Zombie Column: The Last Stand

Last night, a few of us went to see The Last Stand. It’s Arnold Schwarzenegger’s new movie, so of course we saw it (or more accurately, of course I saw it). If we had been doing this during the 80’s, we would have seen all of his movies. ALL OF THEM.

Preview for the week where The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (a movie about magic. With special effects and camera tricks, is there actually a point to filming magic anymore? It’s not like any of us will believe what’s portrayed onscreen is actually what’s happening on screen), GI Joe: Retaliation (I’m all in on this. I've been all in on this since it was supposed to be released last June. In fact, I've been all in on this since it was announced. Because hey, GI Joe), a horror flick I didn't get the name of (and really don’t need to) and Snitch (the next attempt by Dwayne Johnson to get into actual acting roles, no matter how many times I tell him not to. “Don’t do it” I scream at the screen whenever he tries. “You’re so good when you don’t!”)

The movie opens with a lot of exposition, which is probably not a good choice. Exposition is boring, and probably violates the writing rule of “Show, don’t tell.” But so many directors find it easier to tell and not show, and so there’s less action, and that makes me sad. If you need a lot of exposition to set up the story, at least have a nice action prologue, like Skyfall or The Expendables 2. The Dark Knight Rises can have a slow opening (even though it doesn't), because, well, it has so many other things going for it (like good acting, and insane fanboys).

Anyway, a very dangerous drug lord escapes from custody in Las Vegas, and steals a very fast, powerful car to make a break for the Mexican border. I thought going to Canada would be shorter, but apparently my knowledge of American Geography is way off. The Americans have smartly built a moat around their country, so the dangerous drug lord hires a team of mercenaries to build a bridge over it before he gets there, so he can simply zip over it where no authorities are looking. Unfortunately for him, there’s a town nearby, sherrifed by Arnold (who’s named the incredibly un-Austrian Ray Owens). Arnold finds out about the bridge and all that when he and his deputies are involved in a shootout near it, and from then on, it’s about setting up to stop the dangerous drug lord and the mercenaries (Now on tour in the Midwest!)

Most of the movie takes place over the course of a few hours. About as long as it takes to speed from Las Vegas to the border at 150 mph. Maybe a few minutes more to stop for gas. Any roadblock are taken care of, but it’s this part of the movie that really fails to love up to its potential. There could be a huge Death Race thing going on, with all sorts of obstacles and death traps. Or a Fast and the Furious thing, with a lot of chases. Instead there’s two roadblocks, and lots of close-ups of the very fast, powerful car shifting. As Steve pointed out “You’re on a highway. Why are you shifting?”

Besides Arnold, you may recognize some of the actors. The guy who plays Jerry is used to being in small towns, since he also played Matt Saracen in the Friday Night Lights tv show. He was the backup (then starting) QB for the Dillon Panthers. Also, there’s Jamie Alexander, who’s used to being the only woman on an otherwise male team from her time on Thor (she played Sif, of Sif and the Warriors Three).

The music is decent. More strings than I expected. Not great, but decent. Not quite up to Audiomachine. With strings in this kind of flick, you might expect something by Jack Trammell, but it was a lot more orchestral.

Humour wasn't too sparse. Johnny Knoxville was a nut, but he’s always a little off, and it wasn't that funny to begin with. However, there’s a hilarious scene with a shotgun-toting grandmother that more than makes up for it.

All told, I think it’s a theatre movie. The action isn't quite there, but it’s made up for by other things, including a surprisingly emotion scene in the middle. Usually there isn't this sort of scene in this sort of film, but they put it in, and gosh darn if it didn't work. So that’s in there, and the music’s in there, and the humour’s in there, all for a good movie. Ridiculous, but good.

Zombie Column: The Hobbit

These past Holidays, I've managed to watch a number of movies that I had missed out on. Luckily, on the last day I had off, I squeezed in The Hobbit with my nephew. He'd already seen it, but we had made plans a while ago (which I had kept putting off, first because I was sick, then because I was busy). We finally managed it yesterday (Yes, today I was at work. It's no fun, but a paycheck beats no paycheck with a stick).

I was pleasantly surprised where the movie started. Not the previews (Man of Steel, Oz: the Great and Powerful, Jack the Giant Slayer), but the actual movie itself. It brought back Elijah Wood and Ian Holm to reprise Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, the day of Bilbo's 111^th birthday party. In fact, after a brief flashback to the dwarves losing their city, it takes us right up to when Frodo leaves to go read a book and meet Gandalf. It also reuses some terrific musical cues from the original film (Concerning Hobbits).

Anyway, then the movie goes back 60 years ago, to when Ian Holm looked like Martin Freeman, and had no adventures, which is just how normal Hobbits like it. Young Bilbo meets Gandalf (who still looks like Sir Ian McKellen), and then he meets a bunch of dwarves, and after a rather long introductory sequence, they go off on an adventure together, normal Hobbit behavior be damned. Bilbo is part Took after all, and Tooks are somewhat odd Hobbits who don't really conform to normal Hobbit-ish conventions. Good for them! Being shackled by society's conventions is no fun, no matter how fictional that society may be. Stand up for yourselves! Go on adventures! Be back home for supper! Oh, um, maybe that's not how adventures work in Middle Earth.

Adventures seems to be mostly the same, though, because I thought I saw this movie before, and it was called Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring. A group of people traipse around a place that looks an awful lot like New Zealand, and fight off increasingly ugly creatures. They even go underground, where they have to fight off and escape from a horde of enemies, including one giant one.

On the other hand, just because I've seen the movie before, doesn't mean it's not a good movie. And this movie is good. It might not be quite up to par with the other LOTR movies, but I think that's just because it took too long to get going. Mind you, Return of the King took about 20 minutes before any action happened. This one goes quite a bit longer with only a chaotic scene of Smaug the Dragon devastating a town before capturing all of the wealth in a nearby mountain as an action scene amidst a series of talky shots.

So, all in all, it's a theatre movie. Takes a while to get going, but good music, good action, awesome scenery, good humour. Takes me back to the days of the Original Trilogy. And definitely better than that other Prequel Trilogy (which if I had my way, would be permanently erased from both reality and memory. Forever).

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.