Month in Review: Game Breaker Round Up (Febuary)

As many of you know I've recently started volunteer writing for gamebreaker.tv in my spare time. Typically I cover stories on Fridays, Sundays, and Mondays and have been getting my writing skills sharper than ever.

So far I've had a good run writing with GBTV and I plan to keep on writing as long as I have the opportunity to. Since this is my personal blog and my online writing portfolio, every month I'll have a monthly round up to keep a record of all my Game Breaker articles for anyone looking for writing samples. Here's what I've been up to this month:

New Arma 3 Alternate Reality Game Discovered

The Deus Ex Movie Will Not Be a Video Game Movie

Bungie Developers Want to Have Destiny On PC

WildStar Arkship Event Answers Community Questions

Does the Ebonheart Pact Break TESO Lore?

New Defiance Enemies Revealed: Hell Bugs

Tomb Raider System Specs Released

TESO Thank You Video is the Most Awkward Video You Will See Today

Not bad for my first month, but I'm looking to write even more and get even better next month. March holds PAX East which should give me tons of great content and experience. Also, I've got plans in store for evolving this blog, fancying and polishing it up, and hopefully moving it from Blogger to WordPress with a sort of eMagazine format. Keep an eye out for that!

Film Review: Skyfall (2012)

SKYFALL review!

Over the past few years the new Daniel Craig iteration of James Bond has really transformed the 007 franchise. While the position of 007 and the name 'James Bond' has had an illusive history, Skyfall finally gives a the secret agent a past; this new Bond is a character, not just an archetype. Following in the footsteps of Casino Royale, Skyfall delivers the experience of James Bond, a name that now has 50 years of historical context, which gives the name an impressive aura. Also, you might notice that I will refer to Skyfall as the sequel to Casino Royale as I think Quantum of Solace was so bad that it doesn't even deserve to be recognized as part of the new series. I thought Skyfall was easily the most impressive Bond movie I've seen and does a whole lot of things right. While it does have a few plot holes and errors of believability that plague the action-thriller genre, I did enjoy this film more than I thought I would. 

Acting

Daniel Craig plays a great Bond and he finally was given the opportunity to give the character a much larger sense of depth than ever before. Because the film is written to actually develop James Bond, Craig shows a full range of emotion as we discover Bond's family history and childhood trauma. Bond is given the rare opportunity to enjoy death for a few months and we get the rare opportunity to see how Bond balances his desire for risk, adversity, and the bottle. We see and understand how he treats women and how he acts when he isn't wearing a super-spy suit. Craig shows a human, not just an action hero. Additionally, the cast of MI6 was great, with the exception of the green field agent Eve (Naomi Harris), who was just plain underwhelming. Judi Dench plays a great M although she really is getting a wee bit too old for acting. At the end of the film we see her unconscious and on the brink of death and I had to ask…"Is she dead? Or is that just how Judi Dench looks?" Javier Bardem was fantastic as always and I have to say that the new Q, Ben Whishaw, was incredible. He has a very Matthew Smith feel to him, but in a good way and I am excited to see a young actor that shows so much promise.

Plot and Writing

Like I said, this film finally brings some depth to the Bond character that I loved to see. "Skyfall" actually is the name of the family plot where Bond grew up and lost his parents. This is new to the franchise, that a personal detail would take so much real estate in the film as to take the title. The writing really gives both Bond and M a whole lot of fantastic texture and character…but that won't make a film. The overall skeleton of the plot looks great, an amazing premise that should be punctuated by some typical 007 tropes. I am proud that this film took Bond in a new direction but I don't think it went far enough. The story suffered from overblown action scenes that really could have been handled better. This isn't to say that Bond shouldn't have over the top action, it absolutely should, but was just so nonsensical. Almost every time some crazy action scene happened it was forced into a contrived set-up just to generate more excessive action. I like to think that Bond is an efficient coldblooded agent, but I found every action was overly showy. Almost every action sequence left me wondering, "wait, a trained agent would have way more foresight than to get himself into that dumb of a position." For example: 007 must accost and interrogate an assassin. He watches in silence, standing hidden about 15 feet away as the assassin unloads and sets up his entire sniper nest, line up his shot, Bond waits for the assassin to kill his mark and THEN makes his move to TACKLE the assassin. I'm sorry, this is all stupid as hell to me. The man had put away his handgun and had his arms full of unattached sniper parts - he was prone, but nooooooo 007 couldn't just accost him then because that wouldn't be nearly dramatic enough. This was not an isolated incident, this was fairly constant: totally contrived action scenes injected for the sake of unnecessary flair. And I mean seriously, why did Judi Dench need a flashlight at the end there? The house was on FIRE, I'm sure that would provide enough light but it was a contrived element of the writing that was necessary to advance to another point of high action and tension. Sure, this contrived flair might appeal to the 13 year old male demographic, but I prefer a little more tact and competence from my international secret agents. Maybe that's just me.

Music

The music was solid, per usual in Bond films. Because of the rich history of the 007 themes, not much is new in the overall film score - but it doesn't need to be. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. At this point everyone knows the measures of the typical Bond theme and this iteration did a great job tying that into the appropriate scenes with appropriate ambience and action-ambience (I swear there has to be a word for that…actionbience?). Of course, there is also Adele's opening "Skyfall" theme song, which is just plain great. This is the kind of song that I would just straight up put on my iPod to listen to while I'm out; it is memorable, catchy, driving, and exudes talent. It is pretty damn chilling and that makes me pretty damn happy.

Visuals and Cinematography

I must say, here is where I was most surprised. The cinematography was dynamic and fluid and bounced back and forth between kinetic action scenes and brooding static shots. Towards the end of the film, at the Skyfall Manor, there are a number of great shots that were total surprises. This includes a beautiful shot of a vintage curved car side-mirror that reflects soldiers stalking towards the house in assault formation.

The one other brilliant part was the opening credit sequence. Oh my, oh my… I was impressed. I'll admit that there are certain things in movies that really get me jazzed up and a good opening credit sequence is absolutely one of those things. Talk about a well shot, beautifully edited, and tastefully symbolic sequence. Coupled with Adele's song, this was breathtaking. It really sets you in a proper mood for the film and gives small glimpses and visual hints of what is to come. It's really quite clever too! The addition of the Chinese dragons, for example, was a neat way to accurately yet cryptically introduce China as a setting. And it introduces dragons, which, if you've seen the film, is hilarious. 

Overall

I was impressed, I had low expectations after Quantum of Solace reared it's ugly head, but Skyfall delivered in more ways than I hoped. A great addition to the Bond franchise because of the new and more personal direction. There were some great one-liners and 007 tropes and fan-fare. I am a bit peeved by the contrivances but that is just how action films tend to work, unfortunately. Of course, this might just be me projecting my own sense of what I want Bond to be and for most audiences this will likely be overlooked or forgiven. I would absolutely recommend this film.

Favorite Moment?

M's porcelain English Bulldog paperweight surviving an explosion that originated in her office and killed 7 or 8 MI6 employees. I thought this was a nice little touch of humor and British pride that a very British symbol (a bulldog draped in a Union Jack) survived a firebomb and lived another day. It was neat analog to the British spirit and hardiness during WWII and fit nicely into the themes of perseverance and fortitude in the face of adversity that are so prevalent in the portrayal Daniel Craig's James Bond.

8/10

-Jay

Short Essay: "God Made a Farmer" Superbowl Commercial

When this commercial aired during the Superbowl just last week, it sparked a whole bunch of controversy. Some people have heralded this as one of the greatest Superbowl commercials of all time (or at least for this year) and others think it is so grossly offensive it should be banned. In fact there have already been 'fan'-submitted revisions of the ad put up on youtube that fix some of the glaring issues of race. I'd like to take a quick glance at both sides of the argument. Why is this ad effective? Why is it inaccurate or offensive? 

The whole commercial is framed by Paul Harvey’s speech to the 1979 Future Farmers of America convention. Most of the power of the commercial comes from this powerful speech. The speech appears to be a continuation of the opening to the Christian book of Genesis as if to say “on the 8^th day, God made a Farmer.” While I don’t subscribe to religion, especially not any sect of Christianity, a huge portion of this country does. To me the god talk was off putting, but it is appealing to the ad’s target audience. Additionally, regardless of religious inclination, there is no doubt that Harvey’s speech is well written and demonstrates a firm grasp of the power of variant repetition: by repeating the phrase, “so God made a farmer,” Harvey uses an old and tested tactic that grabs the audiences attention and molds the content into a rhythmic pattern. Rhythm and pattern are always effective for holding attention because the typical audience member knows what to expect and can immediately and effortlessly gain a sense of agency in the speech – the listener will actively fill in the blanks as he/she is prompted to.

This sense of agency is magnified in this ad by the fact that this is a very tribal ad. By tribal, I mean there is a strong sense of “us” and “we” that is inclusive and ropes the audience member into believing him or herself to be part of that “we.” This is seen in tons of ads and almost political speech – America is usually referred to tribally. Whenever it is ‘us’ against ‘them’ or some variation the listener will attempt to identify as part of that tribe. Think of any and every speech regarding terrorists for example: ‘they’ are the other, the outsiders, attacking ‘us.’ This is a prime example of tribal speech behavior.

In this case the tribe is actually the FFA and the strong American imagery extrapolates the FFA into being a metonym for America. This is interesting and is what has caused controversy: America is not full of farmers. The idea of the American farmer is ultra-romanticized to be the ideal southwestern, rural, local farmer. The problem is that this is a tiny portion of farmers, most being big company farmers, and farmers in general are a very small minority in America. There is a good chance that the average viewer has never even met a farmer or, at most, could count the number of farmers they know on one hand. The actual visual content is absurd in reality – but that romantic image of the hard-working blue-collar American is still so strong, especially in our state of recession, so that we want them to succeed. These people come off as the last romantic heroes that America can clutch onto and this is bolstered by a fantastic speech and clear audience identification. Everyone watching the Superbowl wanted an American team to succeed so there is a small gap to bridge before wanting America to succeed via farmers. The overall message: if this truck is good enough for the hard-working American hero, it’s more than good enough for you.

            However, to be critical, this is only effective to the target Christian American blue-collar audience that won’t think too hard about commercial ethics. This ad is outdated and false. 50 years ago, this would have been brilliant across the board, now it seems dis-genuine to me. Most American farmers are incorporated, use massive equipment and automated processes, and are FAR removed from the farmers portrayed. Also, most American farmers are not white  - everyone in the ad was white. The fact is that most of our American farmers are South American immigrants and furthermore a huge amount of our farmed goods are imported from South America. Do you honestly think that coffee you drank this morning was grown by one of those small working-man white Americans from the ad? No, those coffee beans were much more likely picked by a Latino teenager who is skipping school to work and earn as much money as possible for his family. I don’t mean to sound preachy, but the ad is simply unrealistic and portrays an outdated and overly romanticized version of the American dream that falsely represents the great American tribe.

Game News: Dead Space Mini-Series Brings Fans Up To Speed

Over on the EAVision YouTube channel, the final video of their four-part Dead Space mini-series ominously titled “A Journey Through Terror” was just released. This mini-series of videos was produced as a promotional and informative campaign to recap Isaac Clark’s journey through the Dead Space universe. This final video, “The Future: Dead Space 3”, prepares both new and old players alike for what is to come in the latest installment. While the previous videos (“Isaac Clark’s Journey”, “The Art of Scares”, “Gameplay”) focus on plot recaps and design choices, this last video brings us up to speed on everything we need to know before diving into the newly released Dead Space 3 and hints at what we can expect to see in the game.

On the run from EarthGov and hiding out in a new area, New Horizons, Isaac and Ellie are trying to find ways to stop the Markers. Unfortunately, Ellie has gone missing. Accompanied by new characters, Captain Robert Norton and Sergeant JohnCarver, Isaac must search for Ellie and find a way stop and the spread of the Markers. To make matters worse, a Unitologist named Jacob Danik has organized his followers into an uprising that threatens to topple the government and unleash Markers across all occupied space. Isaac, Carver and Norton barely escape the zealots and head to the freezing wastes of Tau Volantis, Ellie’s last known location.

Here, part four of the mini-series shows new strains of necromorphs, explains the highly anticipated co-op features, weapon crafting and customization, and the brand new cover system. Fans of the series will be also excited to hear about and see the addition of human enemies in the form of armed EarthGov soldiers and religious Unitologist zealots. The video stresses the importance of Isaac learning a thing or two from his past encounters. After surviving two Necromorph infestations he is more proficient in combat and can now crouch to use cover and dodge roll away from danger. The video also introduces the new universal ammo system in Dead Space 3, new features to the engineering Benches that are hallmark to the franchise, and the introduction of the new atmosphere of low visibility that comes with a snow environment.

Of all these new features to Dead Space 3, which are you most excited about? If you’ve had the chance to play it already, what do you think about the game so far? Let us know in the comments below!

Film Review: Argo (2012)

Argo review!

As the Oscars approach critics and fans alike are already screaming for Argo to take picture of the year. Argo is the mostly-true of story of Tony Mendez and his exfiltration mission to rescue 6 American embassy workers on the run from an aggressive Iranian military group. I finally got the chance to sit down and give this film my full attention and I've got to day that I was impressed. Ben Affleck has a been steadily gaining a reputation as a decent director first showing us some redeeming talent in The Town after Gone Baby Gone flopped. This film, if I'm honest, is his breakout film. Argo was Affleck's letter to the film industry that holds a clear message: he's just getting started. A tight and well directed film that tells a fantastic story. Sure, there are some issues in the writing - especially when it comes to the unfortunately flat and potentially offensive portrayal of Iranians - but this film is a harbinger for a future of Affleck films that I am very much looking forward to.

Acting

The acting was rock solid. Affleck performed brilliantly as Mendez and was really able to capture the frustrations of his character. I've also got to hand it to the overall casting of the film, John Goodman and Alan Arkin were fantastic as the hollywood contacts. Arkin in particular was phenomenal to watch, his character was exactly what you would expect, yet his performance is completely refreshing. The American refugees also, just superb casting, the actors did a great job with their roles. In the end credits each actor is juxtaposed with their historical counterpart and I've got to say that (well, most) of the resemblance's are absolutely uncanny.

Plot and Writing

Here is where things get a little bit tricky. The writing was great and the plot was entertaining, fun, and loomed with a great sense of gravity…but it suffers from what wasn't written. Some critics have pointed out the flaws in historical accuracy - I don't care, this is not a documentary it is only inspired by real events - I think that is a completely irrelevant moot point. Where the writing gets in trouble is in the portrayal and lack of depth given to the Iranian protesters. This is partially intentional I think, the lack of subtitles shows that there is a huge language barrier gap that most people seem to forget about. The unfortunate thing is that we know next to nothing about these Iranians who simply appear as mindless group thinkers and rabid in their desire to…kill Americans. Why the hell do these paramilitary groups actually care about the 6 escaped workers? They have, like, 40 other hostages for fuck's sake. The goal, at least as I saw it, was to storm the American embassy, take control and use hostages as leverage for political lobbying. They did that. Mission accomplished. These extra 6 have nothing special about them and we see absolutely no insight into the counter group's mentality that validates a search and destroy mission that climaxes with the COPS and military chasing a plane down the airport tarmac. That seems questionable at best. The thing is, this could be totally valid if I actually knew more about why these 6 were so important to the military. The lack of antagonist depth really hurts the believability of that element of the writing in a big way.

Music

The scoring for the film was all by Alexandre Desplat, a fantastic composer known for work in The King's Speech, Harry Potter, and the recent Moonrise Kingdom and Zero Dark Thirty. The scoring is solid, but very…safe. There were no risks taken here. The music serves to give the film an appropriate atmosphere and allows the acting and pacing to highlight the tension and suspense - which is fair enough. I was just underwhelmed and unimpressed that with such a daring and controversial topic, the music was so conservative. It was just one of those typical academy-award-film scores that ultimately felt uninspired.

Cinematography/Visuals

This film is marked by some great and high quality cinematography that is only accentuated by an incredible sense of pacing from the editing room. Shots were varied and usually did a very good job reflecting the mood of each sequence. I have absolutely no complaints here, just solid work all around.

Overall

As I said, this is great film with some incredible directing. I am very excited to see what Affleck works on next and I hope that he learned from his few mistakes in Argo. In all honesty, from what I've seen of the other films up for Best Picture at the Oscars, I would be more than happy to see Argo take the award. It is no masterpiece, but I am now firmly convinced that in the next few years Affleck will make a masterpiece work of film. Argo is a very solid film but just seemed to lack the risky shove that it needed.

Favorite Moment?

Easily my favorite moment is the scene in the airport at the final Iranian check point near the end of the film. The last check point is where military officers try to sniff out enemies of the country and specifically hunt for the Americans and as such is probably the highest overall point of tension. Accosted and attempting to explain that the group is a part of a film production team, Joe Stafford (played by Scoot McNairy), who had been reluctant, and the only one of the 6 not on board the escape plan, finally jumps aboard the exfiltration plan with gusto because he realizes the importance of his ability to speak Farsi and his role as the-guy-with-the-storyboard. He breaks out storyboard pictures and suddenly gets so invested in his character's character that he losses himself in how excited he is about the fake movie and the script and this otherwise lethargic and obtuse man becomes entirely animated and passionate. He manages to convince the guards and himself that he really is making a film. This is some damn fine acting, and possibly the best scene in the film. Incredibly well performed and fun to watch.

9/10

-Jay

Film Review: Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters (2013)

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters Review!

Acting

Jeremy Renner was great as Hansel. Gemma Arterton was pretty  good as Gretel but tended to fall flat, especially in the second half of the film. Whenever she had to be a badass, she was a total badass. The witches were well cast but their dialogue was just plain awful, more on that later. The rest of the cast was mediocre at best, to be honest. The townspeople, the mayor, the sheriff and his goons, were all forgettable and barely worth noticing. Granted, this probably has a lot more to do with the writing than the actors themselves, but it is difficult to tell in this case.

Music

The music primarily consists of brooding and dark victorian gothic inspired tones but not much actually has much punch to it. The scoring was too simple and didn't take a single risk; it just wasn't interesting to listen to. The track "Business is Good" is probably the best and combines some great electric violin and guitar to the previously mentioned style. It reminds me of a some sort of iteration of the theme to the recent Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock films. Unfortunately, the rest of it is pretty much forgettable and only serves to add a vague sense of ambiance.

Cinematography (Visuals)

The opening credits were holy-damn-hold-my-popcorn good. The opening credits combine CGI and paper cut outs enacting a visual history of Hansel and Gretel's lives after they killed their first witch. This chronicles their journeys and exploits and helps to build the aura behind the characters. Additionally, if you happen to see the film in 3D, the paper cut outs have an added sense of depth and movement that is fantastic. I'd say this whole sequence is almost worth the price of admission. However, this is pretty much it in terms of cinematography: for the rest of the film the camera work is fairly bland, which was very disappointing. 

As a separate note, I need to talk about the visuals of the witches. Just wow. The make-up, costuming, and character design for the witches was incredible to behold but was entirely overlooked. All of the witches, not just the three main villains, were dynamic and different and had a very vicious Evil Dead sort of feel to them. They were appropriately terrifying and awesome. The idea behind the design is that the witches' deteriorate and become corrupt as they abuse their control over nature. And they actually control nature in really, really, cool ways: creating cages out of branches, manipulating animals, and even taking control of human limbs. Each witch has a wand, an organic mess of a wooden totem with gems and moss and organic material, as well a 'broom', which is really just a giant organically shaped branch of wood. The 'brooms' are not straight sticks, they are massive boughs of warped and unwieldily wood that just happen to allow flight. They are thematically linked to nature. The heroes are rigid and orderly but the witches are flowing and organic, even if evil. Most pop culture ideas of witches are tossed out the window in favor of older nature-based pagan ideas of witches. Probably the best part about the witches is that they are actually powerful. Early in the film, Hansel and Gretel fight one witch, not even a powerful one, and it is one hell of a fight - the witch is strong, fast, intelligent, and moves and fights in interesting ways. It is a pleasure to watch. Towards the end of the film, Hansel and Gretel must get magic to alter their weapons to effectively fight off multiple witches at the same time. Also at the end, a gathering of witches showcases some of the coolest creature designs and costume work I've seen in recent years. Some of them are almost Pan's Labyrinth level of creature design, and that is one of the highest compliments I can give.

Plot and Writing

Why did the plot have to suck so bad? This movie had so much going for it! Great design and visuals, an amazing concept but the plot falls flat on its face. The plot is simple and safe and short to fit an 90 minute format. The character design was actually pretty damn good, and the concepts behind the writing of the main characters was actually pretty solid. I loved the little twist that Hansel was a diabetic because the first witch force-fed him so much candy as a child. I'm sorry, but that is brilliant. Gretel was pretty suitably badass too. But, dear god the plot was awful. It was predictable, it was incredibly contrived, and had far too many convenient plot devices. It also moved too fast, there just seemed like there should have been more developed plot points. The thing is, I feel like the original screenplay must have been better than the presented one - the rest of the ideas behind it all were so good, I struggle to believe that the same person couldn't write something better and more coherent. The witches dialogue was terrible, even though I loved the witches design, their lines were atrocious and cringeworthy most of the time.

Overall

Fun to watch but very disappointing. The character and witch designs show some great talent that was betrayed, for some reason, by terrible writing. So many good underlying ideas entirely let down. I honestly think that this was once a much better and longer film that took a lot more risks than the studio higher ups were comfortable with. Especially if you pay attention to the epilogue, which seems to be from some sort of original and much more advanced storyline. Check out the opening credits sequence when someone puts it online, for sure. I'm not sure I can really recommend this film because of the writing. Honestly, can someone just rewrite this and try again?

Favorite Moment?

The opening to the final confrontation. Knowing that the witches are a powerful force, especially in large groups, Hansel approaches them gun in hand. They scoff at him and assume this is a mere act of hubris - they will not be harmed but such a weapon during the night and on the night of the fabled 'blood moon'. There is a moment of quiet tension as Hansel takes aim, the witch grins, and he shoots. At this point we do not know what will happen - there are actually a number of factors to make us outcome uncertain - but it turns out that the magically blessed bullets are strong enough to harm the witches. Not only that, but Hansel just shoots her in the face, the round explodes and there is only a squirting bloody stump of a neck left. A very satisfying kill to kick off a climactic and bloody gorefest. 

6/10

- Jay

Response: TESO Developer Question of the Week 7

Post is in response to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FwfCPaj5RJc

"What is your favorite memory from Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall?"

When I was very young and Daggerfall was fresh, I was not a gamer. My parents were adamant that their children would never play video games. Naturally, that meant that it was my mission to get my hands on video games whenever I had the chance. My neighbors, a family of gamers, became close friends and I would always scurry over after school or on the weekends to sit on the floor watch them play the all the video games my parents forbid. This was my introduction to Daggerfall and to the Elder Scrolls universe. As I watched them cut through hordes of enemies I would always cheer them on and try to be a little back seat gamer. Of course, I had no idea what I was talking about, so eventually they sat me down and gave me my very own brand new character to play. I was so excited and leaped into the game, flailing around with a one handed sword, easily killing my very first giant rats and bats. 

Then, I encountered my first skeletal warrior. 

Like I said, at the time, I was not a gamer. I had zero game sense and generally just flailed around until something died. The skeleton wrecked me. It easily cut me down and I was stunned. I had no idea what to do against an enemy with a shield and I distinctly remember trying everything I could, but still, dying every time. Looking back, it is a very easy fight, there isn't much to it. I was just bad. That skeleton, bless his soul, made me actually shape up and think about what I was doing in-game instead of just wildly swinging at air. I finally figured out how to kill it and could move on and that was incredibly satisfying. Ever since, in any game, although Elder Scrolls in particular, whenever I see a skeleton with a shield I charge at it with great gusto just to relive that satisfaction of rattling some bones. This one enemy has been pretty much a staple of almost every RPG….ever…so, this was something that always sort of stuck with me. Despite a huge range of diverse enemies, Elder Scrolls games always make room for some sort of skeleton with a shield for me to happily take down with a big smile on my face. For all that Daggerfall had to offer, my favorite memory of the game is still just overcoming that first difficult enemy which paved the road for all the bigger and badder enemies to come.

-Jay