When I was in grade school, my Mom and I used to have an after-school routine. I’d get done whatever homework I had, I’d watch the afternoon movie (frequently some science fiction film from the 50s), and then a bit before dinner we would watch an episode of Star Trek being run in syndication. We rarely missed an episode. I remember one Christmas where Santa Claus brought me a complete set of the Mego Star Trek action figures, including two Klingons, and an Enterprise bridge with working transporter. Star Trek was not the only thing I was into at the time… probably not even the biggest thing I was into… but it was important.
One of my best friends throughout my childhood was an even bigger fan. He would have definitely been a Trekker by today’s standards, though the whole convention experience was not well-known at that time. He was always Spock. I was always Kirk, and we seemed to always come up with some plot that required us to be against each other… mind control, alien possession, whatever. Boys must get into wrestling matches as always.
I left my Star Trek ways behind me along with my childhood. I watched the films as they were released in theaters, recapturing some of those lost feelings, but not compelled to be a diehard fan. This wasn’t a case of putting Star Trek aside to devote loyalty to Star Wars either. Like with video game consoles there seems to be a real either/or mentality at work in the various fan bases. You either REALLY like Star Trek or you REALLY like Star Wars. I liked both, but neither one had me slobbering after it. When Star Trek: The Next Generation was announced, I was hugely skeptical. I knew that the real draw to the original series was not the science fiction or the social commentary. No, the real meat on that show was the triangle of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy and the hugely likable supporting cast propping those three up. And I didn’t feel lightning could strike twice. When I did finally cave and give TNG a grudging try, I found it to be a decent TV show. It didn’t have ‘the big three’ but it had its own identity, and found its place in Roddenberry’s universe of big ideas and big optimism. As okay with TNG as I was to become, it didn’t propel my interest enough to then also watch Deep Space Nine, Voyager, or Enterprise. I kind of peripherally knew what those shows were about, and I gleaned some of the series’ major events from somewhere… maybe watching an occasional episode, but apart from the TNG films, I hadn’t really gone back to the Trek universe for years.
As my children have gotten older, something spoke to me that maybe Star Trek would be something they would need to see. My kids are pretty media savvy, and they have the usual smattering of fan-love. My daughter digs the Disney tween shows, especially Wizards of Waverly Place. And Narnia is more-or-less her Middle Earth… books and films both. My son’s interests run closer to my own and he’s into Godzilla and Ultraman, Gundam, Warhammer 40K, and a lot of other things his friends at school have no clue about.
With all my love of transgressive film, music, and print… I am actually quite restrictive on what my children get to put into their eyes and ears. I exercise huge control, fully using, cable TV channel locks, internet nanny software, and film, DVD, and video game ratings. And when in doubt about whether something is suitable, I will watch it myself first or research the hell out of it. Only recently have I let my son play Halo, maybe the one thing his friends DO enjoy in common with him.
I needed something we could all do together. Something both my son and my daughter would like equally, that would be ‘safe’ family fare, and that we could all share together. I remembered what a great bonding experience watching and talking about Star Trek was when I spent that time with my Mom. The kids excitement over the 2009 Star Trek film’s trailer got me to thinking.
Star Trek: The Original Series, as it is now called, has been out on DVD for some time now, but it has been ‘remastered’. Cleaning up and re-recording the show for modern players and televisions is fine, but they also replaced many of the old effects shots with new modern ones. The new shots don’t actually try to look super-realistic… the designers did a pretty good job of integrating them with the shows dated look, but there’s something about being able to see ‘how things were done’ back in the day, that needs to be preserved. Fans who know the difference between Star Wars and Star Wars Special Edition know what I’m talking about.
Enter Blu-ray. Although my AV setup is fully capable of taking advantage of Blu-ray, and I CAN (unlike much of the public apparently) see a difference between this media and DVD… I didn’t see enough of a difference to add Blu-ray to my home. Star Trek forced me into the 21st century. The Blu-ray editions allow seamless branching between new and old effects. So I bought a player, wrangled it into my video morass, and made the kids start watching them.
They love them. The effect has been almost exactly the same as I remembered from my childhood. These children have the added benefit of watching them in broadcast order (I tinkered this when I knew the broadcast order was detrimental to seeing the show’s evolution), then watching the films. So they get the whole story. There was a chance my daughter would not take to the show since her world is mostly caught up in friends, fashion, pop songs, and gossip… but she has a vivid imagination, and the beauty of this show is that for all its dated look and relatively simplistic plots (by today’s standards) the friendship of the characters transcends the limitations of the show and of what one thinks a science fiction show should be about. I had remembered this and hoped for the best, mostly because my mother liked it so much… and she is absolutely not the science fiction or action show type.
The kids laughed and cried in all the right places. As soon as one show ended they’d be psyched for the next. And when we finally got done with the television episodes, my son was very eager to see what would happen with the ships and special effects when a few years and much bigger budgets would make a difference. Cue Wrath of Khan. This film had the effect of tearing everything down that they loved about the series, and rebuilt it even better. The space battles and sets showed them what they thought Star Trek would actually look like if the TV series hadn’t been so small-scale. Spock’s death required me to console them. I had to take great pains to NOT give anything about the subsequent film away while still asking that they keep open minds and keep watching. They were all choked up when Spock begins to recognize Jim again at the end of Search for Spock. All the notes were hit exactly right for them. Amazingly, for all that he enjoyed the bigger more expansive battle scenes, aliens, and all that… at the end of the day, what mattered most was what was going to happen to the big three. The kids were genuinely melancholy to watch these characters age, and finally retire, as the Trek universe changed around them and their bodies could no longer keep up.
JJ Abrams new Star Trek film was a sort of icing on the cake. They were very excited to see it, even before they started watching the series. I was cruel and required them to watch all the original series and the films before allowing them to get to it. They enjoyed the series, but the 2009 film’s trailer is at the beginning of every Blu-ray disc so they were repeatedly bombarded with this titano-budget reboot that had all the now-generation sensibilities that they were accustomed to. I patiently reminded them over and over that they needed to hang in there because the new film would make a lot more sense if they had the original series under their belt.
It isn’t like the film is a bad viewing even if you don’t know the series, but I wanted them to get as much out of the work ‘for the fans’ that Abrams and company did as I got out of it. They especially needed to understand the momentous change that would be brought about by Nero and Spock fucking about with time travel.
It totally worked. Watching the new movie I had to pause it like twice for the gravity of certain situations to settle in as the kids jumped up from the couch to question the sanity of what they were watching. Kirk no longer being the first to see Romulans. The appearance of Leonard Nimoy. Uhuru and Spock’s relationship. I orchestrated this whole thing from beginning to end, and by the time it was over the kids didn’t begrudge me my puppet-master shenanigans one bit. They pretty much picked up on every little thing. The only plot element I really had to explain ahead of time was Spock’s role as ambassador to the Romulans from The Next Generation.
I’m sure we will re-visit Star Trek at some point. We’ll pick out an episode or film every now and then. Or maybe at some point we’ll do this whole exercise again. I’m undecided as to whether I want to move on to TNG. On the one hand, it would be more adventures in that universe (though my son doesn’t see how it could be Star Trek without the big three—that’s my boy!),nad the show IS good. On the other hand, it is much, MUCH longer than the original series and is not out on Blu-ray. I’m not sure I want to make that big of an investment in a format that isn’t as good as the Star Trek stuff we already have. Finding out I could get TNG in Blu-ray will probably convince me to start us up on that.
All told the Star Trek ‘project’ took us about three months to get through. I guess that lines up with today’s accelerated, instant-gratification pace. When I was watching Star Trek with my Mom there were no Blu-ray players and HDTVs. She didn’t orchestrate the viewing with some overall plan. We just ENJOYED them. I probably overdid it. But I know in this day and age of bigger, better, and more spectacular I felt like I really wanted this show to have an impact on my kids… like it did on me. I wasn’t a big fan all my life, but the influence on my future tastes, and my discernment about what was important in a story, was huge… maybe incalculable. So we made this big event out of it so Star Trek wouldn’t just become another show. Lost in all the TV, movies, video games, internet surfing, phone texting, etc etc.
Now they KNOW what a good show actually is.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Conundrum
This post is going to be different from my usual unimportant self-indulgent crap. I want to set down my thoughts on an actual socially relevant issue. I don't have any real point to this other than explication and examination I guess. It does tie in to one of my pastimes so it is not totally off-the-wall.
My usual approach to discourse on political or social topics is to question a) the harm to others and b) why or how a government should be involved. Adults talk politics. We all have opinions. We approach it from all angles and talk the subject to death. Particularly Americans. On the one hand citizens of the USA are proud of a society where the individuals can (seemingly) affect change to their government at any level. On the other hand this makes getting anything done in this country really complicated. Sometimes drawn out to an interminable degree as we argue over every little thing, and wrangle back and forth while every viewpoint and appeal is heard.
Plenty of issues have circled round to prominence in the media and public debate only to fade for a little while... only to come back 'round again. If you live in this country, you know the topics: abortion, euthanasia, the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc. etc. If I apply my usual... dare I say 'simple'... approach as stated above on any of these issues, I usually can find my own position and hold it with conviction. Both parts of the question are answered, of course, through the filter of my personal political philosophy. Understanding labels to be much more limiting than most public mouthpieces seem to indicate, I would probably be classed as Libertarian or REALLY old-school Republican. That is, I generally believe it is not the government's place to be involved any more than it must. Of course what it MUST be involved in is the complicated part.
Some debates are much simpler to sort for me than they seem to be for the general public. Given that I hew to a conservative view of government involvement, a lot of other adults seem to think this should just adhere me to SOCIALLY conservative views as well... but that's a bunch of crap. Here's an example: Abortion.
Whatever a person's moral views on abortion, to me this comes down to whether the government should actually be involved. I believe there comes a point where any government is not a fine enough instrument (at any level) to be making, or helping to make, this decision for an individual. Whether abortion is the taking of a 'life' or not is beside the point for me. To expect the government to get between a mother and a (potential) baby is just too much. There are some decisions, even critical life-or-death decisions, that are not the business of a governing body. It is going to have to be between that person and their notion of God, if anyone really. I think the only answer is for administrations to butt the fuck out. Roe v. Wade has to stand on its foundation as a right to privacy, and I think a lot of socially conservative bulwark positions fall apart on these same grounds (euthanasia anyone?)... a pillar the Republican Party at one point stood upon. No law is going to be a fine enough instrument to be able to rightly-divide justice in a decision THAT personal.
Advocates on one side or the other of social debates like the abortion issue can seek to educate and sway all they want. I would encourage that. If you want people to cling to YOUR opinion, then persuade away. But to expect the government to get right down between the fetus and the womb that is carrying it? Uh, no.
Again, it really has nothing to do with the moral, spiritual or criminal arguments on whether the fetus has a 'right to life'. It comes down to it being up too personal. If we've decided (rightly in my opinion) that the government cannot decide for its citizens what is an acceptable sexual practice between two consenting adults in their own home... then it sure as hell doesn't get to wedge in even closer to the core of an individual and decide what one does with the contents of their own body.
So as I said, it is often pretty simple for me to find my view on a topic. I know there are lots of complications... and every political hot button has myriad aspects to it. Some of these can be solved... or rather a compromise can be reached... by individual states and their constituents. The federal government sledgehammer frequently is not the answer. Occasionally my social views make me sound rather like an ally to most liberal causes. Which I'm not. Or rather, I'm not if it requires the government to intervene. So that brings me (FINALLY) to the topic of the post.
I'm finding myself more an more in a quandry about smoking bans.
Cigar smoking is another pastime of mine, and I could definitely wax geekerific about it if I chose to. I'm not having any difficulty with whether or not I will actually continue to smoke cigars... I will if they continue to be available. But I'm finding my venues to actually DO the smoking to be rapidly vanishing.
A point to note maybe: this is more of a philosophical debate for me, than a matter of physical need. I'm a typical cigar smoker in that I indulge regularly, but not often. Addiction doesn't inform any personal part of the issue for me.
On the one hand, I have my own selfish desire to be able to enjoy a fine cigar. Its historical, its traditional, its awesome. Like fine wine or great food, cigars are a luxury and often an exclamation point on good times or a great moment (like ad copy for the cigar industry?). While the ones actually worth smoking can appear expensive, they are still an affordable luxury on a per unit basis. What I mean is that you can spend hundreds on a fine bottle of wine or wonderful dinner and get at most a couple of hours of enjoyment out of it. There are really good cigars to be had for several dollars each, and even the most expensive (barring really exclusive editions) are still less than twenty apiece... and typically take an hour, sometimes more, to smoke. Yeah, it'll take me three or four cigars before I get all the way through that bottle of port or cognac, but the booze also cost three to twenty times as much!
And, yeah yeah, you don't inhale cigars (you do a little, lets be honest), they don't have all the additives cigarettes do (true), and they are occasional (also usually true). They are not marketed to 'kids' the same way cigarettes are (also true, it requires a degree of affluence usually not associated with young smokers).
But most importantly, as with alcohol, pot, sex toys, and of course saturated fats, free-thinking adults should be allowed to put what we choose into our bodies. And, as with abortion, I feel no government should be getting right down to the level of telling us our personal business. The problem of course comes from the other aspect, the one that falls under part a) of my 'approach' the 'what harm' part.
In the case of alcohol, pot, and saturated fats there ARE larger 'harms' that folks want to consider when debating legislative action. Economic and criminal impacts obviously. The social and criminal harm inflicted by drunk drivers. The burden on society's medical costs from heart disease and the obese. In this country we are continually torn by trying to allow individuals to be individuals without infringing on someone else. Like I don't want the goverment telling me what to do, I don't want my neighbor imposing his bullshit on me either. Now drunk drivers impacting my life? Not all that common. I try to exercise common sense for myself and my friends. Yeah, I could be hit by some OTHER guy, but statistically not all that likely. So I can justify alcohol consumption (and for similar reasons pot consumption) being legal. The impact on my medical insurance costs by heart disease, diabetes, and other unhealthy food choices is probably significant, but somewhat diffuse. I can read all kinds of data on this, but there are obviously a ton (heh) of other health cost-impacting elements as well. And the regulation of food contents can be handled in ways other than laws restricting the individual citizen.
Smoking ain't so easy to just write off because of this: passive smoking. Or second hand smoke. Or environmental tobacco content. Whatever. If you are smoking in a public place, so is everyone else around you. There is no distant 'maybe' aspect to the infringement. Looking at some other social issues; you aren't running around to folks and throwing liquor down their throats. You can't find some anti-gay crusader at the bus stop, bend him over, and push your persuader (whatever THAT might be) up in there.
You do MAKE other people smoke when you are smoking in an enclosed space.
When the first inklings of increased smoking restriction started appearing in the 90s, I didn't give it all that much consideration. Then before the end of last century, California enacted a pretty comprehensive smoking BAN. In more recent times New York City has followed suit. Now the majority of states have some sort of ban. Most are not as comprehensive as that of NYC, but the political winds seem to indicate that eventually they will be. As this movement gained momentum over the last several years I was, on principle, generally opposed to almost all measures as infringements on personal liberty. But truthfully, most jurisdictions seemed to be banning smoking in non-adult workplaces, government offices, that sort of thing... and I could live with that because I wasn't a cigarette smoker and as long as I had a place I could go myself-- a bar typically, where I COULD light up a cigar-- who cares? I just shook my head at the gradual shutting down of smokers' rights as unfortunate but of little true impact to me.
Then as the bans started hitting closer to home (towns and cities nearby, my own town is still relatively smoker-friendly at present), I was confronted with the very real possibility of my indulgence being in danger. It's actually retarded to be unconcerned with political or social change until it arrives on your doorstep, but there you go. So I started looking into this a bit more. Most who feel a legislative injustice coming on not only view the immediate issue but also how it could affect future social regulation, ie 'what will they outlaw next'. I wasn't quite so paranoid, but with a certain amount of indignation in mind, I started looking into the debate for real.
Like the 'does life begin at conception' issue that has become the fulcrum of for morality debaters on abortion, passive smoking also has its grey area which pro and con advocates wrangle over. How bad is second-hand smoke REALLY? I've seen reports and propaganda. I've seen accusations of bias, bad data, junk science, and bribery. Personally, I've seen really variable data ranges for just how much of a cancer risk increase there actually is. It doesn't look like the numbers are hard factis. BUT. It just seems ludicrous to think there isn't some health risk to passive smoking, particularly from so-called sidestream smoke, the shit pouring off the cigarette while it sits in the ashtray or smoker's hand... the smoke you are breathing without even the benefit of a filter like the one the actual smoker is getting most of their smoke through. And even if you are getting one-millionth of a chance, an almost null statistic opportunity, to contract cancer... it is still an unpleasant, irritating, pollutant potentially exacerbating asthma or other pulmonary issues.
It is correct that non-smokers can choose to be somewhere else. It is also correct that it costs a lot of money to refit an establishment to allow smokers to have a place of their own either through subenclosures or ventilation upgrades. I'm not sure heavy-handed 'complete' bans are the right answer. I really bristle at that. Not just because I want a place to smoke a cigar, but I just don't like police-state-appearance bullshit. Who does really? Rabid anti-smokers will of course say this level of government involvement/interference is in the interest of public health, and they are right... BUT I still feel there needs to be some autonomy. Shouldn't restaurants, and particularly bars and casinoes be allowed to decide their policy on smoking? I know non-enclosed smoking areas don't really work (proven more or less), but there's always that nagging patron's choice aspect to consider. But what about the employee's choice? Is it just as simple to say THEY can just work somewhere else? The staff at these places are probably the real reason I'm weaker about this topic than other freedom-of-choice issues. A non-smoking bartender or server is continually breathing this stuff, so much more than a typical patron who stops in once or twice a week for a couple of hours.
I dunno. I'm conflicted about the issue now. I go back and forth in my opinion, mirroring the preceding paragraphs. I feel a little persecuted too, though. I just want to smoke the occasional cigar. I can't smoke them in my home, and the climate here doesn't allow outdoor smoking much of the year. Like the cigar companies themselves I feel kinda lumped in with the evil cigarette smokers/companies. I know that cigar smoke isn't better for you than cigarette smoke, but cigars are also such a tiny fraction of the problem. Why should I be paying the price for cigarette smokers' habit? Cigar companies are trying various legal means to get themselves excepted from some of this legislation. They can't get out of the bans, but they are having some success dodging increased taxes, so yay my cigar's prices aren't going up as much as cigarettes.
Other parts of the issue quickly: Smoking bans do have a positive effect on community medical services. Smoking bans do not appear to harm business in restaurants and bars as much as many had feared. This may be owing to non-smoker patronage now frequenting establishments they previously avoided, replacing the now-absent smoking customers. Obviously any business directly tied to the tobacco industry has been negatively impacted... though upscale tobacconists and the cigar and non-cigarette businesses have felt this minimally compared to so-called Big Tobacco.
I currently stand at a sort of middling-grey area, which I hate. I don't mind not having an opinion about an issue. I can back-burner even important issues if I feel I don't have enough information to decide. BUT in this instance, I have enough facts, I just can't come down firmly on one side or the other. To me, the answer is still not to have a federal solution. I think the states need to decide this one individually, and I'd prefer it to be something along lines that allow individual businesses to compromise. But I also dislike bureaucracy. Any solution short of a total ban is going to be complicated and more difficult to enforce. I am not in favor of creating more ways to commit a crime than we already have as it is... it'll really muddle things as people in each community try to figure out just what their law is and how to comply (or defy). And more bureaucracy means more money needed to run it.
I'm on some mailing list for a cigar advocacy group. Its kind of a weird conscience thing, like going to a church whose dogma you don't believe in. Especially when these advocates use some of Big Tobacco's propaganda. Cigar smokers are obviously in a different place than cigarette smokers when it comes to day-to-day realities, but they will get lumped in any smoking ban, understandably. The things generate smoke! But I think they should distance themselves from cigarette companies in EVERY way possible. It is still dismaying to read the cigar guys using discredited or biased old 'studies' that Big Tobacco used to further their claims. Ugh.
I'm just hoping to still be able to buy my stogies and find a decent place to fire 'em up. But I'm not finding it so easy to justify it as my RIGHT. I prefer the easier to figure out, non-debatable topics... like abortion.
My usual approach to discourse on political or social topics is to question a) the harm to others and b) why or how a government should be involved. Adults talk politics. We all have opinions. We approach it from all angles and talk the subject to death. Particularly Americans. On the one hand citizens of the USA are proud of a society where the individuals can (seemingly) affect change to their government at any level. On the other hand this makes getting anything done in this country really complicated. Sometimes drawn out to an interminable degree as we argue over every little thing, and wrangle back and forth while every viewpoint and appeal is heard.
Plenty of issues have circled round to prominence in the media and public debate only to fade for a little while... only to come back 'round again. If you live in this country, you know the topics: abortion, euthanasia, the war on drugs, the war on terror, etc. etc. If I apply my usual... dare I say 'simple'... approach as stated above on any of these issues, I usually can find my own position and hold it with conviction. Both parts of the question are answered, of course, through the filter of my personal political philosophy. Understanding labels to be much more limiting than most public mouthpieces seem to indicate, I would probably be classed as Libertarian or REALLY old-school Republican. That is, I generally believe it is not the government's place to be involved any more than it must. Of course what it MUST be involved in is the complicated part.
Some debates are much simpler to sort for me than they seem to be for the general public. Given that I hew to a conservative view of government involvement, a lot of other adults seem to think this should just adhere me to SOCIALLY conservative views as well... but that's a bunch of crap. Here's an example: Abortion.
Whatever a person's moral views on abortion, to me this comes down to whether the government should actually be involved. I believe there comes a point where any government is not a fine enough instrument (at any level) to be making, or helping to make, this decision for an individual. Whether abortion is the taking of a 'life' or not is beside the point for me. To expect the government to get between a mother and a (potential) baby is just too much. There are some decisions, even critical life-or-death decisions, that are not the business of a governing body. It is going to have to be between that person and their notion of God, if anyone really. I think the only answer is for administrations to butt the fuck out. Roe v. Wade has to stand on its foundation as a right to privacy, and I think a lot of socially conservative bulwark positions fall apart on these same grounds (euthanasia anyone?)... a pillar the Republican Party at one point stood upon. No law is going to be a fine enough instrument to be able to rightly-divide justice in a decision THAT personal.
Advocates on one side or the other of social debates like the abortion issue can seek to educate and sway all they want. I would encourage that. If you want people to cling to YOUR opinion, then persuade away. But to expect the government to get right down between the fetus and the womb that is carrying it? Uh, no.
Again, it really has nothing to do with the moral, spiritual or criminal arguments on whether the fetus has a 'right to life'. It comes down to it being up too personal. If we've decided (rightly in my opinion) that the government cannot decide for its citizens what is an acceptable sexual practice between two consenting adults in their own home... then it sure as hell doesn't get to wedge in even closer to the core of an individual and decide what one does with the contents of their own body.
So as I said, it is often pretty simple for me to find my view on a topic. I know there are lots of complications... and every political hot button has myriad aspects to it. Some of these can be solved... or rather a compromise can be reached... by individual states and their constituents. The federal government sledgehammer frequently is not the answer. Occasionally my social views make me sound rather like an ally to most liberal causes. Which I'm not. Or rather, I'm not if it requires the government to intervene. So that brings me (FINALLY) to the topic of the post.
I'm finding myself more an more in a quandry about smoking bans.
Cigar smoking is another pastime of mine, and I could definitely wax geekerific about it if I chose to. I'm not having any difficulty with whether or not I will actually continue to smoke cigars... I will if they continue to be available. But I'm finding my venues to actually DO the smoking to be rapidly vanishing.
A point to note maybe: this is more of a philosophical debate for me, than a matter of physical need. I'm a typical cigar smoker in that I indulge regularly, but not often. Addiction doesn't inform any personal part of the issue for me.
On the one hand, I have my own selfish desire to be able to enjoy a fine cigar. Its historical, its traditional, its awesome. Like fine wine or great food, cigars are a luxury and often an exclamation point on good times or a great moment (like ad copy for the cigar industry?). While the ones actually worth smoking can appear expensive, they are still an affordable luxury on a per unit basis. What I mean is that you can spend hundreds on a fine bottle of wine or wonderful dinner and get at most a couple of hours of enjoyment out of it. There are really good cigars to be had for several dollars each, and even the most expensive (barring really exclusive editions) are still less than twenty apiece... and typically take an hour, sometimes more, to smoke. Yeah, it'll take me three or four cigars before I get all the way through that bottle of port or cognac, but the booze also cost three to twenty times as much!
And, yeah yeah, you don't inhale cigars (you do a little, lets be honest), they don't have all the additives cigarettes do (true), and they are occasional (also usually true). They are not marketed to 'kids' the same way cigarettes are (also true, it requires a degree of affluence usually not associated with young smokers).
But most importantly, as with alcohol, pot, sex toys, and of course saturated fats, free-thinking adults should be allowed to put what we choose into our bodies. And, as with abortion, I feel no government should be getting right down to the level of telling us our personal business. The problem of course comes from the other aspect, the one that falls under part a) of my 'approach' the 'what harm' part.
In the case of alcohol, pot, and saturated fats there ARE larger 'harms' that folks want to consider when debating legislative action. Economic and criminal impacts obviously. The social and criminal harm inflicted by drunk drivers. The burden on society's medical costs from heart disease and the obese. In this country we are continually torn by trying to allow individuals to be individuals without infringing on someone else. Like I don't want the goverment telling me what to do, I don't want my neighbor imposing his bullshit on me either. Now drunk drivers impacting my life? Not all that common. I try to exercise common sense for myself and my friends. Yeah, I could be hit by some OTHER guy, but statistically not all that likely. So I can justify alcohol consumption (and for similar reasons pot consumption) being legal. The impact on my medical insurance costs by heart disease, diabetes, and other unhealthy food choices is probably significant, but somewhat diffuse. I can read all kinds of data on this, but there are obviously a ton (heh) of other health cost-impacting elements as well. And the regulation of food contents can be handled in ways other than laws restricting the individual citizen.
Smoking ain't so easy to just write off because of this: passive smoking. Or second hand smoke. Or environmental tobacco content. Whatever. If you are smoking in a public place, so is everyone else around you. There is no distant 'maybe' aspect to the infringement. Looking at some other social issues; you aren't running around to folks and throwing liquor down their throats. You can't find some anti-gay crusader at the bus stop, bend him over, and push your persuader (whatever THAT might be) up in there.
You do MAKE other people smoke when you are smoking in an enclosed space.
When the first inklings of increased smoking restriction started appearing in the 90s, I didn't give it all that much consideration. Then before the end of last century, California enacted a pretty comprehensive smoking BAN. In more recent times New York City has followed suit. Now the majority of states have some sort of ban. Most are not as comprehensive as that of NYC, but the political winds seem to indicate that eventually they will be. As this movement gained momentum over the last several years I was, on principle, generally opposed to almost all measures as infringements on personal liberty. But truthfully, most jurisdictions seemed to be banning smoking in non-adult workplaces, government offices, that sort of thing... and I could live with that because I wasn't a cigarette smoker and as long as I had a place I could go myself-- a bar typically, where I COULD light up a cigar-- who cares? I just shook my head at the gradual shutting down of smokers' rights as unfortunate but of little true impact to me.
Then as the bans started hitting closer to home (towns and cities nearby, my own town is still relatively smoker-friendly at present), I was confronted with the very real possibility of my indulgence being in danger. It's actually retarded to be unconcerned with political or social change until it arrives on your doorstep, but there you go. So I started looking into this a bit more. Most who feel a legislative injustice coming on not only view the immediate issue but also how it could affect future social regulation, ie 'what will they outlaw next'. I wasn't quite so paranoid, but with a certain amount of indignation in mind, I started looking into the debate for real.
Like the 'does life begin at conception' issue that has become the fulcrum of for morality debaters on abortion, passive smoking also has its grey area which pro and con advocates wrangle over. How bad is second-hand smoke REALLY? I've seen reports and propaganda. I've seen accusations of bias, bad data, junk science, and bribery. Personally, I've seen really variable data ranges for just how much of a cancer risk increase there actually is. It doesn't look like the numbers are hard factis. BUT. It just seems ludicrous to think there isn't some health risk to passive smoking, particularly from so-called sidestream smoke, the shit pouring off the cigarette while it sits in the ashtray or smoker's hand... the smoke you are breathing without even the benefit of a filter like the one the actual smoker is getting most of their smoke through. And even if you are getting one-millionth of a chance, an almost null statistic opportunity, to contract cancer... it is still an unpleasant, irritating, pollutant potentially exacerbating asthma or other pulmonary issues.
It is correct that non-smokers can choose to be somewhere else. It is also correct that it costs a lot of money to refit an establishment to allow smokers to have a place of their own either through subenclosures or ventilation upgrades. I'm not sure heavy-handed 'complete' bans are the right answer. I really bristle at that. Not just because I want a place to smoke a cigar, but I just don't like police-state-appearance bullshit. Who does really? Rabid anti-smokers will of course say this level of government involvement/interference is in the interest of public health, and they are right... BUT I still feel there needs to be some autonomy. Shouldn't restaurants, and particularly bars and casinoes be allowed to decide their policy on smoking? I know non-enclosed smoking areas don't really work (proven more or less), but there's always that nagging patron's choice aspect to consider. But what about the employee's choice? Is it just as simple to say THEY can just work somewhere else? The staff at these places are probably the real reason I'm weaker about this topic than other freedom-of-choice issues. A non-smoking bartender or server is continually breathing this stuff, so much more than a typical patron who stops in once or twice a week for a couple of hours.
I dunno. I'm conflicted about the issue now. I go back and forth in my opinion, mirroring the preceding paragraphs. I feel a little persecuted too, though. I just want to smoke the occasional cigar. I can't smoke them in my home, and the climate here doesn't allow outdoor smoking much of the year. Like the cigar companies themselves I feel kinda lumped in with the evil cigarette smokers/companies. I know that cigar smoke isn't better for you than cigarette smoke, but cigars are also such a tiny fraction of the problem. Why should I be paying the price for cigarette smokers' habit? Cigar companies are trying various legal means to get themselves excepted from some of this legislation. They can't get out of the bans, but they are having some success dodging increased taxes, so yay my cigar's prices aren't going up as much as cigarettes.
Other parts of the issue quickly: Smoking bans do have a positive effect on community medical services. Smoking bans do not appear to harm business in restaurants and bars as much as many had feared. This may be owing to non-smoker patronage now frequenting establishments they previously avoided, replacing the now-absent smoking customers. Obviously any business directly tied to the tobacco industry has been negatively impacted... though upscale tobacconists and the cigar and non-cigarette businesses have felt this minimally compared to so-called Big Tobacco.
I currently stand at a sort of middling-grey area, which I hate. I don't mind not having an opinion about an issue. I can back-burner even important issues if I feel I don't have enough information to decide. BUT in this instance, I have enough facts, I just can't come down firmly on one side or the other. To me, the answer is still not to have a federal solution. I think the states need to decide this one individually, and I'd prefer it to be something along lines that allow individual businesses to compromise. But I also dislike bureaucracy. Any solution short of a total ban is going to be complicated and more difficult to enforce. I am not in favor of creating more ways to commit a crime than we already have as it is... it'll really muddle things as people in each community try to figure out just what their law is and how to comply (or defy). And more bureaucracy means more money needed to run it.
I'm on some mailing list for a cigar advocacy group. Its kind of a weird conscience thing, like going to a church whose dogma you don't believe in. Especially when these advocates use some of Big Tobacco's propaganda. Cigar smokers are obviously in a different place than cigarette smokers when it comes to day-to-day realities, but they will get lumped in any smoking ban, understandably. The things generate smoke! But I think they should distance themselves from cigarette companies in EVERY way possible. It is still dismaying to read the cigar guys using discredited or biased old 'studies' that Big Tobacco used to further their claims. Ugh.
I'm just hoping to still be able to buy my stogies and find a decent place to fire 'em up. But I'm not finding it so easy to justify it as my RIGHT. I prefer the easier to figure out, non-debatable topics... like abortion.
Friday, January 15, 2010
GOTY 2009
I think ‘best of’ lists are a mixed bag.
I find the sort of those lists that are voted on by consumers or readers interesting to look over. They don’t shape my own interests really, but it is usually interesting or informative to have examine a barometer of public opinion. Like when I look at reader’s choice awards in a music magazine. It is interesting to see how close or how far off my own choices are from the mainstream, though I’m too old and weary now to get much satisfaction from being as far from the common view as possible. Lists compiled by magazine editors or other supposed professionals are frequently a waste of time though. I feel like they can only be useful if genre is taken into account. Mixed genre ‘best of’ lists are without context even if the writer tries to preface it with some bullshit.
A list from a reviewer that had his best example from each (or several genres), labled as such and no specific priority for them could be useful, and just as importantly, credible. When you just make up a list of say ‘my top 10 albums of the year’ or ‘my 25 favorite games’ with no regard for genre or style… well, what’s the point? If you’re tastes are not at all like those of your reader, then you’ve wasted their time. You also confuse the issue of whether a game was left off your list because it sucks or just because you suck at it (or it belongs to a genre you don’t care for). Lists like that are more an indicator of the writer’s taste NOT the quality of the items listed. Yeah, its all opinion anyway, but if you don’t distinguish genre (or style or some sort of context) you’re adding another layer of bias, conscious or not.
A ‘thing’ of the year is a little different. I think it possible to single out a favorite and still remain credible, because that is a distillation that makes sense and can be quantified simply. Irrespective of genre, fads, flaws, prevailing opinion and all that, what’s the one entry that was just flat-out the most enjoyable?
I said it is possible, but myself I’d probably have a really hard time with choosing a favorite film of the year. Or book. Or a favorite album. Those likes depend too much on my mood of the moment. I mean I will always list Rammstein’s Liebe Ist Fur Alle Da as a favorite album of 2009. At some point during that year, when it was new and I was really getting into it, I’m sure it was THE favorite. But with all the interest and exposure I have to music I don’t think I could call it or any album of that year ‘the best’, objectively.
Most years I’d probably say the same thing about video games. So many, so different… and in 2009 there were some really good games. Releases last year included Mushihimesama Futari, Deathsmiles, Brutal Legend, and lots of others just in the genres near and dear to me personally. Most of the games I played over the last year weren’t actually released in 2009, but were older. Games I hadn’t gotten to yet. Do I include those? I’m not working for a magazine with its stringent regard for release dates. No matter what I played, what I missed… regardless of genre… and regardless of my usual inability to settle on an absolute favorite, in 2009 one game rose right up to the top. Noting this is my pathetic attempt to add one more voice to the chorus chanting its greatness, though that chorus is probably restricted to the critics and the so-called hardcore… and get more people to buy a copy of this game:
Muramasa: The Demon Blade for the Nintendo wii.
Earlier in the year, I played through Odin Sphere. That game that had an awful lot going for it, but was marred by some glaring problems. I still enjoyed playing, but wanted a game from the same creative wellspring that somehow avoided all of Odin Sphere’s issues. Muramasa does exactly that. With the same unbelievable production values as Odin Sphere, a similarly complicated (though less Wagnerian) plot, Muramasa eliminates the repetition, load times, drawn out storylines, grinding for items and weird combat timing that were part of the earlier game.
In Muramasa you will play through two story lines (instead of Odin Sphere’s five). Like that earlier release the game will dovetail the two stories into a sort of crossover finale, but it isn’t particularly grueling to get there. You can play the two characters, Princess Momohime or Ninja Kisuke in any order, even jumping back and forth whenever you feel the need for a change. After selecting your character, you choose your ‘mode’, either Muso, which has an enhanced RPG aspect that allows you to keep gaining levels to help overcome more difficult parts of the game, or Shura which diminishes the leveling aspect (and your hit points) to make the game more skill and reflex-based… though both modes are far more quick action oriented than any Vanillaware game prior. You then proceed through the game areas fighting, gathering items, and talking with various in-game personalities but delivered to the player in a way unlike just about any other game out there.
Movement through the game reminds me of the old NES and arcade game Legend of Kage. In that game the hero ran along the ground or jumped through the trees, and a lot of the combat took place in the air. Muramasa is like a very polished, very elaborate version of THAT. The protagonists jump through the trees, or over rooftops slashing the enemies with their swords or deflecting back their foes’ projectiles. The wii controller, which is not my favorite means of input, took some getting used to, but after a while becomes really easy and I can’t really imagine using anything else for the game now. None of the motion control aspects come into play. Since there is really only one main attack button (the other two buttons are for versions of super attacks that you don’t get to use all the time) it would appear you can just mash your way through all the combat. It’s true there aren’t a lot of input commands like a fighting game, but the seeming-simplicity is deceptive. The combat here is all about timing and discernment. You need to keep track of how your swords are holding up (they can be broken). You need to pick out the strongest foes, and modify your attacks based on what works against who. Certain swords and their powers will work better in certain situations. The game doesn’t really want all fights to be brutally challenging to the player… you can button mash your way through a lot of them. But if anything doing that in the minor fights just brings satisfaction because they are over so quick. You start working on fighting and ending the fights in style. With panache. Everything in the game is quick. The running. Accessing menus. Even the game saves happen so fast it is almost ridiculous. Everything about the game is optimized to go as quickly as possible, from the game engine, to the convenience of getting from one place to another. Even the dialogue, which is wonderfully voiced and subtitled, can be fast-forwarded through. After I’d gained the ability to warp from one town to the next, I frequently didn’t bother because a) I wanted the experience points from the battles during travel and b) you move so quickly anyway it really isn’t boring. The number of scenery changes helps too. Not every area or screen is unique, but there is a lot of variety.
The game’s narrative is linear, but the world itself is pretty open once you’ve gotten a ways into the game. This allows for grinding if you wish, but its never forced on you. It is almost impossible to get lost or lose track of your next goal. Once you’ve beaten several bosses and removed some of the games barriers (designed to keep you on track) you basically have a world map where you can run around wherever you want, but can always figure out where to go to ‘progress’ the plot. The mapping mechanism is genius. You can select between a transparent full-screen area map, a top-of-the-screen immediate area map, or no map… all on the fly. Super-quick. Getting to the overall world map, or any of your inventory and item options is also super-quick and convenient. You can set your favorite items, healing or sword protective, to be quickly accessed at any time right during movement or fights. In previous Vanillaware games (and most other action games, really) you have to open a menu pausing the action to switch weapons or access healing and magic items. That’s bullshit to Muramasa. You CAN pause the game to pop an item, but mostly its done without pausing, that second, with no drop in pace.
All this work towards speed and action, and the game still has decent play time on its bones. I clocked just under 25 hours to get through both storylines and epilogues and most of the optional ‘lair’ areas, though I wasn’t trying to go through it hell bent for leather as fast as possible. I was trying to enjoy what there was to see.
And there is so much to see. Heaping shitloads of praise have been written about this game. I though Dave Halverson at play was going to jizz in his pants. But he’s not wrong. The game is a throwback in one sense to the artistic sensibilities in the heyday of 2d gaming. But the old games rarely had production values like this. As I raved about in my entry on Odin Sphere, this game makes most other titles 2d, 3d, whatever all look drab and pathetic by comparison. Of recent games I’ve played, only Bayonetta (a future blog entry to be sure) shows as much love of the characters and game world as Muramasa. Of particular note are the boss fights. Games love to have huge or elaborate bosses. Its one of the draws of video gaming. You’re David and that thing is Goliath. Muramasa has awesome (frequently huge) bosses. Only the aforementioned Bayonetta and perhaps Shadow of the Colossus made me flip out the way Muramasa did during boss fights. The art style hearkens back to traditional forms of Japanese painting, but with a modern use of color. Even eating food is an elaborately detailed, lovingly-animated experience. The whole thing’s a little like going to see Disney’s Fantasia when what you’re used to is a steady diet of Phineas & Ferb.
There’s pretty much no aspect of Muramasa: The Demon Blade that isn’t a total class act. That this thing runs so much faster and more conveniently than Odin Sphere is amazing and a testament to Vanillaware’s ability to learn and adapt. The only gripe I’d probably put on the game is that compared to Odin Sphere the whole game runs through a slightly foggy filter. All the graphics in the former game were really sharp and brilliant. Muramasa is ever-so-slightly faded and softened, but you’d almost have to have played the two side-by-side to notice… which is what I did actually. It might be partly an issue with the wii’s video output and whatever mode Muramasa runs in. I don’t know enough about the technical specs, but I have other 2d games on the console and only Samurai Shodown Anthology seems to have the same problem. It could even be a conscious decision on Vanillaware’s part to give the game a dreamlike veneer.
I find the sort of those lists that are voted on by consumers or readers interesting to look over. They don’t shape my own interests really, but it is usually interesting or informative to have examine a barometer of public opinion. Like when I look at reader’s choice awards in a music magazine. It is interesting to see how close or how far off my own choices are from the mainstream, though I’m too old and weary now to get much satisfaction from being as far from the common view as possible. Lists compiled by magazine editors or other supposed professionals are frequently a waste of time though. I feel like they can only be useful if genre is taken into account. Mixed genre ‘best of’ lists are without context even if the writer tries to preface it with some bullshit.
A list from a reviewer that had his best example from each (or several genres), labled as such and no specific priority for them could be useful, and just as importantly, credible. When you just make up a list of say ‘my top 10 albums of the year’ or ‘my 25 favorite games’ with no regard for genre or style… well, what’s the point? If you’re tastes are not at all like those of your reader, then you’ve wasted their time. You also confuse the issue of whether a game was left off your list because it sucks or just because you suck at it (or it belongs to a genre you don’t care for). Lists like that are more an indicator of the writer’s taste NOT the quality of the items listed. Yeah, its all opinion anyway, but if you don’t distinguish genre (or style or some sort of context) you’re adding another layer of bias, conscious or not.
A ‘thing’ of the year is a little different. I think it possible to single out a favorite and still remain credible, because that is a distillation that makes sense and can be quantified simply. Irrespective of genre, fads, flaws, prevailing opinion and all that, what’s the one entry that was just flat-out the most enjoyable?
I said it is possible, but myself I’d probably have a really hard time with choosing a favorite film of the year. Or book. Or a favorite album. Those likes depend too much on my mood of the moment. I mean I will always list Rammstein’s Liebe Ist Fur Alle Da as a favorite album of 2009. At some point during that year, when it was new and I was really getting into it, I’m sure it was THE favorite. But with all the interest and exposure I have to music I don’t think I could call it or any album of that year ‘the best’, objectively.
Most years I’d probably say the same thing about video games. So many, so different… and in 2009 there were some really good games. Releases last year included Mushihimesama Futari, Deathsmiles, Brutal Legend, and lots of others just in the genres near and dear to me personally. Most of the games I played over the last year weren’t actually released in 2009, but were older. Games I hadn’t gotten to yet. Do I include those? I’m not working for a magazine with its stringent regard for release dates. No matter what I played, what I missed… regardless of genre… and regardless of my usual inability to settle on an absolute favorite, in 2009 one game rose right up to the top. Noting this is my pathetic attempt to add one more voice to the chorus chanting its greatness, though that chorus is probably restricted to the critics and the so-called hardcore… and get more people to buy a copy of this game:
Muramasa: The Demon Blade for the Nintendo wii.
Earlier in the year, I played through Odin Sphere. That game that had an awful lot going for it, but was marred by some glaring problems. I still enjoyed playing, but wanted a game from the same creative wellspring that somehow avoided all of Odin Sphere’s issues. Muramasa does exactly that. With the same unbelievable production values as Odin Sphere, a similarly complicated (though less Wagnerian) plot, Muramasa eliminates the repetition, load times, drawn out storylines, grinding for items and weird combat timing that were part of the earlier game.
In Muramasa you will play through two story lines (instead of Odin Sphere’s five). Like that earlier release the game will dovetail the two stories into a sort of crossover finale, but it isn’t particularly grueling to get there. You can play the two characters, Princess Momohime or Ninja Kisuke in any order, even jumping back and forth whenever you feel the need for a change. After selecting your character, you choose your ‘mode’, either Muso, which has an enhanced RPG aspect that allows you to keep gaining levels to help overcome more difficult parts of the game, or Shura which diminishes the leveling aspect (and your hit points) to make the game more skill and reflex-based… though both modes are far more quick action oriented than any Vanillaware game prior. You then proceed through the game areas fighting, gathering items, and talking with various in-game personalities but delivered to the player in a way unlike just about any other game out there.
Movement through the game reminds me of the old NES and arcade game Legend of Kage. In that game the hero ran along the ground or jumped through the trees, and a lot of the combat took place in the air. Muramasa is like a very polished, very elaborate version of THAT. The protagonists jump through the trees, or over rooftops slashing the enemies with their swords or deflecting back their foes’ projectiles. The wii controller, which is not my favorite means of input, took some getting used to, but after a while becomes really easy and I can’t really imagine using anything else for the game now. None of the motion control aspects come into play. Since there is really only one main attack button (the other two buttons are for versions of super attacks that you don’t get to use all the time) it would appear you can just mash your way through all the combat. It’s true there aren’t a lot of input commands like a fighting game, but the seeming-simplicity is deceptive. The combat here is all about timing and discernment. You need to keep track of how your swords are holding up (they can be broken). You need to pick out the strongest foes, and modify your attacks based on what works against who. Certain swords and their powers will work better in certain situations. The game doesn’t really want all fights to be brutally challenging to the player… you can button mash your way through a lot of them. But if anything doing that in the minor fights just brings satisfaction because they are over so quick. You start working on fighting and ending the fights in style. With panache. Everything in the game is quick. The running. Accessing menus. Even the game saves happen so fast it is almost ridiculous. Everything about the game is optimized to go as quickly as possible, from the game engine, to the convenience of getting from one place to another. Even the dialogue, which is wonderfully voiced and subtitled, can be fast-forwarded through. After I’d gained the ability to warp from one town to the next, I frequently didn’t bother because a) I wanted the experience points from the battles during travel and b) you move so quickly anyway it really isn’t boring. The number of scenery changes helps too. Not every area or screen is unique, but there is a lot of variety.
The game’s narrative is linear, but the world itself is pretty open once you’ve gotten a ways into the game. This allows for grinding if you wish, but its never forced on you. It is almost impossible to get lost or lose track of your next goal. Once you’ve beaten several bosses and removed some of the games barriers (designed to keep you on track) you basically have a world map where you can run around wherever you want, but can always figure out where to go to ‘progress’ the plot. The mapping mechanism is genius. You can select between a transparent full-screen area map, a top-of-the-screen immediate area map, or no map… all on the fly. Super-quick. Getting to the overall world map, or any of your inventory and item options is also super-quick and convenient. You can set your favorite items, healing or sword protective, to be quickly accessed at any time right during movement or fights. In previous Vanillaware games (and most other action games, really) you have to open a menu pausing the action to switch weapons or access healing and magic items. That’s bullshit to Muramasa. You CAN pause the game to pop an item, but mostly its done without pausing, that second, with no drop in pace.
All this work towards speed and action, and the game still has decent play time on its bones. I clocked just under 25 hours to get through both storylines and epilogues and most of the optional ‘lair’ areas, though I wasn’t trying to go through it hell bent for leather as fast as possible. I was trying to enjoy what there was to see.
And there is so much to see. Heaping shitloads of praise have been written about this game. I though Dave Halverson at play was going to jizz in his pants. But he’s not wrong. The game is a throwback in one sense to the artistic sensibilities in the heyday of 2d gaming. But the old games rarely had production values like this. As I raved about in my entry on Odin Sphere, this game makes most other titles 2d, 3d, whatever all look drab and pathetic by comparison. Of recent games I’ve played, only Bayonetta (a future blog entry to be sure) shows as much love of the characters and game world as Muramasa. Of particular note are the boss fights. Games love to have huge or elaborate bosses. Its one of the draws of video gaming. You’re David and that thing is Goliath. Muramasa has awesome (frequently huge) bosses. Only the aforementioned Bayonetta and perhaps Shadow of the Colossus made me flip out the way Muramasa did during boss fights. The art style hearkens back to traditional forms of Japanese painting, but with a modern use of color. Even eating food is an elaborately detailed, lovingly-animated experience. The whole thing’s a little like going to see Disney’s Fantasia when what you’re used to is a steady diet of Phineas & Ferb.
There’s pretty much no aspect of Muramasa: The Demon Blade that isn’t a total class act. That this thing runs so much faster and more conveniently than Odin Sphere is amazing and a testament to Vanillaware’s ability to learn and adapt. The only gripe I’d probably put on the game is that compared to Odin Sphere the whole game runs through a slightly foggy filter. All the graphics in the former game were really sharp and brilliant. Muramasa is ever-so-slightly faded and softened, but you’d almost have to have played the two side-by-side to notice… which is what I did actually. It might be partly an issue with the wii’s video output and whatever mode Muramasa runs in. I don’t know enough about the technical specs, but I have other 2d games on the console and only Samurai Shodown Anthology seems to have the same problem. It could even be a conscious decision on Vanillaware’s part to give the game a dreamlike veneer.
Anyway. The game is practically worth buying a wii to play. Nintendo’s console gets a lot of flak for catering so much to casual gamers, but this title does much to fight that stigma, along with Super Smash Bros. Melee and the upcoming Sin and Punishment 2. I spend more time on other consoles than I do the wii, sure. But I’ve rarely had such a concentrated must-keep-playing experience as this game gave me, and it is a Nintendo wii exclusive. Do what you must to play this game.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Big Deal
I finally managed to get around to see James Cameron's Avatar. In 3d no less. Here's my take on all aspects of this film and the various buzzes around it, film itself first:
Positive points- the visuals and production values. Obviously this is the aspect everyone is raving about and that even the most vehement critics have to concede. While I don't necessarily think this stuff is a total game-changer for all films that follow it does set some kind of new standard. Cameron spent a ton of money, used a lot of new technology (the virtual set camera, etc), and was a complete asshole being so meticulous... but it shows. Every dollar is pretty much right up there on the screen. CG effects are the overwhelming norm now, but most of the time, after all these years of use, I STILL get drawn out of the watching experience by obvious CG effects. There are well-done characters or creatures here and there... we all thought Gollum was the nads at the time, and the Hellboy movies are mostly seamless. But Avatar may be the first film I've seen where, at no time, did the CG effects ever knock me out of the immersion or require some time for me to get used to before I got immersed. They are really REALLY well done. In fact, my only visual-based complaint was for a zero-g effect right at the beginning of the film. And that might've been caused by this being the 3d version.
The 3d experience was really good too. There were a lot of 'right there in the cinema with you' moments, but there didn't seem to be anything that pandered to that effect. It was just part of the scene.
I also thought everyone was well cast and did a reasonable job with their roles. I've read some criticism of the acting and the fact that Cameron isn't an actor's director. Maybe I'm just oblivious to bad acting (Shatner fan, moi) but I didn't cringe at the performances any more than I did at the CG. I am probably a lot more critical of CG. Years of sucking up an endless stream of cult, genre, and B-movies has probably inured me to bad acting.
The movie is even fairly family friendly. I was a little surprised at this. There is some cussin'. And a love scene that happens off-camera. But most of the violence, though intense, is not graphic. Some of the past Cameron films have been key to 'mainstreaming' graphic violence or violent characters. We think nothing of letting our kids watch Aliens or the Terminator movies (well I don't let mine watch 'em, but you know what I mean), and even sell toys of them. There was a certain level of shoot-that-dude-in-the-face that we DID NOT let the kids see before these films were released (Die Hard is probably a player too). Avatar does not contain any of that. And now that I've seen the film, I can surmise that the decision was made because a) the story and film don't require that level of violence (or profanity or sex), and b) when you spend that much money you need to make sure as many people can go see it as possible! All this consideration and the movie is still generating shitloads of controversy.
Negative points- its Dances with Wolves (or the Last Samurai) in the future. It isn't just that it is LIKE those movies, it is those movies... story-wise. There is no point in this movie you cannot see from a mile away if you have any movie-watching experience at all... and particularly if you reference The Last Samurai. Now this doesn't hurt how well the film tells that story, which is fine. I just found myself watching it without feeling any suspense. None. I was carried by wanting to see what the next wondrous thing was... not because I wanted to know what was going to happen to the characters. I already knew exactly what was going to happen.
Also the conflict in the film is generated by a villainous 'corporation' and its key representatives, 'a suit' representing the company's desire to please shareholders, and a 'marine colonel' representing the willingness (even eagerness) of the company to use any means to achieve its ends. All the humans in this film are employees of this company. Even the 'military' ones are not actually part of a literal army, they are hired by this corporation. Yet the only dissent from using military might comes from the scientist cadre. The film isn't set very far in the future, as shown by the dates on the videologs and most of the tech that is really close to our own (and Sigourney smokes, they haven't wiped that out yet!). So I have a hard time believing in this, our real day and age of information overload, conscientious objectors, inserted journalists, and corporate whistleblowers, that things will change all that much by the time Avatar becomes contemporary.
So how did the corporation in the film get such unanimous support for wiping out the natives? I realise there may have been a lot 'not shown' for simplicity's sake... but at least some nod to other viewpoints (apart from the hero and the scientists) would've been nice. NONE of the paramilitary or corporate drones are shown as having a shred of conscience... and drawn from a seemingly-American source as the humans in the film are... we are the most multiple-viewpont-everyone-must-have-a-say-disagree-with-each-other nation on the planet. Its like European or Middle Eastern countries who think all Americans agree with our foreign policy. The entire corporation in Avatar is staffed by Dick Cheney. The film mentions twice (almost as an afterthought) that humans have burnt out the Earth. So this has made them greedy and desperate for 'what Pandora has'. But all the film shows Pandora has is a means to making money. No constructive worth is given for the material mined by the corporation. That may be intentional, to show the pointlessness behind USA-style military aggression, but it also tars humanity in a way that is unrealistic, and really cynical. Without more background I just couldn't believe the majority of humanity (or even just America) would approve what went on with Pandora. In reality, you'd have so many people backing out of their contract to work there it isn't even funny. And a lot of those people would spread the word on how horrible the corporation was when they got back. The film ignores an awful lot of realities about how people (and the world) really are in order to further its narrative. If this was set a thousand years in the future, okay. But since the whole rest of the world is so diligently grounded in near-future possibilities this was a very noticeable negative... mostly after the film viewing, I'll grant you.
About the so-called blockbusters or popcorn flicks, I've seen it argued a hundred times: 'Of course the plot was simplistic. Of course it didn't make sense. Of course no man/vehicle/creature could do that. Its a POPCORN FLICK.'. Hey, I'm willing to let lots of stuff go by in the interest of entertaiment, but with all the time and effort put into getting the visuals just right it seems lazy to then have the good guys and bad guys be so black and white, and unsubtle. Jake seems to have no problem killing humans left and right once he's decided to go native. And that's supposed to be understandable because they are threatening his newfound way of life (though the film doesn't show him wrestling much with making the change)... and because the humans are all EVIL. Its that 'all evil' part that seems retarded and lazy.
The controversial stuff- this movie is getting a lot of flak from various groups, and a lot it is attributable no doubt to how high-profile the film is. I'll address some of the controversies, starting with the easiest:
People killing themselves because our Earth isn't as beautiful as Pandora. I've read that some online club or forum has several hundred to almost one thousand members actually putting some thought (some serious, some not) towards the idea of suicide, either in pessimism over our planet never being able to measure up to this new glory they've been shown OR with the hope of being reincarnated into a Pandora-like new place.
Wow. This is kind of like people throwing themselves off a cliff in the Middle Ages if they saw an Eclipse. What incredibly ignorant, uncreative jackasses.
I have an artistic inclination and I watched much of Avatar with real wonder at the planet's (let's face it, fictional) beauty. I consider much of my best quality time spent in escapist pursuits. But you have to be an absolute tit to let Avatar, much less any film affect a life decison in you (apart from perhaps inspiring your occupation). No film, tv show, book, or game should convince you what to believe, where to live, how to live, or whether you live at all. Pandora was beautiful, yeah... and it contained wonders you really can't see here, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that stuff can't be matched by beauty here on Earth. There are corners of the world, incredible constructions, tricks of light, and natural tracts on our planet that no film screen could ever contain. We don't have glow-in-the-dark jungles or floating islands. But Pandora doesn't have the Painted Desert, Angel Falls, the Redwood Forest, or the Great Wall of China. All of which really have to be seen to be believed.
And if you COULD be reincarnated, why would the great wheel put you in Pandora or some place like it? You could wind up a cockroach in the Bronx, especially for offing yourself on purpose. Idiot-holes.
Sigourney smokes. This is the one that kind of hits a nerve with me. I'm a casual cigar smoker, whose venues for lighting up are diminishing rapidly owing to the current anti-smoking hysteria in the USA. I'll post a separate blog entry at some point detailing my take on this, but suffice to say, parts of the anti-smoking movement jumped all over the fact that Sigourney Weaver sucks on a fag during the film. The anti-smokers are already pushing hard for the abolition of all smoking depictions on film or television, but they're really being strident owing to the prominent standing of Avatar.
They're cocks, and making much ado about nothing. I'm not sure I even noticed it when I viewed the film. But that's because I'm a cigar-chomping, lung-hating, cancer-causing bastard I guess. In reality, my antagonism towards the anti-smoking movement (and its restaurant/bar restrictions and tax increases) stems mostly from hating government meddling in personal lives not because I don't recognise danger in smoking.
The anti-military/anti-imperialist stance. Whether you consider the view of the film to be anti-military or anti-imperialist might depend on where you are on the political spectrum. Or it might depend on how much of a pundit-driven tool you are.
The film is definitely anti-imperialist, in that it speaks directly about the white aggression against Native Americans in the 19th century. Lots of people are also blathering on about how it speaks so baldly against current American 'nation-building' in the Middle East. I would agree with that... except that the argument made in the movie is retarded. About as retarded as the aforementioned tarring all humans as evil. The motivation for conquering Pandora is to get unobtainium, a valuable (for unexplained reasons) material. That's it. No idealogical differences. No real or imagined threat the Pandorans represent to human safety. None. The real corollary to our Middle East would be if going to Iraq and Afghanistan really was just about getting the oil. But that argument is simplistic, stupid, and pretty thoroughly debunked. Oil can be seen as a somewhat long range goal that regimes favorable to the USA can allow our indirect control of part of the mideast oilfields, but Avatar has no concern with longterm goals or being indirect. It is arguing, like some pot-smoking sociology professor from 2002, that the reasoning behind the War On Terror is to go after oil. And that the USA shouldn't do that.
Well now duh. I can't imagine that Cameron actually still believes that Iraq and Afghanistan were just about oil. So I'm left feeling like he used the film's greed for unobtainium to actually give at least a little distance from real-world Middle East aggression. Like he's saying 'yeah, yeah, the reason's different but it amounts to the same thing'. But to me, putting that little distance in there resulted in my viewing the film as 'about' a completely different sort of 'government' than ours. A business-government. It kinda stopped being about the America's federal government and its military. If I actually had to fish for a real-world counterpart that I was considering, it would probably be Blackwater.
So while I get that all these people are looking for something to bristle at from 'that liberal jerkface James Cameron', the preachiness kinda went past me. It didn't make me re-question just what humans (and the USA in particular) go to war for... because this felt more like Blackwater carrying out a vicious mandate required by their customer... and in this case their customer was Exxon or something rather than the Fed. The motivations were so crudely drawn and so unlike how we think and operate AS A PEOPLE, that I couldn't be arsed to be offended one way or the other. As to the directly referenced Indian Wars. They were before my time, and perpetrated by an America that is quite different from the one we live in now. I'm not saying we can't learn from history, but...
Uh, we don't have slaves now either, people.
Those pagan aliens. Representatives of the catholic church in Rome have seen fit to come out and praise the visuals but deplore the depiction of nature worship. Okay fine. I guess they think some weak-minded individuals will use this movie as a springboard into Wicca. Or move to a reservation and work on breaking down the resistance of Native American grandfathers to teaching the old ways.
There are so many dumb aspects to this I don't even know where to begin. I don't even have the energy. These guys don't realise that lambasting a movie just increases interest? That the only people to take their criticisms seriously are the people who wouldn't go to the film in the first place? Any balanced individual who goes to see the film can definitely spot the tree-hugging, moss-humping, nature-loving aspect to it. But interestingly, I didn't catch in any of the catholic fear-mongering that the Navi are actually MONOTHEISTIC. Which they are. They are in tune with nature, but the film also shows how they plug into it in a very real sense. They don't just believe a lot of spirit stuff because they can't explain things. They literally 'jack in' to their planet which is shown to be a huge biological network. And they still have one single god that they pray to. Some aspects of Navi spiritual thinking resemble Native American beliefs, but the Navi can't just be slotted in to some earthly analogue. They are alien. And imaginary. And that's the biggest reason for slagging off the religious criticism. They aren't real. There are no Navi to inspire kids today to try to jack into trees and rocks. Yeah sure, there may be a coupla dozen people who become witches after this movie. Maybe even leaving the catholic church to do so. But they were going to do that anyway, Avatar or not. Unless they are so weak-minded one film can sway them out of their religion. Then I'd think the church was better off without them anyway.
Overall I enjoyed the movie A LOT. Most of my negatives are the kind of thing you think of after the movie is over. It was probably the best realisation of an alien world EVAR. I hear it will be up for a lot of Oscars. It should probably sweep the various technical awards. If it wins (or even gets nominated) for story, screenplay, or any of that... I may kill myself.
And hope, of course, that I get reincarnated on Pandora.
Positive points- the visuals and production values. Obviously this is the aspect everyone is raving about and that even the most vehement critics have to concede. While I don't necessarily think this stuff is a total game-changer for all films that follow it does set some kind of new standard. Cameron spent a ton of money, used a lot of new technology (the virtual set camera, etc), and was a complete asshole being so meticulous... but it shows. Every dollar is pretty much right up there on the screen. CG effects are the overwhelming norm now, but most of the time, after all these years of use, I STILL get drawn out of the watching experience by obvious CG effects. There are well-done characters or creatures here and there... we all thought Gollum was the nads at the time, and the Hellboy movies are mostly seamless. But Avatar may be the first film I've seen where, at no time, did the CG effects ever knock me out of the immersion or require some time for me to get used to before I got immersed. They are really REALLY well done. In fact, my only visual-based complaint was for a zero-g effect right at the beginning of the film. And that might've been caused by this being the 3d version.
The 3d experience was really good too. There were a lot of 'right there in the cinema with you' moments, but there didn't seem to be anything that pandered to that effect. It was just part of the scene.
I also thought everyone was well cast and did a reasonable job with their roles. I've read some criticism of the acting and the fact that Cameron isn't an actor's director. Maybe I'm just oblivious to bad acting (Shatner fan, moi) but I didn't cringe at the performances any more than I did at the CG. I am probably a lot more critical of CG. Years of sucking up an endless stream of cult, genre, and B-movies has probably inured me to bad acting.
The movie is even fairly family friendly. I was a little surprised at this. There is some cussin'. And a love scene that happens off-camera. But most of the violence, though intense, is not graphic. Some of the past Cameron films have been key to 'mainstreaming' graphic violence or violent characters. We think nothing of letting our kids watch Aliens or the Terminator movies (well I don't let mine watch 'em, but you know what I mean), and even sell toys of them. There was a certain level of shoot-that-dude-in-the-face that we DID NOT let the kids see before these films were released (Die Hard is probably a player too). Avatar does not contain any of that. And now that I've seen the film, I can surmise that the decision was made because a) the story and film don't require that level of violence (or profanity or sex), and b) when you spend that much money you need to make sure as many people can go see it as possible! All this consideration and the movie is still generating shitloads of controversy.
Negative points- its Dances with Wolves (or the Last Samurai) in the future. It isn't just that it is LIKE those movies, it is those movies... story-wise. There is no point in this movie you cannot see from a mile away if you have any movie-watching experience at all... and particularly if you reference The Last Samurai. Now this doesn't hurt how well the film tells that story, which is fine. I just found myself watching it without feeling any suspense. None. I was carried by wanting to see what the next wondrous thing was... not because I wanted to know what was going to happen to the characters. I already knew exactly what was going to happen.
Also the conflict in the film is generated by a villainous 'corporation' and its key representatives, 'a suit' representing the company's desire to please shareholders, and a 'marine colonel' representing the willingness (even eagerness) of the company to use any means to achieve its ends. All the humans in this film are employees of this company. Even the 'military' ones are not actually part of a literal army, they are hired by this corporation. Yet the only dissent from using military might comes from the scientist cadre. The film isn't set very far in the future, as shown by the dates on the videologs and most of the tech that is really close to our own (and Sigourney smokes, they haven't wiped that out yet!). So I have a hard time believing in this, our real day and age of information overload, conscientious objectors, inserted journalists, and corporate whistleblowers, that things will change all that much by the time Avatar becomes contemporary.
So how did the corporation in the film get such unanimous support for wiping out the natives? I realise there may have been a lot 'not shown' for simplicity's sake... but at least some nod to other viewpoints (apart from the hero and the scientists) would've been nice. NONE of the paramilitary or corporate drones are shown as having a shred of conscience... and drawn from a seemingly-American source as the humans in the film are... we are the most multiple-viewpont-everyone-must-have-a-say-disagree-with-each-other nation on the planet. Its like European or Middle Eastern countries who think all Americans agree with our foreign policy. The entire corporation in Avatar is staffed by Dick Cheney. The film mentions twice (almost as an afterthought) that humans have burnt out the Earth. So this has made them greedy and desperate for 'what Pandora has'. But all the film shows Pandora has is a means to making money. No constructive worth is given for the material mined by the corporation. That may be intentional, to show the pointlessness behind USA-style military aggression, but it also tars humanity in a way that is unrealistic, and really cynical. Without more background I just couldn't believe the majority of humanity (or even just America) would approve what went on with Pandora. In reality, you'd have so many people backing out of their contract to work there it isn't even funny. And a lot of those people would spread the word on how horrible the corporation was when they got back. The film ignores an awful lot of realities about how people (and the world) really are in order to further its narrative. If this was set a thousand years in the future, okay. But since the whole rest of the world is so diligently grounded in near-future possibilities this was a very noticeable negative... mostly after the film viewing, I'll grant you.
About the so-called blockbusters or popcorn flicks, I've seen it argued a hundred times: 'Of course the plot was simplistic. Of course it didn't make sense. Of course no man/vehicle/creature could do that. Its a POPCORN FLICK.'. Hey, I'm willing to let lots of stuff go by in the interest of entertaiment, but with all the time and effort put into getting the visuals just right it seems lazy to then have the good guys and bad guys be so black and white, and unsubtle. Jake seems to have no problem killing humans left and right once he's decided to go native. And that's supposed to be understandable because they are threatening his newfound way of life (though the film doesn't show him wrestling much with making the change)... and because the humans are all EVIL. Its that 'all evil' part that seems retarded and lazy.
The controversial stuff- this movie is getting a lot of flak from various groups, and a lot it is attributable no doubt to how high-profile the film is. I'll address some of the controversies, starting with the easiest:
People killing themselves because our Earth isn't as beautiful as Pandora. I've read that some online club or forum has several hundred to almost one thousand members actually putting some thought (some serious, some not) towards the idea of suicide, either in pessimism over our planet never being able to measure up to this new glory they've been shown OR with the hope of being reincarnated into a Pandora-like new place.
Wow. This is kind of like people throwing themselves off a cliff in the Middle Ages if they saw an Eclipse. What incredibly ignorant, uncreative jackasses.
I have an artistic inclination and I watched much of Avatar with real wonder at the planet's (let's face it, fictional) beauty. I consider much of my best quality time spent in escapist pursuits. But you have to be an absolute tit to let Avatar, much less any film affect a life decison in you (apart from perhaps inspiring your occupation). No film, tv show, book, or game should convince you what to believe, where to live, how to live, or whether you live at all. Pandora was beautiful, yeah... and it contained wonders you really can't see here, but you'd have to be an idiot to think that stuff can't be matched by beauty here on Earth. There are corners of the world, incredible constructions, tricks of light, and natural tracts on our planet that no film screen could ever contain. We don't have glow-in-the-dark jungles or floating islands. But Pandora doesn't have the Painted Desert, Angel Falls, the Redwood Forest, or the Great Wall of China. All of which really have to be seen to be believed.
And if you COULD be reincarnated, why would the great wheel put you in Pandora or some place like it? You could wind up a cockroach in the Bronx, especially for offing yourself on purpose. Idiot-holes.
Sigourney smokes. This is the one that kind of hits a nerve with me. I'm a casual cigar smoker, whose venues for lighting up are diminishing rapidly owing to the current anti-smoking hysteria in the USA. I'll post a separate blog entry at some point detailing my take on this, but suffice to say, parts of the anti-smoking movement jumped all over the fact that Sigourney Weaver sucks on a fag during the film. The anti-smokers are already pushing hard for the abolition of all smoking depictions on film or television, but they're really being strident owing to the prominent standing of Avatar.
They're cocks, and making much ado about nothing. I'm not sure I even noticed it when I viewed the film. But that's because I'm a cigar-chomping, lung-hating, cancer-causing bastard I guess. In reality, my antagonism towards the anti-smoking movement (and its restaurant/bar restrictions and tax increases) stems mostly from hating government meddling in personal lives not because I don't recognise danger in smoking.
The anti-military/anti-imperialist stance. Whether you consider the view of the film to be anti-military or anti-imperialist might depend on where you are on the political spectrum. Or it might depend on how much of a pundit-driven tool you are.
The film is definitely anti-imperialist, in that it speaks directly about the white aggression against Native Americans in the 19th century. Lots of people are also blathering on about how it speaks so baldly against current American 'nation-building' in the Middle East. I would agree with that... except that the argument made in the movie is retarded. About as retarded as the aforementioned tarring all humans as evil. The motivation for conquering Pandora is to get unobtainium, a valuable (for unexplained reasons) material. That's it. No idealogical differences. No real or imagined threat the Pandorans represent to human safety. None. The real corollary to our Middle East would be if going to Iraq and Afghanistan really was just about getting the oil. But that argument is simplistic, stupid, and pretty thoroughly debunked. Oil can be seen as a somewhat long range goal that regimes favorable to the USA can allow our indirect control of part of the mideast oilfields, but Avatar has no concern with longterm goals or being indirect. It is arguing, like some pot-smoking sociology professor from 2002, that the reasoning behind the War On Terror is to go after oil. And that the USA shouldn't do that.
Well now duh. I can't imagine that Cameron actually still believes that Iraq and Afghanistan were just about oil. So I'm left feeling like he used the film's greed for unobtainium to actually give at least a little distance from real-world Middle East aggression. Like he's saying 'yeah, yeah, the reason's different but it amounts to the same thing'. But to me, putting that little distance in there resulted in my viewing the film as 'about' a completely different sort of 'government' than ours. A business-government. It kinda stopped being about the America's federal government and its military. If I actually had to fish for a real-world counterpart that I was considering, it would probably be Blackwater.
So while I get that all these people are looking for something to bristle at from 'that liberal jerkface James Cameron', the preachiness kinda went past me. It didn't make me re-question just what humans (and the USA in particular) go to war for... because this felt more like Blackwater carrying out a vicious mandate required by their customer... and in this case their customer was Exxon or something rather than the Fed. The motivations were so crudely drawn and so unlike how we think and operate AS A PEOPLE, that I couldn't be arsed to be offended one way or the other. As to the directly referenced Indian Wars. They were before my time, and perpetrated by an America that is quite different from the one we live in now. I'm not saying we can't learn from history, but...
Uh, we don't have slaves now either, people.
Those pagan aliens. Representatives of the catholic church in Rome have seen fit to come out and praise the visuals but deplore the depiction of nature worship. Okay fine. I guess they think some weak-minded individuals will use this movie as a springboard into Wicca. Or move to a reservation and work on breaking down the resistance of Native American grandfathers to teaching the old ways.
There are so many dumb aspects to this I don't even know where to begin. I don't even have the energy. These guys don't realise that lambasting a movie just increases interest? That the only people to take their criticisms seriously are the people who wouldn't go to the film in the first place? Any balanced individual who goes to see the film can definitely spot the tree-hugging, moss-humping, nature-loving aspect to it. But interestingly, I didn't catch in any of the catholic fear-mongering that the Navi are actually MONOTHEISTIC. Which they are. They are in tune with nature, but the film also shows how they plug into it in a very real sense. They don't just believe a lot of spirit stuff because they can't explain things. They literally 'jack in' to their planet which is shown to be a huge biological network. And they still have one single god that they pray to. Some aspects of Navi spiritual thinking resemble Native American beliefs, but the Navi can't just be slotted in to some earthly analogue. They are alien. And imaginary. And that's the biggest reason for slagging off the religious criticism. They aren't real. There are no Navi to inspire kids today to try to jack into trees and rocks. Yeah sure, there may be a coupla dozen people who become witches after this movie. Maybe even leaving the catholic church to do so. But they were going to do that anyway, Avatar or not. Unless they are so weak-minded one film can sway them out of their religion. Then I'd think the church was better off without them anyway.
Overall I enjoyed the movie A LOT. Most of my negatives are the kind of thing you think of after the movie is over. It was probably the best realisation of an alien world EVAR. I hear it will be up for a lot of Oscars. It should probably sweep the various technical awards. If it wins (or even gets nominated) for story, screenplay, or any of that... I may kill myself.
And hope, of course, that I get reincarnated on Pandora.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Insect Princess Duo
Wow.
This last couple of months has been graphic whore paradise for me. I'm currently playing Muramasa: The Demon Blade, and Bayonetta is probably next on the list. Both of these games have spellbinding production values and intricately detailed, artistically-inspired game worlds. I'm sure there'll be future frothing entries on both of them.
But while I'm playing the above games, I'm also plugging away at Mushihmesama Futari 1.5, the translation for which forms the title of this post.
MushiFutari is also a graphic feast, albeit one rooted in an older style of gaming. Like the game Donpachi essayed in a previous post, this is a 2d vertical scrolling shooter from Cave. This one, however, has had Cave's years of experience between now and that game's release in the mid 90s. There are lots of refinements, but mostly the experience shows in all the different game modes... Cave's efforts at making the game have more accessibility, replayability, and longevity to the 'non-hardcore'.
Why should that be significant? As I've written in other earlier entries, 2d shooter (or STG or shmup) fans are kind of a cult amongst video game players. The mechanics of the STG are amongst the oldest (and in a sense the simplest) in the history of this entertainment form. Everyone knows what Space Invaders is, the grandaddy of all shmupdom. An argument could be made that the even more venerable Space War is the prototype, but that game has a more direct modern lineage in the arena shooters like Geometry Wars or 0 Day Attack on Earth. As time has marched on since Space Invaders, graphics, scoring mechanics, immersion factor, etc. have all advanced significantly but the dodge-and-shoot-on-a-flat-plane-playfield is the same within the genre, game after game. This probably really doesn't need explaining... its the very definition of 'genre' after all. Every FPS has the same basic mechanics. Every driving game operates the same basic way. Blah blah blah. The point really is: how very old the STG genre is. By video game standards it is as non-modern as it gets. And like a lot of 'old things' 2d shooters have evolved to something of a conoisseur's field. The players tend to be older (many having grown up with these types of games in abundance), and with a lot of the responsibilities that quick-shot arcade-style gaming can be integrated with as opposed to long drawn-out gaming commitments like role-playing games.
Shmup players can be pretty fucking snotty too. Like wine, cigars, music, or any pastime that has a history, eventually you get a hardcore enthusiast elite. Knowledgable, adroit, and often not afraid to let everyone else in the culture know it. Within video games, shmup players are already something of a hardcore subgroup, but drilling further into it you can find the REALLY hardcore sects. Amongst these are the Cave fans.
Now I'm not saying there are no new players, or nice players in the 2d shooter world or in the subcult of Cave players. I'm an old shmup player and a relative newcomer to Cave games, and I'm plenty goshdamn nice. I'd just like to make those interested in the scene that there are 'curmudgeons' out there who'll happily rain on your parade with their superiority, and the internet (really the main voice and social tool for subgroups and subcultures all over) gives them a voice out of proportion to their numbers. If you can develop a thick skin to ward off these poopers, then there is some very unique and rewarding... though difficult... gaming to be had.
Cave sticks to bullet hell shooters. They have dabbled in other genres a bit, but they seem to have decided where there bread and butter lies. Lots and lots of bullets. Alternately called danmaku (curtain fire) or manic shooters, bullet hell games like a lot of modern media have succumbed to the 'more is better' mentality. Historically, developers have balanced the simplicity of play with flashier window dressing and more complicated scoring mechanics as increases in video game technology have allowed. With such basic move and shoot play, the enemies, bosses, music, pace, and everything else have ramped up to make the experience more intense. While there have been the occasional over-the-top titles with aspects that have never been duplicated (Batsugun's firepower or Radiant Silvergun's length and boss rush), shmups have followed the summer blockbuster film pattern of attempting to outdo what has gone before... a pattern that has culminated, for the time being at least, in the so-called bullet hell shooter.
Some shmup players hate this style of game. They prefer the quick twitch and dodge gaming of the some of the older styles characterised by companies like Psikyo... few but fast bullets as is typically stated. Or the memorisation-based games like R-type or Last Resort. Or mixup games like the ThunderForce series. But for sheer eye candy, and processor-bogging screen hazards nothing beats a manic shooter. And Mushi Futari is a really great recent example.
Now Cave knows that their speciality, the manic shmup, has uber-niche gaming appeal only. But they want to make a go of the home market. They've typically had SOME titles make their way to home conversions, like the previously-posted-about Donpachi. But in today's market, like studios making DVDs, you have to offer something more. You can't just slap a conversion of an arcade game straight onto the disc, no frills included and expect gamers to love it-- apart from the aforementioned frequently-snotty hardcore faithful. If you don't add the video game equivalent of commentaries and easter eggs your game will need to be bargain-priced. Especially if you hope your sales will reach a bit beyond your core audience. Unbelievably, not only does Mushi Futari offer almost every version of this game that was released in the arcades (Cave tends to update the arcade boards as balance or other issues come up), versions allowing graphics all re-drawn for HD setups in the home, world leaderboards, and a lack of region protection... it actually has versions of the game ideal for novices to learn how to play manic shooters.
The company primariliy responsible for making bullet hell shooters the hermetic environment that they are, has with Mushi Futari, given the keys to the gate to every video game player. There are so many play modes and so many difficulty levels, that my eleven year old son... who has always marveled at bullet hell games... is actually able to play and make progress. The point of most STGs is to play for score or survival but unlimited credits really REALLY shortens the play life of these things. If you don't give unlimited credits today's player will often quit because progress involves replaying the same early levels over and over again until you master them. If you do give unlimited credits then most players just push the continue button, see the end, and then put the game away. Some STGs have figured out various ways to compromise. Offer an option to limit credits. Reward hours of play with extra credits. I particularly like Mars Matrix' solution-- play time earns 'money' which you use to buy ship upgrades between games. Amongst the upgrades is more ships or more credits. But it takes quite a bit of play to earn enough credits to get these. Pretty much all shooters punish you for using extra credits by resetting your score, but that really just isn't enough unless you are hardcore.
Mushi Futari puts the credit and no-credit options right on the front page of their game. You can play one credit and earn the right to put your score on the world leaderboards. Or you can have credit feeding as an option. Credit feeding is a viable tactic for practicing later levels and bosses without the drudge of working up to them again and again. But the greatness in this release is the iterations you can work through to get better. Sure they are all basically the same game (apart from Arrange mode). Same enemies. Same levels. Same bosses. But the bullet frequency, speed, and patterns varies widely. Your firepower and the scoring systems also change quite radically. If you start out with the novice versions of the game and move up as you get better, you find that Mushi Futari is teaching you how to play a bullet hell game. In addition, as stated above, Cave made the game region free. This most Japanese-exclusive of game companies has made this game available to Xbox 360 owners everywhere. Even the downloadable content, a headache for most players because it requires you build a separate Japanese Xbox Live account complete with Japanese address info, just shoots onto your console no problem.
Kurt Kalata's 'blog entries on Hardcore Gaming 101 go into his personal feelings about how Mushi Futari has made strides. I wasn't really intending to tread the same ground he has. This entry is supposed to be more of a clarion to game players-- if you are going to buy one bullet hell shooter it should probably be this one. At least until Espgaluda 2 comes along and outdoes it. Even if Mushi Futari's protagonist (cute teen anime princess) doesn't really do it for you, the environments, enemies, and bosses probably will. You progress through waves of dinosaurs, bugs, and ultimately dragons-- all lovingly detailed and animated. Though you will find it harder and harder to discern those details as you move up through the difficulty levels. They'll be obscured by whorls and waves of enemy firepower. You will really feel like you've accomplished something if you get good at this game.
That might be surprising for today's low-attention/high expectation players. A game with only five levels, dodge-and-shoot mechanics like Space Invaders, and no 3d! Who'da thunk it?
(pic cribbed from NCSX)
Monsters Among Us
What do you do if you save the life of someone who goes on to wreak great evil?
With the tagline: 'The choice you make, the price you pay.', I have been reading the manga Monster by Naoki Urasawa.
I cannot recommend this title enough. It is one of those sorts of stories that doesn't have to be told as a manga (comic) but is absolutely awesome in that medium. There are no giant robots, no superheroes, no psychic powers. This could just as easily been a made-for-TV movie... and in its plot essentials it probably has been.
Set in the mid-80's it's the story of a peerless surgeon, Dr Tenma, who has moved from Japan to practice medicine in Germany. Tenma is talented, kind-hearted, and got into medicine to help people regardless of race, social standing, or the ability to pay. Starting out as a cynical (if somewhat exaggerated) story of hospital politics, Tenma's world comes crashing down when a young boy he saved on the operating table turns out to be a serial killer. And I don't mean 'turns out be' in a few years. I mean, right away. So Tenma's career, conscience, and everything else is in jeopardy as he tries to exact some kind of answer or justice from his situation.
The manga format allows this story to be told in a detailed expansive way that no film would be able to duplicate. Print novels or lengthy anime series could perhaps do it... and of course there has been an anime series which I understand is very good in its own right. But this is the original vision.
In typical manga (or anime) fashion much of the drama is played broadly and 'overacted' in the sense of everything being super-urgent, super-dreadful, or super-tense. Part of that owes to the fact that the chapters in manga books (tankoubon in Japanese) are read one after the other, but in their original print run were serialised weeks apart. So when it looks like characters are reacting as if every chapter is some emotional climax it owes to the cliffhanger nature of the weekly or monthly manga installments. There are eighteen volumes in the series (of which I've read five up to the point of this writing).
Apart from the melodrama, this is a tale for anyone who likes their suspense and plot twists served up in heavy doses. Obviously to justify a tale spanning eighteen paperback book sized volumes there's more to it than just 'doctor tracks down serial killer'. There's a lot of bigger 'conspiracy' things going on, and a lot of sideplots involving the various characters. But all of it is interesting, and almost all of it is directly relevant to the main plot.
Unlike something like Death Note, this manga is pretty well grounded in reality. These are all realistic people, in real towns, doing real things. The plot, with all its twists is not as complicated as Death Note, but the characters are also much more believable. Don't get me wrong, I liked Death Note just fine, but it was peopled by the kind of uber-minds that only exist in fiction... not to mention the supernatural Shinagami themselves. Monster is cast with people you could know in any house or on any street corner... er, if you lived in Germany.
I'm compelled to finish this manga before embarking on the anime. I easily enjoy manga as much as I do any other medium, and I'd like to soak in the creator's unadulterated vision for this thing. It has become fairly common for anime based on suspense-heavy sources to change events or endings from their originals to keep the viewer guessing. If you've watched the live-action Death Note films you know what I'm talking about. It would take A LOT of the steam out of a Monster anime to know all the plot points coming up because you read the manga, so it will be interesting to see how they handle this. Of course I have to avoid all online plot summaries and such at all costs. Spoilers would kill anything having to do with this story!
If you can put up with a lot of dramatic shouting, don't walk, run to pick up this series. What a great change of pace from all the other monsters in comics and movies.
X Marks the Followup
This is a sequel post to the previous ‘Price of Power’ entry. I’ve spent a decent amount of time on Shutokou Battle X now and feel the need to comment on what I’ve discovered, and how it contrasts with what I expected.
To review briefly: after picking up an Xbox 360 I knew at some point I was going to have to buy and play Shutokou Battle X. It is my go-to racing series, and no matter what differences arise between installments I always have a pretty good time. Not too long ago I was dismayed somewhat by how much luster has worn off Shutokou Battle 2 for the Dreamcast, but it was still a good game.
The Price of Power ‘blog entry was my attempt to lament the drop in game content as graphic sophistication has increased. To make my point I chose two game series that crossed from previous console generations to the current one, the Earth Defense Force series and the Shutokou Battle games. The current chapter of EDF I’ve played through and was the impetus for writing the post. The section on Shutokou Battle was more anticipatory based on what news, information and rumors I could glean from the internet. So how did this latest Shutokou Battle actually stack up? Did the gutting of the content to fuel the graphics work to the detriment of the game? Did it move the meter away from substance and over to style?
The answer: Yes. But not as much as I thought it would.
Shutokou Battle X (Import Tuner Challenge in the USA) being the latest installment in Genki’s venerable franchise, had a huge foundation on which to build this game. The series has been on almost every platform since its inception, and Genki has had countless opportunities to tweak the mechanics, car physics, car selection, interface, complexity, graphics, and everything else. Like any developer making a sequel, especially as part of a franchise, Genki, has a fine line to walk between offering something new and different enough (from their own previous games AND other games) to warrant a purchase while not alienating long time fans who expect some mechanics and traditions to be maintained. Every Sonic game, every Gran Turismo installment, almost all of series, tread this narrow, perilous path. Occasionally enough time passes to where a developer feels that an intellectual property’s (IP) can be radically changed while still having a name that will be a sales draw. See the new 3d Bionic Commando or the upcoming Splatterhouse. Significant reboots of franchises are rather rare. Successful significant reboots are an order more rare still.
(Dedicated) gamers are picky fuckers. On the one hand they want innovation… they don’t just want the same old retread games. On the other, they break out the torches and pitchforks when developers go TOO far from what they perceive are the core mechanics (or narrative, or graphics, etc) that made the franchise beloved in the first place. Fans often deride developers and publishers for their lack of ability in seeing what made the good chapters in a franchise… well, good. But it really isn’t as easy as just ‘leaving the good shit in and adding some more good shit’. Who decides what is good shit? What aspect of the old game was THE good part? At what point is adding a new character a great idea, and when is it just lame? Like movie studios, game developers often seem to think MORE is the same as better… and who can blame them really when that so often seems to be what the audience responds to. The syndrome that Tim Burton’s Batman film series fell prey to? Hell, yes.
Genki didn’t reinvent the wheel (so to speak) with SBX. And I didn’t really expect them to. Shutokou Battle games are all pretty much the same game. Same mechanics, same plot (such as it is), same tracks (mostly), same opponents (mostly), same progression, etc etc. Fans of these games don’t play each installment religiously because they are always hungry for radical innovations. They play them because driving through traffic on Tokyo’s highways is really fun, but also each game’s backstory, rivals, and cars build on the previous chapters. Every new chapter does also feature just a bit of tweaking to the driving model to emphasize something different to go with the increase in detail and realism in the graphics that you’d expect. The likeness to actually being on the expressways gets closer and closer to the real thing. The updates have the latest car models to add to the game world.
I’ve likened the series (and all of Genki’s racing games) to role-playing games. The actual play features have a lot in common with RPGs; the hunting for opponents, the battles, the money earned, getting items (auto parts), affording better weapons (cars). But there’s also a history woven through the individual games, which affords the player as they spend the time necessary, a sense of very simple narrative progress complete with characters that grow, change, or drop out as time moves on across the series.
In Shutokou Battle X, the driving ‘feel’ has been made more forgiving. It is typical for Genki games to be characterized as having slippery or ‘floaty’ handling, but this really only applies to early or unmodified cars. In real life a low-power or stock car is not as difficult to keep on the road as this game indicates, but that is because the poor handling is an abstraction. It is designed to a) symbolize crappiness in both car and driver, ie ‘making you be crappy’, and b) give the modifications a serious effect. In real-world driving if you upgrade your suspension by small increments; maybe stiffer springs first, then stiffer dampeners, then bigger sway or anti-roll bars, then upgrade everything to a coilover system, then a racing-heavy four-corner adjustable coilover system. You will notice improvements but they may be subtle or only noticeable in the most extreme track situations. In a Genki racer they need every mod to make a demonstrable difference. So in effect, they start you off a little more difficult or ‘worse’ than real life, in order to encourage you to mod as soon as possible and then reward you when you do so with tangible results. The floaty handling usually manifests itself in the fact that you have to make lots of small adjustments constantly while driving, as if the car has a bit of a mind of its own. You have to constantly feed inputs to the controller to get it to go exactly where you want, a combination of steering being a bit loose or unstable and tires that don’t hold the road or give you a proper feel for when they are about to break traction. In the old Dreamcast chapter, Shutokou Battle 2, the game never completely dropped the tire feedback problem. In SBX the floaty feel seems minimal, only manifesting itself to me (and I may just be really used to these games by now) driving down straights when the instability of the steering has me making small adjustments to keep it heading correctly… rather like the tires needed balancing. Once you improve the tires and suspension, even by one increment, the floatiness goes away. This is a fairly big change from the old days where you had to buy the upgrades, adjust and test a lot, then fiddle with the sensitivity controls for the game itself. Continual upgrades, adjusting, and fiddling continue to improve the handling as always, but you can banish the trademark Genki floatiness almost right away.
Another difference in this game is how it handles breaking traction. Various installments have waffled back and forth as to how important or useful drifting is. In real life drifting is more useful in touge (mountain road) racing, or as a show and competition form on a formal track. It is not really used in highway racing which is more akin to driving on a circuit with its well-paved roads and less drastic elevation changes. Drifting would also be death used in highway traffic. Touge uses spotters to make sure the road is clear… doable on the short twisty sections out in the country. Can’t do that on urban expressways. So highway battling typically takes its corners in the slow-in/fast-out philosophy of grip racing. Being a driving fantasy, Shutokou Battle games try to incorporate drift… making it more important as drifting has gained popularity (as a competition) in real life. In earlier chapters, your car just broke loose and careened into a wall if you tried to drift. It was possible to get this under control, but it was almost in spite of the game, not because of it. With the PS2 iterations and the rise in drifting’s popularity, this changed, though still not allowed with the same alacrity as the companion series Kaido Battle. In SBX, losing traction (accidentally or on purpose) in a stock car will cause a weird, sudden slide that just as suddenly ends when enough speed is scrubbed off. It is jerky and unpredictable, much like the way the Ridge Racer games handle the same phenomenon. It was REALLY off-putting at first, because I have always hated Ridge Racers sliding. But much like the floatiness, this detriment can be quickly dialed down. And once you learn to expect it, it can be controlled right handily. I don’t think it is realistic… odd they didn’t just use the drift mechanics from the Kaido Battle series… but it does put the option to drift controllably as a firm, planned cornering option into the expressway battles.
Some other things: glancing off cars or barriers are rather like Shutokou Battle 3 on the PS2—some speed loss and a hit to your SP bar, but recoverable in all but the closest battles. A direct hit into traffic causes a really weird, almost slo-mo hit to the traffic car. The effect is roughly the same as all other Shutokou Battle games, but it FEELS like it is costing you a ton of time because of the perceived slowdown. I’m not sure if it actually does cost you more time… I don’t think so… and I’m not sure if this was intentional on Genki’s part; maybe done to make the player really hate crashing and really try to avoid it. Your car is also larger than its apparent shape, meaning you will hit traffic and opponents by just getting really close to them, rather than literally touching them. Driven properly this isn’t much of an issue, because:
This game is really REALLY easy.
Given the power of your modifications and the new more forgiving driving model, this game presents the least challenge of any Shutokou Battle game I’ve ever played. I finished the game handily in a JZA80 Supra that was still three upgrades away from the maximum allowable engine size. Supras are known for having overbuilt engines that can handle monstrous amounts of horsepower, but I didn’t have to get anywhere near those titan levels to romp through all the final bosses of the game.
And you know what? That lack of difficulty was okay, frankly. I have enough games on my plate that require scadloads of practice or effort to progress in microscopic increments (Mushihimesama Futari anyone?). This was really enjoyable to drive and race just for the pleasure of it.
The new versions of the cities are really beautiful. Lots of detail, and animation. A couple of new offramps added that lead to an entirely different kind of racing for this series, with very hard-angled corners. New rivals, new bosses, and everyone seems to have gotten a graphic overhaul for their stickers, the rivals’ team or nickname emblems.
Okay, so the game was fun… more fun than expected considering the rumored losses. Losses that turned out to be true, but had little effect on my fun with the game. What were the losses exchanged for the improvements?
Drastic downsizing of the car list. There are only about two dozen car models in the game. That is a major drop from the hundred or more that was typical in earlier chapters. There are a few more makes and models amongst your opponents than you can get yourself, but besides limiting your options, this really increases the repetition amongst your opponents. Many teams have members that all drive the same car. Many bosses have had their traditional car changed. It was quite disconcerting to see some historic rivals like the Death Driver and The Emperor have such radically different rides. The number of cosmetic upgrades (aero parts, vinyls, etc) help this somewhat. But at the end of the day, this was probably the single biggest hit to my pleasure in the game. It was a groaner to think to myself ‘oh another team entirely made up of Evos’ over and over again. One of the big attractions to Genki Racing Project games is the immersion factor, and that has always been helped considerably by the number of different car types (multiplied by the possibilities in modifications) you could encounter. It has seemed like no two cars were alike, like real life. And there have always been plenty of oddball or weird cars thrown in like vans, utility trucks, muscle cars, or maybe a Corvette Z06… all unexpected in the racing environment of Japan. None of that in SBX.
Downsizing of the highway map. They dropped the Wangan and Yokohane expressways, the epicenter of flat-out drag racing in these games. These areas had to be opened up in the previous games by progressing… and offered a stark contrast to the tighter corner-based racing of the games’ initial C1 tracks. This could’ve been as big a drag as the loss of cars except Genki added the two aforementioned offramps which themselves have some fairly long drag-able straights. Genki also took a cue from the Kaido Battle series and started putting parking areas into the game. Parking areas are the social heart of Japan’s racing scene. At key offramps around the expressway system, the racers, teams, hangers-on, groupies, and just plain car nuts gather around and talk, compare vehicles or just loiter. Music is blaring, challenges are made or refused, a lot of snacks and drinks are bought out of the area vending machines. This adds a lot to SBX, giving new forms of interaction, and new places you have to go to find your rivals.
Traffic is a lot more sparse. This is probably in keeping with making the game a bit easier and more accessible, though I’d say Genki’s inexperience with optimizing the graphics comes into play and they needed to minimize slowdown… of which there still is some in instances where many cars are onscreen, the developer’s traditional weakness in this area.
That’s really it for the minuses. Less cars, less track, less traffic. The first two are definitely ‘content’. The game isn’t literally shorter than other iterations in terms of rivals and number of races to run, but it is really obvious that there is less variety. As I said, this bothered me less than I thought it would because, and I don’t want to sound like a graphics whore, the game is just so much prettier and realistic. And my mind was taken off the shortcomings by having the two side road areas and new rivals to master.
As if time has continued its march in the Genki world, so some old teams have disappeared, new teams have arisen and the player has to find his place in the scheme of things… usually at the top when all is said and done. There were some pretty cool things to this part of it. There is a selection of bosses that have been recurrent through the games usually called the Thirteen Devils. For this game, they are kind of in semi-retirement and a new group, the Phantom Nine, have come to prominence. Upon beating the Phantom Nine you, of course, catch the attention of the remnants of the Thirteen Devils. This is all handled with cool intro videos and music.
It is as fun as ever to knock these rivals on their asses and once again assume the mantle of King.
Note: I played the japanese version of this game. One wanderer rival, Green Wild Child, has a different requirement than what is indicated in the USA version (Import Tuner Challenge). His Japanese requirements are the same as they are in SB3 on the Playstation 2, a license plate edit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)