Wednesday, February 22, 2012
heavymetalmage asks: What are your top ten animations of all-time?
In no particular order (except that which I think of them...)
1. Ratatouille - My favourite Pixar movie, which is NOT a phrase I use lightly. There are others I love more for their action (Incredibles), emotional resonance (Up) or insane self-imposed challenge (Finding Nemo and Wall-E) but Ratatouille is the one I find the most beautiful and can just pop in and enjoy anytime. I also dig the oddball structure of the movie, very much in keeping with the setting and subject matter, and it's about rats. Rats are cool.
2. Who Framed Roger Rabbit - Holy shit. Did you know the animation in this movie was all traditional cel overlay? As in, they filmed the live-action, and then the animators were given photographs of the frames of the film, which they used to do the rough animation, and then it was all painted onto cels and composited back onto the film without the use of computers? Richard Williams is a goddamned madman, but the movie will hold up forever as a technical feat of the pre-digital era.
3. The Cat Returns - Why? I don't know. Not the prettiest, most well-written or best-directed Ghibli film, but every time I see a snippet of it, I feel compelled to watch the whole thing. I guess it's doing something right.
4. Lupin III: The Castle of Cagliostro - Lupin III and Miyazaki together (Miyazaki's directorial debut, in fact). A fun adventure, a more mature interpretation of the Lupin III characters, and some great music and action. It pales in comparison to later Ghibli films... but I love Lupin III.
5. Most of the Disney Goofy shorts (the "How To" and "Everyman" series) from the 40s through the 60s
6. Animaniacs - What a fantastic tribute to the old, great Warner Bros cartoons - back when the animation was expressive and full, they had as many jokes for adults as for kids, and they gleefully defied and mocked censorship and authority every chance they got. We're cycling back to being a little more liberal with the content of children's cartoons again, but it can still be surprising to see what anarchic humour Animaniacs and other WB/Amblin shows got away with. ("I Got Yer Can" springs to mind, but maybe just because I love Slappy so much.)
7. The Simpsons (earlier seasons, of course) - I don't have the knowledge of television to prove it... but if you ask me, The Simpsons DEFINED modern comedy in the early-to-mid 90s and beyond, not just for cartoons but TV in general. Made huge strides for animation being accepted as a medium for adults as well as kids in the west, and you know what? We're not crazy, the earlier seasons WERE that much funnier than the later ones. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_QCiAAUvHI
8. Futurama (seasons 1 to 3 and some episodes of 4) - Not even going to bother expanding on this one.
9. Pretty much any WW2 propaganda cartoon from either side, but especially this one - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y00ygpgALi0&feature=related
10. Ghost in the Shell (1995) - Stunning, atmospheric, cool, and has one of my all-time favourite musical scores of any movie.
You may notice I didn't mention any Disney features... this is because I couldn't pick a favourite if you put a gun to my head. But I can narrow it down to... either Fantasia, The Great Mouse Detective, Aladdin, The Lion King, Hercules, Mulan, or Lilo and Stitch.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
traitormagnus asks: What do you hope EA/BioWare does with Mass Effect post-ME3?
That's a really tough one to answer at this point, without knowing the plot of ME3 and all the potential outcomes the story might have. They've gone so deep in the "this is YOUR Shepard! These are YOUR choices!" mentality that to do anything outside of the main series becomes really awkward and difficult. In a perfect world (and what I predict will happen) is that the events of ME3, even if you get the best of all possible endings, will shake up and destroy so much of the Mass Effect universe as we know it (especially where humans are concerned) that they can jump ahead, say, 200 years, when Shepard will be dead, humans will have mostly returned to earth to recolonize, the rest of the galaxy will have been so busy with rebuilding and repopulating to have made little in the way of technological advancements, and we can establish a baseline setting not too far removed from ME1, minus a customizable Shepard running around ruining all things canon with her choices, and the looming threat of the Reapers dealt with.
That would be an ideal setup to start working on an MMO, which is something I would kill several men to see become a reality... but it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, because the likelihood of ANY big-budget MMO actually becoming a reality is so low, the development time we'd be looking at if they started it tomorrow would be nigh-on 5 years, and it's hard to say whether ME has the penetration to be worth that kind of risk at all (Star Wars: The Old Republic is about the safest, most marketable property you could possibly base an MMO on, and the jury is still out on whether it will have the long-term success EA is counting on).
What I think is more likely, looking at the big push EA has taken to market ME3 and the inclusion (and marketing) of the multiplayer in particular, is that we'll be getting some gaiden games for a little bit while EA/Bioware decides where to take the real meat of the franchise yet. Maybe there'll be an MMO someday, maybe there'll be another trilogy on the next generation, but in the meantime I'm thinking we'll get some simpler, smaller in scope games and some expansion on the multiplayer offerings of ME3. The collective whining of the hardcore fans and RPG buffs will cause planet-wide deafness in small animals, but I would LOVE it if they took this as an opportunity to try out some different genres and make games that are smaller in scope but explore a single part of the universe in greater detail. What about an FPS like Star Wars: Republic Commando that's all about what it's like to be a grunt in various species' armies? (oh, the backlash they'd get when they announced that one.) How about an action/adventure/mystery game about being an investigator for C-Sec? A sim about managing a colony? A puzzle game about being an engineer repairing ships in the Migrant Fleet!? The possibilities are endless!
Ultimately, I'm hoping they take their time to figure out the next big step for the franchise, and in the meantime, take a chance on expanding on the interesting parts of the universe to try and turn it into the hugely popular expanded universe it's always had the potential to be, rather than cynically trying to retread the OH MAN COMMANDER SHEP SO AWESOME GOTTA SAVE THE HUMANS GO ALLIANCE! that they imagine catches the attention of the lowest common denominator.
That would be an ideal setup to start working on an MMO, which is something I would kill several men to see become a reality... but it's not something I'm going to lose sleep over, because the likelihood of ANY big-budget MMO actually becoming a reality is so low, the development time we'd be looking at if they started it tomorrow would be nigh-on 5 years, and it's hard to say whether ME has the penetration to be worth that kind of risk at all (Star Wars: The Old Republic is about the safest, most marketable property you could possibly base an MMO on, and the jury is still out on whether it will have the long-term success EA is counting on).
What I think is more likely, looking at the big push EA has taken to market ME3 and the inclusion (and marketing) of the multiplayer in particular, is that we'll be getting some gaiden games for a little bit while EA/Bioware decides where to take the real meat of the franchise yet. Maybe there'll be an MMO someday, maybe there'll be another trilogy on the next generation, but in the meantime I'm thinking we'll get some simpler, smaller in scope games and some expansion on the multiplayer offerings of ME3. The collective whining of the hardcore fans and RPG buffs will cause planet-wide deafness in small animals, but I would LOVE it if they took this as an opportunity to try out some different genres and make games that are smaller in scope but explore a single part of the universe in greater detail. What about an FPS like Star Wars: Republic Commando that's all about what it's like to be a grunt in various species' armies? (oh, the backlash they'd get when they announced that one.) How about an action/adventure/mystery game about being an investigator for C-Sec? A sim about managing a colony? A puzzle game about being an engineer repairing ships in the Migrant Fleet!? The possibilities are endless!
Ultimately, I'm hoping they take their time to figure out the next big step for the franchise, and in the meantime, take a chance on expanding on the interesting parts of the universe to try and turn it into the hugely popular expanded universe it's always had the potential to be, rather than cynically trying to retread the OH MAN COMMANDER SHEP SO AWESOME GOTTA SAVE THE HUMANS GO ALLIANCE! that they imagine catches the attention of the lowest common denominator.
Friday, January 27, 2012
heavymetalmage asks: What is that one game that you love that everybody seems to hate?
It was critically successful but everyone on the internet constantly complains about it, so I guess I can say Dragon Age II. I can dig why a lot of people (especially hardcore fans of the first one) don't like it, and I come from a much different place since I didn't reeeaally like DA:O that much, but I still think DA2 did a lot of cool stuff and showed ways RPGs can move forward in this new era where games are much more expensive and the depth of setting means more than ever.
1. Mechanics. Overall, it was dumbed down, and that sucked. But I liked that the functions of the skills were more transparent, and it felt like every new one you put a point into significantly changed the way your class played. It was also neat that every party member, while they embodied a certain class and build, also had a skill tree that was totally unique to them. I know NEEERRRDS didn't like the fact there was no real crafting and instead you simply buy poisons and bombs from a shop once you find enough "ingredient spots". They also don't like the fact that main character Hawke is the only character whose armor you change and manage, while everyone else simply wears the same clothing throughout the game, with a couple accessory slots and permanent upgrades you can purchase.
This is because those people are boring assholes. Know what the gameplay difference is between crafting and buying poisons? Or equipping a side character with four pieces of armor and three accessories that altogether give them a set bonus, versus equipping them with two rings that give them the same set bonus? Hours of flipping through shitty menus, that's what. Plus, party members now have unique body types and interesting clothing that reflects their character and personality, rather than being a distinct head sitting on top of a stock body wearing the same ugly armor as everyone else. Yes please.
2. Like DA:O, no stupid goddamned morality system, and thank God. Like DA:O, it instead had "approval ratings" for your party members which would increase and decrease depending on what you said to them or did with them in the party, and at various levels of approval they got special buffs. UNLIKE DA:O, your party members wouldn't throw a hissy fit and leave if they disapproved of you, and you weren't punished for not making them like you by a lack of buffs. Instead DA2 has a separate set of "rivalry" buffs for pushing party members further into the disapproval ratings. Holy shit, what a great system it is. It sets up natural (and logical) rivalries between characters based around important questions in the setting (mages vs. not mages) or their occupation (the captain of the guard vs. the pirate) or their backstory (the guy who was enslaved by the mages of the Tevinter Imperium vs. mages again) but it eliminates the metagaming irritant of having to keep everyone happy by ENCOURAGING you to take a stance, and, if you don't like a certain character, purposefully piss them off.
3. Narrative. This is a big sticking point for a lot of people, because the game is set in different districts of one large city for the most part, rather than all around the country of Ferelden, but I liked it. For one thing, I don't think the fact the game is a sequel means it needs to follow a similar format for setting and story as the previous, and I don't know what they would have done if it did apart from just re-treading the first game with an even BIGGER and more EVILLER threat. I'll grant that the setting is a little too small for its own good and the game makes you wander around the same copy-pasted settings a lot... but I encourage people to go back and take a close look at the two or three hallways that DA:O copy and pasted up to three times in every. single. dungeon.
What the game actually reminded me of, and I think is a format we need to start thinking about a lot more in today's RPGs as opposed to the traditional world-spanning adventure format, is the Persona games. Set in one location in which the main character becomes a major player, over a long time period, you take on a different relationship with the setting and your party members, which I liked. Rather than a bunch of people setting everything aside to follow you around the world, they're personal friends, with lives and responsibilities of their own, and favourite places you can visit them when they're not in your party. They don't all sit around in your house waiting for you to take them on a mission, they accompany you on your odd jobs as a personal favour (and ask the same of you in return from time to time).
But my favourite aspect of the narrative, which really comes as an extension of the way the rest of the game is set up, is how character-driven it all is. There's no world-threatening force that you're all banding together to stop, instead the events of each of the major story arcs are directly set into motion by the actions of your various party members, sometimes in genuinely surprising ways (see: the reason for the Qunari occupation which is set up at the start of the game and makes up the entire second act, all turning out to be the singular fault of one of your party members. To say nothing of the endgame...). And when everything falls apart, because of course everything is going to fall apart, having one of your party members, who you may like or dislike or have romanced, at the center of all of it and having to choose whether to stand by them or throw them to the wolves, is cool as hell. I'm not saying it's a better way of telling a story (and it has its problems) but it's interesting and uncommon and I found it a lot more interesting than DA:O.
4. The game was way prettier than DA:O, the character designs were way better, and there was a lot more interesting and unique character animation in the cutscenes. What can I say, I'm a visual guy.
I could go on about how I thought it handled a lot of character romances really well, or how I really loved almost all of the characters, far more than anyone in DA:O, but I think this has gone on long enough.
It was critically successful but everyone on the internet constantly complains about it, so I guess I can say Dragon Age II. I can dig why a lot of people (especially hardcore fans of the first one) don't like it, and I come from a much different place since I didn't reeeaally like DA:O that much, but I still think DA2 did a lot of cool stuff and showed ways RPGs can move forward in this new era where games are much more expensive and the depth of setting means more than ever.
1. Mechanics. Overall, it was dumbed down, and that sucked. But I liked that the functions of the skills were more transparent, and it felt like every new one you put a point into significantly changed the way your class played. It was also neat that every party member, while they embodied a certain class and build, also had a skill tree that was totally unique to them. I know NEEERRRDS didn't like the fact there was no real crafting and instead you simply buy poisons and bombs from a shop once you find enough "ingredient spots". They also don't like the fact that main character Hawke is the only character whose armor you change and manage, while everyone else simply wears the same clothing throughout the game, with a couple accessory slots and permanent upgrades you can purchase.
This is because those people are boring assholes. Know what the gameplay difference is between crafting and buying poisons? Or equipping a side character with four pieces of armor and three accessories that altogether give them a set bonus, versus equipping them with two rings that give them the same set bonus? Hours of flipping through shitty menus, that's what. Plus, party members now have unique body types and interesting clothing that reflects their character and personality, rather than being a distinct head sitting on top of a stock body wearing the same ugly armor as everyone else. Yes please.
2. Like DA:O, no stupid goddamned morality system, and thank God. Like DA:O, it instead had "approval ratings" for your party members which would increase and decrease depending on what you said to them or did with them in the party, and at various levels of approval they got special buffs. UNLIKE DA:O, your party members wouldn't throw a hissy fit and leave if they disapproved of you, and you weren't punished for not making them like you by a lack of buffs. Instead DA2 has a separate set of "rivalry" buffs for pushing party members further into the disapproval ratings. Holy shit, what a great system it is. It sets up natural (and logical) rivalries between characters based around important questions in the setting (mages vs. not mages) or their occupation (the captain of the guard vs. the pirate) or their backstory (the guy who was enslaved by the mages of the Tevinter Imperium vs. mages again) but it eliminates the metagaming irritant of having to keep everyone happy by ENCOURAGING you to take a stance, and, if you don't like a certain character, purposefully piss them off.
3. Narrative. This is a big sticking point for a lot of people, because the game is set in different districts of one large city for the most part, rather than all around the country of Ferelden, but I liked it. For one thing, I don't think the fact the game is a sequel means it needs to follow a similar format for setting and story as the previous, and I don't know what they would have done if it did apart from just re-treading the first game with an even BIGGER and more EVILLER threat. I'll grant that the setting is a little too small for its own good and the game makes you wander around the same copy-pasted settings a lot... but I encourage people to go back and take a close look at the two or three hallways that DA:O copy and pasted up to three times in every. single. dungeon.
What the game actually reminded me of, and I think is a format we need to start thinking about a lot more in today's RPGs as opposed to the traditional world-spanning adventure format, is the Persona games. Set in one location in which the main character becomes a major player, over a long time period, you take on a different relationship with the setting and your party members, which I liked. Rather than a bunch of people setting everything aside to follow you around the world, they're personal friends, with lives and responsibilities of their own, and favourite places you can visit them when they're not in your party. They don't all sit around in your house waiting for you to take them on a mission, they accompany you on your odd jobs as a personal favour (and ask the same of you in return from time to time).
But my favourite aspect of the narrative, which really comes as an extension of the way the rest of the game is set up, is how character-driven it all is. There's no world-threatening force that you're all banding together to stop, instead the events of each of the major story arcs are directly set into motion by the actions of your various party members, sometimes in genuinely surprising ways (see: the reason for the Qunari occupation which is set up at the start of the game and makes up the entire second act, all turning out to be the singular fault of one of your party members. To say nothing of the endgame...). And when everything falls apart, because of course everything is going to fall apart, having one of your party members, who you may like or dislike or have romanced, at the center of all of it and having to choose whether to stand by them or throw them to the wolves, is cool as hell. I'm not saying it's a better way of telling a story (and it has its problems) but it's interesting and uncommon and I found it a lot more interesting than DA:O.
4. The game was way prettier than DA:O, the character designs were way better, and there was a lot more interesting and unique character animation in the cutscenes. What can I say, I'm a visual guy.
I could go on about how I thought it handled a lot of character romances really well, or how I really loved almost all of the characters, far more than anyone in DA:O, but I think this has gone on long enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)