Indigo Prophecy: Falling short

I listen to a lot of podcasts and one of them is 1upFM, which has a great segment called backlog. In the segment they discuss older games that few people played but were highly acclaimed by not just game critics but also by the few people that played them. The first two games were Shadow of the Colossus and then Pyschonauts. The most recent one they've tackled is Indigo Prophecy which I was happy enough to find in a local store for seven bucks, so I said why not. The final discussion on 1upFM has already taken place and I have yet to listen to it but I thought I would weigh in here.

Honestly I think Indigo Prophecy was ahead of its time but as a game its not very well structured. The game starts off as a very intriguing detective story were you play the detectives as well as the fugitive. However it devolves into a cheesy cliche sci fi story that has no real emotional impact. Which is really sad because I really cared for all of the characters and was interested in what they were going to do and how they would evolve. But halfway through the game after a couple of mysteries are exposed those feelings are torn asunder and I couldn't care less.

This is a game however and that's why it makes me sad that the story couldn't keep up with the game play. As far as I know the dialogue system in this game is what Mass Effect was trying to achieve but came years earlier and the way you interact with the environment is way ahead of anything that came out at that time. From that era most games had shiny keys that would unlock the next door to the next area. But in Indigo Prophecy the objects and interaction with the environment doesn't feel forced but very organic as if I was existing in this world. I have never played a game that made me feel so immersed when I'm going around looking for clues or out maneuvering someone during a conversation scene. Its the action scenes that are the weak point of the game. Instead of giving you control over the character you are forced to play an elaborate game of Simon Say's to get through the cinematic sequences that are the action set pieces of the game. All I'm saying is that I always felt very removed from these parts.

What makes this game very unique however is the role that the player takes. In nearly all games you either play a god character or the actual main character. In Indigo Prophecy however you play the director. At times you are god, maneuvering the characters like pieces on a chess board, and at other times you control the characters themselves. It's only during the action set pieces that the player has to sit back and let the game just play itself.

All in all I really enjoyed the game which made me sad when it decided to take a left turn into a really bad SciFi original movie.


"A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer." - Mitch Hedburg

He's a Fucking Werewolf!!

I just watched episode 4 for True Blood and if Sam isn't a fucking werewolf I'm going to shoot myself. Seriously he just spent a two minute scene sniffing the victims sheets. I'm just going crazy I want to know if they did werewolfs right.

Russell Crowe: So badass he plays the Hero AND the Villian!

For years I have been a huge Ridley Scott fan and right now he's been teaming up with Russell Crowe to make a lot of movies. The first time they worked together was on Gladiator and that movie was just plain fucking awesome. And right now Scott is in a pattern where he makes smaller films in between epic films. For example he made Matchstick Men in between Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator. Well Scott has a spy film coming out called Body of Lies and has announced that his next film has been green lit which happens to be Robin Hood.

Now Russell Crowe has always been rumoured to play either Robin Hood or the Sheriff of Nottingham. I was never surprised by this news because I can see him playing either roles and being great but some disturbing news has been confirmed today.

Mr. Crowe will be playing Robin Hood AND the Sheriff of Nottingham. I don't know how to handle this news. In the hands of a lesser director I would glaze over this news but a "I don't really care anymore" feeling. However this is Ridley Scott we are talking about here and if anyone can pull this off and make it awesome it would be him. The problem is that sometimes directors get this great idea on how to utilize an actor and don't really think whether it helps the film or not, and this has me worried. It could turn out great and I have really high hopes but this has the stink of disaster written all over it.

Spike Lee: Racism and Film

Well Spike Lee has a new "joint" coming out named "Miracle at St. Anna" and I'll probable catch it. However I am by no means a fan of Mr. Lee. The only film I have enjoyed of his was Inside Man by far the most mainstream and watered down version of Spike Lee that there is.

But what really gets me is his film "Do the Right Thing." I don't understand why people like it so much and feel that it tackles racism at a very unique angle. I don't think that at all. Movies are made to tell a story whether plot or character based, but "Do the Right Thing" does nothing for me but shove Spike Lee's message down my throat so hard I feel like I'm choking on an ostrich egg. For example there is the sequence in which all the characters in the film look at the camera and spew out racial profanities. After I watched that sequence all I could think was "Yeah, so. Congratulations people don't like each other and found interesting ways to express it." Never in the film did I feel that any of the characters really felt the way the acted as or understood what it meant to be a racist.

Of course this is just a small little rant on a film I believe is full of problems and is way overhyped by the indie crowd that think Spike Lee is the next Orson Welles. In the end I think Spike Lee is full of himself and if anyone is racist its him. Just look up the argument he tried to have with Clint Eastwood for no apparent reason.

"Dexter": I'm Hyped but scared.

For years I have been hearing about a show called "Dexter" which told the story of a man that killed murders. I was intriged however the show was on Showtime and so I passed it over thinking that I would never get to see it.

However recently I got Netflix and on Netflix you can watch movies and TV shows instantly on your computer so I gave the first season of Dexter a try. Jesus Christ I love this show. It hits all the right beats with me and I enjoy the characters so much. Though the first season was amazing the second season blew it out of the water. I am totally hooked which brings up my concerns for the new season.

The new season officially starts this sunday, however I've already seen the pilote and although great it shows some bad signs. The season premiere episode for the last two season's have been roller coaster rides unto themselves and presented an interesting concept that would carry throught the rest of the season.

Since the season hasn't really started I won't spoil it but I do have to say there was nothing in the season opener that feels like it could carry the rest of the season. I'm still interested in what will happen in what was presented however neither of them are like the other serial killer in season 1 or Dexter's victims being discovered in season 2. I'm still watching and hopefully episode 2 will bring something to the table.

"Chuck": The Poor Man's Spy

Well television sweeps are full steam ahead and I've been trying to keep up with everything I can. By October I will be following at least a dozen shows from Dexter on Showtime(a personal fav of mine) all the way to the new "Knight Rider(the first episode was very cringe worthy). Most other shows like "Always Sunny in Philly" and "The Daily Show" people are already keeping up with but one show that doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar that I know of is the show "Chuck."

Chuck is now in its second season after a long break over the summer and I caught some of the episodes last season when the Sci Fi channel started airing the show. I enjoyed it in parts, I liked the concept of an average joe having to deal with a couple of super spies in a real world situation. Watching super spies having to deal with mundane jobs that are boring, slow is inherently funny for me to watch.

I also feel that Chuck reacts naturally in the situations he's in. When ever there is a gun fight or a group of terrorists come storming in Chuck reacts like most people would, scared shitless. Sure he says jokes but in the same way Spiderman does. The jokes makes being scared ok.

Anyway's the show is ok if you don't mind the slapstick humor sometimes and I'm going to keep watching the show now since I have a steady source of getting the episodes. Thank god for hulu.com.

2001: A Space Odyssey vs. There will be Blood Part 1

Both of these films have been highly regarded in consensus and there is no doubt that each of these films contribute heavily to the film knowledge base. Not only are these great films but the similiarities between these films are undeniable.

Structure is an important part of creating a coherent film that tells an interesting story. Both films open with creation. The creation of man is laid before us with a tribe of early man being taught how to use tools by a large monolith. In contrast Daniel Plainview already arrives on screen in full form and seems to be searching for his own monolith. Both segements are completely wordless and tell the story with pure visuals, which adds to the impact of these acts. In both films these opening scenes are the structure to all else that is built. Plainview uses oil from then on to establish power as does the apes that use the tools they discovered to retake the watering hole establishing the fact that the human race will on continue to conquer all that is in their way.

Perhaps I'm looking to into things but I do see alot of similiarties between the films and will continue this arguement later.

Critics: The Biggest Assholes

Honestly I'm getting sick of these self-righteous assholes who think they can stamp their approval or disapproval on anything and deem that law. Anyone now days can purchase a domain name and say their a reviewer but I'm really talking about actual journalists that have stepped up and declared that this is art because they said so. Its not really left up to the audience whether it is art or not.

What I'm talking about specifically is all the commotion around Braid. I've played Braid and I love it and will continue to play it. For me it is a work of art but I don't need fifty people to tell me that I don't have a choice in the matter. If its a piece of shit I'm going to think its a piece of shit and shouldn't be looked down on because I don't agree with these critics that have labeled it as some thing else.

This argument works both ways as well. If I think something is a piece of art and no one else does, well screw them I think its a piece of art but I'm not going to sit there and tell them that they are a lesser person for not thinking like me. And I'm not just talking about videogame critics but movie critics and anyone who thinks they can analyze something and get two people to listen to them.

However this pretentiousness has not yet flooded into the video game industry as of yet. And hopefully these guardians of our media will not allow this to happen to them. Right now videogame reviewers are either boring step by step robots or rabid fanboys who have been unwittenly given a forum to present their biased ideas to the masses.

Mostly this is due to the technology that we call the internet. Never before have two mediums been so intertwined as videogames and the internet. Both formats feed off each other where as movies, print media , and television have remained separate from each for the most part. Recently we see television trying to integrate with the internet a little more but still this is baby steps compared to videogames.

However its with movie critics that these sins are amplified. The mindless analyzation of film that goes into the efforts of some of these critics is amazing. Just the other day I was listening to the /film podcast when they had a guest on that was arguing the fact that WallE promotes date rape and because of that the film is bad and manipulative.

Now I can understand analyzing a film past what the filmmaker originally put in the film. There is a subconscience element to that but if your just digging for the sake of finding something in a film to make yourself feel smarter that's just sad. By all means do not take things at face value but if your trying to create something out of nothing than just stop by all means. Your doing more harm than good.

Perhaps its because film has been around for so long. We as a society have moved on from just saying films are good or bad. Instead we need messages and feelings and hope from our films. But to ruin those films by overthinking is irresponsible.