It's what's on the inside that counts

So, I was recently trawling Netflix and noticed a show called Inside Man with pretty cool premise for a show: a death-row inmate who assists people on the outside in solving mysteries / murders - and it stars Stanley Tucci and, for the whovians out there, David Tennant. Well, colour me compelled. 

 

And so, I began the series and thought it would be an easy watch, considering it is a mini-series with only four episodes. The first episode began reasonably with the introduction of a syrupy-sweet mass-murderer with an infallible memory and a relatively dour single murderer played by Tucci. We're introduced to the first candidate for his assistance which he turns down almost immediately as he had solved the mystery but he wouldn't assist as he didn't satisfy Tucci's selection criteria. Over the course of the rest of the episode, the writers toy with us and, at the point the solution is revealed, a far too-long-a-bow needs to be drawn for the solution to even be viable for what is an incredibly contrived scenario.

 

 

 

And this was the first episode - the hook. Colour me mildy irritated.

 

Alongside this side story (at that point in time), we're also introduced to a scenario where Mr Tennant, a vicar, traps a woman in his basement due to another set of contrived circumstances which culminates in your brain needing to run in reverse for it to make even a modicum of sense. Even after all that, I forced myself to sit through the next two episodes - but had to give up prior to the conclusion because, Jesus Christ, the writers on this show are complete imbeciles. Over the course of three episodes I witness that:

• the writers don't understand how smart phones work
• the writers don't understand how computer file datestamps work
• the writers don't understand how human interaction works
• the writers grossly misunderstands how policework actually works
• the writers only create contrived scenarios that were solely written to make Tucci look smart 
• the writers keep creating additional contrived scenarios that were solely written to keep Tennant from digging his way out of the original horribly contrived scenario
  
• the writers feel that by including the message in their storyline that they get a free ride (they do not)

It turns out that the writers is actually just one: Steven Moffat. Looking over his history, he has a few accolades - including the maligned Doctor Who and Sherlock so, I guess, he writes what he knows; although, Holmes did become incredibly stupid by the last few episodes. Based upon recent writing credits, I can only assume his recent filmography is chronicling his accelerating decline into senility, as it's the only thing which makes any sense in the end. For some reason, I do not recommend this show.

The World Con

 So, the world cup is almost upon us and I'm 100% determined not to watch, support or care about such a blatant example of bribery, excess and disregard for the world as a whole ... which seems at least a little ironic - especially when you were 'chosen' as the best candidate to host the world cup.

 

 

Why, do you ask? Mostly because it's taking place in Qatar; one of the most ill-suited locales for anything other than oil refineries, air-conditioned shopping malls or indoor ski slopes (well, for one of its neighbors, at least.) This smacks of 'because we can,' rather than providing any compelling reason why players would be motivated to play in 40-degree temperatures - nor be forced to change the game to suit this inhospitable environment.

I, for one, will boycott it and I would suggest you do the same. This is a travesty to anything resembling this once great game. I would welcome a world where we witness empty stadiums, mass bankruptcy and a world where just because you bribed people to get your little world cup doesn't mean the general public is as willing to go along for the ride. The writing is on the wall; all nations whose sole source of wealth is from oil production knows that this well will soon dry. The correct response to this realisation should not be to double-down on living in this inhospitable environment, but rather, to find an environment more conducive to life. That should be the logical conclusion, shouldn't it? Shouldn't it?

The man made of bat

Ah, Batman, you fickle mistress. You drew me in with Michael Keaton, spurned me with Val Kilmer and George Clooney ... and then bored me with Christian Bale, and yet, you still can't shake my devotion. Just when I thought I was past wanting to see heroes wearing their underpants on the outside you draw me back in.

 

And who do I have to thank for this return to form? A sparkly vampire, of all things. Perhaps it's not too much of a stretch for a vampire to be a good candidate for a batman but, still, I had my reservations. Even if Robert Pattinson was everyone's Mormon pin-up, that hasn't stopped him from forging a credible acting career - especially when teamed up with Dafoe. You no longer can simply pigeon-hole him as that guy from that teenage flick. He's transcended that - just like Baffleck has transcended acting ... but I digress.

That's not to say that this vehicle rests solely on his shoulders to carry; all main characters were inspired choices and was also helmed by very capable cinematography and direction. This was a team effort that paid off. It's been a long time since I've been physically impressed by a set piece - and yet, I was. Perhaps it was the physicality of the filming and the restrained use of CGI which kept me invested - it impressed me. This is the best comic book rendition of Batman that I've seen so far. It's also closest to reproducing the feel from the Arkham series of games which tickled my pickle.

Even though I enjoyed this movie, it doesn't make it free from criticism. If I had to say the choice to have Bruce Wayne play out as emo seemed a little strange. It is a pretty dark and very wet version of Gotham which may wear on some people. I do question some of the choices for the riddler - I particularly found it strange that he'd end up as some kind of a fan boy. It's also overly long and I would agree that perhaps one ending is generally all one needs.

Having said all of that, the final conclusion may be a clue to how the story arc of Mr Wayne will play out. What could be better than for the Batman to find a middle ground between vengeance and complacency? This may work out to be the most interesting rite of passage a hero has gone through. Having said that, all I'm hoping is it doesn't end up with me holding back bile while Bruce smiles on while drinking champagne in Paris. Make it so, Mr Reeves, make it so.

Gloom Raider

Apologies for being so late to the party ... but I just played through the rebooted 2013 Tomb Raider and I'm not impressed. Perhaps I'm a little impressed but, overall, I'm not. Let me explain:

Back in 1996 a game company by the name of Core released the titular (puntastic) Tomb Raider which was known more for the ice-cream coned protagonist as it was known for pretty good hand-animated motions for Lara Croft, gameplay and ... wait for it ... raiding of tombs. Most of the actual gameplay focussed around traversing precarious environments, solving puzzles, shooting animals and retrieving treasure and this basic formula held strong for 13 (!) releases/re-releases. Naturally, by the later releases, this formula began to feel a little stale. Personally, I was kind of sick of the game after Tomb Raider 2 but, apparently, this was not the case for many, as could be evidenced by the sheer number of releases.

It was clear that Lara would need to be redesigned for the current market, and so, the reboot was kicked off because, over the course of 17 years of stagnancy, many contenders had proved how climbing, level design and combat could be done better. But first, I will go over what I think were the main guiding principles used when designing this new game:

• Revamp climbing model - like Uncharted
• Revise combat model - like Uncharted
• Focus on movie set pieces - like Uncharted
• Focus on horror elements and gore - because?
• Make tomb raiding just side quests - because?
• Add obligatory collectathons / busy work - like Assassins Creed
• Hunter sense - like Arkham Batman series
  
• Implement a number of characters and MacGuffins - this was a good addition
  
• Multi-use bow mechanic - actually pretty original and well thought out 
• Zelda mechanics i.e. unlock new areas through new mechanics - I enjoyed this
  

Perhaps I'm a little nostalgic but it gets tiresome when every rickety railing/roof top gives way every time you climb on it. When Uncharted 1 did it for the first time it was fresh - but not by the time they reheated this same mechanic 8 years later. But perhaps that's not necessarily a bad thing - set pieces can be fun if performed well but where I draw the line is when they relegate tomb raiding to merely side quests. The main gameplay loop should always be centered around raiding tombs and avoiding booby traps. It seems quite insulting that you could complete the game without even raiding one tomb. This seems like a major sleight to anyone who enjoyed the original series. If, I had to assign a name which accurately describes this reboot, I'd assign it - you guessed it - Gloom Raider. Throughout most of the game it's windy/raining and then the first thing we're introduced to is a set piece around getting away from a cannibal who has an incredibly impressive collection of skulls and body parts (which is a running theme throughout this game.)

 

 

The main story revolves around an aggressive weather-protected island which also, seemingly has an unlimited supply of human bodies to sacrifice. Based upon the 'freshness' of the body parts and bloody swamps, I would hazard a guess that perhaps a thousand people are sacrificed across the island each day for these environments to be viable - or that the game director doesn't understand the concept of self-control. Almost every space you crawl through has perhaps a collection of at least ten human remains every few feet. Perhaps it's just my brain getting in the way of things but it just confused me why/how these bodies would be in places where very few humans would ever want to traverse. It's like some kind of demented Martha Stewart was brought in to zhuzh every cavern. Also, the hunter sense really detracted from the game, in my opinion. Its main benefit was for finding hidden trinkets/actionable items which meant (at least for me) pressing it every few seconds - just to avoid missing something - and destroying any immersion in the process.

But back to the side-quested tombs - perhaps the most underwhelming part of the game. Each tomb has been broken down into basically just a physics/navigation puzzle - and we never see the prize (a la Pulp Fiction) - nor does this tomb have any impact on the overall game. It's as if the game director said 'Fine! Here's your goddamn tombs, you ingrate. You happy now? Now, can I get back to adding an inordinately-large number of mutilated torsos on this island?' And I may be right. Because more care and thought was put into merely finding a chest out in the open than was ever shown to any of the prizes in the puzzle tombs.

 

 

But, having said all that, it's not a bad game - far from it; it's just not a Tomb Raider game. I played over 15 hours and got through ~95% of everything which could be got - but also enjoyed most of my time while doing so. I did initially find the combat quite limiting (until you get the necessary brawler perks) but it was satisfying to work my way through contributing my thousand to their daily sacrifices. Despite all the combat, the best parts of the games were spent when working through the puzzles and not sitting through unnecessary murder porn. Overall, I can't fault their change of tack - I'm just disappointed they weren't able to retain more of what originally made their games so popular