Tag Archives: versus

“Man of Steel” Was Terrigood

2 Aug

It sucked. It was great.

Yeah, it’s late. I didn’t time this with the release of the movie. Why? Because I’m busy, ya hear? I’m working. I talk to you when I feel like it. Some day I’ll do it more often, but for now you’ll just have to be patient. For now, you’ll have to deal with whatever crap I throw out, whenever I throw it out.

Anyway, yeah, Superman, Man of Steel, pretty good movie. It could use some work, a lot actually. But more on that in a bit. First the good stuff. And yes, this is chock full of spoilers, so for those who don’t want any, here’s my review to you: go see it, make up your own damn mind. Sound good? Great. Let’s fly on over to Krypton for the opening scene.

Russel Crowe is a good actor.

THE BEGINNING: The opening of Man of Steel is good, if a bit brief. Krypton is dying, General Zod has launched a coup against the planet’s government, and Jor-El, father of Kal-El, is making a desperate attempt to keep his naturally born son alive. What you have to understand is, on Krypton, natural births aren’t normal. Children are bred for very specific purposes, and so they do not have the mental faculty of choice. Therefore, they are wholly determined to do whatever is necessary in order to further their “programmed” purpose. Kal-El, due to the nature of his origin, can make his own choices. This is what makes him unique. He could be a hero or a villain, a savior or a conquer, a liberator or a tyrant, or a nobody who never becomes an important part of history at all. He has a choice, and, even though we know what he’ll decide to do in the end, it’s still interesting to see how he goes about making that “life choice.”

But more about the opening. Krypton is a beautiful place, and I was surprised by how much time we spent there. Even though it’s dying, it still has this life to it that comes across great visually. The creatures and weaponry, as well as the communication devices, are all really unique in terms of design, a credit to the effects team and Snyder.

As for the actors, I thought Russel Crowe and Ayelet Zurer did a great job as Jor-El and Lara. I don’t this whole thing on Crowe being “bland and monotone.” I mean, he seemed pretty natural to me the entire time. He was just being a normal guy from Krypton, getting angry and smiling when it made sense for such things to occur. I think some critics just want everyone to have too much emotion nowadays, when, in truth, some people just don’t work that way. Some people are actually, you know, normal.

As you would imagine, being a Superman reboot, Kal-El is fired away to Earth, Jor-El dies (killed by Zod here) and the coup is put down. The coup’s participants are imprisoned while the planet burns. Now, I know a lot of people think this doesn’t make sense, but honestly, I have to disagree for a number of reasons. To me, watching your entire planet swallow itself whole is a fate worse than death. To be forced to live in darkness forever while the place you were bred to protect rots away is a terrible thing. So, for me anyway, that wasn’t a problem.

Now, Earth.

The boy who lived.

THE LIFE OF CLARK KENT: Okay, so we cut right to a mature, bearded “Clark Kent,” working on a fishing boat. He sees a burning oil rig in the distance and swims there, busts in and saves a bunch of people. And here’s where my first problem comes in: they all see him doing supernatural things. The reason this is a problem for me is the fact that, later in the movie (earlier in Clark’s life), we see him hold back on using his powers because his father wanted to keep them a secret, because he thought the world wasn’t ready. He was obeying his father’s wishes, being a good son. Now, that’s all fine and dandy, but then why THE HELL is he using them RIGHT OUT IN THE OPEN to save a bunch of STRANGERS? IT MAKES NO SENSE, and it completely negates to reasoning behind his previous sacrifice. Why didn’t he just say, “Screw it,” and do the same thing for his father when he had the chance? And why is he having a debate later on in the movie about showing the world his powers? He seemed pretty okay with it not long ago!

So yeah, the rig scene kind of pisses me off. My guess is either Jon Peters stepped in and said, “We need more explosions and superpowers in the beginning,” or story writer Christopher Nolan went all Dark Knight Rises on us and forgot that doing things just because they feel “more dramatic” isn’t always the smartest thing to do. That’s one thing that concerns me about Nolan. I’ve praised him in the past, but I’m starting to get a George Lucas vibe from him, like his ego may be getting to him. We’ll look at his future films and see what happens.

Now, even though I just freaked out about how crappy this section is, the next bit is pretty good. We essentially get a back and forth between present Clark and young Clark, watching him grow older, and watching what his growth has led him to. One of my favorite scenes in the movie has got to be when Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) is showing his son what he really is. When he shows the boy the ship, and they have their back and forth about how big everything is and how small everything is and all that boring philosophy and whatnot, it’s really touching. And I know this line’s in the trailer, but I still love it every time I hear Kent say, “You are my son.” Chills, every time.

Next, we get a bit of a weird coincidence. The homeless hitchhiker, Clark Kent, SOMEHOW manages to get a job with the exact team that is looking for frozen Cold War subs in the exact same place the Fortress of Solitude is (I know it’s a little different in this, but I’m still calling it that), that ALSO happens to have Lois Lane working them. Okay, I’m well aware that in real life strange coincidences like this happen, but that’s a LOT of things that we’re just expected to be all like, “Eh, okay,” about. Thank God Richard Schiff is here to save the day. He’s playing a scientist because, you know, he’s fucking Richard Schiff.

Clark discovers the Fortress, and has to save Lois from some robots. He does so, and the Fortress flies away so Ghost Jor-El can get through some exposition. It’s actually pretty cool, learning Krypton’s history and all, and also learning how our villains will come into play. After that Clark basically becomes Superman. Which leads us to our next section…

KNEEEEEEEL!

METROPOLIS: So, Superman come home, and it’s all good, but then Zod’s all like, “Let me tap into every T.V. screen in the world and show you how awesome I am.” And, honestly, this scene gave me chills. The way they left this eerie static hanging for a while before the message actually began was chilling. And the way it began with that simple phrase repeated over and over, “You are not alone,” was haunting. So yeah, Zod’s entrance was pretty cool.

Now, here’s where another problem comes in. In order to gain advance about what to do here Clark decides, instead of talking to Ghost Jor-El, who knows everything about what Zod is capable of and how to beat him, he’s going to go see some random priest we neither know nor care about for advice. This leads to a gigantic battle wherein nearly all of Metropolis, the main city in the Superman series, is destroy and tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people, are killed. The entire last half of the movie could have been prevented had Clark gone to Ghost Jor-El. Instead we get more of this Jon Peters nonsense with a forced, awkward romantic scene between Lois and Superman as Zod arrives, and both of them turning themselves in.

So, Lois, through the use of this little metallic key (if you’ve seen the movie, you know what I’m talking about), talks to Ghost Jor-El. And, WOULDN’TCHA KNOW IT, he knows how to beat Zod. So, while Superman escapes (with Lois) and fights Zod, she and the military get a phantom bomb ready to lock all the bad guys away.

The action here LOOKS badass. The effects team did an excellent job making the destruction and death appear realistic on screen. However, it became too much for me after a while, and I started going, “Okay, I got it, buildings collapse when you fly through them. Can we move on?”

Anyway, Zod gets his turn Earth into Krypton machine set up and the phantom bomb is almost ready. Now, to those who think Zod’s an idiot for wanting to turn Earth into Krypton instead of trying to rule it with his newly acquired superpowers (he gets them from being on Earth), you obviously need to take a better look at Zod psychologically. Remember how everyone on Krypton was practically brainwashed into a certain behavioral pattern? Well, Zod was bred to protect and defend Krypton at all costs. After watching it burn, he failed to do so. However, in turning Earth into Krypton, he would be fulfilling that purpose, the very one which was basically drilled into his brain at birth. It’s an insane thought process to us due to our ability to choose. Zod has not choice, and that’s what makes him, to me, such a compelling character. I actually sympathized more for him than I did Superman in this movie. All he wanted to do was save his home, and he  couldn’t do ANYTHING else with his life.

So yeah, I like Zod. And I like his machine. And I like how it’s set up at opposite ends of the world, splitting our leads apart. Yeah, Lois going on the mission with them makes no sense, but that’s Jon Peters again (if not Nolan). “We need tension with Lois! GIVE HER A MILITARY UNIFORM AND LET HER RIDE THE AEROPLANE!” Superman beats the bolts out of this tentacle monster thing (weird) and destroy the first half of the doomsday device, leaving the last bit in Metropolis.

In the city, Richard Schiff saves the day with the phantom bomb and Lois is falling. Kal-El catches her and leaves her on the ground so he can have a final showdown with Zod.

I would like to interject, before I go on, that this chick

Her...

is pretty cool. Okay, moving on.

The showdown with Zod is cool, but the point where he explains his motives, to me, is unnecessary. That’s all stuff I got just from the fact that he was doing what he was doing. It damaged the subtlety of the conflict a little. What made up for it? When Superman killed him.

Yeah, he kills Zod.

I know this is a topic of hot debate, but I’m personally on the side of, “He was forced to do it, but those people could have easily gotten out of the way.” He would’ve eventually had to kill him though, because Zod wasn’t locked away in the phantom bomb’s blast. He wouldn’t have stopped. Something had to be done.

So yeah, I’m for the death of Zod. Bring on the hate mail.

Right, or easy, your choice.

OVERALL: I realize that I’ve been switching between past and present tense throughout this. It’s late. I’m tired. Forgive such minor flaws in the face of my final verdict: Man of Steal was “terrigood.” I liked it. I’d see it again with friends (not alone). There were many problems, big problems even, but that doesn’t stop me from realizing what good there is throughout the film. When that final moment comes in and Jonathan Kent sees his boy donning that red cape, I get chills. So much care was put into that little moment, that little bit. It gives me hope that the next one won’t be so bad.

It’s not perfect, but it’s art, for sure. It may not be a classic, but it’s still a Superman movie worth watching. Go see it. Make your own damn mind up.

By the way, how in the hell is Batman going to even lay a finger on this guy? What, is he going to team up with Lex Luther and use Krypto…

…no way. That’s not a bad…

Him and Him?

~D.

VERSUS: Fight Club vs. Inception

23 Feb

Okay, so if you’ve been a faithful reader, you have probably read my review of Inception. If so, you obviously know how much I enjoyed that movie. What you probably don’t know about (because I haven’t reviewed it here) is my nearly equal love for another movie that, when I first saw it, changed my viewing of myself as an actor, writer, and future film director. This film was Fight Club. In case anybody doesn’t know, Fight Club is actually, though young, considered by many to be a classic (although there are many who would contradict that statement). It came out during a time when being against “political correctness” was far off and went in that exact direction, defying all that Man, at the time, had accepted as “right.”

I don’t want to spend this entire opening talking about the movie I’ll be reviewing in a moment, so let’s get started. Two of my favorite films are about to duke it out. This is: VERSUS.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS: Okay, so let’s face it, as much as we want to deny it the first impression is the one that counts. People want a movie to have a fantastic opening, so that they can tell all of their friends about it. Isn’t it so cool to be able to do that, to just walk up to a buddy and let those first few minutes of Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, or Casino Royale roll off your tongue? It gets them pumped to go see it, and gets you pumped to see it again. The opening scenes of a film are crucial for Man to be entertained. So which of these two films has the better opening scene?

All right, let’s start with Fight Club. As great as it is to watch the end of the film at the beginning, if the ending is made awesome by the crescendo leading up to it, don’t do it. If the ending of a film can’t stand alone as chilling or impressive, it shouldn’t be done. Don’t get me wrong, the opening of Fight Club is fine. It justs feels a bit slow and sleepy to me. It’s funny, but not exactly as awesome as the opening of the opponent.

The opening scen of Inception is intense. The music and atmosphere are established right away and feeling of darkness and mystery overcome you immediately when it begins (or at least that’s how it was with me). Even though you don’t know what’s happening, you’re hooked, and when Cobb and Arthur are pulling of a heist in a collapsing dream, it’s pretty cool. Isn’t it ironic that both movies I picked begin at the end? Or is that coincidental? Ah, whatever. Hopefully some grammar Nazi will show up and correct me.

Anyhow, the point goes to Inception this time around. The opening was just more fulfilling.

CAST: Okay, now let’s get down to what actually may be the hardest decision in the whole article: the cast. The reason it will be so hard: these were two amazing casts. I want that clarified before I say anything negative about them. With that said, let’s do Inception first this time.

Holy Christ was the casting director for this film awesome. I always for some reason get ticked when I see Leonardo DiCaprio doing a good job, but whatever. He was pretty awesome in this film, creating a strong main character who, though conflicted, certainly has good intentions. Some people may say that they predicted the choice Cobb (DiCaprio) would make near the film’s end when having a certain meeting I won’t spoil here, but I honestly couldn’t tell what he was going to do. He seemed very split between both possible decisions, and I was real happy about that. The supporting cast was great too, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt (playing Arthur) being my favorite of them. He was spot on when playing the paragon member of the “dream team.” (Oh God, did I just say that?) Ellen Page as Ariadne was good, mostly playing a character who was much like the audience: curious and wanting to understand what was happening between Cobb and his subconscious. The rest of the cast was great as well, mixing in enough comedic relief while still remaining serious throughout the picture.

Now, Fight Club’s cast is a bit trickier to judge against the opponent’s. For one thing, it’s smaller. It instantly has a disadvantage now. However, having one of the greatest actors of the past two decades, Edward Norton, kind of helps. Oh, as well as Brad Pitt. Even though he has that whole, “he’s just playing Brad Pitt as a psychopath,” thing going on, he’s still a good actor. So, did the cast do well here? Hell yeah they did! Dude, I don’t like “geeking out” mid-review, but Ed Norton as an insomniac cubical worker is probably one of the most hilarious things in the world. Every line that came out of his mouth either had me cracking up or had me going, “Damn!” It was awesome. Also, I don’t care if it’s just Brad Pitt playing Brad Pitt, his delivery was spot on. Everything he did in this movie as Tyler Durden makes him one of the most memorable characters in cinema. A phenomenal performance behind a phenomenal character. Now, about Helena Bonham Carter. Look, I know she’s supposed to be a psycho (and don’t get me wrong, she did a fine job as well), but there’s one thing that’s off. She started out as the craziest person in the whole movie, and then all of the sudden by the end she’s telling Ed Norton that he’s certifiably insane? What? Maybe I’m being picky, but that really did bug me. However, it didn’t take away from the quality of the cast one bit. And Robert Paulson, we will miss you (inside joke: go see the movie).

The point goes to Fight Club this time around folks. Congratulations!

DIALOGUE: What’s a good movie without lines you can’t repeat to your friends until they want to split your head open like ripe melon? I’ll tell you what it is: Wall-E. Anyhow, now that we have that bad joke out of the way, we may proceed.

Fight Club’s dialogue is some of the funniest stuff I’ve ever heard (as I mentioned earlier). It’s also some of the creepiest. Look, let me just link you to a scene I noted on Facebook and you’ll see what I mean: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=182516301785534. Or how about this scene, also very interesting in terms of its darkness: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=182518058452025. You see? Clever, but definitely dark. The script is crafted in such a way that an idiot can’t like it, which is a good thing. There are plenty of lines that are memorable, such as the all time favorite, “The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club.

The script for Inception was good, but I’m not sure it was better. In fact, in my opinion, it wasn’t. It was definitely poetic and has a lot of style and humor to it, but Fight Club’s script is on a whole different echelon. It is practically a thesis, to be honest. Therefore the point goes to the soap maker this round (another inside joke).

DIRECTION: Christopher Nolan has never, as far as I’ve seen, done a bad film. Memento was good, The Dark Knight was good, and his latest masterpiece is a great work of art. The set pieces are stunning, the effects are beautiful, and the way the tale of Cobb is told is fun and exciting all the way through. When the “dream team” (ugh…) finally begins their big mission halfway through the film, you can feel the intensity of the job they’re about to pull off just in the way they look at each other. It’s really fascinating. And of course who could forget that ending. Seriously Chris, that was just priceless. I hope you never tell us what happened, so that it’ll always be awesome.

Fight Club was directed by David Fincher. For those of you who don’t know, he’s the guy who directed The Curious Case of Forest Gu– oh, I’m mean Benjamin Button, oh, and some movie about Facebook or something. It probably sucked. Anyhow, he definitely did a nice job with Fight Club. It was very dark and very tense, but maybe a little too dark. Sometimes I wished, while watching it, that it would lighten up a bit. I like dark films, but this was pushing past Watchmen level at some points.

Because of the above stated, I’m afraid the direction award goes to Inception. Sorry Fincher. Maybe your movie about that girl with the dragon tattoo will be less dreary.

Okay, it looks like we have a tie! Wait, no, that can’t be right. There has to be one more thing, something so important it overshadows everything known to Man concerning life, the universe and everything…

THE STORY: The story of a film is generally pretty basic in nature, and then elaborated on by the presentation of that story. Inception has not only an elaborate presentation, but an elaborate tale as well. The story of the mind being the scene of a crime has so many layers that it’s often hard (for some viewers) to keep track of it. Oftentimes I’ve been told that nobody can get it the first time through, even though I can attest to that statement being completely false, considering I did. I’ll admit I noticed new details after I saw it five more times (don’t judge me), but to be fair it didn’t change dramatically.

Fight Club’s story doesn’t really pick up until the meeting with Tyler Durden, and though a well presented tale you don’t really understand it until very near to its climax. That’s how it was for me, anyway. I love the movie, don’t get me wrong, but there’s just some stuff that comes up in the story that isn’t worth it until the end. And even though it kind of works with this film, for me some things didn’t. I’m trying not to spoil anything so I won’t give my one perfect example of this, but anybody who has seen it probably remember’s the scene in the car when Tyler and Ed’s character have that argument. After seeing the ending, does that scene make any sense? No, it doesn’t. And so the tie is broken. Inception wins the bout!

FINAL TOTAL

FIGHT CLUB: 2               INCEPTION: 3

What a ****up.

Thanks for reading! Be sure to return for more!

VERSUS: Borderlands v.s. Left 4 Dead 2

8 Dec

Hello friendly viewers (and to those who aren’t so friendly, get out). I realize I haven’t posted much in a while, so I’ve decided to come back with a bang. Two great games have been released. Though one isn’t quite as recent as the other, they both feature something that I love: four player co-op.

I’m going to be breaking this duel between the games into several parts. If you’re only interested in one section, just look for it, read it, and be on your way. But if you want a full blow review of the two, and want to know which is really better (in my opinion of course), then sit back, relax, and enjoy the first episode of VERSUS.

BORDERLANDS V.S. LEFT 4 DEAD 2

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

The first thing one notices about L4D 2 that instantly makes it better than Left 4 Dead (1), is the drawn out, kickass, rompin’ stompin’ opening cinematic. The characters look better, their voice actors are perfect n ever way, it’s cooler, it’s longer and the excitement one feels while watching it is much higher than that of the first. It also spans across all of the campaigns, not just one, and makes one want to play through the whole game to see how this, that, and the other might have played out. It really is incredible.

Now with Borderlands the story is a tad different. The opening cinematic is awesome, don’t get me wrong. It’s just a different kind of awesome, and unfortunately this different kind isn’t quite as good as L4D 2’s first impression. The opening scene introduces you quickly to the planet of Pandora, and the classes you can pick from. Now I must admit that There Ain’t No Rest For The Wicked is the absolute perfect choice of song for this scene, and the timing is perfect as well, with each characters being introduced in rhythm in a grindhouse manner. Although it’s fun to watch. I’d rather look at the cinematic the L4D 2 has than the one Borderlands plays. Sorry Pandora, but this round goes to the zombie apocalypse.

WINNER: L4D 2

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

STORY

L4D (1) is known for having little to no story. It’s just four (well, now five with Crash Course) movie campaigns that aren’t very connected at all. L4D 2, however, manages to handle this problem nicely by having the first campaign be the very first meeting between the survivors. The introduce themselves to each other in an elevator, and set out to see what’s out there in Postapocalyptia (note the Fallout reference I just made there :]).

L4D 2’s campaigns are also tied together. For instance, the characters might talk about something that happened earlier in another campaign that’s related to the one you’re one. And whatever vehicle you left the last campaign in is in the start of the next one, providing some link between each campaign. It’s not a huge story arc, but it’s something. And L4D 2 comes complete with a company called CEDA (Valve is known for having companies in their games, i.e. Black Mesa and Aperture Science), which was supposed to be protecting people from the infection, but failed miserably. Their jets and helicopters are still flying around, but all of their “infantry” on the ground are now infected. It’s a real hellhole.

Borderlands’ story is…um…yeah. Listen, I hate to disappoint any readers hoping Borderlands would have a nice story, especially with such potential (four unique mercenaries on an alien planet being ordered to do things by a mysterious guardian angel who might have something up her sleeve that will shock gamers everywhere). Unfortunately however, the story is, for lack of a better term, utter crap. I mean, I haven’t beaten the complete story yet, but I’ve gotten far enough to know that this game is not about the story, it’s about the gameplay. The guardian angel isn’t mysterious, just annoying. She feels like she was thrown in at the last minute so people would feel like there might be some inner workings to the story. The opening events of the game are boring (in terms of story, not action) and made me want to shut it off (though the gameplay really saved it big time). Honestly, I pity the writers who worked on it and had to play it afterwards because I have a feeling they know they failed. And so the winner is once again the apocalypse.

WINNER: L4D 2

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

GAMEPLAY

L4D (1) had plenty of great things, but also plenty of flaws. For one thing, there were only five primary weapons, two grenade types, and only one secondary weapon (although dual wield was enabled), along with a few other items not used for combat. In L4D 2 there’s ten primary weapons, twelve secondary weapons (if you include dual wielded pistols and melee weapons), and even a new grenade, an adrenaline shot, and a defibrillator. That’s a large improvement from the last game and gives players much more flexibility with what they use in the game, and greatly influenced my take on the game. Another improvement is the difficulty level. L4D 2 is much more challenging than its predecessor, causing survivors to really have to work together even more. Teamwork is key to completing the campaigns in L4D 2, and I mean key, especially with the new special infected running around. The spitter shoots acid spit at survivors and creates pools of this dangerous fluid when she dies. The charger rams through everything in its path and when it tires out grabs the nearest survivor and begins pummeling him into the ground. And then there’s of course the jockey, who jumps on the backs of survivors and leads them into the hordes of zombies, fires, off cliffs, into the witch, etc. Speaking of witches, in all daytime campaigns the witch will now wander around. She could pop up around any corner, and you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it.

It isn’t just the regular game that’s improved. There’s also new game modes as well. Scavenger takes survivors to sections of campaigns and has then bring objects around the map (usually fuel tanks) back to the “home base” area to collect points. And then there’s of course the game mode that was revealed in the demo (but not playable): Realism. Realism at first seemed to me like basically the regular game. But that was before I got separated from my team. Realism takes away the blue silhouettes that helped you out so much in the regular game and makes you realize how important they actually were. You can get lost very easily in Realism and not only that, but items are much harder to find in Realism because of the silhouette removal. The tank does more damage than before as well and the witch can kill players in one hit. And I don’t mean knock down, I mean literally kill you in one hit. And remember those closets that helped so much in getting teammates back? Not there. They’re gone in Realism. Hope you packed a defibrillator or two. Now imagine that game mode on expert, and you’ve got a real challenge on your hands.

Now Borderlands has a very different play-style. Borderlands is, for one thing, and RPG at its core. It’s a shooter, don’t get me wrong. But all attacks and stats and such are altered by RPG style perks and statistics. There’s no moral decisions or anything, but the game doesn’t work like that. It work more like this other one game I hate. What was it called again? World of Whorecraft? Something like that. Anyhow, the game flows like that certain other MMORPG, but it’s ten times better. For one thing, the action isn’t slow and boring, but exciting and fun. And not only that but there’s tons of guns. I mean, there may actually be 87 bazillion, just like in the ads. Because there’s plenty of guns. Rocket launching shotguns, flaming snipers, explosive revolvers, to name a few. And I mean a few, because there’s so many guns. It’s crazy how many there are.

Character progression is quite fun as well. Character customization is purely asthetic, but that’s okay for a game like this. It’s more about your abilities than your armor and such. Each class has its own special ability. The hunter has a deadly pet bird named Bloodwing. The soldier has a turret he can drop down equipped with a shield for protection. The siren can turn invisible and move super fast before deploying an energy blast that covers a large space. And then there’s the brick (or berserker) who drops his guns and take out enemies with his fists. All of these abilities are upgradable, and so are a whole bunch of other things like reload speed, what kind of item drops you’ll get, etc.

Exploration is quite fun, and since there’s so many new areas to explore around every corner and so many quests to uphold, you’ll almost always have something to do. And with co-op, question becomes more challenging, but at the same time, more fun. Having buddies around always makes Borderlands a lot more enjoyable. In multiplayer you can duel (like in Whorecraft), and even have 2v2 battles in arena. So if you ever get bored of NPC enemies getting slaughtered at you feet, you can always try and see if you can beat your buddies into the dirt, too.

It was a tough decision, but I think because of the RPG aspect, this round is going to have to go to Pandora.

WINNER: BORDERLANDS

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PRESENTATION

The new menu for L4D 2 is sleek and smooth and it’s very easy to find the thing you want to do. It’s also easy to find games and start playing them without fuss. The new musical style is cool too, providing a cool set of tunes to go with your getting into the game, and improving the in-game experience itself. Along with that the daytime campaigns and the new lighting for nighttime campaigns create a much more brilliant atmosphere in the world of L4D 2. Lastly there is of course new wall messages and new side characters to spice up the L4D world, including L4D 2’s version of the companion cube, a cute little garden gnome named Chompski.

Borderlands’ menu isn’t quite as interesting and feels sort of like the menu for a PS2 game (be advised I have Borderlands on the PS3). The in-game menus are cool though and provide easy viewing of items and stats and such. And there’s also that great art style that makes the world more vibrant and colorful. However, bland characters who don’t have that much personality (not that every character in Borderlands is like this) caused me to not be able to appreciate the way it was presented as much. And that’s why Valve has once again triumphed.

WINNER: L4D 2

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

FINAL SCOREBOARD:

L4D 2: 3

BORDERLANDS: 1

WINNER OF VERSUS: L4D 2

Hope you enjoyed the first episode of VERSUS.

Happy Holidays!