April 11, 2013 by


To start, I should clarify by saying that this review of Okami is different than my Okami HD review. I was reviewing that game off the premise of being an HD port, not on it as a game itself. Now that I finally complete Okami in one sitting, I shall be reviewing it for the core game itself; story, gameplay, etc.



To many, I'm sure the loss of Roger Ebert isn't all that significant. But to me, it was pretty devastating. Not in the sense that I'm going on pretending that I knew the man and am going to miss him dearly and hold a vigil or anything of the sort, but rather as more of a personal loss. Above all else, I adore movies. They are my primary passion.

As a kid, I watched more movies than most of my friends, and I got my start in making movies with a Polaroid camera. I didn't have a videocamera of course, because I was only 7. But I did have a hand-me-down Polaroid camera (remember those??) I would set up scenes with toys and I would take instant photographs with my Polaroid. I would then arrange them in a book and write descriptions of what was happening in the scenes. I suppose to an extent I was actually making storyboards, though, that term was far from entering my vocabulary at that age.

As I got older, I started getting even more into movies and I began to grow curious about what professionals had to say about the films I was watching. Needless to say, Roger Ebert was the pivotal reviewer of movies and thus, he became my "go-to".

Sometimes, Ebert was a prick. Other times, he was a genius. He would praise great movies, and destroy bad movies. To him, there was so such thing as "passable."




Reading his film reviews taught me a handful of things:

1. He taught me to love movies even more than I already had.

2. He taught a vocabulary with which I could critique movies (and other art forms)

3. He showed me that movies are more than just something to do on a saturday night, they aren't just a recreational activity.

4. And most importantly, he showed me that being critical is constructive, and not an insult. If nobody was critical of anything, then nobody would get better at doing anything. Right?

Which would explain a lot of my reviews. I love videogames and movies very much, I think they are the best forms of art, period, because they completely immerse us into the worlds they create. So when I review a game or a movie on here, and I tear it apart and still give it a good score, you shouldn't be offended. Just because I nit-pick does not mean I don't love what I am reviewing. Everything has its flaws, nothing is perfect, which is why I almost never hand out 10 point rating. They should be rare. They should be saved for masterpieces, examples of perfection. What happened to the numbers between 5 and 8. 5/10 would be a 50%, an F. 8/10 would be an 80%, a B. Why do we not believe in Cs and Ds anymore? Not all game's are "above average", and yet we give them the high score of a B. And we've come to think that handing out a C is somehow a failure. One game that I really enjoyed was "Deus Ex: Human Evolution" but that game is a 7.5 to me. It's a good game, it's no better than most of its peers, nor is it worse. So why when I say that game is a 7, does everyone throw a fit? A 7 is good, a C is good. If Uncharted 2 is a 10 and MGS4 is a 10 and GTA4 is a 10... how is Deus Ex possibly a 9? How in any way is that game as amitious, gorgeous, fun, engaging or technically impressive as those games? It's not. It's hardly close. It's well below those games, thus, it shouldn't be a 10, or a 9, or even an 8. It should be just as good as those other games that come and go: a 7; a good game, average.

So when I am told that I'm too harsh, that previous paragraph there can be used as my defense, and I think it's a completely understandable one.

I mention this because without Roger Ebert, I'd probably be like a lot of the other people on IGN (Greg Miller) who hands out 10's like candy for series that he's a fan of, and condemns games without justification. You can't take things personally and you can't be biased, you have to review things for what they are, even if you love them. If your favorite game ever is Call of Duty: Black Ops, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But you can't tell me it's doing anything outstanding to warrant an 8.5, because it's not. It's just an average game. All the same, say you hate the movie The Godfather because it's boring. That's fine too. But you cannot deny its achievements and ambition.

You have to criticize the problems, and you have to praise the successes in a game or a movie. You can't simply talk about the positives and leave out the negatives. It's just not fair. And even the greatest works of art have their faults. Roger Ebert was a man who was totally objctive to the material at hand and he reviewed them for what they were: not based on fandom, or ideals, or principles, but for what they were as a whole. There is a difference between "favorite" and "best". Just because something is your favorite, does not mean it's the best. And just because something is the best, does not mean it has to be your favorite. I try my best in my reviews to follow that concept. I try my best to remain objective.

I will greatly miss Roger Ebert because his death signifies the death of a generation of criticism. Because in a sense, he was the last critic. Now we are only left with people like me and you: people with easy access to internet blogs who think their opinions matter when really, none of us are qualified by any means to review anything. We will praise trash, we will crush masterpieces. We are fools who think that just because we like something, means that it's the greatest thing to ever bless the earth. We have no right to review anything, and nothing we say matters because we are too stupid to review anything in a truly professional or justified manner.

Having said all that, I shall no move on to my reviews:



Having finally beat Okami, I can say that it truly is one hell of a game. It is completely unique and original in all of it's plot and characters, while still maintaining familiar archetypes.

The gameplay is completely engaging and the leveling system is one that I truly love. Fighting enemies will get you money, not XP. A good motivation for battle. So basically you go and kill some dues and then you steal their wallets. No big deal. They're dead, they wont miss it. It's an incentive to try if you wanna buy something. You wont simply find a million dollars in a vase, you have to work for it if you want to buy something expensive, as it should be.

In terms of leveling up, rather than just grinding through enemies to get stronger (when really, would just tire you out) you have to go around and do good deeds. By doing goo deeds, you are rewarded with praise. And with more praise, your godhood level shall rise and you shall grow as a character.

To me, that leveling system is completely unique and also, more logical. It made me want to battle and it made me want to do good things. The game motivated me to try, rather than just fly aimlessly through the game.

The characters are great and full of soul. From absent minded, furball Ammy, to coward turned hero Susano, and to womanizing phony Issun who becomes a great hero and teacher to mankind. The characters in this game all contain a good amount of depth and manage to keep us entertained throughout. (For the most part, Issun can get redundant)

The major flaw within this game lies with its progression. It is almost unbearable to play through at times. The story is divided into three major parts and chapter one is a hell of an introduction. It's completely fun and engaging and makes you crave for more. Part two is pitiful. It's absolutely poorly executed. It doesn't flow at all and is completely littered with nonsense that has nearly nothing to do with the game. It seems to only be present to prolong to duration of the game. What part two feels like is a horde of ideas that the creative team had that they couldn't figure out how to tie in, or ideas that weren't good enough to be their own game, and the team didn't have the balls to cut these bit out, so they threw them in anyways. Part two of Okami nearly made me give up on the game, which should not be the case. It was entirely boring and taxing and I will probably never replay the game because of it.

If it weren't for part three being so fantastic, the game would hardly be something to write home about. But because part one is so fantastic and part three is so amazing, they sort of negate the ctastrophe that is the middle (and majority) of Okami.

To me, Okami is a masterpiece because it was so original, so beautiful, and so full of soul. From it's visuals, to it's characters, to it's music, and it's overall story, it is a hell of a game. If it were not the first of it's kind, and were released today, I would greatly deduct points for the awfulness that makes up the middle chunk of the game. But it's ambition and originality in the context of the time it was released surely negates its faults, and in hindsight, it is still marvelous in the fields that matter most. I can't find it in me to give this game a ten, even though it is a hell of a masterpiece, but to me, 10 is perfect, or at least near perfect, and it revolutionizes something about something, and though this game was revolutionary, it still has a major, major flaw.

And so, I give Okami a 8/10, because it surely is fantastic, even if a huge chunk of it blows. Cry about it.



I don't have a whole lot to say about the Evil Dead remake honestly. It's not that it's bad by any means, it's just that it is what it is.

If you enjoy gorefest, you'll love it. If you're looking to be scared, you'll be let down. If you're a fan of the original, you may hate it, you may love it.

I do love the originals, so of course, I was excited. I'm not one to compare apples and oranges, nor am I one to compare remakes and originals. In my mind, they have nothing to do with each other, they are there own thing, and your opinion of one shouldn't affect the other. Who cares which came first, they are both separate entities. Don't be biased, like i said earlier.

Most of the negative reviews I saw knocked it because it wasn't as good as the original. That isn't a fair way to review, in my mind.

I was excited to see the series revisited. I thought I'd see something fresh, and new: "An Evil Dead remake!? Awesome, this is gonna be fresh!"

Not so much.

Once again, not in a bad way, it just is what it is. I don't know what I expected, but once I saw the film, I realized that Evil Dead HAS been remade... like a million times. All of those movies that revolve around a cabin in the woods (besides "Cabin in the Woods", which was totally unique and original, and that isn't sarcasm) were all basically remakes of Evil Dead. We've seen it a million times, and here, we see it again.

The film is totally entertaining, and has some of the best and funnest gore scenes I've seen in a while, which is due to the fantastic effects in the film. But the story isn't engaging, the horror isn't scary, the gore isn't disturbing. We're just numb to it.

So, did I like it? Yes, I enjoyed the hell out of it. Would I buy it? Definitely. Would I praise it? Nope. To me, great horror are ones that address the cliches and do something original. Paranormal Activity one did it, the sequels blew. Saw did it, the sequels blew. The Ring did it, and it was amazing. Mama just did it and it was fantastic and had what to be is one of the best horror scenes in years. Cabin in the Woods did it and to me it's one of the best films ever made, if not because of it's self-awareness. Even Scream 4 was great (the only good one in the series since the revolutionary first film) because it was self aware and original and of course, Drag Me to Hell, which was a hell of a thing. Evil Dead was executed perfectly: from editing, directing, writing, effects, acting, story, all of it. But it wasn't anything new and it wasn't anything special, which is rare these days with horror. I'm not saying Evil Dead isn't great because the other films I've mentioned were better or because it doesn't live up to the original, I'm saying it's not great because there isn't all that much to it. Still, it was a good, fun, flick.

I'd give it a 7/10.


I shall preface this by saying that I know that reviews of this game of everywhere, and those of us that have beaten it know all of the theories and revelations contained within. I shall not talk about these things too deeply, though they certainly are significant to reviewing the quality of this game. I shall try not to go too deep into it.

The game starts off with a bang similar to that of the first Bioshock. We are thrown into a floating city run by a religious figure. I turn to my brother and say, "That's cool I guess. I guess every Bishock game is gonna be some new city with some new leader each time. Maybe the next one will be a dictator running a colony on the moon." TH eirony of this, is that the whole "new city/new leader" thing is not simply just a premise, but is completely signifant to and explained by the game.

"There will always be a man, and there will always be a city."

Mindblowing of course. "Aha! It all makes sense!" Those of you who have beaten it know what i speak of. It was right in front of us all along. We drew all sorts of paralells, never realizing that the paralells weren't simply figureative paralells, but actual paralells. To quote Darth Vader: "Impressive. Most impressive."


Onto the game itself.

Bishock Infinite festures fun, first person action as well as great cinematic presentation. The powers are fun, the shooting is fun, skyrails are fun, and all the rest. It's just a fun game. The beginning is completely engaging and truly manages to make you nervous as soon as the plot comes in. Once you are ont he run, you dabble in some fun action and play around with that spectacular propeller-hand-tool-thing. All the while getting bits and pieces of a plot that don't seem to connect, as you try and create a puzzle with only a few of the pieces needed.

You think not much about it and keep on playing.

Eventually, the game gets a little boring toward the middle. Similar to Okami but not nearly as bad. This is the case with a lot of games, some worse than others. The middles are the hardest part; they feel dragged out, out of place, and sort of stale. So long as a game picks itself back up by the end, its usually fine.

The middle of Infinite does get a bit slow and repetitive but it is still fun, throwing bits of new things into the mix.

But I have one major complaint about some of the gameplay and that would be the Vigor powers. The powers are rewarded too easily, and they are sometimes too easy to use. They didn't feel as special as they did int he first Bioshock, but to argue that, why should they? Infinite is much less about surviving with scarce materials than it is run and gunning, so for the most part, it works. It just felt a little too easy sometimes as you do not have to search for salts, because your companion just gives them to you. As is the same case with the money in the game. Also, it never felt rewarding to get a new power, it just felt as if it was meant to be. And it shouldn't. Things of that nature should feel rewarding, and they don't in Bioshock Infinite. It's not detrimental, but it is a shame. Also, switching between powers was taxing. It wasn't so easy to use most of your vigors on the fly because in the manner you swap between them. That could definitely be fixed with some hotkeying or at least being able to swap between three or four at a time, rather than only two.

The shooting mechanics were fantastic, and the way in which you have to kill certain enemies made for a great combo system. It was fun to combo Vigors and weapons to eliminate the bad guys, though it would have been even better if the Vigors were easier to use. Laying a Bronco trap next to a Crow trap was a hell of a thing the first time: seeing a man lifted up into the air by the antigravitational Bronco Vigor, only to then be devoured by crows while you simaltaneously blow them away with a shotgun.

That was some fun shit, I must say.

The weapons an ammo works well, and makes up for the Vigors. Only carrying two weapons at once made for more careful gameplay, having to choose the proper artillery based on the battle before you. And sometimes, you'd get screwed and end up in a distant quarter battle, armed with close quarter weapons, but that was fun. It was a challenge, you had to get creative.

By the end of the game, the gameplay picks up again and the difficulty raises greatly, reminiscent of the original Bioshock (lets not even speak of the second.) In that regard, the progression was proper. Part three of all games should be a challenge, otherwise, what's the reward for beating it?

Throughout the progression, we are experiencing confusing twists and turns that all come together by the end to make perfect sense and grant meaning to things that we never thought to be significant in a fashion that is no less than the definition of impressive.

Few games have ever done this: tying everything up perfectly and giving meaning to things that didn't seem important originally. Metal Gear Solid 4 did it, but that was part of a cohesive series, so it was expected to. Infinite managed to do it for games that didn't seem to have any connection whatsoever and it managed to create a completely astounding explanation for every Bioshock that has been made and every Bioshock that will be made.

What Infinite did was it created a thesis that will allow the Bioshock name to live on forever, and no matter how many games they make, we will always look deeper at them than we will any other game, as we will always observe carefully, trying to figure out how it all ties together, and keep a keen eye out for the little details that make up the bigger picture. No game has ever done this. No game will ever do this again. Think about those "parallels" I mentioned earlier, the things you noticed but thought shallowly about and how the answer was in front of you all along. Even in the game's title: "Infinite" seemed to be just another epic word that sounded cool slapped onto the end of a title, and even right there, the title said it all and we were completely oblivious to it. What Bioshock: Infinite did was make us all look totally stupid, and it did it in style.

As a game, it fantastic, worthy of probably an 8, at least until the ending. But as soon as those credits rolled, what Infinite created was something far bigger than me or you, or even the series itself. One could write books about the theories within, and the possibilities will be endless, you could even that the number of said possibilities are truly infinite (see what I did there?). The game should be praised for it's accomplishments, we never see a game so deep or mindblowing ever again. Because of this, I grant this game a 10/10.


Thanks for reading folks, sorry this was so long. But I've had a lot to write about and not much time to post on the blog, so I thought I'd make up for lost time. See ya soon!


Submit Blog
blog comments powered by Disqus