The Wolf Among Us (Episode 1: Faith) Review

Hello readers, it's been a while since I did a review but that's because I haven't really bought or played anything really review-worthy is current months until the January PSN sale rolled around and I picked up a season pass for The Wolf Among Us because it was cheap and I've been told many times that Telltale Games' The Walking Dead was one of the best games ever.

Like The Walking Dead, Telltale has created another choice-driven point-and-click adventure game based on pre-existing material for The Wolf Among Us, specifically, the Fables comic book series written by Bill Willingham and published by DC Comics Vertigo imprint. The story takes place in the Fables universe some time after an unspecified event that forces various characters from famous fairy tales and stories, collectively referred to as "Fables", from their original homeland to New York City where they've set up a sanctuary in the form of Fabletown, a second home to the Fables that is hidden from the "mundane" world by various forms of magic. You play as Sheriff Bigby Wolf, formerly known as the Big Bad Wolf from Little Red Riding Hood as well as the Three Little Pigs, tasked with protecting the Fables and investigating any crimes related to the Fabletown community. Equally feared and hated by the Fable population, Bigby is nevertheless a competent detective trying to do his best as sheriff.  The first thing you notice when the game starts playing is the crisp and gorgeous art design. Although the graphics are a little inconsistent especially when it comes to the environment with some areas detailed gorgeously while others look a little lacklustre, the game has a beautiful comic book look and feel to it. The character design is especially outstanding although the characters seem to share very little aesthetic similarity with their comic book counterparts. Particularly Bigby, who is a lot less ferocious and bestial than his comic book appearance. Snow White is also very different from what she looks like in the comics with the key distinction being she looks less weary and bitter at the world. Understandable as The Wolf Among Us takes place before the comics. Perhaps the events of the game contribute to her future world-weariness and cynicism.  Gameplay-wise, The Wolf Among Us is more akin to a point-and-click adventure with the odd quick-time event than a real fully interactive game. I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, it's just how the game works. And at least from my point of view, it's pretty effective. It gives you some degree of choice in how you respond to people and that has consequences in the future as highlighted by the notifications saying something along the lines of "She'll remember that" or "Toad noticed what you said". The game is fascinating, particularly the premise, but my main issue is that choices don't have full weight, at least in the short term. I ran through the game a few times choosing different verbal responses and sometimes even choosing not to say anything and the outcome was almost always the same. I get that the game is ramping up to the finale like a television series but it feels really linear and forcing you down a chosen path. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with that aside from the fact that the game is sold on the basis of choice and to me, it feels like choice is an illusion.  In other words, the game is pretty interesting and has me sold on the next episode but I'm wary of whether Telltale will be able to deliver the impact that my fellow gamers have told me they were able to achieve in The Walking Dead. Furthermore, the interesting premise is what keeps this game interesting for me and the credit should partially be given to Bill Willingham, who created Fables which is something I definitely recommend people start reading. In conclusion, give this game a play but perhaps temper expectations until the final episode, I suspect it might not deliver the impact that people expect but that's just me.

Video Game Time Machine: Arkham Asylum

Hello readers, new series again. This time with a twist. It's a new series about older video games. When I say old, I mean anything from classics like Pong to more recent classics like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, depending on what older game I decide to go back to. This time we're looking at Batman: Arkham Asylum from 2009, which although seems like a fairly short time ago, is nearly a whopping five years.

When Arkham Asylum first hit the shelves, I must admit I was rather sceptical about the quality of the game and felt that perhaps it was an attempt by the video games industry to latch on to the successes of both Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008). It wasn't until later that I realised Arkham Asylum was made by Rocksteady Studios, who made one of my favourite games on the PS2, Urban Chaos: Riot Response and was penned by Paul Dini, one of my favourite writers from Batman: The Animated Series and various DC comics as well as the creator of one Dr. Harleen Quinzel, better known as Joker's moll, Harley Quinn.

I think my favourite part of the game is the brilliant plot and backstory-rich setting of Arkham Asylum with a fantastic cast that combines staple Batman characters with new interesting characters who I can easily see transitioning into the comics. While the game seems to primarily target Batman and DC Comics fans, it toes an extremely fine line that welcomes people new to the Batman/DC universe, sometimes crossing a little too far into the fan section with the near encyclopaedic knowledge of the DC Universe needed to solve the Riddler's riddles legitimately but the gameplay, plot, voice acting, visuals and level design is enough to win over the casual gamer.

Going back in Arkham Asylum, I was a little startled by the contrast between the cinematics and gameplay graphics with the gameplay graphics having aged very well while the cinematics look a little lacklustre, almost too the point of quite extreme screen-tearing on a LED TV. Being a veteran of Arkham City, the combat system feels a little clunky with movement and fighting being less smooth than City but ultimately still feeling quite satisfying. Detective Mode is also useable at all times because the imaging has less contrast than in City and feels a little like a cheat some times because I can see hidden enemies, voiding the potential jumpscares written into the game. The riddles are a lot harder in Asylum if you're not a Batman or DC Comics fan because they often refer a lot to some less obvious Batman lore. As an avid Batman comics reader, it was mostly easy but it's a little unfair to some less avid comic book readers.

Overall, Arkham Asylum holds up very well in contrast to its successors and is one of those games you can just slap on and start playing again without feeling lost or feeling like your skills have seriously atrophied.

Opinion: Man of Steel

I love Superman. I don't think I've ever met anyone who could say otherwise. Sure there are people who probably don't know much about him. I'd like to believe I lie somewhere between them and the hardcore enthusiasts. So when a new Superman reboot was announced, I was more than thrilled to see a contemporary realisation of the character who took the world by storm.

While I'm unable to write a proper review -- as I watched the film once more than a week ago, and thus am unable to dissect it to my liking -- I did leave the theatre with strong feelings about the motion picture. This is my opinion.

Beware: Spoilers ahead

The first thing that struck me with the Man of Steel was the cinematography.  The "home-video" style which we've seen in movies like Cloverfield added a human touch to a film that evokes more science fiction drama than superhero action. While effective, I felt it was overused. The predictable "shakey zoom-in effect" was used extensively and the filming style was occasionally disorientating.

I liked how we were able witness Superman's (Henry Cavill) development, mostly through flashbacks, from his birth to his rise as a hero. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner), Superman's two fathers, have a looming presence whenever they aren't on screen and their impact on Superman's moral character development is strongly felt.

One thing that I wasn't pleased with was the killing of Clark Kent's father, Jonathan Kent. Most superheroes are orphans, motivated by their loss to prevent the loss of others. Superman is different. While he lost his biological parents during the death of Krypton, he never really knew them until he became an emerging adult. He was raised primarily under the care of his foster parents on Earth. He has great power and chooses to use them for righteousness. He didn't need to have his parents killed to understand that crime is wrong and he could use his powers to stop it. This distinction separates Superman from most other heroes.

Moreover, the lack of acknowledgement of civilian casualties is staggering. While I understand that global conflicts can result in pandemonium, the end of the film doesn't reflect the sense of immense loss that just occurred on-screen. An entire city was leveled and none of that was even expressed by the characters or the world.

Also, I didn't think the romance between Lois Lane (Amy Adams) and Superman was carried out well in the film. Sure, I'm glad they introduced this relationship in this origin story. I like this imagining of Lois Lane. I'm glad the whole "glasses and suit" disguise doesn't fool her; I mean it wouldn't fool anyone who was lucky enough to be right next to his face. But stopping to kiss her in the midst of battle? Come on. There's time for snogging later.

A huge controversy revolved around Superman killing Zod at the end of the film. This I was pleased with. Zod's death was entirely necessary. It was character-driven choice, and I would have much preferred a character-driven plotline with a solemn ending than an ending that just didn't make sense. Superman does have a principle that stops him from taking the life of another. I believe that he imposes this on himself as he believes he is responsible for the actions he takes and the resulting consequences. Superman begged Zod to stop his rampage through Metropolis. Zod didn't give him a choice. Another question comes to mind: How would you imprison an unstoppable foe? And even if you could restrain him, what makes you think you he wouldn't move Heaven and Earth to try and annihilate the people you are responsible for?

Despite shortcomings, Man of Steel is a film I enjoyed watching with friends. His "moral" training is definitely emphasised in this imagining of the character, and is a worthy origin story. I wouldn't buy a ticket for a second experience but I might consider owning it on Bluray or DVD.

Another small point is that hiding under a overpass in a tornado does not help. In fact, it is one of the worst places you could be when a tornado strikes. (jump: here)

Oh, I liked how Superman uses public transport.



Bernard Sam is an author at The Ops Centre. He is currently moving through the new Hannibal TV Series, after much anticipation.