The demo for Guitar Hero Metallica made its way onto the Xbox Live Marketplace last week. Glutton for punishment that I am, I downloaded it and gave it a spin.
The evolution from Guitar Freaks to Guitar Hero to Rock Band is an interesting one, particularly in the way the Guitar Hero franchise desperately tries to evolve alongside Rock Band despite the fact that it already consistently outsells it on a fairly major scale.
Besides the simple innovation of expanding the instrument selection, Rock Band made basic (yet sweeping) changes to the basic functionality of Guitar Hero that I would like to think are widely considered as improvements. Through the GHM demo, I discovered that some of these tweaks, such as the tendency for power-up notes to remain accessible despite activation, have mysteriously found their way into the Guitar Hero design.
As much as Activision hems and haws about their "imitators," it's interesting to watch Neversoft continue to cling to design choices made by Harmonix even after they've usurped the Guitar Hero franchise. Clearly, their franchise can stand on its own - it's almost insane how much it still sells despite a quality competitor being out there - and yet they still look tangentially to the originator for creative guidance.
Punctuate with mediocre note charts and terrible animation, and you have yourself a brand new Guitar Hero. Bravo.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
[Film] Revisiting Watchmen
From the moment the first trailer for Watchmen was revealed, my thought was that it would be a breathtaking adaptation of the characters and story that stripped it of most of its meaning and subtlety.
The book, for its part, is one of the least overrated recipients of a "greatest X of all time" consensus in existence - it masters the art of comic book superhero storytelling while also creating a complex structural commentary on its own subject matter. To call it "unfilmable" is to miss the point to some degree - it is simply not translatable into any other medium. If a filmmaker wanted to set out into equivocating Watchmen in film form, one of the first things they would have to do would be to throw out much of the story itself. It is a product of its format, its genre, and its era, and adapting it so directly to film is futile if it is an attempt to adapt it at its thematic core.
When I watched the film on opening night, my original assumption seemed to hold true. The story and the characters come to life vibrantly and are breathtakingly faithful to the source material. The unfortunate side of this is that the film feels shallower as an experience than the book. Another downside is that it is so faithful that any changes present become glaring wounds on the film - every missing beat and every altered plot point is preset to be annoying to the viewer who is familiar with the source material. Some took this in stride, while others absolutely hated the film for it. For my part, I found myself closer to the former - willing to adapt, but also mildly bothered, especially by the ending, which seemed to me to violently alter several thematic aspects of the original.
Like the book, though, I felt like the movie would likely benefit greatly from a second viewing. In the case of the book, this is because the presentation is so complex and layered that an entire level of the story opens up to those who read it a second (and third, and fourth) time. The film was different - watching it for the second time, I felt more at ease with the changes, and this allowed me to gain more enjoyment from the film itself (which, despite its lessened subtlety, is still monstrously complex and a visual masterpiece).
In the end, the test of time will sort out true failure from success, and I have a feeling that Watchmen will endure as a tentpole in the film superhero genre - even if it's not quite as big a one as it is in the world of graphic novels.
The book, for its part, is one of the least overrated recipients of a "greatest X of all time" consensus in existence - it masters the art of comic book superhero storytelling while also creating a complex structural commentary on its own subject matter. To call it "unfilmable" is to miss the point to some degree - it is simply not translatable into any other medium. If a filmmaker wanted to set out into equivocating Watchmen in film form, one of the first things they would have to do would be to throw out much of the story itself. It is a product of its format, its genre, and its era, and adapting it so directly to film is futile if it is an attempt to adapt it at its thematic core.
When I watched the film on opening night, my original assumption seemed to hold true. The story and the characters come to life vibrantly and are breathtakingly faithful to the source material. The unfortunate side of this is that the film feels shallower as an experience than the book. Another downside is that it is so faithful that any changes present become glaring wounds on the film - every missing beat and every altered plot point is preset to be annoying to the viewer who is familiar with the source material. Some took this in stride, while others absolutely hated the film for it. For my part, I found myself closer to the former - willing to adapt, but also mildly bothered, especially by the ending, which seemed to me to violently alter several thematic aspects of the original.
Like the book, though, I felt like the movie would likely benefit greatly from a second viewing. In the case of the book, this is because the presentation is so complex and layered that an entire level of the story opens up to those who read it a second (and third, and fourth) time. The film was different - watching it for the second time, I felt more at ease with the changes, and this allowed me to gain more enjoyment from the film itself (which, despite its lessened subtlety, is still monstrously complex and a visual masterpiece).
In the end, the test of time will sort out true failure from success, and I have a feeling that Watchmen will endure as a tentpole in the film superhero genre - even if it's not quite as big a one as it is in the world of graphic novels.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
[Gaming] Nickel and Dime
As content distribution methods evolve, so does the business of selling games. The idea of downloading game content has positive connotations for both the purveyors of said content and the consumers who use it. A creator can extend their product life and, simultaneously, reduce the costs of distribution, while the consumer has an opportunity to buy more conveniently and "own" their purchase in a new, more robust way. Unfortunately, these can be turned on their heads to paint a darker picture for everyone involved.
DRM as a concept is not evil - it helps foster trust in digital distribution amongst content providers - but misguided or malicious use of it can leave customers feeling ripped off. This is a throwback to the classic, physical method of distribution; when a person "buys" a video game, they feel like they truly "own" it, as it is tied to a physical object. What digital distribution does is break down that connection and reveal the reality: You do not truly buy a video game (consider that the game itself costs many thousands or millions of dollars to produce), but you buy a license to use it and a physical mechanism with which to do so. If the industry was willing to reorganize their pricing system to reflect this reality, perhaps they could foster some acceptance of this idea, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
Steam is the perfect example of how to do DRM right. Games are "priced to own," but the service still offers good deals. They're controlled by mildly intrusive DRM, but the buyer is also given new freedoms otherwise unavailable to them - they can re-download and install the game any time they want on any PC they're using, all through an incredibly easy-to-use interface. This mechanism offers both convenience and protection, and no other service offers such succinct freedom. Other PC DRM systems are intrusive and even damaging to consumers' PCs, so much so that people will resort to piracy as an alternative, not out of malice or immorality, but simply to escape what they perceive as corporate tyranny.
Current consoles also offer reasonably well-rounded DRM for their download services (now that Xbox Live's formerly-broken DRM has been mostly mended), but it remains to be seen if they will retain the same permanence that Steam has by benefit of being on a persistent, non-iterative platform. Come the next generation of consoles, will you be able to retain your Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network, and WiiWare games? Backwards compatibility is going to become even more of a lynch pin in the console and handheld world as digital distribution takes more bites out of the traditional method. The idea of permanent title retention is also an exciting one - to think that nearly every game that comes out could remain available in permanence after its release (more like how the movie industry now works) is simply astonishing when compared to the hobbyist practice of trolling eBay for that rare PlayStation RPG you missed out on in 1999.
The industry has a broad opportunity available to them. Distributor-led rental systems via digital download (something Microsoft already has in place for movies on Xbox Live) could revolutionize the way we buy games and the amount of money they generate. The piracy and homebrew sector has already out-thought and out-innovated the industry itself, and to truly compete, publishers will have to find new pricing and distribution methods that make the user enjoy paying for games. Rather than punishing paying customers, wouldn't it make more sense to lure your users into wanting to pay you?
DRM as a concept is not evil - it helps foster trust in digital distribution amongst content providers - but misguided or malicious use of it can leave customers feeling ripped off. This is a throwback to the classic, physical method of distribution; when a person "buys" a video game, they feel like they truly "own" it, as it is tied to a physical object. What digital distribution does is break down that connection and reveal the reality: You do not truly buy a video game (consider that the game itself costs many thousands or millions of dollars to produce), but you buy a license to use it and a physical mechanism with which to do so. If the industry was willing to reorganize their pricing system to reflect this reality, perhaps they could foster some acceptance of this idea, but we all know that isn't going to happen.
Steam is the perfect example of how to do DRM right. Games are "priced to own," but the service still offers good deals. They're controlled by mildly intrusive DRM, but the buyer is also given new freedoms otherwise unavailable to them - they can re-download and install the game any time they want on any PC they're using, all through an incredibly easy-to-use interface. This mechanism offers both convenience and protection, and no other service offers such succinct freedom. Other PC DRM systems are intrusive and even damaging to consumers' PCs, so much so that people will resort to piracy as an alternative, not out of malice or immorality, but simply to escape what they perceive as corporate tyranny.
Current consoles also offer reasonably well-rounded DRM for their download services (now that Xbox Live's formerly-broken DRM has been mostly mended), but it remains to be seen if they will retain the same permanence that Steam has by benefit of being on a persistent, non-iterative platform. Come the next generation of consoles, will you be able to retain your Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network, and WiiWare games? Backwards compatibility is going to become even more of a lynch pin in the console and handheld world as digital distribution takes more bites out of the traditional method. The idea of permanent title retention is also an exciting one - to think that nearly every game that comes out could remain available in permanence after its release (more like how the movie industry now works) is simply astonishing when compared to the hobbyist practice of trolling eBay for that rare PlayStation RPG you missed out on in 1999.
The industry has a broad opportunity available to them. Distributor-led rental systems via digital download (something Microsoft already has in place for movies on Xbox Live) could revolutionize the way we buy games and the amount of money they generate. The piracy and homebrew sector has already out-thought and out-innovated the industry itself, and to truly compete, publishers will have to find new pricing and distribution methods that make the user enjoy paying for games. Rather than punishing paying customers, wouldn't it make more sense to lure your users into wanting to pay you?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
[Animation] Wonder Woman (2009)
The use of the (2009) quantifier above is just a wee bit pandering, I suppose. It seems to have pervaded listings of the film universally, yet there has never been a Wonder Woman movie before. Curious that this animated film, which offers up the seemingly definitive tale of the character and her mythology to date, would need to be explained away by its year of release (as opposed to, say, an "Animated Movie" subtitle).
Having seen the film over this past weekend at WonderCon, I really just want to portray that I'm impressed as hell with it. The DC Universe series of animated films has been very successful so far, exploring and reinterpreting classic parts of DC lore that may never get the film treatment they deserve.
Not only does Wonder Woman successfully blend epic, mythic action and drama with a comedic subplot, but it's just the right kind of self conscious and perfectly tongue-in-cheek about the absurdities of the source material (such as the invisible jet and the lasso of truth) while still taking itself seriously. Michael Jelenic's screenplay paces the story perfectly with the beats of pure entertainment, and up-and-coming animation savant Lauren Montgomery proves why a legend like Bruce Timm would trust her so much with the director's role for these films. The voice cast is, in a word, solid.
A review of a film like this may be worthless - the vast majority of the target audience will buy it regardless of what anyone else says or thinks - but still, if you're on the fence, at least give this a thorough Netflixing.
Having seen the film over this past weekend at WonderCon, I really just want to portray that I'm impressed as hell with it. The DC Universe series of animated films has been very successful so far, exploring and reinterpreting classic parts of DC lore that may never get the film treatment they deserve.
Not only does Wonder Woman successfully blend epic, mythic action and drama with a comedic subplot, but it's just the right kind of self conscious and perfectly tongue-in-cheek about the absurdities of the source material (such as the invisible jet and the lasso of truth) while still taking itself seriously. Michael Jelenic's screenplay paces the story perfectly with the beats of pure entertainment, and up-and-coming animation savant Lauren Montgomery proves why a legend like Bruce Timm would trust her so much with the director's role for these films. The voice cast is, in a word, solid.
A review of a film like this may be worthless - the vast majority of the target audience will buy it regardless of what anyone else says or thinks - but still, if you're on the fence, at least give this a thorough Netflixing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
