for better or worse. I do like the overriding but subliminal presence of some kind of "evil" that must be fought, in this case, the destiny of the entire planet.
I may attempt to pick it up again. All the aggression was a bit too much for my tastes; the story is raw and without grace, but full of testosterone and gristle.
I did enjoy the premise, the concept of the gods leaving and letting the people go about life without their influence, for better or worse. I do like the overriding but subliminal presence of some kind of "evil" that must be fought, in this case, the destiny of the entire planet.
The left hand of darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin
I have enjoyed other Ursula K. Le Guin books in the past, but this one just did not draw me in at all. There are definitely some interesting concepts, and I like how she develops the characters, but the story lacks engagement. I am finding it hard to say much anything else.
Raisin in the Sun, 2008 TV Movie
As a white person watching this movie, I found it very eye-opening; the topic reminds me of the horrible inequities faced by minority groups in our country, but also highlights the bravery, stamina and raw strength that some people have, no matter what situation they are in.
The cast was excellent and I was drawn in by the acting. The filmography was a bit too dark for me; the graininess I attributed to my TV. =) The story was riveting and very real, from my perspective. I felt Walter's struggle to be a man, amidst so many distractions, challenges and temptations. The day-by-day struggles of this family were amazing, only to be outdone by the strong vision of the mother ("Lena") and the vivacious glue with which she kept the family together.
The subplot about African heritage was interesting as well. I am reminded how much I, and perhaps most Americans, are rather ignorant of general African history.
My heart is torn by this type of drama, mostly because I know it is real and folks are still suffering from it. There is absolutely no good reason for this type of prejudice and racial disharmony; only bad reasons.
The cast was excellent and I was drawn in by the acting. The filmography was a bit too dark for me; the graininess I attributed to my TV. =) The story was riveting and very real, from my perspective. I felt Walter's struggle to be a man, amidst so many distractions, challenges and temptations. The day-by-day struggles of this family were amazing, only to be outdone by the strong vision of the mother ("Lena") and the vivacious glue with which she kept the family together.
The subplot about African heritage was interesting as well. I am reminded how much I, and perhaps most Americans, are rather ignorant of general African history.
My heart is torn by this type of drama, mostly because I know it is real and folks are still suffering from it. There is absolutely no good reason for this type of prejudice and racial disharmony; only bad reasons.
03 January 2008
A Fire Upon the Deep, by Vernor Vinge
I read this book a while back and decided to pick it up again to fill in some gaps (both in my memory and in between reading other stuff).
I had forgotten about some of the things I disliked about the book. Which is a good thing, I believe. The thought of having "zones of thought" in which "normal" laws of nature no longer adhere is very interesting. However, why zones of thought? Strange. But anyway, Vinge fills his galaxy with fascinating aliens (usually aliens are better when they are not very humanoid; how big is the universe anyway?) and appropriately scaled levels of technology. I was fascinated by the "Beyond" and Transcended "Powers". While it is never made clear how this happens or why, there is enough of a mystery to create a kind of allure with these godlike beings. Even his little world that is stuck in the slow region of space he has crafty little sentient beings that work with a hive mind. Vinge pulls it off quite well.
I did not like the 'Net that much. It smacks of the world wide web (itself smacking of old usenets) too much, and puts way too much of a human face on the galactic civilizations. I give credit to Vinge for contemplating something like the 'Net back in the early 90's; for that, I am in awe of his imagination. But it just seems a little dated now. I guess that happens. =)
I did enjoy how the plot grew and the the little twists kept me coming back until I hit the climax of the story. Some of the progression of the old backwater aliens was too much like our Feudal era, but I guess that helps readers to get pulled into the story a little. It was interesting to watch how "high technology" was adapted to work in "slower" zones, to the point that the characters are discussing how best to jumpstart a civilization's tech tree as if there are dusty white papers on the topic floating around. And I do very much enjoy the glimpses of "high technology" that Vinge allows us to see. While I want more, I do appreciate that he had the good sense to enshroud it in enigma so as to allow the reader's imagination to fill in the gaps. Too often I find that the author goes overboard in detail and his imagination limits the story.
I had forgotten about some of the things I disliked about the book. Which is a good thing, I believe. The thought of having "zones of thought" in which "normal" laws of nature no longer adhere is very interesting. However, why zones of thought? Strange. But anyway, Vinge fills his galaxy with fascinating aliens (usually aliens are better when they are not very humanoid; how big is the universe anyway?) and appropriately scaled levels of technology. I was fascinated by the "Beyond" and Transcended "Powers". While it is never made clear how this happens or why, there is enough of a mystery to create a kind of allure with these godlike beings. Even his little world that is stuck in the slow region of space he has crafty little sentient beings that work with a hive mind. Vinge pulls it off quite well.
I did not like the 'Net that much. It smacks of the world wide web (itself smacking of old usenets) too much, and puts way too much of a human face on the galactic civilizations. I give credit to Vinge for contemplating something like the 'Net back in the early 90's; for that, I am in awe of his imagination. But it just seems a little dated now. I guess that happens. =)
I did enjoy how the plot grew and the the little twists kept me coming back until I hit the climax of the story. Some of the progression of the old backwater aliens was too much like our Feudal era, but I guess that helps readers to get pulled into the story a little. It was interesting to watch how "high technology" was adapted to work in "slower" zones, to the point that the characters are discussing how best to jumpstart a civilization's tech tree as if there are dusty white papers on the topic floating around. And I do very much enjoy the glimpses of "high technology" that Vinge allows us to see. While I want more, I do appreciate that he had the good sense to enshroud it in enigma so as to allow the reader's imagination to fill in the gaps. Too often I find that the author goes overboard in detail and his imagination limits the story.
The Changeling Plague, by Syne Mitchell
This book has a very interesting premise and plot; in some sense, it is right up the sci-fi alley. My beef is two-fold:
- has a really slow start
- the ending is just weird
It is almost like the story twists in a exponential way. I did like the concept of systematically mapping and categorizing the building blocks of our DNA, and the possibility of "reprogramming"; just the thought of that is pretty amazing. But I did not really like how the author used a computer hacker to become the genetic engineering guru just by reading a few books. Sure, there are some similarities between the complex systems of a program and the biological instructions stored in protein pairs, but to think that you can simply tweak DNA willy-nilly is quite naive. The author lightly touches on the negative side-affects, but in my mind, it was a gross over-simplification.
As ever, my "litmus test" is that the book did not draw me at all. There was nobody to connect too. There is a hacker who turns his girlfriend into his late sister, the misplaced billionaire who is hated but charitable, and a CDC genetic specialist who is at the forefront of genetic engineering but seems to do nothing productive with it.
- has a really slow start
- the ending is just weird
It is almost like the story twists in a exponential way. I did like the concept of systematically mapping and categorizing the building blocks of our DNA, and the possibility of "reprogramming"; just the thought of that is pretty amazing. But I did not really like how the author used a computer hacker to become the genetic engineering guru just by reading a few books. Sure, there are some similarities between the complex systems of a program and the biological instructions stored in protein pairs, but to think that you can simply tweak DNA willy-nilly is quite naive. The author lightly touches on the negative side-affects, but in my mind, it was a gross over-simplification.
As ever, my "litmus test" is that the book did not draw me at all. There was nobody to connect too. There is a hacker who turns his girlfriend into his late sister, the misplaced billionaire who is hated but charitable, and a CDC genetic specialist who is at the forefront of genetic engineering but seems to do nothing productive with it.
11 December 2007
7 years of Harry Potter
This is one the very few times I actually checked out the hype. I guess in a way it was worth if for nothing else than to connect with those who talk about the characters and plot.
Overall, I was not very impressed. The combination of trying to reach the younger generation with kid protagonists and goofy names, while trying to simultaneously appeal to the older crowd with darker thematic elements (not to mention somewhat gory and chilling) just did not mix well. I think the series started off well aiming at the teens, but when Voldemort is reincarnated, it just goes downhill. There is nothing to connect with. The bad guys are too bad, the wizened old wizard is too smart (and too lenient), and the hero is too powerful. You get the sense that Harry is more terrified of his adoptive relatives than the Lord V.
There were some elements I did like. For instance, the owls. I kinda like how they are kinda watching over their charges, even though they have no real powers outside of normal owls. I liked Fred & George Weasley; forget the stupid things the author stuck them with, I like how they turned magic to their mischievous will. I like the background of Tom Riddle. And I think Snape was done up well as the double-double-double-double crossing bad guy who is a good guy who is a bad guy; plus he was cast quite well in the movies.
I like how the last book answered a lot of questions, answers that were long in the coming. We learned a lot more about Dumbledore and Potter, Snape and Riddle. I appreciate that the last book was the last book. Finally! =)
But there was so much to hate. The names of things are just dumb. Ok, I get that the author wants to appeal to children, but when you start having a Dark Wizard who imbibes blood and goes around killing folks just because, you kinda discriminate against the parents of the children. Spells especially are ridiculous. There are perhaps a few that seem original and in good taste. While the idea of the art of wandmaking is rather interesting, the theory that wands are merely instruments for a well-learned wizard (and not, alledgely, the source of the magic in the first place) falls on its face when the Big Bad Guy is so intent on getting the biggest and baddest wand. Yes, the famed wandmakers did try to warn Mr. V that he just didn't get it, and we the reader are supposed to understand that Riddle was so consumed that he was blinded. But even Dumbledore had to use a wand, not to mention all the other power players. Both the books and movies place way too much emphasis on the wands. Perhaps another throwback to children?
I did not like how our young heroes were always so much better than their elders. How is it they they excel so much where their mentors fall short? I even felt at times that the children were more mature than the adults.
I really did not connect with these stories at all. I think they make for interesting conversation. And the fact that there is so much hype about them easily lends itself to the impression, the false sense of some level of "good quality", that people will actually have intelligent discussions about the ideas and concepts put forth in those pages. I think that is more to the credit of the critics and fans than the author herself.
Overall, I was not very impressed. The combination of trying to reach the younger generation with kid protagonists and goofy names, while trying to simultaneously appeal to the older crowd with darker thematic elements (not to mention somewhat gory and chilling) just did not mix well. I think the series started off well aiming at the teens, but when Voldemort is reincarnated, it just goes downhill. There is nothing to connect with. The bad guys are too bad, the wizened old wizard is too smart (and too lenient), and the hero is too powerful. You get the sense that Harry is more terrified of his adoptive relatives than the Lord V.
There were some elements I did like. For instance, the owls. I kinda like how they are kinda watching over their charges, even though they have no real powers outside of normal owls. I liked Fred & George Weasley; forget the stupid things the author stuck them with, I like how they turned magic to their mischievous will. I like the background of Tom Riddle. And I think Snape was done up well as the double-double-double-double crossing bad guy who is a good guy who is a bad guy; plus he was cast quite well in the movies.
I like how the last book answered a lot of questions, answers that were long in the coming. We learned a lot more about Dumbledore and Potter, Snape and Riddle. I appreciate that the last book was the last book. Finally! =)
But there was so much to hate. The names of things are just dumb. Ok, I get that the author wants to appeal to children, but when you start having a Dark Wizard who imbibes blood and goes around killing folks just because, you kinda discriminate against the parents of the children. Spells especially are ridiculous. There are perhaps a few that seem original and in good taste. While the idea of the art of wandmaking is rather interesting, the theory that wands are merely instruments for a well-learned wizard (and not, alledgely, the source of the magic in the first place) falls on its face when the Big Bad Guy is so intent on getting the biggest and baddest wand. Yes, the famed wandmakers did try to warn Mr. V that he just didn't get it, and we the reader are supposed to understand that Riddle was so consumed that he was blinded. But even Dumbledore had to use a wand, not to mention all the other power players. Both the books and movies place way too much emphasis on the wands. Perhaps another throwback to children?
I did not like how our young heroes were always so much better than their elders. How is it they they excel so much where their mentors fall short? I even felt at times that the children were more mature than the adults.
I really did not connect with these stories at all. I think they make for interesting conversation. And the fact that there is so much hype about them easily lends itself to the impression, the false sense of some level of "good quality", that people will actually have intelligent discussions about the ideas and concepts put forth in those pages. I think that is more to the credit of the critics and fans than the author herself.
04 December 2007
The Sleeping God: A Novel of Dhulyn and Parno by Violette Malan
I liked the way this novel started, but was not very thrilled with the ending. The whole thing with the "Green Shadow" is just too cheesy, almost like a bad mash-up of the "Green Hornet" and "The Shadow" from 1960's talk radio. If Malan's other novels have nothing to do with this mysterious cartoon character of NOT, I may take another chance with them.
I like the main characters, Dhulyn Wolfshead and Parno Lionsmane. They are members of the Mercenary Guild, and like all Mercenaries, are experts in swordsmanship, fieldcraft and full of common sense. Almost too much so. And they all have these funny adopted last names to reflect that, when they join the Guild, they loose their past.
There are also the Marked, those with special abilities that most everyone benefits from. You have your Healers, Menders and Finders. You would never guess what they do. =) Malan weaves an interesting theology together, showing how all these special abilities can join up with the more rare of the Marked, the Seers and the Lens. Together, they can form the Sleeping God when the time is ripe. By the end of the book, images from my childhood days of watching Voltron were coming to mind.
I like the little details, and most of the story. As you can tell from what I said above, some of the more abstract concepts did not pull me into the story, but instead distanced me.
I like the main characters, Dhulyn Wolfshead and Parno Lionsmane. They are members of the Mercenary Guild, and like all Mercenaries, are experts in swordsmanship, fieldcraft and full of common sense. Almost too much so. And they all have these funny adopted last names to reflect that, when they join the Guild, they loose their past.
There are also the Marked, those with special abilities that most everyone benefits from. You have your Healers, Menders and Finders. You would never guess what they do. =) Malan weaves an interesting theology together, showing how all these special abilities can join up with the more rare of the Marked, the Seers and the Lens. Together, they can form the Sleeping God when the time is ripe. By the end of the book, images from my childhood days of watching Voltron were coming to mind.
I like the little details, and most of the story. As you can tell from what I said above, some of the more abstract concepts did not pull me into the story, but instead distanced me.
More on EVE
I am still reminiscing about EVE Online. I have never felt such a pull, and such a revulsion, for a game. Gamespot has a review of the game that, for once, strikes a strong vibe with me. EVE is heavily PVP, so like one reviewer said, if you are not in it for PVP, don't waste your time.
I have been looking for something that is non-PVP EVE. Or at least, something that has a rich, rewarding PVE side to it. I tried out the demos for X3 and the Tarr Chronicles, Starlancer and Freelancer; all of which are quite interesting and even kinda fun, but I am not exactly interested in the first-person experience. Especially with no joystick. I want something like Homeworld, but something current. I briefly looked at Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, but the graphics are horrid, and the game is a bit old. And slow. There are a slew of other games recommended by Amazon, but they are all older. I browsed stargamer.net, which looked like my kind of place, but that is even old. What's up with that!! I briefly read about the Battlestar Gallatica and Star Trek games, but I have never been impressed with the games-from-movies projects (including Star Wars). Maybe I need to give them another chance. Maybe.
Is this genre dying out?!?
At least the bevy of fantasy RPGs are seemingly unending. I won't have to worry about spell-casting, sword-weilding games running out any time soon.
I have been looking for something that is non-PVP EVE. Or at least, something that has a rich, rewarding PVE side to it. I tried out the demos for X3 and the Tarr Chronicles, Starlancer and Freelancer; all of which are quite interesting and even kinda fun, but I am not exactly interested in the first-person experience. Especially with no joystick. I want something like Homeworld, but something current. I briefly looked at Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, but the graphics are horrid, and the game is a bit old. And slow. There are a slew of other games recommended by Amazon, but they are all older. I browsed stargamer.net, which looked like my kind of place, but that is even old. What's up with that!! I briefly read about the Battlestar Gallatica and Star Trek games, but I have never been impressed with the games-from-movies projects (including Star Wars). Maybe I need to give them another chance. Maybe.
Is this genre dying out?!?
At least the bevy of fantasy RPGs are seemingly unending. I won't have to worry about spell-casting, sword-weilding games running out any time soon.
20 November 2007
The Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss
I rather enjoyed this book, even though there were a couple things I did not particularly desire. But those were minor, so let me get them out of the way.
First, the "hero" is telling a story about his childhood firsthand. I am not a big fan of too-tall-to-be-true stories. Not only is it hard for me to identify with a character who is half my age, but I find it disturbing that the fictional child has so many mature and adult characteristics.
Secondly, I dislike incomplete stories. 'Tis like a song that ends on a leading chord. I happened to be on Amazon looking for more information about the author, and the next book is due out in April, 2009! I will have forgotten about this author and story by then.
Ok, now that the unpleasantries are out of the way. There are parts of this book that remind me of when I read Terry Goodkind's "Debt of Bones". There is something raw, something gritty in the story that makes it come alive. Sometimes you can smell the dust that is kicked up from the well-worn dirt road atop your dappled horse, the leather saddle creaking in slow cadence to the pleasant canter. I enjoy the nature in which "magic" is employed; not some abra-cadabra fancy posh ritual, but something that some folks can tap into better than others, to various degrees and ends. I enjoy the mystery of the bad guy. I appreciate how "real life" and science is woven into various forms of magic, coming up with things I have never heard of before like "sygaldry".
I really enjoy his universe as well. There are histories that can be explored, characters that fit like puzzle pieces, even without a tremendous amount of back story. The universe is very consistent, well thought out and complex to boot. I like that. There are twists on old ideas (a nomandic musical group called the Edema Ruh) that leave you with the feeling that you might be able to come up with a comparison in some far distant land; these kind of things help draw the reader in, and I really like to be drawn in. As the characters progress and explore, the reader is compelled to go along for the ride, just to find out what happens next.
I imagine I will one day pick up the sequel at the library and wonder what it is about, probably read it to be reminded of something very very similar. Maybe I will find this post and it will all come cascading back to me. =)
First, the "hero" is telling a story about his childhood firsthand. I am not a big fan of too-tall-to-be-true stories. Not only is it hard for me to identify with a character who is half my age, but I find it disturbing that the fictional child has so many mature and adult characteristics.
Secondly, I dislike incomplete stories. 'Tis like a song that ends on a leading chord. I happened to be on Amazon looking for more information about the author, and the next book is due out in April, 2009! I will have forgotten about this author and story by then.
Ok, now that the unpleasantries are out of the way. There are parts of this book that remind me of when I read Terry Goodkind's "Debt of Bones". There is something raw, something gritty in the story that makes it come alive. Sometimes you can smell the dust that is kicked up from the well-worn dirt road atop your dappled horse, the leather saddle creaking in slow cadence to the pleasant canter. I enjoy the nature in which "magic" is employed; not some abra-cadabra fancy posh ritual, but something that some folks can tap into better than others, to various degrees and ends. I enjoy the mystery of the bad guy. I appreciate how "real life" and science is woven into various forms of magic, coming up with things I have never heard of before like "sygaldry".
I really enjoy his universe as well. There are histories that can be explored, characters that fit like puzzle pieces, even without a tremendous amount of back story. The universe is very consistent, well thought out and complex to boot. I like that. There are twists on old ideas (a nomandic musical group called the Edema Ruh) that leave you with the feeling that you might be able to come up with a comparison in some far distant land; these kind of things help draw the reader in, and I really like to be drawn in. As the characters progress and explore, the reader is compelled to go along for the ride, just to find out what happens next.
I imagine I will one day pick up the sequel at the library and wonder what it is about, probably read it to be reminded of something very very similar. Maybe I will find this post and it will all come cascading back to me. =)
13 November 2007
EVE Online, a massively multiplayer online role playing game
Why do they call these things MMORPGs? Why not just MMOG, or MMG?
Anyway, this was my first foray into the MMORPG arena, and wow did it open my eyes! I sampled this fine offering with the trial account. And although I only played for roughly 2.5 days, I put in almost 20 hours. I am still unsure if it was worth it. It certainly was not the best use of my time. =)
There are many good things and many bad things about EVE, and this will be very subjective.
Bad things first
The massive multiplayer online genre itself is probably my biggest issue. Due to its nature, it is extremely immersive. Meaning that you are invited, enticed and even provoked into dumping hours upon hours into developing your character in one fashion or another. You can explore the life of EVE on your own, but that path is very slow, very time consuming and filled with pitfalls. You can join up with another group which will speed things tremendously, keeping you relatively safe (even if only by sage advice), but the intrinsic coercion of playing more can hit you like certain hot peppers that build up and pack a punch. It is very hard to play this game for, say, 1 hour at a time. It might be possible to run a PvE (Player vs Environment, dealing with computer-generated events and characters) mission or two, but you may quickly find that some times it takes a while to get to where you are going. There is an autopilot function that helps, but has a built-in safety feature of dropping you off a few klicks away from your target so you are not instantly ambushed by those with nefarious intent. Warping is not always fast, especially if your ship does not have enough juice to do the jump all in one go. So, you can chew up 10-15 minutes just travelling. And for a newbie (we all start at square one), just figuring things out takes time.
The tutorials help. But they are so slow! Amazingly slow, especially if you make a mistake. I have read that EVE has one of the most severe death penalities, and since this is my first online game, I am rather curious what others are like. When you "die" in EVE, that means your ship was blown up by "bad guys", whether that be a NPC (non-playable character) or a real person, for better or worse. Your characters, as it were, is jettisoned into deep space in a small lifeboat called a capsule. Amazingly, you can warp around with this capsule and the idea is that you make it back home so you can refit in another ship. If you have adequate insurance (all starter ships are automatically insured for free), your ship will soon be replaced. If someone shoots your capsule, you can opt to have a clone. These are your only options for "saving" the game. If you die and you have no insured ship and no clone, your account is essentially locked. What also sucks is all the stuff you were carrying is left in your ship's wreck, referred to as a "can". You can go back and claim it, but so can anyone else in the game. Which means there is quite a lucrative pirating underground. I had an opportunity to be a part of a shady group that would trick newbies and blow away their ships, raiding their cans. All perfectly legitimate, if done correctly. That is one of the things that stands out with EVE; it is one of the most dangerous game environments. Unlike a FPS (first person shooter) where you are expected to kill and be killed, EVE paints the picture of living a life in space on a ship, chipping away a living by doing "normal" things like finding a job and making money. It is just that there are a disproportionate amount of people whose job it is to take your money.
The corollary is that this "pirating" mindset is also one of the most fun for your average person, I think. EVE is a sci-fi game, and it is almost mantra that you blow things up. Mining for minerals in an asteroid field and trucking the goods home, day after day, just does not hold much excitement. There is a very strong sense that role-playing is not on a majority of your average player's mind. In fact, it is almost big news when you hear about a pure role-playing faction (I came across Lame Duck Corp, which consisted of two folks). Where is the RPG in MMORPG?
Lastly, the background music. It is a nice affect, very ambient and "space sounding", but too much monotony! I guess if you play for a short time span (1 hour or two), it is not that bad, but when you are online for long stretches, you start to hate the music. Perhaps there is a way to customize the "jukebox".
And a minor irritation that all games have, aside from the broken physics (slowing down when you stop accelerating?); there is no real sense of collision. If you happen to get close to someone, either you bump off or pass through them. I really wish that some game engine would finally get it right and respect object boundaries (and the requisite boundary conditions).
The interface is a little klunky. It looks sharp and has a very appropriate sci-fi skin, but window management is not up to par. Kudos to the context-sensitive mouse.
The good things
Very intriguing game. I love the futuristic sciences, the variety of career paths one can pursue, the vastness of space, the sheer scale. The fact that you can learn skills, even when offline, is a huge plus. Right now, my character is learning a skill that will take 6 days to complete, and I am not even connected. That is huge. It is strange that the skills are somehow not associated with what you do. In other words, there are no experience points as in the traditional RPG model. There are other stats you can accumulate, but skill points only go up when you train a skill. And you need to have skills to open up doors to other tech. I think that is a most excellent model, much preferable to the "traditional" model, and very realistic. Which makes me all the more sad that more players do not take advantage of the role-playing potential.
But blowing things up is just plain fun! The sound affects are awesome; from the ripping thundering screech of a stargate, to the squeezing acceleration of a warp, to the rewarding (but most unrealistic) reverberating sounds of missile launches and explosions. Whoever coordinated and engineered the sounds was quite good.
And the EVE universe is just big. I like that because it is easily the kind of thing that can swallow 23000 online players at once, and you can still find places of little or no activity, explore the unknown, or hang out in favorite 'hoods or crossroads. There is a realistic market force in action, along with politics, and a volunteer player-run University. Even an official EVE television station! Amazing. A universe that makes immersion very accessible.
I have also been glamorized by the cooperative efforts in gang warfare (or even fleetwar). The first group I hooked up required the use of Ventrillo, a VOIP operation favored by game-conferencing individuals. The physical technology is outstanding all by itself. You can even get software that tells you which icon belongs to which voice. How cool is that? Yes, I realize that this has been going on for years; like I said, I was smitten. Anyway, you have a gang boss (leader) who basically coordinates the attack by giving verbal orders (which is so much faster than typing). There are many technologies to deploy against a target; cloaking, damping, webbing, siphoning and the run-of-the-mill range of damage-inducing weapons. Sure, everyone wants to be a tank and just blast away, but having specialists in electronic warfare (ewar) can turn the tide quickly. Having a scout that can tell you more precise information can allow a team to take out strategic targets quickly.
The graphics are pretty sweet as well. After a couple warps, I noticed that the game engine depicts red-shift and blue-shift; wow, yet another attempt at "real physics" to demonstrate hypothetical faster-than-light travel. And back to scale; the smallest of ships (frigates) are really small. The big ships are really big, especially the space stations. I was actually hoping for a little more in terms of extremes (thinking Star Wars and the death star and capital ships), but what EVE offers is very satisfying. Except the whole thing about collisions. =)
In the end, I both love and hate this game. For me personally, the cost of my real life time is simply not worth the benefit of such an awesome game experience. If I could dabble in it, I would be hard put to avoid it. But the time commitment, not to mention a subscription fee, put this game out of my ballpark. Sure, $14 bucks a month is not much, but the principle of it is what eats me. On a more practical level, look at it from my wife's perspective. =) Which I try to do often, while not always succeeding.
Updated 20-Nov-2007:
Some other thoughts about the skill point model. It goes slow. Very slow. And you can do nothing about it, except 1) train skills that help you learn faster, 2) bump up character traits that support faster learning (ie, intelligence). I am not even so sure the last point has much of an impact. But I could be wrong.
I am not as convinced this model is superior. What you end up doing is having to buy or earn books from which to learn new skills, and there are a ton of skills out there to be learned. But books cost money (some cost mega $$). So, you end up doing a lot of missions to earn money to learn skills to earn skill points. In the old system, you went out and did missions to earn experience points, which either bumped up a skill or could be allocated towards a trait (or both). But EVE is biased towards PVP. So there is a severe lack of incentive to do missions, except for the sole purpose of getting money to buy books and stuff.
I was reading in the EVE forums about the possibility of queueing skills. I think this would be extremely advantageous, but then someone made the point that the game developer (CCP) would loose lots of money because folks would queue up skills to get an uber-ship, log off for a couple months, than restart their subscription read to rock'n'roll. I think that might be true for a number of people, which indicates there is something drastically broken about why people play. Which is why I am not going to buy a subscription.
But dang it, the game is awesome! There is so much going on that I would love to a part of. EVE TV, EVE University, fleet warefare with tons of supporting roles for folks of every niche... the EVE Universe is just amazing! And growing! Lots of RPG opportunities, although I have a hard time seeing how someone can get excited about mining ore from rocks. But folks do. You can join corporations and organizations, go the political route, or just blow things up. For me, it just takes too long to get the juicy stuff. And I do not feel like paying a subscription to get there. It would be very interesting if there was a single-player feed, perhaps a way to interact with only the NPC part of the game. I am not sure if that would sell or not.
Anyway, this was my first foray into the MMORPG arena, and wow did it open my eyes! I sampled this fine offering with the trial account. And although I only played for roughly 2.5 days, I put in almost 20 hours. I am still unsure if it was worth it. It certainly was not the best use of my time. =)
There are many good things and many bad things about EVE, and this will be very subjective.
Bad things first
The massive multiplayer online genre itself is probably my biggest issue. Due to its nature, it is extremely immersive. Meaning that you are invited, enticed and even provoked into dumping hours upon hours into developing your character in one fashion or another. You can explore the life of EVE on your own, but that path is very slow, very time consuming and filled with pitfalls. You can join up with another group which will speed things tremendously, keeping you relatively safe (even if only by sage advice), but the intrinsic coercion of playing more can hit you like certain hot peppers that build up and pack a punch. It is very hard to play this game for, say, 1 hour at a time. It might be possible to run a PvE (Player vs Environment, dealing with computer-generated events and characters) mission or two, but you may quickly find that some times it takes a while to get to where you are going. There is an autopilot function that helps, but has a built-in safety feature of dropping you off a few klicks away from your target so you are not instantly ambushed by those with nefarious intent. Warping is not always fast, especially if your ship does not have enough juice to do the jump all in one go. So, you can chew up 10-15 minutes just travelling. And for a newbie (we all start at square one), just figuring things out takes time.
The tutorials help. But they are so slow! Amazingly slow, especially if you make a mistake. I have read that EVE has one of the most severe death penalities, and since this is my first online game, I am rather curious what others are like. When you "die" in EVE, that means your ship was blown up by "bad guys", whether that be a NPC (non-playable character) or a real person, for better or worse. Your characters, as it were, is jettisoned into deep space in a small lifeboat called a capsule. Amazingly, you can warp around with this capsule and the idea is that you make it back home so you can refit in another ship. If you have adequate insurance (all starter ships are automatically insured for free), your ship will soon be replaced. If someone shoots your capsule, you can opt to have a clone. These are your only options for "saving" the game. If you die and you have no insured ship and no clone, your account is essentially locked. What also sucks is all the stuff you were carrying is left in your ship's wreck, referred to as a "can". You can go back and claim it, but so can anyone else in the game. Which means there is quite a lucrative pirating underground. I had an opportunity to be a part of a shady group that would trick newbies and blow away their ships, raiding their cans. All perfectly legitimate, if done correctly. That is one of the things that stands out with EVE; it is one of the most dangerous game environments. Unlike a FPS (first person shooter) where you are expected to kill and be killed, EVE paints the picture of living a life in space on a ship, chipping away a living by doing "normal" things like finding a job and making money. It is just that there are a disproportionate amount of people whose job it is to take your money.
The corollary is that this "pirating" mindset is also one of the most fun for your average person, I think. EVE is a sci-fi game, and it is almost mantra that you blow things up. Mining for minerals in an asteroid field and trucking the goods home, day after day, just does not hold much excitement. There is a very strong sense that role-playing is not on a majority of your average player's mind. In fact, it is almost big news when you hear about a pure role-playing faction (I came across Lame Duck Corp, which consisted of two folks). Where is the RPG in MMORPG?
Lastly, the background music. It is a nice affect, very ambient and "space sounding", but too much monotony! I guess if you play for a short time span (1 hour or two), it is not that bad, but when you are online for long stretches, you start to hate the music. Perhaps there is a way to customize the "jukebox".
And a minor irritation that all games have, aside from the broken physics (slowing down when you stop accelerating?); there is no real sense of collision. If you happen to get close to someone, either you bump off or pass through them. I really wish that some game engine would finally get it right and respect object boundaries (and the requisite boundary conditions).
The interface is a little klunky. It looks sharp and has a very appropriate sci-fi skin, but window management is not up to par. Kudos to the context-sensitive mouse.
The good things
Very intriguing game. I love the futuristic sciences, the variety of career paths one can pursue, the vastness of space, the sheer scale. The fact that you can learn skills, even when offline, is a huge plus. Right now, my character is learning a skill that will take 6 days to complete, and I am not even connected. That is huge. It is strange that the skills are somehow not associated with what you do. In other words, there are no experience points as in the traditional RPG model. There are other stats you can accumulate, but skill points only go up when you train a skill. And you need to have skills to open up doors to other tech. I think that is a most excellent model, much preferable to the "traditional" model, and very realistic. Which makes me all the more sad that more players do not take advantage of the role-playing potential.
But blowing things up is just plain fun! The sound affects are awesome; from the ripping thundering screech of a stargate, to the squeezing acceleration of a warp, to the rewarding (but most unrealistic) reverberating sounds of missile launches and explosions. Whoever coordinated and engineered the sounds was quite good.
And the EVE universe is just big. I like that because it is easily the kind of thing that can swallow 23000 online players at once, and you can still find places of little or no activity, explore the unknown, or hang out in favorite 'hoods or crossroads. There is a realistic market force in action, along with politics, and a volunteer player-run University. Even an official EVE television station! Amazing. A universe that makes immersion very accessible.
I have also been glamorized by the cooperative efforts in gang warfare (or even fleetwar). The first group I hooked up required the use of Ventrillo, a VOIP operation favored by game-conferencing individuals. The physical technology is outstanding all by itself. You can even get software that tells you which icon belongs to which voice. How cool is that? Yes, I realize that this has been going on for years; like I said, I was smitten. Anyway, you have a gang boss (leader) who basically coordinates the attack by giving verbal orders (which is so much faster than typing). There are many technologies to deploy against a target; cloaking, damping, webbing, siphoning and the run-of-the-mill range of damage-inducing weapons. Sure, everyone wants to be a tank and just blast away, but having specialists in electronic warfare (ewar) can turn the tide quickly. Having a scout that can tell you more precise information can allow a team to take out strategic targets quickly.
The graphics are pretty sweet as well. After a couple warps, I noticed that the game engine depicts red-shift and blue-shift; wow, yet another attempt at "real physics" to demonstrate hypothetical faster-than-light travel. And back to scale; the smallest of ships (frigates) are really small. The big ships are really big, especially the space stations. I was actually hoping for a little more in terms of extremes (thinking Star Wars and the death star and capital ships), but what EVE offers is very satisfying. Except the whole thing about collisions. =)
In the end, I both love and hate this game. For me personally, the cost of my real life time is simply not worth the benefit of such an awesome game experience. If I could dabble in it, I would be hard put to avoid it. But the time commitment, not to mention a subscription fee, put this game out of my ballpark. Sure, $14 bucks a month is not much, but the principle of it is what eats me. On a more practical level, look at it from my wife's perspective. =) Which I try to do often, while not always succeeding.
Updated 20-Nov-2007:
Some other thoughts about the skill point model. It goes slow. Very slow. And you can do nothing about it, except 1) train skills that help you learn faster, 2) bump up character traits that support faster learning (ie, intelligence). I am not even so sure the last point has much of an impact. But I could be wrong.
I am not as convinced this model is superior. What you end up doing is having to buy or earn books from which to learn new skills, and there are a ton of skills out there to be learned. But books cost money (some cost mega $$). So, you end up doing a lot of missions to earn money to learn skills to earn skill points. In the old system, you went out and did missions to earn experience points, which either bumped up a skill or could be allocated towards a trait (or both). But EVE is biased towards PVP. So there is a severe lack of incentive to do missions, except for the sole purpose of getting money to buy books and stuff.
I was reading in the EVE forums about the possibility of queueing skills. I think this would be extremely advantageous, but then someone made the point that the game developer (CCP) would loose lots of money because folks would queue up skills to get an uber-ship, log off for a couple months, than restart their subscription read to rock'n'roll. I think that might be true for a number of people, which indicates there is something drastically broken about why people play. Which is why I am not going to buy a subscription.
But dang it, the game is awesome! There is so much going on that I would love to a part of. EVE TV, EVE University, fleet warefare with tons of supporting roles for folks of every niche... the EVE Universe is just amazing! And growing! Lots of RPG opportunities, although I have a hard time seeing how someone can get excited about mining ore from rocks. But folks do. You can join corporations and organizations, go the political route, or just blow things up. For me, it just takes too long to get the juicy stuff. And I do not feel like paying a subscription to get there. It would be very interesting if there was a single-player feed, perhaps a way to interact with only the NPC part of the game. I am not sure if that would sell or not.
20 October 2007
Homeworld 2, 2003 PC game (demo)
I fell in love with Homeworld when it first came out in 1999. There is something about the epic space battle that I really like; perhaps the mixture of high-technology and nomads struggling to survive. Aside from the story, I am enthralled by the truly 3-dimensional universe. Granted, there is much more untapped potential, but the fundamentals are there. This post is going to jump all over the place, but this is the way I think. No apologies.
For instance, most capital ships (the big ones with thick hulls and either bristling with guns or ship factories) have "weaknesses" on the top- or underside. Which means if you focus an attack from one of those directions, you can more easily punch through the skin. However, the game engine (in both Homeworld and Homeworld 2, and even Cataclysm) does not properly align ships moving along the z axis, they may tilt about 35 degrees or so, but essentially you end up with a lopsided ship careening through space at an angle that is impossible if its engines were really pointed in the direction they are. On the plus side, I like a lot of the effects. Especially if you crank up the resolution and detail level; absolutely beautiful!
V2 offers some nice things, but also took away some nice things. The interface, while being a little more easier to grasp, lots its sci-fi appeal. It is now too... comic looking. I like that the build, research and launch windows are now cordoned off to a side of the screen, and that they are linked to the ship in context. I just wanted something that looked really cool, really sci-fi like. I really like the hover mouse effects; hovering over a ship will give you a line to its target, whether it be a waypoint, resource or target. The pulsar weapons are cool, and I think a good addition. I was not able to play and of the behemoth, gun-toting ships (stinking demo). But the class of ships I did play are really exciting. I love big battles, catching a ride on the back of an interceptor zipping around, watching everything blow up.
I did not really like the story behind V2, at least not what I gathered from the demo and the website. One of the best new concepts behind this kind of RTS is that your army (or armada as it were) do not mysteriously disappear for each new session or campaign. What you built from the previous scenario carries over. So, how is it that after this many years, our little fleet is starting from scratch, having to redevelop all its technology?!? Come on! I mean, what would be better is if all the old technology is still available, and some new technology from the intermediate years, with options to develop new and improved technology, assuming the enemy already has tech that can best your old stuff. And where's my fleet?? Did the fleet mastermind sell off ships to scrap and force the gene pool to dwindle? For this, I will not buy the new game; the story is basically recycled from the previous one. At least Cataclysm had a better story.
But the graphics are awesome! The soundtrack is still a big hit with me; a little different, but I think it is generally the same flavor.
Another thing I noticed that I thought was a little strange. In the original, any ships that were too close to a exploding mothership suffered the consequenes; they were toasted and incinerated. But in V2 I have not noticed that. Maybe in a patch?
There are other strange anomalies from both games. They stand out only because everything else about the game is so awesome and spectacular. Ship geometry can be weird. I would want to see sparks, damage and explosions if any ship got too close to another, no matter what size. Instead, I see smaller ships bouncing off larger ones, and larger ships usually just pass through the extremities of another large ship. In V2 there is more "bouncing" going on, especially with larger ships. My guess is that it takes a lot of code and computational power to keep track of that kind of stuff, and it is easier to draw a loose rubberband around a ship. However, a much bigger complaint I have is with the AI. Why the heck would ships even get that close?!? Sometimes the AI is spot on; I have see a capital ship pass through a company of smaller ships (corvettes and fighers), the smaller vehicles parting like a wave and reforming in good military fashion. But in battle, the gloves come off and there is nothing nice. And if everyone knows about the soft undersides, why do all the ships attack from the front or the aft and starboard?
V2 really did improve some aspects of the AI that I noticed. Each ship type is aware of what ship it counters best and usually (always?) targets those ships first. I saw some horrendous examples in the first version where smaller ships would take on a larger capital ship when better choices where nearby. Or a Heavy Cruiser focusing on a bomber when an Attack Frigate was within range. This is handled much better in the newest release. Also, the smaller class (fighters and corvettes) are now launched and exercise tactical maneuvers in intelligent groups (would squads be a good name for that?). That is a huge plus!
It is sad that Sierra and Relic (and might as well throw in Barking Dog) are being broken up; No Homeworld 3. But maybe that is a good thing. Maybe we need something new, something from scratch.
However, having said that, I wish there was something to fill the gap, the gaping maw really, of the Kadeshi, the Bentusi and the "Council". I am tempted to go reading a bit more (Wikipedia can really whet your appetite), but there is really not much in-game.
So, what will the next, great space game be? Genesis Rising was a very interesting approach, but essentially flopped for several reasons. For starters, only 2d movement. What, are the magnetic fields too strong to traverse up or down? Very different twist, though, with living ships that you could morph to your purpose; I liked that. I have heard rumors of some other games, but I am still looking. I remember the Space Commander days, and bringing that flavor back in a big way would be would be just swell.
Update: I have got to find a friend who has Eve Online. I usually a totally against MMOG, but this one sounds quite intriguing.
For instance, most capital ships (the big ones with thick hulls and either bristling with guns or ship factories) have "weaknesses" on the top- or underside. Which means if you focus an attack from one of those directions, you can more easily punch through the skin. However, the game engine (in both Homeworld and Homeworld 2, and even Cataclysm) does not properly align ships moving along the z axis, they may tilt about 35 degrees or so, but essentially you end up with a lopsided ship careening through space at an angle that is impossible if its engines were really pointed in the direction they are. On the plus side, I like a lot of the effects. Especially if you crank up the resolution and detail level; absolutely beautiful!
V2 offers some nice things, but also took away some nice things. The interface, while being a little more easier to grasp, lots its sci-fi appeal. It is now too... comic looking. I like that the build, research and launch windows are now cordoned off to a side of the screen, and that they are linked to the ship in context. I just wanted something that looked really cool, really sci-fi like. I really like the hover mouse effects; hovering over a ship will give you a line to its target, whether it be a waypoint, resource or target. The pulsar weapons are cool, and I think a good addition. I was not able to play and of the behemoth, gun-toting ships (stinking demo). But the class of ships I did play are really exciting. I love big battles, catching a ride on the back of an interceptor zipping around, watching everything blow up.
I did not really like the story behind V2, at least not what I gathered from the demo and the website. One of the best new concepts behind this kind of RTS is that your army (or armada as it were) do not mysteriously disappear for each new session or campaign. What you built from the previous scenario carries over. So, how is it that after this many years, our little fleet is starting from scratch, having to redevelop all its technology?!? Come on! I mean, what would be better is if all the old technology is still available, and some new technology from the intermediate years, with options to develop new and improved technology, assuming the enemy already has tech that can best your old stuff. And where's my fleet?? Did the fleet mastermind sell off ships to scrap and force the gene pool to dwindle? For this, I will not buy the new game; the story is basically recycled from the previous one. At least Cataclysm had a better story.
But the graphics are awesome! The soundtrack is still a big hit with me; a little different, but I think it is generally the same flavor.
Another thing I noticed that I thought was a little strange. In the original, any ships that were too close to a exploding mothership suffered the consequenes; they were toasted and incinerated. But in V2 I have not noticed that. Maybe in a patch?
There are other strange anomalies from both games. They stand out only because everything else about the game is so awesome and spectacular. Ship geometry can be weird. I would want to see sparks, damage and explosions if any ship got too close to another, no matter what size. Instead, I see smaller ships bouncing off larger ones, and larger ships usually just pass through the extremities of another large ship. In V2 there is more "bouncing" going on, especially with larger ships. My guess is that it takes a lot of code and computational power to keep track of that kind of stuff, and it is easier to draw a loose rubberband around a ship. However, a much bigger complaint I have is with the AI. Why the heck would ships even get that close?!? Sometimes the AI is spot on; I have see a capital ship pass through a company of smaller ships (corvettes and fighers), the smaller vehicles parting like a wave and reforming in good military fashion. But in battle, the gloves come off and there is nothing nice. And if everyone knows about the soft undersides, why do all the ships attack from the front or the aft and starboard?
V2 really did improve some aspects of the AI that I noticed. Each ship type is aware of what ship it counters best and usually (always?) targets those ships first. I saw some horrendous examples in the first version where smaller ships would take on a larger capital ship when better choices where nearby. Or a Heavy Cruiser focusing on a bomber when an Attack Frigate was within range. This is handled much better in the newest release. Also, the smaller class (fighters and corvettes) are now launched and exercise tactical maneuvers in intelligent groups (would squads be a good name for that?). That is a huge plus!
It is sad that Sierra and Relic (and might as well throw in Barking Dog) are being broken up; No Homeworld 3. But maybe that is a good thing. Maybe we need something new, something from scratch.
However, having said that, I wish there was something to fill the gap, the gaping maw really, of the Kadeshi, the Bentusi and the "Council". I am tempted to go reading a bit more (Wikipedia can really whet your appetite), but there is really not much in-game.
So, what will the next, great space game be? Genesis Rising was a very interesting approach, but essentially flopped for several reasons. For starters, only 2d movement. What, are the magnetic fields too strong to traverse up or down? Very different twist, though, with living ships that you could morph to your purpose; I liked that. I have heard rumors of some other games, but I am still looking. I remember the Space Commander days, and bringing that flavor back in a big way would be would be just swell.
Update: I have got to find a friend who has Eve Online. I usually a totally against MMOG, but this one sounds quite intriguing.
15 October 2007
Heroes of Might and Magic (V), 2006 PC game
I downloaded a demo a few days ago and checked out this facelift for an old but enjoyable game (the HOMM series has been fun). The turn-based system is really old-school, but gives the game a little character, slows down the pace a little. Almost feels a little more like the old-fashioned D&D games.
Anyway, the same thing that I liked about the older HOMM games is what I like in the new. The downside is that very little has changed. Yes, the graphics are awesome, and the soundtrack is excellent. And the little tweaks they have made to acquiring experience, new skills and abilities, are all welcome (and long overdue), the core of the game is exactly the same.
If I had started on this game, I would probably have fallen in love with it, hands down. But since I have played the older games, I have a hard time wanting to play it for hours and hours. The 3D aspect is definitely very cool. And I want to explore the new artifacts, the special and unique racial abilities, and see what else has been tweaked. But I really doubt I am going to invest the proper amount of time that is demanded in order to find all the eye-candy and uber level-up trinkets.
I read some online reviews, and everyone is raving about the game. Well, there are some nay-sayers, but they are few and far between. I cannot believe the big-name reviews have ranked it so high (8 out of 10, or better).
Anyway, the same thing that I liked about the older HOMM games is what I like in the new. The downside is that very little has changed. Yes, the graphics are awesome, and the soundtrack is excellent. And the little tweaks they have made to acquiring experience, new skills and abilities, are all welcome (and long overdue), the core of the game is exactly the same.
If I had started on this game, I would probably have fallen in love with it, hands down. But since I have played the older games, I have a hard time wanting to play it for hours and hours. The 3D aspect is definitely very cool. And I want to explore the new artifacts, the special and unique racial abilities, and see what else has been tweaked. But I really doubt I am going to invest the proper amount of time that is demanded in order to find all the eye-candy and uber level-up trinkets.
I read some online reviews, and everyone is raving about the game. Well, there are some nay-sayers, but they are few and far between. I cannot believe the big-name reviews have ranked it so high (8 out of 10, or better).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)