Game Review: Dota 2

Posted by Dan on February 16, 2012
Posted in: Video Games. 2 comments

Never played DOTA?  No idea what it is?  And you call yourself a gamer?

DOTA is possibly the most popular game mod in history.  It’s up there with Team Fortress at this point.  It’s design is simple, and quite honestly, one that Blizzard scratched at with Warcraft III, but came up short.  They weren’t thinking about it right.

DOTA is a hero arena game, which means you control a hero, fight monsters, protect bases, and score fat loot.  You then go around smashing other people’s faces in and gloating about it.  Sure, it sounds juvenile, and based on the community of Dota 2 at this point, I’d have to agree.

But it’s a special kind of genre.  It’s PvP that doesn’t suck, and damnit, more games need to work like DOTA.

Gameplay – 3 out of 5

Now that the basis of DOTA is out of the way, I recently got a Beta Invite to Valve’s Dota2.  I’ll give props to the Dota2 team for recreating a pretty awesome mod, but I must give them the face of shame by asking what the fuck exactly they were thinking?

Dota2 specifically targets people who enjoyed the DOTA mod for Warcraft III, similar to how Team Fortress 2 targetted the popular mod for Quake and Half-life.  Now Team Fortress 2 is it’s own huge success, so I suppose they’re shooting for making the Hero Arena genre being defined by Dota2.

But my gripe is this… We played this game already.  It’s such a clone of the Warcraft III mod, it doesn’t feel like a sequel at all.  This isn’t Dota2, this is Dota: Source.  It’s a source engine version of the WC3 mod.

Sure, some of the skills are tweaked and work a little differently, some of the heroes aren’t present yet, or have had identity changes because of copyright infringement on Blizzard game content from WC3.  But aside from that, the game plays pretty much the same.

And that, itself, is not a bad thing.  I love Dota, and I love seeing a modern and flexible engine powering it.  I mean, think of all the improvements they will be able to make over the basic map maker and language provided by Blizzard’s map editor for WC3.  But make no mistake, this is no sequel.  It’s a transplant.  I was expecting a completely new set of heroes, possibly a more complex skill and synergy system… but no.  It’s the same animal with different skins.  At least, at this point.  And that is, unfortunately, disappointing.

I was expecting a new chapter in Hero Arena, and all I got was a facelift.

Graphics – 4 out of 5

This is a huge upgrade over the old WC3 engine.  The models are custom and some are even unique.  The terrain looks much better and everything runs smooth.  I really like the portraits, Mirana, for example, looks amazing.  Others, not so much… but overall it’s done quite nicely.

No bash to the quality Valve has put into the terrain and character models, but most are just cheap rips of the original DOTA character.  Which means, the placeholder they used back in the mod is basically the new character.  I mean these guys had a chance to make their visions of their heroes come to life, and they just… didn’t.  They just replicated the Blizzard model to the point where you figured it was just the Warcraft hero afterall.

Granted, these characters are 5 or more years old, so making them look drastically differently could alter the “feel” of the character, but come on.  This is the SEQUEL.  Luke Skywalker was still Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi, but his balls had dropped, he had a mechanical arm, and a green light sabre.  And he kicked ass.  Evolution, guys.  Evolution.

Sound – 4 out of 5

The music is quality and composition is awesome.  The sound effects are high quality and well done.  Did I mention the compositions were great, and they simply need more, at this point?

So why not a 5 out of 5?  Monster kill.  That’s why.  You know, ripping off the MONSTER KILL!! sound from UT was cute for a free mod made by some un-paid enthusiasts, but it’s completely unacceptable for a AAA production from a huge game developer.  I know, I know.  That’s DOTA and that’s what makes it DOTA, right?  Again, evolution, guys.  This is the sequel.  You can do better.

You’re trying to build a brand here, and using sounds from other games isn’t the best approach.  I know it adds to the experience that makes DOTA what it is, but I know with the budget and resources at Valve’s disposal, they can find a happy medium.

Value – 5 out of 5

Dota2 is all about replayability.  That’s what makes the series great.  There’s tons of heroes to choose from, and each takes time to learn and master, so you’re always going back to try out new item and skill combinations on different heroes across different level ranges (builds, as they’re dubbed).

In some ways I think there are simply too many heroes — some are too similar to one another, and some require very little skill to play (I’m looking at you, Skeleton King).  I think they could have moved away from the limited skill set forced on WC3, and done something more with it.  I could see a bunch of heroes streamlined together, as well, making the choices more meaningful and yet not so overwhelming to an unseasoned player.

But considering the typical game rarely goes beyond 45 minutes, it’s a total time sink as it is.  There’s only one map and the game has hours and hours of fun in it.  Imagine if there were more?  I know more heroes are on the way, as well, so if Valve continues to push content out to the game post-release, it will be one worth playing for years to come.

Conclusion – 4 out of 5

Dota2 delivers on all the glory of the original, but makes no strides to be something newer or better.  It’s a simple update of the original mod, from items, to skills, to stats, to the map… to everything.  So much potential, and yet so much disappointment.  They really could have made a true sequel, but didn’t.

Despite that, it’s still a solid game that is fun to play, assuming of course you get a team worth playing with.  Although they’ve promised a robust match-making system, we’ll just have to see how that goes.  The game is mostly feature complete, barring the profiling system and leveling system not really 100% functional yet in the “chat” interface prior to getting in a game.

Hate Obama? Get out of your own way, asshole.

Posted by Dan on February 16, 2012
Posted in: Politics, Rants. Leave a Comment

I really can’t stand people’s “opinions” on politics.  No one gives a shit what you think or how you feel.  And that’s what 90% of it is — ideas made up in their head or planted there by mainstream media… and, oh God, their feelings.

Come on, you vote for people you like, not people you think will actually make any kind of difference.  America is America and it has been America for 235 years now.  Was it so different 5 years ago?  10?  20?  Hah!

How come everything is the President’s fault?  Are you so stupid you don’t even know the difference between the Senate and Congress?  How about the Judicial branch?  He’s not the friggin King who spouts commands and they come to be — there’s that whole legislative branch to get through.  If Bush gets the “it wasn’t his fault” scapegoat, how come the same logic doesn’t apply to the Obaminator?

The Bush era added fun things like Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.  That shit is far more scary than medical reform or a payroll tax cut.  Holy shit people, there’s worse things out there than a black dude with a Muslim name.

Your heads… they are up your asses.  Please remove them!

This is not a probama post.  It’s a “get a clue you moron,” post.  I don’t mind discussing the pros and cons of this administration (or any administration), but back your feelings with some facts.  It’s impossible to talk politics when you’re so goddamned sensitive and so opinionated.  No one but you functions in your own little world of what should be or what is.  If I wanted your opinion I’d say “Hey, how do you FEEL about Obama?”  Which I NEVER DO because I don’t care!

/wrists

 

Two Dudes Want To Get Hitched. Who Cares, Anyway?

Posted by Dan on February 8, 2012
Posted in: Politics. Leave a Comment

So I have this story to tell.  I found a woman I loved, and I wanted to marry her.  When I went to the state to file for marriage, the gal said “Sorry, you can’t get married to her.”  Of course, I asked “Why not!?” I was basically told that the state doesn’t recognize my love for this woman.

How many men has that happened to?  Like, none?  Because that story was complete crap.  I went in, paid my $50 something bucks, and was officially married to my wife.  It’s a good thing she wasn’t a dude though, because if she was, I’d have been told to go get bent.  And then I would have burned my clothes, Ace Ventura style (“Your gun is digging into my hip!”)

I just don’t understand this fascination with marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman.  I’ve read the Bible quite extensively, and you know, the last thing I really got out of it was “fags can’t get married because God said so.”

So I decided to Google-fu a bit and see just what I was missing that makes this decree from God so clear.  One of the quotes I found, was this (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The first thing I thought was, holy crap, most of us are screwed.  If I don’t get into Heaven because I was a greedy bastard who drank booze and talked shit, I can think of a pretty significant majority of people who would accompany me in hell.  Surely, I thought, this can’t be what it seems?

Well guess what, it’s not!  Although the activist who hates gay people would end the quote there.  The very following sentence is quite interesting (1 Corinthians 11):

11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I read multiple sites who all quoted up to passage 10, but simply left out 11.  Seems kind of cheap and cowardly to me.  I guess they don’t like the idea that Jesus Christ will save anyone, fudge packer or otherwise.

But that’s the whole message of Christ.  Through Christ, you can be saved.  He didn’t make any stipulations about particular sins.  He didn’t say “I’ll bring you to the father… wait, scratch that, if you had sex with a man, you’re hosed.”  If he did say that, let me know, because that page must have fallen out of my four or five copies of the bible, and doesn’t exist on any of those online Bibles, either.  And you don’t get to quote the Torah, either.  We’re talking about Christ, and while he didn’t deny the Old Testament, his authority supersedes it.  BLAM.  That just happened.

You know what I REALLY like about the Bible, though?  I like all the talk about not being a hypocrite and not being judgmental.  As far as the Bible is concerned, God is the one who judges people, and it’s your job to shut the fuck up and let him take care of that.

Matthew 7:1-2

1Do not judge, or you too will be judged.2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

 

James 4:11-12

11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister[a] or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

The list goes on and on and on and on… Do not judge and do not be a hypocrite.  So who has the right to judge what a couple gay guys do in their spare time?  Who would be the hypocrite to stand out and speak against them and say “God condemns you, therefore I condemn you”?  Because He said himself He doesn’t!

That’s ballsy as fuck, if you ask me.  Perhaps I’m just a good-ol God fearing boy, but to me, I’ll have my feelings about two guys humping, but I’ll sit back, keep my mouth shut and PRAY for them.  I’d pray that they try to resolve that and move beyond it, but if it’s who they are and who they have to be, and changing is against their nature — then so be it.  Take it up with God.  I can’t pretend to know what He knows or what He wants of them, I can only try to know what He wants from me.  And I really don’t think He wants me ruining someone else’s love, regardless of who it’s for.

So who’s in the wrong here, Christians?  Are you sitting on your throne of Judgment and going against the Almighty’s Will?  What will you say to Him when he confronts you about such things?  Will you cop out and say, “I was doing it for you?”  Do you think that’ll hold up to the Alpha and Omega?

I dunno man, seems weak to me.  I think He might see through the bullshit.  I like the idea of “I prayed for them and hoped for the best” answer better, myself.

Anyway, as all that concerns to politics, nevermind.  Who cares?  A state should be about freedom and liberty within a reasonable moral compass.  Yeah, I don’t think homosexuality is particularly moral, in fact.  On the other hand, it’s not hurting anyone else, so who cares?  We’re not talking theft, murder, lying, cheating, etc.  It’s between two consenting adults.

If you’re worried about your kids?  Teach them.  Tell them it’s not natural and the Bible warns about it (which is clearly does).  But do not propagate hatred and intolerance, because then you find yourself in a position of sin… don’t you?

 

 

Prolife? Prochoice? I’m Pro-shut-the-hell-up.

Posted by Dan on February 8, 2012
Posted in: Politics. 2 comments

Argh.  Elections.  American politics are a popularity contest.  We vote mainly on how we “feel” about someone more than what their actual political track record is.  How else does a nominee flip-flop the same issues a bajillion times and still get enough votes to win states in a primary election — or hell, the REAL election.

It’s irksome.  It’s posturing.  It’s pointless.  But since we’re in an election year, I guess I get to talk about some important points.

First, I’ll talk about the abortion issue.  Issue.  Yes, it’s actually STILL an issue.  I can break this up into two major points: first, freedom and liberty.  Second, morality.

So which comes first, the chicken or the egg?  In order to have political freedom, you must have a moral core, lest you have chaos and frontier justice.  On the other hand, once the freedom and liberty is obtained, people start to pursue ideology that is, well, downright immoral.

I’d like to just point out the following: what does it say about a species who is okay with destroying it’s unborn offspring?

We balk at the idea of infanticide in other mammals, like lions.  Did you know male lions will kill a lionesses cubs if it means she becomes available to mate with him?  Happens all the time.  Kill someone else’s baby so you can instead spread your genes around.  Basic nature, right?  So I guess it’s okay?

I don’t think so.  To me, killing is a necessity at times, but overall, should be the last resort to any given situation.  For example, if someone is trying to kill me, I think it’s my natural right as a living being to keep myself alive, via any means necessary.  I’d hope most people would agree that’s a logical position.

So how do we get away from that kind of logic when it comes to, of all things, birth control.  Look, there’s so many forms of birth control out there, I couldn’t even begin to name them all.  There’s old trusty condoms, a plethora of hormonal medicine, the ring, the IUD, and just knowing when to blow and when to go (PnP — pull out and pray!)

But, finding out you have a human life growing inside you, and you think… to… kill it?  What the hell?  At what point did we become nazis dolling out judgment on who lives and who dies?  It’s seems hypocritical to me.  Capital punishment is bad?  But killing something with a heartbeat and the foundation of life isn’t?

I’ll digress slightly by saying women who are raped or have complications that could jeopardize their life should have the opportunity to decide.  With modern medicine and science,  it’s seems fascist to force a woman into giving birth to a child given to her via violent crime.  Or a process that would be a for sure death sentence.  In such a case, I can say an individual should have the right to decide their own fate.

But as an alternative to birth control?  Are you joking?  I guess the other argument is, if the woman didn’t want the baby, why let a baby be brought up in that kind of environment?

Bull.  Shit.  I’m thinking a good portion of people alive today were “uh ohs” or “oh shits,” but look there.  Alive and kicking because their parents AREN’T FUCKING LOSER COP-OUTS!  There’s always adoption.  But guess what?  That baby you made has no choice.  That baby relies on you, it needs you.  It can’t survive without you until it’s born. How could you betray the fundamental trust of the universe and all that makes us human beings by cutting it out and letting it die?

Insanity, I say.  Pro-choice?  How about Pro-SHUT-THE-HELL-UP  and grow up.  How about Pro-Birth-Control.  How about Pro-Adult-Decision-Making.

Get a clue, retards.  If we as a species are okay with killing the foundations of what makes us alive, we certainly won’t get far.

Video Games and… Misogyny? WTF.

Posted by Dan on February 8, 2012
Posted in: Rants, Video Games. Leave a Comment

So I read this article on IGN recently about boobies and video games (clicky).  Come on, really?  Misogyny?

People are so stupid.  Am I the only person who doesn’t see this as A) a giggle fest or B) a sleight against women?  My honest opinion is, this is normal!  Why do kids make stupid arguments like “boobs are cool that’s why they are in video games” and women make arguments like “this is objectification of females?”

Let’s get to the facts at play here, shall we?  First, games are about fantasy, and thus, most things portrayed in games are fantastic.  IT’S THE VERY DEFINITION!  Any fantasy product is going to focus on the min-max elements of what we humans find desirable.  Look at Hollywood, marketing campaigns, music…  But where games are concerend, let’s not just look at the female elements, let’s look at the whole game itself.  For example, what do the men look like?  What do the worlds look like?  What do the weapons and armor and other objects in the game look like?

Okay, sure, games may be catered to young adult males, but the industry has shifted toward Nintendo-boomers of the 80s.  In other words, the industry caters to ME!  A 30-something male who may or may not have a family but still enjoys playing games since I grew up on them (and now have my own money to buy them!).  That aside, it’s a straight up cop-out to say that’s why boobies are glorified in games, because mostly males play them.  That’s so emotional-reactionary, it kind of makes me upchuck in my mouth a little.

Let’s talk science.  From toddlerhood to adulthood, males simply “play” differently than females.  We like rough and tumble games, like “tackle your face and laugh about it.”  We like guns, action figures, and sports.  We aspire to be the little gladiators and hunters that resides within our genetic makeup.  And while girls aren’t discounted in this type of play, it’s not necessarily their preference.

I’m talking sexual selection here, people.  Every male who could produce and protect his children to their ability to do the same passed on traits that made that possible.  Which, back in the day, were things like physical prowess, aggression, and a disposition to superior motor skills.  You know, like the ability to throw a football and hit your kid sister in the face without thinking twice about it — it’s simple sexual selection.  And while women have vastly superior “short” motorskills (that is their ability to see, manipulate, and if you’re married you’ll feel me here, REMEMBER, objects near and around them), that doesn’t necessarily lend itself to brutality.  And since we’re talking target audiences, yeah, violence and women end up in games.  A lot!

Hell, even the “non-violent” games emphasize the aforementioned traits in some fashion or another.  From Super Mario and Duck Hunt all the way up to Call of Duty and World of Warcraft.

But back to the boobs.  I said game makers min-max our desires in games.  Well, absolutely — they’re trying to appeal to people and sell their product.  Does it make them dirty, violent perverts?  No, it means they have a basic understanding of biology.  Not too many guys I know want to simulate their daily grind — they live it.  So therefore, they take on the role of some badass, ripped stud who carries guns around that are bigger than he is, and is idolized by beautiful women.  Wait, but what makes a women beautiful?  The mating triggers, of course.

Big boobs.  Big butt.  Small waist.  A healthy amount of flesh.  These are triggers that indicate significant increased success of bearing and rearing children.  Breasts are the lifeblood of infants, so we like to see them.  A big butt and a small waist emphasize good hip structure and solid body fat that would lend to giving child birth and successfully carrying a child to term.  How did nature make certain we’d procreate successfully?  By coding us to look for these traits.

Do we, as males, care about any of that stuff, though?  Hell no — but our genes do!  Those are biological triggers to us that say “beauty” and we’re coded (and thus culturally conditioned) to hone in on those features and exploit them — and then, sometimes, move on to the next.  Not because we’re pig headed assholes (well, some of us are), but because it’s basic primate organization.  Impregnate what you can, and run for your life before the herd of females beat the crap out of you for knocking up their pride-mate.

Double edged sword here, that’s probably why women, in general, take offense to the concept.

So yeah, women are min-maxed to beauty.  Men are min-maxed to manliness.  Worlds are min-maxed to be the most beautiful creations ever, or to be the most desolate ones. It’s all about the fantasy and it’s all perfectly normal and, quite frankly, not all that interesting.  Certainly not interesting enough to spark endless debate and whining.