RC Educational Services Discuss: Splinter Cell: Conviction

Today marks the last day before the release of Splinter Cell: Conviction, and is, therefore, a time for celebration. To say that I am excited by this game would be a drastic understatement. The single player looks like it might redefine stealth games, by rewarding badassitude. The cooperative multiplayer modes look to extend the game and reward teamwork. Let me close this post with a video and some links for the Xbox owners out there.




Download the Xbox demo here.

RC Reviews: A Brief Look at Mass Effect 2

It's really, really good.

RC Reviews: Sherlock Holmes

So I am sitting down to write a review of Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes and I don't know where to begin. I could start with the script (fairly strong, but not very Doyle-ish) or the acting (almost universally great), but I think I will begin with Ritchie's direction.

From the beginning, the direction was impressive. Ritchie managed to show Holmes's intellect and keen faculties of observation in a unique and economical manner. The audience is occasionally allowed to see Holmes's thought process in the moment, but generally, as with Doyle's stories, the explanation comes later.

One of the things that Ritchie is known for is his too-cool-for-school camera work and flashy editing. Both of these were toned down a lot. In fact, the direction never seemed to upstage the story or characters, which, as far as I can tell, is a first for Ritchie. I should confess that I have only seen Lock Stock, Snatch, and the horrible Revolver. In this movie Ritchie adapting himself admirably to the story he is telling, rather than adapting the story to his style. So overall, high marks for direction.

The script is one of the weakest parts of this movie. While I don't mean to suggest that it is a bad script, it does fall into two of the traps that historical action-y movies generally succumb to. First, and somewhat surprising, is the comically strong female character. Now, before you get angry and start calling me sexist, read the next four sentences. I loved the character of Irene Adler in Doyle's story "A Scandal in Bohemia." In that story, she beats Holmes at his own game. What I object to is the modern trend of assuming that any woman who is going to be a strong character in an action-y movie must either be a thief or an assassin or something, and must be able to kick as much ass as any man can. This is the problem with the film's version of Adler. I think that the most compelling thing about the character of Irene Adler was her ability to match Holmes on a mental level. Doyle's version of the character was never a badass tough guy, but she was much more interesting.

The other problem the script had was the one that everyone knew it would have. Unnecessary and unexplainable anachronism. There was enough interesting and bizarre technology in the late-middle nineteenth century that we don't need to have the characters invent tazers. I realize that this is a pointless request, but hey Hollywood, if you're listening, STOP IT! There is no need to pull this crap, and it never adds anything to the movie. I am always reminded of the nadir (it's a real word, look it up) of the historical action-y movie genre "The League of Extraordinary Goddamn What a Terrible Movie," when captain Nemo reveals his eight wheeled "Auto-Mobile."

Side note: Sorry that the last two paragraphs resemble a loosely organized rant about what is lazy and stupid in the movies, but the truth is that they were a loosely organized rant about what is lazy and stupid in the movies.

Back to the script. Other than the odd direction that the script took with Irene Adler and the stupid f--I promised I would stop rant--ing anachronisms, the script is strong. The mystery was well constructed and, despite my fears, actually something of a mystery. ish. The characters were well constructed and generally at least solidly two dimensional. Holmes, Watson, and the aforementioned Adler were fairly complex. Oddly enough, the writers abandoned Holmes's weakness for cocaine, legal at the time, for other ill-defined but presumably more "family-friendly" drugs. In my opinion, this doesn't reveal the weakness that Holmes tries so hard to conceal and overcome, so much as it makes him look like a victorian Hunter S. Thompson.

Which somehow brings me to the acting. Robert Downey Jr. is unsurprisingly great as Sherlock Holmes. He is at times (a phrase that seems only to pop up in reviews, I've noticed) hilarious and heartbreaking. The objective seemed to have been to humanize the man, and he could not have been better cast. Jude Law was marvelous as Watson, bringing a complexity and humor to the character I was most afraid would be sidelined. Watson is truly this film's heart (for the record, it caused me physical pain to type that). Rachael McAdams is good as Irene Adler, the love interest, but her character is too obviously Irene Adler, the love interest. A real standout for me was Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood, the villain. He brought a real air of menace to the character and occasionally threatened to steal the show.

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, despite a few nagging details, but, and this is important, I am only a fan of Sherlock Holmes stories. I have no idea how a fanatic might feel about this movie. It is an unapologetically modern take on the character, which is most likely a smart choice in terms of box office revenue. Fortunately, the movie doesn't suffer for it. In many ways, it is reminiscent of this summer's Star Trek. There are one or two stumbles, but the movie should appeal to newcomers and, hopefully, die-hard fans of the original stories.

A short explanation regarding my recent absence

Holiday retail is hell.

RC Reviews G.I. Joe, and Transformers 2

So this weekend, I sat down for some quality time with the new hotnesses: G.I. Joe: the Rise of Cobra and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. RC is proud to offer the following review of these blockbusters.

They are both crap.

Seriously, they suck a lot. Don't waste your time or money. There are one or two specks of decent in each of these movies, but neither one is worth a second glance in the video store. Terrible plots, one demensional characters, and horrible horrible writing drag two of my favorite franchises down.

If you want a fix of the eighties, try G.I. Joe: Resolute, which I have already mentioned, and The Transformers: the Movie.

So in conclusion, G.I. Joe: the Rise of Cobra and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen are crap.

Mea Culpa

So I just wanted to apologize for the sparse content. I have just started my new job and am trying to reach some sort of equilibrium between work, free time and writing. I know that this is truly fascinating for most of you, but I just wanted to keep you in the loop.

Well, I'm Convinced

This is the most compelling argument I've seen for creationism yet.

Seriously, check it out.

Article Commentary

Here is a Kotaku article commenting about the $60 AAA game price point. It's interesting to me that the argument condenses down to essentially, a game has to cost $60 or people think it sucks.
I buy less games because AAA titles cost $60. I don't have a lot of time to play games these days, meaning that if I buy a game, I expect to be able to play the game for a long time AND I expect the game to have high replay value in terms of multi-player or repeat solo missions. This means more content to develop and a longer production cycle, which increases the development costs. Developers then have to move more copies of a game just to break even on their costs.
This contributes to the lack or new IP and means that you get another Call of Duty and Madden game every year, because it sells. It's interesting to think about how console gaming got to be such an expensive hobby. Sounds like I have another post in the works.

RC Reviews: Halo 3: ODST

Halo 3: ODST, recycles the gameplay of earlier Halo games, which is not necessarily a bad thing, while it brings a few new things to the table.

The most obvious addition to the series is Firefight, a cooperative mode that throws wave after wave of enemies at up to four players. This is insanely fun. As the game progresses, the enemies get harder to beat, while the game also turns on skulls, which are the Halo version of cheat codes, that make the game even harder. I could get bogged down in the minutiae of this mode, but I will just say that it is really fun and you should try it.

The next part of Halo 3: ODST is the campaign. The story opens with the rookie alone and completely surrounded in an occupied city called New Mombassa, hours after getting separated from your squad. As the rookie, you are tasked with finding out what happened while you were unconscious. As you progress, you find clues, which trigger flashbacks. These flashbacks allow you to play as other characters, which shows what happened to your team. These are fun, but the real star is New Mombassa itself. Most of the game is spent exploring the city at night. The tone the designers attempted to create was of a film noir. The lonely jazz music and frequently empty streets helped achieve that. I'm not sure if I would credit them with succeeding entirely, but they were able to create a pitch-perfect sense of isolation.

Some of you may be interested to know that Nathan Fillion, Alan Tudyk, Adam Balwin, and Tricia Helfer voice characters in this game. Yes the three nerdiest things I enjoy: Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, and video games, all got together and made a [disgusting metaphor deleted]. Now, for much of the game, you play as the rookie, the mute, faceless character with no personality. I assume that the goal was to put the player into a blank character, so they could blah blah blah. My issue is that Halo 3: ODST is full of interesting and underutilized characters, and much of the game is played as nobody interesting at all.

The most common complaint I have heard is that the game is too short. I probably spent about six or eight hours playing through the campaign, but I also spent a fair amount of time exploring. I think it would be possible to finish in as few as three or four hours.

I think that the campaign in Halo 3: ODST, though marred by some nagging problems, is the best campaign in the Halo franchise. The thoughtful inclusion of Halo 3's multiplayer was a nice value-add, but the real prize is Firefight. Incredibly fun, this mode is easily worth half the price of the game. Now many of the reviews that I have seen address the price of this game. I think that is an incredibly silly thing to do, but here goes my shot at it.

Firefight: Easily worth $15, possibly as much as $20

The Campaign: I'd say I got $20 worth of fun out of it

The Halo 3 Multiplayer Disc: The three new maps will probably go on sale in a month or two for $10

So there you have it, Halo 3: ODST is a steal at $60. Now, this sort of math is total bullshit, but I have seen it thrown around in other reviews of this game as if it matters. The only thing that matters is do you personally think this game is worth the money. I for one do.

A Strong Argument

Why don't more people get the point? All we want is for everybody to be treated like they matter.