Pocket Universe

Okay, I know this is woefully late, but I wanted to toss out my list of honorable mentions from E3. These are the games that showed potential and were interesting, but weren’t quite the best of the show.

Red Steel (Wii)

Another first-person shooter? I admit that I wasn’t excited about this game prior to E3. However, using the Wii control scheme, it looks like it will (dare I say it?) revolutionize the genre. You move with the thumbstick and aim by pointing to the screen; already, it seems like shooting is going to be much easier than with a standard controller. But they added other unique gameplay elements. If you get to a closed door, you can make a movement with your left hand like you’re pushing the door open, and you see your in-game hand opening it. Each weapon has a different way of reloading, and if you’re using the shotgun, you actually hold your right hand upright, and move your left hand like you’re pumping the barrel to reload. Very cool. When you have your opponent disarmed, you can just wave your gun towards the ground, and he will understand that he’s supposed to lay down. Oh, and you can hold your gun sideways if you want to look like a gangster for some reason.

But the coolest element has to be the swordfighting sequences. You slash and thrust with your right hand, and bring your left hand up to block. It remains to be seen how precise the motions will be (the demo showed the player holding a sword to his opponent’s neck), but if it’s anything near what was shown, it should usher in a whole new way of playing FPS games. Hopefully other developers will take the cue and start thinking differently about the controller and its effect on gameplay.

Viva Piñata (Xbox 360)

Okay, I’ll admit it: I’m a sucker for cute. And I’m a sucker for sim-type games where there is no predefined goal. Oh, and I’m a sucker for cool uses of online connectivity. Viva Piñata for the Xbox 360 delivers all of those, in spades, along with a graphic style that you have to see to truly appreciate. Every character and item in the game looks like it was made from that crèpe-paper piñata material, and everything is very colorful. I could just sit and watch this game all day.

The premise of the game (and please, bear with me here) is that you’re cultivating an area of land to attract living piñatas. One of the examples given was that if you have water, grass, and apples, you will attract the horse piñata. As you change and develop the environment, different types will arrive and leave. Maybe some types only show up if other types are already present. Some animals don’t get along, so you’ll either have to keep them separated, or there’s going to be a lot of candy spilled on the ground. Sometimes a sour piñata will arrive in your town, being violent and attacking the other residents. You can either lure him away, try to cure him, or just get your shovel and beat him until his sour candy pours out. Of course, then you risk other animals getting infected….

I suppose that if there were a goal to the game, it would be to eventually collect every different type of piñata. To that end, you can package up one of your residents and give or trade it to a friend over Xbox Live. Some will be common, and some will be rare. Maybe you will end up with a rare color combination that you can sell in the Xbox Live Marketplace. If you want, you can pay someone else to come in to your town (again, over Xbox Live) and do your gardening and take care of your town. And of course, the developers will continually be adding new items and piñatas that will be available for download.

Although I am a big fan of the potential for online connectivity, there are admittedly some concerns. The developers mentioned having new content available, but were unclear whether it would be free or not. Is this entire game just a ploy to get obsessed gamers to play $1.99 each month to download the latest cool pets? Or will most of the content be free? And why is there already a cartoon tie-in planned? I suppose the jury is still out on this one. It sounds like a mere shadow of what Spore will be, especially since the types of piñatas are limited by what the developers create, while Spore has an infinite number of creatures designed by millions of other players across the globe, all downloaded to your machine seamlessly in the background, for free. But from a strictly 360-centered point of view, I think Viva Piñata looks intriguing.

Guitar Hero II (PS2)

Not much to say about this one. It will have something like forty new licensed songs, and a number of other independent tracks. One of the licensed songs is “YYZ” by Rush, and I got to try out the bass line. I don’t really have any news other than that. It will come out this fall, and you’ll buy it, because it is insanely addictive and one of the best PS2 games ever made. What more do you need to know?

Heavenly Sword (PS3)

Oh look, a PlayStation 3 game made it onto my list! Well, don’t get your hopes up too high. The demo of this medieval fighting game was set in an arena, where your double-bladed heroine gets to face off against scores of enemies. Gameplay-wise, it seems very similar to God of War, as you have several different attacks using your chain blades, as well as pre-scripted combo moves that you execute by hitting the right combination of button presses following the on-screen prompts.

So why did this make my list? Three reasons: One, it is just a lot of fun to play. They really make you feel in control of the character, as she jumps around and pulls off various combination moves. Secondly, the graphics are just stunning. Everything is suffused with a golden glow, from the metal on the armor to the ethereal haze of the weaponry. This is the only PS3 game I saw that really looked better than the 360. And finally, it seemed to have some great character A.I. When you start off the demo, the enemies are watching you practice your moves in the arena. As you perform various tricks, they laugh and clap and cheer and goad you on. Then, as they start attacking, the onlookers react realistically to what is happening on the battle. If other games can start having background characters that act this realistically, then I will be very pleased with the direction the next generation is headed.

Super Paper Mario (GameCube)

For some reason, Nintendo chose not to have any GameCubes on the show floor. Okay, maybe there was a good reason, since Super Paper Mario looks like the only new first-party GameCube game they announced. But it looks like the GameCube will go out with a bang! Super Paper Mario looks like a traditional side-scrolling action game utilizing the 2-D paper look from the Paper Mario RPG series. However, as with Paper Mario, this game plays with those conventions in interesting ways. Since the characters are literally flat, they can slide under obstacles, roll up and blow away, turn into a paper airplane, and do all sorts of other crazy feats.

This looks like a game that plays with the conventions of traditional side-scrolling action games, and throws in a bunch of perspective changes from 2-D to 3-D just to confuse the player. From the demo movie I saw, there were shots of a giant Mario character drawn in the blocky style from Donkey Kong, characters running on walls as gravity changes direction, and strange art-deco–inspired moving backgrounds. It’s been a while since the GameCube has had a good, classically-inspired Mario game.

Andy’s Rating: one notch below Loved It (12/13)*

Look, I’m not going to lie to you: I never bought in to the concept behind Cars. I mean, come on: talking cars? So there’s no people, and every is just a car? To me, that just sounds like an excuse to make all the silly little car puns that you see in the commercials, and to show off Pixar’s fancy new chrome and candy-apple-red textures. And the idea itself just didn’t sound compelling. I was convinced that this would be the first Pixar movie to not do as well at the box office, receive less critical acclaim, and send Pixar crawling back to Disney, begging for a deal. (Granted, that was before the big merger.) In short, I thought this would be the first Pixar movie that would cause everyone to say, “Okay, maybe they can make a bad movie.”

In short: Boy, was I wrong. More specifically, I was really, really wrong. At the very least, Cars is on par with the other Pixar releases. In fact, would say that I probably liked this movie more than half of the other Pixar films, which is saying a lot. (Some day I will go back and post my historcal ratings of past movies, but until then, trust me, they’re all pretty high up there.) Just to get this out of the way, there is nothing wrong with the visuals of the movie. Everything looks spectacular and clear and glossy and just as good as previous ones…better in many ways, since many of Pixar’s characters suffer from that plasticky look (e.g. Monsters Inc.). And as for suspension of disbelief, I got over that after maybe ten minutes or so. Sure, it’s strange to think of cars watching other cars race, but we watch other people in footraces, so I guess it’s not that odd. And yes, all the little clever car jokes are in there, and they’re never too gratuitous or goofy.

But honestly, the star of this movie is the story. Now, I usually try to keep my reviews fairly spoiler-free, and this one will be no exception. But to really explain why I liked this movie so much, I will have to spend some time discussing the themes of the movie, and maybe some don’t want to read that before seeing it. In deference to those readers, I will continue this review on the next page.

There’s an interesting thread over at Evil Avatar about backwards compatibility and the future of video games. Basically, the editorial suggests that developers release “greatest hits” packs containing selections of classic games, primarily for those who have never played them before.

The discussion brings up an interesting point: Why is it that you can go to Best Buy and pick up a movie that is fifty years old, but you can’t find a game that was made more than a few years ago? Can you imagine if someone wanted to watch a movie, but couldn’t get anything that was released prior to 2000? Or if a salesman said, “Why do you want to watch that old movie? You should check out of these new movies that just came out!” For some reason, we have great respect for the history and tradition of movies, but games are still stuck in the “newer is better” mentality. And of course, as a side effect of the short release cycle for games, they typically retail for $50, to maximize the profits during their relatively short shelf life.

This strange dichotomy between movies and video games just struck me, which is why I wanted to mention it. Hopefully the Wii, with its downloadable games from the first three generations of Nintendo consoles, will allay this accepted practice somewhat. Instead of a game that uses two analog sticks, four face buttons, and four shoulder buttons, I could show my son a game that uses one joystick and a jump button. I think need to remember where we came from to truly appreciate the games of today.

Andy’s Rating: one notch above Really Liked It (11/13)*

How do you follow up Superman, the father of the modern superhero movie and arguably the greatest superhero movie of all time? Do you perform a complete reboot of the franchise as they did in the comics, where you ignore what had come before and retell the origin story? The first four Batman films touched on Bruce Wayne’s origins only briefly, which left them the opportunity to go back and tell that story in Batman Begins. But with a backstory that was done so well in Superman, there was no such gap in the mythos that needed to be filled in. So what is the best way to approach a new Superman film?

In the case of Superman Returns, you respect the story that has come before, and build off of it. Far from ignoring the previous movies, director Bryan Singer embraces them (well, at least the first two). Strictly from a plot perspective, Superman Returns continues where the previous films left off, and follows directly from those events (albeit with a gap in time that is explained in the story). There are many references to the first movie, but in most cases, it would be incorrect to refer to them as homages. After all, if something happens to you, and you mention it again ten years later, would you consider that an “homage” to yourself? No, that would simply be consistency of character. In the same way, the characters in Superman Returns are consistent with the first movie; they just happen to be played by different actors.

I was initially unsure about Brandon Routh in the role of Superman, but he quickly falls into the role. He even sounds like Christopher Reeve, which is a nice touch. Kevin Spacey is similarly brilliant playing Gene Hackman playing Lex Luthor. The arrogance, the vanity…all of the characteristics that Hackman brought to the role, Spacey plays to perfection. The only real standout different is Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, but frankly Margot Kidder was miscast as Lois Lane in the original film, so Bosworth is a breath of fresh air as a driven yet sympathetic reporter. In the minor roles, Parker Posey is a decent substitute for Valerie Perrine, and Kal Penn is passable is his role of Guy Who Looks At Something Off-Camera While Luthor Makes A Speech.

But besides the characters and plot, Singer kept all of the little touches from the original Superman movie. The most important one, and honestly the one that makes Superman Superman, is the original music by John Williams. Where appropriate, his themes were used, which just resonates with the nearly thirty years of cinema history. Even the opening credits were done in the same style, which to me is just fantastic. It would be tempting to try to improve upon the credits, but why mess with perfection? All the other little moments are there too: “Look, up in the sky!”, wondering why Clark looks so similar to Superman, the pose from the cover of Action Comics number 1, being faster than a speeding bullet, some of Superman’s lines about air travel…even a throw-away line by Lex Luthor from the first movie was referenced in this one. And Marlon Brando! Marlon Brando as Jor-El! Again, from the first movie, but it is used to thematically tie this story together.

If I can fault the film on a few aspects, I would have to say that I needed less “man,” and more “super.” Sure, I understand that in this post-modern society, we need to deconstruct our heroes, from the Dark Knight to Watchmen to Astro City, and even Spider-Man. But Superman has always been iconic and idealized, representing something greater than ourselves. It is hard to ground him in reality without making him seem…well, grounded. As I mentioned in my review of Spider-Man 2, you can focus on the human side of Peter Parker because that is who he is, and Spider-Man is just an alter-ego. But with Superman, that is who he is, and Clark Kent is the costume that he wears. So when the movie starts examining his humanity (or technically, his Kryptonianity), it makes him seem less noble and more petty. I mean, if you are Superman and you stand for truth, justice, and the American Way, are you going to sit around spying on Lois Lane and pondering the future, or are you going to go out and catch bad guys? You don’t have to be born under a red sun to know the answer to that one.

Even going beyond that storyline, there simply weren’t enough scenes of Superman being super. Again, taking Spider-Man 2 as a counterexample, you saw plenty of scenes with Spidey and Doc Ock fighting on a building, on a speeding train, saving people, delivering pizza…even though the story was driven by Peter Parker, you got enough Spider-Man to tide you over until 2007. But with Superman, the scenes of Superman were less dense. Don’t get me wrong, the action setpieces were great when they were onscreen; I just wish there were more of them, and more variety. It just seems like they hit the marks they needed to hit, without going over and above and delivering some action that was truly unique and amazing.

And finally, it seems as if much of the fun was drained out of the movie by the end. Instead of ending on the big feel-good action scene, the epilogue dragged on for far too long, and left the viewer (or at least me) on a bit of a down note. There must be a way that the writers could have gotten their point across about Superman, without making the last half-hour of the movie feel like a wake.

But overall, these complaints are overshadowed by everything that Superman Returns does right. They really did not throw away a single thing that worked from the first movie, and added some modern touches that still gave proper respect to the Superman film heritage. And really, it’s just nice to see Superman up on the screen again. Hopefully it won’t be another nineteen years between this movie and the next.