Game Review: The Walking Dead

Game Review: The Walking Dead — Blue Ink Alchemy

Here, take this. It's my zombie card. I'm turning it in because as of this writing, I have never read the graphic novel The Walking Dead, nor have I tuned in for the television series. What I know of the series has been gathered from snippets of others' conversations, posts on Tumblr, and good old-fashioned deductive reasoning. I know it's a zombie cataclysm tale ('apocalypse' is an inappropriate word as it means 'revelation' and not 'disaster'), there are only a handful of survivors, they squabble among themselves because homo homini lupus, and one of the survivors on the TV series played Murphy McManus from The Boondock Saints. So I downloaded the episodic video game of the same name developed by Telltale Games with only the barest knowledge of what I was in for. Our story begins with Lee, a college professor, handcuffed in the back of a police car on the highway out of Atlanta. While the police scanner carries information regarding some sort of city-wide disturbance, the officer behind the wheel seems more interested in his own stories, and determining if Lee is, in fact, guilty of whatever he's accused of. The car hits someone walking across the highway, and in the resulting crash, the police officer is killed. Lee struggles out of the car and with his cuffs before the police officer reaches for him, but more due to an appetite for brains than as a plea for help. It is only the first of many challenges Lee will face, and considering some of the choices that lay ahead, it may well be one of the easiest. Once you get into the game, you will discover that you have stepped not into a shooter or even an RPG, but something far more reminiscent of games gone by. Playing this game reminded me of long nights of pixel-hunting in the likes of Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Day of the Tentacle, Grim Fandango, and Full Throttle. Telltale has done episodic adventure games in the past, but many of them have seemed to be more whimsical fare, at least in presentation. The Walking Dead is quite earnest in its subject matter, its writing, and its characterization. There are going to be some characters you downright hate in this game, but they're so well written and acted that even as you want to hit them, you can understand the motivations behind their unreasonableness for the most part. But by far, the standout character is Clementine. Normally, child characters are either irritating to the point of losing all sympathy or become a huge burden to the adult characters through either their own ill-conceived actions or exploitation by others. Clementine, however, is different. At eight years old, she manages to survive outside her parents' house and helps Lee when he arrives. She has a very solid sense of right and wrong, and some of Lee's choices involve whether or not to tell her the truth. She will remember if you lie to her, as well; The Walking Dead does a great job of keeping track of choices Lee makes, big or small. It feels very natural to have characters reference things that happened two or three episodes ago as you go about trying to stay alive and sane in the wake of unchecked horror. So the story is good and the characters top-notch; what about the gameplay? Well, that may be one of the biggest strikes against The Walking Dead. As a point-and-click adventure game, there isn't a whole lot of actual game to be had. While some items can be small or hard to see even as you move your mouse all over the screen, none of the puzzles are terribly complex. What combat there is exists in a very simplified form, and while the occasional timed sequence does liven things up, hammering the Q key to escape the grip of a zombie is about the most complex thing you'll do to fight the undead. Then again, there are plenty of games and mods out there if all you want to do is blow off zombie heads with a shotgun like you're in Army of Darkness or something.
"I said, we're closed!" There are two modes of gameplay, one which gives you hints and tips as you play regarding where to click on items and what results will come of the choices you make, and one that keeps the UI as minimal as possible to maximize your immersion. As much as I preferred the second mode, as it yanked me into the story in an incredibly absorbing way, the first is good for those who are unfamiliar with adventure games or terrible at puzzles. With the hints on, the story is not held up by your hunt for the right battery or candy bar. Turn them off, and the atmosphere and tension increase significantly. As much as the straightforward design of the game could be seen as something of a flaw, the power of the narrative and the humanity of the characters is what stands out, and the game has the good sense not to get in its own way. The cell-shaded art style harkens to the graphic novel, while the character's voices and the game's episodic nature gives the TV show vibe. It's the best of both worlds, and you get to put the boot into some zombies yourself rather than reading about or watching other people do it. I don't see how this isn't a win all around. Stuff I Liked: The way characters' prejudices and preconceptions come into play naturally, and are discussed with maturity. The natural flow of dialog. The environments that provide diversity and move the story along without feeling forced or out of place. Stuff I Didn't Like: Occasionally characters moved with stiffness or unnaturalness, and I'm not talking about the Walkers. A bit more puzzle variety might have been nice. I hope your Q key is in good shape. Stuff I Loved: Lee. Clementine. The subtle soundtrack. The way friendships were formed and tested. The very real handling of matters like food supplies, fuel, and human understanding in the face of the ongoing calamity. The moments that made me stop and think, or gasp in alarm, or well up. Bottom Line: The Walking Dead wants to tell you a story. It wants to bring you into this vision of our world and show you what can happen when people are thrown together due to something beyond their control. It seeks to use zombies the way they're most effective: not as target practice, but as a means to show humanity at its absolute worst and its undeniable best. It does all of these things extremely well, and you should definitely invite it into your home to do its thing.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Objective Criticism

Objective Criticism — Blue Ink Alchemy

I don't consider myself a critic. I don't have the experience, the background, or the clout to saddle myself with that label. I've taken a stab at the life before, and as fun as it can be to put my thoughts together and then spew them out into a microphone, more often than not it got in the way of what I truly should have been doing. Part of that could have been time management issues, ones with which I continue to struggle, but I do have some inkling of what goes into the work of a successful critic. Simply put, a critic is someone who's paid for their opinion. I've discussed the nitty gritty of criticism several times, and I've taken in all sorts of critical analysis. I've read over the opinions of those who've carved out an entire career from criticism, and I've listened to the diatribes of those who have picked up a rather broad audience through one means or another. The most in-depth and compelling analyses I've seen come from those who remain objective throughout their writing, or at least encapsulate their more personal feelings and keep them from being a huge influence on the overall critique. What moves one person to tears, another might find laughable or contrived, yet if a story element is solid or a character's performance earnest and realistic, it can be agreed upon by both people that said element was objectively good. Objectivity, however, can be seen as cold or too intellectual. In recent years, critics who allow more subjective verbiage to move through their writings have become far more popular than mostly objective ones. The angrier they get, the more sarcastic and cutting their jibes, the more histrionic their behavior, the more hits they get and the more they get paid. While I do understand the logic behind this shift, and can appreciate how noble an effort it can be to bridge the gap between critic and entertainer, from time to time I catch a glimpse of something happening to some of these popular figures, and it worries me. The problem is that if the critic in question allows their histrionics or eccentric behavior to color their objectivity as a critic, their merit as a critic becomes questionable. Having a knee-jerk reaction to an announcement from the industry is one thing; allowing that reaction to color one's opinion of an entire entertainment enterprise from conception to execution over a production period of years is quite another. If you do this, I can't take your opinion seriously. You may continue to get entertainment value out of this sort of material, sure, but how much can you trust the opinion of someone on a game or movie if you know for a fact they dislike the game's developer, or have a particular hatred for the film's director? Some content creators have a certain track record, sure, but going into an entertainment experienced with a pre-conceived notion when your job is to be objective about said entertainment, in my opinion, ruins the merit of the criticism that will emerge. Now, I know it's impossible to completely divorce emotional responses from objective observations. Hence my use of the word 'encapsulation' earlier. This is what I would advise others looking to review or criticize to do: isolate your emotional responses, and let them supplement, rather than inform, your opinions on the work. Judge the work by its merits from an objective standpoint: the construction of the narrative, the execution of timing, the dimensionality of the characters, and so on. Then, add your personal touches where they fit. This will allow the actual criticism to shine through the trappings. Simply put, don't let the fact that others might read your work overwhelm the reason you're writing the work in the first place. Stick to the facts and what you can prove and stand by, rather than hanging all of your opinions on your own perceived popularity. Avoid the cult of personality, or worse, believing you have one. If you go for the obvious jokes and let your reactions prejudice your observations, you may get some hits for comedic value, but your overall work and reputation are likely to suffer. This can be corrected, in time, but first you have to admit that the problem exists at all, and not everybody's going to do that. Just a piece of advice from a fellow amateur.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Flash Fiction: Three Haikus

Flash Fiction: Three Haikus — Blue Ink Alchemy

This week's challenge was a bit different. The task was, "tell a story in three haikus." I played with a couple ideas before settling on this one. Enjoy.

---

My cat ate a gem. It belonged to a smuggler. Now we're in big trouble. The chase was merry, From Rome to Moscow to Prague - Bond would be jealous. "Don't touch my damn cat." Gunsmoke behind the tavern - Sorry 'bout the mess.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Writer Report: Blog State

Writer Report: Blog State — Blue Ink Alchemy

While working on Cold Streets does take up most of my writing time, I do take notice of trends here on the blog. And it seems to me that my hits have diminished somewhat over the past week. I'm not sure why this is, but I'm going to keep at it. I have plenty of material, after all. Tomorrow I finally will make it to a Gatecrash event, and on Sunday is a double-header of films I'm interested in both watching and reviewing. I'm also going to formulate a review of PlanetSide 2, which is quickly becoming a favorite after-writing way to unwind, and finish reading a book or two. But the important thing when it comes to the blog, if you ask me, is that I keep writing it. Not necessarily because I want the attention (though I kind of do, it may help sell books and like all writers I'm a bit of a narcissist), but because writing every day doesn't just mean the novels. It means stuff like this, too. If I made more time for it, it could also mean articles or non-fiction or more gaming stuff than I already write. So far my attempts to put game rules down on paper has been somewhat helter-skelter, and I really need to find a way to playtest said rules once I hammer out the basics. But more on that as it develops. For now, just know that Blue Ink Alchemy isn't going anywhere, and if you're still reading after all this time or you're just stumbling upon me out of the blue, you have my heartfelt thanks.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Gaming in 2013

Gaming in 2013 — Blue Ink Alchemy

The new year is in full swing. I'm starting it off writing by carving out writing time on a daily basis (for the most part, more tomorrow on that). But once the writing is done, and with Fringe done and Sherlock's third season not yet underway, what sort of amusements fill my time once I tear myself away from the allure of social media and videos on the Internet?

Magic Type <2

With the introduction of Gatecrash, you might think that I'm eager to get involved with new decks for Magic: the Gathering's Standard format. And you wouldn't be wrong. However, I have to admit the format is beginning to lose some of its luster. New sets to Magic come out every few months, and when they do, your current Standard decks either need an overhaul or get scrapped altogether. I like theorycrafting and deck-building as much as the next Planeswalker, but the recurring investment is starting to bother me. I'd much rather make small alterations to decks I already have than having to keep build new ones every quarter while sinking money into boxes of new cards. To that end, I'm turning more towards Modern and Legacy formats of Magic. I'll talk more about the decks I'll be fielding next week, but suffice it to say the new expansion does factor into at least one of them...

Warhammer 40k

Oh, 40k. If ever a hobby was even more of a time and money sink than collectible card games, it would be you. Your little plastic men are much pricier, your rules are a great deal more complex, a fighting force takes a lot more to prepare than a deck, there's painting involved... ...yet I can't deny there's appeal. The universe is steeped in baroque, melodramatic lore, the disparate forces guarantee there's something that will appeal to players, and I've played it and other wargames enough to understand the appeal of plotting out a strategy to defeat the enemy, preparing the right mix of troops, seeing how the enemy responds, and the thrill of adaptation on the fly. I have a Dark Vengeance starter kit sitting near my writing desk, just waiting for me to make the time to start doing something with it. Soon, my minions... soon.

Video Games

I played a bit of the original PlanetSide back in the day, so I figured since it has the same name and is free to play, PlanetSide 2 would be worth checking out. There are plenty of multiplayer shooters out there - Team Fortress 2, Blacklight: Retribution, Tribes: Ascend - but this is the first one where I've felt like part of a major military outfit instead of a being out for myself. To succeed in PlanetSide, teamwork is required, not unlike League of Legends. And rather than approaching the enemy with a couple friends, you do so as part of a group that could include 100 or more fellow players. This leads to some chaos, to be sure, but after joining up with an Outfit and getting on Mumble with them, it really provides a gaming experience I hadn't realized I missed. It feels like a worthwhile investment. On the single-player front, I have quite a few video games left to finish before I feel comfortable downloading new ones. I kickstarted Strike Suit Zero and definitely need to play more of that before I weigh in on it, I haven't finished Assassin's Creed: Revelations, and I have an itching desire to play through LA Noire and The Witcher 2, which probably means I should finish the first Witcher as well. At this rate, it might be a while before I finally play FarCry 3 or Dishonored, which is a shame, because I really want to play both of them! Not enough hours in the day, unfortunately.

Board Games

Here we have perhaps the rarest of specimens amongst the games I play. I live with someone who finds board games to be rather boring, and so my boxes containing SmallWorld, Ticket to Ride, Pandemic, Android: Netrunner, and Lords of Waterdeep go largely unopened. We do play Cards Against Humanity and Chez Geek from time to time, but I don't think the others will ever really win her over. But I will not be deterred! There are still board games I want to experience. I am a huge fan of space-themed 4X games, and Eclipse looks poised to scratch that particular itch. After Wil Wheaton's Tabletop showed me how Alhambra works, I find myself intrigued by a game with such a pastoral theme that still has deep strategy and requires forethought and negotiation. I hear wonderful things about Battlestar Galactica, and the theme in and of itself is enough to encourage me to buy. And tying back into Warhammer is Chaos of the Old World, a game that will require me to scrape together three friends, no more and no less, who will probably get annoyed at me if I keep calling dibs on Tzeensch. That's a rundown on what I'll likely be playing in the year ahead. What about you? What's on your docket for gameplay and other amusements?

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man — Blue Ink Alchemy

In the wake of The Avengers, it seemed like Marvel could do no wrong. And, since Iron Man 3 won't be out for another few months, the jury is still out on their record. However, given the critical and commercial success of the studio's flagship project, and the resurgence of the X-Men label under the skillful hand of Bryan Singer (seriously, if you haven't seen First Class yet, FIX THAT.), Sony Pictures suddenly got a lot of attention, as it had held onto Spider-Man after Sam Raimi left the character behind. People were likely crossing their fingers when The Amazing Spider-Man was released, hoping not only that fans of the original trilogy would like it, but also that Marvel wouldn't ask for its favorite wisecracking web-slinger back. Being a reboot, we drop in on science student Peter Parker during his awkward teenage years. His parents, rather than simply being absent, abandoned him when he was young, leaving him in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Peter's only clue is that his father worked for the major pharmaceutical and scientific research conglomerate Oscorp. He discovers that lovely fellow student Gwen Stacy interns there, and her mentor is one Curt Connors, a one-armed biogeneticist who worked closely with Parker Sr. It is while wandering around the Oscorp building that Peter gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider that, in turn, gives Peter super-powers. Peter's background with his father's work helps Connors perfect a formula to regrow his arm that also makes him become the Lizard, Gwen's father is a police captain who despises vigilantes, Uncle Ben is shot by a carjacker Peter needs to track down, and it was at about this point in the film I found myself asking a new question every five minutes, only a few of which got answered. The plot of The Amazing Spider-Man is, to put it simply, a mess. Multiple plotlines are nothing new in narratives, and some tales do benefit from some of them going unresolved within the course of a given story. However, in those cases, one or more plotlines either become superfluous or get completely resolved before the end of the tale. Here, all of the plotlines remain active and ongoing until the very end of the film, and all of them needing to share screen time causes the story to feel disjointed and meandering. It's like all of the writers wrote up scripts separately without ever meeting one another, and director Marc Webb shuffled the pages together into something resembling a cohesive narrative and tossed it at his cast of characters.
Much as I rag on him, this isn't entirely his fault. This leads me nicely into the other major problem here: Peter Parker. Not Andrew Garfield, though, I didn't mind him. What struck me is that Peter feels very little like his own character, but rather an amalgamation of popular teen affectations. Peter is something of a loner even in the comic books, but the lengths to which he goes to convey that feels like overcompensation. Peter demonstrates that he has a brilliant mind, a creative way of thinking, and a determination to do the right thing, yet he chooses to wrap all of that in Abercrombie and hair gel and skater gear. I don't know if this was Garfield's intention, but it feels like Peter is already intentionally wearing a disguise long before he gets bitten. And after he gets bitten, aside from his powers, what changes about him? He continues to act as he does before the bite, and after Uncle Ben's death, he simply has another task ahead of him. His final line demonstrates that he's learned nothing about responsibility, continuing to act however he likes no matter what authorities say or experience has taught him. He fails to grow. He has no real arc. He falls flat as a character, and without him feeling realized and sympathetic, the rest of the movie fails to connect. That's actually a shame, as there are some really talented people involved. Like I said, I didn't mind Andrew Garfield. In full-on snark mode he approaches the modern take on Spider-Man I've seen in the pages of the Avengers. As much as I loved the original pair, Sally Field and Martin Sheen have good chemistry as Aunt May and Uncle Ben, hinting at a genuine, long-standing, and affectionate relationship. Rhys Ifans does some remarkable work as the Lizard, his own face and eyes conveying emotion through the green scaly lens of advanced motion capture. Denis Leary is actually pretty solid as Captain Stacey, and as for his daughter, I could watch Emma Stone reading out of a phone book and be happy. But I'm probably a touch biased. She and Garfield do have decent chemistry of their own, and if Peter had come across as just a little less insufferable and a little more endearing, I probably would have enjoyed this more.
This is definitely not her fault. The Amazing Spider-Man is a study in failed ambition, misfired potential, and squandered goodwill. There are glimmers, here and there, of something better that could have been made with this cast and this atmosphere. It's a dark film, about as dark as you can make an adaptation of one of the oldest heroes born of the House of Ideas, and some interesting ideas come and go during the running time. A few visual moments really stand out, and as I said, the actors do bring their A game. But between setting too many plotlines in motion and borrowing too many ideas from Batman Begins and Twilight, instead of interest and excitement, one is left with a lingering feeling of disappointment. And that's not how you want your plea to hold onto your super-hero franchise to end. Stuff I Liked: Spidey did have some good lines. May & Ben were good. I always like seeing Denis Leary. The realization of the web-shooters was a cool little touch, and the scene in the sewer making use of the web was a nice change from some of the other inane decisions being made. Stuff I Didn't Like: Peter felt a little too much like a hipster douche, and looked a bit too much like Robert Pattinson. Too many plot points go unresolved to actually build much mystery or suspense. Very little of the film actually feels all that tense or exciting. Stuff I Loved: Emma Stone. Also, Stan Lee's best cameo to date. Bottom Line: I have seen worse super-hero movies in my day, and hardcore Spidey fans may enjoy this far more than I did, but the degree to which I am disappointed in The Amazing Spider-Man is... wait for it... amazing.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man — Blue Ink Alchemy

In the wake of The Avengers, it seemed like Marvel could do no wrong. And, since Iron Man 3 won't be out for another few months, the jury is still out on their record. However, given the critical and commercial success of the studio's flagship project, and the resurgence of the X-Men label under the skillful hand of Bryan Singer (seriously, if you haven't seen First Class yet, FIX THAT.), Sony Pictures suddenly got a lot of attention, as it had held onto Spider-Man after Sam Raimi left the character behind. People were likely crossing their fingers when The Amazing Spider-Man was released, hoping not only that fans of the original trilogy would like it, but also that Marvel wouldn't ask for its favorite wisecracking web-slinger back. Being a reboot, we drop in on science student Peter Parker during his awkward teenage years. His parents, rather than simply being absent, abandoned him when he was young, leaving him in the care of his Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Peter's only clue is that his father worked for the major pharmaceutical and scientific research conglomerate Oscorp. He discovers that lovely fellow student Gwen Stacy interns there, and her mentor is one Curt Connors, a one-armed biogeneticist who worked closely with Parker Sr. It is while wandering around the Oscorp building that Peter gets bitten by a genetically enhanced spider that, in turn, gives Peter super-powers. Peter's background with his father's work helps Connors perfect a formula to regrow his arm that also makes him become the Lizard, Gwen's father is a police captain who despises vigilantes, Uncle Ben is shot by a carjacker Peter needs to track down, and it was at about this point in the film I found myself asking a new question every five minutes, only a few of which got answered. The plot of The Amazing Spider-Man is, to put it simply, a mess. Multiple plotlines are nothing new in narratives, and some tales do benefit from some of them going unresolved within the course of a given story. However, in those cases, one or more plotlines either become superfluous or get completely resolved before the end of the tale. Here, all of the plotlines remain active and ongoing until the very end of the film, and all of them needing to share screen time causes the story to feel disjointed and meandering. It's like all of the writers wrote up scripts separately without ever meeting one another, and director Marc Webb shuffled the pages together into something resembling a cohesive narrative and tossed it at his cast of characters.
Much as I rag on him, this isn't entirely his fault. This leads me nicely into the other major problem here: Peter Parker. Not Andrew Garfield, though, I didn't mind him. What struck me is that Peter feels very little like his own character, but rather an amalgamation of popular teen affectations. Peter is something of a loner even in the comic books, but the lengths to which he goes to convey that feels like overcompensation. Peter demonstrates that he has a brilliant mind, a creative way of thinking, and a determination to do the right thing, yet he chooses to wrap all of that in Abercrombie and hair gel and skater gear. I don't know if this was Garfield's intention, but it feels like Peter is already intentionally wearing a disguise long before he gets bitten. And after he gets bitten, aside from his powers, what changes about him? He continues to act as he does before the bite, and after Uncle Ben's death, he simply has another task ahead of him. His final line demonstrates that he's learned nothing about responsibility, continuing to act however he likes no matter what authorities say or experience has taught him. He fails to grow. He has no real arc. He falls flat as a character, and without him feeling realized and sympathetic, the rest of the movie fails to connect. That's actually a shame, as there are some really talented people involved. Like I said, I didn't mind Andrew Garfield. In full-on snark mode he approaches the modern take on Spider-Man I've seen in the pages of the Avengers. As much as I loved the original pair, Sally Field and Martin Sheen have good chemistry as Aunt May and Uncle Ben, hinting at a genuine, long-standing, and affectionate relationship. Rhys Ifans does some remarkable work as the Lizard, his own face and eyes conveying emotion through the green scaly lens of advanced motion capture. Denis Leary is actually pretty solid as Captain Stacey, and as for his daughter, I could watch Emma Stone reading out of a phone book and be happy. But I'm probably a touch biased. She and Garfield do have decent chemistry of their own, and if Peter had come across as just a little less insufferable and a little more endearing, I probably would have enjoyed this more.
This is definitely not her fault. The Amazing Spider-Man is a study in failed ambition, misfired potential, and squandered goodwill. There are glimmers, here and there, of something better that could have been made with this cast and this atmosphere. It's a dark film, about as dark as you can make an adaptation of one of the oldest heroes born of the House of Ideas, and some interesting ideas come and go during the running time. A few visual moments really stand out, and as I said, the actors do bring their A game. But between setting too many plotlines in motion and borrowing too many ideas from Batman Begins and Twilight, instead of interest and excitement, one is left with a lingering feeling of disappointment. And that's not how you want your plea to hold onto your super-hero franchise to end. Stuff I Liked: Spidey did have some good lines. May & Ben were good. I always like seeing Denis Leary. The realization of the web-shooters was a cool little touch, and the scene in the sewer making use of the web was a nice change from some of the other inane decisions being made. Stuff I Didn't Like: Peter felt a little too much like a hipster douche, and looked a bit too much like Robert Pattinson. Too many plot points go unresolved to actually build much mystery or suspense. Very little of the film actually feels all that tense or exciting. Stuff I Loved: Emma Stone. Bottom Line: I have seen worse super-hero movies in my day, and hardcore Spidey fans may enjoy this far more than I did, but the degree to which I am disappointed in The Amazing Spider-Man is... wait for it... amazing.

---

Blue Ink Alchemy