No Man's Sky Review

Played on PC.

I'm not a huge fan of procedurally generated survival games in the first place, but this one seemed to be too good to be true.  I didn't fully buy into the hype, buuuut I wanted at least SOME of it to be true.  I routinely made the "didn't Spore make promises it couldn't possibly fulfill?" observations with the caveat that I wanted this game to be good.  I didn't want to smugly say this is Spore 2 after release but goddamnit this is Spore 2.  

Since this seems to be the most controversial game of 2016 (at least so far), it's likely you've seen other reviews and I don't want to rehash the same points in detail here.  So, here's a few notes before I go on to the meat of what I want to talk about.

1. The PC port, as of launch, is poorly optimized.  Frame rate drops are frequent though it seems to stabilize after you play for a bit.  Also, if you Alt-Tab out of the game, you can't get back in.  The game continues to run, but it won't re-open.  
2. Texture pop-in is wonky on both PC and what I've seen on PS4 as well.  Not a huge gripe with me as most of it is when you are entering a planets atmosphere but it sometimes happens on the ground too, which is less forgivable.  
3. The game is oppressively survival.  I know fans say "this game is about the exploration and its chill atmosphere.  Just take your time and enjoy the pretty nature."  Yeah, hard to chill out to this game when you are constantly bombarded with "Life Support Systems Low", "Radiation Protection Low", "Life Support Systems Critical", "Life Support Systems recharged.", "JOURNEY MILESTONE ACHIEVED".  Why are the achievements so bombastic?  
4. The UI is horrendous.  Why do I need an empty inventory slot to craft something?  Why can't I stack items other than raw ingredients?  Why do upgrades take an inventory slot when it's an upgrade to something already taking an inventory slot?  Why do I have to open the inventory to restore my shields in the middle of combat?
5. Combat is dull.  Nothing on the ground seems like much of a threat.  Shoot, jetpack around to dodge fire while you reload, shoot, repeat forever.  In space, it's the opposite.  It's really hard to track ships (why can't I look around the cockpit?), it seems impossible to get behind anybody, and it's hard to tell who is shooting me.  Most dogfights turn into a war of attrition as the enemy ship turns right at me, I turn right at it kamikaze style, and we shoot at each other while hoping in vain I don't have to open the inventory to restore my shields.  
6. The good stuff includes the soundtrack, which is really good, and for a while the planets are really pretty and interesting.  Unfortunately, the planets start to seem very "samey" after a while like every planet is Moab, Utah.  The scale of the game is outstanding but is a prime example of how quality over quantity is better.   
7. Finally, there is a litany of features advertised that didn't make it into the game despite early demos showing some of them (many of you may have already seen this comprehensive list on Reddit of everything missing).  That means, these features were removed for whatever reason, or they were fabricated for the demos.  Neither looks good on the part of the developer.  

All of these notes drag the game down for me, but one thing I haven't seen other reviews talk about in detail is.....the lore.

The fuck is this stone?

This game is an existential crisis right from the start.  Who am I?  I get that I'm a human (...I think?!?) who crash landed on a planet, apparently in another galaxy, for reasons that I'm sure are never explained, but why am I here?  Was I sent on some suicidal, lone wolf, explorer mission?  Why was I sent toward this galaxy in the first place?*

*I know a lot of people don't give a shit about this. I barely give a shit about it myself.  But, it is the beginning of this games atrocious "story".

There are 3 alien factions in the game, along with an AI race called Sentinels, and generic "space pirates".  The alien factions are a warrior one, a mercantile one, and a scientific one, ALL OF WHICH have no other defining characteristic.  I don't even care about they're names.  Let's see....one is the Gek*, one is the T'for'reals, and the other is Daft Punk.  They all have colonial outposts, abandoned buildings, factories, and some fucking how, actual ruins on every, and I mean EVERY, planet.  Fucking how do they have "colonial outposts"...you know, as in those temporary structures all sci-fi uses to colonize a new planet, AND have ruins...you know, as in a permanent structure on an already established colony, on the same fucking planet?

Thrift store Daft Punk.

*The Gek?  Really?  Who named these aliens?  Nickelodeon?

All NPC interaction is done in an old school adventure game style because they are all static.  They have a little animation when you greet them but they don't walk anywhere.  If animals can walk around, why can't the aliens walk to and from their ships landing at posts, space stations, etc.?  How in the hell does a game with this many spaceships moving around (unless it's a giant one which just sits there) feel this underpopulated and lonely?  

Everything has already been discovered by these aliens.  Visiting any colonial outpost, manufacturing site, abandoned site, or monolith just amounts to a crafting blueprint vending machine.  Solve this puzzle, get a blueprint.  At least with the monoliths and other ruins, it FELT like some actual lore was taking place....but it only complicated things.  

Any time you interact with ruins or Atlas (more on that in a second), you have an inner monologue that.....okay.  You know that guy in college who was really, REALLY, into his Intro to Philosophy 101 class?  All that inner monologue stuff was written by that guy.  It's all vague, pseudo-intellectual crap that doesn't actually mean anything but sounds like it could be deep and just over your head man.  It's fucking garbage.

The writer gave up on this one.

While discovering these ruins, I thought I'd get some sort of story of how the aliens (all 3 for some reason) had vast empires across the galaxy that some cataclysm have left in ruins and they are re-colonizing now because it is literally the only thing I can think of WHY ARE THEY COLONIZING PLANETS THEY HAVE RUINS ON? 

The Sentinels destroyed their empires right?  Uh...I...maybe?  

Spoiler section:  The Sentinels work for Atlus and act as a police force of ecosystems.  Though why some are passive and some aggressive, I have no idea.  But then you work for Atlus, but they keep attacking you........uuuuuuugh.  End spoilers.

The endings suck.  I already had them spoiled for me but both reaching the center of the galaxy and the Atlus endings are horrendously dumb.  Spoiler Section:  The prize you get at the center of the galaxy is....getting to go to another galaxy!  Yay?  The Atlus ending basically has god tell you life is meaningless, you are a defeated husk of a human, be depressed and I hope everybody you love dies.  No grand reason behind the Atlus.  It used you and now it wants you to know how much of a piece of shit you are.  End Spoilers.

This giant universe with endless amounts of life feels dead.  How does this happen?  I've complained about open world games filling their worlds with way too many cookie cutter side quests but this is the total opposite.  No Mans Sky mostly left them out, except for the Atlus missions which are everybody's favorite TYPE of side quest....fetch quests.  There's nothing to do except, what, go hiking?  The Sentinels only exist to give this game, something, ANYTHING, resembling an active universe with things happening and those never get a resolution as far as I can see.

Thrilling

Procedurally generated survival games usually have a purpose, that being surviving zombies in the vast majority of them (or defending yourself from the real threat, other people), so why is the purpose in No Mans Sky not here.  You mine resources, to upgrade your gear, which usually need to be powered, so requires more mining, to eventually get gear good enough to do Atlus missions and reach the center of the galaxy for NO REASON.  You are compelled to do these things?  Why?!?!  I wake up next to a crashed spaceship then suddenly want to travel to the center of the galaxy because some kind of demi-god red orb tells me too?  Christ.  When I wake up mid day (I work nights), I don't immediately alter my entire life to do whatever my phone tells me.

This game is a confused mess.  It's story is almost non-existent and what little you do get is utter nonsense.  It's space sections feel underdeveloped and seem to have most of the missing content shown in previous demos.  It's barely a relaxing exploration game with the robot voice constantly telling you what your levels are.  Mining and crafting is boring without any sort of real purpose.  You can't be creative in this game.  You can't be a space pirate.  You can't really be a merchant unless you just want to mess with menus all day.  You can't even be an explorer....because everything has already been explored by the aliens before you.

Sporecraft is a disappointment even without the hype.  Who knows if future DLC will make the universe exciting but I will not care for I am a broken husk of a human.  One, who only experiences the shadows of the true nature of reality, and unto that reality, I am a mere ghost.  But now, I must leave this realm, for the metaphysical beckons.  For honor.  For Love.  For Pizza.  For Mei Bae.  I now bid you, an existential, farewell.  May the force be with you.

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

Follow me on Twitter.

No Mans Sky might be, low key, the most pretentious game I've ever played and I "played" Proteus.  

5 Thoughts About Overwatch Competitive Season One.

Now that season 1 of competitive mode is over for, uh, Overwatch, here are some thoughts.

Here's my rank's for reference:

• 45 at end of placement matches
• 48 my highest
• 32 my lowest
• ended season at 40 

1.  Rank Movement

I know, everybody thinks they are too low, but I actually didn't mind being around 40.  It's the way you move up or down that seems....off.  For one, the system seems too sensitive to streaks.  I dropped out of the 40's, from 46, in one night mostly due to a 6 game losing streak.  Once I started going 50/50 in wins and losses, I hung around 36-37 until I got a 6 game winning streak and made it back to 40, where I stayed for the rest of the season (which was like one week left).  

Going 50% in wins and hanging around a certain rank is peachy, but it felt like the drop was larger during the losing streak than the rise during the winning streak, making the 36-37 purgatory feel wrong.  Like I was slightly lower than where I should be.  It might be something worth looking into.

Also, I've had some pretty big drops after playing half a match or more 5 v 6 and losing badly, even if it was a close match (or even LEADING at first) when it was 6 v 6.  Come on.  That is garbage.

It's so hard to move up and so easy to drop down.

2.  Mei Bae

Depending on the effects of the upcoming Mei buff*, Mei sadly doesn't have a place in competitive.  She's still my highest played hero in Quick Play by two hours, yet I've maybe only played Mei...5 (?!?) matches total in comp.  I've never felt right picking her, even when I'm picking last, because it always felt like another hero would be better for the team.  Likewise, in the rare times I picked Mei quickly, nobody else would pick either a tank or a damn healer, so I would change to play one (and in case you're wondering, yes, I lost those matches).  

*Her buff in the PTR right now is just making her Ult hilariously huge.  That seems crazy pants.  A better buff would be to her normal stats.  A friend recommended just giving her 100 hp more, move her to tank, and be done with it (may have to nerf her icicle shot with that).  I like that idea a lot.  OR, I would like her primary attack to freeze opponents faster since it sometimes feels like it takes a decade unless you catch a slow moving Dva.  Anybody who only plays Quick Play only and might run into multiple Mei's might think that idea is straight up lunacy, but a lone Mei needs a buff.*

Most good team compositions are something like 2 tanks, 2 damage, 2 healers.  Mei is none of those things.  Personal preference but I HATE only having one tank so she shouldn't take that spot.  Having her take a damage spot is playing with fire, so her only really viable spot is one of the healers....but if there isn't a 2nd healer, it's usually (someone else) a Junkrat.  And at least Junkrat is versatile enough he can often be a 3rd damage dealer, Mei...just can't.  Where does she fit?

Adorbs

I only really like Mei on point defense and Control maps.  Hate her on offense and not a fan of payload defense since she's so damn slow.  I also like her with a good Bastion behind her on point defense (which is rare in comp. Not many stay Bastion for long, or switch to him as a last ditch effort) but now you're likely to have 1 tank and unless that tank is a non-aggro Reinhardt, you're screwed.  Likewise, I'm fine with 1 healer on Control maps as long as it's Lucio but you NEED two tanks (not all that opposed to 3 here) so playing Mei here is the most viable as long as you have 2 tanks, Lucio, 2 damage.....but I never get too.  We always need another tank when I want to play Mei here, ALWAYS.  I'm not salty.  No, not.....okay yes.  Very salty. 

3.  Play Your Mains to Move Up....But Learn Who They Are.

Whenever a team needs damage I usually pick Pharah as she is the only one I'm average with.*  Yet, I don't feel like I'm that good at playing damage characters in general because I'm an old man and can't out twitch the kids.  I thought Pharah was one of my mains....she's not.  She's a need pick only now at this point.  

*I'm mediocre with Soldier 76 too but can, not, stand, I repeat, can, not, STAND, playing him on Control maps.  Our team will lose if you let me be damage on Control.  It is my weak point, I don't know why it's only Control maps but it's the truth.**

**I've played a shocking amount of Reaper in Quick Play and even a little in comp but don't remember any of it.  I don't like playing Reaper.  

My mains are healers and tanks, specifically, Mercy, Lucio, Zenyatta, Dva, and Reinhardt.  Winston on Control maps or to counter pesky Genjis too.  I've gotten a lot better at Winston despite used to thinking I suck with him.  Apparently, he's one of my mains and I never knew.  Same with Zenyatta who I used to dread picking cause he's "not a real healer" but people seem to have gotten over it.  Rein....I still kinda suck at (some....times?) but I know it's decision making I need to work on.  I can "play" him fine, it's just knowing when to charge versus holding up shield for allies.  I'm a pretty damn conservative Rein.  I don't charge very much.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  I....dunno.

He's like a German super soldier......wait.

As for the other tanks, I can't aim Roadhogs hook to save my life, and Zarya is hard to play still.  I suck at timing Zarya's shields on allies and even if I get a good charge on the gun, I find a way to die JUST THEN.  And there's Dva......

4.  Dva is an Enigma

Dva is one of my most played heroes in comp and I'm not great at her or I am great at her I dunno wanna fight about it?

I don't really know.  I get a lot of medals with her, but so do some awful Dva's I've played with so.....ehhhhhhhh.

Y U B Sassin?

Here are some general thoughts about Dva.

1. Even with the matrix buff Dva is only a tank-lite.  Fine as a 2nd tank, probably gonna lose if she is the only tank (hence me desperately trying to get better at Reinhardt).
2. She is still much stronger at driving, flanking, fucking up snipers, and overall crowd control as long as her back isn't vulnerable.  
3. Her ult, even with the buff, is still best at clearing people off a point OR stopping them from rushing a point for overtime.  
4. I need to be better at "situational awareness" (that's a term right?).  I don't use her jets to bolt out of danger as often now that the matrix is better.  I need to get back to doing that.  
5. Weirdly, I tend to be better as Aggro-Dva, but as a "tank", I feel wrong for doing so.  This is probably my biggest hangup.  If Dva is 2nd tank, which is usually when I play her unless I'm being an idiot, I need to let go of "always being on point".  If the main tank dies, then go rush back in and try to stay alive until they return.  I know if I abandon my tank duties I'll get some salt though.  Even if it means wins.  

Dva is a weird tank and just weird overall.  I like characters with weird skill sets (see mei bae) so that's why I play her so much.  I'm sort of successful with her....sometimes.  Here is some stats.  

1. 2nd most comp play time (Lucio is first and has a two hour lead)
2. 45% win percentage (My highest is fucking Reinhardt lol)
3. Highest Kill Streak at 16 (Winston is 2nd with 15).
4. 36 medals in 13 games.  17 of which are gold.  

That winning percentage was much lower but at it gets closer to 50% I feel like I'm okay with her. Probably not a great Dva, but strong enough and a good choice if I don't want to play never ending support in comp.  Still though, those medals are a lie.

OH OK.  The sass again?  Fine.  FINE.  I'll just....that hurts you know?

5.  And Some Other Stats

Random stats that don't fit anywhere else.

1. Most healing done in a comp match?  21,229 as Lucio.  That must have been a Control Map that went 5 rounds.  
2. I have almost double the number of wins with Lucio (12) than my second highest hero with Zenyatta (7).  Mercy and Dva are tied at 6.
3. I played 1 game as Reaper....and he has my highest multi-kill at 4.  
4. When?!?!  When did I ever play Mei 5 matches in comp?  I have no memory of this.  Was I drunk?

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

All in all, it was a good first season.  I'm glad Blizzard is scrapping Sudden Death because it's garbage.  The new rank system sounds interesting and might feel better, but I don't really know until I've had some time with it.  The PTR projectile buff is going to make me hate Hanzo more than I already do (Fuck Hanzo.  I know arrows "arc" but good Hanzo's always get impossible behind cover headshots and fuck this asshole).  The Genji nerf is whatever.  I see the really annoying Genji players just....still killing it afterwards.  The Mercy buff is unreal.  Un-fucking-real.  She's going to be more mandatory than she already was.  Also, it's going to be hard staying alive as her as EVERY-FUCKING-ONE will be gunning for you.  The balance tweaks will continue.....

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

Follow me on Twitter.

And seriously, what is the range on Roadhog's goddamn hook?  I try a long distance one and ALWAYS miss but if an enemy does it, I'm dead.  Like, on Nepal, with the pit?  Yeah?  That range shouldn't be but some-fucking-how it be.  I try to do it, and it doesn't reach EVERY TIME.....

....I swear I'm not salty.  

Ghostbusters (?) Review.

Taking a break from playing Overwatch (and not writing about it sorry will soon), and being horrified at the number of people supporting a literal fascist for president, I decided to take some time to write about something not the least bit controversial.  Ghostbusters.

Ghostbusters is a movie starring 4 women who fight ghosts and it in no way resembles any other movie.  It's a completely original movie that is shockingly not even an adapted screen play!  This isn't even a movie based on a comic book, or cartoon, or even any other movie because I've seen nothing like it.  The CGI was FANTASTIC and really reminded me of the army of the dead that had to serve the real king of Gondor or whatever from Lord of the Flies: Return of the Jedi.

The movie takes place in the fictional city of New York City and features a supporting cast of Norse thunder god and whoa!  Bill fuckin Murray from Zombieland!  Side note: I never understood what they were talking about in Zombieland.  Why are they pointing that vacuum cleaner at a chandelier?  I liked the theme song to that movie Jesse Eisenberg and Abigail Breslin was watching.  What was it called?...Caddyshack!  Great movie.

The characters fight ghosts with something called a neutron pack. It uses magic (the main characters are 2 wizards, an alchemist, and a rail conductor) to trap ghosts and then they send them to the farplane where they boringly stare at Tidus.  A demonic rift opens up in the sky in the 3rd act and the ladies shoot magic at leader ghost until dead the end.  But wait!  Ripley from Aliens shows up in the credits sequence so, yeah, this movie is actually a prequel to Aliens, which is not a sequel to any other movie.

So in summation, Ghostbusters was a great movie/Aliens prequel/Zombieland sequel/original screenplay based on Shakespeare's MacBeth.  May the force be with you.

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

Follow me on Twi - okay.  I know what you're thinking.  "Jason.  That Final Fantasy X joke was really forced."  You got me there.

I love the first Ghostbusters.  I like the 2nd Ghostbusters (which makes me an oddity).  And the new Ghostbusters fails because it just isn't an instant classic OMG holy shit what kind of expectation is that sadiofjagkgnjfjkf!

The new Ghostbusters is fine.  I thought it was really good but has some flaws.  Is it an all time great comedy with action elements?  No, but hardly anything is.

So many people were against this reboot (a hard reboot too apparently) that the only way it could win those people over is it can't.  It can't.  Why am I even trying?

And that's what I think of this review.  I'm not even going to try.....okay fine.

McCarthy and Whig are fine.  I usually find them "meh" but here they are slightly better than "meh".  Leslie Jones is great and totally worth all that Twitter hate you lovely individuals out there put out.  There was zero things she did in that movie to deserve that you, you, wonderful examples of human beings.  You're just, the best.  #FreeMilo.

Kate MacKinnon is my favorite and makes the movie.  I know some found her irritating but I love quirky characters who always win and I'm going to marry her. Well, not her IRL, but her character whatshername......

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

Follow me on Twi - hold on

Fuck it.  I've now tried twice and still can't write a proper review of this movie. I followed the controversy, even wrote about it, and all I know is I wasted a fuck load of time on pointless bullshit.  I mean, I know the feels man.  In a previous blog, I repeatedly wrote about upcoming remakes of classic movies and how it was so....just, the worst.  But then, I remembered, every movie ever has been remade, some quite well, and my complaints seem hollow.  I've mentioned this before, but I think The Seven Samurai is one of the best movies ever made and it's only been remade oh, 4,769 times (citation needed).  That movie was made in 1954.  Remakes are not a new thing.  They've always been around.  

So, In all honesty, here is what I thought of Ghostbusters in quick form.

• The characters are really all fine.  I wasn't lying about Kate MacKinnon though. She's the best.
• Chris Hemsworth is the "dumb female eye candy who is pointless to the plot" only in reverse.  He actually is important to the plot....as a damsel in distress.
• The CGI is annoying but I liked the use of color in the 3rd act fight scene.  So I give it a wash.  (I'm still anti-gratuitous CGI and wish more "camera trick" style ghosts were in the movie). 
• Speaking of that 3rd act, it's obvious Paul Feig doesn't direct action movies because that pacing was a garbage fire.  Yes, me of all people, complaining about PACING.  
• I also hate that "hero shows up at the last second to save person despite all reason and practicality" trope.  Whig is not with the other ladies when shit goes down but somehow finds them on some random street in New York Fucking City just in time to save MacKinnon.  I know they would be somewhere near the portal but come on.
• Yes the characters are fine.....even if I can't remember any of their names.  
• Finally, the villain is SHIT.  What was his motive?  To release ghosts captured from his machine....and open a portal for more ghosts.....because he wanted..........uh.......what?  Did I miss something?  Why did he do any of this?  Was he just a crazy person?  Also, nice bait and switch on the main villain.  I thought it was going to be the ghost lady from the mansion.  Why even?  This villain problem is more severe than just superhero movies.

And, there you go.  I enjoyed the movie.  I won't remember it.  It is VERY rooted in modern humor (awkwardness, non sequiturs, awkwardness, one gross out, awkwardness, trope satire, wink wink nudge nudge jokes, and more awkwardness) as opposed to the more subtle jokes and self referential jokes of the original.   But it's fine.

Expecting a remake of a classic to live up to or heaven forbid, surpass the classic is ludicrous.  Classics get remade and can often have unique visions for the same story.  This one mostly didn't (Chris Hemsworth's character satire was more based on the industry as a whole).....but it did feel updated.  If a previous Ghostbusters never existed, would the haters still hate this movie?  Mmmmmmm, I think yes and no.  The obvious women haters would still hate it, but those insisting that an all female cast has nothing to do with it, I think some (not all) would like it.  But yeah, nobody is going to say, "this movie is an all time classic."

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

Follow me on Twitter for reals this time.  I mostly talk about Overwatch, pop culture, movies, and recently politics because obviously.  Sometimes sports, which I like too but I'm so busy.

X-Men: Apocalypse Review (Spoilers).

I wasn't going to write about this movie but I'm surprised to see a lot of "It wasn't THAT bad" opinions going on.  May I present, a dissenting opinion.

IT WAS GREAT!

Ha, just kidding, this movie sucks.

I really liked X-Men: Days of Future Past for two reasons.  It mixed the old cast with the new in a "this is not entirely fan service" kind of way, and it retconned the godawful X3: The Last Stand.  (Christ even the title of that movie is shit).  It was also an enjoyable all around movie with solid themes, good acting....etc.  But yeah, it fucked up the continuity of the X-Men movies so badly that it's starting to rival its own source material.

Now X-Men: Apocalypse comes along, decides to fuck with the continuity even more, and just lose all sense of what made previous X-Men movies good.  Hell, the X-Men movies have been better at villains than Marvel's total control of the MCU, so it had that going for it too.

Apocalypse is a villain I've wanted to see in a "Marvel" movie mostly because I think Marvel villains have been terrible so far.  (Along with Thanos and Venom.....What? What are you talking about?  Venom has not been featured in a Spider-Man movie yet.  I THINK I would have remembered that).  I mean, Whiplash?  Yuck.  Red Skull?  Nazi.  Loki?  Daddy issues.  Ultron?  Stupid.  Fuckin Baron Zemo?  He's in Civil War.....I guess.  The Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies?  They all personally know Peter Parker and are defeated by their own hubris.  Even Venom......SHIT.

Apocalypse in X-Men: Apocalypse desperately needed a monologue.  For reals.  Yeah he has one while launching all the nukes into space but it's just "I'm evil bow before me mere mortals for I am the one true god blah blah blah."  He always had a....genocidal tone in the comics and was pro eugenics and.....yeah okay.  Can't really go there without an R rating but you know what I mean.  This was diet Apocalypse.

Captain Grumpy Pants.

Also, his ability to grow into kaiju size only happened in his mind fight with Xavier.  Lame.

I have more issues with the rest of the characters.  It was obvious Jennifer Lawrence wanted nothing to do with this.  She was not going to put on that blue make-up for more than 3 scenes tops.  The dialogue had to point this out and Mystique's reasons for not being blue were "I'm hiding"....."despite also being the Mutant and Proud person that a lot of people look up too and saved a president and  mutants are more accepted in this time why am I doing this?"  It's dumb as shit and flies in the face of her character.  There is no reason for Mystique to be here other than, it happens to be Jennifer Lawrence.  Apocalypse should have disintegrated her.

The new-ish characters are fine.  I liked Sansa Stark as Jean Grey.  Cyclopes kid was fine (I don't care enough to look up his name).  But....why did the movie spend so much time establishing these characters when we already know who they are?  It was a ton of wasted time and I find it funny that the basics where explained, but Jean Grey's Dark Phoenix bullshit is glossed over?????  What the fuck?  That was cheap, cheap, cheap.  I don't even care if that is a spoiler.  Fuck that noise.

Miss Grumpy Pants.

This movie commits a cardinal sin in being boring.  Nothing happens for an extremely long time so that new characters, who are also old characters, can get backstory.  New characters who are not old characters, like Psylocke, gets maybe three lines of dialogue and....thanks for stopping by I guess.  Also, she's the only one who is still evil in the end in case fuck it.  I don't care.  Angel, who is sorta old but that movie got retconned, is a douche and MIA at the end.  Storm is fine and oddly enough, I LIKE this characterization of her.  Funny how we get a cool Storm character now that Halle Berry has nothing to do with her.  I'd watch that spinoff.

The two big ones, Xavier and Magneto, are fine.  James McAvoy is my favorite as I don't think he's ever been in a bad role (Yeah I liked Wanted fucking fight me).  Micheal Fassbender can do almost no wrong, that one wrong being Prometheus which fuck that movie while I have a chance to say so.  Xavier is basically the Professor X we all know and love finally.....which has the downside of making him boring.  Yes he rekindles his love with Moira but come on.....

APOCALYPSE DOESN'T HAVE HIS POWER AND THAT'S WHY HE WANTS TO SWITCH INTO HIS BODY YET XAVIER LOSES IN THE MIND FIGHT?!?!? Did everybody miss this?  The mind battle is in Apocalypse's head, I think, even though it shows the school and Jean Grey jumps in.  Xavier gets his ass kicked because, apocalypse is better at everything, but in the universe this CANNOT HAPPEN.  It's the reason Magneto wears a helmet.  Xavier should have been able to jump into Apocalypse's head and immediately put him into a coma.  How can Apocalypse fight Xavier in his own head, or if it is actually in Xaviers head, IF HE DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME POWER GODDAMNIT this is stupid.  Literally every other mutant and human has no control over Xaviers god like powers.*

*There is a distance thing hence Cerebro and the airport scene in Days of Future Past, but Xavier is close enough to the battlefield one would think.  Actually, he's in the Blackbird....which is doing what during that final fight?

Magneto is okay but weird.  Did anybody really see him trying to live a quiet life in Poland after Days of Future Past?  Yeah.  No.  Also, Apocalypse bringing him to Auschwitz was a little on the nose.  Plus....what exactly was he doing during that final fight?  Ripping up the earth from Cairo to...destroy Cairo only?  Or was this Man of Steel like terraforming the entire Earth which by how long it was taking, would have taken years.  I assume he was building Apocalypse's base in which to launch his wars but....this is dumb.  And in that final, FINAL fight when he betrays Apocalypse, why is he still throwing earth at him instead of dropping a building on him?  You know, like the baseball stadium he picked up IN THE LAST MOVIE.

First Lieutenant Grumpy Pants.

This movie is a mess.  It's boring.  Nothing makes narrative sense.  The movie makes a big deal out of Xavier going bald (wha????????).  Cerebro is AGAIN used against the X-Men.  Jean Grey doesn't try to murder everybody when going full Phoenix.  Nightcrawler is on the team when nobody knows who he is in X2.  There is a Wolverine cameo......I ALMOST FORGOT.

That whole Stryker detour is there only to justify a Wolverine cameo and it's bullshit.  Why is this scene in the movie?  It has nothing to do with Apocalypse, it REALLY fucks up the continuity even more, it should have been cut for a shorter less boring movie, and even the actors seemed to be spinning their wheels.  The writing in the Weapon X scene is fucking garbage.  Nobody can use their powers on the helicopter because of a MacGuffin and NOBODY sees the stowaways just hanging out in the back?  Get, the, fuck, out, movie.  Jean Grey can't hide them there.  She can't!  ITS IN THE MOVIES OWN RULES I AM NOT NITPICKING.  And when they do get to the base, still nobody finds them until they have already tried to open the cell door.  (There isn't a camera pointed at THAT door?  Really?).  Also, that base is in Canada.  How did they get home?  Also, also, at the end of Days of Future Past, it's shown that Mystique is impersonating Styker WHY?  Fuckin.....what.....why?  That went no where.  No, fucking, where!!!!!!!!!

This makes me "General Grumpy Pants".

This movie isn't quite as bad as X3: The Last Stand but it tries.  It really tries.  A for effort.  It's funny that Days of Future Past would bring so much hope to a franchise that really only wanted to fix that one movie and do nothing else.  Why even tease Apocalypse if you're not going to give a shit about it?*  Bryan Singer made X-Men good, left it, X-men got shitty until the very underrated First Class, then Singer came back, made one good movie, then made it shit again.  This franchise needs an extended break.  Maybe then, somebody can make a fucking X-Men movie with Gambit in it.

*Here is a nitpick.  Why did the movie completely abandon the Age of Apocalypse storyline from the comics?  I know they didn't want to use more time travel, even though the comics treat time travel like a drunk starting a knife throwing circus act with his wife, but why not?  If the movies wanted to stay grounded, which they did a very poor job of in this movie, while also not giving a shit about continuity, what's the point?  Why not go all out?  Make a movie that is nothing but alternate timeline shit.  I'm not saying this would make a good movie, but there is potential for a better one.

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

Follow me on Twitter.

3 Footnotes:

1.  The Quicksilver scenes were cool.  I'm not entirely sure how he found out Magneto was his dad but that is the least of my complaints.

2.  I could sum up this movie in one sentence.  "Jubilee has a cameo and doesn't even shoot any fucking fireworks".  It's perfect.  She's in the movie for Jubilee fans, all two of them, then doesn't even get to show her power.

3.  X-Men movies ranked, including spinoffs.

Deadpool (I'm counting it).
X2: X-Men United (dumb name)
X-Men: First Class.
X-Men
X-Men: Days of Future Past
The Wolverine

big drop.

Wolverine: Origiiiiii.....hmmmm, wait.

X-Men: Apocalypse
Wolverine: Origins (forgot how bad this was)
That time I shit my pants and it looked like Magneto's helmet.
X3: The Last Stand.

Gone Home Review

Back in 2013, critical indie darling Gone Home was released to an unsuspecting public, and professional game reviewers ate it up.  They ate it up so much in fact, that it won Game of the Year in many outlets despite being a year with many heavyweight contenders.  The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, and a really big one, Grand Theft Auto 5 (on last gen consoles at least) all released that same year.  This, of course, infuriated many a man baby because Gone Home is not a game.*

*Also it has two lesbian characters and a significant amount of feminist themes in it which I'm sure had nothing to do with it.

Gone Home is the king of "non-game" games because of its notoriety.  (I don't want to rehash this stupid argument, but I've already talked about this.)  While I never really had much interest in buying the game, I was always a little curious what the big deal is and the console version came up for free on PS+.  It was a fine 2 hours spent.

You play as Kate, a 18-21-ish year old girl who has returned home from a trip to Europe only to find her parents and her younger sister Sam missing.  It is also a new house to her as her family moved while she was away due to inheriting a mansion from a mysterious relative.  On the front door is a note from Sam saying NOT to go looking for her and the game is trying to piece together what happened while you were away.

I've been very pro "mystery without combat game" as a budding new genre.  It's a great idea for a video game without having to resort to violence, puzzle solving, or simulations.*  Well, it's still kinda puzzle solving, but this is more cerebral.  The reward is in the story and completely independent of gameplay.  In Gone Home, the mystery is set up just fine....even if the payoffs are a bit lame.

*Nothing is wrong with any of those kinds of games by the way.  I just like to see different styles of games.

Don't get me wrong, Gone Home's story is good.  I wouldn't call it GOTY good though and story is mostly all the game has going for it since its gameplay is very scaled down.  It relies heavily on a bait-and-switch trope that doesn't sit right with me.  The game is basically like a horror game but without any horror.  This is set up with its world building and its mechanics.

Starting with the latter, this game plays like Amnesia: The Dark Decent. Seriously. You don't have a sprint or anything like that, but you can pick up and examine almost any object in the game.  It surprisingly has a physics engine, albeit, a budget one.  You progress through the game by picking up certain objects and reading certain letters that will trigger a voice over journal entry from Sam.  This uh....this also happens in Amnesia, only this time the journal entries from Sam are written FOR our protagonist and gradually tells you the story.  Also, just like many indie horror games, you progress through the house via a forced linear path.  Going in, I thought the house would be open but instead doors are locked and require finding a key, forcing you down a linear path so that the story is told in the correct order.

Features of the story and ambiance also create a horror game feel.  It's at night, you have to turn all the lights on, there is a raging storm outside with thunder and lightning, floor boards will creak, the house will settle, and so on.  Even though I KNOW I'm not playing a horror game, I can't help but put down something I'm reading and slowwwly check behind me every now and then.  Also, the mansion was owned by an eccentric weirdo, Sam's classmates refer to it as the "psycho house", Sam and her girlfriend routinely go ghost hunting, the house has hidden passageways, and other spooky things.  There is even a late game spooky thing that bait-and-switched the ending for me (see spoiler section below).

Because of the games weird reliance on horror tropes, without a single jump scare or monster, the story feels a little disconnected.  The story itself is good but it feels like it should have been in a different environment.  I'm not sure the end game feels I got were the ones intended by the developer.  Or it they were intended....okay????  (Again, spoiler section below).

However, for a 4 person dev team, this game is pretty phenomenal.  I never had any technical issues and the art design was on point.  Taking place in 1994, I loved all the little 90's nostalgia in the game from Kurt Cobain, Sonic Youth, SNES cartridges, Trapper Keepers, hand written mail, postcards, those stupid halogen lamps that everybody owned in the 90's, and even....TV static.  (Why am I nostalgic over that....?).  The game looks really good for such a small team.  It's also very cohesive, which is probably a benefit of small teams rather than large ones, and its narrative isn't muddied by information overload.  It's obvious what is important and what is "hey remember this from the 90's?".

And....yeah I'm pretty much out of things to say that isn't a spoiler.  I liked the game okay but I don't think it's great and especially not a GOTY contender.  It's OBVIOUS why it was a critical darling now that I played it though.  It talked about themes rarely in video games, it was made by a small team nobody really knew anything about, it had a solid narrative, and it looks hell of a lot better than the crap on Steam Greenlight.  For all those reasons, I liked it too, even with its tone issue, and it certainly isn't a game worth getting annoyed about.

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

Follow me on Twitter

SPOILER SECTION BELOW which I recommend reading even if you haven't played the game because I doubt many of you actually will play this game.  Also, the ending is the part I wanted to write about the most.

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

The games narrative is primarily focused on Sam, the only character with voice over, and the parents.

The father is a semi-successful novelist, who hits a rough patch, but then finds his niche with a specialty publisher.  He has some issues in his relationship with the mother.  The mother is a park ranger who has the hots for a co-worker and it ooooohhhh so close comes to a full on affair until it's revealed the dude has a fiance and the mother turns down a wedding invitation late in the game
(showing her "what the hell am I doing" sense).  The mother and the father leave on some sort of couples retreat to rekindle the love and such.  That is why the parents are gone.

I do think the game does a good job at handling their sub-story.  It's given a very humanistic tone that isn't afraid to show the wandering thoughts of those in a long term relationship (coming up on 11 years myself....heh).  It's natural.  It's human.  It isn't glossed over like a rom-com.  It's well done.

Sam's story is really good.....and it pains me to say that her payoff and the game has dissonance that I cannot get over.

Sam meets Lonnie who is a punk rock, fuck authority, fuck the patriarchy girl who is going to join the army-what?..........Um......Yeah I don't buy it.  I guess chalk it up to "stupid teenager-ness" but that seems far, FAR fetched.  "Don't ask, Don't tell" is even brought up in the game and considering the two girls fall in love with each other.....I don't even.  The outspoken, raucous, started her own punk band, anti-authority, lesbian wants to join the army.....in 1994?  This isn't a good idea.  Kids aren't this dumb, and they can be pretty dumb.

Anyway, the two have a lovely relationship until the due date comes that Lonnie needs to report to boot camp (Sam also gets into a college for literature.  There is a pirate story that you gradually pick up and it wanders on a lot with the changes with Sam's mood and age.  The two girls eventually turn it into a comic that YOU CAN'T READ.  I would have read the shit outta that.)  Lonnie leaves for boot camp and Sam resigns herself to the spooky attic with red lights adorning the door saying she is going to stay up there forever.  However, at the very end of the game, you find the attic key, find an empty bed and a note that gives the final voice over saying Lonnie couldn't go through with it, can't stand being away from her, called Sam, and the two run away together happily ever after.....

I have two problems with this ending.

1.  Leading up to the attic, the second to last room is a hidden room behind the stairs with a goddamn pentagram where the two girls made their "final preparations" in an attempt to communicate with the deceased relative who they constantly ghost hunted as I alluded too earlier.  Immediately after finding an item here, the second to last voice over happens where a distraught Sam talks about going to the attic and....basically coming as close to possible as wishing she was dead without actually saying it (this is immediately after Lonnie leaves for boot camp).

I was invested in the story and dreaded going up to the attic thinking I was about to find a dead sister.  That obviously didn't happen.  Yeah, I could chalk it up to overly dramatical teenagers but not with the horror game tropes going on.  Instead, you find her dark room with a bunch of photographs of the two being happy together and with the voice over....I felt relief.  Relief is fine.  It's a good feeling.  But, the happy ending didn't feel all that happy because of that bait-and-switch.  The game tricked me again!

Another example, is when you find a bathtub with red stains on it.  They are positioned so that if a person was laying down in that bathtub, those are about where a persons wrists would be.  This comes immediately after Sam's journal entry about hating her parents.  I'd find a note after seeing the bathtub about how she helped Lonnie dye her hair red.  Yep.  THANKS.

What is this games deal?  The story is touching and makes you feel nice.  It's cute really.  It's fucking adorable.  But then I have a game that is trolling me because......why?  It's not like the game played with horror tropes in an interesting way or anything.  This game is definitely not satire.  It's more like, "lol, gotcha!".  Why you gotta play with my feels game?

I don't think anybody has ever said this but, Gone Home?  Gone Home is memes.

2.    This is probably the old man in me but....two teenagers sacrificing their future to be together is so not a good idea.

I only really thought of this after thinking about the game later but realistically, and the story is rooted in realism, is not likely to keep a happy ending.  Statistically, that relationship will not last.  Yes, the parents are religious and pretty pissed off about their daughter having a romantic relationship with another girl.  Running away from them?  Sure.  Go for it.

I....assume Lonnie's "Cool Dad" will take them in, as soon as he gets over the fact that his daughter is no longer joining the army and has no future, but....I assume that.

Whatever.  There isn't a whole lot of stories about a teenage lesbian romance out there in games so I guess I should let this slide.  But....lets have better endings in the future okay?

Overwatch Review

So Overwatch is fun.  In fact, I'm likely to write about it more often, but here is a general review written more for people who haven't played than ones who have, but ones who have might see some hot takes.

Unfairly labelled a MOBA and a competitor to Battleborn (though it still is, kinda, that second thing), Overwatch is a Team Fortress rip off with a larger, more dynamic, character set.  The game is heavily, HEAVILY, geared toward team play thus getting it's "MOBA-lite" comparison despite being an arena shooter.  It's also very easy to pick up and play, so newbies shouldn't feel left behind, while also having plenty of depth and strategy.  You can sink hours into this game and still find new things.

Overwatch is about a bunch of heroes who used to be on a team called, well, "Overwatch", but after establishing world peace....or something....they've been called back into action.....for.....reasons.  I don't know.  Any lore or anything resembling a story is not in the game.  Sure, there is a ton of supplemental content like cool Youtube videos and wikis and whatever.  None of it is actually in the game and it's all very disconnected.  I'm not sure why the characters are doing......anything really.*

*There SEEMS to be some call to get Overwatch back together....for reasons....but there has been several falling outs....for reasons.  I only get this sense from scripted, pre-game banter.  I could be way off.

The team is led by a gorilla scientist.  A sentence I get to write.

So it's weird to say this next part but, the characters are BY FAR the biggest strength of the game.  They each have well established personalities, even if they are a bit archetypal (looking at you edgelord Reaper), and their designs just ooze more personality leading Overwatch to be one of the highest searched porn categories.*  Their skill sets also add to fleshing out their personalities as well making up for the total lack of "character motivation" a good character normally needs.  The pre-game banter, and unlockable voice lines and emotes, all help as well.

*I wouldn't know....or anything.**

**Yes, yes, I know.  Rule 34 and all that.  Still, Overwatch porn flooded the internet exceptionally fast.  I'm not the only one who has noticed (link is sorta NSFW, with censoring. Use caution).   It's a testament to great characters when everyone can't wait to see them fuck.  I'm not kidding.

That's the face of someone watching porn of themselves.

The characters are split into four classes: Attack, Defense, Tank, and Support.  Attack characters are good damage dealers, tend to be more mobile, and two of them are OP with the right person (Genji and McCree).  Defense characters are slower, usually have higher HP, two are turret types, two are harassing types, and two are snipers who can go fuck themselves.  Support characters heal, well 3 of the 4 of them heal, one only does shields and can set up low power but crafty turrets.  It's uh, it's weird.....Anyway.  One has a speed boost and another can debuff enemies.  Also, Mercy is almost identical to the Team Fortress Medic so an easy newbie character.

The tank class is strange.  Out of 5 characters, only two seem like true tanks IMO, Reinhardt and Roadhog.  Winston is best at disrupting lines and causing chaos, Zarya is like a Tank/Support hybrid who has a big learning curve, and D.va.  D.va might be the biggest discussion topic among tanks because she isn't a tank.  She's great at flanking, holding lines, and a super great sniper counter which I almost don't want to say because so few know this and it's like a secret with my buds.  The tank class is always a discussion among Overwatch fans so far and I will go into more detail in a future post.

The game is set up with 12 maps on 3.5 modes.  There are Assualt maps, Escort Maps, Control (king of the hill) maps, and hybrid maps hence the 0.5.  Assualt has you capture two points by standing in a box.  Escort makes you escort a payload....just like Team Fortress....huh.  Control is yep.  And, Hybrid maps have an assualt point to take first, then a payload to escort.  Except for the Control maps, you play either attack or defense and after a round, switch.  The faster an objective is captured, the more time you have to capture the next.  Overwatch also has a (sometimes shakey) Overtime system that as long as somebody is "on the point", you can stop the opposing team from, or on attack claim, an objective (it sounds more complicated than I can explain).

The maps are surprisingly better than I initially thought in the beta, as well as during my first, I dunno, 20 levels.  There are far more hidden hallways and possibilities for flanking than at first glance.  Gaining character knowledge also helps exploit the maps in character specific ways. They also having varying locales like Russian factories, old western roads, ancient Egyptian temples, a....a quiet Latin American town.

What to the people who live here think of all this?

Now....I know I ripped Star Wars:Battlefront for having few maps and recycled modes.  Why is it okay for Overwatch and not Battlefront?  A quick 3 points.

1. Overwatch is built for team play.  Battlefront is not.  Battlefront has 20 players on each team in its largest modes, making team play near impossible.  
2. Battlefront has no classes or any real different characters.  Sure, you can play as a Jedi, sometimes.  But it's basically random with 20 people, making any sort of strategy around a Jedi  player like trying to convince the very likely 12 year old Darth Vader to wait for help rushing the next pointtttt "where the fuck are you going kid?  No!  Stop!  *Dies*".  Yes you can get new guns and equipment too but the vast majority of it is either worthless or overpowered so everybody just uses the handful that's overpowered.  Overwatch actually takes balance into consideration.
3. They are two different genres, technically.  Battlefront is a big, raucous, brainless, soulless, grotesque movie tie in that was rushed out the door.  Overwatch is about Overwatch.  Battlefront is about getting you more hyped for Star Wars movies, as if they needed it.  (Lets just say, Battlefront feeeeels more corporate.  EA does that).

It's so glossy

Overwatch has a leveling system that doesn't really mean anything other than "this dude played the game a lot....maybe".  There is a group EXP bonus too (which I have exploited as well as some others probably reading this, *high five*) but it's pretty negligible.  I've noticed the level 25-50 players tend to be the saltiest, self proclaimed experts of Overwatch.....

Yep, I love this game, but there are some negatives.

The vast majority of the community is fine.  Most people are quiet, which can hurt a team based game although sometimes things gel anyway.  The synergy is sometimes just right even on a totally silent team.  But other times, the synergy is wayyyyy off and everybody tries to do their own thing and get slaughtered.  This leads to some people....getting a sense of "know-it-all" when they clearly do not.  (Two snipers never, ever, ever works.....except like twice.  But usually, it's a shit show).  The community is slowly getting more salty (even myself at times) over bad character picks, people refusing to get on point when it's desperately needed (looking at you "always picks Hanzo player"), and Mei haters who can fuck RIGHT OFF.

Mei is bae.  I'm sorry Mei is the least "Call of Duty" of any character, and good Mei's need to spam ice walls, but you HAVE to forgive the occasional bad ice wall.  Sorry you're a fucking Genji on a defensive team fucking around in bum fuck Egypt while the rest of us hold this point and my ice wall stopped you from backing out of danger.  Maybe not spawn camp?????  I use ice walls to keep enemies from advancing on the point, block snipers, block turrets, and just general slowing them down.  Also, sorry I blocked your shot, friendly sniper or turret.  I'm sure THAT was the kill that would have solidified the win.    Mei is fucking bae!

I've always liked characters with ice powers.  Also, adorbs.  

Whoa....Got a little off topic there.

Overwatch is VERY popular so of course there are going to be some asshats.  That said, you don't have an RPG-like skill tree you need to climb in a single game.  The legendarily toxic League of Legends type of community is unlikely to develop here.  There is no "one way" to play a character.  The saltlords are routinely outnumbered.  There needs to be a punishment for rage-quitters (there used to be an exp penalty but I think it's gone.  Even then, that is a lame punishment) but I think the bad teammates are easily ignored and/or muted.

The saltiest of issues are character picks but Overwatch ENCOURAGES switching characters mid game if things are going south.  It's something, myself included, people need to get better at.  Each character has counter characters and it is admittedly hard to ditch a character I have a good K/D with.  It's obviously my teammates fault we are losing....right?

Learn as many as you can.  Sticking to one character only will lead to some bad times.

Overwatch's rewards could be better too.  You get a "Loot Box" every level, which are randomized skins, emotes, voice lines, sprays, etc.  You rarely get anything you want, you can get dupilcates (?!?!) which are converted to in game currency, and just generally suck.  Oh, also microtransactions.*  As if loot boxes don't suck enough, you can buy them for real world money.  The actual things you want?  You can't buy (I'd still hate them here but less so).  If there was an option to just get in game currency instead of randomized loot boxes, this would be 10x better.

*BTW, I don't do # outta 10 ratings in my reviews but the mere existence of microtransactions would drop this game a full point for me.  We are not harsh enough on game companies pulling this bullshit.  No, "It's just the way it is now" for me.  No.  It doesn't have to be.  Leave that to shitty mobile games.  And yeah, "only on cosmetics" is still a load a shit.  It's...in the game.  What am I paying for?

Luckily, this game isn't "pay-to-win" and it's mostly well balanced.  Some character issues aside (see next Overwatch post), the game is very welcoming to every skill type.  Hell, after practice, I'm starting to get better at my bad characters.  Except Hanzo because fuck him.

There is ALWAYS a Hanzo.  

Finally, I absolutely need to mention that Kill/Death ratio is pretty pointless in this game.  As long as you contribute to the team, it's all good. Timing can matter, sure, but overall K/D is devalued.  You cannot see teammates K/D.  Ever.  Also, some games, you just gotta throw yourself at the objective, death count be damned.  Sometimes you need to throw caution to the wind.  If a defensive team is holding a choke point, go Tracer or Reaper, get behind them, force them to defend the objective instead.  Sometimes you gotta fly in as a Mercy and revive a bunch of dead teammates knowing you are gonna die in the process.  Sometimes you gotta cover flanks as Symmetra and just sorta be in the background.  Sometimes you gotta be Genji or Tracer on defense and just be a general fuckwad that tries to disrupt an offensive back line, have a GREAT K/D but be a huge reason the team lost because of the aforementioned fuckwadded-ness

Mostly though, Overwatch is just fun as hell.  If you got the game on PC, hit me up and we can play together.  If PC is not viable, give the game a shot on console (which felt more K/D orientated but I bet is getting better), or not and miss out.  I got sold on this game by watching Youtube let's plays (mainly Jesse Cox's, who I don't even watch all that much).  There is more in depth stuff I could say about the characters and strategy....so expect that post some time.

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

Follow me on Twitter.

Mei is bae.  Some of you, fucking hate Mei.  Just want you to know.  You are very, very, wrong.  You came across a good one, and suck at Mei yourself.  I understand.  Mei is unorthodox to play as and good Mei's are a problem.  You're just jealous.  Let it go....snow and ice reference unintentional.

5 Problems I Have With Captain America: Civil War

Before I get to complaining, I thought Captain America: Civil War was okay.  They did a good job with Black Panther, every character other than Captain America and Ironman was just fine, and the movie handled a large cast shockingly good...most of the time.

So why can't I get a few things off my mind?  This movie got great reviews from the professionals so I can't help but wonder if this is a bit of fanboying or nitpicking or what.  Here are my five issues.

5.  Why did anything happen?

I know the impetuous is on governmental oversight but come on.  We all know the plot turned it into Martha Bucky.  It should have stayed on the Governmental oversight but that would have required a 3 hour movie.

Kudos for a Marvel movie FINALLY slowing down it's pacing at times...until the airport scene to the end...but it's a start.  It was mostly to give development to Black Panther, explain how the overpowered Scarlet Witch and Vision is secluded for the start, and to remind the audience that Cap and Bucky are just the best of friends (even though they shouldn't be).  All of that is fine, but some of those slower scenes could have been spent on the nuance of "how much power should the Avengers have"?  That is a cool question.  That is a similar question (albeit, extended to the entire Marvel Universe) to what the comic storyline is.  Why not explore that?

Oh, right, the MCU just wants to stay comic action for comic actions sake. Dare it to ask tough questions and Marvel wrongly points to the DC movies and laughs.*  Instead, we get Bucky the Martha plot device taking over the plot about half way through.  Couldn't, I don't know, couldn't Cap and Stark just....talk this over?  You're going to war over a dude who was brainwashed, Cap knows this, and, Stark just doesn't care?  No, Stark doesn't know.  So......oh god this is stupid.

*DC movies at least try to tackle tougher/headier/philosophical questions. Weirdly enough, those are often their best moments.  It's all the other stuff DC movies suck at.  

I KNOW they're being manipulated by "Totally Not Baron Zemo" but....how?  We get next to nothing showing him manipulating the heroes.  He just says at the end, "Yeah I totally did this."  Uh, okay.  Is Marvel so bad at villains it decided to almost completely ignore the villain from this one because they knew they couldn't do "Zemo" justice?  Ultron is a TERRRRRRRIBLE villain and he is ten times better than "Zemo".   I'm not even a Baron Zemo fan!  The fuck is this?  I may write a post JUST on Marvel's villain problem.

He's in this movie.  Get...the fuck....out.

BTW, the motivations for most of the other superheroes get basically one line of dialogue (which I thought was REALLY well done by the way) yet Captain America gets the entire movie and his motivation never seems to be more than wanting to help his bro.  He has NEVER been convincing in hating or not liking or even distrusting the governmental project that created himself.  Yeah, he's pissed he ended up in the future because he should....have....died when Red Skull's plane......what?!?!?!  The fuck does that have anything to do with the project that created YOU?

4. Tony Stark.

War Machine:  "Didn't you refuse to work with the Government before?"

Ironman:  "Well, that was before anybody died from my weapons."

(Still better reasoning than the NRA in my opinion).

Okay, I liked that Stark has a more human reason for suddenly embracing governmental oversight.  It actually made him seem right for once and, well, #TeamStark.

BUT, his character wouldn't linger on that for as long as this movie needs for a Civil War, a Civil War that is just as much his fault as Caps.  Tony Stark is still Tony Stark.  I can easily see him being upset after a mother tells the story about how her son was killed in their collateral damage but to have it haunt him enough to go through with everything in this....UGH, 2 weeks?  A month?  Again Marvel.  Why is it so hard to pinpoint a time frame in your movies?

Ironman wanted to get Shwarma at the end of Avengers 1.  Is this the same character now?

3. Vision and Scarlet Witch going MIA.  

...............When did this happen?  

A buddy of mine already pointed this out but, what were they doing through most of the airport scene?  Yeah, Vision shows up occasionally after he's done staring at the clouds.  Scarlet Witch is missing through almost all of it then has Team Stark Get Rekt.  I'm sorry but better fight scenes have their OP characters knocked out at the start by science/magic/whatever so that they have a reason to be missing for a bit and can turn the tide at the end.  Here, Scarlet Witch is just doing....something.  Vision, I assume, was just confused.

Maybe she took off to get a latte cause goddamn is this civil war stupid.

2.  The Fight Scenes.

I am SO goddamn sick of the Christopher Nolan, rapid fire, shaky cam fight scenes.  It's especially atrocious in the first scene.  I.....have no idea who punched what.   The airport scene was okay because they actually toned the rapid fire edits back shockingly enough, but the final Cap, Winter Solider, Ironman fight went back to this and I thought Cap decapitated Stark.  He didn't, and hey.....

Fuck you directors/editors if that was on purpose.  Tricks like that are just to make the audience think they saw a thing and in slower edits, it works.  Not when you IMMEDIATELY show that didn't happen with the rapid fire edit.  There was no time to process anything.  A fake-out isn't very effective when it lasts less than a second.

(I knowwww a lot of people have just accepted this rapid fire editing as the way fight scenes/action scenes are now.  Even Mad Max:Fury Road did this at times, but not always.  We need more Bruce Lee's.  It could be SO MUCH BETTER).

1.  WHY WAS SPIDERMAN HERE?

I hate everything about this picture.

Unlike the rest of my Twitter friends, I actually like Spiderman.  Well....I did until the Clone Saga, and the holy fucking shit this is literally the worst story ever told One More Day storyline.  Anyway, regardless of his age, he's supposed to be awkward, annoying, and short sighted because he's perpetually stuck being a teenager.  Teens are dumb you guys.  Have you talked to one recently?

Spiderman plays a HUGE role in the comic storyline because he's kind of neutral while also being Team Stark.  He actually reveals his identity in an effort to stop the Civil War.  It's not necessary here as this movie altered the comic plot from "Superhero Registration Act" to "This is totally real you guys we swear UN oversight".  If he isn't going to be the sorta neutral party.....why is he here?

I know the answer to my own question (to appease comic fans sorta) but he's here because....the teams needed rebalancing after Cap won 6 vs 4?*  His CGI-ness really stuck out and while you can't really MoCap the absurdly agile Spiderman, it still seemed - WHY DID HIS COSTUME'S EYES MOVE?  Is his costume magic?!?!?!  I know Stark gave him one but no, nnnnnnno!  There is no science for, the fuck that is.  It drives me nuts.  His eyes should be static goddamnit.

*Vidya garme reference, whaaaaaaaat?

Although, for as "qwipy" as every MCU movie is, I didn't mind Spiderman slinging jokes and one-liners because that is kinda his thing.  Also, Marvel is owned by Disney, which also owns Star Wars, Spidey makes a Star Wars reference......

Captain America: Civil War is a fine movie, I swear.  But I kind of hate it.  Its got Jurassic World syndrome.  Why does this movie exist?  I'm so confused.

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

Follow me on Twitter I guess.  Whatever.