Microsoft Actually Trumps the Wii at Something...

Gamespot "accidentally" leaked the new X-Box 360 dashboard movie, which you can view below (hopefully). We now know it is set to be released on May 7.



Microsoft is doing well fostering the idea of a gaming community with its X-Box 360. It's not difficult to find people, add each other to your friends lists, and interact with each other in cyberspace via gaming, chatting or whatever.

Nintendo, on the other hand, hasn't quite realized the potential of their Wii Connect 24 service. Heather and I were trying to add someone to our address book the other night, and the process was decidedly convoluted. Once your get them in there, there doesn't seem to be any benefit to having friends other than sending e-mails to each other. The entire process seems to revolve around a Wii Console number that is buried under layers of other windows.

Other consoles should look at the X-Box and really study how they handle their community.

King Kong's Relevance

I was watching King Kong on my new HD DVD player for my X-Box 360 (feel free to call me a hypocrite), seeing as how it's the only movie I own for the thing so far.

Peter Jackson's King Kong is about as good of a re-make as your going to find. It's not perfect, but it is definitely a good movie (I would have edited out a few of the fluff scenes). Watching it again makes me wonder why it wasn't a more popular movie, and after some reflection I think I have a theory.

The original Kong was a piece about the birth of the modern human era, how that effects nature, and ultimately the death of the majestic side of nature. The Empire State Building had been completed recently in many ways replacing The Grand Canyon/Niagara Falls as the American spectacle, so it was fitting that Kong died falling from the then tallest, most amazing building in the world.

The new Kong retains all of those aspects, and even brings some of them to the forefront more-so than the old one did. The problem that Jackson ultimately had to overcome is that today we've all seen skyscrapers and tall buildings. In many ways, the opposite is happening today - nature is revered while we try to hide the influence of man. So, as a period piece, both Kongs are less relevant today.

The original Kong, though, retains the feeling of wonderment about motion pictures being a new art form - while the new Kong just looks like a really well made summer blockbuster.

In closing, I want to end with something thought provoking for you budding artists out there. Artists intentions ultimately do not matter; what keeps any particular piece of art alive is relevance that transcends the initial subject matter. Take a look at Gernika by Picasso:


The painting is named after the Nazi German bombing of Gernika, Spain, by twenty-four bombers, on April 26, 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. Gernika is relevant today not because of the history of its name, but because it illustrates human suffering that can relate to any disaster. No matter what Picasso's intentions were, we all look at that and apply something of our own experiences to it.

That's what makes art timeless, and that's what Peter Jackson's King Kong was lacking.

300? More like 70 Million.

Frank Miller's 300 surprised everyone by opening in the middle of march at $70,000,000. To me, it proves a theory I've held fast for a while now: If you make a movie that isn't a piece of shit, people will go to the theaters to see it.

The "blogosphere" is a-buzz this morning about this movie. Some folks are saying "I told you so" while some folks are scratching their heads. I'm sure the suits in Hollywood are confused since they admitted on Box Office Mojo that they expected $30 Million (more likely, they expected 20).

Time will go on and movies will be made. Hollywood will learn nothing from what's going on right now and call it a fluke, all while blaming sagging box office on movie piracy of all things.

What's the real reason 300 was such a success? Surely the snobbish will say "Oh, that genre is hot right now" or "It was timed perfectly" or even "Comic movies always do well". I say that's all horse-shit.

300 took itself seriously, respected it's audience AND the graphic novel it came from, and was an example of good craft. When you put those things in the pot, what you get is something people want to watch.

The Oscars

I was quasi watching the Oscars last night realizing how little I cared this year. Here's some random thoughts about the show:

The surprise for me was Jennifer Hudson winning Supporting Actress. If I was one of the more experienced actresses nominated, I would be fuming right now. Jennifer Hudson can't sing anyway, and she proved it on the show last night.

Every year they give out a special Oscar to someone who should have won one in the past. At first, (and I think to a few other people as well) this ceremony seems odd - You're awarding someone an Oscar because they should have won one already? I used to think that invalidates Oscars that were given out to people who were in competition with this guy. REWIND however, this year I think I finally got it. They awarded that guy last night for his body of work, not just one movie. Once I got that through my skull, it made the award seem better than actually winning one in a category.

That is all. Go back to work.

MMO Retrospective

I currently have two hobbies relating to the MMO industry. One hobby is playing the games, the other is talking about the industry. Me and my friend Vogl have as much fun discussing what's going on in EQ1 than I ever had actually playing the game.

At any rate, I figured it would be fun to do a sort of Retrospective: what we've played and what we think of them. So without further ado....

Ultima Online: Well, it's been a while since I've played this one. My first trip to MMO Britania was sometime in 1997. My brother bought it for me as a present while he was stationed in Korea. Before UO launched, me and my friends used to sit and discuss all the things we wanted to do in a virtual space. That UO didn't live up to our lofty ambitions isn't really the fault of the game but rather the hype machine that preceded it. At any rate, most of my memories of UO are good ones.

I purchased the first expansion - The Second Age when it was first released. I'll admit that I never saw any of the content. However, the manual that came with it is nice (since the original release to this very complicated game didn't come with one).

After a Hiatus, Me and my friends returned to Britania with the release of Lord Blackthorn's Revenge. The Box came with a pretty cool McFarlane action figure (I kept this one), and it was interesting to see how the game had changed up to that point. The newbie experience was definitely different. Also, we got to take a look at the new 3d interface (released originally with Third Dawn), however I still prefer the old 2d graphics.

On a whim, I purchased The Eighth Age expansion which was pretty much just a review of all the UO expansions to date. I tinkered with it a bit, had some fond memories. Much of the game had not changed much. Interesting to note: with this release, I traveled to the Second Age expansion for the very first time.













Everquest: I bought EQ launch week (not launch day) for both myself and my girlfriend Heather. EQ was her first MMO and my second. We had some good times on here. Two of my fondest memories were traveling on the boat to Freeport fomr Butcher Block for the first time, and Doing a death run clear across the world, dying, and discovering what these spells called "binding" are used for.

I blame EQ for my current MMO addiction. I think EQ, more-so than UO, really showed folks what an MMO could be capable of.

We both bought the Kunark as a Digital Download, even though we were too low level to go there. It would be quite a while before we would ever see any of the Kunark content - we were pretty casual gamers and EQ was not a casual game. However, in retrospect I think this was one of the best expansions released for EQ.

We purchased Scars of Velious launch week. Don't know what to say about it as content because we never saw any of it.




Shadows of Luclin would be the last expansion we would buy for EQ (my friend Vogl kept playing, me and Heather left on this expanison). The system requirements were too high (512 MB OMG!) especially since I didn't care for the new graphics. I'd just had enough of EQ on this expansion. It was time for me to move on, and we did move on to several games after this.












Dark Age of Camelot: We purchased and played DAOC for about 6 months. The game was OK, but it was very much like EQ except with some nice PVP options (we never saw them). I'm not 100% sure what to say about this game really. We didn't play it for very long, although I'll admit it was very polished at launch. I realise the game is still pretty popular, we just thought it was a little boring.







Anarchy Online: My next foray into MMOs was Anarchy Online - which is still one of my favoriate games to date. I thought AO had a great world and nice graphics. I played AO for several months, but quit because of poor game performance and the lackluster launch of the promised "story" in game (the story wasn't actually in game at all). However, I always missed the game and I did make a comeback later.

About the time Alien Invasion released, I returned to AO with my friend Drew in tow. We had some good times on the game playing in the Shadowlands expansion. Shadowlands added some EQ style questing and updated the graphics a little bit. It's a good expansion.

At Dragoncon that year, Funcom was nice enough to give me a boxed copy of the Alien Invasion expansion. It was a pretty neat expansion, however there doesn't seem to be enough folks on the game to truly take advantage of it. Alien Invasion added player built cities and Independence Day style alien Invasions to said cities. You can even get inside the ships and fight a boss.

The one thing I'll always miss in AO is the community it has. Reet Retreat was a neat place where special Rave like events were held with real over the internet DJs (Gridstream Porductions). The Devs even show for them.



Planetside: At some point, we played Planetside for a few months. I really enjoyed Planetside, however I found it hard to justify the $15 a month with Unreal Tournament. This game would be a good excuse to get the Station Pass from SOE, though. While searching for the box art at right, I noticed that Planetside is free to play up to Rank 6? I might have to try this out later...










Asheron's Call 2: Many people did not like Asheron's Call 2. Me and my girlfriend were not two of those people. It probably helped that neither of us had ever played AC1. AC2 was ahead of the curve on a few things: dungeon design, cut scenes sprinkled throughout, changing seasons, fantastic graphics just to name a few. However, all was not perfect.

The game was definitely unfinished. The cities were never populated, giving the players no where to gather. The chat server kept going down, making grouping impossible.

AC2 was taken offline December 30, 2005.



Shadowbane: Ahh, Shadowbane. Shadowbane was quite an addiction for myself and Drew for several months. The graphics sucked, but the PVP was great. What potential this game had! We ended up leaving because, well, at the time we couldn't play due to lag and down servers. The city sieges were really fun, but the lag and disconnects made them impossible.

I've revisited Shadowbane recently. The game is now free to play, along with the expansion packs. Until they start charging for it again (if they do), there's no reason not to play this game. It remains to be seen how much longer this game stays online.






Horizons: Woof. Horizons sucked all kinds of ass. I was lured to this game with the promise of being able to play a dragon. What I got was an unfinished turd with crappy service. I don't think I played this game for more than a week.

Horizons was saved from death when it was purchased by Tulga Games on January 25, 2005. They've since been in trouble from the player base for making everyone re-do their accounts and having unsecured registration. Nice.

I knew this game was a paper-weight when I saw a sign pointing down the road that said "Monsters".




Final Fantasy XI: FFXI wasn't a bad game. In America, though, it's sort of like culture shock. It was released in Japan much earlier, and the American version used the same servers. So, what I got with this was empty newb areas and a bunch of folks who spoke only Japanese.

I did not play FFXI very much, although I may revisit it sometime (I understand it translates Japanese?). For whatever reason, it did not hold my attention for very long.







Lineage 2: Lineage 2 was the first Beta I ever got into - that alone was a gaming landmark in my life. The game was ok - if you like hardcore grinds. The graphics were (and still are) fantastic. I actually like Lineage 2, but it's really a little too hardcore for my tastes. I may revisit this game sometime and see if my characters are still there. I did purchase the collector's edition, and it had some nice stuff in it.

Still, I didn't play it for very long.



City of Heroes: City of Heroes was a neat game. It still has the best character creation system of any MMO. The city it takes place in was neat and seemed to really breathe.

The problem I had with it was it was freakin boring. Besides making new characters and beating up thugs, and doing random dungeons there was nothing to do in this game. There was no loot, no real point to go from point a to point b.

I understand they've made a lot of improvements to this game, so I may go back. It did hold our attention for a few months.





Star Wars Galaxies: Man what can you say about Star Wars Galaxies. If you ask any MMO fan what they thought of this game, most would scratch their heads and say "I dunno". I played SWG for quite a while - about 6 or 8 months. I would probably still be playing it except I finished it.

SWG got so many things right, and so many things wrong.

In the right column we have: graphics, skill based advancement (until NGE), worlds, PVP, crafting, player housing was nice, player cities, sounds and music, etc.

In the wrong column we have: lack of entertainers and doctors and/or the boring grind those professions were, unbalanced combat i.e. creature handlers and imperials, completely weird Jedi grind (the holocron stuff, pre NGE), complete lack of content besides random missions, unfinished bounty hunters, they stopped doing monthly content updates, the "dungeons" they did have sucked, etc.

So, SWG was a sandbox. It was actually a pretty ballsy game to release with the Star Wars moniker on it. I was a member of the imperial guild Malice Reborn, and we had a good time. However, people started leaving when the holocron mess started - plus the bases were bugged and you could capture them from outside.

All that coupled with the fact that I finished all the content that was in the game, and I just had to cancel my account.

Guild Wars: You never really leave Guild Wars since it's not technically an MMO. I'm still dabbling with it every once in a while. Actually, it's not even considered an MMO by a large portion of the community.

As a single player game, GW is ho-hum. The graphics are nice, but I never really got involved in the PVP or guilds. Since you can solo the entire game, it makes grouping not necessary. Anyway, the game is ok, and not having subscriptions at all doesn't hurt either.

Everquest 2: Me and Heather played EQ2 pretty solidly for 2 weeks. I still REALLY like this game, however the 800 lbs. gorilla walked in the room that was called World of Warcraft, and well...

The graphics were pretty good in EQ2, and the quests were pretty solid. Heather really liked the easter egg hunt type quests with the butterflys and such. I'd like to play this game again sometime and really explore what it has to offer.






World of Warcraft: We've been playing WoW now since launch day. It's probably the best MMO in most people's eyes, and I have to agree with them. The things that make WoW a good game aren't envelope pushing graphics, but things that seem insignificant.

First, Character models don't stand there static and not moving. One of the first things you notice (subliminally) is that characters standing around are always looking around, repositioning themselves, etc. It really makes the world feel alive, and I think it's very important.

Next, The game-world is full to the brim with stuff. Most of the MMOs listed above (man, Shadowbane comes to mind) are filled with vast open spaces and occasional pockets of monsters to kill. BORING. WoW fixed this problem by actually puting stuff into their game. How amazing is that!

The community is a boon too. I've been a member of the guild Militis Justica (Server Stormrage) for over a year now. They're good people and we have a lot of fun.

Windows Vista

I'll admit to being a Hypocrite. I bought Windows Vista, despite telling everyone that I wouldn't. I'll admit I'm weak. But, the box was so shiny and plastic sitting there on the shelf....

I've heard all the bad and the good stuff, but now it was time to discover for myself. The install took forever (especially since I had to do it twice) - mental note: uninstall your Nvidia drivers before you upgrade Windows XP.

So far I only have about one day of actual use under my belt, but I think I can safely proclaim this as Microsoft's "Neatest" OS to date. It's sorta like a hodge-podge of the best features of OS-X, Linux and Windows XP.

If it seems a little half-baked, that is to be expected I suppose. Most of the neat stuff (transparent windows, gadgets, aura desktop) you have to disable when playing games and what not.

Anyway, not much more to say right now. My verdict: Cool looking, neat way to interface with the PC, Runs a "tad" bit slower than XP - and if your PC can handle it it's worth an upgrade.

Tom Bombadil & Invalidating the LOTR Movies

Don't let my "Shock and Awe" title fool you: I'm a huge fan of the LOTR movies, books, Peter Jackson, and fantasy in general. However, I was doing some research, and I found something interesting to share which may make you think about the decisions directors have made in the past pertaining to LOTR movies (Both Ralph Bakshi and Peter Jackson's versions).

According to the Wikipedia page on Tom Bombadil, J.R.R. Tolkien had this to say about the character:

"I might put it this way. The story is cast in terms of a good side, and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. But if you have, as it were, taken 'a vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing, then the questions of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless..."

Both Jackson and Bakshi have stated they left Bombadil out of their movies because he did not advance the story - which is true (by Tolkien's own admission). However, he did serve an important function to the story, which Tolkien is explaining in the above paragraph; Bombadil defines the actual power of The One Ring, which is an important omission in both movies since the power in the movies isn't the same as it is in the books.

Bombadil, in the books, wears the Ring and it has no effect on him. With that act, Tolkien defines the Ring as not having a magical property that binds itself to a wearer (unlike in Jackson's Movies, the Ringbearer cannot willingly give up the Ring, save Bilbo Baggins). I have always had a theory that it was not the Ring's will that holds it to it's wearer but rather the wearer being addicted to the powers that the Ring did have, and Tolkien, in his statement above, seems to confirm that assessment.

It's interesting that Jackson omitted Bombadil to serve the movie, when Bombadil's existence in the literature serves the story itself; Jackson had to alter the role of the ring in his story to suite the omission of Bombadil, which in turn made him have to alter plot points around the ring. For example, the power the ring has on Faramir and the addition of Sam and Frodo going to Osgiliath (which did not happen in the books), and Sam never wearing the ring in the movies.

Tom Bombadil is still largely a misunderstood character in the trilogy. It's a shame he was left out of the films, but in the end the decision was probably best for the medium. The movies were fantastic (well, barring Ralph Bakshi's cartoon drivel), and are among my favorites.