Search
Search results
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated The Trump Prophecy (2018) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019 (Updated Mar 24, 2019)
My prophetic vision of how bad it could get
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of my bill-paying job is managing our store’s DVD section. This past Tuesday, I opened our new release boxes to find a number of copies of a movie called "The Trump Prophecy." I got physically ill. Not ill enough to go home, but I could feel my stomach turn. It wasn’t because I was holding in my hands a movie about Donald Trump, though, because I can make it through many a title about the Bedswerver-in-Chief. There’s something worse: Associating support of him with Christian faith.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Now, ordinarily, I do movie reviews. That’s where I have to watch a movie, first, before writing about it. This time, though, I feel obligated to attempt my own sort of prophecy and write a review of a movie before I see it. I'll take a bit of research on the subject of the film, but until the final paragraph, I'm not actually going to watch this film. Here goes nothing.
"The Trump Prophecy" follows a self-proclaimed prophet, Mark Taylor, as he and a pseudo-publicist, Mary Colbert, spread the word of his vision: That Trump will become President of the United States. They lead a prayer movement to try to see it through, and lo and behold, it works. Sort of. You see, Taylor first put pen to paper to write out his vision in April of 2011, stating that while “they will spend billions to keep this president in,” “the next election will be a clean sweep for the man [Trump] I have chosen.” Clearly, this can only refer to the 2012 election, the very next presidential election in which Barack Obama would end up successfully keeping the presidency for one more term. An election in which Donald Trump did not even run. With that in mind, Taylor’s self-glorification film glosses over the fact that he was completely wrong about that prophecy out of necessity, instead focusing on his rehash of the prophecy going into 2016.
This movie lazily creeps into both the political propaganda and faith-based film genres. Faith-based films generally serve as evangelistic tools. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as its characters are already faithful Christians prior to the events of the film, providing no real evangelistic moments for its unsaved audience. It's almost like they know nobody is coming to this film for that. Political propaganda films, on the other hand, intend to indoctrinate in a certain belief. "The Trump Prophecy" fails that, as well. In fact, it has to actively avoid political discussion at all. Could you imagine a movie like this having to make a failing attempt to reconcile Christian faith against supporting Donald Trump?
The cinematography looks like it was shot as a bootleg of "The Room." The leads act with a flatness on par with their cardboard cutouts. Its lone redeeming quality is not tricking you into anything other than what it is: A schlocky puff piece intended to associate Christianity with support of the President, as Trump was God’s chosen man. Allegedly.
Get past its worst cinematic qualities and you’re left with even more problems. "The Trump Prophecy" insults its target audience by minimizing God. It suggests God can't enact his will unless people pray for the things He reveals to them as visions of the future. It paradoxically says God is either not omnipotent to make Trump president, not omniscient to know whether or not Trump would be made president, or both. It also suggests gullibility being the key to godliness, urging the viewer not to question the source of a grammatically incorrect prophecy. (Seriously. Taylor confuses the homophones “waste” and “waist” in his 2011 "Commander in Chief" prophecy). This call to gullibility is precisely why Jerry Falwell Jr.'s Liberty University got itself involved in this mess. If you weren’t a fan of Trump before, you should be one because God said so. To a provably false prophet.
Which leads me to the point where I actually have to subject myself to this nonsense and tell you just how right I was about it.
And dear gosh, was I right. In fact, it’s stranger than I might have though. Remember how I mentioned Taylor’s false prophecy? The opening narration directly quotes from it, giving you the chance, if you haven’t already looked into it, to see exactly where he went from potential prophet to false prophet. And if you missed it the first time, you'll have it repeated twice more. Finally, I'll admit the fault to my prophetic review: Cinematically, "The Trump Prophecy" is closer to a bootleg of a movie produced by The Asylum, but Asylum films are actually enjoyable. But as a bonus, though, combine it with the special effects work of "Birdemic." The film "ends" with an embedded music video and a series of so-called reflective conversations--monologues by demagogues. I can't remember much about these because I had already tuned out. The only fairness I'll give is that "The Trump Prophecy" may be unintentionally hilarious on occasion, but it’s mostly cringe-worthy. The biggest cringe, though is when you realize how many people actually believe this film as fact.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated A Wicked Thing (A Wicked Thing, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
My all-time favorite Disney movie (in VCR) – along with Pocahontas and Mulan, to which there are literally zilch retellings to my knowledge – while growing up was <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. I even reenacted it... for fun and on my own (expected of a four or five year old).
And perhaps it is also one of the most difficult tales to be retold. There's a princess who has a curse placed on her that she would prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel before her sixteenth birthday and die – not entirely too much to take a spin on, is there?
No pun intended.
Much as I give props to Rhiannon Thomas for taking <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> on another path, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> is certainly not a book I would enjoy even for the pleasure of reading. In fact, truth be told in maybe a harsh way, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> was funny. And while funny typically means a good thing, I honestly had a field day reading the first three chapters in between chess matches and poking fun at the book (aka making sassy comments that will make no appearance whatsoever in this review aside from a big basket of mozzarella sticks).
<i>A Wicked Thing</i> is almost a sequel to the original <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. Some time has passed, and then the prince kisses Aurora – all that jazz is pretty much the same aside from maybe happily ever after, to which I won't bother finding out. Perhaps there <i>is</i> a happily ever after by the end of the book – I'm still not going to go and find out because I'm too focused on making it to at least the top 10 in the class now that I'm extremely close to it.
But let's start with the prince kisses Aurora. She wakes up and screams. It probably makes sense to scream when you wake up to a random stranger hovering above your face and actually kissed you. Honestly, a pretty fantastic opening scene – and I'm serious – aside from the part where the "boy" (we don't know he's a prince YET) says, "I did it. I actually did it."
Then I get a sled and start laughing gleefully (read: found it absolutely amusing) while sliding down a hill (read: continuing the book just see how it all plays out because I haven't found reasons to throw this aside yet and then I do).
Prince Rodric, the "boy," is pathetic. The <i>royal family</i>, in my opinion, is a little pathetic and cheesy. Are they actually pathetic? Perhaps not when you really get to know them and perhaps they're marvelous rulers and the people love them oh-so-dearly, but from the little bit of the book that I read and met the royal family, I find myself disappointed. Particularly disappointed in Rodric the princeling because he will obviously make a huge appearance throughout the rest of the book and I've got to at least like the main characters to enjoy the book.
The dear prince blushes <i>at almost every single sentence he speaks to Aurora</i>. I'm pretty sure the amount of blushes will be the equal amount of election commercials soon (Vote for me! Vote for me!).
<blockquote>He stopped and blushed again.</blockquote>
Princeling probably stutters as well, and is most likely a descendant of Romeo.
<blockquote>“I mean, you always look beautiful. But you look especially beautiful tonight. Is what I mean.”</blockquote>
The king is overly cheery, and while there seems to be a probable reason (my son woke up a slumbering princess!), "overly cheery" really means "exuberantly happy-go-lucky."
<blockquote>“Please send out the heralds. A little extra pomp and circumstance, if you please. It is hardly a normal day.”</blockquote>
No... definitely not a normal day. That much I'll agreee with. But isn't celebrating as soon as Aurora wakes up a little overboard? The chick just woke up from a hundred plus years of slumber and everything literally comes crashing down over on her head upside down! I'm not sure Aurora appreciated that – she was quite confuzzled when she woke up (whoa... what's going on here?!) and even protested a little (not that anyone heard her).
Betsy the maid babbles in excitement and is worse than the king.
<blockquote>“I was so honored, Princess, when they asked me to assist you. I never expected it! But then, I never expected you’d be standing here, if you don’t mind me saying. Not that I didn’t think Rodric could be your true love, because of course he’s wonderful, but it always seemed too much like a dream to ever happen while I was here. Things will be amazing, now, you’ll see. Everyone loves you already. How could they not?”</blockquote>
Reasonable babbling of excitement, seeing as she's a humble servant.
But she and everyone else aside from Aurora is also a little naïve with the assumption that everything is going to be fantastic and happily ever after Aurora and Rodric marry, simply based a fairy tale.
Aurora, however, might have been a character that I would actually like had I continued the book. But by that point in the novel, when Rodric and Aurora are first dining together, I was quite cheesed (it was the constant blushing and cheeriness). While I normally feel guilty for throwing a book aside really early, I don't think I feel too guilty in <i>A Wicked Thing's</i> case.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-arc-review-wicked-thing-by-rhiannon-thomas/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
My all-time favorite Disney movie (in VCR) – along with Pocahontas and Mulan, to which there are literally zilch retellings to my knowledge – while growing up was <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. I even reenacted it... for fun and on my own (expected of a four or five year old).
And perhaps it is also one of the most difficult tales to be retold. There's a princess who has a curse placed on her that she would prick her finger on the spindle of a spinning wheel before her sixteenth birthday and die – not entirely too much to take a spin on, is there?
No pun intended.
Much as I give props to Rhiannon Thomas for taking <i>Sleeping Beauty</i> on another path, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> is certainly not a book I would enjoy even for the pleasure of reading. In fact, truth be told in maybe a harsh way, <i>A Wicked Thing</i> was funny. And while funny typically means a good thing, I honestly had a field day reading the first three chapters in between chess matches and poking fun at the book (aka making sassy comments that will make no appearance whatsoever in this review aside from a big basket of mozzarella sticks).
<i>A Wicked Thing</i> is almost a sequel to the original <i>Sleeping Beauty</i>. Some time has passed, and then the prince kisses Aurora – all that jazz is pretty much the same aside from maybe happily ever after, to which I won't bother finding out. Perhaps there <i>is</i> a happily ever after by the end of the book – I'm still not going to go and find out because I'm too focused on making it to at least the top 10 in the class now that I'm extremely close to it.
But let's start with the prince kisses Aurora. She wakes up and screams. It probably makes sense to scream when you wake up to a random stranger hovering above your face and actually kissed you. Honestly, a pretty fantastic opening scene – and I'm serious – aside from the part where the "boy" (we don't know he's a prince YET) says, "I did it. I actually did it."
Then I get a sled and start laughing gleefully (read: found it absolutely amusing) while sliding down a hill (read: continuing the book just see how it all plays out because I haven't found reasons to throw this aside yet and then I do).
Prince Rodric, the "boy," is pathetic. The <i>royal family</i>, in my opinion, is a little pathetic and cheesy. Are they actually pathetic? Perhaps not when you really get to know them and perhaps they're marvelous rulers and the people love them oh-so-dearly, but from the little bit of the book that I read and met the royal family, I find myself disappointed. Particularly disappointed in Rodric the princeling because he will obviously make a huge appearance throughout the rest of the book and I've got to at least like the main characters to enjoy the book.
The dear prince blushes <i>at almost every single sentence he speaks to Aurora</i>. I'm pretty sure the amount of blushes will be the equal amount of election commercials soon (Vote for me! Vote for me!).
<blockquote>He stopped and blushed again.</blockquote>
Princeling probably stutters as well, and is most likely a descendant of Romeo.
<blockquote>“I mean, you always look beautiful. But you look especially beautiful tonight. Is what I mean.”</blockquote>
The king is overly cheery, and while there seems to be a probable reason (my son woke up a slumbering princess!), "overly cheery" really means "exuberantly happy-go-lucky."
<blockquote>“Please send out the heralds. A little extra pomp and circumstance, if you please. It is hardly a normal day.”</blockquote>
No... definitely not a normal day. That much I'll agreee with. But isn't celebrating as soon as Aurora wakes up a little overboard? The chick just woke up from a hundred plus years of slumber and everything literally comes crashing down over on her head upside down! I'm not sure Aurora appreciated that – she was quite confuzzled when she woke up (whoa... what's going on here?!) and even protested a little (not that anyone heard her).
Betsy the maid babbles in excitement and is worse than the king.
<blockquote>“I was so honored, Princess, when they asked me to assist you. I never expected it! But then, I never expected you’d be standing here, if you don’t mind me saying. Not that I didn’t think Rodric could be your true love, because of course he’s wonderful, but it always seemed too much like a dream to ever happen while I was here. Things will be amazing, now, you’ll see. Everyone loves you already. How could they not?”</blockquote>
Reasonable babbling of excitement, seeing as she's a humble servant.
But she and everyone else aside from Aurora is also a little naïve with the assumption that everything is going to be fantastic and happily ever after Aurora and Rodric marry, simply based a fairy tale.
Aurora, however, might have been a character that I would actually like had I continued the book. But by that point in the novel, when Rodric and Aurora are first dining together, I was quite cheesed (it was the constant blushing and cheeriness). While I normally feel guilty for throwing a book aside really early, I don't think I feel too guilty in <i>A Wicked Thing's</i> case.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-arc-review-wicked-thing-by-rhiannon-thomas/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Cruel Beauty in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I'm a sucker for fairy tales. I love retellings, myths, anything that's a complete spin from a well-known tale. I'm curious as to what authors come up with – problem is, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White needs a major upgrade or I might mentally blow a gasket one day. I promise it won't be pretty. No rants involved. Maybe a post about diversity in fairy tales instead (don't you take that post idea if no one's come up with it before o_o).
Well, Cruel Beauty is the cruel version of our beloved Disney characters. At least, that's what I thought at the very end. It's also got mythology, in which some I researched and learned new things (verification purposes). About time I'm not staring at what I learned in middle school/early high school over and over again.
Truth is, I enjoyed the concept of Cruel Beauty, but I didn't really enjoy the story... not too much. What originally caught my attention was the very fact that "Belle" is destined to marry the "Beast" ever since she was young due to a bargain her father made (reminds me of another story I can't think of currently). What I thought was even more interesting is how Rosamund Hodge bases the novel on ancient civilizations and mythology, particularly Pandora's box. Actually, I thought it was genius. I also think I've spoken too much about the book with those two words.
What started to lose my attention was this particular sentence... when Nyx – "Belle" of the story – is first married to the Gentle Lord – "Beast" of the story – and makes her entrance into his castle.
<blockquote>“I’m here!” I shouted. “Your bride! Congratulations on your marriage!”</blockquote>
I was like, really? THAT'S how you would make your entrance inside a demon's castle? Me, I would actually start plotting ways OUT of the castle, ways to avoid the Gentle Lord, etc. etc. NOT announcing, "Oh hey! I'm here! Come and feast on me!" *waves big sign*
And the Gentle Lord, no matter how much I like his humor, made a very unimpressive entrance.
<blockquote>In one moment I realized that what tickled my neck was a tuft of black hair, the blankets were a warm body, and the Gentle Lord was draped over me like a lazy cat, his head resting on my shoulder.</blockquote>
His reason?
<blockquote>“I got so bored waiting that I fell asleep too."</blockquote>
And...
<blockquote>“You were a good pillow."</blockquote>
DUDE. Sleeping on your bride when you first meet her even though you're now married? What an impressive husband you make. He could have slept next to her and not on top of her. You know, if a stranger – homeless or not – slept on top of me, I may kick said person's butt until they get off and call it self defense. I suppose some are now worried about my future. I'm completely surprised Nyx didn't mention that he was heavy, sleeping on top of her like that. Instead, this is her response shortly after:
<blockquote>“I’m sorry ,” I said, staring at the floor. “I just, my father made me promise to bring a knife, and— and—” I stuttered, acutely aware that I was half-naked in front of him. “I’m your wife! I burn for your touch! I thirst for your love!”</blockquote>
No offense, but that was so cheesy, it was bleeping hilarious. It's really obvious later from the Gentle Lord's constant mocking that Nyx should just act like herself and not the way her family wants her to act, but Nyx is completely oblivious.
Nyx, in a nutshell, is just the darker version of Belle. The semi-evil twin of Belle I may say, and it's no wonder she's named after the Greek goddess of the Night.
<blockquote>But I was a girl who had broken her sister’s heart and— for a moment— liked it. I had left somebody in torment and liked it.</blockquote>
Rosamund Hodge also implies that Nyx is well... a bit indecisive. In a conflict is more accurate. She wants to please her family – to fit in and meet up to her father's expectations even though he prefers her sister Astraia. Yet at the same time, she doesn't want to kill Ignite or whatever the Gentle Lord calls himself (the book was an e-loan and I'm basing this review off of my notes because I'm too lazy to jump on the hold list yet again) because she's in love with him. I suppose it makes sense in a way, since she wants to go with her emotions yet she's been trained her entire life to kill this one evil guy who isn't actually evil...
<blockquote>“Of course he’s evil and unforgivable.” My voice felt like it was coming from the far end of a long tunnel. “But he is the only reason I ever honored Mother with a clean heart. And if I hadn’t learnt to be kind with him, I would never have come back to beg your forgiveness and choose you over him. So gloat all you want— you deserve to watch us both suffer— but don’t you dare say I will ever be free of him. Every kindness I show you, all the rest of your life, that’s because of him. And no matter how many times I betray him, I will love him still.” </blockquote>
I mean, Nyx is living with the Gentle Lord. She could have just made her decision to live with him always and never guess his name, right?
Cruel Beauty, as much as I like the entire idea behind it, is not one of those fairy tales I find very impressive. It's very much one of those books that I roll my eyes at, especially at how the romance played out (just because I never dated a soul doesn't mean I can't tell).
------------------------
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/review-cruel-beauty-by-rosamund-hodge.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Well, Cruel Beauty is the cruel version of our beloved Disney characters. At least, that's what I thought at the very end. It's also got mythology, in which some I researched and learned new things (verification purposes). About time I'm not staring at what I learned in middle school/early high school over and over again.
Truth is, I enjoyed the concept of Cruel Beauty, but I didn't really enjoy the story... not too much. What originally caught my attention was the very fact that "Belle" is destined to marry the "Beast" ever since she was young due to a bargain her father made (reminds me of another story I can't think of currently). What I thought was even more interesting is how Rosamund Hodge bases the novel on ancient civilizations and mythology, particularly Pandora's box. Actually, I thought it was genius. I also think I've spoken too much about the book with those two words.
What started to lose my attention was this particular sentence... when Nyx – "Belle" of the story – is first married to the Gentle Lord – "Beast" of the story – and makes her entrance into his castle.
<blockquote>“I’m here!” I shouted. “Your bride! Congratulations on your marriage!”</blockquote>
I was like, really? THAT'S how you would make your entrance inside a demon's castle? Me, I would actually start plotting ways OUT of the castle, ways to avoid the Gentle Lord, etc. etc. NOT announcing, "Oh hey! I'm here! Come and feast on me!" *waves big sign*
And the Gentle Lord, no matter how much I like his humor, made a very unimpressive entrance.
<blockquote>In one moment I realized that what tickled my neck was a tuft of black hair, the blankets were a warm body, and the Gentle Lord was draped over me like a lazy cat, his head resting on my shoulder.</blockquote>
His reason?
<blockquote>“I got so bored waiting that I fell asleep too."</blockquote>
And...
<blockquote>“You were a good pillow."</blockquote>
DUDE. Sleeping on your bride when you first meet her even though you're now married? What an impressive husband you make. He could have slept next to her and not on top of her. You know, if a stranger – homeless or not – slept on top of me, I may kick said person's butt until they get off and call it self defense. I suppose some are now worried about my future. I'm completely surprised Nyx didn't mention that he was heavy, sleeping on top of her like that. Instead, this is her response shortly after:
<blockquote>“I’m sorry ,” I said, staring at the floor. “I just, my father made me promise to bring a knife, and— and—” I stuttered, acutely aware that I was half-naked in front of him. “I’m your wife! I burn for your touch! I thirst for your love!”</blockquote>
No offense, but that was so cheesy, it was bleeping hilarious. It's really obvious later from the Gentle Lord's constant mocking that Nyx should just act like herself and not the way her family wants her to act, but Nyx is completely oblivious.
Nyx, in a nutshell, is just the darker version of Belle. The semi-evil twin of Belle I may say, and it's no wonder she's named after the Greek goddess of the Night.
<blockquote>But I was a girl who had broken her sister’s heart and— for a moment— liked it. I had left somebody in torment and liked it.</blockquote>
Rosamund Hodge also implies that Nyx is well... a bit indecisive. In a conflict is more accurate. She wants to please her family – to fit in and meet up to her father's expectations even though he prefers her sister Astraia. Yet at the same time, she doesn't want to kill Ignite or whatever the Gentle Lord calls himself (the book was an e-loan and I'm basing this review off of my notes because I'm too lazy to jump on the hold list yet again) because she's in love with him. I suppose it makes sense in a way, since she wants to go with her emotions yet she's been trained her entire life to kill this one evil guy who isn't actually evil...
<blockquote>“Of course he’s evil and unforgivable.” My voice felt like it was coming from the far end of a long tunnel. “But he is the only reason I ever honored Mother with a clean heart. And if I hadn’t learnt to be kind with him, I would never have come back to beg your forgiveness and choose you over him. So gloat all you want— you deserve to watch us both suffer— but don’t you dare say I will ever be free of him. Every kindness I show you, all the rest of your life, that’s because of him. And no matter how many times I betray him, I will love him still.” </blockquote>
I mean, Nyx is living with the Gentle Lord. She could have just made her decision to live with him always and never guess his name, right?
Cruel Beauty, as much as I like the entire idea behind it, is not one of those fairy tales I find very impressive. It's very much one of those books that I roll my eyes at, especially at how the romance played out (just because I never dated a soul doesn't mean I can't tell).
------------------------
Original Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/review-cruel-beauty-by-rosamund-hodge.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Institute in Books
Oct 24, 2019
Likable characters (1 more)
Paranormal
Sexualizing children (1 more)
Not a regular King story
At around 95 novels, Stephen King, who is one of the most well-known authors of our time, debuts a possible new novel series about psychic children. 'The Institute' mostly takes place in a hidden facility located in a wooded area of Maine,where readers follow a kidnapped child prodigy named Luke Ellis, and the government experiments that are inflicted on him to heighten his psychic powers.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
So why is the government kidnapping children to conduct psychic research on them? At first, it may seem just that: psychic research, because psychic powers seem to be more powerful in young children than adults, but nothing is what it seems. As the boss of this Institute says to the children: " ' There's a war going on, and you have been called upon to serve your country.' " A few sentences later, and she explains it a little more in depth for Ellis: " ' This is not an arms race but a mind race, and if we lose, the consequences would be more than dire; they would be unimaginable. You may only be twelve, but you are a soldier in an undeclared war. The same is true of Kalisha and the others. Do you like it? Of course not. Draftees never do, and draftees sometimes need to be taught that there are consequences for not following orders. I believe you've already had one lesson in that regard. If you're as bright as your records say you are, perhaps you won't need another. If you do, however, you'll get it. This is not your home. This is not your school. You will not simply be given an extra chore or sent to the principal's office or given detention; you will be punished. Clear? ' "
King writes in a third-person point-of-view, which makes it a little disturbing that when any female character he introduces (including girls as young as 11-years-old) are usually introduced by their breast size. It's not uncommon for male writers to introduce female characters this way, but when most of them are children, it can be very off putting for readers. One scene, King makes Ellis notice that Kalisha has 'her hands on her mostly nonexistent hips,' then writes about the character Helen in the same scene: " Another door opened and Helen Simms appeared, clad - - - sort of - - - in what Luke believed were called babydoll pajamas. She had hips, plus other interesting equipment. " Both of these characters are only twelve-years-old.
Aside from the children, King also introduces an important character named Tim Jamieson. This character starts the novel off before readers meet Ellis; we learn that he is a former cop who is traveling to New York while taking odd jobs on his way there, including a night knocker job in DuPray, South Carolina (which becomes very important later on in the story) .
Avery, my personal favorite character in the book, is a ten-year-old who acts like a five-year-old, " The screamer was a little boy in Star Wars pajamas, hammering on doors with small fists that went up and down like pistons. Ten? Avery Dixon looked six, seven at most. The crotch and one leg of his pajama pants were wet and sticking to him. " Dixon and Kalisha are both in the Institute for telepathy. " 'You know so,' Kalisha said, and began to stroke the little boy's [Dixon] hair again. Like had a sense - - - maybe bullshit, maybe not - - - that a lot was going on between them. Inside traffic. " And quickly, the group of children become protective of Dixon, " 'But you need to take care of this one for as long as you can. When I think of Tony or Zeke or that bitch Winona hitting Avery, it makes me want to cry. ' " Kalisha confides in Ellis.
Kalisha, one of the other children that has been kidnapped, is another very likable character that seems to keep all of the other kids' spirits up by either keeping them out of trouble with advice or stopping small fights between them. Another kid named Nicky, the troublemaker of the group, is the stereo-typical bad boy. He gets involved in fistfights with the orderlies that work at the Institute, taking quite a bit of abuse in return. But eventually, the rebelliousness catches up with him, leading him to be moved from Front Half to the dreaded Back Half.
Readers later learn that Back Half is worse than Front Half. Most questions we may have about why the Institute is abusing these children are all answered when readers get to see into Back Half from Kalisha's point-of-view. But what is left unanswered is exactly how many children have been through the Institute? From the amount of children seen just in this story, the numbers could be in the hundreds of thousands!
But, as expected, the children come up with a plan to escape - - - with giving as little detail as possible, an orderlie at the Institute is helped by one of the children with a personal problem, and in return, this orderlie decides to help one of them escape and reveal everything that is the Institute. The instance the escape starts being discussed is when the book really picks up.
King's writing of the abuse our characters sustain is very real (" When Stevie Whipple asked where he'd been and what was wrong, Luke just shook his head. He didn't want to talk about the tank. Not now, not ever. He supposed it was like being in a war. You got drafted, you went, but you didn't want to talk about what you'd seen, or what had happened to you there." ) The scene in which Ellis refuses to speak of is where the orderlie Zeke is trying to make Ellis confess that he is not only telekinesis, but also telepathic: "Zeke hauled him up by the hair. His white tunic was soaked. He looked fixedly at Luke. 'I'm going to put you down again, Luke. Again and again and again. I'll put you down until you drown and then we'll resuscitate you and drown you again and resuscitate you again. Last chance: what number am I thinking of?' "
King brings up a fictional belief that strikes fear in parents everywhere: children being kidnapped for government experiments. Readers witness Ellis' parents being killed, Kalisha being a surrogate mother to kids she barely knows, Nicky being beaten by adults when he refuses to get 'shots for dots,' night terrors, suicide, zap sticks and murder.
This book doesn't read like a regular King book; even with the paranormal aspects occurring in it, it doesn't add up to much. The horror aspect is more in the form of child abuse then paranormal moments. I would only recommend this book to fans of Netflix's 'Stranger Things' and Patterson's 'Maximum Ride.' I don't think I would read this again.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019 (Updated Jul 4, 2019)
When a director like Ari Aster only has two full-length features under his belt, it’s difficult not to compare his works but the truth of the matter is that Hereditary and Midsommar are two incredibly different films. Hereditary seemed to thrive on lurking in the shadows visually to assist in its dark storytelling. Nearly all of Midsommar takes place under blinding sunlight making the horrific events that unfold feel stranger and even more out of place, confusing, and bizarrely unsettling. Based on his two films though, Aster does seem to flock towards a few common themes. Grief, loss, and the inability to cope have plagued the main characters of his films while the importance of family takes a high precedence. Hereditary was more about a specific family attempting to stay together while already being in shambles and Midsommar attempts to create a new family on more than one occasion with the possibility of constant expansion.
Dani’s (Florence Pugh) life is turned inside out once a devastating tragedy leaves her dumbstruck. She leans on her boyfriend of four years, Christian (Jack Reynor), for support, but their relationship is obviously strained. Along with their friends Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter), Dani and Christian end up going on vacation to rural Sweden. They travel to a small village where their friend Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) grew up and now serves as their host. A rare nine-day festival that only occurs once every 90 years is being celebrated. Josh is utilizing the trip as a means to bulk up his folklore thesis for college while Mark is more interested in partaking in the Swedish women. Christian is attempting to figure out what his thesis will be while Dani searches for some sort of guidance after such a tragic occurrence. Their trip becomes increasingly more peculiar the longer they stay as they’re forced to witness violent rituals and are encouraged to embrace the ways of a Pagan cult.
The intricate illustrations throughout the film like in the opening shot, the elongated love potion cloth, or the walls of the barn-like structure Dani and her friends sleep in, give Midsommar this dark fairy tale aspect to it that a film like Pan’s Labyrinth would be proud of. The Pagan roots of Pelle’s village and the film’s metaphorical feet being so firmly planted in such rich folklore give Midsommar this cautiously fanciful aesthetic. The film capitalizes on the nostalgic sensation of when fairy tales and children’s books were read to you as a child. There are consistent signs that things aren’t right, paranoia lurks around every corner, and the locals set off every ominous alarm in your body, but there’s that naïve part of us buried deep down that wishes for and hopes for a happy ending because cosmetically we believe that is what resides at the end of every fairy tale not written by Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm (The Brothers Grimm).
It’s also interesting observing the main and supporting characters of the film or basically all of the “outsider” guests of the festival. Pelle acts as a conduit/guide between his village and the outside world, Josh is a historian/researcher, Mark is a mocker/fool, Dani and Christian are a strained couple, and Connie (Ellora Torchia) and Simon (Archie Madekwe) are a flourishing one. According to Wikipedia, Ari Aster based Dani and Christian’s relationship on a bad breakup. Midsommar is also way funnier than it has any right to be; something Hereditary completely distanced itself from. Midsommar goes out of its way to boast about who Dani’s real family is in the film. The unified chanting, outrageous theatrics, and harmonized moaning may seem like mockery or complete insanity to some. While it is humorous at times, it seems like this is the way the locals can experience everything everyone else does as a cohesive unit. This seems relevant to emotions, hallucinogens, and even sustenance; this cult does everything together.
Midsommar isn’t going to sit right with a lot of people, especially since Ari Aster desired to be confusing when it came to making the film. With all of the drug-taking in the film being so common, Midsommar may leave you feeling as groggy and disoriented as the characters on screen. However, in between the sacrifices, the brutality, the graphic nature of the film, inbred oracles, and plethora of naked mature women moaning in unison there’s something unique and brilliant about Midsommar you can’t find elsewhere. It may draw parallels to films like Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man and may feel like a bleaker version of The Wizard of Oz on a bad acid trip, but Midsommar is unlike any other film you’ll see this year. In a way, Dani and her friends all get exactly what they came for but the end outcome is that the majority of them bit off more than they could chew. Truth be told, you’ll never look at a bear in a film the same way again even if it does remind you of the Tanooki suit Mario wore in Super Mario Bros 3. This is the type of film where you could literally tell someone everything that happens and it wouldn’t really spoil the film for them. The context of these events is important to witness in succession and in their entirety since what each individual takes away from the film will likely differ person to person.
There’s a deliberate pacing of the film many will find too slow and uneventful as the film’s two and a half hour runtime will already feel daunting. Aster has teased that the original cut of the film was three hours and 45 minutes and he has a version of the film that is 25 minutes longer that was difficult to cut down to the theatrical cut currently in theaters. An extended cut of the film or a large amount of deleted scenes on the Blu-ray (how about that levitation sequence from the trailer?) would certainly be intriguing.
If you enjoy ambiguous filmmaking where everything isn’t explained and the film’s imagery can mean more than one specific thing, then Midsommar may be worth checking out. It is an outlandish experiment by Ari Aster that a large quantity will likely deem a failure. Personally speaking though, Midsommar is such an unconventionally different ceremonial fever dream loaded with preposterousness, beautiful cinematography, hilarity, and anxiety-fueled-dread that it’s not only memorable and bold but also the type of one-of-a-kind film experience I crave whenever the lights dim and the quiet hum of a projector accelerates into a dull yet soothing roar.
Dani’s (Florence Pugh) life is turned inside out once a devastating tragedy leaves her dumbstruck. She leans on her boyfriend of four years, Christian (Jack Reynor), for support, but their relationship is obviously strained. Along with their friends Josh (William Jackson Harper) and Mark (Will Poulter), Dani and Christian end up going on vacation to rural Sweden. They travel to a small village where their friend Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren) grew up and now serves as their host. A rare nine-day festival that only occurs once every 90 years is being celebrated. Josh is utilizing the trip as a means to bulk up his folklore thesis for college while Mark is more interested in partaking in the Swedish women. Christian is attempting to figure out what his thesis will be while Dani searches for some sort of guidance after such a tragic occurrence. Their trip becomes increasingly more peculiar the longer they stay as they’re forced to witness violent rituals and are encouraged to embrace the ways of a Pagan cult.
The intricate illustrations throughout the film like in the opening shot, the elongated love potion cloth, or the walls of the barn-like structure Dani and her friends sleep in, give Midsommar this dark fairy tale aspect to it that a film like Pan’s Labyrinth would be proud of. The Pagan roots of Pelle’s village and the film’s metaphorical feet being so firmly planted in such rich folklore give Midsommar this cautiously fanciful aesthetic. The film capitalizes on the nostalgic sensation of when fairy tales and children’s books were read to you as a child. There are consistent signs that things aren’t right, paranoia lurks around every corner, and the locals set off every ominous alarm in your body, but there’s that naïve part of us buried deep down that wishes for and hopes for a happy ending because cosmetically we believe that is what resides at the end of every fairy tale not written by Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm (The Brothers Grimm).
It’s also interesting observing the main and supporting characters of the film or basically all of the “outsider” guests of the festival. Pelle acts as a conduit/guide between his village and the outside world, Josh is a historian/researcher, Mark is a mocker/fool, Dani and Christian are a strained couple, and Connie (Ellora Torchia) and Simon (Archie Madekwe) are a flourishing one. According to Wikipedia, Ari Aster based Dani and Christian’s relationship on a bad breakup. Midsommar is also way funnier than it has any right to be; something Hereditary completely distanced itself from. Midsommar goes out of its way to boast about who Dani’s real family is in the film. The unified chanting, outrageous theatrics, and harmonized moaning may seem like mockery or complete insanity to some. While it is humorous at times, it seems like this is the way the locals can experience everything everyone else does as a cohesive unit. This seems relevant to emotions, hallucinogens, and even sustenance; this cult does everything together.
Midsommar isn’t going to sit right with a lot of people, especially since Ari Aster desired to be confusing when it came to making the film. With all of the drug-taking in the film being so common, Midsommar may leave you feeling as groggy and disoriented as the characters on screen. However, in between the sacrifices, the brutality, the graphic nature of the film, inbred oracles, and plethora of naked mature women moaning in unison there’s something unique and brilliant about Midsommar you can’t find elsewhere. It may draw parallels to films like Robin Hardy’s The Wicker Man and may feel like a bleaker version of The Wizard of Oz on a bad acid trip, but Midsommar is unlike any other film you’ll see this year. In a way, Dani and her friends all get exactly what they came for but the end outcome is that the majority of them bit off more than they could chew. Truth be told, you’ll never look at a bear in a film the same way again even if it does remind you of the Tanooki suit Mario wore in Super Mario Bros 3. This is the type of film where you could literally tell someone everything that happens and it wouldn’t really spoil the film for them. The context of these events is important to witness in succession and in their entirety since what each individual takes away from the film will likely differ person to person.
There’s a deliberate pacing of the film many will find too slow and uneventful as the film’s two and a half hour runtime will already feel daunting. Aster has teased that the original cut of the film was three hours and 45 minutes and he has a version of the film that is 25 minutes longer that was difficult to cut down to the theatrical cut currently in theaters. An extended cut of the film or a large amount of deleted scenes on the Blu-ray (how about that levitation sequence from the trailer?) would certainly be intriguing.
If you enjoy ambiguous filmmaking where everything isn’t explained and the film’s imagery can mean more than one specific thing, then Midsommar may be worth checking out. It is an outlandish experiment by Ari Aster that a large quantity will likely deem a failure. Personally speaking though, Midsommar is such an unconventionally different ceremonial fever dream loaded with preposterousness, beautiful cinematography, hilarity, and anxiety-fueled-dread that it’s not only memorable and bold but also the type of one-of-a-kind film experience I crave whenever the lights dim and the quiet hum of a projector accelerates into a dull yet soothing roar.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Tales of Evil in Tabletop Games
Oct 1, 2020
It is no surprise that following the enormous success of Netflix’s “Stranger Things” that creators would begin developing ideas borrowed from the show’s setting or characters. Of course we have seen games in this “80s kids Goonie-esque adventure game” genre before, and I have to say that I love the setting. When I saw the Kickstarter campaign for Tales of Evil I was immediately drawn to it. Did my investment pay off or is this one a gnarly bust?
Tales of Evil is a cooperative, horror, storytelling, adventure game that uses a unique new “Fusion System” throughout the game. Players will be taking on personas of kids from the 1980s who belong to a club named “Pizza & Investigation.” I do not wish to reveal too much in this review, so I will be covering this as a Solo Chronicles using one character going through the introductory tutorial mission.
DISCLAIMER: We are using the Kickstarter Deluxe version of the game. We do have the expansions from the KS campaign, but will not be using those for this review. Also, we do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, well, just follow the setup instructions in the rulebook. There’s too much for me to explain here. For one character playing the tutorial scenario, the game setup should look similar to what is pictured below. Maybe. The rulebook does not specifically state WHERE each item should be placed, so players will have ultimate freedom to setup items where they see fit to be most efficient for themselves.
Players in Tales of Evil will have no real “turn structure” as most games do, because all players will be adventuring together as a group. So characters will be moving as a group and never splitting the party (RPGers breathe a sigh of relief… maybe). However, as with many adventure games of this style, once players explore into new areas certain markers will placed on the board (Clue, Darkness, Mystery, Search, etc). These markers signify different actions that can be taken, or entrances to areas that are blocked or found, or something that could be traced from one area to another. The leader of the group for the time being is in possession of the Walkie-Talkie and will make all final decisions for the group after any discussion (for solo players, it is just a nice prop). Usually searching for items will result in a card draw and upon the card will be a test to pass using the stats on the player character mat to roll dice for successes. Of course, the other side of that are horrible losses as well.
Players will be traipsing through the area and reading passages from two actual books: the Story Book and the Event Book. Most of the action happens in the Story Book and it will guide players through the story and once choices are made or tests succeeded/failed, the book will instruct players what to do next and to which section to turn to further the story (a la Tales of the Arabian Nights). The game continues in this fashion until the story ends with victory or defeat.
Components. Why yes, that is a real spoon in the photo above. No, it does not come with the game. I will explain in a bit. The components in this game are great. Each character has their own mat for organization, action cards, equipment cards, and status cards that dictate the difficulty of the game and how the character degrades over time in the horror-filled mission. Some components are even glow-in-the-dark! A nice touch, but certainly unnecessary. I find everything to be wonderful quality, even the cards that are kind of polarizing on the KS comments are nice (people are complaining that they are not linen-finished, but I believe the publisher made the right call to make them matte finished if the linen obscured the look and art on them). Thumbs up for components from me.
I wanted to wait until my final thoughts to explain the whole “Fusion System” that is in play here. Tales of Evil uses the catchphrase, “You will get into the game and the game will get into you!” Now, I’m not sure exactly how this game is getting into me, but I’m certainly digging the game and this Fusion System. You see, some cards (in the tutorial, remember, so I’m not really giving much away here) will give players 60 seconds to grab a kitchen spoon for some benefit and a debilitation if they are unable to find one – hence the spoon in my photos. Another card relies on the character (and also then the player) removing their shoes. Still yet another deals with fire or people smoking in the vicinity. If there is fire nearby in real life, it affects the effects of the card drawn. It’s ingenious and I love every little bit of it! I can’t wait to see how the Fusion System will work in this game more and how it can be applied to other games in the future.
All in all I love everything about Tales of Evil. The setting is great, the Pizza & Investigation kids are awesome, and the game itself is incredibly engaging and makes you really think about the choices you make within. Perhaps the haunting feeling of doubting some choices is how the game gets into you, because I did find myself wondering what would have happened had I chosen a different course for some instances. I am very drawn to this game and I want to tackle all of the scenarios. Even solo! And another great thing about Tales of Evil is the fact that a player (or players) can join a game already in progress! So if I am exploring solo and my wife decides she wants to hop in, she just grabs a character mat, sets up the character, and dives right in with me. I LOVE games like that. So versatile.
While I should probably stop gushing at this point I just can’t. This game is so much fun and worth every penny spent on it. I implore you, if you are a fan of exploration adventure games in this vein you definitely need to snatch up a copy whenever you see one. And if you love it as much as I do let me know. We can swap adventure stories.
Oh did I mention the designer is even created a way for us normies to create our own scenarios and upload them to other Tales of Evil players? Yeah, I’m fascinated by that as well…
Tales of Evil is a cooperative, horror, storytelling, adventure game that uses a unique new “Fusion System” throughout the game. Players will be taking on personas of kids from the 1980s who belong to a club named “Pizza & Investigation.” I do not wish to reveal too much in this review, so I will be covering this as a Solo Chronicles using one character going through the introductory tutorial mission.
DISCLAIMER: We are using the Kickstarter Deluxe version of the game. We do have the expansions from the KS campaign, but will not be using those for this review. Also, we do not intend to cover every single rule included in the rule book, but will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more in depth rules, you may purchase a copy from the publisher directly or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, well, just follow the setup instructions in the rulebook. There’s too much for me to explain here. For one character playing the tutorial scenario, the game setup should look similar to what is pictured below. Maybe. The rulebook does not specifically state WHERE each item should be placed, so players will have ultimate freedom to setup items where they see fit to be most efficient for themselves.
Players in Tales of Evil will have no real “turn structure” as most games do, because all players will be adventuring together as a group. So characters will be moving as a group and never splitting the party (RPGers breathe a sigh of relief… maybe). However, as with many adventure games of this style, once players explore into new areas certain markers will placed on the board (Clue, Darkness, Mystery, Search, etc). These markers signify different actions that can be taken, or entrances to areas that are blocked or found, or something that could be traced from one area to another. The leader of the group for the time being is in possession of the Walkie-Talkie and will make all final decisions for the group after any discussion (for solo players, it is just a nice prop). Usually searching for items will result in a card draw and upon the card will be a test to pass using the stats on the player character mat to roll dice for successes. Of course, the other side of that are horrible losses as well.
Players will be traipsing through the area and reading passages from two actual books: the Story Book and the Event Book. Most of the action happens in the Story Book and it will guide players through the story and once choices are made or tests succeeded/failed, the book will instruct players what to do next and to which section to turn to further the story (a la Tales of the Arabian Nights). The game continues in this fashion until the story ends with victory or defeat.
Components. Why yes, that is a real spoon in the photo above. No, it does not come with the game. I will explain in a bit. The components in this game are great. Each character has their own mat for organization, action cards, equipment cards, and status cards that dictate the difficulty of the game and how the character degrades over time in the horror-filled mission. Some components are even glow-in-the-dark! A nice touch, but certainly unnecessary. I find everything to be wonderful quality, even the cards that are kind of polarizing on the KS comments are nice (people are complaining that they are not linen-finished, but I believe the publisher made the right call to make them matte finished if the linen obscured the look and art on them). Thumbs up for components from me.
I wanted to wait until my final thoughts to explain the whole “Fusion System” that is in play here. Tales of Evil uses the catchphrase, “You will get into the game and the game will get into you!” Now, I’m not sure exactly how this game is getting into me, but I’m certainly digging the game and this Fusion System. You see, some cards (in the tutorial, remember, so I’m not really giving much away here) will give players 60 seconds to grab a kitchen spoon for some benefit and a debilitation if they are unable to find one – hence the spoon in my photos. Another card relies on the character (and also then the player) removing their shoes. Still yet another deals with fire or people smoking in the vicinity. If there is fire nearby in real life, it affects the effects of the card drawn. It’s ingenious and I love every little bit of it! I can’t wait to see how the Fusion System will work in this game more and how it can be applied to other games in the future.
All in all I love everything about Tales of Evil. The setting is great, the Pizza & Investigation kids are awesome, and the game itself is incredibly engaging and makes you really think about the choices you make within. Perhaps the haunting feeling of doubting some choices is how the game gets into you, because I did find myself wondering what would have happened had I chosen a different course for some instances. I am very drawn to this game and I want to tackle all of the scenarios. Even solo! And another great thing about Tales of Evil is the fact that a player (or players) can join a game already in progress! So if I am exploring solo and my wife decides she wants to hop in, she just grabs a character mat, sets up the character, and dives right in with me. I LOVE games like that. So versatile.
While I should probably stop gushing at this point I just can’t. This game is so much fun and worth every penny spent on it. I implore you, if you are a fan of exploration adventure games in this vein you definitely need to snatch up a copy whenever you see one. And if you love it as much as I do let me know. We can swap adventure stories.
Oh did I mention the designer is even created a way for us normies to create our own scenarios and upload them to other Tales of Evil players? Yeah, I’m fascinated by that as well…
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Florence Pugh (2 more)
The free-fall sequence at the end.
Taskmaster before the mask comes off.
It's way too long. (3 more)
The Taskmaster changes are weak.
It's as if the characters are fighting over who gets to be the comedic relief.
Familiar storyline.
Espionage Exhaustion
Black Widow is a film explaining what Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) was up to in-between Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War. The film was originally set to be released in May of 2020, but was pushed back and had three different release dates thanks to COVID-19. Unfortunately, most completed films that sit on the shelf and are in limbo for over a year rarely live up to the anticipation. Black Widow is worthwhile for a few key action sequences and notable characters that steal the spotlight, but is otherwise a mostly forgettable superhero film.
Marketed as a superhero film, Black Widow is also a spy thriller. Johansson has stated that films such as Logan, Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were influences. After Civil War, Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is on the hunt for Natasha Romanoff. Women like Natasha who have had similar training in a torturous training facility known as The Red Room are victims to brainwashing by a man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), but a serum ends up in Natasha’s hands that can break Dreykov’s brainwashing. Natasha begins searching for The Red Room and Dreykov, which also has her crossing paths with other spies that posed as her family members; her “sister” Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), her “father” Alexai Shostakov (David Harbour), and her “mother” Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz).
The biggest selling point for Black Widow is that it’s a mostly female cast in front of and behind the camera. The film is directed by Cate Shortland and Black Widow is her first big budget feature. It’s also co-written by female screenwriter Jac Schaeffer (uncredited co-screenwriter of Captain Marvel) and Ned Benson (director of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby).
Taskmaster is cool in the film until you realize the character has been altered from his comic book origins. This isn’t uncommon in the MCU or even other live-action superhero adaptations, but what the character has become in the film will be received with mixed results. In the comics, Taskmaster’s real identity is Anthony Masters and he’s a mercenary not unlike Deadpool (the two have fought together and against each other). Copying fighting styles and weapon techniques is similar to the film, but it’s all thanks to his incredible memory and photographic reflexes.
The character is altered to fit the story in the Black Widow film. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as it gives a bigger purpose for the character since it suddenly becomes a major part of Natasha’s storyline, but how the character evolves over the course of the film seems to almost relieve Natasha of her past sins rather than continue to serve as a catalyst. Taskmaster is generally involved in some of the best hand-to-hand combat sequences, but seems to be left hanging by the end of the film. We could see the character again, but whether or not the desire is there to see Taskmaster return is debatable.
The free-fall sequence that has been teased in the trailers is Black Widow’s most unique source of action. There’s exploding elements and falling debris, Natasha trying to save someone’s life, and Taskmaster thrown in attempting to mess up whatever she has planned; plus a bunch of goons bringing up the rear that will obviously be taken out in peak fashion. The sequence is like a duel to the death taking place on the edge of a volcano that’s about to erupt. It’s on the verge of being overkill, but is just awesome enough to trigger all of the adrenaline in your body.
Kevin Feige apparently wanted an equal amount of screen time for both Natasha and Yelena. With the after-credits sequence, Natasha being very dead after the events of Infinity War, and the reports that Yelena may be the new Black Widow, she’s essentially the star of the film and for good reason. The character begins as an individual with a chip on her shoulder from someone from her past, but Florence Pugh is able to add humor and empathy with her performance. Yelena has the best one-liners in the film (“That would be a cool way to die,”) and is essentially the best source of comedic relief (i.e. her hysterectomy rant), as well. She is the one character in the film you’d want to see more of after Black Widow ends.
The storyline of Black Widow doesn’t feel like anything you haven’t experienced cinematically before, especially within the confines of the MCU. An evil man is responsible for pulling the strings of a bunch of women that would kick his ass otherwise. Unfortunately, Ray Winstone doesn’t feel all that intimidating as Dreykov since he doesn’t do much besides talk in Black Widow. The point is made in the film that is all there’s really needed of the character, but Dreykov’s biggest weapon is his mouth. However, his verbal skills don’t seem advantageous enough to make him such a threat let alone keep him alive for over 20 years.
It also feels like every MCU film has its on-screen characters competing over who can get the most laughs; this is something that only got worse after Thor: Ragnarok proved to be a success. Marvel films are already so formulaic with most villains being introduced and killed within the confines of a single film. Natasha’s spy family all feel like minor extensions of herself. Rachel Weisz, despite not aging a day in nearly 30 years, is forgettable as Melina. David Harbour is essentially his character from Stranger things cosplaying as Mr. Incredible with a Russian accent. Even Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova character is basically a blonde younger version of Natasha even though they’re not related by blood.
Black Widow clocks in at over two hours and it feels like a film that could have been edited down. Witnessing the events of a dysfunctional spy family who then spend good chunks of the film reminiscing about those moments the audience has already seen is redundant storytelling that feels like nothing more than filler.
Black Widow is worth seeing for Florence Pugh, the free-fall action sequence, and anything involving Taskmaster before it’s revealed who is under the mask. Everything else about Black Widow feels like it was done better by the films it was supposedly influenced by and mostly feels like a diluted imitation of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s fantastic that women are getting more opportunities in big summer blockbusters like this one, but it’s also disheartening since their filmmaking skills are shackled to formulaic superfluity that obviously stands in the way of creating extraordinary cinema.
Marketed as a superhero film, Black Widow is also a spy thriller. Johansson has stated that films such as Logan, Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were influences. After Civil War, Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is on the hunt for Natasha Romanoff. Women like Natasha who have had similar training in a torturous training facility known as The Red Room are victims to brainwashing by a man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), but a serum ends up in Natasha’s hands that can break Dreykov’s brainwashing. Natasha begins searching for The Red Room and Dreykov, which also has her crossing paths with other spies that posed as her family members; her “sister” Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), her “father” Alexai Shostakov (David Harbour), and her “mother” Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz).
The biggest selling point for Black Widow is that it’s a mostly female cast in front of and behind the camera. The film is directed by Cate Shortland and Black Widow is her first big budget feature. It’s also co-written by female screenwriter Jac Schaeffer (uncredited co-screenwriter of Captain Marvel) and Ned Benson (director of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby).
Taskmaster is cool in the film until you realize the character has been altered from his comic book origins. This isn’t uncommon in the MCU or even other live-action superhero adaptations, but what the character has become in the film will be received with mixed results. In the comics, Taskmaster’s real identity is Anthony Masters and he’s a mercenary not unlike Deadpool (the two have fought together and against each other). Copying fighting styles and weapon techniques is similar to the film, but it’s all thanks to his incredible memory and photographic reflexes.
The character is altered to fit the story in the Black Widow film. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as it gives a bigger purpose for the character since it suddenly becomes a major part of Natasha’s storyline, but how the character evolves over the course of the film seems to almost relieve Natasha of her past sins rather than continue to serve as a catalyst. Taskmaster is generally involved in some of the best hand-to-hand combat sequences, but seems to be left hanging by the end of the film. We could see the character again, but whether or not the desire is there to see Taskmaster return is debatable.
The free-fall sequence that has been teased in the trailers is Black Widow’s most unique source of action. There’s exploding elements and falling debris, Natasha trying to save someone’s life, and Taskmaster thrown in attempting to mess up whatever she has planned; plus a bunch of goons bringing up the rear that will obviously be taken out in peak fashion. The sequence is like a duel to the death taking place on the edge of a volcano that’s about to erupt. It’s on the verge of being overkill, but is just awesome enough to trigger all of the adrenaline in your body.
Kevin Feige apparently wanted an equal amount of screen time for both Natasha and Yelena. With the after-credits sequence, Natasha being very dead after the events of Infinity War, and the reports that Yelena may be the new Black Widow, she’s essentially the star of the film and for good reason. The character begins as an individual with a chip on her shoulder from someone from her past, but Florence Pugh is able to add humor and empathy with her performance. Yelena has the best one-liners in the film (“That would be a cool way to die,”) and is essentially the best source of comedic relief (i.e. her hysterectomy rant), as well. She is the one character in the film you’d want to see more of after Black Widow ends.
The storyline of Black Widow doesn’t feel like anything you haven’t experienced cinematically before, especially within the confines of the MCU. An evil man is responsible for pulling the strings of a bunch of women that would kick his ass otherwise. Unfortunately, Ray Winstone doesn’t feel all that intimidating as Dreykov since he doesn’t do much besides talk in Black Widow. The point is made in the film that is all there’s really needed of the character, but Dreykov’s biggest weapon is his mouth. However, his verbal skills don’t seem advantageous enough to make him such a threat let alone keep him alive for over 20 years.
It also feels like every MCU film has its on-screen characters competing over who can get the most laughs; this is something that only got worse after Thor: Ragnarok proved to be a success. Marvel films are already so formulaic with most villains being introduced and killed within the confines of a single film. Natasha’s spy family all feel like minor extensions of herself. Rachel Weisz, despite not aging a day in nearly 30 years, is forgettable as Melina. David Harbour is essentially his character from Stranger things cosplaying as Mr. Incredible with a Russian accent. Even Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova character is basically a blonde younger version of Natasha even though they’re not related by blood.
Black Widow clocks in at over two hours and it feels like a film that could have been edited down. Witnessing the events of a dysfunctional spy family who then spend good chunks of the film reminiscing about those moments the audience has already seen is redundant storytelling that feels like nothing more than filler.
Black Widow is worth seeing for Florence Pugh, the free-fall action sequence, and anything involving Taskmaster before it’s revealed who is under the mask. Everything else about Black Widow feels like it was done better by the films it was supposedly influenced by and mostly feels like a diluted imitation of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s fantastic that women are getting more opportunities in big summer blockbusters like this one, but it’s also disheartening since their filmmaking skills are shackled to formulaic superfluity that obviously stands in the way of creating extraordinary cinema.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Last of Us Part II in Video Games
Jun 30, 2020 (Updated Jul 1, 2020)
Gameplay (2 more)
Graphics
Sound
I'm Not Mad, I'm Just Disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's been a while since I've written anything, but I couldn't let this one go by without saying anything about it.
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
The Last Of Us Part 2 is the biggest disappointment of 2020.
I finished the game a few days ago and have been letting it process in my mind in the hopes that it will somehow make more sense to me. So far that hasn't been the case.
Let me provide you with some context, I wanted to like this game more than anyone. The first Last Of Us is one of my favourite games of all time and because of the spectacular writing and performances in that first game, I was really excited to see what would happen to these characters. This was definitely one of my most anticipated releases in recent years and I'm genuinely in awe at how much of a let down it was, especially after the 10/10 reviews I had been reading leading up to the game's release.
Spoilers will follow from this point on as it's pretty difficult to discuss my reasoning for being let down by the game without getting in depth, so please tread carefully if you have yet to play through the game.
First off, I don't normally like to bring up my personal politics when discussing fictional media, but I do feel that it's necessary to mention that I am pro LGBTQ+ and none of my issues with this game stem from any sort of political bias that I may have.
The game opens slowly, juxtaposing the intense opening of the first game. However these slow opening few hours really allow you to drink in the breathtaking visuals and fantastic sound design. These elements really help to sell the cinematic nature of the game, along with consistently stellar performances.
Then we are shown the main conflict that will propel the story for the sequel. Joel is unceremoniosly murdered by Abby, a new character that we know nothing about at this point.
Now I don't have a problem with main characters being killed off in a story, in fact as a Tarantino fan, I relish it when it's done properly. The problem with Joel's death is the way that it was executed. First off, Joel and Tommy would never in a million years have blindly trusted this random faction that they've just bumped into enough to give them their names so quickly. They've both survived 25 years in the apocalypse and yet the writers still expect you to believe that they would be this naïve and stupid. Then, there's the fact that this is how they choose to introduce this new group that you are later expected to sympathize with and this character that they will later force you to play as for half the game. Why would anyone who is a fan of this world and these characters want to play and learn about this random ruthless killer?
Now, what you might be asking is "aren't Joel and Ellie ruthless killers at this point?" And you would be right, they are. However the point is that we were already invested in these characters before we seen them ruthlessly murdering infected and humans alike and therefore are able to put it down to them having to do what they had to in order to survive. With Abby you are introduced to her killing a beloved character from the first game for the sake of pure shock value.
The first game came out during an oversaturation period of zombie stories across media and yet because of it's stellar writing, it managed to stand out from the crowd and actually become one of the most unique games of the last generation in terms of the story it told. The story in this game feels so generic by comparison. I remember watching interviews with Neil Druckman in the lead up to the game's release where he would talk about how the main hurdle of writing this game was justifying it's existence after the first one ended so well. Really? You had seven years and another generic revenge plot was the best thing that you could come up with?
Another highlight from the first game was the fleshed out side characters that all felt deep and like they really existed in the world. Characters like Tess, Bill and Marlene all naturally fitted into the plot and felt necessary to the overall story being told. The same cannot be said for the side characters in this game. I have already mentioned how it is made impossible to sympathize with Abby and her crew after seeing what they did to Joel. There are two other new characters introduced called Yara and Lev. They are siblings, which put me in mind of Henry and Sam from the first game, but where Henry and Sam felt layered and genuine, Yara and Lev feel shallow and shoehorned in to give Abby's plotline some narrative weight.
Then there is the strange pacing of the story. I feel like I must reiterate, they introduce a character that murders the beloved protagonist from the first game and later expect you to sympathize with her. Then there is the fact that you play as Ellie for the next 8 hours or so before they present you with a shocking cliffhanger, only to then force you to play as Abby for the next 10 hours. Not only are they making you play as the character that murdered Joel and Jessie in cold blood, but every extra hour that they unsuccessfully attempt to make you feel sorry for Abby is another hour before you can get back to see how the cliffhanger, (that was introduced 10 hours ago,) is resolved. And then, they bafflingly make you fight Ellie while playing as Abby. Why would the game expect me to want to hurt this character that I care about as this brand new random stranger?
You are then eventually given control back as Ellie and the game lulls you into a false sense of thinking that you are finally done playing as Abby. Then Ellie makes the totally nonsensical decision to abandon a nice, cushty, quiet farm life that she's carved out for herself, to go after Abby yet again.
After that, you guessed it! You are forced to play as Abby yet again. Thankfully it's only briefly as we then at long last get to properly play as Ellie again. Not sure if you remember her at this point, she's the one that's in all of the trailers and posters and on the cover of the damn game?
Then we get what is probably the most anticlimactic ending in the history of gaming. Ellie lets Abby go. After Abby killed Joel and Jessie and crippled Tommy and after Ellie murdered all of Abby's friends and after Ellie abandoned her girlfriend and step-son and had her fingers bitten off, she's just like, "nah fam, I'm good."
I'm sorry, what?
You are going to break your promise to Tommy and let the person that murdered your father figure get away? Why?
If getting your revenge wasn't worth it, you should have really realized that back on the farm when you were surrounded by people you love and a chance at a family life. If you chose to leave that behind you must be committed enough to see it through, otherwise it is all for nothing. There is subverting audience expectations and then there is having your characters make nonsensical decisions and I feel like TLOU2 was full of the latter.
On a positive note, the gameplay is extremely fun and satisfying. Every blow lands with more force and every bullet seems to strike even harder than in the first game. It does get a bit repetitive after a while and the actual function of taking out a group of enemies hasn't evolved a great deal since the first game, but I still really enjoyed it. The upgrading and crafting systems have also been fleshed out. This, along with the immaculate graphical presentation, tight, fluid animations, brilliant audio and expectedly phenomenal performances make for something with so much potential, with only the writing and direction letting it down. Unfortunately, writing and directing are both pretty essential in a story driven game.
Before I summarise, I'd like to highlight that I am not against stories that explore the moral grey area and don't have clear heroes and villains. For example, Metal Gear Solid is my favourite franchise in gaming and the whole point of that series is to show that there is no black and white, but we all do things for our own reasons. A good story should be able to make you see the things from the "villain's" point of view without being like, "look see what you did to them? That is why they are the way they are! Look see, she is a good person because she plays fetch with dogs!" In TLOU2 it all just feels so forced and unnatural. A good storyteller should show a character's motivations and then show their actions and leave it up to audience to decide if it's justified, instead of strictly saying, "this character is 100% justified in the heinous act that you just seen her commit, now you must be on her side!"
I think that's all that I've got to say and I guess at the very least, this game has got people talking. You cannot accuse it of playing it safe, but there are a ton of different ways that the plot could have went that probably would have been a lot more satisfying for fans of the series like myself. 6/10
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Robber Knight in Books
Sep 10, 2019
When you are fighting for the freedom of your people, falling in love with your enemy is not a great idea. Or is it? Ayla has to defend her castle and her people all on her own, with nobody to help her but a dark warrior she hates with all her heart.
Sir Reuben, the dreaded robber knight, has long been Ayla’s deadliest enemy. He has prayed on her and her people ever since her father fell ill, and she swore he would hang for his crimes. Now they are both trapped in her castle as the army of a far greater enemy approaches, and they have only one chance: stand together, or fall.
This book wasn’t bad, honestly. I’m a huge fan of historical fiction, and it had been awhile since I’ve read a medieval love story, so that was a nice change of pace.
The author is a historian, so there are a lot of little things in this book that you don’t see in a lot of other historical romance books. For instance,you can’t pull out arrows because there are often barbs attached to cause fatal wounds if pulled out. I did like learning about all of these facts. But sometimes Thier lets the historian in him gets the best of him, but more on that later.
Lady Ayla was a pretty interesting character. Headstrong and wise for her years, she is very noble and progressive. She has all of the makings for a great leader– with the exception of knowledge. I loved how kind and committed she was to her people and I love the fact that she has some spunk. I mean, if I’m getting robbed in the forest by this random stranger, then I hope I would swear him out too (of course, if I could beat him up and get away, then that’s even better, but Ayla doesn’t have much self-defense skills). But there were many times that she was annoying, like her insistence on being near battles, even before she started treating the sick. And how she tried to manage Sir Isenbard during battle. She had called on him for help because he was an experienced knight, and now she was questioning his commands and strategies in the heat of battle!
Mostly, though, I really did like Ayla. She defines the idea of nobility. With war inevitable, she’s willing to ride personally to the edges of her land to warn her subjects and she is always at the outskirts of battle to help care for the wounded. She invites everyone into the castle for their safety and rations herself as well as the others to conserve food. She’s even willing to corrupt herself to save her people.
Reuben is an excellent character as well, although it did take me awhile to like him. In the beginning he fell a little flat. It’s clear that he used to be a knight but something happened and now he robs people for his own greed. A near-death experience and being saved by Lady Ayla reawakens the humanity in him. And apparently also some depth.
In the beginning of the book he spends a lot of his time admiring his loot and laughing about his victims, who thought they had a right to steal from him. But that’s all he does. We have no real insight into his character or backstory until after he’s in Ayla’s care. Only then are there hints of a bad history where he had been arrested many times, been tortured, and had at one point been a member of respectable society. If it weren’t for the fact that I liked Ayla’a character and the plot so far, I probably would have stopped reading.
Thier is a writer who has really good potential in becoming a great romance writer, especially for historical fiction. The plots have some unique twists that are augmented by his knowledge of history and after Reuben’s character shaped up, he was an excellent love interest. But there is one huge problem with this story: the footnotes.
There are so many footnotes throughout most of the book that I feel like I’m reading a history textbook, which is not good when I usually read romance novels to take a break from homework. Not only are they distracting and unnecessary, but they are also rude and condescending. Sure, sometimes they were useful, like in explaining the references to the seven princes of hell. Another one was a pretty funny anecdote about how one of his readers had actually confirmed that lard burns and that burning arrows work because they had actually done it. There is also a lot of wit throughout the footnotes which is pretty amusing. But most of the time, they were annoying.
For instance, Robert Thier thought it was necessary to include a footnote about how witches were considered bad during medieval times. Seriously? Even if someone failed history, we know that witches are not considered fine, upstanding citizens. Or maybe he thinks all of us have been locked in our rooms with no books, internet or television for our entire lives and for the month of October we all miraculously fell into a coma so we couldn’t see the giant blow-up witch in the neighbor’s yard. And then we’d all wake up singing Christmas carols after the month long coma without a care in the world because this happens every year so we don’t know what a witch is. (I’m developing a conspiracy theory about how these strange comas was caused by witchcraft.)
Maybe Thier assumed that instead of us thinking Reuben was scared of witches when he wondered if Ayla was one, we just thought he was commenting on how much Ayla looked like Sandra Bullock.
And one of the footnotes was just plain offensive. Here is the line of text that the footnote is attached to: “Heel! Abominable villain! You dare defy me?” (page 74)
Now, here’s the footnote: “Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but this doesn’t refer to high heels. It is a medieval term for a very nasty person.”
Excuse me? Did you just assume that I thought it meant high heels and that would make me excited? What world do you live in?
Apparently he thinks “the ladies” are so dumb that we are incapable of taking context clues and we immediately think everything relates back to fashion. Maybe I didn’t know it meant “very nasty person”, but it’s pretty clear it’s a swear or insult of sometime, not a freaking Jimmy Choo. Does he just imagine us thinking high heel every time we hear the word?
“She broke his nose with the heel of her hand.” Oh. High heel!
“Heel, fido! I said heel!” Oh. High heel!
“It will take one or two days for your cut to heal.” Oh. High heel! (Because if he thinks we don’t understand the difference between uncomfortable footwear and an insult, then he probably thinks we can’t spell, either).
But hey, at least Robert Thier thinks women can memorize stuff, because the footnote links stop as the vocabulary is repeated instead of new terms being introduced.
Aside from the footnotes, I really do like this book, and I can’t wait to read the second part of it, which I’ll read soon. Thier still has a long way to go, but I think after he has more experience, he’ll write some great books.
Sir Reuben, the dreaded robber knight, has long been Ayla’s deadliest enemy. He has prayed on her and her people ever since her father fell ill, and she swore he would hang for his crimes. Now they are both trapped in her castle as the army of a far greater enemy approaches, and they have only one chance: stand together, or fall.
This book wasn’t bad, honestly. I’m a huge fan of historical fiction, and it had been awhile since I’ve read a medieval love story, so that was a nice change of pace.
The author is a historian, so there are a lot of little things in this book that you don’t see in a lot of other historical romance books. For instance,you can’t pull out arrows because there are often barbs attached to cause fatal wounds if pulled out. I did like learning about all of these facts. But sometimes Thier lets the historian in him gets the best of him, but more on that later.
Lady Ayla was a pretty interesting character. Headstrong and wise for her years, she is very noble and progressive. She has all of the makings for a great leader– with the exception of knowledge. I loved how kind and committed she was to her people and I love the fact that she has some spunk. I mean, if I’m getting robbed in the forest by this random stranger, then I hope I would swear him out too (of course, if I could beat him up and get away, then that’s even better, but Ayla doesn’t have much self-defense skills). But there were many times that she was annoying, like her insistence on being near battles, even before she started treating the sick. And how she tried to manage Sir Isenbard during battle. She had called on him for help because he was an experienced knight, and now she was questioning his commands and strategies in the heat of battle!
Mostly, though, I really did like Ayla. She defines the idea of nobility. With war inevitable, she’s willing to ride personally to the edges of her land to warn her subjects and she is always at the outskirts of battle to help care for the wounded. She invites everyone into the castle for their safety and rations herself as well as the others to conserve food. She’s even willing to corrupt herself to save her people.
Reuben is an excellent character as well, although it did take me awhile to like him. In the beginning he fell a little flat. It’s clear that he used to be a knight but something happened and now he robs people for his own greed. A near-death experience and being saved by Lady Ayla reawakens the humanity in him. And apparently also some depth.
In the beginning of the book he spends a lot of his time admiring his loot and laughing about his victims, who thought they had a right to steal from him. But that’s all he does. We have no real insight into his character or backstory until after he’s in Ayla’s care. Only then are there hints of a bad history where he had been arrested many times, been tortured, and had at one point been a member of respectable society. If it weren’t for the fact that I liked Ayla’a character and the plot so far, I probably would have stopped reading.
Thier is a writer who has really good potential in becoming a great romance writer, especially for historical fiction. The plots have some unique twists that are augmented by his knowledge of history and after Reuben’s character shaped up, he was an excellent love interest. But there is one huge problem with this story: the footnotes.
There are so many footnotes throughout most of the book that I feel like I’m reading a history textbook, which is not good when I usually read romance novels to take a break from homework. Not only are they distracting and unnecessary, but they are also rude and condescending. Sure, sometimes they were useful, like in explaining the references to the seven princes of hell. Another one was a pretty funny anecdote about how one of his readers had actually confirmed that lard burns and that burning arrows work because they had actually done it. There is also a lot of wit throughout the footnotes which is pretty amusing. But most of the time, they were annoying.
For instance, Robert Thier thought it was necessary to include a footnote about how witches were considered bad during medieval times. Seriously? Even if someone failed history, we know that witches are not considered fine, upstanding citizens. Or maybe he thinks all of us have been locked in our rooms with no books, internet or television for our entire lives and for the month of October we all miraculously fell into a coma so we couldn’t see the giant blow-up witch in the neighbor’s yard. And then we’d all wake up singing Christmas carols after the month long coma without a care in the world because this happens every year so we don’t know what a witch is. (I’m developing a conspiracy theory about how these strange comas was caused by witchcraft.)
Maybe Thier assumed that instead of us thinking Reuben was scared of witches when he wondered if Ayla was one, we just thought he was commenting on how much Ayla looked like Sandra Bullock.
And one of the footnotes was just plain offensive. Here is the line of text that the footnote is attached to: “Heel! Abominable villain! You dare defy me?” (page 74)
Now, here’s the footnote: “Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but this doesn’t refer to high heels. It is a medieval term for a very nasty person.”
Excuse me? Did you just assume that I thought it meant high heels and that would make me excited? What world do you live in?
Apparently he thinks “the ladies” are so dumb that we are incapable of taking context clues and we immediately think everything relates back to fashion. Maybe I didn’t know it meant “very nasty person”, but it’s pretty clear it’s a swear or insult of sometime, not a freaking Jimmy Choo. Does he just imagine us thinking high heel every time we hear the word?
“She broke his nose with the heel of her hand.” Oh. High heel!
“Heel, fido! I said heel!” Oh. High heel!
“It will take one or two days for your cut to heal.” Oh. High heel! (Because if he thinks we don’t understand the difference between uncomfortable footwear and an insult, then he probably thinks we can’t spell, either).
But hey, at least Robert Thier thinks women can memorize stuff, because the footnote links stop as the vocabulary is repeated instead of new terms being introduced.
Aside from the footnotes, I really do like this book, and I can’t wait to read the second part of it, which I’ll read soon. Thier still has a long way to go, but I think after he has more experience, he’ll write some great books.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Red Dead Redemption 2 in Video Games
Oct 30, 2018 (Updated Nov 20, 2018)
Slow West
I have decided to do something totally different for my Red Dead 2 review; instead of just reviewing it as a whole once I am finished with it, I am going to start my review just now and then continually add to it the further through it I progress. There are a few reasons for this, firstly because this game is huge and is probably too vast to sum up in just a few paragraphs once I have completed the story. Secondly, because we would all be waiting weeks for me to review it; I am not going to be done with this thing anytime soon. Third is because it's something new, a break from my traditional structure of writing reviews. Finally, because I feel that my opinion on this game is going to change based on the different things that I experience during my playthrough, along with my score of the game. There will also most likely be spoilers as we move on through the game, so maybe just read up to where you have also played to. Once I have completed the game, I may write a summary of my thoughts at the bottom of this review, or I might just scrap this and write a whole new review from scratch, we shall see.
So far, I think I have played between 3 - 4 hours of the game and already I have been through a range of emotions. The game opened in a very cinematic fashion and I was on-board right away. The shots used and atmosphere that was present was very reminiscent of The Hateful 8. Then you get to a small group of shacks and are forced to play through the first few story missions consecutively, which act as tutorials for a lot of the games systems. This part is pretty laborious, but thankfully just as I was starting to get bored, you progress to Chapter 2 and the game opens up.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy the first few hours I spent wandering through the game's world. Arthur moves so damn slowly and every task takes an age to complete, in fact every part of the game seems slow. Horse riding to a location takes forever, the few moments of gunplay are sparse and the aiming controls are anything but smooth. Other than that, the time is spent chopping wood or doing other chores. The word CHORE, is actually adequate to describe the gameplay up to this point.
To break up this slow pace, I decided to go exploring and do some outlaw activities. The problem is that this game's witness/bounty system is ridiculous. You can't so much as lift a finger in the Valentine town centre without the lawmen hunting you and your bounty climbing higher and higher. I'm talking anything from accidently bumping someone with your horse to walking beside another citizen for too long - it is ridiculously harsh and Rockstar seem to favour 'realism,' over fun with this mechanic. So, because I am getting so much grief from the lawmen in Valentine and racking up a bounty way higher than I can afford at this early stage, I decide to go off the beaten path and look for loners to rob. The problem here is, even if you meticulously look around the area to make sure that the coast is clear and then rob your victim, someone out of the blue will appear, halfway across the map and run toward the nearest town to report you. So, naturally you hunt down that witness and kill them, then another witness sees this occur and start running to report you and the cycle continues until someone inevitably reports or shoots you. It's as if Rockstar don't want you to have fun and play the outlaw in their game about playing as an outlaw.
Reading back on what I've read so far, I feel like I have bashed this game pretty hard. As an aspiring game developer myself, I have an idea of what goes into a project like this and what Rockstar have achieved in that sense is truly astonishing and inspiring. The lighting work along with the cinematic camera and near photo-realistic graphics make this game a visual beauty. The world also feels genuinely alive, the voice acting is brilliant and the small touches and intricate level of detail present is insane. Presentation wise, this game is flawless.
Okay, at this point I am about 5 or 6 hours into the game. I am still on chapter 2 and have only done a couple more story missions, but I have done a good bit of exploring too. So far, I have experienced 2 bugs. One was when a story mission required me to get on a horse to take and sell at the Valentine stable and the horse was invisible during the cutscene and non-existent when it switched to gameplay. A quick restart solved this, but still the bug was present during a main story mission.
The other happened during a random stranger encounter. I was riding through an open area full of lumberjacks cutting down trees and one of the trees fell on a guy's leg. I got off my horse and ran over to help, but while doing so, I saw a bunch of bounty hunter symbols appear on the mini map. I ignored them and pressed the button prompt to help lift the tree, but while doing so, the bounty hunters appeared and fired their guns in the air. The rest of the men fled and I was left standing beside the guy that was trapped under the tree, unable to move or do anything. As I stood and spammed every button trying to make Arthur move, the bounty hunters just surrounded me and pointed their guns towards me, but none of them shot. We were left in this awkward standoff for a few minutes before I eventually gave up and had to restart. This second bug is probably the more egregious of the two I've had so far, as I now have no way of knowing if I am going to be able to get that random encounter again.
This is annoying as the random encounters are by far the best part of this game so far. I don't want to spoil too many of them here, but they range from exciting to terrifying to just plain sad and all of them are brilliant.
As I settle into Arthur as a character, I realise more and more how much I prefer and miss playing as John. John was cool where Arthur is goofy. John was smooth where Arthur is wooden. Don't get me wrong, Arthur is well written and acted, but I really think he would play better as a side character rather than a protagonist. Plus the way I play him totally contradicts his whole attitude. I'm playing him as a ruthless killer who shoots entire groups of people on sight and he is still a lovable, goofy rogue in cutscenes.
I have played a few more hours over the last few nights, I must be around 10 hours in now, (although there doesn't seem to be any way of checking that for sure.) I am still on Chapter 2 in terms of the story, but I have been doing a lot of exploring and have found/bought a decent amount of better gear and weapons for Arthur. It also turns out that there is some fast travel in this game, if you upgrade Dutch's tent via the camp ledger and then upgrade your own, (costs about $500 all in,) you can fast travel from the camp to any major location that you have previously visited. Unfortunately while I was fast travelling last night to a location, I experience the first occurrence of pop-in that I have seen so far in the game. I understand that this game is extremely vast and there is a great deal to load in, but when every other aspect of the game is so polished in terms of presentation, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
In terms of exploration, I have probably spent less than half of my 10 hours in the game so far doing story missions and instead spent the majority of my time just riding/walking around and taking in the sights, or speaking to strangers, or violently robbing and killing them at gunpoint whenever the notion takes me. Strawberry is a cool little town, it is quite similar to Valentine in terms of the size and the available shops etc. St Denis is another story. Located at the south-east corner of the map, it is a huge, bustling city with an overwhelming amount to take in. Without spoiling too much, it will also open up a few more opportunities for Arthur once you get there.
I have played a lot more of the game since I last updated this, I'd guess I am closer to 20 hours playtime than 10 at this point. I have finally progressed to Chapter 3, the gang has moved camp to near another small town called Rhodes, which has lots to see and do considering it's small size. That is one thing that Rockstar have undoubtedly nailed in this game, making these towns truly feel alive and like they continue to exist even when you are not riding through them. I'd go as far as to say that this open world feels more alive than any other one that I have spent time in.
The story missions up until this point are touch and go. Some are really fun and exciting and some are monotonous and boring and feel more like busywork than progress. I much prefer the side missions up to this point. The debt collecting missions and the bounty missions are satisfying and feel worthwhile. The robbery side missions that you do with certain gang members are also a nice, more engaging change from the slower pace of the story.
In terms of the game's characters, I am just as much of as a fan of John Marston as I was in the last game and I must admit that spending more time with Arthur has made him grow on me slightly. As for the rest of the gang though, it's a mixed bag. I like Sean, Charles, Javier and Lenny, but the rest are just annoying and a chore to be around. One major disappointment regarding the characters for me, is that I thought that this game was going to make me sympathise with Dutch and see things from his perspective, the way that MGS 3 did for Big Boss, but no. Apparently he was always an unlikable dick.
So far, I think I have played between 3 - 4 hours of the game and already I have been through a range of emotions. The game opened in a very cinematic fashion and I was on-board right away. The shots used and atmosphere that was present was very reminiscent of The Hateful 8. Then you get to a small group of shacks and are forced to play through the first few story missions consecutively, which act as tutorials for a lot of the games systems. This part is pretty laborious, but thankfully just as I was starting to get bored, you progress to Chapter 2 and the game opens up.
I must admit, I didn't enjoy the first few hours I spent wandering through the game's world. Arthur moves so damn slowly and every task takes an age to complete, in fact every part of the game seems slow. Horse riding to a location takes forever, the few moments of gunplay are sparse and the aiming controls are anything but smooth. Other than that, the time is spent chopping wood or doing other chores. The word CHORE, is actually adequate to describe the gameplay up to this point.
To break up this slow pace, I decided to go exploring and do some outlaw activities. The problem is that this game's witness/bounty system is ridiculous. You can't so much as lift a finger in the Valentine town centre without the lawmen hunting you and your bounty climbing higher and higher. I'm talking anything from accidently bumping someone with your horse to walking beside another citizen for too long - it is ridiculously harsh and Rockstar seem to favour 'realism,' over fun with this mechanic. So, because I am getting so much grief from the lawmen in Valentine and racking up a bounty way higher than I can afford at this early stage, I decide to go off the beaten path and look for loners to rob. The problem here is, even if you meticulously look around the area to make sure that the coast is clear and then rob your victim, someone out of the blue will appear, halfway across the map and run toward the nearest town to report you. So, naturally you hunt down that witness and kill them, then another witness sees this occur and start running to report you and the cycle continues until someone inevitably reports or shoots you. It's as if Rockstar don't want you to have fun and play the outlaw in their game about playing as an outlaw.
Reading back on what I've read so far, I feel like I have bashed this game pretty hard. As an aspiring game developer myself, I have an idea of what goes into a project like this and what Rockstar have achieved in that sense is truly astonishing and inspiring. The lighting work along with the cinematic camera and near photo-realistic graphics make this game a visual beauty. The world also feels genuinely alive, the voice acting is brilliant and the small touches and intricate level of detail present is insane. Presentation wise, this game is flawless.
Okay, at this point I am about 5 or 6 hours into the game. I am still on chapter 2 and have only done a couple more story missions, but I have done a good bit of exploring too. So far, I have experienced 2 bugs. One was when a story mission required me to get on a horse to take and sell at the Valentine stable and the horse was invisible during the cutscene and non-existent when it switched to gameplay. A quick restart solved this, but still the bug was present during a main story mission.
The other happened during a random stranger encounter. I was riding through an open area full of lumberjacks cutting down trees and one of the trees fell on a guy's leg. I got off my horse and ran over to help, but while doing so, I saw a bunch of bounty hunter symbols appear on the mini map. I ignored them and pressed the button prompt to help lift the tree, but while doing so, the bounty hunters appeared and fired their guns in the air. The rest of the men fled and I was left standing beside the guy that was trapped under the tree, unable to move or do anything. As I stood and spammed every button trying to make Arthur move, the bounty hunters just surrounded me and pointed their guns towards me, but none of them shot. We were left in this awkward standoff for a few minutes before I eventually gave up and had to restart. This second bug is probably the more egregious of the two I've had so far, as I now have no way of knowing if I am going to be able to get that random encounter again.
This is annoying as the random encounters are by far the best part of this game so far. I don't want to spoil too many of them here, but they range from exciting to terrifying to just plain sad and all of them are brilliant.
As I settle into Arthur as a character, I realise more and more how much I prefer and miss playing as John. John was cool where Arthur is goofy. John was smooth where Arthur is wooden. Don't get me wrong, Arthur is well written and acted, but I really think he would play better as a side character rather than a protagonist. Plus the way I play him totally contradicts his whole attitude. I'm playing him as a ruthless killer who shoots entire groups of people on sight and he is still a lovable, goofy rogue in cutscenes.
I have played a few more hours over the last few nights, I must be around 10 hours in now, (although there doesn't seem to be any way of checking that for sure.) I am still on Chapter 2 in terms of the story, but I have been doing a lot of exploring and have found/bought a decent amount of better gear and weapons for Arthur. It also turns out that there is some fast travel in this game, if you upgrade Dutch's tent via the camp ledger and then upgrade your own, (costs about $500 all in,) you can fast travel from the camp to any major location that you have previously visited. Unfortunately while I was fast travelling last night to a location, I experience the first occurrence of pop-in that I have seen so far in the game. I understand that this game is extremely vast and there is a great deal to load in, but when every other aspect of the game is so polished in terms of presentation, it stuck out like a sore thumb.
In terms of exploration, I have probably spent less than half of my 10 hours in the game so far doing story missions and instead spent the majority of my time just riding/walking around and taking in the sights, or speaking to strangers, or violently robbing and killing them at gunpoint whenever the notion takes me. Strawberry is a cool little town, it is quite similar to Valentine in terms of the size and the available shops etc. St Denis is another story. Located at the south-east corner of the map, it is a huge, bustling city with an overwhelming amount to take in. Without spoiling too much, it will also open up a few more opportunities for Arthur once you get there.
I have played a lot more of the game since I last updated this, I'd guess I am closer to 20 hours playtime than 10 at this point. I have finally progressed to Chapter 3, the gang has moved camp to near another small town called Rhodes, which has lots to see and do considering it's small size. That is one thing that Rockstar have undoubtedly nailed in this game, making these towns truly feel alive and like they continue to exist even when you are not riding through them. I'd go as far as to say that this open world feels more alive than any other one that I have spent time in.
The story missions up until this point are touch and go. Some are really fun and exciting and some are monotonous and boring and feel more like busywork than progress. I much prefer the side missions up to this point. The debt collecting missions and the bounty missions are satisfying and feel worthwhile. The robbery side missions that you do with certain gang members are also a nice, more engaging change from the slower pace of the story.
In terms of the game's characters, I am just as much of as a fan of John Marston as I was in the last game and I must admit that spending more time with Arthur has made him grow on me slightly. As for the rest of the gang though, it's a mixed bag. I like Sean, Charles, Javier and Lenny, but the rest are just annoying and a chore to be around. One major disappointment regarding the characters for me, is that I thought that this game was going to make me sympathise with Dutch and see things from his perspective, the way that MGS 3 did for Big Boss, but no. Apparently he was always an unlikable dick.
