Cliche as it may (does) sound, I learned a long time ago not to say “never”. The universe, nature, mankind, everything around us; has consistently proven itself capable of accomplishing feats that generations previous probably never imagined could be possible. I truly believe that just about anything is possible.

But wait, that’s not even really the issue I want to address. What I really want to get at here is that Ebert (and probably many others) are claiming that gaming cannot be art.

Art.

Maybe I’m missing something, but last I checked, there is no quantifiable or universal definition of art. In fact, at least, for me, the true nature and subsequent beauty of art, is derived from the very fact that art is an analogue we have fashioned from our interpretation of the expressions and intentions of various creators. In other words, I honestly believe that art is simply the expression and appreciation of the human element.

Art.

We have defined many things as art throughout history, have we not? Paintings, song, film, acts, writings, even declarations and atrocities. Expressions. I am not advocating that absolutely everything EVER is art. Far from it. But if someone is stirred by another’s willful dissemination, then who am I to say that that thing isn’t art to them? Video games have evolved into incredible tapestries of emotion, participation and technological prowess. Rich narratives are told, sounds swell and beat and visuals paint our screens in myriad hues, shapes and styles. For many of us, these games are paramount experiences in our lives. Sound trite? I don’t think so. Remember the first time you sat down and played Super Mario Bros. and watched that cheeky little plumber jump around? Remember Pac-Man? Jump forward. Remember Silent Hill and the way it reached into your psyche and toyed with you? Shadow of the Colossus and the goosebumps you felt when the game translated its motivations into such simplicity and beauty? Little Big Planet, a game that literally provides a digital canvas, ripe with player fabrication and ingenuity?

Today, the medium is more elaborate and prolific than ever. Developers collaborate with writers, composers and get this: artists, to create games of such startling quality, that it simply transcends the possibilities and considerations of yester-year. That’s the point. In every conceivable step of game creation, there is an abundance of creativity and personal divulgence being crafted. Video games are designed to elicit emotion: excitement, laughter, sadness, satisfaction, anger and joy. They are successful (as many of you know) in this regard. Gaming has evolved to stimulate society as well as our minds. They are topical, comedic, violent, intelligent and sometimes, downright bad. I suppose I can’t be sure, but I’m reasonably certain the same can be said for books, cinema, music and paintings.

For me personally, I love gaming for the experience it provides. Games tell stories through dialogue, music, cinematics and by requiring the observer to participate in the symphony of these elements. The engagement here is immersive; in every sense of the word.

Art. I’ll say it shortly now and express my thesis. To me, gaming is absolutely art. Ebert mentions that we shouldn’t care. That is doesn’t matter and that we should simply enjoy gaming for what it is. Fine Roger. I will. I will enjoy it as the cultivated, imaginative and dynamic medium that it is.

I will enjoy it as art.

Cheers,

~E.

I had previously read Dan Brown’s ‘The Da Vinci Code’ and loved it, so I expected a good read here too. It certainly helps that I have a strange but rather strong interest in religious symbology. I find it incredibly fascinating and alluring and the books touch on the subject with considerable intelligence.

I’m about 100 or so pages into ‘Coldheart Canyon’ by Clive Barker and I can tell you this right now: he is one of the greater authors I have read, period. His mastery of storytelling, prose and themes are simply spellbinding. There was a chapter in which he goes in great length to detail the death of a dog close to the protagonist. I never, in a million years, expected Clive Barker to tug at my heartstrings with an account of a man and his dog; but I’ll be damned if I wasn’t ready to cry after that. That’s how good he is. And I’m only about 20% in. This book is gonna rock the shit.

Cheers,

~E.

I find that I am at a strange juxtaposition. I want to continue to write, but I find myself tiring of the “reviewing” process. Though I am in NO way at the same level, in either quantity OR quality, as professional reviewers, I can understand why they start to get jaded on the material they review, even when they love it as a whole. Whenever I got a new game in from Gamefly or go to see a new movie in the theaters, I found myself starting to formulate my approach to the review of the media instead of simply consuming it, enjoying it then expelling my thoughts.

This systematic approach began to limit the overall gratification I derived from games and movies. Not by any large margin, mind you, but I could sense it. The feeling was kind of simple, actually. A part of me was simply screaming out to take a step back and just play. Just play. Hmmm. It sounded and felt right. The whole purpose of gaming and film is to administer entertainment. You may experience side effects, including knowledge acquisition, conviction and sorrow (or anger); but the over-arching motivation is to captivate and indulge the consumer.

Fuck. I don’t really know where I’m going with this. I think the thesis I’m attempting to construct here is that I don’t really want to strictly review things here. I think I still want to discuss them and divulge my feelings about them (games, movies, tech) but not necessarily straight-up review them. Maybe that simply means not assigning a score. Holkins might be on to something, scoring is a completely subjective and esoteric process relegated for the industry as a whole, not personal assignment.

I want to start blogging a bit more on my opinions as well. I don’t really want this to be a diary, per se, but a digital canvas for me to express myself on. Short, long, geeky, possibly poignant (unlikely). Whatever.

I feel like this damn blog is constantly changing (we’ll call it evolving, it sounds better) and it frustrates me a little but I think it’s for the best. I’m still going to be writing about the things I love so fear not, the geekery will definitely continue and hopefully with that, so will the blogging.

Cheers.

I’d really like to say that I LOVE Guy Ritchie movies. But I can’t honestly make that claim. Why? Well, because I really do LOVE Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch and Revolver. That’s not exactly his entire career. But those three movies are a decent lens into the style of film-making that Mr. Ritchie has subscribed to. So despite that potential inaccuracy, I’m more or less willing to make that statement. Guy’s movies tend to be disjointed, chaotic, violent, humorous and clever. The idea is that there is always something deeper than what he is showing you. Like jazz, it’s not about the obvious cues, it’s about what lies right behind them. He loves the off notes and the ethereal. Not in a ghostly sense, but in the way that what he wants the viewer to understand is perpetually outside their scope of vision at the time. His striated brand of story-telling is not for everyone, granted, but it appeals to me and that’s what matters here on MY blog.

When I discovered that the new ‘Sherlock Holmes’ was a Guy Ritchie film, there was immediately a two-fold reaction. Plenty of excitement and a considerably amount of apprehension as well. For me, Ritchie’s films succeed because they fall outside of the palette of many viewers. I mean, if you take a look at any of the 3 films I listed above, I’m sure plenty of people would tell you that they either didn’t understand them (the humor, wit or story) or didn’t like them. And to be fair, they aren’t exactly simple narratives carried on the shoulders of simple characters. There’s a lot going on in his films at any given time and missing one small scene could mean a complete lack of context for successive scenes. Once you understand what’s going on though, it’s a ride not to be missed. I could (and do) watch his movies over and over. So for ‘Sherlock Holmes’ I knew he was going to have to tone that down. A movie of this caliber (production-wise) simply couldn’t possess his true style of crafting and I knew that. Nonetheless, he had a lot to work with and Downey Jr., Law and McAdams are three actors I actually enjoy greatly. So we’re off to a decent start.

The movie mostly follows sort of standard blockbuster convention. This sounds like a bad thing, I think but really, in this case, it works really, really well. It does this because it hits on all the highs that I would expect from a high production title, but maintains a core of uniqueness that allows it to be both palatable and well… really good. Certainly entertaining. The title of the film should be an obvious indication of the focus and since we’re talking about Robert Downey Jr., it’s marvelous. The man may have his share of demons, but I’ll be damned if he isn’t one charming, hilarious and gifted actor. From start to finish, he carries the movie and it’s a romping good time. This will seem strange to say, I suppose, but… oh, the hell with it: Holmes is ridiculously badass in this movie. Yeah. Badass. And you know what? It’s awesome. I liked it. I did. I really did. The humor is very familiar, but for me, it’s not stale. Jude Law is an actor I have respected and enjoyed for quite some time now and he doesn’t disappoint here. The character is bit on the cliche side, but suffers only slightly from it. With the character that Sherlock embodies on-screen, there just isn’t much more room for flash or eccentricity.

I heart McAdams and her role was so-so. Fine.

The story is fascinating enough, revolving around the ever elusive Lord Blackwood and Holmes’ attempts to track him down and unravel the threads of his schemes. The occult-ish themes caught my attention certainly, but by the end, I have to admit that I found the story to lack the real substance I was hoping for. I think this is where the film shows it’s “blockbuster” traits, since I think that more could’ve been done considering the captain at the helm here. Nonetheless, the story is more than adequate to drive the movie forward. The ending was a little trite but simultaneously satisfying and creates an effective desire to re-watch the film.

One area that was Mr. Ritchie made his presence known in was his all-so-familiar cinematography. Love or hate it, it was there. Personally, I LOVE it. I’m not one of those self-righteous assholes who sees an effect or shot once then puts my nose up in the air everytime I see it afterwards. Sure, effects or lens tricks can certainly be overused, but if the context of either the style or ambiance in the movie allows for them, I see no problem with getting silly with visuals. Guy loves his slo-mo, always has, and from what I can tell, always will. It’s honestly fine by me because I always enjoy the method in which he employs it. Frames are intentional and the cut is focused on a particular action. He’s not just slowing things down for the hell of it, he wants to show you something. He wants you to understand that the man on screen isn’t just being punched; he is being hurt, a lot. It’s effective and sounds and looks great IMO.

The film takes full advantage of the rather vintage and raw portrayal of Sherlock Holmes from the novels of yore as well as some graphic novels. For some reason, the whole public over thinks that the character Holmes has always been a pacifist. Weird, considering that both he and Watson are indeed rough and tumble at times, with Holmes being an ex-boxer and Watson resorting to the fist a good amount of times in some of the older books and certainly in the graphic novels. In any event, it’s solid entertainment from start to finish, with plenty of action to boot. The trailers don’t betray the movie either. This is a shameless adventure film, with plenty of fighting and violence, so if you don’t appreciate that brand of Sherlock Holmes or find it to be a translation fallacy, then don’t even bother. I’m sure your philosophy books can keep you busy in the meantime.

A last nuance to note was the film score. None other than the brilliant Hans Zimmer is the creator of the music in ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and it’s just wonderful stuff. That’s right. Wonderful. As always, the score brings a stronger sense of vitality to the screen and the foggy London-town feeling is further enhanced with the melodious strings compositions with swells of crescendo and sudden staccato. It all works well together.

‘Sherlock Holmes’ was a fine movie. A damn fine movie. It’s good, solid entertainment across the board. It has action, humor, romance and mystery. You know what it is? It’s fun. A lot of fun. So go see it and keep an open mind. I really do think you’ll have a pretty good time.

Overall Score (out of 10): 9.0

Summary

Story/Writing: The narrative is a bit vanilla but certainly not bad. If not for the strong characters, this would’ve been a fairly weak aspect. Writing is clever, however, with a healthy injection of charisma and wit.

Acting/Cast: Both are good. Robert Downey Jr. is simply incredible and Jude Law follows very closely behind, despite a considerable disadvantage in character writing. McAdams is, very unfortunately, the weak leg on the tripod. Her role is rather flimsy and you get the sense that she could’ve been replaced. Not a terrible performance though.

Camera/Cinematography: Classic Guy Ritchie. The London-town dreariness is present and the film texture is somewhat gritty, much like the characters. There’s plenty of slo-mo, but for me, it plays out well and is purposeful.

Sound/Music: Ideally, you want good sound to accompany a blockbuster and ‘Sherlock Holmes’ isn’t lacking in this area. The explosions, punches and ambiance are all well done and appropriate. It might seem a bit much at times, and well, it is. The music is incredible, indicative of Zimmer’s ability to create a aural dimension that effectively supplements the film.

Website: http://sherlock-holmes-movie.warnerbros.com/

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/

On occasion, I figure I could still write about a particularly engaging or outstanding dining experience but as it stands now, mentioning each new place I eat at is adding a ton of material to a stack that grows larger everyday, thanks to Gamefly and Netflix. On top of that, I want to start integrating a few more bits about my life; things I am experiencing or thoughts and observations I am having. I also want to start writing some quick blurbs about tech or gaming news. I’ve had a few of these posts and I’d like to keep that alive, even if it’s just a short snapshot of something I consider to be noteworthy.

So there will likely be some renovations to this blog, not that anybody cares. Just letting the few of you who might actually read these ramblings know that there will probably be some forthcoming changes.

Considering my general affinity for all things geeky (film, games, gadgets, etc…), it took me a surprisingly long time to get caught up with what ‘Avatar‘ really was. I had heard that it was a huge project from James Cameron, whose work I thoroughly enjoy (Aliens, T2… come on). Still, for whatever reason, I didn’t religiously hunt down trailers or look up announcement or anything like that. I kind of just waited the whole thing out.

Weird, right?

So for a while, all I knew was the director, that it was huge and that it was supposed to be pretty exciting and crazy. Then about 2 or 3 weeks before it came out, I was witness to my first, full ‘Avatar’ trailer. I was immediately enticed, as this was the desired effect, and the seductive tendrils of bright colors, sparkling lights and violence captured me quickly. Still, there was just the slightest hint of uncertainty. This was supposed to be a huge hit and I had noticed an awful lot of CG going on… As I viewed more trailers, the idea of the movie became more evident and I was further drawn in. I was now genuinely excited for the release.

And what a release it was.

‘Avatar‘ is one of those movies that invades and propagates throughout the media network like a virus. Each plug, each ad, gives birth to a new cell of delivery and it spread like the plague. This movie was fucking everywhere. Seeing it at release just wasn’t in the cards for me, so I waited patiently while everyone else lavished seemingly impossible amounts of praise and accolade on the movie. People that were skeptical were beaming with positive reviews and the acclaim was palpable. It started to get to the point where I just didn’t think this movie could possibly be the finely crafted portrait that was being painted. Then there was the whole 3-D aspect. What? I would totally have to try that.

So alright, onto the movie. From the onset, and I mean that literally, this movie captures you. Perhaps it was the 3-D, in fact, I know that played into it. Either way, this is a film that captivates unlike any other film I have ever seen. I’m not saying that it’s the best movie I’ve seen, but I am saying that it held me suspended in a web of sheer awe for the entirety of its nearly 3 hour running time. That’s not easy to do. The whole thing is an unbelievable sensory experience. The focus of this film was clearly its presentation and distinct conceptual perspective on a rather common theme in filmmaking. The idea here is the age-old “white man is sent to invade/destroy a native/indigenous group of people, ends up sympathizing with their way of life, falls in love, shifts loyalties to the people he was sent to persecute. It’s been done before but I’ll say two things about that: 1. James Cameron wrote the framework for the film in 1994, earlier than most think; 2. Just because it’s been done before, that doesn’t at all dictate that it can’t be good. This is something that I’m a bit sensitive about because it kind of pisses me off. Too many people fancy themselves some kind of deep and complex individual who “truly” comprehends the nuances of film, narrative and scope. I’m not saying that I do, in every regard, but I am willing to be liberal when it comes to my conceptions about film (or many other things, for that matter). First off, writing a screenplay is not writing a book. Not at all. I don’t know much on the topic, and won’t claim to, but I know that much. Second of all, not every-goddamn-thing that is written, displayed or heard needs to be original. Get off your fucking high horse. If it’s done well and effectively and fluently translates the intended emotion and ideological core of the film, then there’s certainly merit there. If an intricate narrative is essential to your enjoyment in fim, then why are you bothering in the first place? The trailers certainly don’t convey an amazingly deep story behind its glossy exterior. No, you don’t have to like it. That’s how it goes. It’s art, and therefore an expression and ultimately subject to any type of criticism. That’s fine. But debasing something simply because one thinks that it’s not a novel concept or “has been done before” is, in my opinion, just not a good enough reason. For me, it borderlines on arrogance.

That being said, yes, the story isn’t the strong selling point here. It’s fine with me though and it’s a wonderful infrastructure for the true focus of the film. Once the audience is taken to Pandora, Cameron never stops illustrating the beauty, wonder and power of this world. I find that it’s a bit difficult to interpret the affair accurately, but one always feels as though they are on a sci-fi safari of sorts, observing the incredible ecology of something beyond our own habitat. Something wonderful and pure; derelict and dangerous as it may be. The colors are vibrant, the flora is illuminated, the wildlife glows. The entire world of Pandora brims with an organic elegance and it is lithely presented to the viewer. Though the “connection to nature” theme is also familiar, I absolutely loved the idea of the Na’vi physically connecting themselves to their world, both the land and the animals. For me, that brand of creativity is the essence of the film and is part of what animates and inspires the sigificance of ‘Avatar‘. There is a sense of mythology to the land itself and it resonates beautifully and powerfully with the characters and ultimately, out to the audience. There are plenty who will (have) take(n) issue with the “pro-nature” ideologies pervasive in the movie. Look people, this is entertainment. If Cameron wants to convey a point, well, he’s more than welcome to. Other than that, this isn’t a fucking religious scroll or parchment. By no means, does anyone have to consent to any philosophical interpretation present. Enjoyment is not synonymous with subscription. Personally, I feel like the message is pertinent, even if it is a bit trite. Call me a hippie if you’d like. Then promptly fuck off please.

The acting in the film was fine. I use that word intentionally because ‘Avatar‘ only had so much actual acting that needed to be done. What was there was good though and the performance capture influence on the animated characters was noticeable and very well done. Each Na’vi avatar looked and behaved like their human counterpart, which was cool to see. The characters were appropriate and I really never felt a strong sense of the performances feeling contrived, despite the ambitious ideals of the movie. The casting was also appropriate. Sam Worthington was a fantastic choice, as he generally leaves an impression of subdued strength and quiet prowess. I very much enjoy Sigourney in all respects and her role here is fitting. Smart, strong, bitchy. Stephen Lang is a legitimate badass, whose formidable physical presence is matched only by his violent inclinations and cunning villainy. Joel Moore, Giovanni Ribisi and Michelle Rodriguez are all good choices in their supporting roles, though I found their characters to be rather vanilla in a movie that was already rife with cliche elements. Last is Zoe Saldana who was another great choice in both voice and character and also happens to be rather easy on the eyes. It makes me super sad-face that we never get to see her as a human, as she is an actual Na’vi character.

I really would like to paint you a more vivid picture of the film, but let’s be real, you’ve probably already seen it and know exactly what I’m talking about. It’s just such an alluring piece of work and its ability to arrest then brilliantly arouse the audience’s sensory participation is impressive. The 3-D implementation is incredible and strongly recommended. If you’re even slightly considering this one, just go see it. The theatrical experience is undoubtedly worth it this time around. ‘Avatar‘ elevates movie-going to the next echelon and though it may not fall into your personal category of good film, it may be the most fun you’ve ever had while gazing at all those projected lights.

Overall Score (out of 10): 9.2

Summary

Story/Writing: Admittedly not the strong point of the film. Not bad though and provides an appropriate framework for the context and flow of the movie. Innovative expressions of some familiar elements provide a strong alleviation of thematic overexposure.

Acting/Cast: There really wasn’t a whole lot of traditional “acting” but what is there works just fine. ‘Avatar‘ uses a lot of performance capture and it works well to convey realistic movement, facial expressions and overall behaviors. The cast is well assigned from the supporting roles to the main roles.

Camera/Cinematography: This is where ‘Avatar‘ truly shines. Sure, a lot of movies can lull you in with special effects then leave you abandoned when it comes to full presentation. That’s just not the case here. The visuals are simply arresting and there is a consistent sense of awe and astonishment throughout. A legitimate tour de force in cinematic experiences.

Sound/Music: This is the full package when it comes to all things sensory and sound is part of that achievement. The whole movie is filled with incredible sound, particularly on the world of Pandora. The music is James Horner of Aliens and Titanic fame, among others.

Website: http://www.avatarmovie.com/

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/

Fracture is one of those games that almost nothing exceptionally but manages to stay afloat. The game feels very marginal in almost every single regard, which is unfortunate because there are some neat concepts, in both the idea and the execution, that were just never fully realized. The game revolves around the political and militaristic struggle between two factions with very different ideals.

This is the game’s first letdown. The idea here is that there are two warring sides with polar perspectives on human evolution. One side advocates genetic and biological advances, while the other side supports the notion of mechanical and computer driven progression. The former faction originates and resides mostly in the Western hemisphere of the US and the latter group is based in the East. So there is a geographical disparity as well. This, in and of itself, is a pretty good framework for a good narrative arc and some really neat development. This potential is largely abandoned though and the story barely pulses along, driving only the point of a violent coup and the resulting actions. Throughout the course of the game, you come into contact with only two other real characters and neither of them are particularly well fleshed out. One of the characters seems to have some strange ability to tap into your thoughts, which gave me the impression that there were going to be some really cool supernatural developments. But guess what? Nothing happened. Literally nothing. The characters was never explained, given a distinct personality, nothing. It was frustrating.

Your character, the oddly named ‘Jet’ is on the mechanically enhanced side. As such, you fight against genetically altered enemies, many possessing skills like extra speed or biological fortitude. The enemies are generally unimpressive though, coming in massive waves and chaotically running around the screen. Speaking of which, the game really does just throw too much at you at any given time. It’s not that it’s too difficult because of that, it’s more that it gives the game a very cluttered and clumsy feel. By the end of the first stage, you are already tired of the hordes of enemies and mundane gunplay that comes with their presence. There are a decent variety of weapons to play with but the caveat is that there are very few with which they provide enough ammo to consistently use. One could utilize certain weapons then simply swap out weapons as they destroy the enemy, but the sheer volume of combat in the game makes this strategy difficult to implement. Jet carries only two weapons at a time, so choosing between consistent and powerful becomes a chess match. It could be construed as strategy, but instead, I took it as annoying as shit.

Let’s get to the gimmick of Fracture. The selling point in this game is that your character can manipulate, to a certain extent, the environment around him (the ground, mostly) in order to accomplish certain goals. These goals can be getting around or under obstacles or even creating temporary cover from enemy fire. This aspect of the game was actually decently realized. The ability to create cover on the fly is a cool addition, though it seems less novel when you factor in the ridiculous amount of fire you’re taking at any given moment… The developers have also crafted some pretty decent “puzzles” of sorts, that involve some creative mastery of the earth-manipulating variety. Especially towards the end of the game.

The sound in the game is generally lackluster. The enemies make strange noises, and since there are about 1 fuckdillion of them in total, it gets to be a bit much. The guns sound awful IMO. The voicework is OK, not good or bad really, just… well…. average. I don’t even recall the music.

So with all that, you’d think this game was one of the worst titles I’ve yet to play. Oddly enough, it was not. Despite so many shortcomings, I was still able to romp through it the better of two times. Once you get through it once and understand some of the inherent flaws, it gets considerably easier and smoother to play. It’s still nothing to compare to the other LucasArts title I’ve played recently though. In the end, it’s a rental, pure and simple. Buying this game would be a gross mistake but playing it isn’t necessarily the torture I’ve painted out. The biggest problem is that it’s just so damn average. There is almost nothing, outside of the neat integration of the environment manipulation, that will draw a player in. There is strong potential for a sequel here and I would welcome that if they could create a well-ironed out product that builds on top of the truly interesting concepts they’ve created and subsequently abandoned.

Overall Score (out of 10): 6.2

Summary

Graphics/Presentation: Just realized I didn’t even touch on this in the actual review. Why? Well, probably because the graphics are just like everything else in the game. Average. Not an eyesore, by any means but not amazing either.

Gameplay: The majority of it is unimpressive. The combat is frustrating and mundane. The earth-manipulation, however, is clever and well-done. There are some fun puzzling aspects with it too.

Story/Narrative: Two sides, one has a general that goes overboard and wants to take over. You have to stop him. The end.

Sound/Music: Again, nothing worth mentioning here. Poor gun sounds and forgetful music. Decent voiceover.

Replay Value: There isn’t a whole lot of reason to come back but I have to admit that the game’s flow ramps up tremendously with one playthrough.

I had never heard of this place before a month and a half ago. For the latter half of 2009, I walked around in Downtown quite a bit, and so probably walked by this place a fair share of times. Not only did I not really think to go there, I just plain didn’t even know it was there. I think it might be new-ish? It’s not a particularly hidden place… In any case, a friend and I decided to give it a try, after discovering that it had some pretty kickass happy hour specials.

Turns out that the place does indeed have some pretty kickass HH specials. I can’t actually recall most of them, but there’s pretty much one for every night of the week and I remember them being damn good deals. The actual establishment is not terribly large, with several tall bar tables parallel to a rather large and impressive bar, then a couple of standard tables towards the rear. There are a couple of TVs hung up on each end of the bar as well. Aaron and I grabbed a couple of spots at the bar. The girl behind the bar was friendly, greeting us and grabbing us a couple of drinks to kick things off. The drink special for that night was 2-for-1, which basically equates to 50% off individual drinks. Not a bad start.

Apparently, this place is known for their burgers and T-bone steaks. So I figured, “Hey, why the fuck not?” I ordered a standard cheeseburger, drank some beer and watched the basketball game. About 15 minutes later, our good arrives. This is not a hamburger. No. This is a meatloaf, placed between the confines of two buns, adorned with vegetation. This thing is fucking massive. It was one of those scenarios where I had to sit there and contemplate my attack strategy. I cut it in half and went to work. I was defeated at half. The french fries were pretty good too, though nothing really special. The second visit was a bit different. I ordered their philly cheesesteak sandwhich and tater tots. I was no impressed with the sandwhich. The meat came in larger chunks, instead of the usually finer, shaved form I’m accustomed to. The veggies were fine for the most part. The whole meal was just largely underwhelming for me. I definitely wouldn’t order it again. Unfortunate.

The moniker feels appropriate. ‘Taste and Thirst’ most certainly conveys both ‘food’ and ‘beverage’ and the place delivered on both counts. The menu is a bit limited and the place is kind of small, but the bar is impressive and the specials are awesome. Bring a friend or two, and you’ve got some good eats and drinks to dive into.

Overall Score (out of 10): 7.6

Summary

Ambiance: This place is more of a bar than anything else. There aren’t too many tables to use but the bar is nice and big. It’s also clean and inviting.

Service: Both times the service has been friendly and talkative. Food comes quickly enough.

Food: The burgers truly are awesome. The philly sandwhich I ordered the 2nd time through was the opposite. So it’s a mixed bag.

Price/Value: They have really good specials almost every night of the week and sometimes even during the day on the weekends. Outside of that, their prices are generally pretty reasonable and on par with most bar food.

Website: http://tasteandthirst.com/wp/

Yelp: http://www.yelp.com/biz/taste-and-thirst-on-fourth-san-diego

I wasn’t really sure what to expect going into this game. After all, I’ve never played any of the predecessors. I had a general idea of what kind of game it was, and with that shallow knowledge, I assumed it was something like the ‘Medal of Honor’ series. You know, sort of standard WWII shooter, maybe something that uses a team dynamic. I was sort of right, and sort of wrong, I’d say.

Brothers In Arms: Hell’s Highway is a shooter, yes, but it somehow transcends the adjective ‘standard.’ I say “somehow”, because I’m not exactly sure how to explain how it does that, but it most certainly does. I’ll do my best to sketch you a rough idea of why this is.

Let’s start with the gameplay. Hell’s Highway is a first-person shooter, but it switches to third-person once you duck into cover. This is key, because this is the perspective you will spending over half of your overall time in, and roughly 95% of your combat time in. Brother’s In Arms takes its use of a cover system pretty seriously. Failing to find and correctly utilize proper cover, will almost certainly result in your death. The game has no qualms over punishing you for thinking that it could or should be a run-n-gun. It’s odd,  but for me, this became the game’s biggest strength and biggest weakness.

The strength lies in the fact that each battle is a high-tension, strategy-based fight for your progress. Think of it this way: there are larger levels, broken up into “stages”, which are essentially defined as the individual skirmishes you will encounter. This feels very authentic, since my understanding of war is typically not defined as a single soldier, running through hordes of enemies with little concern for health or field dynamic. Most levels involve you utilizing a team, or even several teams, of troops to aid you and provide various strategic advantages. A couple of the teams include heavy machine gun troops, which provide excellent suppressing fire, or a bazooka team, for distracting, or even destroying enemy armor. How a player uses these resources greatly changes the flow of each battle. Sometimes, I used my team to provide covering fire while I plotted a course to flank the enemy. Sometimes, I just took cover, patiently marked my enemies and went for head shots. Mind you, head shots are the way to go. Unless you have closed the distance between you and the enemy considerably, then you’re best of just going for the head. Besides, if you pull off a particularly impressive shot, there is a cool slo-mo animation involving the bullet, a head and lots of blood. Excellent.

There are several points throughout the game, where the above dynamic does not apply, though it is the consistent manner in which you will move through the game. The stages or levels where this isn’t the case, were ironically, my favorite. One level in particular, titled “Down the Rabbit Hole”, starts you with no weapon and requires that you kill enemy guards, procure their weapons, then explore an abandoned hospital on the outskirts of Holland. This was, by far, my favorite part of the game. The atmosphere created in this level was haunting and effective. The cover system still applied, but felt far more visceral. It was far less chaotic, and therefore, far more personal. Ducking behind gurneys and medicine cabinets, while fighting 3 or 4 Nazi soldiers in a dilapidated hospital is far more my style. Interestingly enough, this is also where the game begins to showcase some of the psychological elements of the title. So it’s no surprise why I loved this part so much, right? So the gameplay is good. It feels right but I said that there was a weakness as well, didn’t I? The weakness for me, was pacing. The game just felt so slow and difficult at times. Because the battles are so involved, the rush I often associate with a first-person shooter was lost to the inherently more cerebral perspective that Hell’s Highway wants you to employ. I want to make a point here. By no means is this an actual flaw in the game. I am not stating that the game is any the worse for this style of gameplay. What I am saying, though, is that for me, this sort of game flow makes it difficult to want to pick up and play. The satisfaction I typically derive from a FPS isn’t all the way present here and that sort of stifles the experience for me.

The graphics in the game are great. Character models are some of the best I’ve seen on the PS3 thus far and the locales are impressive. The game is pretty damn violent, but never inundates you with gore. It’s a very selective title when it comes to presenting blood and guts. As a whole though, the presentation in this game is unbelievable. In fact, so much so, that I was taken aback by how impressed I was with the polish of the game. The voiceover work is wonderful and the characters come to life in a way that seems far more relatable than most other titles.

Then there’s the story. The story in Hell’s Highway is downright incredible. And here’s the weird thing: there isn’t really a direct narrative being told here. The story in the game is about the lives and experiences each of the soldiers in this division are having. It is simply amazing. The main protagonist, Baker, has a story and past of his own, but the game will revolve around the perspectives of several soldiers. Each one has a unique personality, ripe with distinctive traits and behaviors. The player really feels like they know these guys. As each story plays out, the web that is weaved and the eventual outcomes all bear great importance to Baker’s own sentiments and how he perceives his troops, the war and finally, himself. It’s a masterfully written game that focuses on character elaboration, instead of a traditional arc. The characters seem to have some developments based on occurrences from Hell’s Highway’s predecessors, which I unfortunately was not familiar with. Bummer, but not having exposure to the previous titles isn’t necessary to understand things in the game.

So all in all, Brothers In Arms: Hell’s Highway is a very well polished, unique and fun FPS. I have to admit that this isn’t a title I would come back to much, though, because I simply can’t get past the relatively slow and draining pacing of the game. Like I said before though, the style of the combat is by no means a bad thing, it’s just not ideal for me is all. The presentation is well formulated and the writing in this game warrants a play-through, if nothing else.

Overall Score (out of 10): 8.1

Summary

Graphics/Presentation: The graphics are terrific and provide some of the better character models I’ve seen on the PS3 yet. Textures are reasonably smooth though I did notice some pretty heavy lagging and drops in resolution during the more involved battles. Presentation is top-notch.

Gameplay: Well done cover system and a rewarding sense of accomplishment each time you progress. The team mechanics are decently efficient though your teammate AI is rather pitiful at times. Generally slow pacing makes it a difficult “pick up and play” title.

Story/Narrative: Expertly written by any definition of the term. Each character shines with distinct personality and development and the story(ies) really showcase the unique experience of each soldier. The main character’s personal struggles and observations of the various stories provides a cohesive narrative that brings the player a really effective framework for the game.

Sound/Music: Both are good. I didn’t even touch on this in the actual review but it is worth mentioning. The voiceover is fantastic and the general ambiance of the game is well conceived. The music is pretty standard WWII thematic type stuff, chalk full of horns and military-inspired pieces. Certainly good, but very familiar.

Replay Value: Not exceptionally high. There are some hidden gems to find, but the game doesn’t have a ton of unlockables or various modes to play. I didn’t try the online though, and if done right, I could definitely see the value in that.

Website: http://brothersinarmsgame.us.ubi.com/agegate.php?destURL=/

Metacritic: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/brothersinarmshellshighway