DLC, love it or hate it, it has become an expected part of almost every triple A videogame nowadays. For those of you who don't know what DLC is, here's a brief explanation: DLC stands for Downloadable Content, you pay more money for extra content for a videogame, it can range from new weapons & costumes or in some cases brand new levels entirely. DLC has become this creation that some gamers actually despise and I'm not going to argue with them, but at the same time I am still in support of DLC. I think the best videogame to talk about for DLC that shows the best & worst of it is Mass Effect 3.
When Mass Effect 3 was first released, there was already DLC released for it, quite unusual as DLC normally comes weeks/months after the game was released, the fact that this DLC was released alongside Mass Effect 3 means that it was developed alongside of it, it was part of the original game, and what was this DLC? It was a brand new character named Javik who was a Prothean...and people absolutely hated this and rightly so, because if you've never played Mass Effect, all you need to know are the Protheans are very important to the story, and the fact that there was now a character who could be on your team and was a Prothean was insane! And the fact that it was story based DLC released day one was absolute bullshit, that means that we've already paid full price for our game but now we need to pay between £5-£10 more to get the full story, which is utter bullshit, it's like paying to see a film at the cinema but then they won't play the last 10 minutes unless you pay an extra fee, fuck you, I already payed for the full experience now give me the whole thing! Now yes, technically you can play the game without the Javik DLC, but it's really in the same sense as you can also eat a pizza without cheese and it's still technically a pizza. Fact is, this DLC was made to be part of the game but EA (the publishers) got greedy and decided to release it separately to con fans into buying it because of course we would buy it because it's pretty fucking important to get a full experience of the game!
However, with that being said, there is a lot of great Mass Effect 3 DLC as well, as you probably know, a lot of people were not happy with the ending to the franchise, me included, it was the most rushed, half-assed, inconsistent piece of crap I've seen in a while. And the fans went insane with anger, we demanded a better ending, and Bioware (the developers) gave us what we wanted. They made an Extended Cut DLC, improving on about 80% of the problems with the ending and they did it for free. Which earned them the respect back from their fans. And even better, the last piece of story DLC that we got for that game Mass Effect 3: Citadel, is the best DLC I've ever played. Though technically it takes place before the ending, it was the send off that we all wanted for Mass Effect, it made us laugh, it made us cry and it was filled with great action, it was the perfect send off for the greatest videogame franchise of all time.
So overall, is DLC a good thing? I think it is, it's a great chance to give us more story and gameplay for some of our favourite videogames, yeah there are also other types of DLC for multiplayer that give us new maps, weapons & outfits but I don't really care about those. Honestly the only reason why DLC can be a bad thing is because publishers get greedy and make DLC for games that so obviously don't need to be DLC, especially EA...fuck you EA.
I have never been to San Diego Comic-Con, I hope to one day, it would probably be a lot of fun and an awful lot of...standing in line. But I did get to go to Manchester Comic-Con, which is pretty much just a normal con, no big movie announcements, it's just a place for nerds to gather, buy nerdy things and meet nerdy people...And it is FUCKING AWESOME!!! TRIPLE EXCLAMATION MARK AWESOME!!!
Now allow me to start by saying I have never been to a con like this before, the closest I had ever gotten was Summer in the City, a convention for YouTubers, and being honest that was kind of disappointing as there wasn't really much to do, but MCM I had a blast at! Not only did I buy a lot of nerdy shit that I don't need yet over a week later and I still don't regret it, but getting to see all those awesome and nerdy cosplayers and talking to them and hanging out with them was just so much fun.
Yes, that's me in all my handsomeness
So, let's go over some of the awesome things that happened at MCM. First of all, one non-awesome thing, is waiting in line to get into the convention...when it was raining. Now thankfully we were in the express line so we only had to wait outside for 10-20 minute, and everyone had umbrellas and were more than willing to share, so I got to share an umbrella with a lovely Toph cosplayer. But from then on out it was straight on fun!
The first couple of hours were pretty quiet seeing as they hadn't let the majority in the hall yet, and me and my friends pretty much spent all of this time buying everything we wanted, including the Deadpool mask and Tony Tony Chopper hat you see in the photo above. My friend Lewis called me Tony Tony Deadpool, this is a name I now wear with honour. Other purchases include japanese candy which is delicious by the way. I also took a bunch of photos of some cosplayers, the best ones being a Time Lord, Ghost Rider, Storm Troopers and a Yu-Gi-Oh card...awesome. I also got by T-Shirt signed by Vic Mignogna, a.k.a. Edward Elric! Awesoooooomeeeee!
After that around the lunch time slump is when things started to die down for us, it was our first con and we'd done all our nerdy purchases and met all our celebrities, and also more people were coming into the con so it was getting kinda crowded so we really didn't know what else to do. So after about an hour or so of relaxing I thought "fuck it, I'm gonna talk to other people" and what ensued was me having a duet with Flynn from Tangled, playing Twister with Harley Quinn and Beetlejuice and watching Mario pretend to snort a mushroom like it was cocaine...so yeah I would say I had a lot of fun for the next couple of hours, so that's what I would say to any of you who wish to go to a convention, don't be afraid to interact with people, especially cosplayers, they really get into character for that. Seriously, these people all love what they're cosplaying as so feel free to interact with them.
I am definitely going again next year and hopefully will be properly cosplaying as something, because it just looks so cool!
And also here were the top 5 cosplays as Manchester Comic-Con!
5. Deadpool
There are always Deadpool cosplayers, but the best part is there are almost always some variations on the character, which is awesome.
4. Elsa
Well the hype train for Frozen is yet too cool off (bah-dum-pssh) so obviously there were a tone of Frozen cosplayers, the most common one being Elsa's ice dress (Though personally I prefer her pre-Let it Go dress).
3. Finn The Human
Adventure Time comes in hoards of cosplayers, I mean jesus, no matter what the convention, Adventure Time will be there and there will be plenty of Finn The Humans...but not that many Lady Rainicorns sadly.
2. The Joker
I've grown to hate The Joker cosplays, mostly because they are all the same, I mean seriously, there about a million variations on The Joker, you don't have to keep coming as Heath Ledger Joker! No love for Mark Hamill? Even the Harley Quinn cosplays are more creative!
1. The Doctor
You know it's odd for a franchise with 12 different cosplay options all we keep getting is 4, 5, 10 & 11...seriously, #6 is just begging to be cosplayed!
Batman Arkham Origins was one of the most disappointing games released last year, and today I am going to talk about why that is. Now I want to stress by saying that if this game was the first Arkham game to come out of this series, then it would have been a pretty good game, hell, it might have been a great game, but seeing as this game is following Arkham Asylum and Arkham City, it has a lot of live up to what with its older brothers setting the bar so high.
Let's start with the nitpicks of the game, why is it called Arkham Origins? The game has absolutely nothing to do with Arkham, it should just be called Batman Origins. Although I guess Arkham is part of the brand name, but it still needs to make sense, it's like having an Indiana Jones movie without Indiana Jones, it's kind of an important aspect. And also why was Deathstroke marketed as such a huge character when he's the first boss fight then he never shows up again? And Batman using his electric gloves to give someone CPR, are you freaking kidding me!? Alright then, those are the nitpicks, now let's get into the meat of this game.
First of all, with gameplay, there is nothing new to be added. One of the best things about Arkham City was how much improved on an already fantastic gameplay, gliding was better, you were given more weapon upgrades, combat became a lot more creative, it had a lot of innovation. This game adds almost nothing new apart from one feature involving the grappling hook, and even the "new" stuff is just rehashed stuff from the previous games, like they turned your ice grenades into glue grenades even though they do the exact same thing. And not to mention it's very contradictory for this game to have all these features when it takes place years before the first two games so why is Batman just as powerful as he is in those games!? I mean yeah we'd feel cheated if he was weaker but at least it would have been logical! You know what would have been more logical? Not-making-a-prequel! Also why is Gotham city apparently nothing but thugs? I mean it made sense in the last two games but this game is supposed to be all of Gotham, yet apparently it's only criminals for some reason.
And as for the voice actors, I am mixed on them, Roger Craig Smith as Batman...the guy is trying his hardest but...that's the problem...whenever he's supposed to be threatening it sounds so obvious that he's trying to be threatening. With Kevin Conroy, the guy just sounds so badass, he has the most badass voice in history, he's the greatest Batman we've ever had! And Troy Baker as Joker...he's the best part about this game, I mean it is absolutely fantastic, no matter how bad the product, Troy Baker will never give a bad performance, that is just a fact.
But the biggest problem with this game isn't the lack of innovation or repetitive gameplay, it's the story, the story is a step backwards in every single way possible. Look Arkham City was one of the deepest and most complex stories I've seen in a videogame, all of the themes and subtext behind it, it's just genius and is one of the best adaptations of Batman I've ever seen, it makes you genuinely feel like you are The Batman. But this game doesn't have that, it's a generic story with no depth behind it or themes and goes on a smaller scale with no major impact on the future of the franchise, and they bring the Joker back because apparently a BATMAN game can't get by without the Joker being in it...bullshit! Batman has one of the best villain rosters out there, and killing off The Joker in Arkham City was one of the biggest surprises I've ever experienced in a videogame, and taking away that affect by having your game focus on the Joker (AGAIN!) is just taking a huge step backwards. There are no themes, nothing is developed, no foreshadowing, no massive changes, it's a boring story with boring characters and boring gameplay.
The fact that this game is connected to the Arkham franchise is almost insulting, I cannot tell you how happy I am that the next Batman Arkham game (Arkham Knight) is going back to the original developers at Rocksteady AND has Kevin Conroy back as Batman AND is actually continuing the story. Just from the demo at EA alone I was able to tell there is going to be far more innovation, faster and more agile gliding, driving the Batmobile, improved graphics, a brand new and interesting villain, who I hope actually is a completely new villain and not just The Joker or Red Hood. This game is guaranteed to be better than Arkham Origins, no doubt about that.
I am not a music critic, I am far from it, I like listening to music very often, there are songs that I like and songs that I dislike but I am incapable of analysing the same way I would a film or a videogame; hell I don’t even have a favourite song or artist or album or any of that stuff! I just don’t know what to look for to make something any of those things, sometimes I struggle to even be able to tell the genre of something because every genre has about a million subgenres and oh god it’s so confusing! However, one thing that I can analyse, are music videos. You see music videos are pretty much a different form of art than music, it’s more of an extension, combining music with film and giving us something brand new, whether that be something with a narrative or not, doesn’t matter, what does is, is it an accurate representation of the song? Does it add anything? Is it creative? Well today I'm going to talk about my all time favourite music video. Ladies & Gentlemen...Sinead O' Connor - Nothing Compares 2 U
It may seem odd at first to pick this as my all-time favourite music video because about 90% of it is just simply looking at Sinead O’Connor’s face; it’s not very visually interesting nor is it all that creative, so what is it that makes this one stick out to me? Because what this song and this video are able to capture, is the pain and weight of the words been sung. The song is Sinead singing about an ex whom she has recently separated from, and throughout this video we see every emotion that a person can experience from a bad break-up, we see anger, spite, regret and most importantly: sadness. The fact that this video is able to tell this story through just one shot lasting 5 minutes is truly outstanding, and more importantly is that I 100% believe every emotion and every word sung, especially considering that Sinead O’Connor didn’t actually write the song, it was actually written by Prince, which shows how good of a performance O’Connor gives.
Also the fact that it is just O’Connor’s natural face; no make-up or anything, there’s nothing to distract from the focus, and also nothing artificial about it, everything is upfront and natural, brutal honesty and I absolutely love that. Which is also why I hate a certain other music video that uses a very similar style of close-up *cough* wrecking ball *cough*; however that video is nowhere near as effective because it is very artificial, there is so much make-up and airbrushing in the video that it just feels fake and I can’t take it seriously. But not O’Connor, here it’s nothing but honest and natural emotion coming from a person who’s going through a bad experience and that is why it is my all-time favourite music video.
Avatar is one of the greatest things ever to exist, it is smartly written, has great mythology behind it, the animation is incredibly gorgeous, the fight scenes are fantastic and it is filled with deep, complex and memorable characters...yeah Avatar is such a great TV Show
Too bad that's not the one we're talking about here today, no we're talking about that James Cameron movie from 2009 that made over $2 Billion in the Box Office (I hate it when people get those two mixed up).
This movie went from being called a cinematic masterpiece to overrated garbage within about a 2 week span, everyone loved it and then everyone hated it, which by the way, how the hell can something be overrated if everybody now hates it? And that's basically it's reputation nowadays, people call it one of the most overrated movies of all time despite the fact every one calling it that means it can't be overrated!
Basically what I want to talk about here is to tell everyone to stop hating on this movie and just shut the fuck up. Now look, you're allowed to hate any movie you want, but it is insanely obvious that the majority of people who hate this film just hate it because it's popular to hate it, like The Dark Knight Rises or Twilight (I mean true Twilight is awful but how many people hate on it without actually seeing it?). And look, I don't love Avatar, I just think it's a pretty good movie, not mind blowing or anything, but I like to see movies be treated fairly and this film isn't, so let's go over this shall we?
Now the biggest complaint that I hear is how the story is unoriginal; it's the Native American story combined with an enviormentally friendly message that we've seen in Ferngully, Pocahontas, Dances With Wolves, Princess Mononoke and so forth. Guess what guys?...It wasn't original when those movies did it either! The fact that you can name more than one that did it means all those others must be crap as well? Well...maybe Ferngully, but the others are still considered good movies. Now true it can come down to how the story is represented, after all, there are some movies out there where you've seen the plot a million times but you still love the movie, so why do the others get a pass? Well Pocahontas is a Disney movie so it automatically gets a pass even though it's not very good. A lot of people grew up with Ferngully and love it despite it being kinda crap. Dances With Wolves is an Oscar bait movie and it's 3 hours long, you fall asleep 45 minutes into it and just assume it was good and maybe you were the reason you didn't like it. While Princess Mononoke (while also getting a pass for being Studio Ghibli) is genuinely a good movie because it does something different, it shows things from both perspectives, it doesn't say which one is simply the bad guy that needs to be stopped, both sides have legitimate reasons for their actions and it's left up to you to decide which one is in the right. It does something different with the story so people don't hate on it.
So what did Avatar do? Well there is a very clear bad guy in this movie...MAN!! And it is your pretty basic greedy foreigner corrupts and attacks the natives and their primitive technology but the one white man will learn to respect the culture and switch sides and fight to defend it, yeah, we've seen this all before. So what is it that this movie does that makes me like it? It fully explores the culture that I'm supposed to be rooting for. In any of the other movies (Excluding Mononoke) I couldn't give a shit about the native culture, in fact in most of the cases, they're just as bad as the white man. But in this version, the majority of the film is spent on learning about them and seeing just how cool they are and how different and unique everything is. So it may be the same story, but it goes a little be deeper into the native culture than most of the others, so when the white man comes to destroy the home, I actually feel upset because I spent time with this culture and learnt more about them.
So do I think this is a revolutionary film that completley changes the format? Oh fuck no, this movie is full of problems. Like Sam Worthington I think is literally the most generic actor in Hollywood that I'm not unconvinced he is actually a robot invented by Hollywood. But I do think it has an interesting culture, the effects are obviously amazing (Though I am always fully aware that I'm looking at CGI) and the side characters are surprisingly memorable as well as our main character been given better motivation for wanting to be part of the culture and I also think the movie has excellent pacing.
Is it a cinematic masterpiece? No? Is it overrated garbage? No? So what is it? A pretty damn good movie that honestly I think just range from "Meh" to "Awesome" but honestly I don't really see why it should be lower than that, unless someone really has a prejudism against 8ft blue cats.
Okay not literally, but don't act like that title didn't get you interested in reading this.
So one of the biggest issues you hear about when people are discussing when it comes to this generation of kids is how quickly they are growing up. Now it's no secret that kids have always wanted to be treated like they were older than they really are, the peak of this seems to be between 12-14, when you're at that age where everyone else still considers you a kid but you're kind of sick of that title by now so you want to be seen as a cool and hip teenager. So they of course begin to behave more adult by doing adult things like drinking alcohol and engaging in sexual activities (to put it in such a manner). And everyone always says that they are way too young to be doing any of this stuff, and not to mention getting drunk and having sex doesn't make you an adult, doing taxes and shit, that makes you an adult.
SIDE NOTE: If there is anyone ages 12-14 reading this, don't do anything stupid like get drunk and have sex, because I guarantee you that once you turn 18 you are going to hate literally everything you did from the ages of 12-14. I'm not even kidding, literally every single one of you will feel that way, so don't go making any dumb decisions like having sex or wanting to be an adult, because i've only been doing it for a few months and I already hate it, and I've got another 50 years of this to look forward to.
But then there is the question on who's to blame for all of this pre-maturity? (Hehe, pre-mature) is it social media? Possibly, although kids have always been exposed to this kind of behaviour before things like Facebook became a thing. Honestly the people who I think are the main blame are Disney, specifically, the Disney Channel. Now, I know what you're thinking "that is quite possibly the dumbest conspiracy I've ever heard". But hear me out, as we all know, Disney are the kings of childhood entertainment, their movies are classics and every child watches them, rightly so, they're awesome. However. Disney Channel the kids network on television, is a completely different situation.
Back in the 80's and 90's Disney TV Shows were made for kids and appealed to them, Ducktales, Recess, etc. However, in the 2000's Disney started to attempt to appeal to the "pre-teen" demographic, the 12-14 years olds we discussed earlier, and eventually this took up their entire programming blocks. We got shows like Hannah Montana, That's So Raven, Suite Life of Zack & Cody, Wizards of Waverly Place, and all of that stuff made to appeal to the pre-teens, how? By mixing teenage characters with childish behaviour, tricking the audience into thinking it was teen behaviour, ingenious!
However, because the characters are now teenagers, they end up dealing with more teenager-ey problems, like dating and going to parties and "ugh, parents suck! Rules suck! School sucks!". The problem with this is there are still 3-11 year olds who are also going to watch this and look up to these characters, meaning that at their young age they are going to behave like them. Which means that they are going to start thinking about these things long before they're actually supposed to. No 11 year old should have to worry about dating, what kind of sense does that make!?
And by the time they actually reach the target demographic, they're already past the stage where they would like these shows, when they're 10 they're gonna act like they're 14 and when they're 14 they're gonna act like they're 18, the problem being they haven't actually matured enough to that age but they like to think that they have. And anything even remotely connected to kids is dumb, I know that this is what I experienced growing up. People my age made fun of me for loving Power Rangers, saying it was kids stuff...I was 9! I was supposed to like it! Why the fuck are you in such a hurry to grow up!? Enjoy the stuff that was meant for us!
In fact, this goes for anyone of any age, stop trying to be something you're not! If you're a kid, stop trying to be a teenager, if you're a teenager, stop trying to be an adult! If you're an adult, then like everything I guess because you're at that point when you realise you're always gonna be fucking up and regretting every decision you made 5 years ago. So that's the moral of the story, don't do anything shitty until you've reached a point where you regret everything you were 5 years ago, by then you should know what mistakes you're making but never actually doing anything to correct them.
You have absolutely no idea how much the Mass Effect trilogy means to me, I mean, wow, this is a franchise that I am obsessed with, they are probably some of my most replayed games of all time, I love everything about it. I love the characters, I love the story, I love the gameplay, I love the designs, I love the cultures, I love the politics, I love about 99% of everything Mass Effect, and yes I like everyone have strong opinions on the Mass Effect 3 ending, don't worry, I'll talk about that another day. But one thing that has always bugged me is Mass Effect 2, which by all means is probably my favourite game in the series, it has the best tone, the best missions and the best characters, it's the best game in the series, no doubt about that...But the story has always come across as...filler to me. I mean, really think about it? What happens in the game?
(Spoilers Ahead)
Commander Shepard dies, just to be brought back to life a minute later even though 2 years have passed, he is now working with Cerberus as they're the only company that believe the reaper threat is real. He also learns about the Collectors, a mysterious species that are kidnapping humans and are believed to be connected to the Reapers, so Commander Shepard gets together a new crew to stop the Collectors and this is exactly what he does.
Okay so pretty simple plot to follow, but what does this have to do with the Reapers? Or the impending invasion? Or anything? Let's be completely honest, if this game never happened then Mass Effect 1 could just go straight into Mass Effect 3 and not much would be different apart from missing a bunch of characters, but seeing as your crew in Mass Effect 3 is 90% your crew from Mass Effect 1 it's not that big of a difference. But wait, there are also a bunch of missions that are based around your crew members from Mass Effect 2! Even though those are missions that could easily replace the original character. Like Mordin could be replaced with Kirrahea, Grunt can be replaced with Wrex, Jack can be replaced with Kahlee Sanders. Honestly the entire crew is expendable in the 2nd game so it really shouldn't affect the 3rd game at all.
So obviously the main focus in the series is the impending doom from the Reapers, so let's take a look at that chain of progression. ME1: The Reapers are coming ME2: Reapers are still coming ME3: Reapers are here. In fact pretty much everything in ME2 is very self contained. The Collectors are introduced and then killed off by the end, Shepard joins Cerberus and then quits by the end. The only thing that carries over into ME3 is The Illusive Man, and even then, the Cerberus plotline in ME3 was only a subplot, nothing remotely important ever came about up until the very end, and even that could have been tweaked to not include them.
Now, with that being said; Mass Effect 2 is still the greatest instalment in the franchise and is one of the greatest videogames in history, and even after everything I've said about the characters, I still love them to bits, they are all incredible yes, even Jacob. The story while very self-contained, is still a damn good story and has the best missions in the entire series. I'm just sayin', it's part of something bigger than itself, so it should probably be better included.
Regardless, this is still my favourite videogame on the Citadel (God that meme is being overused)
Oh Comedy, thou art a complicated bitch. Comedy is without a doubt the most subjective genre of...anything, out there. If someone likes a bad film then you can explain to them why you think it's bad and why you hate it, and maybe if you're lucky (and didn't come across as a complete asshole) then you can convince them. But trying to convince someone that a bad comedy is bad...you can explain why a joke doesn't work, why it fails on all accounts and invertly breaks conventions, but it doesn't matter, if they laughed, then they think it's funny, no going back. The reason why I say this is because it really doesn't matter what anyone says, if you think something is funny then there is nothing that anyone can do to change that. But with that being said...I think Weird Al Yankovic is overrated [Hides in nearby bombshelter].
...Is it safe yet? Alright then fine, I'll elaborate. Now the most basic explanation of why I don't like Weird Al is that I think is parody style of famous songs just doesn't make any sense. Let's use his most famous parody song as an example, "Eat it" a parody of Michael Jackson's 80's classic "Beat it", however in Weird Al's version the song is now about food, hence the title. Now admittedly from a technical stand point this video does everything right for a parody, it matches the tone and style of the original source material that their spoofing and it has great accuracy and from a visual stand point it is a very good spoof; my big problem with it being the lyrics of the song. Who in their right mind listens to the song Beat It and somehow connects that to food? There is no connection apart from the fact the words 'beat' and 'eat' rhyme, but if that's the case then they could have made it about anything, they could have called it "Feet it" and had it be about feet, they could have called it "Greet it" and made it about saying hello to people, they could have called it "meat it" and have it be about carnivores...or cannibals...or food--no wait...
My point is, in order to make a parody of something, there needs to be something that is connecting the joke to the material, food and Michael Jackson do not have anything in common, they're not even complete opposites which means there's no parallel, they're just two random things put together for no reason. And even then, is food really that funny? Writing an entire song about trying to get someone to eat their dinner? That's not even funny in context Hell they could have made the song about masturbating, what with the name being "Beat It". At least then there is a common denominator that connects the joke to the material. Now with that being said some of his songs I do think are funny, for example in his latest work the song "Foil" is funny, not because of how it connects to the material but because of how exaggerated the joke goes from turning it into keeping food hygienic to protecting yourself from aliens and government conspiracies. So I do think the guy can be funny, but man the ideas he has and the way he connects a song to a joke is just really weak in my eyes.
Now let's talk about a song parody which I absolutely love, Teddie Films "We Are Never Gonna Cook Together" a parody of the Taylor Swift song being sung by the characters of Breaking Bad. See now that is a parallel, just the idea of taking something so dark and mature as Breaking Bad and then combining it with tween pop sensation Taylor Swift, that's not just a random pick but they intentionally went with the most opposite thing that they could think of and that makes it incredibly funny. And more so this parody also has the technical aspect, the sets, the costumes, the lyrics are all designed to feel like they accurately represent the show, the closer the parody gets to mimicking the original makes it all the funnier. And unlike Eat It, the focus isn't on parodying the artist, but the idea. This being a Taylor Swift song is not the joke, it's just an element to the joke. The joke here being the characters of Breaking Bad singing about their problems in the form of a pop song, and that's hilarious.
Again, comedy is very subjective so it doesn't really matter what you like or what you dislike, if it makes you laugh then that's fine, there's no harm in finding Weird Al funny, afterall most of his parody songs actually still sound better than the originals.
So for those of you who haven't noticed, I have been making a blog post every day since I started this blog, of course it's nothing too impressive yet, I've been doing this for like a month. But I figured I should probably talk about why I am doing a blog post every single day and the simple and most basic reason being...because I felt like it. I enjoy making videos on my YouTube channel DannyBReviews however the problem with that is the videos that I would make would take a lot longer as well as much more effort, it would involve planning and filming and editing, but here on a blog it only takes some planning. Although with that being said I am writing this blog right now with very little planning and am just writing things down as I think of them. So basically, yeah, I wanted to start a blog so I could talk about topics that I don't think would warrant a video being made, or it would just be too much effort to make a video.
As of writing this blog post no one is reading this blog apart from me and frankly I am perfectly fine if it stays that way for the rest of the time I do this. I didn't make this blog for other people to read, I did it for fun, of course if other people like it then that would be cool, but I'm only going to be doing this as long as I'm having fun with it. However with that being said, it is sort of a neat little experiment, to talk about something new everyday and maybe one day look back on my little thoughts and ideas that I had back when I was 18 years old. Which is why I named it 'The Leaky Thoughts' because these are pretty much thoughts that leak from my head, that and I was watching Prisoner of Azkaban when I came up with the idea. Leaky Cauldron...Leaky Thoughts...I thought it was catchy.
So there ya go, a brief explanation on why I am doing this, if anyone ever reads this then hey, welcome, I hope you like what ya see, but if no one does and it's just gonna be me that reads this several years from now and looks back on my life then hi, I hope things are going well, good god I'm gonna have to start behaving like an adult soon, does it suck? I hope it doesn't suck, also am I still uploading blog posts after all this time? I would have thought I would have run out of things to talk about, hm, oh well, guess I'm cleverer than I thought, I'm really just rambling now so uh, bye.
Doctor Who is the longest running science-fiction series in history, been broadcast since 1963 and still going this day (though there was that 90's gap, but we don't talk about that) and it is arguably more popular now than ever, with legions of fans around the world and is considered to be part of "The Big 3" in terms of fandoms, the other two being Sherlock & Supernatural. But the question remains, the first question, the question that must never be answered, the oldest question in the universe hidden in plain sight, the question you've been running from your whole life...Is Doctor Who even that good? Well, this is a difficult question to answer.
(SIDE NOTE: I am strictly talking about New Doctor Who, meaning 2005-Present, Classic Who as far as I'm concerned is it's own separate entity, even if it is the same continuity)
Now for me personally, I absolutely love Doctor Who, I think it at times can be one of the greatest pieces of fiction ever created...the key phrase being "at times". Fact of the matter is from a story stand point, Doctor Who is just not very good, especially within the past few seasons. If I were to use one word to describe the problems with Doctor Who it would be: Inconsistent. Ever since Stephen Moffat took over as head writer for Doctor Who, the story arcs have been getting so big and so long that it is damn near impossible for anyone to keep track of anything going on in the show, the writers included. Now look, being a show that's 50 years old and is about time travel, there are going to be some overlaps here or there, but in this case, they took the plot hole scale and threw it over a shark before being shot down and given even bigger plot holes. Take for example the Daleks, Moffat must have rebooted these guys several different times, first they were coloured again, then they weren't, then they forgot who The Doctor was, then the didn't, dammit Moffat! Just pick a storyline and stick with that!
Before, it was fairly simple, the major storylines were all enclosed within single seasons, we would get a set up at the start of the season, some gentle hints throughout and a conclusion at the end, maybe there were a few things that leaked over to other seasons, but for the most part it was done & dusted. But since Moffat took over, we have about several major story arcs take place at once and they all overlap each other and finish at different points which makes it hard to keep track, and all those little hints placed are so little that it's now impossible to tell what it was supposed to be hinting at. And because of this constant structure of the plots a fair share of them just simply get forgotten about and lost in this wibbly wobbly timey wimey ball of...stuff...also the sonic screwdriver is pretty much a magic wand...I hate that thing.
Now...with that being said, there are some things about Doctor Who that make it an incredible television programme. While the story writing is flimsy, it wasn't always like that, for the Eccleston and Tennant Doctors the story writing was pretty coherent, it's just the Smith-Era where things get jumbled. In fact back when Moffat was writing stand alone episodes, they were without a doubt some of the best episodes of Doctor Who ever made, why? Because he had limits, his stories had to have a conclusion within a 1-2 hour gap. Although being honest even the stand alone episodes are pure crap these days (The Rings of Akhaten anyone?) And the dialogue was just pure gold, even in the latest seasons, the dialogue is without a doubt majestic, particularly from The Doctor himself, he is incredibly witty, smart, philosophical and badass. You get the feeling that this man is without a doubt the smartest man in the universe and his interactions with people are so memorable and enjoyable, and is filled with oh so many quotable lines of dialogue.
And the acting in the show, brilliant. Everyone in the Doctor Who universe gives incredible performances across the board, I don't think there's ever been a character who has been badly cast. In terms of companions the best actress of the bunch was easily Karen Gillan as Amy Pond, who not only is my favourite companion but her performance can range from sarcastic, confident dry whit, to emotionally crippled and sobbing like a baby. But for The Doctor himself, again every actor who has played him had done a fantastic job, after all, it's a very hard role to pull off, The Doctor is a character that needs to feel like a god amongst men while still feeling like a humble and genuine person. And not to sound predictable but...David Tennant is my favourite Doctor.
Yeah I know it's a predictable choice, but I can't help it, the guy ticks all the right boxes. His portrayal as The Doctor makes him come across as the ego maniac who thinks of himself as the best & brightest while also having that childlike curiosity and touch of wackiness bordering the line of mad scientist. But when needed be he is also a threatening and cold-hearted monster who has seen the worst of life and is a scarred man who you do not want to cross. No offence to Matt Smith who was also an amazing actor and had a tough act to follow, but he only ticked most of the boxes, while he definitely had the childlike enthusiasm and the emotionally scarred war hero elements down, he never really came across as all that threatening. When I look at David Tennant I don't see an actor, I see The Doctor.
And also the visual effects are very impressive, or at least, from a prostetics point, obviously being a British sci-fi show, it doesn't have all too big of a budget, but whenever possible, they will always go for the prostetic aliens and practical sets over CGI, why? Because it looks way more convincing and in today's CGI heavy world, that's always an admirable feature.
And the final point that I will mention is the music. Oh...My...God...The music in Doctor Who is without a doubt the greatest soundtrack in television history. Fuck it, it is one of the greatest soundtracks in any form of media. Murray Gold is one of the most underrated composers out there as his work on the show is hauntingly beautiful. He is able to make you feel adventurous and upbeat, but also dramatic and frightened, then triumphent and powerful! And finally make you weep like a baby. Some of my personal favourites of his are The Doctor Forever, I Am The Doctor, The Clouds Pass,
Doomsday, Father’s Day, The Majestic Tale (Of A Madman In A Box), The Companion’s
Themes, The Doctor’s Themes and Timelord Victorious. Seriously, for nothing else, if you've never seen Doctor Who then at least listen to the soundtrack, it is magnificant, matter of fact I'm gonna link to several of them so you can give them a try.
So overall, to answer the question, is Doctor Who even that good? Well, in certain aspects is is less than satisfying, there are other parts that are what makes this show so popular and memorable, damn near incredible. So it's really one of those, the good outweight the bad kind of shows. Sure, part of the show are just perfection, there are plenty of moments that stink worse than a Slitheen's flatulance.
Goat Simulator was a surprise smash hit of 2014, what with there being so many simulator games out there it was only a matter of time until goats got one. And here's the thing about Goat Simulator, it is an awful game, it's glitchy, it's broken as hell, has no purpose whatsoever...and yet everyone loves it, and why? Because it's so bad, it's good. And this really got me thinking, is there such a thing as so bad it's good when it comes to games? I mean with movies it's very easy, The Room, Birdemic, Batman & Robin, they're a dime a dozen, but videogames, that's a little bit trickier. Because videogames are a much bigger commitment, a movie will only take an average of 2 hours, but if you play a videogame for 2 hours then that's not even funny, that will piss you the fuck off, (I don't care what the fans say, Ground Zeroes being full price for only 2 hours of gameplay is a goddamn rip off!). And also if the gameplay is broken then you're not gonna have fun, and if you're not having fun then you hate it. Seeing everything wrong with a movie is okay because you're not the one experiencing it, in a videogame, you are trying as hard as you can to make it work but everything is just going against you, that doesn't make it fun, it makes you angry.
But this is where Goat Simulator comes in, the game is buggy as hell and the physics engine is about as consistent as a Spider-Man villain. Yet everyone loves it and everyone bought it, but why? Because the game is meant to be buggy as hell, the physics engine is supposed to be out of control. The fun of the game comes from testing to see how out of control the game will get. But doesn't that ruin the fun? So bad it's good movies we laugh at because of how much the creators don't know about film making, that's why Birdemic is so funny because they don't know the first thing about film making, but the people who made this game were fully aware of how bad it was, and it was exactly what they wanted it to be. So is it really so bad it's good? No. Because the developers set out with this intention, and it meets their expectations. It's like laughing at a Looney Tunes cartoon at how silly everything is getting, that's the point, that's what it was made to be like, but no one ever calls Looney Tunes so bad it's good.
So will we ever actually get a videogame that is so bad it's good? Unlikely, but considering the fact that we now have a rock simulator...well let's just say it's not out of the relm of possibilities.
Futurama seems to be one of those shows that everybody watches, everybody loves and yet somehow, we always forget about it. Every time when people are talking about their favourite TV Shows, after about 20 suggestions someone will bring up Futurama and everyone else goes "Oh yeeeaaaahhh!" not unlike the Kool-Aid Man. Futurama is one of the cleverest shows to ever exist with brilliant writing and memorable stories & characters, so why do we always forget about it? We all remember The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, hell even Bob's Burgers is starting to get a reputation, so why is it that we always need someone to remind us about Futurama existing?
When the show was cancelled, people went nuts, both times! Well if so many people were head over heels for this show then why was it cancelled...twice, because nobody was watching it. Hell, when I first found out about Futurama's cancellation I was surprised as hell...but I hadn't watched the latest season and I didn't know anyone who did, even though we love Futurama we still weren't watching it. And it's not like The Simpsons where the latest seasons just dip in quality, Futurama was strong till the end, both in terms of comedy and drama, so why weren't we watching it!?
Why is it that a show that appeals to everyone is somehow forgotten by everyone? Is such a timeless show destined to be lost in the depths of time? I think it's about time we all took another look at Futurama, because we can't let a show that everyone loves be forgotten, if you love Futurama just like everyone else does, then it's time to show it.
How many times have someone said originality in Hollywood is dead? People have said that everything in Hollywood these days is nothing more than a rehash of something else and that creativity & originality is dead. And I am here to call bullshit on that statement because that is not true, Hollywood is not dead, because it was never even alive.
Quickly looking at the IMDB's top 10 rated movies do you know how many on there were actually original stories? Two, Pulp Fiction & 12 Angry Men. Hell let's look at the top 50, only 22 of which are original stories, less than half. Films like The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, The Dark Knight, Forrest Gump, Fight Club, Silence of the Lambs, Psycho, Apocalypse Now, Die Hard, all based on pre-existing source material. So you see? Hollywood was never dead because it was never alive, I mean sure there have been attempts to breath life into Hollywood like Alien and Back to the Future, but then they get sequels and suddenly those franchises die along with the rest of Hollywood.
And those original movies were just gems in a sea of rehashed stories, and even then, they were inspired by other stories, Star Wars & Indiana Jones were homages to serial adventure stories from the 1940's even ripping off the text crawl at the start of the movie. The Matrix was an homage to Hong Kong action movies and used the same cinematography and choreography. Everything is ripping off something, the difference being whether or not it is a direct rip-off, or a spiritual rip-off.
And today we still have a lot of great original stories that only exist as gems the same way they did back in the old days, such as Inception or Spirited Away or Hot Fuzz. These are movies that will live forever as classics along with movies such as Goodfella's or Rear Window. And as for all those shitty movies that are being released well that doesn't mean Hollywood is getting shittier, Hollywood has always been releasing shitty movies since back in the days of Ed Wood, the difference between now & then is that we forgot about all those shitty movies. Sure some shitty movies survive the test of time just from how bad they are, but most of the time, the shitty movies will eventually disappear into the abyss, and all that remains are the greats. You think anyone 30 years from now is going to give a shit about Twilight? Hell making fun of it now is already starting to seem like a dated joke and eventually it'll be forgotten along with all the Rob Schneider and Jaden Smith movies.
Yes we may be in a trend of making remake after remake but that's what it is, a trend, yes most of us film buffs are at the end of our rope with this trend but the public isn't yet, but don't worry, they will, just like Jake Lloyd, Brittany Spears or American Idol, eventually, no one gives a shit.
And by the way Scarface, The Thing and Wizard of Oz were all remakes.
So The Fault in Our Stars came out a few weeks ago and overall I thought it was a pretty good movie and a very faithful adaptation of the source material, but my biggest problem with it was that pretty much every scene felt like they had a check list of scenes from the book that needs to be in the movie and that is pretty much all there was in this film, a bunch of highlights from the book, with nothing new added to it which asks the question, what was the point in adapting it?
I mean okay I understand the point was $$$ but really, from a creative stand point, what's the point in adapting something that is going to not only have nothing new to it but actually has less story than the source material? The movie, like most adaptations, had to cut stuff out from the book, however, they also normally add something new or change what they do have. Harry Potter, The Hobbit, To Kill A Mockingbird, all of them are fantastic adaptations of the source material while also able to be their own creation. The Fault in Our Stars just feels like a hallowed out version of the book, so really, why should I return to the movie when I can get everything the movie has to offer in the book and more?
Now some people will say that a movie can give you things that a book can't, for example a stronger emotional connection to the characters because you can now put a face to the characters you've been reading about, but that I disagree. When it was a book, you reflect the character to be whatever you want them to be, making the story more personal and the connection all the stronger, if the movie characters aren't how you picture them or how you'd like them to be (regardless of reading the book or not) the emotions aren't as strong. So from a story stand point and an emotional stand point, The Fault in Our Stars movie, while a faithful adaptation, offers nothing new for me to return back to. Now you could say that there are some people who don't like reading books and can't connect to the characters in that medium so a movie gives them the perfect chance to experience the story, well if they can't connect to a book then too fucking bad, it originated in that medium for a reason, if you can't connect to it then I guess you don't get a story, sucks to be you.
And yes, making changes is a risky situation, hell, fans of Watchmen were appalled by the changes made in the movie including Rorshachs' backstory and the ending of the movie (spoilers ahead) although while I do agree that Rorshach's backstory in the graphic novel is better, the ending I actually think is improved. The story is supposed to be a darker and more realistic approach to the superhero genre, so ending your story with a giant vagina squid monster (that's what I like to call it) just seems very silly, the ending of the movie by having Dr Manhattan destroy New York instead seems more reasonable and logical. Of course this is just personal preference, but that's the thing, some people are going to prefer the source material while others are going to prefer the adaptation, the point is, both are different enough that you can come back to either of them and get something new.
But then there are movies like Sin City, which is often referred to as the most faithful adaptation of all time, to the point where the comic book was used for both the storyboard and the script, scene for scene, word for word, the movie is nearly 100% accurate to the source material and I very much enjoy this movie. So why is it that Sin City works as an adaptation but The Fault in Our Stars doesn't? Well because even though Sin City isn't adding anything new to the source material, it is adding something new to the format. We haven't seen this type of movie before or since, Sin City as a movie is something completely different to experience and is a very impressive movie. Sin City is completely different to any other superhero movie, while The Fault in Our Stars, stylistically is just another romantic comedy.
Sticking to the YouTube train of thought, today's topic is: jump cuts. You know, that thing where one person is sat in front of the camera and then edits straight back to...itself, this is mostly done by vloggers where it's just a person talking into a camera and there's only one shot for the entire video, a lot of people find this annoying as it can be both distracting and show signs of stupidity in the vlogger because they for some reason can't remember one goddamn sentence without fucking up and redoing it, but the question is: can it be used effectively?
In my opinion, yes, it can, jump cuts are not necessarily a sign of stupidity, it all depends on how you use it. For example some YouTubers out there such as Jeremy Jahns will usually use a jump cut in between sentences, this is done because people have a horrible attention span, if Jeremy did a video with no edits whatsoever then some people will get bored, after all, stare at something long enough, on a big enough scale, everyone will eventually get bored, so people use edits in order to prevent that from happening, even if the thing they're editing to is...itself. But the difference between using it effectively and just coming across as stupid is when you use it, whenever there's a jump cut halfway through a sentence, you can't help but think "seriously, you couldn't get the whole sentence out? How dumb are you?" while using it inbetween sentences means that you can still come across as actually knowing what you're talking about without losing the attention of your audience.
And then there are the comedic aspects of it. One of the biggest aspects of comedy is the visuals of a joke, what we see, what don't see, how long we look at it, this is a major focus and can all come down to editing. YouTubers such as The Third Pew or Wheezy Waiter both use this to their advantage, edits give you full control over the comedy and seeing as for the most part their videos are filmed from one angle, jump cuts are their biggest key to comedic editing, and in some cases one shot is all they need in order to make a joke, editing to the exact same shot but seeing something different is all it takes to make some comedy.
YouTube is a wonderful place where anyone from anywhere can become successful and a big star, no matter what the big time producers of Hollywood say, you can make your own audience for your comedy! The problem with that is a lot of the YouTube audience are a bunch of 12 year olds that still haven't matured to the point where they realise Grown Ups 2 was a pile of garbage. Which sadly means a lot of successful YouTube "comedians" are actually atrociously repetitive, make nothing but silly faces and don't know the first thing about comedy, now to be fair, a lot of successful movies are like that as well, (again, Grown Ups 2). But YouTubers, like movies, there is always that diamond in the rough, those YouTubers that are genuinely funny and talented and deserve there audience. And today I'm going to be taking a look at my top 10 favourite YouTube comedians. Now this can be everything from sketches, parodies, vloggers, let's players, if it in some way tells jokes then it can be on this list and you've all probably stopped reading this by now haven't you? *Sigh* Yeah whatever, let's just get to the list.
10. Emma Blackery
Vloggers are a tricky business, I mean most of them are just a bunch of 20 year olds acting like they're 12 and putting barely any effort into their videos, and they don't need to, because lucky for them their audience is also just a bunch of 12 year olds that can't tell when a product is actually good, just as long as it looks cool. Emma Blackery by all accounts, should be one of those YouTubers, but somehow, the girl managed to not only put actual effort into her videos, but actually make them really funny as well. Her style seems to be crude mixed with sarcasm that isn't afraid to insult anyone who pisses her off. It's this type of brutally honesty delivery that makes her a very funny vlogger, as well as making fun of a bunch of cliches that vloggers follow (including herself). This level of self-awareness and aggression make her a very entertaining YouTuber to watch.
9. A Dose of Buckley
Speaking of aggression...A Dose of Buckley is a YouTuber who makes videos complaining about all the stupidity in the world, now even though Buckley doesn't consider himself a YouTuber, he's made hundreds of videos over the years so fuck it, I'm putting him on here. While admittedly I don't agree with all of his statements, you have to admit, Buckley does deliver that sense of reflection on society that most YouTubers don't deliver, and if they do, they don't do it in the comedic form that Buckley does. Buckley's sarcastic and unapologetic approach is very entertaining and his mean spirited nature makes him more unique than most YouTubers. Buckley gives us that slice of common sense that seems to be missing in today's pop-culture driven society. Also if you're hypersensitive about your sense of humour and don't like it when people insult others as a form of comedy, don't worry, he made a video for you guys.
8. TimH
There are very few directors out there that remember that comedy is a visual medium, off the top of my head the only modern directors I can think of are Edgar Wright, Phil Lord & Chris Miller. Sadly this makes a lot of comedies these days just, well...boring. But with that being said, there are plenty of YouTubers out there making short films and comedy sketches and still remember that something as simple as the rightly timed edit or a certain frame can itself create comedy. So you'll be seeing several people like that on this list, all British, not to sound biased or anything...Anyway the first of these is Tim Hauke...Hakue...Haukeut--TimH, who has all of these qualities, however, he has only started doing comedy sketches recently, and while they have a lot of creativity and production design behind them, quantity is still important, not as quality, but still important.
7. Jack & Dean
Hey, I did say you'd get several British sketch comedians on here. Jack & Dean, like TimH remember that the key to comedy isn't just what's being said, but what's being seen, or in some cases, what's not being seen. The biggest problem with Jack & Dean is that they rarely ever actually upload videos, which to be fair, whenever they do upload, it is almost always worth it, as they clearly took the time & effort into each and every one of their videos and they always turn out great.
6. Nerd3
I am not a fan of Let's Players, I find 90% to be repetitive, unentertaining, slow paced and giving no unique perspective, Nerd3 on the other hand, is very funny, very unique and almost all of his videos are different. While his improvisational skills are hilarious, normally his edited videos are the best simply because he edits out all the boring things and we end up with the comedic highlights. Now being completely honest my biggest problem with Nerd3 is our opinions on games, and by that I mean we either agree 100% it's scary, or we disagree so much that I want to punch a hole through my computer screen...but he is funny.
5. The Third Pew
Like I said, I'm not a big fan of vloggers because it requires almost no effort and very little thought is put into the "jokes", however, The Third Pew (Nathan) does put a lot of effort into his videos and believe it or not, he actually uses jump cuts effectively, I know! I didn't think it was possible either! But in all seriousness, Nathan's fast paced comedic deliver, satire of the youtube society, use of puns and choice of words (yes that's a thing, some words are funnier than others, just think about that). Nathan is probably the funniest vlogger out there who actually has a reason to barely upload because 1: he's still in school and 2: he puts effort into his videos, while there are some vloggers out there who's videos take much less effort and they have all the time in the word but rarely upload, not to point fingers *cough* amazingphil *cough*.
4. Steve, Lee & Joe from SourceFed
Awfully specific Dan, why not just say SourceFed? Why are you singling out three members of SourceFed? Well it's simple...I think Steve, Joe & Lee are the funniest people at SourceFed. Now just to be clear I'm not saying they're the only funny people at SourceFed, I love everyone at SourceFed, however these three are funny when they're on their own, when there's ever a video with two of them, it's really funny, when it's all three of them, it is just simply hilarious. Their chemistry and impersonations are great but most of all their improve skills are wonderful and shows their talent of being naturally funny. Everyone at SourceFed are great, but the trifecta of comedy comes down to these three.
3. TomSka
Ah, back to the British sketch comedians, you know I just realised that us Brit's seem to be the best when it comes to sketch comedy (Monty Python FTW!). TomSka, I would say is the king of British YouTube comedians, not only has he been doing it the longest but his videos have only been getting better and better and better. Like I said with TimH and Jack & Dean, comedy is a visual medium and Tom takes full advantage of that, but even more so he also has the perfect amount of randomness. Random comedy is hard to do because eventually, it becomes expected, so the fact that TomSka has been able to keep something like the asdf series going for several years and still being hilarious is an impressive accomplishment
2. Wheezy Waiter
Wheezy Waiter is one of the most committed YouTubers ever, he's been doing this for over 7 years and has made thousands of videos yet the dude is never stale, most of the time he will make a new video every weekday and yet none of them ever feel rushed or repetitive, they are always entertaining and creative, the dude is truly admirable. And just like The Third Pew, he uses jump cuts to his advantage and creates a good sense of comedy from them, combine this with his use of recurring jokes, talented editing skills and style of delivery, it makes Wheezy Waiter one of the best comedians on all of YouTube.
1. Team Four Star
Movie parodies are dead, I can't remember the last good parody movie to be released in theatres (No, Cabin in the Woods is not a parody, it's a satire, there's a difference) However, parody is still strong on both TV and on the internet, and without a doubt, the best parody series on YouTube and my all time favourite YouTube comedians are Team Four Star. Now I love Dragonball Z, I love it to death...but man does it have a lot of dumb things about it, and Team Four Star take advantage of all of that, and they give us some incredibly funny and memorable jokes and episodes from this series. The best part about it is how talented the voice cast is, the cast that play these characters are incredibly talented and some of them sound almost identical to the original cast, it's this amount of effort put into it to make it seem like it actually takes place in the Dragonball universe that makes it even funnier. I would even say that you could watch this show without even seeing Dragonball Z and you will still find it funny, also if you've ever seen the behind the scenes videos and you see just how much effort is put into these videos, they show that parody is still alive and can still be amazing, everyone involved in this production should be proud of themselves because they are without a doubt the best comedians on YouTube.
Shadow of the Colossus is one of the greatest videogames of all time, if I had to pick just one game and say that this is a definitive work of art, Shadow of the Colossus would be that game. The atmosphere, the music, the tone, the designs, the creativity; Shadow of the Colossus is by all means a perfect game. And yet it is such a simple game, our main character Wander makes a deal with a demon that if he kills 16 monsters then he'll bring his girlfriend back to life, and that's it, there are no side-missions or upgrades throughout the game, you just travel to 16 different locations on your horse and kill these sixteen colossi. Yet with such a simple premise the game is able to tell so much, with almost no dialogue (and none in English) the game is able to express so much emotion from beauty to horror and creates a moral debate in the players mind without even giving a reason for you to think that, all the emotions you experience are down to you simply by making this world feel alive and therefore the experiences are more impactful. And nowhere is this more present than in the final colossus of the game "Malus".
-(Spoilers Ahead)-
Throughout the game, every time you kill a colossus, it's spirit is then absorbed into you, and as the game goes on Wander is just getting sicker and sicker, even though he never says anything, you just know he's getting worse because...you're getting worse. You feel the pain he feels, you understand the struggle he has to go through because Wander does not have any special powers or anything unique about him, he's just one man trying to save the life of someone important to him. This is a quality that we can all respect and really ask ourselves, how far would you go to save a loved one?
Now of course, when approaching the final colossus, the journey there doesn't really seem all that special, it's just like any other colossus, you ride your horse Agro up to the colossus' location to fight him, there's no tense music or disturbing visuals, it's fairly normal...that is until Agro falls off a cliff and supposedly dies, leaving you all alone. This is the moment that put a lot of people into a state of depression. Agro, your horse, your friend and only companion throughout the entire game...has died, suddenly things are looking much bleaker than usual. As you then get closer and closer to the colossus, the music starts swelling up and the sky goes black, and then you see it, this mountain of a colossus off in the distance, and you alone have to fight against that. And the haunting music that plays throughout this fight doesn't exactly boost your confidence.
Throughout this fight where you stand no chance of killing this thing and having lost everything you cared about and with this music playing in the background a wave of thoughts go through your head doubting yourself. "Is it worth it?" "what else do I have to lose?" "what will happen to me if I survive?" "Do these colossi really deserve to die?". All this and more put you into a state of surrender with the only thing pushing you forward is the fact that it's too late to turn back now, otherwise everything you've sacrificed will be for nought. And in the end, when it comes to the final blow, this is how you know this is one of the most engaging videogames of all time, as everyone that I have spoken to who have played this game all had the same thought go through their heads as they killed this monster "This is for Agro".
Terminator 2: Judgement Day is one of the greatest action movies of all time, but what is often overlooked is actually my favourite part of the movie, the first 20 minutes. For those of you who haven't seen Terminator (fix that soon) here's a recap on what happens. Terminator 1: In the near future of 2029, robots & humans are at war and the human resistance is being lead by John Connor, so Skynet (the bad guys) decide to send a Terminator back in time to kill John Connor's mother, Sarah Connor, before she gives birth to him, this of course does not work, Terminator destroyed, we all live happily ever after. Terminator 2: Skynet decides to try again, this time kill John when he's a 13 year old boy, but future John Connor is like "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" so they decide to send their own Terminator back to protect John. And for the first 20 minutes of the movie we have two Terminators looking for John Connor, one to kill him, one to protect him.
Now the reason why I consider this to be the best part of the movie is for one simple reason, you don't know which one is there to kill him and which one is there to protect him. This creates a level of tension when the action hasn't even started yet, because you don't know which one to root for to get to him first.
