Sunday, December 6, 2015

Video Game Review: Fallout 4

Let me start by saying I've never much cared for the Scavenger World setting. I know it's really popular but it just never worked for me. To me, it just seems unrealistic - this idea that after the bombs fell everyone just forgot that they could build buildings and run factories and stuff, or for that matter create basic things like soap which for those not in the know was invented roughly 5,000 years ago. It's ridiculous.

That said, I never hated Fallout. In fact, I loved it. I spent so much time with Fallout 3 because it was fun and the ridiculousness of the setting never really bothered me because, again, it was fun. This also is part of why I was excited for Fallout 4; the outpost mechanic addresses my major gripe about the setting, even though I still don't know why stuff that you build brand new looks so busted and shitty... but then, I guess that's just the aesthetic so whatever.

Well, onto the review. I'll start with what the game did right.

The level of customization is pretty cool. You can equip armor in seven parts now - underclothing, helmet, torso, right arm, right leg, left arm, left leg. It's still not quite as deep as it was in, say, Morrowind, but it's still nice.

You can also customize your weapons and armor at workbenches throughout the game. That said, the customization here isn't particularly deep and honestly feels less like customizing and more like simply upgrading; it would be nice if I could tinker and find a setup that works for my play style, but most of the options are just straight upgrades rather than changes, and it seems like the coolest weapons in the game are also the ones with the fewest upgrade options.

The outpost system is also pretty cool and does do a lot to answer the issues I have with the setting, like I said. Getting to set up your own dwelling is pretty cool, although I do still wish it had a few more features to it, like maybe the ability to add color.

I do also really like what they did with power armor. Unlike in other Fallout games where power armor was pretty much just like any other armor option, albeit with much better stats, power armor in this game really changes the way you play, turning you into an epic tank. You get a sense for how powerful it is when you get your first (assuming you're following the story) suit in Concord, then proceed to rip the minigun off a helicopter, jump off a three story building, and wipe out an entire squad of raiders AND a deathclaw. Best. Mission. EVER.

There's also a decent story, I guess, but I just can't bring myself to care about it. Normally story is a selling point for a game to me, but in this case I just don't feel like it fits with the style of the game. I liked Fallout 3 because it had a deep story but there wasn't a lot of characterization for my own guy so I could play them however I wanted. Fallout 4 knocked me out of the plot right off the bat by telling me I was middle aged, married, and had a kid. So much for all of my character ideas. Basically, at no point did I feel like I was playing my own character. No, I was playing Nate, husband of Nera and father of Shaun, and the game is never going to let me forget that.

Combine that with the dialog system which has been reduced significantly. You only have four options, all of them described with three or four word long phrases so you never know what you're going to say before you say it. Hell, most dialog options leave one of your choices as just "Sarcastic" which is so damn vague it isn't even funny, which is appropriate since the spoken line usually isn't particularly funny either.

It's honestly kind of sad to me. Bethesda spent so much time building this backstory and characterization only for it to end up as one of the game's flaws. Oh well, moving on.

Speaking of flaws, the game is sparse. The world is tiny and doesn't have much interesting in it. I know I shouldn't be surprised by this, being as Bethesda games have been getting smaller and smaller with every new game, but what about Skyrim? That game was smaller, but they did it so they could put more effort into what they did have. That does not apply to Fallout 4. Most of my time was spent wandering across vast tracts of open, empty land, looking for something to explore and when i did finally find something it was usually one building with three rooms and five enemies and barely anything to loot.

As with the power armor, you also get a sense for this when you arrive in Concord, a city of 17,000 people covering 26 square miles which in this game is pared down to maybe 30 or so buildings, only about 4 or 5 of which can even be explored, and only one of which is actually even instanced. You'd expect to be coming back to this town to scavenge for junk and supplies constantly but no, you'll be totally done with it after the first mission.

To be fair, there are some locations that are bigger, for example the City of Boston which is actually worth visiting. Still, locations like that seem to be the exception.

Also not surprising, the game is a buggy mess. I spent my first half hour or so with this game just trying to make it work, because I committed the cardinal sin of not owning a widescreen monitor. I use a 1280x1024 resolution, which according to Bethesda apparently means I'm not worthy to play their game. I had to manually set the screen size to 1280x1024, which had the result of erasing most of my HUD and somehow rendering the lockpicking GUI invisible. I had to download a mod to fix it but it still didn't work because, I don't know, the universe hates me I guess.

Lastly, I feel like they've done something to combat. The smooth and workable combat of Fallout 3 is gone. I'm not sure if it's how fast and twitchy enemies are or if the guns are less accurate (probably both) but I can never seem to hit anything. I feel like they're responding to the people who criticized the V.A.T.S. auto-targetting system in 3 by making it so that it's mandatory in this game. Whatever's going on it totally wrecked the fun of the game for me.

I guess in the end Fallout 4 is pretty much exactly what you'd expect from a Bethesda game. There are some things they did with the game that I really liked, like the customization, the outposts, and the revamped power armor system. There are also some things I really didn't like, like the story, the sparseness of the environment, and the combat.

That said, I kind of feel like it's all been done better in other games already. I know I'm going to catch Hell from a whole lot of fanboys for saying this, but I really don't feel like Fallout 4 is anything special. In fact, I'll go a step further - I don't like it at all.

I'd like to say that "if you like Bethesda games you'll probably like this one too" but I don't really agree with that statement either. Bethesda has been showing cracks in their armor for a while now, but this is the first one of their games that has actually gotten me to ask for my money back. The changes to combat and the sparse exploration just aren't fun to me, and in the end this game is just Exhibit A in the case of why I'm beginning to hate Bethesda.

KR Rating: [3] MEDIOCRE

Monday, October 19, 2015

Book Review: Bridge To Terabithia (Revisited)

So, way back in 2012 I kinda-sorta didn't really review Bridge to Terabithia. At the time I said that I couldn't fairly rate the story and I was telling the truth. I couldn't then. However, I've given it some more thought and I think now I'm ready to do so.

Before we start, I'd like to talk about something called Cerebus Syndrome. Those of you who spend a lot of time on TVTropes already know what I'm talking about, but for those who don't, I'll give a brief description.

Cerebus Syndrome is when a story that starts out lighthearted and fun becomes darker and more dramatic over time, named for the webcomic Cerebus the Aardvark, a comedy with barely any plot that inexplicably and notoriously became unbelievably dark and depressing later on. There's also the less common Reverse Cerebus Syndrome where a dark story becomes lighter, but we won't go into that right now.

Cerebus Syndrome isn't necessarily a bad thing. Done well, it can add depth to a previously shallow story. When it's done poorly, though, this is easily one of the worst things you can possibly do. A poorly done Cerebus switch makes you feel like you've been cheated out of the rest of the story. You were enjoying it as it was, but now all of a sudden the story is about something totally different and everyone is dead.

This is the reason why I hated Bridge to Terabithia so much. I said in my previous post that I understand why the story is so beloved and, well, I really do. As I also said in my review of Dungeons & Dragons, it's possible to like elements of a work even if you admit the work as a whole is not good, and I kind of feel like that's what's happening here. The fantasy world of Terabithia is interesting and I think that's what most people remember and like about this story.

But then there's that twist. Yeah, spoilers-except-not-really: Leslie dies. I talked in my previous review about how it was similar to a vaccine - exposing kids to sorrow and loss so that when they run into the real thing they can handle it. I honestly hate when stories kill off nice characters at all, which is why I didn't want to rate the story back then because I felt like maybe the problem might have just been me.

The problem, though, is that this twist is not earned at all. In fact, I'll go a step farther and say my whole "vaccine" analogy was giving this bullshit far more credit than it deserves. Yes, that's right, I said bullshit because that's what this is.

As I said in that review, if the story had been entirely about exploring the concepts of mortality and loss from the beginning, if this had been set up in any way at all, then it would be different. But it's not. The story is all happiness and cool fantasy stuff for like 95% of it, and then all of a sudden we're watching a little girl drown and a little boy cry at her funeral.

The best I can say for this twist is that it's not just a cheap shot for feels. It was based on a real life event that happened to the book's author and it took her weeks to work up the courage to write it.

That said, all this really means is that the writer is taking out her personal pain on us. Yes, bad things happen, and if you wanted to write a story about loss and misery to work out your feelings that would be totally fine. But you didn't, did you? No, instead you baited us in with happiness and fantasy and then punched us in the nose with a brass knuckles made out of death, horror, and misery, because apparently your way of working out your pain is to force that same pain onto others.

Despite what I've intended to do for several years I've never really said this before, but for the most part all of my ratings have objective meanings. As a result, none of my ratings really work here. I know that sounds like a cop-out, but it's honestly true. My current rating system is woefully unfit for this work.

In terms of storytelling and crafting the work is virtually flawless, which would normally earn it a rating of 5 - Great, but that twist is just so absolutely terrible it completely killed any shred of enjoyment I was having with the story. So you might think 4 - Good, as a good work that's held back by one glaring flaw. But I feel like this flaw is worse than that. FAR worse. This twist didn't just tarnish my image of the story, it annihilated it, to a level on par with a 1 - Horrible... but it's not a horrible story.

That's why I'm giving this story this rating: negative 5. This story is Anti-Great. It is a beautifully polished piece of shit. It is expertly crafted with the goal of pissing you off and obliterating any sense of joy. It is perfect anti-entertainment. Seriously, I've tried to avoid cursing on the blog of late, but fuck this book.

KR Rating: [-5] ANTI-GREAT

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Video Game Review: Darkest Dungeon

Games like this are the reason why I really wish Steam's "do you recommend" question had more than just two options. Here's why: because I would very, very highly recommend this game... to a certain breed of gamer. Let me explain.

First, the good.

Darkest Dungeon is a masterfully crafted game. The artwork is beautifully grotesque and animation is smooth. The game is balanced fairly well, even if it is balanced towards the "hard" end of the spectrum. Even in early access there is nothing about this game that feels sloppy or poorly considered.

The stress mechanic, in which your characters accumulate stress which can affect them in various negative (and sometimes even positive) ways, is a really interesting idea and something that you don't really see a whole lot in video games. The only place I've seen anything like this before would be the Cthulhu games, and I honestly feel like it's handled a lot better here.

Oh, and the fact that it's constantly auto-saving, while intended to prevent save-scumming, also has the effect of allowing you to quit and pick back up whenever you want without losing progress, great for people who don't have a lot of time to sit down and play a game.

The game wasn't my cup of tea (I'll get to why in a minute) but I can't honestly call it bad just because of that. It's not bad. In fact...

KR Rating: [5] GREAT

But wait, don't stop reading yet, because now it's time for the bad. As I said before, Darkest Dungeon is a hard game.

Well, no, that's not really accurate. Etrian Odyssey is hard. That's why I like that series, and it's why I thought I would like this game too. Darkest Dungeon is not hard, it's unfair.

See, you can be riding high one minute, dominating every encounter and getting a ton of good items from the various chests and cupboards (called "curios" in the game) that litter the dungeons. Then you get into that one battle. You know the one I mean. It's the one that doesn't even seem like it should be all that hard. It's the same enemies you've been wasting with ease this whole time. Except this time you do nothing but miss your attacks over and over, while they stack critical hit upon critical hit. Before you can even click the "retreat" button half your force is at Death's Door... or through it. It's a little like Dark Souls in a way.

And the thing is, that's not an accident. I said this game was masterfully crafted and it honestly is. This isn't poor game balance, it's the entire point. It's the underlying design philosophy of the game.

The developers never intended this to be a game where you train up max level badasses and retake the estate. There are no badasses in the Darkest Dungeon. There are no heroes.

No, this is a game where you recruit expendable idiots by the wagon-load (literally) and send them to die for the greater good. (This is also why there are so few levels of upgrades for your characters: so that restarting when your top character dies is easier.)

That's why I say, I really wish that Steam allowed more options than just "recommend" or "not recommend." Because, on the one hand, the game is very well made. It has become exactly what I feel the developers wanted it to be. It is a GREAT GAME.

But "great" and "universally enjoyable" are not the same thing. A lot of people don't like hard games. I do like hard games and even I was turned off by the unfairness and the inability to properly take care of my people.

If I really had to choose (and for the purposes of the Steam version of this review I kind of do) I would say that I don't recommend the game, if only because I think the number of people who would enjoy it are in the minority.

That said, if you're the type who thinks you might enjoy that then by all means buy the game right now. It's only $19.99 USD on Steam right now, and for that you get one Hell of a solid classic-style RPG with an interesting twist.

If you're more like me and you get attached to your characters and don't want to see them die (or if you just don't like hard games) then skip this one.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Actor Review Part 2: No Really, Adam Sandler Is A Talentless Hack

I said before in my review of Hotel Transylvania that I don't hate Adam Sandler, and it's really mostly true. It's not that I find Adam Sandler openly offensive so much as it is that I've just lost respect for him.

I first started to lose respect for him at the point where I realized that all of his movies were basically exactly the same, just with window dressing changed. Happy Gilmore, Billy Madison, 50 First Dates, Anger Management, Click... every single one of them follows the same plot: Adam Sandler is a selfish, stupid asshole who, with the help of a wacky sidekick, learns how to be slightly less insufferable and gets the girl. Only the details change.

Then I lost more respect when it occurred to me that even in the Sandler movies I enjoyed, Sandler himself was never a really good or even memorable part of the movie. The best part of each movie is something entirely unrelated to him. In Happy Gilmore it's the foul-mouthed Bob Barker screaming about how much Gilmore sucks at golf. In Billy Madison it's Chris Farley as the psychotic bus driver (followed closely by Steve Buscemi as the insane would-be serial killer).

And then he made Grown Ups and I kinda started wishing he'd get hit by a bus.

Okay, so maybe I was wrong about not really hating Adam Sandler. But I did also realize that Adam Sandler is basically the perfect mirror image opposite version of Robin Williams. No, really:

Robin Williams was an oddball nutcase who was difficult to relate to but in a way that's fun and, if you think about it, kinda genius.

Adam Sandler is an everyman that everyone can relate to, but only by virtue of being blandly generic and dumb enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Robin Williams was so hilarious and unpredictable that he stole every scene he was ever in.

Adam Sandler is trite and unfunny and constantly outshone by his funnier co-stars.

When Robin Williams realized his tendency to steal the show he attempted to rein it in, going so far as to demand to have his name removed from the advertising for Disney's Aladdin. (Disney refused his demand, however, and he eventually backed down.)

Adam Sandler always has to be the star of the show.

Actor Review: Adam Sandler Is A Talentless Hack (And Also Possibly Racist)

Recently a dozen Native American actors walked off the set of Adam Sandler's latest film production citing a list of complaints, specifically regarding disrespectful treatment of female and elder Native Americans, and even more specifically the fact that the movie features two female Native characters named Beaver's Breath and No Bra.


Because right now I can see you already scrolling down to the comments section, pounding angrily at the keyboard, furiously typing up a response to explain to me how I just don't understand that Native Americans are so mistreated, or that censorship is bad.

But see, neither of those things are the real problem here. They're not. The problem isn't that Sandler is a racist dick, or that overly sensitive people want him to censor himself.

No, the problem is that we're even having this conversation at all. The problem is that in this country, today, those two extremes are the only options that we believe we have available to us: that either we censor everything or nothing is sacred.

Obviously turning into the Taliban and declaring Holy Jihad against anyone who says something marginally questionable is really bad.

And obviously depicting an entire culture with a character named after a vaginal gas expulsion is also really bad.

But you know what? There IS something between those two extremes. It's called having some fucking CLASS. The reason Sandler's "jokes" are bad isn't because they're about Native Americans - if you think that's the problem then shut up, you're an asshole. It's because they're tasteless and insulting, and to the REAL people who are the butt of the joke it is absolutely a big deal. (And again, if you disagree with that then shut up, you're an asshole.)

Further, they don't even have the basic decency to be tasteless and insulting in a clever or unexpected way. That would at least give them SOME merit. No, Sandler committed the cardinal sin of race jokes: telling jokes that are not only racist but also unfunny and lazy. That right there is a deadly combination.

Now, the dumbest among you are right now screaming into the wind, "b-b-but, censorship! If you don't let people say whatever they want whenever they want then you're opressing them and taking away their rights!" But that's bullshit, and I can prove it: because right now, YOU'RE offended by me suggesting that your actions are offensive to others. You're thinking right now that I shouldn't have the right to say this, that someone should STOP me from saying this because you find my words to be offensive and threatening.

If you have things that offend you, what makes you think that no one else should be allowed the same courtesy? Oh yeah, because you're selfish.