The Motherland

Puzzle Pirates, give it a try.

Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:15:22 GMT

Simply put, lately I've been playing this MMORPG-type game called Puzzle Pirates. To put things short, it is a game where you are a pirate, and to do just about anything, you play a puzzle-themed game.

If you click this link, it gives me (the referrer) some money just for referring you, and gives you some money to start out. Everyone wins:

http://www.puzzlepirates.com/register/ welcome.wm?from=r523018

Since I know some people aren't fans of the referral system, here is the non-referral link:

http://www.puzzlepirates.com

If you're interested in playing forever for free, I suggest you pick a doubloon ocean. I myself play on the doubloon ocean "Sage", for those that may be interested.

Review: Thief II: The Metal Age

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:28:11 GMT

Summary: Thief II is everything from Thief, but more or better. But is it enough to give it a 10/10 in my book? Almost, but no.

Gameplay: 9/10
Story: 10/10
Graphics: 8/10
Sound: 10/10
Overall: 9/10

Before I start the review, note that I am going to review it compared to Thief. The game is very, VERY similar to Thief in every way, so the differences are what will be highlighted. Anything not mentioned can be explained in my Thief review.

Gameplay: The gameplay is very similar to Thief. You have your stealth gear (lockpicks, blackjack, different kinds of arrows, etc), but this time you can have items and weapons that weren't in the original (like invisibility potions, flash mines, and Slow-Fall Potions). This is great, because the system for giving the player weapons and items was flawless before, so the great system got -more-.

In Thief II, you do a lot of stealing of anything you can find that isn't nailed down (or made of crap). Very similar to Thief in this aspect. The differences are that the loot is hidden a lot more in this game than in the last. While playing through the game on Expert mode, plenty of times I couldn't finish missions for a decent period of time just because I needed more loot. Not always a good thing.

Unlike in Thief, there are no "creature" missions. Every mission has you taffing about, using stealth rather than cold iron. This is great because not only does this installment of the series have more missions, but each one is a quality mission, guaranteed to give you the same experience as the one before it...which as it ironically turns out, isn't the best thing. The game tries hard to mix it up while giving the player stealthy, stealing missions, but about half of the missions in the game felt quite similar to each-other. Because the similar missions weren't always one after another, and there were of course about 8 unique missions I did enjoy of course, I'd say there were about three times I truly wanted a different type of mission.

The AI is even smarter in this game, which made me wonder why the game wasn't named "Thief II: You Better Learn How Quicksave Works". The guards are very unforgiving. If they happen to hear you or faintly see you, you must be able to haul it to a hiding location WHILE not letting them see you more, or hear your footsteps (they will hear some pretty soft steps), or use one of your precious auxiliary items (assuming you bought something like a flashbomb or gas arrow). The guards will hunt you down like a dog if you let them know you're there, so hide the bodies, clean the blood, and tread softly.

The levels in Thief II are enormous. Not just enormous, but some were five times bigger than those in Thief (I'm not lying, they were huge). Combine that with obstacles at every turn (there are new types of foes and new types of traps to ruin you this time around), you will spend a lot of time in one mission, just trying to get around, exploring, or trying to pass an obstacle. You will get a lot more time spent in your missions in Thief II than in Thief.

The game was hard on Expert, which I am glad for. If I didn't want a game that was very hard, I wouldn't have picked that difficulty, or I would've restarted the mission on a lower difficulty. In general, the gameplay in Thief II is Thief, but more. More to the point where it is definitely worth noting, but some flaws keep Gameplay from a 10.

Story: The story in the second game is in the same type of context as the first one. Garrett likes money, and he doesn't like anyone else. Things get a little more intense in the story this time through, due to new people in town, and further references to the previous game.

What truly made me give Thief II's storyline a 10/10 where Thief only got a 9/10, is the fact that in Thief, not even half the missions were devoted to story building, and instead left a great frame story lingering at times. However, in Thief II, less than four missions will be fillers. You will have purpose to where you go about taffing, and you build a better story. Furthermore, you learn just how unique and solid some characters can be. Just like in Thief, Thief II doesn't give you any stereotypical story about a group of people out to save the world, it gives you the story of one person who finds a bunch of other people to be a pain in the ass. It is solid, realistic, and enjoyable.

Graphics: What can I say? It is Thief's graphics but better. You see some nice textures and great lighting. There's so many different textures and skins though, that it seemed to have worked out better in this installment. Not to mention time has passed.

Sound: What, you want me to explain improvement on perfection? The sound is great, and you get your money's worth. And if it matters, voices getting louder or softer based on distance and pressing you head against a door is done nicely.

Overall: Thief II is "Thief II" in a more legitimate and obvious sense than one can give it credit for. It is essentially Thief but with more, bigger, and better. There is no new engine, there isn't a groundbreaking change in gameplay. If you didn't like Thief, don't buy this. If you liked Thief, buy this. If you liked Thief but got a tummy ache by the time you did the last stealth mission, you won't like Thief II. In either case, do get Thief first, because the stories do intertwine.

And so I ask myself, what of Thief III...

A Screen Saver, enjoy.

Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:39:55 GMT

I made a screen saver in VB, if anyone wants it, they're free to use it of course:

http://members.byond.com/ScouSin/files/Bouncing%20Ball.zip

Just put it in the WINDOWS folder in your main drive (C, probably). After that it'll be selectable.

Naruto isn't just for fools, so stop assuming!

Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:17:24 GMT

Summary: Liking Naruto doesn't mean someone is stupid. It's sort of a given thing, but it bears explaining.

It is growing more and more common that I'm seeing people call the Naruto fans the "new DBZers". Given that many Naruto fans have been leading people to believe this, I can assure skeptics out there that there are plenty of fans who don't act like the types of people that handfuls of BYONDers associate with stupidity.

Granted, some/many/most (heck if I bother to count every idiot and every non-idiot) Naruto fans on BYOND may act like the already labeled DBZers, and are already labeled as such, but as long as I stand here as a fan of Naruto, you can be damn-well assured that Naruto will not be under the same umbrella as DBZ, when it comes to the views of fans on BYOND.

And for the fans who act like idiots (you know who you are. The people who post about hoping people get killed, the people who beg for "GM" in every game, etc); Get your act together, and maybe you won't look so stupid, or make what you're a fan of be associated with stupidity.

Review: Thief: The Dark Project

Thu, 06 Jul 2006 21:23:14 GMT

Summary: I got Thief from my best friend ages ago. I completed the normal mode on it those ages ago, and beat it again on expert this time. It's a game I was very pleased to have played. Allow me to explain. Quite a change of pace for the FPS genre.

Gameplay: 9/10
Story: 9/10
Graphics: 7/10
Sound: 10/10
Overall: 9/10

Gameplay: The gameplay is pretty sweet. It's a game of stealth where you must be hidden and be...uh...stealthy. If you fail to be stealthy, you are punished through direct combat (and in expert mode, that nearly means you lose). There's a lot more details to it, like you can arouse their attention without them actually coming for you. For those of you who have played the Metal Gear Solid series, you can be safe in knowing that being stealthy is harder, but a lot more logic is used before encounters, during encounters, and after encounters (enemies are smarter in Thief).

In Thief, you have many gadgets and crap at your disposal. Health potions, flashbombs (basically flashbang grenades), speed potions, mines, lockpicks (oh how I loved lockpicking), and all sorts of other cool things. The details in the game come from usage of your environment in any way you can. You can't ignore a feature the game gives you, otherwise you may find yourself with a sword in your forehead. You have many weapons that are very interesting, but they are all also very valuable. If you wish to do well, you must think like freakin' MacGyver.

The way the game handles difficulties alone is worth noting. It works sorta like how some other games handle their own. What I mean is the game gives you more crap to do when you're on a harder difficulty. Everything is made harder for you in many ways on the difficulty levels. The game truly does change dramatically.

As a Thief, you're not there to just kill people. Your motivation is money, and it's proven by the fact that you steal anything that isn't nailed down (and also isn't made of crap, like wood or plastic). After you are done with a mission, you goto a shop for the next mission, where you can buy extra supplies to aid you in your mission. Your options are restricted, and you also can never buy everything. Buy all you can for the difficult missions.

Where the gameplay lost a point is simply in that some parts of the game are not based on stealth, but killing of creatures or the like. The game doesn't have enough of a combat engine to make it always a great experience.

Story: You are a thief named Garrett who was raised by a strange thievery group called the "Keepers". They raised you, and taught you all you know. From here, you are a master thief. The game doesn't tell you everything in the story for a good reason. It oftentimes plays itself as if it's too cool for you (really hard to explain besides with that). Everything that the player needs to know is in the game though. It's deep, but it won't be making anyone feel stupid.

Just as I said with stealing things, your motivation is money. That logic alone is a winner, because the hero is greedy, witty, selfish, and an ass. That fact alone makes you like him, because he is a real person. He's not out to save the princess, he's not out to prove he's a badass. He's there for what he wants, and he groans at challenge. T'is the life of a great thief.

Graphics: The graphics aren't all that pretty at times (which can be forgiven because it was made in 1998). The graphics do their justice where it matters though, so nothing really hurts the experience.

Sound: Everything sounds like it should, everything makes sounds when it should, and sound is a part of the gameplay (as it should be). Clickity clacks and breaking glass, strains on a bow and arrow, clashing swords, explosions, painful screams. Some of the excellent sounds I heard this game. The voice acting was very convincing the entire game too. From sarcasm to being annoyed, the voice acting won't shy anyone away.

Final notes: Thief is a game for someone who likes stealth. Thief is oftentimes a difficult game (on normal difficulty), and is for the resourceful. Assuming you're not afraid of difficult games, Thief is a game I recommend for everyone. Just don't expect ethics or firefights. The best part is that it is a very old game, so chances are you'd be able to pick it up (or Thief Gold, which is supposed to have more) for very cheap

Yesterday I got Thief II as a birthday present from Bob. I have very high hopes for it, but I decided to type up this review before playing it, so I could properly compare the two.

Warning Forever is a great game.

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 23:37:20 GMT

SUMMARY: Try this game!

There's a picture of me tearing a boss apart in this great Japanese shooter. It's an easy game to install, and it grants some nice twitch factor in small doses. If anyone's up for netting a high score in one of the modes, maybe I can get a competition going, or maybe not. I'll see what the voices in my head think, or my two visitors.

The download link is:

http://www18.big.or.jp/~hikoza/Archive/wf107.exe

Edit (July 1st):

I got a little excited from this sick run in normal mode. I'm not sure if I can surpass it.

I also posted up the .rec (recording) file the game made of my round with the final form before I died. I got brutally close to form 16, but ah well. I found out that the form I was facing before (Phoenix) was a lot harder for me than the form I managed to "convince" the boss into taking this play-through (Asura). Perhaps people will pass whatever level they're having trouble with by trying new ways to kill the beast.

An easy link to the recording is here (it's only 4 KB): http://members.byond.com/ScouSin/files/ScouSinAsura.rec

To run the recording file, simply put it in Warning Forever's rec folder, then goto replay in the game. Press fire to scroll through recordings in that file.

Ow, my brain...

Sat, 24 Jun 2006 06:26:37 GMT

You ever get that feeling where you think about something for a split second, but can't stop thinking about it? Well I had a moment like that.

I've always spelled existence "existance". Well I checked, and I've been spelling it wrong.

And yes, I'm sure I wasted 5 seconds of SOMEONE'S life :D

Review: Donnie Darko

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:36:57 GMT

SUMMARY: Donnie Darko is a movie for those interested in the deepest of thinking and the sought understanding of the way the world works.

Writing/Directing - 9/10
Acting - 10/10
Quality - 10/10
Art - 10/10
Overall - 10/10

FOREWARD: Before I go into my review itself, I would like to mention a few things. The first of which being that I have only given two other movies 10/10 ratings (Stripes and The Aviator, which both get "higher tens"). That can give a feeling of how serious I make a 10/10.

Another thing to note is that I will explain what each field means when the field is introduced in detail.

The next is about how I came about this movie. A few hours ago Bob practically had to force me to watch it (it was one of those times where I'd rather play more Thief: The Dark Project). From there, I saw...

Unfortunately, it is very hard to go into detail without spoiling parts of the movie, so much of this review will be held with utmost care. Keep in mind that from here on out, a very vague spoiler or two may come out, but spoilers will be avoided with the intention to not ruin the movie while getting my point across.

Writing - It was clear from scene one that this movie was written with care. It is a very complex movie that had me raising an eyebrow to some astonishing detail. The characters played their roles as if they were people, and thus were always acting how they should, but not in a predictable fashion.

The story as it develops is admittedly a little steady (the movie's climax is almost non-existant), and there will be a significant plot point or two that you will not figure out unless you goto the website (which is one big spoiler-free puzzle (there is one spoiler which is marked)) or get the DVD.

The movie as a whole is very solid in what the writing intended.

Acting - Jake Gyllenhaal did a fantastic job in October Sky (as Homer Hickum), but his job in this movie (as Donnie Darko) is astonishing. I never realized that someone could act so well until some of the times when I saw Donnie Darko prove that he has a mind, and that he isn't afraid to use it. Jake Gyllenhaal doesn't hold back when it comes to any emotion that needs to "properly" be expressed.

The other characters match the writing an directing in their perfection as well. None of their performances seem fake throughout the entire movie. You don't see them meeting cues as if they are acting these roles, but you really see the reactions, the conversations, and the reality behind the story that they are telling for the audience. None of the acting is that of people that want to be seen, and thus all of the characters are a lot more realistically paced in turn.

The acting is evidence of a seasoned crew who aren't playing families or teachers, but instead are a family and teachers.

Quality - By quality, what I mean is the overall detail in the touches that are made to the scenes, costumes, writing, acting, everything. The wholes get their sections, but the extra mile is here.

With that said, I must say that the music is the absolute perfect music for the times it appears, and is also timed at perfect moments. Come the end of the movie, I leaned back on the couch in understanding purely from the music, before what it represented even came into view.

The special effects aren't flashing except when they really mean to be flashy. You won't see a whole lot of it, and most of it is just there to serve its purpose. When it serves its purpose at some times, it's minor. At other times, it is vibrant, and full of textures and all that good stuff.

The costumes aren't flashy or attention-grabbing. It's a no-name town in Virginia (1988), so good. The scenery doesn't take the cheap way out either. The rooms you see are specifically detailed without looking exaggerated or staged.

Art - The art of the movie is the overall creativity with it. Is there meaning to it, is it clear the crew put thought into it.

This movie is so full of art, I won't even describe it. You will see the art when you watch it. That's how confident I am that you will find this movie very artful if you watch it.

Final notes - Donnie Darko is a movie that I am sure I will look back at in five years and raise an eyebrow about. It is a movie that gets in your mind, and questions many things you may wonder about humanity, mental illness, and existance as a whole. I recommend that this movie is watched, because it is an experience for any working mind.

Review: Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:52:46 GMT

SUMMARY: Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater is a game worth playing, but it's nothing to write home about.

Gameplay - 5/10
Story - 5/10
Graphics - 8/10
Sound - 9/10
Overall - 6/10

When Bob got me this game for Christmas, the first thing going through my head was; "Oh boy, I'll play this last, since it'll probably be the best game I got this Christmas." Sure enough, it was the last game I played. Just the same, I was disappointed. The last two installments involved a lot more stealth, a complex and involving storyline, and a feeling of accomplishment when I finished the game. This game fell short in all of those fields.

Gameplay - I'm not sure what the developers honestly intended the gameplay to consist of, but I found that most of my time playing I was trying to fool myself into thinking that camouflage (or stealth in general) was important. While stealth is an option, without radar or a camera that moves, it is far too difficult to bother. Even when in an "alert" situation, all you need to do is run up to an enemy, and use CQC to throw them to the ground, and they are no longer a problem. Weapons? Unnecessary in most generic encounters. Camouflage? It's simply too time-consuming to use it, when it does so little. If missing a radar wasn't enough to make stealth hard though, even if you move at the slowest possible speed, as you near your victim, he will notice you. It's very possible that you can take him down or incapacitate him this way, it is so much easier just to shoot him in the head, or go through the area rambo style.

The boss battles are supposedly supposed to be some of the best in the Metal Gear series. I found them to be riddled with gimmicks, where there was one obvious best way to go through them, and fifteen crappy ways. All of them were very short and easy when I found out the "trick" to them, except for one battle in the entire game. One boss battle that was worth my gameplay value. Best in the Metal Gear series? They don't cut it for best in any series.

Also, throughout the game when you are damaged, the game encourages you to tend to your own wounds. 90% of the time you really don't need to bother (the other 10% is in emergencies or when you have toxins of sorts in your system). Just the same, food is just a technicality. It will never be a problem for someone who bothers to make sure they're stocked up once in a blue moon.

Story - The previous Metal Gears had storylines with many twists, turns, and nice tricks thrown in. I learned a little about life, and all was well with the world. Word goes though, that Hideo Kojima received complaints about Metal Gear Solid 2's storyline being too complicated. I understood it, so it couldn't have been THAT complicated. Either way, those of you who didn't understand that game, are in luck. Metal Gear Solid 3 has a storyline for those who are storyline-challenged. I found myself trying to predict all sorts of cool twists and turns that the story could go. I was disappointed on almost every prediction.

The storyline being simple isn't necessarily a bad thing. What makes the storyline bad is the fact that it doesn't bother to explain common sense. A perfect example is the boss battles. I'm fighting these people...okay, they're acting under orders. So what? I felt like I was running a gauntlet of pointless battles that are there just to bring the gameplay up to satisfactory levels (but as I said in my previous section, it failed there). Most of the game is either left open, or doesn't explain why. "Oh, so that's what that was about. That's a knee-slapper...wait, why?" Real people don't use such poor logic. If there is logic, real storylines don't just make plot holes.

Graphics - The graphics were oftentimes impressive, but at times it seemed like they fell short. There were nice detail some places, painted on details in other places. I'm not a big graphics freak, so that's just about all you're getting in this section.

Sound - What can I say? It sounded like the jungle. Very nice sound effects the entire game. The game's music consisted of only a few songs. Most of them aren't at a time where you're playing the game, or just don't try to be impressive. The one that you hear several times throughout the game (you'll know which one when you hear it a second time) is pretty good. It has actual significance to the game itself, and it's nice to listen to. Really though, with all the great music I've heard in other games, I feel there was room for more (not better, more).

Final notes - To be honest, throughout this review I was probably comparing it to the other two Metal Gear Solids in the back of my head. This is as unbias a review as I can put out after being such a die-hard fan of the first two. In either case, this game is worth playing. I know Subsistence fixes some problems of the original and gives more (specifically online play), so...yeah. If you want to rent, this game will give you your fill in one play-through. If you want to buy, I suggest getting a different game, or getting Subsistence instead.

One Gamer's Theory: Innovative, or overrative?

Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:55:22 GMT

A lot of games strive on doing something new. Coming up with the new innovative battle system or way to traverse a world map is what many game developers think is the claim to fame. Well, although it can be the claim to fame, what's exotic isn't always what works.

I have here 3 games that are the first (or widely-believed to be the first) to perform their system, and do it right enough to be hailed as amazing. I also have 3 games that are unique in a significant way, but their system simply fails.

Games that are innovative in a good way:

Pacman (mazes) - Pacman did a lot that they first did in this nation-wide hit. A maze-like gameplay in a maze-like world gobbling pellets in a maze-like pattern. No matter what Pacman did, if it didn't do it like it did the maze concept, I doubt people would have flocked to it with so much enthusiasm.

Chrono Trigger (battle system) - Chrono Trigger is another game that did so many things right, but what kept players jumping for joy was the amazing battle system. The shape of a battle, no random encounters, and consideration for teamwork between combinations of members of a party. Seriously, Chrono Trigger is an example of pure excellence in a battle system, and it is considered one of the best battle systems to this day. I guess innovation was the seed for something greater.

Super Smash Bros. (free movement) - A fighting game was well-known for being on a flat area, usually not very big, fought on by two battlers who had a strict engine to work by. Nintendo decided to not only unite many great Nintendo characters, but also make a field worthy of 4 simultaneous players with platforms, items, and tricks galore.

Okay, but what about games that failed in their attempts?

Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life - This game paid a good sum of attention to Harvest Moon's base concepts, but widely changed a good amount of it to fit a new concept. I don't fully understand what it wanted to do, but it was obvious to me that this wasn't going to be like previous Harvest Moon installments. What was different? Well in other Harvest Moons, you're given nothing and must bring it all to greatness in an explorative environment, where you can enjoy a farming world. In this game, you're given plenty, and are forced to repetitive gameplay and shallow townspeople from the get-go. Ugh.

Final Fantasy VIII (draw magic) - The common belief as to how magic should work is that it is infinite. You have magic forever and ever, and your only limit is an abundant source of power known as MP (magic points). FFVIII wanted to take a new look, and make it similar to items, where you can run out of the spell altogether, even if you could use other spells. This concept was failed, because magic that you run out of, was basically the same as using items. Turns out most people don't like the urgency of running out of crap like that.

Metal Gear (stealth) - Metal Gear was an NES game hailed as a classic by many gamers and fans of the franchise. Although the NES one was a remake, many people have not tried Hideo Kojima's original version. What made the stealth of this game so poor was the fact that the player never had the chance to use it at certain times where it would be needed. when making certain map changes, you were already in the enemy's line of sight, thus you at times take damage before you even had a chance to react or move. It would take until further installments for the stealth element to be done in a realistic or workable way.