Two Assholes

Top Ten Tips for Dungeon Masters

2009-04-17T03:38:00.007-05:00

I dedicate this post to the late Dave Arneson, co-creator of D&D, lifelong inspiration, trusted instructor and friend. May you find peace on the Astral Seas...

So my best friend and eternal partner-in-crime, Wydren, has finally heeded the true geek's call of nature and succumbed to the inevitable tabletop fantasy role-playing bug. The revelation came weeks ago when I suggested he check out Wizards' D&D PvP Online/Penny-Arcade podcast. D&D has turned into one of my favorite hobbies recently but Wydren never really liked the game because of it's rules bloat. Luckily, 4E came along and turned the gameplay into the HeroQuest it should have been in the beginning.

In any case, it has recently come to my attention that I've been giving out tons of advice during our various chats. Unfortunately, the advice I wind up giving out is sometimes quite random or other times somewhat haphazard. So, in an attempt to prime Wydren for his first turn in the DM's chair, I offer this quick-and-dirty guide to Dungeon Mastering. I hope this condensed bite of knowledge will assist him as he DMs his very first game. Good luck and remember to...

Tip #1: Keep things fun!

This one is easy. The object of the game is to have fun! Don't get too hung up on the rules or what is and isn't allowed. Instead, try to let the game flow as naturally as possible. Make sure to not let the game get too bogged down by rules disputes and try to move the game onward in whatever way you can. If the table chat devolves a bit from the game then it's your call as to whether the game stays distracted or to haul anchor and move on. These are just examples, of course. The bottom line is to keep the game fun for everyone...

Tip #2: ... But don't forget to have fun, yourself!

During the business of running the game and facilitating the fun for your players, don't forget to include the elements of the game that you truly enjoy! Part of the fun of DMing is in getting to tell the story collaboratively and the other part is seeing your set up go off the way you want it to. Of course, not every encounter needs to or should include something to your tastes. That would be favoring you over your players and would not do. Good form requires a balance between your tastes and your players', for that is the nature of collaboration.

Tip #3: Keep your players on their toes!

Don't be afraid to deviate from your script to take the game in new and exciting directions! The neat thing about Dungeons & Dragons is that nothing is set in stone. If your PCs zig instead of zag, be ready to consider taking a quick 10 minute break and designing an improv encounter. Who knows where it will go?

Tip #4: Know what your players want...

It's important to have some idea of what your players expect from the game. One of the nice things about 4th Edition in particular is that it lends itself nicely to being played any number of different ways. The rules are robust yet flexible enough to facilitate just about any fantasy encounter you could imagine.

If your players expect a tactical strategy game, make up power cards for them (or print them out from D&D Insider). Play on a pre-printed grid or Dungeon Tile and try to use whatever miniatures you have available (old HeroQuest minis work great!). Hand out Magic Item and Quest cards to further abstract gameplay. Handle skill challenges rigidly and systematically and abstract conversations to just "the gist" of it. On the other hand, if your players expect a more laid back roleplaying experience then feel free to play the combat by ear, approximating locations and distances. Then, focus in like a laser on the subtle intricacies of an NPCs personality and be colorful with your descriptions to spark their imagination. Most games will probably wind up somewhere between these extremes.

Tip #5: ... but don't bow to their every whim.

At the same time you're tailoring your game to your players' preferred play style you must be careful not to let your players dictate the story or outcomes to you. While you are obligated to allow them the freedom to do whatever they want, they should not expect to get their way all the time. While your world is indeed a fantasy world, even this world should have laws and actions should have consequences. If the PCs charge headlong into a heavily fortified and guarded keep, they should not be surprised to have a TPK on their hands. Similarly, if they brutally decapitate an innocent passer-by in the middle of town square in broad daylight, they should expect to be branded as criminals. As long as you set consistent and reasonable limits to what your PCs can do, then they shouldn't run into any problems.

Tip #6: Remember the DM's Best Friend.

I am about to introduce you to one of the most fundamental rules of DMing. This rule is flexible, extensible and could apply to any aspect of the game. The DM's best friend works like this: Add +2 for favorable circumstances and +4 for highly favorable circumstances. You could also structure penalties like this. The DMs best friend works especially well when adjudicating unusual situations that the rules don't cover. It also works well when you're not sure what the rules say about a particular situation and don't want to stop the game for a reference. Give out the DM's Best Friend often whenever the PCs come up with a particularly creative solution or roleplay a situation well. Know it! Use it! Love it! This leads into the next tip...

Tip #7: Encourage good role playing.

No, this doesn't mean you have to do The Voice. It does mean, however, that you should attempt as best as you can to get your players engaged with their characters. The easiest way to do this is to utilize game mechanics already at your disposal. For example, you could give out a permanent +2 bonus to a character's Streetwise skill if a PC describes their childhood growing up in Sharn's middle wards. Likewise, you could give a +2 History check for educated characters. There's a whole host of possibilities available to you but, suffice it to say, backgrounds are your friend! Along those lines, players should also be encouraged to stick to the character. This kinda goes along with keeping the character's personality consistent. A rogue with a history of crime would probably not pass up an unattended bulging coin-purse and players may need to be reminded as such when the opportunity arises.

Tip #8: Give out XP for creative thinking.

This is another easy one. If the players bypass an entire encounter by springing an ancient trap on the monsters, they should get full XP for those monsters. Likewise, if they can sneak by a gang of bandits without fighting them then they should also be rewarded. This can extend in other ways. If the PCs figure out some way that you didn't expect to solve a problem, reward them with the appropriate amount of experience. If it's a small or inconsequential problem, award a monster or two's worth of XP equal to their level. If it's a bigger or more important problem then award them with an encounter's worth of XP for their level.

Tip #9: Practice good information management.

This is a kind of metagame stuff. This tip boils down to one important fallacy of D&D: Information management can get hairy. It's possible to tip your hand to observant players. For example, if the players enter the room and you ask for a Perception check to see what's in the room, the players may recognize that you're trying to determine if they can see something in the room - or some one. On the flip side of the coin, if a player rolls a 3 on a Bluff check when attempting to convince guards there's a massive dragon behind them then the PCs obviously know that he has not been fooled. However, there are situations where you might not want the PCs to know they failed this check. It's a wise idea to keep the players' Passive Insight and Perception checks. Likewise, it's also a good idea to keep the player's Bluff, Diplomacy, Theievery and Stealth bonuses close to your chest so you can make checks for them when appropriate.

Also, make sure to give players enough information to make meaningful decisions. If a zombie is supposed to explode when it reaches zero hit points, then describe the monster as "An unstable looking zombie shudders and twitches as it shuffles towards you. Small eruptions of foul smelling gasses pour out of it's skin and, sometimes, ignite. You get the feeling that this zombie might blow apart if poked too hard." When the players make checks to find out what the area around them looks like, make sure to include extra information that may not relate to the check that was made. Information management is a great tool to keep the game moving when the PCs aren't sure where to go.

Tip #10: DON'T PANIC!!!

DMing is an awesome responsibility! You are the story teller, the arbitrator, the monsters and the villain all rolled up into one. You are the beginning and the end of all the interaction the players have with the world. When presented with all these responsibilities, the new DM tends to wind up with SPS (Series Pilot Syndrome). This is the problem of trying to do too much at one time. The solution to this is to take a deep breath and forget everything you know and everything in this post and toss it out the window. Go with what your heart tells you. Remember, even though the game rests primarily on your shoulders, it doesn't mean you shouldn't be having fun!

The Customer is always WRONG

2008-09-08T04:32:00.001-05:00

When I was in high school I worked at a one of a small East coast chain of restaurants called Steak 'n Shake. They sell overpriced-but-delicious burgers and hand-dipped milkshakes. I got promoted after graduating and during college to a management position there and often had to handle customer service issues. If you understand the way this chain does business than this is very common as Steak 'n Shake is not well managed as a company.

Anyways, one of our (the management team's) favorite scams was what I will now call the White Trash Free Meal. The area of Ohio I lived in (Hamilton, if you're curious) was a cesspit caught between hardcore 'country' and trailer trash hell. Mixed in along with it was a healthy dose of the ghetto. All these people would mix and reproduce to make little redneck/trailer trash ghetto babies. It was the worst city I've ever seen and the only reason I still go back there is because my best friend lives just outside the city limits.

The way the scam usually worked was this: First, I would get a phone call from someone wanting to speak to a manager. Of course, that was me.

ME: "Thank you for choosing Steak 'n Shake this is XXXX, how may I help you?"
YOKEL (in a horrendous southern drawl): "Hi thar. Is thar a manager in thar I can talk tew?"
ME: "Speaking, sir. What can I do for you?"
YOKEL: "I went through your drive thru about a week ago and my order was completely messed up. Thar was mustard on my all my burgers and we didn't order that. My shakes were all melted and I got strawberry when I ordered choc-co-late. On top of that all my fries were cold."

By now, I could usually see where this was going. Anyone calling who said they got a jacked up order on some other day was usually a scammer. This sends up a red flag to me automatically. These people usually know the common screw ups on orders as they eat there a lot. However, there is still a possibility that this is a legitimate mistake on our part, so I must proceed with caution. My mind flashes with possibilities...

The drive through operator had probably assumed that when the customer said everything, they meant it. We had an Everything button and the operator probably skipped that and went down the list of burger toppings, tapping every one including mustard. The everything button was a misnomer: everything only consisted of lettuce, pickles, onion and mayo - no mustard or tomatoes.

Our shakes were hand dipped and sometimes the fountain operator would add a little too much milk to the mixture and the shake would appear to be thin or melty. There was also the possibility that the drive thru operator kept the shakes a little bit too close to the food warmer where completed orders sit before they go out.

The fries we served were impossible to keep warm. They were these shoestring fries that were about the diameter of a mechanical pencil. They were nice in that they cooked in two and a half minutes but they had to be served almost immediately because they dissipated heat so fast due to their small size. The customer may have gotten old fries or may have simply *driven home* before he ate his meal. All this runs through my mind in a heartbeat.

ME: "I'm very sorry about that, sir. Do you still have your reciept?"

Of course, I already know the answer to this question before I ask it: They never have a reciept. We usually give the customer the benefit of the doubt here because the restaurant was perpetually understaffed and we're always having to run around like chickens with our heads cut off just to stem the goddamn tide. If a customer didn't have a reciept, there was a good chance we fucked up and didn't give them one. I always assume this.

YOKEL: "Naw, I didn't git one." or "I threw it out. The whole meal was trash."

I take a deep breath. They fit the profile so far - he didn't have a reciept, he didn't come through today and his entire order was, according to him, all jacked up. Let's see if they pass the next test:

ME: "What was your order?"

Fire away. I might as well have said "Can I take your free order?"

YOKEL: "We 'ad four double bacon cheese steakburgers with everythang, four large fries and four large chocolate shakes."

Scam. A thirty dollar order. This asshat wanted to feed his whole family on the company's dime under the thin verneer of being a bilked customer. If the guy had said only one his burgers was messed up or only his shakes were melted then I would have had to play ball. I didn't have a problem correcting the odd mistake when we had legitimately screwed up. I usually toss a free shake their way along with replacing whatever we had messed up. Realistically speaking, if he had tried to scam a smaller order then I would have had to give it to him. However, I had zero tolerance for *this* kind of shit.

ME: "Okay, what would you like us to do about this?"
YOKEL: "Well, I want my order replaced. Tha whole thing was all messed up 'an we had tew throw it away."

Of course he does. But I have no intention of giving this jackhole a free ride on my watch. I would play the oldest card in my deck: the reciept.

ME: "Sir, I'm afraid that without a receipt I can't replace your order. I'd be happy to send a free shake your way for your trouble the next time you roll through. Can I get your name?"
YOKEL (now becoming indignant): "Well that's not 'far. I wanna speak to your boss right now."

At this point, if someone who outranked me was around, I handed the phone off to him. Our boss, Dave, had been a former high ranking executive of Frisch's (better known as Big Boy's) and was working the store manager beat to "prove his worth" to the top brass before he was given a middle management position. The guy had worked his way up from dishwasher to VP of Sales. He had a way of handling these kinds of fucktards that was beyond me. But if Dave wasn't there...

ME: "I'm sorry but he's not here right now but I'll do my best to service you."
YOKEL: "This is rediculous. I want my meal replaced right now! I paid my hard earned money for your overpriced burgers and you can't even get them right. [etc etc etc]"
ME: "As I said before, sir, I'm very sorry that this happened to you but I cannot replace your meal without a reciept to back me up. I'd get into trouble."

This is a lie but he doesn't know that. I had the power to comp (verb: complementary meal) any check I wanted to. However, it would show up as a comped check on the End of Day report the following day and I would have to answer for it. I wouldn't get into anything too serious unless there were consistent problems on my watch.

YOKEL: "[usual angry white trash routine]"
ME: "I'd be happy to help you out if you could find the reciept, sir. Otherwise there's nothing I can really do for you."
YOKEL: "[raises his voice and spits out the same bullshit about me, my mother, my restaurant, my crew, asks for my name, my boss' name, the number for the District Manager. The works.]"
ME: "[gives him the information]"
YOKEL: "Thanks fer nothing, asshole. You'll be lucky if you have your job next week." Click.

Sometimes they call and complain and sometimes they don't. Most of the time, they don't. If they do, then the company will usually smell through their bullshit and just send them some small token gift certificates to shut them up.

However, the situation changed a bit around a year later: We upgraded our computer Point of Sale system. Now, we had the capability to search ALL orders up to a month back. So, we back up to the reciept point...

ME: "That's fine. Can you tell me what day you came in and around what time?"
YOKEL: "[long pause]"

At this point, he already knows he's fucked.

YOKEL: "Uhhhh, I came in on [XDay] between [XTime] and [YTime]."
ME: "Alright, can you please hold on a moment while I review our records?"
YOKEL: "Sure."

With a spring in my step, I go back to our office and search up all the drive through orders around the time he specifies. As expected, there are no orders anywhere close to matching his fictional order.

ME: "I'm sorry, sir, but I can't find any record of your order. Are you sure of the day and time you came in?"
YOKEL: [now fumbling in the dark] "Uhh, it might have been [YDay]."
ME: "Okay, please hold while I check again."

There's still a slim chance that this could be legit, so I have to cover my bases. He also knows there's a slim chance that somebody put in an order similar to his fictional one if I check on a different day. Rarely, there is and I have to comp the order. But that's the minority of the time.

ME: "I'm sorry, sir, but I still can't find your check in our system."
YOKEL [becoming indignant again]: "Well, yer systim is wrong. I know I came through there. [etc etc]"
ME: "With all due respect, sir, our system does not 'lose' checks. All transactions are logged to our database."
YOKEL: "[reverts to same routine as above]"
ME: "Sir, I don't believe you came in here at all and are trying to scam a meal. I am reporting this as an annoyance call and I have your name and number on our CallerID. If you try to pull this again, I will call the police and have you arrested for petty fraud. Don't call here again."
YOKEL [as I hang up]: "[goes nuclear]" Click.

Later on, the scammers would get smarter and actually come through and pay for their order. Then they would call back with the same story a few days later and get the same thing again for free.

I hate the restaurant business and I especially hate Hamilton, Ohio. The moral of the story here, kids, is always be nice to your food service folks. Yes, there are those that are lazy sacks of shit and could care less about their jobs, however the vast majority of folks care about their work and take pride in it. They have to put up with more bullshit for less money than is reasonable or safe. Being considerate of them costs nothing compared to the immeasurable contribution you can give to their day by making them feel like real human beings instead of the doormats everyone else probably treats them like.

The end.

On The Movies...

2008-05-20T16:03:00.001-05:00

Wydren is online.

Doom Gaze: Narnia 2 is badass!

Wydren: Is it?

Doom Gaze: Indeed.

Thought I'd throw that out there

I'm about half way through it

And unless the last half totally fails on every level.... It is indeed a worthy sequel

Wydren: Are you watching it on your computer?

Doom Gaze: ya

Wydren: You fail.

Doom Gaze: I do everything on my computer.

It's a telecine

Lucky me.

Wydren: Telecine?

Doom Gaze: Ya

The "editing" copy of the movie.

Wydren: Yeah, but it's not the final movie.

Doom Gaze: Barring a slightly lower quality, it actually is.

Sometimes they get intercepted at or on their way to the duping house.

That's where most of em come from.

The rest of the pirated 0-days are taped in theaters or are dvd screeners

I ran into a very nice DVD screener for I Am Legend, for example

Wydren: Does it have editing effects added in?

Filters, complete foley, all that yot?

Doom Gaze: Yup

I probably wouldn't watch it if it didn't.

I do have standards, you know.

Wydren: Good, that's better than nothing.

Doom Gaze: I went through about 3 copies of Ironman before I gave up just last week.

Wydren: Still, you should watch that stuff how the director intended.

And don't give me that "I can't afford it" crap. You were talking about buying a PS3 last week.

Doom Gaze: Well, if you want to take that to the extreme, you'd be requiring me to own a projection TV, a DTS sound system and my own popcorn popper.

Wydren: Within reason.

Film and DVDs are mixed a certain way.

Most bootlegs don't take that into account.

Although, a telecine seems closer than some dude taping it off the projected image with a camcorder.

Doom Gaze: I don't think you've ever actually seen one. They're very close to DVD quality

Minus the AC3 and you've got yourself a damn good quality copy.

Wydren: So, the movie is boss, eh?

I talked to a guy here at work who's seen it, he's suprised that it's only rated PG.

Doom Gaze: It hasn't been incredibly violent so far, but any movie that has kids killing adults with impunity makes me wonder. :)

The older girl already has 2 notches on her belt and I'm only 45 minutes in.

Wydren: I've heard that this summer may be like the summer with "Temple of Doom", what with Narnia being PG and The Dark Knight being PG-13

Doom Gaze: I dunno. It depends on how many women's backs Heath Ledger breaks on-screen.

Wydren: Women's backs?

Doom Gaze: In the comics, the Joker broke the commish's daughter's back.

She was wheelchair bound last time I saw her.

Wydren: Nah, he shot her through the spine.

Doom Gaze: There ya go. I had her confused with Batman/Bane

Wydren: In "The Killing Joke", which is one of the comics Ledger based his performance off of.

Doom Gaze: Hmm...

This might be the first time we've seen the real Joker on screen.

Wydren: I've got that one. Pretty good, by Alan Moore.

Well, it depends on what you think of as the "real" Joker.

Doom Gaze: In the cartoon series and the first movie he was depicted as a super-villan with a sense of humor.

However.

He should be a merciless killer with an overdose of dementia.

Wydren: Yeah, but that's just your opinion. To be fair, it's mine too, but I don't think Nicholson did a bad job.

I think he should be a merciless killer with a sense of humor. Of course, that sense of humor should only be funny if you're depraved.

Doom Gaze: We're about to journey over old ground. Tread lightly, lest you step on the dead horse.

Wydren: Heh

In a recent comic, Commissioner Gordon shot him in the knee, and the Joker thought it was funny, because he "got the joke". Gordon crippled him to pay him back for crippling his daughter.

That's one of the things I liked in the trailer. It looks like the Joker blows up a hospital, because it's funny.

Doom Gaze: he he

Wydren: That people would go there to get healed, but instead they'd be better off if they stayed away.

That's the Joker I like. I just hope they stress that he finds this stuff funny.

Doom Gaze: Anybody who's played a GTA game would probably find it funny too. Natch.

Wydren: One of my favorite parts of Batman 89 is when he poisoned the cosmetic products, and the next scene was of all the reporters talking about it on TV without any makeup.

Doom Gaze: lol

That's the Joker I love!

Wydren: Yeah. I hope they don't lose that trying to make him too dark and serious.

I don't think they will (I think Heath Ledger was a great actor), but it's a fear.

Doom Gaze: I agree. That is certainly a valid concern.

Wydren: Despite all that, I'm pretty sure it'll be either #1 or 2 on my list of favorite summer movies.

And I gaurentee it'll be the 2nd highest grossing movie this summer, and have the biggest weekend.

Sent at 2:03 AM on Wednesday

Doom Gaze: Lemmie guess... Indy....?

Wydren: Wall-E.

I've heard rumblings that that's the best family movie since ET.

Think about that for a second.

Doom Gaze: What about Indy? Indiana Jones is Hollywood's 500 pound gorilla.

And, technically, he's not even from Hollywood.

Wydren: It'll be in the top 5, but the highest review I've seen of it is a 6.5 out of 10.

It'll make money, but it won't break the bank.

Doom Gaze: That's... disappointing...

Wydren: I don't know if it'll make more than Iron Man.

Yeah, but kind of expected, at least from me.

Doom Gaze: 20 damn years for a new Indy flick and it probably won't even break 120M

Wydren: Think of the last franchise George Lucas came back to after 20 years.

Oh, it'll break $200M.

I just think Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and Wall-E will all break $300.

Doom Gaze: Well, I'm not in the US right now, so I'm not attuned to the movie industry like I used to be.

I plead ignorance.

Please have mercy.

Wydren: No problem.

Iron Man is already almost to $250 million. I don't think Indy will beat it.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

Doom Gaze: No, I agree with you. Pixar is an institution in the theaters right now. Parents know they can take their kids to see a Pixar movie and it'll be baller.

Wydren: Dude, they got a movie about a French Rat above $200 Million.

Wall-E is going to be the highest grossing movie of the summer, I'll bet you actual money.

Doom Gaze: I'll defend the rat over the Mouse any day. At least the rat knew how to cook.

Wydren: The thing I'm unsure about is Indy's performance.

Doom Gaze: That's true. But consider this...

Wydren: Are the reviews accurate, will that matter to the public, is there any competition that can knock Indy out of the minds of ADD America?

Etc.

Consider what?

Doom Gaze: Retro is the in-thing right now. If Indy can captialize on that and evoke the same sense of adventure that it did back in the day AND capture the retro feel of having a movie with Nazis in it...

It could surf above the review scores.

Wydren: Yeah, and that's one of the things I hate about America right now. A movie will have a huge opening weekend regardless of quality.

Doom Gaze: Also, consider that the only real adventure movies we've had in the last couple of years have been the National Treasure movies and the Da Vinci Code.

Wydren: Yeah

That's why I think it will be top 5.

Doom Gaze: Are you saying that you've already decided Indy will be crap?

Wydren: I just don't think it can beat Wall-E and Batman. And I doubt it can beat Iron Man.

No, I haven't decided.

Doom Gaze: You've said it yourself: review scores don't mean much.

Wydren: I'm just tempering my expectations.

I've learned what I call "the Episode One lesson".

Doom Gaze: Just give me more Harrison Ford.

Yeah, but episode 1 didn't have Han Solo.

Episode I was definitely lacking in the Solo dept.

Wydren: Yeah, but the previous Indy movies didn't have 65 year old Han.

We'll see if he still has the magic.

I just don't get excited about anything Lucas touches anymore.

Doom Gaze: If Air Force One didn't convince you he still had the 'magic', you need a boot to the head.

Harrison Ford is my hero.

Wydren: Yeah, but that was 10 years ago.

And Air Force One was fun, but the president in that was no Indy or Han.

I hope I'm wrong. I just don't have high hopes for the movie.

Doom Gaze: Same. Damn. Character. Just in a suit and carrying an MP5.

Wydren: Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Yeah, but that movie didn't have the same feel. I'm sure that's due to more than just Harrison Ford.

But Spielberg isn't what he used to be, and Lucas sure as hell isn't.

Doom Gaze: I think you underestimate Speilberg in particular.

I don't think I haven't ever seen a Spielberg movie that I haven't liked.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a love/hate relationship with the guy.

Wydren: Yeah, but none of his movies from the last 10 years have been "great".

Not as great as ET or Jaws. But he's the one I have the most faith in. The question is, how much did he listen to Lucas.

Doom Gaze: I think Spielberg probably knows more than anybody how much of a tool Lucas actually is.

What's more, Lucas trusts him.

Wydren: We'll see. I just think it says something that a new Indy movie is #5 on my "want to see list".

Maybe that's just saying something about me.

Doom Gaze: I was about to say that, but you took my emasticated words right out of my mouth.

Wydren: The prequels hurt, man. They hurt me bad.

Episode III was good, but overall they did more to damage Star Wars than to help.

Doom Gaze: I think RotS made up for Episode 1 and partially for Episode 3

** 2

Wydren: Yeah, I don't think so. It was good, but not that good.

It used to be that Star Wars was cool. Now, it's no better than Star Trek.

Doom Gaze: Oop! I think you just stepped on the horse!

Wydren: I did, didn't I?

Doom Gaze: Go ahead! Why didn't you think the prequels were as good as the originals?!?

I'm waiting...

You know this one! I've heard it a million times.

Wydren: They felt more obligatory than anything else.

Doom Gaze: BZZZZZT! Wrong!

Wydren: Ok, what's the right answer? No Han?

Doom Gaze: The correct answer was, "Luke, I am your father!"

Wydren: Well, it is a cultural milestone.

Almost everybody in the western world recognizes that quote, even if it is misquoted all the time.

Ready for some true nerdiness?

You even misquoted it there.

Doom Gaze: Did I?

Wydren: Yep. It's "No, I am your father!".

He doesn't say Luke at all, but everyone throws it in there.

That's why I said it's true nerdiness that I know that.

Doom Gaze: Actually... wasn't it, "No, Luke. I am your father!"?

Wydren: Nope.

"Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father".

"He told me enough. He told me you killed him".

"No, I am your father."

"That's not true! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"

Doom Gaze: Kkkk.

I'm reading off IMDB right now.

Wydren: I can keep going if you want.

Doom Gaze: No. No. That's not true! etc...

Wydren: Man, don't trust IMDB. That's the chucklehead corner of the internet.

Doom Gaze: Actually, I want you to tap the whole script out right now.

You may go.....

Now.

Act I, Scene 1

I wonder if you can recall the opening paragraphs.

Wydren: I don't have time to do that.

"It is a period of civil war".

Rebel fighters, striking from a hidden base...

Doom Gaze: And he stalls!

Srsly, lol.

Wydren: Yeah, I can't do that anymore.

I got into girls, got married, etc.

Doom Gaze: This is fun!

Wydren: Man, I honestly can't remember the rest.

That kind of saddens me.

The Star Wars nerd grows up.

I need to relocate my inner child.

Guess I know what I'm doing when I get home.

Doom Gaze: That's the spirit!

Just remember one thing though. You're "jaded" now.

Wydren: I know. Hopefully Indy 4 will be more than just "adequate". Otherwise, I'll just get more jaded.

I just hope Lucas brings out a decent copy of the Original Trilogy on DVD.

I've got bootlegs, but the quality on those isn't great.

Doom Gaze: Just remember not to give up hope. That leads to the Dark Side.

He did, didn't he?

I thought I remembered hearing about that.

Wydren: They're not cleaned up (so they've got all the original scratches, etc) and they're non-anamorphic.

That's a big deal to me now.

Doom Gaze: You could fix that yourself.

I could show you.

Wydren: I am jaded enough that I won't buy those movies whenever Lucas says jump.

Yeah, but I can't clean it up near as well as a professional studio.

Doom Gaze: Hmmm...

Well, you COULD hack together a hybrid version.

I think I heard tell of someone doing that actually.

Wydren: Yeah, but do you know how much work that would take?

Doom Gaze: Not as much as you'd think.

Lucas didn't actually change THAT much on the new ones, if you think about it.

It's nothing a copy of Adobe Premier and Aftereffects couldn't accomplish with a couple of weeks of work.

Simply a matter of cutting out the new bits and syncing the old bits released on the latest retro DVD sets to the new footage.

Then, you sync them up on a reel and blend in the bits that you want from the original.

Drop out all the extra scenes and footage and you got a remastered copy.

I've been dicking with this shit lately. It's not as hard as they'd have you believe - trust me.

For example, did you know that 7.1 is bullshit?

Sent at 2:50 AM on Wednesday

Wydren: Sorry, was away.

Why is 7.1 bullshit?

And there's a fair bit Lucas changed. All of Boba Fett's dialogue, for instance.

Doom Gaze: For starters, the 2 extra channels are only a mix of the 2 surround channels.

The dialogue is a piece of cake to get back. Next.

Wydren: I thought they were starting to record 2 extra discrete channels on movies nowadays.

Doom Gaze: You can pull it off the old VHSs, which came with dolby surround.

Wydren: Yeah, it's bull for older movies, but aren't new movies being recorded in 7.1?

Doom Gaze: Not that I can tell.

I measured the rear levels in NT:BoS last week...

Wydren: NT: BoS?

Doom Gaze: And as near as I can tell, the waveforms are only a mix of the surround channels.

Book of Secrets

Wydren: Ah. Well, do you have Blu-Ray or HD-DVD?

Doom Gaze: No. It's a DTS track.

Wydren: DVDs are only encoded with 5.1 discrete channels of sound.

All that 7.1 does in that case is mix the rears, true.

Doom Gaze: LIES! That's actually only Dolby Digital, my friend.

Wydren: I'll admit, I don't know much about DTS.

Doom Gaze: If a DVD includes a DTS track (most don't, since it's added cost above and beyond the enforced "standard") then it supports 7 discrete channels.

Wydren: Everything I've read says that DD is better for movies, DTS is better for music and vigemagames.

Doom Gaze: Also lies.

If you want to talk quality, DTS has DD by a long shot.

DD is lossy. Hence, it sometimes overloads the decoder, resulting in a loss of sound or difficult to hear effects. It's not perfect, not by a long shot.

DTS is lossless, which is why most studios don't do a DTS track: they simply take up too much space on disc.

Wydren: Ahh.

Doom Gaze: Also, DD decoders are not very well standardized. Dolby does little to no quality control on the products with it's brand on it.

Apparently, instead of opting for a quality movie experience, they instead opt for more extras which appear to give the movie added value.

Most people either don't know what a DTS track is or don't have any use for it.

So there is no added value for them.

Try this: got any Superbit DVDs?

Wydren: Nope. But go ahead anyway.

Doom Gaze: Find yourself a copy of The 5th Element Superbit.

Then watch the movie in DD. After, watch it again in DTS and tell me that DTS isn't better.

Wydren: I'm always interested in learning.

I may have to try that.

Doom Gaze: In fact, you don't even need to use a Superbit.

Lemmie find a good recent movie that included a DTS track...

Wydren: I'm sure I've got one, though I can't name one off the top of my head. Maybe Pirates of the Caribbean?

Doom Gaze: Here's another thing about DTS the DVD standards committee didn't want you to know about: If it has DTS on it, it also HAS to have a DD track.

That's right: The specs for all DVDs state that if you want to make a DVD and have an enhanced audio track other than 2.0 stereo, then you HAVE to include a Dolby Digital track. Which is stupid since most decoders are more than capable of downmixing adequately to 5.1

Do you have Saving Private Ryan?

Wydren: So DTS can hold 7 discrete channels of audio, and it doesn't take up too much space on the DVD?

Nope.

I'll need to make sure my receiver is set up for DTS when I try that out.

Doom Gaze: No. DTS tracks take up MUCH more space.

Wydren: Everything I've learned about audio I've taught myself over the last year and a half (researching for my 5.1 setup).

Doom Gaze: For example, a lossless version of any given MP3 I have takes up about 30-40 megs.

The standard MP3 only takes up about 3-5 megs.

Wydren: Ok, so it's a choice between DTS or special features?

Doom Gaze: Gladiator?

Wydren: That would make sense.

Doom Gaze: Exactly.

MM!

Wydren: Yeah, I own Gladiator, but I'm not sure if I want to watch that back to back.

Doom Gaze: The Lord of the Rings!

The extended versions have DTS

Wydren: Man, I might want to watch that back to back, but I'm not sure if my butt can handle it.

I'm picky!

Doom Gaze: I should have fucking thought of that.

Wydren: What's that? The length?

That's a minumim of 7 hours of movie man.

Doom Gaze: Bah! Just watch a few scenes.

Easy peezy.

Wydren: Where are you looking for these specs? Amazon.

Doom Gaze: I just remembered that one off hand.

Wydren: That's what I figure. One of the battle scenes, like the Mines of Moria.

Doom Gaze: Yup.

You might also want to try it on one of the quieter scenes too.

Wydren: Bam! http://www.amazon.com/Fifth-Element-Ultimate-Bruce-Willis/dp/B0006GVJE4/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1211307144&sr=8-3

Yeah, it's amazing how many places just use loud, bombastic scenes to sell audio equipment.

I've heard that The Incredibles contains a great surround track, but I'm not sure if it has DTS.

Sent at 3:14 AM on Wednesday

Doom Gaze: Here's one for ya!

http://www.amazon.com/Live-Free-Die-Hard-Unrated/dp/B000VNMMR0/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1211307475&sr=1-13

Wydren: I'm not buying that movie just to check out the audio. I haven't seen it, and it's not a blind buy.

Doom Gaze: I can vouch for it.

Wydren: I'll just use 5th element or one of the LOTR movies.

Doom Gaze: It's a good fun dumb action movie.

Wydren: Yeah, but your taste in movies sucks.

Doom Gaze: Fuck off.

Wydren: Says the guy who thinks Dawn of the Dead is a terrible movie.

Doom Gaze: It was.

Wydren: Well, everyone, and I'm not exaggerating, disagrees with you.

Doom Gaze: Yeah, no. I have have an entire shop that disagrees with you. We all watched it together and the unanimous opinion was that it sucked.

Perhaps if I saw it in the 80's I'd have a different opinion.

I'm sorry, late 70's

Wydren: Yeah, but you watched it in 15 minute chunks.

Doom Gaze: I admit that. However, are you truly going to call this movie the kind of high art that requires it to be watched to it's conclusion uninterrupted? Very few movies require that.

Wydren: No, most movies require that.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1005339-dawn_of_the_dead/

Doom Gaze: yeah. You can take your 97% and shove it right up your ass.

Wydren: Sorry, I was exaggerating. Not everyone disagrees with you.

Just 97% of everyone.

You and your 15-minute-chunk-watchin' shop.

I miss you man.

Doom Gaze: Likewise. :(

It comes down to entertainment value.

If a movie does not have significant entertainment value than it will inevitably fail.

Wydren: By that logic, Schindler's List is a terrible film.

I'll agree that all art is subjective.

Doom Gaze: Ah, but you're not understanding the meaning of entertainment.

Wydren: But you've got to be able to recognize that something is good even if you don't like it.

Doom Gaze: A movie does not have to crack jokes, show gratuitous cleaveage or gore to be entertaining.

For example, although most were unhappy with the way Spider-Man 3 was produced, none can deny that it was at the very least, entertaining.

However, the entertainment came from, in that movie, two sources.

Firstly, the action/special effects and secondly the interplay between Parker and Venom.

Specifically, Emo-Spider-Man.

Now, you may disagree on whether it was done right or even should have been done at all.

That point is moot, though. The bottom line was that it entertained long enough to get the movie on its feet and to it's conclusion, regardless of how horrible it really was.

You either get it, or you don't.

For example, in Minority Report, you are prepared for something of a detective story. In The Fountain, you are prepared to have to figure things out.

Wydren: But that's pretty subjective.

I'd say so subjective that you can't really use that to judge a movie.

Doom Gaze: The difference is that Dawn of the Dead either doesn't prepare the audience to think about that or loses it's message behind a veil of grindhouse cinema.

Wydren: Or at least, to judge it for anyone but yourself.

Doom Gaze: In simpler terms, a crappy movie with a social commentary embedded in it's script is still a crappy movie. It just appeals to art-house pricks.

Wydren: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19790504/REVIEWS/905040301/1023

I know you really dig Ebert, so read what he has to say.

You don't realize that part of what you call that "veil of grindhouse cinema" is part of the message.

And Romero was never grindhouse, but that's a different arguement.

Doom Gaze: ... Looks grindhouse to me.

Wydren: Ehh, that one's debatable.

I'd say the way he shot the film makes it more than grindhouse, but like I said, that's another arguement.

We can have that one if you want, since I doubt I'm going to make any headway convincing you DotD is a great movie.

Doom Gaze: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

Wydren: Keep in mind, you've also had Land of the Dead (which, while enjoyable, is easily the worst of the "Living Dead" films) to color your perceptions of Dawn.

Doom Gaze: It was actually a lot easier to spot the social commentary in that than it was in Dawn.

Plus, it looked nice and had John Leguizamo in it.

Wydren: That's why it's lesser, the commentary and horror movie sensibilities aren't balanced as well as they are in Dawn. I just don't see how you can say Dawn is a crappy movie, other than just that it was "boring".

Which is one of the most subjective terms for a movie.

Doom Gaze: I agree.

A lot of people give Solaris crap for that.

I thought it was a very cerebral movie. Though I recognize why people thought it was boring.

Wydren: They probably do. And though I haven't seen it, I'd probably agree with that.

A lot of people said the same about the Fountain.

Which makes me think I really need to see Solaris.

Doom Gaze: You really do.

Wydren: I'll add it to my list.

Doom Gaze: Please note that you haven't read The Light of Other Days.

Wydren: So, why do you think Dawn is crappy? Can you give me a reason beyond that you were bored of it.

I read that.

Doom Gaze: Did you???

Wydren: It was the other one you mentioned I haven't read yet.

By Steven Alten?

Domain?

Doom Gaze: The Light of Other Days was Clarke

Wydren: Yeah, I read that one.

Doom Gaze: Resurrection was Alten.

Wydren: Yeah, that's the one I haven't read.

Doom Gaze: What did you think of that one?

Wydren: And I started to read Resurrection, then realized it's a sequel. The anal part of me won't let me read a sequel without reading the first.

I liked Light.

Decent hard Sci-Fi.

Doom Gaze: I hope you're happy: I have a 720p DotD coming down the pipe now.

Wydren: It's not one of Clarke's best, but when it's Clarke even the ones that aren't his best are still great.

You don't have to rewatch it. I'm just interested in seeing if you have a good reason why you think it's crappy.

I can understand not liking it. But can you realize it's good without liking it, like I can with some Country music?

Doom Gaze: Here's the thing you don't realize about Resurrection: even though it alludes to events in the first book, it is not required.

The book is supposed to be that way.

You won't realize that until you've read it to the end.

Wydren: I'm anal like that though. I tried to read Prince Caspian, but I had to read the other 3 first.

Doom Gaze: Did I tell you I'm getting started on the Dark Tower series?

Wydren: No.

That series is awesome, but peaks in the middle.

Doom Gaze: I'll be the judge of that

He "remastered" the first 3 books. So mebbie the series I'm reading will be better.

Wydren: Go for it. It has some interesting twists toward the end.

Remastered? WTF?

Doom Gaze: Ya.

Wydren: Well, maybe it will flow better.

Doom Gaze: That's basically what he explained in the 20+ page introduction.

It should be entitled "On being Seventeen"

Wydren: What's that, the series?

Or the introduction?

Doom Gaze: Ya.

The introduction.

Wydren: Ok.

Doom Gaze: To the "remastered" books.

Wydren: They're definitely enjoyable books.

And you've got to remember, some people waited almost 20 years for him to finish the story with the last 3 books.

After 20 years, the book could be a collaboration between Jesus, Buddah, and 1970's George Lucas and still disappoint people.

Doom Gaze: Getting back to Dawn of the Dead...

Here's why I didn't like it:

Wydren: Ok, GO.

Doom Gaze: 1) The zombies wear makeup.

2) Bad acting.

3) Poor pacing.

Here's the rub: Almost all of this can be chalked up to the movie's age.

Wydren: The makeup I'll give you, but that's a limitation of budget.

Doom Gaze: They had over half a million dollars.

Wydren: The bad acting, I disagree, but that's subjective I guess.

Doom Gaze: That's a quarter of the budget of the first Star Wars movie.

Wydren: But the pacing? That movie's almost perfectly paced. That sounds like an attempt to legitimize a complaint of it being boring.

Doom Gaze: I guess they blew all their cash on extras.

Wydren: Yeah, and the first Star Wars movie was considered "low budget".

Doom Gaze: I'll admit that. However, instead of filling up the slow spots with boring social commentary, they could have easily lightened it up instead of sticking to it's laurels.

Wydren: But if they lightened it up, it would have undermined the social commentary.

I mean, the best zombie movies aren't about the zombies.

Doom Gaze: Which was boring when it wasn't in the context of ZOMBIES EATING PEOPLE.

I think we found it.

Wydren: They're about what the zombies represent about us.

So you're complaint is that it was boring.

Because all you wanted to see was a simple gory horror movie. And I don't believe it couldn't work on that level either.

Doom Gaze: Lemmie put it this way: What does a good DM do when a D&D game gets boring?

Wydren: I don't know, I've only played it the once.

Doom Gaze: 5 words: "Someone kicks in the door!"

Simple trick, keeps things moving, let's the storytelling work.

Another thing was this: The "horror" wasn't that horrific to me.

It was funny.

Wydren: Hang on, as to the not moving complaint.

Not all movies have to be a roller coaster ride full of thrills.

Doom Gaze: Combine that with the boring social commentary and bad acting (IMHO) and it comes off as something that should have been on MST3K.

Wydren: In fact, the best horror movies aren't.

Psycho, The Exorcist, Halloween.

Doom Gaze: Those movies were creepy horror. There's a difference between creepy horror and gore horror.

Wydren: Moving on to your next complaint, what do you call the "horror"?

Doom Gaze: I think the problem with that also comes with age.

Wydren: Ah, I think that's a difference. This is creepy horror, with the gore of the day added on top.

Doom Gaze: And the creepy parts come off as lame and the gore parts come off as fake. Also, due to age. Here's what I'm getting at:

Back in "the day," people weren't as desensitized to zombie flicks like we are today.

Wydren: But you said you didn't even recognize the creepy parts in the movie, because that's what the social commentary is.

Doom Gaze: The gory bits we're used to today totally lay the smack down on what they could do on half a million dollars in 1978.

It didn't creep me out. What doesn't creep you out, personally, comes off as lame.

Don't you agree?

Wydren: Yeah, but what do you think is the creepy horror in Dawn?

I want to see what you say before I give you what I think.

Doom Gaze: Here's the other thing: zombies aren't creepy to me unless there's the latent possibility that one is hiding around the corner waiting to eat me.

Wydren: See, that's what you miss about the movie. The zombies in it are irrellevant.

Doom Gaze: Discuss.

Wydren: They could be replaced with any threat. Natural disaster, terrorist attack, whatever.

What's creepy is that in the face of that threat, the people could make it if they worked together.

But they don't.

They let their own greed get the better of them.

They could have lived fine in the back rooms of the mall. But they wanted the entire thing. And one of them died as a result.

They could have shared with the biker gang (which is debatable, but they didn't have to start shooting the gang). But they were greedy, and another died.

Likewise, greed kills people that way in the real world. And if we can't learn to work together, mankind can end up destroying itself.

Granted, that possibility is more remote now that the Cold War is over, but it's still there.

Doom Gaze: Question: Are you referring to people as a species or people as in the rag-tag group that finds themselves wholed up in the mall?

Wydren: Holed up. And the answer is both.

That's the social commentary, and what makes it creepy is that it's true.

The group of people holed up in the mall is representative of society as a whole.

Or, different factions of society, anyway.

Doom Gaze: I don't find that creepy.

Interesting, but not creepy.

Wydren: That mankind is capable and willing to destroy itself through shortsightedness?

Doom Gaze: That's a fact of life that's been known for awhile.

I'm content to lay back in my chair and call the whole group a bunch of dumbasses.

Wydren: If that doesn't creep you out, or scare you at least, you're tougher than me.

Doom Gaze: Heh. I've seen the inside of the government entity. Nothing phases me.

Wydren: So does any horror movie scare you, or is it all just superficial jump scares?

Doom Gaze: That and I do alot of research on human social dynamics and I think I have a deeper understanding of the human condition than most.

I find myself in a constant search in looking for a movie that scares me without overusing cheap scares.

It usually comes from the paranormal thrillers.

The Mist, for example, was quite good.

And I watched that one in the break-room too, in all fairness.

Wydren: See, I loved The Mist, but a lot of that had to do with its simillarity to good zombie movies.

You don't see how DotD and The Mist are similar?

They have almost the exact same social commentary.

Or were the monsters the only thing you found scary in that?

I only ask because it seems intellectually dishonest to say you found one scary and not the other.

Both are excellently made movies (made on a lower budget, I might add) that have almost the exact same social commentary which makes them scarier.

Doom Gaze: It is because it comes down to suspension of disbelief.

It was much easier to suspend disbelief in The Mist than it was in Dawn.

crap

are you there?

Wydren: Yeah

Why?

Doom Gaze: I think my connection dropped there for a minute.

Wydren: Well, it's back on now.

Did you get my last message?

Doom Gaze: ..."exact same social commentary which makes them scarier."

Wydren:
Doom Gaze: It is because it comes down to suspension of disbelief.
It was much easier to suspend disbelief in The Mist than it was in Dawn.

Wydren: But why? Was it just because of the special effects?

Doom Gaze: Yes.

Wydren: See, I think that's a limitation you put on yourself.

Doom Gaze: No, it's a fault in the movie.

Its the same thing you experienced in The Minority Report.

You could not suspend disbelief because you figured it out.

That's a fault in the movie: It was too easy for you to figure out.

Therefore, you could not suspend disbelief.

Wydren: But that's a criticism of the story, not the special effects.

Doom Gaze: You say potato, I say potAto.

Wydren: The special effects are limited to a specific time period. By that logic, King Kong is a terrible movie.

Hell, by that logic you could say that all black and white movies are bad.

Doom Gaze: It's still comes down to suspension of disbelief. And yes, if the original King Kong were released today and viewed by an audience for the first time ever, it would inevitably be condemned as crap.

Citing the movie's age and budget is no shield to quality.

Wydren: Yes it is.

Those are superficial things.

If you're judging on special effects.

Doom Gaze: For example, if you look at a lot of these reviews of Dawn on Rotten Tomatoes, most of them refer to it as a "cult classic." Which means that it was viewed by the reviewer at a time when it was new to them.

Wydren: Which is what I thought we were doing here.

Doom Gaze: No, I'm judging it on suspension of disbelief. That's totally separate.

Wydren: But you said you couldn't suspend your disbelief because of the special effects.

Wydren: But why? Was it just because of the special effects?

Doom Gaze: Yes.

Doom Gaze: Exactly. The bottom line is that Dawn could have been much better if it had LESS zombies in it.

Too many detailed close ups of zombies eating people foiled suspension of disbelief because the zombies did not look believable to me.

Wydren: But I'm saying that when judging a movies speical effects (and you're suspension of disbelief relating to them) you have to take time period and budget into account.

Doom Gaze: I'm saying that there are ways to work around all those limitations.

Star Wars did.

Wydren: I know some people who believe that almost all CGI doesn't look believable. So by that definition, almost every movie made now a days is terrible.

And Dawn did too, for it's day.

Doom Gaze: Those people would probably disagree with you. But I don't look that close.

Wydren: I mean, Dawn worked around those limitations.

Doom Gaze: I don't think it did.

Wydren: You've just been desensitized, which I don't think is fair to hold against the movie.

Doom Gaze: I can if it didn't entertain me. That's why I don't like it.

I watched The Maltese Falcon a couple of weeks ago.

Wydren: I never said you had to like it. But you've got to admit that it's a well made movie.

It's good, even if you don't like it.

I can admit that about Minority Report.

It wasn't the greatest movie, and I didn't care for it, but I'll admit it was a good movie.

Doom Gaze: By that logic, any movie ever made by anyone ever is a good movie. Obviously someone liked it, otherwise it wouldn't still be around.

Wydren: I'm saying you've got to judge it on things other than how much you liked it. Otherwise, what's the point in talking movies?

All conversations would be "I didn't like it so it's bad". "Well, I did, so it's good".

And no, there are some movies that are bad even though people like them.

I love Van Damme movies, though I'll admit most of them are terrible.

Doom Gaze: Like I said, I'll give it one more fair shake.

Wydren: But in order to give it a fair shake, you've got to get past the budget and special effect limitations.

If you take those into account, the movie's damned impressive in those regards.

Doom Gaze: I'm sorry, but that still doesn't work. I can't give the movie a totally fair shake if I can't suspend disbelief. That's the point of suspension of disbelief - I can't do it willingly or say "Oh, that's because they had a crappy budget. So that's okay." If I'm thinking about that, then it's already lost the battle.

Remember when we watched Legend?

Wydren: And I say that's a limitation on your part.

Yeah, but Legend isn't a good movie.

It's appeal relies entirely on nostalgia. Or, almost entirely.

It's a limitation on your part, because then any science fiction movie is terrible, because that stuff doesn't happen in the real world and you can't suspend your belief that much.

Doom Gaze: When I can't suspend disbelief, I immediately shift into MST3K mode.

So sue me.

Wydren: LOTR stinks, because elves, hobbits, and orcs don't exist and I can't suspend disbelief enough.

Back to the Future is terrible, because time travel is impossible.

You've got to adjust your standards by taking certain things into account. If you don't, you're not giving the movie a fair shot. Yeah, it's all subjective, but there's generally an agreed standard of quality, and by those standards, Dawn of the Dead is a good movie, even if you didn't like it.

You don't need to rewatch it unless you can do that, because it'd just be a waste of time.

Doom Gaze: Suspension of disbelief doesn't work that way. A movie must work within its own context to suspend disbelief. Let me clarify: If, for example, Legolas pulled out a revolver during the Battle of Pelennor Fields, that would obviously break suspension of disbelief. In the same way, if a movie is telling me that these people shambling about are actually dead, and therefore horrifying, then they should look that way all the time. If I see even one zombie that doesn't look real, then it breaks suspension of disbelief because it ceases to be consistent within its own context.

Wydren: But what does a "real" zombie look like?

Doom Gaze: Not alive.

Wydren: Dawn totally works within it's own context.

Doom Gaze: Wrong.

Wydren: Can you give me an example?

Doom Gaze: Suspension of disbelief is broken multiple times throughout the movie due to it's own budget. This is mostly a problem with the make up.

Wydren: But you're stating that like it's some objective thing. It's not.

It's totally subjective.

In fact, it's one of the most subjective things.

It doesn't break it's on internal logic, or context as you called it.

Doom Gaze: I think it is when I see one zombie that looks pretty good in one scene and then in another scene some guy sweated through his makeup and I can see pink skin.

Wydren: But that's really why you think it's a bad movie? Becaue one guy sweated through his makeup?

Doom Gaze: There are quite a few instances in that movie where it is pretty obvious that that happened.

I'm not citing any one scene in particular.

I am citing the entire movie as inconsistent.

Wydren: But still, that's your entire problem with the movie, and why you think it's a terrible film? Because they couldn't make the zombies look "real" enough.

And you make no allowances for budget and the time it was made?

Doom Gaze: It's not my decision. The decision is made subconciously. Like it is for most people.

Wydren: Well, if you do watch it again, try to look past that.

Otherwise, Back to the Future is terrible because I can see matte lines.

It just seems so superficial, an easy to declare a movie bad just because you didn't like it.

Like I said, I think Minority Report is a good movie, I just didn't like it.

*It just seems so superficial, an easy way to declare a movie bad just because you didn't like it.

Doom Gaze: That's why I'm watching it again.

I'll give it the good 'ol college try.

Wydren: But can you look past the special effects?

Doom Gaze: I guess we'll find out, won't we?

Wydren: Well, I'm saying, if you can't, it's not a fault of the film.

Doom Gaze: I think what I'm trying to say is that the movie tried to do too much at the same time.

Wydren: And you may think that. But it's not a bad movie just because you didn't like it.

Doom Gaze: If you want to paint a sprawling epic zombie movie with a rotten heart at the center they could have condensed the script into a smaller setting and made it easier to suspend disbelief.

Less zombies, more cerebral.

Wydren: Yeah, but that wouldn't have helped with the special effects.

Doom Gaze: Sure it would have.

Wydren: Ah, but the number of zombies isn't a fault of the script.

Doom Gaze: The dude that did the make up for the movie had to apply makeup to 300 extras every DAY.

You can't tell me they couldn't have rewritten that after they got their budget.

Wydren: I mean, how much smaller can you get than 4 people in a mall?

One guy in a phone booth?

Doom Gaze: Clever, that.

Wydren: But see, most people don't have that problem with the movie. So, they didn't think they needed to rewrite it.

Doom Gaze: But the problem isn't with the actors (primarily), it's with the level of consistency of believability of the zombies.

Wydren: In fact, almost everyone thinks they didnt' have to rewrite it.

Doom Gaze: Here's one for you: Imagine this conversation.

Romero: Shit! We only have half a million to make this movie. We're hosed!

Wydren: What's really funny about this is that the guy who did the special effects was a photographer in Vietnam, who made the effects as believable as he could with the budget he had.

Doom Gaze: Writer: Well, we could set the movie in a smaller locale and use less zombies on camera. Then we could focus our special effects budget on fewer, more realistic zombies!

Romero: Screw that crap! That would compromisie the creative integrity of my work!

Wydren: Well, you can imagine all the conversations you want. That doesn't effect reality.

Doom Gaze: I have no doubt that this conversation, or something similar, might have taken place.

Why not use less on camera zombies?

Wydren: So wait, your complaints about the special effects, and the guys sweating through their makeup, you only noticed that in the scenes with 300 zombies on screen?

Doom Gaze: Why not take the same horror and social commentary and put it into a less comprehensive setting in order to preserve the integrity of the story?

Nope. It was mostly with the closeups. Although there were many cases where a zombie that was obviously not supposed to be closely inspected wound up getting a little too close to the camera and was easily spotted as fake.

Too much work and money to support the setting.

**and not enough money

They did the same thing with The Fountain.

They said: Hey! Our budget is hosed!

Well, we could rewrite with the same concept.

And they did.

And it was a good movie.

Wydren: They made the setting smaller in scope?

Doom Gaze: Much smaller.

Watch the extras.

Wydren: So, instellar space is smaller than a mall. Good to know.

Sorry, that's condescending.

Doom Gaze: It's aight. But it's much easier to render a backdrop on a simple matte than it is to render an army.

Wydren: But still, you're main complaint is that you can point at the screen and say "Hey, that guy's not really a zombie!"

Doom Gaze: I don't have to point, as I've already stated.

Wydren: Heh, you are main complaint.

Doom Gaze: It's pretty damn obvious.

Wydren: Man, I suck.

Doom Gaze: Hey, we both know our grammar skills are above and beyond.

Wydren: I hate to tell you, but it's always obvious, no matter the special effects.

Doom Gaze: No point in nitpicking grammar. :)

Wydren: cool.

Doom Gaze: The point I'm driving home is, "How much is good enough?"

Wydren: But that's what I'm saying, that's all up to you and not the film.

For most people, they can see beyond that.

If you think you can, watch the film again. If not, there's not point in rewatching it.

I'd think that we've moved that point from subconsious to consious.

Doom Gaze: Well, it's already eating up hard drive space, so I might as well.

Why is that?

Dude, if anyone should know this, it should be you: I don't go in looking for flaws in a film.

You do know that don't you?

Wydren: Because we've talked about it so much, I hope it sticks out when you watch it next.

Yeah, I know that.

Doom Gaze: But if I don't like it, I can tell you why.

Wydren: I'm just saying I think you got hung up on this one point, and missed what makes the film great.

And you don't have to like it.

Doom Gaze: For example, why didn't you like The Matrix Reloaded, again?

Wydren: But hopefully you can at least see that it's a well made film.

It ignored the first movie, and set up a whole bunch of questions that didn't get answered in the third.

Doom Gaze: How did it ignore the first movie?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, btw.

I can show you why it's the same.

Wydren: I see that. Neo wasn't the all powerful being he was at the end of the first movie. He was the same, with the added bonus of flying and force pull/push.

I mean, he was the same as he was before he realized he was "the one".

Why what's the same. Why I don't like the Matrix Reloaded, or why it's a good movie?

Doom Gaze: Did you consider the fact that that may not be the fault of the movie?

Wydren: How is it not?

And don't give me that "they purposefully lied to you" crap. That's fanwank of the highest order.

Doom Gaze: It's very simple: They never knew when they made the first movie that it would have been as popular as it was.

Hence, they didn't plan on the possiblility of a sequel.

The idea of the sequel didn't come about until the first one hit it big.

Wydren: But that's very much a fault of the movie. That's not something I brought to it.

Doom Gaze: After that, the Bros. went on record as saying that then ending would have been substantially altered had they known there would have been the possibility of a sequel.

Wydren: Yeah, but all you can judge is what's on screen.

Doom Gaze: For example, the entire first half-hour of Reloaded would be tacked on to The Matrix.

Wydren: In fact, that's them saying it's the fault of the movie.

Doom Gaze:
Wydren: Yeah, but all you can judge is what's on screen.

There it is.

Wydren: As far as story, yeah, there it is.

But you never gave me a problem with DotD's story. It was all special effects.

My problem with the Matrix sequels has nothing to do with special effects.

Actually I think the special effects were great. In fact, judging solely on special effects, I had no problem with suspension of disbelief with the Matrix sequels.

Doom Gaze: It's the same difference though.

See what I'm saying?

Wydren: No, I don't. You're saying DotD is terrible because of something you brought to the movie. I'm saying the Matrix sequels are not good because of a problem with the story.

It's there whether I want to see it or not.

Doom Gaze: However, for both of us in both cases, the other broke suspension of disbelief.

"And the truth, shall set you free."

Wydren: But your arguement there boils down to "it's all subjective". Yeah, I can't argue that.

But then there's no point in discussing art.

It all boils down to "it's good because I liked it". or "It's bad because I didn't like it".

However, there are typically standards set for these things. By those standards, DotD is a great movie. The Matrix sequels are average.

Doom Gaze: What I'm saying is that just because a movie maintained suspension of disbelief for you does not mean that it did not maintain suspension of disbelief for someone else.

That's why I'm going to try to watch Dawn again.

Wydren: But it's not a suspension of disbelief issue.

Doom Gaze: It is.

You're saying Reloaded broke suspension disbelief because of a difference in "power levels", if you will, between 1 & 2.

For some, that difference was apparent.

For others, it was not.

Wydren: No, I'm saying the movie made the first one irrelevant, which is a problem with the basic storytelling.

Doom Gaze: That does not, however, mean it was not a Good Movie®.

Wydren: Yeah, it does.

Doom Gaze: It's the same difference! Can't you see it?

Wydren: Can you name me any great movie that had a bad story?

You can make a terrible movie out of a good script, but you cannot make a good movie out of a bad script.

That's a pretty basic rule in film fandom.

Doom Gaze: You're saying that I should look past the flaws of Dawn because of it's budget and special effects but you're saying you can't look past the flaws in Reloaded because of a story hampered by the fact that a sequel was not anticipated?

Both problems could have been potentially resolved by another look at the script.

Wydren: Yeah. Special effects are the icing on the cake. Put as much polish on a turd as you want, it's still a turd.

Doom Gaze: But they were allowed to go through because someone deemed that suspension of disbelief could be maintained.

Wydren: But what I'm saying is that the story, or script, is the basic building block on which to hinge a movie.

Special effects are not.

The problem with the Matrix sequels is in the script. The problem with DotD is in the special effects.

Doom Gaze:
Wydren: Yeah. Special effects are the icing on the cake. Put as much polish on a turd as you want, it's still a turd.

Wydren: Like I said, that's the standard. If you don't have the standards, there's no point in talking about film.

Doom Gaze:
Doom Gaze: In simpler terms, a crappy movie with a social commentary embedded in it's script is still a crappy movie. It just appeals to art-house pricks.

Wydren: But that's what I'm trying to say. Dawn is not a crappy movie.

You just think it is because you couldn't get past the icing.

To be fair, the Matrix movies aren't crappy either. They're average.

Doom Gaze: But you are saying that Reloaded was a crappy movie because you couldn't get past a flaw in the script.

Wydren: Yeah.

Doom Gaze: It's the same difference.

Same.

Wydren: What flaw in the script of Dawn couldn't you get past?

Doom Gaze: You still don't get it. It still comes down to suspension of disbelief.

Wydren: You haven't mentioned any script errors, it was all special effects.

Special effects can be forgiven if a story is good. It doesn't work the other way around.

Doom Gaze: Yes, and for you, what broke suspension of disbelief was an inconsistency in the script. What broke it for me was special effects.

Sure it does.

Wydren: No, it doesn't.

Doom Gaze: Loads of movies have been successful purely on the basis that they had great special effects.

But that's beside my point.

SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF.

Wydren: I can agree that the Matrix sequels were better than Transformers. Just because I like TF more doesn't make it a better movie.

Doom Gaze:

Wydren: But successful in what respect?

Doom Gaze: As I said, that's beside the point.

Wydren: In making money? That's not a good judge of quality.

Doom Gaze: I digressed.

Wydren: Ok. So you think special effects can excuse a poor story?

That's what it sounds like your saying, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Man, incorrect use of your/you're again. I suck again.

Sent at 5:36 AM on Wednesday

Wydren: I think that's the crux of this arguement. I'm saying that a good story can excuse poor special effects, and you disagree.

Doom Gaze: All I'm saying is that suspension of disbelief can make or break a movie. If disbelief is truly not suspended during a movie for a given person then they will trivialize the movie.

That's what we have both done.

Wydren: Well, I think mine is more valid (because more people happen to agree with me), but that's really subjective.

But if you can't get past the special effects, there's no point in watching the movie again.

By the way, this discussion is why I miss you. I can't get into this type of discussion with anyone else here. Christina can't get into a discussion like this without making it too serious (she can't accept that people can have heated discussions and realize that it's all just shooting the breeze) and Dan just says "Whatever".

Doom Gaze: "Well, I think mine is more valid (because more people happen to agree with me), but that's really subjective."
I agree. The Matrix movies are less than perfect. However, to nitpick script inconsistencies is the same as nitpicking special effects when it comes to suspension of disbelief. Loads of people thought the special effects in the Matrix were fake but had no problems with the story.

Appreciated. ^_^

Wydren: See, that's the base of it. I think if a story's flawed, no amount of special effects can make up for that. Most critics agree with me (which doesn't make it right, I guess).

However, if a story's good, the special effects can be a little poor.

That's why you get a huge amout of crap in the horror genre with "great gore".

The gore is easy to get right. The story is a little harder.

Doom Gaze: The story is flawed but I think that the Bros. made more of an effort on the philosophical underpinnings than they did on those inconsistencies you mentioned.

Wydren: Yeah, I'll agree with that.

Doom Gaze: The gore is easy to get right. The story is a little harder.

Wydren: Yeah. And to most people (again, the only barometer we have for success) the story in Dawn is great.

Doom Gaze: I think we're a lot better at this when we chat. :)

Wydren: Heh, probably.

Doom Gaze: We should just make a blog with these conversations.

Just these.

Copy-paste.

Wydren: I'll admit that the special effects look cheesy, but I'm saying if you can get past that, there's a great movie there.

Doom Gaze: Raw and uncensored.

Same diff.

Wydren: Oh, I'd be all for copy/pasting this to our blog.

Doom Gaze: If you could look past the story inconsistencies and recognize why they're there, the Matrix sequels would be great movies!

Wydren: That's the difference. When I say great movie, I'm basing it on things like story, editing, shot composition, etc.

I guess it's just easier for me to make allowances for special effects due to budget, because the budget doesn't really effect the story.

Doom Gaze: shot composition, etc.
How is that different from special effects? Both are cosmetic elements. Kevin Smith didn't even know about shot composition until Dogma came around.

Wydren: Yeah, but his movies aren't great movies. They're fun and enjoyable, but they aren't on most people lists of great movies.

But to be fair, neither are the Matrix sequels.

In fact, I'd be tempted to say that the more Kevin Smith learned about film making, the worse he got.

But that's another discussion and I have to go in about 10 minutes.

Doom Gaze: Call me when you get on the road. :)

Wydren: Sure.

Special effects are different, because not every movie needs special effects. Every movie needs story, dialogue, shot composition, editing, etc.

That's why I used the term "icing on the cake". They're not an essential part.

Doom Gaze: That depends on the story being told.

Wydren: Another problem is the term "great movie". I'm talking movies that are great quailty wise. I doubt the Matrix sequels or any Kevin Smith movie would get 97% fresh on the tomatometer.

I'd be tempted to say that if your story depends on the special effects more than the shot composition, it's a poor movie.

Doom Gaze: The bottom line that is if suspension of disbelief is maintained (i.e. all elements of the movie are in synergy [is that a word?]) then a movie has attained it's goal for a given person.

Wydren: Yeah, synergy is a word. Good one.

Doom Gaze: If it has not been maintained for the majority of people, the movie will be panned.

Wydren: But that's looking at movies in a superficial way.

you've got to get beyond all that.

Doom Gaze: I'm in it for the spectacle. :)

Wydren: Otherwise, old movies are bound to stink. Look at the CGI in Jurassic Park.

Looks dated today. Does that make it a bad movie?

Doom Gaze: I think Jurassic Park still holds up remarkably well.

That's because it doesn't overextend it's reach with the special effects.

Wydren: But you don't think the special effects look dated?

Doom Gaze: I'd have to watch it again to be sure. But I am confident in saying that those special effects still suspend disbelief.

It only has to be enough to reach that milestone.

Wydren: But do you see how that is pretty subjective.

Doom Gaze: The original Star Wars still suspends disbelief for me. That's because it's consistent.

The core of my argument is that Dawn is inconsistent. That is was breaks suspension of disbelief.

Wydren: Yeah, but those special effects still look realistic today.

Doom Gaze: I disagree. However, they are consistent.

Wydren: But that suspension of disbelief is based totally on special effects?

Doom Gaze: No.

Wydren: So all those things have to work in tandem, otherwise it's a bad movie? You must not think too many movies are good then.

Doom Gaze: For example, to suspend disbelief in Matrix 2, you have to accept that Neo isn't actually ALL POWERFUL. Yet.

Wydren: But see, that's internally inconsistent.

Doom Gaze: You know me. I love almost everything.

Wydren: Yeah, so obviously you don't put so much weight on stuff in other movies.

Doom Gaze: Like what?

Wydren: Well, the special effects in the Matrix movies wasn't entirely consistent. There were several scenes where you can tell it's a cgi guy.

Or "not real".

Doom Gaze: I didn't notice it on initial viewing.

Wydren: But you realize the limitations, and accept them.

Doom Gaze: I DID notice that some people noticed it though.

I was too busy enjoying the spectacle.

Wydren: I noticed it. But it's fine. The special effects were great, because I took the limitations into account. There's no reason for a story to have those limitations. Plus, I think movies should be about more than just spectacle.

Ok man, I need to get going. Can I call you in a few?

Doom Gaze: The Matrix is a movie that is all about the spectacle. The Bros. have gone on record to this effect. But they wanted to have an action movie that was a bit more than that.

I guess the same could be said of Dawn.

Yes.

Wydren: Ok.

The Death of a Gaming Legend

2008-03-05T02:21:00.002-05:00

It is with the greatest sorrow and utmost respect that I report this article that appeared in the New York Times:

Gary Gygax, a pioneer of the imagination who transported a fantasy realm of wizards, goblins and elves onto millions of kitchen tables around the world through the game he helped create, Dungeons & Dragons, died Tuesday at his home in Lake Geneva, Wis. He was 69.

Gygax was, as stated, one of the co-creators of Dungeons & Dragons and a major inspiration in my life. He was game designer from a day and age where games consisted entirely of moving pawns around a linear board and dumb parlor games like Yahtzee and Pictionary. At that time, no one had even conceived of a game where your imagination truly takes center stage. Dungeons & Dragons revolutionized gaming. Not only did it spawn umpteen copycats but the rules and game design that he helped create form the behind-the-scenes basis of almost every video game created since.

Despite the geeky image that Dungeons & Dragons has been associated with, none can deny its timeless potency. Even now, as the Wizards of the Coast prepares the release of the games fourth iteration, thousands have reaped the benefits of the innovation Gary Gygax forged.

Having had the distinct privilege of talking at length with his partner in crime, Dave Arneson, I feel I have a pretty good idea of the way his generation thought about games and where they're going. Even todays most advanced video games cannot come close to the level of interaction offered by a living, thinking human being and these guys recognized that.

Gary Gygax was one of the very few gaming legends. If he believed in God, then I hope that he is in a better place. If not, then I certainly hope he rests in peace. He was the first generation of the modern day gamer and every great game designer from this day forward will have to answer to him when they get to the Great Beyond. I don't think they'll topple him anytime soon.

Gary will be dearly missed. Godspeed.

Urban Fantasy the Only Fantasy?

2008-02-17T13:18:00.003-05:00

Fantasy movies have, thanks largely to director Peter Jackson's seminal Lord of the Rings trilogy, finally hit the mainstream and are here to stay. A quick peruse of Apple's upcoming trailers seems to confirm this... I counted 4 upcoming fantasy flicks - and that's not counting the inevitable Harry Potter and His Dark Materials follow-ups. However, I noticed a disturbing trend as well: Almost all appear to be based in urban fantasy settings or are marketed as adventure films (see: Nim's Island).

For those not familiar, urban fantasy is a genre of fantasy that is set in the "real world" instead of a wholly original fantasy world. J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings was set in an entirely made up world with no ties whatsoever to our world. However, Narnia, Harry Potter, and His Dark Materials all maintain ties to the real world that we're all familiar with. The pretext in these types of movies is that the fantasy world has always existed out of our sight - hidden to all except the protagonists whom, through inherent right or extraordinary luck, have access to it. Harry Potter follows this definition to a tee, whilst His Dark Materials wraps its fantasy up with a dash of sci-fi in that it starts out in a fantasy world and allows the protagonist, Lyra, to journey to a number of alternate worlds, ours among them.

I suspect that this is chiefly because these types of fantasy movies are more easily marketable. Setting them in the context of the real world allows us to experience the story from the perspectives of the protagonists. These worlds are also new to them and we are permitted gawk in awe right along with them at the new sights and sounds we are presented in these worldsThis, as opposed to creating an entirely new world and marketing it, seems to be much less palpable to Hollywood these days. What would a normal person do when thrust into a world entirely different from our own but yet co-existing with it?

I agree that this is an intriguing question but, from a creative stand point, this approach is already becoming a bit tired. How many more times will we honestly be entertained by some child's reaction to some random fantasy world? I don't know. The new Narnia looks great, The Golden Compass was phenomenal and Harry Potter is always entertaining, at the very least. I just wish I could see adaptations of more contemporary fantasy works like The Wheel of Time or Dragonriders of Pern. Even another His Dark Materials would be sorely welcome (although unlikely).

In summation, while I applaud Hollywood in finally moving forward with more fantasy movies than we have ever had on tap in recent memory, I advise them not to stop there. Port over our favorite book series and *gasp* maybe even create new worlds for your movies. Perhaps it might catch on. Or it could be the "perhaps" that is stopping them. Thoughts?

Apple Gimps QuickTime, Promotes iTunes

2008-02-17T11:33:00.006-05:00

So, in a recent attempt to keep up with the movie scene in the US despite my station in South Korea, I tried to watch some new movie trailers. This inevitably leads me to using QuickTime. QuickTime used to be the best way to watch movie trailers, but has recently been displaced by the 300 pound gorilla, iTunes.

The reason I bring this up is as follows: After watching a few trailers, I noticed that movies invariably were horribly out of sync with the audio in QuickTime. The first thing I tried to do was update. That resulted in an error message. Then I attempted to repair QuickTime. All that did was result in changing the error message to something else. Frustrated, I uninstalled QuickTime and installed a version fresh from Apple's website. This again resulted in failures and error messages. After another reboot, I installed the version that comes with iTunes. Lo-and-behold! It works perfectly.

I don't own an iPod and I certainly don't use Apple's overpriced detritus and annoying shovel-ware "helper apps", so I turned to the greatest invention of modern man: The Combined Community Codec Pack (a.k.a. CCCP). This little baby will play absolutely media file you can find on the Internet. Even better, most files work fine in Windows Media Player and WinAmp with this pack. Although I couldn't play .MOV files in WMP, the built in Zoom Player that comes with CCCP works just fine. I attribute this to bugs in WMP, not necessarily in CCCP. This is mostly because Windows tends to be full of bugs and that statement is in no way intended to be taken an assumption. )

Either way, it appears that Apple has completely gimped QuickTime as we know it.
So screw 'em. Use CCCP. Your cat will thank you.

Review: Mass Effect (Xbox 360)

2007-11-24T13:48:00.001-05:00

Playing "Mass Effect" makes me feel old. I remember the very first RPG I played when I was a young 'un. It was a little known game called "Final Fantasy III" for a piddly shit little system called the Super Nintendo. It was like nothing I had ever played before in my life. Combat was a blend of strategy and action as I commanded my party of intrepid adventurers through each and every battle. The story was told with crap animations, tiled bitmaps and pop up text boxes. However, it was brilliantly composed and magnificently translated even by today's standards. The graphics were a mix of stale tiles and battle backgrounds. Enemies in the game were never animated. When an attack was made, your character would make some motion and you would see a scratch, or a slice, or a claw mark across the image of the enemy and a number would pop out indicating how much damage you did. It was all sublimely simple to learn and difficult to master - the mark of any good game. Saving the world was never this in depth or fun before this epic piece of game.

Even back then, RPGs had a pattern that had already been tested, dissected, refined and reprinted a thousand times. Most modern day RPGs are based on the old Dungeons & Dragons rules and traditional campaign structure. In short, everything you do requires some kind of a skill check. Killing enemies gets you experience points which contributes to your next character level. Gaining that level makes your character more powerful and therefore better able to handle the next tier of challenges in the game. If you're having problems advancing, the problem is usually solved by "grinding" for experience by killing more enemies or completing tasks.

A typical game session involves, much like a book (predictably) the exposition. The characters discover a problem and set out to restore the status quo. Along the way, they encounter friends, enemies, giant rats, bears and, of course, merchants and innkeepers who are ever so happy to peddle their wares. The adventure concludes when the characters accomplish their task and restore the aformentioned status quo. If you've actually read this far, then you've probably never played an RPG before or, for that matter, any sort of adventure game at all.

For better or for worse, "Mass Effect" follows the above formula, as stated, to a tee. I almost feel that, as it was being made, someone was going down a checklist of things that had to be in their game. I wouldn't be surprised if such a list is posted next to the water cooler at BioWare's offices just to remind the average clueless sod what exactly it is they're making. Let's take a look at what that list might look like:

Epic story. Check.
Party of needlessly varied adventurers. Check.
Action based implementation of RPG rules. Check.
Functionality to pause in order to issue orders to ~~party~~ squad members. Check.
Engaging soundtrack. Check.
Rock-scissors-paper balanced system of skills. Check.
Crap-tons of side quests and distractions. Check.
Give out experience easy and often to keep the player advancing. Check.
Everything = Money. Check.
Game must feature some new skill or battle mechanic or a mix of existing systems. Check.

The list rattles on down the wall behind the cobweb encrusted depths known as of the water cooler. Somehow you get the feeling while you're playing it that you've done all this before. Though I admit that this is the format of all RPGs, lately, BioWare's just not doing as good of a job at hiding it as most (*cough*Elder*cough*Scrolls*cough*).

The game casts you in the role of John/Joanna Sheperd, an elite soldier of the Earth Alliance whom is the first human being considered for the uber-elite interplanetary commando unit, SPECTRE. We're told this is significant because humans are pretty much the nagging children of galactic society - always wanting candy and constantly being told to shut the heck up, lest we attract attention to ourselves. In short order, the SPECTRE evaluating you for membership is offed by another even-more-hardcore SPECTRE who has designs for galactic domination. Or, at least, so we are led to believe. Soon, you are given your own ship and free reign to go wherever in the galaxy you see fit in order to hunt down the rogue agent.

"Mass Effect" continues BioWare's tradition of offering amazing stories with more twists and turns than the French highway system. It is a sprawling epic, filled with action, mystery, intrigue and all the story elements you would expect from a space opera. However, this is one of the first games they've produced where every single piece of dialogue is professionally scripted and acted. All the animation for the games cut scenes and conversations has been painstakingly mo-capped and lip-synched in order to produce some of the most engaging scripted exchanges I've ever seen in a video game. Recent titles by BioWare had failed to live up to the insanely high standards set by games like “Planescape: Torment” and “Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn,” both of the text era. This is in large part due to the believability of computer animated characters. Reading dialogue off the screen and seeing it acted out by a wooden, low poly model doesn't really do the character interactions justice, however good the writing may be. This is especially true when you wind up spending half of the game in conversations. When making these sequences into being a large part of their games, they rightly decided the bar needed to be raised in this area and have largely succeeded.

The conversation sequences in the game use many of the same blocking techniques used by TV and movie professionals. Cinematic tricks like focus blurs and the positioning of the camera behind the person not speaking convey an immersive feel that nearly fools you into thinking you might not be playing a video game. In addition, you don't have to wait for the previous character to finish speaking before you choose your response. A few seconds before the character finishes speaking, the handy-dandy dialogue wheel pops up with your next set of scripted responses, allowing the conversation to continue smoothly and uninterrupted.

As well as it came out, it isn't perfect (but it's damn close). One of the problems is that the animation tends to repeat itself. Usually a character has some kind of an idle animation that plays or emotive head tilts and nods that are used in every-day conversation. All characters utilize these same skeletal animations so that conversation sequences can be quickly and easily produced with a minimum of fuss. When you're making a game as big as "Mass Effect," you need a way to cut down the work. Most of the time, everything looks great. And then you notice the same nod or head 'flip' or turn-and-walk-away being used in every conversation. It makes this repetition stand out like a sore thumb. Other hitches occur with the facial animations and transitions. Sometimes, a character will furrow their brow or widen their eyes. Then, when they blink, the edges of their eyelids will glitch through their cheeks. Also occasionally, an animation will glitch up or jerk and at other times a character's idle animation seems a bit too smooth to be human. Although these flaws are a necessary evil due to the scope of the game, when the player notices little things like these, it totally breaks suspension of disbelief.

Speaking of suspension of disbelief, "Mass Effect" looks amazing. The game makes good use of Unreal Engine 3 to produce the myriad of worlds you will find yourself exploring. Unfortunately, the game ships with a "Film Noise" filter that manages to make the game look like complete crap and give you an earsplitting headache all at the same time. For the first few hours or so, I thought I'd humor them and leave it on. "Maybe I'll get used to it," I thought to myself. It never happened and was then promptly shut off.

As I mentioned before, "Mass Effect" makes liberal use of effects commonly used in film and TV to lend it it's unique look. The focus effect, bloom effect and a kind of haze around the edges of the picture are also used. These effects work well enough on their own, but, same as in the conversations, it makes minor flaws stand out like a roach in a five star restaurant. Also, all these effects layered on top of each other tend to conflict with one another, leading to strange graphical glitches. Chief among these is the Unreal Engine 3's tendency to stream textures off the disc on the fly. You'll recognize this as the "texture pop" you saw in games like "Gears of War" and "BioShock," also Unreal progeny. When a new area or scene loads, you'll often be presented with a blurry and flat looking mess until the engine sorts itself out. This sometimes takes upwards of twenty seconds and in cinematic sequences with rapid cuts to different environments, it happens repeatedly. It doesn't affect the game, but it is very distracting that nobody's gotten around to ironing this out after two years.

As fantastic as the environments look once they're loaded, you'll notice another thing: The future will be clean. Very clean. "Mass Effect"s art direction makes the classic sci-fi mistake of making everything super clean, shiny and uncluttered. This makes the game appear a bit too "future-ey" and the game itself seem bland. You'll know what I mean when you look at the screen shots. BioWare would also do well to take lessons from Bethesda, who make not one but two clutter passes to their worlds before they ship, just to make sure the environments look lived-in. Even the supposedly barren uncharted worlds you frequently explore offer nothing but flat, textured terrain. Some rocks or trees would have gone a long way towards making the environments more believable. But perhaps this is a performance optimization of the engine, which, at best, tends to hitch up at crucial moments (i.e. combat) and, at worst, straight up run like old people fuck.

The combat in "Mass Effect" takes after recent squad based shooters like "Rainbow Six: Vegas" and "Gears of War." Same as in those games, you have limited control over your pack of retards in that you can command them to stack up on a corner or post up on a door, follow you or hold their current positions. You can also take cover against most flat surfaces and use them to fire around corners, something that is becoming common in tactical shooters nowadays. You can pause the game at any time to change ammunition types in the menu screen or use the quick wheels on the left and right bumpers to change weapons and order use of powers and special abilities. As you're probably gathering, same as most elements in Mass Effect, when the shooting works, it works fantastically. It embeds you in combat and presents you with new ways to deal with tactical combat situations. When it doesn't work, however, it quickly turns into a German schiezer cluster fuck.

Often times, you will notice enemies can shoot right through seemingly solid objects to hit you. Other times, when you're clearly hitting an enemy, it doesn't register a hit. When commanding your squad mates to use a power on a target, they're not smart enough to maneuver into position necessary to use it. They'll just shoot it straight from their position. If it hits, that’s great. What usually happens, however, is they'll just shoot it straight into whatever cover the enemy is hiding behind or moves behind during the time it takes to activate said ability. This brings me to my next point - cover. Cover in most of the game is entirely too sparse or poorly positioned to be effective the majority of the time.

Consider the following situation: when you enter a room full of bogies, there are at least a couple spots in the immediate area that traditional video game wisdom would teach was a good spot to post up for a fight. These points are crucial because they would provide good cover and build choke points to make a safe pocket for your team to maneuver in. You order your team to one spot and post up on another. The problem comes when you need your team to use their powers. In the illustration, the first case would work fine. Both you and your squad mate have line of sight to the target. However, in the second case, when you target the power on the second enemy's HUD indicator, the game ridiculously targets the power on the wall even though the squad member in question has a clear line of sight to the target.

Lack of good cover combined with your squad's inability to use their powers intelligently forces you to revert to the age old RPG strategy of pulling. Hey, didn't we learn this in "EverQuest"? Instead of popping into a room, posting up and using teamwork to thin the herd, you're forced to lure enemies back to your choke point by running into a room, cracking off a few shots to get someone's attention and then running back into the previous room where your team is posted up, funneling all the enemies into your neatly stacked mound of corpses. In this way, everyone maintains line of sight on the targets, allowing you to use your squad's abilities to their maximum potential. However, this bugs the shit out of me. What's the point of being able to order your squad to a certain position if that position renders their powers useless because the game refuses to target your squad's powers correctly? The only reason I can think of is for you to order your dumb, obedient lackeys to distract the enemy long enough for your human-intelligent self to kill the enemy.

Speaking of intelligence, the enemies in this game are about as smart as your NPC party members. They have exactly two strategies: a) Run around randomly and get picked off or b) Run directly at you and find out what happens. What this means is that, combined with the RPG random-ness and the completely indiscriminate AI is that the difficulty of the battles constantly gyrates between pathetically easy and unreasonably difficult.

Like most RPGs, "Mass Effect" incorporates an enemy leveling system that attempts to match the difficulty of the encounter to the level of the player. Instead of taking the limited purebred system Oblivion used, whereby all encounters were modified to be appropriate to your level, Mass Effect uses the age old river-crossing system of enemy encounters, likewise whereby the difficulty of a given encounter when you get to a new area is impossible to predict the first time through. For example, in "Dragon Warrior" for the NES, when you changed scenery in any way shape or form, the difficulty of the battles ramped up. When you first start out, you’re forced to grind Green Slimes in the plains outside the starting city for at least three or four levels until you can handle the higher level Blue Slimes in the nearby forest. Eventually, you work your way up so that you can handle anything on this side of the river and can start grinding in the plains on the other side of the river.

What I’m getting at is this: In "Mass Effect," there is no way to know when you have crossed the river. Consequently, there is no way to predict or gauge how difficult an encounter will be until you’ve unwittingly impaled your supple body on to your enemies’ waiting bayonets. This is something that I’m getting flat out tired with in traditional RPGs. Developers, take heed: add in some way to ‘consider’ enemies or areas if you don’t include an encounter leveling system. I don’t care how much it breaks suspension of disbelief or how it detracts from the atmosphere. If I can’t gauge how tough a given enemy, quest or area is, how can I plan my strategy without dying first? Admittedly, dying simply forces you to reload a saved game or go back to the nearest checkpoint, but it shouldn’t come to that. There are, in fact, a few areas in Mass Effect that, once entered, cannot be backed out of unless you happened to have saved the game right before you entered it. Hence, you could conceivably wind up stuck in an area that is hilariously high level for your party. This is just bad game design and the only people who seem to realize it are the folks making the MMOs. Mass Effect isn’t the only game guilty of this offense and so it doesn’t piss me off nearly as much as it otherwise would. However, you’d think with game development budgets in the millions and team sizes creeping into the hundreds that somebody would have fucking figured this out by now.

One area that doesn’t disappoint is in the sound department. Like most big budget games nowadays, lots of attention has been paid to the music and sound effects. Or perhaps the same amount of attention that was paid to everything. That, coupled with that fact that sound in video games is, in reality, pretty hard to screw up, probably led to "Mass Effect"s sound to being the one element in the game that isn’t screwed up in some way. At some times, the game plays a rousing ambient techno score. At other times, it reverts to a thoroughly impressive full orchestral score – a rarity in video games. The rest of the game’s sound consists of either dialogue or various sci-fi/action sound effects. While the sound effects are not fabulously amazing, but they get the job done just fine. The voice acting, on the other hand, is some of the finest I have ever heard in a game. It employs a number of recognizable actors (including Seth Green as the pilot of your ship, the Normandy) and is generally well written - even if it is a bit long winded at times.

One thing everyone seems to complain about in this game is the inventory. It’s a fact of life people: in any RPG, you will spend a significant amount of time fussing around with your inventory. Sure, "Mass Effect" could have used some variety of auto-equip system (it’s worth noting here that it wouldn’t have been hard – even "Final Fantasy III" had one over 10 years ago) but as it is, I don’t think it hurts the game that much. Get over it.

The bottom line is this: if you like RPGs even in the faintest, "Mass Effect" is a thoroughly competent and mostly fun romp through the galaxy. It is one of the few games I’ve played that is truly more than the sum of its parts. Its epic story, decent gameplay and excellent graphics might even keep you playing for a second run through. Just don’t expect anything miraculous. Before I sign off, I wish to present some tips for getting maximum enjoyment out of Mass Effect.

Tip 1: Get off the Citadel ASAP. This one is easy. Starting areas in free roaming RPGs are invariably boring. Mass Effect’s starting area, the Citadel super-space-station, is no exception. Remember in Kingdom Hearts where you were forced to run around that infernal island for two hours collecting parts to a ship that was doomed to be destroyed before you could actually get into the cool-assed alternate worlds brain-numbingly amazing story? Whoops, it happened again. Beat feet off the station and come back to do its side quests later. Feel free to send me your thanks.

Tip 2: Explore strange new worlds. No, seriously, I’m not joking. In just about every system, there will be one or two planets you can land on and explore with your Mako APC. These planets always contain various artifacts and other collectables that award copious amounts of money and experience for finding. Not only that, you will occasionally run across something really interesting, like a space pirate hideout or a derelict space craft (found by scanning empty areas of the system with your cursor). This feature adds a huge sense of adventure and “Trekkie-ness” to the game that is sorely needed and duly appreciated. Not only that, they level up your characters and give you enough money to do buy just about anything you want to. This leads into tip 3…

Tip 3: Do the Assignments, skip the Missions for now. You will probably notice that your quest log will list side-quests as Assignments and the main quest as Missions. Wait on the missions for now and do as many Assignments as you can find. The reason behind this tip is twofold. First, holding off on the storyline allows you to experience the free-roaming thrill of exploring the galaxy in your own ship. Second, the story encounters are set at semi-static levels. The game will adjust all encounters to suit your level, but not above or below a certain difficulty level. If you muscle through the story then you will find yourself being seriously outgunned around the middling parts of the game, leading to mass frustration effects. Doing the Assignments and exploring uncharted worlds first will allow you to level up your party so that you don’t get stuck in an inescapable area feebly trying to win encounters that are, basically, far beyond your ability to handle. As an added bonus, doing all the Assignments you can find will eventually unlock the “Completist” and “Rich” achievements. The former is awarded when 80% of all quests in the game have been completed and the latter is awarded when you accumulate 1,000,000 credits.

There you have it. Hopefully you can do as I have and look past "Mass Effect"s many flaws and see the gem within. If you cannot stomach the inventory management, extended dialogue or ham-handed shooter mechanics, you might not enjoy it. If you’re looking for another "Gears of War" or "Rainbow Six: Vegas," you will likewise be disappointed. This is an RPG, through and through - a good one at that. I just don’t foresee it setting any records or high acclaim in the long run.

Mass Effect is rated M for Mature by the ESRB for blood, language, partial nudity, sexual themes and violence. It was developed by BioWare Corp. and is available exclusively for Xbox 360 at retailers nationwide in plain and vanilla flavors.

Random Thought of the Day

2007-11-23T21:22:00.001-05:00

So I was watching Transformers on my Zune earlier today on my way to the Dining Facility. Whilst I'm walking, I'm watching the scene where Sam arrives at his house with the Autobots in tow. During the sequence, Sam's yippy chihuahua "leaks lubricant" on Ironhide's foot. Ironhide threatens to dispose of this rodent infestation for Sam, who nervously explains that "we like chihuahuas, they're not rodents." After being dissuaded, Ironhide walks away, muttering "It's gonna rust."

This raises some interesting questions. I mean, these things theoretically live thousands of years. Thus, the onset of rust could be quite detrimental to your average Autobot's usable lifespan. Questions abound. Questions like:

When not defending the safety of the universe, do Autobots sit there and apply rust protectant?
They're always so shiny! Do they have to work to keep the shine or do they take a dip in a huge vat of distilled, deionized water to get clean?
What about lubrication?
If they do indeed generate their own lubricant, does that mean they sit there and pee on each other (or themselves) to accomplish it? Or does it leak out of their tiny, robot pores?
How do they generate it?
Is it truly a byproduct of operation? Or is it genuinely used for lubrication?
Could this lubricant be used in Earth vehicles?

Perhaps Transformers 2 (if it ever gets made) will shed some light on the rust and lubrication of Autobots. One can only hope.

Halloween time

2007-10-13T00:27:00.001-05:00

It's the second most wonderful time of the year. I hope to have enough free time to slap together a couple of horror movie reviews (The Hills Have Eyes remake and its sequel are both pretty good) soon. Until then, enjoy a picture of the wife and I from a couple of years ago in our first "couple costume":
Yeah, we won a trophy there. This year, we're going as Fred and Wilma Flintstone. Enjoy.

One Night In South Korea...

2007-10-04T05:15:00.000-05:00

Another night at Zzyzx, a bar in the American district of Gunsan, South Korea

Life in the Military, Part 1: In the beginning...

2007-10-03T17:06:00.000-05:00

The great thing about living in a free country is choice. You get to choose what to eat, where you want to work, what classes you want to take and much more. However, as GW pointed out in MGS2, humanity has snubbed it's ability to choose and instead become a society of imitators and lemmings. In other words, we take that choice, load it into our Tek9s and shoot ourselves in the foot with it. Most of us probably don't deserve it. The American party system is a good example of this phenomenon. I had the same choices everyone else did coming out of high school and I decided to do what most people did... My foot still fucking hurts as a result.

Another amazing aspect of choice is that as soon as one door shuts, another one tends to open and vice versa. For example, my dreams coming out of high school were:

Travel the world. Specifically, I wanted to live in Japan, Korea and backpack throughout Europe at least once.
Work in the game industry. Blizzard would be my dream job.
Get in shape. Not necessarily Abercrombie and Fitch model good, but at least not fat.

That's a pretty lofty list by any measure. The odd part is that some of them can be accomplished different ways and some are mutually exclusive. Perhaps if I had actually written this crap down way-back-when I might have noticed that. Fast forward to today.

As I type this, I am in the Community Activity Center (CAC or 'cack') at Kunsan AB, located in the modern heart and soul of gaming: the Republic of South Korea. I'm in the best shape I've been in my entire life and are actively pursuing getting better. As of now, I'm putting my goal of working in the game industry on the back burner because of the low demand for game workers. Instead, I'm refocusing on getting a degree in electrical engineering. It's interesting the difference nine years and a dose of reality will do for you.

It goes without saying that the military isn't for everyone. I can say this because I'm a very critical thinker and like to explore all the possible permutations of an idea before I write about it. People often label me indecisive or overly analytical because of this quirk. I kind of hold a point-counter-point with myself before I make even the tiniest decisions. Because of this, I think I've lead a very boring life. Being like that tends to steer you away from a lot of fun situations like getting drunk and passing out or meeting new people. On the other hand, it also keeps you very much alive and disease-free.

On the flip side of the whole coin, I occasionally have the tendency to make extremely unwise decisions off the cuff. For example, I recently spent over $400 in one night at a strip club. My rationalization was: I might as well try it once. Was it in any way worth it? Hells no. Was it a good time? Sure was. I could think of much better ways to spend $400 bucks though. See? I'm doing it again.

Come around the bend, I made an extremely unwise decision to pursue my dream of being a game programmer when I attended Full Sail Real World Education in 2001. The industry was already saturated with 22 year old bachelor's degrees pounding down their doors on the way in. Knowing as much as I do about the game industry, I should have known this. Unfortunately for me, I was young and idealistic at the time. I had this stupid idea in my head that, with a modicum of effort, could break into the industry and get my dream job. I must reiterate: Reality is a harsh and cruel mistress.

Left with a pile of college bills and a mall retail income, I was forced to do what many in my position do: Join up. Hence after two years of weight loss and DoD paperwork, I finally entered the Air Force's Basic Military Training on August 28th, 2006. This is the story thus far.

Lackland AFB, Texas - Not far outside San Antonio

The yelling begins. After a brief yet deceptively relaxing flight across the United States, I land in Texas and proceed across the terminal to the USO 'reception' area for new recruits. I use the quotes because it isn't so much of a reception area as it is a herd of apprehensive teens that don't really have any clue what they've gotten themselves in to. I join said herd and almost instantaneously an angry looking brunette in fatigues, or as I would later learn they would be called, a Battle Dress Uniform (BDU), proceeds to enunciate loudly and authoritatively:

"Get those bags lined up straight," the Staff Seargent barks, "Stand up straight! If I hear you talking, I'll have your ass on a platter before you even get to BMT." My first lawful order. Yay.

Some of us nervously comply, alternately unsure if what we're doing is right or, for some of us, if we're going to comply, just to "see what happens." I quickly make the decision to do the former. As we shift our bags around to something resembling a formation on the floor, more and more recruits pile in. Soon, what was once a small, unorganized gaggle outside the USO is now formed into several lines of luggage and people stretching all the way down the curved airport hallway. Even though we don't even realize it, BMT has already started me along my crossing into the blue.

After about an hour of waiting patiently and, at least somewhat, quietly, they begin to herd us by the row onto a green school bus. Chatter is apparently allowed on the bus (some Mexican is driving it) however it remains strangely muted. As we lumber towards Lackland, the neon blur that makes up the beating heart of Texas passes slowly by in the distance. Some of us are engaged in conversation, myself included. I should use the term 'engaged' loosely. A nervous energy permeates the stale air of the bus as I wonder, as I'm sure we all are, what we're in for next. Although I'm gingerly conversing with the person in front of me, we don't get past the usual introductions and backgrounds before barbwire fencing and a sign proclaiming "Lackland Air Force Base - Gateway to the Air Force" looms large in front of us. The bus proceeds past the gate over to the processing building, lovingly known by, like most things in the military, a number. In this case, the number is 5725.

As the bus pulls into it's parking spot, the air brake barely has time to hiss before I meet my first Training Instructor.

"Hand me my Wiimote. It's the one that says 'bad muthaf**ker on it."

2007-10-01T04:07:00.000-05:00

In case you haven't heard, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed is a promising looking upcoming action adventure game. Not content to create 'just another Star Wars game,' LucasArts went balls-to-the-walls this time out to create a physics and AI system that attempts to truly replicate movie special effects and battles. Sounds good... But wait, there's more!

In a brief press release handed down late last month, the house George built finally revealed that, yes, your Wiimote will soon hum, vibrate and *crash* like the real one. Quoth, the press release:

LucasArts to Unleash the Force on the Wii in Spring 2008

Star Wars™: The Force Unleashed™ Coming to Nintendo's Platform with Exclusive Duel Mode

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. -- Sept. 18, 2007 -- LucasArts today revealed that Star Wars™: The Force Unleashed™ will come to the Wii™ home videogame system from Nintendo next spring, offering owners the unique chance to live out their Jedi fantasies by wielding the Wii Remote™ as a lightsaber while using the Nunchuk™ controller to torment foes with their Force™ powers.

The Force Unleashed casts players as Darth Vader's "Secret Apprentice" and promises to unveil new revelations about the Star Wars galaxy. The game's expansive story is set during the largely unexplored era between Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith and Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope. In it, players will assist the iconic villain in his quest to rid the universe of Jedi - and face decisions that could change the course of their destiny.
The Wii version, in development by Krome Studios, will also add an exclusive duel mode in which players can compete head-to-head with their friends to determine the ultimate Jedi Master.

"The Wii is a great platform for The Force Unleashed, because the console's motion-oriented controllers really bring the game to life," said Jim Ward, President of LucasArts. "We've worked hard to make the Wii version of the game unique in order to truly let you unleash the Force."

More About Star Wars: The Force Unleashed

The Force Unleashed is the first next-generation game developed
internally at LucasArts, and will be available on the Xbox 360 video game and entertainment system from Microsoft and PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system.
As its name implies, The Force Unleashed completely re-imagines the scope and scale of the Force by taking full advantage of newly developed technologies that will be seen and experienced for the first time: Digital Molecular Matter, by Pixelux Entertainment, and euphoria by NaturalMotion Ltd.

"The combination of our great story, memorable characters, and the revolutionary new technology that we're introducing will deliver something Star Wars fans have never seen before, in addition to attracting newcomers to gaming, something that is very important to us," added Ward.

LucasArts and developer Krome Studios are creating an equally enthralling version of The Force Unleashed on the Wii, PlayStation®2 computer entertainment system and PSP® (PlayStation®Portable) system, and n-Space, Inc., is developing a version for the Nintendo DS™. All will feature the same storyline, with opportunities to unleash the Force in devastating new ways.
Working with Lucas Licensing, LucasArts is preparing an unprecedented promotional effort around the launch of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, encompassing a full line of toys and game-based action figures from Hasbro, as well as a full publishing program from Dark Horse, Del Rey and Palace Press.

More information about the game can be found at the official website, http://www.theforceunleashed.com/, which will continue to release details throughout the year.

With this and Metroid Prime 3 to play, not to mention finishing BioShock and starting Halo 3, I think I'm gonna be pretty busy soon. That's not even to mention the new Zelda: Phantom Hourglass for DS that's coming out on Wednesday. Hmmm... Perhaps now would be a good time to stock up on batteries...

Review: "The Game" by Neil Strauss

2007-09-30T00:06:00.002-05:00

There's a certain allure to that guy. He has it. That special something. Women love him and men want to be him. To some degree, we've all seen these guys. Mystery calls them 'naturals'. They learned the game the way you would expect society, in a perfect world, to teach it to us. These are the alpha males, the leaders of the pack. The football player, the rock star, the Hollywood actor. They all personify the kind of man that many men - secretly or outwardly - wish to be. So, it comes as no surprise that sooner or later, someone would finally figure out the ingredients in the most elusive of all secret sauces - how to bed the woman of your dreams.

I was first turned on to the seduction community in the mid-to-late nineties. It was then that I got a checking account and learned that certain porn vendors didn't ask for any age verification other than a simple date of birth and a signature. It was a fairly simple deal that wound up affecting me to this day. What I didn't know when I ordered these videos was that I would be added to an erotic mailing list. A deluge of junk mail showed up in my parents mailbox the following month plying everything from videos to butt plugs to shit that I don't even wanna mention. Of course, they didn't notice. All this stuff is sent very discreetly and even if there was some kind of marking on the envelope, it was unlikely my parents had any idea what it meant.

One day, though, something caught my eye. It was a piece of junk mail formatted like a letter. It proudly proclaimed that anyone could learn to bed the woman of his dreams. "Nay," said I, "This isn't something you learn. Some guys have it and some guys don't." At the time I was perfectly content with stroking my pole all by my lonesome, so this idea intrigued me. How do you teach something as complex as meeting women? It boggled my mind. I had to read more.

The letter was from a guy named Ross Jeffries, self proclaimed lay-guru. Ross' plan was simple. In the day and age of technology, he had harnessed the power of NLP and was using it to practically hypnotize women into doing anything he wanted. It revolved around patterns and eliciting a person's values to find their trance words. Then, once you found their trance words, you could simply drop them into a canned pattern which came off like a normal conversation. Each pattern had a specific form and purpose that was designed to produce a certain result. Ross advertised the boyfriend-destroyer, the blow-job pattern, the friends-into-lovers pattern and a host of other patterns designed to solve common social situations faced by hopeless nerds every day. I was entranced. Here was a guy who was going on his forties and still bedding co-eds. Could this be real?

I pondered that question for a long time. Ross' taped seminars were well beyond my price range as a lowly dish-tank operator at the local Steak n' Shake. Besides, there was no real proof this stuff worked. Only the hyperbole of some far-off huckster who printed my name in the greeting line of his letters - like he actually sent this exclusively to me. As if to stave off my reservations, each letter also contained dozens of testimonials from men who claimed to be able to take this stuff the week they got their hands on it and get blow jobs from women who were freezing them out. At a hefty $300 price tag, that was a bit too much to be spending on something I didn't know actually works. My high school marketing teacher had already told me once in some of the best advice I've ever been given in my life - "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." Good motto to live by, as long as you pay attention to the second to last word of it.

At the close of the century, high speed Internet hit our home and a computer was in every room. I remembered Ross one day, and punched him into a search. Sure enough, there he was, still plying his trade and selling people on the idea that he could solve all their problems with women. By now I had read a couple Tony Robbins books and, if you know anything about him, he also sells NLP as the invention of the century. I started to think that maybe this NLP thing could be the real deal. Again, I checked back around 2000 and something else turned up in my searches. Ross had competition.

An entire community had sprung up revolving around dating and seduction. A site called Fast Seduction 101 had become the clearinghouse and nerve center of the community. If it had to do with getting laid, it was on Fast Seduction. The body of knowledge offered on the site for free was fantastic, but it was unorganized and crude (and still is, IMHO). All the community had to offer, it seemed, was a backlog of forum posts so full of machismo and night club daring-do that it would make Casanova blush. I lurked for another year.

When I checked back, the hottest thing out on the block was an e-book by a man named David DeAngelo called "Double Your Dating." This author advised being yourself. He advocated dragging yourself out of your shell and putting your best foot forward. Sounds a lot less far out than Ross' over hyped bluster. I decided to bite and downloaded a copy of Double Your Dating immediately. I was again blown away. David was much different than Ross. His motto was "Attraction is not a choice." Although he did offer a few social "tricks" and tips, he also offered a huge history on sexuality and how it pertains to modern day relationships, most importantly, attraction.

No topic was left sacred. Using a mix of evolutionary psychology, cocky and funny, and personal experience, David was finally able to pull the curtain back for me and give me a glimpse into his world. In his world, sexuality was a function of biology, namely reproduction. It was our nature and only purpose in life, biologically speaking. David would go on to derive every modern social behavior that leave most men flabbergasted with women and trace them back to our caveman roots. He had decoded the secret language of women. For the first time on paper, I read the what women really want from a purely scientific stand point (I'll give you a hint, it isn't always about how good you look). I read it from beginning to end, twice. After a round with college and coming back empty handed, I decided to finally try some of this stuff out.

It resulted in me almost having sex with two girls, making out with several and having a one night stand. This stuff was working! The problem, I later found, was that David had very little to offer in the way of real material. There was no structure to his method, just a long convoluted string of theories about sexuality, body language and humor. Useful, no doubt. However, they were much easier to write and read about then they were to use. It all looked good on paper, but it lacked any structure that could be useful. Just "be cocky and funny." Great. I got the cocky part down, but the funny not so much.

Then I found out about the Mystery Method. Mystery (aka Eric von Markovich) had taken all of it and condensed it into a simple and easy to use system. Any AFC (Average Frustrated Chump) could now become a PUA (PickUp Artist), just like him. If you could learn to fire off the material properly and anticipate her reactions through experience, then you could get women attracted to you. Not only did Mystery provide the material, he also provided a structure to which all male-female relationships come from. That structure is Find, Meet, Attract and Close, in that order. If anyone reading this can find one relationship between a man and a woman where these four steps did not take place, please let me know. I'll be sure to ridicule you mercilessly.

I think it's worth mentioning at this point that none of the material mentioned in this review was ever advertised to me as a magic bullet. Although you can see results from day one, the magic really isn't supposed to happen until you're out meeting new women every night and have internalized your material so much so that it is possible to crack it off and focus on the important aspects of the interaction not the talk. Instead of trying to figure out what to say next, you were instead deciding what your next move was going to be on the proverbial chess board.

From this structure, supposedly, you could master each step to become a Venusian artist. Where martial arts stemmed from the need to survive, the Venusian arts stemmed from the need to reproduce. Since our society does not teach us, as men, what we need to learn to reproduce, we're scattered to our own devices to figure it out. In the meantime, women are getting grooming and fashion lessons from their parents/friends and discussing ways to paint their fingernails - all in the pursuit of sexuality. In short: Most women are trained by society on how to be attractive and to ensure they get the highest value man they can get. Men receive no such training. In the same way a martial artist trains his reflexes for battle, a Venusian artist trains his reflexes for social interaction. Finally, there was a way to level the playing field.

"Just being yourself" and "Go say 'Hi' to her" will only get you so far. That's just an opener. If she doesn't find you interesting in the first few seconds of the interaction, she will most probably leave said interaction before she gets to discover how great you really are. "The Venusian Arts Handbook" (now simply called "The Mystery Method") was a revelation. It was a blueprint for relationships anyone could follow. It was aimed squarely at helping men gain the attention of the woman long enough to show her that he was, in fact, a good guy.

Ross was a perverse manipulator by comparison. He advocated getting women to do what he wanted to by making him think it was their idea. They would just talk to him and BAM - they were already well on the road to being hypnotized by them. It seemed dishonest and crude. You don't have to be yourself if you can recite a script. Cupid, he ain't.

"The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" by Neil Strauss recounts his own journey through the world of the pickup artist. He started out just like most guys. Neil started out writing Marilyn Manson's memoirs. After that, he toured with Motley Crue and chronicled his adventures with them. Not long after, he earned a spot on the staff of the prestigious music magazine, Rolling Stone. However, not being the alpha male, Neil, at the ripe age of 30, had only been laid six times. Then he met Mystery and Sinn. And their very first night out at Mystery's very first workshop, Mystery told him he was going to be a superstar.

In the following two years, Neil would transform his life. He rechristened himself Style and his baptism, like that of all pickup artists, was by fire. The game consumed Style's life. He stopped writing for Rolling Stone and paying his bills. He was addicted to the thrill and small victories of the cold approach pickup. Every night, seven nights a week for over six months, Style learned to control his emotions as he both approached as many women as he could and saw as many experts in the subject as possible. He dined with Ross, attended David's seminars and even subjected himself to being hypnotized so he could cram even more information into his head as fast as possible. Eventually the magic bullet came about and hit him in the ass and he became a super star. He was finally able to enjoy the power and choice with women that had never been thought possible. He got the numbers of Playboy Playmates and stole women away from men like Andy Dick like he was born to do it. Not long after, he and his mentor would be standing shoulder to shoulder as equals, teaching seminars and workshops to the next generation of pickup artists.

"The Game" has an amazing energy to behold. The sweeping soap opera that unfolds in this book is quite honestly unlike any other. In it, he recounts the entire history of the seduction industry from his own perspective. From steamy sex on the beach to real hypnosis - on a regular basis, no less - it's almost like reading science fiction. In fact, one of the first things you will read when you open this (very nicely leather bound) book is:

Those who have read the early drafts of this book have all asked the same questions:
Is this true?
Did it really happen?
Are these guys for real?
I find it necessary to employ an old literary device...
THE FOLLOWING IS A TRUE STORY.
IT REALLY HAPPENED.
Men will deny it,
Women will doubt it,
But I present it to you here, naked,
vulnerable, and disturbingly real.
I beg you for your forgiveness in advance.
DON'T HATE THE PLAYER, HATE THE GAME.

I can confirm for you here and now, that, yes, it is indeed very real. My marketing teacher had been proven wrong (or at least partially so). There are some seemingly tall tales in this book, however since I kept an earnest eye on the community and can easily say that I was able to observe a few of these the Internet news posts and site outages recounted in the book first-hand.

Some of the most wonderful reading in this book is contained in these posts. In them, these men discuss anything from how to get a first kiss to reporting their successes, to venting their anger. The Mystery Lounge figures prominently into the structure of the book. In between Style's breakneck tale of his advance to superstardom is interspersed these posts. Sometimes, they open their hearts and minds to the community. Other times, they solicit advice from each other or write guides on how to surpass certain common issues. Other times still, they report their experiences in "the field," which refers to the bars and clubs in which the "game" is played. All these posts and the rest of the book make heavy use of seduction acronyms and terms coined by Mystery and used by the entire seduction community. In fact, the back of the book contains a complete glossary of terminology used by PUAs to communicate with each other about their own experiences and sticking points.

For example, an AFC is an Average Frustrated Chump, the guy who try as he might, can't nail down what it is that attracts women. He then settles into relationships as "getting lucky." These are the guys who marry early. This is often because they don't think they can do any better. Even worse, the woman makes out like a bandit in this deal because she is easily able to control the guy because of his poor social conditioning. The Field, as mentioned above, is where the game is played. Bars, clubs, on the street, in the coffee shop, in the elevator or anywhere one might meet a woman. An IOI is an Indicator Of Interest. Pick up artists look for these small hints - the playing with the hair, the light touch, an intense stare - in order to know that a woman is attracted to them in order to escalate their game to the next level. In "The Game," Style's rule was to always wait for three IOIs before going for a kiss. It worked like a charm.

Style rapidly began creating his own material and coining his own terminology and routines. Regrettably, all was not peas and carrots, as Forrest would say, in the world. Style's mentor, Mystery later became mentally unstable and had to be temporarily institutionalized. Thus, the seduction community now looked to Style as their lord and savior. Everyone was coming to him for advice instead of the other way around. The man was a machine and nothing could stop him... That is until Mystery came back.

If there's one complaint that could be leveled at the book as a whole, it's that it doesn't really pick up steam until the second half. Before Mystery's big crash that leaves Style out on his own, the book tends to slip into a meandering and sometimes slow recollection of the history of the seduction industry and biopics of it's major players (no pun intended). Although it is entirely necessary to the development and theme of the book, it's a shame Neil couldn't polish these middling middle chapters a bit more.

Probably the most interesting section of the book, the second half chronicles Mystery's return and subsequent spawning of an idea called Project Hollywood. Mystery and Style would hand pick the world's foremost experts in dating and seduction and stick them all into the same Hollywood mansion. Their plan was to host the most decadent Hollywood parties, train the next generation of PUAs and advance their lifestyle further than they ever thought possible. Unfortunately, it wasn't to last.

The social situation of having so many 'fake alphas' in the house soon brought Project Hollywood crashing down around them. Though the situation was helped somewhat by Style and Courtney Love, nothing could stop Mystery's manic tendencies and difficulty in maintaining lasting relationships. Whenever Mystery found another steady girlfriend he would crash and become psychologically unstable. This cycle repeats itself at least twice during the course of the book. Soon after a particularly violent outbreak, Mystery is kicked out of the house. And at the same time, as if to complicate matters further, Style finally seems to find the one in Lisa Leveridge, a ten from Courtney's rock band. For the first time in two years, Style gets one-itis. Even better, she manages to legitimately challenge Style's advances. The player had been played.

Finally, in one of the most endearing and relevant passages in the book, Style lying in bed with his lover, confesses everything. The seduction industry, the terminology, all the experts he saw, the thousands of approaches. And after all that, she simply replies:

"'All the things you learned from the PUAs almost made us not come together,' Lisa continued. 'I want you to just be Neil: balding, nerdy, glasses and all.'

Maybe she was right. Perhaps she would have liked the real me. But she never would have had the opportunity to meet him if I hadn't spent the last two years learning how to put my best food forward. Without all that training, I never would have had the confidence to talk to and handle a girl like Lisa, who was a constant challenge.

I needed Mystery, Ross Jeffries, David DeAngelo, David X, Juggler, Steve P., Rasputin, and all those other pseudonyms. I needed them to discover what was me to begin with. And now that I had found that person, brought him out of his shell, and learned to accept him, perhaps I had outgrown them.

Lisa sat up and took a sip from the bottle of beer she had brought upstairs. 'Everyone was hitting on me tonight,' she giggled... 'I hope you realize that you are dating the most fabulous girl in L.A.'

In response, I wordlessly pulled open my bottom dresser drawer, grabbed two large manila envelopes from inside, and brought them to the bed. I turned the first envelope upside down and dumped its contents onto the comforter. Hundreds of paper scraps, matchbooks, business cards, cocktail napkins, and torn receipts spilled out. Each one contained the handwriting of a different girl. Then I emptied the second envelope onto the bed - full of more of the same - until there was a small mountain of paper scraps. They were all phone numbers I'd collected since taking that first fateful workshop with Mystery.

'I know you are,' I finally answered her. 'I've spent two years meeting every girl in L.A. And out of them all, I chose you.'"

David DeAngelo put it best when he related contemporary human sexuality to poker. David is a huge believer in the role our genetic heritage plays in our sexuality. To him, biological impulses form the basis of all sexuality from initial attraction to sex. Women are hard-wired to bear young and have an impulse to see that they are provided and taken care of, whilst men are programmed to seek out and mate with as many women as possible. Even biologically this is consistent: a woman produces one egg per month and in the meantime, a man produces millions of sperm. Thus, according to him, the true winners keep playing until they attain the woman they truly deserve. Others, lacking the skills or biological wherewithal to move up the genetic ladder, choose to "Fold," marrying and thus removing themselves from the wider gene pool.

The point of all this is that the human mind is far more sophisticated than even our own genetics anticipated. You are, speaking against the backdrop of the entirety of human evolution, are last year's model and are designed for a time and a place that no longer exists. We have ceased being a tribal society of cavemen who use our superior strength and size to bludgeon the woman we desire on the head and drag her back to our caves by her hair. We live in a society where more people than ever before have lived on the face of the Earth. Social skills are learned behaviors and Neil's story teaches us that we can all learn the skills we need to attain the choices we've always wanted for ourselves.

In the end, that's all any guy could reasonably ask for - the freedom to choose. Everyone should have the chance to meet and attract that one person that makes their life complete. Few men today, outside of the obnoxiously rich, famous and those elusive 'naturals' are ever offered it. And in those cases, when that person finally happens upon them, they wind up too jaded to realize how lucky they really are. Neil was smart enough to see that and, as a result, while other men around him were busy attempting to fill the void in their life with riches, fame or religion, Neil Strauss filled it with the woman of his dreams.

Template H@x

2007-09-30T00:02:00.000-05:00

Fixed up the page a little bit today. Removed the ShoutBox and BraveNet poll since we weren't using them and they cause annoying popup/Flash ads. Page should load quicker too! Toodles!

Funny shirt

2007-09-15T10:27:00.000-05:00

Actually, I'm surprised it's taken this long.

Good Hip-Hop

2007-08-25T10:00:00.000-05:00

Timbaland - The Way I Are

Proof that there is such a thing as good hip-hop. Good message, not one of those "Bitches, ho's, moneys thug$" songs. An example of hip-hop as a form of EDM (electronic dance music). Good groove and sound. Plus, a hot chick featured in a non-degrading way. Sadly, this type of hip-hop is a minority, but this is what hip-hop should be.

Hooray! I'm Xboxin' & Bioshockin'

2007-08-22T20:43:00.000-05:00

Hey, my Xbox came back early, just in time for Bioshock. And what a game Bioshock is too. If this doesn't win about 30 game of the year awards, I'll eat my hat. It's a nacho hat, so I'm safe either way!

AHHH! XBOX GOATSE

2007-07-25T13:43:00.001-05:00

Well, it's official. My Xbox 360 has just suffered the three red rings of death. Just as I was about to find the green minions in Overlord. Apparently this happens to 33% of 360s. At least Microsoft has offered a solution to this problem. The good news; I don't have to pay a thing to get it repaired. The bad news; I'm without my 360 for at least a month. Yes, that's during the time that Bioshock will come out. :( This begs the question, why can't anybody but Nintendo make consoles that work? My SNES and my N64 still work as well as the day they were purchased. My wife's 7 year old sister plays NES games on the same system that she did 17 years ago. However, I'm on my second PS2 and will be on my second 360. And from what I've heard, that's lucky, some people have to go through 4 or 5 consoles before they get a good one! It's ridiculous. Microsoft might as well make the slogan "10% of the time, it works 100% of the time". Oh well. At least I don't have to pay anything, right?

2007-07-20T15:37:00.002-05:00

Hey, this thing has languished in development hell for quite a while. It has come to my attention that there is a lot of sh!t to keep me busy. I'm going to try to post on here more often with whatever witty and not so witty ideas that run through my head. For now, check out the teaser for this movie. It looks like a fun kaiju film. I do so hope they don't pull an American Godzilla with it. That's all for now.

Gone Awhile, here's why

2007-02-23T14:56:00.000-05:00

Here's my new policy, my deal with you, the readers. Obviously, I'm not entirely dedicated to this blog. I post on it... pretty much when I feel like it. Honestly, I enjoy tinkering with the HTML more than anything else. But that's another post. The point of the matter is, I and my counterpart are not always inclined to write in here for one reason or another. Mostly it's time issues. After all, the more time we spend on here is time we could be spending working, playing games, watching movies, sleeping and all the other things that make life worth living.

I haven't talked it over with Wydren yet, but I feel we both agree that this page is - more or less - a creative outlet. Like any other outlet, it only functions when there is some kind of overflow ocurring. So, when I spend five months in BMT (Basic Military Training), then land in Tech School with no Internet in the dorms and are instead forced to cope with public library computers that don't run games, I hope you'll see why I personally need an outlet.

I can tell you that within the next week or so I'll post an article on the rigors of BMT. Right now, my wingman wants to go drop off paper work, so I got to get hoppin'.

Ultraviolet/Equilibrium

2006-03-03T22:04:00.000-05:00

It's been a while. To be honest, the entertainment climate has downright sucked. No movies have come out that made me run out to the theater. They don't call them the winter doldrums for nothing. However, next week brings us an interesting looking movie; Ultraviolet. The movie stars Milla Jovovitch as a type of genetically enhanced mutant/super soldier in a future where her kind are being exterminated. To tell the truth, it doesn't look that original. It could be fun, or it could be derivative as hell. I'm going to see it for one reason; it is written and directed by Kurt Wimmer, the man who made Equilibrium. Equilibrium didn't have the most original concept either: in a dystopian future, where people are ruled by an unforgiving government, a member of the government decides to fight against the system. We've seen it before, in Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, and 1984. What made this movie fresh and exciting were two things. The first is the presentation. The method of control the system uses in this story is the elimination of emotions via a drug. Christian Bale plays a government enforcer known as a Grammaton Cleric. These guys are the best of the best, using a technique I'll talk about later. Through a series of incidents, Bale's character misses a dose of this drug, and begins to feel emotions for the first time. Bale does a damn good job of portraying someone feeling emotions the first time. It makes you appreciate the feelings you take for granted. The second thing that makes this movie awesome is the technique the Clerics use, called Gunkata. Gunkata involves the study of every recorded gunfight in history. They learn the statistics of gun fighting, and then dodge bullets by simply not being where the bullets are likely to go. Yeah, it’s unbelievable. The odds of someone learning enough about gun fighting that they know where the bullets are going to be before they are fired are crazy, and the way the clerics fire their guns would make them deaf within a month. But it’s cool looking, and entertaining, which is the reason we watch movies in the first place. The guys at Penny Arcade sure like it. Ultraviolet might stink. But Kurt Wimmer’s earned the benefit of the doubt.

"24" Season 1

2006-01-24T17:43:00.001-05:00

Well, I'm back. One marriage and a Caribbean honeymoon later, and I'm a bit older, a bit wiser, and more smart-assed. (Oh, wait, the older and wiser term for that is "more snarky". That's it, full of snark.) What better subject for my first review of the year (and my first as a married man) than the first season of one of the BDSOT (Best Damn Shows On Television), 24.

24 starts out with a really simple plot: There is a threat on the life of a senator David Palmer, played by Dennis Haysbert. This senator is so important because he is also a presidential candidate, who happens to be the first African-American candidate with a real shot at the White House. Since the senator is in Las Angeles today, investigation of the threat falls to the LA branch of CTU, or Counter-Terrorism Unit. Specifically, it falls to the head of this branch, Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland). To make matters worse for Jack, he is informed by his supervisor and friend that there is a traitor in CTU, and he can't trust anyone. All in all, it's shaping up to be a long day.

I won't say anything else about the plot. Part of this show's charm is watching all the twists, turns, backstabs, red herrings, and interpersonal drama unfold. I will say that this show can get kind of ridiculous. While watching it, it seemed to me that the writers played a game of "How many crazy situations can we get Jack into before lunch?" The answer is "a lot". It can strain the believability of "24". It's no secret that I'm a big fan of "Angel", and while watching "24" I wondered how a show about a vampire with a soul can be more believable than this. It occurred to me that Angel takes place in a world that, while similar to ours, is very different and rarely strays from the rules set up for that world. "24" supposedly, takes place in the "real world". A little while later, it occurred to me that the real world on television still isn't quite our world. On television, people can outrun a hail of bullets. To quote Bruce Campbell, "sex always happens on the first date, and it's always great and never awkward." And, like my friend Doomgaze here mentioned, Jack never has to use the bathroom. Once that realization set in, I was able to suspend my disbelief and enjoy the show.

The performances are solid all around, most notably Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer. Kiefer always puts in a good performance in everything I've seen him in, from "The Lost Boys" to "Dark City" to "The Three Musketeers". Interesting side note, when I was younger I didn't like Kiefer, as my only experience with his work was "The Lost Boys" and "Stand By Me", where he played the asshole badguy. Thank Jeebus "The Three Musketeers" came around and showed me he could be fun too. I also have to mention Elisha Cuthbert, as she was the flavor of the week when this show came out. She's easy on the eyes, but her character kind of annoyed me. I don't know if that's the fault of the writers or the actress, but her character was so stupid I expected Jason Voorhees to jump out and kill her.

I enjoyed the show. They do a good job of keeping you guessing as to what's going to happen next, who's going to live or die, and they keep it fairly exciting the whole way through. Unfortunately, I can say I would have enjoyed it a whole lot more if I didn't know one of the big events that happens at the end of the season, including the identity of the traitor. That's right, I got spoiled, and guess how. I was watching some show on FOX (probably a Simpson's rerun), and a commercial for "24" season 2 came on. The announcer said "the only person who can help solve this... is <a character>, the traitor who <did something> to <another character>". Those who have seen all of season 1 know what particulars to fill into that sentence, and you know it gives away a fairly major happening at the end of season 1. I suppose if you had been following along with the saga of "24", that commercial would really wet your whistle. But for those like me, who hadn't seen it, they just ruined a large bit of season 1. As a result, I found myself wanting to skip past all of the parts building up to that incident, because I already knew the outcome. That’s not fair to the show or the writers. So FOX gets our version of the thumbs down (which I just invented), a big asshole pucker. Not only did they cancel a bunch of good shows (Firefly chief among them), they ruined part of “24”. Fuck them.

The show is damn good. Good enough to get me to watch season 2. Will it do like “Die Hard 2”, and have the same thing happen to the same guy twice? Will Jack pull an “Office Space” (every day is worse than the last day, so every time you see me, it’s the worst day of my life) and have a permanent case of “the Mondays”? Only time will tell.

Be afraid...

2006-01-20T16:21:00.000-05:00

Be very afraid. Silent Hill is a game that, for me, reinvented the entire horror genre from the bottom up. This simple, pixelated little horror game scared the wits out of me far worse than any movie or game ever has. Silent Hill took a step back from normal horror techniques and actually put some thought into them.

For starters, the town you're in is engulfed in a perpetual fog that only lets you see about 30 yards ahead. While some may argue that this may have been, at the time, an attempt to heighten environment detail at the expense of viewing distance (Remember Turok?), it was actually used to heighten tension.

Sound is used extensively in the Silent Hill games to create a world dripping with creepy atmosphere. To compensate for your limited view distance, your character is equipped with a radio. The radio emits static when the town's otherworldly inhabitants approach and the static varies in pitch, variety, and volume depending on the number, types and range of approaching enemies. Not only does this serve the game mechanic, but it helped contribute to an atmosphere that kept you on edge one-hundred percent of the time.

The environments in the game were a major component to the scare factor as well. There were two different versions of the town of Silent Hill: one was a heavily fogged town where ash perpetually rained from the sky and the other was a hellish and extremely dark town full of bloody chainlink fences, broken wheelchairs, carved and gutted corpses and a creepy tornado siren that perpetually wailed in the background. To this day, tornado sirens still send shivers down my back because of that game.

The most impressive thing about the game was that, unlike the Resident Evil series and most horror films, the Silent Hill games contain NO cheap scares whatsoever. All of it's scare power is accomplished by whittling down the player's psychology with it's wide array of well used tools. The first time that I played it my psychology was whittled bare in about ninety minutes of play time.

If Yahoo!: Movies recently posted trailer is any indication, the Silent Hill movie is set to do the same thing for horror movies that it did for video games. In the games, Silent Hill (the town) used a very tried and true mechanic for luring it's victims into town and that seems to hold true for the movie. In other words, the plot is exactly like the games. The trailer will also demonstrate that the movie's cinematography is spot on the games. Moreover, the movie also features Sean Bean (National Treasure, The Lord of the Rings trilogy) on it's cast. Most impressive of all, however, is that the movie's principal creators, Roger Avary (Pulp Fiction)and Christophe Gans (Brotherhood of the Wolf), are self professed avid gamers and are obsessively devoted to delivering the game experience on film.

Click here to view the trailer.

Animal Crossing: Wild World Impressions

2006-01-16T16:40:00.000-05:00

"I have a dream...
I have a dream that one day little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.
I have a dream today."

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Not that it matters much to me. Don't get me wrong, either - MLK was indeed a great man who had a great dream of equality among all races and creeds. He is a man who dearly deserves being remembered. However admirable the man is, the holiday itself isn't all that great because I'm not in school and I don't work at a bank or post office. Such is life.

I want to start these impressions by apologizing - it's been a busy holiday season for us here at Two Assholes. Wydren has only recently come back from his Jamaican Honeymoon, I've been busy playing World of Warcraft getting my brother to level 60, work (of course) and, on top of all that, I've had to pull myself away from my post-holiday orgy of games/gifts to write for the site. Such is life.

In any case, Animal Crossing: Wild World is the much anticipated sequel to the platinum selling Animal Crossing for Nintendo Gamecube. Having never played the first game, I was expecting quite a lot out of this newest offering, which amongh other things, offers a new online play option the original lacked.

Wild World is a game where you make your own unique place in a town full of, as you may have guessed, animals. The game itself is completely open-ended: you do in your town as you please any time you like. That simple-but-accurate description does not in any way do the game justice. There are tons of things to do in your town and I'm personally discovering more all the time. You can collect furniture sets for your house, farm money, work on your gardening skills, horn in on your town's horticulture by planting different fruit trees, collect a variety of art, fossils, bugs and fish for the town museam, interact with the town's beastly residents, write letters, make posts on the town message board... the possibilites in Animal Crossing are limitless and tantalizing. This is one of the few 'true' Role Playing Games in existence by merit of it's freeform play style.

Nintendo has been making a name for themselves lately with all sorts of showcases for the Nintendo DS's unique technology. Wild World takes RPG interfaces and completely turns them around for play using the DS's touch screen. You can interact with the game exclusively using the touch screen, making operations like equipping shovels and selling items a breeze. It's great to be able to play a game that's completely unbound from the typical controller set up that's used for console RPGs.

Make no mistake though, this is a game that's primarily about getting stuff. There are various ways the game measures your progress in this regard. For example, if there are too few trees in your town (or too many), the town's residents will submit compliments or complaints to the Town Hall. Likewise, weekly H.R.A. mails inform you of your interior decorating ability via a score. The museam curator, Blathers the Owl, will also inform you when your museam's popularity increases. And, of course, the size of your bank account is always a good way to measure your progress in any RPG.

The most interesting thing about Animal Crossing is the way your town evolves it's own culture. The residents gossip about each other, show you each other's (and yours!) letters, and will often ask you to complete simple tasks like deliveries or to choose a nickname for yourself. These changes compound on top of each other over time, combining to form a truly unique little villiage of your own.

I'll write a full review for Animal Crossing: Wild World soon, but my initial recommedation stands as a game you have to try at least once before you die.

The Passion of The Christ Movie Review

2006-01-09T17:14:00.001-05:00

It's a new year, folks. This small, incremental numeric shift brings about, as it always has, small and incremental changes in our lives. We make new friends, get new jobs, decide to lose a few pounds or quit smoking. Then, in the heartbeat that is the first day back at work, we often decide to fuck all that and keep binging on life. For me, the new year has brought with it the possibilities of a new life away from the dingy, worm-ridden conservationism of southwest Ohio, the ending of a relationship and a beginning of a marriage for two people very close to me. As I type this, wydren is most likely experiencing a domestic tour-de-force in beautiful Jamaica. We'll save the details on that for later. Right now, I've got my mitts on this site all by my lonesome and I'm itching to piss some people off. Let's get started.

Before proceeding bullishly into this review, I want to make my position on religion abundantly clear: I don't like it. Never have. When I was growing up, I was forced to go to a Catholic school, endure a cranky old traditionalist priest, a child molesting baldy of a priest, the infantesimal boredom that is Sunday morning mass, religion classes (and failing them), mass in the bleachers, the faux that is confession, and being a server at mass. Yes, I was a server. You may laugh... now. Sometime during high school, during one of our Friday masses in the bleachers, I decided that I had lost my faith and would not go down to recieve Communion. After high school, however, my views on faith and religion slowly evolved.

Perhaps most instrumental in this development was a little movie a man named Kevin Smith made called "Dogma". "Dogma", for those of you that haven't seen it, is a movie about two fallen angels banished to Earth (played by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon) who try to use a loophole in Catholic dogma to re-enter Heaven. The message in this movie comes often and clear: "... it doesn't matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith." Such as it is, "Dogma" goes to great lengths to separate the concepts of faith and religion. Suffice it to say that after watching the movie, I had a good idea. If you were to categorize me right now, you might say that I'm a non-practicing Christian, but that wouldn't really get to the heart of how I feel about God, and worse, might associate me with some religious splinter. When it comes to faith, I think the most important thing you can do for your relationship with God is to make up your own damn mind. Read the Bible and interpret it your own way. The most stunning revelation for me occurred fairly recently while attending a buisness conference: the Bible says, in quite clear language, that if you believe that Christ is the son of God and died for your sins, then stand up and state it plainly for all to hear. That is the only requisite to entering God's Kingdom. That's it! It really is that simple! Jesus had a couple other directives and God left a baker's dozen more with a dude named Moses in what we call the "Old" Testament but I'll boil it down for you in Keanu-Reeves-speak: "Be excellent to each other and party on, dudes." <Gets down off his soapbox.>

The topic of religion has always been something of a passive discussion between the senior partners of this site. Wydren has his brand of faith, I have mine and we both accept that. Conversely, "The Passion of The Christ" (TPOTC, for brevity's sake) is a movie that created quite a stir when it was released once upon a time. Actor-turned-Writer/Director Mel Gibson gives us quite a bit to mull over in this film. Gibson is what the Catholic Church refers to as a schism which means he, like me, does not conform to the views of the Catholic Church. He more closely resembles an extreme religious conservative. The masses that are held at his own church, for example, are held in Latin and he has publicly opposed women in the priesthood, the use of contraceptives, and equal rights for gays and lesbians. Regardless of what you think of his religious views, you cannot deny that the man is, in his very first production, already an accomplished filmmaker.

The final hours in the life of Jesus Christ (James Caviezel) are depicted in what some would call graphic detail. These final hours are commonly referred to in church as the Stations of the Cross, a boring and excessively depressing ceremony that involves a lot of standing and kneeling at odd angles. To the filmmakers' credit, this movie is nothing like that but is in fact much more. This movie may appear to the layperson to be an excessively violent interpretation of Christ's final hours, but I think it's important to get out there that the movie isn't really all that violent - I play violent video games, I should know. This is one of those rare instances in moviemaking when the component of the movie transcends what it is and becomes 'art', kinda like Steven Speilberg's seminal "Schindler's List."

This is, to date, the most historically accurate and stirring account of Christ's excruciating demise ever put to any medium. The movie contains no English dialogue since people of the time did not speak English. All lines are spoken in their original Aramaic and Latin for the best in authenticity. This is no Sunday school version of the scourging with pretty pictures and a smiling Jesus on the cross.

The movie also goes out of its way to illustrate that Christ himself had mixed feelings on the idea of dying. In the garden, under Satan's (Rosalinda Celentano) watchful eye, Jesus expresses his God in prayer his apprehension about dying. Then, in one fell stroke, the betrayal of Judas (Luca Lionello) becomes clear as he reports Jesus' whereabouts to the Jewish Temple for a bag of coins. The Roman soldiers sieze Jesus and he is taken to the Temple, questioned, and beaten. He is then taken to a reluctantly portrayed Pontias Pilate (Hristo Shopov). All the while he is followed by his mother Mary (Maia Morgenstern), convert and former prostitute Magdalen (Monica Bellucci), and his apostles John (Hristo Jikov) and Peter (Francesco De Vito).

The whole proceeding is cleverly interpersed with flashbacks of Jesus' life before the Cruxifixion. Scenes from the Sermon on the Mount, life as a carpenter and the Last Supper are all portrayed with the same authentic flair as the scourging, injecting feelings and a soul into a man who has all too often been portrayed on a cross who died for our sins. The movie's statement is clear. Jesus was a normal guy with a simple mission: to bring God's message to everyone and to die in order to cleanse us of our sins. He didn't want to die any more than the rest of us would like to die but he submitted himself to it willingly because it was his purpose. It was the reason he was here.

It is in the performances that this movie truly shines. Hristo Shopov absolutely shines as a conflicted Pontias Pilate. Pilate, like any leader, had to contend with his fair share of civil unrest. Due to the concentration of Jews around the Temple, quite a bit of the actual governing policy in the area was built around them - and they liked it that way. Pilate knew that giving up this one man to death would not only save face but also save countless civil and military lives from the revolt that was outside his doorstep by allowing Jesus to live. Jim Caviezel also deserves major props in his performance by humanizing Jesus. All to often in movies, Jesus is 'Disneyized' and put up on a pedestal. TPOTC brings everyone back down to earth and shows Jesus not as God but as God's Son sent to earth in human form. He had the same fallacies and temptations that you and I have.

Gibson has always had a cinematic flair and the cinematography is top notch, as expected. Sweeping views of Golgotha, the path leading up to it and of the Sermon on the Mount are all served up with equal cinematic spleandor. The scourging is not forgiving at all and nothing is sacrificed to make this movie as eye opening as it possibly can be. At many times in the movie I found myself wondering what Jesus was thinking as he dragged his cross to Golgotha.

As I mentioned earlier, TPOTC is one of those rare movies that is well and truly art. Mel Gibson has crafted in TPOTC the most inspiring, unforgiving and uncompromising glimpse of the final hours of Jesus Christ. This is not only a good movie, but a movie that will be shown for generations as an example of what He did for us. I personally believe that stories about people being converted after seeing this movie are grossly exagerrated. If you already have faith, this movie will cement it. If you don't, you'll probably be left scratching your head, but still entertained. Regardless, that's pretty high praise for a movie primarily about torture.

The Passion of The Christ is rated R by the MPAA for sequences of intense violence and is currently available on DVD.