The Limits Of Travelling By Unicorn - When Realism Seeps Into Fantasy

Realism is one of the greatest inspirations to the fantasy world. It's mainly due to the idea that you must understand the reality of the world to later shatter it into pieces and snort it so that you can witness a great hallucination that bends the fabric of the world you know. There seems to be a problem with surreality though. When it realizes that it is just reality with a prefix, it will sometimes try to implement rules in a world that seems as if it follows none. Other times, people seem to think that just because there is certain themes of reality in a work of fiction that aren't handled properly, a fuss should be made. It doesn't really sound coherent when it's said like that, but in truth, the reality inside fiction is a confusing journey in-and-of-itself.

The Cartoon Law - No Laws Of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics Or What-Have-You Apply:

What Is It? 

Around the time that animation had been starting up as something crisper and smoother, there came a new way to tell all sorts of stories imaginable. As the medium grew, an idea somehow managed to come about among these artists to disregard any bit of logic into their works. Rather than an anvil turning a person into a splattered tomato on the pavement, it would turn them into a pancake that would waddle about, and eventually come back to normal. This started the formation of the Cartoon Law, that allowed animators to make tons of sight gags as well an excuse to do terrible things to a cartoon character that wouldn't be as harmful if they relied on the reality of this situation.

Why Is It Significant?


The Cartoon Law was what made the Golden Age of Animation thrive. Animation directors such as Tex Avery and Chuck Jones used this idea to create classic jokes such as the pop-out eyes, the portable hole, the piano keys teeth, the accordion guy, the explosion reaction shot as well as allow for great fourth wall breakers that reference the mere absurdity of the world that they live in. Without it, shows likes the Looney Tunes and Tom And Jerry wouldn't have been the successes that they are. The cartoon law seeped out to other mediums and even borrowed from previous mediums that slowly transformed the fictional world into something much more detached from reality.

What Problems Came Of It?

It's not all too certain if this is true, but it seems as though that cartoon logic can be hard to distinguish from to a younger audience. They may believe that the characters they see on TV and that if they do what they do, they'll remain unscathed. Again, it's hard to know how true this is, but the greater problem came from mixing it into a more realistic setting or mixing cartoon logic with actual logic (explained later on). The former being perhaps a reason why some believe that you can do certain actions without any trouble. Now this sort of mix-up of what is right and what is wrong could also be factored to how factual the work is. 

The Indiana Jones Principle - Certain Reality-Bending Ideas Are Alright, But When You Nuke The Fridge, You've Gone Too Far:

What Is It?


Simply put, it's when one outlandish action doesn't faze anyone in a work, but then another outlandish action seems incredibly aggravating to see in the same work.

Why Does X Seem Okay To A Public Yet When Y Is Brought Up, It Pisses People Off?


This baffled me for a while, but here's the way I see it. Given the context of the world around you, you have to manage to be outlandish is a way that still keeps itself within the realms of the world itself. That's what allows for the suspension of disbelief. They can be okay with someone being able to walk on water if the world allows a person to do such. Now if you do something that is way too bizarre for the world that you already create, you shatter that suspension of disbelief, upsetting people in the audience. Another problem is that if you already establish something surreal in a story and then disregard it for another surreal idea, then people will claim that you're not following the continuity of your own world correctly.

Have There Ever Been Examples Of This Before Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull?


Absolutely. Many action films, including James Bond, fall under this sort of principle at times. The difference though is that the Crystal Skull made itself famous for "nuking the fridge" as well as being a disappointing re-imagining of an iconic series. 

Coin-Flip Reality - I Would Have Also Accepted "Who Turned Off The Surreal?":

What Is It?


Imagine if you will you had a lever. When you pull it upwards, everything follows with the confines of reality. When you pull it downwards, you immediate make everything surreal again. Whenever you feel like it, you can either pull the lever up or down, depending of you want to be serious or if you want to incorporate more slapstick.


Doesn't This Relate A Lot With Cartoon Logic?


Pretty much. Both of these two go hand in hand, and most of the time and cartoons are the ones that use the coin-flip reality the most for some of the jokes as well as some of the drama in it.


What's The Problem?


The crux of using coin-flip reality is that you make the logic of the world seem inconsistent. Sometimes you pull the lever too much that it's unsure if the world is supposed to be realistic or not. Other times, you create a loop-hole by not explaining why at one point something bizarre happen yet at another point it followed directly with how logic would dictate the scenario. You can also claim that using a more realistic feel for something to create for drama and throwing away common sense for a few chuckles comes off as sloppy, lazy and a tad forced. 

The World Creating Rulebook - When You Want To Put Your Own Realism In Your Own Surrealism:

How Does This Exactly Work? 


The idea behind the World Creating Rulebook is that you're applying surreality into something that feels more realistic, so that you can have your own list of what is plausible and what is not in your world that you're creating. The way this can come about though is two ways, Dali's way and the Comic Book's way.


What's The Difference Between Dali's Way And The Comic Book's Way?

Dali's surrealism-to-realism relies on making surreal imagery look real. This usually relies on adding as much detail as possible and following the facts of what you're going to use and then applying them properly. For example, say you want to have a man with a duck for a head and a wheel for a lower body. You'd figure out how a duck can move his head, how often it would quack, when it moves it's head closer to something as well as figuring out how the upper half moves when the wheel rolls and how big the wheel must be so that the  new creation can move about better. This makes the creation linger between both fields giving for a sense on uncertainty or intrigue to an audience.

The Comic Book's surrealism-to-realism is different. It gives the surreal rules as there would be for gravity, mathematics or physics. It gives limits to something seems as though it wouldn't to make it feel as if it was more realistic. A good way to describe this is saying that mythical beasts get tired at a certain point and have to eat a specific nutrient to regain their energy. This shows that whoever was working to make this world tried to give as much detail as possible and helps a world feel more three-dimensional.


Aren't There Issues With Doing This Though? 


Dali's way has the problem that not much is explained with how this came to be and can be considered as something that's just random for the sake or random. Dali's way also has the issue that some people don't execute the idea properly. They forget details and make their surreal image look bizarre. Other times, it seems to look so real that it can creep out and startle people with the way it looks. The former happens more often than the latter though. The Comic Book's way, on the other hand, has to be kept up-to-date and has to be followed as closely as possible. People can sometimes focus on continuity errors that occur, which breaks for that feeling that you're being attentive to the details of the world or you making your characters seem like idiots because they forget an aspect you put out. There's also the problem that if you make your own logic, you can create logical problems if you insert something into the world that further confuses people.

Conclusion:

Surrealism is a wonderful concept to explore in your works. It's what makes fiction feel like an epic fantasy rather than just a simple what-if. With all concepts in this world, it runs up to some problems especially when it blurs with reality. Despite that, whenever it works, it works wonders, making creations look impressive, intriguing, and perhaps thought-provoking.

Audiosurf VS Beat Hazard

A question has been lingering in the cranium of mankind ever since video games were invented. Is there a way we can integrate our favorite music into a video game in such a manner that the video game affects the game we play in a significant manner? And for a while we didn't know if there would be an answer because games were still in the testing stages and everything was still rough around the edges. But lo and behold in this new era oversaturated with remakes, sequels, FPSes and whatever else is bitched about, that the answer would be fulfilled. For in February 15, 2008, Dylan Fitterer created Audiosurf, a game that claimed that you could ride your music. It delivered with it's tagline as you were playing as a little ship that could go about collecting colored blocks on its journey to the end of your track. It seemed to control this market as hardly anyone can think of a game that does the same thing that isn't hidden on Newgrounds as Audiosurf sent them into the depths of obscurity. But then in April 15, 2010, Cold Beam Games came waving it's shooter with a self-soundtrack called Beat Hazard, challenging Audiosurf to a duel of who is the best game that you use to jam to your own tunes?

IT'S AUDIOSURF VS BEAT HAZARD!

Gameplay

As we all know, gameplay is a crucial aspect in making your game a success. And both games manage to deliver well with it. Beat Hazard has a shooter aspect to it that allows you to control a tiny ship that shoots other ships and asteroids to boost up your score whilst jamming to your tunes. While you do this, you have to collect power ups such as volume (which increases the volume which helps you fire more), power (which makes your guns more powerful, as you'd imagine), super-bombs (which creates an explosion that takes the whole screen up in it's radius) and +1, +5, +10 orbs (which increase your multiplier which helps to make your score all the more larger). You also can collect $10 triangles that can help you obtain perks which can reward you with more power-ups as well as unlock more difficult modes.

You always start out with 4 lives and you got to make the most of them, because you don't get any more. That, and you die in one hit. Once you max your volume and your power, you enter into Beat Hazard mode where everything gets more frantic than usual. You can either play through one track of your choice or go for as many tracks as you can with Survival Mode. There's also the possibility that in your tune, you may encounter boss ships which will use everything they can to eradicate you. So be wary of that.

Audiosurf plays it's game with a different mechanic. Yes, you have a little ship just like in Beat Hazard, but instead of shooting everything in site, you're going on a roller-coaster like track created by your song and trying to collect colored squares into a grid. Get three of the same color touching each other and you gain points. Seems simple, no? You can go with a whole array of ships which have their own special abilities that can change up the way you go about the game. Like there's the Mono ship that allows you to jump from the track and only has two types of blocks (colorful and grey), one you collect (colorful) and one you avoid at all costs (grey). And the Pointman ship that allows you to store blocks of your choice so that you can plop them back into the grid when you see fit.

Winner: Tough call, but I'm going to have to say Audiosurf. While Beat Hazard's gameplay is addicting, Audiosurf's gameplay is addicting and original. It's a unique puzzle mechanic that not only provides you to act fast, but also think fast. Beat Hazard's simply just based on half of that.

Graphics/Extra Bits


Now, you all know what I mean by graphics, but since there's another bit to games that isn't graphics but is closely related to it because it helps with the presentation of the game, I've decided to make this graphics and extra bits. Audiosurf's graphics are very polished and have a good sense of color to them. It's a bit epileptic at times, but you're entranced by the mere visuals of the track changing color from time to time. It's very well done. The menus also have a good variation of color and selecting your ship for the game is pretty neat, especially when you look at the designs for the logos of the ships.

Beat Hazard's menu may not be anything spectacular visual-wise, but whenever you open the game up, you have the opportunity to listen to some of your songs as a menu music theme. In a way, it's nothing much, but in another way, it sometimes seems like the song that is playing should be a menu theme. It gives off a sort of delightful yet bizarre feeling when you realize that. The ships look very shiny looking and the color that radiates from destroying the enemy or firing your projectile is magnificent if your eyes are able to handle such  intensities.

Winner: While Audiosurf's colorful visuals are beautifully appealing, Beat Hazard takes the cake with having that color be splashed on like an artist waving his brush madly into a painting, spewing the paint all over the place. Unless you have problems with quick flashing lights, the vision of seeing so many different colors burst out as you're shooting down ships is captivating and really engages you in a psychological way. Plus, having that extra part of your own music being the menu theme really shows that your music is what affects the game.

Music Integration


Now some could consider a nitpick here, but I believe that this aspect does affect how spectacular a music-revolved game is. If a game can properly integrate the mood, the feel, and the volume of the music of your choice in the level that you're about to play, then it's doing it's job right. Audiosurf's way of doing this is by  waiting for a while to create a track for you to go about. Depending on the tempo, the rhythm and the intensity of the song will determine how many twists, ups and downs, turns the tack will have. Beat Hazard on the other hand lets the music control how powerful your projectiles are, how fast the enemy ships go and how many of the enemies ships you get in a period of time. Both truly allow you to know what song to choose when you want something less chaotic or when you really want to test your metal.

Winner: Again, it's a real tough call here, but I'm going to have to say Audiosurf. With Audiosurf, you're at least certain on what parts dictate the way the track is formed. With Beat Hazard, while there are elements present there that prove how the music is integrated in the game, sometimes they're inconsistent. Primarily with how many ships come out at one in a period of time and what causes a boss ship to be triggered. It's never fully structured, so it just feels like they just throw anything there, no matter if it syncs with the track or not. Audiosurf also takes it's time to properly integrate the music into the level, so that sort of helps but them ahead with the tiny details.

Challenge


If you're one of those people that wants to get the most out of a video game, you want as much challenge as possible. Both games deliver with difficulty levels ranging from piss easy to incredibly hard as well as tons of achievements that you can do your best to obtain.

Winner: Well, Beat Hazard has 5 different difficulty levels, but when you get to harder modes, they just turn out to make the sort of cheap difficulty that isn't due to you not being better at the game but due to there being no way you can avoid the enemy. The survival mode also falls prey to this at times. It's somewhat balanced by the perks and the super-bombs, but not to the fullest extent. Audiosurf does balance things out so that the challenge feels that it is surmountable, if only you dedicate more time to the game itself. Even the most difficult parts such as trying to get no greys at all with Ninja Mono seem like they can be overcome if you just tried more and more. And for that, Audiosurf wins here.

WINNER: AUDIOSURF

While I enjoy playing a good amount of Beat Hazard, Audiosurf clearly shows to the be the more balanced and the more creative game out of the two. It properly integrates the music, provides a decent amount of challenge and it makes you think fast as well as react fast. Plus, it was complete once it was released unlike Beat Hazard which got a "DLC"-like version called Beat Hazard Ultra with more features and gadgets to mess with.

Well that's all I've got to share here. G'bye!

How Should We Go About Females In Fiction?

As a growing writer, I try to look at ways to make sure that I can write in a manner that is engaging, interesting and creatively to a reader. And while it's obvious that the best way to go about something like this is to actually write, I can't help but find myself looking at various sites and links lingering about that talk about writing itself a little more than actually trying to continue my practice. This isn't necessarily bad, it's just a little distracting. Then again, a lot of things take up my time from doing writing. Nonetheless, I usually come across three aspects that a writer must be wary about writing. Stereotypes, LGBT and women.

Unlike stereotypes (which can be fixed by detracting from a fixed personality or doing some more research to provide a more in-depth look at a character's culture) and LGBT (which can be fixed by not turning them into stereotypes), women seem to be getting a little more trouble to be written correctly. It's not that authors out there can't write female characters correctly, there are tons of books and tales out there where females are given a greater sense of dignity. It's more when it comes along to video games that women aren't exactly getting the right treatment. Now some could argue that films are guilty of this, but I'm not all too informed to say if they're right about this or they're just exaggerating. To me, it seems like there has been a better development of creating more female-friendly works in Hollywood than there was in the past. The question is who would argue this? That would be feminist-heavy critics.

See, what really prompted me into writing this was that I looked into ideas such as the Bechdel Test, misogyny and fanservice as well as a few blogs written by women that were criticizing how movies do not pass this test. Even if they somehow manage to do this, it doesn't make up for the fact that the work can still be misogynistic. Now, being an amateur in many things (mostly because I'm a young little fella), I am in no position to be pointing fingers to select people and calling them out on their failure to make the proper female character. So I can't make this a wagging of the finger unless I acknowledge that I have to be wagging the finger to myself as well. The idea though is just to give my own spin on how I believe we (including myself) can go about creating proper female characters. 

Females Can Be Good Looking And Interesting Too

The main thing that sets off the flame of this discussion is that women in video games (and to a much lesser extent, movies) have been over-sexualised to incredibly absurd levels. There seems to be a lot of hourglass ladies with very noticeable chest-balloons and curvacious derrieres that seem to draw eyes in the wrong ways. Now that wouldn't be so bad if the characters had more to them than just a boner-machine, but in some cases, that's really all they are. The reason that you can't say some of the ripped, well-groomed men in other mediums aren't just something for the girls to cream over is that they have depth, they have something more to them that makes them intriguing. Some creators makes them so interesting that you can forget about they're looks and more about them as a character. So what has to simply happen is that you have to apply that sort of effect onto the female character. Make emphasis about her past, her present situation, her relationship with other characters, her likes/dislikes as well as take her down the road and see her become affected by what comes towards her, allowing for that magical phenomenon called "character development" to blossom forth.

This is a little hard to attempt on a gal such as this:

Fear not, I'll provide the explanation to it on my next point. 

Do Not Draw Attention To Her Sexyness/Dumb Down The Hot Stuff

I have this theory that the more sexually appealing the female character is, the harder it is for an audience to notice that possibility of her having a sense of depth. Why? Well, it's because you're distracting them with the sultry figure and the titillating costume. Most men will drool in delight looking at this character, while most women will be either ignoring it or rolling their eyes at it. Do I think that you shouldn't use attractive female characters at all? No. Just don't make it a neon sign that your femme fatale is more femme than fatale. Give your female character a less revealing look. That means little to no cleavage, longer skirts/shorts/pants, little to no showing of the navel, etc.

Better yet, maybe start a little slower. Instead of making the character something that everyone's going to be jerking off to, make her reasonably attractive. That means a woman that doesn't have large breasts, a prominent behind and race-track curvy hips and the like. Or to put it in more clarifying terms, something that people can debate whether or not they're attractive. You'll be less inclined to use more revealing clothing because you know it's a more subjective choice. That way, when you go about creating her personality, it'll be less inclined to sexualisation. Once you can work well with that, then you can build up if you think that you're ready for it.

Remove Fanservice....Or At Least Be Reasonable About It


Fanservice is perhaps one of the greatest problems facing this issue. Writers will sometimes resist the urge to restrict themselves and go about coughing out a panty shot or two. It's gets even harder when the female character is practically eye-candy to them. What do we do? Well, we can try to eliminate fanservice in general, since it's usually unneeded in the times it happens. Now this has happened in works, but sometimes it's just because there's no women to make smut out of. I won't say that people remove women out of some of their works (or let them play a smaller role) because they're looking for an easy way out of avoiding fanservice, but it could be possible with something. Is it likely though? Probably not.

No one usually wants to take the easy way out, and some people just don't bother making fanservice in their works. That's fine. What would be harder than that is to make subtle fanservice or fanservice that doesn't fully distract from people. Let's face it, fanservice is distracting to people no matter what. It breaks the mood, kills the suspension of disbelief and just feels like a small, quick slap to the face. If you're going to have fanservice, time it right like you would a joke. Or sprinkle it gently on a work so that even if you fuck up the timing, you at least can say it didn't happen a lot.

Not All Villainesses Are Succubi

That was the cleanest I could find searching succubus up...

For those who don't know, succubi are women that use sex to do evil with. Mostly this involves giving a man the night of his life and then sucking the life-source of them. While not all the villainesses are the textbook definition of a succubus, select number of villainesses have been known to use their attractiveness to lure men into a trap (see: The Second Oldest Decoy In The Book). You can pretty much tell that what I'm going to say is that instead of using that as a decoy, use more nefarious, manipulative and sneaky forms to trick characters and make her seem evil. That's quite true, but as well as fanservice, you can either avoid the idea in general or be reasonable about it. Mainly because it would be fitting for villains to do anything they can, no matter what, to get to where they are now. Since such an idea has been overused with villainesses though, it's more interesting to try a different tactic to show the despicable nature that makes her put the evil in villainess. 

Don't Let The Man Be What Makes The Woman/The Smurfette Principle


Now this is where you see things leaning to a more radical level of feminism. Believe me, I thought that too. But then I thought about it. While it doesn't happen at incredibly absurd rates as the rest of the things I've mentioned on here do, some female characters usually become important simply because of the relationship they have with a man. They could be their sister, daughter, friend, girlfriend, fiancee or wife and that's really what makes them stick out. Just because they're one of those, that's what defines them. Usually there's no problem in making them more noticeable by making them into a more self-made character.

What happens if they are self-made though, but it's only because they are they only female character out there. Well, you've run into the Smurfette Priniciple problem. Fear not, the best way to fix that is add more female characters that are engaging to an audience. Do you always have to add more females though? Not necessarily. While it's better if you want to show that you're aware of the other 50% of the world's population, it's completely up to you. Do you feel that you want another female character? Do you think you can make it work? Will you be able to make the character more interesting by not just being a carbon copy of another character? This sort of thing is more up to a writer and is less of a glaring problem to being respectable to a female character, at least in my eyes. That being said, adding more females to an ensemble in a respectable fashion couldn't hurt.

Conclusion:

It's hard to take what I've said and keep it in mind. As I explained, I can't really be calling out the shots and declare myself as the righteous one when I know that I have done some works that basically do not follow any of these rules at all. And I understand if people are making something that doesn't really adhere to being more mature and structured that they break these rules. That's fine by me. But the subject has come to light for me at various moments in time and I've wondered how this can be bettered. While for some of you, this is restating the obvious, others may find this to be new to them, the same way that I felt when I found about this. Perhaps in the future I will follow these guidelines as a writer, perhaps I may disregard them. I'm not sure. All I know is this might be a good way to make more respectable female characters. 

DON'T MIND ME

DryChris's Video Game Round-Up Ranch And Grill

Usually I try to review video games separately in a "unique" fashion rather than stuff them all into one blog, but sometimes I decide that I want to get to talking about a bunch of games. This is when the latter comes up. I usually do this because I get a wave of games and I have to talk about them all in one gulp or because I'm lazy to write a bunch of long reviews on each game. In fact I did that in the past around the same time, and I could safely say that it was actually a good way to get through my opinions of each game.

Saints Row The Third:

Why Did I Get This: I consider myself a bit of a ticking time-bomb that would burst out beating someone senseless for no reason. It isn't really helped with hormones as they have a wonderful tendency of throwing me in different plains of thoughts like I'm a ping-pong ball. When that happens, all that is left is regret, confusion and more anger that will be repressed until the day that I snap. Now there are various ways that I've controlled this. I've become somewhat snarky with commentary towards certain individuals, I've listened to calming music, I've created different things and I've improved emotionally. Despite all of those efforts, I still feel that I'm going to crack if so much as a speck of dust glides down on my head. So I'd need something that could perhaps take out my anger but at the same time, convert it into amusement. You know, like smacking a bunch of random people with a giant dildo. So I figured this sandbox game would fulfill that need.

Thoughts: I've never played Saints Row 2 so I can't talk about from a "fan's" perspective, but I have played GTA IV and GTA San Andreas. As many people said, Saints Row basically out GTA's GTA. Now for something to be more than what GTA allows you to do is one hell of a pitch. Pitches don't usually mean that it will turn out that way, but in Saints Row The Third's case, it is. The reason this happens is because there is a huge sense of absurdity that comes within. It can come from small details like when you hit a whole crowd of people, they seem to be catapulted across the map as if they were covered with Flubber or from the more noticeable features like a dildo for a weapon or facing off a bunch of armed mascots in a Japanese game show.

The game comes with a variety of missions, side missions, collectibles and weapons that keep you busy. You basically do the missions so that you can have more crazy fun with new weapons, vehicles and features. It also allows you to customize your character's appearance, voice, and clothing, so you can go about mixing and matching costumes...or running naked through the whole game. The missions can be fun as well as the side missions, but the hub is usually where you go just to see what sort of mayhem you can ignite. You can be as creative or as deranged as you please when you're confronted by civilians, cops or other enemies that just so happen to be laying about there. For example, you could rob a store and kill the owner, alerting the cops, then smack a police officer with a wooden bat, steal his police car, run him over with it, shoot a rocket at his car and then do a little victory dance. There really is a lot of chaos that you can cause in order to relieve yourself of everyday annoyances.

Saints Row The Third kind of suffers from not fully embracing it's silliness. For those that have played the game, this will sound odd because some of you thought it was too silly. That's not really a bad thing, not everything has to be completely grounded to reality, but here's the thing. It really doesn't take advantage of the quirky nature it's putting out. Whatever quirky elements there are in the game are few and it becomes a very lackluster and mundane experience when I use my rubber dick of pain on someone. That and it usually ends up belonging to characters or side missions, with both being a hit or miss on if you're getting something quirky and if said quirk will amuse you or make you want to gouge your eyes out. This became increasingly frustrating with the whole Prof. Genki Japanese show bit. Why the hell didn't they do something more with this? The potential for more bizarre weaponry and perhaps a creative "boss" battle could have come out if they played with it a bit more. Being creative with how you're going to screw the place up is still present, but it would have seemed much better if they gave you a few toys more to mess with in the actual game.

Other than that, the story is passable but not really that interesting, and you'll probably encounter some lulzy glitches on your way. If the game wasn't rushed and they took their time adding some more content rather than pulling the dickish DLC move, this might have been the most insane joyride ever. For what it turned out to be, it still delivers on all that unadulterated anarchy, but those loose screws ended up hitting me in the face. I removed myself from all the aggravation of life and had my fun, but I was still wishing that I could have had a little more.

Uncharted 3:

Why Did I Get This: Simply put, I had fun with the past two games so it would only be natural that I would want to try Uncharted 3 and continue Drake's adventure.

Thoughts: Since this game borrowed a lot from it's predessecors and those were good, that makes this good by default. But it didn't really feel like anything that new was being brought to the table in terms of gameplay. It was the same third person shooting, parkouring, and exploring that was happening before. Not that there's anything wrong with that, you know. You shouldn't fix what isn't broken. I was just expecting maybe some new weapons or a new interesting mechanic you could fuck about with.

The story on the other hand does feel somewhat new in the same sense that making the same peanut butter and jelly sandwich is somewhat new because you're using two new loafs of bread and you use way too much PB&J. The basic sort of elements were sort of the same (save a few things) and it felt like it tried to add too much nail-biting insanity. (spoilers) In the whole game, you end up losing a friend because of mind control, trying to escaping a burning building, losing another best friend because the villains want to use him to find the treasure, escaping a  giant "cruiser" that's about to sink, crashing a giant plane, going through three trippy reality-bending segments and running through a city that's about to collapse. (/spoilers) It felt as if instead of trying to make a suitable yet intense experience, it was trying to severely 1-up the other two games by throwing in old ideas that were incredibly insane and adding in new parts that would raise the stakes even more. It's not that putting too much balls-off-the-walls action is a bad thing, it just didn't feel like it was handled properly, it felt rushed.

Nonetheless, the game's campaign is a good length and it was fun seeing how the whole adventure would take its course. The story's interesting if only because it's absurd in how much they try to squeeze into it. That's not to say it wasn't fun to see all that would happen in the adventure, it was still decent. Even if the story feels like it's trying too hard to be grand, the multiplayer makes up for that sort of feeling of having too much candy.

Batman Arkham City:

Why Did I Get This: My sister was on the phone with me and she asked me what games I'd like to get. I told her either Mortal Kombat or Batman Arkham City. I told her Mortal Kombat because I already had a Street Fighter game and I wanted to get a test of both of the "top" fighters. (Then again what do I know, I'm a scrub, lolololol). I told her Batman Arkham City because I've played a bit of Asylum and if people said that City was basically going to be like Asylum but 100 times better, then I'm gonna have to go with City. Add in the fact that the trailer with Riddler made Nigma go from a semi-laughing stock to someone of a more threatening demeanor and I was even more hooked. Still, I would haven't been disappointed with Mortal Kombat. Knowing my sister, Arkham seemed more predictable.

Thoughts: The Riddler isn't as great as they made him out to be. That can be partially due to the design that they went with him and that can also be due to how he seemed less like a mastermind luring you into a grand trap and more like a whiny bitch when you'd solve his riddles. The trophies can also share the blame on why the Riddler wasn't as great as I wanted him to be, but that wasn't as big as the last two parts. He did sound somewhat threatening with some of the messages he'd sent out to you, but that's about it. I guess that's enough of me nitpicking, now onto the rest of the game.

Remember when I was complaining that Uncharted 3 was forcing greater stakes to make the game seem more epic? Well Arkham City didn't really do that. Yes, at times it felt like some of the events were trying to be bigger than one another, but it felt like it was easing into all the chaos that was coming from such an environment. It felt epic because there was proper timing to when the stakes would be risen. It was constantly building up one crazy shitstorm after another. The characters themselves are written well, but that's almost expected when talking about Batman (unless we're talking about Frank Miller, hyuck hyuck). Sure, I bitched about the Riddler, but the Joker's obviously better and has more screentime so I can smile at Hamill's hysterical Joker cackle after frowning at what I saw with the Riddler. Hugo Strange was very interesting to see as sort of the main antagonist in Arkham City mainly because I've never heard of him and he was equally as threatening as any other Batman villain.

Gameplay-wise, with all the crooks to beat up and sneak-attack, puzzles to solve, areas to glide through and   gadgets to mess about, it feels quite strong. Each of the bosses you encounter are somewhat difficult, but you can overcome them if you do the usual "time your shit right" tactic that works with most bosses in most games. The difficulty does kind of go up and down at times, but it manages to provide a challenge to the gamer which isn't a bad thing. Succeeding in something that had to make you plan out your moves carefully is more satisfying because you had made a greater effort to overcome the problem. Everything just seemed to fall into the right places in the game. Except The Riddler. But like I said, it's just a nitpick. That, and even I, as a Riddler fan, have to admit that he wasn't all that special.

Driver: San Francisco:

Why Did I Get This: Rather than having my sheep mentality of getting all dem popular games, I decided to go on a sheep mentality of following Yahtzee's caustically-coated reviews. I watched his review of Driver: San Francisco and noticed that while he was giving the game a proper critical jabbing, he did find himself liking the game. Since he's one of those "not-so-easily-impressed-snob" types, for him to enjoy a game means that it must be quite the game. It could be a guilty pleasure too, but I didn't really bother with details and got it.

Thoughts: For a driving game to leave a greater impact on me, it either needs to be like Mario Kart, like GTA or have something else to it that those two games don't have. The only other racer that did this was Need For Speed 2: Hot Pursuit, where you could play as a cop car chasing a perp. Driver did deliver with this "car-jumping" mechanic that allows you to jump into a different car in the map and control it. When it comes to certain missions in the game, this sort of idea works wonders because you can stop a car that's way ahead by getting into another car and smashing into it. This does get fun when you simply want to mess about with the cars, but it doesn't last long. The characters and the story aren't that engaging, but some of the missions do make up for that lack of interest.

Rayman Origins:

Why Did I Get This: Rayman has had a bit of trouble with Ubisoft ever since the Rabbids overshadowed him. Granted it was sort and I was okay with the first two Rabbid games, but Rayman was far greater than the Rabbids. Mostly because I hold Rayman 2: The Great Escape so near and dear to my heart that to see more of our armless-yet-not-handless friend would be good. I could start getting older games like the first Rayman and the third one, but then Origins came along and I completely forgot that there is such a thing as the PSN.

Thoughts: I really can't say much about this game to the extent that I did with the others. That's not to say I didn't like the game, I loved it. The music is wonderful, the gameplay is solid and the fun is present in the wacky graphics. The thing is that this game is just a simple platformer, so there isn't that much to go on about in great lengths. I can't really go to great nitpicks, because the experience was just captivating and for me and any problems that I encountered were my fault. Hell I can't even do much comparison as a fan of the Rayman games because I need to at least play the original one to make the proper comparison. Sorry.

Super Mario 3D Land:

Why Did I Get This: Well the 3DS came out and I wanted to start my collection with the expected platforming adventure of the Italian menace himself, Mario. I didn't really care for the 3D aspect or much of the other features (which is kind of weird if I want to justify to myself that the 3DS was a good idea), I just wanted to see how this game would fair out with all the other Mario games that I played back when I was a radical Nintendo fan.

Thoughts: I felt like I was breaking off as two personalities throughout the whole game. On the one hand, the game was fun. The music was standard cheerful, the enviroments, enemies and powerups were inventive and the platforming was great. On the other hand, I muted the music because it wasn't as good as the other games, some enviroments felt rehashed, enemies weren't as interesting, powerups didn't have much changed and were just collections of previous powerups and the platforming was piss-easy. I felt like I saw the other side that I neglected so much as a blind fan when I played this game. It honestly would get a bit annoying when I would one point love the game for the interesting level I was in and then hate it because of the overused Tanooki tail bit and the inconsistency of the levels in the world and the Special World bullshit it pulled once I "completed" the game.

It has come to a point where even though I'll like the game, I want something more creative to be done with Mario. Perhaps the next Mario game will add something new like Galaxy did, but it might end up banking on that concept like it did with Galaxy 2 or semi-failing like it did with Sunshine. But it feels like there's more to it. I want the game to have a semblance of challenge. I know it's directed for younger audiences, but difficulty in a game provides the end result of success to be much more sweeter. That sort of idea feels like I may be asking too much from Nintendo, and I might as well be asking for someone to mimic the Sistine Chapel's paintings in my own house. I'm not sure what I want now that I've made this transition. The people who bought will probably like it, but to me, it felt like it wasn't all that great or fun as my Nintendo fan would like it to be. 

Age Is A Number With An Impact

Time is one of the most mysterious things in the world. It isn't completely concrete, yet we use it as a measurement. It is something that can manage to change your title as a human being. Time is what separates those that can drive a car and those that can't. Time is what makes a piece of bread into a moldy mess. Well that and bacteria and fungi covering the bread, but that's besides the point. Time is capable of changing what you are able to do and what you able to become.  The amount of time something can manage to last in this universe is something that can create a huge impact on how people view it.  But how exactly does time warp our vision on this world? You're about to find out. 

Standards: The Good Of Today Isn't The Good of Yesterday


You ever heard older people say the phrase, "back in my day" after you do something that seems to irritate them? Like how you decide to date someone of a different race and they disapprove. Or perhaps you wag your finger sternly to a bratty kid instead of spanking them for their misbehavior. Or maybe the geezer's just rambling on about how this new-age music sounds awful. Those are all different things that relate to a person's standards. Now I can't really talk about the first two examples for two simple reasons. One, racism is bad, so I can't really be a devil's advocate. Two, disciplining a child isn't something that I can really conserve about since I don't have a child and I don't know how to properly go about the subject. The third one, on the other hand, is better for me to focus on because it bases itself on the public's subjectivity in different decades on pop culture.

Movies are part of something I like to call the "quality time-shift". In a sense, movies have always been equal in the amount of crap they spew with the amount of gold they create. The problem is that it's never consistent with how much of each should come out in a period of a year. Sometimes a lot of good movies come out altogether in a brief period of time. Other times a lot of crap movies come out altogether in a brief period of time. Depending on when these movies come out and how long the "crap" or "gold" is leaked out creates this skewed perspective that a period of time is worse with the quality of of it's films than another or vice versa. Another thing to take into consider is timing. But we'll get to that later.

Music is based around being fragmented in it's quality. What do I mean by this? Well, to become really popular in music you have to really be good at what you do in your genre of music (or be lucky, but I'm not here to start a flame war about some popular band (*cough* The Beatles *cough*)). Otherwise, you don't really stick out to the audience and you'll be forgotten (unless you make a huge comeback or you go out with a bang...either literally or figuratively). Now, popularity isn't what we're talking about, but let me further explain this. See, the reason that this sort of phenomenon occurs is that the music industry is based on eras. Take disco for example, everyone used to love disco...for about 12 seconds. Then everyone didn't care for it.  That's because the music industry creates different sets of standards for different movements. That's why there are people that actually like music that most would consider deplorable. It's because at a young age, these people were brainwashed to follow these standards and possibly enjoy them. At least that's my theory.

Video games aren't based so much around time-affected standards as you'd think. Sure, you could argue that what a retro gamer considers difficult is different than what a new-age gamer considers difficult. I'm not saying that this sort of thing doesn't exist, but standards are much more affected by a different time mechanic rather than the simple passing of time being part of the problem. That mechanic being nostalgia.

Nostalgia: Time's Nuclear Power

Nostalgia, for those of you who don't know, is the bittersweet feeling of going back to older times. Like nuclear power, nostalgia can either be used for good or for evil. For good, nostalgia can advertise a product. For evil, it can suck a fanatic dry out of their cash. For good, nostalgia can make a customer feel happy that they've returned back to older times. For evil, it can turn them into a blind puppet that will praise anything that is thrown at them. Movies and music do fall under this trap as anyone who's seen the Star Wars prequels or been to a comeback concert where the musician that used to be good back in his hayday is now worn down could tell you. Despite that, video games are the United States of nostalgia as they use it a lot as good and as bad. It is something that turns gamers against each other and it is the major cause of anger amongst the community

The effects of nostalgia on video games are so powerful that it manages to pit a certain category of gamers against each other. That's right, retro gamers fight amongst each other because of nostalgia. For you see, there are clingy retro gamers and self-aware retro gamers. Now the way these two work is simple. Suppose as a child, these two have teddy bears. They love this teddy bear. Then they give it up because they grow up. Now let's say 10 years go by and they go back to see the teddy bear. It's all dirty, a bit torn up and it smells weird. The clingy retro gamer will hug it and remember all the good times it had with it, avoiding the problems that it has. The self-aware retro gamer will hug it, but then it will see something wrong with it. It will notice that it wasn't the teddy bear of before. This gamer will try to fix the teddy bear to get the teddy bear of before or abandon it, thinking that the good times were all in the past. Now does this happen all the time? Not exactly. Sometimes the teddy bear is exactly the same as it was before. Sometimes it's better. It depends on what we're talking about.

Timing: Forgotten To Recognized


Timing is a simple concept. People have to wait for the right time to do an action so that it has the fullest effect. It is what can separate a low-life with no importance to the greatest hit that ever came to be. The problem with timing is that it doesn't really impact the opinion of how people view something. Just because something terrible managed to get through at a time where everyone swarmed over it doesn't make it good. It's still bad. Yet, the tragedy of this is that if you don't pinpoint the proper moment to strike, you may end up being overlooked. That's why terms like "overrated" and "underrated" are abused. It's because something got incredibly lucky or something was covered by projects of greater importance.

Importance: Does The Old Fix The New?


Someone once said that you should learn from the past in order to create the future. Someone also said that you shouldn't let the past impact the future. Which one of these people is right? If you answered that the first guy is right, then you're probably that guy who thought the rapture would happen in 2011. If you answered the second guy, then I guess you probably make the same mistake over and over again. In a sense, both of these people are right and wrong. It all depends on what matter we're talking about and the intensity of what happened. If you're into science, why would you care what Shakespeare wrote? You woudln't. If you're into English...why would you still care about what Shakespeare wrote? You would if you wanted to become a better writer. How about if you never shoplifted anything before and you get caught doing that. Should you get a longer punishment than someone that did it before? Depends...did you shoplift a candy or a TV?

Now I know that you're thinking that this isn't so much based on time as it is on the minor details. The thing is that people sometimes consider the importance of it more than they consider the time on when it happened. Or they think that since it's an old concept it isn't worth being important. That why sometimes things that aren't broken end up getting fixed and why it's harder to believe someone that could actually be telling the truth.

Time is an odd part of our universe. But I hope I spent yours well with this blog. .

DryChris's Top 10 Characters That Needed More Screentime

In movies, there's a lot of things that need to be handled with care and precision. The writing has to be good, the sets have to fit the atmosphere of the film, the music has to do it's job, and the editing has to be spot-on. But there's also the characters that need to be taken into consideration. Each character needs to be in the movie for a set amount of time. This sort of thing can also be said for games. But you know, sometimes I want to see some of the characters a little longer. Maybe they just amuse me greatly or I feel that they might be more than what is already displayed to us that needs to be known. Perhaps it was because they needed to equal the screen time for each character or they didn't really feel that the character needed anything else. Nonetheless, these are the ones that I would have loved to seen more of.

10. The Duo Who Owned The Theatre (Phantom of The Opera)

They get so little screen time, I can't even find a good picture of them. So here's the theater they own.

The Phantom of The Opera is one of those movies that seems to have good supporting characters and great songs, but an awful main character with a somewhat cool concept. But I'm not here to bash Gerald Bulter's performance. I'm here to talk about the two characters that apparently own the theatre. These two are at the very bottom of my list because I really didn't have enough to really work with. Their names seem to be lost in the film and they appear few times. When they do appear, they amuse the hell out of me. They mainly served as worms that were pressured to follow the main actress' desires but the way they squirmed was so fun. They were just so paranoid and didn't want to have a bad show, like any theatre owner.

I really would have loved to just seen more conversation with the other performers. It would have been fun to see them switch from demanding the actors to ordering chocolates to its more valuable actors. It would have provided with great comedic relief once things got incredibly dramatic and maudlin. It's too bad that they just went like that, but luckily the others managed to entertain me nonetheless.

9. Knuckles (Sonic 3)

I sometimes wonder who makes his gloves...

Now I know what you're thinking. "Why would you ever want more screen time for Knuckles when the main focus is Sonic? For that matter, why him? He was basically the side-character that exemplified the annoyance that later side-characters would emulate." Well, let me explain. When Knuckles was introduced in Sonic 3, he was simply a very pompous character that used brute force because he wanted to guard the island. The interesting part of his character in the game is that he allies with Robotnik thinking that Sonic is the villain. Now that alone seems like an interesting concept that they could have played around.

It would have just been nice to seen him interacting with Robotnik a little more and slowly coming to the realization that Robotnik is the bad guy. But then again, Knuckles was redeemed with the expansion pack and the "story" in Sonic 3 was still good in it of itself. And I have to be honest, I've said this thing before. I'm not really into the story when it comes to a Sonic game. So it shouldn't be something of a high importance. Besides, he got more screen time in later Sonic games which actually made up for the lack in Sonic 3.

8. Waluigi (Mario Series)

Is it me, or does it look like his overalls are incredibly tight on him?

Waluigi is a very underused character. And that wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't in so many freaking games as an underused character. Waluigi is supposed to be Luigi's arch nemesis in a sense, much like how Mario and Wario are. But this character does nothing. He simply plays party games. I don't really get it. He seems like he would be a perfect cheesy villain. He has a vaudeville look going for him, he seems to have an obsession with Bob-ombs and tennis rackets. If Luigi actually had a more adventure based game rather than Luigi's Mansion (which isn't bad), he could have been a fun villain to fight against. Heck, they could have had Waluigi make some sort of cameo in Luigi's Mansion.

In fact, he could have been like how Bowser appeared in Luigi's Mansion. Yeah, a ton of ghosts could have been manipulating a Waluigi costume and throwing ghostly bombs. That would be incredibly bizarre and maybe a little nonsensical, but at least he would be put to use in a very interesting manner. I don't know, I just think that for a character that's been returning in so many Mario games to have such a little point is a tad insulting.

7. General Guy (Paper Mario)

Mee-auwg! (Shy Guy for Sieg Heil)

Paper Mario had some really inventive surroundings. In fact, if we were to rate Mario game series on creativity, I think the Paper Mario series would be on par with the Super Mario Galaxy duo. You had ice castles, European-like ghost towns, fortresses in the middle of the forest and best of all, you had the Shy Guy Toy Box. Which basically was like if your toys were overrun by an army of masked monks. And of all the bosses in Paper Mario, General Guy was by far, my favorite. He had a very interesting tank-like vehicle and had a lot of quirkyness to his character. I mean, he attacks with a light bulb. That's just so silly, but it worked for him.

Now the thing was that the character is a boss character, so it would feel weird to have him come back when you just whooped his ass, but come on. If he escaped the toybox, they could have had a chase scene around the "hub" of the game. If he crashed in another map, he could have had his tank enhanced by the surroundings. Just imagine his tank pouring lava onto the battle. Or he would pick off icicles on the tank and throw them at you. I just would have loved to seen more of him. Plus, it would have been much better of a reoccurring battle than that little egghead twerp. You know the one I'm talking about.

6. Joel Cairo (The Maltese Falcon)

He could be anyone with that look. But that voice can just ruin that. 

Now I would just like to say that I loved this film. This classical film noir really summarized how those sort of films are supposed to play out. Interesting but mischievous clients, antagonists that range from bitter to elegant to deceiving and quick talking, hard boiled private dicks. This film just had a lot going for it. And one of the supporting characters that I seemed to like the most was Peter Lorre as Joel Cairo. Cairo is an interesting character because you can't really tell if he's a pawn or a man with his own plans. He seems to be both at some times which seems really weird for someone to pull off. 

I really wanted to see what else Joel had in store. He just seemed much more secretive and sly than the other two antagonists. He just had more hidden to him which really drew me to him. But I guess the less I know about him works to the film's advantage. Film noires are known to have such tangled and perplexing characters that wrap themselves in an enigma. But it just would have been nice to see more of Cairo's perspective. 

5. Baby Herman (Who Framed Roger Rabbit)

Who's a cute little chain smoker? You are! Yes you are! Yes you are!!

For a movie that has a lot of cameos, you'd think that it would be hard for me to choose. Well, here's the thing, as much as I would have wanted to seen some of the one-time cameos be a little more extended, it doesn't really seem like something that would work. WFRR is supposed to focus itself on the other toons that just so happen to work with the toons that we grew up with. There isn't that many supporting toon characters that don't live in another cartoon series, so the choice really seemed easy for me. Baby Herman had to land a spot here.

Baby Herman is Roger Rabbit's co-star who acts like a baby and looks like a baby, but has an incredibly crass attitude. He knew what happened and he wanted to make sure that Eddie had his facts straight. He seemed like someone that could have pulled off the tough guy if he wasn't...well...a baby. The movie still is wonderful to me, but I just can't help but imagine him doing more comedic relief. Couldn't you just imagine him appearing in that bar out of nowhere, asking for the waitress for a drink? I sure as hell did and thought that it would have been hilarious. But hey, what he managed to do still put a goofy smile on my face. 

4. Edna Mode (The Incredibles)

The first person to point out the flaw of capes to me. 

The Incredibles's cast really seemed like something that gave every character a fair amount of screen time. Not one character was neglected and not one character was on too much. It all seemed to fit perfectly. So you're probably wondering why in holy hell I would put a character from that movie on this list. Well, Edna is like a comedian doing a really good opening act for another really good comedian. You found yourself to have a really good time with her and even though the main event was satisfying, you just can't help but want to see her more. She perfectly captured the fashion designer cliche and stretched it to such a laughable extent. You really can't add that much more other than she was a riot in the films. 

3. James Donnelly (L.A Noire)

BINGO, BOY-O!

L.A Noire is quite a video game, if you haven't heard me yapping my head off about it yet. It offers a lot to the player and feels a lot like an interactive adventure. But the best part is that it revived the film noir in such a way that it was quite refreshing. Maybe it's because the whole game isn't in black and white, but just something about it made all the familiarity of the film noir genre refreshing. That and it actually did have some "modern" elements to it. But now let's talk James Donnelly.

James Donnelly is the Irish police chief of the LAPD that seems to not take any shit. But at the same time he's very inviting and and tries to be as charismatic to you as possible. He pats you on the back when you do things good and tries to make sure that you're still doing your job and your doing it right. He really had his own sort of mood that differentiated him from the other characters. He also seemed to have a past of his own that was as checkered as Cole's. In fact, maybe he had an even more convoluted life. You're not sure. Much like Cario, Donnelly has a lot more mystery and slyness to him. But unlike Cairo, Donnelly seems to have answers that make you ask more questions. That and if you compare the two, Donnelly has a lot more screen time. Then again, like Cairo, you just can't help but want to see more behind the LAPD chief.

2. Crooks (Of Mice and Men) 

Uh...I can't think of a witty tagline. 

Of Mice and Men was an ok book, but showed itself to be a great movie in 1992. It wasn't the best, but you really felt the effort placed into the film. But there's something that not only the movie, but the book had a problem with. And that was that they didn't develop a character that had the most turmoil throughout the journey enough. That being Crooks. Crooks is a stable man who is discriminated for his skin and finds himself in his own cabin. He spent most of the time alone and grew insane and incredibly bitter. It scarred him. Add to the fact that he's physically challenged and you pretty much have a tormented character that could be developed into something more.

They only meet him once and it really shows how much he's suffering, but it just felt as though he needed something else. Perhaps we had to see the discrimination in action by him going into the other cabin and being assaulted by Curly. Or hell, when he's slowly making a connection with George and Lennie and he realizes that one is dead and the other leaves the town, they could have shown his reaction. And judging by how those two were the closest to friends he had, he would feel crushed. I just saw a lot of potential for him.

1. Amos (Chicago)

To think that he was a Sasquatch...

If anyone knows me, they'd know that I love Chicago. It's one of my favorite musicals ever. But aside from they, they'd know that my favorite character in the film is Amos. Amos is a really relatable character. He finds himself as an every man who just gets stiffed over by his supposed wife. People use him as a pawn and make him feel insignificant no matter what. This guy is also a powerhouse with the emotional side of people with his song "Mr. Cellophane", which shows how he feels when he converses with anyone. And we've all felt what he's felt at one point or the other. But here's the problem. The film isn't about him. It's about Roxie Hart.

Is this bad? Not really. Roxie's story of how she craves attention and does anything to gain it while having a pseudo-romance with her lawyer is gripping...but damn, with all that he has, Amos could have a whole musical centered around him. It could tackle his job, his feelings for his wife, how he reacts with the news that he gets and the intense heartbreak he feels at the end. He just has so much that can be used and he just doesn't seem to have enough of it. Then again, like most of these entries, the work is still great with the allotted screen time he gets, but I really just want to see a story about this sad, troubled man.