Conservative Rumblings

“The Happening” seemed like a good premise: according to the trailers, it seemed that some sort of mystical ailment and/or attack was going to cause people to begin killing themselves. It sounds like the ultimate psychological thriller. How do you protect yourself from yourself? When M. Night Shyamalan’s name is on the credits, something twisted is expected, and as a fan of his movies, I looked forward to the release of his latest thriller and was probably biased to give it a good review.

However, twenty worthless plot twists and fifty dead minor characters later, I’m pretty sure someone was physically restraining me from attacking the screen.

The bottom line: the movie had 100 good starts, and maybe two good finishes. It felt like Shyamalan was writing and shooting the movie at the same time, in a linear pattern; he wrote in good stuff, realized he couldn’t tie off the loose ends and finish it, and so instantly killed off the characters and dropped the plot line. The result is a hodge-podge of half-developed characters, random wastes of time following irrelevant plot lines and a terrible overarching plot that made little to no sense.

Before you read any further, let me point out that there are spoilers in here. I don’t give away the plot, but I give away the fates of some characters (hint: if you watched the trailers, you know what ‘happens’ anyway). The movie is entertaining for its predictability and not much else, so really, these sorts of spoilers are things you are going to have already figured out.

Back to the review. The basic premise is that people are killing themselves, and the movie follows high-school science teacher Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg, “We Own the Night,” “The Departed”) and his half-estranged wife Alma (Zooey Deschanel, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”). I say that because the relationship between the two is one of the most awkward husband-wife pairings you will ever see in a movie.

The Moore clan is leaving their city after ‘the happening’ starts, well happening. That’s when the movie starts to fall apart.

As seems to be the trend with modern movies, the trailer basically used all the stunning scenes from the movie, which were then used up within five minutes of the actual movie. The people jumping off the roof, the woman stabbing herself and everyone just standing still in the park all play a large role in the trailer but evaporate very quickly.

The line about losing contact with everyone is nonsensical and never explained, and it is gone within 15 minutes. They never explain “everyone,” and the train operators, who are seen for about 20 seconds, just drop all the passengers off in a small town and then vanish themselves.

Shyamalan managed to create, as he usually does, a ton of interesting characters. There was a man (played by John Leguizamo, “Ice Age”), who was friends with Moore, who seemed to know something. There was always a glint in his eye, that suspicious “I was working in the lab that accidentally released this virus” sort of look. Did we ever find out why? Nope. He ends up killing himself by slitting his wrists with broken windshield glass.

Then, there was the man I liked to call The Crazy Hot Dog Man (played brilliantly by Frank Collison, “The Village”). The man was extremely concerned about hot dogs. It seemed like a life or death question when he asked the other survivors if they liked hot dogs and when he double-checked that his wife, who was packing survival gear, had gotten the mustard. Plus, he talked to plants.

It was an amazing character that should have been expanded on, and instead he is killed off while the focus is elsewhere (you don’t even see him die).

This wasn’t limited to Collison’s character; there was tons of instances where this happened, including a pair of kids that join up with Moore and his wife and an Army private. All three are quickly eliminated just as we are possibly getting interested in them. There is something to be said for killing off characters that the audience cares about, of course, but not all of them!

Something that really hampered the movie, of course, was the casting of Mark Talking to a Wahl-berg as the main character. He simply sucks the life out of every scene with his obscenely dull delivery. He phoned in so many scenes that the one or two times it didn’t seem like he was reading cue cards while hammered were the aberration and felt wrong.

Except for “Shooter” and possibly that brothers movie, I have yet to see a movie with Mark Wahlberg where he played a good part, but this was extreme. There were times when it was so robotic and so forced that I half expected him to squeak out a “Line!” call. He was so awkward in his words, his movements and his interactions with other characters that it is tough to describe.

Without spoiling it too much, I also have to point out the horrid inconsistency with the “happening.” As some random scientist explains, it seems that whatever is affecting the people causes the neurotransmitters in their brains that are linked to self-preservation to turn completely off. So, things like walking off the edge of a building or walking into a lion’s den at the zoo seem perfectly plausible. People do not realize that they can hurt themselves and as a result are getting killed.

However, (and this is a big however), the problem comes from the people that begin to actively kill themselves. I’m talking about the aforementioned lawnmower death, but also a cop who pulls out his gun and blows his head off. How is that simply lack of self-preservation? It is active suicide. Thus, with bad characters and a ton of starts and stops, the main plot really needed to be solid to make up for it, and it simply was not up to par.

People in the theater laughed a lot, which really isn’t the point of a horror movie, especially when we were laughing at the wrong parts. In fact, the scariest part of the movie has absolutely nothing to do with ‘the happening,’ a disease or people dying, and instead involved an old lady screaming.

The movie reminds me of an episode of “Family Guy” where ‘Stephen King,’ for his 300 and something book, offers to write about an evil lamp monster. Shyamalan couldn’t think of any other enemy than the ridiculous one that he made, apparently.

The political statements made during the movie are also extremely tiresome. At the end, another random scientist gives basically a political stump speech on the issue, cloaked around tricky verbiage and references to the movie. It completely gives away the plot if I say what issue is being brought up, but you will easily see it if you put yourself through the pain of watching the movie.

Actually, that is kind of harsh; the movie is it’s own kind of fun, but fun in the way that “Bloodrayne” is fun, or “Jason X” is fun, or “Waterworld” is fun. Bring a friend, point and laugh and you’ll have a great time.

Just don’t expect something worthy of M. Night Shyamalan’s track record of “Unbreakable,” “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs,” because you will be quite disappointed and probably ready to kill yourself in a way even more inventive than the 6.2 million types of deaths Shyamalan made up for the movie.

Section: Arts and Entertainment
Published: N/A

Cartoons and comic books being turned into movies have mixed results; for every “Spiderman,” there’s a “Hulk,” and for every “Punisher” there’s a “Catwoman.”

The legendary cartoon-now-turned-movie “Transformers” pits the righteous Autobots against the nefarious Decepticons in a war for the All-Spark, a powerful device that would make either side the winners in the struggle.

Truthfully, “Transformers” falls somewhere in the middle of the above list, but definitely closer to the “good adaptation” side than many movies.

Before I go any further, let me say that to those of you who pay attention to directors and the style of movies that they make, this is a Michael Bay film, through and through. Think the absurd battle sequences and ridiculously bland and brain-numbing attempts at a romance plot from “Pearl Harbor,” and add in the one-liners and tongue in cheek humor from “Bad Boys 2.” The latter is enjoyable, while the former is, well, a necessary evil you have to live with.

“Transformers” can be an enjoyable movie, don’t get me wrong; the caveat is that you have to make one adjustment before you sit down to watch it: don’t think. I really, really mean this too. The movie is fun, but you can sap that fun out pretty quick by starting to overthink the scenes.

For example, the lines spoken by the Transformers (especially when speaking to one another) are incredibly cheesy, but I suppose that in the spirit of mimicking the cartoon, they certainly did a good job at that.

On the acting front, Shia LaBeouf (“Disturbia”) played the teenager whose first car turned out to be an Autobot, and was easily the best of the lead actors; he was quite solid, but not awe-inspiring. It was obvious that much of the focus on the movie was on the robots, as it should have been, and the human actors were woefully neglected in some places, particularly with some seriously underdeveloped secondary characters. I’m not a huge secondary character fan (blame it on me being a Trekker who is infected with “Red Shirt Fever”), however, if you are going to use secondary characters, they are going to need a bit more development than the writers used here. They tried to introduce too many characters that you were supposed to care about too quickly in the middle stages of the movie, and you quickly forgot who was actually important and who wasn’t.

One side character that was a success was John Turturro (“Anger Management,” “Mr. Deeds”), who played a government agent who seemed just a little bit off his rocker, and was hilarious, as usual; I think the man could play a statue and still find a way to crack the audience up.

For the movie itself, the pace was quite good; the movie kept you watching the entire time, with only spots here and there that seemed to give you pause. It was a very nice balance between rushing through too fast and dragging uphill in a snowstorm, and it fit perfectly.

The battle scenes involving the Transformers were sometimes hard to follow, because the close in shots ended up just being a wash of color. Some of the best parts, from a cinematic perspective, involved the battle in the city when the camera pulled back and let you see the whole street, the two fighting robots and the defensive line set up by the special ops group.

The CGI for the bots was fantastic, however, and the sheer spectacle of them tearing each other to ribbons is pretty impressive and definitely worth the watch. If nothing else, forget the dialog and the plot and just take in the robot fighting (which, when you boil it down, is the point of “Transformers” anyway; big robots beating each other up amid massive explosions). When you put it like that, “Transformers” hits it big.

Without spoiling the plot, I will say that how the robots are able to get an advantage over the humans straight away is somewhat deus ex machina-ish and kind of far-fetched, but that’s another one of those overthinking scenes.

There’s also another set of scenes that I felt really stole from “Independence Day,” but I don’t know the cartoon well enough to know if that’s how it actually went down and the movie was just copying it. Either way, it was again a bit convoluted and very convenient.

The ending was a bit of a disappointment in my mind, but not exactly deal-breaking. The battle scene was chaotic and the timing was a big odd; when the film cut to another set of bots battling and then went back to the first, it was as if no time had passed while the focus was elsewhere. The ending also seemed very tacked on and very contrived. Of course, I’m no scholar of the original “Transformers,” so maybe it was closer to the cartoon than I think it was.

Overall, I would say definitely go and see “Transformers,” especially if you are or were a fan of the cartoon series. There are parts of the movie that absolutely require you to not think them through or you’ll hurt yourself in the process, but honestly, even with its flaws, it is still a very enjoyable, fun and action filled movie, and that’s all that’s really required from a summer flick.

Ever wondered what “business casual” really means? Do you know when it’s ok to pull out all the stops in shameless self-promotion?

What’s the best way to fend off the infamous Cubicle Invader or keep a conversation afloat that is sinking faster than Rosie O’Donnell’s career?

If these and other pressing business world questions have been weighing heavily on your mind (or you’re at least curious to know the battle plan to use against the previously mentioned Cubicle Invader) then Work 101: Learning the Ropes of the Workplace Without Hanging Yourself is the book for you.

Written by Elizabeth Freedman, M.B.A, Work 101 bills itself as the book that will give you “everything you need to know about corporate survival,” and honestly, that’s not very far off base.

The book is extremely thorough and covers a very wide variety of business topics, and it does so from a quirky, but detailed, perspective.

The book includes sections on etiquette at work, including introducing yourself (which involves a lot more than ‘my name is so and so’), surviving and thriving in workplace meetings, and a well titled and very in-depth chapter on the business standards of eating called “Your Fork Is Not Shovel, Your Knife Is Not A Saw.”
Work 101 also features sections on the best ways to network, maintain relationships and communicate, and one on the art of getting that often sought but less often received promotion.

Freedman does a good job of maintaining a fun but serious attitude throughout the book. You get the sense that she is trying to get the points across in an entertaining manner, but at the same time, she’s letting you know that some of these are very serious situations that could make or break your career.

She succeeds in both areas, as a matter of fact. Her section on what attire is appropriate and not appropriate is hilarious, especially when she is admonishing the reader to, “for the love of God,” avoid certain articles of clothing because of the…situations…that said articles can cause.

Obviously, the book isn’t going to give you the ‘be all, end all’ answers to every situation in a working environment; companies are never cut and dried in their standards, and may be more lax on some things and totally focused in on others, but overall, Work 101 is an excellent resource for anyone who is currently or plans to soon be out and about in the business world.

The early April snow and slush attack we weathered notwithstanding, it’s about summer time, which means it’s time to pull the helmets and gloves out and take part in one of the most popular summer pastimes: bicycling.

But if you’re tired of riding the same old trails, fear not! Thanks to Waubonsee alumni and former Insight Editor In Chief David Johnsen, bicyclists in Illinois have a veritable treasure trove of well planned rides right at their finger tips with Johnsen’s book, Biking Illinois.

Sandwiched between an attractively colorful and glossy cover, the book is only 132 pages, but it crams in an amazing amount of content. Biking Illinois spends a few pages in acknowledgements, introduction and general biking tips before it gets down to business.

The book features 60 unique rides, sorted by location, and has sections detailing each geographical area of the state (northwest, northeast, central and south). Anyone in Illinois who reads the book will probably have at least one ride in relatively close proximity, as Johnsen features rides from Rockford, to the Chicago lakefront, to Shawnee National Park and everywhere in between.

Johnsen devotes two pages to each ride, and each ride has a quick reference box that immediately gives the readers a quick “at a glance” look at what the ride will encompass. The details include the location, distance of the ride, rough amount of time the ride will take, the surface, terrain and “sweat factor.”

The rest of the first page gives a step-by-step breakdown of the ride itself, including a photo or two from along the trail. The second page devoted to each ride is a full-page map of the area, with a clearly highlighted path and well-placed marking that point out tricky areas of the trail (as well as things like rest areas and steep hills).

Each ride is very thoroughly described; on top of being able to effectively direct readers to where they need to get (not the easiest task in the world), Johnsen is also an accomplished bicyclist who knows every nuance of the rides he writes about, right down to when you need to veer a couple feet this way or that to avoid some sort of obstacle on the trail.

I’ve personally ridden on a number of the 60 trails listed in the book, and I can say that Johnsen’s descriptions of not only the trails themselves, but also the areas around them, are extremely accurate and very helpful.

It’s interesting to note that aside from the author, there is another Waubonsee connection in the book; ride number 24 in the list is the Virgil Gilman Trail, a ride that begins in the Waubonsee Sugar Grove campus parking lot.

At first read, I questioned Johnsen’s sorting method for the rides; my first impression was that sorting them by difficulty would be a better idea, because there are many different skill levels of riders and it can be a bit tedious to page through the whole book if you’re looking for a specific type of ride.

However, upon further review, I have to say that I did come around to agree with his original arrangement, which groups the rides by locale. After all, if you’re looking for a hilly, challenging ride, but the one listed in the difficulty you are aiming for is in Zion and you’re in Peoria, that doesn’t work as well as being able to search the rides around you first.

One thing I do think could have been improved is to add some more photos to the descriptions.

Don’t get me wrong here; even without photos, the book would still be extremely successful, because the descriptions of the rides are, as previously mentioned, first-rate. But on a number of the rides, there’s some empty space on the page that is just asking for another photo.

A little bit of layout nitpicking can’t detract from the overall quality of the book, however; Biking Illinois is a spectacular resource for any level of bicyclist in Illinois. On top of the fact that many bicycling books only focus on well-traveled areas and forget the lesser known and off the beaten path biking trails this book does a good job of covering, Biking Illinois is much more personable than a normal cut and dried “here’s the trail, ride this way,” biking guide.

Johnsen does a good job at making each ride interesting to read. On top of the spot-on descriptions, he also includes little tidbits of history and trivia about the towns and historical landmarks that the rides travel through.

It’s worth knowing that the author is a veteran bicyclist who has pedaled over 9000 miles in sixteen different states over the last seven years, because it shows in the book. Johnsen’s writing is descriptive and well thought out, and his obvious experience seeps through at every turn.

Biking Illinois is available at most Borders and Barnes and Noble bookstores in Illinois, and the author can be contacted through his website (www.bikingillinois.com), where he also posts updates to the book and other information on biking.

Section: Arts and Entertainment
Published: Waubonsee Insight, April 2007 Issue

After the American Revolution, Britain was not exactly the most economically stable place on earth. The slave trade was heralded as a major source of income and the lifeblood of coastal towns, and those who stood up against slavery were called anti-establishment at best and traitors to the crown at worst. Outspoken British abolitionist William Wilberforce was one of those men.

Amazing Grace chronicles Wilberforce’s 18-year struggle in the British Parliament, as he introduced bill after bill to abolish the slave trade, only to watch them fail spectacularly.

The title for the movie comes from the song, of course, and the connection to the movie is that the author of the hymn, John Newton, was actually Wilberforce’s mentor of many years. The evangelical leader helps Wilberforce when the latter is at a very sharp crossroads in his life, and appears several times in the movie, at different points in Wilberforce’s life.

Newton is basically the moral compass and advisor to Wilberforce as he goes through troubling times where he doubts not only himself, but also his faith.
For a movie about the British parliamentary process, Amazing Grace does not drag at all. The movie clocks in at nearly two hours, but you won’t be checking your watch. The movie balances out time spent in the Parliament room with time spent in Wilberforce’s home or time spent with his activist group, the Clapham Sect.
Wilberforce delves very deeply into the abolitionist movement, and while he does things to learn for himself how slaves are treated (such as walling himself into a box the size of a berth in a slave ship), the viewers are also exposed to the horrors of slavery first hand.

There’s nothing graphic enough to scare away a weak stomach, but seeing the actual shackles, living conditions and how slaves were treated makes it more personal for both Wilberforce and the viewers he is taking with him on his journey.

Frequent jumps through time also help with the pace of the movie. When the movie starts off in the present day and quickly jumps back in time fifteen years, you can easily see the contrast between the old and young Wilberforce, and you really want to sit back and see just what happened to him in the past to put him in the position he is now in.

That said, the transitions between time periods can be rough. It’s nothing as confusing as a predestination paradox in a time travel movie, but you do have to be on your toes with some of the jumps, as a few of them leave you scrambling for a few seconds to figure out if it’s past or present.

The cast is very solid; Ioan Gruffudd (Fantastic Four, King Arthur) turns in a spectacular performance as William Wilberforce. The character goes through many changes over the course of the movie, from stalwart abolitionist, to a man unsure of his place in the world and more beyond that, but Gruffudd seemed very comfortable in each position.

I have to try very hard to think of a scene that he seemed awkward in, and the best I could come up with is a scene where he sings, but even that is excused because the song he’s singing is the name of the movie.

Another notable performance is Rufus Sewell (I think he’s best known for his portrayal of the arrogant love-to-hate character of Count Adhemar in A Knight’s Tale, but he also played Armand in The Legend of Zorro). He plays Thomas Clarkson, a noted anti-slavery advocate who had a huge influence on the historical Wilberforce.

In Amazing Grace, Clarkson at times plays the role of Wilberforce’s emotions; it almost seems like an internal struggle of emotion versus logic during some of the scenes they share.

Clarkson is around to remind Wilberforce about the stark side of the human element involved in slavery, and he helps to drive the legislation into Parliament through his hard work and determination behind the scenes of the abolitionist movement.

Wilberforce’s love interest, Barbara (relative unknown Romola Garai, Vanity Fair), could have been developed further, and if the movie had been about a lighter topic than slavery I would say that this is definitely a flaw, but I feel that it fits.

The romance plays second fiddle to the story of putting forward the bills and feeling out the issue of slavery, and the trade-off is nice.

I think it would have seemed trite to have a steamy on-screen romance when the protagonist is trying to free an entire race from servitude, and the writers did a good job of using the romance to further the plot (instead of having the plot stop while the characters delve into their feelings).

In fact, almost every subplot in the movie feeds into the overarching challenge of taking down the slave trade, and it all culminates in the final few minutes of the movie. For a movie about the British political process, the final climax drags you to the edge of your seat, so sticking through some of the down parts is completely worth it.

Another well-done performance was Michael Gambon (Open Range, The Omen) as Lord Charles Fox, a savvy British politician who sides with the abolitionists.

The parliamentary process was very well done, and the historical accuracy of the movie was passable; considering Hollywood’s track record for rewriting in the name of drama, it could have been much worse.

Obviously, there are some issues, especially with how some of the characters were used, but overall, the story is presented well.

The ending scene of Amazing Grace was very fitting and nicely done; after two hours of serious buildup, an ending that was too pedestrian would have severely damaged the movie, but instead, it really ties everything up and leaves the audience saying, ‘wow.’

In all, Amazing Grace does a good job portraying the hellacious uphill battle faced by abolitionists in 18th century England, and along the way, takes viewers on an unforgettable tour of religion, morality, and human rights.

Section: Arts and Entertainment
Published: Waubonsee Insight, February 2007 Issue

Massively Multiplayer gaming has exploded in the past few years. Games such as World of Warcraft shot the genre into the mainstream of society. The ability to play in the same world as literally thousands of other players appealed to many gamers, and there are now dozens of MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) to choose from.

One of the major caveats to this style of gameplay, however, is the monthly fee. Most casual gamers (including this writer) balk at paying a subscription for a game that they may play for only a few hours that month.

ArenaNet, a company formed of ex-Blizzard (Diablo, Starcraft,Warcraft) employees, turned the industry on its ear with the release of Guild Wars in 2005, an online multiplayer role playing game without a monthly fee. Instead, they offer additional chapters to the game, available every few months for purchase by players. While the extra chapters add a huge wealth of content, they are also standalone, meaning that someone can enter the game by purchasing either the first edition, Prophecies, or one of the expansions, Factions or Nightfall.

Players who only buy one chapter can continue to play the campaign in that game and can play in the Player vs Player arenas as long as they like.

No one is forced to buy the expansions, however, ArenaNet’s theory that gamers will be willing to purchase the extra content has been proven mostly true.
From a purely numerical standpoint, even if you buy the expansions the day they come out, you are paying $50.00 every six months or so, which divides out to far less than the normal $14.95 per month that MMORPGs charge.

Aside from the unique fees and expansions, Guild Wars introduced a number of revolutionary gameplay features that sent shockwaves through the gaming world. Gone were MMORPG staples such as spawn farming (sitting with a party in the area that enemies spawn and wiping them out over and over again).

Instead, Guild Wars creates a unique ‘instance’ of an area every time a party enters it, and thus takes away the monotonous aspect of spawn farming, and also eliminates problems such as player killing.

Guild Wars also walks the fine line of a game being accessible to casual players, while leaving open options for hardcore gamers.

Because of the way its missions are run, a player can pop online for half an hour and actually accomplish something, whereas other MMORPGs often require many hours of straight-through game playing to make a difference, leaving casual gamers far behind.

Another aspect that appeals to many players is the way skills are handled in Guild Wars.

Instead of simply letting characters draw from their entire pool of skills during a mission, players are forced to choose only eight skills to take into battle. Once out of a town, the player cannot change their skill choices.

This completely changes up the “normal” procedure for skills, and brings strategy and decision making to the forefront of the battle.

This approach helps, again, both the casual and the dedicated; casual gamers are not intimidated by players who have unlocked every skill in the game, because when it all comes down to it, everyone is taking the same number of skills into combat.

Even then, two players bringing the same skills into battle may play very differently; many skills work best in combination, and it is up to the savvy player to use them correctly.

Veteran gamers will tweak every skill and attribute point down to the most minute detail, of course, and this is just another example of how the game caters to all players.

On top of that, the game allows you to alter your character’s attributes as many times as you like. Once you earn your 200 stat points, you can redistribute them to different areas and save each ‘build’ as a template. Basically, you can have different versions of a character and swap between these builds with just a couple clicks.

For example, you could have a Warrior who focuses on sword skills, but also has a skill set that uses party-friendy “Tactics” or a high-damage, boss-killing hammer, and effortlessly switch between the three depending on what the mission requires.
Add in the ability to have a secondary profession (which you can also switch later in the game), and Guild Wars offers one of the most unique and customizable character palettes in existence.

The ability to change so many attributes of your character grant another mode of freedom; if you decide halfway through the game you don’t want to be a Warrior/Necromancer and instead want to be a Warrior/Mesmer, you can simply pay gold or do a quest (depending on which game you created the character in) and change your profession.

The normal RPG mold locks characters into their classes and stats when they are created, although some new games have begun to allow more flexibility, perhaps spawned by Guild Wars’ success.

The latest incarnation of Guild Wars, Nightfall, adds even more revolutionary features to already stellar game.

In an effort to promote community and player cooperation, nearly every quest in Prophecies and Factions was impossible to complete without teammates. Guild Wars did allow human players to take AI controlled ‘henchmen’ along on missions, but these characters were weak and often very stupid; their tactical decision making skills rivaled those of an algae-covered rock or a brain damaged millipede.

As a result, players were often forced to wait in outposts or towns until other humans working on the same quests joined the party. This sort of dependence on other humans to advance through any area of the game turned off some players. Obviously, the point of playing an RPG online is to play with other humans, but sometimes a player just wants to go hunting or exploring on their own, and in the first two episodes of Guild Wars, this was rather difficult; henchmen died far too easily and building an entire party of like-minded players was something that sometimes required an insane amount of patience.

In Nightfall, ArenaNet introduced AI characters called “heroes,” fully customizable companions that are earned through various quests. These characters are much more powerful than henchmen; they can be outfitted with weapons from your inventory, and can use any skills that your account has unlocked.

The inclusion of this option opened up the world to even more players. By utilizing these powerful heroes (whose AI was considerably better than the rank and file henchmen), players could complete quests and even missions without relying on another player.

In fact, I was able to take a new character all the way through the first stage of the game (to level 20) by only using heroes. Normally in mission areas, finding a group of players is not difficult, however, I wanted to see if it was possible to play through with heroes. Aside from one sticky situation in a major mission where you attain level 20, the heroes performed quite admirably.

Players are limited to only three heroes per party, however. To level the playing field somewhat, players can fill out the rest of his or her party with henchmen if necessary.

The first time I joined a human party was on a hunting quest to destroy a unique monster, and ironically, when the human-filled party failed miserably, I grabbed my trusty heroes and took down the beast much faster.

Part of that, of course, is that heroes are not afraid of dying, and quite frankly, a lot of human players don’t follow that “stand your ground or die trying” edict.
Since this isn’t technically a ‘review’ article (it’s more of a ‘feature,’) I am not really obliged to say anything bad about the game. Since it’s quite difficult to actually find something, I just won’t; editor’s prerogative.

Guild Wars is a spectacular game; with an innovative gameplay system and a much smaller monetary investment required, it appeals to a much wider range of gamers than most MMORPGs and opens the door for players who might never have tried an online role playing game.