E3 2015 - Bethesda

A montage of vox pops and celestial music set to hype us up to somewhat unrealistically grand levels as Bethesda employers grin all up in the cameras and talk about how ruddy great Bethany Asda is to work for. The standard "highly polished trailer and gameplay montage set to energetic pop song" contrasts this before we go back to holy choirs and the Skyrim soundtrack introduces a Mr. Peak Times from marketing.

So far so blah as introductions and welcomes are given, without anything awfully cringeworthy or any dead silences. The first big hitter is the new Doom, imaginatively called Doom, so i guess it's a reboot despite being closer to the original than predecessors. Why can't we use numbers again? Was there a bad harvest? It's not like we're up to anything unwieldy with Doom, this would be Doom 4. That's actually quicker to explain than saying "It's called Doom, the same as the 1993 original but it's not a remake or anything it's just got the same name."

That aside, Jack Coleman's son leads us into a gameplay demo for the new Doom which actually goes really well with no noticeable glitches or player fuck-ups to speak of (probably rehearsed and pre-recorded). The action is fast and brutal in its over-the-top violence, the combat flows very smoothly as you jump onto ledges and switch weapons with a on-screen wheel menu slowing down time but not entirely stopping it.

There's a decent variety of gory melee execution moves with very little break in the flow of the gameplay and the HUD itself is very minimal but with a few pleasing sci-fi touches like "Impact compensation" when you fall from a height a bit further than normal human capability. Although it seems there are distances too great for the suit's technology where you'll just fall flat on your face.

"But video game violence incites real life violent crime!"  Like all those news reports where someone tears the legs off a hell-demon and curbstomps them with their own foot.

As fast paced as the action is there are some brief quiet moments and these actually feel very atmospheric thanks to the lighting and ominous soundtrack. There's a few other creative sci-fi touches like an "Echo device" that portrays holograms in an area providing footage of past events and clues to progress.

Far more interesting than initiating a cutscene of a security camera feed.

All the weapons seem fun and satisfyingly powerful to use. A good variety was shown with old-fashioned and sci-fi shotguns, machine guns, lasers, rocket launchers and a very messy chainsaw. The demons themselves seem well-designed and animated, although much is just a modern update of the 1993 classics. Overall it looks like a classic Doom game for the modern era, which amidst our cover-based shooters and strict military realism should be both a new and nostalgic change of pace.

Next up, there's more award winning titling like Battlecry from...Battlecry Studios. It just strikes me as lazy, i mean imagine if Nintendo came out with a game called "Nintendo Land" or something stupid...The game itself looks like a melee-based Team Fortress which isn't necessarily a bad idea it's just barely your idea.

After how slick Doom and Fallout 4 looked, this looked like a janky as fuck PS2 title.

Illiterate developers Arkhane Studios are next on stage and the two creative directors bring back the kind of dumb jokes falling completely flat that you expect from E3. They quickly move onto a Dishonored 2 trailer which for those unaware Dishonored was a first person steampunk supernatural stealth action assassination game, which with that many adjectives reminds me what potential this series has.

Ahaha it's funny because he's French and we can't understand him...or the punchline.

Not much to glean from a non-gameplay trailer but a new additional protagonist Emily Caldwin with her own unique moveset and storyline is interesting. The duo finish by announcing a definitive edition of the first Dishonored for PS4 and Xbone with graphical enhancements and all the DLC included.

A trailer for a game that's already out promises new content in The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited, followed by a strategy card game called Elder Scrolls: Legends. I'm sure there will be some fans for this but a purely conceptual trailer does little to sway my indifference to card games and my dislike for "Free"-to-play mobile games.

Some more hokey forced har hars as Peak Times fucks off backstage on an Ipad and "forgets" about the remaining half of the show. He builds the hype for a Fallout 4 demo along with "a man who should need no introduction" and seemingly doesn't for most of the crowd so just me who's out of the loop i guess.

Todd Howard, Bethesda game director and younger, fluffier Matthew Mcconaughey loses points immediately for walking on stage clapping himself but continues to be an honest if a little smug speaker about Bethesda's origins before moving onto concept art for Fallout 4 and revealing that the new installment starts before the world is a nuclear wasteland.

How young is this guy? Well his shirt says "He's two"

As the demo starts, a simple, quirky and amusing character creation screen puts your male or female protagonist in front of the mirror while your wife or husband watches you mould your own face and comments on its features. It's fourth wall breaking but that's forgivable at the start of a game and as an alternative to cold sterile rotating character models in a spaceless void flanked by sliders, it's a welcome and creative idea.

Mcfluffaughey claims it's the character creator they, the developers, use for their NPC's so hopefully it achieves depth and creativity without being unwieldy or complex to master. I also think in terms of story, having your significant other there during the character creation helps build that bond very early on. It's almost like them seeing you naked, character creation has so often been a very private experience seperate from the game world.

In Marriage Simulator 2015, your wife will mock your facial hair in real time, increasing your mid-life crisis meter.

Also effectively combining gameplay and story comes your initial stats alignment and naming of your character in the form of a clipboard wielding rep of vault-tech at your door confirming your details. Apparently your robot butler can respond to around a thousand of the most popular names which is a nice touch. I wonder what the alternative is for the more creatively named or blatantly disinterested who input "fuckhead" "bumcurse" "Candlejack" or "Tiberius" as their character name.

The demo smartly skips some of the story set-up and potential spoilers moving 200 years into the future when you first exit your vault. This demo isn't exactly live or raw however as the gameplay skips forward through sections and dips in and out of trailer angles and music. That said the opening is still impressive, the environments look great, the dialogue interactions are well written and there's a doggie! AWW little doggy! contextual actions with little doggy, co-op battle mechanics with widdle dawggy awww.

Next up in what Mccottonaughey himself admits is a gimmick comes a replica pipboy that comes with the collector's edition of the game. There is even a phone app releasing on the game's launch that you can
load up, insert your phone into the pipboy and presumably take a private ironic chuckle at walking around your neighbourhood like it's a post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Next we see another mobile game and as the entire audience holds their breath it appears to actually be a rather good looking little management game called Fallout Shelter. Todd draws comparisons to Xcom Simcity and FTL, whilst i'm initially reminded of recent but far more bleaker title This War Of Mine. Either way, you, customise and manage your characters in your vault as they level up, adventure into the wastelands, fall in love and have kids.

You build rooms for training, resources and leisure trying to get the right balance with your budget and defend against attackers. It's all done with Fallout's cute, ironic propoganda cartoon art style and just seems like a great, fun little game for fans of the series. Probably the best, most commendable additions or rather subtractions are that there's no "free"-to-play exploitative pay gates and progress blockers. You also don't need an internet connection to play it, overall it's a re-SORRY WHAT? IT'S OUT ALREADY, WHAT THE FUCK? WHY-HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KEEP UP WITH-ahem, and surprisingly we're then told the app launches "tonight" or yesterday as of me writing this, you probably already have it don't you? Yeah exactly, why do i even bother?

Returning to Fallout 4, there is now an expansive yet robust mapmaker turned tower defence section allowing you to customise and build your homebase with an editor that appears as smooth and simple as their character creation. There is also an in-depth crafting system for weapons and armour with thousands of materials that used to just decorate the game-world but now have gameplay purpose plus over 700 modifications...sorry, *rewinds footage* ...Huh...Well bugger me...Seven hundred modifications in this entirely optional section of the game that quite rightly gets huge applause from the audience.

I couldn't decide which sounded more like genitals between the"Compensated Pipe Rifle" and the "Tactical Junk Jet".

The next big applause comes in the form of a November 2015 release date which is surprisingly soon. Finishing their solid showcase comes some free figurines as thanks for those attending the show. I try not to become too blinkard or infatuated with what are ultimately big corporate "buy me" shows but Bethesda does seem to convey a real passion for their craft, a talent and attention to the little details, the features players enjoy and an appreciation and respect for their fans. For their first ever individual set this was an impressive showcase.

Mad Max: Fury Road - Cinema Review

The easiest thing to do would be to gush about this film's strengths since it is a fantastic film. However for some pointless high-minded moral, unbias and objectivity rationale i'm going to try and list as many legitimate and potential criticisms as possible before getting to the good stuff. The film's been out a while so there's a thousand other places singing its praises. Let's look at some possible reasons why you might not enjoy this film.

Firstly as with any highly stylised story, its quirky nature can be both appealing and off-putting to different people. The dialogue is sparse and filled with in-world terminology and slang. I didn't find any of it too difficult to grasp the general meaning of but this could make the film confusing and/or inaccessible to those not prepared.

Unofficially this film is Mad Max 3 which brings the common concern of needing backstory and context from the other films to understand this one. I didn't find this a problem at all and whilst i hear there are several little references to its predecessors in this, the only major ones are flashbacks plaguing Max himself, which are pretty blatantly spelt out as dead friends he failed to protect. You might not know how exactly he failed to protect them but its not neccesary for the story and works simply but effectively as a character trait.

Some have described Fury Road as one long car chase or set-piece, both as a good thing and a flaw. The story is very self-contained and straightforward with ninety percent of the action focusing on our characters in, on, around and ocassionally under vehicles, however the pacing is actually very comfortable and natural. There are appropriate breaks in the action. The slower, quieter moments where we learn about the characters and reflect on past events. That said, this isn't a character-drama and things won't stay still for too long so it's possible some might find this repetative and displeasing but, again i never found myself tiring of the frequent, not quite relentless action.

I sincerely hope this and Winter Soldier are signalling a return to stuntwork and practical effects.

Those expecting an intense realistic gritty post-apocalypse could be disappointed as while there is grit, and the plot logic mostly holds up for a cinema viewing at least, there are also some goofy aspects. Important to note that i'm not saying the film is light-hearted, it has very dark and mature themes but one of those themes is insanity and this is portrayed in many different ways, some of which are quite comical. I feel like restating that many of the traits potentially turning people away from this film can equally be aspects many love about it. Fury Road has character and identity which in modern action films is in woefully short supply.

I'm struggling to think of many other criticisms. I suppose if we want to dip our feet into controversial waters, the remarks surfacing from MRA's about this film being misandrist, to me, seem completely unfounded. There are some excellent strong, well-written female characters in this film but they don't feature at the expense of the males or vice versa really. Max himself is an anchor or vessel for the audience. A very common feature in storywriting when the world is so outlandish you need someone comparitively normal for the audience to relate to.

Having said that though, Max is definitely not overshadowed and has plenty of great scenes. It just happens that the main female character, Imperator Furiosa has an equal number of cool scenes, which given that it seems an underlying subplot of the film is daring to trust anyone in this crazy world, it makes perfect narrative sense to have two equally capable main characters.

I am now out of criticisms. The story is simple yet brilliantly told, the dialogue is restrained but considered. Purposeful and powerful. Visually the film is the a welcome paradox of a gorgeous wasteland. Vibrant sandy tones with delightfully inventive art design. Rusty, dusty and gusty; the endless orange deserts somehow don't become repetative and with night comes an intense icy blanket of blue shades.

The character designs are also refreshingly creative, as i mentioned earlier, this film has such a unique identity of its own and plenty of interesting ideas it puts to full use. Everything is meticulously detailed and fits in with the world perfectly. This is even more impressive when you consider how little CGI, Fury Road uses, compared to today's standards.

When CGI is used it's brilliant, when it isn't, it's still brilliant.

The pacing as i mentioned is exceptional. This feels like a film that could have so easily been a broken mess but the editing is tight, the cinematography elaborate and energetic, the choreography of the action scenes is frenzied, brutal and desperate. I felt like i saw a fade to black a few too many times but this is such a nitpick of a problem i don't even know how it factors in. 

All the main actors are superb. Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are the outstanding highlights but Nicholas Hoult is impeccable as the eccentric, naive and blindly loyal Nux the War Boy and Hugh Keays-Byrne perfectly portrays the mad warlord and main antagonist Immortan Joe. The supporting cast have moments or even snippets of lines that don't gel quite as well but this could be nitpicking again and is probably unoticeable to many.

Speaking of barely noticing, i was fully aware of the awesome soundtrack on my first viewing that blends in and out of the film's world due to crazy bungee cord guitarists and drummers hyping up the antagonists as they ride, but parts of it are actually synched to the action in the film. Beats in the song may well match "beats" happening in fistfights on screen. I only noticed this on my second viewing so it might have been a singular instance but it helps enhance the film's style and rhythm. Overall i think as strong as the film is it would be significantly damaged in terms of tension and excitement without such a brutally frenetic score.

So in summary, do you like post-apocalyptic action films? If no, then this probably isn't for you. If yes, then you absolutely must see Mad Max: Fury Road as it is very likely the best one this year.

Avengers: Age Of Ultron - Exploring The Criticism Controversy.

I never planned to write a review for Avengers: Age Of Ultron and this still isn’t it really. You’d have to be living under a rock not to have heard about it and the general consensus agrees it’s a great film. My succinct (ish) opinion believes it’s less watertight and focused than the first, there’s very nearly an overload on the one-liners and some of the jokes are more miss than hit. The pacing is a little jarring in places and the film feels bloated with content resulting in some scenes feeling overly cut down or missing important moments. Those are my criticisms.

Besides that it’s still a fantastic movie that delivers on the action scenes, the character interactions and development, the comedy and the comic-book fan appealing lore accuracy. It’s not better than the first but it comes close if not reaches being on par with it.

Incidentally my favourite scene. Probably also one of the cheapest to create.

Now that’s out of the way let’s talk about certain people’s reaction to the film and how their insanity outdoes Ultron himself’s own warped logic. For those unaware there was a considerable backlash to parts of the film and also a few events surrounding its release. The main points of criticism were Scarlet Johansson’s Black Widow character and her storyline in the film, then exacerbating matters was a joke Jeremy Renner made in an interview where he called Black Widow “a slut.” 

This culminated in Director Joss Whedon deleting his twitter account and although he denies claims that the violent criticisms were the cause, looking through the expansive archived comments, it’s hard to believe they weren’t at least a contributing factor to his departure.

From interviews and the general palpable hype and expectation for Avengers 2, it’s clear the pressure was getting to Whedon so a break to “focus on writing” again seems like a reasonable idea. Frankly I think it’s astounding the film came out as impressive as it is, given the tendency for overhyped sequels to collapse under the weight of their own expectations (See “The Dark Knight Rises”).

Going into the details of these criticisms I think it’s important to point out that I’m definitely not saying criticisms of the film are invalid or invaluable. Art should always have constructive criticism and feedback, it’s how we improve and grow. Deconstruction and analysis often progresses everyone’s knowledge. I’m both an amateur critic and filmmaker and I like to think I understand both sides of the coin. 

My problem is that much of these criticisms have been anything but constructive. At best they’ve been whiney nit-picking on personal preference and at worst they’ve been directed insults and violent threats that don’t help anything or anyone and continue to harm a “nerd culture” that is already heavily scrutinised for this kind of behaviour anyway.

So what does the film contain to spark such an inferno of controversy? Well the Black Widow character has more of her backstory fleshed out in Age Of Ultron alongside a romantic subplot with Bruce Banner. This backstory involves how Natasha Romanoff a.k.a Black Widow was trained from birth to be an assassin. We see glimpses of this past when Scarlet Witch’s mind powers send the team into traumatic states of recollection and/or future predictions. In Natasha’s case she sees her "home" (an orphanage?), ballet dancers and increasingly punishing training sessions involving murdering live hostages and reinforcing Guantanamo bay style “you are nothing” sentiments. 

This comes to boiling point when she and Bruce discuss escaping the Avengers together. Bruce clearly has feelings for Natasha but doesn’t trust himself (or rather the Hulk) to ever stop being a threat. Trying to persuade him otherwise, Natasha reveals that she can’t have children. Part of her assassin upbringing was mandatory sterilisation and she finishes the confession by saying “You’re not the only monster on the team”

Critics took this as an implication that infertile women are monsters.

I can see how they reached that interpretation but if you think about it for more than a second, do you honestly think that was the writer’s intended message? What would that add to the film? Do they have history of holding these kinds of views? No, nothing and no respectively. I took it to mean that her manipulated upbringing and everything she was forced to do has left her as more of a monster than her own person. The culmination of what her training did to her, rather than this one feature of it being the definition of a monstrosity.

Her and Bruce have both been forced into lifestyles they'd rather escape from.

 When I first saw this scene, I was moved by it and found it a real strong point of the film. The Marvel movies are only getting more and more absurd so bringing some heart and real human drama back into the story was really needed and effective I thought. Did the scene feel a little rushed or overly edited? Arguably so yes, but I don’t think that results in the filmmaker’s intentions to be a message of misogyny or sexism. 

The film actually goes on to accuse almost all of The Avengers of being monsters at some point, (I remember at least Stark and Vision) Captain America also has dialogue as they sit in the jet en-route to the finale along the lines of “Time to see if we really are monsters”

People took a repeated theme in the film and cherry picked it to interpret as a discriminatory statement from the filmmakers.

Other criticisms latched onto how Natasha is taken prisoner by Ultron towards the end of the film and eventually rescued by Bruce and the other (Male) Avengers. This is considered clichéd and falling back on the “Damsel In Distress” trope and whilst that’s technically true there is again a lot of missed context and information surrounding this that makes it far less offensive than it seems. 

Black Widow is far from incapable and that has been demonstrated frequently in every film. That said, her and Hawkeye are still the two weakest of the Avengers and the film itself even highlights this. The opening scene shows Hydra villain “Strucker” ordering his men to “focus on the weaker ones” because “a hit will cause them to close ranks” and sure enough, Hawkeye is injured and the team is caught off guard by the Maximoff twins whilst Natasha and the other Avengers try to save him.

When Natasha is captured she is taken to Ultron’s factory and he intimidates her by tearing apart his own body by a new superior vibranium-infused model. This could appear stereotypical as Natasha shuffles backwards in fear but the purpose here is just for Ultron to have a cool monologue and for Natasha to move back so he can close the prison cell door on her.

Three of the Avengers couldn’t be put in this position due to super strength and being able to break out of the cell immediately, so that leaves Iron Man (assuming he has no access to any of his suits or gadgets) Bruce Banner (assuming he has a reason why he can’t transform into the Hulk), Hawkeye (assuming he has none of his weapons and gadgets) and Black Widow (assuming she has none of her weapons or gadgets). With all these assumptions in place would the others scuttle back unknowingly into a jail cell at an approaching violent Ultron? I’m pretty convinced they would.

Y'see he rather outmatches them individually.

 So yes, Natasha being the one locked up is a bit clichéd but it could have just as easily been coincidence. We have to be careful not to condemn every instance of something falling in line with a common trope otherwise women characters would never do certain things and that’s kind of creating clichés of a whole new type. Furthermore, the only reason the rest of the Avengers find Ultron’s base is because Black Widow has a secret communication device (I’m not sure exactly what it was. Morse code?) unseen by Ultron that she uses to contact Hawkeye.

Once Bruce lets her out of the cell, it’s him who wants to run away together and not get involved in the conflict, but Natasha knows they’re needed and forces a Hulk transformation before they both join the fight. I’m not a huge Whedon fan who’s seen everything he’s ever done, but I’ve seen enough to know he doesn’t generally write the kind of characters he’s being accused of and Black Widow has more than enough badass moments in Age Of Ultron to stop her being anything close to a damsel in distress. 

The kind of people making these criticisms seem to actively search for things to be offended by and then fuelled by crusader-like righteous fury they paradoxically become some of the most offensive and discriminatory people on the internet.

The other event I mentioned was an interview outside of the film. Jeremy Renner and Chris Evans were being interviewed and the opening question was about the romantic hints between Black Widow and Hawkeye and then Captain America in films leading up to Age Of Ultron and how it was surprising that she ended up with Bruce Banner. Renner becomes completely deadpan and states “she’s a slut” to uproarious laughter by Evans. I only saw this clip after all the controversy so it didn’t strike me as funny by that point if it would have at all. 

Chris Evans later apologised, Renner ultimately didn't.

The point is, it’s quite clearly a joke, meant as an icebreaker for the start of an interview.

This wasn’t mid-discussion in a serious topic with Jeremy Renner stating that “I think Black Widow is fundamentally a very slutty character”. No, it was a dumb joke because Renner had nothing better to say on the subject and you’re well within your right to not find it funny at all or to find it rib-splittingly hilarious, that doesn’t matter. 

The level of vitriol and hatred directed at Renner afterwards was nothing short of ludicrous. Some even tried to stir up calls for him to lose his job acting in the Avenger’s movies. I can’t believe I have to point out how much of an absurd overreaction that is and whilst we’re stating the obvious, Renner made this joke about the fictional character Black Widow NOT his co-star and the actress portraying Black Widow, Scarlet Johansson. 

Overall there’s this sense that certain people are forcing something onto these movies. Whether it’s their own ideologies, a desperate scrape for self-righteous fame and superiority or a cathartic need to be enraged by something, there’s a considerable amount of people irrationally displeased with the content in these movies. I say “irrationally” because in terms of very mainstream cinema, Marvel has actually one of the most liberal and diverse movie franchises being released these days. 

Are they perfect and immune to criticism? Of course not but should you form that criticism in death threats and unconstructive barrages of swearing and insults? No you definitely shouldn’t because in case you weren’t taught this in primary school, that’s mean and offensive. If the counter to this is that you are offended by the content in the movie I bring up another age-old lesson “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind” 

It’s not impossible for filmmakers to hide offensive messages and ideas in their films but if that’s the case you need to decipher them through rational and civil discussion. You then bring these criticisms to light and if other people see truth, logic and coherence in your argument then you can take these criticisms further and hopefully influence the filmmaker’s themselves or the studio producing the films.

Oh I’m sorry did you fall asleep? Yes I suppose that can happen with boring old logic, fairness and civility. You’ve been brought up on action, explosions, shouting and violence. The stuff of blockbuster movies. You’d better just apply that strategy to real life then because loud, controversial, accusatory yelling will get you more noticed than logic. Let’s keep going with that until we live in a culture of entitled crying immature babies all trying to yell the loudest and the most crassly. 

Do you want to live in that world? A chaotic, uncivilised and violent world? If you don’t and are culpable for the kind of reactions I’ve detailed here you need to look at yourself and listen to yourself and then think long and hard before you open your mouth again. You think you don’t influence anything? Well you do, and whilst you might think the ends justify the means, very often the means actually define the ends.