I don’t read as much as I should. Between fifty and a hundred books a year is a good number for me. I truly enjoy reading, but it is one of many ways I choose to spend my free time. And it’s tough to find a balance in free time! As my list of books I want to read grows bigger and bigger, the amount of new and interesting books certainly does not go down. For every book I finish, I’m sure I add three more. This brief is not about making a dent in that list.
As more and more books are released every year, it is easy for classics to become buried in the past. Furthermore, if young people read less, they become painfully lacking in knowledge on classic literature or philosophy that forms that background of much of today’s media. Missing out on literature that is “too old” means missing out on allusions that are worth knowing and stories that are worth hearing. One way to combat this: exploring free archives of such writings.
In today’s Internet culture, there is certainly no shortage of free access to information. Although the means for receiving the information are sometimes questionably legal, many of these no-cost resources can be found through legal means as well. A quick search on Amazon’s Kindle store reveals hundreds of classics--from Ulysses to Les Misérables--for absolutely free. But this is not limited to just old titles; hundreds of recent releases, both fiction and nonfiction, are also available for immediate download. These are available to anyone with the Amazon app, not even requiring the Kindle itself.
Another legal example, Project Gutenberg (presumably named after the inventor of the printing press) is one of the oldest and largest digital collections on the Internet, amassing over 48,000 titles. With this many options, a dedicated reader could spend their entire lives getting caught up. Again, as these books are totally free, it makes the option to pay $13.99 for the same book in a Barnes & Noble seem absurd.
There may be no such thing as a free lunch, but there is certainly free literature. These are just two of the options one has to pick some up; there are many other possibilities as well. If it seems too easy to find, it’s because it really is that easy. Once, I wanted to read this old journal article on a subject I was into at the time. A Google search found a PDF for me in less than a minute. I’ve said it before: I love the Internet.
To me, though, nothing replaces the feeling of holding a book. I could never advocate using a device over a paperback. But the truth is: enough people are carrying around a phone or using a computer that these titles could be quite useful. It’s remarkable how much of the world of literature can be found instantly in the comfort of your own home. These no-cost options certainly offset the cost of a device and might justify the purchase.
At its best, the Internet can be put to use as an incredible archive. As a repository for information, there is almost no limit to the amount of content that can be found. And public domain means, literally, owned and shared by the public. So, if you haven’t yet gotten around to the complete works of William Shakespeare, you technically already own them, and they’re already stored for you online.
This is fascinating because it largely takes away the excuse to not be educated in classical humanities. For no monetary cost and no more effort than the click of a button, one can easily find something rewarding to read and enjoy. A person has a right to read whatever he or she wants, and the options are easily presented and seemingly endless. I know it puts my To Read list in a pretty bad shape.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Classic Terror, B-Movie or Otherwise
I truly believe that someone’s first experience with a piece of art is prone to become that person’s favorite. Of course, this is a purely experiential observation; however I have noticed that it has happened to me on more than one occasion. And it makes sense: if you enjoy your first brush with a piece of entertainment, every time after will be compared to that first time. I imagine I am not alone and that many people feel the same way about these first impressions, whether it be with film, music, or any other art form. This theory certainly applies for my foray into the genre of B-movie horror.
I unequivocally love the film called Scarecrow Gone Wild. But my love for this film goes much deeper. I’ve seen Pulp Fiction and The Godfather more times than I can count, and every time I watch them, I pick up new evidence of why these films are so brilliant. But I have little doubt that I have watched Scarecrow Gone Wild more times. You read that right: I cannot think of a single film I have seen more in my life than Scarecrow Gone Wild. I watch it multiple times a year, and I have probably seen the special features more than I have seen most films.
I first watched the film when it was released (straight to on-demand, if you can imagine) with a good friend in 2004. At the time, I thought it was just a bad movie with a funny title. I had no idea that I would be embarking on a lifelong journey with the film that would haunt me for a decade (figuratively, certainly not literally, as the film is not scary in the least). My friend and I were at the perfect age to appreciate the blatant humor of such gags as throwing a bottle of gasoline at an undergrad from a moving vehicle. We were also excited to point out the gentleman out for a jog on a beach who is clearly not associated with the filmmaking at all (and probably didn’t sign a release agreement). Our young minds were not, however, prepared to notice the subtleties of messages like the tragedies of hazing. These kind of qualities become evident after years of dissecting the film.
For a while, this was just a private enjoyment, shared between only the two of us. We might have been only a very limited group that saw this film originally. I’m not sure if anyone else watched the movie unless they were fans of the first two parts of the trilogy. Right, it should be mentioned that this is the third in a series, but take it from me, the first two are not worth the effort. There is a reason the Gone Wild is sold as a standalone--to differentiate itself from its predecessors. At any rate, we must have been part of a small audience to witness this piece of artwork at its inception. They say only a few thousand people bought the first Velvet Underground album, but all of them formed a band. Such is the kind of influence of Scarecrow Gone Wild.
It is difficult to assess exactly what it is the value of the film without going into the specifics of what make the film great. Despite the natural “good versus evil” theme that develops throughout, it is unclear which side emerges victorious. By the end, the viewer wonders whether or not evil is truly extinguished. With the losses sustained, the cost of attempting to end the terror of the scarecrow is almost too great. Perhaps the deepest, most unsettling question: is the scarecrow just plain evil, or is it the more complex embodiment of the pain inflicted by the hateful undergrads? These questions are left to the interpretation of the viewer.
Fortunately, the action is not distracted by a cast of star actors. While talented, the intrepid college students are played by several young, yet-to-be-discovered thespians. Since this group is not dominated by a standout actor, it allows for the realism of the scene to become evident. The film is anchored, however, by the acting talents of the World Wrestling Federation’s own “World’s Most Dangerous Man,” Ken Shamrock. His classic portrayal of coach and gym teacher is engaging and provocative. The former wrestler displays every ounce of his expertise for both acting and fighting.
Halloween may be a long time away, but some horror movies are worth watching throughout the year. And just because it’s spring, there is no reason why you could not stand a little scarecrow in your life. Perhaps you can take advantage of this unique weekend of Friday the 13th and Valentine’s Day for a two-night double feature. To be sure, horror movies are always exciting and you can always pick up new things from watching them. B-movie horror is no different. A surreal mixture of emotion, from humor to tragedy, drama to terror, Scarecrow Gone Wild has just a bit of everything. You owe it to yourself to see this picture. That way, when it is filed away by the National Film Registry, you can say you saw it first.
For a while, this was just a private enjoyment, shared between only the two of us. We might have been only a very limited group that saw this film originally. I’m not sure if anyone else watched the movie unless they were fans of the first two parts of the trilogy. Right, it should be mentioned that this is the third in a series, but take it from me, the first two are not worth the effort. There is a reason the Gone Wild is sold as a standalone--to differentiate itself from its predecessors. At any rate, we must have been part of a small audience to witness this piece of artwork at its inception. They say only a few thousand people bought the first Velvet Underground album, but all of them formed a band. Such is the kind of influence of Scarecrow Gone Wild.
It is difficult to assess exactly what it is the value of the film without going into the specifics of what make the film great. Despite the natural “good versus evil” theme that develops throughout, it is unclear which side emerges victorious. By the end, the viewer wonders whether or not evil is truly extinguished. With the losses sustained, the cost of attempting to end the terror of the scarecrow is almost too great. Perhaps the deepest, most unsettling question: is the scarecrow just plain evil, or is it the more complex embodiment of the pain inflicted by the hateful undergrads? These questions are left to the interpretation of the viewer.
Fortunately, the action is not distracted by a cast of star actors. While talented, the intrepid college students are played by several young, yet-to-be-discovered thespians. Since this group is not dominated by a standout actor, it allows for the realism of the scene to become evident. The film is anchored, however, by the acting talents of the World Wrestling Federation’s own “World’s Most Dangerous Man,” Ken Shamrock. His classic portrayal of coach and gym teacher is engaging and provocative. The former wrestler displays every ounce of his expertise for both acting and fighting.
Halloween may be a long time away, but some horror movies are worth watching throughout the year. And just because it’s spring, there is no reason why you could not stand a little scarecrow in your life. Perhaps you can take advantage of this unique weekend of Friday the 13th and Valentine’s Day for a two-night double feature. To be sure, horror movies are always exciting and you can always pick up new things from watching them. B-movie horror is no different. A surreal mixture of emotion, from humor to tragedy, drama to terror, Scarecrow Gone Wild has just a bit of everything. You owe it to yourself to see this picture. That way, when it is filed away by the National Film Registry, you can say you saw it first.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
There's No "U" in Enjoyment
When it comes to arts and entertainment, creators have one clear goal: to make the content enjoyable to the most people. This is not to say, however, that art is meaningless. Far from it. Without getting philosophical, art--be it music, literature, cinema, et cetera--exists to fulfill a need for personal pleasure. There are a huge number of qualifications that lead to this enjoyment, to be sure, but suffice it to say that it is human nature to pursue what makes us happy. Therefore, if successful art relies on making us happy, it is the musician’s or writer’s or director’s role to know what we enjoy and recreate it to make the most people happy. If only it were that easy. Despite the sound of it, I promise this will not be getting too philosophical.
As it comes down to it, making art that the most people enjoy is difficult. A film might amaze hundreds of audiences, but no film is going to satisfy every person’s desire. Or maybe a book only piques ten people’s interest, but for those people, the book is life-changing. Obviously, while artists set out to please audiences, not everyone can make it happen. And there is no surefire rule of thumb for reaching people; instead, it is a trial and error until something becomes popular. I do not have any answers either, but I have come to a (very) general theory that defines, in part, what is enjoyable to me.
Perhaps this theory is only true for me, but it might also apply to more people. I suspect this is the case. The test is totally subjective, so I really cannot be wrong. Try it yourself to see if you agree. A second disclaimer, despite the sound of it, I promise this will not be getting too scientific.
Imagine a graph where the horizontal line represents how “good” something is from worst on the left to best at the right, while the vertical line is how much you “like” the thing from least (bottom) to most (top). Again, extremely general and totally subjective, so you can’t argue with me. Begin by plotting your examples, such as movies, books, games, or albums. These are what I’m using, obviously.
As you get going, some conclusions are made apparent immediately. Qualitatively speaking, I think The Godfather is one of the best movies ever made; it just so happens to be one of my favorites, as well, so it goes at the top-right. Same goes for Pulp Fiction: somewhere near the top-right. As you plot the graph, you can see the obvious correlation: higher quality means higher enjoyment. Discounting a few outliers, it is a fairly straight line towards the upper right corner of the graph.
Towards the middle of the graph, we see more objects of average quality toward the bottom third of the graph. This is the largest part of my graph, where a lot of “three-stars” go. For example, this where to find a lot of the stock, summer action movies, most albums by Weezer, and the Call of Duty series. Unfortunately, there are so many items in this list because high-quality, high-enjoyment items are usually few and far between. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with all three-star entertainment (or anything wrong with me for doing a lot of it). They are fine uses of time and, I think, serve as a great comparison for when you really find something excellent. There is my endorsement for three-stars: a good foundation for some even better entertainment, but ultimately boring and not lasting.
At the left side of the graph, however, some interesting happenings begin to occur. Low quality starts to tick upward in enjoyment a bit, then a bit more, until we reach levels of enjoyment rivalling the right side. Maybe this is just my chart, but I suspect not. Finally, we can see the phenomena: something that is so bad, it’s good. I mean, how else do films like The Room and Plan 9 From Outer Space become immortalized? Fans adore so-called B-movies or read hundreds of “trashy” novels in a year. In the end, my graph comes to look like a big, wide “U” with highs on both ends and a long, low middle.
Sure, there are going to be some problems here and there. This is where we develop terms like “overrated” and “underrated.” I can respect that 2001: A Space Odyssey is a high-quality film, but I don’t particularly enjoy it. I always get a kick out of James Bond novels even though I know they are not terribly well written. Conversely, I think there is nothing redeeming about the second Caddyshack film.
Of course, so much more goes into enjoying something, like where you were when you read this book, the people you were with when you watched this movie for the first time, or how you heard this album at the right time (also known as nostalgia). But this is just a general theory that generally explains how I like certain things, which maybe explains more about myself. Science is way more accepting of general theories anyway, right? Therefore, art of spectacular quality or of spectacularly bad quality are highly enjoyable. Meanwhile, middling quality is typically bland, forgettable, and represents my least favorite forms of entertainment.
This is why I don’t like The Police.
This is why I don’t like The Police.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
One Year Update
This marks one year since I started putting my thoughts into words and posting them online. In that time I have posted fourteen pieces on different topics that interest me. Originally, when I started this, my goal was to post once a month for an entire year, just to see if I could do it. I honestly did not think it would be possible to do so. Apparently, it was.
As it turns out, I really enjoy writing. I have a bizarre, specific set of interests, and I develop strange opinions about these interests. Although I don’t spend a lot of time (read: any) editing my work, that does not mean they are any less important to me. I feel like anyone reading these can get a better inside look at who I am.
I said in a previous post that I would write about things that interested me. Until now, that’s included mainly music, sports, and video games. Not the most academic of pursuits, to be sure, but still a lot of fun to write. So, a year later, I hope I have been able to share some of my interests with you, even if they are over things you might not care much about. Essentially, I want my writing to be fun for both me and you. And it’s certainly been fun for me.
Now, the goal will be to keep writing once a month, for as long as I can. Maybe more often, if possible, though I doubt I’ll be able to make it another full year. If I do go another year, that would be great! I imagine the topics will be very much the same as what they have been. I’ve already got some ideas going and some pieces started. And I have my magnum opus already written, but I’m saving that for last.
If you like what you have read so far, I seriously cannot thank you enough for reading them. It means so much to me to hear your comments and critiques. Please continue to read and let me know what you think! Feel free to share my writing with anyone else you think might enjoy them. Thank you.
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
Destiny and Fate: The Future of a Franchise
Destiny is a weird game. If possible, the months leading up to its release made it an even weirder one. And it really shouldn’t be. There is nothing so dramatically groundbreaking in Destiny to garner the response it has received. But I think this is what makes it so weird: its adherence to traditional games makes it so non-spectacular compared to the massive amount of anticipation that it originally held. That said, it was a fully competent game, and I had a lot of fun playing it.
The expectations leading up to this game were incomparable. For many people, Destiny was a viable reason to step into the new console generation and purchase a shiny, new Playstation 4 or Xbox One. The reputation as a system-seller was bolstered by the incredible marketing scheme. With a television ad that read something along the lines of: “From the creators of Halo and the team that brought you Call of Duty…” how can a game go wrong? The appeal was there, and everyone seemed excited. When it came out, though, the enthusiasm evaporated like a popped balloon.
This seems due, in part, to the fact that because the game was so anticipated, it simply could not match the hype. Common complaints were that it was not the game consumers were promised. This is a bit unfair, as no one had a very clear grasp about what the game was before its release. This is akin to reading a synopsis and watching a trailer and comparing about the direction of a film. A second complaint was that the game was too repetitive, that the overall content was lacking. This is a little more fair; no one wants to do the same things over and over again. The final complaint is that the game does not really take off until after the main points of the story are finished. This is very fair. Destiny is not the kind of game where a large amount of time needs to be dedicated to truly get the game. It is a game where the player shoots a lot of aliens.
Not to be swayed by the negative critiques, I was still very interested in trying it out. I should first make three very important points to bear in mind which likely affected my experience with the game. First, I played the game on an Xbox 360, an obsolete piece of equipment barely worth a dime. (Just kidding, I still use my 360 a lot and plan to get a few more years out of it.) But it does make me much less qualified to mention how great it looked. Second, I rented the game. I know what you’re thinking: here it is, 2014, and he’s renting games and playing them on outdated consoles. Whatever. I rent a lot of games these days because I’d rather pay $7 than $60. But having a game for only three days does rush the experience and force me to get to the end a lot quicker than I probably would like. Finally, because my time was limited, I never once took the game online to play with or against other users. I payed my $7 to see the campaign, and I was happy with that. That said, I know I missed a quite a bit of content that I will probably never see.
What expectations I had for the actual gameplay, I’m slightly ashamed to admit, I got from the trailer. Reductively, it looked like a fair mix of Halo and Call of Duty. Since Halo is a personal favorite, I was prepared for this type of combat. I was not disappointed; the gameplay was quite fun, as I could only hope from the experienced Bungie team. I had a great time traversing the map and taking out aliens. Getting around a large map was not a hassle, as easy as hopping on a vehicle and driving1. And I should mention that the views were absolutely gorgeous (on my Xbox 360).
Prior to release, a highly emphasized feature of the game was the diversity of the equipment that could be picked up by the player to use. This came across well. While they included possibly too much equipment, it was exciting to pick up a new and better weapon and have to learn how to use it. This learning of new equipment forces the player to be adaptive. Furthermore, characters are continually progressing to a higher level where, obviously, they are better prepared to combat tougher enemies. All of this customization and player growth took a different approach to a modern first person shooter like infusing a bit of Borderlands. This sense of progress was rewarding.
I also found the main mission design to be well made. Following objectives, the player runs through several locations before arriving at a final battle against a large enemy (or large group of enemies). What made the levels great, though, was a feeling of tension not often achieved in an FPS. Hitting the final battle gives a sense of no-turning-back in each level. Playing by myself, there were times when I needed to slow down and work through waves of enemies. Being impossible to rush through made the game feel much more skill based, and finishing a level often brought a sigh of relief.
As I said, I did not even have online access to the game when I started. I did not have the time to invest in getting good at playing against other players, and I just wanted to see the main game anyway. So you can imagine my surprise when I entered the world to find dozens of other players running around with me. I thought something was wrong, but it turned out non-online users could still work together on certain missions, a point that was not made clear to me when I started. As it turned out, this lead to some of the better moments in between missions. Randomly throughout the level, events would emerge that would have to be completed by a group of people: defend this place, take down that enemy. These pseudo-online moments gave me a pleasant reminder of working cooperatively with friends back in school.
While the gameplay was quite good and I had a lot of fun running through the missions, Destiny was certainly not without complaints. For one, the missions, which I commended earlier, were ultimately forgettable. In the moment, they were great; but taken as a whole, they failed to make a satisfying arc. There was a break after each mission, so that there was never a sense of ongoing progress. The missions only linked by their locations. After each mission, the player is given the option to select a new planet or game-type to play. Each mission! Or the player can go back to another world, watch a video cutscene, or replay an old level without knowing if it’s already been completed. While I realize this is to give the option of going out to attain higher levels and be better prepared, jumping back out into space each time completely destroyed the continuity2.
Again, the biggest complaint about the game was that there were not enough new locations to visit. As a result, this did make for some repetitive scenarios. Basically, there were four different locations to explore, three planets and one moon. Divided among ten hours, these four places grow a little stale. The transition to a new planet is certainly a breath of fresh air. Furthermore, if you are in need of some quick powering up, one way to do so is by completing inane extra missions about hunting aliens, collecting materials, or just standing in one area for a few seconds. When these are interspaced with the main missions at each place, it begins to feel like you are doing the same things over and over again, regardless of the change in scenery (which is pretty, on my Xbox 360). All of these side steps supposedly benefit the ongoing story, but they never seemed to ultimately lead to anything substantial.
Not that I think a continuous narrative would have fixed the problem completely. The story was convoluted, yet empty of much meaning. Not for lack of trying, I could not really follow what was going on, and so I did not really care what was happening. Part of what made Halo so great is that the enemies were clearly defined and there was an overarching goal at the end. Not so in Destiny, at least as far as I could tell. Enemies were bland and the goal was unclear. I was surprised to have even finished the game when an option (an option!) to view the credits came on screen after the final mission. From what I’ve read of the story online after finishing the game, it sounds like it will be dealt with better, ahem, in the sequels. One of the cutscenes near the end heavily implied the emergence of a grander villain.
For better or for worse, I found myself wondering if the Destiny franchise is going to be like Assassin’s Creed. The first game in the Assassin’s series was released in 2007 to high hopes for something new. While the game was impressive, people soon complained that the gameplay was repetitive, and that missions or areas were not different enough to be engaging. Looking back now, it is remembered as a fairly weak entry in the series. It was, however, the launchpad for a now-annualized series that certainly has its ups (the excellent Brotherhood) and downs (III). What if Destiny turns out to be the same thing? I, for one, enjoyed the first Assassin’s Creed, but I found the later ones to be much improved. It has already been confirmed that we should expect a decade from this franchise; is it wrong to hope that Bungie will learn from the flaws of Destiny so that 2 and 3 will be something great?
In the end, I really enjoyed my ten or so hours with Destiny. Of course, it is not without its faults, but that happens. It probably did not sell as many new consoles as the developers envisioned. But taken separately from all the superfluous space travel and lackluster story, the gameplay was just fun and the vistas looked amazing (on my Xbox 360). Looking at all of the gameplay options in between levels made me think that maybe this first entry in the series was just trying to do too much. For something with a name like Destiny, we will have to see what the future holds for the franchise.
1 Driving is something that is difficult to pull enough in an otherwise decent video game, apparently. It’s fine in Destiny.↩
2 Also, jumping out into space made for some long loading movies that looked cool but were tiring after the first dozen.↩
The expectations leading up to this game were incomparable. For many people, Destiny was a viable reason to step into the new console generation and purchase a shiny, new Playstation 4 or Xbox One. The reputation as a system-seller was bolstered by the incredible marketing scheme. With a television ad that read something along the lines of: “From the creators of Halo and the team that brought you Call of Duty…” how can a game go wrong? The appeal was there, and everyone seemed excited. When it came out, though, the enthusiasm evaporated like a popped balloon.
This seems due, in part, to the fact that because the game was so anticipated, it simply could not match the hype. Common complaints were that it was not the game consumers were promised. This is a bit unfair, as no one had a very clear grasp about what the game was before its release. This is akin to reading a synopsis and watching a trailer and comparing about the direction of a film. A second complaint was that the game was too repetitive, that the overall content was lacking. This is a little more fair; no one wants to do the same things over and over again. The final complaint is that the game does not really take off until after the main points of the story are finished. This is very fair. Destiny is not the kind of game where a large amount of time needs to be dedicated to truly get the game. It is a game where the player shoots a lot of aliens.
Not to be swayed by the negative critiques, I was still very interested in trying it out. I should first make three very important points to bear in mind which likely affected my experience with the game. First, I played the game on an Xbox 360, an obsolete piece of equipment barely worth a dime. (Just kidding, I still use my 360 a lot and plan to get a few more years out of it.) But it does make me much less qualified to mention how great it looked. Second, I rented the game. I know what you’re thinking: here it is, 2014, and he’s renting games and playing them on outdated consoles. Whatever. I rent a lot of games these days because I’d rather pay $7 than $60. But having a game for only three days does rush the experience and force me to get to the end a lot quicker than I probably would like. Finally, because my time was limited, I never once took the game online to play with or against other users. I payed my $7 to see the campaign, and I was happy with that. That said, I know I missed a quite a bit of content that I will probably never see.
What expectations I had for the actual gameplay, I’m slightly ashamed to admit, I got from the trailer. Reductively, it looked like a fair mix of Halo and Call of Duty. Since Halo is a personal favorite, I was prepared for this type of combat. I was not disappointed; the gameplay was quite fun, as I could only hope from the experienced Bungie team. I had a great time traversing the map and taking out aliens. Getting around a large map was not a hassle, as easy as hopping on a vehicle and driving1. And I should mention that the views were absolutely gorgeous (on my Xbox 360).
Prior to release, a highly emphasized feature of the game was the diversity of the equipment that could be picked up by the player to use. This came across well. While they included possibly too much equipment, it was exciting to pick up a new and better weapon and have to learn how to use it. This learning of new equipment forces the player to be adaptive. Furthermore, characters are continually progressing to a higher level where, obviously, they are better prepared to combat tougher enemies. All of this customization and player growth took a different approach to a modern first person shooter like infusing a bit of Borderlands. This sense of progress was rewarding.
I also found the main mission design to be well made. Following objectives, the player runs through several locations before arriving at a final battle against a large enemy (or large group of enemies). What made the levels great, though, was a feeling of tension not often achieved in an FPS. Hitting the final battle gives a sense of no-turning-back in each level. Playing by myself, there were times when I needed to slow down and work through waves of enemies. Being impossible to rush through made the game feel much more skill based, and finishing a level often brought a sigh of relief.
As I said, I did not even have online access to the game when I started. I did not have the time to invest in getting good at playing against other players, and I just wanted to see the main game anyway. So you can imagine my surprise when I entered the world to find dozens of other players running around with me. I thought something was wrong, but it turned out non-online users could still work together on certain missions, a point that was not made clear to me when I started. As it turned out, this lead to some of the better moments in between missions. Randomly throughout the level, events would emerge that would have to be completed by a group of people: defend this place, take down that enemy. These pseudo-online moments gave me a pleasant reminder of working cooperatively with friends back in school.
While the gameplay was quite good and I had a lot of fun running through the missions, Destiny was certainly not without complaints. For one, the missions, which I commended earlier, were ultimately forgettable. In the moment, they were great; but taken as a whole, they failed to make a satisfying arc. There was a break after each mission, so that there was never a sense of ongoing progress. The missions only linked by their locations. After each mission, the player is given the option to select a new planet or game-type to play. Each mission! Or the player can go back to another world, watch a video cutscene, or replay an old level without knowing if it’s already been completed. While I realize this is to give the option of going out to attain higher levels and be better prepared, jumping back out into space each time completely destroyed the continuity2.
Again, the biggest complaint about the game was that there were not enough new locations to visit. As a result, this did make for some repetitive scenarios. Basically, there were four different locations to explore, three planets and one moon. Divided among ten hours, these four places grow a little stale. The transition to a new planet is certainly a breath of fresh air. Furthermore, if you are in need of some quick powering up, one way to do so is by completing inane extra missions about hunting aliens, collecting materials, or just standing in one area for a few seconds. When these are interspaced with the main missions at each place, it begins to feel like you are doing the same things over and over again, regardless of the change in scenery (which is pretty, on my Xbox 360). All of these side steps supposedly benefit the ongoing story, but they never seemed to ultimately lead to anything substantial.
Not that I think a continuous narrative would have fixed the problem completely. The story was convoluted, yet empty of much meaning. Not for lack of trying, I could not really follow what was going on, and so I did not really care what was happening. Part of what made Halo so great is that the enemies were clearly defined and there was an overarching goal at the end. Not so in Destiny, at least as far as I could tell. Enemies were bland and the goal was unclear. I was surprised to have even finished the game when an option (an option!) to view the credits came on screen after the final mission. From what I’ve read of the story online after finishing the game, it sounds like it will be dealt with better, ahem, in the sequels. One of the cutscenes near the end heavily implied the emergence of a grander villain.
For better or for worse, I found myself wondering if the Destiny franchise is going to be like Assassin’s Creed. The first game in the Assassin’s series was released in 2007 to high hopes for something new. While the game was impressive, people soon complained that the gameplay was repetitive, and that missions or areas were not different enough to be engaging. Looking back now, it is remembered as a fairly weak entry in the series. It was, however, the launchpad for a now-annualized series that certainly has its ups (the excellent Brotherhood) and downs (III). What if Destiny turns out to be the same thing? I, for one, enjoyed the first Assassin’s Creed, but I found the later ones to be much improved. It has already been confirmed that we should expect a decade from this franchise; is it wrong to hope that Bungie will learn from the flaws of Destiny so that 2 and 3 will be something great?
In the end, I really enjoyed my ten or so hours with Destiny. Of course, it is not without its faults, but that happens. It probably did not sell as many new consoles as the developers envisioned. But taken separately from all the superfluous space travel and lackluster story, the gameplay was just fun and the vistas looked amazing (on my Xbox 360). Looking at all of the gameplay options in between levels made me think that maybe this first entry in the series was just trying to do too much. For something with a name like Destiny, we will have to see what the future holds for the franchise.
1 Driving is something that is difficult to pull enough in an otherwise decent video game, apparently. It’s fine in Destiny.↩
2 Also, jumping out into space made for some long loading movies that looked cool but were tiring after the first dozen.↩
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)