Sunday 21 July 2013

Insert Coin to Play: Video Game Reflections

Welcome back to the Randomizer!

You know what's kind of missing from the Randomizer? More random things! I've talked about all sorts of things ranging from films to fantasy to historical subjects. But that's probably not going to be enough for your taste-buds is it? It also means that this blog will be completely misleading! You wouldn't want that now would you? So what could I talk about?

Video Games.



I might look like a love child between Cousin It and Ozzy Osbourne obsessed with rock music and dragons, but believe it or not I used to play quite the bit of video games in times past. From more obvious titles like Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario and Grand Theft Auto, to some others like Okami, Alien Storm and that really surreal game called 'Another World' where I always died at the hands of some fucking wolf spawn from 'The Hunger Games'.

(Seriously, I tried looking it up as I was writing. You play this blonde guy that gets sucked into this different dimension and then gets chases by this wolf thing. Look it up on Youtube, it goes through all the multiple ways you can die haha J).

So why do I want to talk about video games? Like wrestling, I had a great love for playing these games, but over the recent years I had lost my appetite somewhat for video games as I've grown older, becoming more focused on my novel and film-making in general. But I still played the odd game every now-and-then albeit causally more than anything else. And I do keep up with a few games being made and look up games I have played in the past.

And I'd be living in a cave, underwater, below a small island, on a huge planet, in another part of the universe and asleep if I hadn't heard of the forthcoming eighth generation consoles: the sounded awesome PS4, Wii U and the so far unpopular Xbox One (ha ha ha). So far if I was to get one of those consoles, it would definitely be PS4. From what I heard, it seems quite fun to play and with all the digital stuff it allows you to do with friends, might be onto something.

So with doing this article, I can reflect back on what games I've played on what console (believe me there will be quite a bit), what is my favourite console of all-time (for the moment) and see whether, just whether, I would be tempted to become integrated back into the world of gaming. So far it's quite a possibility.
I won't be including WWE games on this since I've talked about them already in my wrestling article. Fun as those were for me, I don't think many people will be as geared up to read me ranting or harping on about the video games. (If you are interested, drop me a comment hehe and I might considered it in the future).

So here then is a reflection of my history in Video Gaming.



Yes, this is sometimes what it consisted of.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's start with the first console I (and my brother) ever had: the Sega Mega Drive.



If you have orgasmed from looking at this console please go clean yourself up before carrying on.

Released in 1988 in Japan first before America and Europe, the Mega Drive was a force to reckoned with, carrying on from its Sega Master System console. Over the years, it released very memorable games such as the bloody controversial Mortal Kombat, the raging furry popular Altered Beast, and......some blue hedgehog apparently? Frank wasn't it?

Anyway, the console itself managed to not only carry on its popularity in Europe, but also made a mark in North America selling 39.7 million units worldwide. And it's worth mentioning that though the console itself is called 'Mega-Drive', in America Sega could not gain the rights to use the name, so they ended up using 'Sega: Genesis'. Not exactly the best name to give a console in my personal opinion, though it did give rise to the tagline: 'Genesis does what Nintendon't'. Apparently they also used quite adult material to promote a joystick connected with the console, stating 'The more you play with it, the harder it gets'. .....ok then. Don't remember fiddling around the joystick that much when I was a kid.

Two years on, the Nintendo SNES (Super Nintendo Entertainment System) was released and soon, the two companies developed a big console war rivalry for dominion over the world, eventually coming out on top selling nearly 10 million more than the Sega. Though this was due to the fact that Nintendo was still popular in Japan, selling 17.7 million. So thanks to Japan (and psychopathic rabbits concerned), Nintendo had the edge. Everywhere else though, Sega seemed to have won the majority.

The console stopped production around the end of the 90s, support being dropped in 1998 around Europe. But weirdly, it hasn't been dropped around the world fully. In Brazil the Mega-Drive still looks to be around, released under the name 'Tec-Toy' and using built-in games as opposed to using the cartridges. Now that is weird, but kind of heart-warming at the same time. The console itself looks to be still very popular if still in the 21st century! So maybe then SEGA still comes out on top, perhaps spiritually.

I had a lot of fond and probably not-so fond memories playing on the Mega-Drive, with a variety of games I played on with my older brother.

The one game we played constantly was Sonic 3, which was awesome. Obviously trying to collect all the gems so we could save Sonic's world from the evil Dr. Robotnik (no, not Eggman. I know it's what he was called in the original Japanese, but I just have the feeling that Robotnik sounded better. Suck it). Considering how we actually did on the game, I'd say we were good. The farthest we got was level 4 I think, the Carnival Level. And that was mostly The Bro I think.  The most times we played on it was doing those 2-player battles, racing each other to death with equal bitching at each other for doing this and that. All in the spirit of brotherly love. Or what brotherly love could be mustered without killing each other.

Another one we used to play a lot was Alien Storm. Does anyone remember that? The beat-them-up with aliens and you had a choice between a man, woman or robot to play with? This might jog your memory.



If that didn't help, you never had a childhood. Shame on you for not buying this game. Alien Storm is a very good game to play, having played it recently this week to jog my memory. It's your basic side-scroller going through multiple enemies and killing the shit out of them Never completed it at all, though the Bro has come close to doing it on the last level I believe. Until a complete cock of an alien killed him. That was just rude. At least I think it was an alien, and not Katie Price.

Anyway, there were some games I wasn't good at. One was Super Thunder Blade. You flew around in a helicopter trying to blow up tanks, big moving junk and other helicopters to achieve your goals. Sort of like an Arnold Schwartzenenger or Sylvester Stallone action movie.  This game was a bit of a bastard. I used to be ok when playing it on the actual Mega-Drive, but now whenever I try to play now on the Sega Mega Collection, just can't do it. Not to save my life, with all the buttons all around confusing and getting blown-up frequently grrrr. Can't pass on the 1st level at all. Sad Panda.

The other game I had no help with was Another World. I....had nothing. This was such a ball-buster to even start with, death was at every turn and I just end up getting killed by The Hunger Games wolf thing at the start. That or drowning, or getting killed by that creature that lived in the swimming pool. I don't care if it wasn't, it still looked like one to me! I had no idea what to do on it, couldn't do anything at all, it wasn't the game for me to play. Even though I attempted to.

I'm entering the Guinness Book of Records for most deaths on one sitting!


Despite some of those games, I really enjoyed playing some of the Sega games available! Some we even played when we were down in Elmswell near Bury St. Edmunds, with our old neighbours The Thompsons (Shout out!). They had the more games to play I think, but they were still fun and took up hours of our time to sort out.

Today, I still find some enjoyment from playing the games on the Sega Mega Collection. I just feel quite nostalgic when destroying things or living the adventure I had with them, it was just a barrel of laughs. And yes, I am a man child. Nothing wrong with that at all :D.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My next generation console was of course the popular PlayStation.



Let me ask you one question: You can imagine Nintendo using discs now, but can you in 1988?

Nintendo and Sony Entertainment came to an agreement in that year to develop a CD attachment, called the Super-Disc, for the SNES. They initially 'showed' it in 1991 for multimedia use at first; using audio CDs, video data and also a cartridge port for the Super Nintendo. Due to contract and licensing issues, Nintendo decided to break the agreement and forge an unholy alliance with Sony's rival Phillips. Whoops. Therefore, the original Super-Disc was never released and Sony continued to develop the project further in their own time.



Sony actually made 200 of these original 'Play Stations', but then made a decision to remake them and scrapped the design for more 'game' opportunities. And the landscape of gaming changed forever. The new design was dubbed the 'PlayStation X (PSX)', dropping the cartridge ports and focusing on specifically on CD-ROMS, and changing the hardware to ensure a proper responsive experience. And thus history was written.

Released in 1994 and finally on our shores in 1995, the Play-Station proved extremely popular, already having one million sold in Japan after released in six months, and by 1996 had sold 7 million worldwide. It was originally priced at $299 dollars and, while a bit expensive, was $100 dollars cheaper then SEGA's new console: Saturn.



In particular, the CDS quickly overrode the use of cartridges as the new format could offer more space and allow for better production values. So really, the SEGA Saturn and the upcoming Nintendo 64 hardly had a chance to have a proper console war, having to settle for third and second place respectively (I say respectively, it was probably more like "....shitfuckballs"). Both SEGA and Nintendo dropped the cartridge format afterwards for their next product.

After 11 years of shelf-life, The Play-Station was discontinued and now can be seen in various Ebay accounts or the attic in your house. And how many did Sony sell altogether? Well, the Sega Saturn sold 9.5 million worldwide (compared to its predecessor is a very big margin). The Nintendo 64 sold under 33 million. The Playstation sold just a tiny, weeny, little bit more. 102 million. Console War? Probably not.
So what can I say about the Playstation? Well, I must admit, I never really played so many games on it. As a kid at the age of....7/8 and having it from 1997, the games I played on it were far and few in between. OK maybe VERY far and few in between.

One game I do remember playing on it was Rugrats. .....Yea, Rugrats. I remember playing this quite a while ago and completing it in about a day. Seriously it was that ridiculously easy. Well some of it was. But when I was younger, some of the levels really annoyed the fuck out of me. Like trying to find Cynthia the doll in some sewage system, avoid a goose with false teeth in them and doing that mini-golf game. That was the only time I remember losing a life once when I played it just the other day. So yeah that was piss-easy.

Erm...what other games did I play that wasn't WWE related.....I did a few demos on it once, like games like Spyro....which I really don't remember playing so much.  And Crash Bandicoot as well....for a little while.....

Oh! There was one game I did attempt to play. Heart of Darkness. Whoever remembers this too, you are good with me. For those who don't know, the plot follow a kid called Andy whose dog called Whisky was captured by the Darkness. Erm...Whisky the Dog. Did Andy like a bit of the Jack Daniels or something? At his age? But I digress. Andy obviously to save and is quite a child genius, somehow conviently having made his own spaceship and going to the other dimension to save him.

That darkness demon is offering them some Old No.7


Putting aside obvious plot holes, the game was mildly annoying. I kept dying at every different moment, which was probably why I stopped playing it in the first place. I must say, the death scenes can be quite graphic. Even if no blood is shown, this kid can eaten up, incinerated and even have his neck snapped. Well, fuck me sideways, and call me Shirley. I am dead serious. And you can call me Shirley if you like.
As I mentioned I never completed this game, only got up to I think the swamp monster part. Without cheating I think. I think I did it once to complete the game because I wanted to get to the end. But honestly it's been ages.

Ahh, another game remembered! One that I also enjoyed! Batman Forever: The Arcade Version. Playing as Batman or Robin, you basically beat up anyone that walked into your path and got some very interesting power-ups and special moves where you actually use the Bat-Grapple to fly your opponents into the screen. I wanna play that again! Nothing really special to it at all, just a fun game to beat the shit out of the bad guys!
I suppose I really don't have that many vivid memories playing on the Playstation. Never played stuff like Spyro the Dragon, Crash Bandicoot or even Final Fantasy VII. Only on ones like Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (bastard to play), Yu-Gi-Oh Forbidden Memories (fucking bastard to play), Batman and Robin (good thing that was rented) and 007 Racing (good-fucking god I won't go into any detail on this one!). Only a few good memories of being on that machine as a young kid, with many exceptions.

Really, I was probably more of a traitor to the Playstation, for I played on the N64 more times. And that was my brother's console! Seriously, how could I not? With games like Mario Kart, Mario 64 and of course the legendary Goldeneye 007, the N64 wasn't one to be ignored. Of course we didn't really get the other famous ones like Ocarina of Time and Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, but I think that didn't matter. We still had more fun, especially nowadays where I can kick my brother's ass on Mario Kart and Goldeneye 007, it's a barrel of laughs ;). Maybe from personal experience I just had more fun on that, and think fondly of it more so than the Play-Station. Also maybe we should've switched the consoles with each other.

I regret nothing


-----------------------------------
Soooo, how do you go one step better than one of the most successful consoles of all time?



I think the picture speaks for itself.

In 1999, the console was unveiled by Sony and showed off its range of functions. It could act as another DVD player in the house and, probably much more importantly for some ardent fans, playback the original Play-station games. For a launching, it looked and spoke impressively. In fluent French I believe. However, its first batch games were not very good to sater tastes. Some games were apparently meant for the original Playstation, such as Dark Cloud and Gran Turismo 2000.

When it was finally released in 2000 in sporadic months, it was up SEGA's latest forae and soon nostalgic memorabilia, the Dreamcast. Released earlier two years ago, it had some initial success and some well-remembered games. Apparently. I never took much notice. Some of those games include Crazy Taxi and Shenmue. Unfortunately, among the financial difficulties and looking not as impressive as the PS2 in general, SEGA announced that not only would they stop producing Dreamcasts, but also they would not make another console in future. It was a depressing end for one of the best makers of the Mega Drive. And in hindsight, this was not the true console war for the 'Sixth Generation'.

Alas poor Dreamcast, I could care less


The Playstation 2 slowly gathered momentum with its first million dollar game: Onimusha: Warlords 15 months after release. After that, more releases came into the fold over the years. Final Fantasy X was released to great praise and memorable characters. The Grand Theft Auto series released 3 games in the space of 3 years with GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas reaching great praise. And of course there is the God of War series, maybe being the main flagship series for the console in general.

Trying to catch the PS2 tail's were two equally famous consoles. The first, Nintendo released their Gamecube in Japan 2001 and obviously kept their popular series in tow, releasing Mario Kart: Double Dash and Super Smash Brothers Melee. Despite selling 22 million worldwide, I don't really remember many striking titles from its gaming library at all outside all the ones featuring Mario in some form. I never really took much of a proper interest in it and it didn't exactly appeal to me as a gamer. And apparently, it lacked the other technical features like the PS2 which didn't help matters. In the end, its sale figures lacked those of the N64, and it was discontinued only 5 years later. That surely was a bad sweet to swallow.

The second was unveiled by a very familiar company called Microsoft, and would start to set the world alight. The Xbox. Or as I might call it: Meh. Released in America in 2001, the Xbox had a steep mountain to climb after the PS2, launching the first of its acclaimed series, Halo: Combat Evolved and having its own save storage system instead of the memory card used by the PS2. A year after its release, the online service Xbox Live was created and innovated an inevitable future: online game on consoles. Despite the range of popular 1st-person shooters like Halo's popular multiplayer sequel (which I have played), the Xbox's sales could not amount to the dominate PS2, clocking around 24 million consoles sold. But things would get a little bit better...

Anyway, sorry for my talking a lot about the Xbox. It won't happen much again.

After a couple years, the original bulky design of the PS2 was revamped into a smaller and thinner model, appropriately called the 'Slimline' version. Originally in black, they actually released a silver version over here in the UK, one of which I brought along with my bulky PS2. Despite lacking some technical features removed from the bulky version, it didn't dent sales at all. Also one thing to note is that some actually came in different colours, as opposed to the usual black scheme.

Of course, all good things must inevitably come to an end. On January 4th 2013, Sony announced that the PS2 would be discontinued. 12 years and 10 months of being the shelf is a very long time, outlasting all its major opponents in a decade. And how much did it sell overall? Over 150 million units. Over 50 million more than its predecessor. That is a very big margin. And again, no console war, just complete domination by Sony.

The PS2 brought me properly back into the fold (after I begged and grovelled for disrespecting the Play-Station) and this was the console that was probably just right for me. And the number of games I had for it was so much more extensive. I had a range of everything, from singing games to action games, RPGs and driving games, it was all fun. So much more than the Play-Station could ever really muster.

One of the bigger games I played on was Final Fantasy X, my only entry into playing Final Fantasy ever. And I found it interesting to play. The bad side of it was I could never play that underwater league sport game Blitzball. Always tackled, always letting in goals it was a hampering experience. The plus side was I got to understand how the gameplay worked, how to build up the characters strength and got to play with the various Aeon monsters. I did think that the story was good and I can't think of anything specifically bad from it. But I just couldn't complete it, due to my own mistakes in selling stuff which I shouldn't have done and eventually felt as if I couldn't carry on. As well whenever you're in the middle of something, a monster of some variety comes out of nowhere and attacks. It's one of those games I liked, but never got around to loved.

Is she turning herself into a mermaid, or giving herself a huge tail?


Now I hear that they are planning to re-release onto the PS3 and I might consider playing this game again, perhaps in a hope of redeeming myself.

The action game I had some difficulty with was James Bond: Everything or Nothing. Believe me, sometimes it took an age to try and complete these levels. Some of which, you had to get the timing exactly right when riding a motorbike to catch onto a train, avoiding being hit while in the air to catch the Miss. Bond Girl 2004 and defeating Willem Defoe in an unexplained villain revenge that's never really heard of. Just for plot convience. The game-play was a tad annoying, though the driving levels were quite fun to play when you had an access to a number of vehicles. And it had a co-op mission thing that was pretty stupid anyway. Despite those parts though, I did have some fun with it. It is like a James Bond Movie, and allows you to actually be stealthy as well as shooting everything in sight. It was enjoyable, though I don't think I'd take much of an interest in it again. It's been too long since playing it and I'm not sure I'd enjoy it as much again.

One game series in particular that I got into is the LEGO movie series, starting with LEGO Star Wars. Despite it being a kid's game, I didn't give a shit. Played it, Completed it, played it over so I could unlock everything, I just had fun. Despite some levels being quite tedious to get through and the inevitable spoilers it came with, it didn't stop my overall enjoyment. The puzzles were challenging but not overly difficult to complete. The flying levels were limited, but you still got a chance to blow stuff up. Overall, it was a perfectly balanced game. Since having LEGO as a child (who didn't?), it's actually stayed with me for over 24 years even though I haven't built a model for a long time. And the humour in the series is very good, being slapstick and more facial expressional than anything. Since then, I have collected mostly all the LEGO games AND will hopefully still collect them to this day!

Some of the other games I have that deserve a mention are: Star Wars Battlefront 2, which I had good fun with, and enjoyed the conquer mode when playing as a faction to destroy the enemy. X-Men: Legends was a good romp through, with a nice storyline and a cast of characters to choose from. The Sonic Mega Collection brought back some nostalgia and allowed me to play through the Sonic Games I had not come across. And finally, I should mention Singstar. Only had the 80s versions properly and sang through most of them. Some were good, some iffy.

Overall, I had a lot more fun on the PS2 then its predecessor. Yes I did play some games on the Xbox and had some fun on them too, but I never been fully influenced to buying one. I'm always hearing how the Xbox is better in comparison, but from what I've read I'd disagree strongly. The PS2 has the bigger library for games overall, the better selling rates, and I just had more fun playing on that particular console than ever. It was really my time as a video-game player, and I wouldn't have passed that time up for much else at all. The PS2: One of the best consoles ever in the world.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After dominating the world for over a decade, Sony would finally be brought down to level with Microsoft and Nintendo in the Seventh Generation console. And appropriately, this will be as far as history goes.

Microsoft released the Xbox 360 in November 2005 close to a year before Sony and Nintendo, putting it in the hopes of dominating the world market early before the others had a chance. And to start with, it did seem to be doing just that. The console sold out in the UK and over 326,000 sold in that same month in the USA. Clearly, they were probably planning this after the Xbox was released. However, the dreaded 'Red Ring of Death' became common-place for gaming fans as the console became suspectible to hardware failures, warning them that the console people brought with them had a deadly curse brought on them......huh, must've been that evil witch called Sandy Orion Nebella Yaravitch. Russian you know. Despite this problems however, the Xbox 360 has been very successful, selling over 78 million worldwide so far, a huge step-up from the Xbox.

I feel wrong for having this picture included


Nintendo in the meantime overcame their Game-Cube efforts, and released the famous Wii console. This console brought motion-control to the gaming front with their own Wii Remote, as players could now attach it to their wrists and subsequent found they have broken TV screens if the remotes happened to fly out of their hands inconviently. Some of the games I have read reviews for weren't probably helpful for the Wii and its new remote, but it's had some obvious successful ones. You can guess which ones. Nintendo wanted the game to be for everyone from young people to an older generation and not focused only on the one gamer, which made sense considering the added incentive of Wii Sports as the first bundled game. The console was a great success for Nintendo, selling over 99 million consoles and bringing it back into the fold across the world.

The PlayStation 3 itself was launched on 11 November 2006, a week before the Wii. Like the Wii trying to bring something new to the table, Sony decided to go in a technical direction. All the PS3 discs would use Blu-Ray technology and be a secondary Blu-Ray player for films alike. Along with this, they made their own PS Network so people could buy upgrades for games and other tid-bits for their own profile on the system. So everything seemed in good order and funky dory. How did it all fuck up?

I should have used protection more.....


From the start the console suffered a series of set-backs which probably led to the floundering reputation it mercilessly picked up.

Firstly, the console was delayed by at least 5 months when it was finally released in Europe of March 2007, being the last of the Seventh Generation to be released in this time. Despite that setback, it sold 600,000 in the first couple days. This would only be the start of the trouble.

Secondly, On March 1st 2010 as some of you might remember, some older consoles had a problem with their internal clock and players were having trouble trying to log into the PSN. Some had noted that a string of numbers came up spelling out: 8001050F. This was an apparent error that affected logging in, the number of trophies collected and even games that were offline. It was even pointed out that the clock had reset to December 1999. Obviously someone still wanted to try to end the world a decade after it was supposed to. Douche. But this problem was soon rectified by Sony over two days and everything was back to normal.
But over a year later, another problem would spell 'FUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKKK' over Sony in dry white paint, possibly with a big green X in the middle.

On April 20th 2011, Sony announced that it had discovered an extensive intrusion in its PSN and shut it down. By then, the damage was done. It was revealed that a few days beforehand, hackers had entered into the network, proceeding to take user data and personal information. Sony had found something amiss a day before and took measures to close down their network until further notice. It was possible that all 77 million accounts at the time could have been affected and Sony apologised for the outage, becoming infamously known as the PSN Outage. 29 days after the first steps occured, Sony finally brought the network back up on May 15th, with new installed protection. But the consequences were far-reaching. It cost Sony 171 million to bring everything back to normal and as Colin Moriarty of IGN states:

The mentality of PS3 gamers changed by the time the outage was over. Many Podcast Beyond listeners noted that they no longer trusted Sony with their credit card information and instead opted to use store-brought PlayStation Network cards. Others refused to buy anything off the PSN Network at all

Though I have read through the comments on this page and some people have said that they still trust Sony, which kind of puts that quote into perspective.

In the years since it has been released, the Playstation 3 has sold 75 million units so far. While that is considerable, when compared with the Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii, it is pretty bad. Way under half of what the PS2 had sold. Maybe the incidents in question did damage Sony's reputation and allowed Microsoft and Nintendo to capitalise effectively into the market. Nintendo had regained its lead of selling the best console since the 80s and Microsoft had effectively gained something at least. A cocky personality.

For Sony, the PlayStation 3 must be considered the dark horse with as many problems as the Twilight Saga. Its reputation has climbed higher in recent years again, having sorted out its problems as fast and best as they could. But should the PlayStation 3 really be classed as a failure in the gaming world? Perhaps yes. These incidents had happened and the console itself has sold less than perhaps expected. Maybe Sony has learned from them when they finally release the PS4 later this year.

My experiences with the PS3 came after the Outage, and needless to say the only few problems I've only had was:

      1)      With the updating I have to do every so often. I find it an absolute bugger because it's all the waiting and I want to play the game! Not have to wait the updates to do their work. Argh! Updating this, updating that, it's a nightmare.

      2)      The non-existent backwards compatibility for PS2 games. Recently the PS3 consoles only accept the original PS games as opposed to PS2 ones. Why? I suppose there wasn't much point if many people already had a PS2 already. That makes sense right? Hmmm. Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

Apart from that, I haven't had a peep at all. Everything else is alright.

The games I've played are quite enjoyable. The first game I ever brought was Wolfenstein , which was quite difficult, but still fun to play. You got a variety of weapons to play with, especially using the Tesla Gun and Particle Gun to destroy your Nazi enemies. And you got to have your own miniature open world to explore, find upgrades for everything and finding out all the secret areas to go through, it's a little Grand Theft Auto....with Nazis! This was one of the games I actually managed to complete in good time, even though I didn't explore enough of the secondary world the first time around. The levels are nicely paced, the world very grimy and of course, there's quite the gore! You can't have a game with Nazis and not have some amount of blood! Needless to say, a good game all around.



Another game I had a good time playing was Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure. Some of you might have heard about this, where you have to use a portal accessory to use mini figurines that appear on-screen. I had a good laugh playing this when by myself or with a friend, as we went through the different challenges and had to collect all the different models to play with to open up new areas.  I especially enjoyed the psychotic ginger model with the guns on both hands, haha! Admittedly I haven't played on it in ages, but I have some good memories playing it. Maybe it's something to try again since I actually had a good time.  I actually was going to, but then I found I didn't have all the models I brought Argh!! It's hiding somewhere.....maybe the cat's nicked it. Still, when I find it, I will give this game another proper go.

The one game I found quite annoying was 'Brother's in Arms: Hell's Highway'. When I first started playing I didn't find it too bad, but as I went along I just kept dying and dying from bloody Nazis. I think the controls weren't very helpful either, as I had to find cover and switch through weapons, give my men orders through hand movements and such by sending them to their deaths, get shot on a daily basis. It was like a check-list you had to complete by screwing up a lot and I'm pretty sure I did all of those things. Needless to say, I gave up after a few tries on the third level I think it was....and have never really touched it since.

That's kind of how it is with the PS3 at the minute, not playing on it at the minute. With the different going on's in my life, I haven't taken much of an interest in playing on it at all, least until this past week. Obviously some of the games I have played have been good like what I've mentioned, along with Red Dead Redemption, Sega Mega Collection and Call of Duty (because what can be said about call of duty that's original?). It doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing on it, just I have other interests that have cropped up and now I'm turning into a workaholic. That's probably not a good thing. Boooo! It is cool to have a PS3 around at home, and have a nice collection of games to play. But I suppose with all that's happening, I don't give myself a break. And it hasn't been a bad break from it in honesty. It's not the best console I've had, but it's up there somewhere.

------------------------------------------------------------
So where do I and everyone go from here?

Well, considering all that's happening now with the upcoming Eighth Generation consoles of PS4 and Xbox One (why is it called that again?), along with the recent Wii U.

My first impressions of the digital features came from the Xbox and I was sceptical. While being the more expensive at a price of £429 pounds, their marketing for the new console has undoubtedly been a disaster. Some of these original policies have been changed recently so I'll try to keep up with them easily.

Firstly, the console gave the impression that it had to be connected to the Internet every day, once every 24 hours, even for offline games. If this wasn't done, this would affect your personal library and updates for your game, as well as not allowing you to play those games you brought unless you were connected. Secondly, trading games was possible if you had a friend that was on your 'list' for 30 days, but you were limited to doing it just once. As well for used games, if you uploaded one onto your system and pass it onto another user, they would have to pay a fee to use that game because it was connected to your profile already.

Xbox One would make a good HAL


Now most of these policies have been lifted by Microsoft in an 'oh fuck, we should make everyone happy' moment and now there are no restrictions on internet nor trading and selling games onto friends. But the damage has been done. Fans were not happy by those restrictions and Microsoft representatives weren't very helpful in explaining how this new system would work before everything changed.

Sony took advantage of the Xbox Crisis, saying from the off that the PS4 would have no limitations on used games and sharing with friends, nor require online connection in anyway for playing games. And in addition, the PS4 Camera does come separately but even buying that with the console, it is actually still cheaper than the Xbox One, clocking at £393 altogether. So from the looks of it, Sony has the better edge to keep its fanbase, and possibly even luring Xbox fans away after the debacle. Whether Sony could dominate again after this, it's impossible to say. The Wii U has sold over 3.45 million so far since released last year, and could go higher even then. I have yet to play on Wii U so I couldn't really comment for it.

If I was to buy one of the next consoles, you could guess which one I'd go for. Wii U :P. Nah, the PS4 as I've mentioned at the start of this article. I just don't feel as if the Xbox One has given e something to be interested about at all, and I have no personal likeness for them much. Almost always been a PlayStation, almost always will. And when looking at the amount of games that will be released, there are some I might consider buying on first impressions from the pictures and what was said about them, like Secret Ponchos, DC Universe, and Wolfenstein: The New Order.

I will BOW to you


So you never know, watch this space! :D
---------------------------------------------------------------
So after all my talking about my time as a gamer and reflecting each console history and how I felt about them, one question remains: Would I return to gaming on the whole, to play these games over and over again and still feel as if I enjoy them?

Yes, but not on the whole.

I'll admit, I have had some great reminders of the games I have played in the past and remember how much I liked playing them. But as of now, the main focus of my life is writing as my developing profession. My passion for gaming might have lessened somewhat for me not to play every week, and I don't think about playing on a video as often because I am trying to develop my own future. However, there is a little bit still there that I like to do, playing as tiny LEGO figures, killing aliens without feeling bad or an ounce of mercy, and driving cars around tracks. I'll still play them whenever I just feel like it. As a casual, semi-retired gamer. Without so much as a pension. Very bad.

So yes, I would still play games on the whole, but won't be forgetting my future anytime soon. Unless Sony stops making consoles, which I hope DOESN'T happen. Maybe one day, video gaming may become a major passion again. But for now, I'm content in my state of grace in casual gaming.

And with that.....


--------------------------------------------------

Thanks for reading the Randomizer as ever J. Til the next fortnight, Good Night!

Friday 5 July 2013

The Horror....The Horror!!!.....AMERICAN REMAKES!!!

Welcome back to the Randomizer!

Horror fiction.



It has been a major genre in the world since time immemorial. We cannot escape it. Or do we want to? Many aspects have become such a familiarity in the public imagination that without them, we wouldn't have a proper gateway into the horror world.

The genre has a variety of supernatural creatures and characters that have been embossed on our brains since their creation and leave quite an impression on us. Such characters include the staple literature of the Dracula, Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, to the conventional horror villains of film today with Jason Voorhees, Freddy Kruger and Michael Myers.

With the characters, we enter into many different worlds: Some are complete gothic works from the 18th-19th century, the world of the Gregorian and Victorian eras invaded by forces ethereal to our known humanity. Others are set in modern day, where our sense of reality is again threatened by demonic-like characters.

(Though of course it would be ignorant to not mention that some horror characters are not really a threat. Really, some of them are pushed too far like Stephen King's Carrie, or victims of their own selves like Eli in 'Let the Right One in').

But recently with Hollywood films at any rate, the Horror genre has....suffered, shall we say? Not in all places but in some, specifically the remakes of horror icons. These types of films have not been very well received by critics. For example, the recent 2010 remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street has a lowly rated 15% compared to the 1984 original, which has 95% on Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer.

This is something that had bugged me for a while, more in films than literature. Some elements of these horror films do not leave a mark on us at all. Rather they just fly by, presenting girls and boys who get offed/shot/axed/pegged rather bloodily by the monster of the week, but of course the lone survivor just kicks the villains ass in some form or other. Basically Scooby-Doo without the dog, and lots of gore.
But it could still be worth looking if the horror genre is still scary, simply to find out if there's anything to be scared about from recent 80s icon remakes to what could be considered to be horror in our own eyes. So maybe the question is:

What is wrong with these horror remakes?


-----------------------------------------------------------
In the 2000s as you may have noticed, there has been a trend in Hollywood to remake horror films from the 70s and 80s. Those films, as some of you may know, are coined as 'Slasher Films': films that essentially have a body count thanks to the resident bad guy, who appears depending which camp or town you go to. York doesn't really boast any of these problems so you'd be quite safe. Same with Lincoln I'd imagine. But I digress. The old films gave rise to the cult horror figures we know today in mainstream horror.
The new ones however, don't seem to hold up well in the eyes of critics. 

The first film I will look at is the Friday the 13th remake, directed by Marcus Nispel.



Kim Newman reviewed the remake for Empire Magazine. He stated that:

This ditches the mild mystery of the original by running through the business about Jason's mad mother in a brief prologue then shuffles through plot elements from the first three sequels - without addressing the bizarre logic whereby Mrs. Voorhees (Nana Visitor) kills to avenge her son's death, only for Jason to turn out to be alive and killing to avenge her decapitation....Jason is frankly a dull-thug of a character - a knockoff goon besides Michael Myers, the Texas cannibal clan or Freddy Krueger - and the film trudges without suspense, atmosphere, terror or wit from one unimaginative kill to the next.

So what he means is that the film somehow manages to drop any interesting plot devices in favour of referencing the old franchise, as well as taking a shot at Jason being a boring character compared to the other American horror icons.

This is true since Jason uses a cloth mask for a time, taken from the sequel Friday the 13th Part 2 and after that is forcibly removed, he finds and places the famous hockey mask over his head, which has been synonymous with the character since Friday the 13th part III. And of course they keep the focus on Jason since obviously he is the popular character. But as Newman stated above, the odd thing is in the original film he wasn't the main character, but a catalyst for his mother to kill the camp counsellors whom she felt responsible for his death. He became the main star throughout the sequels afterwards, and his mother became a side character.


Poor Pamela...


I think I'm starting to see a problem with remaking or re-imagining a film series. If by using the popular plot elements from a number of films and placing them all into one film, it doesn't give you much scope to work with and too much limitation to include every single one of them in, possibly making the film a bit of a cluttered mess. Imagine if the recent Star Trek movies had done this, to include every possible reference made from the original TV series or films into one singular film. There could be so many things happening at once, you couldn't keep your attention on them.

Another point is the reasoning behind changing the cloth mask for the hockey mask. Yes, it's a popular staple with Jason, but if you just throw it in there because it's popular it's not exactly a good reason for the character. If he had some liking for hockey or something, then it would make a little more sense. But no, mindless story first, deciding what characters are like later.

Though I admit, I might be a tad harsh or daft talking about logic in a Friday the 13th movie because, well, logic doesn't exactly need to be heard of. It's a brainless gore-fest and people probably do enjoy the films for the creative death scenes and the character of Jason itself. It does its job and leaves it at that.

Maybe I should consider being a film critic in future!

Maybe better than this person

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second film I will look at is A Nightmare on Elm Street, the 2010 remake directed by Samuel Barber.



For the same magazine, Simon Crook reviewed the Nightmare on Elm Street a year later, stating that:

When a remake relies on restaging so much source material, as this does here, you can't help but rewind the original in your head. Wes Craven's film plays a bit cheesy/nasty nowadays, but it's littered with unforgettable scenes - Johnny Depp's blood-geyser bed, the marshmallow stairs, the wall-climbing sequence...There's not one memorable moment here, not one kill that sticks, just various shades of the same grey nightmares. Freddie's back, but the blades are blunt.

What is meant here is that compared to the original Nightmare on Elm Street film, there is nothing worthy for you to take notice of. Nothing to grab your attention or challenging you to have a vested interest in this remake of Wes Craven's classic horror film.

Comparing the trailers for the movie too, you can see a great many differences. The original trailer simply showed the different kids being killed, quick glimpses of Freddy Krueger so that you don't get a full-view of his face, and some of the special effects used by him to torture the kids.

In the first trailer for the remake, we're introduced to Freddy immediately being chased by the parents of Springwood immediately and he gets torched, taking off his jacket to reveal the classic striped red/black jumper. In addition is a view of the street name (which might have been pointless since we already had the name Krueger spoken out and the jumper), and a recreation of the glove in the bath shot. Finally, we get shots of Freddy in silhouette, adorned in the full clothes and the last shot of the trailer is on his face, in all its burned majesty.

Watching some more clips from the remake, I do feel as if there's nothing to it, not much that's visually spectacular. Obviously blood is there, but there are some deaths that feel easy and lazy. Stabbing someone through the chest, that's easy. Freddy's meant to be a killer in people's dreams, at least he should try and kill them in creative ways.

But the interesting thing is how they changed Krueger's character physically and mentally. I had read that they tried to make Krueger's face more in line with how real burn victims look like and make him look realistic. Though from what I've seen, his face doesn't scare me. Compared to what other burned victims looked like (which is horrible of course), it didn't make me feel scared of him, more 'you have a rats face. Am I supposed to be afraid of you or give you a treat?'. The make-up on Robert Englund was more convincing for me because it might not have been real, but it was quite stylised to make him more terrifying and less human, matching the character more so perhaps.



Intentionally, Krueger's back-story changed to its original intention of being a paedophile then as the classic child-killer. And what's more villainous? The paedophile way is disturbing yes, and it makes for uncomfortable viewing, making Freddy more creepy and up-to-date with today's world. And of course parents would be beyond pissed off to find out their child has been abused. But here's my point: after the parents found out, they just upped straight and tried to kill him. In the original, he was arrested for his killing of children, but apparently let off on a technicality and THAT led to the parents killing him to make sure he got what he deserved.

So why didn't the parents in the remake go to the police? According to the Nightmare on Elm Street Wikipedia (yes, such a thing exists), someone wrote down that the parents to trying to protect them from testifying against him in court. Nowhere did I hear that while finding the right scene in the movie, so that has to disregarded sadly. And even then, it would have been quite extreme for any parent to do wouldn't it? Surely, going over to the police with this information would've been helpful. So instead of helping the children, they just screwed them over. Well done parents of the remake, well done indeed. Or maybe that should be the makers that decided to go with that poor plot point.

The original version still showed how parents went to the extreme, except when they felt presumably they had no choice and set out to kill him for what he did to them, because he did kill children. No questions asked. This makes the original film a little bit more stronger than the remake, because it shows how much more these parents actually know about Freddy's character.

I think she's screaming because she just realized whose fault it was that Freddy's back


So for those reasons, despite the good acting and gore, the original again trumps the remake.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The third and final film I will look at is the Rob Zombie 2007 attempt to remake John Carpenter's critical classic Halloween. Zombie's film actually expanded Michael Myer's back-story significantly, showing the idea how being abused by his family turns the young boy became the psychopathic horror icon.



Kim Newman again reviewed this film, and stated:

In a way, Zombie's take on Halloween is fan fiction. If you ever wanted 'origin scenes' for significant props like Michael's overalls or Dr. Loomis's handgun, you'll find them here - along with cameos from Ken Foree and Mickey Dolenz (!) as the persons responsible for passing them on....Despite decent work from the younger cast when they finally get a look in, Zombie has no interest in the imperilled kids, which means the film falls flat when it comes to suspense, shock and shudders. This take on Halloween is grim and nasty, but never remotely scary.

Again, references to the original franchise is made and though the younger actresses attempt a good job, they are glossed over and due to that, the film just doesn't work according to Newman.

Compared to Carpenter's film showing only the one killing at the beginning, that of his older sister Judith; Zombie includes three: Judith, Judith's boyfriend and Michael's step-father, Ronnie. And boy, there are gruesome. Ronnie gets wrapped up in duck-tape without him noticing and has his throat slit, the boyfriend is whacked and Judith herself is stabbed multiple times. The gore doesn't actually bother me in the slightest.
What actually bothers me is the portrayal of abuse in this movie that supposedly turns Michael. Personally from actually watching this film, I do find the characters quite laughable in the set-up of treating Michael like crap. Maybe it's because I've seen this kind of type of lazy ass character many times before in films and TV. It doesn't really get me interested at all. To me at this moment, if you are going to include abuse in a film, you need to make it very believable and not go for the usual person who just throws out random insults and just is an asshole, for the sake of being an asshole.

And what's up with that older sister? Why was she abusing Michael like fuck? Reason please! I probably shouldn't have to make up reasons myself, even though I find it quite fun to do so anyway.

I follow the religion known as Scriptology. I obey whatever is written and don't question the lord god Zombie. I like cats. Because it is written.


So far, the impression I got from these movies is that with remaking these slasher films, they don't attempt to try and make something original that would make it appealing to a new audience. Watching the deaths from the recent Friday the 13th remake shows some creativity being done with an arrow being shot and using a bear trap, but other than that the kills aren't very memorable or catch the attention very much. That distinction also goes for Nightmare on Elm Street, for the first death was interesting but it lacked a good execution and fell flat.

There is also a question if the characters LOSE any of their original mystery in these remakes. Kyle Retter says of the new Halloween film:

In complete opposition to the original, Zombie's "re-imagination" of the film gives us all the answers to the questions that made the original such an haunting experience, while neglecting the deliberate construction of the mise-en-scene that made the original so magical

This is certainly true in that particular film. All of who is Michael Myers is revealed substantially (and perhaps poorly) in the first 10 minutes of the film. We have a broken environment with a broken family, so how does that not create a possible serial killer in the future? In a way, this is a poor assumption.

Retter also points out that Zombie had the intention of getting audiences to feel sorry for the monster, stating that:

It seems that Zombie is encouraging us to sympathise with the killer, and how can we not?...We are left to assume that Michael has an unhealthy view of the world. As a result, he decides to hide behind a mask and kill rats and neighbourhood cats. All these actions are justifiable based on his environment. During the first act, he is bullied at school, and later, gets his revenge by beating the bully to death with a tree branch on his way home from school. Given the evidence proceeding this action it is obvious why the child is acting out the way he is.

(For some reason Basil Fawlty sprang to mind. I mean, he did lay it on the line for the bully to stop time and time again. Well he decided this was it, and went to give him a damn good thrashing).

Unfortunately, the car suffered worse.


Thinking about it now, I ask the question is it 'right' to humanise a horror monster, someone we have to feel sorry for. On the one hand, yes it gives us insight to how that person ticks and how they came to be in that position. But on another level maybe it's not our place to humanise a horror icon. Once we start doing that, they are not the 'other', they are one of us. And that doesn't work in film, because who can we decide to hate when the actual killer is a victim. Real-life issues seem to seep in too easily in horror films, when really it's not needed to provide a backstory for someone who is intended to be evil.

I think I've been watching too much Game of Thrones...Arya's my hero.


That case works for Michael Myers specifically. For Freddy Krueger or Jason Voorhees, we're not given their point of view much, except for certain scenes as to how they became the horror icons in the remakes. And even then they are kind of illogical. Jason sees his mother killed and decides there and then to kill anyone who comes across Camp Crystal Lake, and as I've pointed out with Freddy, he gets burned because the parents were stupid fuck-wits making things worse for their children.

But because we get such a poor attempt to try and make Michael actually 'sympathetic' with audiences because of a lazy-ass character, (or lazy-ass writing. Much as I like Rob Zombie for his music, he probably should stay away from the Halloween franchise), it doesn't do to make characters who are just assholes for the sake of story development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to the original question: What is wrong with these horror remakes?

And I think the blog speaks for itself. The characters are written moronically, the plots are stupid and create more problems than they need to, and the gore is the only brilliant thing in these films.

I now have a bit more understanding as to why these films cannot hold much of a candle to their original predecessors, if they just use popular elements, change the characters to original standings, or look into their past. These cult icons have been done no favours in respect to their franchises, and this is a major problem. These ideas might work in theory and better on film if they are thought through properly, but as they are they don't work on screen. Even though Friday the 13th is mindless fun anyway, there are still a few references that feel forced through because of their status in that franchise.


Very sadly, I didn't feel personally scared much by this films half the time. I was laughing, angry, and quite annoyed at how...I won't say pretentious, but how serious these films are trying to be. Halloween fails because it attempts to look into the mind of a killer in a stereotypical fashion, Nightmare fails because it attempts to make things visually good, when really the death scenes are not well done and obviously the parents are a bunch of marons, and Friday the 13th fails because it's deaths are not very creative and a traditional slasher film treatment.

So if people are going to attempt re-making a film, they need to be developing the story properly and not go for any modern day Hollywood horror clichés. This does include gore, which personally I like, but it doesn't make for good horror visuals all the time. Horror is something that we, as an audience, want to feel scared and be frightened of. Something that can leave a mark on us and make us keep a light on next to the bedside. I don't do that. I have my plushy Knuckles toy to comfort me.

:)


So don't be afraid of these films guys. Watch horror films like The Innocents, Carrie or Let the Right One In. They are the ones to hopefully leave a mark on you. These remakes will barely make a scratch.
-------------------------------------------------------------

That's it for this week.

You may bum around and be lazy for the next fortnight :).