Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

TIF’s Snuggle & Scream Ep. 04: Hush
Podcast
Snuggle and Scream as you listen to this podcast about horror films! In Season 2 of this special seasonal spin-off of The Impact Factor, Alex is joined by his co-host, fiancee and fellow (begrudging) horror movie watcher Justine to discuss some scary movies! Each episode we’ll talk about a new horror movie we’ve seen together and give our thoughts.

This week Justine and I discuss 2016's Hush.

Send questions & comments to: impactfactorpodcast@gmail.com
Alex is on Twitter @alexsamocha
Follow all things TIF: http://www.theimpactfactor.blogspot.com

Intro: ‘Horror TV’ by FoolBoyMedia, freesound.org. Attribution Noncommercial License.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

October Scare Fest 2016
Perspectives



I know it's only September, but Scare Fest is back! 2016 has been a year of very scary things (not the least of which is the Presidential election), so why not celebrate all the terror with a list of horror movies? This time it is bigger and better than ever. To accomodate and almost certainly overzealous list, I'm posting this a few days before the start of Halloween month.

As I do every October, I’m going to try to watch 3-4 horror movies each week. I predominantly put a focus on watching movies I've never seen. The titles below span all styles of horror, so you're sure to find one on the list that's up your alley. For archival's sake, I've included a scored list of the past two years. There is always more horror goodness to be found!

After watching each film I'll give it a numeric score and update this post. Let's hope I can find a couple more 5/5's!

Please follow along with me if you can! A ton of the films are on streaming services like Netflix and Amazon. If you do, let’s talk about them. Post comments here or hit me up on Twitter @alexsamocha. You can also shoot an email to impactfactorpodcast at gmail 


October Scare Fest 2016:
We Are Still Here: 3.5/5
We Are What We are: 1.5/5
Southbound: 2.5/5
The VVitch: 4/5
Under the Skin: 3/5
Offspring (09): 1/5
Hush: 4.5/5
The Box ('09): 1.5/5
Enter the Void: 2/5
They Look Like People: 3.5/5
The Invitation: 2.5/5
Baskin: 3/5
Irreversible: 2/5
Goodnight Mommy: 4/5
Goosebumps: 3.5/5
Green Room: 4.5/5
A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night: 3/5
Hatchet: 2.5/5
The Craft: 2.5/5
Ginger Snaps: 3/5
[Jennifer's Body]: 3.5/5

*Movies bolded and underlined have been seen & reviewed!

October Scare Fest 2014
Hellraiser: 3/5
Grabbers: 2/5
Candyman: 3/5
Honeymoon: 2.5/5
The Town That Dreaded Nightfall: 1/5
[Evil Dead 2]: 5/5
Rosemary’s Baby: 4/5
Re-Animator: 4.5/5
House of the Devil: 3.5/5
The Innkeepers: 3.5/5
The Taking of Deborah Logan: 3/5
The Sacrament: 2/5
Snowtown: 3.5/5
[Scream: 5/5]
[Trick r’ Treat: 5/5]

October Scare Fest 2015
The Visit: 3.5/5
[Orphan]: 2.5/5
The Babadook: 4/5
Creep ('14): 3/5
Wrymwood: Road of the Dead: 1/5
Unfriended: 2.5/5
Blue Ruin: 4/5
Housebound: 3.5/5
The Guest: 3.5/5
Martyrs: 4/5
The Hills Run Red: 2.5/5
The Nightmare (2015): 4/5
[Halloween]: 4.5/5
[Halloween 2]: 4/5
[Cabin in the Woods]: 5/5
[Trick r' Treat]: 5/5

*Movies in brackets are ones I’ve seen previously. I've underlined films scored 4/5 or higher to emphasize the ones well-worth watching.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

A Musical Of Punches: Disjointed Narrative and Street Fighter V
Perspectives

Abstract: Street Fighter V’s long awaited story mode is terrible. The writing is poor and the plot is something you’ve already seen a thousand times. The narrative and gameplay poorly align, transforming the story mode into a bizarre musical where punches and shoryukens are the songs. Like many other games, Street Fighter V makes the mistake of relying too strongly on film as the model on how to shape its story. When video games lean into what makes them unique from movies, like their interactivity and perspective, their narratives can succeed.

Let’s not beat around the bush here, Street Fighter V’s story mode is bad. Almost unplayably so. It is a huge bummer. As a kid that grew up glued to the shiny Street Fighter II arcade cabinet, I spent hours creating the world of Street Fighter in my mind. From character dialogue to stages to moves, I used everything I could to create the universe. Given my past experience with Capcom fighting games my expectations for Street Fighter V’s story mode were quite low. It promised to be a step above the comic book freeze frame storytelling of Capcom’s games past games, with 3D models and dialogue and a compelling narrative. I suppose it delivers two of the three.

As of writing this, I’m a little past the story mode’s halfway point. What I’ve experienced so far is 90 minutes of stilted dialogue and haphazardly assembled vignettes that roughly come together to form a narrative. Street Fighter V’s story mode represents so much of what has been wrong with narrative in video games. The writing is god awful. The plot is something a middle-schooler could have whipped up on a lazy afternoon. The action is disjointed—characters hop around with little to no sense of geography or time, motivations shift dynamically and without purpose, and every scene is just an excuse to hobble together an eclectic group of characters to, you guessed it, fight each other. Street Fighter V’s final offense is one that’s been committed over and over again in video games: the gameplay and story are totally disconnected.

Guys, please. Street Fighter V's story isn't worth the fist bump.
Street Fighter V’s story mode is broken up into two discrete parts: non-interactive cutscenes and fights. Never do the two really meet. The narrative heft is put forward in the cutscenes. The Shadaloo bad guys explain why they want to EMP the world, the good guys talk with one another to plan how to stop the evil organization, etc. The fighting, however, exists almost totally outside of the story. In fact, most fights in the story feel forcefully injected between the plot that’s taking place. Characters will get mad at one another at the drop of a dime, or out of the blue will demand a test of a fighter’s skill. Anything to get two people to clash. Playing through the story mode is a strange experience. The shift between cutscene movie and fights is jarring. Many characters come across as trigger-happy psychopaths looking for any excuse to hadouken one another. Street Fighter V’s story mode never lets characters earn their right to fight one another, nor does it skillfully blend fighting in with the larger narrative.

I'm sure you can guess the outcome of the scene by now.
In many ways, playing Street Fighter V’s story mode is like watching a musical. The characters go about their business until BAM, they suddenly need to fight. Like a musical in which people suddenly need to sing. This isn’t the first time this particular dissonance between gameplay and story has been compared to theater. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World director Edgar Wright described how he approached blending the titular character’s fights into the film saying, “We thought it should play out like a musical in a way in terms of the fights are not dissimilar to the songs.” Scott Pilgrim leaned heavily on video games as an influence. This approach worked for Scott Pilgrim, perhaps given the strength of the writing and directing of the film. It doesn’t change the fact that the fights are jarring, dislodging the viewer (if only momentarily) from the experience. That jolt has a more profound impact when playing a video game like Street Fighter V. The player agency in the action combined with the general interactivity of video games make it so that, when gameplay is inelegantly inserted into game’s narrative, you’re thrown pretty far off from the experience.

Scott Pilgrim is a good musical of punches. Street Fighter V is not.
Street Fighter V also suffers from a problem very recently highlighted by the great Brad Bird. Bird shared his concerns about using video games as inspiration for filmmaking and storytelling in a recent interview. The director of The Iron Giant and The Incredibles cited video games’ point of view problem. He said, “I feel like video games are a bad influence for storytelling because they are not directed points of view. They are about floating around universes…a lot of times it’s just motion.” Story mode in Street Fighter V is all about universe and not about a singular, or cohesive, point of view. Perspective shifts happen every couple minutes. Huge fluctuations in characters and tones and locations happen so frequently it is easy to get lost in the fold. By giving every character equal representation in the plot, no one matters. The end result is schizophrenic and astonishingly boring. There’s nothing compelling you to get attached or to move forward.

As inflammatory as Bird’s statement can come off, he does hit on a truth that video game narrative creators need to realize. Simply adapting a film approach and applying it to video games rarely works. It is immediately obvious that Street Fighter V wants the story mode to feel like a movie. Fortunately we already know how well a Street Fighter movie works, and it’s not very pretty. Games have long thought going the Hollywood route is the way to bring great narratives into video games. Rarely is that the case. Only the true masters of the craft can get away with this approach, like Naughty Dog with The Last of Us and Uncharted 4. Nearly every other film-inspired story mode in video games comes across, at best, like a good “B” movie. It’s a point of view problem, it’s a length problem, and it’s an interactivity problem.

Unless you're Naughty Dog, your studio might want to think twice about
making your story "cinematic."
While Street Fighter V fundamentally misunderstands what makes a video game story great (hint: it’s not about making a musical of punches), other games shape narrative construction to fit the unique vehicle that is video games. In response to Brad Bird’s statement about video game narrative, creative lead at Naughty Dog Neil Druckman tweeted, “Someone needs to play Brothers [A Tale of Two Sons] or Ico or Papers Please or Portal or Inside or The Secret of Monkey Island or…” Druckman is right and Bird is wrong. There are fantastic narrative in games. Druckman’s list has something in common, though—none of these games structure their story like a movie. Video game narratives work when they lean into the interactivity inherent in games, and from the unique perspectives games can offer the player. Certain narrative devices like environmental storytelling work so well in games, even outshining their film peers. Games like Gone Home and Portal and Ico and Firewatch have fantastic narratives that would never work the same way on film. Video game narratives have the potential for greatness when they are designed from the ground up to be a video game narrative, not a movie facsimile.

The best video game stories adapt narrative structures to fit
the interactive medium they exist within.
For my love of Street Fighter and its characters I’ll fight my way to the end of Street Fighter V’s story mode. I owe it to my arcade heritage and my fondness for the fighting game community. I just wish Street Fighter V was more Shadow of the Colossus and less “action-movie the fighting game musical."

Saturday, October 31, 2015

TIF’s Snuggle & Scream Ep. 03: Until Dawn
Podcast

Snuggle and Scream as you listen to this podcast about horror films! In this special seasonal spin-off of The Impact Factor, Alex is joined by his co-host, fiancee and fellow (begrudging) horror movie watcher Justine to discuss some scary movies! Each episode we’ll talk about a new horror movie we’ve seen together and give our thoughts.

This week Justine and I discuss 2015’s Until Dawn.

Send questions & comments to:impactfactorpodcast@gmail.com
Alex is on Twitter @alexsamocha
Follow all things TIF: http://www.theimpactfactor.blogspot.com

Intro: ‘Horror TV’ by FoolBoyMedia, freesound.org. Attribution Noncommercial License.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

On Horror, Games, Death, and Immersion
Article

Abstract: Horror is a balancing act between immersion, momentum and tension. The movie genre is one of my favorites for its ability to create and draw me into a new worlds. Horror is not my favorite game genre, however. Player deaths can break immersion and halt forward momentum, which weakens them as horror experiences. My favorite horror games, Dead Space, Resident Evil 4 and SOMA however, are able to find this balance and each accomplishes this feat it it’s own unique way.

Horror speaks to me. I love the thrills, chills, kills. All of it. Slashers and monsters and psychological and supernatural. Every October I throw together a Scare Fest list, compiling a bunch of horror movies to watch and review. This year I even started doing a special seasonal podcast in which my fiancĂ©e and I discuss a recent scary movie we’ve seen together: Snuggle & Scream.



There are a lot of reasons I love horror, too many to write out in this article. One of the main reasons, and the inspiration for this article, is immersion. The genre as a whole is routinely effective at world building. The movies craft their characters, motivations, and the antagonist  clearly—and have them fit into a cohesive world. The source material mandates this. To be scared you need to be involved. A part of that world. Often this can be difficult when the ‘truth’ of your world involves werewolves and ghosts and preternaturally strong psychopaths. Horror movies often create worlds entirely dissimilar to our own. So they work to create a setting detailed enough that the viewer is transported there. Once you’re in the world, you can be scared.

John Carpenter's The Thing brought me into a new world. A terrifying one.
The immersion typically found in horror films is a strange one, though. There’s limitations. You’re in the world, you are the characters… right up until they die. As a viewer, you’re free from the deaths and murder. In the best horror films, you’re affected by it as if you were the character themselves but there’s that crucial separation that occurs at the character’s last few moments. The observer-participant hybridization is something that continues to fascinate me about horror, and one of the main reasons it’s my go-to movie genre.

Horror’s observer-participant dynamic allows for several things, the most important of which is momentum. Deaths do not remove you from the experience. Quite the contrary, deaths are a key facet of the experience. Despite rapid ends to character arcs, you’re (almost) always treated with one continuous experience. Culling, whether it be of characters or questions, is additive in horror—it narrows the focus and builds towards the film’s conclusion.

In Alien, you are the crew of the Nostromo. Until you're not. Because they're dead.
Despite my fanaticism for horror movies, that level of adoration hasn’t directly translated to a passion for horror video games. Don’t get me wrong, I do love horror games. I’ll talk about my three favorites here shortly. Several horror games have even been seminal in the understanding and implementation of modern game design. I would say, however, that as a whole horror games struggle to recapitulate the feeling you get while watching a scary movie. All too often, horror games fail at preserving momentum.

How do horror games, even some of the best, struggle to maintain a brisk momentum throughout? It all comes back to immersion. Like I wrote above, in horror movies you’re immersed right until the point of death. Your immersion breaks for a few moments, and then you’re right back in with the characters who’re still alive. But dying is a serious issue in games. The immersion in games does not end when a character dies. You are that protagonist whether you die or not. Death results (usually) in a game over screen and being sent back to your last checkpoint. This loop is problematic in three important ways. First, you lose momentum. The actions of your hero are halted dead in her tracks, only to be repeated once you make your way back to where you died. Second, it breaks immersion. Dying and coming back to life five minutes before you ate it isn’t something that happens in real life, nor is it a part of the game world that’s ever explained. To clarify that last point: when you die and respawn in Outlast it doesn’t fit within the reality of the game. There’s no explanation to it. There isn’t something like “In this insane asylum, those confined within its walls are doomed to live and die endlessly.” Or something to that effect. You respawn in a horror game because you have to, not because it fits the truth of the world. Functionally, the game just pretends you didn’t die. And finally, player deaths remove tension. Knowing what killed you and where it’s hiding (usually) strips fear from the encounter, and makes the final experience weaker overall.

Friday the 13th had a great / terrible game over screen. Seeing this too often
can kill the 'horror' of your time with any horror game.
Horror works when you have a perfect balance of the three: immersion, momentum, and tension. Horror games work when the balance of difficulty and death is titrated in such a way that you need to just barely survive. You are constantly in fear of dying, but death comes infrequently. Because you’re ostensibly one of the few characters that survives the ordeal, or at the very least makes it to the end of the ordeal (i.e. the end of the game), death is more set-back than an intended possibility. So few games get this balance right. In some, you die far too often and it kills momentum, tension, and immersion. In others, you never die and the game loses its scariness, transforming into either an action or exploration game depending on the underlying systems. Fortunately, there are a select few horror games that do an excellent job at maintaining this delicate balance. They also happen to be my three favorite horror games of all time. Let me tell you about how all three get the balance of difficulty, death and momentum correct, each in their own unique way.

2008’s Dead Space, by EA Redwood Shores (a.k.a. Visceral Games now) is first on the list. Let me make something clear from the start. Unless you’re incredibly, overly, pain-stakingly cautious, and good at third-person shooters, you will die during your time with Dead Space. It’s going to happen. Isaac Clarke, space-engineer turned space-alien slayer, can die in some pretty gruesome ways. Why deaths work in Dead Space as opposed to other titles, though, is how intimately they are a part of the game’s narrative and world. Ok, sure, Isaac Clarke isn’t supposed to die and the game offers no explanation on why you respawn. Death in Dead Space, however, is edifying. It builds immersion. The mysterious necromorphs are at the heart of your experience. Necromorphs are these emaciated, gory humanoid forces of dismemberment and death. Throughout most of the game, though, their particular brand of evil is a mystery. Why they are, what they are, and what their purpose is. While the game offers other types of narrative to answer these questions, one of the key ways in which you begin to understand your foe is death. They ways in which they decapitate you, disembowel you, build Dead Space’s world. There aren’t very many characters with which to interact in Dead Space. The necromorphs have no other way to communicate with the player other than tearing you limb from limb, so your early deaths act as a conversation. On top of all that, the ways in which they kill the player (rending extremities from torso, generally) reinforces the central gameplay mechanic of ‘strategic dismemberment.’ Shooting off necromorph limbs is the only way to kill them. Well, that plus a swift stomp to their noggin. Your death works synergistically with both world building and gameplay. In that way, Dead Space finds it’s own way to balance player deaths with its horror intentions.

Deaths are used as both conversation & world building. They're essential
to your experience with Dead Space.
Resident Evil 4 is next on the list. I love the Resident Evil franchise, but it wasn’t until the fourth entry into the main series that it really clicked for me. And I think a large part of why it felt so good to play, and felt so authentically horror, is because it nailed the balance of death and momentum. What I didn’t expect, however, is that the infusion of better action elements would be the reason behind this balance working so well. Leon Kennedy isn’t your standard powerless horror protagonist: he’s a government agent who has already proven his skill at killin’ zombies. With that knowledge, it makes sense he comes equipped with plenty of tools to handle his situation: guns, knifes, grenades, you name it. And you know how to use them. In addition, you have access to a fairly generous merchant who shows up everywhere to keep your personal armory stocked. All of this is necessary though, because Resident Evil 4 pits you against unfathomable odds. While playing the game you always feel like you’re on the cusp of dying. After each fight you’re left with precious little health and even less ammo. But you made it out alive. Resident Evil 4’s scenarios are perfectly designed to give the player this feeling over and over again. Case in point is one of the game’s earliest encounters in the town square. The player is tasked with fighting off a seemingly endless horde of angry villagers. The fight can last upwards of 15-20 minutes. Every time I’ve played the scenario I feel like I’m teetering on the precipice of death—my health is too low so I’m forced to sprint to a distant house to hide and heal, or my ammo is low so I try to bait the angry mob to come at me one at a time by strategically running way and re-engaging. Sure, you can die (and I did), but with skillful play and the right difficulty setting (normal or hard depending on player skill) Resident Evil 4 kills the player only a precious handful of times, and has them spread out often enough they don’t severely impact immersion or momentum.

You might be a badass, but Resident Evil 4 continually finds way
to put you on the precipice of death.
The most recent addition to this list is Frictional Game’s SOMA. The game does so much exceptionally well, and it’s easily one of the best games I've played this year. On top of having an incredible and mature sci-fi narrative that leaves the player with lingering existential dread, SOMA also has created a stunningly immersive world that is reinforced by a perfectly crafted balance of death and momentum. Perhaps most importantly, SOMA tries to scare the player very differently than most other horror games. SOMA isn’t about the fear of death and dying, like in Dead Space or Resident Evil, but rather the fear that arises when you ask questions like ‘what is death’ or ‘what does it mean to die.’ SOMA would be terrifying even if it were impossible for the player to die. But there are monsters, and you can die. Smartly, SOMA moves away from one-hit-kills like those in games like The Evil Within or Amnesia: The Dark Descent. It’s always two. This maintains momentum and severely limits replaying sections. Further, monsters appear frequently (or infrequently) enough that you’re constantly on edge that they might appear, but you’re never bogged down having to move past monster after monster. It maintains their scare factor. And finally, SOMA gives the player interesting ways to avoid dying. Some enemies, for example, can only see you if you are looking at them. This creates a new kind of tension. The player not only must move without looking at the monster, but it also places you physically closer an enemy than most other games. That quasi-safety in proximity creates a near-death feeling horror strives for. As a result, SOMA is a fantastic horror experience. Game or not.


SOMA moves away from scaring the player with death. It scares the player
by making them think about what death actually is.
The best of the best, whether movie or game, balance the many tensions that exist in horror. Horror games must be exceeding hard to design in this way, which makes the exceptions I described above all the more worth commending. So maybe give one of them a shot this Halloween weekend. Happy Scare Fest everyone.