Google+ Vs. The World

Google+ is dead. In fact if you follow that link you might even find someone stating that fact right now on said dead social network. Over a year on and Google+ is still struggling to escape the stigma of being used by no one, despite a quick search of public posts showing how frequently people post. I've been a big fan of it since its inception, largely because of its well thought out privacy functions - which ironically in the end have led to me not making many private posts. While some people have legitimate concerns about it and Google's motivations/practices as a whole, it can still be frustrating to see so many fixated on the fact that no one uses it. I've often felt like writing something about just what draws me to it over other social networks so here goes...

---

Google+ Vs. Facebook

Surprisingly I'm not really one of those people who hate everything Facebook stands for. But by God they don't half try to make sure that you are. From the numerous privacy scares to the simple fact that it still won't let you see posts in chronological order consistently, I've now ended up using Facebook in a very limited manner. When the timeline view was made available I was surprised to find that I actually really liked it and went about adding lots of information to my history pre-Facebook. But this also made me even more concious of the fact that I didn't want everyone to be able to see this and I ended up locking down my account as much as possible, while gradually culling my friends list to include family and trusted friends.

I know I could have been more selective by putting people into groups and lists, a kneejerk addition after Google+'s debut, but it still doesn't seem like they really fit on Facebook. It took so much effort to try and maintain them and there was also the question in my mind over whether Facebook would eventually do something stupid and I'd see all that separation fall down. And I'm happy with the more manageable list of friends I have now, where visiting Facebook I expect to see updates from family and friends in the main. I really don't have any desire to be bombarded with information from films, games, bands etc. that I 'like' on Facebook, it just makes the site feel like a mess.

It's funny really because Google+ now serves almost the same purpose for me as Facebook did in the beginning, where everyone seemed to add huge amounts of people who they didn't really know and things that interest them. I constantly feel like I'm doing the exact opposite of what Facebook really want its users to do, I'm not sure how successful their new feature of 'subscribing' to celebrities has been but it was certainly something that I gave up on fairly quickly. It seems funny that while Britney Spears' page has over 20 million likes, she has approximately 2 million subscribers to her Facebook profile but over 4 million with her in their circles on Google+. I feel that this also goes some way to proving that Google+ is not just full of nerds, with other popular celebrities including Snoop Dogg and Coldplay.

Facebook is also starting to look like the less favourable option for companies and brands, with their recent attempts at charging to guarantee that followers see status updates. I initially believed that this was only for advertising purposes but I have discovered that this affects pages that you have liked and actually want to see posts from in your News Feed. It might be a drop in the ocean to a big company's marketing budget but for small companies and people like myself setting up a page to dispense information to friends and family, it's particularly galling to know that they might not see everything that I post. Not to mention that setting up and using a Facebook page is around 10 times more awkward than the Google+ equivalent (differences in your search results between your page and yourself is a particularly weird one).

---

Google+ Vs. Twitter

I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with Twitter. Some days it can be pretty quiet and easy to keep track of but on others it just gets a bit overwhelming. When I first started using it I'll admit I followed a huge number of people, including those I knew in real life, without really thinking about whether I was interested in what they had to say. This was before I owned a smartphone too, so it was unsurprising that when I'd periodically check in I would feel left behind and wondering if I'd missed anything important - usually I hadn't.

Of course fans of Twitter will perhaps say that I was clearly using it wrong and that you should only really follow those you are interested in. But by this point I have stripped down and built up my following list at least twice but still have days when I can feel overwhelmed by it. To me it seems like I reach a realistic ceiling at around 70-80 people and it boggles my mind when I see others in the hundreds. In contrast I have over 200 people in circles on Google+ and I don't believe that it is purely down to less traffic that I find it so much easier to keep up with.

Obviously Twitter has lists to group people together but they are hidden away and not very easy to use. Unofficial apps like TweetDeck may make this feature slightly more prominent but until recently I was in the position where I couldn't have them installed. When this feature is so poorly supported by its own creator, it seems unlikely that it will ever gain much traction. Again some people might suggest that the answer is to not follow those who create a lot of noise but I don't think it's always as simple as that. Often I'll find that people's posts tend to ebb and flow, where I'd much rather have the ability to hide posts or people for a short time than remove them completely.

Here Google+ is incredibly good at managing this with circles at the heart of the whole concept. If it does get busy it's so much easier to view groups circle by circle and prioritise what I am interested in. I now have no qualms in muting the odd post that holds no interest for me and have even set up an 'Incoming' circle to check on what followers I have picked up post every now and then. Google seem to have a good handle on improving this aspect, allowing you to tone down the posts you get from certain circles and now receive notifications when certain circles post, so that you don't lose posts from close friends and family in the milieu.

I do still find Twitter to be good for current events though, which is slightly weird as there is nothing stopping Google+ from being used in the exact same manner. Even I'm guilty of using Twitter more for quick, light hearted points and I'm unlikely to cross post the same thing on Google+. And when I sat down to watch the recent Olympic opening and closing ceremonies, taking part in the Twitter conversation while it was happening was pretty enjoyable.

---

I guess this kind of shows that there is a difficulty in carving out a definitive identity for Google+, or at least change how it is currently perceived - if it's not for family updates and it's not for fun, jokes and current events then it must just be high-brow discussion amongst a bunch of nerds. There is perhaps some truth to that though, in the sense that Google+ seems best suited to ideas and interests, rather than people and news. Its excellent search features make it easy to find people posting about things you are interested in and it's not all typically geeky. Photography is one area that is particularly well supported but there are lots of other interests too and I've always managed to find enough to keep me interested.

I've perhaps been lucky in my early experiences of Google+, where right from the start I've had a mixture of people I know in real life and people I don't know personally, who were largely from an online gaming forum. That meant that I never really opened my stream to see tumble-weeds drift by, people questioning whether anybody is out there. For those who don't have a way to kickstart their circles it might seem quite intimidating to just go out there and start adding people. That is really the best way to go about it though and in my experience you shouldn't be scared to do so, with most of the userbase seeming very polite. You also aren't putting any pressure on them to 'friend' you back, which sometimes plays on my mind before adding people on Facebook.

Perhaps Google+'s best chance for success in the long run is to keep doing what it's doing and try not to annoy its existing userbase. There's surely going to be a slow trickle of people who reach their limit with Facebook and Twitter, who may give it a chance and find it's better than they think. And I certainly think there's room to use it in addition to the 'big two' in social networking, especialy if your reasons for using each of them are different.

Brave (2012)

This review was also posted on ArtFist.org

'Nice' can sometimes be a surprisingly divisive word. For some people it's the epitome of average, only a shade better than okay or 'meh'. For me I don't know if it's just my 'Englishness' but it can sometimes feel like relatively high praise. I think it's quite telling though that I keep wanting to use it to describe Brave.

Whatever I think of the finished product, it feels like the trailers for Brave had done their best to convince me that it would be terrible before I'd even seen it. They seemed to suggest something on the level of an average Dreamworks film, full of dumb jokes and body humour, not to mention the potential for terrible scottish stereotypes. It didn't seem at all like a typical Pixar film (maybe discounting the Cars films, as I haven't seen any of those). As it turns out though, these trailers at least kept most of the plot secret, with me only figuring out some of it beforehand due to seeing certain toy lines in the Disney store...

The overt 'Scottishness' from the trailers did look like it would be more along the lines of how Americans view Scotland but I didn't find it too bad in the end. While Scotland is never explicitly mentioned, it is clearly set there and not some mythical equivalent as a map in it names the Isle of Skye. Some of the phrases felt a little more English and there was a distinct lack of Scottish slang but for the most part it felt fairly natural. Even if it would probably be more Scottish to say "Wheesht!", it still felt quite rare to hear someone say "Shut your gob" for example, which gave it a nice homely sort of feeling.

There was one character with an exceptionally thick accent, which you aren't meant to understand but it amused me all the same. Especially when one line is finished with "ken?", which reminded me of my days as an Englishman in Scotland. It was always those with the hardest accents to follow who would finish their sentences with "ken?" ("do you know what I mean/understand?") and I'd just nod my head hopefully. I'm not sure if this accent can be placed to a specific location, I'd be interested to find out and to hear from any native Scotsmen what they thought of it as a whole.

While most of the story is not particularly surprising, I have to give it props for being a major film that focuses around a mother and daughters relationship. I was expecting it to be yet another 'tomboy wants to prove herself and goes off on adventures with the men' kind of thing so it was a pleasant surprise how it unfolds. Most of the other characters are fairly under-developed but making the mother/daughter relationship the focus meant that this didn't stand out. I would say overall it felt like quite a short film and I'm not sure if that is a negative issue or just means that it was to the point.

The ending did feel a little contrived to me though, like it was just playing for time to make it seem more emotional. I honestly thought there was going to be more to it but then it suddenly shifts to happy ending mode. It reminded me of a couple of other films with a sudden happy ending, Tangled and Wall-E, the latter being one I watched again recently. Tangled at least gave a plausible reason for how it turned things around but Wall-E feels like it switches from an impossible situation to make it momentarily seem more sad. It's perhaps a different topic to get into on whether Pixar/Disney films can have anything other than a happy ending though.

Overall I would say that it's worth watching and should keep you entertained, unless you have a very high brow sense of humour. I saw it in quite a mixed audience and apart from one or two jump scares that might set kids off, I think it will appeal to everyone. It's not one of Pixars best and I would also say that it isn't as good as Tangled or the best of Dreamworks in How to Train Your Dragon but still better than virtually anything else from that studio. I'm not sure how long it will stick with me or how well it would stand up to repeated viewings but I still think it's a nice film - just a shame that it's unlikely to reach the dizzying heights of appreciation I have for other Pixar films.

Legends of the Dark Knight

I was inspired by Liam Ellison's recent piece on Batman's cartoon history, to write something of my own on the subject, centering around one episode in particular. Legends of the Dark Knight was an episode from The New Batman Adventures, a series which was the successor to Batman: The Animated Series and also sadly one I didn't get to watch during its original run. I'm not actually sure whether it was shown in the UK but I would hazard a guess that it was shown on satellite cartoon channels, which I didn't have access to. This episode became a cult favourite among fans though and I first heard of it via someone mentioning a sequence in it mocking the Joel Schumacher Batman films (found at around 3:50 in the second youtube video). The basic premise of it is that three kids tell stories about what they think Batman is really like, an idea which was used again in Batman: Gotham Knight.

What stands out the most about the first story now is that it's pretty much a prototype episode of Batman: The Brave and the Bold and it comes as no surprise that it was drawn by James Tucker who went on to produce that show. I'm a big fan of The Brave and the Bold, which I wasn't expecting when I first heard about it. While being lighter in tone than most recent takes on Batman, it has always felt like a love letter to fans of Batman through the ages. I perhaps wasn't in on the joke when I first watched the 60's TV version of Batman but there is clearly a lot of love for his campier incarnations too. And on top of that it was full of references that would make devout fans chuckle while remaining focused on simple standalone stories. It's the kind of show that makes me wish I had kids to watch it with to see the different levels we would appreciate it on.

It also includes a variety of DC characters, some of which are less well known than others and puts an interesting spin on almost all of them. In particular, the show's take on Aquaman as a pompous, lovable boaster has taken hold as the definitive version for me and I'm now thrown off whenever I see other versions that aren't quite as "Outrageous!". I also loved their version of Bat-Mite as the ultimate Batman fanboy, regularly using modern internet catchphrases and generally acting like a real life super fan. His involvement in the epic fourth wall breaking final episode takes quite a satirical look at the whole production process and sends the whole thing off on a perfect note. No wonder my wife bought me the figurine of him shown below... and I didn't even mention the infuriatingly catchy songs of the Music Meister, as voiced by Neil Patrick Harris.

The second story in Legends of the Dark Knight is also pretty relevant right now, as it is pretty much a word for word adaptation of parts of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, which is currently being adapted into a full length animated movie. It gives a great glimpse of what we can hopefully expect from the forthcoming adaptation, something I remain cautiously optimistic about. In the recent trailer Peter Weller doesn't seem quite as good a fit for the voice of an older Batman as Michael Ironside in this short and personally I would have loved to see Kevin Conroy take on this role, which would have been a fitting end to his career voicing Bats. I've already had to start dealing with the fact that Conroy is no longer the definitive voice of Batman though, as other animated films have started to bring in a new cast.

I could actually really do with watching the animated version of Batman: Year One again, the most recent adaptation of one of Miller's stories, as I find it difficult to remember whether I actually liked it or not. It was always going to have a pretty tough time winning me over as I think Year One is probably my favourite standalone comic book of all time and I already felt like there was an animated version I could play in my head. The story itself also influenced aspects of Batman Begins and on the whole it feels more grounded than some of Miller's more over the top creations. The art by David Mazzucchelli is also fantastic, I love how it captures just enough detail, while at the same paying homage to the style of the early comics Batman was born from. As an introduction to comics for almost anyone I find it hard to fault.

The closing story of this episode finds the storytellers themselves involved with Batman, mistaking the arsonist Firefly for him and stumbling into one of his schemes. While I was a little disappointed that there wasn't another homage to a different era, this does work well in tying the whole episode together. Apparently there were initially plans for an additional story focussed on the early '70s Batman comics but it was decided that the art style of Neal Adams was difficult to adapt for animation. In the final scene, while the kids still argue over who was right about Batman, I can't help but think that it cements the idea that almost all of the incarnations of Batman have something to offer. Even the kid who thought that Batman wasn't human, might find some evidence to back up his theory...

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

This review was also posted on ArtFist.org

It's difficult to know where to start when talking about this film. Like a lot of people, I've been looking forward to it just a little bit. I'm a big fan of Batman in almost any form, but I grew up on the Tim Burton films and Bruce Timm's Animated Series especially, only searching out famous stories from the comics later on. I can remember seeing Batman Begins for the first time and thinking that it was enough that it's ending could tie into the Burton films, but still being pleasantly surprised when The Dark Knight was announced. TDK immediately became one of my favourite films for numerous reasons, the beautiful full frame IMAX photography, the tense bank robbery that reminded me of Heat and Heath Ledgers unique take on the Joker among many - I didn't even care that Batman wasn't really the focus any more.

So I obviously had huge expectations of this film but I think I didn't have specific expectations of it, if that makes sense. I hoped it would be a good film but at the same time I trusted Christopher Nolan to do what he wanted and not just expect famous comic storylines in movie form. But if I was ready to trust Nolan, in some ways this feels like a film more designed to please fans. I certainly enjoyed it at the time, but it seems less of a complete package the more I think about it. Whereas The Dark Knight always felt like the furthest you could take a comic book character into the real world, this felt like it was embracing its comic book roots a little more. Things like its expository dialogue and characters hopping around the world felt like things that happen in comics a lot. Even though critics have levelled the same complaints at some of Nolan's other films, this was the first time that these issues particularly stood out to me.

I thought that it got off to a shaky start too, I don't think I've seen many reviews that didn't have some issues with the first act. There are a lot of new characters and multiple plot lines running at once, with a few taking a while to really go anywhere. There were a lot of things to hold in your head and I found myself uncertain of which characters were important. On reflection there isn't much of importance here and I have seen debates on whether parts of it could have been cut, as well as entirely different takes on how it could have opened.

Selina Kyle (as played by Anne Hathaway) is almost certainly the highlight of these early sections. She is receiving almost universal praised for her role, one thing I liked in particular was that her interactions with Bruce Wayne also provide a bit of humour in a largely dark film. I loved how she revealed her true self when she first meets him and deftly disarms him before making her escape. A lot of people seem to think that Bruce Wayne was faking his injuries at the start of the film but I'd like to think that he was actually surprised by her, which then intrigues him enough to want to track her down. You generally get the impression that she is capable of continuing to frustrate him, with the lines "My Wife?" and "Huh, so that's what that feels like" making me chuckle especially.

I think it was important that the rest of the villains in this weren't particularly sympathetic though. Almost everyone rooted for the Joker to some extent but Bane doesn't really have the same attractive personality and seems more likely to kill innocent people in his path. Some of the violence meted out actually made me feel like the film deserved more than a 12A rating, despite the fact that it never shows anything graphic. Though there isn't exactly much competition, I feel this was the best representation of Bane there has ever been. On occasions he seems like a strange mix, especially how his voice doesn't really feel like part of the scene but the calm delivery gives the impression of intelligence that he really needs. In the original comics, despite his strength increasing venom serum, it was always suggested that he only managed to defeat Batman by engineering situations that would break his spirit as well as his body. I certainly found myself on the edge of my seat wondering if he was going to do what he is most famous for in the comics.

What's perhaps hardest to argue against is that the film as a whole doesn't really say anything. Bane's aims and actions seem to have some common ground with this year's 'Occupy' protests (although likely written before they started), which initially seems like a negative commentary on them. But these ideas aren't really followed through and leave it feeling very half hearted. There seem to be a lot of points like this, where there is a spark of something interesting but it doesn't receive much focus. Then there is also the question of what is said by the ending but I'm not sure I can discuss that much without heading into spoiler territory...

*Fairly major spoilers from this point on*

Not everyone liked the ending and to some extent I can see their point, with the powerful message of Batman making the ultimate sacrifice being undone by him surviving - not to mention how much pain and anguish it would cause his friends. But despite all that, to me it felt like what Batman would have done and it specifically reminded me of the end of The Dark Knight Returns. In that story he may have faked his death to continue to train others in secret but giving up the role of Batman felt right for this series and felt like a much better way of introducing a possible new Batman than any attempt that has been made in the comics. I really appreciated what the whole trilogy has done with Bruce Wayne - even if it moves away from the established view of him, he seems more human on the whole. In Begins he initially struggles with the desire for revenge against those who wronged him, rather than immediately trying to fix the system. He wants the world to change so that he doesn't have to be Batman anymore and then even gives up the role after the loss of a loved one, questioning what he has left to fight for. I think it's totally fair that this film then allows his journey to come to an end.

People have said that the revelation of John Blake's real name being Robin made them roll their eyes but I just saw it as a little joke for the fans, especially since Nolan has stated he would never add the Robin we all know. It seemed obvious to me that Blake would take on the role of Batman or at the very least would be jumping straight into a 'Nightwing' like role. What I felt was important was that Blake's character had taken a different route to this point than Bruce Wayne, which indicated that he could be a different sort of Batman. Someone who would focus on the downtrodden and fight against abuses of power by those in control, rather than focusing on criminals amongst the poorest in society. This left me with the feeling that the film wasn't trying to be 'anti-99%' and to paraphrase The Dark Knight's final line, perhaps this new Batman could be the hero that Gotham and the world actually needs right now. I also felt that even though the film brings this trilogy to a definite close in a nice circular fashion, I would still be interested to see someone take it onward from this point.

So my final thought on what I took the film to say is that we will always need Batman - but Batman doesn't always need to be Bruce Wayne.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Vs. Spider-Man (2002)

Lets just say that my expectations of The Amazing Spider-Man (TASM from this point on) were pretty low. Before I even knew anything about it I was of the opinion that it was too soon for a reboot, so it was never going to be top of my must watch list. Thinking that I would not get around to seeing it at all, I've pretty much devoured every available review and opinion piece I could find on it. The majority of these did not do much to convince me that it was worth watching, with only a few positive opinions from people that I respected to hint otherwise. I didn't set out to compare it to the original Sam Raimi film but when I finally got to see it and then ended up watching Spider-Man later the same day it just felt pretty natural.

To begin with, I was most concerned about sitting through an entire origin story again but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the first half of the film. The growing relationship between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone is quite nicely handled and wasn't what I expected after hearing that it was "A Spider-Man for the Twilight generation". The first scene after getting his spider powers was also pretty funny and I thought that this scene amongst others showed a more realistic, street level view of New York than the original films (he says having only visited the place once).

In comparison though, what struck me about the original Spider-Man was how quickly it gets going. In the first scene you find out everything you need to know about Peter Parker and the supporting cast via the minimum amount of information. I think within 7 minutes he has received the crucial spider bite, allowing the film to be more about the joy of discovering his powers. The irony being that this feels like exactly what this new version should have done, deal with the transformation quickly and move on, just like The Incredible Hulk did after Hulk. Even if the first half of the film turned out to be the best part, it still seems strange to spend around an hour on the same stuff that was originally handled in about twenty minutes.

A lot of attention has been placed on who plays a better Peter Parker/Spiderman and it might not be the popular opinion but my money is still on Tobey Maguire. I still feel that he captured the nerdy Parker perfectly and Spider-Man allowed him to lose his inhibitions. He way not have been quipping every five seconds but I thought there was enough enthusiasm there to get across that he was really enjoying himself with this persona. Andrew Garfield's Parker is a pretty different take and I can respect that but he was nothing like either the comic or cartoon versions I know of. I felt that his Spider-Man veered over the line of cocky quips into just plain being a dick, I didn't get the sense that taking on this hero persona was bringing out the good sides of his personality.

Looking at both interpretations I wouldn't say that either of them are perfect, perhaps Maguire didn't have enough of Parkers characteristics, whereas Garfield just adds far too much stuff into the mix. It might have been different if Raimi had gone with the idea of webshooters (though I'm not someone who thinks the organic webs are ridiculous) but you never get the feeling that he was the kind of person who could engineer them. Garfield on the other hand starts off as a handsome guy who is a photographer, inventor, skateboarder and all around science whizz - no one with that many interests could be top of his game at all of them (and still get the girl without added spider confidence).

Though most will probably associate the Green Goblin as Spider-Man's most iconic enemy, growing up with the cartoon version I would probably vote for the Lizard instead. I remember a lot of storylines that revolved around Dr. Connors' struggle to overcome the beast and with Spider-Man usually being involved in his initial transformation, it forms a very strong link between the two characters that makes sense for an origin story. The crocodile like creature in a lab coat is also an incredibly iconic image. So it probably comes as no surprise then that I was very disappointed by his representation in this, which felt like a completely wasted opportunity.

Aside from the lizard design being as ugly as sin, in his human form Connors veers into total insanity for no real reason before finally overcoming it at the end just because the plot demands it. It makes me wonder if they were concerned about The Lizard ending up too similar to Raimi's version of the Green Goblin, in terms of how Norman Osbourne had no idea what he was doing every night. But I think it had every right to make this a more explicit Jekyll and Hyde type situation, as that's historically been his story - while I've always found the Green Goblin to be more intimidating when Norman Osbourne is fully aware of what's going on too. Again it seems kind of ironic that pretty much all of the films in the Raimi series took a pretty black and white villain and turned them into a more sympathetic character for this to then screw up an established character that had a very sympathetic story to begin with.

Looking back at Spider-Man it is in no way perfect. The Green Goblin suit is still terrible and a lot of the CGI is looking pretty ropey now - something that the practical effects of TASM will hopefully alleviate in the long run. But I think the original's strength has always been in the journey of its characters and it has a much stronger ending. The ease with which the new Parker does exactly the opposite of old Parker is disturbing and his final line caused involuntary eye rolling. The problem is not so much that Uncle Ben doesn't say the exact line "with great power comes great responsibility" but that Parker doesn't seem to have learnt this lesson - or anything else from the whole experience for that matter.

Magic Mike (2012) - A straight husband's view

This review was also posted on ArtFist.org

Though my wife probably doesn't believe me, I did actually mean to tell her about this film before she randomly saw an advert for it. I'd heard about it a while ago with critics’ early opinions being pretty positive, and combined with the fact that it was directed by Steven Soderbergh, it sounded interesting to me. So when my wife demanded to be taken to see it, I didn't feel like it would be too much of a hardship for me to go along. I'd recently made her sit through Prometheus, so I owed her a movie choice anyway and I didn't think it could be much worse than that...

That said, it was quite a strange experience to see the theatre slowly fill up with women, I can't think of another film I've seen with a similar audience ratio. I wasn't the only guy in there, but there were only a couple more and they looked a lot more miserable about the prospect than me. However, being on the back row right under a spotlight I guess I stood out. "Oh my God there's a man in here! I feel so sorry for you mate!" came a cry from someone finding their seat in front of me. All I could do was chuckle to myself and give a wave of thanks for the sympathy. I did wonder whether the crowd would get a bit rowdy as there was a loud shout of "Oh Yeah!" down to my left the first time Channing Tatum's ass appeared on screen, but for the most part it settled down.

It struck me that one of the characters you meet early on worked quite well as a way for men to get into the film. Adam/'The Kid' (Alex Pettyfer) is thrown into the world of these strippers quite unexpectedly and his initial reactions are probably similar to any men in the audience. There is a lot of comedy in these early scenes, as long as the whole situation doesn't just make you feel awkward. What I found the funniest section in the entire film might make some people just want to curl up into a ball and cover their eyes (the same effect that The Office and Alan Partridge often have on me).

The movie as a whole is more focused on the title role of 'Magic' Mike (Tatum) than Adam's story. In fact, I was quite surprised that there was very little attention paid to Adam "learning the ropes", which was pretty much handled in one scene - very different from something like The Full Monty, where the preparation for their first performance is the entire film. Mike is a mentor to him in a more general sense and also just a friend, with their relationship becoming strained as Adam is drawn into more destructive aspects of the stripper's lifestyles. It's that question of where you draw the line when trying to look out for someone and at the same time let them make their own decisions.

Mike's own story is a familiar one, both in terms of having a dream that he would give up stripping for and also issues that you hear people struggle with in the real world right now. He works non-stop to save up money and runs into problems trying to get any kind of loan from a bank. It quickly becomes obvious that his life is not perfect and you question whether he really fits in to the world of stripping. Tatum's performance is great, which I probably wouldn't have expected before seeing 21 Jump Street earlier in the year. I particularly liked how he struggles and stumbles over what he's trying to say in one scene, which came across as completely natural and believable when it could well have turned out disastrous. In fact the response to this bit of dialogue feels much more scripted and kind of takes you out of the moment, reminding you that you're just watching a film.

As for the actual stripping routines, they are generally not too explicit and didn't make me feel uncomfortable. A lot of the dances are pretty cheesy and even my wife admitted that most of them didn't do much for her, it was more the confidence that all of the dancers have that makes them attractive. I would say there is one routine that almost anyone could appreciate though, especially if you are a fan of groups like Diversity, which is set to Calypso by Excision & Datsik.

If I had any complaints it would be that the ending doesn't feel all that satisfying, I'm not sure whether that is down to it aiming to be realistic or to leave things open for a sequel. But because 'The Kid' doesn't really learn anything from the whole experience, you are left with the impression that he could just continue on his downward spiral. Overall I would say that men shouldn't be scared to go and see this film though. It tells an interesting, believable story, with a good mixture of humour and drama. You just might want to avoid peak times...

On Writing Criticism

I recently came across a blog post via Good Games Writing, which took a humorous approach to writing an 'opinion free' review. It was of the recent SSX game, inspired by a lot of complaints about the subjectivity of reviews. The point of course being that reviewing anything is always going to have a large dose of personal opinion.

I'd been thinking about the same thing recently and also whether sometimes reviewers need to be reminded of this fact - myself included. Certainly when I was writing up my thoughts on Prometheus, I felt like I was presenting my problems with the story as almost unquestionable facts. But my focus on its flaws was almost certainly down to my initial feelings on the film as a whole and plenty of other people have either not noticed the same flaws or did not find them jarring enough to spoil their enjoyment of it.

In fact comparing it to Alien you can point out some similar flaws in both films, specifically simplistic characters who make lots of mistakes. But because I enjoy Alien overall, my first thought would not be to bring up these criticisms in a review and it probably took some time to recognise them. To be able to see issues like that I think takes both experience and knowledge but sometimes just time to reflect on it too. That's something I would imagine a lot of professional critics don't have the luxury of and I'm quite happy to write reviews with no set deadline, so that I have more time to think through what I've experienced.

There have also been some Film Crit Hulk articles on this subject too, a slightly older one was Tangible details and the nature of criticism. The crux of this was how we can all end up out of our depth in certain topics and make judgements by what stands out to us most. The first example in this article was something I've probably railed against in the past, the 'strut' sequence from Spiderman 3. It suggests that there was nothing wrong with this scene overall but it stands out in most people's minds as the worst thing about the film over more fundamental problems. The conclusion here is also that it takes an in depth knowledge of a medium to truly understand why something doesn't work sometimes. Obviously I have an interest in films and know a little about the process of making them but I'm by no means an expert. In that respect I try to stay humble and accept that there will always be someone who knows more than myself and more for me to learn.

I often feel that I don't really have one single area with a huge amount of knowledge, I've always been a bit of a 'Jack of all trades, master of none' in terms of having a lot of interests that don't really go past a surface level knowledge. It's not something that I do intentionally though, I think it always comes from a genuine interest and a desire to understand how things work. Even things like understanding combo systems in fighting games that are way beyond my dexterity to perform, I just enjoy having that knowledge of how it all fits together.

In terms of one specific area that I have the most detailed understanding of I suppose it would have to be video games in general. Having trained to write them and gone on to work on them, I'd like to think I can use this knowledge to give a balanced view of games and perhaps suggest more in depth reasoning for why they turn out a certain way. Even so, that doesn't always translate into the most important part of a games review. What makes a game fun is such a difficult and personal concept to nail down, both from the point of view of those creating games and those criticising them.

A more recent Hulk article, What makes a movie good?, almost feels like the antithesis of the in-depth knowledge approach. Similar to the idea of writing an opinion free review, it suggests that it's pointless to critique a film via an X, Y and Z checklist, where a film lacking in Y can never be considered a classic. Here I felt the take away idea was that everyone ends up with a different view of movies, that may well be influenced by the circumstances in which you watch them and the people you are with.

With games largely being a more lonely pursuit there is often less of an influence from others but there are certainly some games that are remembered fondly because of who you played them with. From the split screen co-op of Halo played with university friends, right up to playing the Lego games with my wife, these experiences tend to elevate our opinion of individual games to another level again. And obviously there are purely multiplayer games that are highly dependent on finding a good group of people to play with, as I've been hearing about Day Z most recently.

If I had one point to end this on, it would be that we should probably be more honest when writing reviews and where possible not be so quick to judge. Try to separate our personal opinions from more technical issues but not just remove personal feeling completely. Be more open to having our opinions changed and admit that we may have been hasty in our initial judgement. I think I would find it refreshing to see more reviewers admit that they were drawn in by the hype or that they found more depth to a product later. Just looking back at the range of emotions I went through after finishing Mass Effect 3, writing a review of it based on my immediate thoughts would have created a very different picture than what I think now. The controversy over its ending in particular seems to have led to a lot of gaming sites really digging their heels in and branding fans as 'entitled whiners' when there have actually been a lot of well made points about its issues.

To me this is yet another reason to not give scores in a review, that official number that is the final opinion of an outlet as a whole makes it very difficult to overturn. In a sense the internet should really free us from the issue of a printed media writer's opinion being set in stone but there is still a sense that you should never back down from your review if people question it later. I get especially concerned about this when I hear about developers being rewarded based on average metacritic scores, which have no way of being updated to reflect changing opinions. Just today I've seen an article on The problem with Metacritic, which features opinions from both sides and I disagree just as much with the idea that a reviewer should feel pressured about writing a negative review that might drag the average score down. Sadly even those who don't give scores aren't immune from contributing to this problem as metacritic will assign your review a score based on what they think the content of your review suggests. It seems like this issue is probably here to stay and we can only hope that developers can gradually aim to negotiate better ways of being rewarded for their work.

The Walking Dead (2012) - Episode 2

This review was also posted on ArtFist.org

After a long wait for some, the second episode of The Walking Dead game is finally here, released with surprisingly little build-up or fanfare. Entitled 'Starved for help', it centres around the group's growing need to find food. When I wrote about the first episode, I didn't really mention the story much, but with the mechanics of the game set in place, now seems like a good point to focus on it more. What stood out to me about the first episode was that like Day Z, it seemed to capture the feeling of being in a zombie film very well. Whereas Day Z is more focused around your interactions with real people, and whether you can trust them, here it seemed to be about making the tough decisions that you might be yelling at the screen for people to make in a movie. Ironically, I found that the decisions became tougher and less black and white in episode 2, with my own character starting to become the unsure person who couldn't always make the tough decisions.

The episode opens with the knowledge that three months have passed, which made me chuckle a little as it means there has been roughly the right amount of time between episodes. It did make the whole situation a little confusing though, as it immediately introduces a new character and a new threat: the lack of food. I had been wondering how they were going to get into this situation given that the threat at the end of the first episode was a sudden loss of electricity, which I suppose was just a bit of dark humour really. I feel like this could have been handled better as it pretty much diffuses any tension that there was and leaves you confused as to what exactly is going on, where the new character has come from and whether you should care about them.

You don't have too long to wonder about this though as the game kicks into action with some more new characters and a grim decision to make. I messed up this sequence by taking too long to look for a perfect way to deal with it, which I don't think exists. This was a great way of getting you back into the feel of the game and remind you that bad things are going to happen regardless of the choices you make. It's also another example where you have to repeatedly perform actions to follow through your choice, which makes it all the more harrowing.

Tensions are running high among the rest of the group after this introduction and it seems that trying to remain a mediator and not take sides isn't going to cut it much longer. You are eventually tasked with dividing up the limited food supplies for the day - again no right or wrong decisions, just down to what you feel. Beyond making sure that the kids got something I thought it was quite difficult to choose who else to help and whether others would consider it favouritism.

Any bickering comes to a sudden end via an unexpected zombie attack, which eventually leads to the discovery that zombies are not only created through people being bitten. This is actually something I haven't seen for a while, with more modern zombie films usually explaining the situation through some kind of virus. Though there is still the possibility that a virus could be the cause, it seems less likely to be the case and leads to more of a focus on survival than the search for a cure. It also adds an additional element of danger to the death of any character, which is an important issue later on.

The majority of the episode is focussed on yet another new group of people, who offer to help out with the group's food situation. I thought that this offer was a little suspect early on and I was slightly disappointed that there didn't seem to be enough dialogue choices to fully express that. It's one of those situations where obviously something had to happen to push the story forward but forcing the player to make bad decisions is frustrating. The same kind of situation can obviously work in a non-interactive story but it's something that I think games should shy away from unless you're absolutely certain you can pull the wool over the player's eyes.

I won't say too much more about what happens but I can say that despite my suspicions it was still intriguing to find out what was going on. What follows is certainly gripping and the gradual revelation of what's been happening is pretty disturbing. I mentioned in my previous piece that I would be looking out for a way to get rid of one character but when the opportunity finally arose it didn't feel as cut and dried as that. In fact the only decision that felt quite easy to me was at the end of the episode, though the final report on other player's choices surprisingly showed that it was nearly a 50/50 split.

Putting aside the story, it seemed that puzzles were a little thin on the ground this episode, with most items having pretty simple uses. The first episode wasn't that different but even in a section that was mostly about combat, there was something cool about figuring out how to take down a group of zombies silently. This wasn't something that I specifically missed while playing, more something that came to mind afterwards but I would still like to see more complex problems in future episodes.

My only other technical complaint is that it seemed to suffer from a lot of stuttering that I don't remember happening in the previous episode. Some of the pauses I saw were so long that I thought the game had crashed and I was just about to reach for the power button before it kicked into life again. While a relatively minor issue, I hope this is something that can be resolved in the next episode. Here's hoping that it won't take as long to appear this time.

Games Vs. Women

It's not been a good month for women and videogames. First there was the furore over the new Hitman: Absolution Trailer (the top comment for that particular instance is currently "They should have stayed in the kitchen."). Then there were some disturbing quotes about the new Tomb Raider game in relation to players wanting to protect Lara. Of course there were also the attacks on Anita Sarkeesian and her kickstarter campaign and just the other day I read another article about how a female journalist was treated at E3.

I initially wasn't sure whether to write anything about this, I would be rather late to the party and almost anything I could say about it had probably already been said better by someone else. There was also the feeling that as a man it feels difficult to speak about issues that affect women and not myself directly. I've felt this way in the past when I wrote about Sucker Punch; I had looked around for other reviews and found women who made arguments for it actually being a feminist film so I felt it best to leave that argument alone. I think that was probably one of my weaker pieces on reflection and that feeling of holding myself back could well be part of the problem with it.

In the end I decided to write something mostly about the Tropes Vs. Women campaign. The positive outcome of it must feel like a poisoned chalice since the controversy has brought so much attention. Sadly I doubt I would have otherwise become aware of the project and gone on to watch her previous videos, which I've mostly found to be pretty informative. One video by someone else convinced me that men should not be afraid speak out against these kinds of issues - I don't have any new ideas about how to combat the relentless youtube trolls but I did think it could be interesting to look at how games could be improved on a practical level.

In amongst the insults one question that has been asked repeatedly is what the point of these videos will be; that the clichés are already well known and written about so it doesn't need funding to make videos about them. However I think that for the games industry they could actually end up being quite a useful resource, something that clearly and simply sets out things that you should avoid doing. I know from experience that it's almost always preferable to avoid having to add something to a game in the first place than cut it out later.

With a 10 part series on what not to do though, I could see that some people might wonder how exactly to go about writing better female characters. Like my own difficulty in writing about issues that affect women, I think there's also a fear that men feel they wouldn't be able to write believable female characters and instead fall back on simple stereotypes. I think the first step is not to worry so much about this issue and just write characters the same way as you would any other. In fact there are plenty of examples of female characters who have gone on to become popular, who were initially written as men and changed nothing but their sex at a later date.

Ripley in Alien is one particular example and while it may have been done for slightly dubious reasons ("wouldn't it be funny if the survivor is a girl"), Sigourney Weaver made the role her own and there was no question about whether this was a believable female character. Within the gaming world you could also look at Mass Effect and the character of Shepard. While some of the secondary female characters in the Mass Effect universe don't fare so well, Shepard herself is incredibly strong despite there only being fairly minor differences in dialogue for the male and female choices. I have seen more praise for Jennifer Hale's voice acting than her male counterpart and I have to agree from what I've heard so far. The only area where she hasn't fared quite as well is in her visual representation, with her cup size suspiciously increasing between the second and third game...

This approach might seem a little simplistic and given that one of the tropes that Anita Sarkeesian will be investigating is "Man with Boobs", I did wonder whether that would be about characters that have received a simple gender swap. I'll be interested to see what that video is actually about, I would guess it might be the stereotype of a really butch female character who tries to act the same as the male characters. I think that changing less stereotypical characters in this manner is valid for all sorts of areas that you might not have an in-depth personal knowledge of, including different races and sexual orientations. If you come up against an issue where you don't think you are representing a character very well you can always seek additional advice but I think the important step is getting more variety in the first place.

All of this is probably basic knowledge to any writers out there but I am also thinking of those in the games industry in general. I recently read this article via the Good Games Writing Blog, which gave a good insight into the process of writing for games and how writers are involved in the project. While starting filming without a script normally spells disaster in the film world, it's pretty much standard in games. Even in the best of circumstances where a writer may be working on a game from the start, there will probably still be others heavily involved in shaping the look and feel of it. In the worst case, if a writer is brought on at a later date to do a 'patch job' on some story issues, a request to change the sex/race of a character would probably be laughed at if art and models were already completed.

So while hanging writers out to dry for perpetuating negative female/racist/gay stereotypes is often people's first thought, it's probably not always the whole story. I think that there is a responsibility on everyone involved in the initial planning stages to consider the range of characters that might be in the game and try to create an appropriate balance. I can also imagine it might seem very difficult for someone working on a game to speak out about something offensive, especially if it is not an issue that effects them personally. I'm certainly not sure whether I could be that guy but it's something I'll try to keep in mind in future. Hopefully others will too, better representations are not going to magically appear and somewhere down the line there will have to be an effort from those who aren't directly campaigning for it.

An evenings worth of gaming

This double review was also posted on ArtFist.org

An evening of gaming for me is usually just enough to complete a couple of missions in Mass Effect. However I recently managed to finish two gaming experiences in the same amount of time. I'd hesitate to call them games, simply because they were both downloadable parts of a larger story.

First up was Harley Quinn's Revenge, a DLC expansion for Batman: Arkham City. I have been a big fan of both Arkham City and Arkham Asylum, but I was a little dubious about whether this would be worth 800 Microsoft Points. However, I ended up winning some bonus points from Xbox Rewards recently so it made taking a chance on it a little less painful.

For those who didn't buy the challenge maps that featured Robin (myself included), playing as him to begin with was quite a nice opening. That said it wasn't long before muscle memory kicked in and I started playing him in the same manner as Batman. He may have different animations and gadgets, but they don't really feel like they create a different playing experience. Compare this to playing as Catwoman, where a lot of her moves were overly flashy and took more time to complete, so you had to be more aware of whether you would leave yourself vulnerable.

I was also a little put-off after the opening section, as it used my least favourite scenario in TV shows at the moment: "48 hours earlier", gnnnngggh. This used to be a concept that was used rarely and was intended to make you think one thing from the brief glimpse of future events, before cleverly twisting your expectations when you finally catch up to what you've seen. Recently, it just seems to have become a standard way to open an episode, akin to a "here's what's going to happen in this episode" montage. I guess you could possibly be left thinking "Is Batman dead?" but c'mon - it's Batman!

Another complaint was how some of the new stealth rooms in this seemed very awkwardly laid out. Often they would be missing good vantage points to scope out your enemies, while good hiding spots were also thin on the ground if you were spotted. Some sections even seemed to be trolling you with grates that lead to nowhere, dropping you directly down to the next level rather than into an air vent, for example. Perhaps you were supposed to use these to escape from people on the same level as you, but it was a complete change in style from the rest of the game and not particularly clear.

All I can be thankful of is that none of the enemies featured the alarm collars that alert their compatriots no matter how you take them out. I always preferred having the option to mix up your approach, taking out lots of guards silently before finally making the last few aware of your presence. I was slightly surprised by one section featuring infinitely re-spawning guards though (or at least enough reinforcements to make it seem that way). Since this area featured Harley Quinn herself, I felt that it was very anti-climactic being forced to periodically drop down and wear down her energy bar before fleeing from guards rather than have a one on one confrontation.

Overall, the experience felt very short and despite the expansion obviously requiring new environments and character models to be built/modified, it didn't really feel worth the 800 points. I'm not really sure what I was expecting, I suppose a new unique boss fight or something was probably always out of the question. It was nice to have a reason to go back to the game (other than to visit Calendar Man) and I'll always enjoy a few rounds with its combat system but the story was so slight it was hardly worth bothering. I suppose in a way it was a fitting episode for Harley Quinn, lacking the Joker's twisted creativity, she couldn't really plot revenge on Batman and ended up sabotaging herself as usual.

My second game of the night was The Walking Dead, an XBLA adventure from Telltale Games based on the comics and TV show of the same name. Like most of Telltale's recent output, it's episodic in nature and only the first of five is currently available. It plays somewhat like a traditional point and click game, mixing in conversation choices similar to Mass Effect and Alpha Protocol, with brief combat sections a little like quick time events.

The first thing that came to mind after its brief introduction is how well it handles a point and click system on a console. Control is split between your analogue sticks, with the left moving your character and the right moving a fairly subtle cursor that highlights areas of interest. I found myself wondering whether this system could have benefited the first 3D LucasArts adventure with direct character control: Grim Fandango. While there was little to criticise about that game, interpreting exactly what Manny's head was tilted towards could prove difficult on occasions. The cursor may mean a slightly less immersive experience than having no HUD elements, but to my mind the ease of use this system allows is of greater importance.

After a short intro, you will soon be faced with one of the combat sections that I described earlier. The good thing about these is that to me they didn't really feel like quick time events, more like solving a simple point and click puzzle very quickly. The first event is probably the one that feels the most like this but I found that having to line-up the cursor to perform actions made you feel much more in control. While traditional point and click games featuring player death were usually frowned on, I felt that it fits the scenario really well - you should never feel completely safe in a zombie game. I think the important distinction is that you are unlikely to die by experimenting with the wrong item; it is more down to not reacting quickly enough. It keeps you on your toes knowing that killing a zombie is something you should never approach lightly.

I also really liked the conversation system, which is very similar to Alpha Protocol where you only have a certain amount of time to answer important questions. There were some differences though, and I liked the fact that you could take your time picking what to say in general conversation. Having the option to not respond at all was a nice touch too: I don't think you can spend the entire game as a mute, but there was at least one point where I felt that a response wasn't necessary. The text you choose is also the text you speak, compared to Mass Effect where the text is usually just a hint of what will be said, which sometimes doesn't match up with your intentions. Some of your conversation choices may not turn out to be important (especially if the character you're speaking to ends up dying soon after), but I'll be intrigued to see which of them do have an impact in future episodes.

Stylistically, the game doesn't really fit in with the TV series, but I can only see that as a good thing at this point. The relentless negative tone of the show has meant that I can't bring myself to watch more than the first episode of the second season. The game isn't exactly light-hearted, but it has a few funny points along the way and a lot more likeable characters than the show. Some of them are still bastards though: I'll be keeping an eye out for a way to get rid of one in particular in future episodes. I was also impressed by the kids in this game, I would guess largely because they were actually voiced by adults. Despite this, they come across as more believable than the annoying child actors in the TV show - I actually felt kind of bad when one of my dialogue choices led to me being short with Clementine in one particular scene.

Again, the experience is pretty short, but it feels like there is a fair amount to do and a good variety of locations, with the story moving forward at a good pace. At half the price of the Batman expansion, I definitely felt that I got my money’s worth and would be happy to continue buying the episodes as they are released, even if there is eventually a cheaper collected edition. In fact, the only real downer to it is how long it is taking for the next episode to appear, originally expected to be in June, its exact release date is still unsure. I doubt we could ever see episodes released in less than a month, but that feels like a reasonable amount of time to keep people ready to play the next one. Even I'm starting to forget some of the decisions I've made, and waiting much longer to see their consequences could mean that they lose their impact.

While Batman was a little disappointing, The Walking Dead still managed to convince me that I like the idea of episodic gaming. Having a complete gaming experience somewhere between the length of a TV Show and a film is something that definitely appeals to me, and I would imagine to a lot of people with limited gaming time. Only being able to get half way through a mission before being forced to quit can be a frustrating experience, especially if it is difficult to pick up again next time. I'm becoming increasingly aware of this while replaying Mass Effect and really looking forward to moving on to its sequel. Many have commented on how well paced Mass Effect 2 is, with nearly every mission feeling like a self-contained story of sensible length. In contrast, Arkham City's rather open-ended approach is perhaps the opposite of an episodic game, which makes you wonder whether adding content in this manner could ever have been a success - no matter the quality of it: you are just expecting to play it for a much longer time.