Team Fortress 2 (PC)

Team Fortress 2 is a multiplayer class-based shooter game created by Valve and released in 2007 with the Orange Box.  The main attractions of the game are the near-perfect balance of nine interesting and enjoyable classes; Scout, soldier and pyro - Heavy, demoman and engineer - Medic, Sniper and Spy-; and the well crafted, memorable maps. 

There are several different gametypes: King of the Hill, Capture Point, Capture the Flag, Payload and Arena.  Most maps are only compatible with a few of these gametypes (for example; Egypt_final is exclusively for capture point) because of the way the maps are structured.  King of the Hill maps tend to be rounded with a "hill" in the middle of the map.  Capture the Flag maps tend to be the same on both sides with flags stored deep down in the enemy base (Examples include the legendary map 2_fort).  The Capture Point and Payload game types vary more than the others in that sometimes one team attacks and the other defends (it's based on the map) and sometimes both teams attack and defend.  In capture point you literally attempt to capture all the points and in Payload you move a cart towards the end of its track.  Arena is a free-for-all, everbody against everybody gametype.

The game is (almost) exlusively multiplayer and thankfully has an easy interface for finding a server.  You are shown the gametype, map, ping, number of players and "server info" before connecting to a game, though you can have the game choose a random "best fit" server for you. 

Each class has a distinct, unmistable appearence and charming personality (their voices, quotes they use, their backstories). Without getting too technical or drooling over the details you will learn quickly simply through playing hte game I will attempt to provide a basic explantation of the different classes:

Scout is by far the fastest class in all forms of movement but has less health and no specialized weaponry.

Soldier is a slower but heavy duty character armed with a powerful rocket launcher. 

Pyro is a mid-speed fire-proof character with a flame thrower.

Heavy is, as his named suggests, heavy and slow with the largest health bar in the game but armed with a powerful minigun.

Engineer is a an interesting character with the ability to place sentries and dispensers but he is poorly armed for combat. 

Spy is a poor-health specialized class whose main ability is to pretend to be on the opposite team, get behind people and quickly kill them or disable their sentries.

Medic is a fast moving, average-health character with the ability to heal teammates.

Sniper is, as the name would suggest, a sniper whose main power lies in his ability to pick off far away enemy.

There are 55 official game maps covering five main (technically 10) different game types.  The maps are wildy different ranging from snowy outposts to rocky-ravines to mountain labs to Egyptian ruins. Aside from arena (free for all) the game is divided into two teams, the classic red. vs. blue.  Besides the base you get (red is defend in most cases) and the color of the uniform there is no difference between the teams (they both use the same classes, though you usually use more defensive classes while on defence). 

                                                                    Mountain Lab

The worlds are decorated with charming and lively cartoon-esque graphics.  They are not and were not cutting edge technology that will blow your mind away, but they are certainly not ugly to look at.  Considering that this is a multiplayer game as opposed to an RPG the graphics are probably just right in that they are easy enough to run on your computer without slowing you down at all but interesting enough that you won't become bored easily.

                                                                        2 Fort

The developers, Valve Coorporation,  are constantly adding updates to fix bugs, adding new content (such as in-game hats that do nothing but give your character more personality) and the occasional massive update that adds in new weapons and maps.  These updates are usually highly controversial within the community but if you're a mature person who can handle slight changes (usually improvements, simply the addition of content) these are easy to deal with.  Even if you hate the updates the game is good enough to make you want to come back and continue playing.  Plus, there are always enough people that will agree with you (back when I used to play the game was such much better) that entire servers exist that cater to these audiances. 

These drops are randomly given out on a regular basis until "a weekly time-cap is given".  I don't fully understand the system but that doesn't matter.  The weapons are all well balanced meaning that unskilled players with every single gun in the game won't have any advantage over a skilled someone with the basic outfit.  And anyway weapons can be traded/bought so if you really want a weapon there is nothing stopping you from getting it. 

Being a multiplayer game skill is very important and hard to come by.  Many new players, especially those who recently migrated from consul gaming, feel exasperated when playing against veterans, often blaming the weapon system, claiming that "older players" have an unfair advantage of them.  This situation will be familiar to any other PC multiplayer gamer.  The same complaints are often made about the Call of Duty weapon system (at least on the fourth and sixth games; I haven't done enough mulitplayer on the others to know) but no one in their right mind would stand to these arguements.  Ask any veteran TF2 player about this and they will explain to you how Valve has carefully balanced the weapons (Example: weapon is more powerful in one way but less so in another, possible needs more ammo). 

The game is built on the Source Engine like most other Valve games (such as Half-Life 2, Portal) known for games such as Counter Strike.  The Source Engine is known for its easy to navigate but useful menus and ease of connecting to servers. 

                                                                  Heavy Weapons Guy

Graphics: 7/10  - Despite their low quality the beauty of the worlds makes the game enjoyable to look at. 


Gameplay: 9/10 - The most balanced class-based game and the most enjoyable multiplayer I've ever had the experience to play.  I first played in 2009 and I'm playing more now than ever. 


Features: 6/10 - The game has an ingame screenshot, spray, easy or complex server finding, achievement system, "okay" community (though compared to other multiplayer games the community is one of the best) and the game even has a training mode. 




Overall:



    9/10

"Modern Music Sucks"

"Modern Music Sucks."

"Music was so much better back then."

"The 60s and 70s were the golden age of music."

"Music has no soul anymore."

"Music is dead."


These phrases all all commenly used by people to suggest that the music of their parents, or their childhood was better than the music being made and released today.  Most of these are based on biases, ignorance and sometimes just plain denial. 

The idea that music suddenly went through a "Good" period after having existed for hundreds (thousands) of years and then within a century magically went back to being "bad" is not based anywhere in reality and is absolutely insane. 

I have written this article as an attempt to convince you otherwise. 

What Genre?

Generally this concept of the "good old days" is refering to rock music between 1965 and 1994, but that is only rock music.  Every genre has fans that claim "it sucks now, you should listen to the older stuff from X-Y years" and these decades vary wildly.

If you're talking to a baroque fan he will tell you that the good music was made between 1600 and 1750.  Opera-fanatics will tell you it was the 18th century. If you speak with a bluesman he will tell you that it was between 1910 and 1960.  If you speak with a jazz listener, they will tell you it was from 1950-1970.  Thrash metalheads will tell you it was from 1983 to 1991, death metalheads will tell you 1986-1996. Hip-hop fans will tell you that 1988-1998 had all the "best" releases.  Classic rock fans will tell you 1965-1977.  Punks will say 1977-1989. 

These overlap slightly but have no commen end or starting point.  As you can see, the "good" era of music completely depends on who you ask and is very subjective. 

The "good old days" person will (usually) tell you that music as a whole was good during that period but these "Good" eras are usually based on genres not the actual quality of music from those periods.  Everyone knows that genres go through different periods of popularity.  Popularity doesn't equate to good music, but if you have more bands, especially in a new genre that has untapped ideas and concepts, chances are that the bands will be better. 

One talented, skilled band that produces great music can inspire tons of others to either follow and expand in the new realms they have created, or just plain rip them off.

Music is less talented now?

One of the most commenly used phrases people who believe the quality of music magically disappeared will say is "Back in the day, they used to actually play instruments that took talent."  They will often expand upon this and insert their favorite instruments, usually the standard rock set of drums, guitar, a bass and "normal" vocals.

If one takes a look at the history of music they will learn that the instruments used through history have been radically different.  Look at what instruments they used during the romantic era of classical music.  Look at the instruments they used during the baroque era.  Look at what jazz groups use.  Just because the instruments of modern music are different from those used 50 years before doesn't mean they are bad.  No one in their right mind is going to attempt to say that music as a whole from these time periods was bad simply because they used different instruments.  Why do the same for electronic and hip-hop?

YouTube comments on this topic often mention computer programs create beats, suggesting that all you need to make a hip-hop beat or an electonic song is some fancy audio-software and the ability to press a button on the mouse.

Music editing and creation programs often come with sample beats and even beat-makers in which you can simply adjust sliders to change the tune being played.  These, like anything else, require much skill to use.  If they didn't, everyone would be writing hit songs.  But, these are not how beats are made, I would suggest reading a few articles on the topic: http://tweakheadz.com/hip_hop_beat_construction.htm
There is a reason artists and recording companies have pay large sums of money for proffesional producers to come in and work with them.

In defence against this, YouTube commenters will often argue "Yeah, all you have to do is read a guide and you can do it, there are little kids that have YouTube videos of them producing beats to prove it."  There are several things wrong with this arguement.  First of all, you could "just" read a guide for how to play guitar but that wouldn't make you Jimmy Page.  Secondly, there are plenty of YouTube videos of young children playing guitar, does this mean that the guitar requires no talent?  Finally, how much talent goes into something is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter if something is nearly impossible to play properly or if half the planet could do it; what matters is if it sounds good.  And this is obviously subjective.

But everyone listens to bad music now?

Yes.  Does this really surprise you?  Most people don't care about taking the time to enjoy genres.  You didn't take the time to develope a taste for jazz or the blues, why should you expect others to develope a taste for rock music? 

What is popular and what is good are not the same thing at all.  Most music that gets popular, (especially now that there is a much larger music listening crowd) (more on that later) just isn't that good.  Most people don't want to have to think about the lyrics or the meaning, they don't want long songs, they don't want things that are hard to listen to or take time to appreciate, they just want something simple that is fun to listen or dance to.  It has always been this way. 

According to these people, during the prime-time of rock music, everyone listened to rock and practically worshipped it.  This is not true in any way at all.  Because there were simply less genres of music back then, a smaller crowd of people listening to music and less ways to get access to music, there were more people listening to rock than there are to the "good" genres today.

Look at the "top singles" charts for those years when people supposedly, magically, had better music tastes.  The top selling single of 1969, supposedly one of the greatest years in music, was "Sugar, Sugar" by the Archies, a cartoon band from a TV show.  Throughout the 60s, the Beatles had three best selling singles of the year.  On the surface this seems great but look at what years and what songs.  The Beatles didn't play the sound they are famous for until after 1965, two of their "top singles" were in 1963 and 1964.  Literally, simple pop songs.  I am not saying these songs are bad, they just aren't the "classic" rock sound, or even really that good compared to what we remember the Beatles for today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles_by_year_(UK)

Take a look at the best selling albums in the United States of America.  The Beatles didn't score a single one during the 60s, despite selling more albums than any other band in history.  Throughout the entire 60s and 70s only a handful of artists associated with the "good music" scene sold top albums.  Dark Side of the Moon, the best selling rock album of all time, didn't even make it to the top.  The reason these albums sold so well was because they were good enough that people still wanted to buy them in large amounts ten years later.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-selling_albums_by_year_in_the_United_States

The difference is that these artists had lasting power, that they were good enough that people still wanted to listen to them ten years later.  Time weeded out the bad artists.  When we look back at the 60s we don't hear the bad music that all the teenagers then complained about and rebelled against by playing the Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan, we hear the "soul-filled" artists they made popular by rebelling against the "bad" music. 

The "good" music was more popular back then than it is today and there are reasons why.  Back then, people didn't have the Internet and other sources of finding music easily.  So when something got popular, that meant it was more popular than it would be today.  Today, because the Internet has allowed so many new genres to spread so quickly and old ones to be brought back, more and more people and sent off into different directions rather than just what is being played on the radio at that time.  Experience shows me that if you listen to something several times, even if you hate it at first, you might develope a taste for it.  This would allow people to listen to the Rolling Stones or Black Sabbath and learn to enjoy them simply because they heard them so often.  And no, I'm not suggesting everyone lived in a box with a single radio station, I'm just saying there was less variety back then.

Another thing that makes "bad" music more popular is how it is marketed.  Back "then" kid's music existed, but it just wasn't such a large portion of the market.  Today, things like Disney Channel and Nickelodeon use their own artists to create their own music for kids.  They use their advertisements, TV shows and their own radio stations to promote this.  Being exposed to it so often, it is no surprise that children often fall for Hannah Montana or whatever the latest artist is.  This happened "back then" too, a good example is the Archies, but just not as widespreadly as it happens today.  Today, more parents just drop their kids off in front of a TV. 

So now that we have established that people didn't magically have better ears for discerning talent and quality from "easy" and "fun" back then, lets apply that to modern times.  Look at the top 40 chart for today, February 5th, 2012.  You'll find artists like Katy Perry, Bruno Mars and LMFAO.  These are all pop artists that are played on the radio, TV shows, put in movies and played at dances.  Obviously these artists are going to be the most popular.  Once again, do you seriously think that the majority of the population is going to take the time to develope tastes for different genres of music?  Do you think they're all going to listen to Oneohetrix Point Never? No, they just want something simple to put on in the background.

Back in the 60s and 70s there was bad music too.  We just don't see it.  The reason why is because time has weeded out the bad and the boring and left us with, mostly, the classics.  Most people who listen to pop music get tired of something simply because it is old.  We've all heard some teenager trying to tell us that 90s and 80s music is bad simply because it is "old".  Most "simple" music listeners become much less avid followers of the art form after they reach a certain age.  So, without the simple music listeners still listening to and spreading the "bad music", there isn't as much of a vehicle for it to live on.  Which one are you going to tell you kids about, the Beatles or the Archies? 

Well, there is no good music underground either?

A lot of people cite certain artists and say "Here's the good music, just listen to this" and expect the people who enjoy everything from AC/DC to Led Zeppelin (joke) to enjoy this psychedelic-elecontric-experimental-art-rock-ballad that they love so much. 

I have mentioned it several times earlier, but you don't just listen to a new genre or sound and enjoy it automatically.  Sometimes you might, some people are better at it than others, but lets be honest here; everyone has listened to a band that is a "classic" and hated it or found it boring and came back a week later and loved it.  I didn't like Pink Floyd the first time I heard them; now they're one of my favorite bands.

The first time I ever heard Radiohead, the only song I liked was Creep, which was a grunge-influenced song that is among their most popular.  I thought their other stuff was boring but interesting.  Their casual listeners say that Radiohead is a one-hit-wonder and that Creep is their only good song (or one of roughly three).  Fans of the band will tell you that Creep is average in their discography and that the albums that came later are so much better in almost every aspect.

Thankfully I enjoyed Creep enough (Mainly the vocals, which I wasn't used to hearing yet) that I gave their other stuff another try.  I bought OK Computer and listened to it.  The first time I heard it I only liked two or three of the songs a lot and found the rest from above average to boring.  Now, after repeated listens allowing the textures and layers to come out and be appreciated, OK Computer would rank among my favorite albums of all time.

Also, in my opinion, "good" music has moved more towards the artsy side.  Every year seems to have better production (not really over-produced, that's not what I'm saying) and more experimental music being released.  Some of the things that used to be avant-garde ten years ago are normal now.  There are more sounds and they are constantly blending together in new ways. 

So, obviously, just listening to a song, especially if you come in expecting to hate it, isn't going to be enough to say that it is bad music. 


Conclusion?

There is plenty of good music being released now.  It all depents on what genres of styles you like.  If you have a very small taste in music genres then you probably won't find much because many modern genres are blends of already-existing genres. 

Give yourself an honest and complete chance with some of these artists.  If you do, you'll find that some of them are just as good as the so called "good" music you constantly tout.  And not just modern music either.  This article is geared towards "classic rock" listeners, the vast majority of whom do not listen to jazz or the blues or any form of classical or punk.  Allowing yourself to enjoy genres such as these will open entire new worlds of music and sounds for you to enjoy. 

This is a ridiculous urban-myth that is created  by nostalgia and the wish to stand out in a crowd. 


In the end, the only thing you have to lose in opening up your music taste is to lose your credibility among angry teenagers who think their dad's CD collection is the greatest ever assembled. 


In short, it isn't like all the world's governments just put some chemical in the water that magically made everyone tone-deaf and dumb. 

Annoying Things Muscians Need to Stop Doing

 Here is a list of the most annoying things bands and record labels regularly do.  Some of them are directly in the music while others are just aesthetic or "other" nuisances. 

1- Bonus Tracks Mixed In With the Album

 We've all bought an album from one of our favorite bands and taken it home to listen.  After about 10 tracks you begin to hear obnoxious half-finished studio doodles.  What happened?  That was a bonus track.

Bands and record labels like to place bonus tracks (usually either live takes or songs that weren't good enough for the actual album) at the end of the CD to encourage you to buy it (again).  They believe that you'll say "Oh, look, there's more songs from my favorite band!  I have to hear this."  The vast majority of the songs are so bad that you instantly realize why they weren't placed on the album.  If you have an extra-scum-bag label/band they'll even give you "alternate takes" or live versions of the songs that are already on the album.  Yes, they just gave you two slightly different versions of the same exact thing. 

How to fix it: Stop adding the songs on at the end of the album and start adding them on an optional bonus 2nd  disk.  This way you can add in more than the normal 1-3 tracks, giving the "fans" more studio-doodles and outtakes to listen to.

                           Screenshot taken from Wikipedia.org  - Pictured: One of the few bands that doesn't give you go-nowhere early-takes as bonus tracks.

2 - "Hidden" Tracks

 Okay, so you just finished listening to your first Nirvana album.  You go to the bathroom to wash your hands for dinner.  After about 30 seconds you hear a horrible screeching noise coming out of the CD player.  You run into the room only to realize you left the CD player on.

What happened? That was a hidden track.  "Hidden Tracks" are another way bands can sneak extra material at you without you even wanting it.  Hidden tracks are almost always hidden after about 5-10 minutes of silence at the end of the last song on the album.  This means that when you rip the songs onto your computer you're going to have to download (and learn to use) an audio program so that you can separate the song you want and the song you don't.  

You could always sacrifice your scrobbles and just not listen to the second half of the song, but no-one wants to do that.  Or you could just skip the final song all-together, but that's no fun.  If the band is very slimy (Or more "artistic"), then they'll add in about 10 minutes of humming noises (Example: Meshuggah's Elastic) making it impossible for you to separate the songs or even skip the "nearly-silent" part.

Most "Hidden" tracks are either the hardest, fastest or heaviest song on the album, ones that the bands were too afraid to put with the rest of the songs, or weird-pointless studio-wrecks, usually compilations of edited voices, percussion and cricket-noises.  

How to fix it:  Don't do it.


3 - Interludes

 Who hasn't bought an artist's studio-release expecting the 12 song titles to mean that there are actually 12 songs on the album, only to find out that at least one of them is a boring attempt for the musician to be "deep" and "meaningful"?

Defining what is an interlude is fairly difficult.  Google dictionary defines it as 4 "a piece of music that is played between other pieces of music" and 5 "a temporary amusement or entertainment that contrasts what goes before or after it."

Not all interludes are bad; Opeth and 2000s Radiohead have been fairly successful with them. Tool, otherwise known as "the band of a million interludes and intros," have not been as successful.  Their album "Ænima" is famous for having six interludes and only nine real songs.  These include, but are not restricted to, "A man reading a cooking recipe in German with a dark near-industrial beat in the background" and "Weird studio noises that sound like someone falling in space or playing around with the radio".

This includes hip-hop and rap's "Skits" (basically audio-action clips that are supposed to introduce you to a story).  Making a hip-hop album that is 22 tracks and only 10 real songs is difficult to listen to (And not in the artistic "Listen to it twice" way).  Don't do it.

Short-piano interludes seem to work as long as you don't add "I'm recording this in the back of a moving car on a cassette-player during the rain poetry" in the background. 

Interludes usually disrupt the flow of the album.  They usually lose any entertainment-value they had by the second and third listens.  Interludes are like cut-scenes in video games; they should be shippable after the first play-through.  They usually are (I'm sure someone has stuck one right in the middle of a song, but I can't think an example) but that doesn't change the fact that they are terrible pieces of "art" that ruin the album, provide nothing to the atmosphere and often turn-off potential fans.  

How to fix it: Before releasing an album filled with chopped-up vocals of poetry being read on the beach, have other people listen to it.  Aside from fanboys, most people dislike them. 

Checklist (If it has any of these, delete it):

1. Does not provide to atmosphere
2. More than one per five songs (Every six songs can have one interlude) - Not recommended
3. Poetry being read in the back of the car
4. "Creepy" noises
5. Studio-created noises that sound like you put the radio between two stations during a tornado
6. Clips of people talking
7. Anything over four minutes (This, of course, depends on what you're doing).  
8. Readings of literature
9. Poetry of any kind
10. Voices of any kind (Though, this is subjective)
11. Tracks that disrupt the flow of the album
12. Things that sound like they're spinning or falling
13. Things that you think sound "cool"
14. Things that the rest of the band thinks sounds "Cool"
15. In the middle of a song
16. Directly before songs of completely different moods (This one can be maneuvered by intelligent song-writing, AKA a good intro). 
17. Repetitive tracks (Even short ones)
18. Non-musical studio sounds (People laughing, chairs-creaking). 
19. Ten second bursts of horns or saxophones, as if we'd never heard the instrument before.
20. Covers of classical music
21. Weather Sounds
22. Things being played backwards (Treefingers, Radiohead, is a good counter-example). 
23. Things that sound like the Residents
24. Clips from live shows or interviews
25. Tracks with "Silly" names.
26. "Funny" tracks

How to fix it: Stop.

4 - Greatest Hits

Sometimes bands feel the need attract large amounts of new fans without actually doing anything.  This is called be "attention deprived", or just "desperate for money" (Either develop some real talent or get a job).  Either way, you have to be pretty pathetic to do it. 

Bands release greatest hits, but it usually the record label who starts it.  One thing you will notice is that after the band is retired/dead the record label starts milking their brand name for everything it is worth. 

                                                  Sadly, scenes like this aren't rare.

Greatest Hits are bad because they compromise the art of the album (as in the way it was originally intended to be; without those annoying interludes to add to the atmosphere, or the song-transitions), they usually only have "popular songs" rather than actually good songs (As in, the ones that are the easiest to listen to are the most popular, usually), they usually have "live cuts" and "Alternate takes" of classic songs and they are hardly ever over 12 tracks.  Then, on top of all that, they charge full CD price.

How to fix it:  Don't do it.  And if you are forced to, give as many songs as is possible to fit on one or two CDs and don't give worthless "alternate" versions. 


5 - Excessively Long Songs

We've all heard songs that start off great but just keep going and going until you are thoroughly bored and want to leave.  Many bands feel the need to do this.  Apparently, writing long songs shows how talented a composer you are.  It also shows you can't even proof-listen to your own material.  Writing a four minute song and stringing it out to 8 minutes isn't fun.  It may be fun to play, I don't play an instrument, I wouldn't know, but as a listener I can tell you: It isn't fun to listen to.  Even the Beatle's "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" didn't turn out well. 

I'm not saying all long songs are bad; not at all.  I'm not saying that we should all have short attention-spans and listen to standard-song-structure music.  I'm just saying that three minute songs shouldn't be stretched out into an eight minute songs.  Genres like jazz, ambient, progressive, drone and atmospheric genres regularly produce 15 minute+ songs that are highly enjoyable. Even some bands that play shorter-song genres can occasionally make a quality longer-song, it just isn't very often. 

Riffs get boring after a few minutes.  Choruses get boring after being played more than once or twice (especially the "two liners" that play two or three times in the chorus alone, amounting to nearly 10 plays of the chorus per listen to song).  Guitar solos aren't exciting after the 1:30 mark. 

Rather than being the "Fifteen minute epic" you thought it would be, it will end up being the song the listener chooses to skip every single time they listen to the album. 

How to fix it:  You have nothing to prove.  Writing a ten minute song proves nothing.  Take the best material and condense it into something that people beyond the makers can enjoy. 

6 -Bands that Refuse to Retire

Sometimes a band will release consecutive five star albums that go on to be classics.  After a few years they start to get older and less creative, tensions build up in the band and the quality of their music output decreases.  After one or two "bad" albums they say "Hey, we had a good run, we're going to have a farewell tour and then we'll retire", either that or they break up on the spot.  Other bands, usually ones who care more for money (from touring and merchandise), refuse to retire or even admit that the quality of their music has changed.  Twenty years after their first "tired" album they are still releasing new music every other year.  It sounds the same on every single release to the point that they've just created a formula for making their own music. 

This sounds like a rare occurrence only pulled off by the dirtiest of all the scum bags, but in reality it is very common.  Now for a short list of bands who have done this:

AC/DC
The Rolling Stones
Metallica
U2
Guns N' Roses
Van Halen
Iron Maiden
Pearl Jam
Alice in Chains
Judas Priest
The Cure
Genesis
Rush (Yes, I went there)
Weezer
Pink Floyd (Denial doesn't get us anywhere)
Nas

                                                                           Guilty.
And even if they don't retire, just stop releasing albums.  It isn't nearly as bad to tour and play shows for new fans if you don't constantly tarnish your reputation by releasing dull-pastiches of your former self every three-five years in a cheap-attempt to get more money (and 12 year old fan girls).

The difference between AC/DC and Tom Waits is that Tom Waits changes his sound drastically on virtually every single album, never releasing the thing twice while AC/DC has been making the same album over and over again since the 70s (Even after their lead singer, and the main talent of the band, died).  

How to fix it: As a wise man once said "Disband and do something creative".

Minecraft Screenshots 1

Inspired by the news of new updates to Minecraft, I have decided to upload a few screenshots I took during the game.  There are some of the creations I have crafted in Minecraft throughout the last year.  These are mostly construction ideas and building ideas for homes that I thought of and tried to create in Minecraft but failed.  

 This is a shot of a log-house (wood) I built inside a protective cobblestone dome.

 A normally ugly feature, this dirt bridge is aesthetically pleasing at night.

 A stone stronghold made during Creative mode.

 A path cut through the forest outside my first house.

 A view from on top of my mountain house.

 The other side.

 A large mining site that was abandoned because of lava.

 A large stairway that leads to the mine above.

 A shot of water at night. 

Bioshock - Great Atmosphere, Boring Gameplay

I'm one of the few people who didn't but Bioshock back in 2007 and 2008 when it was still Bioshock (Before we had to differentiate from the sequel).  I just now purchased the game on Steam because of a $5 sale (I also bought the sequel and Borderlands, but that's for another day).

My main attraction to the game, the reason I bought a four year old game, was the scenery, atmosphere and story (What I'd heard of, that is).  The idea of a city built underwater intrigued me.  Now, after having played the game, I believe that the atmosphere/scenery/setting is the best part of the game.  The under water city is beautiful.  Rapture, the city, has been, for the most part, torn apart by the Splicers.  Rapture is filled with malevolent characters (From Splicers to Big Daddys to security sentries) who want nothing but to kill you . 

As you can see from these screenshots, Rapture is a beautiful thing to look at, even though it has been destroyed through years of fighting. 

Now for the rest of the game, the part I enjoy less. At the start of the game you are escaping a crashed plane, you go straight down into rapture and from there on, you spend most of the game fighting your way through rooms to other rooms to finish missions that you started in other rooms.  For the duration of the first 3-4 levels, you spend the majority of the time completing tasks for characters you've never spoken to (One of them speaks into your ear, giving you instructions).

The actual combat portion of the game, which is what you'll be doing 90% of the time, is broken up into two sections.  The first section is the weapons.  You have your typical pistol, machine gun, melee weapon and a few others (nothing very interesting).  The second section is the plasmids.  You've probably seen a trailer of the player shooting lightning from his hand, striking a pool of water and frying up bad guys (splicers).  This is a plasmid.  Plasmids have their own ammo-like bar that must be recharged (taking all the fun out of it).  You are only given a certain number of slots that can hold plasmids at a time (At the start of the game you can only hold three).  This is a serious limitation.   It slows down the game to change and replace your super-powers.

After you learn how to strike your opponent with lightning, then switch to your shotgun/machine gun and finish them off, fighting goes from an interactive experience to a robotic, lifeless task you must do for every room.  Every room.  Even the areas you have already cleared will be refilled with splicers on your return, guaranteeing you that you'll have to fight more and more and more.  The only way to get a pause is to, literally, pause the game (either that or just stand around the recently conquered areas, gazing at the beauty of the ocean through the virtual windows).

Graphics:  7/10
The magnificent world of Bioshock is the only thing that kept me going.  I've played plenty of good games, games that I actually wanted to play the next level, games that I wanted to see what would happen next, what new door or power I would unlock.  This wasn't one.  The well crafted and curious city of Rapture was the only reason I didn't email Gabe Newell demanding a refund (We all know that wouldn't have worked).  

Now, beyond the artwork and the creativity of the world, a lot of the world seems more than a little bit to be made out of boxes.  Look at the pictures of the guns and close-up objects below.  Everything is clunky.  The guns look like the kind of thing you'd make in Adobe and post to your Twitter account before deleting (Maybe that was an exaggeration). 

Gameplay:  1.5/10
I've seen worse, but this is just about the most generic game (That lumps it in with the tons of others that have no creativity at all; the game studios that have dozens of employees but not one thinking mind among them), in terms of combat and interaction, that I've ever played.  The movement is clunky and awkward.  I guess the idea was to appear to be realistic (but when you're shooting lightning from your finger tip, that doesn't make sense). 

Story:  4/10
After the initial arrival in Rapture, you spend most of the game trying to figure out what happened.  If you fail to pick up a journal, or listen to it, then you've just missed a vital piece of the story.  Throughout most of the game it is just "go find X".  If this was a homework assignment we'd call it "Busy work".  The story never really picks up.

Other: 
None: This game offers no real bonus features.






Overall:  5/10
What originally seemed like a prospect for a very enjoyable play through turned out to be a "Force yourself to play, you already payed for it" kind of experience.  This game did nothing for me.  The only redeeming quality was the ever-interesting city of Rapture.  I couldn't even bring myself to finish playing the game.

The Beach Boys - The Smile Sessions

The Smile Sessions is a Beach Boys album that was recorded in the 60s after Pet Sounds but never finished or released in full until now, 2011.  The project was never completed because the band's main songwriter, Brian Wilson, went crazy. 

Before I start I need to say that I didn't listen to the entirety of the tracks.  After the album finishes (the first 19 songs) there are several CDs worth of studio outtakes and other not-completed material that I am not interested in hearing.  

The Smile Sessions is about average length (48 minutes) but five of the 19 main tracks are under two minutes long.  Most of the songs transition well with a great flow, especially towards the beginning where some of the tracks feel like they were made to be next to each other.  The instrumentation is of the same quality as Pet Sounds.  Brian Wilson's distinct falsetto vocals and vocal harmonies are present, creating entertaining, lovable melodies for most of the songs.  The tracks have many layers of instruments, vocals and other sounds, making for interesting and rewarding re-listens.  The songs are well produced and sound crisp. 

 Much of what made Pet Sounds an amazing album is present on Smile, only some of the tracks feel unfinished.  The songs are solid and stand up well in re-listens.  I would recommend this album to anyone who enjoys the 1960s Beach Boys, especially for fans of Pet Sounds. The Beach Boys have not disappointed (Well, maybe a 40 year wait would count as a disappointment) me with this release. 

Track Highlights: Our Prayer, Gee, My Only Sunshine, Look (Song for Children), Child is the Father of Man, Surf's Up and Good Vibrations.

                                7/10

Animals As Leaders (2009)

"Animals As Leaders" is an American Djent and Instrumental Metal artist.   The group was formed and is run by guitar virtuoso Tosin Abasi.  "Djent" is a new genre of heavy metal music combining 'Math Metal' and 'Progressive Metal' (It's shorter than saying "Second Wave of Progressive Metal").  While "Djent" is the easiest way to tag Animals as Leaders, this album spans many genres and styles, some of them not as familiar to me.  There are obvious Jazz influences, some use of the acoustic guitar, and the occasional electronic beat or synthesizer.

The Album Cover

The album has no real drummer or bassist; Tosin Abasi plays the bass guitar and the drums were programmed by Misha Mansoor (Periphery guitarist), the only other person to record on the album (Misha is also credited for the electronic parts and engineering). The songs are all instrumentals built around and to show off Tosin Abasi's technical prowess and virtuosity on the guitar. The percussion sounds exactly what you would expect from programmed drums; a very mechanical, fake feeling.  Most of the songs feature a short intro that differs from the rest of the track.  None of the songs sound the same or even that similar.  With the lack of vocals the songs also have a slight-lack of emotion.  It should be noted that the percussion is much more dynamic towards the end of the album. 


The first time I heard the record it was a little overwhelming; I thought all the songs went on for too long or just weren't that well written.  Upon each further listen I raised my score of the album to where it is now.  


1 - Tempting Time -                             8.5/10
2 - Soraya -                                         7.5/10
3 - Thourougly At Home -                     7/10
4 - On Impulse -                                  7.25/10
5 - Tessitura -                                        7/10
6 - Behaving Badly -                            8.5/10
7 - The Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing -    6.5/10
8 - CAFO -                                          7/10
9 - Inamorata -                                    7.5/10
10 - Point to Point -                            7.5/10
11 - Modern Meat -                            7.5/10
12 - Song of Solomon -                       8/10


After listening to this album there are two things you have to admit about it:
1 - He's an amazing and talented guitarist
2 - One instrument isn't everything

The majority of this album manages to escape the usual pitfalls of the genre, solo guitar artists and instrumentals. I'm confident Animals as Leaders have a bright future in the world of heavy metal.

          70/100