Less Green, Please

What is up with Drury and its need to make driving/parking a little bit harder with each passing year?  My freshman year driving was just fine; there were plenty of places to park, and getting around was relatively simple.  Then, during my sophomore year, they closed off one of the roads to make way for construction of the O’Reilly Event Center.  Suddenly it was a little more difficult to get to my parking space.  But it was just a minor annoyance and I didn’t think too much of it.  But now this year, my junior year, another avenue has been closed off.  Drury decided the best thing they could possibly do with the empty lot where Turner and Belle halls once stood was make it an empty lot with grass on top instead of creating more parking spaces to make way for the huge load of incoming freshmen.  Not only that, but one of the lanes into Freeman lot has been closed off, effectively bottlenecking the only way in or out of that parking lot.  I discovered this to my ire while driving to my on-campus summer job, and having to turn around in Drury Lane and go around campus to get a parking space.

Are you kidding me?  Why is this such a difficult concept to comprehend: that a campus should be easily navigable?  Not to mention that Drury actually cut down available parking spaces when they closed off Freeman’s entrance (at least twelve).  It also doesn’t help that so far all the new green space has done is just sit there, looking green.  Now, I know, people weren’t allowed on it for a while because the grass was growing, and now it’s all cold and stuff, but you know what?  You know those benches they built for students to sit on?  The ones that have been available to the public since day one?  Never used.  I walk by that space at least four times a day going to and from classes, and I’ve never once seen someone using the benches.  I even had to shoot a story on the green space for DUTV, and I was out there for a full fifteen minutes before someone even walked through the space so I could interview them.  What a waste. 

I can’t help but feel this is nothing but a ploy for Drury to snag another sustainability award.  We won it last year for doing things that actually help, like removing trays from the Commons to reduce the amount of dishwashing, or the slow phasing-out of trash cans with recycling bins.  But this just feels pointless.  So what if we have another field?  How is that helping?  It may make campus look prettier, but, so?  It’s not making campus sustainable, it’s only making it look sustainable.  It’s not the same.

PlayStation Roundup

Semester's almost over.  And yet, so close to the end, my PlayStation 3 sits unused, as it has since I came back from Thanksgiving break.  I haven't been able to touch it because of all the work I've been doing the past few weeks.  Nor have I been able to play any casual online games.  What's a blogger to do?

How about giving a brief judgment of all the games I've played on the PS3 this year?  What better way to wrap up the semester than with one general, overall look at what I've been playing?

Assassin's Creed II-4.75/5: you already know why.

Dead Space-2/5: this was really disappointing.  Everyone who plays this game says it's one of the best (and scariest) things they've ever played.  All lies.  Boring, repetitive, unscary, no surprises, repetitive, cliche storyline, and repetitive.

Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots-3/5: Another disappointment, but this one was much more minor.  It's the end to one of the longest-running game series of all time, and as an ending, it's pretty good.  Too bad a lot of it's rushed, and the gameplay isn't very exciting.

Ninja Gaiden Sigma-3.5/5: They weren't kidding when they said this is one of the hardest games ever made.

Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction-4.5/5: I love the Ratchet and Clank series, and after a disappointing previous entry on the PlayStation 2, this game reminded me again of why I love it so.

Resistance: Fall of Man-4/5: This one was a surprise, like Metal Gear Solid and Dead Space, but this was actually a pleasant one.  I was expecting a pretty boring shooter going into it, with nothing really special or defining.  And for the first few levels it was.  But about 1/4 of the way through, it turned into one of the most fun and exciting shooters I've ever played.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune-4/5: This one's unfinished so far, butr at the moment it's very, very fun.  It has one of the most cinematic storylines I've ever seen, and fun platforming (jumping around) gameplay.  The only problem so far is gunfights that stretch out wayyyyyyyy longer than they need to.  We'll see if that becomes enough of a problem later on to affect its score.

Why Aren't More Sequels Like Assassin's Creed II?

Sequels aren't good.  Sorry.  They're not.  Any time a sequel to a popular movie/game/book is announced, caution is always the best approach since usually a sequel, instead of focusing on the continuing stories of the characters, revolve more around spectacle and crowd-pleasing.  I point to Iron Man 2 as a good example of sequel-itis.  That or Pirates of the Carribean.  But sometimes, sequels not only continue the stories set up by the first installment logically, but also manage to go back and pave over flaws that hampered the original.  Assassin's Creed II is such a sequel.

Assassin's Creed was a game full of potential.  You play Altair, a member of a secret society of Assassins devoted to maintaining order in the world.  Basically, you bop around the Crusade-era Middle East and assassinate members of the Templar order, who are trying to bring the Holy Land under their control.  Fun idea, but very fatally flawed.  The gameplay was the main issue.  It was repetitive to the point of annoying: there are nine different assassination missions and all of them play out almost the exact same way: you go to some ancient city, punch a few witnesses until they give you information about your target, go to target, stab, and run away before you're killed by guards.  Fun the first time, but by the final time it's maddening.  In addition, Altair kind of sucked a little as a main character.  He's bland, doesn't have much personality, doesn't go through much growth, and basically just jumps around rooftops like a badass and not much else.  There's also a science-fiction subplot that's more annoying rather than intriguing, the way they were intending.

But the sequel went back and, if not fixed completely, tweaked the problems enough to make it almost an entirely different experience.  In the sequel, you play a noble named Ezio Auditore de Firenze in Renaissance-era Italy.  He is a descendant of Altair (don't ask me how that's possible) who, after his family is betrayed and executed by Templars, dons the Assassin's cape and hunts them all down in a fit of angsty vengeance.

This game should be the poster child of videogame sequels.  Remember that repetitive gameplay I told you about?  Almost non-existent in this game.  The game has a much more narrative-style flow, which means your missions can be escort missions, or tailing missions, or simply walking around exploring the sights.  You even get a chance to fly Leonardo da Vinci's flying machine halfway through the game.

Also, Ezio is everything Altair isn't.  Ezio has depth, and multiple levels to his character, something Altair heavily lacked.  Ezio starts out as a brash womanizer, and even when he starts his revenge, he still has a bit of fun-loving flair to him.  Even his angst is believable.  It's not annoying and not focused on, and his character arc as he slowly begins to accept his birthright as an Assassin is handled subtly and naturally.

I'm not done with this game: unfortunately, since school's started up again, I don't have any time to play.  But so far, I'd say it's the best game I've played this year; even though it came out last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPTAWHywY6E