the Paly Voice

  • Baseball: Paly races past Watsonville 12-4; will face Bellarmine in 2nd round of CCS Playoffs
  • Senior Hilda Huang named a Presidential Scholar by the U.S. Secretary of Education
  • Stanford football head coach David Shaw selected as 2013 Baccalaureate speaker
  • Read the introduction to Verde Magazine’s “You can’t tell me I wasn’t raped” here
  • We’re on Facebook, fb.me/thepalyvoice, and Twitter, @thepalyvoice!

Aaron’s Antre

Aaron’s Antre: Renga, the only time swearing in a theater is allowed

Aaron Chum : October 7, 2012 10:02 pm : Aaron's Antre, Blog, Opinion, Spotlight, Uncategorized

“Renga” tries to do the impossible: getting 100 gamers to work together for a common cause. Photo by wallFour.

As a first semester senior, I do a few things: struggle through AP Physics, stare dumbly at a whiteboard in Multivariable Calculus, help run the Voice and wade through the hell that is college apps.

Oh, and on occasion, I sleep.

But last Friday, I tore myself away from it all to go check out a movie/video game hybrid called “Renga” showing at the Aquarius Theatre, part of the larger Palo Alto International Film Festival taking place that weekend.

There were really two parts to “Renga.” The movie part, consisting of some basic “find your way home after being left for dead in outer space” plot. And then there’s the gaming part, in which everyone in the theater is given a laser pointer and off you go to accomplish that goal.

Yes, I’ll be spending most of this review on the lasers part.

In a few words, the plot is that you’re stuck in outer space and you need to build up your ship while simultaneously protecting against attacking aliens until you’re strong enough to take on the final boss alien.

From my point of view, the objective of the game was just to gather resources and fend of waves of aliens. I think they were aliens. Or spaceships, I’m not exactly sure.

Either way, rinse and repeat until your ship is big enough to fight off the boss alien. Very basic. And repetitive.

But the plot isn’t the reason “Renga” is generating buzz right now in the gaming community. Rather, it’s the whole “massive co-operative game for 100 simultaneous players” part. Each person is given a laser pointer to point at the projection screen and only through the combined weight of multiple lasers can anything get done. For example, several lasers must converge on an alien to blow it up; one person can’t do anything alone. Collectively, the audience must gather resources and kill the aliens in this manner.

And therein lies the excitement (and frustration) of “Renga.” Getting people to work together toward the common goals of killing aliens and gathering resources. It’s like all those old Lego video games where both you and a partner have to simultaneously stand on different platforms to unlock a puzzle.

Now imagine trying to do this with 100 partners. I’m sure those mothers who brought their elementary school children to the showing weren’t too happy when certain audience members started breaking out words frequently found in movies such as “The Hangover” or “The Big Lebowski.”

Within the first five minutes, the deadweights in the crowd crawled out from under their rocks and revealed themselves by randomly waving their laser pointers into random shapes on the ceiling. Needless to say, these people weren’t very helpful to our common cause.

But arguably worse than the deadweights were the dominant alpha types and wannabe Captain Kirks who looked like they were auditioning for command of the Enterprise. I’m talking about you, lady sitting diagonally to me who spent the entire showing yelling that we needed to harvest more resources while also defeating the aliens. Wasn’t that the whole point of the game? Or the guy who demanded that his side of the theater only shoot aliens while the side I was on gather resources. Screw that, I thought to myself as I went back to blowing up the invaders.

I swear I’m a team player. Really.

Somehow, we did it. We built up our ship, defeated the boss and sailed on home.  And it only took us an hour and a half.

“Renga” as a whole is an interesting concept, one that can go far. It isn’t perfect; the creators were in attendance and were the first to admit that in a post-showing Q&A. The plot could definitely use some work, and pointing lasers at the same objects over and over again did get repetitive. But the idea of everyone in a theater playing an equal role in a gaming experience is groundbreaking and certainly one I approve of; it’s clear that “Renga” is on the cutting edge of a not yet fully defined genre of gaming.

I don’t expect massive co-op games to show up in theaters anytime soon. But when they do, I want to be able to claim that I supported them from the start. So remember this review in 10 years when you go to Century Cinemas 16 and play some sort of space opera/murder mystery with elements of real-time strategy and a lot of zombies with 100 other people.

No, I have no idea what that would look like either.

For more information about “Renga,” check out the developers’ site here.

Leave a response »

Aaron’s Antre: “Mass Effect 3″ as good as advertised

Aaron Chum : March 27, 2012 9:19 pm : Aaron's Antre, Blog, Opinion, Spotlight
voice-picture

How Aaron Chum has spent many hours over the past few weeks: huddled in front of his TV, playing video games.

- Katherine Lo

 

The past six or so months have seen an influx of video game titles, ranging from the perennial best seller “Call of Duty” to lightweights such as “Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games.”

Yet I’ve refrained from looking too deep into any of these games. Rather, for the past two years, I’ve been eagerly anticipating “Mass Effect 3,” the continuation of another bestselling series.

In short, “Mass Effect” is the story of Commander Shepard, a special ops soldier in the human Alliance navy. It’s late in the 22nd century and humans have stepped into the galactic community, interacting with a wide range of other species. Yet the tentative peace hanging over the galaxy seems destined to be broken — a giant horde of machines known as Reapers is coming out of deep space, intent on wiping out all life in the galaxy.

“Mass Effect” saw Shepard take down one Reaper. “Mass Effect 2” saw Shepard destroy the home of the Collectors, a species working in tandem with the Reapers. And “Mass Effect 3” follows Shepard’s attempt to repel a massive Reaper invasion across the galaxy.

At the beginning of “Mass Effect 3,” the Reapers invade Earth, forcing Shepard to flee and rally the various races of the galaxy through a combination of arm-twisting, sweet diplomacy and weapons.

“Mass Effect 3” is a hybrid third-person shooter and role-playing game. The player controls and customizes Shepard. Everything from Shepard’s gender to the species of fish in his or her cabin can be chosen. You choose whether your Shepard will be a paragon of virtue and go around the galaxy saving innocent souls (like myself) or a renegade, throwing aside everything else in the linear pursuit of destroying the Reapers.

And in this immersive story lies the reason why “Mass Effect” is one of the most profitable RPG series of all time. The story is extremely deep; one staff member once commented that the amount of writing in each game could fill several novels. Think about a universe the size of “Star Wars” or “Star Trek.”

Going off of this, the rich story leads to amazing cut scenes. Unlike your standard cut scenes in other games that are barely worth the effort to skip over, I more or less watched every cut scene. In short, it seemed as if I was watching an entire movie play out (and given the lengthy duration of the game, the cutscene probably do add up to a full length feature or two or three).

On a tangential note, according to Bioware (the developers of the game) senior community coordinator Chris Priestly, a movie for “Mass Effect” is actually in the works.

Praise could also be given to “Mass Effect 3” for the other side of gaming: the action. For the first time in the series, the action — the actual killing stuff to achieve the story — is commendable. In the first two games, the action was sheltered behind the overly impressive story — if these games had a weak link, it was the lackluster action.

No longer. The action of “Mass Effect 3” is fluid; Commander Shepard can roll around and fire as well as any other character in any other game.

So, how does the grand campaign to save the universe end?

To be completely honest, I don’t know.

One, I’m 15 hours into the game and preparing to launch an assault on a human extremist base on the alien planet of Benning. No end in sight. Rumors are I’m not even halfway done yet.

Two, I can’t guarantee a happy ending. The unique thing about “Mass Effect 3” is that the player, based on decisions made in this game as well as the previous two, can lose. Whereas one gamer’s quest may end in Commander Shepard heroically driving the Reapers back into deep space, another’s may end in the destruction of all sentient life.

And personally, I’ve succeeded in my quest to not peek at Wikipedia or IGN for spoilers. But I have picked up unsettling rumors about massive online petitions for Bioware, the game’s developer, to release new content giving alternate endings (which, if I must put two and two together, can only mean the ending sucked). In fact, Bioware just announced in the last few days that alternate endings will be available in the near future.

Admittedly, “Mass Effect 3” is not perfect.

There is the rare graphical glitch, most often during a cut scene. I’ll be talking to one of my squadmates on the Citadel, a gargantuan space station, when they’ll simply disappear for a few moments.

And the volume of content in the game sometimes backfires on itself. Bioware put so much effort into building great stories in the first and second games that, when said stories aren’t continued as thoroughly as in the previous games, it feels like a disappointment. At times, I would meet a former squadmate from “Mass Effect 2” on a mission — 15 minutes later, they were gone (although, as a disclaimer, I’m not anywhere near the end of the game so they may pop up again). In short, I’d prefer to spend more than 15 minutes with a character I spent 40 hours with in a previous game.

So, my final verdict for “Mass Effect 3?”

It’s the awesome conclusion to an extremely impressive series, one I hope to see continued (and it will be continued, if only because Bioware has made a ton of money off the series). The story is deep and immersive, making you want to spend those hours simply standing in corridors to listen to random conversations around you. Stick that together with a first-rate shooter, and you have an A+ game.

Leave a response »

Aaron’s Antre: Cricket, not as lackluster as it looks

Aaron Chum : February 8, 2012 12:35 am : Aaron's Antre, Blog, Opinion, Spotlight
voice-picture

The Australian national team bats against the English national team at The Oval, a cricket ground in England.

- Photo by Paul Hudson. Licensed under Creative Commons (Attribution 2.0 Generic)

 

Editor’s Note: The opinions and attitudes expressed by the author are those of the author and not necessarily of the publication’s editorial board. This segment is part of a series of opinions by Aaron Chum entitled “Aaron’s Antre.”

Last Sunday, I toiled much later into the night than usual, doing typical high school stuff (read: homework due the next morning). It wasn’t because I had too much homework, if only due to the fact that it was the first week of the second semester. And it wasn’t because of my disappointment over the “Chuck” series finale that kept me up until five that morning — it, to some degree, still prevents me from getting much needed rest at night. Rather, I had procrastinated away several hours earlier in the day perusing the Internet, learning about the sport that shares its name with an insect featured in the folklore and mythology of cultures around the world. Yes, cricket.

Research on a homework assignment invariably led me to the Wikipedia article on cricket, where, after substantial reading, I finally understood the rules and history of the sport.

I found out that cricket is most prevalent in England and regions of the world that were touched by its expanding empire in earlier centuries (Australasia, the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, and Southern Africa). So basically, our national pastime would be cricket, not baseball, if the colonies had not won the Revolutionary War.

And finally, I spent more time than I would like to admit watching YouTube videos of the Australian national cricket team (which I understand to be among the best in the world).

Apparently international cricket is a lot like basketball at the Olympics: At the top, there’s the U.S. and maybe a few other countries that futilely toil in the runner-up spots. And then, far behind, only tiny specks in the rearview mirror, are all of the other countries (like Hungary). In cricket, at the top are Australia, England, India and South Africa. And then there’s every other country (like Bangladesh).

So why watch cricket?

The cliche answer would be a blanket statement for any sport: its entertainment value or its ability to bring a group of people together, best highlighted by the India-Pakistan cricket rivalry accentuated by the many non-athletic issues surrounding the two countries.

Personally, much of cricket’s appeal lies in its similarity to baseball. Maybe it’s just because baseball season has been over for a while; I don’t watch spring training and I needed to watch something that somewhat resembled baseball.

But perhaps the thing that draws me to cricket the most is that it takes the batter-pitcher (or bowler, as they call it in cricket) relationship to the extreme. In cricket, the batsman is essentially standing in front of what would be the strike zone in baseball (the wickets). So the excitement of the game is magnified, at least for me, when the bowler is throwing the ball directly at the batter and the batsman has to defend himself by whacking it away, as opposed to the pitcher throwing it to the side of the batter in baseball.

In addition, now, I’ll be able to better relate to another couple billion people in the world.

True, cricket is definitely not a sport I could watch for hours on end. But then again, there are very few sports that I can watch hours on end.

So when cricket season rolls around (which as far as I can tell begins in April), I’ll be watching… If only to stave off the inevitable hours I’ll have to spend studying for AP tests in May.

Leave a response »

Aaron’s Antre: Chuck, the end of an era

Aaron Chum : January 19, 2012 12:26 pm : Aaron's Antre, Blog, Opinion, Spotlight

Editor’s Note: The opinions and attitudes expressed by the author are those of the author and not necessarily of the publication’s editorial board. This segment is part of a series of opinions by Aaron Chum entitled “Aaron’s Antre.”

Jan. 27 will be a sad day for many members of the Paly community, as a chapter in our lives comes to a (hopefully) fulfilling close. Or maybe it’s just me.

Yes, the final weeks of the NBC show “Chuck” have finally arrived. The series finale is barely a week and a half away after a tumultuous five year run that has included many weeks worrying over the imminent cancellation of the show, only to watch it be renewed after efforts by rabid fans. No such luck this year, however, as this season has been confirmed as the last.

“Chuck” details one nerd’s journey through the undercover spy life after a supercomputer is placed in his head by an old college roomate. Aided by his handlers John Casey and Sarah Walker, along with his sister Ellie and best friend Morgan, title character Chuck has transformed from bumbling asset to suave operative over the course of five seasons.

Although many people have criticized me for obsessively watching the show (you know who you are), I am not afraid to admit that tears may be shed on the night of Jan. 27 as I watch the series finale.

Admittedly, I’ve had my complaints with the show over the years.

On occasion, the action can be extremely corny and unconvincing. I still refuse to believe that one man with a sniper rifle, no matter how skilled, can take out 10 other guys with better sniper rifles (whatever the metric may be for comparing sniper rifles). And how you can jump out of a fourth story window onto a moving van without suffering even a scratch is beyond me.

Chuck contemplating proposing to his super spy girlfriend Sarah a few episodes into season four was questionable, if not portraying him as downright insecure and needy. Then the whole Morgan-with-a-supercomputer-in-his-head plot was certainly uncalled for and not in the least bit humorous, only serving to destroy the precedent established over the previous four years that Chuck was the only one with enough brainpower to store the supercomputer in his head. And I certainly had problems with the show bringing back far too many people that were supposed to be dead.

Oh, and the special effects have always been bad (or maybe I’ve just watched “Transformers” a lot). Green screens can only be used to a certain extent. After that, it just looks tacky.

But the highlights of the show more than compensate for its faults.

I have always been pulled to good plots such as those in Bioware’s “Mass Effect” series (although I would be willing to extend an exception to “Call of Duty”). And “Chuck” certainly has a good plot. While I am no screenwriting guru, I can appreciate the deftness with which the writers of “Chuck” integrate storylines into a cohesive episode that features action without wanton violence, heart without excessive mushiness, and among the funniest one liners I have ever read in a book or watched on television (although Tom Clancy is a deceptively sassy writer). By extension, the laughs, while failing to reach the level of comedic television in shows such as “The Big Bang Theory”, have always been satisfactory.

And last but not least, the music. I would like to thank whomever coordinates the sound and music on the crew of “Chuck” for about half of the music I listen to on my iPod. Incidentally, this music is playing even as I write this (Half Moon by Blind Pilot).

So yes, the show will be dearly missed. Even formerly carbon monoxide-poisoned Jeff Barnes, his creepy buddy Lester Patel, and Buy More manager Big Mike.

And with all of three million viewers nationwide (which I take to pretty much mean none in TV ratings speak), I will be watching this Friday night for the antepenultimate episode of the season.

Because in the immortal words of Robert Frost, “Nothing gold can stay.” And I will certainly watch “Chuck” until “dawn goes down to day.”

Leave a response »
« Page 1 »