Gaming Experiment

I'm doing an interesting experiment at home. A few weeks ago, I got two RPG's, and I decided to play through both of them at once. A few days later, I got another RPG, but haven't played it much. And since, Mass Effect 3 put out another piece of DLC, I played through that as well. And World of Warcraft works its way into my daily routine fairly often. So I have a bout 5 games on the go at once (really, SWTOR is the only one I haven't played recently), but only the first two count. WoW I've played so much that's it's routine. I know pretty much exactly what I'm going to get. Mass Effect 3 doesn't count because I go full bore on it. I rarely stop to do anything else when I'm playing it (yes, it's just that awesome). And while King's Bounty: Warrior's of the North is in fact a new game, I've played both its predecessors, and so I know what I'm going to get - a solid strategy/RPG with tongue planted firmly in cheek. Plus, as I mentioned before, I haven't played it much.

So really, the two games I'm experimenting on are TheWitcher 2: Assassin of Kings, and Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. Besides having colons in their names, they have a few other similarities. They're both Fantasy RPGs, so a lot of swords and sorcery, monster slaying, loot-finding, and plot-advancing goes on. Both have mainly weapons based combat with limited magic tossed in. Both are action RPGs, in that each press of a mouse button is a swing of a sword (or other weapon), so a lot of button mashing goes on. Both have crafting systems (so, you know, sticking close to the fantasy RPG guidebook). Both have experience points and levels that a character gain, advancing along different paths to maximize certain abilities. Both have inventory systems that have to be managed (occasionally micro-managed), but that's pretty standard. The only RPG's I know of without real inventory systems are Mass Effect 2 & 3 (which are more shooters that RPGs at this point), and Magicka, which stopped being fun and started being frustrating after about 2 hours. Which is why I no longer play Magicka.

Anyway, they're both two different games, by two different companies, so they have two completely different looks and two different feels. The biggest difference between the two games, however, is attitude. Kingdoms of Amalur (KoA) is very earnest. Its heroes are good, and do good things, simply because they're the right things to do. The bad guys are evil, and do bad things for the evulz. The character that really drove it home for me was a guardian of a small town (sheriff-like) who agonized over his inability to protect one of his citizens. He was all "Woe is me. I'm a terrible person because I couldn't stop this crime. Here, take my wonderful sword because you did such a better job than I did." ("well, thank you. Can I have your shield as well if I go kill those giant rats over there?" And yes, Giant rats were the first enemies you fight in the game, thus further solidifying that the game reads off the standard RPG tropes list we're all used to). It's like the developers read Lord of the Rings and said "I want to make a game of that."

The Witcher 2 is almost completely the opposite. Everything is very grey. Good people do bad things for the right reasons. Villains to good things for the wrong reasons. Most people are greedy, selfish bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling who constantly try to manipulate the people around them. Alliances and allegiances shift seemingly randomly, but I tried to stick with the people who were ... well, less evil most of the time. It didn't always work. It's like the designers read A Song of Ice and Fire and said "I want to make a game of that." Which they didn't, because the games are actually based on a series of Polish books and short stories about the hero of the game, Geralt of Rivia, and they take place about 5 years after the last book, with some convenient amnesia so players who haven't read the books can jump in without getting lost.

I got lost anyway. Actually, I got lost in both games. They both throw a lot of lore at you, but at least they both had the presence of mind to make the protagonists just as confused as the players. Geralt has amnesia from being killed, and presumably brought back to life. The hero of KoA (who we get to name ourselves, so I chose Mjolnir) has amnesia from being killed and definitely brought back to life. So, more similarities, I guess.

The Witcher 2 follows the fracturing of several kingdoms after their kings are slain by a witcher. The opening cutscene shows one such assassination, and its petty cool. It also stars a heavily scarred witcher who could probably play linebacker in the NFL. He's BUILT!

Anyway, Witcher is actually a bit of misnomer. It's a neologism (even in Polish), but a better translation/description would probably be Hexer. Geralt can cast certain signs that do things. Light things on fire, trap things to the ground, blow things over (several months before Fus-Ro-Dah), provide protection, and one that should probably be called "Jedi MindTrick." You can convince people of things, from "Tell me what you know" to "Fight these people for me." Hilarity ensues.

KoA has a 'magic' system based on three different playstyles. So there are Might abilities (warrior stuff), finesse abilities (thief/rogue stuff), and sorcery (the actual magic stuff). The Might side has a spell that causes huge spikes to come out of the ground when you slam into it. A finesse spell would be to fling knives out in all directions (wait, why is that sound familiar?) and the sorcery side will have you shooting lightning at your foes. You cast them by choosing one from the hotbar to activate it, and right-clicking to cast it. Quickly hopping around the hotbar (and enough mana, the resource used to cast spell and abilities) can have you electrocuting your enemies, stunning them enough for you to impale them on giant spike from the ground, right before you lop of their heads with your sword (which is, as per standard RPG tropes, larger than you are).

The inventories are different, but similar to ones in other games. The Witcher 2 follows the Fallout/Elder Scrolls route and assigns pretty much everything a weight. Geralt can only carry 300 pounds worth of stuff, which would give anyone a workout, but seems strangely limited when you're trying to carry 87 pounds of iron ore and 136 pounds of timber around so you can make a bunch of knives later. KoA follows the standard Bioware path and makes everything take up one slot of space (although items that are the same - like mana potions - can be stacked into one slot). The amount of slots can be upgraded by buying backpacks from vendors, giving me flashbacks to Dragon Age. The one thing I really liked about the inventory system was how it handled crafting components. Most of the time, each crafting component was its own item, taking up one slot by itself, or stacking up to some arbitrary number. So picking azaleas would take up one slot, and picking rhododendrons would take up one slot, and picking roses would take one slot. In KoA, all the crafting components are held in a bag, which only takes up one slot for each craft. Fantastic! Every game should have this! Including The Witcher 2, where I may have wandered around with 12 pounds of tulips taking up valuable weight.

The crafting systems are different too. Sure, there's alchemy in both, but even that's widely different. In KoA, there are three professions: Blacksmithing, Alchemy, and Sagecraft. Blacksmithing is used to break down any gear you get into its component pieces, as well as a sort of core of the original item. So a sword might have a sword core, as well as a hilt, bindings, and rivets. Shields might have grips as well, which might also appear on daggers, but not on staves. You can make items by using the core and an increasing number of items, depending on your blacksmithing skill. So a crafted sword might only have a sword core and a hilt. Increasing blacksmithing will add bindings, then rivets, then grips, and various what-nots. The order depends on what you're trying to craft - weapons, or gear for each specific playstyle (again: Might, Finesse, and Sorcery).

Alchemy is made from ingredients picked from the world (plants that can be picked sparkle), although if your alchemy skill isn't high enough, you can fail at picking anything ("Oh man, I squished these petals again!"). These ingredients can be used in recipes bought from vendors, or can be used to experiment to try to find your own recipes.

Sagecraft is used to create gems, which can be added to weapons or armor to increase stats. Weapon gems can be put onto weapons, armor gems can be put into gems, and utility gems can be put onto either, provided that the gear has the slot for gems at all. Gems can also be sold for tons of money to vendors, so that's a nice boon when your gear isn't good enough to have slots (or you find gear without slots that's better than gear with slots. That happens to me a lot. 20 hours in, I've used maybe three gems. Mind you, I've also made a boatload of cash selling gems).

In The Witcher 2, Alchemy is made from materials from picking flowers and from parts of whatever monsters or animals you slay. There are dozens of different materials, but each one has one of eight ingredients, and it's the ingredients that matter. So there are a lot of different ways to make the same potion, while also making it possible to save the more valuable resources for more valuable things, like diagrams.

The other type of crafting is from diagrams, and those can't be used yourself. You take the exact materials (not ingredients) to a craftsman, and they make whatever it is for you for a fee. Usually more than you can sell it for, to prevent gold farming. Oren farming, actually, because the unit of money is called orens. Anyhow, I managed to pick up a few useful diagrams and got some sweet armor, as well as some sweet armor enhancements (basically gems) from diagrams.

Now that I've ruminated on the subject enough, I've found the biggest difference between The Witcher 2 and Kingdoms of Amalur. And that is this: while putting in equal hours into both, I've finished The Witcher 2. And while it was a good game, it just kind of stopped. Okay ... that's nice and all, but it means I'm going to have to shell out for The Witcher 3 (which was probably the point of so many sequel hooks). One or two things get wrapped up, but the overall plot is far from over, and that's really annoying. I have no idea how much more time KoA will require, but I'd hazard a guess I'm near halfway through. I've probably put about 20 hours into each, and while a 20 hour game would be a fantastic length for a first person shooter (because it has many more hours with the multi-player component), it tends to be a bit disappointing for an RPG. The big caveat to all this is that as an RPG, there's a lot of replay value. I suspect that if I made a few different choices, I'd wind up with an entirely different plot. So I might have to put in 20 more hours to find out what it is. You know, just as soon as I've finished Kingdoms of Amalur. And King's Bounty: Warriors of the North. And World of Warcraft. And Star Wars: The Old Republic. And whatever new piece of DLC is coming for Mass Effect 3. And maybe Dragon Age 2 again. So if you don't see me until May ... you'll know why.

Ha, just kidding (not really). Anyway, the point of this whole thing was to determine if I could play two games at once and not get too confused. Ultimately, the answer was yes. Certainly, there were times when I tried to click on things during KoA when I should have pressed F, or pressed F in The Witcher 2 when I wanted to pick something up, but by and large, the experiment was successful. What that says about me, I have no idea. Have I reached the tier of RPG gamers wherein I'm experienced enough to keep two concurrently played games completely straight in my head? Or does it just mean I spend too much time in my room?

Zombie Column: Multi-review

I got to a number of entertainment events in the past while (and strangely few Christmas parties, but that'll change soon enough). They had nothing to do with each other, so it's a multi-review instead of a mega-review. I'll start with the most recent and go in reverse chronological order, because why not. This past weekend, after much waiting and finding no one to go with, I finally went to see Skyfall. First, allow me a few 007 puns.

Headline after Daniel Craig was hired: Blond, James Blond.

What does he invest money in? Bonds, Savings Bonds.

How does he reconnect with distant kin? Bond, family bond.

At this point in time, we know what we're going to get with a Bond flick: He beds three women (one of them on the bad guys side), there's a vehicular chase of some kind (usually cars, but The World is Not Enough had boats), and gadgets that are unusually handy, but only once (although the recent movies have toned down the gadgets). This one sticks pretty close to the checklist, even if it takes things from other movies as well. I noticed influences from The Dark Knight, Live Free or Die Hard, and just about every episode of Burn Notice (including the shotgun shell light with light bulb bases. That's always a good homemade spy weapon).

Still, just because it's derivative doesn't mean it's not good. I liked those three I just listed, so put them all together and you'd get something good as well (just don't try this with ice cream and bacon. Seriously). The acting is good, the humour is funny, and the girls are pretty. Even if there were too many contrived coincidences (the villains plans were kind of built on them), it's still a theatre movie for me.

Oh, I should mention that previews included A Good Day toDie Hard (I'm all in on this. ALL IN!), Django Unchained (maybe. I still think Quentin Tarantino is wildly overrated, but I'm a Jamie Foxx fan), Gangster Squad (probably not) and Iron Man 3 (Yes. Duh).

Friday night I went to see Handel's Messiah with a few friends. I always have to remember to say Handel's as well, because if I tell people I'm just not that into The Messiah, they assume I'm an atheist. Thanks a lot, Handel! Way to ambiguously name your masterpiece. Anyway, I'm not that into Handel's Messiah, but I figured it would be healthy for me to take in cultural events and be with other people. Plus, it's fun to go with people for whom it's their favourite piece of music (at the moment, mine's probably Fireand Honor by Audiomachine). I may not have fallen asleep at any point, but there were definite moments where I was trying to do 3D trigonometry in my head (angles on Tetrahedrons are no fun without paper). Still, I stood up in the proper places (mainly because other people also stood up) and avoid laughing too obviously at the choral members who forgot their songbooks (two of them. Sitting there, without books. Surrounded by 130 people who remembered. Awk-ward). Whoops. And I didn't make too many jokes at the expense of the last song. It's the one with all those meandering Amens. Most Elaborate. Prayer. Ending. Ever.

Last weekend I had the pleasure of watching a two-man play called Twinkle. I kept getting confused if it was Twinkle or Tingle, and was relieved when I didn't portmanteau the words into Tinkle ("Yeah, I went to Tinkle at a friends house last night." "Um, what?"). It's an intergalactic interactive improvised Christmas trip through the stars, or something. It's small enough to be performed in a house, so a nifty place called the House of Commons hosted (no relation to the government). It's also a kid-friendly play, so we were encouraged to think like kids (It’s slightly alarming how easy that was for me). And yes, I got to participate, as did most other people. I got to wear a Darth Vader mask as a Darth Vader-like villain (I'm assuming for copywrite reasons). I discovered it's impossible to wear that mask and not talk like James Earl Jones. Fun times were had by all, and my only quibble is that I'm not sure how many kids would get the "Open the pod bay doors." reference. Mind you, I'm not sure how many adults would either.

So that's my recent entertainment activities. Christmas will be here soon, and I'm sure that will leave at least some time to watch movies, so look for more Zombie Columns soon!

Argo

One day after seeing Looper, a group of us went to see Argo. Evan was busy attending a friend's wedding (the reason he was in town at all), so I scrounged together eight other people. And when I say I, I actually mean Carolina, who invited more people, so it turned into a group of myself, Carolina, Trina, Kim, Steph, Sammie, Brian, Clement, and Steve. And this is why you should go see movies with me - you never know who else might show up.

We chose a different theatre than usual, and that may have been a mistake. For one thing, I have never seen so crowded a multiplex. It seemed like all the available space was taken up by people. For another, Argo was nearly sold out when I bought tickets, so we didn't get fantastic seats. It a bit too close to the screen. In fact, we were in the row directly in front of the main aisle. I've never sat there before, but apparently in UltraAVX theatres, that row of seats leans way back, so at least that was good.

Trailers for the movie included Cloud Atlas, Midnight's Children (I guessed it was Life of Pi, but only because it was set in India. Whoops), and Gangster Squad. There may have been another one, but I forget what it is. Zero Dark Thirty, maybe? I feel like I've watched that trailer with other people.

The movie opens with a brief history of early Iran, how various people came to power, and how the CIA instigated a coup to put a puppet in charge, and how he was overthrown. Now there's a Shah in charge, and things aren't that much better. Then there's a lot of shots of massive protests outside the American Embassy, soon followed by the Iranians breaking into the embassy and taking everyone hostage. However, six potential hostages slip out onto the streets, unnoticed, and take refuge in the Canadian Ambassadors house. All this is based on real life - the CIA documents were declassified during the Clinton Presidency.

For 70 days, nothing happens, except for the growing risk to the Canadian Ambassador and his wife. They tell the Canadian Government they want their guests out, and the government relays that message to the US, who gets their State department to put together 6 bicycles, so the hostages can bike 300 miles to the Turkish border. The CIA nixes that idea based on the fact that it's colossally stupid, and so Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) has to put together a different plan. The plan goes as thus: Mendez will pose as a movie maker doing location scouting in Iran, and the hostages will ostensibly be a Canadian film crew going along with him. Then they all fly out together. That's the plan, and like all plans explained in detail in movies, things are bound to go wrong.

First, Mendez knows nothing about making a movie, so he flies out to Hollywood to learn all about it. Here is the part that satirizes movies in general. They even made jokes that I didn't get until I read about them later. A bit of self-deprecation on Ben Affleck's part.

Anyway, the rest of the movie is about delay. Delays for the heroes. Delays for the villains. Basically, whoever wins is about whoever gets delayed least by the plot-contrived obstacles of time. That said, it's a very good movie. I wasn't expecting it to be action-y (since it was listed as a drama), and I was expecting it to be a bit funny (which is was), complete with unofficial tag-line and motto of "Argo [expletive] yourself".

So it's a blu-ray movie. Not quite enough of my style to firmly plant itself as a theatre movie, but I can honestly say that the worst part of the movie was the very end, when they panned over a series of science fiction toys, and had Boba Fett in there. And I was screaming in my head "BOBA FETT WAS NOT A TOY BACK THEN!" because The Empire Strikes Back wasn't to be released until a few months later. But other than that, excellent movie.

Zombie Column: Looper

Evan's back in town for this weekend, so we had to go see a movie. Okay, we didn't, but we wanted to go see one. With a good slate of mindless movies already out (Resident Evil, Dredd 3D, Taken 2), we set our sights on higher fare, and went to see Looper. Evan had been adamant about going to see it, and I came around to his point of view. Everything I heard about the movie was good, so I was pretty pumped about it.

I won the preview game, guessing a bit on Paranormal Activity 4 (pass), and nabbing Cloud Atlas (I just finished the book, just so I could see the movie - it looks that interesting). We both missed Parker (with Jason Statham!) and Broken City (with a bunch of people). We had each seen those last two previews, but just couldn't remember the name of those movies. Parker's on my list of movies to see (again, Jason Statham!), but we'll pass on Broken City. Evan made the comment that it looks like one of those movies where they put all the good stuff in the trailer. I can't disagree.

For the actual movie itself, it's brought to you by four different companies. I don't know why there are so many involved, unless each main actor had their own houses that had to be involved. Anyway, the main plot of Looper is thus: time travel will be invented some time between 2044 and 2074. It will immediately be outlawed, used only by giant criminal syndicates. They use it to send victims (tied up and blindfolded) back into the past, there to be murdered by the eponymous Loopers. Apparently it's too hard to eliminate people in the future, because they're tracked all to hell and back. But kidnapping and sudden disappearances are fine. Don't think about it too hard. Eventually, the Looper himself (or herself, although we only ever see male Loopers) is sent back to be murdered by himself. Again, don't try to think about it too hard. That's called closing your loop. Each victim is also sent back with a small payment to the Looper. Closing the Loop has a much bigger payday, but starts a ticking clock, counting down the Looper's life.

If you've seen the previews, you know that the trouble starts when Joe (our hero) can't kill his future self, letting his Loop run. Whoops. Massive problems ensue, because future Joe can get up to all sorts of shenanigans while he's in the past. This means that present Joe is in all sorts of trouble with his boss, who was sent back from the future to watch all the Loopers. Got it?

I could probably talk about the plot, but that would confuse you further. However, the plot does resolve itself into something slightly less confusing. It plays out differently than you would think. However, try not to think too deeply about causality or temporal paradoxes after the movie's done. You can accept the film at face value, and it's a pretty good way of saying "here's how you change the future". And even one layer down, the implications are pretty decent. But digging deeper and you run into problems. Time is like a Mobius Strip, and you can try and change it, but you'll eventually wind up back where you started, after travelling down an alternate reality for a while.

So, Looper broke my brain. It's still worth seeing. The music isn't fantastic, and there wasn't enough action for my tastes. But it's still a great movie to think about, especially for the awesome impression of Bruce Willis that Joseph Gordon-Levitt pulls off. They squint and growl the same way! I'll put it at the top of Blu-Ray movies, although I bet Evan gives it at least nine stable time-loops out of ten.

Zombie Column: A Great Run

It's another zombie column! World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria comes out in a few days, and I think it caps off a great run. It's also fitting, because the run started with World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. But let me start from the beginning.

I play video games. They're my hobby. Imagine the time you spend on your hobby - running, biking, quilting, reading, programming, stop-motion animation, whatever - and I probably spend that amount of time (well, maybe a bit more) on video games. I don't let it interfere with work, and most of the time I'll choose hanging out with friends over World of Warcraft (most of the time).

I play mostly on my computer. It's an HP Media Centre. For most games, you don't want a Mac. Yes, lots of games have Mac ports, but they're lower in priority than pushing out a product to 90% of the market. You'll get your game, just ... later. I also own a Wii (currently collecting dust) and a Playstation 2 (bought cheaply a few years after the Playstation 3 came out, and currently collecting more dust than my Wii).

I'm not big on strategy games. I've tried, actually, but I'm just not that good at them. I want to play through the Warcraft games because a lot of the lore in World of Warcraft comes from its strategy predecessors, but I can't get through them without using cheats. Same thing with Command & Conquer. I actually own a few of those games, and wouldn't mind playing through all of them to get Kane's complete story, but I know that I'll never be able to beat those last few missions without ... help.

I'm not big into sims either. Sure, I logged a few dozen hours in Sim City back when I was twelve and it was the only game we had. Well, that and the fun of having Godzilla ravage my city was pretty cool. I wasn't very good at it, though, and most of my cities wound up broke. Or dead. So sort of like real life today. I haven't touched the Sims franchise, but that's mostly because I already take care of a virtual me already. He just happens to be a level 85 Paladin in World of Warcraft, and can smote you with nothing but a thought and a righteous stare. Flying sims never did it for me because if I wanted to look at dials and whatnot, I'd actually have trained to become a pilot. Or a power plant employee. Somewhere with buttons and knobs that I could twist and push to great disaster elsewhere. So it's probably a good thing I don't enjoy that.

Sports game are alright, but a bit too complicated for me these days, especially Madden football. I had Madden '93 for my Super Nintendo, and all I had to do was call plays and pray. Occasionally, I would mash buttons when making a tackle. That's about it. But nowadays, you're the player, the coach, the general manager, and the owner. You have to scout players, draft well, bribe agents, pay off the commissioner, find the right steroids. It's endless, and that's not even stepping on the football field. I just stay away.

Well, racing games are about the only sports games I play, but that's because the ones I like are as unrealistic as possible. I had Wipeout 2097 (XL on the Playstation) and enjoyed the heck out of it. I got really good at it, but that's probably because it only had 6 tracks (two more could be unlocked) and after enough time on those, anyone would be good.

I remember point and click adventure games. King's Quest V and onwards. The previous ones where text parsers, and I wasn't very good at either, but that might just be because Sierra made their games devilishly tricky. Again, guide-books were the norm for me.

First person shooter are edging closer into my territory. I thoroughly enjoyed Halo, and own Max Payne I and II. I've beaten Borderlands and am currently working my way through the DLC. I'll probably wait to get the sequel until it's on sale. If I wait long enough, I can get it and its DLC all as one package for one great price (insert Steam fawning here).

I don't have a whole lot of experience with Platform or Adventure games. I've certainly put hours into each Super Mario, but that was many years ago, and I've barely touched Zelda except for Twilight Princess. Mind you, I really enjoyed it, so I've been thinking about picking up Skyward Sword.

However, my favourite genre in the whole gaming industry is the good ole' RPG. Role Playing Game, for you unlearned people. RPG's started out a very long time ago, outside of the video games. Dungeons and Dragons (invented by the late, great, Gary Gygax). probably started off the whole thing. Nerds, shunned in school, played in mothers' basements. Led by a Game Master, they slew countless monsters, ogres, armies, and jocks.

Eventually, the video game industry started, and someone had the bright idea of having the computer GM a dungeon or two. A lot of the mechanics from Dungeons and Dragons stayed the same, only the story was controlled by a computer instead of a dude with a guidebook.

Progress was made, chips became more powerful, graphics were upgraded, iterations were done, advancements and improvements were added, negatives were removed or glossed over, and the RPG continued to evolve.

Now, I wouldn't like to nail down any dates, but I'd have to say that World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria marks the end of one of the greatest runs of Computer RPG's of all time. Fitting that it started with World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. Let's have a look, shall we? Keep in mind, these are only my views, so they'll be a lot of omissions. I'll try to get to those later.

December, 2010 - World of Warcraft: Cataclysm. The third expansion for World of Warcraft shakes up the virtual world, allowing designers to redo almost all the original content. This vastly improved both the storylines and gameplay experience, as the designers could use all the lessons they had learned from previous expansions (as well as any other game). Most opinions were good, although a number of players complained (partly because of the nostalgia filter, and partly because epic loot was marginally more difficult to acquire at first than in the previous expansion). Blizzard learned that a percentage of their playerbase is dumb. They won't forget it.

March 2011 - Dragon Age II. Released to rave reviews and disappointed fans. I've played it through six times, and have come to the conclusion that players are dumb. The story line has ambiguity to it and many shades of grey. No major villain is truly bad. No major hero is truly good (except the player, should he or she choose to play that way). The designers tried to make a game in which the primary antagonist was the circumstance, forcing two good but flawed factions into war. I loved it. Other players wanted a major villain to beat the tar out of, and have a happy ending. Again, other players are dumb. The main criticism is that a lot of the environments are recycled. Having to search the same nooks and crannies over and over again is a huge pain in the neck. Luckily, the DLC averts this, and has unique environments for all of its gameplay.

August 2011 - Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The original Deus Ex was released in 2000, back when technology wasn't really up to the concept of what it tried to do. Based in a world where major conspiracies are true, each goal in the game had multiple ways of achieving it. There's a guard in your way? Bribe him. Charm him. Sneak past him. Haul off and cold-cock him. Hack a gun turret to kill him. Kill him yourself, but avoid the turret. The game suffered slightly from the high ideals it intended, but most were willing to overlook the flaws for the game it aspired to be. Well, most critics did. Gamers never really took to it, though it has a small and dedicated fanbase. And that fanbase nearly blew its top when the prequel, Human Revolution was announced. "A new game?" They cried. "Never!" And then a beta copy was leaked, and all was well. In fact, it was better than well. With technology better capable of keeping up with some slightly scaled down ideas, the concept of multiple paths to the same goal was maintained. And it was awesome! I'm more of a shooty-shooty guy, so I let bullets solve most of my problems, with the occasional foray into hacking and sneaking when ammunition was low. High reviews and sales followed, and now we all hope that Eidos Montreal makes another Deus Ex game.

November 2011 - The Elder Scrolls V:Skyrim. The long awaited sequel to Oblivion's game of the year. An open world where you slay dragons? What's not to like? Critics thought there was nothing not to like, and gave it several game of the year awards. PS3 owners thought the game breaking bugs were not to like, and we've all had to endure numerous patches while Bethesda has struggled to keep the game playable. It's much better now, but I remember two dragon skeletons dipping into and out of the ground outside my virtual house. I didn't mind, because on a PC, the bugs were mostly entertaining. I've gotten through the main quest, but am certainly not done with the world.

December 2011 - Star Wars: The Old Republic. It's an MMO, basically World of Warcraft wrapped in Star Wars skin. And made by my favourite game company, Bioware. I loved it. Of course I did. I knew I would love it, and I did. Other people did not, and enough of them stopped paying that Bioware (or possibly EA) has announced they'll be taking it free to play. I'm not sure what to make of that. I think I'm just not over the western stigma of free to play meaning crap. But free to play is becoming a hugely profitable switch for other MMO's, so it'll work as long as they can make the switch work, as well as make compelling gameplay worth playing for. Me, I'll probably get through all the stories on my characters. They're all pretty good so for, and I have several more to go.

March 2012 - Mass Effect 3. Long awaited cap to the Mass Effect trilogy. It's fantastic. I love it. The ending was a little off (as many, many fanboys have raged all over the internet), but they updated it, released a slew of multiplayer maps, and a single player DLC. I'm playing it through for the third time, and enjoying it just as much as before. I'm not sure I'll be able to play the previous games after this. They might just be too lame.

September 2012 - World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria. Fourth expansion for the money machine. Promises to have even more max-level content than before. I can't wait, and have been busy filling my time with old game until this comes out and I disappear for a month.

Of course, this doesn't count games I haven't even bought. April of 2011 brought The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings. It had the same grimness and ambiguity of the Dragon Age universe. It followed a flawed predecessor with a vastly improved game and got fantastic reviews. If I see it on sale, I'll definitely pick it up.

February of 2012 saw the release of Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. It was supposed to be one game set in the Kingdoms of Amalur (Project Copernicus was a cancelled MMO set there as well), but with 38 Studios shut down, it looks to be the only entrant. It supposedly combined God of War gameplay with a Skyrim-like talent system. And of course, the world was crated in part by R.A. Salvator, whom you may recognize because his name is on half the spines in every bookstore fantasy section.

May of 2012: Diablo 3. Possibly even more anticipated (at least on PC) than Mass Effect 3, it's the sequel (though not necessarily the last entry) to the incredibly addictive Diablo 2. Click-click-click-click-click-loot. Rinse, Repeat. I tried it with Torchlight (the sequel to that comes out in September of this year) and didn't really like it, so I'll probably stay away from that formula. Fanboys cried foul at the constant internet connection required and some initial server difficulties, but it's been fantastic ever since.

Three other MMORPG's have also been released recently that have caught critics' eyes, if not the general population. Firstly, Rift was released in March of 2011. It has a unique talent system that lets players mix and match classes to suit playstyle. It also has the titular Rifts, which I imagine would get tiring after seeing them all over, again and again and again and again. But I wouldn't know, as I skipped it. I've already got enough MMO for me, thanks. Next, The Secret World was released in July of 2012. It's set here in on the real Earth, only it turns out that most conspiracy theories are true. Other than that, I don't know much about it. Maybe it's all secret. Lastly, Guild Wars 2 was released in August 2012. Its big draw is that you buy the game, and then you get everything subsequently for free (well, some optional things you can purchase). Every patch is free, there's no subscription, nothing locked out for poor players. You get it all with the box. And it's supposedly really good. Again, I haven't picked it up, because frankly, I have enough games.

This list also doesn't count RPG's released for other systems. Two games - Xenoblade and The Last Story - have been released this past summer. Well, released here, at least. They were big in Japan, but didn't get a North American release because a lot of those types of games do poorly here. Final Fantasy is about the only series to do well. Dragon Quest? Not so much. However, a devoted fanbase pushed (and pushed, and pushed) for a release, and so the companies made one. I'm not sure if Europe got a release beforehand or not, but North America got the British version of Xenoblade. Which is alright, because the accents class it up a bit. I haven't picked up The Last Story yet, but I'm awfully tempted.

And finally, my list doesn't have any games of any other genres on it. April of 2011 had the release of Portal 2. Lots of fun, darkly humorous. Explained the back-story for some characters involved, and introduced us to Wheatley, one of the better robots in video games.

Duke Nukem Forever (after years of Development Hell) finally appeared to middling reviews in June of last year. Up-to-date gameplay with a throwback attitude didn't mesh well with some of the other ideas Gearbox had. And there was also lots and lots of loading. I wouldn't know, though. I skipped it.

However, one of the biggest games on the PC was again from Blizzard (seriously, they must have all the money right now. All of it). Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty (part one of a massive trilogy) came out last year, to much fanfare and e-sports in parts of Asia I don't understand. They go a bit overboard for things I could care less about, and remain totally blasé about the best. stuff. evar!

Oh yeah, I forgot to include the innumerable content patches and DLC for the above games, as well as other ones as well. Just to name a few, Mass Effect 2 had The Arrival, a DLC pack that set up Mass Effect 3. Fallout: New Vegas had four DLC packs that added many hours of extra playtime (in fact, Fallout: New Vegas was released only a month before Cataclysm, so I probably should have kicked of the list with it, but I thought World of Warcraft expansions made better bookends). Cataclysm had patches 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, all of which introduced new storylines, dungeons, or Raids, and usually more than one. Dragon Age 2 had two DLC packs, Legacy and Mark of the Assassin. Human Revolution had the DLC pack The Missing Link. Skyrim has Dawnguard, a DLC pack which I have not gotten to, but plan on playing intently. The Old Republic has had patches 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, which introduced either more content, or more game features (hi, group finder. Why weren't you in the original product?) And Mass Effect 3 has Leviathan, a DLC pack that help explain the back-story of the antagonists of the entire series.

I'm not sure what the future holds for RPG's, but I doubt we'll ever see a run of fantastic games like we've seen in the past two years. And while I'm somewhat sad to see them go, they have so much replayable value that we'll never really have to say good-bye.

Zombie Column: Iron Sky

It's a Zombie Column! That's right, the Mindless Movie Marathon is back from the dead, but only for special occasions. This week's special occasion was Iron Sky. Iron Sky is one of those movies that was on our list to go see, but only if it was released here. It's an independent crowd-sourced movie, so chances were slim. However, it finally managed to snag a slot at a small theatre downtown called the Globe. There used to be another tiny theatre downtown (where I watched Bon Cop Bad Cop), but it shut down a while ago, so The Globe is the only independent movie theatre on that particular block (yes, the movie theatres were pretty much across the street from each other. They usually had different movies, though. Usually).

Anyway, this week I had intended to go with a few friends, but it turns out their apartment flooded, so I had to see it by myself - something I wasn't used to. I haven't been to a movie solo in a while (probably since Bon Cop Bad Cop, but it may have been The Protector or Fearless).

Iron Sky is the story of an idealistic young woman who grows up on the moon, then has her views tested when she returns to Earth. Oh yeah, she's a Nazi. Probably should have started with that. At the end of World War II, the Nazi's had a secret space program, and launched a bunch of people on to the moon, where they hid on its butt. Sorry, it's backside. Um, dark side. They've lived there in secret for many years, and now it's 2018. Their goal is to return to Earth to either conquer it or spread their message of hope, love, and socialism (they are based on the National Socialist Party, after all). Anyway, a cynical president expy of Sarah Palin sends some astronauts to the moon, one of whom is African American ("Black to the moon!" is the tagline for the mission, which is a blatant step in a re-election campaign).

Anyway, the black astronaut is captured by the Moon Nazi's, who originally think he's leading an invasion on them. Also, he's black, which doesn't really fit in with their whole Aryan thing. Finally, he has a cell phone, with which the Nazi's are amazed. Which was a pretty cool bit of Fridge Brilliance. The Nazi's left earth in 1945, at which time computers consisted entirely of vacuum tubes. Earth scientists invented transistors, but if the moon Nazi scientists missed it, they wouldn't have been able to do much technologically except shrink the vacuum tubes. There'd be no miniaturized transistors, no microchip, no circuit boards. Everything would be vacuum tubes. Which also gives the filmmakers an excuse to make everything all steampunk-ish.

Once the Nazi's discover the amazing power of the iPhone, they send a small team to Earth to collect a bunch of them and return to the moon to use the phones to power their warfleet.

So, this movie is silly. Darkly silly (literally, the moon is quite dim, and a lot of the scenes set in New York are set at night), and not always silly, but based on a silly premise. And normally I expect a movie based on a silly premise to be silly throughout, but it wasn't. There are several laugh-out-loud moments, but not really enough to constitute a comedy. I suppose it would be listed as science fiction, seeing as how it's set on the moon and outer space (Seriously, Star Wars is listed as science fiction, even though it's closer to adventure), maybe action-adventure, although there's not really enough of either to classify it as such. Mainly, it just tells a story, and throws a bit of each genre into it.

The music is ... decent, I suppose. I'm listening to it right now, and it seems to be better than what I heard last night. There were a few songs that stood out. The first one is called Take Me to Heaven, and gave me flashbacks to the Fallout universe, another futuristic society steeped in the  past. Near the end of the film, there was an ironic use of "Here comes the Bride" and then a haunting version of "The Stars and Stripes." It's actually called America, and uses the same words, but uses minor chords before going off in a new direction.

This was about the time that the film ended on a very dark and depressing note. Some silliness, yes, but mostly dark and depressing. It left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Still, I think it's a theatre movie, if only to prove that not all good movies have to have large budgets (it just helps).

The Expendables 2

The movie this week was The Expendables 2, sequel to arguably the most mindless movie of 2010. And one of my favourite movies of 2010. Those facts are closely related. Evan laid the smack down in preview game. We tied on Argo, but he got all the other ones, including Dredd and one more that I can't remember. I'm also pretty sure there was one that neither of us got, but it was two whole days ago, and I can't remember back that far (a few too many soccer balls to the head last night, evidently).

The movie opens with a pretty long cold open, so that was pretty awesome. I like action at the beginning, because it gets you hooked right away. Say what you want about Die Hard, but it starts off very slow. This one, not so much. Far more action right at the beginning than the previous instalment. And the action is even more over the top. Within 30 seconds, I was giggling at the ludicrousness of it. Not that that's a bad thing, frankly. I love it when action movies just get laughably ridiculous.

Then the movie slows down for a while as the team gets sent on a mission, which goes wrong and one of the members dies! So revenge is one of the goals of the team. Against the villain, played with hamful charm by Jean Claude Van Damme himself. Apparently, missing out on the first one was a regret of his, so when they asked him back for the second, he jumped at the chance.

Other actors show up too, but you've probably heard about them. Ahnold and Bruce Willis play larger roles this time, and Chuck Norris shows up for a bit. He even gets to spout a Chuck Norris fact. Mind you, this movie is pretty self-referential (and self-deprecating) at times. When Arnold mounts an unexpected rescue, he pops out and says "I'm back!" During another fight, he and Bruce are together but run out of ammo. Arnold quips "I'll be back" but Bruce responds with "You've been back enough. this time, I'll be back." And so Arnold says "Yippee Ki-yay" but leaves off the MF bomb.

I liked this movie. That was pretty much a given. In fact, I could tell beforehand that I would like this movie a lot. And I did. There are only a few quibbles. First is the aforementioned slowing down. The first movie did that too, and I wasn't a fan then, either. You're an action franchise. There should be action every ten minutes. Other than that, I didn't like how little Jet Li was in this movie. He was in the opening, and then literally dropped out. I wanted to see him kick more people in places they need to be kicked. Sadly, it wasn't to be.

But besides those few nitpicks, this was an awesome movie. The music was good, the self-awareness was good, the humour was good, the action was awesome, the amount of action stars they stuffed in there was awesome. So it's definitely a theatre movie. You should go see it, unless you hate action or nostalgia.

And with that, we come to a fitting end to the Mindless Movie Marathon. For over two years, Evan and I have been going to see every movie we could, with a few exceptions. However, lives must move forward, or in Evan's case, Westward, and so The Expendables 2 was the last official movie that the Mindless Movie Marathon went to see. I'm sure that we'll watch many, many movies whenever we visit each other, and may even write about them on this very blog. But this will be the last official post. Anything afterwards will be something of a postscript, zombie column (back from the dead, you see).

I'd like to take a moment to thank you, dear readers, for taking so much of your time with what I've written. If you've had half as much fun reading as I've had ... watching the movies that preceded writing these columns, then I've done my job. Also, thanks to the many people that came with us to movies. You've been a tremendous amount of fun. And thank you to their significant others, for letting us drag them to movies, instead of spending time with you. Lastly, thanks Evan. It's been a blast going to so many movies, and while half the fun was going to the movies, the other half was going with you. I wish you good luck and God Speed on your journeys. 

The Bourne Legacy

This week, we brought Norm along with us to watch The Bourne Legacy. I won the preview game, although we were both wrong about what the first trailer would be. I guessed Dredd (coming soon) and Evan guessed TheExpendables II, but it turned out to be Alex Cross. I might see it, but I want to know more about it first. It seems kind of disturbing. We also had Trouble with the Curve (it's like the anti-Moneyball, where Clint Eastwood plays a baseball scout whose instincts are better than what a computer could tell you), This is 40, Skyfall, and Les Misérables (if it's a French play, why are the songs in English?)

The movie opens with the standard Jason Bourne tune, but it's probably only recognizable to people who pay attention to music in movies. Anyway, aside from that, several plots get kicked off. Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) hikes from one place in Alaska to another. We get that interspersed with a project crashing down around the ears of the CIA, and Eric Byer (Edward Norton) having to fix it. Well, technically, he only goes to meetings where they decide how to fix it. And if it's not those two scenes, the camera's probably somewhere in Marta Shearing's (Rachel Weisz) workplace, a high-security medical lab.

Eventually, the three plotlines intertwine. Marta's workplace genetically engineered improvements to the human system, tested on people like Aaron. Jason Bourne getting loose scared the people in charge, who dropped it on Eric's lap, who decides to shut it down, which meant killing most of everyone involved. This would make Eric the nominal bad guy, but I was actually somewhat sympathetic. Not all the killing, mind you, but the having to clean up other people's problems. Maybe it's also that Edward Norton is an incredible actor. But mostly it's a flashback where he describes his and Aaron's jobs. wherein they cross the line and forfeit their morals, so that everyone else can keep theirs. Monsters, yes. But vitally necessary.

Speaking of acting, it takes a while for the action to start. Normally, this is a fairly large problem for me, but in this case we got to play one of my new favourite games: Watch Jeremy Renner Act. I like this game; I could play a lot more, truth be told. It helps that everyone else gets into the game as well. After the Mummy movies, I forgot that Rachel Weisz is a fantastic actor as well, and watching the two of them together was way awesome.

Then the action kicks in, and it is 18 different kinds of incredible. Man, the director sure knows what he's doing. There aren't too many action scenes, but the climax lasts for pretty much the last third of the movie, broken only by a few minutes of recovery. Then it goes back into high gear. That is how you do an action film.

A couple notes. Don't trust the trailer. A lot of lines from the trailer don't refer to who or what is actually implied. Conversations in the trailer might not take place between the people shown. That type of thing. Still, it means they can sneak a couple of surprises in, so that was cool.

The end seems kind of abrupt. I was expecting it to go for a while, but then Extreme Days cut in, and I was like "Wait, they're ending it now? No ..." And then they did. It seems abrupt because there's not a whole lot of the closure I was looking for, but I guess that leaves it wide open for a sequel. Mind you, that's probably what the filmmakers were going for, because I am all in on any sequel they make.

It's a theatre movie for me. The lack of action is made up for by the set up and acting. After that, when the movie isn't staging an action scene, it's filled with tension. I may not have sat at the edge of my seat, but I could have, easily. Well, until the action blew me away.

One last note about the critics. A lot of them say that Jason Bourne, while not involved in this movie (Matt Damon's picture shows up, but that's about it), has his impact felt throughout. And that's not really true. He's more of the spark that sets the whole thing off, but they could have chosen any other thing, and the plot would have been pretty much the same. So don't believe the critics. Mind you, they tabbed this movie as around 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, so you know they're wrong.

The Dark Knight Rises...Evan's Take

I realize that it has been over a week since we went to see "The Dark Knight Rises" (TDKR for those in the know)...and we have already been to see "Total Recall"...but I thought that I would put up my review of TDKR because I was probably looking forward to this movie more than any other from this past year. So, for the amount of time that I spent anticipating this movie, I feel that I need to tell you if it was worth the wait.

(As a quick aside...Total Recall was fine. Benjy really liked it. I was kinda ambivalent towards it. Some decent action coupled with glaring plot holes and "competent" acting made for an entertaining but not earth splitting couple of hours...ok...back to TDKR!)

I love Christopher Nolan!

I mean that in the sense that I think this guy is the best filmmaker making movies today. I thoroughly enjoyed the first two Batman movies, so much so that I went to see "The Dark Knight" in theaters FOUR times! I also went and watched other Christopher Nolan works such as "The Prestige" and "Memento" which are fantastic movies but ones that I missed during their run in theaters. If you add in the stylish mind bending action blockbuster "Inception" from a couple of years ago, you begin to realize that this guy just makes great movies. I am at the point that wherever Christopher Nolan wants to take me, I will eagerly follow and enjoy the ride. I already have next summer's "Man of Steel" circled as a must watch...and he is only a writer for it!

I will take the same approach as Benjy did to writing a review and make sure not to spoil a single thing. So...I can't tell you anything about the characters, or the plot, or who might (or might not) die. I can say that the acting is excellent, the visuals are stunning, the music is stirring, the story is great and you certainly will not be disappointed...Even at a run time of 2 hours and 40 minutes. I have told everyone that this movie is a perfect way to wrap up the Christopher Nolan "Batman" trilogy and the only thing I am unhappy about is that I wont get to see more of this franchise in the future.

I'm going to give this movie 5 bat signals out of 5. If you have not seen TDKR, make sure you get to a cinema before it finishes its theater run! Then buy it on DVD when it comes out so you can appreciate it forever and ever (or at least tide you over until Christopher Nolan gets behind the lens for another motion picture).

Total Recall

This week's docket held the remake of Total Recall. I won the preview game, thanks to a wild guess on the first trailer: Paranormal Activity 4. Both of us are getting sick of 'found footage' movies, but they have low budgets, so they're not going away any time soon. Me, I'm going to make a 'found footage' video game and be a millionaire. The second trailer was Argo, which I got. We tied on Django Unchained, and Evan got Skyfall a split second before I did.

Total Recall is ironic on several levels. Okay, two. It's ironic on two levels. First, it's produced by Original Film. And second, because I'm totally recalling a movie I saw 22 years ago. Action movie, starred Schwarzenegger, dealt with identities: Kindergarten Cop! Nah, I'm kidding, it's the original Total Recall. And I didn't see it 22 years ago, although I'm pretty sure I saw it at a younger age than I should have (sorry Mom).

We look back at the first one now and think "Oh yeah, Sharon Stone!" But keep in mind, it was released two years before she got famous by flashing everyone in Basic Instinct. The remake has Kate Beckinsale in the Wife role, and Jessica Biel in the Love Interest role. And yeah, if I was going to implant memories in my head, they would definitely be involved.

And in case you really want to know, the three-breasted hooker shows up, very briefly. For my money, the scene from the original I most wanted in the new one was where Quaid pulls that huge tracking device out of his brain via his nose. Alas, in this one he only pulls some stringy electronics out of his hand, so it doesn't have quite the same effect.

In this one, there's no Mars. Instead, it's most of the world that's uninhabitable, because there's a whole bunch of poison gases around. Most people live in the gas-free lands of Great Britain or Australia, which divides neatly into the haves and have-nots and gives the movie unexpected social gravity. Promptly forgotten gravity, mind you, but gravity none-the-less. The remake makes up for a lack of Mars by giving us the perfect setting for the next Fallout game. Seriously, Bethesda or Obsidian need to get on that. I would play the hell out of Fallout: London.

Anyway, the movie starts off with a short action scene. It's filled with flashing lights and shaky-cam, so I'm not sure how much it actually counts as an action scene. Then it spends a bit of time setting up the plot, before kicking off several chase scenes. It really only slows down to explain the plot, and then picks back up into more action scenes. Finally, there's a short post-climax action scene, which I'm not a fan of. Movie Makers, you shouldn't use your dénouement for action. You should use all the action in the climax, making it better, not spreading it around afterwards.

There wasn't a whole lot of humour. I think "I give good wife" is supposed to be some sort of dirty allusion, but I didn't really get it. But the music was surprisingly good, so that made up for the humour. I might have to 'acquire' that score somehow. Based on that and the amount of action, I'm going to give this movie a Theatre rating. However, I should warn you again that I like crap a lot more than you guys. Even re-used crap. Hey, at least in a wasted world like the future, they're still thinking about recycling.

One last note that bugged me. Both movies try to be at least somewhat ambiguous about whether the events after Rekall are actually real or just a dream. But I don't remember Rekall having the ability to implant dreams, just memories. You wouldn't be lost in the present, just have fake memories of the past. For instance, instead of having worked last week, I could have vacationed in Aruba, or competed in the Olympics, or protested against environmental destruction. That way I could feel good about saving the environment without having to, you know, save the environment. But the point is, how can Quaid think he's dreaming if the only things implanted were memories?

The Dark Knight Rises

Due to completely foreseen circumstances, we had to wait a week to see The Dark Knight Rises. Not that it mattered much to the people in the theatre. It was as packed as a week ago (you know, presuming that I know the population of things like that off the top of my head, without having been there or anything).

This is going to be a tough review to write, because I don't want to spoil anything. I can't write about any allies, or any villains, or any internet theories, or anything. I can't talk about why I liked it better than The Dark Knight. I can't even talk about what the critics said, because rebutting them would potentially spoil the movie. So instead, I'm going to talk about music.

I liked the music. It's pretty good. Some critics say it's too percussive, but what do you expect? Hans Zimmer did the score. My only gripe with the music is that it doesn't really have an instantly recognizable theme. Not like Pirates of the Caribbean, or Indiana Jones, or James Bond. For a trilogy this epic, I think there should have been an overriding musical theme to it. I'd nominate this tune, but it's already taken. So instead, I vote for the following.

So this is definitely a theatre movie, because it's really good, but I can't tell you why. Yet. And the music's good (wow, there are so many things I can't talk about I feel like I'm in the CIA. Should I go back and add in a whole bunch of redacted to it? Nah).

Fears and Films

This post will be a bit more personal, because I was on vacation, and didn't see a movie, or have a lot of time to stew about a topic. And yes, I know that I missed out on naming this column Fears and Loathing in Las Vegas, but that probably would've been false advertising, and I must confess I'm not as up on Hunter S. Thompson as I should be.

I like taking off in planes. Flying is fine, and I'm not a fan of all the preparatory work involved in travelling, but taking off is cool. Pressed into your seat, lifting into the sky on mighty wings and plumes of fire, defying the forces of the very universe itself. And other poetic phrases. I enjoy it.

Other people don't. I met a lady on the bus a number of weeks ago whose daughter was getting married in the Bahamas. This would seem like a tremendous occasion, except the lady had to fly there, and she was scared of flying. It's not an uncommon thing to be scared of flying. She told me "I guess I'll have to trust the sky." I told her I had taken an introduction to aerospace engineering course in university, and there are some excellent reasons from physics and fluid dynamics why the plane stays up, regardless of what gravity has to say. "You don't have to trust the sky. Just the science." She told me that made her feel better, so I hope I felt.

Anyway, because a fear of flying is so common, it shows up in pop culture as well. One case is that of Marge Simpson, who had it in an episode called "Fear of Flying" (Duh). Homer gets kicked out of his regular bar for playing a practical joke on Moe. In his quest to discover a new bar, he comes across a parody of Cheers and a Lesbian Bar (he doesn't notice). Finally, he gets to an airport bar, where he's mistaken for a pilot and put in charge of a flight to Chicago (because it's the Simpsons. Duh). He crashes while at a complete stop (don't think that doesn't take talent), and in recompense for the stupid mistake the airline played, they give the family free tickets to a someplace far away. Before they can take off, Marge freaks out due to her titular condition. She goes to a shrink to sort it all out, and it turns out her fear is due to her seeing her father working as a flight attendant, back when they were pretty much all stewardesses. Then some other memories surfaces, like that time she was poked in the eye while her mother tried to feed her via "hear comes the airplane" when she was a baby. And that time she was strafed, a la North by Northwest. (Wow, what repressed memories could my brain manufacture?) Anyway, she gets better, and the family is able to make a trip after all.

The other fear of flying reference that comes to mind is that of John McClane (Link NSFW). He's scared of flying, so his seat neighbour tells him, when he lands, to take off his shoes and socks, find a nice carpet, and make fists with his toes. Sounds like a good idea, regardless of irrational fears or not. He does so, and this leads to the situation where he has to fight terrorists barefoot, and winds up in a gruesome scene where he's picking shards of glass out of the bottom of his feet. See why I keep shoes on all the time? In case I need to fight terrorists.

Of course, adding fears to heroes beyond the usual 'Pain & Death' humanizes them a little bit. Other wise they'd just be superheroes, with no emotions beyond 'Whooo! I just killed a guy!' So we get Indiana Jones' fear of snakes, which he got after falling into a snake pit during a fight, and then having them crawl all over his body for the rest of the fight. Mind you, he got his trademark whip and fedora out of the deal, so while I'm sure he didn't enjoy it too much, we certainly did.

Irrational fears show up in real life too. For instance, I hate driving. Maybe not with a passion, but it's getting close. I hate yellow lights the worst, because I'm never sure if I should speed up or slow down. And so I hate green lights, because I don't know when they might turn yellow. You can usually tell by how many 'Don't Walk' flashes there are for pedestrians, but sometimes that Don't Walk just stays there, not flashing, while the light stays green. I hate driving in snow, because it's slippery. I hate driving in rain, because of visibility issues, and because excess water may cause hydroplaning. I actually like red lights and stop signs, because then I can come to a complete and total stop. Mind you, if there's too much snow, that might be hard to do, but I'll fault the snow for that, not the stop signs. I hate merging, because I'm never sure if cars will leave me enough room, and if I'll be able to stop in time if they don't. I hate passing on two-lane highways because I'm paranoid I'll crash into a car coming the other way. I hate passing semis, even on four lane roads, because I got into an accident trying to do that. I hate going fast, because I'm scared something will go wrong with my car and I'll go careening through traffic, like an artificial comet, weighing over a ton and causing untold damage. I hate hills, because I'm never sure if there'll be enough space to stop at the bottom, particularly if it's snowy out. Basically, I hate every single aspect of driving. Mind you, the only thing I hate more than driving is being a passenger.

Exclusivity and World of Warcraft

There's a debate raging on the World of Warcraft forums right now. Actually, debate is both accurate and generous. It's accurate in that most people involved tend to express their views quite well, and don't resort to using all caps, calling everyone gay, or leaving in a huff after declaring they've won. It's generous because it seems to be a few people against Blizzard, with neither side really willing to admit the validity of the other side's viewpoint. The debate centres on the nerfs to the heroic Dragon Soul raid. If the previous sentence didn't make sense to you, allow me to back up and explain.

World of Warcraft is a Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, which is a mouthful and thus usually shortened to MMORPG. Basically, it's an RPG you can play with a lot of other people. You don't have to, if you don't want to. In fact, you can reach the highest level and get good gear by yourself. The next step up from that is to group with four other people into a Party and tackle a Dungeon. A dungeon has enemies (called mobs) you wouldn't be able to beat normally. It also has bosses that require cooperation and coordination to kill, but they tend to give you much better loot than you could get by yourself. The next step up from parties are Raids. These are composed of 10 or 25 people, the bosses are very complicated, and you really have to know your class (class is the type of character you play, giving you access to different abilities. Warriors have different abilities than Paladins have different abilities than Mages have different abilities than Hunters and so on and so forth) and have some knowledge of other classes as well to kill those bosses. They are the hardest in the game, and thus drop the best loot (when bosses die, they have gear players can have. What gear shows up is somewhat random, but the gear is called loot, and what shows up is what "drops").

Vanilla WoW is what players call World of Warcraft before or without any expansions. It was released in November 2004. The Burning Crusade was released in January of 2007 and is known as TBC or just BC, and can refer to the time the expansion was released, or its contents. Wrath of the Lich King is known as WotLK or Wrath, and was released in November of 2008. Cataclysm is usually known as Cataclysm, although occasionally shortened to Cata, and was released in December, 2010. Mists of Pandaria is an upcoming expansion with no official release date yet, but speculation pegs it sometime in September. It's being talked about as MoP.

Back in Vanilla WoW, raids consisted of 40 people. Players talk about those halcyon days like thus: "Remember back in Vanilla WoW, how awesome raiding was with 40 people?" Let me tell you right now, raiding with 40 people was not awesome. It was more akin to herding cats. I was part of a guild (a group of like-minded people) that periodically but inconsistently raided. What happened was this: I would log on and join the raid. About an hour later, enough other people had joined the raid that we could actually tackle the enemies. We would make our way to the entrance of Molten Core (called MC, one of the less difficult 40 man raids). There, we would do a lot of preparatory spell work, and then get to work killing trash (mobs that aren't part of boss fights). We'd kill one or two bosses, and then someone's internet would go out, and someone else would have to go to school, and a few other people would have to spend time with their families (gasp!) and so the raid would fall apart well short of the final boss (most raids had 5 to 8 bosses. Some only had one, but there were insane quests to even be able to enter it, so those were out).

Most of the time, we couldn't even get 40 people, so we went to Zul'Gurub (a 20 man raid added later. Raids are added in patches, which is nice, because you can use the gear found in previous raids to take down the even harder bosses in later raids). There, we would kill maybe 4 bosses (out of 8) before we had to call it quits.

The last raid in Vanilla WoW was called Naxxramas. It was fairly big, with lots of bosses, and an incredibly tough end boss. He was the hardest in the game way back then. I never set foot in the place, which put me in the firm majority of other players as well. In fact, less than 1% of players even went in there, and only a tiny fraction of them managed to complete it. So Blizzard (the company that makes WoW) got to wondering why they made such awesome content that nobody saw.

In BC, they introduced 10 and 25 player raids. Each raid would either be for 10 or 25 players. For instance, Karazahn (shortened to Kara) only let 10 players in, whereas Serpentshire Caverns (SSC) was for 25 players. This reduction in raid size was said to be the end of WoW by a sizeable fraction of players, but that was to be expected. WoW players are like Facebook users - any change, no matter how small, will be decried. If you tallied up all the changes that World of Warcraft has made, it's been RUINED FOREVER at least 357 billiontimes (according to the playerbase). And if everyone quit when they said they would (and declared that Blizzard would lose customers due to whatever change they were complaining about), World of Warcraft would have about negative 15 million players right now. As it is, WoW continually gets more awesome. There's a reason it's #1, and that's because the people behind it really know what they're doing.

Anyway, BC also opened up another big change to end game content (the game features that are only available once you hit the highest level available - the 'level cap'): Heroic Dungeons. Each dungeon had two difficulties - one for level appropriate players (say, level 62, or level 65 or level 70 players), and one for well-geared level 70 players. Heroics were quite hard, but not as hard as raids. They were intended to be an intermediate step between dungeons and raids, as well as challenging content for players who didn't have the time or inclination to raid. They also occasionally rewarded purples (gear is rated by color, with purple being the best. Well, orange is technically better than that, but is so rare - like, one in a thousand rare - that most people just aim for purples, called Epics. Blue gear is called Rare and is better than everything but purple. Green is called Uncommon and is the next step down. White is common, and grey is junk).

In Wrath of the Lich King, they changed raids so that each of them could be done by 10 and 25 people. So one day you could take in 10, and the next, 25. The 25-man option had better loot, but 10 man was still nothing to sneeze at.

Later on, they also introduced Hard modes for Raids, which were similar to the Heroic modes for Dungeons. Basically, for people that wanted that extra challenge, or that extra gear, they would try the same difficult bosses, only now they would be even harder. The problem is that they included them for 10 and 25 man raids, which culminated in the Trial of the Crusader.

Trial of the Crusader was a raid introduced in patch 3.2. It started of as a good idea (no trash) that consisted of only bosses. The problem was that it was only in one big room, and had 5 bosses all in a row. And so people would run it in 10 man. And then the next day, they would run it as 25 man. And the next day, run it as 10 man hard mode. And then the next day, as 25 man hard mode. All in the same room, against the same bosses, night after night. People burned out really fast, and the complaining reached epic proportions.

For the next (and last) raid of the expansion, Blizzard put limits on raids, which pretty much amounted to once a week. So you had to choose whether you wanted to do 10 or 25 man, and normal or heroic. And while it might seem strange that a company wouldn't want their customers playing as much as possible, Blizzard's actually pretty good about that. They seem to care about their customers more than other companies (*cough* Pop-cap). After a few months of the raid, Blizzard also introduced a Buff.

Buffs are increases to stats. They can be permanent or temporary. For instance, Paladins have an ability call Blessing of Kings that increases any player's main stats by 5% for one hour. Some increase attack power, some increase armor, some just increase health. A debuff is almost the opposite, but it's only temporary. For instance, bosses might have an ability that reduces player armor by 25% for 30 seconds. A nerf is a permanent decrease to stats or abilities. As an example, say Paladins were doing too much damage relative to other classes. Blizzard would nerf one of their main abilities by two or three percent, bringing them more in line with the rest of the playerbase. They call it a Nerf because it makes you feel like your playing with foam weapons instead of the real thing.

Anyway, for the last raid of WotLK, Blizzard introduced a progressive buff. After a few months, player in the raid would get a 5% increase to health and attack power. A few weeks later, they'd get a 10%. It kept increasing until it hit 30%. This meant that guilds (or even just players) that were stuck on a boss (kept dying to that boss, week after week) could finally get past him and try out further content. Players who still wanted the challenge could turn off the buff. What this meant for players is that a whole bunch of them got to fight (and kill) the main enemy of the expansion (the titular Lich King), which had been Blizzards goal all along.

In Cataclysm, raiding was nearly the same. However, instead of players getting buffed, it was bosses getting nerfed. After a few months, bosses would have 5% less health. Then 10%, and so on. The problem with the players is that the last patch introduced an easier form of raiding, called Looking for Raid, or LFR.

LFR is an automatic grouping tool. Basically, you turn it on, and the game matches you with a bunch of other people to do the raid. If you don't use it, you have to hang around, waiting for someone to ask if anyone wants to join a raid, which can take a while, and people aren't too keen on raiding with strangers for tough content. LFR raiding is much easier than normal raiding, due to there being 24 other strangers in there, and coordination is tough even for people that regularly raid together.

So now there are three tiers of raiding: LFR (the easiest), Normal, and Heroic (or Hard). Deathwing is the last boss in the final raid, called the Dragon Soul, and so Heroic Deathwing is supposed to be the hardest fight in the game.

Back in WotLK, Blizzard put Achievements into the game. You could get achievements for a lot of different things ("hug a bunch of animals"), but most of the prestigious achievements had to do with killing raid bosses, since they were the hardest content in the game. You could also show off your achievements to other players, which is important to players that feel the need to do that type of thing. Yes, we could now virtually strut, and strut we did.

Right now, one of the toughest (and therefore best to show off) achievements in the game is the one you get for killing Heroic Deathwing. The problem that's arising is that the nerfs to the bosses mean that more people are getting it. There's a group of hardcore players saying that the nerfs shouldn't apply to Heroic Dragon Soul, and they have a bit of a point.

The original point of nerfs was to get as many players as possible to see the content. But because LFR is allowing people to play through Dragon Soul (albeit on lowered difficulty and therefore lowered loot), the nerfs don't have to apply. If you want a challenge, try normal. And the nerfs apply there too, because there's still a fair bit of prestige in killing Deathwing, even on normal (by the way, I have only killed Deathwing in LFR. By the time I got into raiding in Cataclysm, my guild had become engrossed in Diablo III. Mind you, I had become engrossed in Skyrim. And SWTOR. And Mass Effect 3). But should the nerfs apply to Heroic Dragon Soul? Blizzard argues yes, because they want as many players as they can to get the happy buzz that comes from beating a particularly trying boss. The hardcore players argue no, because beating Deathwing with the nerfs devalues the achievement, and they could do it without the nerf. Which is probably the nub of the problem.

The players want the prestige of beating Heroic Deathwing without the nerf, and they don't want anyone else to get that prestige. It's like they've joined an exclusive little club "Hey, look at how great a player I am" and don't want anyone else to join. It's in Bizzards best interests to have as many players that want to get into that club without it being so easy as to lose its "exclusive" status.

This problem is not just limited to World of Warcraft, or video games in general. People want to get into exclusive clubs. Why wouldn't you? They're exclusive and special. But as soon as they start letting more people in, they lose the exclusion and prestige. Specialness is inversely proportional to population. The more people, the less special. Ideally, you'd want to get into one and then immediately close the door behind you. The problem with that is that because you're the newcomer, there's no chance of becoming part of the even-more-exclusive club-within-the-club. And there's always a club-within-the-club.

Exclusive clubs are why religions can be so popular. "Look, I'm part of something special. Now keep everyone else out." They can have all sorts of rules to exclude almost anyone, so only the truly special people get in. One of the paradoxical tricks Jesus pulled is that Christianity is both open to everyone, while still maintaining the prestige of exclusiveness. In video game terms, it's a very shiny achievement that makes the bearer part of a very special circle, but everyone has it. It's both free and desirable, which is possibly the most incredible feat Jesus managed.

Of course, this exclusiveness can be twisted by those who know what they're doing. The head of the club can simply say "You're not a real member until ..." and the results can be particularly loathsome. "You're not a real Christian unless you hate gays and vote Republican." (of course, they'd rather that 'real Christians' only be Old White Men.) "You're not a real Muslim unless you strap on this vest."

My way of dealing with exclusivity is both silly and genius. I've made a club so exclusive, I'm the only member. Mind you, it's a bit of a bore, and the head's a real jerk.