• 14Jan 08

  Half-Life 3? Unfortunatley not.

  Valve. They really know what they're doing don't they? Every once in awhile they release a groundbreaking videogame that preforms on every aspect, usually bundled with another game of almost equal caliber. This combination of high-quality games and amazing offers has put it in a high place in the videogame world. Its flagship series, half-life, is a healthy mix of puzzle solving, great shooting and amazing plot. However, it isn't as strong as it was in 2004 or 1998, its mechanics are growing aged and its graphical style is slowly falling behind. Which brings me to my grim and sad editiorial...

  As we all know half-life 2: episode 3 will be the final chapter in the half-life 2 saga. Who is g-man? What was Eli talking about when he said "another black mesa"? Will Dr. Magnusson quit being a dick? Is Dr. Breen really dead? All of these and many more questions will probably be answered in Episode 3. However, what comes after Episode 3? If valve was smart it would reinvent half life as it is or (Which I hope they do) look for a new flagship series. Lets look at the elements that make up the half-life universe:

  1. Gordon Freeman. He is undoubtedly one of the videogame world's most unique and versatile hero. However, his silent protagonist role and inability to move the plot along by himself makes him rather weak in this day and age. He is the last of his kind, a silent protagonist and an intelligent, logical main character.

  odgasd

  • Posted Jan 14, 2008 4:56 pm PT
  • 1 Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 17Dec 07

  An open letter to Mr. Ebert

  I'm very well aware that I'm not the most popular guy on the web. Probably only two or three people are going to read this attack at Roger. It probably won't reach the popular movie critic and professional know-it-all ****
  
  
  "I mentioned that a Campbell's soup could be art. I was imprecise. Actually, it is Andy Warhol's painting of the label that is art. Would Warhol have considered Clive Barker's video game Undying as art? Certainly. He would have kept it in its shrink-wrapped box, placed it inside a Plexiglas display case, mounted it on a pedestal, and labeled it 'Video Game.'"
  These words have practically exploded on videogame forums everywhere, but I'm not here to discuss what the gamers say. I'm here to talk about why I think of Ebert and his comments as ignorant, unfounded and overall retarded.
  I'm not sure exactly what he means by saying that if Warhol grabbed Undying, put it on a pedestal and labeled it being art. Maybe he meant that only artists can make art, but in general, aren't we all artists?
  
  Art: an occupation requiring knowledge or skill
  This is one of the definitions that appears when art is looked up in Merriam-Webster. Knowledge and skill can be acquired in many ways, one of these ways is by going to a fancy ivy-league school another is by practicing endlessly and refining one's talent. In essence art is an abstract term that could refeer to anything that requires knowledge or skill. It could be a painting, a movie, a book, a picture, a song or even a videogame. In fact, videogames have become harder to produce than even movies, requiring more manpower and money. Play Final Fantasy 8 or 10 or 12 and then tell me that videogames are not an art. Play The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and then **** tell me that the thousands of dollars and people who devoted themselves to this behemoth of a project are not artists. Play The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and tell me that the enviroments in that game cannot be considered art. You Mr. Ebert are an ignorant man that cannot acknowledge art or effort. You sir did not even review Beowulf on your website, you merely wrote about how everyone in the audience was laughing at this movie. Are you aware how much money and manpower it takes to make a CGI movie of that calibur? I even doubt that anyone was laughing in that theater, it just baffles the mind that a crowd would react in such a way to such a well-produced movie. Of course, it has more quirks than usual but its based off of a nordic poem. They're not exactly known for the best pacing or writing ever, but it stuck close to its source material and thats what counts.
  
  "How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports."
  You are only further proving your hipocracy sir. There are thousands of games that do thousands of diffrent things. But in essence, everything has been done. Games are somewhat constricted by something called "mechanics" which movies don't have to worry about. In a movie you write, hire, shoot, distribute and get money. But in games there are many, many more steps to get your products on the shelf. Portals does use a "point and shoot" mechanic for much of itself but it integrates a portal instead of bullets. This is a physics based puzzle game, I don't think movies can be physics based.
  
  Like many other people Roger Ebert deserves to be punched in the **** Maybe fed a good videogame or two. I only judge after I have throughly tried something. This behavior is simply immature.
  
  Being a 65 year old man, to be called immature by a 16 year old boy should be indicative of your ignorance and apalling behavior.
  • Posted Dec 17, 2007 4:01 pm PT
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 1Dec 07

  The big Gertsman

  Wow... Kane and Lynch. That seemed like a pretty sweet game didn't it? Sure the graphics weren't nice, and the guns didn't seem all that cool but it looked like an awesome game. We all waited, watching the trailers, the publicity, the gamespot exclusives.

  And what did all of this culminate to?

  A 6.0 rating by none other than Jeff Gertsman.

  Rome was lit on fire, the titanic sunk, a train in Spain crashed, a tube station in London was bombed, the twin towers fell, millions of inoccent jews were slaughtered. Gamespot was lit aflame only a day after this review was submitted.

  Soon after Jeff Gertsman was fired by C-net and the rest of his superiors. What exactly got him fired will probably be a mystery, but for now I just suggest that you look at all the 1.0 user reviews on the Kane and Lynch page all because one man was fired. I honestly don't care who forced C-net to fire such a good reviewer, I just wish I knew why... In any case, I am not incredibly and irrationally irate like the larger part of the gamespot community because of this. The following examples might clarify why everyone is so angry at Jeff for giving Kane and Lynch a low review and why others are angry at C-net for firing him:

  The first faction that might have gotten Mr. Gertsman fired was the Kane and Lynch fanboys. Sometimes the media machine turns an average, rational gamer into a raving fanboy. I must say, the publicity on Kane and Lynch was genius, great trailers, great specials, skins, banners, the works. I myself was quite excited for the game, but when the 6.0 review came out I was confused.

  I decided to rent the game. Upon playing it I realized that most of Jeff's points were correct. The combat and gameplay felt a lot like Hitman with a cover mechanic and was severely lacking certain elements, the story was great and original and it had good style but the rating Jeff gave it was deserved.

  (I hope I don't get fired for that)

  The second faction that might have gotten him fired is Edios. This is the least probable faction for me because I've never seen any game company pull something off like this and I certainly wouldn't expect Edios.

  Lets all hope that this phase blows over soon.

  • Posted Dec 1, 2007 9:08 am PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »