Everyday Shooter Review

Genre: Top-down arena shooter
System: PC (Steam), PS3 (PSN)
Price: $10

Everyday Shooter is an album of games exploring the expressive power of abstract shooters. Dissolute sounds of destruction are replaced with guitar riffs harmonizing over an all-guitar soundtrack, while modulating shapes celebrate the flowing beauty of geometry.

-From the official site (also contains download links and a trailer

Judging from the above, you might write off this game as some kind of pretentious 'games are art' faffery, but you shouldn't because that would be stupid and you'd miss out on a fantastic game.

Everyday Shooter is a top-down dual analog left-to-move-right-to-shoot arena shooter in the vein of Geometry Wars. However, it separates itself from the standard 'me too' copy of the above by throwing in several important changes to the formula.

The first of these is that the game consists of levels instead of one big point-gathering arcade-style endeavor. This may not seem to big or innovative a change, but it does open up the way to the other major gameplay change: chaining systems.



The phrase 'chaining system' is basically the game's way of saying "These levels play differently." And they do play differently. Each level requires a different approach to scoring and surviving ('scoring and surviving'... mirrors life, that does), and while the differences aren't always so major, by the last level you're basically playing a completely different arena shooter.

As an example, the first level starts out like your standard shooter; your move your little dot around the screen and shoot enemies which drop points for you to collect. But then, a little ways in, a different sort of enemy floats by. You shoot it, and it creates a circular field that kills enemies on contact. Shoot the field, and it grows bigger and lasts longer. Strategic usage of this can net you some serious points.

Then, the second level changes it up; instead, you get a big foe that's connected to a bunch of little ones. Kill the big one, and all the other enemies die, giving you a few seconds to collect the spoils before the next wave comes in. The levels keep changing things around on you, and it's fun to try to figure out how to pull it off in each level.

Another feature of note is the game's unlockables; scoring points in the main game gets you 'unlock points' which can be used to purchase a number of things; extra starting lives (you'll need them), graphical effects, "single play" levels (you purchase a level, and then you can choose to play it separately from the main game), and a shuffle mode which changes the levels' order.

However, the real crux of this game is the music. Everything in this game makes a guitar sound, from menu selections to killing enemies to player deaths, and it's all fantastic. The levels all have some really nice original compositions behind them, and the various sound effects compliment it really well.

Of course, every game has its flaws; for one thing, it's rather difficult (or maybe I just suck) and the tutorial dialogs that show up on the first level you play every time are annoying and can't be turned off. The music also isn't for everyone; if you don't like guitars and lots of 'em, this isn't the game for you.

Overall:
Gameplay: A simple top-down shooter with a lot of variety. 9.5/10
Presentation: Minimalistic, but rather effective. 7.5/10
Music: I love it, but it's not for everyone. 9/10
Plot: N/A
Score (not an average): 8.5/10
Final Thoughts:
This is a fun little shooter, and it's only $10. Go get it.

Mini-review: The Dark Knight

You should all see this movie. Unless you are a small child who will be traumatized by people getting their faces burnt off and small children much like yourself being held at gunpoint. Then you shouldn't see this movie. Other than that, you should.
I really, really liked this movie. It works on multiple levels, and I think that's what makes it so great- you don't need to appreciate the psychological edge to it in order to enjoy what happens. But it sure as hell helps. Because the psychological edge is what makes Batman, Batman. It's what Schumacher never did get (or, at least, apply to the films) and what Burton most certainly did.
I think this is my favorite incarnation of the Joker. It's a different character from his other portrayals, that's for sure. He's less of a 'trickster' than before, but the ratcheted the 'violent sociopath' way up. And I think that makes it, in a bizzare, twisted kind of way, more compelling. At the very least, it allows the filmmakers to explore the very concept of a man with no morality, no guilt, a man who just enjoys watching the world burn. And I think that they really understood what they were working with, and that's why it works so well.
Anyway, awesome movie and you owe it to yourself to see it.

Mediocre Storytelling Theatre

Hi all none of you out there. I'm here to inform the nonexistant masses of a new blog I've set up on Wordpress called Mediocre Storytelling Theater. Basically, the idea is to showcase MSTs and recaps of the worst of the worst. Right now I've got some Gonterman crap, and I've got another (long) comic I'm going to start doing soon, but that's it for now.

Mediocre Storytelling: The Blog

I set up a blog over on Wordpress with the intent of highlighting some of the worst examples of every kind of media there is. It's on Wordpress to separate me personally from the project. Right now I've only got a Gonterman comic, but more will come later.

On the Reality of Perspective

Ah, yes. The eternal struggle of perspective, the battle of idealism versus cynicism, the half (Full? Empty? Empty? Full? Empty? Full? Full? Empty? Empty? Full? Full? Empty? Full? Empty? Empty? Full?) glass. Optimism vs. Pessimism.
I like to think of myself coming between the two. I consider myself a cynic (when we're talking about the sliding scale of idealism vs. cynicism, I come in very strongly on the latter with some more idealistic points... oh, just read on, I'll explain it), and I like to think of it as the in-between of optimism and pessimism, albeit with some leaning. I'm not optimistic, but I'm not pessimistic to the point of being unreal about it. I judge things based upon their value; if logic dictates that something should work, I assume it will (but prepare for it to not; even though I know it will probably work, I steel myself up for it to not- that way, if it doesn't work I won't be dissapointed, but if it does I get to be pleasantly surprised), and the same applies for something that shouldn't.

So, there's that. What of idealism and cynicism, then? Well, I have a good deal of contempt for the doe-eyed kind of idealism, the 'if only we could all work together' kind of thing. Well, yes, if we all got along, there would be no fighting. But that's irrelevant because people will never get along like that. You can't get rid of prejudice or hate, you can only beat it back for a bit. Here's the thing, though, where some idealism shines through in my beliefs: Just because you can't stop it doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Yes, there will always be racists, but that doesn't mean you should just let the KKK be. Yes, there will always be war, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't advocate pacifism. People will always have misunderstandings and fights, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't at least try to be diplomatic. That is where I hold idealism: In the belief that if something is bad, you should try to do something about it even though you can't really eliminate it.
Now, on another note, what I hold in even more contempt then the 'getting together' thing is the darker, more sinister kind- the "If everything was the way I want it to be, the world would be perfect." The idealism of hate, as it were. Now, this is kind of an odd concept, is it not? "There's nothing idealistic about hate!" But... is there?
Let us all accept that idealism is the belief that the world is a generally good place. My point does not shine through here, so let us carry it along a bit. Let us say that you believe the world is a generally good place. Now, unless you're a delusional nutjob, you know that bad things happen, because that's not really something that can be denied. So, the idealist I speak of now, the hateful idealist- not all idealistic people, mind you- believes that all that's wrong with the otherwise good world comes from people being different. You see? I'm speaking not of people who think that the world is a generally good place, I'm speaking of people who think that the world is a generally good place aside from what they hate. I think you see the danger in idealism I'm attempting to portray. Now, obviously, there are cons to cynicism, and done improperly cynicism can lead to atrocities, too. That's something I could figure out but don't really want to right now; I'll get back to that some other time.
Now, cynicism: Cynicism in current understanding (let's not get into ancient Greek philosophies) is the belief that people don't act out of virtue. I hold this as a general principle; I don't assume that people do things because it's the right thing. Sometimes they do, yeah, but it's a general principle. For every tale of a man saving a drowning child (I can even justify that as a mere survival instinct- it's natural to save other humans from dying so the species doesn't die off. Now, here's an interesting topic- when people don't help others. Here it comes down to people being self-centered- the effect of being in a rush, due to society's constant nagging about being on time, and the effect of believing something someone else can handle it. In the man-saves-child story I just made up, there are some factors that explain this away- first off, there was presumably nobody else there/ trying to do something, and also the fact that it's a child. People have a tendency to be kinder/more sympathetic towards children. I guess 'cuz they're cute.), I can give you somebody killing off people they think are stains on society (idealism run amok, see above) or somebody not pausing to help someone because they're in a rush (lack of virtuous action) or a madman getting popular support for his insane ideas (people can be easily manipulated, I'm sure we can all agree that's a rather cynical concept). However, I also hold another concept that stems from this- that the virtuous thing is not always the right thing. The right thing is the logical thing, the choice that has the highest probability of doing the best thing for the largest amount of people.
To illustrate this, let me give you a scenario: You're Biff Bukinshins, fantasy hero extraordinare (sp? Doesn't seem to be in the dictionary...). Why? Because fantasy/sci fi is where this kind of illogical idealism seems to occur the most. Anyway, your lovely female companion has been kidnapped by the evil something-or-other and you can either save her or prevent the evil army from raping and pillaging several highly populated towns. Now, what's the logical thing? Clearly, the second one. But you can't just leave her! That'd be callous. So, you save her. And then you have enough time to stop the evil army, too. Now, this is all well and good in fantasy, but real life doesn't work like that. In real life, the best thing to do is to put stopping thousands from being slaughtered above saving your girlfriend. Yet, authors seem to have this crazy idea that you should save her. In fact, many believe this so much that if someone suggests they do the thing that actually makes sense, they're portrayed as a callous monster, or at least an unfeeling Vulcan. What's up with that? Sewioushly. Anyway, that's what I mean when I say that the virtuous thing is not always the right thing.
So, what am I getting at with this? Well, basically, I wanted to explain my ideals so people can have a better idea of where I"m coming from and because I think there's a great deal of discussion to be had on the topic, although that's kind of stupid of me because nobody reads this.

Currently listening to: Radiohead/Pablo Honey/Creep

Yew insulted mah mooziks!

I've noticed that I tend to get... well, really, way too upset when people insult my music. And by 'way too upset,' I mean upset at all. I've always felt that the only legitimate musical criticism is that music is too bland, too sterile, to middle-of-the-road to hold any kind of real feeling or meaning, because everything else comes down to personal taste. Even so, people saying that a bad I enjoy is bad kind of puts me off. It's stupid, I know, but that's how it is.
Anyway, I hate to make posts about myself, so I'm going to look at this phenomenon at large.
I've noticed that this happens with most everything- movies, video games, etc... And that's how we get console wars. People who write off another system's killer app without playing it just because it's on that other system, you know? They're morons.
I can't think of anything else to say, honestly... so, uh, yeah: people get upset when you insult the things they like.

More "Yes, Your Teen is Crazy": Sex, Drugs, and Rock 'n Roll

So, I'm doing the second chapter now. I must say, I now appreciate a little better the work that goes into those recaps at the Agony Booth.
He rants about how we're surrounded by sex and drugs and blah blah blah. I've heard it before, and I'm just going to come out and say it: Ever hear about the 60's? You know, psychedelia, the sexual revolution, free love, that sort of thing? Drugs don't really have the same kind of acceptance now, nor does random sex with strangers (thanks, AIDS).
Then he talks about what it's like to be a teen. Well, not really. He even says that these little anecdotes about sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll are from his clients and that no adult understands the culture fully. This is good, except we run headfirst into the issue of skewing towards the troubled teens that I mentioned before. They don't send stable people to psychiatrists.
More talking about his troubled clients, and then how alcohol kills more than hard drugs. This is actually a good point, for one main reason: it's commonly and openly done by adults, but kids aren't allowed. It creates a certain amount of rebelliousness and shines light on hypocrisy for teens. The funny thing is that European countries don't have nearly the same kind of alcohol problems we do here, and that's despite having considerably lower drinking ages. It's the forbidden fruit thing.
He rattles off some numbers that I kind of doubt, they seem kind of overblown (50% of deaths are alcohol related? Really?), but I'm not going to go into it. More suspect statistics, and then ranting about how we're not doing enough. So.. very... dull...
Well, actually, there's something interesting here in that he says that other country's might be amazed at the whole thing. Well, no, not really. Most Western countries do approve of booze, so... yeah. Anyway, not that great a metaphor.
Now he rants about the other drugs, the illegal ones. God, it's like health class all over again. At least he won't show us line drawings of naked people... right? Please say he won't. Please? Anyway, drugs are purer now. Yawn. Say something I haven't heard before, dammit!
Oh, and then he says how adults don't make sense with this whole drug thing. I think he should continue on this angle- namely, very few people are logical and rational. I'm sorry, but that's the facts as I've seen time and time again.
Sigh. Teen drug use is spreading. Yeah, I'm certain he's right here. Hey,the 60's called, they want their drug abuse back. That's their shtick. ("I Am the Walrus," anyone?).
Ah, yes, the sex page. This should be a hoot.
Let's see... you wanted to get laid as a teen (no duh)... oh, right after I start the 'settle down, this could take a while' format, we hit something. Okay, here goes.
He says that we let more sex references in 'family hour' television. Um, dude, that's what I like to call "No big deal." Either you're too little to get it, or you get a little chuckle. It's nothing. I mean, this is almost like saying that acknowledging sex exists is bad. And that's just stupid.
And then a six-year-old corrupted by South Park by a friend. Now, I don't really watch South Park- from what I've seen of it, it seems to be the kind of show that confuses vulgarity with humor- but this is kind of dumb. Basically, they taped it and then tricked their parents into believing they weren't seeing it with a VCR trick. I can't bring myself to care.
Then he talks about early puberty onset and tells an admittedly disturbing tale of six-year-olds playing a game of stripping. Um, okay, that's odd, but, um... yeah.
Then he talks about how 'scary' this is because of drug experimentation. Okay, what the hell is wrong with you. These things that you're talking about have absolutely no relation whatsoever. This is what I like to call a 'non-sequiter.'
He then says that boys who have sex too early become "emotionally cold and cynical." I don't know that that's such a bad thing, though. I'm a heavily cynical person, and it all boils down to knowing how people work. I think it's just rational, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I am.
Okay, blah blah blah kids have more sex blah blah blah statistics blah blah blah look just shut the hell up already. This book... ugh. It's like I'm getting hit over the head with a Grecian column made of obviousolium.
Girl upset who does drugs and sex. Yeah, okay, it happens, I know this, do you think that I didn't? Maybe he thinks the parents need to be written a huge reality check. That would justify it, I guess.
And now we're moving on to music. Okay, I'm calling shenanigans on this one two- "what your kid refers to as rock 'n roll?" Seriously? How clueless are you? First off, rap and R&B are the most popular genres right now. Secondly, what I call rock 'n roll is a now-defunct genre from the 50's that evolved into what is now called 'rock.'
Oh, I was wrong. Sorry, I won't jump to conclusions again. Basically, 'rock 'n roll' is a term that "encapsulate[s] all of the other forms of adolescent acting-out behaviors." I still call shenanigans, because I have never heard this term used anywhere by anyone else.
He states that youth violence has gone down. Thank you. I am so sick of people saying that it's gone up when it just #$*!ing hasn't. He seems to be fed up with the insane rules and restrictions and paranoia. See, we can agree on stuff! Oh, and then he says that it's 'not necessarily' "reacting hysterically to overpublicized rage events" and that, once again, it's a cultural shift. Why do I suspect I'm about to hear of things that I have never seen happen?
Okay, kids hit unfaithful girlfriends. Never heard that one before. Son threatens violence to his mother. Once again, a nutjob can not be taken to account for the whole. He notes that it happened several times. Gasp! A couple dozen families have major issues with violence? Wow, that's so totally indicative of the whole, because it's not like there are thousands of families in the nation!
He says the violence has gotten worse. Worse, but less frequent? I dunno, seems fair to me.
And now it's on to the acceptance of guns. I just can't make myself care. Ah well. It think I'm going to fastforward a bit, if anything interesting or different happens, I'll go in depth. If not, you didn't miss anything.
...
More violence on TV. Shut up.
Violence in video games gets a passing mention, I'm sick of that, too.
Here's something. He says that studies have only found a correlation between increased severity and increased media violence. Unsurprisingly, he doesn't actually cite any of these studies. He then goes on to insinuate that this is all a technicality and it's 100% certain that increased media violence is a problem but the companies don't want you to think that. I don't need to tell you how stupid that is. He says he asked kids about it and they said it did affect them. The funny thing is, this proves nothing because the logic is "how can I see that all my life and not be affected?" which is the same exact logic they've used before. And I have an answer, too- you're a functioning human being who can tell the difference between people getting beat up and cheap laser effects setting off sparks around an incredibly fake monster suit (yes, I am talking about Power Rangers here. My mom never let me watch that show when I was young enough to want to because it was 'too violent.' At this point, though, I couldn't care less because Power Rangers is incredibly dumb). He then gives some BS about how it's because that's what are society is like. Wait, what? This guy makes no sense. I might not be describing what he's saying well enough, but trust me- there is no good explanation given for any of this nonsense.
He then talks about parental beatings and how they're bad. Glad to see that. I'm pretty sick of parents lamenting about how they can't hit their kids and that's making them turn out bad, because that's nonsense.
There's more suicide. Yeah, yeah, yeah, shut up. It's nothing new. He then says that you can look at a sleepover party and two of the kids will have 'come close' to killing themselves. He does know that the 'two out of ten' does not literally mean that any given ten kids will have two who exhibit a behavior, right?
Now he says to get rid of guns because your kids can kill with them. No crap. I'm for gun control, though- look, Mr. White-Middle-Class-Suburban-Dad-Who-Doesn't-Hunt, NOTHING is going to come in the middle of the night and kill you, okay? You DO NOT NEED A GUN.
Evidently, trickle-down works with 'the economics of guns.' I understand it's a metaphor, but TRICKLE-DOWN DOES NOT WORK.
He argues against guns, but not very well and it's all very stupid. Basically, all teens are troubled and will use guns to do bad things if they get the chance. Guns are too effective at killing (well, duh). Locks won't keep your kids away (the key has to be somewhere, right?) He says that he can name six kids who killed themselves with guns that were locked up in six seconds. That's not a good argument, actually. All that proves is that six kids did and you memorized the names.
And... the 'kids have gotten so violent' bit is over. Good. It was stupid.
Well, it's over. No more preview chapters. He also wrote a book for teens, though...