Vega Boralis

One Hundred and Forty Five Stories in a Small Box (Part 2): Minor Robberies by Deb Olin Unferth

2010-04-09T15:36:00.000-07:00

One Hundred and Forty Five Stories in a Small Box (Part 2): Minor Robberies
Author: Deb Olin Unferth
Publisher: McSweeney's Books
Year:2007
Genre: Microfiction
Pages: 143
Number in Series: 2/3: "145 Stories in a Small Box"
Inspirations to other media: N/A

This is the second book out of three contained in "145 Stories in a Small Box," but this is nowhere near as good as Sarah Manguso's.

Like "Hard to Admit and Harder to Escape", there were interesting ideas, situations, and wordings throughout the book. However, Deb Olin Unferth did not handle these anywhere near as well as Sarah Manguso did.

Also, I just couldn't get over the atrocious writing style. The whole no-quotation-marks thing is one thing. I can deal with that. Except when the entire story is a conversation and the speaker changes often.

But there were other issues I had, and note that this isn't with the story! This is with the writing style of a published author! I've never encountered a published author with a poor writing style until now. And I hope that I never have to suffer through one like this again.

Everything is generally written in rather short sentences, but each story had at least one massively awful and completely unnecessary run-on sentence that could be an entire paragraph.
There were little quirks and little cutesy things that tried to be funny or whatever, but ended up just being annoying. For example, here's a direct quote from "Another One":

"There were animals too [sic]. Certainly one dog who lumbered through the house and one dog who never moved but lay, wrapped in a blanket, beside the father who never moved and a mother was always thinking it, the dog, was cold."

The emphasis was, of course, mine.

There are times when clarifying the pronouns can be funny. It generally is when the clarification is grammatically necessary but not always pragmatically so. Meaning, you probably know what the writer means, but it is not 100 percent grammatically correct, so there is a chance of confusion. Such is not the case here.

Technically, this does follow that rule of thumb, but nobody is going to think that "it" was referring to blanket, even though blanket is the antecedent.

And if this were the only issue, that would be fine. But it isn't. "There, There" is a pointless conversation that appears to have been written entirely for the purpose of making a conversation that juxtaposes he and she and here and there in every which way possible. An interesting proposition, but the finished result is just stupid.

I would give this a more thorough review, but I don't want to waste any more time on this rubbish. I really have nothing positive to say here, so I suppose I'll start to wrap this up. Below is a listing of the stories contained within the book and the scores for each of them. Remember, anything under a "B-" should not be published.

La Pena: C
Frank Lloyd Wright: C-
Once She Once Was: B-
Dog: C
Deb Olin Unferth: B-
To Be Honest: C+
Brevity: D+
Minor Robberies: E
Maybe a Superhero: C
Juan the Cell-Phone Salesman: B-
Passport: D
Soap: B+
Minute Lives of Great Composers: B-
Give Them the Bag: C
Single Percent: A-
Things That Went Wrong Thus Far: B
Bad: C
The Present of Concern: B+
Another One: D
En Transito: C+
Relations: C
Ax: F
Twice: C+
There, There: D+
Sickos: B
A Kidnapping Story: F
The Container: C
To Do: C+
Secondly They Are: D
Managing: E
The Messenger: B
House-Sitting: B-
Vacation: B+
Time That Another: C+
Pass: 12/34 (35.3%)
Fail: 22/34 (64.7%)

Overall: E+

This was actually one of the few things that I've ever read that was truly unenjoyable. I think I've hated my life for the past few days as I've read this. The main reason any of these stories got above a "D" was because of originality. I never thought I'd actually give a professional, published work an "F", and here I've given out two.

Final Word: A sincerely unenjoyable experience.

Recommend?: No. Not at all. Geez. In fact, I've already taken this book up to the library and left it there to be sold to some unfortunate sap.

I feel sorry for whoever wastes a quarter on this, but even more so on whoever wastes their time reading this. For example, myself. I also feel sorry for the trees on whom this dribble is printed.

In case I didn’t make it obvious enough, do not waste your time reading this.

P.S.: I can no longer find the book of the shelf of books to be sold at the library. That means either someone bought it -- poor soul -- or that someone read a little of it, realized it sucked, and threw it out. I hate to be so mean, but I cannot deny the truth.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

This review ©2010 Richard Gibson
One Hundred and Forty Five Stories in a Small Box: Hard to Admit and Harder to Escape ©2007 by Sarah Manguso and McSweeney's Books
One Hundred and Forty Five Stories in a Small Box: Minor Robberies ©2007 by Deb Olin Unferth and McSweeney's Books
All images courtesy Google Images.

One Hundred and Forty Five Stories in a Small Box: Hard to Admit and Harder to Escape by Sarah Manguso

2010-04-09T15:17:00.000-07:00

One Hundred and Forty Five Stories in a Small Box (Part 1): Hard to Admit and Harder to Escape
Author: Sarah Manguso
Publisher: McSweeney's Books
Year: 2007
Genre: Microfiction
Pages: 83
Number in Series: 1/3: "145 Stories in a Small Box"
Inspirations to other media: N/A

I normally do my reviews in a very specific way, discussing several different aspects of the book systematically. However, in my review of "SeinLanguage," I was unable to because of the structure of the book. "Hard to Admit and Harder to Escape" is of a similar vein in that it does not contain the traditional structure of a book.

However, semi-fortunately, the similarities end there: For one, this isn't satire, but the primary difference is that this is good. I must say that I did not expect it to be good.

This is the sixth author that I've had to read for my creative writing class, and, I must say, this is the first one of them that I've liked. This is the first thing that was required reading that I have enjoyed. A poor record, eh?

In any case, this is part of a fairly new genre of fiction called "microfiction." Some of the things that define this series is anything under six pages in length, a complete lack of quotation marks, and generally a lack of purpose. While Sarah's book has the first two qualities, the third is absent.

Each of the vignettes (look it up) is either a short character sketch, an odd event, or a very interesting thought or train thereof. I call them vignettes for several reasons:

1) That's the technical term.
2) They're too short for chapters, and that also requires the whole to be a cohesive story.
3) They aren't always stories in and of themselves.
4) Who doesn't like French words? (Me!)

However, the vast majority of them are sincerely and exceptionally interesting. Some make absolutely no sense because none of the sentences relate to the others at all. Aside from those two or three, about 85 percent or so were very interesting. The main purpose of the majority of these vignettes is to make you think or at least stop for a moment and consider.

Manguso has very interesting descriptions. In one of the stories, she relates a memory she has of being a young child. She was told by her parents to not wander into the woods behind her house. She eventually goes about ten feet into the woods and sees a beautiful sunset and flowers and such. Her reaction? She is alarmed because she thinks she'll never see anything that beautiful ever again (61).

That's interesting! No-one would ever anticipate such a reaction, but it makes sense, especially coming from a child. This book is filled with such descriptions and stories and ideas and characters. Everything is believable and enjoyable. Many of them make you wish you thought of them. The entire book seems very genuine.

I read this entire book in one sitting. There are a couple of reasons for that:

1) It's 83 pages.
2) It was due the next day.
3) It was incredibly enjoyable.

On a side note: After reading some authors, you may decide that you'd never want to meet them either because they are likely to be total jerks or the most inscrutable people on earth or just way beyond too weird. I'd like to meet Sarah Manguso; she seems realistically unique, just like the book.

Overall Grade: A+

Final Word: An enjoyable series of interesting details, characters, thoughts, and anecdotes.

Recommend?: Yes, definitely. Besides, it only took an hour. You can spare an hour for good reading. No, really, you can. Trust me on this.

~SE (Vega Boralis)

This review ©2010 Richard Gibson
One Hundred and Forty Five Stories in a Small Box: Hard to Admit and Harder to Escape ©2007 by Sarah Manguso (McSweeney's Books, San Francisco)
All images courtesy Google Images.

Text Book Review: On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt

2010-04-09T15:03:00.000-07:00

On Bullshit
Author: Harry G. Frankfurt
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Year: 2005
Genre: Essay
Pages: 67
Number in Series: N/A
Inspirations to other media: N/A

So, I find this little book called "On Bullshit" at the library and can't help but read the first couple of pages. I realize it's an essay on BS and think, "I wonder if this dude is serious or if this entire essay is BS." And as such, I am highly intrigued and read the entire thing.

It turns out that the author, who is a philosophy professor at Princeton, is totally serious about this essay. His thesis is, in summary, "We have no theory or understanding of bullshit." and while Frankfurt is totally serious about this essay, you can't help but find humor in it. I mean, this Princeton professor wrote an essay on BS. Just that thought alone is simultaneously funny and fascinating.

The text is so meticulously wrought and well-researched that it's hilarious. Frankfurt is totally serious about his BS.

All humor aside, this is really a very thought-provoking essay. He makes some excellent points and introduces ideas I had never considered.

His opening thoughts are very true: there is so much BS around us and we think we know so much about it that nobody has ever really thought long and hard about BS in and of itself (1).

Frankfurt discusses how honest people know and tell the truth, whereas liars know the truth and tell lies in order to oppose that truth.

BSers, on the other hand, don't necessarily know the truth but, more importantly, they don't care about the truth and just say whatever fits the situation or whatever they want. He says that truth and lies are playing opposite sides in a game, whereas BS just runs in and kicks the ball (56).

Now we know why he is a Princeton professor.

I would like to share one of his closing thoughts: Due to the postmodern idea that we cannot know truth, some people have stopped looking for and sharing real truth and reverted to sharing what is true about themselves. They have gone from reality to sincerity. Here's what Frankfurt has to say about that: "Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial... And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit (67)."

Overall: B+

Final Word: An uncommon approach and an interesting look into a common and superficially simple subject.

Recommend?: Definitely. It literally took me a minute per page to read, and that was only because I was taking notes and considering his points.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

This review ©2010 Richard Gibson
On Bullshit ©2005 by Princeton University Press
All images courtesy Google Images.

Text Video Game Review: Donkey Kong 64

2010-01-28T08:45:00.000-08:00

Donkey Kong 64

Platform: Nintendo 64
Developer: Rare
Publisher: Nintendo
Genre: Platform
Game Rating: Everyone
Price: $9.75
Released December 10, 1999

Donkey Kong is quite the character. He began his life as a prankster who stole princesses and took them to construction sites. Then he taught his children math. Then he got a tie, a girlfriend, an island, countless bananas, and an arch-nemesis. Using these items, he spawned a trilogy of games that he was only an important character in one of.

"Donkey Kong 64" is "Donkey Kong Country's" plot put in 3-D with three new Kongs and a slew of new weapons, abilities, and collectibles. King K. Rool steals DK's banana horde and DK has to go get them back.

I've never understood why a reptile would want so many bananas, especially on account of it being such an annoying word to spell and all.

However, K. Rool has thrown in two new twists: he has kidnapped all of DK's relatives so they can't help him get the bananas back, and, while DK is out and about, K. Rool plans on destroying DK Isle.

Fortunately for DK, K. Rool's minions are brainless and K. Rool is too lazy to do anything himself.

Gameplay: B+

Fairly straight forward. Go to any given area and collect four Golden Bananas, 100 colored bananas, and a blueprint -- which will net the fifth Golden Banana -- for each Kong. During that time find two fairies, Candy, Kranky, and Funky. After that, go beat the boss with the designated character. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Each area introduces new challenges, new enemies, new minigames, and new abilities. Jump, shoot, kick, fight, and bash your face into everything that moves -- and some things that don't -- until you have won back DK's banana horde and driven K. Rool out of DK's waters.

Again, this is fairly simple. Nevertheless, it is done well and is fun. The only complaint is that some of the areas are a little too big and open to navigate easily.

Difficulty: B

Honestly, it was a little too easy. Nothing was all that challenging. The main reason this is disappointing is because the "DK Country" games provided a good deal of challenge. In "DK 64," even many of the boss battles weren't difficult. In fact, the majority of them did the same thing and even had the same graphic for their attack.

The only minigames that were difficult would have been easy if the playability were any better.

Entertainment Value: A+

The best part of the game. This game is frickin' hilarious. Everything is either a sight gag, sounds funny, or is just bizarre. From everything being done by monkeys and crocodiles to DK kicking a blue squeaking beaver to a huge, dumb, and buff ape playing a triangle to totem poles eating peanuts and everything else. I mean, this game gives deadly musical instruments and flippin' guns to monkeys. What couldn't be funny about this?

This would have easily been an H if the difficulty and playability didn't detract from it. Some things are so easy and yet so difficult to execute or maneuver that some of the fun is robbed. Fortunately, this is still fun and very humorous.

Playability: C+

Easily the worst part of this game. Some things were almost unforgivably bad. The controls aren't difficult or anything; on the contrary, it's very simple to key in the myriad of different moves.

The problem is that the game is clumsy and clunky. If you've ever played "Super Mario 64," you understand that the camera is a huge problem for 3-D platformers. "DK 64" didn't improve upon "Mario 64's" camera work; in fact, it's even worse at times.

But the camera wasn't the only problem. The physics didn't seem quite right, some abilities don't seem to activate when they should, and restarting any failed minigames takes far too long. The playability is so bad in certain places, I quit and have since avoided certain minigames, and I never quit things like that.

Graphics: H

This game introduced the Nintendo 64's Expansion Pack, which was a chip you put into the system in a slot in front of the cartridge slot. It improved the N64's graphics by increasing the RAM and other aspects, and this allowed it to process the graphics quicker and to a greater extent.

Because of this technology, the landscapes in "DK 64" are lush, detailed, and very vast. In some cases, they are almost too vast. The oddball hands that are present in many 64-bit era games are not present here. In fact, K. Rool has individual fingers, and he taps them in a very menacing way. The characters are well-made and look great.

This is pretty much top-of-the-line for an N64 game. Rare never seems to make a game that doesn't have fantastic graphics, especially when it comes to Donkey Kong. The original "DK Country" games had unbelievably good graphics for the SNES, and "DK 64" does not disappoint in this aspect.

Sound Effects: B+

The sounds are good and accurate, and some are riotously funny, such as the beavers and some of the fruit ammo for the guns. (That's right, you shoot bees and crocodiles and switches with fruit.) Nothing was annoying or repetitive, though there didn't seem to be quite as many different SFX as you'd expect there to be.

Music: B-

Nothing stood out as being very good. The few remakes of classic DK themes that were present didn't improve upon the original scores; the older SNES versions are more enjoyable. However, on the flip side, none of the music, original or remade, was bad. It just wasn't above average.

Originality: B

Not entirely original. The gameplay and such are fairly simple, as is the idea of a new ability per world and a shared ammo system. Nothing really had an original spin on it save the Banana Fairies and the overall humor of the game. The plot is also the same old thing, save that K. Rool is trying to blow up DK Isle.

Characters: B+

While these characters don't have any back story to them, they don't need any. Who cares how DK and Diddy are related -- I think they're cousins-- much less any of the rest of them? The only question on the characters is this: why did they rename Dixie to Tiny? Tiny is simply Dixie in a different outfit.

But the characters don't need to grow or have back story or have complex motives in this game because the plot isn't important. The gameplay, exploration, and collection are the important things.

Plot: B

Negligible. It's simply a modified "damsel-in-distress" -- yes, bananas count as damsels -- motif that plays little part in how the game is played out. Sure, every quest-item is a banana, but it wouldn't have made the game any different if they were badgers. However, the plot doesn't affect the gameplay at all, so it doesn't matter if it is overly simple.

Replay Value: C+

Playing this again would be like watching a stand-up comedy routine again. It's funny even though you can predict the laughs. However, you don't have to control a stand-up comedy routine. The playability issues and the lack of difficulty in this game don't make me want to replay it again anytime soon. I can recall the funny parts well enough to get the laughs I'd want if I played the game again.

Overall Grade: B

Really, this game is good. It's fun and hilarious, entertaining and enjoyable, beautiful and good. The only reason it didn't get a higher grade was because of the low scores on playability and difficulty. That's really it. If it were just a little bit harder and easier to play, this would have easily gotten an A.

Unfortunately, it also had the legacy of the "DK Country" games with which to compete, and that's a high standard for anybody. However, putting that aside, it is really a good game in its own right.

Final Word:

A good and exceedingly hilarious game, but it doesn't quite live up to Donkey Kong's standards.

Recommend?:

If you've got an N64 and like platformers, then I definitely say, "Yes!", but only do so if irritants like the camera in "Mario 64" didn't piss you off. If they did, the playability issues in "DK 64" will be too annoying for even the grand humor in this game to overcome.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

This review ©2010 Richard Gibson
Donkey Kong, all kongs, King K. Rool, and the like are ©1981-2010 Nintendo
Donkey Kong Country ©1994 Nintendo
Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy Kong's Quest ©1995 Nintendo
Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! ©1996 Nintendo
Super Mario 64 ©1996 Nintendo
Nintendo 64 ©1996 Nintendo
Super Nintendo Entertainment System ©1990 Nintendo
All images courtesy Google Images.

Text Book Review: The Shepherd, the Angel, and Walter the Christmas Miracle Dog by Dave Barry

2010-01-22T19:46:00.000-08:00

The Shepherd, the Angel, and Walter the Christmas Miracle Dog
Author: Dave Barry
Publisher: Berkley Trade
Year: 2006
Genre: Semi-Autobiographical; Holiday; Comedy
Pages: 117
Number in Series: N/A
Inspirations to other media: N/A

First off, let me just say that it has gotten very annoying typing out the world's longest title numerous times over the past few weeks. In fact, it's so long, my computer is definitely going to give me a filename and/or path is too long error the next time I open this. I swear, it takes just as long to type the entire title as it does to type the entire book. Anyway. Moving on.

Dave Barry is a satirist. He -- at least used to -- write(s) a weekly column of satire. He's also written many books of satire which were all non-fiction. When you read those, you wouldn't think that the guy would capable of writing good fiction. I mean, fiction and non-fiction are entirely different animals. Satire is all about taking what's real and making it funny, or seeing the humor in it, or at least pitching it in a funny way.

Nevertheless, this is a very well-written fictional story, though it seems to me that there is an auto-biographical overtone. This book has all of Dave Barry's charm and all the things that you love about a satirist. It also has most of the laughs and the same quality of humor as a comedian. Basically, this book is going to make you laugh and smile about a lot of things.

Characters: B+

Most of the characters are children. They aren't exactly unique, except the main character, Doug Barnes. A lot of the characters seem to be something like stereotypes or archetypes, but those aren't quite the word I'm looking for. There's the strict Christmas pageant director, the strong-silent-type dad, and the hyperactive little sister. Not at all unique characters.

However, when archetypes are done well, the story can still be enjoyable. Such was the case with this book.

Plot: B

This book seems to be a recollection of some of Dave Barry's favorite childhood Christmas stories. Whether or not these happened to him or if they are a combination of several stories, I will never know. Regardless, you can see that the man lived through these times and this town and this type of childhood.

Since the story is told to us by a preteen boy, Doug Barnes, it has some of that lack of consistency. That is to say, it starts out as a random collection of memories and we eventually get to the title story. All of those stories are good, but the main story is the best. All I really need to say is that "Walter the Christmas Miracle Dog" sums up all you need to know about the plot. If I tell you any more, I'd end up telling you the whole book. I mean, it's really short.

Setting: B-

If I may go so far as to quote the book I'm reviewing, Dave Barry says that, "This book is dedicated to the wonderful, quirky people I grew up with in Armonk, New York. Any resemblance between them and the characters in this book is, frankly, a bewildering coincidence." Now, I might be missing the mark, but I think it's safe to say that, although the book is set in the Christmas season of 1960 in Asquont, New York, the real setting is Armonk.

Dialogue: A-

I can't say that anything was crazy-good, but it definitely wasn't bad. Listening to children talk is generally pretty funny, and that's much of this book.

Details: A

This is told from a kid's perspective, so the details given are atypical, which makes for a good story. If you ever listen to a child tell a story, you can discern a lot about the child and what really happened from the details they give and the ones they omit. Such is the case with Doug Barnes.

Originality: B+

Again, the characters weren't overly original, but the stories definitely were. While it isn't a radically different way of looking at childhood or Christmas, it is a fun take on the subjects. The picture/illustrations are a good addition and seem to add to the semi-nostalgic feel of the book.

Writing Style: Pass+

Other than the quirkiness of the book, I'd say this is the selling point. It really sounds like a preteen boy is reading this book to you. It has the verbal and topical ADD, as well as the slip-ups and false starts and whatnot. While those things can be irritating to listen to, when Dave Barry talks that way, it's funny and enjoyable.

Opening: A-

As soon as you open the book, you know it isn't going to be your usual story. But that's a good thing. The first page is an ad of Santa smoking. Yeah. Smoking. I'm not kidding. What more do I need to say?

The Middle: B

Once we get into the title story and you realize it isn't as short as the others, you get comfortable and settle in. It's all good, but just a touch confusing, especially considering the title story starts as a I'm-telling-you-this-story-to-explain-something-about-the-story-I-was-just-telling-you type of story. But that has its own charm, I suppose.

Closing: B

While it lacks the type of ending you would expect, the story does indeed wrap up all that it needs to wrap up. I mean, Doug is just a kid. He isn't even a teenager yet, so it's not like we can close the story of his life or anything like that. It isn't an abrupt ending or anything of the sort, but it does come a little bit sooner than you might expect, and you don't exactly realize it's the ending until you turn the next page to find that it's empty.

Length: B

I never thought I'd say this, but the book was a little short. I mean, I didn't think you could sell an non-kid's book that was this short. It's almost too short for a short story. If this were in a volume or collection or something, that would be one thing. But it's not. You almost feel gypped.

Note that I say "almost". The book was good. So, even if you bought the book, you'd still get enough laughs for your cash.

Overall: B+

Quite good. While it didn't leave as good of memories as some other Dave Barry things I've read, I'll most likely read this again next year. Again, it can be read in a matter of minutes, so it may as well be added to the traditions list. Very funny and original with a good style and perspective.

Final Word:
Short and sweet fiction by a great satirical columnist.

Recommend?:
Yes. I mean, you may as well. When Christmas comes again, take a few hours to go to your local library and read this. It will honestly only take that long.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

This review is ©2010 Richard Gibson
The Shepherd, the Angel, and Walter the Christmas Miracle Dog ©2006 Dave Barry
All images courtesy Google Images.

Text Book Review: Skipping Christmas by John Grisham

2010-01-22T19:08:00.000-08:00

Skipping Christmas
Author: John Grisham
Publisher: Dell
Year: 2001
Genre: Holiday, Comedy, Drama
Pages: 177
Number in Series: N/A
Inspirations to other media: "Christmas with the Kranks," a 2004 movie by Revolution Studios Distribution Company, LLC.

Ever get stressed out at Christmas time? Ever loathe having to go to another event filled with people you don't know and/or don't want to spend time with? Ever find yourself scrimping or doing whatever possible to save a buck or two when buying Christmas gifts?

If you answer "No!" to any of these, you're lying.

Admit it. Christmas is fun, but it can be stressful as the dickens. It's expensive, hectic, crowded, and the December weather sure doesn't help.

Ever wish you could just avoid the whole mess? Maybe you haven't, but Luther Krank sure wished he could. When his only child, his twenty-three-year-old daughter Blair, leaves on a Peace Corps mission to Peru, he decides to convince his wife into bucking the system and going on a cruise.

Luther Krank doesn't hate Christmas. He just hates wasting tons of money on things nobody wants. He hates being quilted into unnecessary and undeserved expenses. He isn't a Grinch or a Scrooge, he's just an accountant.

Luther's neighborhood, on the other hand, loves Christmas. They are also very nosy and gossip a lot. What will happen when they learn of the Krank's idea to skip Christmas?

Characters: A+

Luther, his wife Nora, and the neighbors are all very well-done. They are individual, eccentric, unique, quirky, and interesting. Grisham always fills his stories with tons of characters, and sometimes they each lack a good and distinct personality. Such was not the case in "Skipping Christmas".

It seemed as if these characters had a lot of personal basis, as if Grisham had personally seen all of these kinds of people during his life and incorporated them into the book. Real life characters are the best way to get good fictional characters.

Plot: A

Excellent. A good starting idea. Who wouldn't want to avoid all the Christmas stress? I bet only a few people would think of Luther's plan, way fewer would act upon it, and even fewer still would act upon it in the fashion in which Luther does.

That's what makes this plot so good. By the second chapter or so, I was wondering what would be the tension in the story. Would Luther's boss be on the cruise? Would Nora chicken out at the last second? Would the cruise get canceled somehow? I had no idea.

In both of Grisham's books that I've read so far, he is very good at keeping the tension constant as the story progresses. "Skipping Christmas" was no different.

Setting: A

Hemlock Street and Luther's entire neighborhood are very interesting places. I don't recall ever being told of a state or even a city in which Luther lives, but we don't need one: Hemlock Street probably exists in several towns in the USA.

Besides, Hemlock street is so interesting in and of itself. The whole town is very interesting. It's a very unique and quirky place. Everything is well-done and meshes very well with the whole. I wouldn't exactly want to live there -- and I think you'll agree with me -- but it would be a fun place to visit around December 21 or so.

Dialogue: A-

The spoken dialogue itself wasn't anything that floored me, but it was very solid. The best part of the dialogue was what Luther thought but did not say. The things that go on in Luther's head are pretty much the best parts of the book.

The conversations with the minor characters are just as solid, if not more so, than the ones with the main characters. They are also some of the funniest.

Details: A-

The weakest part of the book, but that's not saying much. Don't think that this was weak or bad, because it wasn't at all. An A- is a good and very acceptable grade. The only reason this got an A- and not an A was because of one scene that was difficult to visualize. That's all.

Again, the setting and events are very detailed. The characters aren't given a very in-depth description, but you can get a mental picture of them with the personality they have.

Originality: A-

A Christmas story that shows Christmas for what it has become: overbearing. Not only does it have the traditions, eccentricities, and stress of the season, but it still manages to retain morals and the reason for the holiday. It really has it all.

Before reading this book, I had never thought of trying to entirely skip the season. Parts of it, for sure, but not a boycott of the entire thing. Nor had I ever thought of summing up the expenses of it. However, I am not an accountant, as Luther is.

In case you've been wondering, this is the same John Grisham that writes books like "The Pelican Brief" and "A Time to Kill." Yeah, all of those really long legal novels. And then he churns out a short novella about Christmas with no reference to legal things. You would never know that this dude had a legal firm by reading this book.

Writing Style: Pass

Grisham has a solid style. It's very lucid and clear; it's interesting and varies as it should. I am somewhat surprised that he is able to write with such brevity. All the rest of his books are legitimate novels at over 300 pages. This one was only 177 pages because the physical book is so small.

Opening: H+

Fantastic. I read the first line and thought, "That's a good first line." I read the first page and thought, "I like this quite a bit, actually." And then I was done with the first chapter and said, "Well, I'll probably finish this tonight." Hook, line, and sinker. I don't really know why I liked the opening so well; all I know is that I did.

It may have had something to do with the fact that, at first, we just saw the airport and didn't know why or what. We are given the scene, and then the who and the why. And it's a good who and why.

The Middle: H

Nothing was boring, nothing was dreary. I never wondered how many pages I had left; I was curious how long the book was, but never with the mentality of, "When will this end?" or "How long until this gets better?"

The tension is kept at the level it needs to be and picks up very quickly near the end, which doesn't come too soon, but it definitely isn't too late.

Closing: H-

The other two Grisham books I read seemed to lack a few things at the end. A couple of loose ends still existed and never seemed to be tied up. Not the case with "Skipping Christmas". All details were tied up, even one that could have gone by the wayside. Excellent.

Length: A+

As is typical with Grisham, there are a couple of parts that could have been left out to make the book shorter. However, I don't think anything in "Skipping Christmas" was unnecessary. Anything that was in the book had a reason or was used later; nothing was just a meaningless flash.

The book was a very enjoyable length. It didn't drag on at all and it didn't omit anything that should have been present. Just when you thought Grisham might drag it on for another couple chapters, he starts the ending sequence. Suddenly, everything starts happening very quickly, and you're glad he didn't wait any longer because the rising action of the book is more than excellent.

Overall: H

I was stunned by this. I didn't expect to give out an H ever, honestly, much less this soon into the whole reviewing business. However, I'm ecstatic that this book is worthy of such a grade. Nothing was subpar. In fact, everything was at least a birdie if I may. I don't even like golf.

Final Word:
Excellent. Concentrated goodness. Another winner by Grisham.

Recommend?:
Definitely. A quick read; you could easily fit this in to your Christmas schedule this year. At only 20 chapters, you could easily pace yourself, though you might find it hard to put down once the tension starts building.

You may not have heard of John Grisham's "Skipping Christmas" book before, but you may have heard of the movie "Christmas with the Kranks." The movie was based on the book. While the book gets an H, the movie gets a much less respectable B.

It wasn't Tim Allen's best performance, but he was a great choice for Luther Krank. I don't think Jamie Lee Curtis did a good job as Nora. Dan Aykroyd was well-suited to his role part as Vic Frohmeyer, but it could have used a bit more energy.

The movie stayed about as true to the book as you could have asked. The only things that were omitted were minor -- though funny -- and were left out only so the movie wouldn't be too long. The few things that were added, however, were odd and not the most well-done.

Overall, it wasn't a bad movie, but it definitely will not be added to the annual list of Christmas movies. And if you want to get this story, read the book; the movie runs at ninety-nine minutes, and the book won't take much more than five hours total to read.

So, in short, read the book. I'll normally say that when it comes to a book versus a movie adaptation, but, seriously, read the book. It's fantastic.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

Skipping Christmas ©2001 John Grisham
Christmas with the Kranks ©2004 Revolution Studios Distribution Company, LLC.
The Grinch and How the Grinch Stole Christmas ©1957 Dr. Suess
Scrooge and A Christmas Carol ©1843 Charles Dickens
The Pelican Brief ©1992 John Grisham
A Time to Kill ©1989 John Grisham
All images courtesy Google Images.

Text Book Review: SeinLanguage

2010-01-22T18:24:00.000-08:00

SeinLanguage
Author: Jerry Seinfeld
Publisher: Bantam
Year: 1994
Genre: Satire; Comedy; Semi-biographical
Pages: 180
Number in Series: N/A
Inspirations to other media: "Seinfeld," a television show

This isn't a fictional narrative or a story, so I can't review it as I did "Code Talker" and as I will with most other books. As such, I suppose I'll just discuss it.

As you may have seen in the Drive-By Reviews, I read "Dave Barry Turns 40" and Tim Allen's "Don't Stand Too Close to a Naked Man" this year. I've read some Dave Barry columns and I've also read Brad Stine -- a Christian comedian -- and listened to his stand up routines before. I've also read some Kurt Vonnegut -- who died recently.

I've watched "Seinfeld" and really like it. I wouldn't even mind having a few seasons of it. I think Jerry's really funny in that and the whole show is funny and well-done. I especially like how the plots always intertwine in some bizarre way, but I digress.

Jerry Seinfeld's "SeinLanguage," however, just wasn't as good as any of those other books I mentioned. "Dave Barry Turns 40" got an A- and "Don't Stand Too Close to a Naked Man" a B-.

Out of 180 pages, I should have laughed out loud nearly 30 times. I did laugh out loud several times, but I don't even think it was a dozen times. I couldn't read "Dave Barry Turns 40" in public, and especially not at the library. I could have read "SeinLaguage" at a funeral and not been disturbing.

Now, granted, reading a stand-up book is a lot harder then listening to the guy deliver his bits. I'm sure any books Bill Cosby wrote are hilarious, but it would be better to see him give the show. It's in the vocal inflections, the timing, and the facial expressions -- which Cosby always nails. Seinfeld actually addressed this issue in the introduction to the book.

Obviously, from watching "Seinfeld," I can hear his voice in my head saying the words that he has written. I can hear, to an extent, how he would say certain things: his timing, his delivery, his inflections are audible to me as I read this.

However, that didn't really help. A good portion of this book just wasn't very funny. It made me smile, maybe a giggle. However, this isn't going to influence how I write satire, which Dave Barry has totally done.

A couple of the lines were memorable. I read a few to my wife, but I'm not going to copy any down and save them. None of them were that good.

Three or four bits in this book were in "Seinfeld" episodes that I've seen. I'm assuming most of them are; I haven't seen all the episodes and there's 9 seasons of "Seinfeld", so it's probable. This kind of helped, but it just made me think of the TV show and not like the book any more.

So, it was a bit of a disappointment, overall. At the library I work at, I get to take any books that are for sale without paying for them. That being said, I'm not upset about this book or anything. I will, however, be taking it back. I expect a few more good, quality laughs out of Seinfeld.

Whatever. I'll just go watch a few episodes of "Seinfeld" and my opinion of the man will again be improved.

Overall Grade: C

Final Word:
Meh. Just watch "Seinfeld" or read Dave Barry if you want a good laugh.

Recommend?:
No. I mean, if you really want to. If you find Seinfeld riotously funny, then sure. Otherwise, no.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

This review ©2010 Richard Gibson
SeinLanguage ©1994 Jerry Seinfeld
Code Talker: A Novel About the Navajo Marines of World War Two ©2006 John Bruchac
Dave Barry Turns 40 ©1991 Dave Barry
Don't Stand Too Close to a Naked Man ©1995 Tim Allen
Seinfeld ©1990 NBC Universal
All images courtesy Google Images.

The Video Game Smackdown (Text): Final Fantasy Adventures VS Sword of Mana

2009-12-31T11:44:00.000-08:00

The Video Game Smack Down

Today's Competitors:

Final Fantasy Adventure
Platform: Game Boy
Developer: Square Co.
Publisher: Square Co./Sunsoft (re-release)
Genre: Action role-playing game (RPG)
Game Rating: None was applied at release
Released November 1, 1991 (April 1998 re-release)

VS

Sword of Mana
Platform: Game Boy Advance
Developer: Brownie Brown
Publisher: Square-Enix and Nintendo
Genre: Action role-playing game (RPG)
Game Rating: Everyone
Released December 1, 2003

Let the Battle begin!

All of the original Game Boy "Final Fantasy" titles are very odd in comparison to most other "Final Fantasy" games. "Final Fantasy Adventure" is no exception.

For starters, it's not a turn-based RPG. It is instead, an action/adventure RPG. This means that instead of waiting to attack, you are able to move around and continue attacking as long as you have the attack power to do so. I greatly prefer this.

Secondly, it's not even a "Final Fantasy" game.

That's right. It's part of the unpopulated but very popular Mana series. It should be called like Mana Adventure or something; but doesn't that sound lamer?

However, Nintendo was doing some whacked-out PR things in the early-to mid-nineties, so the game came here with the name "Final Fantasy Adventure."

"Sword of Mana," on the other hand, was touted as a remake of "FFA." Which it is.

They took "FFA" and updated the graphics, sound, and gameplay. They made it fit more into the mold that is the "Mana" series. This includes ring menus, elementals, familiar graphics, multiple weapon types, and plenty of other things. Unfortunately, the similarities between "Sword of Mana" and the "Mana" series end there.

Gameplay:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" H
"Sword of Mana:" B

"FFA" was a very simple game. It was made when games were simple, so it had no choice but to be simple. It was simple even in its complexity. It almost becomes a brawler what with its hack-n-slash mentality. But it hacks and slashes very well.

"Sword of Mana" tried to be a complex game. It was made when games try to be as complex as possible. It did, however, fail to be complex.

All of its in-game systems -- most of which will be discussed later -- were complex in their idea, but ended up failing in their delivery, execution, purpose, or they just weren't complex in practice. Although the ideas that were laid out were complex in a good way, the reality didn't live up to the idea. There really was nothing complex about the game.

"FFA" didn't try to do very much. And this was mostly due to the fact that the Game Boy wasn't capable of very much. Nevertheless, all it attempted to do was executed as well as was possible for the time being. Which, honestly, is better than what can be said for most modern games.

"Sword of Mana" did try to do very much, especially considering that the GBA is capable of doing a lot. However, "Sword of Mana" just fell through in most of the things it tried.

Its complexity was a joke and may as well have not been there. However, in the designers defense, if they had of removed some of the systems from the game, it would have looked half-baked. While in reality that wouldn't have been true, it would have appeared as true, so it would have been as true as it needed to be.

Difficulty:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" B-
"Sword of Mana:" D

Both games had the same problem: if you greatly increase your character's power, the game is far too easy. However, "Sword of Mana" made it worse. Things were either too easy or annoyingly difficult.

There are save statues throughout the world. Almost all of them completely restore your (HP)/ (MP). For free. For no reason. Never once did I sleep in an inn. There was just no point! I could just as easily step outside town and talk to a statue and get the same results for free.

What becomes annoyingly difficult are the weapons and the fact that every enemy action has priority over yours.

If you're charging a spell and get hit, you lose the charge. Fine. That's standard and makes sense. However, if the spell is in flight and you get hit, it vanishes. That's dumb. It's ridiculous and makes no sense.

Even still, in the boss battles, you'll still be able to find time to run into a corner and cast the healing spell the forty times it takes to fully heal yourself.

That is, if you even need to heal yourself.

Most of the bosses have only slightly greater HP than the regular enemies and don't attack that often. And even then, if they do, they still don't do that much damage.

I wasn't even trying to abuse the level-up system and almost all physical attacks from enemies and bosses alike were doing single-digit damage. That's pathetic.

Even the dungeons were too easy! There were no wrong ways or dead-ends; you had one option for movement and that was the right way. This was the case over 90% of the time, and I can only remember one dungeon that had wrong ways, and that one was very well done.

Unfortunately, it was the only one. Even the majority of the outside areas had only one direction.

Then again, "FFA" was not that very hard, either. It has an interesting glitch, of sorts, that greatly decreases the difficulty. That is, if you're a berzerker. It only works well against the bosses, but it works wonders if you just want to go around stabbing like a psychopath.

In "FFA", the regular enemies don't have very complex movement patterns. In fact, most just wander aimlessly. Few have ranged attacks, and fewer still have melee attacks that extend beyond their own personal sprites. So, unless you're retarded and run into enemies for the fun of it, you don't get hit very often.

The bosses attack through their pattern regardless of what you do. The only reason the bosses were hard was because you still had to get close to them to hit them. Even knowing their patterns, it was tough to get in a hit without being hit yourself.

In "Sword of Mana," they died too quickly for it to even matter.

If we were to compare game difficulty by the number of deaths, "FFA" would be much harder than "Sword of Mana." I died like four times in "Sword of Mana" throughout the entire game, and one of which was because I didn't expect a rock to explode, much less do literally three-fourths of my total health.

In "FFA," even with the highest grade armor, the end bosses can kill you if you aren't careful.

When I ran through "FFA" this time, I kept the weapon you begin the game with. I got my MP to a decent level, then only increased my strength. By the end of the game, I could kill the first form of the end boss in less than a dozen hits with the final weapon, or I could win handily with the first weapon. That's a bit of a loophole in the system, but, again, "FFA" was made in 1991.

For "Sword of Mana," everything is too easy. In "FFA," normal enemies are too easy and bosses are just a little bit too easy, save the end few and some in between.

Entertainment Value:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" B
"Sword of Mana:" C

Honestly, for an Action/Adventure game, neither was very exciting.

Overall, however, "FFA" was more exciting than "Sword of Mana." This is due to the fact that "Sword of Mana," with its full plot, was just odd. In "FFA," you're just going after this girl that you met at random because she has some pendant that means something. In "Sword of Mana," there's all this conflicting weirdness. It's not like there's subplots and undertones and this that and the other. There's just oddities.

It took away from the entertainment of the game. As did the playability, the originality, the difficulty, and really the lackluster quality of every other aspect of the game -- save the audio and visuals -- detracted from the fun factor of the experience.

"FFA", on the other hand, just wasn't terribly exciting by its own merits. It didn't have the potential and then botch it as "Sword of Mana" did; "FFA" just didn't exactly have the same potential. However, it didn't lose what it had due to other areas of the game experience. It was just a little too slow. But it had the challenge and the exploration and the character-building that always helps in the entertainment value of a game.

Playability:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" A
"Sword of Mana:" B-

Original Game Boys had all of four buttons and a directional pad. It can't get too difficult.

A = Weapons
B = Items/Spells
Start = Menu One
Select = Menu Two

It's not hard. Overall, the menus are easy to navigate. No complaints, save that it sometimes seems to jump by two options instead of one, but whatever. And it lags a lot in certain dungeons.

In "Sword of Mana," the ring menus are not done as well as they were in "Secret of Mana." Things are organized into too many rings, and the rings take too long to load. This is mainly due to useless animations, and this is my complaint with many current games and even computer interfaces.

It's also hard to find what you're looking for on the menus. Some things aren't even available unless you are currently in battle. Not like it matters, though, because you don't need the info or the items you're looking for to utterly stomp on everybody in the game.

One good aspect of the menus was this: if you press L or R, you automatically jump to the two most-used menus: weapons and spells. However, you can only do this while in battle.

Several times, I found myself hitting the shoulder buttons and wondering why it wouldn't go to the next menu. While this isn't really a big deal, it was incredibly annoying to me at the time.

Short of that, "FFA" didn't allow you to move diagonally or run, though your Chocobo was pretty darn fast. "Sword of Mana" at least had the advantage of running.

Although, come to think of it, there was no Chocobo. Instead, you had "Secret of Mana's" Cannon Travel service run by a lamer version of "Legend of Mana's" Professor Bomb. Not a bad idea, but the execution was lame.

But I digress. I find that, in games that feature a run button, I always have that button pressed. I'm never walking. Am I alone in this?

In any case, the GBA has only two buttons more than the regular Game Boy. Again, the playability can't be too complicated unless it is totally botched, which, thank God, it wasn't.

Graphics:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" A
"Sword of Mana:" B+

The only downside about using the "Legend of Mana" art style for "Sword of Mana" is that the GBA doesn't have as powerful a graphics engine as the Playstation. Not to mention the smaller screen. So, while they were good, they just couldn't compare to "Legend of Mana." That, and it lacked the originality.

However, that isn't any fault to "Sword of Mana," so I can't actually detract points from it. The graphics were about as good as you could ask for from a GBA game, but it lacked any cool effects, which is the only reason why it isn't getting an A.

"FFA." Uh, what is there to discuss about Game Boy graphics? It's a flippin' dot matrix, for crying out loud. The graphics were very high-quality for 1991. Even though the Red Dragon looks exactly like the reguar Dragon and all enemy spells look like a glowing ball, 1991 Game Boy graphics couldn't do any better. At least we can tell what everything is -- save the second-to-last boss, but he looks like somebody's acid trip or nightmare, so I think that's the point.

Music and Sound Effects:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" A-
"Sword of Mana:" B

"FFA" has some great songs. The second overworld theme is definitely my favorite, though the stronger boss theme is good, as well. They are as varied as could be expected in 1991, and the melodies are strong and evocative.

I will say, however, if you isolate the bass track of any Game Boy song, it will sound almost exactly like any other. It was like there was only one bass instrument for the system, but they used it well.

Unfortunately, "FFA" also has some really short and shrill tracks, as well. Fortunately, they are not as common as the others. So, we've got two really good ones, about two bad ones, and the rest are well and good. Overall, a very acceptable quality of music.

"Sword of Mana" was fine in this category as well. The second overworld theme was redone, and I was disappointed with that, although they did give it a nice tempo increase. Other than that, nothing stands out. I can't recall any tracks from it, so nothing was really good or catchy.

They redid all of the FFA songs and they did them well enough. Nothing stood out as being great, though. With the capability of the GBA's sound system over that of the regular Game Boy, it was lackluster and could have been made much stronger.

Again, I say if anyone wants to remake a game and wants remixes of the soundtrack, talk to David Lloyd at OCReMix.org. There's some friggin' good talent over there. I'm currently listening to some of it. But, I digress; that is neither here nor there.

The SFX were standard for each game. "FFA's" cut out sometimes if multiple sounds were trying to use the same channel at the same time, but the Game Boy had like maybe five channels of sound, so it was bound to happen. "Sword of Mana" had suiting sounds, though they sometimes seemed cartoony or comical, which wasn't the overall theme or feel or nature of the game.

Originality:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:"A
"Sword of Mana:" B

At the time, "FFA" was highly original. A fairly open world, tons of enemies milling about, numerous towns with killable townsfolk, etc. This may have been one of the first non-turn-based RPGs. On top of that, each time you level up, you can pick one of four stats to boost: Stamina, Wisdom (magic), Strength, or Will -- which increases the rate of charge for your special attack.

If you choose Stamina, you get two points in that and one each in Power and Will. If you choose will, you get two Will and one Stamina and Wisdom points.

No matter which choice you make, one of the four areas will not grow. This forces you to make your choices carefully and in a mostly balanced fashion. You can't get by with absolutely no magic. Actually, you probably could. I'm gonna have to try that now.

That was another loophole in the game system of a game from 1991: loopholes were prevalent because they didn't have the software power or gameplay experience to prevent them. That, or they worked on the Honor System. They assumed that gamers wouldn't abuse the systems and spoil the fun or challege of the game.

"Sword of Mana" did a good job of improving upon the leveling system. You had one of five choices of classes to pursue, one for each of the stats. There was physical, magical, attack, defense, and agility. Which, I guess, boosts your evasion, hit, and critical chances. Or, you can hit RANDOM and let it pick for you.

However, if you pick the Monk class all the time, you don't get any monk-type abilities or anything. Your class doesn't even change to reflect your choices, and if it does, there's nothing that tells you, and it doesn't make any difference at all, so it doesn't even matter. Giving them a class name seemed entirely pointless. Still, this was an improvement over the four-choice system, even if only nominally.

The special attack system wasn't quite as good, though. It was like a rage system or something. That is, each hit increases the charge, and when its full, you can do a special attack for double damage. And you can also double your attack power with the three-MP cost white Salamander spell. So, you can easily do 4x your normal damage because, towards the end of the game, you can get your special attack bar full every five hits or so.

Granted, no enemy lives past the second, so you can do double their total health in one swipe. Most bosses fall that easily as well; get a critical hit with the special attack while the attack-up spell is active and most bosses fall. And this isn't difficult to do.

But, again, I digress.

In "FFA," you have a sword and spear for fighting, an axe for cutting trees, a chain for crossing gaps, a sickle for cutting shrubs, a morning star for breaking walls. Obviously, the other weapons can be fought with as well, and all of them are effective weapons. Some enemies are immune to certain weapon types. Most can be damaged with most, but some need a special weapon or a magic spells.

In "Sword of Mana," they took this to the next level. You have nine weapons, each of which have an attack trait of the following:

- Slash: which includes the weapons sword, axe, and sickle
- Jab: which includes the weapons spear, bow, and chain
- Bash: which includes the weapons rod, flail, and knuckle

Honestly, I had to turn on the game just to remember what was what, because only the sword was very useful.

The different weapon types were a joke. The Axe is too slow, the sickle has no range, and the flail hits nothing. The bow can multi-hit if you get close, and the sword, spear, and knuckle are identical. Nothing more than a three-hit combo with the same timing. The chain was what you'd expect: a straight line of attack. So, basically, you use the sword and switch when it doesn't work on a guy. Or you just avoid him.

When you use the attack spells -- one each per elemental -- the way the spell acts depends on the weapon you're holding. Unfortunately, they all suck except for the knuckle. For the time they take to cast, you'd assume they'd at least hit somebody. But they don't.

In short, there was a lot of gameplay originality with "Sword of Mana." Unfortunately, it wasn't well-done, and, overall, was useless. You're given meat items from time to time. These are used to attract monsters. Attract them to what? They already come after you. Maybe distract them? No, wait, it only brings them to you.

And what's this about some monsters seeing me and others smelling me? I can't go invisible or whatever, so what's the use of that? In the end, it makes no difference because they wander towards you regardless of line of sight or anything else, so why bother with the system at all?

Also, the tempering and forging systems were hard to use. You can't really tell the difference between a fruit or a veggie in a fictional world with fictional produce, and you never pick up enough of any one material to make tempering them really make a difference.

I'd buy the materials if there was a place to do it, because I had more money than I knew what to do with. If I bought one hundred of each item, I'd still have enough money to sleep in the inn for six years -- but I wouldn't even need to once because I could fully recharge by talking to a statue!

Again, "Sword of Mana" had a ton of original systems in place, but unfortunately, they were poorly executed or meaningless or hard to use. "FFA" had one: stab that Rabbite! And, ya know what? Simplistic as it was, it was spot-on and worked well. No complaints.

Characters and Plot:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" D
"Sword of Mana:" B

In "FFA," you're a gladiator. You escape because your best friend just died and you're sick of the gladiator life. Besides, on his deathbed, he tells you something about Gemma Knights and Mana troubles and other whatnot of which you are totally unaware.

Throughout the game, you hear bits and pieces of stuff that happened in the past. Something about there being a past empire named Vandole. Nobody liked them. They were eventually overthrown with the power of Mana. And something about a Gemma Knight, a cool sword, and a tree. I think. I don't really know, because nobody actually talks about any of this stuff.

The characters aren't much better. You meet up with one of your gladiator buddies later, but never learn how she got out. Or several other things regarding her that were highly relevant details. Basically, there's numerous holes in both the plot and the characters.

Not the least of which is the main character himself. He has very little motivation throughout the entire game. Or, rather, we are unaware of what it is. Regardless, this was the low point of the game. But that's ok! It was fun to play! You don't need a John Grisham or Stephen King-quality plot to make a good video game!

Apparently, when you remake a game, if it isn't a direct port onto another system, you have to completely re-do the plot, as well. See "Metroid: Zero Mission" for an example. I'm not sure the reason for this. Japanese-English translations were not the best in the days of "FFA." And there are many grammatical errors and some necessary words are altogether missing. Honestly, if any adult read the script, they should have caught the errors and fixed them.

So, fixing those was a necessity that "Sword of Mana" had to address. Any remake of an early-90s game must do that. Filling in the holes in the plot is another prerequisite. And "Sword of Mana" did a great job with filling in those holes. However, they over-filled them and added a ton of other stuff. Unfortunately, that stuff was hokey, weird, fluffy, and rather pointless.

Here's a quote I just recalled from "Sword of Mana:" "There is no Mana Sword! Even a tree branch, if wielded with conviction, can be a holy sword." Come on. Seriously? Wow. For one, the friggin' game is called "Sword of Mana", and then you go and tell me that there is no such thing as a Mana Sword? There actually is, as you find out later; but you never get to use it, and it doesn't even increase your stats or anything.

So, you get the Mana Sword and must use it to defeat this dude, but you don't use it. Again, yet another thing that was needlessly included and poorly executed.

Replay Value:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" C
"Sword of Mana:" D

In "Sword of Mana," you can play as the guy -- the player-character in "FFA" -- or as the girl -- the damsel-in-distress in "FFA." When I first started the game, I thought, "Cool! I'll play a little as each and compare as it goes along." I didn't keep up with that. I stopped being the chick once the game started showing that it wasn't going to get any better, and I don't plan on finishing with her, though I am interested in what they did with her plot.

Regardless, I am not curious enough to suffer through that again, especially considering that she's primarily the wizard, so the spells would be the ideal mode of attack. Again, those spells that get interrupted mid-flight if you are hit.

"FFA" is something you'd probably play through again. I've done it at least half-a-dozen times over the years. You try different level-up strategies, try and find more items, try and make it harder, etc. However, if I do re-play it at all, it won't be for a year or two.

Overall Grade:
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" B
"Sword of Mana:" D

I think the biggest disappointment with "Sword of Mana" is that I had such great hopes going into it.

1) They were remaking a good game from the past that really could use to be remade.
2) It was made by Square and Enix, the two best RPG makers.
3) It looked like Legend of Mana!

And then it sucked. I really didn't want it to. I wanted to like the game at least for the above reasons. However, I just couldn't bring myself to it. I think the final grade is mostly out of disappointment.

And, again, you have to remember that I'm grading "FFA" as if I'm in 1991 playing it. If I were going to give it a grade today, it would be, at best, a C. Yes, still better than "Sword of Mana," mainly because it didn't and still doesn't suck.

Overall, it was like "Sword of Mana" was made by the dregs of the workers from Square and Enix. Their third string players. Their B Team or whatever.

Now, if this was the first project of all of these designers and such, then they did a somewhat respectable job. However, they had a lot to live up to, what with being under Square(-Enix)'s name and remaking a good game.

If this was the case, however, someone who knew the ropes in the company should have been guiding and supervising them and telling them that the final product was not up to the standards of Square.

When you see the name Square(-Enix), you expect quality, and rightly so. "Sword of Mana" did not deliver the level of quality you expect from Square or from a Mana game, because "Secret" and "Legend of Mana" were amazing. Amazing!

"FFA," in 1991, was very good. It's originality and fun gameplay make up for the discrepancies in the plot and characterization.

Final Word:
"Sword of Mana:" Another poor excuse for a remake of a good game.
"Final Fantasy Adventure:" Good. Has some holes, but still manages to be good.

The Victor:
"Final Fantasy Adventure," hands down. "Sword of Mana" failed at almost everything it set out to do, which was quite a bit. "Final Fantasy Adventure" is simple fun.

Recommend?:
I definitely wouldn't recommend "Sword of Mana," but, honestly, I can't recommend "FFA," either. That is to say, I won't tell you to go out and look for either of these games to purchase. However, if you come across "FFA" and it's around $5 and you need a new game, go for it. Otherwise, I wouldn't. However, I'm not gonna sell it. It is fun, even if it isn't super-exciting or anything like that.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

This review is ©2009-2010 Richard Gibson
Final Fantasy Adventure ©1991 Square Co.
Sword of Mana © 2003 Square-Enix Co., LTD (formerly Square)
Final Fantasy Series ©1987-2010 Square-Enix Co., LTD (formerly Square)
Mana Series © 1987-2010 Square-Enix Co., LTD (formerly Square)
Legend of Mana © 1999 Square-Enix Co., LTD (formerly Square)
Secret of Mana © 1993 Square-Enix Co., LTD (formerly Square)
Game Boy ©1989 Nintendo
Game Boy Advance ©2001 Nintendo
Playstation © 1994 Sony Computer Entertainment America
Metriod: Zero Mission © 2004 Nintendo
OverClocked ReMix © OverClocked ReMix, LLC.
All images courtesy Google Images.

Text Book Review: Code Talker: A Novel About the Navajo Marines of World War Two by John Bruchac

2009-12-15T00:25:00.000-08:00

Code Talker: A Novel About the Navajo Marines of World War Two
Author: John Bruchac
Publisher: Dial and Speak
Year: 2005
Genre: Teen; Historical Fiction
Pages: 231
Number in Series: N/A
Inspirations to other media: "Windtalkers," a 2002 movie directed by John Woo

I first heard about the Navajo code talkers from an XKCD comic. I thought, "Wow, this is too random for even this guy to have come up with." As it turns out, I was right. Randall Munroe didn't come up with the idea of a Navajo code talker. World War II did.

When you want to say something that your enemies cannot understand, you say it in code. What better way to say it than with a code that only a few thousand people on the entire planet understand?

That was the idea behind the Navajo code talkers. Their language is very difficult for a non-native speaker to learn and, apparently, it takes longer to say things in Navajo than in most other languages (62). As such, it is an excellent code language, especially to someone who has never heard Navajo before.

The Navajo code talkers were small regiments of Marine "scouts". They were primarily used in the Pacific theater of the war and they relayed almost every message to and from the front lines. Their unbreakable code was the untold story of the war. The story was not told because the code was so secretive and so good that the United States Army wanted to be able to use it again if needed.

The reader assumes the role of one of Ned Begay's grandchildren as he relates to them the story of the medal he was awarded. Every now and then, Ned will begin a paragraph with, "Now, grandchildren," as he explains something. This gives the book the feel of sitting on the floor of the home of a grandparent who is telling us a story.

The code talkers were not allowed to tell their story to anybody for nearly twenty years. Today, we can learn the details of the story and, with it, learn a new found respect for the Navajo Indians that were so mistreated by our country.

Characters: A-
Kii Yáhzí is the main character. Or rather, that is his Navajo name. His American name became Ned Begay -- which is not quite as cool, unfortunately. Ned grows throughout the story, and we find out more about him as he understands more about himself. He doesn't change as much as he just realizes who he is as a person, as a Navajo, as an American, and as a Marine.

He learns much about the world and the people around him through the war, through the actions of those immediately around him, and also through the actions of those who are far away from him. We learn things, as well, through his eyes. Ned is a very observant person, and he tells us all we need to know about his life and what he is going through.

There are many minor characters. There is Ned's family, his Navajo relatives and friends, teachers, and his other Marine buddies. Some characters play a part for only one chapter, and some for even less than that. Whomever the characters are, we see how they played a role in Ned's life, how they shaped his opinions of humanity and the world and culture in which he lived.

Even when the characters are very minor literary-wise, we see how important they are to Ned. We never have to wonder things like "Does Ned like that guy?" or "Was that a vital person in Ned's life?" He may not say it flat out, but it is easy to tell.

However, the minor characters that stay with Ned throughout the story don't change very much at all. On the other hand, the story is Ned's story, not theirs, so we don't need to see them change.

"There are little anecdotes and little side stories that are found throughout the narrative that really add to the realism of the book. They provide us with insight into who Ned is as a person and a Navajo."

Plot: A
The story starts with him as a young child just leaving home to go to an American boarding school. It progresses through his life there, through high school, and through World War II. He enters the war as a Marine, and we hear all about his training and the battles he lived through.

There are little anecdotes and little side stories that are found throughout the narrative that really add to the realism of the book. They provide us with insight into who Ned is as a person and a Navajo.

Setting: B
Goodness, are there a lot of settings. We have the Navajo reservation, the boarding school, high school, training camps, boats, islands, foxholes, etc. We can picture Ned as he is in these different locations. We may not be able to paint a picture of them or build replicas of them, but that isn't at all necessary. We just need to be able to visualize the locations, and we are able to do just that.

Dialogue: A
There are some funny parts and a couple of laugh out loud moments, but nothing else really stands out as great. On that same note, nothing is bad. The dialogue is solid, enjoyable, and natural. The major characters all have their own voices and we can hear them as they speak.

"The main idea with historical fiction is to do one of three things: 1) fill in an account that cannot be recovered, like those of Biblical characters, 2) to tell a general story with a specific one, such as talking about feudal Japan through the eyes of a single samurai, or 3) to think about what would have happened if events in history had played out differently."

Details: A
We are given details about the Navajo language and way of life, the story's characters, the places, and the culture of the time and people Ned encounters. These details are always relevant, understandable, and well-placed. They are never dry, dreary, heavy-handed, or excessive.

I'm fascinated by language and culture, so having the Navajo words spelled out and defined is a great detail for me.

However, I suck at pronunciation, so I won't even attempt half of the words in the book.

Ned describes different Navajo rituals to us in the book, such as the Blessingway and the Enemyway. Both are captivating. They really make me want to go hug a Navajo -- not really, but, honestly, they make me want to visit the reservation.

We are given enough details about the environment of the different locations to which Ned travels that we know what he was feeling while he was there. We are shown enough about the characters that we can picture them; nobody is just a talking head.

Originality: B+
This was original enough. The main idea with historical fiction is to do one of three things: 1) fill in an account that cannot be recovered, like those of Biblical characters, 2) to tell a general story with a specific one, such as talking about feudal Japan through the eyes of a single samurai, or 3) to think about what would have happened if events in history had played out differently, for example, if the South had won the American Civil War.

"Code Talker" obviously took the second route. I think this may be the only book of its genre about its topic. And the topic is interesting. Bonus points!

Writing Style: Pass
At times, it really sounds like Mr. Bruchac is a legit Indian -- "My own tribal heritage is western Abenaki" [220], so he sorta is -- and that Ned Begay is not a made-up character. A lot of research did go into making this book.

However "Even though my main character and narrator is fictitious, I haven't invented events. Everything that happens to Ned Begay happened to real Navajo people" [223] shows that it's historically accurate enough for me, and possibly even for a research paper.

Failing that, Mr. Bruchac included a list of books about Navajo, WWII, and the code talkers in the back of the book.

The writing style in and of itself isn't fascinating, but it doesn't distract. It's clear and it's good. As I said before, it starts out sounding like a real Navajo is talking to you, but, later on in the book, words and phrases that sound more American come through. While odd at first, it is suiting; Ned Begay is becoming more and more tied to America as the story progresses. So, the change is fitting.

"I wasn't glued to it the entire time, and I wasn't longing for it when I couldn't read it for a few days, but it was the main thing I did when I had free time."

Opening: A
I enjoyed the opening. I picked this up shortly after re-reading that XKCD comic. I was just planning on reading a little that day at the library where I work and re-starting later in the week. I read the whole first chapter -- three pages -- before I remembered that I was at work.

That's what you want a book -- or any other media, for that matter -- to do to you. You should be able to get lost in it, forget yourself and where you are and live through the characters -- at least for the time. The opening of "Code Talker" definitely did just that.

The Middle: B-
There were parts that weren't very interesting or exciting, though I can't say why. While very historical, this doesn't read like a textbook or a history book at all. It reads like a short novel, which it is. Of the 214, maybe twenty or twenty-five weren't up to par with the rest of the book. Honestly, that's not bad. There were no more than like four or six consecutive pages that were of that quality. After those four pages, we'd have something interesting. Like a story about Ned's group messing with their captain during training or the Blessingway ritual.

So, don't think that you can just skip a few chapters when you get close to being bored. This isn't one of those books where you can get away with reading just the first and last few chapters -- and I only did that once.

Closing: C
Not the best. It seemed rather anticlimactic and too fast. The main problem with historical fiction is that we all know how it's going to end because it has already ended. World War II is over. The US won the war against Japan after the atomic bombs were dropped. So, Mr. Bruchac already had it stacked against him when it came to writing a powerful ending. With that in mind, it was fine.

Length: B
A solid, average length. The pages are rather short, so it isn't a long read at all. It wasn't too short, but it wasn't too long. There didn't seem to be anything unnecessary or extraneous, though, again, the ending was a little rushed.

If anything, it was just a touch too long. However, I wouldn't really know what to take out. Life isn't always exciting all the time, so we can't expect a realistic book about someone's life to be exciting the entire way through.

Overall: A-
Enjoyable. Definitely enjoyable. I wasn't glued to it the entire time, and I wasn't longing for it when I couldn't read it for a few days, but it was the main thing I did when I had free time. There were parts where I was lost in the book, but it wasn't the whole length of it. However, I think that added to the realism of the story and to Ned himself.

Final Word:
While not amazing, "Code Talker" is well-written and has very interesting subject matter.

Recommend?:
Yes, definitely; put it on your reading list. It's imperative that we know about our past, especially what our forgotten warriors have done for us. Historically, our nation owes the Native Americans so much. The least you can do is read a good book about their valor.

~SE (Vega Boralis)

This Review ©2009 Richard Gibson
Code Talker: A Novel About the Navajo Marines of World War Two ©2006 Speak and written by John Bruchac
XKCD ©Randall Munroe
All images courtesy Google Images

Text Movie Review: Kung Fu Panda

2009-12-08T12:30:00.000-08:00

Kung Fu Panda
C/C-
Who's in it?: Voices of: Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Ian McShane, Lucy Lui, David Cross, Randall Duk Kim
Who was in charge?: Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
Who wrote this movie?: Jonathan Aibel (screenplay), Glenn Berger (screenplay), Ethan Reiff (story), and Cyrus Voris (story)
Is it based on anything?: N/A
Who put this movie out?: Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Animation LLC
What's it rated and why?: PG for sequences of martial arts action
How long will this movie take?: 1 hour, 32 minutes
Opened June 6, 2008

I watched "Kung Fu Panda" the other day. It's a kids' movie, but I had heard a good deal about it from friends of mine. Things such as "It's good," "It's so funny," and "It's really cute!" Unfortunately, I don't have such a rave review about it.

Overall, it wasn't bad. I'd say I'm rather knowledgeable about recent animated kids' movies; my dad has quite a penchant for them, so I watch the majority of them with him. So, Kung Fu Panda had to stand up to the likes of "Madagascar", "Wall-E", and "The Incredibles", which is a tall order, to say the least.

Unfortunately for "Kung Fu Panda", it did not measure up very well.

Again, it wasn't bad, but it sure wasn't good. I don't have a ton to say about it, so I'll keep this short. For one, it was more violent than a Tom & Jerry cartoon, which I thought was near impossible.
At least we were spared any sappy love stories that most movies have or the blatant sexuality that was "Happy Feet".

There were some very funny scenes and moments. However, that is also the case with "Hamlet 2." Of course, that isn't a kids' movie, but what I'm saying is that even a terrible movie is still bound to have some funny parts. Again, unfortunately for "Kung Fu Panda", I can't recall any of them offhand, and it's only been a few days (which, you must understand, is a long time for me).

Also, I have a huge problem with the entire premise of the story. The idea that an idiot, no matter how much he is needed or relied upon or trusted in or believed in by himself or anyone else, can defeat a master with years of training is absurdly and grossly preposterous. Even dumb luck can only carry you so far.

While what Poe's dad said about the special soup ("You can make anything special if you believe it is special") is true to an extent, you can't believe or hope in that aluminum foil so much that it will become gold. That's like believing that I can make dawn come at midnight or noon if I wish it to hard enough. That's just silly.

The whole "There is no secret ingredient" idea is somewhat true. Anyone can be at least above average in something if they try hard enough and put in enough time and effort. However, somebody without a brain isn't going to be the next Einstein even if they try their whole lives.

I'm sorry, there are "secret ingredients". Some people just have natural talent and are gifted in certain things. Failing that, there are just great people. To say that "there is no secret ingredient" is to deny the fact that one person did the deed that saved the valley. Poe was the "secret ingredient" even if his gifts weren't as noticeable as those of Shifu or Tigress. He still had a gift, though I think it was just dumb luck in all honestly.

Failing that, "Kung Fu Panda" is a preaching on the power of fate, which is also ridiculous. The notion that Poe was the only one who could defeat Tai Lung solely because some turtle said so is outlandish.

Prophecy does not make something happen.

However, I cannot end this without saying that I was very pleased with the say they did the back-stories, the histories of the characters, with such brevity. We see Tai Lung and Shifu's entire lives and learn a ton about them in under a minute, and we also learn a good deal about Tigress as well when she tells the story. Her eyes say everything during her flashback. A deeper plot was something that was missing even from movies like "Madagascar" and "The Incredibles". I must commend "Kung Fu Panda" for that.

And the animation. That was very good and colorful. No complaints there, or with the soundtrack or voicing. I had no idea about the stars that did the voices until the credits. Too bad I don't even like Jack Black. (I knew he did Poe's voice, though; I'm not that dense).

There were a couple of good quotes, but the only one I can still remember was Oolong's saying about time. "The past is history and the future is a mystery, but today is a gift. That is why it is called the present." Not a bad thought. A pretty darn hokey one, as most pithy quotes are, but not bad.

So, overall, I suppose I'd give "Kung Fu Panda" a "C", maybe a "C-". Not the best in recent years. It wasn't even as good as "Shark Tale". Geez.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

All movies, TV shows, songs, names, likenesses, video games, characters, music, books, or anything mentioned unless otherwise stated are property of their prospective owners.

This review is ©2009 ~ Richard Gibson.
Kung Fu Panda © 2008 DreamWorks Animation LLC
Madagascar © 2005 DreamWorks Animation LLC
Wall-E © 2008 Disney Enterprises, Inc./ Pixar Animation Studios
The Incredibles © 2004 Disney Enterprises, Inc./ Pixar Animation Studios
Happy Feet © 2006 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
Hamlet 2 © 2009 FOCUS FEATURES LLC
Shark Tale © 2005 DreamWorks Animation LLC
All images are courtesy of Google Images.

Text Video Game Review: Braid

2009-12-08T12:29:00.001-08:00

Braid
Developer: Number None, Inc.
Publisher: Xbox LIVE Arcade
Genre: Puzzle & Trivia
Game Rating: E10 (Everyone 10+)
Language Mild
Cartoon Violence
Price: 1200

General:

So, one day, my brother tells me that I have to try this game he's downloaded on his 360. I didn't even know you could do that, so I thought that was cool to begin with. He just recently beat it and says I'll like it "cause it's a platformer/puzzler." I say, "Wait, how does that work?" He just tells me to try it.

I watched him play it first. It seemed really odd. It was a good kind of odd though. It was insanely unique. I liked what I saw.

I decided to try it. Once I got used to the Xbox controller (I had played Xbox 360 maybe twice before this), I really enjoyed the game. The levels were laid out very well, and the first area seemed to go by fairly quickly. I was having a good deal of fun.

And then the game went to "World 2". A good puzzler will have a few levels that are so easy that any fool with the least bit of motor skills could do it. Something that makes a good puzzler is that after warming you up, it throws a wrench into things. This wrench is often large and is thrown at a good point into the works.

The works don't work so well after that.

Braid sure as heck delivered in that area. Each new area threw in an additional wrench, adding to the difficulty of the puzzles, which, in turn, added to the fulfillment of finishing a puzzle.

This is one of the things that makes puzzle games so endearing -- you get frustrated as all get out, and then you overcome the obstacle and feel like a champ. It's a nice feeling. And then the champ gets the rug pulled out from under him and nearly breaks his teeth on the floor.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

A good puzzler will also not allow a newb to beat later levels until he has worked his way up to them. What I mean is this: If you've played the first area of Braid and I show you the fifth, you'll see that and be like, "How on earth is that possible?" If you tried it, you wouldn't have a clue what to do or how to do it. And then I'd show you and you'd say, "That's not even right."

Braid delivers on this as well. The wrenches introduced in each new area are so bizarre that you can only learn about them by trying them for yourself and being trained in their ways.

Another aspect of good puzzle games is that they have a simple idea, but then manipulate that idea until the process isn't simple anymore. For example, Dr. Mario. Put the pills on top of the same-colored viruses. That's about as easy an idea as it gets, but it gets complicated with dual-colored pills and tons of viruses. Or, those metal puzzles that are made of multiple shapes stuck together. All you have to do it get them apart. It looks impossible, but once you've done it, you see the trick.

These are aspects of good riddles, and Braid is a fantastic riddle.

Braid is a normal platformer. You move around and jump and there are traps and a few simple-minded enemies. There's pretty much only three: "goombas", rabbits that jump at you, and "piranha plants". After the small enemies there's an occasional boss. This is a normal platformer. Moving platforms, enemies that you have to bounce off of to reach new heights, etc. etc.

Braid is a normal puzzler in that the learning curve and difficulty level is highly exponential. The first level is insultingly easy, and the third is ludicrously tough.

And Braid stops being normal right there. The art style, music, plot, and gameplay are all very unique. I've never seen anything like them. And this is good for Braid, but bad for everyone else. If everyone else were this original, I might start buying new game consoles again.

Tim is your character. He is -- well, a dude. He looks like a normal guy. Red hair, wearing a blue suit coat with a white shirt and a red tie. He isn't fast or strong or tough or really smart or magical or anything. Well, maybe magical, but only in one way.

Tim has the ability of time-manipulation, and this is the focal point for the puzzles and such in the game. This isn't a new idea, but Braid takes a new twist on it. Press "X" to go back in time. Simple enough. You fall down a pit you can't get out of, or one that has spikes on the bottom of it and die (you only have one hit by anything), hold "X" to get out of it and pretend it never happened. Jump on an enemy and hold "X" to revive him. Go through a door and hold "X" to go back out it and close it. Very simple.

In other words, let's say you've been in the room for two minutes. You can reverse time all the way back to the moment you came in the door. If you don't release the button, you can go back and forth within that time up until the two-minute mark. You can't go forward, but you can't undo going backward in time. There's no good way to word this. My brother came to the same conclusion as he tried to explain it to me. Just finish the first room and then experiment with time.

Messing with time is fun in of itself. It is simple. Trust me.

However, things quickly become less simple because things in the game become immune to time changes, are only affected to an extent or only affected at certain times, and so on and so forth. You'll just have to play the game and experience it for yourself.

When you combine the time-reversal with typical platforming aspects, you start to wish you could do this in all platformers. In the first area, a "goomba" will be shot out of a cannon. You have to jump on him as he comes out to reach another platform for a puzzle piece. If you miss him or don't make the jump, you fall about 3600 feet. However, since you can just backtrack time, you don't have to climb back up or really wait for the cannon to fire again. You can just keep trying. Let me tell you, this takes many tries, and if you had to climb back up every time you missed the "goomba", you'd throw the game out the window. It's really nice that you don't though.

The puzzles involve messing with time to reach the end of the stage and getting puzzle pieces along the way. There's twelve per area. Sometimes they're behind locked doors. Sometimes they're hidden out of sight. Sometimes they're held by a boss. Other times they seem so easy to get but really aren't. You don't have to get every puzzle piece before you can advance, but you can't beat the game without all of them. However, you can come back once you've learned more to try and get a tricky piece again. There's nothing wrong with that.

The plot is another thing that's unique. It's not the best, however, mainly because it is totally cryptic. I can't say much without spoiling it, and I can't say much because I didn't fully get it. However, you don't need to. The plot makes little sense, but it doesn't get in the way of things, unlike Mega Man X6, so who cares?

On a different note, if you get frustrated by the puzzles, which will happen, let out your anger by jumping on a particularly annoying "goomba's" head and then going back in time until just before you hit him. He'll revive and when you release the button, you'll hit him again.

Lather, rinse, repeat. The death sound is quite funny, I thought, and this will help ease the frustration.

Or, do the same thing to Tim.

Gameplay: A

Simple, straightforward, and very good. Movement is easy and the physics seem good enough. Everything is explained well and easy to understand. Even the new wrenches of each area are understandable. Everything is good and smooth and fluid, with nothing clunky to be found.

Entertainment Value: A-

As I said before, the thrill of finishing one of the puzzles is great. The originality of the game also adds to the "fun quotient." Braid truly is a unique experience. Not the most fun I've had in a game, but one of the most fun solo games I've played in a while.

Difficulty: A

Again, like a good puzzle game, the difficulty increases exponentially. However, Braid doesn't get so hard that you just start trying things at random. You may stand off to the side and watch some of the puzzles work for about five minutes or so until you understand them, but nothing is impossible. It may look like it at first, but it never is. Something that may be helpful to remember is that the entire game can feasibly be beaten in under forty-five minutes, so no one stage takes very long at all.

Playability: H

Very easy-to-use controls, even for someone who, like me, has played an Xbox like twice. There aren't even many controls to speak of. You move, you jump, you screw with time. Just the basics are present. To play with time, you hold the time-distort button and things begin to move backwards at 1x time. If you hit the shoulder triggers, that speed increases. You can also stop time altogether and move forwards back to the time when you hit the time-distort button. As I said before, it's easier to learn than to explain. So, just buy the game and play it, already!

Graphics: B+

Hand-drawn sprites and water-colored backgrounds? Talk about unique! The background is animated and swirls with color and such. It's very pretty. Several of the backgrounds could probably sell as paintings, minus the whole animated thing. Be that as it may, the background is not distracting at all.

Sound Effects: B

Again, not much to speak of. This is a very simple game overall. There's the footsteps, keys, and various sounds by Tim and the enemies. The best part about it, though, is how the sounds bend and reverse as they play while you mess with time.

Music: A-

As a totally orchestral score, the music isn't a ninety-second loop or even a four minute loop. You have like twenty minutes of new orchestral songs per area that loop through. If you, let's say, were to watch the clouds while listening to the game, you'd hear that a full-length song will play, and then another one will. It's like buying a short CD of Bach or something and putting the whole CD on repeat.

In short, very enjoyable.

Originality: S+

This is one of the most original games I've ever played. This was really the selling point of the game for me. From the plot to the graphics to the music to the game play, this is an insanely original game. Granted, I haven't played a lot of recent video games, but I have played tons of video games in my life, so I think I'm warranted to say that. Because everything was so original and unique, even the inscrutable characters and plot are raised up in quality and aren't given as low marks as they could have been.

Characters: C

Tim doesn't change or grow, but you do get to see his bizarre past. That's all the characterization. His past is interesting. I think I'll leave it at that. He's really the only character in the game until later.

Plot: C-

Just as unique as everything else in the game, but this is the only part that wasn't really very good. I didn't really understand it, and my brother didn't really, either. I mean, neither of us have PHDs, but we're far from dumb. All I'm going to say is I hope you know a little bit about WWII history before you beat the game. But it won't really matter either way.

Replay Value: B

I wouldn't mind having a second run-through of the game. It was fun, but puzzle games are hard to replay at all because they have one solution and little wiggle room once you finish them. However, there is an achievement for finishing the entire game in forty-five minutes. However, it's like a Metroid game. It's possible, but you won't think so when you play it the first time through.

Overall: A+

Definitely get it. I think it was less than $10 (remember, my brother bought it, not me); totally worth it. If you aren't into puzzlers, you may not like it because of its difficulty. If you want something unique, this is the game for you. If you want a game that doesn't require you to murder things, this is for you (or Harvest Moon; I recommend Harvest Moon 64). If you like old-school platformers but want a new challenge, this may be for you. If you have some time and money to blow and already own an Xbox, this is totally for you.

In short, get it and play it already!

Final Word: Truly a good, cool, fun, and very unique experience.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

All movies, TV shows, songs, names, likenesses, video games, characters, music, books, or anything mentioned unless otherwise stated are property of their prospective owners.

This review is ©2009 ~ Richard Gibson.
Braid ©2008 Number None, Inc. and Nintendo
Dr. Mario ©1990 Nintendo and Nintendo R&D1
Mega Man X 6 ©2001 Capcom, Capcom Production Studio 3, Value Wave, and Sony Computer Entertainment
Harvest Moon 64 ©1999 Toy Box Studios, Victor Interactive Software, and Nintendo
All images are courtesy of Google Images.

The Book Review Breakdown

2009-12-08T11:57:00.000-08:00

The Breakdown (Numbers in parentheses annotate their importance in order. 1 being the most important, 10 being the least.)

Characters (#1)
The "Who?" of a story.

The main and minor characters, plus the antagonist and other important characters. These are what we connect with in all stories, and thus, characters are extremely important, if not the most important part of a book.

Plot (#3)
The "What?" and sometimes the "Why?" of a story.

What happens? What major and minor and notable events occur? This is also extraordinarily important, but not as important as the characters. If the characters are extremely interesting, they can make even a boring plot intriguing.

Setting (#10)
The "Where?" and "When?" of a story.

Less important still than the plot of the story, but still necessary. Good characters and a strong plot don't even need a setting at all, but no story will be hindered by having a powerful setting. Was the setting described at all? If no, was it necessary? If yes, was it done well? Could we picture the site?

Dialogue (#5)
The "How?" of a story.

Little can happen if the characters don't talk to each other. That being said, some stories need no dialogue at all. I'm sure some great stories have been written that used very little to no dialogue at all. However, most stories require that the characters speak to each other, or at least to themselves.

And sometimes the characters will speak to the reader. This is called "breaking the fourth wall". Is the dialogue interesting? Does each character have his or her own unique voice? If not, why? And there had better be a good reason.

Details (#6)
Sometimes also the "Where?" and "When?" of a story.

Details can be given about the characters, the plot, the setting, or the dialogue. Too many details slow and bog the story down, but too few make leave us with just words on a page. Irrelevant details get us focused on the wrong thing, whereas highly applicable details add realism, depth, power, and memorability to a story.

Originality (#7)
Have we heard this story before? Are these recycled characters? If this is the third book in a series, are we discovering more about the protagonist or is (s)he being faced with new problems?

Is the plot a new idea, or is it just a fairy tale in shiny new wrapping paper? Are these characters archetypes with no new twists?

Writing Style
I'm not going to put a number of importance on this aspect of a book. This is, obviously, entirely a style. There can be problems with a writing style, and there can be really good writing styles, but this is mostly a matter of taste - as most of media reviewing is.

All of media reviewing is, to an extent, but this subject is most of all. Part of this is things like sentence structure, variety, clarity, and the like, but it's also just the voice of whoever is telling us the story. Is it suiting? Does is distract?

Writing Style, in my reviews, will just a "passing" or "failing" grade (P/F).

The Opening (#2)
To me, this is very important.

If I'm not hooked by the first chapter, I'm putting it back on the shelf. If the first page doesn't give me a good reason to go on, I'm putting it back on the shelf.

I started reading a book called "God is Dead" (or something like that; no, it was not written by Nietzsche). The general plot of the book was God has recently died, so everything is going wacky on Earth. The idea was original enough, so I started reading it just to see how it was done. I finished the first chapter and put it back with no intention of ever picking it up again. The book was not very well written and it was merely a political rant. I trudged through the first sentence, paragraph, and page because the plot was original enough. After the whole first chapter being nothing of value, I put it back; I gave up on the book, in essence. I wasn't given any reason to go on, so I didn't.

The first sentence should grab me, the first paragraph should have me hooked, the first page should have me asking questions and caring about at least one character, and the first chapter should have me immediately going on to the next.

The Middle (#8)
Do I find myself checking how many pages I have left because I want to reach the ending? Has nothing interesting happened in sixteen pages?

A good middle will have me up reading all night. A good middle has either steadily building tension or many troughs and peaks, or, better yet, a combination of the two.

The Closing (#4)
Ever read a really good book and then the ending sucks? Didn't you feel totally cheated?

If the book doesn't end well, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It's like ending a good song on a discord. Unless the rest of the book was really good, a bad ending will really hurt it. However, a good ending ties up all loose ends and makes us feel good about what happened. Even a sad ending will leave us without any questions - unless it's a cliffhanger - and make us feel like that was the only way the story could have ended.

Length (#9)
If a book is too short, we're left wanting for more. If it's too long, we're tempted to skip pages. And don't you ever do that.

If it's too short, it may leave out details, not flesh out topics or struggles, or just not be involved enough to be interesting. If it's too long, we just can't wait for it to be done and may never finish it, and nobody likes that. A good length is hard to find, because it has nothing to do with the number of words or pages.

A ludicrously long story may not be too long if it is done well, and a freakishly short story may not be too short if all the bases are still covered.

Overall
Obviously, this is the rough average of the books' scores. I don't get a calculator and add everything up, though I have thought of doing so. This is more my overall feeling of the book.

Final Word
While slightly a misnomer, I try to sum up my feelings in a single sentence, or at least in less than a dozen words.

Recommend?:
Whether or not I think you should read it. If you're lucky, I'll even put why.

Section/Overall Scores
S: Great
H: Very Good
A: Quite Good
B: Good
C: Average
D: Below Average
E: Distracting/Bad
F: Absolute Failure

B or above: Acceptable
C or below: Unacceptable

The division here just so happens to be in the middle of the letter grades. Keep in mind, however, that "H" and "S" are not standard American school grades. I don't consider anything less than a "B" (80%) acceptable as a school grade, and nor should you, but that's beside the point.

Think of an "A+" as being 100%. You should not put anything to print that you do not believe is 100%. It may not actually be 100%, but you should at least think that it is for good reasons. 100% is what I would expect and require from a good author.

"H" and "S", then, are above 100%; they are above and beyond expectations. It isn't that they are past perfect; it's just that they exceed satisfactory standards. Don't expect to see this very often.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

This review ©2009 Richard Gibson
Catch-22 ©1961 Simon & Schuster and written by Joseph Heller
The Grapes of Wrath ©1939 The Viking Press-James Llyod and written by John Steinbeck
The Great Gatsby ©1925 Charles Scribner's Sons and written by F. Scott Fitzgerald
To Kill a Mockingbird ©1960 J. B. Lippincott & Co. and written by Harper Lee
A Clockwork Orange ©1962 William Heinemann and written by Anthony Burgess
Ulysses ©1922 Sylvia Beach and written by James Joyce
The Catcher and the Rye ©1951 Little, Brown and Company and written by J.D. Salinger
All images courtesy Google Images.

The Rating System

2009-11-03T23:28:00.000-08:00

Here's the rating system:

S:
Think Maggiano's. Legendary. Unsurpassed. If everything was this good... well, that's just not possible. If I met the guy who made this, I'd become his butler.

H:
Think Olive Garden. Revolutionary. Phenomenal. If everything was this good, we'd be in a golden age. If I met the guy who made this, I'd totally thank him and be all like, "Dude, please autograph this, please?"

A:
Think Pasta House or good, home-cooked pasta. Excellent. Very good. If everything was this good, I'd probably be a much happier guy in general. If I met the guy who made this, I'd want to work with him and get his number to be my editor or to help me make my own video games in the future.

B:
Think Fazoli's or microwaveable pastas. Good. Acceptable. If everything were this good, I could live with that, but I'd not be raving about this job. If I met the guy who made this, I'd probably say something like, "Nice effort, but what about...?" and then have a good, thoughtful discussion with the guy about his work.

C:
Think Banquet TV dinner pasta. Not bad. Okay. If everything was this good... well, most of it is, sadly. Or worse. If I met the guy who made this, I'd probably say, "Did you try? You did? Ok, next time, let's..." and then proceed to lay into him.

D:
Think overcooked or raw pasta. Beyond "this-is-so-bad-we-can-mock-it". Terrible. If everything were this good (or bad, depending on how you use the word "good"), I'd find a new line of work. If I met the guy who made this, I'd probably just ignore him.

E:
Think "there's-something-really-wrong-with-this" pasta. Deplorable. Irritatingly bad. If everything were this ~~good~~ bad, that'd be terrible. If I met the guy who made this, I'd probably stop him, stumble over the right word to say, then say, "You suck." and leave.

F:
Think moldy pasta. Lamentably bad. Criminaly sucky. Let's not even go there. If everything were this bad... let's not go there. If I met the guy who made this, I'd probably just punch him in the face outright.

~ SE (Vega Boralis)

All movies, TV shows, songs, names, likenesses, video games, characters, music, books, or anything mentioned unless otherwise stated are property of their prospective owners.

This review is ©2009 ~ Richard Gibson.