Game Review: State of Decay

STATE OF DECAY

Undead Labs’ Immersive, Open World Survival Simulator Debut

Developer: Undead Labs

Publisher: Microsoft Studios

Genre: Open- World Survival Horror

Platform tested: Xbox 360

IT’S hard not to be sceptical about anything regarding the word ‘zombie’ these days. Hell, it’s possibly even worse for us lovers of the zombie genre. We live in constant fear that the next film with the z- word in it will further diminish its cultural significance. In the golden days, Romero weaved messages of consumerism into Dawn of the Dead, questioned humanity and morality at its limits in Day of the Dead, and more recently, Robert Kirkman and his crew presented the zombie apocalypse as a mere contextual device, set around complex human relationship dramas. What happens when humanity is thrust into a new dark age, void of technology, societal structure and all it presently knows? Video games have struggled to answer such a question as film and TV has. Until State of Decay bursts onto the scene with its emphasis on survival, community- management and tactical gameplay.

Though making a relatively quiet debut into the games market, Undead Labs have ensured themselves a smooth sail for the road ahead. Reportedly grossing 250,000 downloads in the first 48 hours on the Xbox Live Marketplace and 550,000 by June 17^th this year, it’s incredibly difficult to dismiss the popularity of SoD. Originally titled ‘Class 3’, it acts as a direct precursor to Undead Labs’ ‘Class 4’, their already announced MMO.

STORY

SoD boasts a relatively decent storyline when considering that there’s very little ground left to cover with regards to the origins of, uh... Zombification. It still plays the “are you telling me they’re zombies?!” card, but doesn’t take itself too seriously thereafter. It’s pitched somewhere between Dead Rising or Shaun of the Dead tongue-in-cheek, dark-yet-delicious humour and the relative seriousness of Dead Island or The Walking Dead-esque attitude – but the finished product is a fantastic blend of all of the above, a perfect craft made from the greatest source material.

Unfortunately, the story and its missions become somewhat peripheral due to the overwhelming amount of side- missions involving babysitting on others’ scavenger runs, looking for ‘missing’ members of your group that turn out more often than not to be cowering in a corner, or repeatedly exterminating hordes of undead that reform 2 minutes later. More time is spent collecting supplies for the group rather than plodding through the story. It’s not a bad thing by any means – the game boasts the most realistic survival dynamic ever encountered in video games – resources are finite (looted buildings will never replenish stock, a broken down vehicle stays broken down), playable characters are mortal (once they’re dead, they’re dead and unplayable for good), and ammo will eventually run out (which isn’t universal – the wrong calibre won’t cut it). The only infinite resource, unfortunately, are the walking dead (here called ‘Zeds’). State of Decay is as good practice for the real thing as flying simulators are to the aspiring pilot.

GAMEPLAY & GRAPHICS

At first it looks like Read Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare, and handles a little like Dead Rising. But as enticing a survival simulation filled with zombies sounds, it isn’t without its hitches. The fighting is relatively clunky and unfriendly, and annoyingly repetitive when considering how much of it you’ll be doing. Graphics are decent enough, but frame-rate bugs and bad physics are rife. Zombies grab you through doors and walls and occasionally appear to be waist deep in concrete and housing foundations. Survivors will request a vehicle ride from inside a fenced-off warehouse, or ask for a rescue due to injury and then exit a car in the middle of a field dotted with zombies. Cars themselves appear to have tyres of ice, family members or pals of characters who die non-canonically don’t bat an eyelid after their dearly departed is ungraciously torn in half by a ‘feral’ zombie, they’ll get burned through walls, stand in the doorway blocking your exit, and irritate you in multiple other ways. They also won’t go for scavenger runs for resources your fellow survivors direly need – that’s your job, and you’ll be doing it alone.

That said, the general gameplay mechanics are almost perfect. You can ask survivors in other enclaves to join your group, making them playable characters, call out for them to collect food or ammunition you cannot carry, establish outposts to provide a breather on a long scavenging run to resupply, all the while staying out of sight and sound from the looming, ever- present zombie threat. A clearly Walking Dead- inspired radius of noise pops up whenever a player fires a shot, bashes a door in, or starts up a car’s engine, inviting all undead in the vicinity for dinner. Looting buildings makes noise, as does caving in the enemy’s rotting skull – there’s no rest besides the comfort of your home base. It’s all pleasantly accompanied by a memorable soundtrack scored by Jesper Kyd of Assassin’s Creed fame.

SoD tends to punish those with little free time, too. Social engagement? Sorry, half your group are missing or dead by the time you return. It’s a nice idea that the characters continue surviving while you aren’t there, but it’s a stab in the back to the casual audience. A character’s death, particularly a favourite, actually turns out to be affecting (since the only return upon starting a new save file) In addition, SoD likes to leave the player to figure things out for him/herself, omitting instructions on upgrading home bases, creating outposts or managing resources properly. There are some quirky remarks, yes – running over a zombie might trigger a comment from a passenger like “You got red on you” (a nod to Shaun of the Dead) – but it sure ain’t funny the 18^th time. It’s also weird when conversations take place between the same person, since there seem to be just a handful of voice actors. Initial versions were also riddled with hiccups, now partially fixed.

For 1600 Microsoft Points (approx. £13.70/$20.00), you can’t go wrong. If you’ve ever theorised or fantasised about whether your post apocalyptic strategy is the more effective, State of Decay offers the chance to try it. Better to remain low and suppress your weapons, or go out all guns blazing, grenades at the ready? A small group, therefore minimizing resource consumption, or a large band of hardened survivors? Wonderfully, the experience is tailored by you.

VERDICT: Developed by a team of media- saturated film/game geeks with a deep passion in their craft, State of Decay is an easy contender for the best Arcade game this year – certainly the summer. 

RATING: 9/10

N.B: Keep a sharp and nerdy eye out for expansive pop culture and zombie-related references throughout Trumbull Valley.

Review: After Earth

After Earth (2013)

Shayamalan and Smith(s) have a crack at the apocalypse 

Director: M. Night Shayamalan

Cast: Will Smith, Jayden Smith, Sophie Okonedo

Plot: A thousand years into the future, Earth has been abandoned after its creatures evolved to destroy humanity in an act of natural self- preservation. Things take a turn for the worst when Legendary General and ‘Ghost’ Cypher Raige and his son Kitai crash land on it, calling for Kitai to embark on a rescue mission.

THE latest instalment in the currently apocalypse- obsessed film industry driven by the 2012 Mayan foretelling comes from the minds of Will Smith and M. Night Shayamalan. After Earth tells the story of General Cypher Raige, the only man ever to ‘Ghost’ – thus avoiding the fear- detecting sense of an alien species. The overall finished product is, at least visually, decent – thanks to the visions of Shayamalan, but as an ensemble piece After Earth is a cocktail of half- stale ingredients. 

There’s the story first – the most problematic of all aspects, which is impossible to disguise as anything other than a story of father and son created as a vehicle for Jayden Smith. It feels almost like a channelling of Smith’s already over-flowing pride for his children By the film’s end, it’s apparent that this is the most permeating element to After Earth – it’s so blatant, it’s cringeworthy – a matter not complimented by a cheesy, predictable script. Take for instance a line delivered by Kitai’s mother: “He doesn’t need a commanding officer” (all together now!) “he needs a father!” (Queue disgruntled sighs.) It’d all be forgivable if the pretext wasn’t so faulted – perhaps they might have won more battles if they had stuck to using guns instead of shape-shifting swords. And then there’s the idea that in the future, everyone has the same, dodgy, untraceable accent, which sounds a little like a Scot eating hot food while trying to talk. AE’s world is inherently interesting, but the focus on a seemingly uneventful story chokes it.

Will Smith is more wooden than ever (partly due to a two dimensional character) and unfortunately Jayden Smith is out of his depth, unable to translate his cool charm in Karate Kid to AE. He has a moment or two where he shows some depth, but it’s soon buried underneath bratty cockiness. There’s an air of pushy parenting that hangs on AE like trousers wrapped around its ankles, hindering the film’s potential pace. It wouldn’t be so much of a problem if the story was given more room to breathe, but it isn’t – for the second and third acts, the weight sits solely on the Smiths’ shoulders. And they’re not the sturdiest here.

Criticisms aside, there is something to enjoy in After Earth. The landscapes are immersive and engrossing, and the rapidly changing environment is often far more interesting than the goings on within it. Shyalamalan takes the credit directorially, but shares fault for the script with Gary Whitta of Book of Eli screenwriting fame and (oddly) Telltale Games’ The Walking Dead Game (episode 4, to be precise – a highly appraised instalment), as well as Sci-Fi shooter Prey. It’s a wonder, then, how a film can falter so much with a fair amount of talent backing it. Shyamalan’s career has been questionable ever since the Village bombed and seemingly irredeemable since The Happening, well, happened. Smith may be better off leaving others to draw Jayden’s particular strengths out, perhaps also leaving his personal ambitions for his children at home.

VERDICT: A shaky start sets the standard for the rest of After Earth, which shows breathtaking visuals and landscapes but exhausts itself with un-engaging characters and a naff narrative. ★★

TV: The Walking Dead Season 3

The Walking Dead Season 3

Did Season 3 Sink its Teeth Deep Enough this Time?

***** ! CONTAINS SPOILERS ! *****

 

AT Season 2’s finale last year, the Walking Dead concluded with not a bang, but rather the priming of another round in anticipation of what was next for Rick Grimes and his group of survivors. Ending with an equally fiery as memorable walker barn fire, character deaths, pivotal plot reveal, introduction of comic book favourite Michonne, and the establishing of what fans termed ‘The Ricktatorship’, expectations were set excitingly high. So, in hindsight of season three, how did the series fare in comparison to its predecessors?

If you were to trawl the internet for fan reactions, you’d probably discover the general opinion is that the first half was in every way better than the second. Episode 1 started in top gear, our heroes bursting through a door into a house filled with walkers, and somehow maintained such a drive right up until the mid-season finale (minus, perhaps, the Woodbury- only episode 3). But, in much the same fashion as season 2, 3 had as many highs as it did lows. Highlight episodes included the likes of 1 (Seed), 2 (Sick), 4, (Killer Within), 12 (Clear) and 15 (This Sorrowful Life). Whereas season two stumbled like its undead inhabitants, three does so too, albeit in its latter stages. In short, the first half was killer, and the second, much to viewers’ disappointment, filler.

This is mostly due to some shaky writing that makes the show feel diluted in order to stretch to the 16- episode mark. But with Scott Gimple taking over as showrunner for the now- announced season four (he wrote the stronger parts this season), things may be looking up. This is consequential of Glen Mazzara’s leaving due to ‘creative differences’ with AMC, the details of which we may never know. Many fans, though, point to Mazzara’s writing as the reason for TWD’s drier spells – something season 4 will now undoubtedly reveal.

It’s worth taking a little time to reflect on the characters, since many have gone through notable and life- altering changes this season. The likes of Andrew Lincoln and Norman Reedus reprise their roles as the zombie killing badasses with backbone, but sees other characters forcibly adapt to the new world in order to survive – no longer are the walkers feared on every sighting. Rather, season three presents them as obstacles to be removed as opposed to a looming threat. Take for instance, the first episode, ‘Clear’, in which Rick states they are going to ‘take’ the prison by ‘going in, hand to hand’. Contrast this with the frailty of the group at Hershel’s farm in season two, when a walker was left to the tougher types to dispatch. Instead, every character watches their own back, sometimes even enjoying the bloodshed (Maggie asks “Did you see that?!” when driving a machete through a walker’s head). All this makes for stronger, more respectable, and most importantly, less annoying character qualities.

It goes without saying that Rick and Daryl are the standouts, but season three has given rise to other characters stealing the spotlight: namely, Danai Guirira’s Michonne, Michael Rooker’s Merle, Melissa McBride’s Carol, and David Morrissey’s the Governor (or Philip, which doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, in fairness). Michonne started out a little two dimensional, (through no fault of Guirira’s, but the writers’) but managed by the end to emerge as a likeable and humanistic character. Kudos is also overly due to McBride in her portrayal of Carol, a regular sufferer of misfortune, who shows that she can handle just about anything the script throws at her, and Michael Rooker, who provided Merle with a rollercoaster ride of emotional investment from viewers. Sometimes we hated him (beating and torturing Glenn, almost handing over Michonne to the Guv’na) but by the end of his story, we couldn’t help but feel the show had lost something great in Rooker’s departure. In Merle’s death we also saw Daryl’s raw, inner self, a world away from his temperamental origins in the series. And with it, Reedus proved to us he wasn’t just the cool, tough as nails Legolas equivalent, but a fine actor too. Season 3 also introduced comic book favourite Tyreese – but to mixed reception.

There’s always a risk in separating main characters and trailing them off into individual paths, and it showed – Woodbury’s story segments weren’t half as interesting as what was going on in the prison (ever), even though a handful of characters were devoted to it. Two episodes that exclusively dealt with Woodbury antics were in essence, boring, and made viewers well aware that they would be going two weeks without seeing the prison gang. Some more refined writing would have seen this fixed, in which one could imagine seeing the drama cut neatly between the two areas, therefore eliminating any wasted time and dialogue. The biggest victim this season was Andrea, however, whose character was so badly drawn out that her death in the finale was beyond predictable and into desirable for some. It didn’t help that the finale rested its weight on her death either, a big mistake when considering that in harsh reality it was difficult to feel sympathy for such a flawed character. (Why did she stay at Woodbury after learning that the Governor was a psychopath? Why would she trust him over Michonne, who she’s known for longer and owes her life to?) This is not to say that the finale fell short because it put all its chips on drama over action, just that it sacrificed a seemingly inevitable and hotly anticipated collision of forces for an un-affecting character send-off. There was much more impact in episode 4, ‘The Killer Within’, at the demise of T-Dog and Lori, whose death in particular had repercussions on the integrity of Rick, and subsequently the whole group.

This season also marked the return of Morgan, (Ep.12) albeit short lived, but allowed Lennie James to once again depict humanity when dealt a bad hand. In fact, more was felt for Morgan in 45 minutes than for Andrea in 16 hours. In fairness, the character flaws in TWD are due to nothing other than faults in writing, which a few times demonstrate a lack of conviction to plotlines or willing to go anywhere near as extreme as its comic book source material. Don’t get me wrong – David Morrissey’s Governor is a fantastic presence on screen, but is an alternate persona to Robert Kirkman’s original sadistic and vile tyrant completely. 

Where The Walking Dead is consistently strong is in the special effects department, headed by Greg Nicotero, veteran SFX head smasher, bone snapper, and blood splatterer, who also directs a few episodes this season. Major credits are due to the people who orchestrate the show’s famous kills, much to the pleasure of the slightly sadistic crowds (no judgement, I’m guilty) i.e. the make- up and costume departments who have provided many a memorable slaughtering (see a link at the bottom of this article for highlights, in GIFs). What The Walking Dead Season 3 leaves us with then, is the strongest material yet, which even with its flaws is one of the most watchable shows on TV. Whereas Season 2 left us with the promise of something intense to come, Season 3 leaves people questioning. AMC will have to step up its game to deliver a season more enthralling than 3’s greatest moments, and with Season 4 in capable hands, its quite possible that things are only going to get better.

VERDICT: Daring and debaucherous in equal measure, The Walking Dead reaches heights in its time previously untapped, even if it does suffer from the occasional dragging ankle. Indulging characters and thrilling action make up for past grievances to deliver bold and edgy television. ★★★★

Best Zombie kills, in GIFs: http://www.tv.com/news/looking-back-on-the-walking-dead-season-3-somewhere-between-alive-and-dead-plus-the-best-zombie-kills-in-gifs-136543933537/

Film Review: The Place Beyond the Pines

The Place Beyond the Pines (2013)

Cianfrance shows off his ability to handle the bigger stuff

Director: Derek Cianfrance

Cast: Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, Ray Liotta, Rose Byrne, Dane DeHaan

Plot: Stunt and circus motorcyclist Luke (Gosling) returns to a town in which he had a fling with a local, Romina (Mendes) to discover he has a son. He soon turns to bank robbery in an effort to provide for them, which entwines his fate with police officer Avery (Cooper).

DEREK Cianfrance showed us with 2010’s Blue Valentine that he was a master hand in the subtlety of character- weighted relationship dramas, and now demonstrates his adeptness with bigger budgeted, powerful stories of misfortune and fate with The Place Beyond the Pines. Whereas Cianfrance allowed little room or emotional distance from the troubled relationship in the former, the latter deals with wide, fleeting camera shots that close in on characters only when dramatically necessary.

It tells the story of circus stunt motorcyclist Luke, played explosively by Gosling, who meets a local mechanic with a history of robbing banks. In the wake of the discovery of a son he never knew he had, he begins to rob banks in order to provide for his family. This leads him into conflict with beat copper Avery Cross – Bradley Cooper. Eva Mendes joins the mix as Romina, mother of Luke’s child after a one- night stand a little while back. On an performance par with Gosling, she pulls the emotional weight of the story and its developments momentarily aside (in a good way!) and reflects humanity in beleaguered circumstances. The story itself plays out well, at least for a while.

But it’s not the film’s strongest aspect. Gosling’s scene stealing and dominating presence is. Part himself in Drive, part so from Blue Valentine, his tattooed- torso appearance first frame in draws the audience along through an Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men)/Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas) /Joe Wright (Atonement)- style uncut shot ending at Luke’s stunt bike, before rolling the titles to deliver one of the more memorable cinematic openings this year. Cianfrance hits all the directorial criteria, but whether it was his or his fellow writers’ mistakes late on in story development is a wonder. Around the 40-minute mark, the narrative takes an unexpected turn, and again towards the end in what becomes a risky relay- type handing over of the spotlight. The first time, it pays off, maintaining a good pace through an alternative viewpoint, but the second similar switchover drags the story to slow crawl. Fumbled together, the sequences involving Luke and Avery’s sons 15 years after their chapters grind the narrative into something that feels as though it isn’t completely sure of where it’s headed. In fact, it almost feels like a dodgy sequel in comparison to a wholly invigorating initial segment.

Some inventive visuals are accompanied by a great soundtrack, too – the trailer’s melancholy piano- lead ballad rings out effectively, and the credits see the return of Bon Iver’s The Wolves (Act I and II), having made its cinematic debut in last year’s Rust and Bone (also in the credits). Some fine camerawork also constitutes a spectacular bike chase, which takes place from only two long uncut viewpoints, both from behind police windscreens. It looks like highly stylized footage from an episode of World’s Wildest Police Chases, the cheesy uber- American narration traded in for radio chatter and shot on handheld camera. The chase leads through a graveyard and ends with the meeting of the two leads, Luke and Avery. From an aesthetic and filmmaking viewpoint, the whole film is a delight. It’s just a disappointment that the fundamental element – the story – withers in the final act.  

VERDICT: It’s a stunning visual piece with a mostly solid script and perfectly cast roles, but its duller moments overshadow an otherwise and potentially great film. ★★★