Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Fallout 4 Review

     If you were to make a list of the most beloved video game franchises, the "Fallout" series would be towards the top. The first game in the series was released in 1997; an open world RPG, the game became an instant hit among fans and critics and has been listed among some of the best RPGs of all time. Over the next seven years three more games were released, most of which were met with highly positive reviews. But somewhere along the line the series developer Bethesda decided to change up the franchise. In 2008 "Fallout 3" was released, it moved away from the classic top-down RPG style of the previous games and became a first/third person action-shooter with RPG elements. The title was met with wide acclaim and was named one of the best games of the year by many critics and publications. Even though the style of the game was changed almost completely, many fans still believe it to be the best in the series. Two years later "Fallout: New Vegas" released, a successor to "Fallout 3" but not as much of a major installment in the series. While "New Vegas" was met with positive reviews, it was harshly criticized for not being a huge leap forward like its predecessor. The game ran on the same engine as "Fallout 3" and only included some minor improvements, the only major changes would be the new map and story. Since then fans have been waiting for a true sequel to "Fallout 3," and for years they heard nothing but rumors. But early this year Bethesda confirmed that "Fallout 4" was in the works, and just a few weeks after that at the video game convention E3 they announced that the game would be released in November of 2015. Considering many games are announced years before their release, it was surprising that we would get to explore the wasteland once again before the year’s end. So after seven years of waiting fans finally get the game they've been asking for, but is it the game they wanted?
     "Fallout 4" starts off in 2077, where you either take control of a husband or wife. On a day like any other you are just enjoying your morning, when all of a sudden you hear a report on the TV. Apparently nuclear arsenals all around the world have been launched, already decimating parts of the United States. You, your spouse, and you baby leave the house and run to a nearby bunker named Vault 111; the Vaults were supposed to act as shelters in case of a nuclear attack, but in reality their creators designed them with much more cruel intentions. Upon arriving, your family is quickly brought in and placed into decontamination pods. But in reality, you are placed into cryogenic pods and frozen. Instead of keeping the inhabitants and alive and safe, the vault was designed to see the effects of being frozen for long periods of time would have on a person. After being frozen for an untold amount of time, you wake to see your wife spouse murdered and son kidnapped. And for some reason, they just freeze you again. Sometime later you awake once more, this time you are free. You emerge from the vault in Boston, two hundred years after the bombs fall. You then set out upon the Commonwealth to find your son and avenge your spouse. And nothing will stand in your way of doing so.
     The only game I can think of in recent years that has had this much hype and anticipation around it would have to be "Grand Theft Auto 5;" and even that game might not be at the level of "Fallout 4." And after putting many hours of my life into this game, I can safely say that it might be my favorite game of the year. I'll even go a step further and say that it's one of the year's best. What was going to make or break this game was how much it improved upon its predecessors. "Fallout 3" and "New Vegas" are great games, but stumble in many areas. Probably the most notable improvement would have to be how much better the combat is. It won't be winning any "shooter of the year" awards, but it is a huge step forward. The weapons have weight behind them, and the whole system feels less "floaty" than the previous games. I also have to mention the weapons; you are given a lot of options. There are tons of weapons in the game, and something new to the series you are able to heavily mod your weapons. In previous games you were able to attach an upgrade or two to specific weapons, but with this one you can extensively change each weapon to your play style; the same can be said about your armor, there is tons of variety, that offer you options with special boosts attached to certain pieces. Accompanied by plenty of enemy variety and a new perk system that works well, you have what is easily the best combat in the franchise; and it allows you to play many different ways. The only real problem I had with combat would be the NPCs. Both friendly and enemy characters can be rather dumb, and look out of place (especially in combat). They'll try and go somewhere but get stuck, they'll fire their weapon at their opponent but be off by a mile, or even stand out in the open and not even try for cover. They work fine most of the time, but on more than a few occasions I looked at game controlled characters and just rolled my eyes. The game also looks much better that the previous two titles in the series. On a technical level "Fallout 3," which came out in 2008, was not even a good looking game for its time. And "New Vegas" just two years later looked exactly the same, and was put to shame by other games that came out that year. "Fallout 4" is a huge step forward, but at the same time it's unimpressive. This year we've seen some games with truly impressive graphics, such as "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt" and "Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain." Compared to them, "Fallout 4" looks like it was released two years ago. The open world is big and beautiful, with colorful art design and an impressive level of detail; but on a technical level, the graphics are subpar. Another problem regarding the look of the game would have to be its characters. Unlike the previous two games, in this one when characters have conversations they move and have more elaborate animations. The problem is that they don't look very good. To be honest, they often just look kind of wonky with bad lip syncing. It kind of takes you out of it when you’re watching a character and it's just jarring to see them walk and talk. When it comes to building worlds, Bethesda is one of the best in the business. The world of "Fallout 4" is impressive to say the least; there is an ungodly amount of stuff you can do, and the map is massive to say the least. I'm not sure on the exact size, but I think it's safe to say that it's larger than "Skyrim." I had a blast just traveling through the Commonwealth, all while enjoying one of the best video game soundtracks of the year. And there is no shortage of stuff that you can do in "Fallout 4," after my first play though I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. You'll find dozens upon dozens of missions to complete that could keep you satisfied forever. But some of the missions do feel repetitive, often involving you traveling to a location and just killing a bunch of enemies. But if doing mission after mission isn't your thing, one of the more interesting new features would be base building. Throughout the world you'll be able to establish bases, once there you can build houses, security defenses, and other structures to improve the lives of your followers. You don't have use this feature though, it’s entirely optional. During my run I only used it to complete a few missions, but my roommate loved it and put a ton of time into it. So while not mandatory, it is a neat new mechanic to play around with. But with a world like this, the game encounters more than a few problems; mostly technical ones. Bethesda has never been known for their polish; with some of their games they were essentially unplayable at launch. During my play through, I rarely experienced any major issues; but the game certainly had problems. I did experience a good number of minor glitches, things like a body falling through the floor or an item floating above the table. There were also issues with the frame rate, at random times the fps would just drop for no reason. The problem would be fixed quickly, but they were annoying and happened more than they should. The only really major technical issue I faced was that the game once shut down on itself. Fortunately I saved not long before that, but it was quite an annoyance. From what I've heard, I experienced fewer problems than many. Some have reported serious issues with the game, while my roommate was playing a character glitched that actually prevented him from completing a side quest. I'm sure that these issues will eventually be solved with patches, but for now it’s important to know that the game is having problems. If I had to guess what people loved most about the "Fallout” series, I would have to be the story behind the world. The way that the world evolved since the end of World War 2, the series is rich in lore that covers a few hundred years. The series has also been known for its compelling stories, and "Fallout 4" is no different. I was invested in the games plot pretty quickly, and really wanted to see how the story would end. And like its predecessors, this game has many interesting and memorable charters. Now since I had started playing, there was something that was bugging me that I quite couldn't put my finger on. Something that really bothered me, that detracted from the game in a way that didn't impact its predecessors. Then it hit me, the dialog. The dialog isn't bad, in some ways it feels much more organic than "Fallout 3" or "New Vegas." But the dialog feels much more limited. For example, in "New Vegas" you could be talking to someone and if you had a trait (such as medicine or explosives) high enough, you could actually unlock unique dialog options. "Fallout 4" still has these speech checks, but they've been simplified and lack the variety of these unique options. In what feels like an attempt by Bethesda to make the game friendlier to new players of the series, they removed one of the best features of the series. If anything, that is my biggest issue with the game. So let's be honest, "Fallout 4" isn't perfect. It is plagued by problems that do detract from the experience; problems that could have been avoided. But I can forgive its problems, because the game is just plain fun. This is one of the most thoroughly enjoyable games I've played this year. So while it's not perfect, it is still great. It may not be the masterpiece that everyone was hoping for, but it is enough to satisfy anyone interested. And with DLC packs on the way, the adventure has only just begun.

Pros: Greatly improved combat over predecessors, improved graphics, big and beautiful open world, great world design with impressive level of detail, colorful art design, new perk system works well, fantastic soundtrack, captivating story, several interesting and memorable characters, rich lore, tons or weapons/armor and customization options, base building is neat new feature, ungodly amount of stuff you can do, lots of enemy variety, let's you play many different ways, just plain fun.
Cons: Improved but unimpressive graphics, friendly and enemy NPCs can be dumb, various technical issues, issues with lip syncing, character animations sometimes look wonky, dialog options have been simplified, some missions feel repetitive.

4/5 Stars

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Spectre Review

     I have seen a lot of movies during my life from a lot of different franchises I love, but the one I love more than any other would be the "James Bond" franchise. If I remember correctly the first "Bond" movie I saw was "The Spy Who Loved Me," starring the longest serving Bond Roger Moore. The action, the characters, the women, I fell in love immediately and continued to love the series for years to come. Now let's be honest, a lot of the "Bond" movies aren't very good; more than a few are bad. And to this day I still believe "Octopussy" isn't just the worst movie in the franchise, but one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But there are a few great "Bond" movies: Dr. No, Goldfinger, Casino Royale, and Skyfall are all fantastic and are easily some of my all time favorite movies. Over the years though the series has gotten some flak for being ridiculous and downright cartoony, but in 2006 the series was given reboot with Daniel Craig as the title character. Taking a cue from the "Bourne" series, the new movies were darker and more series and even touched on a few deep thematic elements. The initial reboot was a huge success with "Casino Royal" receiving critical acclaim, with particular praise going to Craig. While the next movie "Quantum of Solace" was met with some harsh criticism, 2012's "Skyfall" was the series biggest hit and grossed over one billion dollars at the box office. Being such a success, the property owner Sony actually asked the director of "Skyfall" to return one more time for the 24th film in the franchise, "Spectre." But alas, with such a promising movie there is heart break. "Spectre" is likely Daniel Craig's last movie as Bond, which is a shame because he has become the definite Bond actor in the eyes of many fans. So while all great things must come to an end, one question still remains; "how good is Craig's last Bond movie."
     Not long after the events of Skyfall, MI6 agent James Bond receives a message from his recently deceased boss asking him to kill an assassin and track his associates. By doing so Bond accidentally causes an international indecent in Mexico when he practically blows up a city block. While all this is going on, the government has decided to merge MI6 with MI5. The boss of MI5, C, believes that the double O program is obsolete and thinks that the future of surveillance is in technology. While investigating the assassin he learns that he was part of a secret organization of criminals called SPECTRE. So Bond sets out to discover who is behind this organization and what their goal is, but in the end he might not like the answer to either of those questions. 
     "Spectre" was one of my most anticipated movies of the year, not just because I love the series but in the wake of some of the other recent "Bond" movies I was sure that I would love it. In reality though, I only liked it. Now let's get this out of the way, Daniel Craig as James Bond. When I think of Bond, I think of Craig. He has become the definitive Bond of the modern age; and as always he is great as the character in "Spectre." But he isn't alone in this movie; the entire cast does a good job, new and old. Especially Lea Seydoux, who played the leading lady. She did a great job, and I really liked her character; Seydoux and Craig had good chemistry together, and I can see their characters working together and riding off into the sunset. So while I liked her character, some of the other new characters were less impressive; especially the villains. To be honest the villains were just lackluster and unmemorable. Coming off of "Skyfall" which had one of the best villains in the entire series, none of the villains in this movie stood out. Christoph Waltz played the lead antagonist in "Spectre," and while he did a good job his character was not up to par. For a series known for its memorable villains, "Spectre" disappoints in that regard. One thing that the series always gets right though is the action, and "Spectre" has some of the best action scenes in the entire series. What helped with that would be the great production value and huge set pieces. Apparently this is one of the most expensive movies of all time, and you can definitely see it. And just like "Skyfall," "Spectre" is a gorgeous movie to watch. The cinematography is beautiful and some of the best I've seen this year, particularly the opening scene which is mostly one long shot. I would not be surprised if this movie were nominated for best cinematography at the Oscars. And like almost every "Bond" movie, "Spectre" features a great soundtrack. The new songs work great and the classic pieces are always a joy to hear; I didn't love the opening song by Sam Smith, but the accompanying sequence was absolutely beautiful. There were a lot of things about this movie that I really liked, but there is one major flaw that takes almost all the steam out of it; the story is just not good. "Skyfall" had one of the best premises and some of the best writing in the entire series. It was deep and showed a new side of the title character; "Spectre" didn't have any of that. The story was often messy, confusing, and all over the place. There were a few times where I had no idea what was happening and why the characters were doing something. And the whole side plot about how the new boss wants to cancel the double O program was rather uninteresting. There is also so much happening in this movie that it feels bloated at times, which contributed to how unnecessarily long it is. Clocking in at almost two and a half hours, towards the end you are just ready for it wrap up. There were a couple scenes that felt unnecessary all together, and could have been cut. On top of that, some of the dialogwas rather cheesy and sounded stupid when it came out of the characters mouth. That might have worked for the older films, but they can't get away with that in the modern ones. "Spectre" could have been great, it could have been one of the best in the series; but somewhere along the line the people behind it took a wrong turn, and plunged it into mediocrity. It‘s a shame, if this is Craig's last movies as Bond he deserved to retire the character with a better movie. While it shined in some areas, the story, villains, and writing really do drag it down. It's not a bad movie, and overall I did enjoy it. But if asked to list the best "Bond" movies, "Spectre" would not rank that high. 

Pros: Daniel Craig has become the definitive bond, awesome action scenes, great production value and set pieces, good performances from the cast, beautifully shot, great soundtrack, beautiful introduction sequence.
Cons: Much longer than needed, lackluster villains, some bad dialog, issues with the story.

3.5/5 Stars