The Deliberately Capricious Nature of the Random Number Generator
Although I enjoy Hand of Fate 2, due to the nature of the game’s underlying narrative, you frequently have to pick a card, roll a dice or select yet another card from a spinning wheel, to determine an outcome to an event or an encounter. Hence the game relies heavily on the use of a random number generator mechanic. Sometimes, depending of the speed of the card-based activities you can visually track the one you need to pick. However there reaches a point when you can’t do this. There are either too many cards to keep an eye on or the spinning wheel is simply going to fast. Then it becomes a matter of random chance. And if the odds are unfavourable a matter of repetition. And then frustration. And then a potential abandonment of the game.
Although I enjoy Hand of Fate 2, due to the nature of the game’s underlying narrative, you frequently have to pick a card, roll a dice or select yet another card from a spinning wheel, to determine an outcome to an event or an encounter. Hence the game relies heavily on the use of a random number generator mechanic. Sometimes, depending of the speed of the card-based activities you can visually track the one you need to pick. However there reaches a point when you can’t do this. There are either too many cards to keep an eye on or the spinning wheel is simply going to fast. Then it becomes a matter of random chance. And if the odds are unfavourable a matter of repetition. And then frustration. And then a potential abandonment of the game.
Random number generators are utilised in many genres of games. From MMOs to MOBAs, Action RPGs and FPS. When they favour the player they’re a delight. When you find yourself on the wrong side of the curve, they’re intolerably unfair and can ruin your gaming experience. Furthermore, they’re frequently not true random number generators because computers are notoriously bad at producing truly random outcomes as this quote from Steve Ward, a Professor of Computer Science and Engineering at MIT, explains. “One thing that traditional computer systems aren’t good at is coin flipping. They’re deterministic, which means that if you ask the same question you’ll get the same answer every time. On a completely deterministic machine you can’t generate anything you could really call a random sequence of numbers because the machine is following the same algorithm to generate them. Typically, that means it starts with a common ‘seed’ number and then follows a pattern. They are what we call pseudo-random numbers".
This presents two problems. The first is simply a PR and marketing problem. A pseudo-random number generator is unfair because it is not what it claims to be. Getting screwed over by a true random number generator is far from a fun experience but it is nobody’s fault. Getting stuffed by a crappy outcome via a pseudo-random number generator is not a blameless and unattributable event. It’s ultimately is down to the developer and they will subsequently get the flak from disgruntled gamers as a result. The second issue is that pseudo-random number generators will follow a pattern. It may well be complex, but a pattern can be determined. Hence there is the risk of manipulation and abuse. Certainly, with regard to single player games, a simple google search will produce links to “trainers” and other cheat file that will circumnavigate the random number generator of your game of choice.
The random number generator as a game mechanic is very convenient from the developer’s perspective. They create the illusion of chance which we see in some real-world decisions, which then adds to the game’s immersion. They also bring a degree of longevity to the proceedings by introducing a fail state. Now for those who consider “competition” to be the foundation of gaming, fail states are not necessarily a bad thing. However, failing due to lack of skill or knowledge can both be addressed. Failure due to random chance is something that has to be endured and is a far more egregious barrier to success. However, the random number generator can make other contributions to a game, other than determining outcomes that give rewards. Unit stats, map generation, mob generation can be handled in such a fashion and frequently are without any major controversy.
If you wish to be pedantic, you can cogently argue about the random nature of much of the real world. However, on a more superficial level (which is also the level that most of daily life is conducted), we like to conduct our daily business here in western civilisation within the confines of a relatively organised and contained society. When I go to the supermarket, I assume that as it’s in the business of selling groceries, that it’s shelves will be adequately stocked. As humans we try our best to manage the daily variable of our lives using knowledge and experience. For example, if I needed to build a foot bridge over a small stream, I would research the best way to do this using mathematics and science, and then undertake the task using appropriate materials. I may fail but if I’ve followed a tried and tested process, the chance of that happening is quite low. In gaming we have no data on the variables and thus cannot manage them. Random chance in this instance is therefore far more of a factor, less realistic and inherently unfair.
Regardless of whether you seen gaming as a competitive undertaking, a broader leisure activity, or as a quid pro quo paid service, the ham-fisted use of a random number generator can be a thorn in the gamers flesh. Is there an alternative? I’m sure there is although I am not sufficiently versed in game theory or development to definitively tell you what it is. But I can say with confidence what I don’t like and being hamstrung by random chance at crucial points in a game’s progression is a prime example of this. It’s not a question of “bad luck”, as luck in this context is being bastardised by the application of anthropomorphism. What gamers need to understand is that the random number generator by default predominantly produces negative outcomes because that is its job. It does this not with malice of forethought but purely by design. Furthermore, it’s ubiquity is due to its expediency and cost. What developers need to do is realise that as a mechanic it really doesn’t have any long-term benefits. Try harder, please.
Social Gaming Without the Gaming
Earlier this evening, I logged into my Discord server as I do each week, to catch up with some internet friends while playing The Elder Scrolls Online. For some technical reason, the game was unavailable, so we chatted among ourselves while pursuing other activities. I don’t think any of us actually played another game while we talked. However, despite the absence of any MMO related entertainment, we managed to keep ourselves amused for three hours. For me this anecdote highlights a point I’ve made many times in the past, that games do not create social interaction but merely facilitate it. Furthermore, the social element of the MMO genre is often misunderstood, misrepresented and over sold. Much of the enjoyment that we get from the social aspect gaming is from our interactions with friends. However, this is not solely dependent on the game which is ultimately nothing more than a conduit.
Earlier this evening, I logged into my Discord server as I do each week, to catch up with some internet friends while playing The Elder Scrolls Online. For some technical reason, the game was unavailable, so we chatted among ourselves while pursuing other activities. I don’t think any of us actually played another game while we talked. However, despite the absence of any MMO related entertainment, we managed to keep ourselves amused for three hours. For me this anecdote highlights a point I’ve made many times in the past, that games do not create social interaction but merely facilitate it. Furthermore, the social element of the MMO genre is often misunderstood, misrepresented and over sold. Much of the enjoyment that we get from the social aspect gaming is from our interactions with friends. However, this is not solely dependent on the game which is ultimately nothing more than a conduit.
How often have you done any of the following? Logged into a game not because you have a pressing need to run a dungeon but because you simply wanted to hang out with like minded people and have a chat. Used your guild mates as a form of group therapy because you just got dumped, didn’t get that promotion or have just had a bad day. Decided to just ride around the virtual world for a while and talk shit with friends, rather than go do the dishes or some other chore you don’t feel disposed towards doing. I suspect a lot of people will have done one or more of these? I know I have. Sometimes the most appealing aspect of social gaming is access to people. The world has changed a lot in my lifetime and the close knit social communities I knew in the seventies are not necessarily there for a lot of folks these days. You don’t always know your neighbours or remain friends for life with the people you went to school with these days. MMOs offer an alternative to this in so far as an opportunity to strike up friendships if you so desire.
Gaming can be greatly enhanced by social interaction, especially when it is with friends. I often think that developers lose sight of this subtle distinction. Too often they confuse random grouping in co-op gaming with the social dynamic you find in close-knit guilds and erroneously think it will yield the same results. It does not. I have had some good experiences with random grouping, but they have been few and far between. Too often they are a necessary evil that you have to endure to achieve your goal. On the other hand, gaming with my peers, who I know and respect, has provided some of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had in recent years. I still regularly talk to people I’ve known via guilds and kinships irrespective of whether we actually play MMOs together. Some of these friendships are over a decade old and have out lived some of the MMOs that spawned them.
Thoughts on Blogging Part 3
I read a post over at Tobold’s Blog recently that got me thinking about blogging, popularity, and the ebb and flow of our passions. The reason being is that Tobold, like many other long-term bloggers, has seen a decline in his audience over recent years. He certainly wasn’t carping about it, just simply observing the correlation between reducing your written output, the decline in popularity of his original subject matter and the number of visitors coming to his site. He also made a keen observation that blogging is not necessarily “where it’s at” with regard to cultivating an audience. If you are producing content specifically to grow and maintain a following, then You Tube and Twitch are better platforms for that. Especially if your content is part of the wider gaming scene. For better or for worse, I now associate gaming commentary with visual mediums rather than blogging. Yes, there is still long from criticism being produced but it’s aimed at a niche gaming audience. One that I would guess is older.
I read a post over at Tobold’s Blog recently that got me thinking about blogging, popularity, and the ebb and flow of our passions. The reason being is that Tobold, like many other long-term bloggers, has seen a decline in his audience over recent years. He certainly wasn’t carping about it, just simply observing the correlation between reducing your written output, the decline in popularity of his original subject matter and the number of visitors coming to his site. He also made a keen observation that blogging is not necessarily “where it’s at” with regard to cultivating an audience. If you are producing content specifically to grow and maintain a following, then You Tube and Twitch are better platforms for that. Especially if your content is part of the wider gaming scene. For better or for worse, I now associate gaming commentary with visual mediums rather than blogging. Yes, there is still long from criticism being produced but it’s aimed at a niche gaming audience. One that I would guess is older.
Even when blogging was the medium of choice within the gaming community, it was far from a homogenous platform. There was (and remains to this day) a wide spectrum of output. Those pursuing an in-depth analysis of gaming did so and developed their audiences accordingly. Those who pursued a more “populist” approach to their content did so and likewise found success or failure. Like today with streaming, bloggers were free back in its heyday to either treat their work as a hobby done for its own pleasure or intellectual reward, or as a means to seek the fickle finger of internet fame and grow a readership as well as a line of revenue. Let us not forget that a decade ago adblockers were a merely a vague nightmare for marketing departments and that clicks, and advertising links were the key to financial success. However, whatever path you pursued as a gaming blogger during this time, it was quite an interconnected community. Events such as the Newbie Blogger Initiative of 2012 further reinforced this.
As for the fifteen minutes of fame that Tobold alludes to in his post, I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that Contains Moderate Peril achieved that. However, traffic increased to the point in 2014 where a conventional hosted WordPress package was not up to the job and I had to look for a more robust solution. Fortunately, I managed to secure sponsorship from Host1Plus which I consider to be an acknowledgment of the site’s internet “reach”. Certainly 2014-15 were good years and it was during that time that I started finding myself on various emailing lists from PR and marketing companies. Because the scope of the blog has never been exclusively about gaming, I also received invites for movies screening and other material. Certainly, having a podcast linked to the blogs activities helped find a wider audience. Posting regular content was another reason for the growth in readership.
A lot has happened in the world of blogging since I started in 2007. Alternative platforms have emerged that have a “different” barrier to entry. As ever, visual mediums are more accessible to wider audiences and thus You Tube and Twitch have become venues for the latest internet Gold Rush. As for Contains Moderate Peril, well a variety of factors have impacted upon the sites online presence. I had to relocate the blog due to technical reasons and then there were a series of issues that interrupted content creation. By mid-2016 the blog had lost 75% of its traffic. However, I returned to regular posting in 2017 and the site has seen a steady increase in visits each month since then. Gaming as a topic only constitutes about 45% of the material I write about at present and only certain subjects and games seem to gain traction. However, movie reviews and analysis seem to be attracting a lot of traffic and an audience who are happy to read lengthy articles.
I’m not a big fan of “what if” scenarios and “if I could do it all again” flights of fancy. I have in the past harboured ambitions to write professionally but the practical realities of life meant it made better economic sense to stick with the proverbial day job. I have now retired and have become a carer, but the odd thing is because of the very structured and routine nature of that task, I now have specific designated times to write which I didn’t in the past. Hence the regular content and the site growth. Ironically, I am now being offered and undertaking paid work. In a perfect world I would have liked to have done this years ago but c’est la vie. The wheel has also turned full circle for many of my writing peers are dusting off their blogs and sharing their thoughts once again online. Hence, I think game blogging will always have a place and will attract those that seek the potential depth and intimacy of written content. It may not present the same opportunities that some seek from Twitch and You Tube, but that’s also why it doesn’t share exactly the same failings.
Ghost Stories (2017)
Adapting a stage play into a feature film can be a difficult task. If done poorly you’re left with a movie that feels stilted and confined due to its theatrically designed narrative. However, that is not the case with Ghost Stories, whose portmanteau format is inherently cinematic to begin with and has more than a whiff about it of the Amicus compendium horror movie from the seventies. Furthermore, the film adaptation provides even greater scope for genre references and homages to other classic supernatural movies. Director of photography Ole Bratt Birkeland creatively expands and embellishes the central story against a wider visual canvas. The shocks and scares are lovingly contrived, skilfully executed and genuinely unsettling. The film also maintains a very foreboding tone.
Adapting a stage play into a feature film can be a difficult task. If done poorly you’re left with a movie that feels stilted and confined due to its theatrically designed narrative. However, that is not the case with Ghost Stories, whose portmanteau format is inherently cinematic to begin with and has more than a whiff about it of the Amicus compendium horror movie from the seventies. Furthermore, the film adaptation provides even greater scope for genre references and homages to other classic supernatural movies. Director of photography Ole Bratt Birkeland creatively expands and embellishes the central story against a wider visual canvas. The shocks and scares are lovingly contrived, skilfully executed and genuinely unsettling. The film also maintains a very foreboding tone.
Co-writer and co-director, Andy Nyman, star’s as paranormal investigator (and debunker) Professor Phillip Goodman. After being informed of three potential cases that may well defy rational explanation, the Professor sets out to explore them further. The first incident involves a night watchman working in an old factory. The second focuses on a teenager whose car breaks down in a remote location and the last is about business man who is awaiting the birth of his child. Naturally the fourth story is the framing tale of Professor Goodman’s investigation which also serves as the films denouement. To say any more would be to give away the plot and spoil the film. Let it suffice to say that Ghost Stories exudes its horror pedigree and is littered with references to delight genre devotees.
Nyman and Dyson, direct assuredly and the movie maintains a measured pace. Performances are notably good, especially Paul Whithouse as the depressed and perturbed nightwatchman. He gives a very natural and credible performance as blue-collar worker struggling to rationalise his experience. Alex Lawther’s (Black Mirror: Shut Up and Dance) gives us a worryingly good turn as a man on the edge of hysteria. Perhaps it is the third story starring Martin Freeman that is the least thrilling. It’s not that this tale of a nursery-based poltergeist is lacking, but the fact it is used a segue into the final act, that robs it a little of its narrative power. However, the film boasts a suitably grimy production design with such locations as a decaying asylum, a distinctly down at heel working men's club and even the dreary childhood bedroom of one of our protagonists. There is also attention to detail to be found in each scene, from period wood cuts featuring the supernatural to the obligatory tomes and grimoires of the occult, lining bookshelves.
Ghost Stories, like many projects driven by those with a strong affinity to the genre and the influences of their youth, steers a fine line between homage and reference as well as fanboy adulation and cliché attribution. It’s is a bold and creative expansion of the stage play with sufficient difference for the broader visual medium of cinema. It successfully manages to scare, unsettle and bother the audience and in doing so, misdirect attention away from the slightly contrived framing story. It is also a welcome relief to experience genre cinema that hasn’t been exclusively tailor made and refined to fit a specific rating and appeal to a particular demographic. Ghost Stories is far from a gorefest but it is wonderfully creepy and atmospheric and makes no concessions to back pedal or make itself more appealing to wider audiences. It is scary, well-crafted and distinctly British. More please.
Hand of Fate 2
The basic premise of Hand of Fate 2 remains the same as the first game. However, Defiant Development have not just rehashed their action combat, table top inspired, card-based RPG. They’ve improved, refined and embellished the game, seizing upon its best aspects and bringing them to the fore, while beefing up the combat and adding wider features to bolster longevity. The sinister dealer returns but with a subtly different purpose this time. The player’s progression through the game is still filled with familiar fantasy tropes, random dice rolls, double-edged decisions and unexpected encounters. But this time the proceedings are contained within a more sophisticated framing device. There is a world map and a wider backstory to consider as you face 22 card-based challenges.
The basic premise of Hand of Fate 2 remains the same as the first game. However, Defiant Development have not just rehashed their action combat, table top inspired, card-based RPG. They’ve improved, refined and embellished the game, seizing upon its best aspects and bringing them to the fore, while beefing up the combat and adding wider features to bolster longevity. The sinister dealer returns but with a subtly different purpose this time. The player’s progression through the game is still filled with familiar fantasy tropes, random dice rolls, double-edged decisions and unexpected encounters. But this time the proceedings are contained within a more sophisticated framing device. There is a world map and a wider backstory to consider as you face 22 card-based challenges.
The initial tutorial stages, has your token move across a map of cards triggering an encounter on each one it lands upon. At times these are just story text, but others result in a decision or an outcome based upon the roll of a dice. Some encounters will end in combat, where the game adopts a third person Arkham-style fighting perspective. Combat this time round has been beefed up with companions and a greater variety of skills. You can also change the gender of your avatar and make some basic cosmetic changes. Beyond the tutorial, the importance of customising your deck and selecting appropriate cards ahead of the challenge becomes apparent. Picking the right selection leads to greater loot acquisition. Completing challenges and winning tokens provides new cards and new ways to explore and play the game. But you have to be on your toes. If you die in combat or due to a bad run of cards, then you fail and have to replay the entire challenge.
It is the greater depth of Hand of Fate 2 that makes it a superior sequel. The challenges often have sub-requirements that must be met before you progress. The new companions have their own unique backstories as well as engaging personalities. One is not especially bright and is afflicted with a potato fixation. The expansion of the narrative along with the augmented role of the dealer (once again brilliantly voiced by actor Anthony Skordi), means that the game is even more immersive this time round. The new mechanics means that replaying failed challenges is not as repetitious as expected. The in-game combat is still relatively simple compared to games based entirely upon this mechanic, but it is an improvement over the first game. There is more to do and those who are not great twitch gamers have the option of building a deck of buffs and debuffs.
Unlike many contemporary titles, Hand of Fate 2 has a unique quirky charm and character. Both the sound design and a subtle score by Jeff van Dyck enhance the game and contribute to its brooding atmosphere. However, out of all the games embellishments, it is the saturnine soliloquies of the dealer that are the most enjoyable and effective changes. He hints at a broader lore and sinister purpose behind the players progress across the virtual game board. It is these characteristics as well as a credible and balanced use of random chance that makes the game exciting. Overall Hand of Fate 2 is a worthy successor to the previous instalment in the series and a step forward in the games development. Mister Lionel may be absent this time round but there is still plenty of alternative Goblin based mirth to be enjoyed.
Parker (2013)
Parker is somewhat of a departure from Jason Statham's usual style of action movie. Based upon the character created by author Richard Stark (AKA Donald E. Westlake), Parker has an emphasis on plot and old school hard-boiled dialogue, over fights and mayhem. Although those elements are present in the film, they do sit rather awkwardly with the modern action idiom. Director Taylor Hackford seems to struggle in finding the right style for Parker and the indecision results in a very uneven movie. However, it should be noted that bringing this particular character to the screen has proven difficult in the past, although John Boorman successfully achieved this with Point Blank, starring Lee Marvin.
Parker is somewhat of a departure from Jason Statham's usual style of action movie. Based upon the character created by author Richard Stark (AKA Donald E. Westlake), Parker has an emphasis on plot and old school hard-boiled dialogue, over fights and mayhem. Although those elements are present in the film, they do sit rather awkwardly with the modern action idiom. Director Taylor Hackford seems to struggle in finding the right style for Parker and the indecision results in a very uneven movie. However, it should be noted that bringing this particular character to the screen has proven difficult in the past, although John Boorman successfully achieved this with Point Blank, starring Lee Marvin.
Like the recent adaptation of Jack Reacher, Parker has a simple story that seems decidedly low-key in this day and age of Hollywood excess. Rather than being subjected to an over reaching plot filed with implausible deeds, we simply get a tale of a heist gone bad, a betrayal and the subsequent quest for of revenge. Michael Chiklis has little to do as the double-crossing gang leader Melander and his crew are simply bad by default. The movie is also punctuated with some quite jolting scenes of violence, which for some reason just seem to be out-of-place with the rest of the narrative. It as if screenwriter John J. McLaughlin felt obliged to cater for regular Statham fans.
The only real character that shows promise is Jennifer Lopez as an aspiring Real Estate Agent Leslie Rodgers, who throws her lot in with Parker in a last-ditch attempt to better her ailing career. Playing against type she gives a solid performance, doing her best with a role that could have been a lot better if developed further. As for Mr. Statham, he fills the role of Parker, the crook with a moral code, adequately. Yet despite the positive vibe between the two leads the movie struggles to find the right tone. The pacing is somewhat slow and despite the focus on story, there is still a great deal of plot points that are simply glossed over. Providing a greater insight as to why Parker is the way he is would have certainly been worth exploring.
Parker is a curious movie and not without good points, but it ultimately falls between two stools. It neither satisfies the hardcore action fan, nor does it truly embrace the role of a traditional thriller. It also squander's a good cast (including a brief cameo by Nick Nolte) by giving them little to do. However, it is nice to see Jason Statham expand his repertoire, as he is quite a charismatic actor in his own unique way. It will be interesting to see if there will be any further outings for this character. Several studios have tried to launch this franchise before and have failed. Perhaps the boat has sailed for Parker and he remains a relic of the decade that spawned him and simply isn't suited to today's cinematic tastes. If we do get to see Parker again, I would rather see the one from Thunderbirds.
Diary of a Podcaster Part 14
Today I did a little blog housekeeping. I’ve reposted the last five episodes of the Contains Moderate Peril on the podcast page, now that previous hosting account has been closed and the RSS feed is defunct. The files are held locally and can either be played via the embedded player or downloaded manually. There are also two episodes of the Burton & Scrooge Podcast still available on SoundCloud for posterity. The podcast page and selection of episodes available are for reference and as an example of my podcasting back catalogue, so to speak. I may not be actively creating content of this kind at present, but I see no reason not to promote my experience in the field. If circumstances change in the future, there may be resumption of service.
Today I did a little blog housekeeping. I’ve reposted the last five episodes of the Contains Moderate Peril on the podcast page, now that previous hosting account has been closed and the RSS feed is defunct. The files are held locally and can either be played via the embedded player or downloaded manually. There are also two episodes of the Burton & Scrooge Podcast still available on SoundCloud for posterity. The podcast page and selection of episodes available are for reference and as an example of my podcasting back catalogue, so to speak. I may not be actively creating content of this kind at present, but I see no reason not to promote my experience in the field. If circumstances change in the future, there may be resumption of service.
While I was archiving various audio files, I spent some time listening to the jingles and stings that were created for both Contains Moderate Peril and Burton & Scrooge Podcast. This has always been an aspect of podcast production that I’ve enjoyed, hence its something that I put a lot of time and effort into when the various shows were at their peak. For example, DJ Ric Santos was specifically chosen to provide the introduction for Contains Moderate Peril, because of his upbeat inflection and prodigious experience with recording voiceovers. The Christopher Walken preamble for the Burton & Scrooge Podcast was created by re-editing an impression that comedian Kevin Pollack performed during an interview. And my personal favourite, the Liam Neeson “endorsement” was a bespoke recording made by a professional voice artist.
The music used for both the “intro” and “outro” of each show were always picked with consideration and I loved creating little stings taken from cults movies and TV shows. The idea was to try and make them link to the various subjects being discussed. Sometimes this was done in an obvious fashion and on other occasions it was damn obscure (and somewhat self-indulgent). It made me laugh when one listener said that they listened to podcasts at double speed for reasons of time efficiency. I thought to myself bang goes all that work, but that is the nature of the beast. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. Therefore, bearing all this in mind, I thought it would be a small but fitting epitaph to both shows to post a few examples of the various jingles, stabs and stings that adorned them and added to their respective character.
The Tedium of April Fool's Day
Many of the traditions that we maintain as a society, started off with honest intentions. Such things as public holidays, religious observance or the simple celebration of a particular group or ideal are prime examples. Inevitably the meaning of these traditions becomes diluted over time and they more often than not become exercises in marketing or tedious institutions perpetuated by those with a specific agenda. For me April Fool's Day is the embodiment of this concept. An exquisitely unfunny ritual that is inflicted upon us by those who don't realise (or care) that the activity is totally arbitrary. I hate the concept of organised fun. And that it’s something to be martialled and stage managed by self-appointed arbiters. Furthermore, I despise the accompanying mindset that if you somehow don't enjoy yourself, or wish to participate in the ensuing charade, you are somehow lacking or a "killjoy". Both concepts are flawed and morally oppressive. For me fun is something that occurs organically, and its dynamic nature eschews control and shepherding. It should not be at someone else’s expense either.
Many of the traditions that we maintain as a society, started off with honest intentions. Such things as public holidays, religious observance or the simple celebration of a particular group or ideal are prime examples. Inevitably the meaning of these traditions becomes diluted over time and they more often than not become exercises in marketing or tedious institutions perpetuated by those with a specific agenda. For me April Fool's Day is the embodiment of this concept. An exquisitely unfunny ritual that is inflicted upon us by those who don't realise (or care) that the activity is totally arbitrary. I hate the concept of organised fun. And that it’s something to be martialled and stage managed by self-appointed arbiters. Furthermore, I despise the accompanying mindset that if you somehow don't enjoy yourself, or wish to participate in the ensuing charade, you are somehow lacking or a "killjoy". Both concepts are flawed and morally oppressive. For me fun is something that occurs organically and its dynamic nature eschews control and shepherding. It should not be at someone else’s expense either.
However, the video game industry loves a bandwagon and any event that they can crow bar into a game (and monetise if possible). April Fool’s Day has become yet another of these arbitrary occasions. Thus, we have everything from bogus or “prank” press releases, novelty tweets from community managers, “humorous videos” and even themed events. So far, I’ve encountered the following. An “fun” email from Niantic about a graphical upgrade coming to Pokémon GO. A press release about the upcoming Black Desert Online theme park. And a tweet from the official Path of Exile twitter account stating that they’re abandoning the development of their game as an action RPG and that it will be repurposed as a 100 player Battle Royale experience. However, it should be noted that all the above, although annoying, are things that can be avoided. But the developers of the MMORPG Rift, have decided to go so far as to have a little April Fool’s humour at their players expense. The game usually has no fall damage but today they’ve turned it on. Oh, the endless joy.
There are many things in life that are inflicted upon us, often against our will and without any form of redress. Governments, taxes, kids playing music on their phones out loud and the iniquities of [insert name of tediously predictable You Tuber here], to name but a few. So, I really don't want to see more of the same in gaming. If developers do feel the need to “join in the fun” of the season and insert some joke or novelty event (as with the example from Rift), then they should at least give players the option to disable it. The same way that SSG allows players to opt out of forced emotes from other players in LOTRO. That would cover all bases and buy the devs a lot of goodwill. Those who like this sort of thing can split their sides with mirth and the rest of us can be left in peace. The reason I mention this is because it’s never a good idea to upset paying customers. As for April Fool's Day, well it’s a tradition that really needs laying to rest. Does it promote comic genius or simply perpetuate uninspired, thoughtless, ubiquitous mediocrity? (No shouting out, hands up, please). If you want another cogent argument as to why this annual celebration is a cultural blight, then watch the video below by comedian and satirist John Oliver.
The Truth Is Out There (2011)
Dean Haglund is best known for playing Richard Langly, one of the Lone Gunmen on The X-Files. In recent years has capitalised upon that role and has become closely identified with the realm of the paranormal and the world of conspiracy theories. The documentary The Truth Is Out There follows Dean as he travels the US and attempts to discover just what it means to search for the truth in a world where conspiracies theories, untruths and fake news abound. The documentary directed by Phil Leirness, humorously takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, talking to those who believe that the world is not what it seems.
Dean Haglund is best known for playing Richard Langly, one of the Lone Gunmen on The X-Files. In recent years has capitalised upon that role and has become closely identified with the realm of the paranormal and the world of conspiracy theories. The documentary The Truth Is Out There follows Dean as he travels the US and attempts to discover just what it means to search for the truth in a world where conspiracies theories, untruths and fake news abound. The documentary directed by Phil Leirness, humorously takes the viewer on a journey of discovery, talking to those who believe that the world is not what it seems.
It takes a while for The Truth Is Out There to find its feet. The first ten minutes or so focuses on Dean Haglund visiting various conventions and fringe groups. Due to Dean's exuberant personality, it is difficult to initally predict exactly what tone the documentary will take to its subject. However, after a while it becomes very clear that his persona and rapport with those he talks to is an invaluable asset. The scientists, authors, mediums, journalists that he interviews warm to his charm and express themselves in very relaxed way. There is little conflict during their discussions as they’re afforded a great deal of respect and not treated as “nuts”.
Director Phil Leirness has edited together from hours of material, a very fair and measured documentary. In some instances, I felt that possibly too much time was given to certain parties, but that may just be me. Those with a greater interest in this topic may feel that the running time of 141 minutes is too short. My only other complaint was that the accompanying soundtrack was a little too intrusive at times and detracted from what was happening on screen.
As the documentary progresses and the audience meet a wider group of individuals with increasingly complex views of the world, the film cross cuts to Dean in discussion with psychotherapist, Dr. Nicki Monti. I personally found this to be one of the most engaging aspects of the film. By nature, I am sceptical of this facet of contemporary medicine, but on this occasion felt that the observations that were spot one and very pertinent to the discussion. It is also important to point out that Phil Leirness has been very even handed in his treatment of all interviewees. If any of them proceed to shoot themselves and their respective arguments in the foot, it is by their own hands and not his.
The Truth Is Out There potentially appeals to a multitude of demographics. A great deal of this hinges of the charm of Dean Haglund and his amusing and dry quips. There is much food for thought in the ideas and concepts discussed, from Area 51 to the 9/11 conspiracies, as well as our fascination as a society for this sort of material. For the past fifty years, conspiracy theories have become an increasingly popular topic of debate. Whether you consider them genuine or merely the delusional conceits of those ill-equipped to deal with reality, it is a phenomenon that is not going to go away.
The Next Big Thing
I was chatting with a few fellow gamers recently and was asked if I had pre-ordered any new up and coming titles, such as The Crew 2 and Anthem. They seemed surprised when I responded "no". I subsequently explained that I had reached a stage in my life where I was beginning to tire of hype, false expectations, the continual internet chatter and the crap that accompanies being an early adopter. I think that the whole Star Wars: Battlefront II debacle pretty much put it all into perspective for me and I just don't see the point in going through all that again. Then the subject of early access and soft launches came up and I similarly pointed out that I wouldn’t be jumping on the Sea of Thieves bandwagon either. I like to buy a game when it’s finished and therefore get an entire product. I don’t have to be part of the crowd that’s playing any game on day one of launch.
I was chatting with a few fellow gamers recently and was asked if I had pre-ordered any new up and coming titles, such as The Crew 2 and Anthem. They seemed surprised when I responded "no". I subsequently explained that I had reached a stage in my life where I was beginning to tire of hype, false expectations, the continual internet chatter and the crap that accompanies being an early adopter. I think that the whole Star Wars: Battlefront II debacle pretty much put it all into perspective for me and I just don't see the point in going through all that again. Then the subject of early access and soft launches came up and I similarly pointed out that I wouldn’t be jumping on the Sea of Thieves bandwagon either. I like to buy a game when it’s finished and therefore get an entire product. I don’t have to be part of the crowd that’s playing any game on day one of launch.
I’m frequently unimpressed with the pre-order bonus items associated with buying in advance, as they’re seldom of any real benefit and often smack too much of a cash grab. I appreciate that game developers need to get cash up front, but if I am to spend money prior to a game’s release I want a tangible incentive, not just baubles and trinkets. Plus linking beta testing to pre-orders strikes me too much like hedging your bets. I think it is important to try before you buy these days, as gaming often requires a sizeable cash outlay if you want the full product. To gate beta testing behind a pre-order does seem counter intuitive, potentially alienating many of those who would under other circumstances, be happily testing your product for free. $60 (or more if you want a season pass as well) is a lot to spend on a product that may not eventually be to your liking. I beta tested many MMOs in the past and didn’t buy all of them.
I also have doubts over the future of the MMO genre, so would rather wait a while before purchasing any of the new titles currently in early access. Hence Project: Gorgon and Crowfall remain on my radar through news feeds rather than first-hand experience. I want to see if they succeed or fail and what sort of community grows around them. In the meantime, there are plenty of smaller releases that I am interested in. However, these are not MMOs so do not have the any of the potential risks or problems. I am eagerly awaiting Frogware’s The Sinking City, for example. It won't have the any of the hype and marketing impetus of any of the major studio releases this year, but it will arrive on time and in good order, doing hopefully everything that it's more measured sales campaign promises. I find that many of the smaller game developers still have a sense of perspective and tend not to over sell their products.
The cult of "the next big thing" and the early adopter is really a state of mind. I recently spent some time perusing old titles via Steam and Origin, looking at established games that were over two years old. Such products have usually been patched and fine-tuned, eliminating any bugs. There is also a wealth of online resources should a player require any assistance. Then of course there is the massive price differential. The latter is a very important factor. The net result of my search was that I found the RPG The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt GOTY Edition available via for £15, if you shop around online. Let it suffice to say that unless you need to be at the cutting edge of gaming, you can avoid the respective baggage that accompanies “the next big thing” and find comfort and satisfaction with last year’s titles. Sadly, too many people still are enamoured by pre-order culture and “being there” on day one. Until this culture changes, the egregious bonuses and tat that come with premium pre-orders will continue to blight the industry.
The X-Files: I Want to Believe (2008)
I always enjoyed watching The X-Files and was bitterly disappointed by the way the series ended. It was abrupt, lacklustre and inconclusive. So naturally I was interested when I heard that the franchise was to be resurrected for another cinematic outing in 2008. I, like so many fans, was curious to see how the characters would be developed and whether if any of the more famous story lines would be developed for this second cinematic outing. The fact that series creator, Chris carter, was to direct the film increased my expectations. However, the film that was finally released (at the height of the summer, amid so much competition) was quite different from what the public were expecting.
I always enjoyed watching The X-Files and was bitterly disappointed by the way the series ended. It was abrupt, lacklustre and inconclusive. So naturally I was interested when I heard that the franchise was to be resurrected for another cinematic outing in 2008. I, like so many fans, was curious to see how the characters would be developed and whether if any of the more famous story lines would be developed for this second cinematic outing. The fact that series creator, Chris carter, was to direct the film increased my expectations. However, the film that was finally released (at the height of the summer, amid so much competition) was quite different from what the public were expecting.
Former FBI spooks Mulder (David Duchovny) and Scully (Gillian Anderson) are reinstated to investigate the mysterious abduction of a young female agent. They are assisted by a psychic ex-priest who has been defrocked over child molestation (Billy Connolly). As the agents struggle to unravel the secrets of Father Joseph's visions they also have to confront some personal demons of their own. Whilst unravelling a plot involving bizarre experimentation, Mulder and Scully struggle with their relationship and a sceptical pair of FBI colleagues. There are no conspiracies, shoot outs, alien activity, CGI, or major explosions. The film is curiously low key in both its plot and production.
Unlike the first feature film, the plot does not focus on the series' established "mythos" and instead works as a standalone story, similar to many of the "monster of the week" episodes that were frequently seen in the TV series. This has been done in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience, but ultimately works against the film. It all seems a little too understated and un X-Files-ish. The only above average aspect of the movie is Billy Connolly's performance. But one good performance is not enough to sustain this sort of movie. Also, the major selling point of the original series was the unrequited relationship between the leads. This film ruins this mystique by finally settling the storyline. Mulder and Scully together as an item simply does not work.
The X-Files: I Want to Believe has a strong degree of moralising and religious debate, which is far from subtle. Connolly's character raises several ethical issues, but the script seems ill equipped to explore them to any satisfaction. All things considered, this really is a bit of a misfire. It does seem strange that a major studio such as Fox would bring a franchise out of retirement simply for such a basic film. I'm sure writer and director Carter was attempting to go back to basics and not be artistically fenced in by previous material. Unfortunately, I think he took too many steps back on this one and we are left with a film that is content to be no more in-depth than an average TV episode.
Let the Gamer Beware
Gaming is a very interesting and unique industry. It has evolved a great deal over the last three decades and now deals in virtual products. It’s a far cry from traditional notions of business. Yet despite its modern trappings it is still driven by the same processes and imperatives of any other sector. Therefore, should a customer really treat it any differently? The reason I ask is because it seems to me that gamers have a very different relationship with their respective vendors, compared to other groups of consumers. It is a relationship that I believe to be somewhat skewed and therefore detrimental to both parties.
Gaming is a very interesting and unique industry. It has evolved a great deal over the last three decades and now deals in virtual products. It’s a far cry from traditional notions of business. Yet despite its modern trappings it is still driven by the same processes and imperatives of any other sector. Therefore, should a customer really treat it any differently? The reason I ask is because it seems to me that gamers have a very different relationship with their respective vendors, compared to other groups of consumers. It is a relationship that I believe to be somewhat skewed and therefore detrimental to both parties.
Whether you are buying a house, a new TV or loaf of bread at the supermarket, all business transactions are governed by a basic contract. Goods or services are exchanged for money. Furthermore, those goods and services must abide by a set of pre-agreed criterion. If these are not met, then the goods or services are not fit for purpose and the contract is null and void. The transaction is subsequently cancelled. If funds were paid in advance, then they are returned. There is a logical purity to the process. As a consumer this procedure should be your abiding philosophy and caveat emptor (“let the buyer beware”) your personal mantra. Obviously, consumer legislation has layers of complexity and may vary from region to region, but the basic tenets are universal.
Bearing this in mind let us turn our attention to the gaming genre, specifically MMOs. They are a curious product to begin with. Until recently, initial payment only allowed you to use the client software for first thirty days. To continue using it, a subscription was required. This has changed recently, and the basic product is now given away free, with revenue coming from the sale of enhancements and premium services. Yet despite all this, the business model is still subject to the traditional contract. Therefore, if the vendor defaults in anyway on their obligations, then the buyer has appropriate legal recourse, within the terms and conditions of the service.
Unfortunately, gamers do not simply buy a product and view the transaction with dispassionate and logical legal acumen. Gamers bring enthusiasm and fandom to the equation. Games evolve, and player participation and feedback contribute to that process. The love and time that gamers invest into an MMO elevates the process above a simple business transaction. This is a very big factor in shaping the way gamers perceive their business relationship with the developers. In fact, some lose sight that it is an actual business relationship and see it more as some sort of reciprocal partnership. This is where the problems begin.
Because MMOs are so dependent on customer feedback there is a requirement for forums and an overall dialogue with the player base. This in some ways transcends traditional customer services and takes on a broader role. There is a practical need for a centralised point of information and therefore the role of community manager arises. I consider this to be a contributory factor to the blurring of customer, vendor relationship. Most other businesses have customer service or support. They serve their purpose in providing paying customers with the ancillary service they are due, but they do not alter the dynamics of the relationship. A community manager by their very title infers a community that needs to be "managed", which in turn changes customers with statutory rights into a different group altogether.
Communities in the wider world have a voice. Often, they are solicited by politicians and as such, have power as a lobby group. When this sort of terminology is used with regards to gamers, there is the risk of that they will assume a wider degree of involvement and of their own importance. It is this misinterpretation of what each respective group’s role is, that causes problems. Now consider the gamers above average emotional investment into the products that they are buying. People seldom have a comparable bond with the company that manufactured their fridge. Some fans therefore confuse support and interaction with a vicarious form of co-ownership. Because of roles like community manager and the personalities associated with them, the business relationship then blurs and a more personal one replaces it. It may be well meant initially, but it distorts matters and not for the better. Game developers are commercial entities and making money is their raison d'etre. This should never be forgotten. Ultimately "community management" and other "soft skills" are done out of necessity. They are not driven by altruistic notions and are not providing some sort of benevolent social service for the "greater good". They want your money and will do whatever is required to get it. The vendor is not a friend.
If you use a supermarket and get poor service, you will either complain or more than likely just vote with your feet and never return there again. If you buy a high value electrical item from an established company and find the product faulty as well as the customer support wanting, again you will probably just refrain from purchasing from them in future. As a consumer you may tell others of your bad experience, but you will ultimately get over the matter. After all it is a question of maintaining a degree of perspective. Exactly how much damage has this negative experience done too your life? It not as if your family or a Shaolin Temple has been offended? Now obviously with gaming it is important to consider the time that is invested by the players into the product. This does mean that the consumer has possibly more invested and at stake than the casual shopper that I previously described. However, ultimately the personal investment is something the consumer has brought to the proceedings of their own free will. It has no bearing on the basic business contract that both groups of customers are governed by.
The closure of City of Heroes by NCSoft back in 2012, clearly illustrates this situation. Naturally fans of the game were up in arms and far from happy with its demise. There was a great deal of vocal protest and I have read such statements as "I will never by another NCSoft product" or "they'll never see a red cent of my money again". Emotions were extremely high and some of the opinions expressed seemed to be disproportionate with regard to what had actually happened. It is this type of reaction that I see all too often manifest itself across numerous fans bases. Terms like "betrayal" and "traitor" are used. I have seen these in relation to LOTRO for example. Authors such as George R. R. Martin and Jean M. Auel get hectored by fans who are far from happy with the direction the writers have taken their own creations and work. Again, this all stems from the fact that fans feel that they have some sort of collective ownership or claim to the material they love. Dare I even mention Star Wars?
Passion, fandom and a love of a particular thing can be very positive experience. Ask any scientist, musician or film makers and you'll often find that they were influenced by popular culture. Star Trek has inspired a wealth of our best current achievers. But fandom can also lead to a false entitlement and a very blinkered view of the customer, vendor relationship. Consumers are not the same as creative consultants, nor do they share equal status to those that make the products. This is especially relevant for gamers. The recent launch of Sea of Thieves is a perfect opportunity to reflect upon this matter. If you purchase this game at this point in it's lifecycle, then you need to consider the following.
The game has a finite lifespan, which is governed by its capacity to make money and what other future products the manufacturer has in its portfolio. Buying and playing the game, sinking hours of time and passion into it guarantees nothing. Being active within the wider scene, running a website, hanging out with the community manager at PAX or whatever, does not mean you have more say or clout. Your consumer rights have not altered from what they were on day one. It is very depressing to do so, but my advice is to read the terms and conditions that accompany any MMO (or any other genre of game). They often succinctly tell you exactly where you stand, which is not necessarily where you think. Therefore, let the gamer beware.
The Tree of Life (2011)
Having missed the film on its original theatrical release, I recently saw The Tree of Life as part of a retrospective of the director’s work. Contrary to what some may expect, I am not going to lambast Terrence Malick’s existential reverie. Frankly I applaud the fact that he has endeavoured to do something very different and more importantly very personal. Furthermore, the movie continues to polarise the wider cinematic community, which pleases me greatly. Sometimes there's nothing worse for contemporary cinema than popular consensus. The film certainly elicits an emotional response from viewers, often leading to a debate of the movies respective merits. Yet I consider this to be a good thing, compared to the overall indifference I often feel these days towards an increasing infantilised medium.
Having missed the film on its original theatrical release, I recently saw The Tree of Life as part of a retrospective of the director’s work. Contrary to what some may expect, I am not going to lambast Terrence Malick’s existential reverie. Frankly I applaud the fact that he has endeavoured to do something very different and more importantly very personal. Furthermore, the movie continues to polarise the wider cinematic community, which pleases me greatly. Sometimes there's nothing worse for contemporary cinema than popular consensus. The film certainly elicits an emotional response from viewers, often leading to a debate of the movies respective merits. Yet I consider this to be a good thing, compared to the overall indifference I often feel these days towards an increasing infantilised medium.
Did I enjoy The Tree of Life? No. Did I find myself in accordance with Mr Malick's sentiments, themes and ideas? No. But there again as they are somewhat nebulous, who is to say that I accurately ascertained them. I may well have ended up basing my opinion on my own assumptions and potential prejudices. To be honest, I found myself increasingly more interested in the reaction of other members of the audience as the film unfolded. Being broadly agnostic on matters of faith and spirituality, I was not strongly engaged by the director’s vision. For me the great virtue of the film is the debate that it generates. It raises far more questions than it answers. Something that has been lacking in contemporary cinema for a while.
Narrative cinema is only one approach to film making. Malick certainly does not travel from A to B in a straight line. In fact, he may not be travelling between two points at all. Some may argue that you need to engage your brain to appreciate this film. Others state the opposite and that you simply allow it to lead you through a personal emotional experience. Bear this in mind if and when you see The Tree of Life. If you are still not sure as to whether this film is for you, then consider the following press release that succinctly summarises the proceedings.
From Terrence Malick, the acclaimed director of such classic films as Badlands, Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life is the impressionistic story of a Midwestern family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith. Through Malick’s signature imagery, we see how both brute nature and spiritual grace shape not only our lives as individuals and families, but all life.
Filled with religious imagery, philosophical musings over the creation, the birth of morality and visions of the afterlife, The Tree of Life sprawls over a two hour plus running time and pursues its themes in a very erratic fashion. The performances from Sean penn and especially the child actors are strong, although I felt Brad Pitt was somewhat lost in the proceedings. There is also a curious sound design that reflects the enigmatic nature of the film. Some of the imagery will stick with the viewer but the CGI dinosaur section was ill advised. Not because of its technical quality (which is fine) but because of the point it strives to make. Curiously enough, some of the other special effects sequences are filmed using more traditional practical effects. Supervised by Douglas Trumbull, these are somewhat reminiscent in style of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, although that is where the similarity ends.
The rampant commercialisation of cinema, particularly in the last thirty years, has certainly reduced the public’s perception of what cinema is and what it can do, down to a very basic level. Expectations are set low and when someone dares to do something different, then it really does throw a spanner in the works. Terence Malick has created something contrary to the current game plan. Admittedly his artistic status affords him an opportunity to do so. It would not be as easy to for a fledgling director to secure the backing of a studio or such a wide distribution deal, to make such a movie. But regardless of the rights or wrongs of The Tree of Life, it continues to remind both the industry and the public alike, of the notion of that cinema can still be art. It is up to you to decide if that is the case in this instance.
007 Legends
It's a curious thing that some of the most popular movie, TV and book franchises end up being made into the most tedious games. 007 Legends (released 2012) falls squarely into this category. It is woefully uninspired and lacking in any real substance. The previous game in the franchise, James Bond 007: Blood Stone released in 2010, was far from a masterpiece, but shines compared to the ineptitude of 007 Legends. Developers Eurocom seemed to have completely misjudged what it is about this particular intellectual property that the public enjoy. The results are a bastard hybrid FPS with just a thin veneer of 007 added to the proceedings. Curiously enough, this was the last game that Eurocom made before going out of business. Subsequently, 007 Legends has vanished from shelves and has been withdrawn from Steam. However, I still have a “hard” copy for the PC.
It's a curious thing that some of the most popular movie, TV and book franchises end up being made into the most tedious games. 007 Legends (released 2012) falls squarely into this category. It is woefully uninspired and lacking in any real substance. The previous game in the franchise, James Bond 007: Blood Stone released in 2010, was far from a masterpiece, but shines compared to the ineptitude of 007 Legends. Developers Eurocom seemed to have completely misjudged what it is about this particular intellectual property that the public enjoy. The results are a bastard hybrid FPS with just a thin veneer of 007 added to the proceedings. Curiously enough, this was the last game that Eurocom made before going out of business. Subsequently, 007 Legends has vanished from shelves and has been withdrawn from Steam. However, I still have a “hard” copy for the PC.
So where exactly does 007 Legends go wrong? Well to start it’s a formulaic FPS, with arbitrary stealth mechanics. The game engine is inadequate, and the game looks dated (even within the context of 2012). Like James Bond 007: Blood Stone there is a reliance on your in-game smart phone to crack security doors and hack computer systems. It’s hardly the most exciting gadget from Q branch. But it’s the narrative that’s the biggest failing. The game takes classic storylines from past Bond movies and re-imagines them as previous missions undertaken by the Daniel Craig's incarnation of Bond. Unfortunately taking such iconic enemies such as Goldfinger, Odd Job and Jaws out of their respective context doesn't really work. The banter and interaction all seem contrived and modernising these stories robs them of their period charm. It’s a real shame because there’s a grain of a good idea present, but its lost due to the poor realisation.
007 Legends is a who's who from the last fifty years of the Bond franchise, but its utterly lacking in emotional impact. Rather than capturing the spirit of Bond it simply feels like a 007 themed mod for another game. Uninspired character animation, repetitive use of similarly designed locations and appalling AI, culminate in a very dull gaming experience. Like many others, I was very disappointed with 007 Legends upon release and six years on, a second play through has not improved my overall opinion. Many of the levels are so generic, I once again found myself trying to bypass or skip content by simply running to the next checkpoint. Overall, this is a text book example of a product born of think tanks, focus groups and bean counters, who confuse bullet point summaries with true understanding. It is hardly a surprise that this game killed the Activision Bond franchise stone dead. Its subsequent disappearance may indicate that there were long term repercussions from the rights holders.
Interstellar (2014)
I have a suspicion that Interstellar is destined to be a movie that will polarise opinions for years to come. A quick visit to the IMDB already shows a divide between who hailed it as a masterpiece upon release in 2014 and others who left the movie theatre bitterly disappointed. I had mixed feeling about the film when I first saw it but was prepared to put aside its annoying foibles and embrace the bigger narrative picture. A recent second viewing has negated some of the problems I encountered first time round but overall, I still think it’s an enjoyable but cumbersome motion picture. Despite its science heavy plot and dialogue, Interstellar is very much a film about human nature. Director Christopher Nolan cleverly explores the perennial theme of how these two themes are seldom in accord.
I have a suspicion that Interstellar is destined to be a movie that will polarise opinions for years to come. A quick visit to the IMDB already shows a divide between who hailed it as a masterpiece upon release in 2014 and others who left the movie theatre bitterly disappointed. I had mixed feeling about the film when I first saw it but was prepared to put aside its annoying foibles and embrace the bigger narrative picture. A recent second viewing has negated some of the problems I encountered first time round but overall, I still think it’s an enjoyable but cumbersome motion picture. Despite its science heavy plot and dialogue, Interstellar is very much a film about human nature. Director Christopher Nolan cleverly explores the perennial theme of how these two themes are seldom in accord.
There is much to praise about Interstellar. The production design and effects are outstanding. The movie succeeds in visually realising the abstract nature of such phenomena as Black Holes, singularities and temporal anomalies. The robots that aid the crew are especially interesting as they are conspicuously non-anthropomorphic. Their design is functional as are their personalities. Christopher Nolan also wisely chooses to explore a very personal Father and Daughter relationship, set against the back drop of an ongoing global disaster. Although there are moments of spectacle in Interstellar, it is not at the expense of the human element that is essential to the story.
However, the film is flawed and at times struggles under the weight of its aspirations. The pace is languid, and where the leads get plenty of onscreen time, certain characters are woefully neglected and under developed. The final act cannot sustain itself and paints itself into a corner plot wise. After all its intellectual posturing, Interstellar settles for a rather generic Sci-fi plot device to resolve the story. There is a noticeable tonal shift and it may not sit comfortably with some viewers expectations. Imagine being beaten around the head with a science text book for two hours, only for it to be replaced by a philosophical tome at the last moment.
As with Inception, Christopher Nolan once again tries to raise the intellectual horizons of the blockbuster genre. Interstellar at time struggles to render its complex scientific themes into digestible dialogue but as experimental pictures of this nature are so few and far between, it would be short sighted to dismiss the film out of hand on these grounds. It deserves praise for trying to explore weighty themes with greater intellectual rigour than the average Hollywood movie. It should also be applauded for placing science at the heart of the plot. Especially as we live in times when critical thinking and rational thought are in decline. Knowledge and expertise are no longer exclusively viewed as laudable attributes and the “obsessed” scientist is no longer movie common movie trope.
It should be noted that Interstellar is not 2001: A Space Odyssey and doesn't strive to be so. Unlike Kubrick's movie, Christopher Nolan's is far more enamoured with the human condition. It's fundamentally about people and our nature as a species. However, it’s definitely not a movie for everyone and I would not recommend it as such. Don’t see it if you are expecting a space opera or just a story about exploration. Interstellar seeks to engage both your mind and emotions. Furthermore, it expects the audience to think. Although I found as much to dislike as I did to like, within the movie one hundred and sixty-nine-minute running time, I am glad that there are still film makers who are prepared to try something as bold as Interstellar. Sometimes a film that is imperfect can be just as engaging as one that is not.
Dredd (2012)
Dredd is clearly a movie that has been made by people who fully understand and respect the source material. This is by far the films strongest asset and helps carry the production through some of its short comings. It should also be noted that this is one of the most gritty and violent comic adaptation you're likely to see. It was rated R in the US went so far as to achieve an 18 certificate in the UK. The 3D process that accompanied the theatrical release and which is also available on the Blu-ray disc does add a rather sensationalist element to the proceedings with bullets passing through people’s faces in slow motion and blood spattering across the screen. Yet it works quite well and is reminiscent of Judge Dredd's origin on the luridly coloured pages of 2000 AD.
Dredd is clearly a movie that has been made by people who fully understand and respect the source material. This is by far the films strongest asset and helps carry the production through some of its short comings. It should also be noted that this is one of the most gritty and violent comic adaptation you're likely to see. It was rated R in the US went so far as to achieve an 18 certificate in the UK. The 3D process that accompanied the theatrical release and which is also available on the Blu-ray disc does add a rather sensationalist element to the proceedings with bullets passing through people’s faces in slow motion and blood spattering across the screen. Yet it works quite well and is reminiscent of Judge Dredd's origin on the luridly coloured pages of 2000 AD.
As soon as the movie starts viewers are dragged into the decaying, overcrowded and squalid world of Mega-City One. Crime is rampant among the 800 million strong population and the Judges provide summary justice among the city's denizens. A new drug Slo-Mo is rife on the streets, with its reality slowing side effects. Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) along with rookie partner Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirby) investigate the source of the new narcotic. The trail leads to them to a two hundred storey tower block controlled by drug baron Ma-Ma (Lena Headey). After a violent confrontation begins, the judges face having to fight their way out through an army of criminals and killers.
The story is simple and totally in accord with its central character. It is a very targeted production which after opening with establishing shots of Cape Town doubling as Mega-City One, becomes confined mainly to the tower block and surrounding locations. The production design by Mark Digby is very creative and certainly does as much as it can with the movies modest budget. Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle creates an interesting visual style by contrasting the overall decay and squalor with the beauty of the slow-motion scenes when people partake of the drug Slo-Mo. The visual effects are stylised and better than I was expecting. CGI violence seldom can compete with physical effects, but it mainly works within this production, suiting the required style.
Alex Garland's script is minimalist and very much in the right idiom. As a result, we get a Judge Dredd who has little to say and remains somewhat of an enigma. The jury is still out as to whether he is an iconic old west style hero or an über fascist. Karl urban excels in the role and firmly keeps his helmet on, which will please the purists. For those looking for a greater character development, Olivia Thirby has somewhat more to do, but overall the narrative is lean on both plot and back story. One can argue that this is all that is required for such a movie, although I would point out that John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 managed to explore similar themes with much more rounded protagonists.
Pete Travis directs with confidence an does not shy away from the nature of the central character. The main reason the 1995 adaptation of Judge Dredd failed, was because it stripped away all the harsher elements of the plot and replaced them with humour, pathos and optimism. It also made the star the focus of the movie and not the character. You'll find none of that here. However, despite all its good points, Dredd does have areas of weakness. Some of the location shots in Cape Town are populated with contemporary vehicles and props that break the immersion. The use of slow motion in some of the action scenes does become a little repetitive at times. The opening narration could have been better and perhaps a little more back story on some of the characters would have been beneficial for narrative reasons. Also, through no fault of its own, the storyline of Dredd bares a similarity to the action movie The Raid, which was released earlier the same year. Sadly this stole some of its thunder.
Ultimately, Dredd is a very solid action film and a rare example of a good comic adaptation. It sticks to its guns (no pun intended) and give the fan base what it wants. There was upon release and remains now, scope for a franchise, although to date this has not happened. As is stand Dredd is a commendable, honest and old school action movie that dares to buck the trend and go for a higher rating, rather than dilute its content in pursuit of wider commercial success. It once again proves that if you want to adapt a comic-based franchise successfully, you need to understand it fully and stay true to its core ethos. Hollywood take note. This is how it's done properly.
Ask a Policeman (1939)
I was raised on old black and white films as a child. My parents age and personal tastes meant that I had exposure to a lot of material that people today may be oblivious to. This was especially true with regard to pre-war UK comic luminaries such as Arthur Askey, Old Mother Riley and Will Hay. I am very grateful in a way, as it has afforded me the opportunity to broaden my cinematic horizons and cultural references. Comedy is also an interesting social barometer of the times and can be quite a useful tool for historians. Its curious how something change there are certain comic tropes that are timeless. Often these are fundamental aspects of the human character but not necessarily the best ones.
I was raised on old black and white films as a child. My parents age and personal tastes meant that I had exposure to a lot of material that people today may be oblivious to. This was especially true with regard to pre-war UK comic luminaries such as Arthur Askey, Old Mother Riley and Will Hay. I am very grateful in a way, as it has afforded me the opportunity to broaden my cinematic horizons and cultural references. Comedy is also an interesting social barometer of the times and can be quite a useful tool for historians. Its curious how something change there are certain comic tropes that are timeless. Often these are fundamental aspects of the human character but not necessarily the best ones.
As a result of my youth, I am a consummate Will Hay fan. I find the seedy, incompetent characters that he created to be timeless. There often a lot of substance to his various incarnations, along with cynicism and moral ambiguity. Unlike US comedies of the time, there is also a conspicuous lack of sentiment. The humour is often linguistic, self-deprecating and sarcastic rather than physical and is more sedately paced, compared to the hard-hitting style of today. Although many consider Hay's finest work to be Oh, Mr. Porter! or My Learned Friend, I have a soft spot for the formulaic but enjoyable Ask A Policeman from 1939. It’s a very accessible example of Hay's work and exhibits many of the traits I have listed.
The first half of Ask A Policeman is vintage Hay, which concentrates on the superbly scripted verbal sparring between himself and his usual associates Graham Marriott and Moore Moffatt. The banter is very well observed, and its dry quality still makes it easily accessible. Take for example the following scene where Dudfoot and his two constables have made an arrest.
Sergeant Samuel Dudfoot: Did you search him?
Constable Albert Brown: One pocket book, one watch, one pen-knife and no money.
Sergeant Samuel Dudfoot: One pen-knife and no what?
Constable Albert Brown: No money.
Sergeant Samuel Dudfoot: Come on, turn out your pockets.
Constable Albert Brown: Oh, alright. One pen-knife and fifteen bob.
Sergeant Samuel Dudfoot: Blimey! Will you never learn to be honest? He's as much our prisoner as he is yours... Here you are, five bob each.
The story then broadens to encompass smugglers, headless horsemen, and a poorly conceived bus chase, which unfortunately bears to many similarities with Oh, Mr. Porter! However, these changes in pace and direction do not spoil the film overall and it still remains engaging during it's relatively short eighty-minute running time. I would recommend Ask A Policeman to those who have an interest in classic British comedy and vintage acts that have their roots in music hall and variety.
Oddly enough, the film was remade in 1982 by British comic duo, Canon and Ball, under the title The Boys in Blue. Unfortunately, it was rather poorly implemented and lacked the subtly of the original, mainly due to the stars somewhat limited comic abilities. Some folk have tenuously tried to link Edgar Wright's 2007 movie Hot Fuzz to the Hay original, but I believe that is stretching a point.
A Question of Time and Patience
Every couple of days or so, I log into Dauntless and spend an hour or two hunting beasties. I really enjoy the monster hunting but certainly feel that the quests, crafting and the general ancillary mechanics of the game still need working on. From what I can see the EU server appears to be pretty busy and there are certainly a lot of players in the main quest hub area. Yet despite this, I struggle at times in finding a group. It’s not that other player aren’t available. It’s that they seem unable to endure the five minutes it takes to form a four-man team. Often other players will join the group and immediately indicate that they’re good to go. However, I like to wait to see if we can get at least three players out of four, to improve the odds of combat going well. And it is this short period of waiting that seems to be a massive stumbling block for some. Hence it is all too common that some players will disappear within seconds of joining, if the game is not launched immediately.
Every couple of days or so, I log into Dauntless and spend an hour or two hunting beasties. I really enjoy the monster hunting but certainly feel that the quests, crafting and the general ancillary mechanics of the game still need working on. From what I can see the EU server appears to be pretty busy and there are certainly a lot of players in the main quest hub area. Yet despite this, I struggle at times in finding a group. It’s not that other player aren’t available. It’s that they seem unable to endure the five minutes it takes to form a four-man team. Often other players will join the group and immediately indicate that they’re good to go. However, I like to wait to see if we can get at least three players out of four, to improve the odds of combat going well. And it is this short period of waiting that seems to be a massive stumbling block for some. Hence it is all too common that some players will disappear within seconds of joining, if the game is not launched immediately.
As ever, this has got me pondering the nature of countdown timers, as well as time penalties and the whole matter of player patience in gaming. Despite the fact that match making software has to parse huge quantities of data simultaneously and still manages to collate groups within a reasonable amount of time (five minutes), players just don’t seem to have any patience. I’ve noticed the same phenomenon in other games such as Friday the 13th: The Game and Overwatch. Players will quit a group because it isn’t filling up quick enough for them, only to return a few seconds later when they hit “auto group” again and the software reconnects them. It’s curious the way that even a short wait is considered an anathema to some gamers. Often these will be the same individuals that will abandon a game, once they’re dead and unable to respawn. They’re obviously happy to forgo the XP they’ll receive at the end of the round, if they can get straight back into another alternative game. I worry that such an impatient attitude is a contributory factor towards the fractious nature of co-op games.
However, I cannot claim a position of moral rectitude on this subject as I’m far from a big fan of time penalties in games. Although I understand the logic of not instantly respawning a player back at the exact same location of where they just died, I always tend to grind my teeth while waiting to return to a game. I guess it’s comes down to the fact that the adrenaline is flowing, and you’re fired up to get back into combat. In such circumstances, measured and reasonable attitudes seldom prevail. Mercifully, I have mainly avoided most MMORPGs that have any sort of corpse run, death mechanic as I consider this to be an egregious waste of time and an unnecessary delay. There is a fine line between a sensible penalty brought about by specific events and pissing your player base off. LOTRO has a hybrid system that mixes the new with old school mechanics. If you are “defeated” you get one free “rez” on the spot which has an hour cool down. If it happens again you can either respawn using in-game currency or at the nearest rally point on the map. These have become few and far between in recent updates, resulting in further lost time as you ride back to your desired location.
Because time is the key to success in most multiplayer or co-op games as well as a finite commodity for most gamers, I guess that’s why its something that people are sensitive about. I often feel that if I only have a ninety-minute window to play an MMO, I want to use that time efficiently and ensure that it yields some results, or I achieve some goal. However, I am aware that such a mindset can slowly turn a leisure activity into a chore and leech all the pleasure from it. I’m also sufficiently old enough to have had the old adage “time is money” drummed into me. To a certain degree that is the case with the MMO genre if you subscribe or pay in some other fashion. However, as a carer and a grandparent, I like to think I can counter these feeling with a degree of patience that I’ve had to cultivate in recent years for practical reasons. It’s at this point I usually end a blog post with a quip such as “only time will tell”. However, in light of the discussion, I shall decline in this instance.
Gold!
I shall be using the term “Gold” in this post for two reasons. First off, it’s a catch-all, generic phrase that encompasses the primary currency used in most MMOs (irrespective of whether it really is called gold or not). Secondly, it means I can gratuitously crow bar Spandau Ballet references into the proceedings if I see fit. Moving on, I currently have four traditional MMOs installed on my PC, all of which have a main currency that is earned through completing quests and the vendoring of loot. Some of these games make the acquisition of gold relatively easy and others do not. Furthermore, like real life, there are rich and poor players in any MMO and usually for the same reasons. IE Investment of time, at which point you enter the economy, fiscal prudence and the old adage of money going to money. Once you’ve accumulated wealth in an MMO it’s a lot easier to maintain the flow of revenue.
I shall be using the term “Gold” in this post for two reasons. First off, it’s a catch-all, generic phrase that encompasses the primary currency used in most MMOs (irrespective of whether it really is called gold or not). Secondly, it means I can gratuitously crow bar Spandau Ballet references into the proceedings if I see fit. Moving on, I currently have four traditional MMOs installed on my PC, all of which have a main currency that is earned through completing quests and the vendoring of loot. Some of these games make the acquisition of gold relatively easy and others do not. Furthermore, like real life, there are rich and poor players in any MMO and usually for the same reasons. IE Investment of time, at which point you enter the economy, fiscal prudence and the old adage of money going to money. Once you’ve accumulated wealth in an MMO it’s a lot easier to maintain the flow of revenue.
Back in 2008 when I started playing LOTRO, earning gold was a relatively slow but balanced process. Progressing through the game, collecting quest rewards and selling your loot brought in a slow but steady stream of revenue. Occasionally obtaining a rare drop would help increase your personal wealth, once it was sold via the auction house. Furthermore, crafting gear and selling it on could prove lucrative. Then there was playing the in-game economy. One such example would involve buying health potions cheap during the middle of the week only to sell them late on Friday or Saturday evening, when players were busy raiding and demand was high. I’m sure broadly similar scenarios are applicable to other MMOs. However, these processes are not always sustainable because game economies evolve, and dedicated players end up accumulating immense in-game wealth. All of which have a knock-on effect.
In STO, the ability to earn energy credits, the games equivalent of gold, has diminished over time. Vendoring the content of your bags after running several Red Alerts (group instances), does not yield much these days. Yet because the game has a core player base that have maintained multiple alts over the last eight years, there is a lot of concentrated wealth among high achievement players. Many lockbox items are not bound and so desirable items such as ships, weapons and traits are sold at massively inflated prices on the exchange (auction house). If a new player wants a rare Tier 6 vessel they will be looking at a price of 200 to 300 million energy credits. To raise such capital would take a strategy of logging in daily on multiple alts, to run specific events. It may possibly take a year to earn such a sum. Again, you’ll find similar situations in other MMOs. It’s also the reason why gold sellers are still a thing. One year versus a few hours waiting for “Tommy” to drop off your cash.
Interestingly, I did not have any issues earning gold in ESO. I recently created a new character and spent about a month progressing to level cap. During that time, I was able to generate over 150,000 gold which is a tidy sum. It will not kit a player out in legendary quality gear, but it will cover the cost of buying equipment from the next tier down and make them ready to start grinding better gear from the endgame. Although I haven’t played Guild Wars 2 for a while, gold was not in short supply in that game, mainly due to the fact that you could buy a specific in-game currency, gems, with real world money and then convert it back into gold. Obviously, such a system does discriminate against players who don’t wish to or can’t afford to spend real money, but the exchange rate is not especially egregious. Other MMOs have a similar system that let’s player effectively buy gold legitimately. Although some would argue it cures one problem and creates another.
My last point is based more upon a hunch and a feeling, rather than something I can tangibly measure; therefore, I won’t frame it as a fact. When I started playing MMOs a decade or more ago, having a lot of gold was a demonstrable benefit. It was often (not always) a key to getting something that you needed to improve your build or something that aided your gameplay. Nowadays, the in-game store seems to be of more importance and in-game gold is not the currency you need to worry about. The role of gold seems to have diminished because its function cannot easily be monetised in an ageing game economy. Hence the focus on convenience items that can be bought for real money via purchasable currencies. Turns out that maybe gold isn’t necessarily “indestructible” and we shouldn’t “always believe in” it, now we have “the power to know”. Cue Steve Norman saxophone break and accompanying bongos.
The Power of Nostalgia
Due to blog posts by Wilhelm Arcturus and Bhagpuss, I discovered that the MMORPG EverQuest has recently reached its nineteenth anniversary. That’s quite a prodigious feat, all things considered, that a genre title can endure so long. Especially when other similar titles have gone to the wall after far shorter life cycles. The games current owner, Daybreak Game Company have just launched a new progression server, proving that EverQuest is still making money and thus is worth investing in. Beyond this, I can’t comment any further specifically about this game as it’s a one I’ve never played in the past and its highly unlikely that I ever will. What I want from a game and what this one has to offer are two very different things. However, a story such as this will often instigate a debate regarding the key to a video games longevity. One of the most common explanations is nostalgia and many gamers urge to try and recapture the halcyons days of a much beloved, prior experience.
Due to blog posts by Wilhelm Arcturus and Bhagpuss, I discovered that the MMORPG EverQuest has recently reached its nineteenth anniversary. That’s quite a prodigious feat, all things considered, that a genre title can endure so long. Especially when other similar titles have gone to the wall after far shorter life cycles. The games current owner, Daybreak Game Company have just launched a new progression server, proving that EverQuest is still making money and thus is worth investing in. Beyond this, I can’t comment any further specifically about this game as it’s a one I’ve never played in the past and its highly unlikely that I ever will. What I want from a game and what this one has to offer are two very different things. However, a story such as this will often instigate a debate regarding the key to a video games longevity. One of the most common explanations is nostalgia and many gamers urge to try and recapture the halcyons days of a much beloved, prior experience.
Nostalgia is a double-edged sword and it often polarises opinion. In certain quarters it is pooh-poohed and even sneered at but from a business and marketing standpoint, it should not be underestimated. Take the NES and SNES Classic Mini consoles for example. Their merit and viability were questioned by some game pundits, yet they went to sell like hot cakes, proving that people like updated version of stuff they use to have. The thing is nostalgia is far more than just revisiting something from your past. It’s a far more emotional experience. It’s about reconnecting with a trusted product. It’s about the comfort of familiarity and the feeling of being in control with something you know inside out. It isn’t a threat, it doesn’t flummox you by asking you to learn new things and you don’t have to take a gamble on the end results. This is the appeal of the old console or an ageing MMO such as EverQuest. They’re both the gaming equivalent of a comfortable old pair of slippers.
Two other things have crossed my mind of late that are tangentially relevant to this discussion. The first is my Dad at 88, still watching old episodes of Quincy M.E. on TV. I was surprised to find that this show that ran from 1976 to 1983 has been digitally remastered and reframed from 4:3 to 16:9; all of which are an expensive undertaking. Yet some bean counter somewhere obviously did a cost analysis and determined that the price of retrofitting an old show such as this to modern broadcasting standards, was a worthwhile investment when offset against global back catalogue sales. The second point is the buzz around the MMO Project: Gorgon that has just launched on Steam early access. Having watched numerous videos about this titles merits, it is clear that it is aiming to tap into older gamers sense of nostalgia and fill a gap in the market. Judging by my twitter timeline and the chattering of my peers it looks like its working. Hence, once again we must conclude that nostalgia is a powerful force and that it should be underestimated.