Who're you gonna call? Crapbuster! AVGN vs. the Media

About a week ago, James Rolfe, the guy who played the Angry Video Game Nerd on a web series of the same name, made a video saying that he will not be seeing the new Ghostbusters...movie and just that.

Sounds alright to me, I mean I don't blame him, the movie looks retarded and with trying to bank on having an all female lead cast to justify its existence. Not that I hold the original one as something like a sacred cow, far from it; in fact I find it quite silly and ridiculous and probably not to be taken seriously (not in a good way). Though I oddly find it more fitting to watch on Halloween than a bunch of horror films (barring silly s--t like Leprechaun and It) given that it deals with the dead indirectly through the featuring of spirits from deceased people but I digress. Anyway, the reason I find the Ghostbusters franchise to be too stupid for my tastes is that I just find the whole ghost "bustin'" business to be stupid altogether given that the lead guys look like they have better things to do than do that s--t (that or maybe I'm just not into supernatural stuff, usually). Granted I haven't seen the original film nor its sequel but that'll be something I might keep in mind but I'm not really worried about that.

No, the thing that concerns me or rather annoys me is how the media (and other people) responded to him. I mean there's countless articles and tweets making him look like he's an evil sexist pig, an MRA, or whatever. Hell the Cinema Snob guy went out of his way to attack him or rather strawman his ass; seeing a member of Channel Awesome go after the AVGN makes me wonder if the Nostalgia Critic will get involved. I hope not or else the whole Nerd vs. Critic thing might become real and not in a good way but I rather not speculate here. Anyway, those articles are trash and do nothing to address the perhaps rightly low expectations of the new Ghostbusters. Apparently from what they say, I'm supposed to believe Rolfe this whole time is making me hate women in games because he plays into the stereotypical "gamer nerd" look in his AVGN videos? Odd, I thought I was supposed to hate the mostly bad games he plays and the only things I flat out disagree with him on is on Lester the Unlikely and definitely Rockman Legends 1.

 

The reason I say the big large scale reactions to his refusal to see the new Ghostbusters don't help at all is how stupid the existence of them are. I mean all of that garbage because he doesn't want to see something that might suck in his eyes (and maybe objectively to ours as well)? Talk about a serious overreaction, these articles that spew that crap remind me of why I tend to take such articles with a grain of salt given that they tend to be nonsensical (and making dumb statements like Trump is some sort of fascist but that's another story for another time). That and the whole reaction to people not wanting the new Ghostbusters movie as some sort of MRA, sexist backlash is idiotic beyond belief. I have never seen such a big defense for something that well shouldn't be in the first place given that there are countless pointless remakes out there (Red Dawn 2012 anyone?). But I will tell you one thing, I'm not seeing it because I know for a fact that it looks stupid, and that I don't care if the leads are women, I just don't. That and just don't twist my words to make me something I'm not; it's one thing to disagree with me and Rolfe and say that the film might be at least decent but it's another to strawman the hell of us, it's just intellectually dishonest and harmful.

Minitruth!: Homefront Retcons its Backstory

I know I may be late to the news about the new Homefront game (god I don't know why people bother with it but I'll get to that in a minute) having a new "backstory", but with the release of the game today, now's a good time to talk about it.

For those of you who don't know much about the "mythos" of Homefront, I'll give you the skinny: apparently North Korea has the capability to invade the United States in the 2020's after Kim Jong-Il died (which he did actually in the same year the game came out) and having his son take his place (which also happened). That was in 2011 and 5 years later North Korea still would rather saber rattle with its southern neighbor than peace talks and still is a crap hole (and Un is still an a--hole). Well that was what the previous Homefront game had in its backstory, the new game still had the same premise; North Korea somehow being able to invade the USA (and yeah it still sucks but it gets worse). But the twist is that the new game, Homefront Revolution, has an alternate history where North Korea loses the Korean War but somehow is able to exist and transition to a capitalist nation even though it would definitely be annexed under rule of Seoul. Then this Apex Corporation was formed by some guy who had a mixed ancestry consisting of a white father and a Korean mother and his son took over when he died and then made a bunch of advanced tech and stuff. And then acts like sort of a bank to the US and then when the US couldn't repay its debts, they go off and occupy the country.

 

And if you ask me about what I think of this, it's s--t, perhaps even more than the original Homefront's backstory. Now while I'll give praise to a "realistic" way of taking over the US via initially bloodless occupation accompanied with humanitarian aid, but I'm still baffled at why bother with having North Korea as the antagonist rather than just having Apex itself be the villain? Perhaps it's because Dambusters (formerly Crytek UK oddly enough) think that there's worth in making North Korea a "superpower" invader? But if that's so then that's retarded, given that North Korea has no chance of invading the US in any shape or form; hell the best it could do is invade South Korea and maybe parts of China and Japan. Maybe that would make a more interesting scenario but no the Western market apparently demands the US to be "invaded" by North Korea no matter what. That and there's so much wrong with having North Korea still be a relevant world power that just lost the Korean War; hell the idea of having the Soviet Union lasting into the 21st century is more realistic.

 

Now it's no secret that the invading force was going to be China (and perhaps rightly so given that China has a lot of resources and manpower) but of course after some guy told them that China might ban the existence of Kaos Studios (the guys behind the original Homefront) if they proceeded with this idea, so they chickened out and made the antagonists North Koreans; same with the s--tty Red Dawn remake. And thus a potentially awesome franchise has been crippled by cowardice, talk about shameful display. The recent retcon of the franchise's setting still continues this nonsense as you have seen before and perhaps the biggest reason why I don't care for it anymore and honestly wished it should have stayed dead alongside THQ's rotted corpse (and yeah I'm aware by now that Crytek isn't publishing the game perhaps for a good reason).

 

My antipathy for Revolution is exemplified when I some footage of the Homefront Revolution game through an Angry Joe streaming video on youtube and I just can't help but still feel antipathetic even though I'm not supposed to given how stupid the backstory is. It reminds me that the developers are trying to take the game really seriously when they shouldn't be in the first place. Even though I'm sure the gameplay might be better this time around given that it's supposed to simulate realistic guerrilla warfare but the setting is what kills it; I could care less about the graphics which look like it was made 3 to 4 years ago IMO. I'm sorry but with the fact that the series keeps compromising the believability of its backstory, I refuse to take this game seriously and play it; yep I'm refusing to play it because well why give them the money if you really don't want the medium they're making. That kind of hypocrisy is perhaps the reason why this s--t franchise is getting another game even though it probably shouldn't by now.

 

Oh well, if Dambusters wants to continue that franchise then maybe they should reboot Homefront into a more ridiculous, light and soft franchise ala Metal Slug if they're going to keep compromising the setting because well why bother, or better yet just make a new Timesplitters game (seriously, they were Free Radical at one point, talk about a shameful display; that and Haze).

Gotta Catch Em All!: Pokemon Sun and Moon's First Trailer Revealed!

Well, it seems Nintendo is quite serious about celebrating the 20th anniversary of a certain franchise (unlike SNK with another franchise), and that franchise in particular would be Pokémon. It's no secret that Pokémon is a big name in and outside of gaming and well if you ask me, it's awesome. Anyway the big news I'm talking that brings me in regards to the franchise is the reveal of the first trailer of the upcoming Pokémon Sun and Moon (see here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn25hijDL7c).

 

And like always, it's going to be awesome right off the bat (though I will admit I wasn't excited for X and Y but I'll get to that in a minute). Though I do wonder how on earth Sun and Moon would differentiate from its predecessors in terms of gameplay; already I know it's going to be a lot aesthetically similar to X, Y, and those 3DS remakes of Sapphire and Ruby (that and using the lame font for the Western titles for Pokémon when by now they should be using more "fitting" fonts like how the Eastern titles are but I digress). But hey, it's Pokémon, so it should be good at least but I would like to talk about what's already being shown.

 

So right off the bat, we get to see the starter pokemon: a grass type owl, a fire cat, and a waterish sea lion (somehow I'm reminded of AH.com and Gamergate just seeing the name). I personally think the cat is the most cutest (its name is Litten by the way), and that the owl creeps me out, given that I have a distaste for owls in general (though Hedwig and that owl from Disney's Sword on the Stone are okay); the sealion pokemon is in the middle and just barely matches the cuteness of Litten. And yeah I know when they evolve, they get more badass/cooler like how every starter pokemon becomes (especially Gekkouga/Greninja, and frankly I rather refer to it by the Japanese name than the English name but I digress).

 

Then of course there's the setting, and I like it given that it looks very exotic and stuff. From what I can tell it looks a lot like Hawaii, but then again it might taking influences from Ryukyu and the Pacific Islands in general. Not a bad design choice I must say, though I will admit I prefer when Game Freak takes inspirations from the Eastern world for the game worlds given that I'm more fascinated by the East in general; and hence why I wasn't all up for X and Y when it had a region based on France. Yeah, I know Black and White had a region based on New York but I was sort of Francophobic at the time (you can thank the Charile Hebdo incident for erasing that hideous prejudice from my life); nowadays I'm much more willing to play X and Y (more likely X) and look past the inspiration for the setting. But anyways, the region that Sun and Moon is called Alola based of you guessed it, the well known Hawaiian greeting for Hello and yeah it's a very lazy name, probably one of the weak points of this game already.

 

And in addition there's the characters, complete with the player characters and some bad ass looking samurai, professor dude to give you your starter pokemon of choice (and your rival's as well). That and some dude named Kukui who might likely be the professor's assistant and  well looks handsome (and maybe could provide fanservice for people sexually interested in men for all I care). The one that bothers me is the design of the female trainer, I mean she looks like she came from a poverty stricken village. Not that I have anything against people suffering from poverty but I'm really baffled as to why Game Freak made her the way she is. That and she wears some stupid looking hat that looks like a squid. It appears to be a recent trend where Game Freak's character design seems to be slipping downwards with the odd designs for the female trainer and other characters in the Sapphire/Ruby 3DS remakes. I know I may be nitpicking but I expected her as a pokemon trainer to look as cool as the male trainer who looks like Jontron; might as well give him a cyborg parrot and a big nose. But at least b####ing about the run down looks of her is more worthy of attention than something idiotic like SJW-style b####ing about the possibility of female characters wearing bikinis in the game (and there better be some given that it's a tropical setting).

 

So while there isn't anything for me to comment on the gameplay given that it still looks good, I will say that I do hope it does something different to get people on board with this as I said before. But for now I'm quite glad that a Pokémon game is coming out and still looks good but I still think there should more to it than what we got in the trailer, perhaps E3 might give us more (or not given that Nintendo wants to focus all its E3 stuff on that NX Zelda game but that's another post for another time).

Over the Top!: The Coming of Inifinite Warfare and Battlefield Word One

Well, it's 2011 again and there once again another COD and Battlefield game seemingly at each other's throat but there's a twist (or rather a twist and a half in this case). For COD, Infinite Warfare has been announced and it seems to go into space (even further than Ghosts did) and for Battlefield, it's going all the way back to WW1 (and going as far as to be named Battlefield 1 but I'll get to that in a minute).Now for the sake of clarity I'm going to give the two games a fair shake given that to me they both seem to deal with interesting ideas (though I will admit the BF1...one seems more interesting the most).

 

With Infinite Warfare, it's well...going to space like I said earlier, complete with spaceships and fighting in orbital stations; though to be fair Ghosts had fighting in space too. But in this case, IW seems to be expanding on the idea and in the process, actually going to deal with space colonial rebellion; though given this is COD we're talking about here the chances of the devs caring about this concept would be 50/50 at best (though I will admit I haven't played any COD game since MW3 and that game kind of burnt me out but that's for another discussion for another time). That and the COD being pumped out every year and I'm definitely with the majority that having the franchise be like that is not good at all. And perhaps that might be the reason why the announcement trailer is getting a lot of dislikes (look at the like-dislike ratio under the video!) though others can speculate that haters gotta hate or whatnot but I make my case here. COD really needs to stop with the yearly garbage and take the time to execute its ideas properly but then again Activision's like "we got to have...money" (and honestly I wish Rich of ReviewTechUSA should have used Lickboot's face instead of Kotick's, it's more fitting that way). And that COD seems to be hatin' on the current gen with the last game literally having no singleplayer at all, so frankly at this point IW should just no last gen versions, period. And with other COD games I just hope the singleplayer make it worth playing to me (and no I don't care for multiplayer though sadly that's what COD's about but again another subject for another time).

 

Next, with Battlefield...One (just a minute), it's heading towards WWI, a setting that's not very explored much in gaming outside of strategy stuff like Making History: The Great War. And I say not very explored in that there's really no clear bad guy in WWI, outside of maybe the Ottoman Empire (given that they were perpetrating the Armenian Genocide) and more fittingly the Black Hand organization (who were responsible for the whole mess), unlike WWII were there was the Axis Powers comprised of mostly evil regimes known to history (though arguably Fascist Italy was the least evilest but still). That and WWI is more regarded as an unpopular war and rightfully so given that the whole mess that began the war should have been solved with rational thinking (but unfortunately that's what the heads of Austria-Hungary were lacking). But anyway, it's quite interesting that Battlefield is heading in this direction given that WWI was the forefather of modern war with trenches, air planes, tanks, and machine guns coming into common use (though tanks were a bit late so to say). That and it seems to be using melee weapons more often which makes since given that fighting inside trenches is a pretty cramped affair. In addition there's like some fancy looking characters that sort of stick out to me like that guy wielding a sword with a couple scars on his face riding a horse, some heavily armored solider wielding a heavy machine gun of some kind (though I highly doubt any soldier looked like that in the war), and of course some black dude with a C96 Mauser and a cape of some kind and he takes the cake (and yes there are plenty of black folks who fought in WWI); oh and zeppelins, which did see service in the war (though I kind of don't care for them since they look lame to me). Needless to say with a setting that's not done in a game with a scale like Battlefield's, I would choose Battlefield Word One as the more interesting out of the two simply for the setting and the elements of that war it's dealing with; though given Battlefield's track record since the beginning of this decade really dropped the ball with singleplayer beginning with Bad Company 2 (and that sucked if you ask me), the least I expect is to be somewhat more than decent. The only thing that bothers me right now more than how the singleplayer would play out is the title; I mean Battlefield 1? Isn't there already a "Battlefield 1", which is Battlefield 1942? Now granted that's the title of the first game possibly justifying the title of the new one coming out but still it's very confusing given that by now BF1 refers to BF1942 (same with XB1 referring to the original Xbox, shame on Microsoft for naming the current one the XBONE). With that in mind, it should have been named Battlefield 0 or Battlefield 191X given it's set over a century ago (it makes me wonder why creators often give stupid titles like BF1 but I digress). Despite having an odd title that shouldn't exist, I hope that the new BF game would do WWI justice but for the moment I'll wait and see.

 

With that said, it seems the two FPS titans are at it again (far more than last year IMO) but this time it looks like BF Word One's taking the lead on this one and perhaps justifiably so given that BF seems more high quality than IW (but then again had a s##tty campaign from what I heard). Not that I want IW to suck, far from it; I still want the new game to do well at least in the singleplayer department if it wants to be something of worth. Though given how many dislikes the first trailer got, it would be interesting to see how the new COD would perform but maybe unsurprisingly well but on the other hand maybe a lot lower than the sales of the last one, giving Activision an incentive to let the franchise some air and do something else but that might not happen anytime soon (especially with Activision making gamers buy the IW game for the remaster of the first Modern Warfare which IMO looks better than IW in terms of graphics oddly enough). Even though I'm not really gearing up to buy either one, it would be quite interesting how they would both perform in the future.