Jump to content

Doctor Shaft

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Doctor Shaft's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Most people that enjoy OoT, in my experience, are those who make statements like "I played Mario64 as a kid" or "OoT was from my younger days." Granted, I know there are quite a few that played all the Zelda games before and still think OoT was great, but I'm not one of them. I played the original Zelda when it came out. That doesn't make me old, but it does give me a different view point when Zelda64 came out. In short, I simply didn't care. I had played Zelda 1, Zelda 2 (and liked it, even though it was so different... the difficulty made me come back for more), and A Link to the Past. When I saw OoT come out, only one thought came to mind. "This looks like A Link to the Past, only in 3D." And I stand by that ever since. I've read the story, seen the game play, listened to the music, and I still don't care. There's something about it that simply doesn't resonate with me. I didn't give a crap about some horse. I could careless that there was a kid link and an adult link. Stick with one, don't pick both. Zelda as "Sheik" was repugnant to me. The maidens yet again, only this time as autonomous characters with thoughts and feelings... again, they were like female wisemen to me. I wanted the old, look-alike guys back. I know it was the first, and that games like Twilight Princess wouldn't exist without 64... but I still don't care. I loved TP. The music moved me. The feel, the vastness. That was truly epic to me because it progressed far enough my previous Zelda experiences. I loved being a wolf. It was something different enough for me. Granted, it still had ye olde "light world/ shadow world" motif, so I guess I'm a hypocrite because there were tons of similarities between TP and ALttP. And I got the references to the Temple of Time, which was ironically one of my favorite locations to visit (another product of Zelda64). Yet, still, I have absolutely no desire to ever play the 64 games, Majora's Mask included. I just don't care. They are too foreign to me for some reason. I'd play Celda first, and I had no desire to pick that one up. Minish Cap, however, was a great game, despite how painfully easy it was (all Zelda games, sadly, are painfully easy). Zelda: Adventure of Link for life. That was a Zelda game. Difficult to boot. Make me a top-down Zelda difficult like that. And ALttP still lives on, for me, as the greatest of them all. It will never be topped. Ever.
  2. I was in the same boat with Firefly. They didn't advertise it enough in the first place, had on TV on a Friday night to start (I think, and that's a horrible spot to be), and I also wasn't sure I'd like the format because it looked too western. But then when I watched the episodes on DVD through a friend, I quickly realized that the western style was perfect for the show's premise, and the writing was durn good. Granted, this is coming from the same creator as the Buffy series, et al., which I most certainly DID NOT like too much. But Firefly was down to Earth enough, not too much Chick Power in it, and the characters, even the "dumb weapons guy" had stories that were interesting. Serenity of course killed any chance of a tv come back, unfortunately, but they knew that wasn't going to happen anyway. Bringing Star Trek back, though, is just not a good idea. I watched Star Trek for a long time, but I'm afraid the Trek died once Deep Space Nine ran its final episode. For me, The Next Generation had the Star Trek formula down pat, with few flaws. Sure, it suffered from a lack of episodic connection (only a few episodes each season, usually the first and last ones, had any repercussions for the Trek universe as time went foward), but the style was just right. Just enough action, but also just enough science/social techno babble in it to keep it interesting and smooth. With TNG, I didn't mind if the episode had no violence at all in it, and there were quite a few episodes where the violence was almost non-existent. The characters (besides Riker... he was too vanilla for me) were all interesting, and solo episodes involving them were usually intriguing. DS9 of course had to push the war angle more, as it was a show that didn't take place in the blissful corners of the Federation, but I still felt it had more spunk and interesting plotline than the Trek shows that followed it. I don't know, I just feel like Trek needs a break. I hear the next Trek movie is supposed to depart from what they were usually doing with the Trek series, maybe getting more back to its roots. I guess time will only tell.
  3. Agreed here. I'll give my full review, having just seen it a few hours ago. Spiderman 3 is not a "bad" movie in the sense that they don't try. None of the actors give up, per say, and the direction doesn't really "quit" in my estimation. They don't really just throw explosions at us, persay, and while a few scenes, especially towards the end, may be interpreted as just special effects fluff aimed at a sure sell, I didn't really think that was the main issue with this film. The first hour and a half of this film is Spiderman goodness. Perhaps not as great as Spiderman 2, but one has to be careful not to give too much credit where credit isn't deserved. Spiderman 2 gets a great deal of its momentum from the very first film, and how solidly constructed that previous film was. The first film also doesn't really resolve anything so much as it serves as hour "First Act" of a play. It's the exposition. It reveals our main characters to us, sets up the love triangles, the romance, the drama, the meaning of a hero, etc. So of course, as long as the cast and crew followed suit and thought long and hard, Spiderman 2 was almost guarenteed some form of success. Spiderman 3, however, doesn't have that same benefit. Spiderman 2 unfortunately resolves many issues from Spidey 3, and while it does leave plenty of juicy bits left over (like Harry), the love issue is essentially tied up in that film. It's tough to beat the love drama of Spiderman 2. This last film tries hard to bring some tension and struggle, and it does it somewhat successfully, but at times it over-shoots just a little bit. So what's my main beef with the film? Again, the first hour and a half is good. Even though there are perhaps one too many characters and conflicts to deal with, it's for the most part okay, and makes sense. However, following the climax of the film (Spiderman finally deciding to get rid of the suit after a chain of pretty messed up and recent events), the movie just runs out of steam and time to properly give everyone, not just the villains, a proper send off. In other words, if you could break Spiderman 3 into sections, i'd say it has a set up, it has a nice building of conflict with all the characters, plenty of nice fight and emotional conflicts, a good lead up to a nice climax.... and then most of the falling action is entirely missing. We get a good end fight, a decent and logical ending... but you'll probably find yourself not caring so much. Because no one (except perhaps Spiderman himself) is given time to really spend time thinking about or reacting to the mistakes and bad choices they make. And that's really the primary theme about Spiderman 3. The ability to make choices. And all of the characters, even Mary Jane, are given opportunities in the film to make choices, most of which they make are bad. But Spiderman is unfortunately really the only guy that gets enough screen time to consider his actions fully. Harry, perhaps, gets enough screen time as well for it, but Brock, Mary Jane, and Sandman don't quite get it. Sandman gets a little time, but it's at the very end, which is awkward timing, I thought. BOTTOMLINE: Spiderman 3 is, by no means, a "Bad" film. It's not the greatest, but that's also understandable as it is the third film in its line up, and like most trilogies, it doesn't get the bulk of "loose strings" to work with as the middle film always does. So no fanboy love for Spiderman 2 from me. Spiderman 3, in my estimation, should have done one of two possible things (both of which I realize are probably not feasible due to $$). 1.) Become two films. Take major portions of the 3rd film, and divide them effectively between two films. Either focus more on "Green Goblin2/Sandman" or "Green Goblin2/Venom". Doing both, while not a total failure, didn't leave us enough time to care enough about them when we get to the final fight, which was spectacular visually, but not quite as prominent emotionally. Green Goblin had enough lead up in the first film to make their last battle something to remember, despite being far more low key. 2.) Make the film longer. I realize that wouldn't have sold too well in theatres, etc., but the reason LOTR:ROTK works both as a book and as movie adaptation is because they both are given enough time to resolve their major plot points. Spiderman 3 needed that extra 40 minutes or so for the characters to think through and struggle with their actions and choices they made. Unfortunately, that time wasn't available, so we saw the conclusion without the 4th Act, so to speak.
  4. What's surprising is that the first live action movie actually had moments of seriousness throughout its presentation. Granted, it still was sold to kids, had plenty of kid moments and attempts at jokes (although I was pretty sure some of them were a little bit over kids heads, especially the latter part where Casey Jones reveals he's afraid of closed spaces and mistakes Donatello's response as calling him homosexual... I think), but it also had plenty of violence. Splinter isn't just captured. He's beaten and put on display in front of teenage ruffians (who were all playing the awesomely corny game known as N.A.R.C). Raphael may not have gotten stabbed to death, but the Foot Clan did a good job of tossing his sais off the side and beating the snot out of him. And the retreat to the summer house seemed pretty serious as the turtles had basically regroup after April's antique shop is burned to the ground and she loses her job on top of that. So all in all, that movie was pretty dark. And Shredder's demise, though contrived and an "easy way out" to avoid watching turtles impaling him with weapons, still found a gruesome way to get rid of him. In a dumpster truck. With Casey "accidentally" hitting the switch. See... even Casey Jones was allowed to be a little edgy, even if it was snuck in there at the last 15 seconds. Would be interesting to see the franchise try and take that kind of turn again.
  5. In the famous words of Raphael during most of the first movie. "...damn!" He was so edgy back then.
  6. Come on. Not every 3D movie is just an Advent Children ripoff. It's technology. I'm sure Leonardo is not going to be all emo on a Motorcycle thinking about how to forgive himself for failing as a leader and then return to bring back together his "family". No way would that happen. (watch it happen, sans motorcyle and asymetric leather garb).
  7. We're responding to an interview in which a question was very likely given in English, then translated into Japanese, then the answer was given in Japanese, then translated into English, for all of us to respond to. Or, if the question was indeed given in Japanese, we're still listening to it in English. And the Rockman Zero and Rockman ZX titles are very good releases. Inafune hasn't completely sucked, nor is he irrelevant, regardless of whether you liked his games or not. He's still working, and hasn't been buried under a mountain of insignificance. Anyway, when I read that article, I don't think he was talking about "art" the way were talking about it. He was merely discussing the process of video games as a business. From his estimation, Clover was a developer that sold their video games like a piece of artwork. The problem is, artwork can be sold, depending on demand, for hundreds of dollars. And then replicas can be sold for less, but still significantly more (major art, stuff that people are willing to buy and spend dough on). The problem is, video games don't sell like that, no matter how much the public likes it. No one is auctioning off a copy of the newest Zelda for thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In addition, there is no "sole artist" to the creation of a video game, so you can't even get the public wankery of a personality behind the painting. "Ooh, so and so painted this picture, and he went to the London School of Self-Applause Artistry... wow, I'll spend thousands on this piece." And that's it. That's what I got out of Inafune's comment. He lauded the directors for their games. He thought they were cool. But the way Clover sold the product was poor. Video games don't sell like art. They sell like video games. Hence, in the business world, video games are not art.
  8. Doctor Shaft

    300

    300 did its job, and it made no pretentious of what that job was. It was about being kickass and manly. That's it. Historical accuracy didn't matter. Heck, even the slight moral conundrum of throwing your "useless" babies down onto a pile of mountain slagged bones didn't matter. It was about how glorious that battle was, and what men did in the face of adversity. The end. The Persians were over-sexed "faith" mongers, and the Spartans were heartily "logical" and yet boisterous and hypocritical man-freaks that kick ass. Anyway, my favorite scene was actually the non-violent confrontation between Xerxes and the King (I forgot his name already). It was really cool and stylized, and I liked how they basically sparred each other with words rather than some contrived "I'll meet you on the battlefield" type thing. But 300's best quality was that it was just... silly. It did not care about being too serious about itself. It was fun, it was a celebration of all that is "manly". And it didn't try to go beyond that.
  9. Mm. I'm worried now. This is starting to look like that 'Axl' game that they were whispering about years ago. Model A? Two pistols? A familiar helmet. The ability to transform into defeated Reploids. Ech. At least Prometheus and Pandora will be in it. They were some seriously cool characters, and fighting them both at the same time in ZX was wicked. But Axl was not a character I was very fond of in the X series. I mean, he practically took all the wind out of X's sails, and he wasn't that cool to begin with. X: Infinite potential. Could copy the DNA of his enemies and use their power to upgrade or modify himself. No silly transformations involved, just more powerful. Axl: Not only upgraded, but turned into the people he fought. I guess you could have a debate of what is "better": becoming your enemy, or simply taking some portion of them and adding them to your already advanced self, like X. Still, I hate powers that consist of "You're as good as the person in front of you... in fact, you're just a copy." Even the four guardians in the Zero series had more character and coolness than Axl. And they were side characters.
  10. Exactly. 3rd Strike, despite it's pretty well established tiers, and known strategies, still gets played the heck out of. And what's more, it is almost never boring to watch (except maybe a Chun Li fight... Chun Li is the least exciting thing to see play in this game). There just really isn't a "point" to making another game. Sure, 3rd Strike isn't perfect... but is it really broken either? While not everyone enjoys it's style, it's hard to say that it isn't very polished and well made.
  11. Street Fighter 4? Nah, it'll never happen. I just don't believe it. I've read about those rumors before, but as some others have said, Capcom would just be fighting a tremendous uphill battle in designing a fourth title, especially in today's video climate where: - America shows little interest in the arcade scene - Japan, despite still thriving, has plenty of 2D fighters that are played and released (Guilty Gear is quite successful, and frequently updated on top of that, SNK at least tries to keep on the scene) - Capcom would literally be competing with itself (Super Turbo, 3rd Strike are both not dead. Marvel wasn't really that popular across the ocean, and we hardly play it now with arcades being dead. Still, ST and 3S are still kicking, so-to-speak, at least at tourney's) Even if they could encapsulate everything that was good about Street Fighter, how would it benefit them at this point? They'd need something that beats games that are either a decade old or nearing a decade and still kicking, and they'd need something innovative to match Guilty Gear (in terms of uniqueness, not whether it's good or not... not everyone enjoys Guilty Gear obviously). Even if it is being planned, I wouldn't "recommend" it if they asked me. But I know they aren't.
  12. FF7 just wouldn't fit on the DS. I know they remade FF3 to fit, but that was still a game based on 8 bit principles. FF7 was a fully 3D, including the concept. Everything. Sure, FF3 has pulled off 3d models and cutscenes, but it has a style that's still very old school. FF7 does not carry that old school flavor. It was wildly different from, say, FF6 in terms of design. I just can't see myself enjoying that game on a DS, or even a PSP. Certain games just weren't meant for it. FF7 is more cinematic than previous titles. A lot of the newer FF's are. Handheld consoles need games that don't have as much cinematic flair. AT least, that's how I like my portable games.
  13. Shadow Link is really hard... unless you use the "corner of the room" trick, in which case he actually becomes easier than all of the bosses in the game. It's strange. When you fight him standing up, it's like you can't really hit him. The duck/jump trick that you used on the armored knights doesn't work on him. You have to be really good at blocking and countering. But, if you just crouch in the left corner and stab-stab-stab, Shadow Link will simply run into your sword, so to speak, and kill himself quite handily. Problem solved, Shadow Link becomes easy. Hardest boss I ever fought, considering I played so few console games, was that Underwater Weapon in FF7. Unlike some folk, I wasn't the slightest bit interested in leveling up all of my materia, setting my equipment correctly, and figuring out that Aire Tam was actually "materia" spelled backwards and that the damage for that beam was calculated by how much materia you had on your person. So this Weapon literally crushed me in like five rounds, and i eventually just gave up and never tried to defeat him. I think these days I'm a lot better at playing with the ATB system, but I'm pretty sure I still wouldn't beat this guy.
×
×
  • Create New...