In addition to the Zelda runthrough, Clare and I are also doing a Final Fantasy runthrough, probably at a much slower pace. This one I'm a bit hesitant about - there's plenty of duds on this list, and I'm wondering if I'm glorifying the Playstation-era titles in my memory. But there's plenty of games that I'm extremely curious and probably wouldn't play otherwise, so here goes. They're also a lot more fun with a partner - in fact, all JRPGs are, which is the main reason I lament the genre's switch to handhelds.
So, Final Fantasy 1. Well, I don't have much experience with 8-bit RPGs, but I can tell you that I liked this game much better than Dragon Warrior, which I didn't finish, but whose obnoxious world map theme still haunts me to this day. It's well known that Squaresoft before Final Fantasy was known only for making clones of other developer's games. This might be a Dragon Warrior clone, but it's one that makes its predecessor look pretty shabby. Final Fantasy has a huge number of towns, whose citizens all dye their hair in a town-consistent color scheme. It's got talking dragons that live in holes in the ground. It's even got a cave of fun-loving dwarfs that greet you by saying "Hooray!" What's not to like?
Well, okay, there's not really much else to recommend this game. The characters (picked from a choice of classes) don't speak. The plot, which is mostly saved up for the end, is about an errant knight who gets sent back in time in order to release a slew of elemental demons and cause an unending time-loop...somehow. It manages to be both confusing and almost non-existent at the same time, and it doesn't have the saving grace of decent characters. The battle system is serviceable, but there are far too many palette-swapped enemies, and I envied Clare her ability to knit while I grinded. But there are certainly worse games out there.
I'd played a bit of the Playstation remake a couple years ago, and it feels like a completely different game. The translation is overhauled, and they turn it into a quite pretty 2D RPG. But this only serves to make the game more boring in my opinion. One plays a game like Final Fantasy in order to marvel at its idiosyncracies.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Zelda Runthrough: Ocarina of Time
Surprisingly, this runthrough marks the second time I've played this game all the way through. In fact, before I started this game, Ocarina of Time was actually fairly low on my list of Zelda favorites, just because there was nothing in it that really stood out for me. I've heard it said more than once that every Zelda game after Ocarina is just a pale attempt to capture the same magic, but that seems pretty untrue to me. In fact, if any game copies its predecessor too much, it's this game, which cannot unfairly be called a 3D remake of Link to the Past. (One could try to say something similar about Majora's Mask, but all in good time.) It's pretty clear why I don't replay it very often, because it takes a frustratingly long time to get to the good parts, like riding Epona.
But, yeah, this game is pretty amazing, and I needed to be reminded of that fact. As a remake, it adds the heart and soul that the developers discovered in Link's Awakening; the same cannot be said for the rather dry Super Mario 64. The gameplay is also incredibly fun and addictive, and remarkably simple when compared to the modern collect-athons. There's a reason that Majora's Mask would rehash every single minigame from Ocarina (and not really come off any worse for it).
So now I have no idea what my favorite Zelda game is. From Link to the Past through Majora's Mask, and continuing to Wind Waker), Nintendo found ways to surprise people with every new incarnation. Were the Beatles that lucky?
But, yeah, this game is pretty amazing, and I needed to be reminded of that fact. As a remake, it adds the heart and soul that the developers discovered in Link's Awakening; the same cannot be said for the rather dry Super Mario 64. The gameplay is also incredibly fun and addictive, and remarkably simple when compared to the modern collect-athons. There's a reason that Majora's Mask would rehash every single minigame from Ocarina (and not really come off any worse for it).
So now I have no idea what my favorite Zelda game is. From Link to the Past through Majora's Mask, and continuing to Wind Waker), Nintendo found ways to surprise people with every new incarnation. Were the Beatles that lucky?
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Fats Waller: "Your Socks Don't Match"
This strange song has been occupying my thoughts today.
For those who don't know, Fats Waller holds a cherished place in the pantheon of pre-war jazz. While Louis Armstrong was the unbeatable soloist and singer, and Duke Ellington had the best arragements, Fats Waller was probably the greatest entertainer.
This song is an enigma. It begins with Waller at the piano. Waller played in an era where the piano was often the only percussion instrument, and his stride style of playing usually keeps a fast and heavy beat, with the left hand dancing between octaves like Mingus on steroids. Here, backed by a drummer on hi-hat, Waller luxuriates a slow and easygoing blues for 1:30, actually half the song. And it's beautifully melodic playing.
And then the rest of the band kicks in, without much more energy. A guitar and trumpet sections keeps the blues theme going to great effect. And Waller starts singing. Here is the first verse, to the best I can figure it:
I like the devil in your chin
I even like that sugar way you grin
Still you ain't nowhere, you ain't any kind of cash
Dog-gone woman, your socks don't match
and later on, Waller speaks between verses, and the song turns more bizarre:
The shoes you wear, oh, they reveal your holes (!)
Seems that both of them are of different hue
They seem to be strangers baby, why don't you amalgamate and get them things together
I think you should introduce it too, yes, you gotta do them kind of thing
To put this song in some kind of weird context, this is actually a "sequel", if you will, to his bigger success, "Your Feet's Too Big". That song played in the credits of the Michel Gondry movie Be Kind Rewind, whose plot centers around an unusual attempt to rewrite Waller's biography (and whose star Jack Black stands out in my mind as the contemporary musician who maybe comes closest to Fats' style of comedy). But where that song is jumpy and boisterous, this one is tranquil and full of strange wordplay (notice the double entendre and the drunken pronoun-switch on the last line). Unsurprisingly, it wasn't as successful than its predecessor.
Fats loved to screw with the lyrics of his and other people's songs. He frequently added lines for humor, even into corny songs like "I Can't Give You Anything But Love". I heartily recommend watching him play his most famous song, "Ain't Misbehavin'" in a scene from Stormy Weather. It's not only worth it just to watch his mesmerizing expressions, it's probably the best recorded version of the song.
For those who don't know, Fats Waller holds a cherished place in the pantheon of pre-war jazz. While Louis Armstrong was the unbeatable soloist and singer, and Duke Ellington had the best arragements, Fats Waller was probably the greatest entertainer.
This song is an enigma. It begins with Waller at the piano. Waller played in an era where the piano was often the only percussion instrument, and his stride style of playing usually keeps a fast and heavy beat, with the left hand dancing between octaves like Mingus on steroids. Here, backed by a drummer on hi-hat, Waller luxuriates a slow and easygoing blues for 1:30, actually half the song. And it's beautifully melodic playing.
And then the rest of the band kicks in, without much more energy. A guitar and trumpet sections keeps the blues theme going to great effect. And Waller starts singing. Here is the first verse, to the best I can figure it:
I like the devil in your chin
I even like that sugar way you grin
Still you ain't nowhere, you ain't any kind of cash
Dog-gone woman, your socks don't match
and later on, Waller speaks between verses, and the song turns more bizarre:
The shoes you wear, oh, they reveal your holes (!)
Seems that both of them are of different hue
They seem to be strangers baby, why don't you amalgamate and get them things together
I think you should introduce it too, yes, you gotta do them kind of thing
To put this song in some kind of weird context, this is actually a "sequel", if you will, to his bigger success, "Your Feet's Too Big". That song played in the credits of the Michel Gondry movie Be Kind Rewind, whose plot centers around an unusual attempt to rewrite Waller's biography (and whose star Jack Black stands out in my mind as the contemporary musician who maybe comes closest to Fats' style of comedy). But where that song is jumpy and boisterous, this one is tranquil and full of strange wordplay (notice the double entendre and the drunken pronoun-switch on the last line). Unsurprisingly, it wasn't as successful than its predecessor.
Fats loved to screw with the lyrics of his and other people's songs. He frequently added lines for humor, even into corny songs like "I Can't Give You Anything But Love". I heartily recommend watching him play his most famous song, "Ain't Misbehavin'" in a scene from Stormy Weather. It's not only worth it just to watch his mesmerizing expressions, it's probably the best recorded version of the song.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Zero Dark Thirty
Katherine Bigelow wants to make war movies that put aside politics and stay close to the facts. I commend her for being the first director to succeed with a movie about Iraq. (Although for me In the Valley of Elah was more compelling than Hurt Locker.) But the newer movie has some deep and glaring problems.
I will be honest and say that I was slightly dreading this one, because of the depiction of torture. The makers of this movie have stated that they wanted to let viewers make up their own mind about the CIA's detainee system post 9/11, and I believe them. The fundamental problem is that neutrality on this issue necessarily comes off as silent consent. The narrative that the film subscribes to is that the information given by tortured detainees led intelligence officials (or one highly devoted official, but we'll get to that later) to focus their efforts on a possible courier to Bin Laden.
Many people have written about why this is inaccurate, and I'm not going to repeat the facts here. However, even if torture did provide crucial information in this pursuit, the movie does not really offer up a crucial question: does that information really justify the means of obtaining it? Perhaps this question is lurking in the background, but if this is really an insider's account, as the text at the beginning claims, than why not have the characters make their opinions known. (Instead we get one torturer taking a desk job because he feels he's "looked at too many men naked," and later a woman shaking her head slightly when listening to Obama denounce torture in an interview.)
When I actually watched Zero Dark Thirty, I could see that the whole torture issue is just one symptom of a larger problem; this movie doesn't just avoid politics, it avoids any kind of message at all. So it's reasonable to ask why it even exists. If Bigelow felt the need to say that behind the raid in Abbottabad were years of painstaking and unrewarded effort by hardworking and incredibly devoted agents, then forgive me for saying that that's not exactly a revelation. If the movie is meant as a fictional character study of one particularly feisty woman devoted to an incredibly personal manhunt for ten years, then fine, but I think Bigelow fails on this front as well. Chastain is a fine actress, but the role has little development and the last third of the movie consists of her being right about everything.
Speaking about this last part, Bigelow again dances around an extremely important and currently relevant issue, when the CIA leaders debate on whether to act on so little intelligence. However, instead of any reasonable justification, they decide to send in the helicopters because Chastain impresses everyone with her confidence. It's not only irresponsible, it's silly and boring.
By far the best scene of the movie (and this really surprised me) is the obligatory depiction of the raid itself. It's here that Bigelow's "just-the-facts" approach really pays off. This scene could easily have been something that high school teachers would show to students ten years from now to show America's clean and cathartic break with the war on terror. Instead we get the truth, which is a less-than-perfect assault where women got shot for being hysterical, and a dozen children are forced to huddle while men dressed in black point guns at them. Of course the soldiers are just doing their job, and as such it stands as a chilling reminder of why there is a difference between the police and the military. It's exactly the sort of thing we should be showing to high school students; it's probably the best depiction of a modern military action.
Edit: Speaking of which, happy Memorial Day! :/
I will be honest and say that I was slightly dreading this one, because of the depiction of torture. The makers of this movie have stated that they wanted to let viewers make up their own mind about the CIA's detainee system post 9/11, and I believe them. The fundamental problem is that neutrality on this issue necessarily comes off as silent consent. The narrative that the film subscribes to is that the information given by tortured detainees led intelligence officials (or one highly devoted official, but we'll get to that later) to focus their efforts on a possible courier to Bin Laden.
Many people have written about why this is inaccurate, and I'm not going to repeat the facts here. However, even if torture did provide crucial information in this pursuit, the movie does not really offer up a crucial question: does that information really justify the means of obtaining it? Perhaps this question is lurking in the background, but if this is really an insider's account, as the text at the beginning claims, than why not have the characters make their opinions known. (Instead we get one torturer taking a desk job because he feels he's "looked at too many men naked," and later a woman shaking her head slightly when listening to Obama denounce torture in an interview.)
When I actually watched Zero Dark Thirty, I could see that the whole torture issue is just one symptom of a larger problem; this movie doesn't just avoid politics, it avoids any kind of message at all. So it's reasonable to ask why it even exists. If Bigelow felt the need to say that behind the raid in Abbottabad were years of painstaking and unrewarded effort by hardworking and incredibly devoted agents, then forgive me for saying that that's not exactly a revelation. If the movie is meant as a fictional character study of one particularly feisty woman devoted to an incredibly personal manhunt for ten years, then fine, but I think Bigelow fails on this front as well. Chastain is a fine actress, but the role has little development and the last third of the movie consists of her being right about everything.
Speaking about this last part, Bigelow again dances around an extremely important and currently relevant issue, when the CIA leaders debate on whether to act on so little intelligence. However, instead of any reasonable justification, they decide to send in the helicopters because Chastain impresses everyone with her confidence. It's not only irresponsible, it's silly and boring.
By far the best scene of the movie (and this really surprised me) is the obligatory depiction of the raid itself. It's here that Bigelow's "just-the-facts" approach really pays off. This scene could easily have been something that high school teachers would show to students ten years from now to show America's clean and cathartic break with the war on terror. Instead we get the truth, which is a less-than-perfect assault where women got shot for being hysterical, and a dozen children are forced to huddle while men dressed in black point guns at them. Of course the soldiers are just doing their job, and as such it stands as a chilling reminder of why there is a difference between the police and the military. It's exactly the sort of thing we should be showing to high school students; it's probably the best depiction of a modern military action.
Edit: Speaking of which, happy Memorial Day! :/
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Bioshock Infinite (Xbox 360, 2013)
I took a break from my Zelda playthrough after Majora's Mask to play Bioshock Infinite. As is the general consensus, it's a terrific game with a great story. The Bioshock games, of which I've played the first and this new game (skipping the second, which changed developers and got mixed reviews), are about idealistic American "enclaves", set in the past but with futuristic technology. They're also credited with bringing a philosophical outlook to the modern high-budget video game. The first game focussed pretty heavily on Objectivism a la Ayn Rand. This game hits even closer to home, showing the dark side of American exceptionalism, racial purification, and Christian fundamentalism.
I wanted to start out positive, because I really did enjoy this game. In fact, since the designers did so much right, it's worth asking them what might be a pretty dumb question. Why does this game need to be a first-person shooter? Couldn't you tell a story just as good with a different gameplay mechanic? I understand that Booker DeWitt is not welcome in the flying city of Columbia, and why its leader believes he is a threat. I understand why he's willing to risk everything to accomplish his mission. I don't understand why that means it's sensible to turn him into a killing machine. These are not deformed "splicers", as in the first game, but quite real and healthy human beings that are dying by the hundreds.
Bioshock Infinite is an extremely violent game. Now I play games with many degrees of violence, and to be frank, this usually doesn't bother me. This doesn't have to be a moral issue, or an issue of children being desensitized. Honestly, this is just a game that would be significantly better if it had ditched the guns. Perhaps I wouldn't have felt this way when I was younger. It occured to me when I picked up this game that I've played at most 2 or 3 first person shooters since Call of Duty 4 came out. As I've gotten older, this is one genre I'm beginning to grow out of (and I still play JRPGs - go figure). Clare doesn't like watching them, and they're finally starting to make me queasy too.
The sad truth with this game is that it would probably be impossible, at least in this era of video games, to make something so beautiful, something with such high production values, without forcing the main character to carry guns around and point them at things. Perhaps someday there will be a Bioshock game that, without hypocrisy, will tell the gamers of the future about how America was once obsessed with firearms.
I wanted to start out positive, because I really did enjoy this game. In fact, since the designers did so much right, it's worth asking them what might be a pretty dumb question. Why does this game need to be a first-person shooter? Couldn't you tell a story just as good with a different gameplay mechanic? I understand that Booker DeWitt is not welcome in the flying city of Columbia, and why its leader believes he is a threat. I understand why he's willing to risk everything to accomplish his mission. I don't understand why that means it's sensible to turn him into a killing machine. These are not deformed "splicers", as in the first game, but quite real and healthy human beings that are dying by the hundreds.
Bioshock Infinite is an extremely violent game. Now I play games with many degrees of violence, and to be frank, this usually doesn't bother me. This doesn't have to be a moral issue, or an issue of children being desensitized. Honestly, this is just a game that would be significantly better if it had ditched the guns. Perhaps I wouldn't have felt this way when I was younger. It occured to me when I picked up this game that I've played at most 2 or 3 first person shooters since Call of Duty 4 came out. As I've gotten older, this is one genre I'm beginning to grow out of (and I still play JRPGs - go figure). Clare doesn't like watching them, and they're finally starting to make me queasy too.
The sad truth with this game is that it would probably be impossible, at least in this era of video games, to make something so beautiful, something with such high production values, without forcing the main character to carry guns around and point them at things. Perhaps someday there will be a Bioshock game that, without hypocrisy, will tell the gamers of the future about how America was once obsessed with firearms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
