Monday 11 May 2015

Respectful disagreement #2: Why bad endings to games do not always ruin them

Ok, so undoubtedly since the rise of story-driven game titles in the late-1980s particularly with the Castlevania and Legend of Zelda franchises, there have been those few special games for whom many are enthralled by until they get to the ending and are crushingly disappointed either by the final boss or the conclusion to the games' overarching story.  Perhaps the greatest examples of this in recent years are Mass Effect 3 (2012), Halo 2 (2004) and the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy (2009-2014).  Now for the first two I have to say that the anger towards their controversial endings was somewhat misguided.
Out of these three examples, Mass Effect 3, the final segment of the massivley popular trilogy of space-adventure epics featuring what many call one of the best video games of all time (Mass Effect 2 (2010 for PC & Xbox 360, 2011 for PS 3)), probably gains the most disproportionate hatred for its admittedly pretty weak ending.  Now don't get me wrong, while I didn't perhaps get into the franchise as a whole (with exception to the final level of the first game and most of the second game of course), I do freely admit and firmly beleive that the three not-all-that-dissimilar endings of the third game were pretty bad and didn't represent the full potentional of how the developers and designers could go about ending this truly epic storyline.  I don't think its as much a mishandling of the material as it was a struggle to find a suitably epic ending to the story of the franchise and while the epic aspect in this case was more than acheived, the actual excecution and meaning of it was cluttered, flimsy and each different ending on its own and also compared to each other were pretty weak compared to the enticing end of the third game and the heart-stoppingly action-packed ending of the second one.
But did the ending of Mass Effect 3 really ruin the game as a whole?  Okay sure, the ending was a pile of crusty wank but the game itself was still suitably epic up until that point, the gameplay was almost as good as in Mass Effect 2 and the impact of your choices in previous games as well as in the current one had a deep, meaningful set of both moral and philosophical implications to them.  Regardless of how you look at it, even with the shitty ending, Mass Effect 3 still works as a game and experience.  Think of it like having the best 3-course meal you've ever had but when the waiter offers you an after-dinner mint he/she instead sucks on an imperial mint for 30 seconds then spits it at you but then apologises for doing so.  ....Ok...that metaphor might be a bit extreme but you get my point.  People applauded the game itself for staying true to its predecessors while allowing for a more epic story and more difficult and challenging circumstances within which the refreshingly simple game mechanics could truly flourish.  Combining this alltogether with the series' recurring aspect of allowing decicions made in playthroughs of previous games to impact the story of the current one and you have am experience that is emboldened by so many well received strengths even going so much as to include.

Of course this is just the opinion of one person, a man who in fact has never been any good at any of the Mass Effect games.  Regardless, even as soemeone who sucked as bad at playing these games as Square-Enix are at convincing everybody that the Final Fantasy XIII trilogy was worth any good will, I have to admit that the story of the Mass Effect series is something so bombastic, large and epic that you have to admire it for its scope as it just manages to elevate itself above the crappy ending at the end of the thrid game.  Yet sometimes there might be a bad ending which when looked at closer, actually reveals a clever thematical and narrative ploy to raise the plot of a game from average to hihgly enthralling.  Take a step forwards, one of the most famed and popular FPS games of all time, Halo 2.
Image taken from: http://www.avwproductions.com/techheads/wordpress/why-halo-2-is-the-greatest-game-of-all-time/

To all extents and purposes, one could just as easily argue that the Halo Series (2001-) has as much of an epic storyline and plot as that of the Mass Effect games.  In Halo as in Mass Effect, we follow an elite corps (in this case the mighty spartan marines) as they combine with the united forces of either humanity or an allied galaxy to fend off the advances of an enroaching alien speacies hellbent on total annihalation.  I was perhaps never that into the Halo games as much as my two best freinds Brendan and Sam (aka Thunderrunner487 and Telescuffle respectivley) perhaps best shown by how a good chunk of their millenial memorabilia is tied to the original Halo trilogy while mine was tied to games like Spyro: Year of the Dragon (2000) or Company of Heroes (2006).  Regardless, I have to admire the Halo series for combining its likewise bombasitc and enthralling storyline with its refreshingly simple gameplay and sometimes very relatable characters particularly in games like Halo Reach (2010).  It is perhaps not too hard then to see why the series as a whole has gained such a widespread following in the mainstream gaming public and why my freind Sam (aka Telescuffle) has pointed out to me that his favourite game in the franchise to this date is Halo 2.

Image taken from: http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/File:Halo_2_028.jpg

But what about the ending to Halo 2 that has so many people up in a tizzy when they talk about it?  After all, the game was released in 2004 and so its been quite a while since the initial controversy about Halo 2's ending has died down.  If you don't know however, Halo 2 ends with Master Chief (the main character of the series) boarding a battered warship headed towards a swirling sapce battle around planet earth asked by the character Admiral Hood what he is doing before Cheif calmy replies "Sir, finishing this fight" as the game then fades to black after which the credits roll.  In a purely thematical sense, I can perhaps see why people were pissed by this ending when the game first came out as it is indeed very abrupt, leaves little closure on the story of the game individually and leaves us unsure about the fate of Master Chief other than his oncoming glory in the fight that he's yet again heading towards. 

Now to be fair, this would be frustrating to a first time player.  However, contextualised within the game itself and the original trilogy as a whole, the ending to Halo 2 makes a twisted sort of sense.  The game itself rides narrativley upon the idea that humanity is in a desperate struggle with the alien forces known as the covenant and the flood,  in order to defeat this threat, Master Cheif and the player are repeatedly thrown into harsh and bloody missions throughout with many citing Halo 2 as having some of the hardest in the franchise to date.  Therefore, the openess of the ending leaves it up to the player to realise that as the initial threat has been dealth with, there is still much to do and it is only up to Master Chief (and in turn the player, thus creating a narrative connection between Chief and the player) to deal with it and thus 'finish the fight'.  This in turn creates an interesting advertising and narrative hook as 'finnishing the fight' was the general tagline of Halo 3 (2007) resulting in a strong narrative link between the two games.

Image taken from: http://www.avwproductions.com/techheads/wordpress/why-halo-2-is-the-greatest-game-of-all-time/

Now personally, my favourite game in this particular franchise will always be the orignal Halo: Combat Evolved (2001) which revolutionised the idea of the modern FPS after the era of Doom and Quake and before Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (2007) came along years later and came to dominate the culture of modern FPS games in the 7th game generation.  Arguably, next to games like COD4, Unreal Tournament (1999), Serious Sam (2001), Resistance 2 (2008), Battelfield Bad Company 2 (2010), Halo: Combat Evolved and Halo 2 showed that simple gameplay combined with a straightforward plot intertwined with large scale situations and stakes and threatening situations that challenged your abilities as a gamer and hero could not only create for a grabbing game that shook you to your bones but drew you into its gameplay and story to play more and pay more attention to it.  I've certainly experienced this with some series that I've had alot to complain about such as the original Dawn of War (2004-2008) quadrilogy or the Supreme Commander games (2007-2010) but Halo 2, out of most of the games that seemed to define late-6th generation storytelling and gameplay acheived this more than most as Halo 3 went on to become one of the most highest-grossing games of all time and one of the best reviewed and most popular FPS games of recent memory.

So with Mass Effect 3's ending expained in a technincal sense and the ending of Halo 2 explained from a standpoint of narrative storytelling and player interraction through gameplay and dialogue, where does this leave the also controversial ending of Final Fantasy XIII developed by Square Enix and released in 2009?
Image taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy_XIII

Now in comparison to the Mass Effect  and Halo series, with exception to Final Fantasy VI (1994) and Final Fantasy IX (2000), I've never had a huge amount of interest in the Final Fantasy (1987-) series as a whole or even for most of the individual games.  However, as a (for the most part) indifferent game to the franchise, I can understand the attraction of the series within itself as a whole and within the individual games thanks to the enthralling RPG elements, the usually epic storylines, the engaging struggles of the characters and the inclusion of some of gaming's most iconic and nastiest vilains like Final Fantasy VI's Kefka or VII's (1997) Sephiroth. 

But anyway, enough contextualising, what about Final Fantasy XIII's ending.  Well, this might sound bad, but I really can't remember much about what the ending was like or what it represented.  This might stem from how unengaging the plot of the game was or how much I disliked the main protagonist Lightning or how much the game seemed to drag later on or how disinteresting the main vilain was but I really can't remember much about this game's ending.  At the end of it all (a nice little reference to Final Fantasy Dissidia's (2008) final boss there for you all) Final Fantasy XIII is a perfect example of not involving your player through some means or another (for me it was mainly the grinding length of the game and the unlikeable main protagonist) which in turn kills the involvement of a player in the game's ending and story.  Now I've played good games with one or two aspects that have killed the prospect of a good ending such as Darkstar One's (2006) ending being incredibly cheesy and going against the style and ethos of the game or Max Payne 3's (2012) ending which was severley weakened by the suprising unlikeability of the main character souring the ending.
However, whereas those games were still enjoyable for the most part and were only partially soured by their endings, I didn't enjoy Final Fantasy XIII for the most part, wasn't drawn into the main protagonist's main struggle despite their shortcomings like in Darkstar One and as a result, combining this with the excrutiating length of the game and its disgustingly sequel-bait ending, I couldn't bring myself to remember or care much about the ending after I finished slogging though the game as a whole.  Subsequently, when I found out how much of a sequel-bait ending the game had with the onset of overly-expensive paid-DLC and a trilogy that not even the most devout Final Fantasy fans asked for, I felt deflated and disinterested by Final Fantasy XIII's ending.

As a result, I think that the evidence is pretty clear from looking at these three games that it isn't a bad ending that ruins the game, its a bad ending combined with either a bad or unengaging game that ruins the game.  Mass Effect 3, despite the ending that essentially went against the entire series and all it stood for, did not ruin the overall experience either I nor many gamers had with the game itself.  On top of this, the prospect of cheap DLC soon after the game's release that sorted out some of the narrative problems of the ending sweetened the deal a bit and besides, from my viewpoint at least, I would argue that the ending of Mass Effect 3 was not just down to bad writing but perhaps a great deal of admirable but misplaced overambition.  Halo 2 in turn is perhaps a greater example of misinterpreted storytelling a-la the ending to Dawn of War 2: Chaos Rising (2010) that tried something ambitious, pulled it off, but could've perhaps done with being a bit clearer and more elloquent as telling from the general reaction to it.  Final Fantasy XIII in turn is an example of how even with great production value and design as well as graphics, a game that does not involve the player on a personal level or interest them as such will fail regardless of the ending and even if the ending is good (which it wasn't in this case), the game will still struggle to rise above it's flaws, especially if it's a poor follow up to a series of very popular games.

But hey, even if you still don't get it, let me sum it up to you guys with this analogy.  Mass Effect 3 and Halo 2 are like classy dinners with great service and music where the starter is a 5 star meditteranean tapas and the main course is a perfectly seasoned and well cooked moussaka but the pudding is just a bag of jelly beans served on a paper plate.  Final Fantasy XIII on the other hand is a takeout from a crappy 2-star chicken 'n'chips shop where your order is late and wrong, the only music on hand is the same 5 tunes all day from Capital F.M radio and the server has left a hair in your vanilla milkshake when you clearly asked for chocolate.

Monday 4 May 2015

New film review #18: Anti-social (Origo film group, directed by Reg Traviss, starring Gregg Sulkin, Meghan Markle & Josh Myers)

Image taken from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3475596/?ref_=nv_sr_6

It's interesting that the first film review I haven't done in a while is one that by all extents and purposes hasn't had a huge amount of reviews out yet or advertisement.  Admittedly this has had some advertising on sites like IMDB or www.unilad.co.uk so its not like anyone doesn't know about it but still, have you guys really heard as much of this flick as you have Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens or The Avengers: Age of Ultron?  In all fairness though, I really don't think that sort of thing should take away from the quality of a film even if its another Transformers sequel starring Rob 'what movie should I ruin today' Schneider.  

Another potential problem that this movie could've had that might've impacted it's overall quality is that, in my opinion, modern metropolitan British crime thrillers tend to have an overly-stylised sensibility with more style over substance a-la Lock, stock and two smoking barrels (1998).  This tends to be because of how London and most British cities, as a pop-culture reference point in modern films isn't used as a character in of itself unlike perhaps Moscow, New York or Paris thus resulting in London and other major British urban areas being represented more as nothing more than blank framing devices for the style and story of a big film.  Naturally, this is a little different on television as many TV shows do indeed represent British cities with a little bit of character in of themselves (I.E. Doctor Who (1963-)  or Spooks (2002-)).  But when a film set in the swirling, multicultural miasma of British urban life is as precise, intimate and realistic as director Reg Traviss' Anti-social, its a kind of natural progression to show wherever in Britain (or any country really) you've set your film to have a good amount of character that the real-life place has whether it be the industrial hardiness of Hull, the political and social liberal character of Brighton or the metropolitan trading centre combined with hard-worn suburbia of London.

So what's the film about eh?  Well  in all honesty, out of all the film's I've reviewed over the last 4 or so years with exception to Interstellar (2013), Anti-social has probably the most straightforward plot.  Naturally, there are character developments and plot twists throughout but the overall synopsis of the film is rather refreshingly straightforward and simple for a modern-set British urban life drama.  Anyhow, based on a true story, Dee (Gregg Sulkin) is an anarchic street graffiti artist who aims his passions at critiquing the capitalist system in North and Central London while his older brother Marcus (Josh Myers) is a secretive smash & grab jewlery robber as part of his own motorcycle gang who is out to carve out a living in the city for himself and support Dee and their  mother.  On the way to the top, Marcus must dodge rival gangs, the law and the flaws of his own machinations while Dee is moving towards the high-life of alternative art while dodging the detritus and fallout of his brother's crimes.  On top of this, Dee must not only help Marcus to look after their mother but  also look after his own future and the livelihood of himself and his girlfriend Kirsten (Meghan Markle).

Now admittedly, this is a pretty simple plot as both Dee and Marcus are primarily driven towards their goals by carving out a rich livelihood for themselves while supporting their mum and yet neither of them initially are shown to be particularly in line with traditional ways of doing this and neither are particularly shown to be traditional good guys.  On one hand, Sulkin portrays Dee as an impassioned individual driven not only by the passion of his own art but  also by a slightly naive sense of survival against the fallout of any of his brother's misdeeds.  On the other hand, Marcus performs shocking crimes and even assaults people in certain cases in order to ensure the prosperity of himself, his crew, his girlfriend and most of all his mum and brother.  In essence, apart from any disparate villains scattered throughout the film who want to throw a spanner in the works of our protagonists, no one is fully shown as wholly bad or good.  Even the particularly moralistic Dee and Kirsten are primarily shown as products of their environment with Kirsten being a do-gooding and sincere (slightly annoyingly so) people person as a result of her background as a photo model while Dee is an artistically driven pseudo-anarchist who rebels against the system but eschews any violence.  Marcus is also quite brutish but by no means is an absolute bastard and actually comes to be one of the most sympathetic and realistic characters in the entire film.  All in all, even with the slightly irritating Kirsten, all the characters are quite realistically portrayed and have believable motivations and feel more like humans that you could picture in hard-bitten urban society rather than cartoonish modern caricatures.

And admittedly the characters and writing are at the core of the glue that holds the film together and they are as good as a piping hot meatball mariana Subways after a morning of drinking but for me, the best part of the film is the acting particularly on the part of Sulkin and Myers who are definitely the best actors in the film.  Again, this isn't to say that any of the other actors are not any good as the woman who plays Dee and Marcus's mum is a brilliantly sympathetic character representing single emigrated mothers in a film industry that leaves them somewhat under-represented.  On top of this, the actors who portray the lads of Marcus' crew are ruthless criminals but ultimately likeable hard-men with relatable struggles and mannerisms.  Ultimately there's very little about the characters, writing and acting I can really criticise.  Even with extras, it seems as if Reg Traviss' writing and directing both served their purposes excellently as you're drawn into the struggles, attitudes and goals of each character that the film focuses on from one of Marcus' crew picking up a very sexy pedestrian Rochelle (Caroline Ford) or Dee dodging the law on a motorcycle to help out his brother and friends.

The soundtrack isn't really much of a noteworthy part of the film but ultimately serves the basic purpose to convey the basic emotion of a given scene.  Fortunately for the sound department, the cinematography is excellent with many shots conveying more emotion and meaning of a certain scene than even the actor's acting or the excellent writing.  Without a doubt, this is probably my favourite film for cinematography in terms of modern films since The Wrestler (2008, starring Mickey Rourke) but as ever, no film, not even this one can truly beat the legendary The Godfather (1972 starring Marlin Brando and Al Pacino).  All of the aspects of the film work together towards propelling the film's story towards what should be a satisfying climax with almost-constant twists and turns that convey the very real danger of the struggle that Dee and Marcus are going through.  If only the ending was any good.

Without a doubt, the only real part of the film I can actually feel comfortable criticising is the ending because it is absolute and utter shit.  Before the credits roll, we are treated to an ending that has the potentiality to be interpreted as a possibly happy ending because of the implications for the three main characters of Dee, Kirsten and Marcus in the scene while leaving the film off on a morally and thematically ambiguous note with the general future of the characters clear but how it will exactly turn out as an interestingly ambiguous question left to the viewer's own thoughts without too much sequel-bait.  Unfortunately, as the credits began to roll and I was treated to a 'true' and fully happy ending for Dee and Marcus, my jaw literally dropped at how shmaltzy and sickeningly sweet the future of our three main protagonists seemed to be.  Now there is one point to acknowledge in that this film is based off of a true story and I guess I should grant the film a pardon on the part of that fact and if this is true to the source material that it's based off, Traviss does an admirable job of trying to convey the ending of the story.  However, from a purely logical and cinematic standpoint the actual ending of the film in the credits is horribly themed and goes against virtually all of the rest of the film, in all honesty this is probably going to result in me mark down the film in terms of the plot and story to a considerable degree but even despite this, the film as a whole ultimately works.

In the end, the film is let down to a horrifying degree by the shitty ending but the rest of the film, especially the directing, writing and acting more than makes up for this with the majority of the film's points raising it up to the level that it may just be one of the best films of the year so far in a film that has The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Star Wars Episode VII and Jurassic World being released in it.  Ultimately, the film has tiny flaws throughout and the ending is awful but I would without a doubt say that even despite all that, Anti-social is worth the price of admission.

Cinematography/camerawork: 9/10
Acting: 9/10
Story/plot: 6.5/10
Action/key moments: 10/10
Directing, lighting and music: 8/10

OVERALL SCORE: 42.5/50