The United Federation of Charles

    Another great collection of stories.

    Oh, you need more?

    Well, most of my early statements about Hack/Slash from my volume one review remain true. The premise is great with poor Cassie Hack attempting to track down and kill as many undead slashers as humanly possible.

    The series premise that sufficiently evil serial killers rise from the dead to become zombie murderers simultaneously is explored further and is set aside frequently enough that it never becomes tiresome. In this volume, Cassie Hack fights Lovecraftian abominations and ordinary serial killers in addition to Slashers. This helps keep everything fresh.

    Despite the fact Hack/Slash is a comic book series with a vested interest in the status quo, we get some character development from both Vlad and Cassie both throughout this volume. Some of these changes, I honestly did not see coming and worked surprisingly well.

    Vlad starts discovering he is, deformities aside, a perfectly average guy with desires and this leads to some hilarious moments where he throws Cassie for a loop. I won't spoil any but poor Cassie's reaction to Vlad's desire to see Bikini Car Wash is simultaneously hilarious and heartwarming. Even so, despite looking like Jason Voorhees, he remains the emotional and moral center of the pair.

    Cassie, for her part, is struggling to deal with the fact she has an abundance of friends. Cassie Hack, having been a loner for virtually her entire life, has difficulty even comprehending it let alone taking advantage. We also get a really surprising revelation Cassie is gay (or at least bisexual) and this is handled in an unusually sensitive manner. Certainly, she doesn't know what to make of it.

    One thing a lot of modern comic writers don't know how to do is create supporting cast members. I am particularly fond of the character Margeret "Georgia" Crump who is the first genuinely nice "normal" person Cassie Hack has probably ever met in her life. The contrast in their character is tremendous and watching their potential romance blossom, collapse, and spark again is a source of great drama.

    This is the volume where the first main series really begins so we have fewer crossovers than before, which is a good thing. The series has a chance to establish its own voice in this volume and some of its ideas are great. Others...not so much. Overall, though, I was very impressed with the work and enjoyed all of the stories within.

    My favorite stories of the volume include Cassie Hack investigating allegations of devil worship in the music industry (which is true, for once), the Tub Club that manages to take an exploitation premise (lesbian vampire cult!) in a surprisingly sensitive direction, and the Suicide Girls crossover with the comic which is so ridiculous it's hilarious. I kid you not, there's also an unofficial Hack/Slash crossover with Archie. That, much like Archie meets the Punisher, was gut-bustingly hilarious.

    There's some stories I didn't much care for in this volume. The long-awaited reunion between Jack Hack and his daughter isn't all that interesting. Sadly, even the inclusion of Doctor Herbert West from the Re-Animator franchise or the return of Cassie Hack's mother doesn't do much to inject life into a fairly dull story. There's also a story where Cassie has to deal with a group of feral kids I wasn't too fond of--I really didn't know what sort of message the story was trying to convey and it just felt grim for the sake of grimness.

    Overall, though, this volume just continues to impress me with the potential of Hack/Slash. It's a comic book with lots of humor and drama potential that it exploits to its fullest. I recommend people pick up the second volume, even if the cover is as unpleasant in its own way as the original one.

9.5

This is the review of the book as opposed to the movie, which is available here.

John Dies At The End is a funny-funny book. It's also a work which could have used a tighter focus, a stronger single narrative, and a few other changes. Despite this, the book is a unique experience (in part due to its flaws).

The story, published by comic author Jason Pargin under the pseudonym David Wong, has a lot of first novel mistakes which help contribute to its autobiographicalfeel. Likewise, it's clear this book was published in a serialized form and the chapters were meant to be read individually like an old Pulp magazine as opposed to all at once. This just makes the book feel like it was written by a man out of his depth rather than a professional writer, which also helps the narrative.

Still, the book sometimes feels like you're reading the writings of a man telling a long meandering story on the fly. No matter how interesting the story, you wish he'd get to the point. Many of the plots go nowhere and characters you think important are dropped unceremoniously.

Fans of the movie will note only about a third of the book was used as the basis. The book has a great deal more in the way of enemies, plot, and characters. Frankly, I think the book should have been divided up a bit more or the movie too but both manage to stand on their own merits. In short, pick it up if you have the time.

The premise for the book remains roughly the same: David Wong and his friend David Cheese have gained drug-derived supernatural abilities to see and comprehend the universe. Unfortunately, the universe is an infinitely scarier and surreal place than either of them could have imagined. There's monsters, demons, Shadowmen, ghosts, and Jamaican drug-dealers whose wares bestow psychic powers.

A major subplot of the book which was excised for the movie is also the issue of identity. What makes us who we are when there's the ability to clone people, turn them into monsters, brainwash them, change their memories, and so on. Interestingly, the book provides a satisfactory answer and I'm inclined to cut it a lot of slack for this very reason alone.

A character who strongly benefits from reading the original book as opposed to the movie is Amy. While regulated to the token love interest in the movie, she's significantly more proactive and interesting in the book. Which is surprising since she doesn't show up until halfway into the story.

Overall, I strongly recommend reading John Dies At The End in addition to watching the movie. It is a funny, satirical, scary, and occasionally even poignant story about two dudes finding themselves in a situation way above their paygrade (or anyone's pay grade for that matter). It's not perfect but it's an excellent work for a first novel.

8/10

This is the best remake of The Thing I've read in years.

    No, seriously.

    The thing is, it's also the best zombie novel I've read since Ex-Heroes. I'd argue it's better than Ex-Heroes but said novel has superheroes, so I'm going to have to give it the edge. At heart, the sequel to John Dies At the End is a tremendously funny book which actually manages to make a lot of dead-horse (as in "beating a") zombie tropes better.

    TBIFOSSDDTI is less entertaining than the original John Dies At the End because it's a good deal more conventional. At no point do the heroes enter an alternate dimension ruled by a man-made supercomputer formed from meat where everyone is naked or defeat a bunch of demons with the power of rock and (testa)mints. It's hard to beat the staggering weirdnss of John Dies At The End.

This book, instead, focuses on the much tamer issues of deconstructing both The Thing and your typical Zombie Apocalypse tropes. The Thing elements deal with the premise of an alien parasite eating into your brain, consuming you, and re-animating you as something else. The best-case scenario is you become a horribly obvious nightmare cannibal thing. The worst-case scenario? You become a nightmare cannibal thing fully capable of appearing as a normal person for an extended period.

The psychological and physiological impact of all this is examined at length, surprisingly enough. It even manages to address what I thought about while watching the Thing, but the movie completely glossed over. Specifically, if The Thing converts everyone into a member of its race without even the people involved being aware of it, is it necessarilly a bad thing? The book really went up in my estimation when it discussed this.

Next, I loved the discussion of zombies and their role in the media. TBIFOSSDDTI points out that a lot of people are preparing for the zombie apocalypse either specifically (as a game) or as part of a general breakdown in society (militia types). It has nothing for scorn for the former when they try to apply these lessons to real life and even more so for the second group due to their lack of compassion.

John and Dave are more or less unchanged from their previous appearance, sticking to the role of goof-ball and comically serious protagonist. Amy, however, has much more to do his time around. I can't say she really reads like a 'realistic woman' but John and Dave aren't exactly realistic men so that's a poor complaint. Instead, I found her entertaining and, by the end of the book, every bit as developed as the leads. I'm fond of several new characters introduced in the book as well with TJ and Doctor Tennet being amongst my favorites.

TBIFOSSDDTI could do with a bit more of the series' trademark wackiness but it manages to tell a surprisingly effective and coherent monster story despite several absolutely absurd moments.

This isn't a spoiler but there is a moment when a villain terrifies his audience by using the visual metaphor of a honey bear. This is joined by, quite possibly, the bloodiest example of Darwin in action where a bunch of people slaughter each other because they're all carrying assault rifles in an enclosed space while thinking they're in a First Person Shooter. Oh, yes, and there's a gun that shoots beards.

Yet, somehow, this is STILL more serious and less whacky than John Dies At the End. It's not a flaw, though, and I'll say that I very much enjoyed the book.

9.5

    I confess, I've never played Tomb Raider until this game. This is due to the fact they just didn't look that interesting to me. I was a big fan of Indiana Jones but I didn't really get my Xbox360 until Dragon Age and Mass Effect were out. It was impossible not to be aware of Lara Croft, however.

    She was an icon for a short-while, located in everything from game magazines to movies. I love the Angelina Jolie movies but they still fill me with a sort of silly guilt. I mean, the developers thought she wasn't well-endowed enough for the part.

    Seriously.

The Hunger Games parallels are unintentional. Probably.

     The shift of Lara Croft from kickass female adventurer to gamer sex toy is a well-documented phenomenon and one of the reasons the series desperately needed a reboot. After one failed reboot already, I was leery of this game but heard good things during the development. So, deciding to pick it up at Redbox, I gave it a whirl.

    It's a great game.

    Tomb Raider takes a somewhat Batman Begins approach to Lara Croft, creating a backstory where she's forced to live the "Green Arrow" approach of being trapped on an island where everything is trying to kill you.

    Actually, with a bit of re-skinning, this might have made a decent Green Arrow game. Lara Croft, in the tradition of Katniss Everdeen, spends much of the game using a bow and arrow to annihilate her enemies. It's, by far, the most iconic and useful weapon in the game.

    The plot of the game is deep and multilayered. It also is one of the few I will say actually benefits from no spoilers. Several times, I thought I had a handle on what was going on only to be pleasantly surprised when the game threw a twist at me. It was only by the midpoint of the game where I realized what was really going on.

    The game borrows heavily from Lost and has a similarity to Far Cry 3 at the beginning. There's a lot of mysterious goings on and the island definitely has a Bermuda Triangle-esque feel despite being nearby Japan. What's going on? Who are these people? Why are they doing it. All the answers come in time and some of them are quite surprising.

    Despite this, the oddities of the island never actually get in the way of the world-building. It's one of the first games to explain why you might find ammunition around an old tomb (because it's being used by the scavengers around the island). Rhianna Prachett is very good at making the island feel like a plausible place despite its wonders.

    Lara Croft in the new game shines as we meet with her before she's killed anyone, explored any tombs, and seemingly right out of her first two years of college. She's the daughter of famous archaeologists but hasn't really made any sort of mark herself, so she's latched herself onto a television crew. The game highlights the amount of punishment, pain, and personal loss she has to go through in order to become the badass character we know from the original games.

    Truth be told, I'm not sure I wanted her to become that sort of person after getting to know the original Lara. Original Lara is a likable, friendly, brainy, fun-loving sort of girl who I might have enjoyed having drinks with at her age.

    Watching her have to sacrifice pieces of her humanity to save her friends is a heartbreaking experience, like Frodo in the Lord of the Rings. By the time she decides to continue her adventures, we're not sure if she's become a triumphant adventurer so much as is suffering a serious case of PTSD.

    The gameplay is not too dissimilar to the Uncharted series with elements taken from many other games. For example, the collection of artifacts is similar to the Darkness 2 where you're able to build a rather impressive haul of archaeological booty despite the people shooting at you. There's a few too many people needing to be killed in the game (some zombies or dinosaurs would have been appreciated) but less than in most games. Really, this game makes a good argument we could return to King's Quest-like games without violence.

    I also applaud the developers for coming up with extremely good puzzle-rooms. As opposed to tomb raiding massive underground cities similar to Moria, you only have little small ones to explore. These allow more attention to detail and give Lara as well as the player an intellectual challenge. I hope future games are like this since I enjoyed all of the ones I explored.

Lara is still a pin-up but it's gone from "ridiculous" to "artfully applied smudges."

     If I had any complaints about the game, it might be the death animations are a little too violent and visceral. It's one thing to see Lara Croft killed by an alligator when she's just a bunch of pixels but photo-realistic Lara getting eaten by wolves is disturbing to say the least. That's not including the number of times she's stabbed, impaled, strangled to death, or thrown off a cliff. Eesh. Still, they weren't enough to lower my score of the game.

     Less of a complaint and more of an observation is also the game has a bit of difficulty developing the characters outside of Lara. They remain fairly stereotypical and with rare exceptions, I'm not particularly all that interested in seeing any more of them. The game isn't shy about killing them off either, which saddens me because a few of them were fairly likable.

   I'm particularly fond of the characters of Alex and Sam, both who play the role of "normal" archaeologists who react to their situation with decidedly less epic heroism than Lara but avoid being useless. I also enjoyed the character of Roth, who is a friend of Lara's father and takes the place of previous series antagonist Von Croy as our heroine's mentor in adventure archaeology.

   Did I have fun with the game? Certainly. Is it a perfect 10? No, I can't say that it is. The game's visceral elements like an abattoir plus its padded story in places took away from an otherwise perfect gaming experience. Still, I had an immense amount of fun and never found it too difficult or frustrating. If there's a sequel with this Lara Croft, the human and vulnerable one, I'll definitely be picking it up.

9.5/10

There's a certain level of unoriginality in video games. Bluntly, the vast majority of games attempt to recapture the experience of some other form of medium as opposed to making something new. This is, of course, not limited to video games as I can't tell you how many movies are a remake of Dirty Harry or Star Wars.

Almost as copied in movies and certainly copied in video games is the movie Aliens. Dead Space gets props for the fact it is not a copy of the sequel with a Space Marine fighting hostile xenomorphs but the original Alien where a bunch of working-class stiffs are opposed by a horrific monster.

Zombies IN SPACE!

     The sense this plot has happened happened before (System Shock 2, Doom, Et cetera), affects my enjoyment of the game. However, I'm not opposed to remakes nor does an old story being retold mean it's not a good story.

    Indeed, I am going to say I find the game both atmospheric and enjoyable. I'm just saying if anyone is coming into the Dead Space franchise expecting them to reinvent the wheel they'll be sorely disappointed. A few twists would have been appreciated developers [Reviewer's note: There is one BIG one and I encourage you not to be spoiled for it].

    The premise of Dead Space is a Lovecraftian plot adapted to science fiction. The crew of the USG Ishimura have encountered something...alien... in space and it's turned out to be bad. You, Isaac Clarke, are just some poor repairman who gets summoned to investigate it.

Really, this game has some breathtaking visuals.

     Your girlfriend is on board, an unnecessary complication, but otherwise it's just a situation well above your paygrade. There's ancient space civilizations, cults, and admirable world-building. What's really good about the game, however, is the setting.

    The USG Ishimura is a triumph of world-building in that it truly feels like a town-sized spaceship from the far-flung future. I've seen some well-designed settings for video games over the years but the USG Ishimura may be the best. It not only has some truly spectacular visuals of both space and its interior but all of this feels plausible within the universe. This feels like it could be a spaceship in the far future.

    It's interesting that the USG Ishimura is so well-designed since the monsters are kind of meh. There's a few which aren't bad but most of them are sort of generic and kind of riff off Silent Hill, IMHO. Part of the problem may be presentation. It's hard to create a horror game when most of the time the monsters just run at you directly, giving you plenty of opportunity to blast them to pieces.

    Despite this, one thing I enjoyed about Dead Space is there's plenty of occasions where the above isn't true. Monsters come up from behind, drop down from above, play dead, and often do incredibly surprising things. The fact I often played the game by adjusting the camera angle so I could look behind me during cut-scenes told me how wary I'd become during the game. It wasn't exactly scary but it was paranoia-inducing and that's almost as good.

    So is the game scary? Eh, not really.

    As mentioned the unoriginality of the plot and lack of mystery play a big role in diminishing the game's frights. You know the ship is filled with monsters before you get there. We never really get to know the victims so we can't really mourn them. The audio logs and text logs rectify this to an extent but I think changing it so the protagonist doesn't arrive until before the disaster might have made the game stronger. At the very least, we could have gotten more personality for them.

     There are a few survivors in the game but Dead Space burns a lot of its horror credibility with them. Every survivor you meet on the ship (with the exception of Isaac's girlfriend--who I shall not spoil anything regarding) conveniently dies within seconds of meeting Isaac, no matter what they're doing. I think this was unnecessary and you could have gotten a lot of horror mileage out of a few insane survivors you can't get to or who are so traumatized they just sit there and mumble to themselves.


There are a couple of characters who come with you but they're sort of one-note.

My favorite bit of Dead Space, however, is Isaac Clarke himself. He's a triumph of visual design and while he's somewhat like a Space Marine in that he's fighting off hordes of monsters, both the game-play and the storyline constantly reinforce Isaac is just a repairman. Whole sections of the game are about Isaac trying to figure out how to get the ship running again. I could have used more cut-scenes with him but I understand this is rectified in the sequel. I really like the character.

Overall, Dead Space isn't a perfect game and it has a lot of room to develop but I recommend people pick it up on Xbox Live or used. It's a good franchise with ample room to grow and it was, obviously, crafted with a lot of love towards the setting. There is a sense of "been there, done that" but I read comic books and how many times has Superman fought Lex Luthor?

9/10

    I love the Metal Gear franchise in all its iterations.

    I can't play them worth a damn, however.

    Metal Gear has one of the most entertaining storylines ever created for a video game. In a game world which starts in the 1960s and moves up to the near-future across numerous continents, the plot of the franchise is labyrinthine and bat**** insane (but in a good way).

    It's beautiful, thought-provoking, and proof video games can be a form of art. They're also damn difficult for people who don't like Stealth gameplay. Which, unfortunately, includes me. So, automatically, I'm going to give Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance a lot of credit for branching out. Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is an action game. You slice up lots of enemies and I do mean lots.

    The game really does an excellent job of making you feel like you're an invincible cyborg assassin--which is a pretty hard feeling to instill. It's not a perfect game, though, its flaws hampering a great premise and fun gameplay. The usual bat**** insane conspiracy theories which are a mainstay of the series have been noticeably mainstreamed (I hesitate to use the word "dumbed down") while the plot is absent the usual twists. Worse, there are parts which flat-out do not make sense with what we know of the setting.

    Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is also rather short, clocking in at about six hours to complete. It has a New Game Plus mode, which allows you to restart the game with all of your upgrades after beating it but this is a poor substitute for what should have been a few more levels. Finally, the game has more than a few plot-holes, a quality which was surprisingly absent from the convoluted series until now.

Yes, a cyborg ninja is fighting a robot wolf. It's that sort of game.

    The premise of the game is that Raiden, the protagonist of Metal Gear Solid 2, has taken up work as a Private Military Contractor for an unnamed African country. Unlike most depictions of mercenaries, he's actually doing the job they're allowed to do in the real world--which is being is a bodyguard. No points to you for guessing his contract is killed and Raiden decides to get revenge.

    Hence the title.

    The plot later becomes focused on the use of child soldiers, cybernetics, mercenaries in conflicts, and American exceptionalism. Unfortunately, the game is too short to delve into these topics too much. There's even a serious plot hole where the villain explains his plan in detail at the end, only to never explain how the previous actions he'd taken benefit it in any way. Indeed, several actions done by the villains make no sense except to get the main character involved.

Is it wrong to chop up hordes of faceless mooks with your super sword? Does anyone care once the bullet time begins?

     The gameplay is completely the opposite of Metal Gear Solid, involving the character of Raiden slicing through literally hundreds of foes with his cybernetic sword. With the use of a Bullet-time mechanic to slow down enemies, you are capable of using your sword to slice foes into literally hundreds of pieces.

    There's an option to stealth through the game but it is actively discouraged by sections of the game getting "blocked off" until you have killed all of the various enemies who have spotted you. Really, you're much likely to have more fun by killing all of your foes with your high-tech sword. At least a couple of commentators have mentioned this game is a spiritual successor to the old arcade game Strider (where you play a cyborg ninja with his robot dog) and I can see their point.

    In a nod towards the franchise'swell-known pacifism, the game eventually takes a rather dark turn which highlights that Raiden's rather cavalier attitude towards killing. I won't spoil this section but it's exceptionally powerful and the only moment I really felt like this game was a worthy successor to its predecessors. That doesn't mean it's not fun, however, just a tad underwhelming.

The game's tagline is lightning bolt action. It delivers, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, it gets a bit repetitive in places.

      I like Raiden's new look, attitude, and character development. The confident, dangerous, and somewhat insane character of this game bears little resemblance to the awkward newcomer of Metal Gear Solid 2 yet perfectly fits with what we know of him. I think the absence of Raiden's wife Rosemary, always a somewhat questionable addition to his story, helped matters somewhat. Rosemary needs serious retooling if she's going to be an entertaining love interest.

   Raiden's supporting cast is entertaining in this volume, consisting of the mercenary company which employs him and a couple of surprising additions. I suspect some people are going to have severe problems with George, the Guyana war orphan, since his accent is bound to remind some people of Jar Jar Binks. I, on the other hand, found the kid to be quite entertaining and surprisingly courageous. None of the characters have story arcs as memorable as Naomi Campbell or Major Zero, however, which means the codec conversations aren't as entertaining or portentous.

     I like Raiden's new look, attitude, and character development. The confident, dangerous, and somewhat insane character of this game bears little resemblance to the awkward newcomer of Metal Gear Solid 2 yet perfectly fits with what we know of him. I think the loss of Rosemary, always a somewhat questionable addition to his story, helped matters somewhat. Raiden's wife needs some serious retooling if she's going to be entertaining.

Yes, he's jumping from missile to missile to attack a giant robot. Why have you not bought this game!? Ahem, sorry.

     I'm of mixed feelings towards Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance's villains. All of them are quite good with Mistral, Jetstream, Sundowner, and Monsoon being perfectly serviceable bosses. Jetstream Sam, in particular, is a character I'd love to see more of. I also felt that the final Boss was hilariously over-the-top but in a good way. Unfortunately, none of them relate back to the other games inthe franchise and I'm not sure we'll see them built on like we did with the Foxhound unit in Metal Gear Solid. As a result, they sort of feel a bit insubstantial.

     The game's soundtrack also bears special note, being composed of almost pure heavy metal. While not all of the tunes are great to listen to when you're not in battle, they're excellent accompaniment to the combat on screen and rarely distracting. I was particularly fond of "Has to Be With This Way" which plays during the final boss fight. So kudos to the developers for coming up with some excellent music, I usually don't compliment the soundtracks during reviews.

     Is the game fun? As mentioned above, yes, it is. Unfortunately, the game feels almost half-done. It's not only short but the plot feels like it had additional levels and content which were dropped so the work could be released early. It lacks many of the flourishes which made Metal Gear Solid and its sequels great. There's still plenty of great stuff here and it's definitely worth the purchase cost, especially if you trade it in for store credit at Gamestop thereafter, but there's not much here to keep me occupied indefinitely.

8/10

    Metal Gear Rising is a much more thoroughly straight-forward in its satire than its sister title Metal Gear Solid. Despite this, its themes are no interesting. After the somewhat overwrought dissection of the War Economy and Media Control in Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance returns to a more grounded reality. Well, a more grounded realiy with cyborg ninjas and hundred-foot-tall mechanoids.

    The heart of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is the question of violence and its necessity. What level of violence is need to solve the world's problems, if any? It's an old question based around a fundamental problem with no solution. How does one solve the issue of violence without violence? If one side is willing to use violence and the other side isn't, does that mean the side which is willing will win automatically? History shows us examples from both sides.

    The Metal Gear series is decidedly anti-war but the games long struggled with the fact you were encouraged not to kill opponents while, nevertheless, still being a soldier. Revengeance's protagonist is a character who fully embraces his role as a killer. Throughout the game, he gives various justifications for his violence ranging from "they chose this" to "I am a killer, so this is what I do."

    At the start of the game, he discusses the concept of deterrence and how a sheathed sword can prevent others from being drawn. I.e. the threat of violence is more important than the actual use of it. Likewise, he talks about the idea of killing one man to save many. The game dissects this question from multiple angles, pointing it out as both hypocrisy which favors the morality of killers and also as a truth of reality.

    Raiden saves many lives by killing villains but he's also confronted by the fact that the people he kills are usually employees, not evil themselves. Those who do evil deeds are unlikely to be intimidated by threats of violence against their minions. In short, deterrence is difficult unless you're willing to strike at those who make the decisions.

    Throughout the game, we have Raiden serving as the so-called "sword of justice." The gameplay encourages us to view combat as a ballet of swordplay, combos, and finishing moves. In contrast to Metal Gear Solid, which is filled with a largely melancholy instrumental score, the game is filled with Devil May Cry heavy metal which encourages you to enjoy the violence going on. As Raiden is cursed with "Jack the Ripper", his alter-ego who loves killing, so do we experience his blood-lust in a positive manner.

Raiden is not your ordinary hero in many respects.

     Yet, the strongest scene in the game is undoubtedly when Raiden is forced to confront a set of cybernetic policemen who have been brainwashed into being unable to retreat. Raiden is forced to kill them despite having their electronically recorded thoughts projected into his brain. He and we are forced to hear how terrified they are of fighting Raiden and how they have no idea what's going on.

    It's a brutal moment that calls into question the philosophy of war where one man is evil but to stop him you may have to kill ten thousand good ones. What about if said evil man was going to kill ten thousand and one or a million? The game gives no easy answers. Instead, it invites you to think about the serious consequences of going to war.

    The game's harshest criticism, in-fact, is of individuals who go to war for stupid or ill-considered reasons. America receives a rather brutal slamming in the game not for being the world's sole remaining superpower but having a military policy based on public opinion. The idea of going to war to raise public morale and industry is ruthlessly slammed. The game attributes this to the "toxic meme" of American exceptionalism.

    During one scene, Raiden literally pauses in the middle of a battlefield to surf the internet. He discovers that America is going to go to war with Pakistan because a group of mercenaries trying to assassinate the President have been killed (by Raiden). The nuances of the situation are completely lost in favor of the fact Americans have been killed on Pakistan soil.

    Unexpectedly, the villain of the piece, Senator Armstrong is repulsed by the typical attitudes of his fellow Americans. He loathes the greed, materialism, self-satisfaction, and lack of ideals amongst stereotypical US citizens. In a time when people have no religion or philosophy (a gross overstatement but reflecting feelings in some circles), being born in a specific place is no substitute for ideology. Unfortunately, his substitute is to try and replace it with an anarchy he believes will foster an environment of the strong.

    I think Kojima is being unfair to Americans in this respect. Americans are one of the most religious people on Earth and many others have secular ideologies. There is a strong undercurrent of materialism in the country but it isl, by no means, the defining force behind our politics. Instead of accurately trying to deal with the issue of American exceptionalism, the game just ascribe Social Darwinist theory to its villains. They are all killers and believe the strong should rule the weak.

    Social Darwinism is a theory which has mostly been discredited (with good reason). However, Metal Gear Rising examines an element of it which relates to the eternal conflict between militancy and pacifism. The majority of Metal Gear Rising villains espouse a doctrine of "might makes right." However, repeatedly, Raiden is confronted with the fact that high ideals mean nothing against his opponents until he's strong enough to oppose them. In short, might doesn't necessarily make right but the right NEED might to enforce it. In short, violence is a tool that those who seek peace need as much as those who profit from war. I appreciated this point.

    The game also addresses, though not at length, the use of mercenaries and the problem of vagrant children. While both are issues in the real world, the game argues the real struggle is against human apathy towards them. Both continue to be a problem because people don't care enough to involve themselves. I'm not sure this is true. In my opinion, the larger social-political-economic issues are a great deal more complex than the game indicates but it, at least, made the effort to say the issue deserved more attention than it gave it.

    The main villains of Metal Gear: Revengeance are a PMC which has become so large and prevalent, it has started using advertising to brand itself as a family-friendly brand every American knows. This, despite the fact the PMC has nothing to offer most Americans. It has become normalized to the point it's nothing more than another company. After all, why not? America is a democracy and appoints the leaders which employ private military contractors. I feel highlighting this issue drew attention to the wrong questions to be asked about any company which profits from war.

    Yet, unlike previous games where the PMCs are demonized unilaterally, the game also shows Raiden's own military outfit as fairly moral. Raiden points out that most Private Military Contractors are just security providers and treating them all as mercenaries or war profiteers is unfair. It's a nice bit of reality in a game series which has, until now, treated all PMCs as instruments of evil.

    Its moral ambiguity on the subject is thrown away, however, with the PMCs use of child-soldiers. Thankfully, this is a subject we can all agree is universally bad. However, the game doesn't just stop at child soldiers but talks about poverty in general. The world is filled with abandoned or vagrant children who are either easy prey for criminals or unable to receive the kind of education which would pull them out of their circumstances. I consider education, alone, not enough but that's a conversation for another time.

    Metal Gear: Rising talks at length about how the problems with homeless children are manifold but have been ignored because it is too difficult a subject for most to tackle. The game forces the exploitation and suffering of the defenseless into your face and comes up with an imperfect but workable solution for the individuals involved. Raiden can't save the world but he can possibly save a small number of its citizens.

    In conclusion, the game is extremely effective at conveying its ideas of violence. Overall, I think the game comes down on the idea that violence is both necessary but also something not to be trivialized. As a student of the martial arts, however briefly, the first thing I learned was fighting was meant to be a last resort. The game taking the simple philosophy that violence begets violence but one should be prepared for it is a good one, especially when coupled with the knowledge it's something to be avoided when possible.

    More games should have this attitude.

Inspired by this article by Peter Clines: I win, I always win.

*Warning - this essay will contain spoilers for the Lord of the Rings, The Dragonlance Series, The Drizzt series, Romeo and Juliet [hint: they die], the Domination, series, and The Great Gatsby*

    Endings.

    They happen to every story, at least if you finish them. However, what is the best way to end a story? This is an interesting conundrum because I am not a great believer that happy endings are always the best way to end a story. Indeed, in one of my novels (titled: Cthulhuapocalypse in case you wanted to know) resolving the end has proven to be on of my greatest challenges in getting the work done.

    The original ending was meant to be a deliberate challenge to stereotypical Lovecraftian stories with as happy an ending as can be imagined. That didn't really sit well with me. So, I rewrote it to be darker and more depressing yet that didn't sit well with the novel. Trying to figure out the titular balance is more of a struggle than people might think.

    In Greek theater, the trope of Deus Ex Machina came from when the playwrights literally had the gods sort out everything in the end. This isn't always a bad thing. In the Lord of the Rings, a bunch of Eagles fly from pretty much nowhere to rescue not only our protagonists but all of the supporting characters who would otherwise be buried under a bunch of volcanic ash. This rescues the ending from being wholly depressing with everyone involved in the story dying horribly.

    However, the Lord of the Rings' ending works, I suspect because it is not a wholly happy one. Frodo is left traumatized to the point of needing to leave Middle Earth entirely. That small moment of trauma in an otherwise blissful sea of crownings, weddings, and triumph makes the story infinitely better in my opinion. Even The Hobbit, a largely humorous story, has a number of deaths in the end which highlight the cost of war.

    Obviously, it depends on what sort of story you're telling. Detective stories tend to end just fine with the murderer's caught because the worst of their crimes have already happened. A love story doesn't exactly need tragedy as countless romantic comedies have proven you don't need extra dramatic weight to the story.

    Yet, sometimes the Downer Ending is more meaningful in the end. The Great Gatsby is a love story, for example, only in the titular character's mind. Everything turns to crap in the end and he dies unloved chasing after a dream which doesn't matter because the person he loves is entirely unworthy of it. Romeo and Juliet is entirely memorable over Shakespeare's other romances because of what an epic disaster it all turns into.

    So where does an author want to make the ending slightly more bittersweet? It's a difficult question but I think it's a question of whether or not you want the story to have weight. Countless forgettable fantasy fiction from the 1970s and 1980s effectively consisted of "and everyone lived with no tragedy whatsoever, except that one guy who died but got brought back to life."

    Even the Dragonlance trilogy, father of all mass-marketed D&D paperbacks, ended its story in a rather bleak manner. One of the company dies ignominiously of a heart attack, another fully gives himself to evil, the ex-girlfriend of the hero refuses redemption, and not everything is sunshine happy day. Yes, the world is saved but it came at cost. This is in contrast to R.A. Salvatore's the Legend of Drizzt series where after twenty or so books, the only major death was undone by author's fiat, effectively removing the only meaningful sacrifice in the series.

    I will challenge, however, authors that darker and bleaker doesn't mean better. SM Stirling, author of the Domination series, has made a career of writing the most repulsive Nazi-esque villains imaginable opposed by plucky heroes only to have the bad guys win. Every.single.time. This subversion has repulsed as many fans as it's attracted. Let's face it, a lot of people come to series wanting to see evil punished and good triumphant--monsters are rarely characters you enjoy see triumphing. The exception is horror and rarely does this work outside of short stories or as a stinger to the ending.

    What do I prefer? I think I generally prefer endings which are hard fought. My favorite urban fantasy series is the generally uplifting Dresden Files. The series is sprinkled with a number of unhappy or bittersweet endings despite the fact its primarily an action-comedy story. The deaths of characters we love adds to the drama and makes the struggles meaningful. While I doubt I would enjoy a story where Harry Dresden dies locked in a cellar forgotten by everyone, the tragedies he endures give the story dramatic strength.

    In short, the question of what sort of ending you want to have is something you should consider as to how it makes the audience feel as well as how you want the characters to feel themselves. Sometimes, a character's story ending comes suddenly and unexpectedly in the middle of the story. These facts should be considered when you're doing a write-up of your tale. Many a good character has been created to die and this isn't a bad thing.

    Just my .02.

*Warning - Spoilers for the book*

    Am I alone in thinking this movie was terrible?

    I didn't get to see this in theaters because I was hoping to see it with my wife and we both fell sick when the other was ready. However, on DVD, this was just disappointing on every conceivable level. The production values are fine, the storytelling is okay, but the changes from the book aren't only unnecessary but tone-shifting. The finished product is diminished as a result of them. As a movie, The Hobbit is okay but as an adaptation it's awful. Part of the issue is the removal of the heart of the story. Peter Jackson seems to forget it's a parody.

    Definition of PARODY
    1: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule

    Contrary to what many people realize, fantasy existed before J.R.R. Tolkien. Certainly, he codified a lot of what we take for granted in the genre but that doesn't mean it wasn't possible for him to poke fun at ideas inherent in epic fiction. The Hobbit is the story of a middle-aged English busybody getting caught up in an adventure well beyond his understanding.

    That, at least, is maintained. However, the movie ejects the next most important part of the plot: no one else is very good at it either. The character of Thorin Oakenshield is a buffoon who dreams of being a great king. The dwarves are coalminers on a treasure hunt. Gandalf, alone, is the kind of character who exists truly in the epic world of heroes they're traveling through.

The parts at Bilbo's house were about note-perfect, I should say.

     Ultimately, the book is a love-letter to rural English life. Bilbo Baggins goes on an adventure, is the better man for it, and is part of great things but virtually every heroic trope possible is subverted. I hesitate to spoil it for those two or three people who haven't read the book but Bilbo and the Dwarves accomplish nothing! They don't kill Smaug! All they do is rill it up and get a bunch of Laketown people killed! The entire Battle of Five Armies is a satire of how Europe is willing to get a bunch of innocent people killed over naked gain! Only coincidence (and Bilbo) saves it from being a meaningless bloodbath.

    *sighs*

    The 2012 movie tries desperately to be as heroic and uplifting as The Lord of the Rings. Thorin Oakenshield is a transparent stand-in for Aragorn, the specter of Sauron hangs over everything, and the naked greed of the dwarves is replaced with a more noble need for a homeland. By attempting to make the story more noble, it diminishes the tale because it's all about a bunch of people acting like they're on a noble quest when it's really not. It's a treasure hunt and nothing more, which is part of the fun.

Any parts with this guy? Not so much.

    Anyway, time to get on with the actual movie review part of the story. We all know the story: Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf, dwarves, Smaug, and Gollum. This is only the first third of the story, however, getting up to the part where they kill the Great Goblin. To fill up the time, we have a posthumous character in Azog the White Orc. He pursues Thorin tirelessly, adding tension to the story which doesn't really build to anything because Azog has no motivations other than, "Kill dwarves." The orc villains in the Lord of the Rings films were placeholders for Saruman and Sauron, respectively, while Azog's one-dimensionality is solely for itself.

    The acting in the movie is well done, the special effects were fine, and the inclusion of Sylvester McCoy (my favorite Doctor) was a welcome treat. It's nice to see Christopher Lee's Saruman before he became corrupted by the Palantir. In the books he's already turned to evil by this time but I was able to make a mental divorce here I wasn't able to in other places. Gollum, of course, was wonderful and Andy Serkiss was robbed at the Oscars but no surprise there.

    As a successor to The Lord of the Rings, the movie feels off with its uneven pacing between big dramatic moments and slapstick comedy. The movie likewise drags in a few places. Despite this, it wasn't a bad film. I just think it was a terrible The Hobbit. The production values are excellent in the movie and what parts taken from Tolkien and allowed to play out on screen are wonderful. It's just that they don't flow well together at all.

    Your mileage may vary.

4/10

Bioshock: Infinite is a fine game. It's just not a great game. I completed it, which is an accomplishment in and of itself. I had fun playing it throughout, which is rare enough to earn its own praise. But is it great? I dunno. I have a lot of problems with it. Even the ending, which has received nearly universal acclaim, is deeply troubling to me on several levels.

The premise of Bioshock: Infinite is that Booker Dewitt, disgraced Pinkerton Detective, is assigned to retrieve a girl from the flying city of Columbia. His employers, a mysterious pair of twins with an odd manner of speaking, claim that he will be able to wipe away his ample gambling debts should he successfully do this. Stuff happens. You spend the rest of the game traveling with Elizabeth in hopes of escaping with her to Paris (where she wants to go) or New York (where Booker wants to).

Elizabeth is one of my favorite characters in video games. So it has that going for it.

     Now, honestly, the plot is a lot more complex than this description. There's quantum mechanics, alternate realities, references to Rosencratz and Guildenstern Are Dead, and expansive critique of American exceptionalism. There's also something of a critique of populist/revolutionary rhetoric vs. oppressive systems. All of this is window dressing. Very elaborate, upscale, window dressing. With curtains.

    The real heart of Bioshock: Infinite is the relationship between Booker Dewitt, Elizabeth, and the city's deranged founder Comstock. It is a personal multi-faceted story with multiple twists, turns, and a surprise finale I actually enjoyed for a change. Admittedly, though, I figured it out halfway through but it was nice to have my suspicions confirmed.

    The game plays more or less identical to Bioshock and Bioshock 2. You have plasmids (called Vigors), guns, and a melee weapon. There are a variety of enemies in the game ranging from police officers to weird fire-spewing psychopaths. The enemy variety is much better in Bioshock: Infinite than in its predecessors but still feels a bit repetitive after a certain point.

The action is fun and has a few twists as compared to Bioshock 1 and 2.

    My biggest problem with the game, ironically, is that the critiques it makes of everything from quantum physics to classicism are fundamentally shallow. The game observes that turn-of-the-20th century America was racist, that revolutions against oppressive governments are often violent, and the multiple worlds theory makes free will essentially nonexistent (i.e. if you do everything you possibly could in any given situation it doesn't matter what you do).

     In short, the game doesn't really offer any answers but simply presents a number of high concept ideas. I would have much preferred a game which dissects one of the many ideas it presents thoroughly versus simply showing a dozen intriguing ideas. If the game doesn't have any real opinion other than "racism and classicism is bad" it's not really making full use of the writer's ability.

   Just my .02.

     Still, I can't complain too hard. Booker Dewitt is one of the best antiheroes in gaming since Max Payne while Elizabeth is an excellent deconstruction of the Disney Princess archetype. They play off each other exceptionally well and the game really hits his stride when the two meet after Act I. Comstock, unfortunately, doesn't really work as a villain. He's about as in-depth as the Red Skull and only has a few moments to really shine, unlike Andrew Ryan (who was a many shaded monster).

     I was disappointed with the character of Daisy Fitzroy as well. As one of the few black female characters of note in video games (outside of Half-Life), Daisy's role is a Straw Political who does not contribute anything to the plot other than to serve as a temporary threat to lengthen the game. Given the game's use of racism and American exceptionalism, I would have preferred a larger role for her.

     Bioshock: Infinite is a beautiful game, the city of Columbia being one of the best-designed locations I've had the privilege of gaming. It's gorgeous to look at with wonderful attention to every detail. I mean, what can you say about a game which has a steampipe version of "Girls Just Want To Have Fun"? I'd be happy to do another game in the setting, even if it didn't work out too well in Bioshock 2. Gameplay is so-so, adequate but not serviceable. The plot is wonderfully engaging but skin-deep, when you try and think about it too hard it falls apart.

     My recommendation? An absolute rental but I wouldn't say much for its replay value.

9/10

Warning: This review contains spoilers for Batman: Arkham City's main plot.

It's been a long time since I've played Batman: Arkham City. I traded in the game almost as soon as I finished it despite how much fun I had playing it. However, thanks to the reduced cost of video games over time and Gamestop Points, I've been able to reacquire a copy. My first act upon doing so was to play Harley's Revenge, a DLC wrapping up some of the plot-lines leftover from the main game.

The premise of Harley's Revenge is Harley Quinn, perpetually abused sidekick/girlfriend of the Joker, has kidnapped a bunch of police officers. Worse, somehow, she's managed to capture Batman. This is already a somewhat suspicious premise since Harley Quinn is a comedic villain, more pathetic tag-along than evil genius.

Harley's shrine to the Joker is double-plus creepy. I like it.

    Next, the game starts us off as Robin only to skip back to Batman later. I think this is something of a cheat as I would have enjoyed playing Robin the entire time or Batman but switching between the two diminishes both character's. I imagine most people thought a Robin-centric DLC wouldn't sell as well, which is true, but he's quite entertaining for the short time you get to play him.

    So how does it play? Not badly, but not fun for me either.

    Part of the issue is my own damn fault. Harley's Revenge is set after the main portion of the game and the difficulty is ramped up to an extreme level. There's snipers, dozens of assault rifle-wielding goons, and rooms filled with dozens of melee-weapon armed minions. Worse, there's no Easy difficulty for those of us who are out of practice. Batman has never died this often before in my games and Harley's squeaky taunts during the 'game over' sequence only made it worse. It was a slog from beginning to end, consisting of me repeating save points until I win.

    My favorite part of the game is the opportunity to play Robin. I'm not sure if this is Dick Grayson or Tim Drake, though I'm inclined to think it's the latter, but the character is a lot tougher and more likable than most versions. He's very much how I envision Nightwing acting, a great deal lighter than Batman but still tough as nails. I had a lot of fun using Robin's quarterstaff, too. My only regret is he plays a little too much like Batman. I would have preferred a Robin capable of going up in level and with his own set of toys. That's a bit beyond the bounds of a DLC, though, especially one where he's not the only star.

    As mentioned, Harley Quinn isn't quite capable of pulling off Master Villain by herself. Her going crazy(er) after the events of Arkham City and trying to kill Batman is appropriate for her character but I'm not sure kidnapping cops fits her M.O. I would have preferred an archvillain with a bit more menace to them like Hush or the Scarecrow. One thing I did appreciate was their handling of the "twist" in this game. Basically, a rather stupid plot was set-up in Arkham City and they manage to nicely retcon that out in Harley's Revenge. I'm glad of it.

     Which plot twist? The abysmally stupid pregnancy plotline. So, Harley Quinn may be pregnant with the Joker's baby. So what. It's not likely that the child will grow up to be the Joker 2.0 and even if it does, the kid isn't going to be a problem until it's the Batman Beyond era. Retconning it so Harley isn't actually pregnant is a good thing, IMHO.

Being Robin is surprisingly kick-ass.

Batman, himself, is an interesting case in this DLC as we see him acting somewhat out of character. Having failed to save the Joker and Talia al Ghul in the main game's narrative, Batman is traumatized. I don't mind seeing Batman turn dark(er) and gritty(er) but the fact none of this seems to have lead anywhere in future DLC is a trifle disappointing. I would have appreciated getting Bruce Wayne's thoughts on the events in the game.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed Batman: Arkham City: Harley's Revenge but I think the difficulty is way too high. Likewise, the game would have been more entertaining if it was an All-Robin adventure or had a more menacing villain. Despite this, anything Batman: Arkham City related is fun and better than 90% of most other games.

8/10

    I just got back from a midnight showing of Iron Man 3 and I thought I'd give my review while the reviewing is good. Is it good? Yes. Is it great? Not really. I have no complaints about it like the Dark Knight Rises but the movie was a trifle...disappointing? Yeah, that's probably the best word for it. Expectations were absurdly high for the movie after the Avengers but the film doesn't quite follow it up.

    Still, I heartily recommend it.

    The premise of Iron Man 3 is Tony is suffering PTSD from his near-death experience fighting aliens in New York. The world is much the same after the events of Avengers and I think that's the first really big misstep in the film. After the existence of aliens has been discovered, this movie attempts to dial it back. I can't be too harsh on it because that's what Marvel comics does, make the absurdly fantastical mundane so it always resembles our world. Still, it's interesting the biggest thing Tony Stark is worried about after the Avengers is his own human frailty.

The set-up to one of the funnier scenes in the movie.

    Robert Downey Junior does a wonderful job in simultaneously showing Tony Stark as a mess while also reminding us of his brilliance. Tony Stark, despite how much improvement he makes, never quite gets his act together and that's what makes the movies so great. You don't even need to do a movie about Tony's alcoholism because RDJ realizes his frailty in every scene.

    Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper has a somewhat reduced role in this despite, or perhaps because, of being Tony's girlfriend. She doesn't get much to work with other than fretting over Tony and a few scenes where she's imperiled. Despite this, I really liked the latter part of the movie where she has a moment to shine. I'd actually love to see her become Rescue like she does in the comics or maybe go "out there" and make her Ms. Marvel.

    Don Cheadle's James Rhodes is about where I put him last film, which is he's an excellent character in a supporting role but never really shines. You couldn't really base a movie around War Machine (or "Iron Patriot" as he is in this film) but he works well whenever playing off Tony. Sadly, I think some of the scenes were deliberately designed to make his character look foolish and I felt bad about that.

    Ben Kingsley's Mandarin is a tremendous display of acting talent both in the scenes where he's meant to embody anti-American sentiment given form followed by some (surprisingly) hilarious comic scenes. I hope Ben Kingsley gets more work in A-list movies after this. He deserves to be in everything I see from now on, he's that entertaining.

The Mandarin is so over-the-top it hurts...and it works!

    I thought Guy Pearce, as founder of comic staple Advanced Idea Mechanics, was going to be a retread of Justin Hammer or Obadiah Stane. Thankfully, he's very much his own character and very much in the spirit of a comic book character (not the one he's named after).

    Rebecca Hall's Maya Hansen was, for me, the standout performance of the piece. She managed to create a multi-layered and complex character who straddles the line between good and evil. Maya Hansen created Extremis in the comics with full-awareness of its terrorist potential. Here, you are left wondering how much she knows right until the movie reveals where her loyalties really lay.

    The movie makes use of the Extremis plot from the comic arts for the majority of its tale plus building on the "Ten Rings" organization established in the first movie. Despite the trailers depicting it as "darker and edgier" it's actually about as light-hearted as the Avengers.There's even a non-annoying little kid for Tony to bond with.

    Iron Man 3 excels on the back of its characterization. Robert Downey Junior has brought Tony Stark to the screen four times and he's owned the role every single time. Gwyneth Paltrow is an excellent actress who makes the best use of a limited role. The villains are also delightful in their evil yet "realistic" enough to be believable.

    If there's any area which it falls down is the movie is retreading a lot of the same ground. Tony's PTSD resembles his trauma in the previous two movies. Likewise, I feel a trifle saddened one of the twists, which was funny but diminished what was an excellent set-up. Finally, the movie tried to 'wrap up' all of the Iron Man movie plotlines in a bow without really 'earning' it emotionally.

9.5/10

Warning: This review will contain spoilers for Iron Man 3. Amazing, huh?

    Iron Man 3 was a fun-fun movie but I'm not sure I enjoyed it as much as Iron Man or Iron Man 2. Worse than Iron Man 2? You fiend, you're saying it's worse than an asteroid hitting Earth! No, I'm not. I liked Iron Man 2 even if it didn't really say anything new about Tony or his character. Which, frankly, this movie didn't.

    This movie exists to get Tony Stark to fight a ****load of cyborgs. It also exists to critique the Yellow Peril nature of the Mandarin as well as the War on Terror. Just as Iron Man 2 had two or three clever things (Justin Hammer is a poseur, the Black Widow's introduction, Howard Stark as Walt Disney) do did Iron Man 3.

    In Iron Man 3, these clever things were the Mandarin fake-out and getting Tony to realize his unhealthy dependence on the armor. In fact, two isn't all that clever since Tony said he was awesome without the armor in the Avengers.

    What did I think of the Mandarin fake-out? That the world's most powerful super-terrorist was a drugged-out British actor in service to the Military Industrial Complex's nastiest maniac? I loved it, personally, and felt it coming from the moment of the Mandarin's first broadcast. In a series which had avoided comic book theatricality, the Mandarin chewed the scenery from beginning til end.

    I loved the social critique behind the Mandarin. That America's media raised Osama Bin Ladin from a criminal like Timothy McVeigh to a Cobra Commander figure conducting a shadow war against America. Al-Qaeda was a real threat to the world but it's probably safe to say that a lot of the actions ostensibly taken to dismantle the organization had nothing to do with it or Bin Ladin.

    Aldrich Killian is also intriguing to me as a comics fan because he's the Caucasian Mandarin. When you strip away the Fu Manchu elements, the Mandarin's story was always about a poor man with great potential who raised himself to wealth through terrorism and technology. There's a neat little bit of foreshadowing that Aldrich wears an abnormally large number of rings for a man.

I would have preferred all of the armors against something worth fighting rather than expendable mooks.

    I wasn't a big fan of Extremis in the movies, despite liking it in the comics. I think nanotechnology capable of beating the crap out of Tony is a somewhat large leap for the setting. Given a large part of the movie resolves around Iron Man fighting the multitude of nanotech cyborgs around him, it got a little annoying. I don't care how much you enhance flesh, pure steel should be harder.

    I also felt the AIM was rather wasted here. We already have the Ten Rings organization from the first movie, so transforming Advanced Idea Mechanics into the corporate front of terrorist sponsors wasn't bad but it left me feeling nonplussed. I would have preferred AIM to show up as the public face of the new Hydra.

    Did I like the inclusion of the dozens of Iron Man suits from the comics? As a fan of the 90s Iron Man cartoon, I'll say that it was nice to see the movie make a nod toward them. However, as awesome as it was to see them all together, I think a lot of the coolness factor was deflated by them blowing up by the dozens facing the Extremis soldiers.

    Really, what bothered me most about this movie was the fact they felt the need to sweep all of Iron Man's legacy under the rug without it being true to the characters. Iron Man is needed more than ever and Pepper is more in danger without him than with. Yet, Tony is retiring as Iron Man because he wants to protect her. That just didn't make sense to me and felt forced.

    I wasn't too fond of the standard "damsel in distress" plot into the movie either. Pepper Potts managed to avoid that for two movies, being intelligent and proactive without being a superhero. Having her kidnapped by Aldrich Killian for what is implied to be sexual reasons leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

    Despite this, Iron Man 3 has a lot going for it. It's a continuation of Tony's character arc, which is still relevant despite him "resolving" it several times. Likewise, as a critique on the War on Terror, it had quite a few interesting things to say. My score remains unchanged and I think people should definitely see this movie. Could it have been better, though? I believe it could have been.

9.5/10

    A wholly unnecessary graphic novel sequel to The Prisoner's final episode.

    Also, one which doesn't "get" the finale and actively attempts to retcon it out of existence. It exists solely for telling a coherent ending to an incoherent series and I find that notion vaguely offensive. You might wonder why I'm doing a review for a twenty-year old graphic novel. Well, the reason is because it's new to me and I (semi)enjoyed reading it. The Prisoner is one of the seminal works in television history and, to me, the best work about spies in fiction ever done. It's completely ridiculous but deconstructs the inherent authoritarianism in the genre.

    Patrick Mcgoohan was aware that there's something of a real life danger to spies being treated as superheroes. That they exist outside of the law, can break any laws, and somehow the world becomes better because of this. Patrick believed that people, especially those in the government, attempted to control the masses with a variety of flim-flam techniques. Every government system, even democracy (especially democracy), functioned on getting people to look past their own interests to support their superiors mindlessly.

Who is Number One? You are, Number 6#.

    The Prisoner ended with Fallout, a surreal episode demonstrating the central theme of the series through metaphor. Faith, music, human interaction, and love were all keys to expressing our humanity. Also, the greatest enemy of freedom was not some all-powerful government creature but ourselves. We would not be enslaved by those in power if we chose not to be. The Prisoner's refusal to be enslaved results in him becoming truly free.

    This graphic novel has nothing to do with any of that. The novel goes out of its way to try and explain away the surreal ending as the result of the conspiracy using hallucinogens. It also retcons the ending where Number Six escaped to one where he goes mad and stays at the Village when everyone else didn't. Furthermore, it sends his illegitimate daughter (he was only engaged in the series) back to the island to recover him. There's also a nonsensical plot regarding nuclear weapons hidden at the village.

    The graphic novel insists on an ending to The Prisoner which makes coherent sense, more in the style of the original episodes, than the latter. The thing is, the novel isn't all that more coherent than anything else in the novel. It explains the British government was behind the Village, more or less, and gives answers to questions which really didn't need them. None of the mysteries answered make things more entertaining--only answered.

    The art in the book is lovely with a very good color scheme as well as designs. The colors evoke emotion and the artist has successfully captured both Patrick Mcgoohan and Leo McKern's likenesses. It's just a pity the book doesn't really have anything interesting to say or add to the mythos. I don't recommend fans of The Prisoner check it out. The series stands alone.

4/10

    I've mentioned that Spec Ops: The Line is one of the few video games I consider to be art. An otherwise generic first person shooter somehow managed to tell a story about pain, redemption, loss, and war. It also nicely deconstructed video games, particular third-person shooters, as a whole.

    Killing is Harmless is Brendan Keogh's lengthy discussion of the game level-by-level, attempting to figure out just what the developers were intending from the work. He avoids the rather obvious and meaningless conclusion the game is solely a deconstruction of shooters and instead invites alternative theories. He writes the book much like the game, journeying through his conclusions like the player travels through the game.

    The author examines the hidden meaning behind each element introduced into the game as it is introduced. It's an interesting way of writing an analysis and works well for me. Unfortunately, Brendan Keogh is a little too focused on his own reactions and this sometimes makes the book seem a little dry. If he'd gone out more with alternative theories to events, the book would have been more enjoyable.

    For example; one area I strongly disagree with is the author's interpretation of the endings. Brendan Keogh believes the "best" ending is about denial of reality. I believe it is about forgiveness and redemption. That, even in the hell of war and darkness, there can be hope. The author maintains the more nihilistic and self-destructive endings are more honest (even moral!), which I absolutely disagree with. In my humble opinion, a major theme about Spec Ops: The Line is the horrors of war but only one ending is really about setting your weapon down and embracing peace. The fact this quality is ignored makes me reduce my score for the book.

    There are moments like this scattered throughout the book. Parts where fans of Spec Ops: The Line will disagree with the author but find no alternative interpretations in the book. Brendan Keogh simply moves on and continues his observations. It can be very frustrating for readers who have strong opinions on the material (like myself). Despite this, I still enjoyed Killing Is Harmless. The subject matter is dear to my heart and the parts I disagree with are not universal. He gets strongly into our heroes' state of mind and its increasing degeneration over the course of the game. His detail is great and you get a sense he really feels for the characters involved.

     Really, our main area of difference is whether or not we believe the story is one with any shred of hope or not. Brendan Keogh believes the game is nihilistic, our heroes doomed and damned by their actions from the moment they choose to head into Dubai. I favor a slightly more upbeat interpretation, maintaining the possibility of redemption exists throughout. Ultimately, Brendan Keogh's views may actually be closer to what the developers intended but I stick by my conclusions.

     I especially appreciated the way the author examined the movie influences scattered throughout the game. Spec Ops: The Line is informed by movies like Jacob's Ladder, Apocalypse Now, and several other works. Examining how these influences compare and contrast to the narrative doesn't take up too much space but are a nice aside, helping to make sure the reader knows just what exactly is being referenced at specific points.

    I recommend people with Kindles pick up this book over the physical copy but, either way, it's worth your money. Just don't expect too much from the prose. There's no amazingly deep insights which will change your view of everything.

7/10

    I love superhero fiction. Unfortunately, there just isn't very much on the market these days. In fact, there's very little superhero fiction on the market period. Sure, you can occasionally see a badly written novel about the X-men or Spiderman but very rarely does an author take the time to actually create a genuine superhero novel. The exceptions, George R.R Martin's Wild Cards and breakout hits like Soon I Will Be Invincible, are rare.

    I think part of this reason is superheroes are an inherently visual medium. Those who want to write about superheroes tend to gravitate towards comics since they've dominated the medium since the Comic Book Authority was first instituted. It takes a risk to go outside of well-trodden genres and not only must an author do it but a publisher.

    The age of Amazon publishing has opened up new doors to nontraditional genres with one of the better examples being Wearing the Cape by Marion G. Harmon. Marion managed to create a surprisingly deep and nuanced setting in terms of everything from characters to laws relating to superhumans. Which, honestly, comes to where I think the real problem with superheroes in fiction comes from.

    The worldbuilding.

    Comic books benefit from a massive continuity which has come to be expected by a lot of fans of the genre. It's certainly possible to tell origin stories, which is the route movies usually take, but portraying the kind of post-human world of superheroes where they can interact is difficult. You have to create whole collections of heroes and either write or imply their backstory.

    Then there's the issue of what sort of genre your superheroes are going to exist in. How did everyone get their powers? Is everyone a mutant? Are there multiple sources of superhuman abilities? Does everyone wear a costume but not possess superpowers? All of these are questions you have to ask when creating a superhero novel.

    Answering these questions is, to me, a key part of making your superheroic novel work. It's also one of the reasons why I think the novels aren't more common. Suspension of disbelief when you pick up a comic book is instantly off. Not so much in movies or books. The reason Galactus was a gigantic cloud in Fantastic Four 2 was because the producers didn't have confidence audiences could accept a 100ft tall man in a giant purple helmet.

    In short, you need to believe a man can fly when you introduce audiences to a superheroic world and a lot of the assumptions they will forgive you for in comic books go out the window when you go to text. You also can't write novels the same way people write comic books. A picture may be worth a thousand words but no one wants to read 10 chapters of Spiderman fighting Doctor Octopus. You have to get deeper into the heads of your protagonists and give them a story arc. Batman will never give up being Batman, marry, die, or have children outside of easily retconned stories or Elseworlds but your protagonists should grow as people.

     Despite this, I think superheroes are going to be the next big thing in fiction. It's a largely untapped genre and we've been steadily building up audiences tolerance with mystical superheroines like Mercy Thompson or wizard-heroes like Harry Dresden. The only thing which separates Harry from Spiderman is he wears a duster rather than a spandex outfit. Just take note this is a genre which needs careful handling--something too many authors forget when they jump into untested waters.

    Wearing the Cape is one of the rare examples of superhero prose and one I really-really like. It manages to do something which very few novelists and writers are willing to do today: tell an idealistic story about superheroes. The majority of superhero novels out there are either adaptations or deconstructions. I'm surprised to say supervillain perspective novels are rather common, myself included being guilty, but Wearing the Cape starts with a simple premise: what if a nice but otherwise ordinary girl was given the power of Supergirl?

    Wearing the Cape isn't a solo superhero novel. The character of Hope, soon to be the hero Astra, is part of a world which has had superheroes for over a decade. They have their own version of the Justice League/Avengers, signature superhero ("Atlas"), and an entire subculture born out of the development of superpowers. It's a well-developed world with the role of superheroes explictly defined as search and rescue operatives or assistants to police.

    The novel chronicles Hope's journey from being a newly discovered "Breakthrough" to becoming a fully-fledged hero. The novel shows a remarkable take on the superhero genre, illustrating with celebrity comes perks (even when you're in a selfless business). Hope not only has to deal with being suddenly the strongest woman in the world but also the newfound fame that comes with her position.

    I especially liked the character of Artemis, who swiftly becomes Hope's version of Batman. The two have a natural easy-going friendship which works despite how completely different they are. The other supporting cast members are equally enjoyable with the characters of Seven and Atlas surpassing their archetypes to become fully-realized individuals. Even the villain, the deliberately oddball named Teatime Anarchist, has many a surprise inside him.

    Is Wearing the Cape perfect? No, I can't say that it is. Hope seems a bit naive and we never quite get into her psyche as deeply as I want. Likewise, the team of supervillains we meet later in the novel goes beyond stereotypical. Despite this, I absolutely adore the novel and am actively looking forward to sequels from the writer. I heartily recommend this novel to anyone with even the slightest interest in the superhero genre.

9/10

    Villains Inc. is the sequel to the extremely enjoyable Wearing the Cape novel. It takes six months after the events of the first novel, our protagonist forced to deal with immense fallout from the climax. I won't spoil what happened there but will say it's one of the better endings I've seen for this genre.

    The setting is still light and cheerful but more wary of the destructive power of superhumans. Initially, I thought this novel was going to focus on Hope having to deal with being a figure of negative publicity as well as the rising tide of anti-superhero sentiment but the author surprised me by going in a completely different direction.

    Instead, Villains Inc. is a story which focuses on giving the Chicago Sentinels their very own archenemies. Because the Wearing the Cape series has a more "realistic" sense of scale, it's a group of mob-related heavies but they still manage to invoke the kind of team-ups which gave us the Legion of Doom and Injustice League.

    Speaking of realism, this book introduces an element to the setting I wasn't expecting: magic. Without changing the rules set out from the Breakthrough Event, Marion G. Harmon broadens the nature of his world significantly. We knew Breakthroughs include people who can imitate magic, vampires, and demons from the last book but this volume suggests they actually outnumber 'normal' superheroes.

    I think this book is actually better than Wearing the Cape, showing that Hope isn't just a one-trick pony. She is growing as both a hero and a character, moving beyond her origin story to become a more multi-faceted complex character. I still love her relationship with Artemis and am eagerly looking forward to reading said character's solo novel.

    If there was an element I missed, I rather regret losing the element of celebrity that was such an ever-present part of the previous books. It was still present, to an extent, but Hope only seems to deal with the negative elements of being famous in this book. I felt it was a missed opportunity to not explore more "responsibilities" of celebrity.

     In conclusion, buy the novel. It's an excellent example of why internet publishing can be a good thing.

9.5/10

    Sleeping Dogs is a great game. I've mentioned this before and my opinion on the subject hasn't changed. Even if you're not a fan of Heroic Bloodshed movies, it's a delightful introduction to the genre.

    [Editor's note: The short version is Heroic Bloodshed is a Hong Kong genre roughly equivalent to American Noir. The difference is that the protagonists be they hit men or undercover cops have a code of honor--it's just they usually have to break it in wildly bloody and deadly ways.]

    Sleeping Dogs didn't make a whole lot of money but it wasn't a failure by any stretch of the imagination either. Which is why I was pleased to discover the game was getting a series of DLC over the course of the past six months.

Big Scar Wu's cat mask makes him a memorable-looking villain, if nothing else.

     The first of these is Nightmare in North Point, which is basically an homage to Chinese ghost stories. Wei Shen is either having a particularly vivid dream or he's really encountering the supernatural, take your pick, but it is a far cry from your typical Sleeping Dogs action. It's more like Red Dead: Redemption's Undead Nightmare only with a Hong Kong twist.

    The premise is that an old triad enemy of the Sun On Yee, Big Scar Wu (now known as "Smiley Cat"), was murdered in a particularly grizzly way. Seeking revenge, he emerges from the underworld and targets Wei Shen's girlfriend (Not Ping) as well as the rest of Hong Kong. The streets are littered with Chinese vampires (Jiang-Shi) and their demonic masters.

    Already, this premise is somewhat flawed given there's no particular reason for Smiley Cat to single out Wei Shen. It becomes doubly infuriating because Dog Eyes, who is a much more personal enemy to Wei, is one of the ghosts we later encounter. The locals also seem somewhat blase to this dramatic change in their city, wandering along with glowing eyes as if everything was perfectly normal. It would have made better sense, for what value that means, to have Wei dumped into the underworld somehow but I digress.

    Wei's journey through the supernaturally-conquered Hong Kong primarily consists of him attempting to discover a means of permanently banishing Smiley Cat's ghostly army. Thankfully, there's a number of helpful locals familiar with Chinese mythology. Plus, Wei gets to encounter a couple of friendly gangsters whose deaths have left them less inclined to seek revenge over Wei's status as an undercover cop (apparently, the dead know everything). It was a major missed opportunity to not have Wei Shen encounter his deceased sister during this pack. That would have added significant pathos to a somewhat silly and substance-less plot.

    Despite this, I had fun playing Nightmare in North Point. The Jiang-Shi enemies were an interesting change of pace from regular gang members and Wei's encounters with past friends (as well as foes) entertained me. The DLC is a little on the short side, especially since the entire map is open for exploration, but I never felt bored.

The blue-fog overlays to familiar Sleeping Dogs locations is surprisingly effective in making them creepy.

    Nightmare in North Point transforms the Hong Kong of the game from a bustling living city to a supernaturally foggy and surreal place inhabited by mindless shambling citizens. The effect is creepy but the world feels sparsley populated despite the roving gangs of Jiang Shi that Wei can run into. There's the addition of "Hell Shrines" that make it easier to fight the Jiang Shi but these aren't exactly collectibles worth hunting down given a special weapon for fighting the undead drops fairly regularly.

    Really, I think this DLC could have been transformed into a full-blown expansion if the developers had wanted to. I would have loved to have seen characters from the game react to all the supernatural craziness around them. The addition of more monsters, more sidequests, and more collectibles could have resulted in a retail release for Sleeping Dogs' Zombie expansion just like Red Dead Redemption's own. As such, this feels a bit like a wasted opportunity.

    In the end, I don't see anything wrong with the game other than it wasn't as good as it could have been. It's still Sleeping Dogs, which I enjoyed, and the plot is fun if a bit underwhelming. I suggest you pick it up if you can.

8/10

Enter The Dragon is one of my favorite movies of all time. It is the best remembered of Bruce Lee's few films for good reason. There's something fundamentally primal about a martial arts master being invited to a brutal tournament where only the strongest warrior will walk away alive. There's a reason it's the basis for virtually every fighting game ever made. It thus feels natural that Sleeping Dogs would do an extended homage to the movie.

The premise of the game is the best martial artists in the world have been invited to the deadly tournament of Doctor Zhang. The Hong Kong police, not approving of death matches, sends Wei Shen to infiltrate the tournament. Doctor Zhang may or not know Wei Shen is an undercover cop but doesn't care either way. Why? Because one look at the guy and you'll know he's not going to let you walk away with the tournament's winnings.

The villain goes so over the top, he reaches space. Which is entirely appropriate.

From the moment you step on the boat to reach the island, everything switches to a grainy 1970s movie feel. From the moment the tournament begins, Wei Shen is surrounded by some of the deadliest fighters in the game. He doesn't have any friends on the island either, the good competitors think he's a Triad stooge while the bad ones, well, are bad.

The DLC advertises there is a "new island" to explore but this is somewhat misleading. The island for the adventure is almost entirely railroaded-in, taking you everywhere you might want to travel during the adventure itself. Aside from a quest to get Fire Opal Statues, which don't do anything until after you've completed the DLC, there's not much to do around the island.

The visual homages to EtD are everywhere.

Despite this, the DLC is still fun. The tournament doesn't just include your typical melee brawls but several twists I'd be remise in spoiling. There's also free-running sections through trap-filled zones that are incredibly fun. The other fighters aren't tremendously deep characters but some you genuinely mourn when the fights turn deadly while others you just want to ring the life out of yourself. That's good writing, right there.

The free-running sections of the tournament are some of my favorite.

    There's not much to say about this DLC other than it's fun, entertaining, and filled with surprises. The only thing I regretted about it is the final mission, which stupidly introduces a timed-mechanic when the rest of the game is mercifully without. I still haven't beaten it despite literally dozens of tries. The fact it's the last level only makes it doubly frustrating.

    One thing which separates The Zodiac Tournament from the rest of the Sleeping Dogs DLC is that it can be played as a part of Sleeping Dogs proper. This is a major boon as it makes the tournament seem part of the narrative. Unfortunately, you can't bring any of your cool toys or outfits to the island, which means it might as well be a separate storyline. I was looking forward to beating the island as Monkey.

    In short, I heartily recommend The Zodiac Tournament but it's not without flaws. If you had been allowed to bring along your melee-enhancing outfits or the timed-mission wasn't so punishing, I'd have given this a full ten. Instead, I'm going to have to give it a nine.

9/10

Hack/Slash Omnibus volume 2 review

John Dies at the End review

This Book Is Full Of Spiders, Seriously Dude Don't Touch It review

Tomb Raider (2012) review

Dead Space review

Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance

The Social Satire of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance

Happy Endings vs. Downer Endings

The Hobbit (2012) review

Bioshock: Infinite review

Batman: Arkham City : Harley's Revenge DLC review

Iron Man 3 (Non-Spoiler) review

Iron Man 3 (spoiler review)

The Prisoner: Shattered Visage review

Killing is Harmless: A Critical Reading of Spec Ops: The Line review

Why so few superhero novels?

Wearing the Cape review

Villains Inc. (Wearing the Cape 2#) review

Sleeping Dogs: Nightmare in North Point DLC review

Sleeping Dogs: The Zodiac Tournament DLC review