Gears of War: Ground Gained and Lost

 

The game that induced me to buy the arcade version (read cheap) of the Xbox 360 was Gears of War. Gears looked great and the play style was exceptional. I often have trouble with anything first-person and this was a third-person shooter. Its cover-fire system was unique and instantly copycatted by others in the industry. Your character felt heavy and each action required planning and skill. If you ran up to your Locust enemies, you’d be shot to bits. And to go along with that Gears of War effortlessly pulled its audience into a unique post-apocalyptic story about a planet called Serra. Characters had unique voices and characterizations.

Gears of War 2 could be argued as an improvement on an excellent first game. The game play was polished and levels required deep strategy if you played on higher difficulty settings. The story was enhanced with a huge war effort against the Locust threat that felt risky and important. Characters drove the story at nearly every important stage of the title.

At the same time Karen Traviss had been hired to right companion novels. And at first blush I figured this would be little more than a money grab. But Epic gave her free reign to enhance and expand the world. The first two books are really good. She was involved in the writing for Gears of War 3 and it shows. It has more story nuance than some RPGs. The game play in Gears of War 3 wasn’t quite as epic at 2, but it still felt good. And it tied up all the loose story ends.

And then somebody decided we don’t need a serious campaign or characters, and we got Gears of War: Judgment, released on March 19, 2013. This consisted of a main campaign and a smaller mini campaign. Our lead character is Baird, the usually douchey and always sarcastic guy who’s been in every title. He’s stripped of his rancor and it’s explained that this story is before he got embittered. Cole joins the team but he lacks any of his old energy. The other two I can’t even remember their names; stock Slavic guy who’s done evil and stock woman with a pony tail. And this is all framed around a trial being held by an obnoxious colonel whose main accusation against Baird seems to be how he chose to fight. How dare he use Locust weapons! Oh, I think they stole a hammer of dawn and used it without permission. Anyway the story felt small and petty just like the colonel.

Let’s talk game play. Remember how Epic revolutionized a cover-fire system that made each action feel vital? Well, gradually designers let that slide. This title rewards people who charge up and attack. The mini campaign had more traditional levels, actually.

And then to underline how truly unimportant those two whose names I can’t recall were to the designers, Beard bumps into them years later in the mini campaign. And this was the element that irked me. So apparently stock woman took up with stock Slavic guy, for reasons that are never explained or implied. And then she’s on patrol and gets abducted, Slavic guys thinks by COG members. The implications here are unpleasant. He’s unable recover her.

That conclusion felt pat and disappointing. Gears of War always presented an unusually egalitarian message. In the books it’s explained that woman are too valuable to fight, but as the situation grows desperate they can and do. It’s not a huge setback, but I didn’t understand why she couldn’t have fallen in a shootout or something.

From what I hear the new Gears of War game is much better. I didn’t preorder it though and I’m waiting for the price to drop. The series needs to rebuild my confidence.

Arnold Schwarzenegger's Art Zombie Film; Why I Enjoyed It

I often wind up talking about movies I’ve seen. Movies are quick and a single scene can pack so much story and depth of concept. I can encourage someone to go see a movie and know that I’m not pressing a 300 page commitment on them.

That brings me to the film Maggie. Directed by Henry Hobson and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and Abigail Breslin, this film struggled to find an audience. Imbd has an average rating for it of 5.6 out of 10. Rotten Tomatoes is about the same. Only 32 % of viewers liked the film. So before I explain why I did like it, I’d like to discuss a few reasons I think it flopped with critics.

There’s no foreign language or highly complicated metaphors, but it is an art film parading as a zombie film. Oh, and if you’re expecting Arnold to kill zombies with headshots from his trusty shotgun, you will be disappointed. There are a few brief moments of action, but this film is not about fighting zombies. This film is dedicated to care and concern for his teenage daughter Maggie. So what I just told you is that this film violates genre norms. That’s always a risky gamble. In this case, I think most critics and viewers didn’t ‘get’ the story.

The other key flaw to this film is the pacing. It’s slow. There are neat story payoffs at points in the film, but some viewers may feel a little cheated. And if a viewer goes in expecting an Evil Dead or Walking Dead sort of thrill-ride, they will be disappointed.

So here’s why I liked Maggie. Arnold is just a father trying to help his daughter. He’s not an action hero and he’s not perfect. I realize that many stories have portrayed zombification as a virus. But I feel like this was more realistic. The virus has stages of progression. Zombies are called ‘Turned’. And zombies are not undead. A broken neck with kill one just as easily as a headshot. There are horror elements to the film. You have a sense that something awful is happening to people. But instead of wanting to shoot them, the viewer is invited to empathize with them. The climax of the film is why I decided the film is good. I won’t spoil that here.

I'm finally a published author! Yay!

Well, I've been gone for a few years. But I'm back in action. I recently published my first book. I'm very excited about it. Here's a link:

https://www.amazon.com/Lady-Holsten-Michelle-Burgin/dp/1532007337/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478415266&sr=8-1&keywords=the+lady+from+holsten

Here's the general plot line:

Belthus is the fabled land of dense jungles and exotic spices. Sharpenia is home to large predators, vast forests, and frozen landscapes. Laura Mendlin dreams of visiting strange, faraway lands from her room in Holsten on the coast of Welchstad.

But Laura is not supposed to attend the Yuletide Ball, let alone sail the ocean to Belthus. Her parents expect her to rescue the family from financial ruin by marrying her to her father's new business partner. Excuses are heaped on her for why this must be. But Laura rejects them all.

Laura flees her lawful marriage to hide out at Castle Redscale's Yuletide Ball. She needs to marry well--and fast. She has no time for love or doubts about her plan. And yet she's plagued by doubt. She meets an eligible man but finds herself drawn to another. Yet her father is sure to come after her. She can't legally refuse his demand either. Marriage is her problem and solution. Laura wants another choice. But with even her friends pushing her to marry, will Laura ever get to choose a life for herself?

Red Riding Hood, warning spoilers

I'm afraid this post will be rather short.  Once again I'm stuck with movie options.  I just haven't found too many interesting topics.  This week it's Red Riding Hood (2011) directed by Catherine Hardwicke and produced by Leonardo DiCaprio and friends.  *Sigh*.  It just hurts.  The film actually had a surprising amount of potential.

The story interweaves a number of different legends concerning the big bad wolf.  In this case it's actually a werewolf, which I thought was cool but also scared me.  Not in a horror genre kind of way; no I was afraid of some Twilight varnishing.  The interactions between Valerie (the main character) and her male suitor are shallow and tepid.  Sorry to say it, but they seemed to lack in acting talent.  I hate to think it was the director since women are rare in that job.  Anyway all the adult actors were pretty good.  Gary Oldman was predictably awesome.  And he has a wonderful backstory on why he's an inquisitor who hunts down werewolves.  And the mystery of who's the werewolf is actually pretty reasonable.  There's decent action and the story is surprising.  But then the ending threw it all away.  It basically ends with "I'll wait at the edge of the forest for my dark lover to return".  I mean, that's ok.  Nothing wrong there.  But they had so many other end-game options for Valerie.  That she's so invested in this one guy falls a little flat.  It's a very Twilight ending.  But it still had some neat stuff, and I still enjoy a good fairy tale.

Sherlock Holmes: The Intersection of Art and Entertainment (spoilers)

I imagine that few iconic characters have been portrayed more frequently and robustly over the last century than Sherlock Holmes.  Way too many for me to think of going into here.  In the 40's the number of films based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective and starring Basil Rathbone made it almost a serial.  Many of them are quite good too.  The Disney studio's affection for him was such that the loveable dog in The Great Mouse Detective is named Basil.  My personal favorite is the long running series starring Jeremy Brett as the famous detective.  One of his very best is The Hound of the Baskervilles.  All shot on location with English actors and excellent period sets and clothing.  The acting is generally very good.  Then, there's The Great Mouse Detective which I only got to see recently.  I thought it was fantastic.  Excellent artistically and story-wise.  The attention to detail and the focus on the mystery and the battle of wits between the detective and Ratigan are exceptional.  And it was done in an animation style that I'm very fond of.  It's similar to The Rescuers and Robin Hood. 

And of course there's Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes.  The first film drops you right into that world and it's all about the mystery.  The plot is strong and the wit is sharp.  I actually loved what they did for Watson's character.  He's general portrayed as standing around in amazement at Holmes.  But he is a war veteran and a doctor.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  My husband loved it to pieces.

Sadly, I was not as big a fan of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.  I told my husband I thought the first film was far better.  He tried a little bit to defend it, but I stood by my assertion.  They made Holmes and Watson action heroes.  I feared this would happen from the first preview I saw.  The fight sequences were too long.  Holmes is practically a karate master.  The script lacked the original's rapier wit.  I mean the banter was ok.  And there wasn't much of a mystery to it.  My husband said he had it figured out in the first 25 minutes.  Now, there were portions of the film that perhaps lived up to the original's quality, but as a whole it just wasn't there.

So my conclusion is that Sherlock Holmes can support all kinds of changes, even modernizing him is ok.  He can get in on the fighting too.  It adds to the entertainment.  But in the end there has to be a strong mystery with a study stream of detective work.  And it has to be understandable how Holmes figures things out, even if the average Joe couldn't do it.