The Politics of Video Games: My Thoughts on the Next Generation of Gaming

E3 has come and gone, internet posts have been made, and Microsoft has already reacted to the competition.  Sony's and Microsoft's next generation consoles, the Playstation 4 and Xbox One respectively, will be released this coming November thus igniting the next "console war."

Growing up I always got really into the whole console war thing, ever since I had an N64.  Although it was not quite as heated a debate, I professed that the N64 was better than the original Playstation.  Why?  Well, because I had an N64 and not a Playstation, of course.  When the next generation emerged I wanted a GameCube since I was Nintendo previously.  To me, the GameCube was the best console out on the market and I would argue with others professing its superiority.  Make note that I didn't actually own the system at the time.  A year or so later I got a Playstation 2 instead of a GamCube, and would you believe it, I thought the PS2 was the best console from then onward.  Then I got a PS3 and would argue its superiority also.  Notice a pattern?

I don't really do the whole "console war" thing now.  I was aware that it was silly when I was younger because it's just kids who can only afford one console yelling at each other over the internet.  But since I haven't really been as hardcore of a gamer the past three years I've been able to look at it from an outside perspective to see how really stupid it is.  What's perhaps the most absurd to me is that video game "journalists" play into the whole "console war" thing by throwing out phrases like, "who won E3?" 

Objectively speaking, it is safe to argue the PS1 was the best console of its generation, PS2 its own, and then the Xbox 360.  BUT it really just depends on what games you want to play.  What I am trying to say is that most people argue that the console they own is the best because it is the only one that they have.  It makes sense and I was part of that for a long time, and still a little now.  Over the years I have become attached to games on Playstations such as Metal Gear Solid (although it is no longer an exclusive), God of War, Uncharted.  Before, I would also say franchizes such as Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry. and Tekken, but they have each gone multi-platform this past generation, which is pretty nuts because it makes the differences between the PS3 and 360 quite minute.  Whatever.

At this year's E3 people agreed that Sony "won" and that Microsoft really dropped the ball because of the always online issue as well as not being able to trade in used games.  Although, to be fair, these features were explained so poorly that the Xbox One, for all I know, may have actually not had those terrible features in the way that the internet thought they did.  It's as confusing as how poorly that sentence was written.  However, none of that matters now because Microsoft has reversed all of these policies.  But before they announced this, peoples of the internet threw an internet riot, heralding the Playstation 4 as their savior and the Xbone as the anti-christ.  It seemed like no one wanted the new Xbox.  Or did they?

One of my friends said that he didn't care, he was still buying the new Xbox.  It didn't matter to him, he has a 360 and he wants a One (that sounds kind of stupid...).  So here comes the actual purpose of this post, how many of you are actually "independent" gamers?  Sure the internet went nuts of the new Xbox being terrible, but how much would that have affected sales?  Pre-sales were/are absurdly in Sony's favor but we still have a while until November.  I think that most people are attached to their political party of gaming, either Sony or Microsoft.  You of course have crazy people that vote for a third party, in this case Nintendo, but we're talking about the two major parties here.  How many of you actually sit as an independent and look at which console looks best for you before you make a purchase rather than just continue with what you had the previous generation?  I assume the number is low and that most people vote the party line.  Getting a PS3 was kind of an absurd thing to do, but I got one anyway.  Pretty much because I wanted to play Metal Gear Solid 4.  

I'll get a Playstation 4, eventually.  Probably not until a year or so after its release, but I just like Sony's first-party developers more than Microsoft's.  They have Sony Santa Monica, Guerrilla, Polyphony Digital, Team Ico, Media Molecule, and Naughty Dog. 

The two consoles are so similar in terms of the games that will have available for them it seems almost silly to compare the two.  The days before this currently ending generation were much more interesting with regards to exclusives, but it seems like those days are gone forever, with the costs of development being so high.  If you are really looking at this from an objective perspective, and you are interested in exclusive games, you should really get a Wii U.  Yikes. 

(I know that there are plenty of great multi-platform games that will not be on Wii U, so I know that the thing is terrible in that regard.)

So I ask you, are you an independent or a staunch party member?





 

My Thoughts on Man of Steel

SPOILERS BELOW

Life can turn out kind of funny sometimes.  I was planning on writing a post the week before 'Man of Steel' came out explaining why I thought it could be the greatest superhero movie ever made.  I was planning on highlighting the major hints within the three trailers that suggested that this was going to be a special film, and one that really captured what makes Superman the greatest superhero.  But then I saw the Rotten Tomatoes score.  At the time, it was in the mid 70% area.  Now, 70% is not bad by any means, but it certainly is not fantastic.  The film wasn't coming out for a few days so I knew that the score would change, and I hoped it would get higher.  However, in my heart I knew that these scores usually just get lower.  And it did.  Right now 'Man of Steel' is rocking a 56% on Rotten Tomatoes and an 8.0 on IMDb.  No one should actually ever take either of these websites' scores seriously, and I certainly didn't.  I went to the midnight premier of 'Man of Steel' with some friends of mine and have spent the days since thinking over the movie and deciding how I feel about it.  This is how I feel about it.

'Man of Steel' is not the greatest Superhero movie ever made.  Unfortunately, 'The Dark Knight' still holds that title and I doubt 'The Wolverine' will dethrone it.  So it goes.  'Man of Steel' is also not the worst of the bunch, it lies somewhere in the middle.

The reason why I thought 'Man of Steel' could be the greatest film of its genre was because the trailers to it were just so gosh darn good.  Trailer 3, in particular, is one of the greatest trailers I have ever seen.  What I love about these trailers, and what I thought it was saying the film would focus on, is that they highlight the dilemma of being the Man of Tomorrow.  One sees a conflicted Clark Kent in both is youth and young adulthood.  There is a moment where his adopted father, Johnathon Kent, tells him that it may have been better if he allowed a bus of kids to die.  I was really looking forward to watching Kal-el go on a spiritual journey of sorts trying to decide his purpose on Earth.  Unfortunately, while the final film does contain these great moments from the trailer, they are not much longer than how they were presented within the trailer.  The result, is a film whose pace for the first 100 minutes is way too fast and jumps around way too much and as a result, lacks focus and an effective arc.

Since most people are familiar with Superman's origin story, the filmmakers decided to tell the story in non-chronological order, opting to show moments of his childhood through flashbacks.  I understand why they did this, but I just think it was really ineffective.  'Batman Begins' used a similar technique but the key difference is that Bruce Wayne's primary story was more interesting.  In 'Man of Steel', Superman's story outside of the flashbacks is really thin and uninteresting.  He's kind of just meandering about.  One of my friends and I both agreed in saying that the film felt like a series of trailers that lead up to a 45 minutes action scene.

If the film had been told in chronological order, and if more time was spent focusing on his upbringing on Earth, then I think 'Man of Steel' could have been much better.  The 1978 film is featured in Roger Ebert's Great Movies collection and he opens his article on the film with, "The first time we see Superman in his red, blue and yellow uniform is nearly an hour into 'Superman.'"  Now, to be honest, I have no idea how long it was into the movie until we so Clark Kent don the uniform, but because of the non-chronological order, as well as other things, it felt too soon.  The trailers made me think that 'Man of Steel' was going to be a long movie, or it at least needed to be long if it were to be good.  143 minutes certainly isn't short, but I honestly think a good origin film for Superman should be near 3 hours.  I think so much of what makes his character great is that he grew up in Smallville, Kansas and his morals were molded by two Earthlings rather than Kryptonians.  In the 78 film we see Clark grow up with his adopted parents and we witness him grow and learn responsibility and how he stands compared to the rest of the human race.  We don't see that as much in 'Man of Steel'.  There is not enough Kansas in the film and too much destroying Metropolis.  I can't really recall what the story really was of Clark in the present time period before Zod shows up but I remember thinking that it felt like just an excuse for a lot of future action rather than standing on its own feet.

The music was solid but it sounded a bit too redundant to me.  Too much drum rolling.  It is not better than John Williams score.  I'm sorry fan boys, but it's not.

Many complained that the final action scene was too long and I partially agree.   A 45 minute battle isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The Battle of Minas Tirith lasts longer and essentially half of The Return of the King consists of massive battles.  The difference?  The Lord of the Rings had two previous films of character development and back story to engage the audience and make them care about what happens.  As I have gotten older I have become bored with actions scenes more easily.  I have realized that action scenes are simply boring without a strong narrative to support them.  There is a part in 'Man of Steel' when a woman is stuck under some rubble and a building is about to fall on her.  This goes on for kind of a while and the whole time I was thinking, "who is this person?  Why should I care if she dies vs. the thousands who are dying in these buildings?"  We don't even have much of a connection with Lois Lane or Superman so much of the action is simply eye candy.  But there are parts that are simply delicious, especially the super speed moments.  Also, another problem with the action is that it pretty much all comes at the end.  There aren't micro action scenes that build to the final battle.  There are two action scenes in the beginning, kind of a story, then 45 minutes with royal rumbling.  In the original movie you see Superman appear in Metropolis multiple times saving people and whatnot before his final encounter with Luthor.  Which leads me to...

Superman doesn't save anybody!  Except for Lois Lane...twice.  I saw something on reddit saying that the cost of the damage to Metropolis would be about $700 billion.  Now imagine the casualties, and we didn't see Superman saving anyone!  What is the point of being a hero if you don't save people?  Now compare that to this awesome scene in 'Spider-man 2'.

Much better.

A friend of mine pointed out that if Zod had been good-ish then his character and the movie would have been much better.  I completely agree.  If Superman had actually been divided morally between which side to be one the film would have certainly been more interesting.  I also think that another interesting direction the film could have gone in is if the Kryptonians by their nature was evil, and that Jor-el was an outlier or something.  Then it would have been the fact that Superman was raised on Earth that made him a hero.  Just a thought. 

Overall, the film was decent and entertaining but could have been SO much better.  The pace was too fast and not enough time was spent on the characters.  Clark Kent became Superman too fast and his relationship with Lois Lane developed WAY too fast and we never get a sense of development in anyone.  This is a movie that can benefit greatly from an extended director's cut and/or a fan edit.  There is a better movie in there somewhere.  If you left the film feeling disappointed then I would recommend reading 'Superman For All Seasons', it should make you feel better.  I do recommend it to anyone who is a fan Superhero movies, or big budget action movies in general.  I will see it again, although on video, but I look forward to giving it another look.  I think the 78 film is still better but I think 'Man of Steel' is better than 'Iron Man 3' and 'The Dark Knight Rises'.  Iron Man was kind of stupid and Batman was just a mess in terms of structure.

'Man of Steel' was not the film I was hoping for, but that just means I will have to make the Superman movie of my dreams on my own.

In summary:
1. Pace was too fast
2. Should have been in chronological order
3. We should have seen Clark Kent develop into Superman
4. Action was ok
5. Superman should have saved people
6. Lane love too fast
7. Was still entertaining




Johnathon Kent's death was retarded.