No More Heroes for the Wii

Necronom · Post by **Necronom** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:48 pm

icycalm wrote:lol what is this world coming to

i was just having dinner at this restaurant with a copy of The Gay Science by my side, and musing on this very subject. and i thought: if someone gave me a button to push that would blow up the whole planet, i'd push it without a second thought. putting all these poor bastards out of their misery is the most that can be done about them at this point, i think

I see, how original. See, the big difference between a film critic like Roger Ebert (think you mentioned him in your "reviews" more than once) and a person like you is that he manages to write a review without any pathetic demonstration of hate against everybody who has a different opinion.

Tempest · Post by **Tempest** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:30 pm

In before drama and lock.

icycalm · Post by **icycalm** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:38 pm

Necronom wrote:I see, how original. See, the big difference between a film critic like Roger Ebert (think you mentioned him in your "reviews" more than once) and a person like you is that he manages to write a review without any pathetic demonstration of hate against everybody who has a different opinion.

You think this is a "different opinion"?

Ed Oscuro wrote: Read through Icy's review and...

I like it. Sure, grating as usual, but it's an appropriate response to an apparent glut of outlandish hyperreferentiality and a game unsubtly mocking its audience.

On the other hand, there is something to be gained from such a mix of parody and serious issues. Killer7 - which I played and enjoyed, despite being acutely aware of my general lack of engagement with the game - was most annoying (perhaps not "at its worst") when it presented a view of Japanese/American relations that was by turns insightful and myopic (if taken at face value). But sometimes what could be dismissed as an irritation is an indication one's sleeve is on fire.

If Killer7's style of argument is extended into No More Heroes, it seems that the designers have opted to present an argument multifaceted and difficult to grasp as the ultimate safeguard against the uncouth appearance of making any commentary on society's construction - while playing up its general decay and the confusion of life.

However - and this is not a small reservation - a review predicated on the rejection of postmodern story-centric approaches to game design and an appeal to solid gameplay mechanics would ideally - if this were the only review of the game I'd read* - have some more depth about those mechanics. Those comments are there, I note, and this is also categorized as a commentary, not a review, so again I see no foul.

I also highly doubt Icy failed to note that the use of dictionary definitions within reviews (and within 'net writing in general) has become a terribly overused device, and so the parody theme is extended into the commentary itself, and by association onto "new games journalism" in general. Here we see parodied the often inappropriate use of cultural anchor points out of time or place - or both; the sentence along the lines of "back then, such games were called crap games" could possibly have been a reasonable point to mention a classic kuso-ge on the Famicom) and a willingness to argue along a line of reasoning mostly dissociated from the gameplay itself. We can take the line that those who enjoy parodies are themselves parodies of "an intelligent human" and extend that to those who would look to a review written along these lines for guidance. This is a commentary, however, so that cannot be twisted into a criticism of this piece in good conscience.

Personally, I'd have found it interesting to see a survey of Japanese opinions on the matter, but half the criticism is better than none.

*Thus far, this would be true if this were a review. Barring reader comments, this is the closest thing to a regular published article I've read on the game yet.

I've read it twice and I still have no idea what he is talking about. That's why Josh told him to take another hit.

Tempest · Post by **Tempest** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:47 pm

He's not talking about sentiment towards people who don't like your review. He's talking about sentiment towards the people who like NMH. At least that's how it came off to me.

/dance puppets, dance!

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:57 pm

Bad game = good canvas for pomos to vomit their ideas onto. Action Max is the Nü Gaming. You will join me in the avante-garde of the nü aesthetic. All hail the nü flesh!

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:29 pm

Wow, a snobby and factually inaccurate article! Everything he writes must be solid gold.

icycalm · Post by **icycalm** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:34 pm

Also!

Necronom wrote:See, the big difference between a film critic like Roger Ebert (think you mentioned him in your "reviews" more than once) and a person like you is that he manages to write a review without any pathetic demonstration of hate against everybody who has a different opinion.

That's why Ebert is not as good a critic as me. Pauline Kael, who was a better critic than both Ebert and me (God bless her soul), regularly demonstrated her loathing of everybody who had a different opinion.

Naturally, more than half the film-going world hated her.

Here, have a review from someone "special" who is at peace with the world and loves everyone:

http://vidgamejournal.blogspot.com/2008 ... -game.html

This game was an incredible experience. Someone said it best that this game is sort of like Blaster Master or Ninja Gaiden for the NES - games that weren't perfect but that were incredibly fun to play and everyone had to have. The difference is that both of them games had really compelling gameplay (okay, so Ninja Gaiden also sold itself on its story) to go with them. Here, the visceral feel of the gameplay is great, even if it isn't necessarily deep. But the story and game execution and details are what sells it.

Nuke · Post by **Nuke** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:54 pm

Heh, none of these will ever top "there hasn't been a good film made since 1952!" Maltin (Satan keep his spirit).

Necronom · Post by **Necronom** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:14 pm

@icy

"That's why Ebert is not as good a critic as me."

Hehe, yeah right...here we go again. You should really try to put the arrogant part at the end of your posts/articles so people don't stop reading right at the beginning.

"Pauline Kael, who was a better critic than both Ebert and me (God bless her soul), regularly demonstrated her loathing of everybody who had a different opinion."

Completely agree with you that she has delivered some truly impressive movie reviews over the years. However, where I can't follow you is your obvious confusion of witty arguments and "stinging" humour with downright arrogance and fanboy-rage.

icycalm · Post by **icycalm** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:29 pm

Necronom wrote:You should really try to put the arrogant part at the end of your posts/articles so people don't stop reading right at the beginning.

hahaha

you obviously read all of it, dummy!

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:32 pm

@ Twiddle: 8)

MX7 wrote:However, I feel that Killer 7's depiction of the Japanese/American post war relations was deliberately reduced to a blatant binary, with both nations in stark oposition to one another. It made the mix of American and Japanese themes and settings in the game even more incompatable, which in turn accentuated the often exclusionary atmosphere.

I also feel that's the case; the funny thing is that it seems only a small step less likely than (say) the plot of MGS2. Parodies all around! Thanks for filling me in on the NMH angle.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:15 am

icycalm wrote:[...] Ebert is not as good a critic as me.

icycalm wrote:If I had been a master at Pink Sweets my review of it would have been similar to Simon's review of Shiki III. The fact that it wasn't is a failing on my part, do you understand? This is what ignorant reviewers do: they yap on and on about shit like graphics and music because they have nothing else to talk about and they have to somehow fill the space. But I had to review the game because no one else would.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... &start=240

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:36 am

THE ARROW BUTTON IS NOW BROKEN DON'T REPAIR IT

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:44 am

Ebert always clears the second loop.

Zebra Airforce · Post by **Zebra Airforce** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:30 am

Ebert watches movies forwards and backwards.

Nuke · Post by **Nuke** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:32 am

Ebert watches the birth tapes of his stepchildren in backwards.

Zebra Airforce · Post by **Zebra Airforce** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:38 am

Ebert watches movies in a vacuum.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:41 am

Ebert reviewed insomnia.ac - 2/5

icycalm · Post by **icycalm** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:01 am

jpj wrote:Ebert reviewed insomnia.ac - 2/5

you've never even been to his site, eh?

you've never even read a film review in your life, have you?

film reviewers rate out of 4, dummy

edit: here is my new name for this forum: shmucks.com

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:02 am

I read his review of your 2D Gaming outburst in "Your Post Sucks."

Ebert watches the birth tapes of his stepchildren in backwards.

Partly correct. He unbirths them with his asshole and uses their skin for New Ebert (the one that appears on camera.) The last time Old Ebert appeared was in this music video.

Zebra Airforce · Post by **Zebra Airforce** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:07 am

I heard Ebert attempted to review every YTMND ever created. He was almost finished when he went insane and tried to 'rebuild' Siskel using his old hoover. Some say if you lay crumbs on the floor of Ebert's attic and leave, you'll hear the monotone drone of Siskel's horrifying drapery attachment...

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:05 am

Zebra Airforce wrote:Ebert watches movies in a vacuum.

Icy/calm abhors a vacuum

icycalm wrote:edit: here is my new name for this forum: shmucks.com

I loled at this.

Zebra Airforce · Post by **Zebra Airforce** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:53 am

Ebert got five perfect karate-chops in a row in Kirby Super Star.

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:54 am

Ebert is his own projectionist.

What this means is that he projects himself into the game console's internals and pummels the transistors into the desired shape.

Edit: Ebert gave Tron 4 out of 4 stars.

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:58 am

That's sorta like in the game Chester Cheetah: Too Cool to Fool where Chester would drastically change the structure of the game depending on whether or not he felt like playing by those rules.

MX7 · Post by **MX7** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:51 am

icycalm wrote:
film reviewers rate out of 4, dummy

I don't think any serious film reviewer has ever rated anything on any sort of scale. Perhaps you are thinking of TV listings magazines?

Erinu · Post by **Erinu** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:48 am

This forum is really going to shit. I'm not even going to ask where the NMH discussion is.

JoshF · Post by **JoshF** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:53 am

You know very well where it is.

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:33 am

Icycalm - I don't really mind you saying people who disagree are idiots (as long as it's justified), but I kinda wish you'd spend more time on games you review. I noticed in your Rabio Lepus review you admitted to playing it only two days. I'd probably stop playing at that point too as I'm not really into most PC Engine shooters, but then I'm not writing game reviews. Hold your nose and give the stinkers somewhat of a chance - I find that my opinion of games can often change drastically after I put a few hours into them.

Rip me to pieces and call me an idiot if you like - I feel that this is a legitimate criticism. I'm not trying to jump on you because everyone else is, this is just a friendly suggestion for something you could improve upon.

icycalm · Post by **icycalm** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:37 am

I am going to write a long article on this. Here's the gist of it, if you are smart:

Movies do not change, but their viewers do. When I saw "La Dolce Vita'' in 1960, I was an adolescent for whom "the sweet life'' represented everything I dreamed of: sin, exotic European glamour, the weary romance of the cynical newspaperman. When I saw it again, around 1970, I was living in a version of Marcello's world; Chicago's North Avenue was not the Via Veneto, but at 3 a.m. the denizens were just as colorful, and I was about Marcello's age.

When I saw the movie around 1980, Marcello was the same age, but I was 10 years older, had stopped drinking, and saw him not as a role model but as a victim, condemned to an endless search for happiness that could never be found, not that way. By 1991, when I analyzed the film a frame at a time at the University of Colorado, Marcello seemed younger still, and while I had once admired and then criticized him, now I pitied and loved him. And when I saw the movie right after Mastroianni died, I thought that Fellini and Marcello had taken a moment of discovery and made it immortal. There may be no such thing as the sweet life. But it is necessary to find that out for yourself.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 10336/1023