Showing posts with label Truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truth. Show all posts

Thursday, March 6, 2014

'South Park: The Stick of Truth': EW review

In 2002, Trey Parker and Matt Stone wrote “The Return of the Fellowship of the Ring to the Two Towers,” an All-Time Hall of Fame South Park episode which effectively retells the whole J.R.R. Tolkien Rings trilogy in half an hour. What makes the episode great was that, somehow, Parker and Stone had it both ways with their Rings parody: It simultaneously lacerates the inherent silliness of the phenomenon while glorifying the high-nerd excess of that silliness. (All this, and they still found time for the immortal line: “Backdoor Sluts 9 makes Crotch Capers 3 look like Naughty Nurses 2!”)

The new videogame South Park: The Stick of Truth begins in the same backyard-fantasy milieu as that episode. You play as the fully-customizable-except-for-gender “new kid,” arriving in South Park under mysterious circumstances. You quickly meet show mascot Cartman, in his Gandalf-y guise of “Grand Wizard,” who is leading one group of kids (the Humans) against another group (the Elves). You can choose one of four classes, three of them familiar (Fighter, Mage, Thief) and one of them unique (Jew.)

The game is designed to look like an episode of the TV show, but it plays like a well-tuned retro-adventure. At times, it suggests a lost ’90s Squaresoft RPG — all of the battles are turn-based, and you can spend roughly a fifth of the game navigating menus to upgrade your character. At other times, the game feels a bit like a lost LucasArts game, a point-and-click graphic adventure with the goofy sensibility that defined Grim Fandango and Sam & Max. (The designers themselves have pointed to EarthBound as an inspiration.) After a snappy opening tutorial session — narrated by Cartman as a knowing parody of tutorials which is nevertheless a more effective tutorial than most AAA videogames can manage — you’re set loose in the open world of South Park, which draws on locations and people familiar from nearly two decades of TV mythology.

It might sound weird to ascribe the word “mythology” to South Park — you imagine the lead characters all rolling their eyes — but part of what makes Stick of Truth so much fun is how it takes advantage of the show’s densely-layered world. It’s more than just in-jokes. Like Goldeneye and Arkham City, Stick of Truth is the rare licensed videogame which brings its franchise’s history to life in a radical new way.

At times, Stick of Truth feels like a wonderful bit of nose-thumbing at the general state of videogames. (There are Nazi Zombies.) But at other times, it reveals itself as a love letter to the whole videogame medium. A trip to Canada is rendered as an 8-bit adventure, Ultima-style. There are legitimately difficult boss fights. Parker and Stone actually wrote the game, which explains why Stick of Truth is so funny. But more than the humor, there’s a sense of composition — to the ambient dialogue and to the rising-action storytelling — that most non-BioWare videogames never even try to attempt. Some games hit a high point in the beginning; most good games are at their best in the middle; but Stick of Truth has a great final act, featuring some of the most fun and most disgusting sequences I’ve ever seen in a videogame.

Am I praising the game too much for achieving modest ambitions? Stick of Truth might tip its hat to Skyrim, but it’s a decidedly more compact experience. (I think my total runtime — doing most of the side-missions, on the hardest difficulty — was about 17 hours .) The different classes have slightly different attacks, but they don’t represent radically different experiences: It’s a pretty-good ’90s RPG, not a great ’90s RPG. (It’s Breath of Fire III, not Breath of Fire II, if you know what I mean.)

My PS3 copy was marred by occasional glitches and graphic slowdown, the sort of thing that’s usually a dealbreaker in games with more realistic visuals. I’ve seen a few other reviewers ding the game for these glitches — and this is perhaps another opportunity to discuss how the videogame industry needs to stop relying on day-one patches as a crutch.

But I think it speaks volumes that I loved the game — had to force myself to stop playing it as midnight turned into 2 AM — in spite of the glitches. The relatively simple decision to make Stick of Truth look and feel like a South Park episode gives the game a unique sense of style which sets it apart from the mass of undifferentiated major-release titles. Like the best episodes of South Park, there’s a sense of leave-it-all-on-the-field maximalism. There’s a Kardashian joke that turns into one of the grossest bossfights in history. There’s a primal scene and an abortion minigame and Al Gore. The Stick of Truth is a spoof RPGs which is also a grand RPG. It’s the first great videogame of 2014.

Grade: A-

(Available on PS3, Xbox 360, PC)


Buy apparel and accessories from Amazon here

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

The Truth About Target-Date Funds (U.S. News & World Report)

Target-date funds, which shift into more conservative asset allocations as investors age, have been hailed as the easiest way for people to keep their portfolios balanced over time. They've also been criticized for their fees, allocation choices, and losses. The personal finance queen herself, Suze Orman, has warned people against them, calling them oversimplified since they base their allocations on age only.

[In Pictures: 10 Smart Ways to Improve Your Budget.]

Now, the Government Accountability Office has released its own well-researched opinion on these popular investment vehicles. The verdict? Some target-date funds do well, but some do not, which means they aren't the answer for investors hoping to outsource the hard work of researching investments and balancing portfolios. Investors still need to research their options, check in regularly to make sure their portfolios are diversified and age-appropriate, and learn about fees and returns.

Top findings from the report:

Target-date funds vary almost as much as investors themselves. Some target-date funds get relatively conservative as investors approach retirement, with one-third or less of assets invested in equities, but others keep the allocation to equities closer to 60 percent or higher.

There's no one-size-fits-all for expected returns, either. The GAO calculated that between 2005 and 2009, returns on target-date funds ranged from a 28 percent gain to a 31 percent loss. In one case, a target-date fund for people retiring last year lost 40 percent of its value just as investors were nearing retirement.

Fund managers themselves don't even agree on the ideal allocation for investors nearing retirement. One manager told the GAO that keeping 60 percent of one's portfolio invested in stocks, even in retirement, is best way to stay ahead of inflation and reduce the risk of running out of money. Other fund managers dismissed such strategies as too risky, and argued for avoiding the potential big losses that can occur when such a high percentage of one's portfolio is in equities.

Perhaps partly because target-date funds are marketed as a relatively hands-off vehicle that participants don't need to constantly monitor, the GAO found that investors often understand little about how they work and how their money is invested.

Employees who are automatically enrolled in employer-sponsored plans often select target-date funds as the default investment since the funds are thought to automatically shift into appropriate allocations based on age. In fact, GAO reports that at Vanguard, 80 percent of plans selected target-date funds as the default investment in 2009, up from 42 percent in 2005. That makes the findings in this report relevant to a large chunk of employers and employees, who might be invested in target-date funds without even fully realizing it.

Despite their increasing popularity, many target-date funds have scant history; some of the biggest ones have been around for only six years.

[In Pictures: 12 Money Mistakes Almost Everyone Makes]

Target-date funds offer clear benefits, which helps explain that popularity: Because they shift assets over time, investors often feel they don't need to put the effort into deciding how to rebalance on their own. "TDFs thereby can help plan participants and other investors avoid common investment mistakes, such as a lack of diversification and a failure to periodically rebalance their assets," says GAO.

Target-date funds also vary greatly in the fees that they charge, with expense ratios ranging from 0.19 percent to 1.71 percent.

What this means for investors: Target-date funds can be helpful, but they don't relieve investors of the burden of doing their own homework to make sure their portfolios make sense for them. Investors who will not remember to check in and rebalance their investments could benefit from some of the automatic shifting into more conservative securities, but the funds can also provide a false sense of security, and lull investors into being more passive than they would be otherwise.

Do you invest in target-date funds? If so, what do you like and not like about them?

Kimberly Palmer is the author of the new book Generation Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving Back.


Browse your computer here

Sunday, February 27, 2011

The Truth About Target-Date Funds (U.S. News & World Report)

Target-date funds, which shift into more conservative asset allocations as investors age, have been hailed as the easiest way for people to keep their portfolios balanced over time. They've also been criticized for their fees, allocation choices, and losses. The personal finance queen herself, Suze Orman, has warned people against them, calling them oversimplified since they base their allocations on age only.

[In Pictures: 10 Smart Ways to Improve Your Budget.]

Now, the Government Accountability Office has released its own well-researched opinion on these popular investment vehicles. The verdict? Some target-date funds do well, but some do not, which means they aren't the answer for investors hoping to outsource the hard work of researching investments and balancing portfolios. Investors still need to research their options, check in regularly to make sure their portfolios are diversified and age-appropriate, and learn about fees and returns.

Top findings from the report:

Target-date funds vary almost as much as investors themselves. Some target-date funds get relatively conservative as investors approach retirement, with one-third or less of assets invested in equities, but others keep the allocation to equities closer to 60 percent or higher.

There's no one-size-fits-all for expected returns, either. The GAO calculated that between 2005 and 2009, returns on target-date funds ranged from a 28 percent gain to a 31 percent loss. In one case, a target-date fund for people retiring last year lost 40 percent of its value just as investors were nearing retirement.

Fund managers themselves don't even agree on the ideal allocation for investors nearing retirement. One manager told the GAO that keeping 60 percent of one's portfolio invested in stocks, even in retirement, is best way to stay ahead of inflation and reduce the risk of running out of money. Other fund managers dismissed such strategies as too risky, and argued for avoiding the potential big losses that can occur when such a high percentage of one's portfolio is in equities.

Perhaps partly because target-date funds are marketed as a relatively hands-off vehicle that participants don't need to constantly monitor, the GAO found that investors often understand little about how they work and how their money is invested.

Employees who are automatically enrolled in employer-sponsored plans often select target-date funds as the default investment since the funds are thought to automatically shift into appropriate allocations based on age. In fact, GAO reports that at Vanguard, 80 percent of plans selected target-date funds as the default investment in 2009, up from 42 percent in 2005. That makes the findings in this report relevant to a large chunk of employers and employees, who might be invested in target-date funds without even fully realizing it.

Despite their increasing popularity, many target-date funds have scant history; some of the biggest ones have been around for only six years.

[In Pictures: 12 Money Mistakes Almost Everyone Makes]

Target-date funds offer clear benefits, which helps explain that popularity: Because they shift assets over time, investors often feel they don't need to put the effort into deciding how to rebalance on their own. "TDFs thereby can help plan participants and other investors avoid common investment mistakes, such as a lack of diversification and a failure to periodically rebalance their assets," says GAO.

Target-date funds also vary greatly in the fees that they charge, with expense ratios ranging from 0.19 percent to 1.71 percent.

What this means for investors: Target-date funds can be helpful, but they don't relieve investors of the burden of doing their own homework to make sure their portfolios make sense for them. Investors who will not remember to check in and rebalance their investments could benefit from some of the automatic shifting into more conservative securities, but the funds can also provide a false sense of security, and lull investors into being more passive than they would be otherwise.

Do you invest in target-date funds? If so, what do you like and not like about them?

Kimberly Palmer is the author of the new book Generation Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving Back.


View the original article here