Inception hangs together pretty well, but it's not without problems. Here's a couple sticking points that I can't work out to complete satisfaction:
1- The first-level dream in the rainy city should seemingly last about a week for the dreamers. Yet when the van hits the water at the film's climax, the gang had clearly not been in that dream for anything more than a few hours. What did they do after they escaped the van? Evade Fischer's projections for a full week before waking up on the plane?
2- Did Arthur really manage to corral all of the dreamers in the second-level hotel-dream, move them to the lift, AND set the explosive charges in less than three minutes? Crikey!
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Thoughts on Inception
Inception is a cool movie - starting with it's most basic idea: that dreams are not just fleeting mental apparitions, but instead are more like places that you can go to. You can build a dream like a building, take a dreamer there and let them populate it, fill out the details with their subconcious mind. Then, if you play a few tricks, you can extract secret information. This, of course, is the prize skill of Inception's main character Dom Cobb; he's a thief that steals from your dreams. How's that for a cool premise? It's perfectly suited for a big-screen adventure complete with beautiful visuals, exciting action, and a delicate plot - all of which Inception delivers.
Now we have the premise, but of course it has to be a little more complex than that. There have to be rules, limitations and dangers even in the dreams, or else what's to stop the characters actively dreaming up a quick solution to every problem they encounter? Well, there is an answer; while you can play with the dream-reality a little, doing so too much will alert the target's subconscious to a foreign presence and the dream-scape will quickly become a hostile environment. This is Inception's best trick. It establishes very clearly exactly what the rules of the dream-worlds are, including their relationships to reality and other dream-worlds, and plays by those rules to produce a stunning and creative heist movie.
And that's what Inception is, it's a heist movie. It's not really any deeper than that at it's core. There are twists, obviously - the heist takes places over multiple levels of dream-reality, and the object is not to steal money or valuables, but to plant an idea in a man's mind. But it's a heist - you have the gang each with their own skill, you have the heavily guarded objectives, and of course you have the plan gone wrong. It's the adventure itself that's the major attraction, rather than the characters or the concepts. The playing board and the rules of the game are laid out at the start, and then the characters are sent wheeling away into one obstacle after another, through fights, chases, moments of emotional realization. It's a lot of fun to follow along with.
It's been touted as a movie that's convoluted or difficult to follow, but it really ought not to be. It's not -that- complicated! Once you've grasped the basic points, it all clicks into place pretty nicely. Apart from the opening, which launches right into a dream-caper in progress, there is no concept which is not explained to the audience ahead of time, and there is no deliberate obscuring of the mechanics of the plot. Inception isn't a movie that wants to confuse. It has a couple of unique ideas, but importantly it's always clear about the way that they affect the action.
The key thing - which Inception does very well - is that the story makes sense according to the rules that it sets for itself. That getting killed in a dream while sedated will send you to limbo, that a falling sensation or impact can wake you up, that dream-time is faster than real-time. That's great, and it's a critical part of some of the movie's best scenes, in particular the fight sequence in the rotating hallway.
The plot advances very quickly, and despite a two-and-a-half hour running length, does not feel long or bloated. There's not much to cut. It's marvelously well constructed, and it has a neat quirk that not a lot of stories have - it didn't have a villain. Think of the candidates - was Fischer the villain? No, if he's anything then he's a victim. What about Mal? She's more deluded than villainous. Saito and Cobb, in fact, are probably the best villain-candidates in the film, and they are both a little too easy to sympathise with to be classified as out-and-out bad-guys. There is no central mustache-twirler in Inception, no sinister master-mind with a plan to rule the world. And yet, the movie is packed with thrilling action sequences - shoot-outs, car-chases, and the fist-fight in the rotating hotel corridor. How many films can you think of that stage a similar level of action without ever setting up a central villain? It's a wonderful thing to pull off, and Inception does it very naturally.
If there is a criticism to be made of Inception, it's that Christopher Nolan could have been more ambitious with the dream-scapes. In fairness, it is explained in the film that the locations the characters visit while dreaming are designed places meant to appear at least superficially real, and are not ad-hoc constructs. There is scope in the movie for some odd occurances, although it may have been difficult to keep the movie tense if the gang were being pursued by angry pink unicorns instead of gun-men. The more restrained approach works very well in any case - and besides that, as a matter of taste I tend to prefer action grounded in reality anyway.
What about the final question: was Cobb dreaming at the end of the movie? My instinct is that he was back in the real world, and that the top was about to stop spinning. Of course, cutting away from the top just before the moment of truth was the only way to end the movie – I wouldn't change it.
Inception a straight adventure with a neat idea at it's core. It's not played for pretense. It's a thrill ride through a reality where dreams are places, and enterprising individuals can make a profit by going into them. It's presented with style and intelligence; it's well acted, and it features a couple killer one-liners. It even has a fantastic score. Isn't that cool? I liked it a lot. I feel like I could write more about what I thought of it, but there's a thousand words here and that will do for now.
Now we have the premise, but of course it has to be a little more complex than that. There have to be rules, limitations and dangers even in the dreams, or else what's to stop the characters actively dreaming up a quick solution to every problem they encounter? Well, there is an answer; while you can play with the dream-reality a little, doing so too much will alert the target's subconscious to a foreign presence and the dream-scape will quickly become a hostile environment. This is Inception's best trick. It establishes very clearly exactly what the rules of the dream-worlds are, including their relationships to reality and other dream-worlds, and plays by those rules to produce a stunning and creative heist movie.
And that's what Inception is, it's a heist movie. It's not really any deeper than that at it's core. There are twists, obviously - the heist takes places over multiple levels of dream-reality, and the object is not to steal money or valuables, but to plant an idea in a man's mind. But it's a heist - you have the gang each with their own skill, you have the heavily guarded objectives, and of course you have the plan gone wrong. It's the adventure itself that's the major attraction, rather than the characters or the concepts. The playing board and the rules of the game are laid out at the start, and then the characters are sent wheeling away into one obstacle after another, through fights, chases, moments of emotional realization. It's a lot of fun to follow along with.
It's been touted as a movie that's convoluted or difficult to follow, but it really ought not to be. It's not -that- complicated! Once you've grasped the basic points, it all clicks into place pretty nicely. Apart from the opening, which launches right into a dream-caper in progress, there is no concept which is not explained to the audience ahead of time, and there is no deliberate obscuring of the mechanics of the plot. Inception isn't a movie that wants to confuse. It has a couple of unique ideas, but importantly it's always clear about the way that they affect the action.
The key thing - which Inception does very well - is that the story makes sense according to the rules that it sets for itself. That getting killed in a dream while sedated will send you to limbo, that a falling sensation or impact can wake you up, that dream-time is faster than real-time. That's great, and it's a critical part of some of the movie's best scenes, in particular the fight sequence in the rotating hallway.
The plot advances very quickly, and despite a two-and-a-half hour running length, does not feel long or bloated. There's not much to cut. It's marvelously well constructed, and it has a neat quirk that not a lot of stories have - it didn't have a villain. Think of the candidates - was Fischer the villain? No, if he's anything then he's a victim. What about Mal? She's more deluded than villainous. Saito and Cobb, in fact, are probably the best villain-candidates in the film, and they are both a little too easy to sympathise with to be classified as out-and-out bad-guys. There is no central mustache-twirler in Inception, no sinister master-mind with a plan to rule the world. And yet, the movie is packed with thrilling action sequences - shoot-outs, car-chases, and the fist-fight in the rotating hotel corridor. How many films can you think of that stage a similar level of action without ever setting up a central villain? It's a wonderful thing to pull off, and Inception does it very naturally.
If there is a criticism to be made of Inception, it's that Christopher Nolan could have been more ambitious with the dream-scapes. In fairness, it is explained in the film that the locations the characters visit while dreaming are designed places meant to appear at least superficially real, and are not ad-hoc constructs. There is scope in the movie for some odd occurances, although it may have been difficult to keep the movie tense if the gang were being pursued by angry pink unicorns instead of gun-men. The more restrained approach works very well in any case - and besides that, as a matter of taste I tend to prefer action grounded in reality anyway.
What about the final question: was Cobb dreaming at the end of the movie? My instinct is that he was back in the real world, and that the top was about to stop spinning. Of course, cutting away from the top just before the moment of truth was the only way to end the movie – I wouldn't change it.
Inception a straight adventure with a neat idea at it's core. It's not played for pretense. It's a thrill ride through a reality where dreams are places, and enterprising individuals can make a profit by going into them. It's presented with style and intelligence; it's well acted, and it features a couple killer one-liners. It even has a fantastic score. Isn't that cool? I liked it a lot. I feel like I could write more about what I thought of it, but there's a thousand words here and that will do for now.
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Gratuitious Space Battles Review
Gratuitious Space Battles is - wait for it - about gratuitious battles, in space. Dreampt up and coded by Cliff Harris of one-man games-outfit Positech Games, GSB is a neat product with an amusing, irreverant tone and a surprising amount of depth.
The showpiece feature of the game is, of course, the gratuitous space battles. In the finest tradition of the all best space operas, everything plays out like a second world war naval engagement in the stars. Great hulking cruisers lumber around the battle-space blasting chunks out of each other with brightly coloured beams and space-torpedoes, while one-man (or alien) fighters zip past missiles and peck away at larger craft, or engage in twisting dogfights.
The first thing to say regarding these battles, which are drawn in two-dimensions, is that they are positively gorgeous to look at: set against backdrops of planets or nebulae, they are full of bright colours, unique ship designs and lots of neat details. Small drones will launch from the innards of damaged cruisers and begin to repair damage to the hull, for instance. Stricken craft on the edge of 'complete structural failure' will spit out escape pods just before the fireworks go off, and the remains of exploded ships will sink slowly away into the depths of space as the battle rages on without them. A lot of space battlin' can fit on the screen at any one time, and it can be genuinely interesting to just sit and watch the action unfold, even with a fast forward tool sitting in the bottom left of the screen waiting to be clicked.
But, I'm getting ahead of myself. The meat of the gameplay is to be found not in the battles themselves, over which the player has no direct control, but rather in the game's ship design and battle planning segments. The first task for the budding space admiral is to design the ships that he/she/it will order into battle. There are three classes of ship to play with: massive cruisers, medium-sized frigates, and tiny fighters. Each has its own role in the space-armada, though frigates do sometimes feel a little too vulnerable.
Ships are designed by first selecting a hull, each of which has different properties, and then appending to it an array of modules: weaponry, engines, shields, crew quarters and a variety of other components. There is a huge list of modules to choose from for each class of ship, and the total possible combinations must be a very big number indeed. The process of designing ships can be surprisingly involving: skimp on the engines to save power? Stack up the shield units, or stick on two more massive death lasers? Do those fighters *really* need shields, especially when they go quicker without them? These are the sorts of questions you'll ask yourself when putting together your space fleet. Although the sheer number of different modules may make ship design something of a grope in the dark to start with, it didn't take me long before I was piecing together purpose-specific ships - anti-fighter frigates, torpedo-fighters, ultro-cheap cruisers and so on. If you've ever enjoyed messing around with a big box of lego blocks, the appeal of the ship design in GSB ought to be quickly apparent.
After the ship design comes the set-up for the gratuitous battle itself - prior to each engagement the player must position their space fleet and issue orders to each of the craft at their disposal. There is no shortage of different orders to give, ranging from commands to keep moving, to co-operate with other vessels, to orders to mantain a certain distance from opposing vessels - useful for making sure that all of a ships weapons are in range. Positioning is also very important - concentrate your forces, or spread them out? Keep the fighters with the big ships, or order them off to make a nuisance of themselves amongst the alien fleet? There are plenty such things to consider here for the aspiring space-fleet commander.
Post-battle there is a useful stats screen, offering information about the battle and the glorious victory or 'strategic sacrifice' of your death-fleet. It provides detailed information about which weapons and ships caused the most damage, what percentage of shots fired by each weapon hit their target, which were nullified by shields; casting light on the question of which craft contributed to the cause and which were merely there to enjoy the bright lights. Depending on your performance in the battle, and which difficulty level you played on, you will also be awarded points which can be spent to unlock new ship modules and hulls.
There are only about twenty official battle scenarios that come packed with the game - including all the scenarios that come with the race-DLC expansions. This is not a major problem however, as GSB includes an in-game browser for downloading and playing challenges put together by other players. These vary in difficulty, and there are all kinds of different fleets out there waiting to be annihilated, though the process of figuring out how to defeat each one becomes a little too formulaic after a time. The base game comes with four different races, with differently styled ships, and there are three more available via DLC - and for those who feel that Gratuitious Space Battles is just *too* gratuitious, there is a simple campaign expansion on the cards as well.
Gratuitious Space Battles is a very creative product, full of charming little touches that come from a willingness by the developer to keep improving the game with periodic patches. It also has a depth that springs naturally from a very simple core concept: that it's fun to watch flying platforms of giga-death blast laser beams at each other in space. Everything in the game operates in support of this idea, and it works tremendously well.
4/5
PLUS
-Gorgeous 2D graphics
-Sense of humour
-Interesting gameplay
-Excellent developer support
MINUS
-Small number of official scenarios
-Repetitive
The showpiece feature of the game is, of course, the gratuitous space battles. In the finest tradition of the all best space operas, everything plays out like a second world war naval engagement in the stars. Great hulking cruisers lumber around the battle-space blasting chunks out of each other with brightly coloured beams and space-torpedoes, while one-man (or alien) fighters zip past missiles and peck away at larger craft, or engage in twisting dogfights.
The first thing to say regarding these battles, which are drawn in two-dimensions, is that they are positively gorgeous to look at: set against backdrops of planets or nebulae, they are full of bright colours, unique ship designs and lots of neat details. Small drones will launch from the innards of damaged cruisers and begin to repair damage to the hull, for instance. Stricken craft on the edge of 'complete structural failure' will spit out escape pods just before the fireworks go off, and the remains of exploded ships will sink slowly away into the depths of space as the battle rages on without them. A lot of space battlin' can fit on the screen at any one time, and it can be genuinely interesting to just sit and watch the action unfold, even with a fast forward tool sitting in the bottom left of the screen waiting to be clicked.
But, I'm getting ahead of myself. The meat of the gameplay is to be found not in the battles themselves, over which the player has no direct control, but rather in the game's ship design and battle planning segments. The first task for the budding space admiral is to design the ships that he/she/it will order into battle. There are three classes of ship to play with: massive cruisers, medium-sized frigates, and tiny fighters. Each has its own role in the space-armada, though frigates do sometimes feel a little too vulnerable.
Ships are designed by first selecting a hull, each of which has different properties, and then appending to it an array of modules: weaponry, engines, shields, crew quarters and a variety of other components. There is a huge list of modules to choose from for each class of ship, and the total possible combinations must be a very big number indeed. The process of designing ships can be surprisingly involving: skimp on the engines to save power? Stack up the shield units, or stick on two more massive death lasers? Do those fighters *really* need shields, especially when they go quicker without them? These are the sorts of questions you'll ask yourself when putting together your space fleet. Although the sheer number of different modules may make ship design something of a grope in the dark to start with, it didn't take me long before I was piecing together purpose-specific ships - anti-fighter frigates, torpedo-fighters, ultro-cheap cruisers and so on. If you've ever enjoyed messing around with a big box of lego blocks, the appeal of the ship design in GSB ought to be quickly apparent.
After the ship design comes the set-up for the gratuitous battle itself - prior to each engagement the player must position their space fleet and issue orders to each of the craft at their disposal. There is no shortage of different orders to give, ranging from commands to keep moving, to co-operate with other vessels, to orders to mantain a certain distance from opposing vessels - useful for making sure that all of a ships weapons are in range. Positioning is also very important - concentrate your forces, or spread them out? Keep the fighters with the big ships, or order them off to make a nuisance of themselves amongst the alien fleet? There are plenty such things to consider here for the aspiring space-fleet commander.
Post-battle there is a useful stats screen, offering information about the battle and the glorious victory or 'strategic sacrifice' of your death-fleet. It provides detailed information about which weapons and ships caused the most damage, what percentage of shots fired by each weapon hit their target, which were nullified by shields; casting light on the question of which craft contributed to the cause and which were merely there to enjoy the bright lights. Depending on your performance in the battle, and which difficulty level you played on, you will also be awarded points which can be spent to unlock new ship modules and hulls.
There are only about twenty official battle scenarios that come packed with the game - including all the scenarios that come with the race-DLC expansions. This is not a major problem however, as GSB includes an in-game browser for downloading and playing challenges put together by other players. These vary in difficulty, and there are all kinds of different fleets out there waiting to be annihilated, though the process of figuring out how to defeat each one becomes a little too formulaic after a time. The base game comes with four different races, with differently styled ships, and there are three more available via DLC - and for those who feel that Gratuitious Space Battles is just *too* gratuitious, there is a simple campaign expansion on the cards as well.
Gratuitious Space Battles is a very creative product, full of charming little touches that come from a willingness by the developer to keep improving the game with periodic patches. It also has a depth that springs naturally from a very simple core concept: that it's fun to watch flying platforms of giga-death blast laser beams at each other in space. Everything in the game operates in support of this idea, and it works tremendously well.
4/5
PLUS
-Gorgeous 2D graphics
-Sense of humour
-Interesting gameplay
-Excellent developer support
MINUS
-Small number of official scenarios
-Repetitive
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Rubens Barrichello - 300 Grands Prix
When I first began to follow Formula One, it was the mid-nineties, the high days of the Schumacher - Hill battles. Of course, as a young Englishman, Damon Hill was my driver, piloting the blue, white and gold Rothman's Williams cars against the villainous Schumacher. I was delighted when Hill finally clinched the crown in 1996, albiet in a year when Schumacher was out of contention in an uncompetitive Ferrari. In the years since, the names that I followed on the television screens changed as drivers retired and left the sport: Hill retired in 1999, Johnny Herbert in 2000, Jean Alesi and Mika Hakkinen in 2001. Of the generation of drivers that raced in F1 in nineties, a scant few now remain - of those that do, only Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello raced before 1995; and Schumacher took a three-year break.
That just leaves Rubens Barrichello, the likeable Brazilian who, having proved himself faster than the Stig on Top Gear a few weeks ago, will compete in a record 300th Grand Prix next weekend at Spa in Belgium. It's a remarkable total for a driver who, when Honda pulled out of the sport a season and a half ago, looked as if he may have driven his last race. Of course, the Brawn team then rose from the ashes of the Honda outfit, and Barrichello went on to win two races in the Brawn car, helping the team to win the constructor's trophy. Rubens has certainly still got the skills to compete in F1, and, it has to be said, is having a better time of it this season than his old Ferrari team mate and fellow veteran Michael Schumacher.
Barrichello has seen a lot of change in his F1 career, most notably the switch to narrower cars and grooved tyres in 1998, and the change to the aerodynamically stripped-down cars raced in F1 this past season and a half. He has shown great pace throughout his career, and has always been popular due to his likeable persona. His maiden victory at the old Hockenheim in 2000 must rate as one of the most popular victories in recent times, and one of the most memorable. I'm sure quite a few fans will fondly recall Barrichello's tears of happiness on the podium following the race; it was a joyous scene. Like many drivers of his generation, Rubens spent the peak years of his career in the shadow of the great Michael Schumacher. He, along with fellow racers David Coulthard and Juan Montoya, may well wonder what might have been if Schumacher's domination had not been so complete. Nonetheless, Rubens' career is well sprinkled with victories, notably a battling win at Silverstone in 2003.
At the end of this season Barrichello will have notched up 306 races, and seems likely to continue racing with Williams next season, so a total in the low 320s is within reach. Will Rubens continue beyond that? It depends, but as long as he continues to show the same enthusiasm and pace, the possibilty will remain on the table. From my own perspective, it will quite a sad little moment when the last of the nineties' drivers leaves the sport, so I'm glad to see Rubens still dicing it on the race track. Wouldn't it be great if he got that Williams onto the podium this weekend?
That just leaves Rubens Barrichello, the likeable Brazilian who, having proved himself faster than the Stig on Top Gear a few weeks ago, will compete in a record 300th Grand Prix next weekend at Spa in Belgium. It's a remarkable total for a driver who, when Honda pulled out of the sport a season and a half ago, looked as if he may have driven his last race. Of course, the Brawn team then rose from the ashes of the Honda outfit, and Barrichello went on to win two races in the Brawn car, helping the team to win the constructor's trophy. Rubens has certainly still got the skills to compete in F1, and, it has to be said, is having a better time of it this season than his old Ferrari team mate and fellow veteran Michael Schumacher.
Barrichello has seen a lot of change in his F1 career, most notably the switch to narrower cars and grooved tyres in 1998, and the change to the aerodynamically stripped-down cars raced in F1 this past season and a half. He has shown great pace throughout his career, and has always been popular due to his likeable persona. His maiden victory at the old Hockenheim in 2000 must rate as one of the most popular victories in recent times, and one of the most memorable. I'm sure quite a few fans will fondly recall Barrichello's tears of happiness on the podium following the race; it was a joyous scene. Like many drivers of his generation, Rubens spent the peak years of his career in the shadow of the great Michael Schumacher. He, along with fellow racers David Coulthard and Juan Montoya, may well wonder what might have been if Schumacher's domination had not been so complete. Nonetheless, Rubens' career is well sprinkled with victories, notably a battling win at Silverstone in 2003.
At the end of this season Barrichello will have notched up 306 races, and seems likely to continue racing with Williams next season, so a total in the low 320s is within reach. Will Rubens continue beyond that? It depends, but as long as he continues to show the same enthusiasm and pace, the possibilty will remain on the table. From my own perspective, it will quite a sad little moment when the last of the nineties' drivers leaves the sport, so I'm glad to see Rubens still dicing it on the race track. Wouldn't it be great if he got that Williams onto the podium this weekend?
Friday, 6 August 2010
Alien Swarm Review
What if Aliens was a top down shooter? It would look and play a hell of a lot like Valve's free co-op shooter Alien Swarm. The basic concept is very simple: a team of four space marines must battle their way through hordes of aliens using an array of different weapons, including flame throwers, automated sentry guns and auto-targeting machine guns. The various alien foes come thick & fast, and clever team work is a must if the marines are to survive.
Alien Swarm began life as a mod for Unreal Tournament 2004, and it was on the basis of the mod that the team behind it were hired by Valve a few years ago. Now, it has been recreated on the Source engine, and released for free download via Steam. Even without making any allowances for the blank price tag, the graphics, sound and production values are all of an excellent standard.
Just like Valve's other co-op game Left 4 Dead, Alien Swarm is multiplayer-focused. There are four classes of marine to pick from, each with their own unique abilities: the Officer, the Weapons Specialist, the Technician, and the Medic. The Officer grants a passive bonus to nearby teamates, the Weapons Specialist uses high-yield weapons to mow down aliens, the Tech hacks computer systems to open doorways, and the Medic heals fellow marines. The most effective teams are the ones that bring a balanced group, and solid team work is of critical importance at higher difficulty levels – players who run off to play Rambo will rarely last very long.
There is a wide range of weapons and gadgets to be unlocked by levelling up; the starting equipment is however perfectly respectable, lacking only in variety. One of the most important phases of a round of Alien Swarm is the pre-game loadout screen, where the team must decide on what pieces of equipment they will bring with them on the mission. Each player has three inventory slots, two for weapons and one for special items such as armour, health packs, damage amplifiers, welding tools or night-vision goggles. Quite apart from picking a balanced group of classes, it is also important to bring a balanced selection of equipment – you don't want to get two-thirds of the way through another bug-hunt only to run out of ammunition because everybody in the group wanted a backup shotgun instead of a spare ammo pack.
There is only one campaign, which features seven fairly short levels - it is very well put together but ultimately will become repetitive. Valve have released an SDK for the game though, so the stage is set for an influx of fan-made maps and mods, which could extend Alien Swarm's lifespan significantly.
Valve could quite justifiably have charged money for Alien Swarm, such is its quality. The appeal of it is simple: it's you and three other marines, covering each other's backs and blasting apart vicious space bugs. It works very well, and bar the lack of campaigns, has no real shortcomings.
3.5/5
PLUS
-It's free
-Simple, fun design
-Good production values
MINUS
-Only one campaign
Alien Swarm began life as a mod for Unreal Tournament 2004, and it was on the basis of the mod that the team behind it were hired by Valve a few years ago. Now, it has been recreated on the Source engine, and released for free download via Steam. Even without making any allowances for the blank price tag, the graphics, sound and production values are all of an excellent standard.
Just like Valve's other co-op game Left 4 Dead, Alien Swarm is multiplayer-focused. There are four classes of marine to pick from, each with their own unique abilities: the Officer, the Weapons Specialist, the Technician, and the Medic. The Officer grants a passive bonus to nearby teamates, the Weapons Specialist uses high-yield weapons to mow down aliens, the Tech hacks computer systems to open doorways, and the Medic heals fellow marines. The most effective teams are the ones that bring a balanced group, and solid team work is of critical importance at higher difficulty levels – players who run off to play Rambo will rarely last very long.
There is a wide range of weapons and gadgets to be unlocked by levelling up; the starting equipment is however perfectly respectable, lacking only in variety. One of the most important phases of a round of Alien Swarm is the pre-game loadout screen, where the team must decide on what pieces of equipment they will bring with them on the mission. Each player has three inventory slots, two for weapons and one for special items such as armour, health packs, damage amplifiers, welding tools or night-vision goggles. Quite apart from picking a balanced group of classes, it is also important to bring a balanced selection of equipment – you don't want to get two-thirds of the way through another bug-hunt only to run out of ammunition because everybody in the group wanted a backup shotgun instead of a spare ammo pack.
There is only one campaign, which features seven fairly short levels - it is very well put together but ultimately will become repetitive. Valve have released an SDK for the game though, so the stage is set for an influx of fan-made maps and mods, which could extend Alien Swarm's lifespan significantly.
Valve could quite justifiably have charged money for Alien Swarm, such is its quality. The appeal of it is simple: it's you and three other marines, covering each other's backs and blasting apart vicious space bugs. It works very well, and bar the lack of campaigns, has no real shortcomings.
3.5/5
PLUS
-It's free
-Simple, fun design
-Good production values
MINUS
-Only one campaign
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Top Gear Senna Tribute
This Sunday the BBC's Top Gear ran a fifteen-minute tribute to the great Brazilian racing driver Ayrton Senna. The piece was fronted by Jeremy Clarkson, who showed that despite all his buffoonery he is quite capable of displaying a sombre edge. A major focus of the film was the awe with which Senna frequently viewed by his contemporaries and fellow racing drivers.
As Clarkson mentions in his presentation, the record books will show that Michael Schumacher is the most successful driver in the history of F1, but that tells only part of the story. As the film showed a clip of Schumacher tipping Senna as F1's number one driver, it brought to mind the moment in the press conference following the 2000 Italian Grand Prix, when the victorious Schumacher was overcome with emotion after being told he had equalled Senna's tally of 41 wins.
That outburst says a lot about the respect which many drivers hold for Ayrton, especially drivers of Schumacher's generation. Formula One is a competitive business, and is, much of the time, dominated by drivers who must have tremendous confidence in their own abilities. For one driver to be as celebrated by his peers as Senna, it takes something a little out of the ordinary. In the history of the sport, it's really only the names of Fangio and Clark that are uttered with quite the same reverence by those who raced with them. Senna's legend is of course aided by the recency of his death, and by the circumstances of it, but behind the hype there is a genuinely fascinating story, and a tremendous talent.
It was a very well done piece, and as any discussion of Senna ought to, it did not gloss over his ruthless approach to competition. In particular, it recalled his most famous on-track misendeavor, his purposeful collision with championship rival Alain Prost in 1990. Equally, the film highlighted Senna's charitable work for children in Brazil, and his concern for driver safety; as Martin Brundle says in the film, Senna was in many respects something of a paradox.
The clear highlight of the film was watching Lewis Hamilton drive the dominant McLaren MP 4/4 which Senna piloted to his first World Championship in 1988. As a fan as well as a driver, it was obviously dream come true for Lewis. It was great to see, and Hamilton's star power will certainly have helped give the piece a little perspective for those who may not have heard of Senna before.
Top Gear is today a general entertainment program, with a motoring theme. Of all the great drivers in the history of Formula One, Senna is surely the best suited for a celebration on a mass-audience show – first and foremost because he is remembered as much for his passion for racing and his unique character as for his spectacular driving. Could you make a similar piece about Alain Prost, for instance? It would be a more difficult task. I would like to see the Top Gear team give the British double-champion Jim Clark a similar treatment, however.
As Clarkson mentions in his presentation, the record books will show that Michael Schumacher is the most successful driver in the history of F1, but that tells only part of the story. As the film showed a clip of Schumacher tipping Senna as F1's number one driver, it brought to mind the moment in the press conference following the 2000 Italian Grand Prix, when the victorious Schumacher was overcome with emotion after being told he had equalled Senna's tally of 41 wins.
That outburst says a lot about the respect which many drivers hold for Ayrton, especially drivers of Schumacher's generation. Formula One is a competitive business, and is, much of the time, dominated by drivers who must have tremendous confidence in their own abilities. For one driver to be as celebrated by his peers as Senna, it takes something a little out of the ordinary. In the history of the sport, it's really only the names of Fangio and Clark that are uttered with quite the same reverence by those who raced with them. Senna's legend is of course aided by the recency of his death, and by the circumstances of it, but behind the hype there is a genuinely fascinating story, and a tremendous talent.
It was a very well done piece, and as any discussion of Senna ought to, it did not gloss over his ruthless approach to competition. In particular, it recalled his most famous on-track misendeavor, his purposeful collision with championship rival Alain Prost in 1990. Equally, the film highlighted Senna's charitable work for children in Brazil, and his concern for driver safety; as Martin Brundle says in the film, Senna was in many respects something of a paradox.
The clear highlight of the film was watching Lewis Hamilton drive the dominant McLaren MP 4/4 which Senna piloted to his first World Championship in 1988. As a fan as well as a driver, it was obviously dream come true for Lewis. It was great to see, and Hamilton's star power will certainly have helped give the piece a little perspective for those who may not have heard of Senna before.
Top Gear is today a general entertainment program, with a motoring theme. Of all the great drivers in the history of Formula One, Senna is surely the best suited for a celebration on a mass-audience show – first and foremost because he is remembered as much for his passion for racing and his unique character as for his spectacular driving. Could you make a similar piece about Alain Prost, for instance? It would be a more difficult task. I would like to see the Top Gear team give the British double-champion Jim Clark a similar treatment, however.
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Metro 2033 Review
Oh, you'll be wintering in Moscow? Have you got a gas mask? What about a gun? You'll need them: the winter is very dangerous, and it lasts all year round.
It's 2033, and it's been twenty years since a nuclear apocalypse blasted the Earth, leaving the surface a barely habitable wasteland. Under the city of Moscow, survivors of the catastrophe scratch out a difficult life in the stations of the metro network, sheltering from the frozen, irradiated surface and battling strange, aggressive creatures. For many sunlight is a faded memory; for others it is better known through photographs and stories than first-hand experience. This is the setting for Ukrainian studio 4A Games' Metro 2033, a tunnel shooter based on a novel of the same name by Russian writer Dmitry Glukhovsky.
The bleak setting is a critical part of Metro 2033, much like the STALKER games. This is no surprise, as 4A Games was formed by employees of STALKER developer GSC Game World who left prior to the release of STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl. However, despite a strong tonal similarity, the core game play of the two is quite different: whereas the STALKER series is characterised by wide open areas in which the player is free to roam about, Metro 2033 is a strictly linear, tightly scripted progression from frozen, irradiated point A to frozen, irradiated point B.
The player takes on the role of Artyom, a young man who has lived almost his entire life underground in the metro. In his shoes, you'll creep through dark, dank tunnels, venture up to the hazardous surface, fight alone, fight with allies, run, sneak, shoot, avoid traps and scavenge for supplies such as gas mask air filters and ammunition. Artyom's journey follows a regular pattern – the main action is punctuated by visits to friendly stations where you can soak up a bit of the atmosphere and trade weapons & ammo before heading back out into the dangers that lurk beyond the safe enclaves.
The stations which shelter the struggling remnants of the Moscow population are one of the highlights of the game. They are packed with NPCs, hanging around or tending to their business: trading, cooking, drinking, begging, tending to wounded. Only snippets of a greater society are glimpsed, but it's very evocative nonetheless.
Metro 2033 does a lot to pull the player into the setting – almost the entire heads-up-display is integrated into the game world. Objectives are written down on a clipboard that Artyom carries with him at all times, and he keeps a lighter handy to illuminate the board in dark environments. A watch on Artyom's wrist keeps track how much time it will take for the filter in his gas mask to degrade, and also displays how well lit he is via a set of red, yellow and green LEDs, for stealthy purposes.
Supplies are short in the post-apocalypse economy. Crucial gas mask filters are desperately rare outside of a few trading spots, especially in the latter sections of the game, and there is a dearth of quality weaponry and ammo as well.
To start with, you'll have to make do with low-grade, handicraft guns cobbled together in the metro, though you will get Artyom's gloved hands onto some more effective gear as you progress. Most of the bullets in the metro aren't much cop either – the most common rounds are low-gunpowder cartridges with low stopping-power. There is a reserve of pre-blast military-standard rounds in the metro however, and you can load these into your gun in order to pack a little more punch into your shots. Military-grade rounds are rare and precious though, and they have more than one function in the post-blast metro – they can also be used as currency.
Vodka and chips? That'll be a bullet. A new revolver? Twenty bullets. Escape to paradise? Haha. It's a mechanic that stems from the game's fiction, and it creates a curious dynamic: do you shoot the more effective rounds in combat, or spend them in trading posts?
It's hardly a winter wonderland in post-apocalypse Moscow then. 4A Games have created a world which feels genuinely dirty, desperate and constantly threatened. Bullets and gas mask filters are constantly in shorter supply than you'd like, but critically the game is very well paced: the next safe zone is never completely out of reach for the Muscovite who moves quickly and shoots accurately.
The arsenal of weapons is made up largely by an array of FPS standard issues – revolvers, shotguns and assault rifles fill out the bulk of the roster. There are also pneumatic weapons which must be pumped up before shooting, and throwing knives which can be used for stealthy take downs (of course no-one ever makes a sound when they are struck by a flying knife). Flame throwers make an appearance or two.
Battles against human enemies tend to be more tactically interesting than fights against monster hordes, but both are exciting in their own ways: you're always a little more desperate to get that shotgun reloaded when there is a vicious, toothy predator about to pounce. The NPC opponents have an odd habit of repeatedly running between pieces of cover, but otherwise display a sound tactical sense that makes fire-fights against them decent fun. They will, if you are quiet and stick to the shadows, lose track of your position as well. In a few sections this makes sneaking past groups of enemies possible for the patient or ammunition-challenged tunnel-rat.
Inevitably given the setting, most fire-fights take place in dark, confined spaces with little room for maneuver, but the action is mixed up regularly enough that it never becomes outright repetitive. Trips to locations on the city surface provide a change in scenery, and the different sections of the game each have some unique aspect that marks them apart from other chapters.
The story escalates at a fast pace, from the opening minutes right up to the finale, and Artyom is constantly moving, going from one challenge to the next. At about ten hours length, Metro 2033 is a tight experience and no given section is stretched out beyond tolerance. There are a lot of thrills to be had along the path: creeping past a patrol of enemies, flash light off, gas mask on, with the sound of Artyom's stressed breathing breaking the silence; exploring dilapidated Soviet facilities along side a group of allies as one of the troop rings off a series of bad gallows-jokes; blasting monsters and scrambling to reload before Artyom gets his face chewed off. It's is confidently executed and for the most part well crafted.
There are slips ups however – it is all too easy to switch from the cheap dirty rounds to the valuable military grade ammo by holding down the reload button for too long. Without intending it, you may very well blow half your cash reserve into the faces of a few monsters; not always a wise financial strategy.
The game also uses a check-point based save system – if you die, or for whatever reason you cannot spend the time to make it to the next check point, then you will have to replay sections you've already finished in order to progress. The check points are not especially generously spaced, either, generally falling in line with story beats. It can be a pain. Furthermore, the default field of view is terribly narrow, giving a 'zoomed in' feeling when playing with a PC, sat close to the moniter.
And there are quick-time events - at a few spots, the game will play a first-person cut scene, and demand that the player hit buttons on the keyboard at exactly the right time in order to advance. There is effectively no gameplay interest in these moments, and the requirement to tap away at the keyboard serves mainly to distract you from whatever is happening on the screen.
Moscow 2033 then - frozen, irradiated, and crawling with hostile monsters; the nightlife is quite something. Not exactly picture-postcard stuff, but looking in through a monitor, it's not a bad place to visit. And it is the place - more specifically the mood of the place - that's the major attraction of the game. The stations of the metro network, the dangerous tunnels, and the desolate, ruined surface; every locations on Artyom's path is wonderfully atmospheric.
What's more, the action itself is not an unwelcome distraction from the guided tour: the core FPS game is solid and the encounters through the game are often thrilling, if not on the same superlative level as the environment and sense of place. As scripted shooters go, Metro 2033 is up with the best.
*Tunnel shooter!
4/5
PLUS:
-Fantastic atmosphere
-Outstanding graphics
-Solid gunplay
MINUS:
-Check point saves
-Quick time events
-Narrow default field of view
It's 2033, and it's been twenty years since a nuclear apocalypse blasted the Earth, leaving the surface a barely habitable wasteland. Under the city of Moscow, survivors of the catastrophe scratch out a difficult life in the stations of the metro network, sheltering from the frozen, irradiated surface and battling strange, aggressive creatures. For many sunlight is a faded memory; for others it is better known through photographs and stories than first-hand experience. This is the setting for Ukrainian studio 4A Games' Metro 2033, a tunnel shooter based on a novel of the same name by Russian writer Dmitry Glukhovsky.
The bleak setting is a critical part of Metro 2033, much like the STALKER games. This is no surprise, as 4A Games was formed by employees of STALKER developer GSC Game World who left prior to the release of STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl. However, despite a strong tonal similarity, the core game play of the two is quite different: whereas the STALKER series is characterised by wide open areas in which the player is free to roam about, Metro 2033 is a strictly linear, tightly scripted progression from frozen, irradiated point A to frozen, irradiated point B.
The player takes on the role of Artyom, a young man who has lived almost his entire life underground in the metro. In his shoes, you'll creep through dark, dank tunnels, venture up to the hazardous surface, fight alone, fight with allies, run, sneak, shoot, avoid traps and scavenge for supplies such as gas mask air filters and ammunition. Artyom's journey follows a regular pattern – the main action is punctuated by visits to friendly stations where you can soak up a bit of the atmosphere and trade weapons & ammo before heading back out into the dangers that lurk beyond the safe enclaves.
The stations which shelter the struggling remnants of the Moscow population are one of the highlights of the game. They are packed with NPCs, hanging around or tending to their business: trading, cooking, drinking, begging, tending to wounded. Only snippets of a greater society are glimpsed, but it's very evocative nonetheless.
Metro 2033 does a lot to pull the player into the setting – almost the entire heads-up-display is integrated into the game world. Objectives are written down on a clipboard that Artyom carries with him at all times, and he keeps a lighter handy to illuminate the board in dark environments. A watch on Artyom's wrist keeps track how much time it will take for the filter in his gas mask to degrade, and also displays how well lit he is via a set of red, yellow and green LEDs, for stealthy purposes.
Supplies are short in the post-apocalypse economy. Crucial gas mask filters are desperately rare outside of a few trading spots, especially in the latter sections of the game, and there is a dearth of quality weaponry and ammo as well.
To start with, you'll have to make do with low-grade, handicraft guns cobbled together in the metro, though you will get Artyom's gloved hands onto some more effective gear as you progress. Most of the bullets in the metro aren't much cop either – the most common rounds are low-gunpowder cartridges with low stopping-power. There is a reserve of pre-blast military-standard rounds in the metro however, and you can load these into your gun in order to pack a little more punch into your shots. Military-grade rounds are rare and precious though, and they have more than one function in the post-blast metro – they can also be used as currency.
Vodka and chips? That'll be a bullet. A new revolver? Twenty bullets. Escape to paradise? Haha. It's a mechanic that stems from the game's fiction, and it creates a curious dynamic: do you shoot the more effective rounds in combat, or spend them in trading posts?
It's hardly a winter wonderland in post-apocalypse Moscow then. 4A Games have created a world which feels genuinely dirty, desperate and constantly threatened. Bullets and gas mask filters are constantly in shorter supply than you'd like, but critically the game is very well paced: the next safe zone is never completely out of reach for the Muscovite who moves quickly and shoots accurately.
The arsenal of weapons is made up largely by an array of FPS standard issues – revolvers, shotguns and assault rifles fill out the bulk of the roster. There are also pneumatic weapons which must be pumped up before shooting, and throwing knives which can be used for stealthy take downs (of course no-one ever makes a sound when they are struck by a flying knife). Flame throwers make an appearance or two.
Battles against human enemies tend to be more tactically interesting than fights against monster hordes, but both are exciting in their own ways: you're always a little more desperate to get that shotgun reloaded when there is a vicious, toothy predator about to pounce. The NPC opponents have an odd habit of repeatedly running between pieces of cover, but otherwise display a sound tactical sense that makes fire-fights against them decent fun. They will, if you are quiet and stick to the shadows, lose track of your position as well. In a few sections this makes sneaking past groups of enemies possible for the patient or ammunition-challenged tunnel-rat.
Inevitably given the setting, most fire-fights take place in dark, confined spaces with little room for maneuver, but the action is mixed up regularly enough that it never becomes outright repetitive. Trips to locations on the city surface provide a change in scenery, and the different sections of the game each have some unique aspect that marks them apart from other chapters.
The story escalates at a fast pace, from the opening minutes right up to the finale, and Artyom is constantly moving, going from one challenge to the next. At about ten hours length, Metro 2033 is a tight experience and no given section is stretched out beyond tolerance. There are a lot of thrills to be had along the path: creeping past a patrol of enemies, flash light off, gas mask on, with the sound of Artyom's stressed breathing breaking the silence; exploring dilapidated Soviet facilities along side a group of allies as one of the troop rings off a series of bad gallows-jokes; blasting monsters and scrambling to reload before Artyom gets his face chewed off. It's is confidently executed and for the most part well crafted.
There are slips ups however – it is all too easy to switch from the cheap dirty rounds to the valuable military grade ammo by holding down the reload button for too long. Without intending it, you may very well blow half your cash reserve into the faces of a few monsters; not always a wise financial strategy.
The game also uses a check-point based save system – if you die, or for whatever reason you cannot spend the time to make it to the next check point, then you will have to replay sections you've already finished in order to progress. The check points are not especially generously spaced, either, generally falling in line with story beats. It can be a pain. Furthermore, the default field of view is terribly narrow, giving a 'zoomed in' feeling when playing with a PC, sat close to the moniter.
And there are quick-time events - at a few spots, the game will play a first-person cut scene, and demand that the player hit buttons on the keyboard at exactly the right time in order to advance. There is effectively no gameplay interest in these moments, and the requirement to tap away at the keyboard serves mainly to distract you from whatever is happening on the screen.
Moscow 2033 then - frozen, irradiated, and crawling with hostile monsters; the nightlife is quite something. Not exactly picture-postcard stuff, but looking in through a monitor, it's not a bad place to visit. And it is the place - more specifically the mood of the place - that's the major attraction of the game. The stations of the metro network, the dangerous tunnels, and the desolate, ruined surface; every locations on Artyom's path is wonderfully atmospheric.
What's more, the action itself is not an unwelcome distraction from the guided tour: the core FPS game is solid and the encounters through the game are often thrilling, if not on the same superlative level as the environment and sense of place. As scripted shooters go, Metro 2033 is up with the best.
*Tunnel shooter!
4/5
PLUS:
-Fantastic atmosphere
-Outstanding graphics
-Solid gunplay
MINUS:
-Check point saves
-Quick time events
-Narrow default field of view
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)