Mass Effect 3 is the final chapter of a trilogy of science fiction video games by BioWare. In this game, you finish the saga of Shepard and the invading Reapers, sentient machines whose goal is to destroy organic life. Again, you take the role of Shepard where you can play as male or female. The action takes place six months after Shepard had returned from his successful mission in stopping the Collectors who were abducting humans.
Gameplay.
The Mass Effect series are action-RPG video games. The action is similar to a third person shooter. Any targeting problems from Mass Effect 1 have been resolved. It's much like Mass Effect 2 where shooting guns are fun. Even better, all classes can use any weapon. The only down side is that the weight of the weapons affects the speed of regenerating your ability to use biotic powers which resemble the Force but are cooler. You can not only throw enemies around but the wide variety of powers range from enveloping an enemy in an energy field to using mini-combat drones.
The game is harder than Mass Effect 2. That's because some of the enemies like the Brute dish out big time damage. You also are not allowed to take a heavy weapon. So if there is a particular boss bad guy, look around and you may find a specific heavy weapon to use once. Now harder does not mean less fun. The challenge to the difficulty makes it fun. I just don't know I'm going to play this game on insanity.
New to Mass Effect is the Galaxy at War concept and Multiplayer. They are intertwined and can affect the single player game. The Galaxy at War concept requires you to find War Assets such as alien fleets by scanning planets. The amount of War Assets is multiplied by military readiness of five sections of the galaxy. Readiness is increased by completing muliplayer missions. The final number is called Effective Military Strength. (EMS) The higher number affects the ending of the story and game. All this keeps you interested in finding the assets and even trying some multiplayer. Though you can get all three endings without playing multiplayer. It just makes it harder to ger the twist at the end of one of the endings. But when you see your allies ride into the big battle, you will feel goose bumps. It's a true federation of planets.
As for the boring mining of Mass Effect 2, BioWare listened and changed it completely. Now you scan a solar system. Orbit a planet, scan it. Launch a probe. That's it. The rub is that if you use too many scans, you may alert the Reapers who will chase you all over the system until you escape or get caught and are destroyed. This mini-game is a welcome improvement over the dull mining of Mass Effect 2.
Other improvements include simplified weapons upgrade. And there is one stop shopping at the Citadel or on your ship. But if you still want to agonize over improvements to your weapons, you can mess around with weapons mods.
Not all of the game works. The dialogue choices don't necessarily reflect what you want. During one part of the game, I wanted the Quarian fleet to back down from attacking the Geth. The closest was the "Charm" response which said, "Rally the fleet." Doesn't sound like cease fire does it? Still, it's minor if you fellow the branches and what they usually mean. Left upper are usually the good guy responses. Lower left or especially lower right are the ruthless responses. And sometimes climbing ladders is hard since you must hit the right spot. But these quirks are few.
Graphics and Sound.
The graphics are detailed and beautiful. Colors are rich. Now be warned. The Reapers are wrecking havoc so you will see a lot of rubble. But when you look across the valley at Thessia, you see a lovely skyline. There are even Star Trek like lens flares.
Unfortunately, if you have a SDTV, you will have the same trouble that you did when you played Mass Effect 2. Much of text is illegible because it's too small. You can still get through the game.
The sound effects are thrilling. The Reapers make the sound that the alien invaders did in War of the Worlds. When Banshees hit the field, their screams will send chills up your spine.
The Final Chapter.
By now you've heard that some gamers were protesting the ending. While the end of the game needs more exposition, I hope BioWare stands by the excellent writing of Mac Walters and not make major changes to the end. Video games are art. Respect the artistic integrity.
That being said this last chapter is serious business. The Reapers are romping all over the galaxy. There will be losses. You will feel sadness when a cherished character dies. You will feel the pain when civilizations fall. The game does try to inject some humor, but the dread of the Reapers will hang over everything. That makes the game similar to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2. It's a fight for survival. One that you will find compelling.
Mass Effect 3 is a fine conclusion to one of the most epic science fiction stories of our time. It is exciting, emotional and thought provoking. The grade is A.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Friday, April 6, 2012
Colbert Super PAC does a GOP Hispanic ad
After winning the Peabody Award for his Super PAC shows, Stephen Colbert's Super PAC did an ad for the Republicans on how to capture the Hispanic or Latino vote. Check out his very funny piece below.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Stephen Colbert wins the Peabody Award!
Stephen Colbert and the Colbert Report won a Peabody Award for television excellence. The episodes that got him the Peabody were the Super PAC shows. I've always said this. Those shows were brilliant in the way taught us about the dangers of super PACs. Anyway, he did a piece on the award and ends with the donors who used funny names to give to Colbert's super PAC.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Things that we learned from Opening Day
The Cincinnati Reds won yesterday's Opening Day, 4-0. Here in Cincinnati, Opening Day is a holiday. There's a big parade, people take the day off and the bars are busy.
Is there something that we can learn from Opening Day about the Reds? Well, it's only one game. There are 161 more to go. Remember last year when the Reds opened the season with three straight wins over the Milwaukee Brewers? Guess who won the Central Division? Yep, the Brewers. But there is something that we did learn yesterday.
If Reds outfielder Jay Bruce can hit outside pitches, he's going to have a good year. In the eighth inning, Jay Bruce took an outside slider and hit over the centerfield fence. Look, Jay Bruce's weakness is the outside breaking ball away. He must either stay away from it or if he can hit it, he must not try to pull the ball. And that's what happened. Bruce took the pitch away and went with it. His bat speed hit the ball solidly and Brce blasted it the opposite way.
The New Nasty Boys. Aroldis Chapman has a sick slider. Aroldis Chapman threw a ninety mile an hour slider that struck out Miami Marilins Jose Reyes. So not only can he throw a hundred miles an hour, he can also threw a slider ninety miles an hour. If he has a changeup, he could be a great starting pitcher. The Reds should move Homer Bailey and put Chapman in the rotation. We'll see what happens. But Chapman's stuff is too good to send him , to the minors.
Reds reliever Sean Marshall who has inherited the closer's role has a good curve. Marshall was used by the Chicago Cubs last year as as set-up man. His ERA was 2.26 and he had five saves. Due to an injury to Ryan Madson,the Reds were forced to put him in the closer's role. Yesterday, I saw him throw a nasty curve for a strike. You do that with a good fastball that Marshall has, and he will get a lot of people out. That folks will add up to many saves.
Baseball has started. Spring is here. I'm hopeful for the Reds. And I'm still alive.
Is there something that we can learn from Opening Day about the Reds? Well, it's only one game. There are 161 more to go. Remember last year when the Reds opened the season with three straight wins over the Milwaukee Brewers? Guess who won the Central Division? Yep, the Brewers. But there is something that we did learn yesterday.
If Reds outfielder Jay Bruce can hit outside pitches, he's going to have a good year. In the eighth inning, Jay Bruce took an outside slider and hit over the centerfield fence. Look, Jay Bruce's weakness is the outside breaking ball away. He must either stay away from it or if he can hit it, he must not try to pull the ball. And that's what happened. Bruce took the pitch away and went with it. His bat speed hit the ball solidly and Brce blasted it the opposite way.
The New Nasty Boys. Aroldis Chapman has a sick slider. Aroldis Chapman threw a ninety mile an hour slider that struck out Miami Marilins Jose Reyes. So not only can he throw a hundred miles an hour, he can also threw a slider ninety miles an hour. If he has a changeup, he could be a great starting pitcher. The Reds should move Homer Bailey and put Chapman in the rotation. We'll see what happens. But Chapman's stuff is too good to send him , to the minors.
Reds reliever Sean Marshall who has inherited the closer's role has a good curve. Marshall was used by the Chicago Cubs last year as as set-up man. His ERA was 2.26 and he had five saves. Due to an injury to Ryan Madson,the Reds were forced to put him in the closer's role. Yesterday, I saw him throw a nasty curve for a strike. You do that with a good fastball that Marshall has, and he will get a lot of people out. That folks will add up to many saves.
Baseball has started. Spring is here. I'm hopeful for the Reds. And I'm still alive.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Cincinnati Reds re-sign Joey Votto to a big contract
The Cincinnati Reds put their money where their mouth is. Previously, owner Bob Castellini said he would bring championship baseball back to Cincinnati. Today, the Reds took a big step in that direction. They re-signed their first baseman, Joey Votto to a long term contract. The contract is for ten years and 225 million dollars. That kind of money paid to Votto is something that the New York Yankees would pay a player.
Is it worth it? If you're goal is to win every year, yes it is. Joey Votto is one of the premiere players in major league baseball. He hits for average. He hits for power. Power to all fields. He hits with runners in scoring position. In 2010, he was MVP. Here's his Baseball-Reference.com page. You build tams around a guy like Votto. And get this. He's only 28. The Reds will have him for the prime of his career.
By spending that much money, the Reds sent a signal to their fans. They will do everything possible to keep their star players. These players are the ones that can lead the team to a World Championship.
Is it worth it? If you're goal is to win every year, yes it is. Joey Votto is one of the premiere players in major league baseball. He hits for average. He hits for power. Power to all fields. He hits with runners in scoring position. In 2010, he was MVP. Here's his Baseball-Reference.com page. You build tams around a guy like Votto. And get this. He's only 28. The Reds will have him for the prime of his career.
By spending that much money, the Reds sent a signal to their fans. They will do everything possible to keep their star players. These players are the ones that can lead the team to a World Championship.
Titanic 3D Review
The tragic sinking of the ship, Titanic, occurred on April 15, 1912. In time for the one hundredth anniversary, Twentieth Century Fox has re-released the 1997 film Titanic, directed and written by James Cameron. This rich film won eleven Academy awards including Best Picture and Best Director. What makes this re-release different is that the movie was converted from 2d to 3D for this year's showing. So, the question becomes, "Is Titanic 3D worth the extra bucks to see it?"
Titanic is an epic love story between the impoverished Jack (Leonard DiCaprio) and the high society Rose. (Kate Winslet) The movie starts out in 1996 when old Rose (Gloria Stuart) is taken aboard a ship trying to find a valuable diamond necklace which was given to her on the Titanic. She tells the story of her love affair with Jack to the crew in a flashback.
Watching Titanic again, one is reminded what makes this film great. There are the performances. Leonard Dicaprio is excellent as the smitten and romantic Jack. Kate Winslet portrays her Rose as a woman trapped in a loveless engagement only to be rescued by Jack. Gloria Stuart deserved her nomination for Best Supporting Actress. There's great scene where the crew discusses the missing diamond necklace and how it was supposed to be still on the sunken Titanic. Stuart subtly moves her eyes and makes a small facial gesture indicating she knows where the necklace is and it is her secret. It's easier to pick up the subtleties of the performances on the big screen.
Then there is the skill used to bring the story to life. Director Cameron expertly guides his actors and his visual style is beautiful. There needs to be more compliments about Cameron's writing. From the metaphor of a tight corset that Rose must wear to the emotional dialogue, Cameron's screenplay does a wonderful job of telling the story. James Horner's score is also majestic and warm.
But is this new version, one which is re-released in 3D as a result of converting the 2D film, worth the extra dollars that a moviegoer will have to fork over? There's an irony here. Cameron was a critic of converting 2D movies to 3D. In a speech, he said, " “It doesn’t make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D.” Yet, Cameron does this.
James Cameron's style of directing is conducive to converting Titanic to 3D. The broad but steady camera movements emulate 3D shots. However, the conversion technology is not as good as filming a movie in native 3D. Converting a 2D movie is akin to taking the images of a movie and cutting them out to form a pop up book. You can take a picture of Jack from the movie, pop him up in a scene. But since Jack was not filmed in 3D, he's still in 2D.
For example, there's a segment of the movie where the weakness of the 3D conversion process is clear. Take the scene in the ship's cargo hold where Jack and Rose consummate their love in a car. There are crates with ropes securing them surrounding the car. If this was shot in 3D, the ropes and the crates' edges would pop out. In this conversion, they don't. Only, the picture of the 2D crates stand out, giving the scene a pop up book look. Light, shadow and depth are not present in a 3D conversion.
Darkness also plagues 3D conversions. Look, you're watching a movie with polarized glasses. Those dark lenses give any 3D conversion a feel that you're watching the movie through a filter. Titanic in 3D doesn't suffer as much since the original 2D version was well lit. Still, it's a little dark.
Another problem is with Titanic's conversion is that Cameron probably wasn't thinking 3D conversion in 1996. Obviously, today's 3D technology did not exist back then. That means shots were not set up to take advantage of the 3D format. If you get a chance to see Hugo or Pina (2011) in 3D, you'll know what I mean. Martin Scorsese and Wim Wenders respectively put together scenes to take advantage the 3D medium. The result for those movies is that the 3D stood out by giving scenes depth, and space. Titanic has few scenes which call out for a 3D effect.
While I applaud Cameron's expensive effort to convert Titanic to 3D, there's not enough in the movie where the conversion process makes anything look special. An occasional scene may work primarily because the object being shown was simple without the nooks and crannies. But many scenes have the pop up book effect. Most of the movie lacks any sense of pushing out from the screen or depth.
If you're a fan of Titanic or want to see the movie again on the big screen, the grade for the movie in 2D is A. There's nothing special about Titanic 3D to warrant spending extra bucks to see it. The grade for the conversion of Titanic 3D is C Plus.
Titanic is an epic love story between the impoverished Jack (Leonard DiCaprio) and the high society Rose. (Kate Winslet) The movie starts out in 1996 when old Rose (Gloria Stuart) is taken aboard a ship trying to find a valuable diamond necklace which was given to her on the Titanic. She tells the story of her love affair with Jack to the crew in a flashback.
Watching Titanic again, one is reminded what makes this film great. There are the performances. Leonard Dicaprio is excellent as the smitten and romantic Jack. Kate Winslet portrays her Rose as a woman trapped in a loveless engagement only to be rescued by Jack. Gloria Stuart deserved her nomination for Best Supporting Actress. There's great scene where the crew discusses the missing diamond necklace and how it was supposed to be still on the sunken Titanic. Stuart subtly moves her eyes and makes a small facial gesture indicating she knows where the necklace is and it is her secret. It's easier to pick up the subtleties of the performances on the big screen.
Then there is the skill used to bring the story to life. Director Cameron expertly guides his actors and his visual style is beautiful. There needs to be more compliments about Cameron's writing. From the metaphor of a tight corset that Rose must wear to the emotional dialogue, Cameron's screenplay does a wonderful job of telling the story. James Horner's score is also majestic and warm.
But is this new version, one which is re-released in 3D as a result of converting the 2D film, worth the extra dollars that a moviegoer will have to fork over? There's an irony here. Cameron was a critic of converting 2D movies to 3D. In a speech, he said, " “It doesn’t make any sense to shoot in 2D and convert to 3D.” Yet, Cameron does this.
James Cameron's style of directing is conducive to converting Titanic to 3D. The broad but steady camera movements emulate 3D shots. However, the conversion technology is not as good as filming a movie in native 3D. Converting a 2D movie is akin to taking the images of a movie and cutting them out to form a pop up book. You can take a picture of Jack from the movie, pop him up in a scene. But since Jack was not filmed in 3D, he's still in 2D.
For example, there's a segment of the movie where the weakness of the 3D conversion process is clear. Take the scene in the ship's cargo hold where Jack and Rose consummate their love in a car. There are crates with ropes securing them surrounding the car. If this was shot in 3D, the ropes and the crates' edges would pop out. In this conversion, they don't. Only, the picture of the 2D crates stand out, giving the scene a pop up book look. Light, shadow and depth are not present in a 3D conversion.
Darkness also plagues 3D conversions. Look, you're watching a movie with polarized glasses. Those dark lenses give any 3D conversion a feel that you're watching the movie through a filter. Titanic in 3D doesn't suffer as much since the original 2D version was well lit. Still, it's a little dark.
Another problem is with Titanic's conversion is that Cameron probably wasn't thinking 3D conversion in 1996. Obviously, today's 3D technology did not exist back then. That means shots were not set up to take advantage of the 3D format. If you get a chance to see Hugo or Pina (2011) in 3D, you'll know what I mean. Martin Scorsese and Wim Wenders respectively put together scenes to take advantage the 3D medium. The result for those movies is that the 3D stood out by giving scenes depth, and space. Titanic has few scenes which call out for a 3D effect.
While I applaud Cameron's expensive effort to convert Titanic to 3D, there's not enough in the movie where the conversion process makes anything look special. An occasional scene may work primarily because the object being shown was simple without the nooks and crannies. But many scenes have the pop up book effect. Most of the movie lacks any sense of pushing out from the screen or depth.
If you're a fan of Titanic or want to see the movie again on the big screen, the grade for the movie in 2D is A. There's nothing special about Titanic 3D to warrant spending extra bucks to see it. The grade for the conversion of Titanic 3D is C Plus.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
How far right are today's conservatives?
President Obama made this comment to newspaper editors.
"Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today."
Today's conservatives as exemplified by today's Republicans are so far right that they would favor raising taxes on poor and middle class rather than the rich. And trust me, that's what they mean by "broadening the tax base." It means the poor and middle class must pay more. This all comes from the Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan. The plan would cut taxes for the rich from 35 % to 25 %. Now to balance the budget the plan calls for massive spending cuts. It has to. You can't reduce revenue and expect to cure the federal budge deficit by simple tax cuts. And the conservatives have to find a way to get working Americans to pay more to get the Ryan budget to work. Now, you may hear from conservatives that middle class people don't pay income taxes. Okay. But they pay social security taxes. That's something conservatives leave out of the conversation. And yet under Ryan's budget plan, the big rich get the breaks. That's mutual sacrifice?
Today, Ed Schultz did a couple pieces on this for his show. Videos below. Feel free to call him a loud liberal. But the conservatives don't argue against the facts. The rich have gotten richer and the rest, the so called 99 per cent have stayed the same. Another thing you hear in the piece is that Ryan and Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate, don't fight the facts that Obama uses to point out that it's so far right, it makes "The Contract with America" look like the New Deal Heck, Obama even points out that Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich once called the Ryan plan "right-wing social engineering."
So could Ronald Reagan win in a Republican primary? I think President Obama is right. Because Reagan would be blasted by the Tea Party nuts for raising taxes to reduce the deficits. I know one conservative who would not win a Republican primary in today's climate. The father of conservatism, Senator Barry Goldwater. (R-Arizona) Goldwater supported a woman's right to choose and gay rights. Any Republican who supports those ideas would be dead in the water.
"Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today."
Today's conservatives as exemplified by today's Republicans are so far right that they would favor raising taxes on poor and middle class rather than the rich. And trust me, that's what they mean by "broadening the tax base." It means the poor and middle class must pay more. This all comes from the Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget plan. The plan would cut taxes for the rich from 35 % to 25 %. Now to balance the budget the plan calls for massive spending cuts. It has to. You can't reduce revenue and expect to cure the federal budge deficit by simple tax cuts. And the conservatives have to find a way to get working Americans to pay more to get the Ryan budget to work. Now, you may hear from conservatives that middle class people don't pay income taxes. Okay. But they pay social security taxes. That's something conservatives leave out of the conversation. And yet under Ryan's budget plan, the big rich get the breaks. That's mutual sacrifice?
Today, Ed Schultz did a couple pieces on this for his show. Videos below. Feel free to call him a loud liberal. But the conservatives don't argue against the facts. The rich have gotten richer and the rest, the so called 99 per cent have stayed the same. Another thing you hear in the piece is that Ryan and Mitt Romney, Republican presidential candidate, don't fight the facts that Obama uses to point out that it's so far right, it makes "The Contract with America" look like the New Deal Heck, Obama even points out that Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich once called the Ryan plan "right-wing social engineering."
So could Ronald Reagan win in a Republican primary? I think President Obama is right. Because Reagan would be blasted by the Tea Party nuts for raising taxes to reduce the deficits. I know one conservative who would not win a Republican primary in today's climate. The father of conservatism, Senator Barry Goldwater. (R-Arizona) Goldwater supported a woman's right to choose and gay rights. Any Republican who supports those ideas would be dead in the water.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
