The credits in Warp (2012) are stuck in my head (Spoilers for Warp (2012))

12/08/24

So, there's this game that was on the XBox Live Arcade when I was a kid called Warp. You play as a little alien that can warp short distances and into things. You have been taken and experimented on by, presumably, the government. With the help of a telepathic floating alien, you escape from being helpless, and you save the floating alien (who I will refer to as Shard). The setting for the game is an underwater research facility, sometimes ascetic, sometimes messy, but a good locale for the game as water will take away your abilities (as long as you're in it or shortly after you're out). The ambience is quite good. I'm noticing that I'm making this sound like maybe a horror game or something serious. It's not. It's a dark comedy. You teleport into scientists and make them explode. Scientests run away and have lines that imply that they shit their pants. Guards might do a pelvic thrust after killing you. The game never feels very serious. Look at the main antagonist, a macho mililtary type that will destroy everything to stop you (granted, his experience with you has mostly been seeing people blow up). You face him a couple times. Anyway...
You save Shard from their cage and learn of a submarine. Great way to escape. After the submarine leaves the facility, you learn that Mr. Macho is on the sub, and he wants to sink it to kill you. Right before the final fight, Shard says that they're gonna try something and goes into the ships engine(?). You fight Mr. Macho. Water starts flooding the submarine. You're basically defenseless. But then, the sub is teleported to shore (a sort of cave type place).
Now, given this game is a dark comedy, I figured the ending might be a bit silly. I was wrong. It's raining outside. Mr. Macho takes his last breath as you see him die. Shard floats out of the submarine, onto the ground, and dies as you look down in sadness at them. You regain control of the alien. All you can do is go outside. You walk out. You, of course, lose your powers in the rain. A laser appears over your head and you are shot. You die.
Fascinating ending for a game like this. It didn't really work for me until the credits rolled. The music really captured the feeling. There was no music.

Trying to figure out my stance on open-world games (10/10/24)

Anyone that has talked to me for over 5 minutes knows two things about me: my music taste is trash and I hate Breath of the Wild.

Okay, maybe hate is a strong word. There are things I do like about BotW, it's just that as playtime racks up, those things get drowned. A large part of my distaste for the game is that I don't like the open world. The thing is I'm not fully sure what an open world is in games. I've played open world games, I just don't know the exact criteria for them. Is Ocarina an open world game?
Here are some thoughts I feel on certain criteria. Number one, the idea that you can do things out of order (i.e., Ocarina is not open world because for the most part you must do dungeons in order). Frankly, this is bullshit. Should we say GTA: San Andreas is not open world because I can't do the train mission within an hour of starting? No, not at all. That game is (or was maybe) the poster child of open worlds. I only have a number one.
What would I call an open world? Well, I think it is standard for open world games to have practically everything accessible at a relatively early part of a playthrough (Bully is open world since Bullworth opens totally after like the first chapter). There can be areas that are only accessible once, but they must make up a small amount of time compared to the other stuff. Now, the dividing line can be tough. Are the divine beasts enough to make BotW not open world? Well, there are four of them, they do take up some time, they cannot be accessed after being finished. I do think that they don't stop the game from being open world though. To me, an overworld must be connected even if it isn't continuous. I have no issue with a door hiding a loading screen. If I have to warp between disconnected lands (a la Odyssey), it's not open world. An open world's missions must mostly take place in the open world (i.e., the mission is "go here in the open world" or "kill this guy in the open world"). That might be everything.
So, what makes and open world good? In my opinion, it relies primarily on the question of why the world is open. What can you do? How much repetition is there? Is getting around fun? Most controversial of my stances is "is the world small enough"?
Bully is open world because it makes Bullworth feel more alive. You can choose to go to classes or be truant. You can go to the carnival and play games or go to an arcade or prank people. It makes the world feel more real and Jimmy feel more. You can bike around or use a scooter or a skateboard, fast enough, makes it fun to outrun prefects and cops. The world is small enough that fast travel would be pointless.
Sable is open world to play into the themes of finding who you want to be and getting freedom in your life. The only things you can really do are missions really and maybe some trading/buying. Some missions are copy-pasted bear asses things, but those are outnumbered by more fun sort of platforming or puzzle or story heavy quests. Getting around isn't super fun per se and the world does feel kind of large and not very dense, but long stretches of basically empty land do allow you to consider the choice at the heart of the game.
Just Cause 2 is open world likely for mostly mechanical reasons. You explode shit. You make stuff blow up. It's honestly probably the most honed-in game in terms of what you do. There are also time trials for vehicles and collecting health/weapon/vehicle upgrades, but you're here for boom. The game can get repeatative with that, but there are missions where explosions are not usually the main goal. In terms of getting around, pretty great. The parachute+grapple combo are great, and the vehicles are fun. The world is pretty large. I wouldn't be surprised if fast travel was a common use for most people (I am guilty of it myself), but I can only see using it for things that are over half the map away.
So for my feelings on BotW, I don't know why it's open world. Perhaps to show off the beauty of this world reclaimed by nature? But I don't think an open world necessarily helps with that. Perhaps I just value more constructed framing for that (which isn't necessarily impossible in an open world). You can do shrines, korok seed quests, general side quests, and the more story quest things. Most will be shrines and koroks. These do get to be quite repeatative after a while, usually koroks moreso than shrines, but both can become slogs. Side quests are typically better and story quests can be cool sometimes, but most of the game is shrine and korok. Getting around can be fun. I disagree with the people that say the climbing is fun, but I do like the gliding. Also, shield surfing is great (too bad you have limited inventory and surfing will burn the durability). It takes an hour to go from one corner of the map to the other which is too long for a game where the fun mobility is limited by height and terrain. I would use fast travel for anything even slightly far away. I will say different climates do help to spice (eh? ha heh heh) thing up for a bit before that starts being a recurring deal. Maybe I'm too set in a way of doing things, but that's how I feel. Whatever. Goodnight.

Repetition!

09/06/24

I feel like repetition is a really great thing in films for building a sense of dread and confusion and one that doesn't seem to be used too much. When I think of repetition in films, I mainly think of Perfect Blue and Jeanne Dielman. Perfect Blue's reuse of animation really gets you into Mima's headspace of not knowing what's real. Jeanne Dielman might stand out more as it's probably not intended to be a psychological thriller, but the repeated shots of practically the same exact space from nearly the same angle creates a feeling that something must be off. Is the camera in a different place? Have things been moved around? Is it exactly the same? Perfectly static? An hour into Jeanne Dielman, I was enraptured. It's so great. I also think of Straight Outta Compton. Towards the end, a character repeats himself in a way that feels like the same take was used twice in the edit. It really threw me off and it seems like it threw off other people too. I just think all out repetition can be really cool.