Awesome. I am a fan of the Assassin's Creed series. I love the parkour, mainly because I lust to acquire the skill to do it. I love the hidden blades of Ezio and Altair, the story is intriguing if a little vague and the characters are believable and for the most part, like-able. Sure, Altair was about as two-dimensional as a sheet of paper, but that was kind of the point. He was taken from his family as a child and trained to kill. It's all he knows. He's basically a sociopath at the beginning of the game and as we move him through the game, he turns into a person. It's called character development. Sure he doesn't have an Arabic accent like all the others, but hey, its the Animus 1.0. It's still in beta, cut it some slack.
Anyway, Brotherhood takes everything that was awesome about part 2 and makes it smoke crack. There are new moves, the ability to use projectile weapons with your sword/dagger equipped and of course the lovely hidden blades. Now, I've not finished it yet, so I haven't trained any assassins, but the whole point of the game is to take over Rome and build an assassin's guild. Epic stuff here people. You also get to rebuild Rome, much like Monteriggioni in 2. Also, if you like, you can explore Monteriggioni in 2012 as Desmond by exiting the Animus. There are things to do as Desmond, such as check your email, which may prove useful and maybe give some insight into the other assassin's minds. There are also relics to be found around the town, left over from the siege at the beginning of the game.
The main new feature, and probably the one I've spent the most time messing around with is multiplayer. I don't play console games online often, mostly because I can rarely find people playing the same game as me (lookin' at you Prey). I think I've progressed to level 4 in the past couple of days but it is awesome. I've only played 2 different game types; one where it gives you a target and vague compass directions to him. You get to choose one of the deadly characters, stalk your victim and kill him or her while trying to avoid the bastards trying to kill you. It's sweet. The other kind of game is a team game. The first round one team tries to kill the other and the second team tries not to die and the second round is vice versa. Not as good as the other, but still cool.
Anywayyy...that's pretty much my initial thoughts of the game. May say more after I beat it and progress farther in multiplayer but I probably said everything I needed to right there. If you like AC, BUY THIS GAME.
UPDATE:
Finished the game. Upgraded all my baby assassins to master assassins and tore ass through Rome with them. Awesome. I don't think there's anything that's quite as satisfying in these games as calling on your assassin brothers to rain arrows down onto a group of guards that are in between you and a target.
On a side note, the ending was just as confusing as some of the others. Assassin's Creed 3 had better be a 40 hour game to explain some of the shit they've put me through.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow
"You like Castlevania, don't you?"
For those of you who haven't played Metal Gear Solid on the original Playstation (lucky bastards, all of you), Psycho Mantis says this if you have a Castlevania: Symphony of the Night save on your memory card. Which I always did.
Castlevania is one of the best series the NES ever gave gamers. Oh I know, people defend Mario and Zelda, but let's tell the truth, those games have basically been the same since inception. Castlevania has actually tried different things, with varying degrees of success. From adding RPG elements to what amounts to a classic action adventure game (in games like Simon's Quest and SotN) to trying to break out of the side-scrolling game play (Castlevania 64, Legacy of Darkness and Curse of Darkness to name a few that only kind of worked). SotN is considered the peak of the series and is apparently very rare on the PSX, and was my introduction to the series, and damn was it awesome. If you haven't played it, go on Xbox Live and download it. NOW.
I have to hand it to Konami, they have tried to put all the games into some kind of timeline, and isn't below saying games weren't part of the chronology. If I remember correctly, the two games on the N64 were removed, probably more because they suck than because they couldn't fit them in. Almost every aspect of those games were absolutely dreadful. So when a new Castlevania game was announced for the PS3 and Xbox 360, I think every fan was cringing in fear because we knew it wasn't going to be side-scrolling, they were going to venture into 3d territory again. Ouch.
Then we saw the teaser trailer. And it's narrated by none other than Patrick Stewart. Odd. But when Captain Picard talks to you about vampires and werewolves, you listen. So maybe this won't suck. Then they announce that Hideo Kojima, the genius behind the Metal Gear series, was going to have a part in the game. Now, I met this announcement with a loud, uproarious meh! Because I never really liked Metal Gear. MGS was ok, but after that, I couldn't care less. I don't care what anybody says Metal Gear Solid 2 sucked ass; any game that I have to play through a segment where the main character is naked and holding his junk so we don't see it is worthless. Anyway, the announcement that Hideo Kojima was going to work on the new Castlevania game was hot shit in the video game world.
Alright, enough beating around the bush, is the damn game any good? Well, yes, yes it was.
First off, when I bought it, I noticed the case is really heavy. I buy a lot of console RPG's like Oblivion and Fallout 3, so I figured the book was just freakin' huge. Nope. I pull the book out and it's like four pages in English, then Spanish and French. Then I look closer and it's two freaking disks! I don't know if that's just for the 360, because I think blu-ray has a higher capacity on the disk, so maybe it's just one for the PS3. Seriously, I haven't seen a multi-disk game on a console since I quit playing my Playstation. Damn.
So I figured the graphics would just be mind blowing if this game takes two disks. The graphics are great, suitably gory and detailed. Actually, yeah, mind blowing is a good description. My only issue is a lack of control over the camera; it's static and the view changes on its own. It does it fairly well and I was rarely aggravated by the camera, I just would like to be able to look around and check out the scenery; I had the same issue with Dante's Inferno. The sound effects were great, the voice acting was top-notch and the music was awesome. Especially in the music box area where we got to hear Vampire Killer from the first game. It was a welcome throwback to the original series.
There are four difficulty settings, the hardest unlocked by beating the game once. To get 110% of the game completed, you have to play on the hardest setting, Paladin. This setting is challenging, not balls-out hard like Halo 2 but it's a nice step up in difficulty. There are tons of things to find, upgrades to life and magic and subweapons like normal. And there are trials to do on each level after you have beaten it once. Some of them are really difficult, like beating a Titan in one minute and thirty seconds, to the downright easy, like beating the first level without all the villagers being killed.
This game is long too. Probably one of the longest games I've played recently that wasn't an RPG. I bought it last Tuesday and played pretty much constantly all through Wednesday and Thursday and still did't complete it until Friday. Now that was only going through the story, I didn't go out of my way to find stuff, I didn't go back and do trials or unlock stuff, I just played beginning to end and it took me three days. Not too shabby. There was something else I wanted to mention but I cannot think of it to save my life right now. Maybe it'll come to me later and I'll edit this again. Anyway, that's about all I have to say: if you're a fan of action adventure games or the Castlevania series in general, you have to play Lords of Shadow. You won't be disappointed.
For those of you who haven't played Metal Gear Solid on the original Playstation (lucky bastards, all of you), Psycho Mantis says this if you have a Castlevania: Symphony of the Night save on your memory card. Which I always did.
Castlevania is one of the best series the NES ever gave gamers. Oh I know, people defend Mario and Zelda, but let's tell the truth, those games have basically been the same since inception. Castlevania has actually tried different things, with varying degrees of success. From adding RPG elements to what amounts to a classic action adventure game (in games like Simon's Quest and SotN) to trying to break out of the side-scrolling game play (Castlevania 64, Legacy of Darkness and Curse of Darkness to name a few that only kind of worked). SotN is considered the peak of the series and is apparently very rare on the PSX, and was my introduction to the series, and damn was it awesome. If you haven't played it, go on Xbox Live and download it. NOW.
I have to hand it to Konami, they have tried to put all the games into some kind of timeline, and isn't below saying games weren't part of the chronology. If I remember correctly, the two games on the N64 were removed, probably more because they suck than because they couldn't fit them in. Almost every aspect of those games were absolutely dreadful. So when a new Castlevania game was announced for the PS3 and Xbox 360, I think every fan was cringing in fear because we knew it wasn't going to be side-scrolling, they were going to venture into 3d territory again. Ouch.
Then we saw the teaser trailer. And it's narrated by none other than Patrick Stewart. Odd. But when Captain Picard talks to you about vampires and werewolves, you listen. So maybe this won't suck. Then they announce that Hideo Kojima, the genius behind the Metal Gear series, was going to have a part in the game. Now, I met this announcement with a loud, uproarious meh! Because I never really liked Metal Gear. MGS was ok, but after that, I couldn't care less. I don't care what anybody says Metal Gear Solid 2 sucked ass; any game that I have to play through a segment where the main character is naked and holding his junk so we don't see it is worthless. Anyway, the announcement that Hideo Kojima was going to work on the new Castlevania game was hot shit in the video game world.
Alright, enough beating around the bush, is the damn game any good? Well, yes, yes it was.
First off, when I bought it, I noticed the case is really heavy. I buy a lot of console RPG's like Oblivion and Fallout 3, so I figured the book was just freakin' huge. Nope. I pull the book out and it's like four pages in English, then Spanish and French. Then I look closer and it's two freaking disks! I don't know if that's just for the 360, because I think blu-ray has a higher capacity on the disk, so maybe it's just one for the PS3. Seriously, I haven't seen a multi-disk game on a console since I quit playing my Playstation. Damn.
So I figured the graphics would just be mind blowing if this game takes two disks. The graphics are great, suitably gory and detailed. Actually, yeah, mind blowing is a good description. My only issue is a lack of control over the camera; it's static and the view changes on its own. It does it fairly well and I was rarely aggravated by the camera, I just would like to be able to look around and check out the scenery; I had the same issue with Dante's Inferno. The sound effects were great, the voice acting was top-notch and the music was awesome. Especially in the music box area where we got to hear Vampire Killer from the first game. It was a welcome throwback to the original series.
There are four difficulty settings, the hardest unlocked by beating the game once. To get 110% of the game completed, you have to play on the hardest setting, Paladin. This setting is challenging, not balls-out hard like Halo 2 but it's a nice step up in difficulty. There are tons of things to find, upgrades to life and magic and subweapons like normal. And there are trials to do on each level after you have beaten it once. Some of them are really difficult, like beating a Titan in one minute and thirty seconds, to the downright easy, like beating the first level without all the villagers being killed.
This game is long too. Probably one of the longest games I've played recently that wasn't an RPG. I bought it last Tuesday and played pretty much constantly all through Wednesday and Thursday and still did't complete it until Friday. Now that was only going through the story, I didn't go out of my way to find stuff, I didn't go back and do trials or unlock stuff, I just played beginning to end and it took me three days. Not too shabby. There was something else I wanted to mention but I cannot think of it to save my life right now. Maybe it'll come to me later and I'll edit this again. Anyway, that's about all I have to say: if you're a fan of action adventure games or the Castlevania series in general, you have to play Lords of Shadow. You won't be disappointed.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Ugh
I keep meaning to get on here and talk about the latest game in the Castlevania series, Lords of Shadow, but I just keep running out of time. By which I mean my bed starts talking dirty to me and I pass out :D. Hopefully I'll be able to collect my thoughts sometime later today and post them. If I don't pass out again, which is lookin iffy.
Bai nao. ZZZZZZzzzz....
Bai nao. ZZZZZZzzzz....
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Stephen King's IT
Last week, the Nostalgia Critic did a review of this movie. He hammed it up, turning it into a Stephen King drinking game. Look, I have no issue with the NC doing this, it's his job to nitpick and go over-the-top for laughs, and the problems he pointed out with the movie are legitimate. But let's be fair to the movie: it was made for tv in 1990, so not only are the effects not going to be that good, but the story is going to have to be butchered. Not to say they did a bad job with the story, they hit the main points of the book and captured the atmosphere of Derry.
I'm going to compare/contrast events in the book and movie and explain a logical reason why they were changed.
Sightings of It
Almost all of the seven Losers' first sighting of It was changed from book to movie, but the changes make sense when you take into account budget and whatnot.
Ben: In the book, Ben saw It as the mummy while walking home from school in the winter. The movie was probably shot in the spring/summer and they couldn't afford to draw out the shooting long enough to actually shoot in the dead of winter. Also, Ben saw the creature on the frozen over Canal, a channel that keeps the Kenduskeag river flowing through downtown Derry. I don't know of any town in America that has something like this and it would have been to expensive to create some kind of analogue and so, Ben's sighting was changed to seeing It as his father in the Barrens.
Bill and Bev were unchanged.
Eddie: Eddie saw It as a leper under the porch of 29 Neibolt street. This would have introduced several plot threads into the movie that would have made it probably made it 2 hours longer, so it was changed for time.
Richie: Richie saw It as a moving Paul Bunyon statue. Let's face it; the computer technology that tv studios had to work with even now could not make a 30 foot Paul Bunyon statue look anything but fake. Back then, it would have been worse. This one goes to tech and budget.
Stan: Stan saw dead boys in the Standpipe. Once again, we deal with location and budget. What town has something like the Standpipe?
Mike: Mike saw a giant bird at the ruins of the Kitchener Ironworks. Once again location and budget. They would have had to create a field full of detritus from the exploded ironworks and on top of that make a giant bird chase a small boy. No way they could have done that on a tv budget in 1990.
So we can understand why these changes were made. Other changes were mostly for time; they left out the Neibolt street stuff and the children facing down the giant spider.
Another thing the Critic complained about was the flashbacks; and he's right to complain about that. Half of the story is told through flashbacks, both in the movie and the book. The thing is, in the book they make sense. The adults forgot everything about that summer and the phone call from Mike triggers their memories and they start to remember things that happened. As they remember, we learn what happened. This isn't really explained in the movie and the flashbacks get kind of annoying.
I think the movie was made for fans of the book, who can kind of plug in the missing sequences from the book to make the movie that much better.
God I don't want to talk about what I'm about to, but it's all the people who trash on this book seem to focus on: the sex scene in the sewers between Beverly and the boys. Look, I know it sounds bad, especially when you take into account the kids are 12 but damnit, it's not the point of the book! First of all, did you pay attention to this book? Supernatural forces were keeping the kids bound together as one force to kill It. When they were leaving the sewers, the bond began to break down and they got lost. Bev used sex as a way to bind them together forever. IT MAKES SENSE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE BOOK!
Besides, it's not like its written in disgusting detail like a Penthouse Forum letter; its very downplayed and sweet, not to mention vague. This is sex from the point of view of a kid who's just starting puberty. If you let something like this, which amounts to maybe 20 pages in a 1104 page book, hey, too bad for you. IT is one of Stephen King's best. The man not only knows what scares us, but how to write it.
I'm going to compare/contrast events in the book and movie and explain a logical reason why they were changed.
Sightings of It
Almost all of the seven Losers' first sighting of It was changed from book to movie, but the changes make sense when you take into account budget and whatnot.
Ben: In the book, Ben saw It as the mummy while walking home from school in the winter. The movie was probably shot in the spring/summer and they couldn't afford to draw out the shooting long enough to actually shoot in the dead of winter. Also, Ben saw the creature on the frozen over Canal, a channel that keeps the Kenduskeag river flowing through downtown Derry. I don't know of any town in America that has something like this and it would have been to expensive to create some kind of analogue and so, Ben's sighting was changed to seeing It as his father in the Barrens.
Bill and Bev were unchanged.
Eddie: Eddie saw It as a leper under the porch of 29 Neibolt street. This would have introduced several plot threads into the movie that would have made it probably made it 2 hours longer, so it was changed for time.
Richie: Richie saw It as a moving Paul Bunyon statue. Let's face it; the computer technology that tv studios had to work with even now could not make a 30 foot Paul Bunyon statue look anything but fake. Back then, it would have been worse. This one goes to tech and budget.
Stan: Stan saw dead boys in the Standpipe. Once again, we deal with location and budget. What town has something like the Standpipe?
Mike: Mike saw a giant bird at the ruins of the Kitchener Ironworks. Once again location and budget. They would have had to create a field full of detritus from the exploded ironworks and on top of that make a giant bird chase a small boy. No way they could have done that on a tv budget in 1990.
So we can understand why these changes were made. Other changes were mostly for time; they left out the Neibolt street stuff and the children facing down the giant spider.
Another thing the Critic complained about was the flashbacks; and he's right to complain about that. Half of the story is told through flashbacks, both in the movie and the book. The thing is, in the book they make sense. The adults forgot everything about that summer and the phone call from Mike triggers their memories and they start to remember things that happened. As they remember, we learn what happened. This isn't really explained in the movie and the flashbacks get kind of annoying.
I think the movie was made for fans of the book, who can kind of plug in the missing sequences from the book to make the movie that much better.
God I don't want to talk about what I'm about to, but it's all the people who trash on this book seem to focus on: the sex scene in the sewers between Beverly and the boys. Look, I know it sounds bad, especially when you take into account the kids are 12 but damnit, it's not the point of the book! First of all, did you pay attention to this book? Supernatural forces were keeping the kids bound together as one force to kill It. When they were leaving the sewers, the bond began to break down and they got lost. Bev used sex as a way to bind them together forever. IT MAKES SENSE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE BOOK!
Besides, it's not like its written in disgusting detail like a Penthouse Forum letter; its very downplayed and sweet, not to mention vague. This is sex from the point of view of a kid who's just starting puberty. If you let something like this, which amounts to maybe 20 pages in a 1104 page book, hey, too bad for you. IT is one of Stephen King's best. The man not only knows what scares us, but how to write it.
Monday, October 25, 2010
CSI
I liked the original CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. I thought the premise was great, at the time there was a distinct lack of forensic shows and it worked. I hate cop shows, but I have always enjoyed science and stuff so this seemed like a happy middle ground. Then the spin-off started cropping up. Miami, New York plus like a thousand look alikes like Bones (which I love, I have no beef with Bones) and NCIS, which has since spawned its own spin-off: NCIS: Las Angeles.
Seriously, do we need this many shows about the same damn thing? The way I see it, the only one worth a damn still is Bones, which is basically all the Fox network has going for it aside from Chef Ramsay shows. Vegas CSI should have ended long ago, when William Petersen left. To me, he was what made the show great; he was a quiet, introspective character who could be really funny at inappropriate times. Kind of like me. I thought they should have ended the show when he left, but no, somehow it endures. Come on guys, Nick Stokes cannot carry the show by himself, put it to rest.
I can't say too much about CSI: NY or NCIS; I don't watch them. I can tolerate NCIS sometimes, but it's hard to enjoy a show my 50 year old mother swoons over. Kinda kills the tension when she's hollering about how hot Gibbs or DiNozzo is. I enjoy the show, but it kind of grates on my nerves after 2 or 3 episodes and somehow we always seem to catch it on marathon day or something.
Now, regarding CSI: Miami. Oh dear god do I hate that show. Seriously. I mentioned it in passing on my FB but seriously, David Caruso chews more scenery in that show than John Travolta did in Battlefield: Earth. My god. He so consistently hams it up, I'm surprised there aren't teeth marks on some of the props. I know what he's doing. William Petersen usually had some kind of witty remark right before the title sequence. So Caruso's trying to do that. But see, the thing is David, William was clever about it. He didn't feel the need to chew scenery while delivering his witticisms. When he did it, it was always kind of sarcastic, with a smirk on his face. When you do it, I want to push my thumb through my eye and give myself a frontal lobotomy with my thumbnail. Seriously dude, stop it.
Well, I've said enough and I think sleep might be nice; I'm at the stage of weariness when you're sitting perfectly still, yet the floor decides its time to shimmy and shake. Night all.
Seriously, do we need this many shows about the same damn thing? The way I see it, the only one worth a damn still is Bones, which is basically all the Fox network has going for it aside from Chef Ramsay shows. Vegas CSI should have ended long ago, when William Petersen left. To me, he was what made the show great; he was a quiet, introspective character who could be really funny at inappropriate times. Kind of like me. I thought they should have ended the show when he left, but no, somehow it endures. Come on guys, Nick Stokes cannot carry the show by himself, put it to rest.
I can't say too much about CSI: NY or NCIS; I don't watch them. I can tolerate NCIS sometimes, but it's hard to enjoy a show my 50 year old mother swoons over. Kinda kills the tension when she's hollering about how hot Gibbs or DiNozzo is. I enjoy the show, but it kind of grates on my nerves after 2 or 3 episodes and somehow we always seem to catch it on marathon day or something.
Now, regarding CSI: Miami. Oh dear god do I hate that show. Seriously. I mentioned it in passing on my FB but seriously, David Caruso chews more scenery in that show than John Travolta did in Battlefield: Earth. My god. He so consistently hams it up, I'm surprised there aren't teeth marks on some of the props. I know what he's doing. William Petersen usually had some kind of witty remark right before the title sequence. So Caruso's trying to do that. But see, the thing is David, William was clever about it. He didn't feel the need to chew scenery while delivering his witticisms. When he did it, it was always kind of sarcastic, with a smirk on his face. When you do it, I want to push my thumb through my eye and give myself a frontal lobotomy with my thumbnail. Seriously dude, stop it.
Well, I've said enough and I think sleep might be nice; I'm at the stage of weariness when you're sitting perfectly still, yet the floor decides its time to shimmy and shake. Night all.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Game Review: Sanitarium
I've been on an old-school pc gaming kick recently. Now, you have to realize that what I call "old-school" may not mean the same thing to everybody else. I consider early to mid 90's games old school, simply because I didn't have a computer at the time and when I did get one, I had never heard of these games.
Sometimes I go on IGN or GameSpot and search a game I have, say Thief: Deadly Shadows for instance, and I look at the other games it recommends. Sometimes the recommendations pan out like when I searched for T:DS and I found out it was the third game in the series and that lead to me playing the other two, which are much more tense and overall enjoyable than the third. One game I found while checking out recommendations was this one, Sanitarium by ASC Games.
Sanitarium, besides being one of my favorite Metallica songs EVER, is a nice little action game where you take control of a prisoner in a very whacked-out asylum. It's your job to figure out what in the hell is going on. The game is divided into eight chapters across three disks and..It's freakin' awesome. I'll admit, I got this one quite awhile ago and lost interest when I got stuck in the second chapter. I found it again the other day and re-installed it on a whim. There are a few things I disliked and I'll get to those but I'm going to start off with what was awesome.
The story was great. I don't want to give anything away, but it kept me guessing right until the end. The visuals were creepy and, although dated, were still good. The sound also added to the atmosphere, although most of the voice acting was, well, bad. Then again, it was released in 1996 and I don't think I've seen any game from that time when the voice acting didn't kind of suck.
Now, there were only a couple of things that irritated me about this game. Mainly the length. Even though it was eight "chapters" it only took me a few hours altogether to beat. Sadly, the controls were completely horrible too. Now, I'm playing on a touch pad on my laptop, so maybe it's better with an actual mouse, but I had real difficulty controlling the movement of the character and sometimes would be thrown in an odd direction just because I wasn't paying enough attention to where my cursor was. I would have liked an option to use the keyboard for movement, but oh well. It was still a great game and if you haven't tried it, you probably should. It's currently up for purchase on gog.com.
Sometimes I go on IGN or GameSpot and search a game I have, say Thief: Deadly Shadows for instance, and I look at the other games it recommends. Sometimes the recommendations pan out like when I searched for T:DS and I found out it was the third game in the series and that lead to me playing the other two, which are much more tense and overall enjoyable than the third. One game I found while checking out recommendations was this one, Sanitarium by ASC Games.
Sanitarium, besides being one of my favorite Metallica songs EVER, is a nice little action game where you take control of a prisoner in a very whacked-out asylum. It's your job to figure out what in the hell is going on. The game is divided into eight chapters across three disks and..It's freakin' awesome. I'll admit, I got this one quite awhile ago and lost interest when I got stuck in the second chapter. I found it again the other day and re-installed it on a whim. There are a few things I disliked and I'll get to those but I'm going to start off with what was awesome.
The story was great. I don't want to give anything away, but it kept me guessing right until the end. The visuals were creepy and, although dated, were still good. The sound also added to the atmosphere, although most of the voice acting was, well, bad. Then again, it was released in 1996 and I don't think I've seen any game from that time when the voice acting didn't kind of suck.
Now, there were only a couple of things that irritated me about this game. Mainly the length. Even though it was eight "chapters" it only took me a few hours altogether to beat. Sadly, the controls were completely horrible too. Now, I'm playing on a touch pad on my laptop, so maybe it's better with an actual mouse, but I had real difficulty controlling the movement of the character and sometimes would be thrown in an odd direction just because I wasn't paying enough attention to where my cursor was. I would have liked an option to use the keyboard for movement, but oh well. It was still a great game and if you haven't tried it, you probably should. It's currently up for purchase on gog.com.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Hell's Kitchen
Hell's Kitchen has officially pissed me off. Well, not the show its self, but the dumb fucks on it. Assholes! Seriously, here they are, jack assing around, all of them professional chefs, something I would sell a kidney to be able to do, and they fuck up like this? Yes, they deserve every bit of screaming Chef Ramsay throws at them.
I fucking love this show, because half the time, these guys (professionals all of them) are fucking up stuff that I can casually get right. Yes, I know that it's always harder when there's pressure from customers, I have worked in the food service industry, I know how to deal with that pressure but damn. This guy, Raj is his name. I think they listed his age as 49, Chef Ramsay even said last week that Raj'd been in the business longer than him and yet the guy was a complete and utter jackass. Every time he was on the screen I wanted to jump into my TV and strangle the incompetent ass. He was constantly screwing up, when the guys lost the competition tonight, he didn't do anything but wander around and look stupid. What a wank.
On top of being completely useless in the kitchen, he was always whining in their version of the Diary room that "oh I'm the best chef here" and "nobody likes me, they're all out to get me" and "I'm gonna win". Dude, they didn't like you because you are utterly worthless in the kitchen, they were out to get you because, not only are you worthless in the kitchen, you are constantly screaming at the top of your lungs that you're awesome and that you're gonna win. To lift a line from Chef Ramsay: Piss off!
Meanwhile, on the women's team, there's a girl who's a little 22 year old white girl who thinks her shit doesn't stink and also insists on being the worst kind of ghetto bitch alive. Basically she's a female Raj, who is not only worthless and thinks shes fuckin awesome but is now gonna sabotage her own team to make herself look good.
These two worthless fucks are completely ruining this show for me this season and pissing me off to no end, but they are making such a scene that I can't focus on the other chefs to see if there's anyone that's worth a damn. FAIL.
I fucking love this show, because half the time, these guys (professionals all of them) are fucking up stuff that I can casually get right. Yes, I know that it's always harder when there's pressure from customers, I have worked in the food service industry, I know how to deal with that pressure but damn. This guy, Raj is his name. I think they listed his age as 49, Chef Ramsay even said last week that Raj'd been in the business longer than him and yet the guy was a complete and utter jackass. Every time he was on the screen I wanted to jump into my TV and strangle the incompetent ass. He was constantly screwing up, when the guys lost the competition tonight, he didn't do anything but wander around and look stupid. What a wank.
On top of being completely useless in the kitchen, he was always whining in their version of the Diary room that "oh I'm the best chef here" and "nobody likes me, they're all out to get me" and "I'm gonna win". Dude, they didn't like you because you are utterly worthless in the kitchen, they were out to get you because, not only are you worthless in the kitchen, you are constantly screaming at the top of your lungs that you're awesome and that you're gonna win. To lift a line from Chef Ramsay: Piss off!
Meanwhile, on the women's team, there's a girl who's a little 22 year old white girl who thinks her shit doesn't stink and also insists on being the worst kind of ghetto bitch alive. Basically she's a female Raj, who is not only worthless and thinks shes fuckin awesome but is now gonna sabotage her own team to make herself look good.
These two worthless fucks are completely ruining this show for me this season and pissing me off to no end, but they are making such a scene that I can't focus on the other chefs to see if there's anyone that's worth a damn. FAIL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)