Resistance 3

Resistance 3

Here’s the deal. World War 2 never happened. The catch? Humanity was subject to an alien invasion a few years later instead. Which would you choose? Lose-lose question aside, this alternate history provides the premise of the Resistance trilogy. This intriguing mix of realism and fantasy helped Resistance stand out while the series was ongoing, and the trend continued in Resistance 3, the grand finale of the series.

The story of Resistance 3 is set in 1957, four years after the end of Resistance 2, and in that time, there have been some significant changes. The first two games were set during the war with the Chimera, but by the beginning of Resistance 3, the war is over. The Chimera have won, and are in the process of terraforming Earth, as well as bringing down the world’s climate to freezing levels so that they can survive without their cooling packs. As such, humanity is on the brink of extinction and the last survivors have been driven into hiding in an attempt to hole up and survive both the Chimera and the eternal Winter. Against this grim backdrop, Joseph Capelli, a side character from Resistance 2 who replaces veteran Nathan Hale as the protagonist is persuaded to accompany Dr Malikov, a scientist who has been studying the Chimera, to New York, as Malikov thinks he may have found a way to reverse the Chimera’s climate change.

Once again, developer Insomniac gets to show off their love of creative weaponry, fostered by years of Ratchet and Clank games. In the game, you will get access to both human and Chimeran weaponry, with the former being more standard fare such as a shotgun and semi-automatic rifle, while the Chimera get access to more organic guns. Old favourites like the Bullseye, which has homing bullets that can shoot an enemy from behind cover or around corners after they’ve been tagged, and the Auger, whose bullets can penetrate objects and get stronger from doing this, return, alongside new toys like the Cryogun, which freezes enemies then shatters them with a burst of compressed air, and the Mutator, which causes enemies to flare up in bulbous green pustules, effectively transforming them into moving bombs. Smartly, the human weapons are not overshadowed despite being more basic in comparison. This is because the human weapons are more all-purpose in their use, with the Chimeran weapons being specialised for a particular purpose. The game also makes the wise decision to go back to the system used in the first game of the player keeping any weapons they find permanently, after Resistance 2 experimented with only allowing the player to carry one small gun and one large one at a time, similar to most other modern shooters. The old-school setup Resistance goes with helps it stand out from the FPS mechanically, and this is further augmented by the upgrade system. In a lift from Ratchet and Clank, weapons upgrade with use, becoming more powerful or gaining new properties. Usually, the Level 2 upgrade is for the weapon’s primary fire, while the Level 3 upgrade is for the secondary fire. Using the Auger as an example, at Level 2 it can shoot three bullets at a time, useful for damaging more enemies with less ammo, or targeting one larger enemy with triple the firepower. At Level 3, the weapon’s energy shield secondary fire damages enemies who come near, in addition to blocking enemy fire. These upgrades encourage players to experiment with each of their weapons and not to rely too much on one weapon at the expense of the rest of their arsenal.

Resistance 3 manages to fit in a surprising amount of variety in terms of both the level design and objectives, an impressive achievement for a First Person Shooter, since they’re not known for innovating in these areas. Levels include the abandoned cities you’d expect, but also mines, forests, sewers, a prison, a Chimeran stronghold or two and more. There’s also a nice mix of colours present as opposed to varying shades of brown, including the greens of the forest, night-time blues and icy colours when things go a bit The Day After Tomorrow towards the end, which makes each level visually distinct and memorable, and prevents them from bleeding into one another. Since the war is over, the shooting takes the form of smaller skirmishes against groups of Chimera in close quarters, rather than the armies of enemies that were fought in the pitched battles of the first two games. To even the odds in their favour, the Chimera have gotten tougher and smarter, and are adept at attacking you from numerous angles, getting you in your blind spot when your attention is drawn elsewhere. There are times when things are mixed up a bit to keep you on your toes, like when you’re tasked with defending your vehicle from marauders, exploring a town overrun with feral Chimera that hatch as you approach and immediately lash out, capturing an enemy base then defending it from reinforcements, or traverse an underground cave network to hunt an enormous cave-dwelling Chimera. While this does tend to involve shooting things for the most part, there’s enough variety that the action never becomes mindless or makes you feel that you’re playing on auto-pilot.

The story takes an interesting approach in that, although there is a main plot thread driving your quest, the majority of the game doesn’t focus on it. Instead, each locale has its own plot for that area as you go on your cross-country trip, with each stop dictated by the need to find a new method of transportation or some more supplies. This allows you to see how that area has been affected by the invasion, such as the religious town tormented by a giant underground Chimera the locals have dubbed Satan, or the prison run by its inmates, who used the chaos of the Chimeran invasion to stage a riot and formed a bandit gang. This episodic approach feels more personal and intimate than the sweeping narratives of wartime, and is more fitting for a smaller scale adventure where the stakes aren’t as high because humanity has already lost from the start. The one thing that does jar slightly about the plot is the abrupt nature of the ending. After the Chimera had been ruthlessly adaptive to any setbacks prior, their defeat here leads to humanity pulling off an upset, and the Chimera eventually being defeated for good. It seems uncharacteristically reckless of them to have no backup plan for the most important part of their invasion when they have for everything else, and their inability to mount a full-scale invasion despite the means to do this being made available to them at the end of Resistance 2, which was four years ago in-universe, and there being no discernible hold-up does raise some questions. Maybe victory made the Chimera complacent and more ready to rest on their laurels? Anyway, it does feel a bit like Insomniac lost interest in the series and just wanted to wrap it up. Despite this, it is undeniably satisfying to see humanity pull off the comeback against such insurmountable odds in its darkest hour. In this respect, an unambiguously happy ending, when Resistance 1 was bittersweet and Resistance 2 a straight-up downer ending, is certainly welcome and mostly earned.

Despite these niggles, Resistance 3 is the best of the Resistance trilogy, sticking more closely to the mechanics of the first game, but also blending in ideas from Resistance 2 where appropriate and adding some new ones of its own to create the purest representation of the series identity. Not to mention, all three games are quite easy to find for pennies, so they come recommended if only for the low price making them worth a go if you’re even slightly curious.

Graphics: 8      Creative use of colour and level design helps bring in more variety than expected.

Sound: 7          Lots of alien roars and grunts to help you pinpoint and get the drop on them. In-game radio bulletins are cleverly used to convey worldbuilding your character isn’t involved with.

Gameplay: 8    Weighty, methodical gunplay that encourages experimentation to find the best tool for the job.

Lifespan: 7       The single-player game is decently long, with the convenient ability to replay levels from almost anywhere making playing your favourite sections again a breeze. There was an online multiplayer mode, but the servers have been shut down, so I wasn’t able to try it out.

Overall: 8/10    Resistance 3 saves the best for last, concluding a fine trilogy that didn’t really get the attention it deserved.

Batman VS Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Batman VS Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Release Date: March 25, 2016

Marvel has been the undisputed champion of the multiplex for a few years now, after rewriting the movie franchise rulebook and raking in the dough while everyone else scrambles to catch up. Despite that, it’s not hard to find issues with the universe as a whole. It can be hard to feel as if there are stakes when characters speak almost entirely in witty one-liners, not taking the situation at hand seriously, although to be fair, they can be serious when they want to, primarily in the Captain America films. Changes happen, but all too often they feel like superficial changes that don’t have as much effect on the status quo going forward as the film that made the change suggested.

That’s enough ragging on Marvel for now, as this post isn’t about them. It’s about the champion chosen by those audiences who have grown tired of Marvel’s formula, bored of rich arrogant white guys who are humbled in some way, granted superpowers then fight a villain who has a stronger version of their powers, and win against the odds. (Remember when I said that’s enough ragging on Marvel? I lied.) If it’s a cocky young upstart to keep Marvel on their toes and stop them from getting complacent people want, then who better than Marvel’s eternal rival DC? Man of Steel may have been the official start of the DC Extended Universe as it is known (Presumably, DC wanted their acronym to be as different from Marvel’s as possible, at least within the restrictive framework of their brand and the word Universe to get across the mission statement), but Batman VS Superman: Dawn of Justice is where the whole shared universe aspect comes into play, as Man of Steel was pretty stand-alone. What happened when DC threw its hat into the ring? You probably already know, as the underwhelming critical and commercial reception when a billion dollar gross and rave reviews were taken for granted as mere formalities made big waves earlier this year, but what do I think, with the benefit of having expectations kept in check?

No plot summary this time, because the film is still new, but the title is pretty self-explanatory. What you’d expect to happen in a film titled Batman VS Superman is exactly what happens, and the plot specifics are only as important as the role they play in getting Superman and Batman to fight each other.

Would this film exist without the Marvel Cinematic Universe? In all honesty, I’m not sure it would, at least not in its current form. The Avengers grossed over a billion dollars. By comparison, Man of Steel was a very divisive film among audiences (I come down on it being distinctly average) and the Dark Knight trilogy had come to a definite conclusion, with any possibility of going back to it out of the question. DC needed some way to catch up to Marvel sharpish, and their solution was to add Batman and the wider DC universe into their Man of Steel sequel (Possibly. I don’t know if this was always the plan, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Man of Steel 2 was retooled into DC Extended Universe 1, or 2 depending on how you look at it.) They try their best, but most of the world building comes off as gratuitous and a way to get everyone in ASAP so they can skip straight to the team-up film. The most egregious example comes just before the title bout, where Wonder Woman stops the film dead in its tracks to watch security footage of the other Justice League members, and Batman has a nightmare where the Flash screams that he came too soon.

Huh huh, you said “came too soon”.

Heh heh, aw yeah!

Batman’s involvement comes across more naturally, as the Metropolis branch of Wayne Enterprises is shown to be one of the buildings that was destroyed during the climax of Man of Steel, and gives him a reason to fight Superman, even if he takes it too far.

Speaking of Batman, it’s quite clear that he’s the filmmaker’s favourite. He gets top billing in the title, ahead of Superman. The film opens with him before introducing Superman. More significantly, there have been numerous stories where Batman and Superman fight each other. Usually, Superman is the one who turns evil, leading Batman to have to defeat him. This time, Batman is the one who has gone rogue. However, what would have been a refreshing change doesn’t work as well as it could, since the film still asks us to sympathise with Batman. Superman retains his characterisation from Man of Steel as indecisive, easily discouraged and not in full control of his abilities. Whenever something goes wrong, it’s Superman’s fault. Even when he does right, it’s not good enough such as when he goes to the Middle East to same Lois Lane from some terrorists, but gets slated for illegally intervening in a foreign country. On the other hand, Batman is always in control of every situation, and the film doesn’t dwell on his extreme behaviour, such as branding criminals with the Bat symbol or the numerous instances of killing people or shooting them with guns. You know, the two things anyone could tell you that Batman would never do. Also, who’s to say that Batman hasn’t been like this all along? This is our introduction to this incarnation of Batman, so for all we know, he could have been. During the climactic showdown, Batman dominates Superman, with Supes only getting the odd hit in, and Batman is on the verge of killing Superman until the infamous “Martha” line gets him to stop. Given how Batman has been portrayed until now, Superman is lucky that naming Batman’s dead mother didn’t cause him to snap entirely. It feels like the only reason Batman is portrayed as an anti-hero rather than an outright villain is because he’s Batman. (Unless he just stuns the bad guys?) Despite this, Ben Affleck does his best with the material he’s given, getting some genuinely good moments out there, such as the start of the film, where following the destruction of Wayne Enterprises and the deaths of numerous employees, he glares to the heavens with palpable hatred just from a look, no dialogue to spell out the point needed.

As for the other characters, Henry Cavill isn’t bad as Superman, even if once again he doesn’t get to cut loose and show Superman at his best, as a symbol of hope for others and unlimited, pure hearted goodness. Gal Gadot and Jeremy Irons impress as Wonder Woman and Alfred respectively for what little screen time they have. The characters from the legal subplot go nowhere since one of them pulls a U-turn personality-wise, as opposed to a more gradual transition and the subplot ends on an anti-climax anyway, ending up feeling like a shaggy dog story and just an excuse to get Superman and Batman to fight rather than an essential part of the story, a la Civil War. Several intriguing characters are killed off unceremoniously with little to no fanfare, their potential squandered. The worst is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Unlike the other characters, who remain relatively true to their traditional depictions, albeit with a darker spin, Superman’s arch nemesis is reimagined for the modern era as a refugee from The Social Network. Lex is such a pivotal part of the mythos, but this incarnation of him doesn’t inspire any awe or admiration. He’s just an annoying millennial brat who never shuts up and has no emotional stake in the proceedings, he instigates the fight just because he can (and gives a monologue in the process that could be charitably described as on-the-nose). He has no beef with Superman, in fact they don’t even meet until the end, where Superman shows remarkable restraint in not snapping him in half like a stale breadstick. Batman totally would if he was the one who had superpowers. He doesn’t pose a convincing threat to Superman, which the traditional version does by not prattling on endlessly in non-sequiturs, demonstrating his cunning and resources with a carefully conceived plan and clear endgame, and also being powerfully built and physically imposing. It also helps when his vocals are provided by the sexy manvoice of Clancy Brown, the aural equivalent of silky velvet whispering sweet nothings into your ear. The excitable, nasal delivery of Eisenberg isn’t nearly as compelling in comparison. I am afraid I must join the pre-release chorus that demanded Heisenberg, not Eisenberg. His performance would've made a good Riddler though.

An example of Clancy Brown as Lex Luthor. I'm sure you can see how he differs from Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal.

The film feels like it wants to get to Marvel is now so fast, that it’s willing to skip the first two acts of the story and go straight to the end, relying on the audience’s knowledge of the characters to fill in the gaps. Only Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman have any role in the film, with the other heroes being cameos that could have easily been cut. The film draws inspiration from the Dark Knight Returns and Death of Superman storylines from the comics, and yet these are set when the DC universe has been around for a long time. This one is just getting started and using these stories so soon robs them of their impact. This is most evident in the character of Doomsday. Yes, that Big CGI Monster that shows up at the end was an actual character. In the comics, Doomsday debuts well into Superman’s career as the toughest threat he has ever faced, barely even flinching as Superman throws everything he’s got at it. This significance is gone from the film, as Doomsday is only the second superpowered threat he’s fought, and appears very early in Superman’s career. Not to mention in the film, Doomsday was created from the body of General Zod, so in a way, DCEU Superman has only fought one guy twice. Outside knowledge is the only thing that gives Doomsday any significance, as in the context of the film, he’s just a Big CGI Monster, and him being able to beat Superman means so much less, since Supes is still a rookie, he just got his behind handed to him by Batman and he was well off his A game even during the fight with Bats. It diminishes both of them.

The film has a distinct tone to set it apart from Marvel’s offerings. While Marvel tend to go more light-hearted and humorous, this one is grim and downcast. It has a gloomy, serious feel to it, and the characters treat everything with the utmost seriousness. While the attempt at something different is to be applauded, the film comes off as being a cynical and nihilistic in its outlook on the world. Superman is seemingly the one source of light and hope in this world, but at every turn he is belittled and diminished, broken by a world in which he struggles to find a place, until his light is extinguished entirely. Batman is a bitter, vengeful man lashing out at the world around him, trusting only himself to enforce justice and punish the wicked, even as he loses sight of his own morality. (Bruce Wayne has the perfect quote to sum this up: “If there is even a 1% chance that Superman could pose a threat, we must treat it as an absolute certainty.”) Wonder Woman is hiding in plain sight, disgusted at the world of man for its petty ways. Lex Luthor is a narcissistic egomaniac who wants to bring about a titanic battle between two opposing worldviews for his own amusement. This world is not an inviting place, or one that welcomes optimism and selflessness. In that respect, the film feels representative of the current atmosphere in the real world, for better or worse. Some Marvel fims such as Iron Man 3 and the Captain America films have explored themes relevant to the modern world with varying degrees of success, and although Batman VS Superman does not do this explicitly with a specific theme, the atmosphere brings it across subconsciously.

Batman VS Superman: Dawn of Justice feels like a lazy cash grab of a film. Everything about it reeks of desperation for that sweet Marvel money, and in prioritising the hunt for said money, the goal of making a good film comes a distant second. There may be potential for a good film featuring these incarnations of such beloved classic characters, but this isn’t it. However, I do commend the film for having its own voice, and not just copying The Avengers wholesale. It strives to be a grandiose epic on a sweeping scale, and even though it falls short of the heady heights it sets itself, at least it tried.

4/10 

One more thing. Our libraries are very important, so please make the most of them. I was able to borrow this film from my local library, instead of having to buy it or see it at the cinema when it came out. I also use libraries for their primary purpose of borrowing books, which I highly recommend that everyone do. You might find a new favourite author! If that won't convince you, here's Cool Guy posing towards you as if to say "You rock!"

He drives a hard bargain.

Are You Afraid of the Dark?

Are You Afraid of the Dark?

Don’t worry, it’s a rhetorical question, there’s no need to tell me if you are. Are You Afraid of the Dark? is the story of two women whose scientist husbands are murdered as part of a cover-up over their latest project and go on the run to solve the mystery behind what their husbands were working on and why the company wants them dead.

The book is at its best early on when the events are somewhat grounded in reality. There are flashbacks to how Diane and Kelly met their husbands, and how they came to fall in love with their respective spouses, which are quite pleasant and generate the warm fuzzies. Kelly’s story in particular sees Mark’s devotion to her and being the first man to value her beyond her physical appearance and career as a famous model thawing the frosty exterior she puts up after her traumatic childhood. The biggest complaint is that the weddings happen within a few weeks of the groom proposing, which is a rather unrealistic timeframe given that these were elaborate ceremonies with guests and catering, not a quiet visit to the registry office. In hindsight, this nitpick ended up being a warning sign towards what would happen later.

Unfortunately, after a promising start, the book eventually takes a turn for the farfetched and repetitive. The evil corporation’s machinations start somewhat plausible (phoning the undertakers and changing the planned funerals to cremations works for both shock value and dramatic heft, even if it does raise questions about why the undertakers didn’t verify the change of plan with the widows beforehand, as they had made plans earlier that day), but as the book goes on, the organisation turns into a combination of the Illuminati, HYDRA and Big Brother, with highly advanced top-secret technology out the wazoo, offering worldwide surveillance, voice transformation, links to every computer database in the world and a partridge in a pear tree. I’m not going to spoil what the murdered scientists were working on, but it is both the most elaborate invention yet, and at the same time, not loopy enough. Given how much cloak and dagger there was about it, and nary a hint of foreshadowing, I was thinking completely out there, along the lines of time travel, reincarnation, or teleportation.

The main antagonist, corrupt corporate executive Tanner Kingsley, is seemingly evil for the sake of it. He has no motivation to do what he does, and his only goal is fuelled by greed. It's quite easy to imagine him in a Saturday morning cartoon, cackling loudly as he says in a nasally Skeletor voice "This time, I shall catch those meddling women and my evil plan can continue unopposed!" I’m surprised that there isn’t a chapter in which he kicks a puppy or fills in the paperwork to adopt an orphan, then doesn’t show up to collect them. Maybe they were in earlier drafts? Kingsley also has an array of hardened sociopathic killers he’s drawn from the prison system who are built up as a threat, only to be repeatedly thwarted by the same tricks, either the protagonists asking someone else to get rid of them, or pretending to talk on the phone or to strangers. It’s only slightly above saying “Look over there!” in terms of complexity, and yet they keep falling for it. They make the burglars from Home Alone look intimidating. It’s telling that of all Kingsley’s henchmen, the most competent is his brother Andrew, who has brain damage from a laboratory accident and never interacts with anyone besides Kingsley or even does anything villainous. Sometimes, the protagonists outwit their tormentors in a way that is clever and natural, such as Kelly suspecting a bomb when she notices a maid wearing shoes that shouldn’t be affordable on a maid’s salary, which Kelly would know through her work. More frequent are instances of repetition, or deus ex machinas, including one particularly glaring example about ¾ of the way through.

The ending is also rather unsatisfying, since it wraps itself up in about 15-20 pages, which is very quick considering how much time had been spent treading water on the game of cat and mouse. Tanner Kingsley’s downfall is anti-climactic, partly because Diane and Kelly aren’t the ones to do it, partly because it’s left vague whether or not the one responsible does it knowingly, aware of their actions or if it’s another happy accident, and most grievously because Diane and Kelly don’t have any involvement elsewhere in the meantime – they simply drop out while the story resolves itself.

On the plus side, there are some clichés the book wisely decides to stay away from. Tanner Kingsley is clearly the antagonist throughout, and does not start as a benevolent mentor. It isn’t the fact that he’s an asshole that is intended as a surprise, but how much of an asshole he is. As for the actual benevolent mentor character, she is a part of Kelly’s backstory, giving her the first push to help Kelly improve her self-confidence and realise her potential, with no role in the present day plot, and her desire to help Kelly is completely selfless, not a roundabout way of getting rich or a part of a greater scheme.

The first half of this book offers a study of the grief of losing a loved one and learning to cope and move on with life, with reminiscences about the good times shared together with occasional touching moments. I would recommend stopping there so that your opinion isn’t tarnished by the derivative second half. To answer the question posed earlier, even though it’s a rhetorical question, I’m not afraid of the dark, but I am afraid of Dan Brown wannabes like this book. Dan Brown’s books aren’t even that good once you notice the formula!

Wait a minute. The author of this book is called Sidney Sheldon. He tries to follow the Dan Brown Formula. Sheldon… Formula… Egads, I think I’m on to something!