Hasta La Gadget!

At the end of the movie “The Grey,” everyone dies. Liam Neeson dies. That totally awesome moment in the trailer where he breaks some mini-bar bottles and tapes them to his fists, ready to do battle with the Alpha wolf? Two seconds later the credits roll, and the implication is clearly that he went down fighting. Oh, wait. SPOILER ALERT. Sorry, I should have said that at the very beginning.

CNN recently posted a story begging readers not to post spoilers online. The writer wants you to give fair warning, and asks you not to post even hints that there is something to spoil.

I understand this, especially the hints. It is a very stupid person who says “this movie has a twist at the end” and thinks other people won’t be able to guess. I remember when I went to see The Sixth Sense, the schmuck tearing tickets said to every single customer “It has a surprise ending, you’ll want to see it again.” Rip. “It has a surprise ending . . .” Rip. He clearly felt it was his job to ruin the movie for everyone. And you know what? I knew exactly what that surprise was going to be less than halfway through the movie. I tried to deny it to myself, and to forget what I had heard, but of course the movie keeps reinforcing the idea and playing with it in creative ways. The same reason the movie is worth seeing twice is also the reason the surprise was completely ruined on the first go round.

I used to review movies, and I tried to be sensitive to this. But here’s the problem. You cannot properly evaluate a movie without judging its ending. You can’t discuss any story properly without also discussing the climax and the resolution. After all, everything is leading up to this climax.

How can you properly evaluate a story without considering the ending? Sure, you could write an entire movie review without spoilers, and there are plenty of outlets that offer such a review. But I often read reviews of movies after I have seen them, to see if I agree with what the critics have to say. Any proper criticism of a film, or any story at all, needs to explicitly take into account the ending. Even though most critiques try to spare readers from an early reveal of the ending, this very idea might become outdated.

A friend recently told me she heard her daughter utter the words “Samantha, I am your father,” in the ghostly drone that passes for a child’s impersonation of Darth Vader. The little girl had never seen Star Wars. So how did this, perhaps the ultimate movie spoiler, creep into her vocabulary? Best guess is that she saw it in parodies. In cartoons, on sitcoms, and popping up over and over again, until it took on its own meaning for her.

I haven’t shown my 3 year old son Star Wars yet. I’m waiting until he’ll be able to sit through the entire first movie without much squirming. But I’m not shielding him from learning these important plot twists in advance. I don’t think it’s so important.

I remember when I saw that fateful scene at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. I wasn’t really shocked. In fact, I was more incredulous. Really? Why would the writer come up with this twist? After all, Darth Vader hardly seemed to notice or care about Luke Skywalker through the first and much of the second movie. Why isn’t he more interested in reconnecting with his long lost child? We never see anybody tell Darth Vader that Luke is his son, so we must infer that he either knows through some power of The Force, or he sees a family resemblance. But if The Force tells him it’s true, why didn’t he find the kid earlier? And why wait until after you’ve cut off his hand to tell him the truth, if he believed the truth would be such a convincing argument to turn the newfound Jedi?

“You don’t need to be surprised by the twist to appreciate its power”

The plot twist exists on its own not as a shocking surprise moment, but as an interesting turn of events. You don’t need to be surprised by the twist to appreciate its power. The spoiled events in a movie rewrite the story from the beginning. In the movie The Grey, when you know that everyone dies, the story changes from a tale of survival to a tale of desperation. You might like the movie more knowing that nobody survives. When I saw the film, without knowing its ending, I was seriously disappointed.

Certainly knowing the plot twists in Star Wars don’t hurt repeat viewings. The only real problem is that Darth Vader seems so aloof and unimpressed by his son running around the Death Star killing Stormtroopers that we have to wonder if the writers had imagined the twist before the first movie was finished.

Even in movies where you walk in with a historical knowledge of the ending, the lack of surprise does nothing to hurt the film. In fact, it may add to the tension. In the movie “127 Hours,” for instance (one of the better movies that you certainly did NOT see in 2010), I walked in knowing the main character was going to cut his arm off at the end in order to survive. The guy lives. The arm dies. Still a good movie.

In “Titanic,” of course we all know the ending. That the ending is so well known was the punchline to thousands of lousy late night comedian jokes. But waiting for the ship to hit the iceberg, and watching its inevitable demise, added to the enjoyment. It certainly got me through the sappy scenes in the middle.

I recently started watching the second season of Game of Thrones. I had originally planned to wait until I had finished the second book, but I haven’t been able to quickly finish the first book in the series, let alone the second. Recently, bits and pieces started popping up online. Plot details were revealed. Deaths documented. I knew that if I didn’t start watching soon, I’d know the whole story before I started watching the first episode.

So, I started watching, because I wanted the plot to unfold for the first time before my eyes. I didn’t whine about it, I understood. People have a right to talk about the key plot elements, as a way of criticizing and evaluating the show. It’s part and parcel of what makes the Internet such a great tool, the constant stream of information and feedback. Spoilers are a necessary evil. There’s no reason to be like Ned Stark and lose your head over it.

Oh, I forgot to add: SPOILER ALERT.

Spoiler Alert! is written by Philip Berne & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

“This was a mistake.” It’s not something we’re used to hearing from Apple, but the company’s abrupt turnaround on EPEAT green certification hasn’t exactly been textbook. The decision, first to opt out of having its Mac, iPad and other ranges rated, and then – in the face of consumer outcry – to push them back onto the scoreboard has been portrayed as a headstrong firm learning some humility, but it’s not enough. Apple‘s green 180 isn’t a chance to crow that a big company was forced to change its mind, it’s a hugely wasted opportunity to change how the environmental impact of our tech addiction is discussed.

I’ve not doubt that Apple made its original decision to withdraw its products from EPEAT certification for reasons that were as self-serving as they were moral. That could well have been, as has been speculated, that the environmental agency wasn’t looking as approvingly on the display-gluing involved in recent iPad and MacBook Pro construction as customers were, and Apple faced less-than-glowing grades on recycling potential. That a company – even one that plays so much on its “think different” ethos – should be primarily concerned with how well external agencies rank their products in comparison to rivals doesn’t exactly surprise me.

What comes as a disappointment is that, for many, Apple’s backtracking will be a close to the discussion. The period at the end of the earth-friendly debate; life goes back to normal, Apple’s computers, tablets and phones are “Green And Good” once more. No need to worry your pretty head about what “green” actually means.

Quick, without looking at the organization’s site, what exactly does EPEAT certification mean? What, exactly, does it test? Do you get a cover-all certificate or a scoring grade? Can one EPEAT-approved product be fundamentally better than another? If you can answer any of those questions – and, in all honesty, I had to go look up the answers myself – then I’d wager you’re in the minority of people.

“We pay lip-service to “environmentally friendly” but most of us don’t know what it means”

We pay lip-service to “environmentally friendly” but most of us don’t care enough to actually understand what that means. Apple, like probably most companies, knows that. I’ve a suspicion – though Apple is unlikely to either confirm or deny it – that the decision to opt-out of EPEAT ratings was because the current standard of certification wouldn’t portray Macs and other Apple hardware in the most positive of lights. A PR move, then, and one reversed when the extent of the fall-out from that decision became apparent.

I’ll say it again, I don’t really blame them for that. Apple always slots a brief section on eco-credentials into each hardware keynote, usually to talk about how there’s no arsenic involved and such, but how many people would even notice if that part was missing? How many listen and think “hang on, why isn’t Lenovo, and Dell, and HP, and Acer, and ASUS, and Sony, and all the other PC manufacturers telling me the green-cred of their products when they launch?” We hardly hold companies to account for their environmental responsibilities; is it any surprise when they take a more pragmatic approach to them themselves?

The missed opportunity is ours – and Apple’s, and EPEAT’s, and the government’s – to ask what, exactly, is being tested here and why it’s important. It’s a missed chance for education into something with more long-term importance than DDR2 versus DDR3 RAM or which Intel processor to go for. Apple could have led the conversation on the eco-impact of our hunger for technology, but it backed off and gave us what the majority was asking for, and no more. In the end, though, we’ve only got ourselves to blame for that.

Apple’s Green Turnaround Makes Me Blue is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

I’ve become an expert of sorts on entertainment. I’ve spent the better part of my life watching televisions, enjoying movies, listening to my favorite artists, and playing video games. To me, having all of that media available to me whenever I want it is a blessing.

Because of that, I spend an awful lot of time evaluating different entertainment opportunities. From Netflix to Hulu Plus to iTunes, I’m always out there examining what’s best and what might need some work.

For a long time, I truly believed that Netflix was the best entertainment option available to me. The platform had all kinds of movies and television shows, and it was cheap. Netflix was, for a while, the best living room entertainment option we had.

But now, I’m starting to move away from that. Netflix’s content library is on the decline, and I’m finding myself watching programming on Hulu Plus and HBO Go far more often. To me, those two services are delivering the very best in living room entertainment.

How, you might ask? Simple: top-notch content.

Let’s start with Hulu Plus. Although the commercials can be annoying, the sheer amount of content on the service is delectable. I can watch some of the latest episodes of television shows I might have missed, as well as check out some older films that, in some cases, really aren’t too bad. Granted, Hulu Plus has its limitations, but for those looking for a solid television alternative to Netflix, it’s quite good.

“How HBO gives away so much content for the price is beyond me”

HBO Go, however, might just be the best addition to the living room experience I’ve seen in years. How HBO is willing to give away so much of its content for only the price of subscribing to its network is beyond me. But I’m more than happy to take advantage.

If you haven’t tried out HBO Go, you should do so sooner rather than later. HBO offers every episode (yes, you read that correctly) of its series both on now and off the air. In addition, it comes with the network’s documentaries, sports coverage, and films.

The issue with HBO Go is its general lack of availability in the living room. Unless you have certain devices or televisions, you’ll more than likely be watching it on a computer. Luckily, my Samsung television recently started supporting HBO Go, so I can watch all of its programming right from the couch. Over time, I expect more vendors to support the application, as well.

So, let’s consider this new scenario: when we want to watch popular, current major network and cable programming, we can opt for Hulu Plus. And in those cases where we want to check out what, I believe, is a grouping of even better shows and entertainment, we can go for HBO Go.

With Hulu Plus and HBO Go in tow, I don’t quite miss Netflix. In fact, I couldn’t care less about it.

HBO Go And Hulu Plus: The Perfect Living Room Marriage? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

I have played Diablo III for dozens of hours. I have beaten the normal difficulty level with one of my “Heroes,” and I have made solid progress with a variety of characters representing each class. I came to the new sequel already a fan. I played through and beat Diablo II perhaps a dozen times, at nearly every difficulty level with every type of character. But now I’m done. I’m moving on. It finally hit me: Diablo III is the worst game I’ve ever played, for hours and hours and hours.

There is a moment playing Diablo games when it hits you. Why am I still playing? It’s a tough question to wrestle with, since this is the same question that could ruin all video games for you. What’s the point? So, I started to think about my favorite games. Some games have a great story line. You can make different choices each time, and affect the outcome, subtly or drastically. Some games are interspersed with amazing set pieces so massive in scale that you cannot wait to reach them. Some games offer challenging puzzles, with multiple ways to solve them, so you can constantly replay to try each permutation.

Most of all, though, the best games are simply fun to play. Video games run with the idea that “half the fun is getting there.” In the best games, that’s almost all of the fun. There are very few games that I replay continually just to see the ending. The actual gameplay has to be very fun. In fact, the gameplay has to be just as fun when you lose as when you win. I have a maxim of gaming that you should never expect to complete a gaming task once. Even the most difficult feat in gaming will often be repeated. So, it must be fun. Losing has to be almost as enjoyable as winning.

Diablo is simply no fun. The gameplay is beyond repetitive. It’s inane. It’s completely lifeless. It is mouse clicking with a few keyboard shortcuts thrown in. The entire game boils down to: look at that monster, I’m going to click on it until it’s dead. There is very little skill, or even thought involved in playing the game. There are no puzzles to solve, no riddles, no mysteries. There is a plot, but it is almost entirely revealed in high-quality cut scene movies between the action. Almost nothing you do in the game feels like it is contributing to the storyline.

It used to be that Diablo was about collecting cool weapons and leveling-up your character. You play more and you gain more awesome toys and cool abilities. To a small extent that is still true. But Blizzard has made serious mistakes in the game design and, at the risk of sounding cynical, it seems that much of the problem comes from the new auction house. Users can now buy and sell items in the game with real money. Blizzard takes a huge cut, of course, but you’re still making money from playing the game.

“Blizzard has strewn its virtual world with tons of virtual garbage”

However, look where this has left the game experience. Items are now worth money, which means that Blizzard needs to create an entire level of items that is at once nearly-unobtainable and also very valuable. This pushes down the value of almost all other items in the game. Any item that is not ‘magical,’ which is to say the overwhelming bulk of the items you find, is completely worthless to the player. These items do not add to the gameplay at all, and you can’t sell them. Blizzard has strewn its virtual world with tons of virtual garbage.

Characters gain new abilities as they gain experience, but often these seem like a step backwards. I get new powers that add or augment my existing abilities, but these are often less interesting, or less powerful, than the powers I already had. The special effects look cool, but the action on screen can be jumbled and confusing at times. So, no matter how cool it looks, you are essentially just clicking on a massive pile of bad guys, and repeating this simple act until they all stop moving.

So, Diablo III has some very fundamental flaws, but it is the little things that bother me even more. Some of these are endemic to the hack-and-slash dungeon crawler genre, but the genre, and gaming in general, has grown up significantly in the 11 years since Diablo II was released. While competitors are creating deep virtual worlds and immersive environments, Blizzard has taken the laziest route possible with Diablo III.

Here are some of my favorite examples. In the game, you might have to kill a swarm of bugs. That swarm acts like one single enemy, but looks like a swarm. So, you just click your mouse on it, and your character starts shooting at flies with a crossbow. Some of these flies are so scary your character will run away from them, even though they look like all the other flies, and you wouldn’t know they strike such fear in the hearts of men unless you read the description, which says simply “nightmarish.” Okay, fine, your character kills these nightmarish flies and is rewarded with . . . a suit of armor? What?! Seriously, I’m supposed to believe that this swarm of flies was carrying a suit of armor? What the heck were flies doing with armor? And 80 gold coins? Where did they keep them? I suppose flies in Diablo III have pockets.

There are a few non-player characters, and you are forced to listen to the same repetitive dialogue from them over and over again. It has nothing to do with the plot or the action on screen. You could be fighting a nest of giant spiders, and the Enchantress character will ask if you think one of the boy characters likes her. You could be literally descending into the depths of Hell, and the Scoundrel character might talk about the women he’s taken advantage of. It’s boring and nonsensical, and worst of all, it’s repetitive. Each character has maybe a dozen lines or so that they spew at the weirdest moments, but over the course of a 20 – 30 hour game, you’ll hear these lines over and over again. And you can’t kill these characters. Trust me, I’ve tried.

Diablo III is simply an example of the laziest form of game design. It is as though Blizzard tried to imagine the least effort they could put into improving Diablo II while still calling this a new game, and then cut out half of those ideas. Blizzard has created a world that will make you feel worthless for revisiting. Why am I still playing? I’m not. I’m done.

Diablo III is the Worst Game Ever Made is written by Philip Berne & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

In the gaming world created and crafted by Nintendo, games make or break the company. When solid titles like Super Mario or the Legend of Zelda make their way to the market, consumers care. And in the process, they buy an awful lot of consoles.

When the Wii U launches later this year, Nintendo will need to rely on games in order to sell more consoles. However, in the past, the company has relied nearly entirely on first-party titles. In fact, the Wii’s third-party lineup was so sub-par that many folks (including myself) made it a last-resort gaming opportunity in the living room. Soon after the allure of motion gaming wore off and the first-party titles dried up, there was little else to enjoy.

For that reason, Nintendo must rely heavily on third-party publishers with its Wii U. The days of simply carrying a console over the finish line on the back of first-party games are over. Nowadays, in order for console makers to be successful, they’re going to have to deliver not only solid first-party games, but allow other companies to offer up outstanding titles themselves.

For Nintendo, playing nicely with third-parties has always seemed difficult. For years, third-party developers have criticized the company on everything from its hardware design to its seeming unwillingness to allow other games to shine. In Nintendo land, first-party titles still reign supreme.

“With the Xbox 720 and PS4 incoming, longevity is the name of the game”

But with the Wii U likely launching this year, to be followed by the Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4 either next year or in 2014, longevity will be the name of the game. And in order to stick it out until the bitter end, Nintendo must be able to foster strong relationships with third-party developers and urge them to bring their best and brightest games to the console.

At E3, Nintendo seemed willing to do so. Rather than spend too much time on hardware, the company focused on games and brought up several third-party developers to show off their latest and greatest titles for its new console. It was a good start. But let’s not forget that Nintendo had some backing at the Wii’s start, as well. And now, Wii owners are left wishing more solid titles would have been launched.

Of course, Nintendo fans would disagree with that argument. They would say that Nintendo’s first-party titles are really all customers need, but even in those cases where third-party games are on the ready, they hold up quite well. In fact, some Nintendo fans might go as far as saying that the Wii’s game library is just as deep (if not more so) than the Xbox 360’s or PlayStation 3’s.

But are we really supposed to believe that? If that was the case, the Wii wouldn’t see its sales slumping and Nintendo wouldn’t be having so much trouble keeping pace with its past successes. If the Wii had a deeper library, trust me: the gaming space would look much different.

Remember third-party developers, Nintendo. Believe it or not, you’re going to need them with the Wii U.

Third-Party Developers Will Make or Break the Wii U is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.