The Music Wall

First things first. I've never been a "music person." Since I've put it in quotes, I suppose I should explain the term. In my mind, a music person is someone who cares deeply about music. They may or may not be a musician themselves, but they care deeply about music. This doesn't necessarily mean that they listen to it more than other people, but it does mean that they follow it more intently. They probably started going to concerts when they were fairly young, and they're constantly on the lookout for new music. They may have a specific genre they prefer, or they might listen to at least some artists in a wide range. Sadly, they're often incredibly elitist about all of this, and mainly seem interested in finding artists that next to no one listens to.

So that's not me. I may be a food snob, and I'm turning into a wine snob, but I've never been, and probably never will be a music snob. Still, that doesn't mean I don't listen to it, or have good taste in it. It just means it's a background impulse.

Still, when I was younger, I actively sought out new music, or at least music that was new to me. In my high school and college years especially, my tastes broadened quite a bit. However, in the time since, I've felt like I've hit the Music Wall. In short, I've stopped adding to my musical collection. Oh sure, I might pick up a new CD from an artist I like, and every now and then I'll listen to someone new, but that rate has slowed way down.

I think the biggest reason is that with the current technology, all of my music is incredibly accessible. Right now, as I sit at my computer writing this post, I have access to thousands of songs. While I obviously listen to some more than others, it's hard to imagine running out.

Another reason might be a natural product of getting older: since much new music is geared at the people who care the most about music (younger people), it's naturally going to pass over my head. Or under my feet, really.

Still, I think this is an interesting process. People don't stop watching new movies, or reading new books, but at some point in their life, most of them stop listening to new music. Perhaps music grounds us in a time of life more than those other forms. I know that for the rest of my life, "Basket Case" by Green Day will always make me feel like a 4th-grader, and reading Disclosure by Michael Crichton and not knowing what the word "cock-sucker" meant. Is that a feeling I want all the time? No, but it's a feeling that no new song (certainly no new Green Day song) could give me.

It could have been worse. Certain other authors on this blog hit the Music Wall years ago, much to my chagrin. Has this happened to you?

Suddenly It Makes Sense

I’ve been trying to describe why the last forty five minutes of The Dark Knight didn’t do it for me and getting thoroughly mixed reactions. Some, like the blogmaster here, agree wholeheartedly. Others fervently disagree. I meanwhile have been attempting to reconcile how a movie that was so incredible in the first hour and forty five minutes could collapse so quickly in a relatively short period of time.

To my surprise, the answer came from an unlikely source.

“An Associated Press critic called "The Dark Knight," a movie of recycled comic-book clichés, "an epic that will leave you staggering." The Arizona Daily Star compared the film favorably to Michelangelo's "David." “

That is from Greg Easterbrook, (italics are mine) better known as ESPN.com’s Tuesday Morning QB. Now, I don’t agree with what that comment probably meant, which was as a description of the whole movie, nor do I like that Easterbrook might be becoming the long winded, penned version of Skip Bayless’ “Professional Hater”. However his comment turned on the light bulb for me.

Why was the first two thirds of The Dark Knight so damn good? Because it wasn’t a comic book cliché. Sure, it had moments, like the high tech kidnapping from Hong Kong. But overall the tone, subject matter and storyline were compelling. It wasn’t your typical fluffy comic tale. It asked questions, gave you moral ambiguity and seemed to be heading towards a climatic, natural conclusion.

Then the final forty five minutes flipped all of that on its head by turning it into… a comic book movie.

The scenarios presented become a cliché, melodramatic clap trap. Harvey Dent’s character goes from interesting to bland and one dimensional, as most comic book movie villains end up. His rationale for his behavior seems to change more frequently than he can flip his coin, which ironically enough doesn’t jive with the character as it was created.

The Joker continues to be his usual psycho self, but he creates such a ridiculous scheme that it’s hard to take the character seriously. What made the Joker menacing in the first part of the movie was how he was over the top psychotic killer going about it in a low key way. In other words, he made select, high profile and telling displays of power and chaos that affected few people personally but created a mass effect of fear. Killing the commissioner, judge and then destroying the lives of Rachel Dawes and Dent made him menacing just because on that level he could inspire a realistic fear. By attacking those specific, protected people, no one was safe. Thus chaos ensued.

But then the prisoner’s dilemma is straight comic movie junk. “Oh no! Now he’s going to put hundreds of people in danger! Ooooh! BAD!!! That makes him sooo evil.”

Um no. It makes him cartoon-ish. And the resolution, no offense to anyone who liked it, was insulting to my intelligence. If you really want to believe human beings, who have been shown willing to do all sorts of unsavory things to one another for lesser things than their own lives, would not blow up a boat of nameless, faceless, convicts to save their skins, you can. Here in the real world, we’ll shake our head and lose a bit of respect for what the movie was trying to accomplish.

It sounds overly negative, but in the end I have no choice but to lose respect. The Dark Knight was living up to its name; a deep and interesting look at a very depressing situation without a clear right answer. It could have continued down that path (or ended after Dent became Two-Face) and followed events to their logical conclusion. Can you imagine if someone on the ship pressed the button only to have their OWN ship blow up? Immensely depressing, but it would have been incredible as a cruel, sick and twisted joke. Not like they had a villain who would be into that sort of thing.

But instead the movie whores itself out to the cliché that good must always win out in the end. People will always rise above the temptation of evil, the bad guy will always come up short and even if the world doesn’t know it, the hero is always watching over them.

In the end it feels like an insult to the first part of the movie, which did it’s best to set up an impossible situation for Batman, only to have him come out relatively unscathed. Sure he lost Rachel, but she was ditching him anyway. (He actually ends up with a better memory of her than if she had lived, in an ironic twist) Dent’s “dead” but Bruce only thinks something of him in the first place because he believes if he lets Dent become the legal Batman, he can get Rachel back. The Bruce Wayne that has been established in these movies WANTS to be Batman. He doesn’t want to be Bruce Wayne and since Rachel was never going to be with him anyway, the only reason he had for changing is gone. So losing Rachel and Dent mean little to him, no matter what BS the movie claims in the end. That Batman is a fugitive also means nothing, since he goes where the law doesn’t anyway. Besides if the mob can’t take him down with their resources, will some BS effort from Commissioner Gordon actually be a concern? Not to mention he couldn’t exactly walk the streets of Gotham in mid day before, so what does it change?

I once told everyone who would listen the first Spider-Man movie could have been the movie of the year had they actually had the balls to do a true rendition of The Night Gwen Stacy Died/The Green Goblin’s Last Stand arc. Those two comics are widely considered to have ushered in the modern age of comics we know today precisely because they broke trend. Comic books always put the hero in that aforementioned impossible situation that he, and occasionally she, managed to find his way out of.

The Night Gwen Stacy Died changed that. The comic book resolution didn’t happen. Peter Parker didn’t save his girlfriend. The Green Goblin’s death in the next issue is almost anticlimactic, as Parker notes himself. The reader is left shocked because that’s not what they are accustomed to. It was built up as a comic like no other and ended that way. We know Peter Parker’s world will never be the same again and in fairness, that is the second most important moment in the Spider-Man mythos.

The Dark Knight stood on the threshold of doing that with the comic movie. It could have made the comic movie something more; it could have turned it into a serious medium taking complex and difficult concepts and given us a real world answer. In other words, the imperfect answer. Batman could have lost Rachel (without her having leaving a note saying it was essentially moot), he could have had to deal with a psychotic mirror of himself in Two-Face. He could have had to actually sacrifice something to defeat the Joker, or see the Joker proven right about basic human nature.

Instead, the movie took a look over the edge and retreated. It ran back to comfortable confides of the comic book realm. Don’t like the shitty, unrealistic resolution of the prisoner’s dilemma? “You’re just are a naysayer who doesn’t have hope! I mean that is what they were trying to show, right?” (Forget the fact that the prisoner’s dilemma itself states you BLOW UP THE OTHER BOAT!!!) Dent become an idiot without any depth at the end? “Dude, lighten up, it’s a comic book movie.”

Sadly that wasn’t how it began. But that’s how it ended; along with any chance it would be considered one of the best movies I ever saw.

The Roommate Search: What Not To Do

So over the last few weeks I've been busy looking for a new roommate. My current one is moving back home at the end of the month, and rather than give up my awesome and almost comically under-priced apartment, I've decided to use the strange and mighty powers of CraigsList to find a new roomie. While I think I'm narrowing in on a good potential candidate or two, I wanted to share a bit of the wisdom I've gleaned from the process so far. Here's my advice to anyone searching CL hoping to find a room for rent.

-Read the ad. Closely. My ad wasn't exactly Homer's Odyssey, but I was amazed to see how many responses I received from people who clearly hadn't read more than the headline. If you ask basic questions that were answered in the text of the ad, I'm going to wonder about your basic mental health, and that's a bad sign right there. When I say pets aren't allowed, I don't care how awesome your dog is, I can't make the landlords change their policy, but I can make sure that I ignore your e-mail.

-Make sure you fit the general criteria. No, I wasn't too specific (intentionally), but when I say that I'm 24, and say I'm looking for someone in my age range, don't be 40. That's just silly. Similarly, don't have a kid. I know I can't actually put that in an ad, but what kind of parent wants to move into a two bedroom apartment with a stranger, when all they'll have is a single bedroom. Also, how desperate would I have to be to take on that kind of roommate?

-Respond to the ad with some semblance of competence. If you followed the first point, you would have noticed that my ad was free of spelling and grammar mistakes. This probably means that a response along the lines of "hey dood i saw ur ad & wz thinking id be a kewl rommate k let me no" will probably not pique my interest much. No, you don't have to be the world's greatest writer, but since most web browsers now have a built-in spell-check, shit like that is just inexcusable anywhere but your friend's MySpace page.

-Say something like: check out my Facebook/MySpace page, without realizing that you have your profile set to private (something that I encourage in general). It just makes you seem stupid. Say a few things about yourself...remember, I'm going to be sorting through quite a few responses, so you have to give me some reason to even spend the time corresponding with you.

-Respond to e-mails fairly promptly. Ok, so maybe you don't spend your day in front of the computer (I don't). But more than a day or so passes, and you haven't responded to my e-mail? You better have a really good reason, or I'm assuming you have negligible social skills. If you're not interested in the room, or found some place else, have the decency to say so.

-Show up to an appointment on-time. Much as I love showing off my apartment, there are plenty of other things I can do when I'm not at work, many of which involve beer. If you're going to be late, please call.

-Along those lines: if you are lost, call. I know my apartment is hard to find...I got badly lost when I first went to see it. I also know the neighborhood fairly well, and can direct you if you get lost. What doesn't work, however, is saying that you're going to be over at 1, calling at 1:30 saying you're almost there, and then showing up after 2, just in time to say you were really badly lost. Yes, you lost out on the apartment alright.

-Allow yourself enough time to actually see the apartment and then meet me. No, a cursory look at the apartment is not enough time to judge if you want to live here. Additionally, considering we exchanged maybe 100 words, I'm not really confident that you'd be a good fit. If you only spend three minutes in the apartment, don't act surprised when I tell you I don't think it will work.

-Ask basic questions ahead of time. If having a washer and dryer in the unit is a deal-breaker for you, ask me ahead of time if I have one. That way, you don't waste my time when you show up, spend 30 seconds looking around, ask, and then leave. Seriously, we exchanged e-mails, you even asked me several other questions...did this one just slip your mind?

-Come prepared with a question or two. Yes, my ad was fairly descriptive, and once you got here I said plenty more, but there are always things I forget to cover. If you ask a question or two, it makes me feel like you're paying attention, and actually care about your future living situation.

-Similarly, be prepared to have a conversation. Just like you have to decide if you like the apartment, I have to decide if I want to live with you. Even if we don't have to be best buddies, I still would like to be able to engage in the occasional conversation with the other human sharing the space. Even if you are socially retarded, at least try. Also, don't have a really creepy laugh. This is more of a general social thing, but it applies in this specific situation as well.

-Don't be surprised that I'm going to ask for a deposit. If I stop searching, and then you decide you'd rather move to Mozambique, I'd really prefer to not be left holding the bag. If paying first and last month's rent, plus half of the security deposit is a big surprise to you, you probably don't have much rental experience.

-Don't ask if you can spend a night here before you decide. First, the apartment is not haunted, so it's not like you have to worry about ghosts. Second, this isn't a hotel. If you're just moving to town, I'm sorry, but you can't just "crash" here.

-Generally, don't be a dick. That sort of shit might have been really popular with your date-raping frat buddies, but I'm an actual grown-up human, so I'm more likely to call the cops when you tell me that you might be bringing home some nearly-comatose bar skank.

So just keep that in mind, and I can still reject you because you're not as hot as one of the other applicants...

GTA 4: Why It's Not Working For Me

So one of the primary reasons I bought a current-gen console was to be able to play Grand Theft Auto 4. I've been a big fan of the GTA series since back in the top-down days on the original PlayStation, and the transition to third-person has worked for me in GTA 3, Vice City, and San Andreas. I figured that GTA 4 would be another enjoyable installment in that series, and among the first things I did once I hooked up the 360.

Wrong. I've had it for two months, and have maybe logged two hours of gameplay. It's not as if there's anything major wrong with the game, but there are several aspects of the game that I just can't seem to get past.

First, the return to Liberty City is really strange. I know that Liberty City in the series has always been a surrogate for New York City, but the fact that the city is entirely different than the Liberty City in GTA 3 is really disorienting. Or at least, it would be if I'd managed to explore most of the game. Unfortunately, getting into a car and driving has been nothing but an annoyance.

One of my favorite parts of the GTA series has always been how easy it is to drive. Sure, it's utterly unrealistic, but so is just about every other aspect of the GTA experience. You just had to hold down the gas button, occasionally brake around turns, and worry about shaking cops or spraying pedestrians with gunfire. However, this version of GTA does away with all of that in favor of a more realistic style. No longer can you go barreling down the road at 100 miles per hour and pull of a ridiculous 90-degree turn, evading the cops while maybe mowing down a few innocent bystanders. Instead, turns at anything above ten or so miles per hour require judicious and skilled use of the handbrake, and still often result in a wild fishtail.

Look, if I wanted Gran Tourismo, I would have bought it. By making driving so difficult, I have to focus so hard on that aspect of it that I can't even bother to plan the best escape route when I do draw the heat. I do appreciate that it's now possible to escape from the police by outrunning them, but as mentioned this becomes really difficult when any time you get above 30 mph you're liable to run into another car, or a tree, or who knows what. It really kills the visceral thrill I got in early GTA games, and that's a damn shame because it's what set those games apart from so many others (well that and being able to murder hundreds of hookers).

The storyline is supposed to be great, but so far it feels like a pretty generic story: Eastern European immigrant washes up in New York, falls in with bad company. Of course, the inevitable betrayal must be down the road, since it's a GTA staple (though at least in GTA 3 it has the decency to happen at the very beginning of the game).

Furthermore, the social interactions feel pointless. I enjoy bowling, or darts, or pool, as real life activities, but in video game form they're bad enough when it's a game designed around that one event. As a tacked-on feature in a much larger game, they're horribly unrealistic, and not in a fun way. Darts was so easy that I've given it up, while bowling and pool are just repetitive. I understand the idea behind the features, but if you can't make them fun, take them out.

In the end, it feels like Rockstar got caught in a lose-lose situation. One the one hand, you had people expecting more than just upgraded graphics for the next numbered version of the game. On the other hand, you have an incredibly well-established gameplay style that you risk ruining if you stray too far. I, for one, would have been fine with basically the same game with just a few tweaks (plus better graphics and a more involved storyline), but instead they broke one of the core elements of the game. Hell, if you want to up the difficulty curve of the driving, at least allow people like me to turn off the new style if we want.

I'm sure I'll pick the game up again at some point, and eventually it will probably suck me in enough for me to beat it. But no game that was so hyped, and so poised for success, should require four tries to grab my attention. When I start replaying old XBox games for the third or fourth time just to avoid GTA 4, that's about as big an indictment of the game as I can muster.

How Much Better Is Good Enough?

So this post is going to be little more than a thought exercise. With the recent release of a massively buggy NCAA Football 09 and the impending release of Madden 09, I'm fully ready to once again not buy a football game, despite being a serious football and video game fan.

Years ago, I bought Madden 04. That fact alone made my room the hub for many nights of college fun. That was the first version of Madden I'd owned in years (since the late 90s), and while it certainly gave me plenty of good times, it also featured a slew of design problems that astonishingly still plague the game five years later: spastic offensive line play, shoddy defensive backs, money plays, and who knows how many others.

None of this will stop EA from selling millions of copies: this is precisely the reason that none of those legacy issues will be fixed any time soon. If there's no financial pressure to improve the product (other than updating rosters and tweaking graphics and gameplay), why bother? With EA having the exclusive rights to the NFL for the next few years, little hope exists.

While no one appears likely to attempt to compete with Madden (or NCAA), I'm curious what it would take to draw a significant percentage of Madden's fanbase away. Obviously, not having the rights to real teams or players is a pretty big obstacle to overcome, so the gameplay would have to be substantially better to lure gamers.

I can think of a few features that would sell me on another football game: superior gameplay, superior dynasty options, superior online play, and totally customizable rosters.

Let's explore these. As mentioned above, Madden's gameplay has basically remained unchanged in at least five years. While some of the most egregious exploits have been hampered (like taking your defensive linemen really wide pre-snap), it's still way too easy to break the game on both sides of the ball. However, my real beef with the Madden series is the horrifically simplified strategy.

Professional football is an incredibly complicated sport, and a world of almost constant innovation. Sadly, Madden always seems to lag behind the curve when it comes to allowing users to harness their creativity. Yes, there are more pre-snap options than ever before, but the play creator is still primitive. Our hypothetical game would allow you to utilize every formation that's ever been attempted in the NFL (and some that haven't), from the Wing T to the A11.

It goes without saying that we'd also get rid of all the flaws I mentioned above: linemen would intelligently react to their surroundings, double-teaming elite defensive linemen (something that you could also control), picking the right player out when lead blocking, and behaving realistically on screens and draws.

Receivers would be rated (among many other things) on their route-running ability, meaning that sloppy route runners would have a harder time getting open. This would also allow possession receivers to achieve their proper level of importance.

Most of all, speed wouldn't be paramount. Madden 04 illustrated this most of all: Michael Vick was so good that we banned the Falcons from play on my game. While speed is obviously important in the NFL, it's not the only thing that matters. You'd be excused for thinking so if you only played Madden however. Fast receivers get deep, fast backs break long runs, and fast quarterbacks unbalance the game almost comically.

Beyond gameplay, however, there are other ways to improve on the Madden experience. While the Dynasty mode has improved over time, it still doesn't accurately reflect what it takes to run a franchise. The game doesn't include all of the things that can happen to your players and teams, like steroid suspensions, arrests, and even deaths. This is largely because the NFL and NFLPA wouldn't allow such things, but as I said before, our game doesn't have those licenses anyhow, so why worry about what those leagues think?

Madden's online play also remains laughably behind the times. While NCAA just introduced online dynasties this year, Madden basically just allows you to play with your friends. While this is better than nothing, it's almost comically limited. Anything you could do in single player, you can do with as many people as there are teams in my game. Speaking of which, you can create leagues of a wide array of sizes: smaller leagues will concentrate talent more, but also limit the funds that are available to the league as a whole...oh yes, that's another feature. You'll have to worry about the overall health of the league, from negotiating media contracts to making decisions about franchise movement or expansion. You can even start a league in the past and grow it over time. If you keep your league too small, a rival league might even start stealing players away.

Finally, because of course people will want to play with real teams and real players, rosters, teams, and logos will be totally customizable. You could even download them off of XBox Live (or whatever), so when someone creates all the real logos and teams, you can help yourself to their work.

Look, unseating Madden is an almost-impossible proposition, and there's little reason for another company to undertake it: the risks greatly outweigh the rewards. Still, as a football and video game fan, you can't blame me for dreaming...