Game Review: Super Mario Maker

A game like SUPER MARIO MAKER  is a bit of an anomaly, from a review standpoint. To even begin to do so requires one to ask themselves a couple of questions. First, is SUPER MARIO MAKER even a game? For all intents and purposes, it seems to be more a platform for level creation that allows you to play the levels that others have made. That lends credibility to the idea that the actual game lies in playing through the created levels, or in the "100 Mario Challenge", a special mode that gives the player 100 lives and a series of player-made levels to run through, all in three different difficulties. All of that being said, for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and call the whole of the thing one game with different modules, or sections.

The next question is pretty straightforward: how does one even go about reviewing SUPER MARIO MAKER? Would you have to review the THOUSANDS of player-made levels in existence along with the actual tools the game provides for the creation of your own? Would you review the UI (user interface) of the level creator with regards to how intuitive it is when using it? For my own sake, I see reviewing EVERY level in existence to be a bit of a silly goal. People continuously add levels, and the sheer volume renders the whole act tantamount to insanity. On the other hand there's something to looking at the UI, as a poorly done UI leads to fairly frustrated players.

So, with all that being said, and examined, you may be wondering how I would go about actually reviewing SUPER MARIO MAKER and not just hypothesizing about the possibility of probably thinking about doing it? It would go a little something like this:

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nintendo's SUPER MARIO MAKER, for the Wii U, may be one of the most novel games I've played in a very long time. Certainly, other computer-based game development programs designed for mass markets have been in existence for a while, but it's the sheer simplicity of its design that sets SUPER MARIO MAKER apart. At its core, SMM is a platform for the creation of custom levels using elements from four different games from the SUPER MARIO BROS. franchise: SUPER MARIO BROS, SUPER MARIO BROS. 3, SUPER MARIO WORLD, and NEW SUPER MARIO BROTHERS U. As I mentioned in an earlier article, there is a great deal of variety in what one can create, and that creates amazing opportunities for so many to get a peak at the complicated art of game development.

The actual UI for the game is pretty simple. To start, you are given a scant amount of options such as different ground designs, breakable blocks, boxes, and simple enemies and power-ups. These are expanded in two ways, one automatic and one manual. The automatic way just involves different elements being made available each day, lasting around 7 days. The manual way just unlocks more options the more you use the level creator.

Along with physical items to interact with, there are also a variety of sound effects to apply to those items. This has the effect of adding additional layers of quirk to every level. The natural tension that comes from going up against a koopa is tightened with certain effects layered on top. An already silly level becomes sillier with samba rhythms woven in.

After playing SUPER MARIO MAKER for a LONG TIME, I'm of the continued opinion that this is one of the more important games to come out in years. Who can say what the number of people inspired to enter the world of game design will be because of this game? Even more, at the time of writing this, much of the chaff of the player-made levels has been washed away in favor of some real quality work. All in all, not only is SUPER MARIO MAKER now a very useful educational tool for those looking to dip their toes into game design, but also a strong catalogue of interesting takes on a variety of design themes used in the various MARIO BROS games.



Here is a peak at some amazing levels that have been created:

 

Mini Review: GET OUT

Though Jordan Peele became famous for his comedic work as one half of the titular writing team on KEY AND PEELE, he seems to have more of an affinity for drama and horror with his first film directed on his own (his actual first film was written and directed with writing partner, Keegan Micheal Key), GET OUT. This film manages to combine the imagery more experimental films, like BEING JOHN MALKOVICH or 2001 A SPACE ODDESSY, with biting social commentary on race by making the very real issues of the fetishization and marginalization of People of Color (specifically, black people) into the existential horror that it really is.

I have so often experienced what Chris Washington (Daniel Kaluuya) experiences at the home of his girlfriend, Rose Armitage (Allison Williams), and her parents. I have experienced those questions that range from vaguely to completely racist ("You must be great at basketball." "Oh, you're one of the GOOD ones."), and have met people a bit TOO eager to show that they "aren't racist." In grounding such real experiences in such an extreme setting, Peele manages to truly convey the emotional reality of these moments.

A Few Thoughts on RIVERDALE, Season One

Contains minor spoilers


I have to say, I'm more than a little surprised at how much I enjoyed the first season of RIVERDALE. At first, the idea of a live-action version of ARCHIE on the CW sounded more than a bit questionable. After giving the first episode a shot, though, any fears I had quickly faded. What I discovered is that this a show much in the vein of TWIN PEAKS. While not having as surreal a bent, RIVERDALE features much of the same qualities: a quiet town with a major local industry, a loved youth cut down in their prime, a well of deep secrets being revealed, and a murder-mystery propelling the plot.  

While I'm generally a fan of all of the characters, Jughead Jones (Cole Sprouse) may be my favorite. He's a kid who's wise beyond his years due to the difficulty of his life, yet retains the simple desire for acceptance...YET, continues to push people away due to the emotional scars he's endured. There's a real complexity there. Other characters get a lot to do as well, as so many of the relationships are entangled together. The murder of Jason Blossom uncovers so many of the layers of complexity to the interpersonal realities of the town, and I think it's just the right kind of sleazy: scandalous, yet grounded.

With all that praise to character aside, I have to say something about the fact that there are a number of moments where that characterization seems remarkably inconsistent. For example, Cheryl Blossom is a constant antagonist to a number of characters, taunting and insulting a number of them. Yet, there will be a moment where it seems that Cheryl and another character have a breakthrough in their relationship. Whatever walls that were once up seemingly come down, and new friendships are forged...until the next episode, when they are at each others throats once more. This kind of thing happens more towards the middle of the season, and frankly dragged the momentum of the entire season down. It's as though, rather than continuously moving character relationships forward, the writers opted to artificially prop up the tension. There's a bit of frustration to be had with characters constantly resetting each episode.

Overall, despite my frustrations, I was very happy with what season one of RIVERDALE had to offer. At the very least, it was consistently entertaining, and at best, it was nearly transcendent sleaze.

A Few Thoughts On TWIN PEAKS, Season 1

CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR SEASON 1 OF TWIN PEAKS





Somehow, despite my adoration for the works of David Lynch, I managed to miss watching TWIN PEAKS, his late 80's/early 90's surrealist neo-noir television series. Thankfully, my Amazon Prime account came to the rescue by featuring the first two seasons. After learning this, I just HAD to give them a look.

First, and most reasonably, I started with the first season. The first episode almost lulls one into a false sense of security from that aforementioned surrealist nature with how normal it all seems in its early moments. A young girl is found dead on a lake shore, and the reactions of various townspeople are shown. Normal.

The arrival of FBI Special Agent Dale Cooper (Kyle MacLachlan) pushes it into Lynchian territory, with his constant dictation of current events into a handheld audio recorder, intense fascination with nature, and adoration of pastries and coffee. With that comes another Lynchian trait: a sincere affection for people. Cooper is a methodical man who becomes enamored with the town of Twin Peaks and its citizens, becoming best pals with its sheriff and sometimes going out of his way to help them solve their problems.

I'm going to go on record with saying that Cooper is my favorite character in the show. There's really something to just how much affection he has for the town and its people, along with his willingness to keep an open mind for the more (possibly) supernatural elements at work. There's also the fact that he's just a fantastic investigator, like Sherlock Holmes crossed with James Bond.

The town itself opens up over the course of the season, revealing that nearly everyone had some sort of outrageous skeleton in their closets. Seemingly kind and chaste schoolgirls hide double lives as prostitutes, star quarterbacks work as drug runners, and every other person is sleeping with the other person's spouse. One would almost think it like a soap opera. This is certainly the case as this was also Lynch's take on that particular form of daytime entertainment. I think it lends to his style and desires to explore the dream-like nature of cinema, as soap operas tend to be somewhat dream-like in nature, what with their glossy aesthetic.

When the show dips into its more surrealist aspects, that's when I knew it had me. I mean, I would expect some surrealism. This is David Lynch we're talking about. Yet, its real success is how it all tied together with the greater narrative. Much of the series is made up of the citizens of Twin Peaks confronting hidden (read: subconscious) things. Surrealism deals with the subconscious explored through art. So, we have dreams that have some cryptic relationship to reality (said dreams were had by Agent Cooper), as well as bizarre behavior that never really is explained. This points back to my previous point about Lynch's predilection for cinema's dreamy nature. While there certainly are events in the show that are "real," just as much may only be visions or somewhere in between.

The last thing I want to mention is something that is certainly not the least of things: the music. From the opening theme...

...to the song Donna, James, and Maddy sing...

...to Cooper's theme...

...all of the music leans into a pseudo-1950's aesthetic that Lynch often visits. He often likes to juxtapose that all-American-apple-pie-baseball-GOD-BLESS-AMERICA sense with a darker element. To wit, Twin Peaks seems like a sleepy mountain town, but it really hides incredibly dark secrets. I think this also works with some of the more humorous elements as the mood shifts. Lynch is known for jumping from darkness to light fairly quickly, and in this case he does it (along with his co-showrunner, Mark Frost) with immense skill.

Overall, season one of Twin Peaks seems to be a nearly perfect distillation a Lynchian project. Equal parts creepy and hilarious, it manages to have a massive cast of characters who all get fleshed out in one way or another. While doing all of this, we also get to experience some of the most surreal television ever put to screen. If you have Amazon Prime, I advise you to give it a look. If you don't have that service, get it. It's worth it.

I RECOMMEND: The YouTube Channel of Leonard French, the Copyright Attorney

Though it may not seem it, the more interesting aspects of YouTube lie not in pure video creation, but in the nuts and bolts of the process. There's making sure you're uploading the video in the right format so that time is saved on the upload, being sure you have all of the proper annotations you may need, working on the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) to make sure the tags you apply to the video appear within the first few web searches, as well as applying captions (possibly in multiple languages). Most important, though, are matters of copyright.

Hold on, don't fall asleep yet. I promise, it's far more interesting than you may think.

In my time messing about on YouTube (something I've briefly mentioned here) I've seen a great many issues spring up around copyright and the production of videos. A number of content creators have had run-ins with various individuals claiming that said creators infringed upon some of their material. If not infringement, then possible slander/libel (notable examples include James Stanton aka Jim Sterling VS Digital Homicide, H3H3 aka Ethan and Hila Klein VS Matt Hoss). More often than not, the stakes for these content creators facing legal action are high, as the legal costs alone can bankrupt smaller creators well before any negative verdicts may fall upon them. Considering all of this, it's worthwhile for any content creator to be well aware of the in's-and-out's of copyright issues.

Thankfully, Leonard French's channel exists. While initial consisting of videos of his dog, Cato, eating watermelon, or or a bus slowly destroying a parked BMW's mirrors, he eventually changed his channel from a more private one to more of a public service. Drawing upon his expertise as a lawyer, he began to make videos pertaining to copyright issues on YouTube. Frankly, I think they're all pretty informative, and while not supremely comprehensive on the topic (I don't think he would ever claim they are), they certainly are well-made starting points for those looking to become involved with content creation on YouTube.

The simple fact is that a great deal of copyright law is a bit labyrinthine, and most of us know next to nothing about it. That fact makes the existence of resources like Leonard's channel immensely valuable. If you have even a passing interest in getting involved with content creation on YouTube, I highly advise you to pay a visit to Leonard French's channel.

 

 

Growing Pains in Art Criticism 2: Games and Writing

I think it goes without saying that I'm not an expert at this. By "this", I mean this whole "person writing art criticism online." I don't have any sort of formal background in critique, didn't pursue a major in journalism or film studies, or even write for any publications. Truly, I am a rank amateur. That obviously doesn't stop me from trying, though.

It should be said that I quickly realized that just because I have the will to try, it doesn't mean that my results would be anything of quality. I'm certain readers of this blog have seen that in some of my...less sophisticated work, but I view it all as a learning and growing process. Thankfully, I feel that I've grown quite a bit, writing-wise, as I'm able to form better constructed ideas, right off the cuff. Unfortunately, this has pretty much only around film and television, while only touching on video games and music, and not even beginning to really mention books.

The truth of the matter is that I'm more comfortable writing about film and television, as the language of those visual mediums is much more decipherable, for me. If I'm to be honest, books are up there, too, but I read far fewer than I should. Music is something I've been involved with my whole life, so there's some level of coherence in what I can say about it. With regards to video games, though, there's a real challenge.

My typical approach to talking about games is more in line with the way many reviews have been written: give a brief description of the general plot and then talk at length about the mechanics, and maybe touch on how the relate to the overall narrative. In no way do I consider that a bad model, yet I'm inclined to think I'm limiting myself in some regard. That's a bit ironic considering the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink model I tend to emulate. That leads me to want to pursue something more focused.

Very often, video games are born out of a single idea or mechanic that's then explored, in some way, via aesthetics and mechanics. I want to focus on that. What is the core idea in a game I'm talking about? In asking that question, I'm certain I'll find myself looping back around to the mechanics. It may take on a different appearance from what I've typically written, but I'm sure that it will also be better.

PASSENGERS Has No Self-Awareness

It's hard to really talk about PASSENGERS without spoiling a pretty major moment that happens about a third of the way through the film. So, just be aware that this article will have lots of information about the plot of this movie.


PASSENGERS is a visually stunning, confusing, mess of a movie. On the one hand, it's an original concept in a time where theaters are chock full of remakes and adaptations; one that takes some risks in its story. On the other hand, the risks it takes are worked into the story in a way that transforms any sense romance (seemingly one of the main selling points of the trailers) into something much more vile.

What I'm referring to is the moment where Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) decides, after being having no human contact for a year aboard a massive spaceship, to awaken one Aurora Lane (Jennifer Lawrence) from the cryo-sleep she and all the other people aboard the ship are in. In his loneliness and desperation, and just after a suicide attempt, Jim comes upon her pod and becomes somewhat obsessed with her. He watches all of her interview videos she submitted before boarding the ship (a sort of Ark going to a colony planet), and reads all of her writing. Essentially, he falls in love with a person he's never met.This level of obsession intensifies when he comes up with the idea to wake her up, knowing that she will not be able to re-enter the pod and will essentially be stuck on this ship with only him for the rest of her life. Even more, he lies to her about the fact that he woke her up.

What follows is one of the more troubling things I've seen in a major release, not because of the fact that it happens, but because of the way it concludes itself. Jim and Aurora, being the only two humans aboard the vessel, begin to fall in love, and at this point the film begins to resemble something more along the lines of a "romantic comedy", all the while working with the knowledge that it's all predicated on a huge lie.

Eventually, all is revealed and Aurora's love turns to hate, as one would expect it to. Then, after a series of complicated events, it comes down to the two of them to prevent the ship's core from overheating, killing them and all of the sleeping passengers. Up to this point, Aurora has sustained her hate towards Jim, but that breaks when he realizes that the only way to save the ship will involve him sacrificing himself. It's a moment that could have been ripe for so much emotional payoff. Jim, feeling the emotional weight catching up with him of how monstrous he's become, is willing to sacrifice himself in an act of atonement. Meanwhile, Aurora would feel many conflicting feelings, hating this person but also not wanting to be the only person on the ship.

It almost looks as though it's going this way, as we see Jim drifting along in space, oxygen leaking from his suit. A tearful goodbye seems to be approaching, yet this is stopped short by Aurora saving and reviving him and the two having a rather passionate kiss. It's as though they wanted an ending with real teeth, one where the central protagonist is does downright deplorable things and, despite the attempts to endear him to us, is punished. Unfortunately, they also wanted to eat that cake, as well as having it.

In no way does their still being together ring anywhere near emotionally realistic. For one, hardly any time is spent on Jim's debating awakening Aurora. Sure, there are a few moments where Jim is seen deliberating doing this, and in those moments we can see that he can see the weight of his choice. Compared to the latter portion of the film, though, these moments are woefully short. Secondly, the whole of said latter half begins to feel a bit Stockholm Syndrome-esque. To be fair, I originally thought that was the point, as this seemed to be a film examining the effects such an extreme situation would have on people. The main issue here is that this is a film that seemed to think itself more GONE WITH THE WIND, when it had more in line with Park Chan Wook's OLDBOY. Perhaps, if they had actually leaned into the direction of what the bulk of the film seemed to be (a meditation on how despiration and obsession corrupts), this would have been a film of note. Instead, it's a misfire of little consequence.

A Few Thoughts on the "Easy" Setting in Video Games

After a long day of work, it makes sense for someone to want to come back home and just unwind for a bit. Perhaps, they have themselves a tasty adult beverage, or listen to music, or (and more on topic with the title of this thing) they sit down and play some video games? This is an activity I've certainly engaged in a number of times, and it rarely involves me playing some deeply complex, technically rigorous piece, but more often something fairly straightforward (your CALL OF DUTY's, BORDERLANDS, and the like). Every so often, though, if I do take a dip into something more rigorous I may find my self playing it on the "easy" difficulty as an exercise in decompression.

For those who may not know, many games have different difficulty settings that you can choose from based on your skill level, or just how tough you want your experience to be. Something to note, however, is that most games are optimized to their "hard" settings, meaning that setting is the closest to many developers intentions for how the game should be played. Due to this, and to the desire for a greater challenge, many "hardcore gamers" gravitate towards "hard".

Yet, I think so many people neglect the real joys that can come out of "easy". As I previously stated, there is a real utility for decompression. Being able to completely plow through some monster, or what-have-you, that would have given you some difficulty on the normal setting is a remarkably cathartic feeling. There's a real sense of power that can come from that.While it's not as ultimately fulfilling as completing some truly difficult challenge, the immediate sensation is notable.

Deeper than that visceral sense is the feeling that comes from exploring the limits of the actual make-up of said games. Questions such as "Just how quickly can I clear this whole game?", "How long of a hit-combo can I string together?" can be answered and their results examined. More often than not, this leads me to somewhat of a deeper appreciation for the game in question. It should be said that it's also lead me to like some games less, as is the case of KINGDOM HEARTS, a game whose main worthwhile elements are contained in the complexity of its game play. Once those are removed, it becomes a mostly incoherent story where one just moves the camera around and does the most simple attack over and over.

I think more of us should embrace "easy" mode. There's real value there, and it would behoove some people to shed some of their oh-yes-I-am-such-a-hardcore-gamer shell. It just seems like such a limiting way to view this wide medium we call video games.