Archive for blogging

The Jump-Scare Microcosm

Posted in All the Things, Game Guts with tags , , , , , , , on July 25, 2014 by trivialpunk

Often, I get the urge to go back and edit my old posts. Usually, there’s a typo that’s bothering me, but sometimes it’s just the post itself that needs to be changed. You grow a lot over the course of a couple years, but you always start somewhere. Thankfully, I’m not regurgitating all of Yahtzee’s analogies anymore, but that doesn’t diminish the urge to go back and change the posts where I did.

But, that’s where I was at the time I wrote the post. This is a blog, so its integrity relies on its temporality, which is a ridiculous way of saying that I’d feel weird about editing old posts. So, I’ve just got to do better next time. I wrote a pretty glowing review of Titanfall, but I haven’t really played it since. And I hated Dark Souls, but I’ve got a Letsplay of it now, and I love it.

I’m going to learn from those experiences and do a Letsplay series on Clockwork Empires as it develops. For the people listening to my opinion, I feel compelled to back up my words. Also, it’s fun.

But we’re not here to talk about FUN, are we? We’re here to talk about FEAR. Well, horror, actually, of which fear is a principle component. It doesn’t matter what medium you’re working in, the important experience is the end-user experience. And when you’re talking horror, that means that you have to take things like lighting, stress-levels, pop-culture and interface into account.

But, that also means that you’re working with a complicated apparatus. Inducing the experience of fear is like playing a complicated emotional symphony. You know how those laughs that follow tense moments are always extra poignant? Part of the reason for that is that laughter is an emotional stress valve. The process of building emotional tension is also the process of building physical tension (stress). Striking at a point in the arc creates a related reaction.

This is one of the mechanisms that makes the jump-scare work. Whether it pays off for a viewer usually depends on their individual reaction; whether it will work on anyone usually depends on the designer.

But tension is not enough, even something as brief as a jump-scare requires a lot of thought to put together and relies on a lot of things going right. Even if it all goes off properly, it’s still being fed through self-aware systems of such sublime complexity and variation that no two will remember it in exactly the same way. That being said, they’re also creatures of such immense sophistication that they could still describe it in exactly the same way if they were asked to. That’s us.

I’m talking about the jump-scare because it’s like a horror-movie microcosm. It relies on most of the same elements: physiological reactions, context and timing. So, if we break down its elements, we can see part of the system we’re working with. Because, despite the fact that each person is different, the reactions they have are in relation to their steady-state, so you can still scare most people a little bit.

For instance, sounds can build physical stress. Let’s paint a standard late-night scene in a deserted park. Our character is walking beside a row of hedges as the wind whips up a little, shaking the leaves. Now, if we were watching a movie, you could start building a deep, subtle sound in the background that would arouse the attention of your audience and begin building some physiological stress.

You can start using restrictive camera angles to let your audience’s visual system know that it’s not getting enough data by using the auditory one, because there are sounds in the background that they’re hearing: strange, out-of-sight sounds. Cut the angle out to a wide-angle of our character walking beside the hedge, edging slightly away from it but clearly feeling foolish about it.

At this point, your audience knows from the music that something’s wrong. This is where people begin yelling at the character to get away from the hedge! It’s dangerous! I think that’s a stress-release valve that opens because the danger is apparent but unknown. This is where you need to be subtle, because your audience wants to get stressed out. However, if the character’s acting foolishly, then they might opt out of buying-in entirely.

We’ve all watched scenes that we thought might have been frightening but were completely ruined because the character didn’t act in a logical manner, right? We are, after all, relying on our audience to project into the mind of our character. If our character acts in a manner that they don’t understand, then our audience can’t really connect with them in any meaningful way. At that point, our character is no longer embodying our audience, so neither will they.

So, back to the scene… Our audience knows that there’s something up, because the music has aroused their attention. They’ve understood that the character feels creeped out by walking alone, at night, beside a hedge, but that the character feels silly about it. The background noises have combined with the camera angles to give the audience the impression that they’re missing some information. But, the wide-angle has communicated that there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong. Everything is benign, but it feels dangerous.

Now, what of context? We just painted a random park somewhere. Are we watching a slasher-flick? If so, then we know what’s probably waiting in the hedge. Or, at least, the worst thing that could be waiting in the hedge as far we know. That’s kinda meh, honestly. What if an unknown creature escaped from the Lab somewhere and our character doesn’t know about it?

Well, now we have another element of mystery. Not only do we not know if something’s wrong here, but we don’t even know what it could be. That’s not AS helpful as it could be, but it does do some work for us. What if we knew it smashed a cage? Then, it’s strong. How about if it melted its way through a wall? That’s pretty visceral. What could it do to our character?

Still, that might be a little too descriptive. What if we just know that it escaped, but it shredded the corpses of the guards on the way out? The more details we restrict, the more each detail increases in importance in the mind of the audience. However, we still need to give their imaginations enough to work with.

Let’s go back to slashers for a second. If he’s skinned two people so far, then we can imagine that he’ll probably skin his next victim. That’s a gruesome thought, but it only engages the imagination so far. If, on the other hand, he has only removed certain body-parts from each victim at random, then our audience might imagine what would be next.

However, we can encourage them to imagine that by introducing a pattern into the dismemberment. Buffalo Bill, for instance, was building a body-suit. If the reader was given enough details to be encouraged to imagine which ones he’d be after next, then we have further engaged their imagination, and, thus, deepened their immersion. Human curiosity and imagination are essential tools for creating horror.

So, that’s context. For variety’s sake, let’s just say that a creature escaped from a lab. It burned its way out of its cell, then it shredded the skin from each guard, absorbing their blood through the tears in their flesh. (If we want to get really specific later, then we’ll say that a guard who died from severe acid burns wasn’t drained, suggesting that their heart-beat aids the process) That’s pretty graphic.

Now, we have a colorful potential fate for our character. We’ve told the audience that something’s up, but we didn’t overdo it. Then, let’s say their cell-phone rings. If we did it suddenly, then it might act as a mini-jump-scare, relieving some physiological tension. That can be good if we plan to build it up again or catch our audience off-guard. However, if we wanted to build towards a single big scare, then it would build slowly.

Does it build up alongside a rustling in the bushes? Does our character notice something shuffling in the leaves, ignoring their phone to pay attention to the new thing in the shadows? Does our character answer the phone and end up getting stalked by a camera? Does our character not believe their friend? The next few seconds are crucial, and they’ll define the entire tone of the jump-scare.

For our single instance, let’s say that our character pulls their phone out of their pocket, the volume increasing slightly to show why it was initially muffled. Then, they look at the call-return, still walking as they go, putting the phone up to their ear, the camera cuts to a typical walking-talking-head angle, at which point something pounces from off-camera. Our sound-cue here is essential. The scene cuts to the other end of the phone, where we receive more of the plot and a small bit of information about what’s happening to the character we just left.

We want to catch the audience off-guard, but we don’t want to contrive camera-angles or plot-devices that will let them know when we’re planning on catching them off-guard. That defeats the purpose of contriving them, unless they’re a meta-contrivance, and that’s a whole other ball of wax: horror movies for people who love horror movies. (<3)

At the same time, we want to ensure that the angles and mechanics that create the jump-scare are still present. We still want to restrict their vision and menace them with sounds, but we don’t want them to feel like those things exist solely to accomplish the task of creating a jump-scare. That line of thinking runs through everything I understand about creating horror.

You want to create horrifying situations, but you don’t want your audience to have to think about the fact that you’re doing it. You’re not just creating a situation that’s horrifying for the character: you’re using your character’s situation to horrify your audience. It’s their physiology that you need to worry about. It’s their tension that is ultimately played-upon. It’s thrilling to experience when it all works out, because it was created to be experienced.

Games have a huge leg-up when creating horror because they engage the audience directly. However, the job becomes that much more complicated as you add elements, like volition. Creating truly great horror in a game universe means understanding and manipulating someone’s decisions in the same way that jump-scares use physiological tension: they must contribute to the horror in their own way.

Each decision should be part of a string of events that bring you to a horrifying moment. It doesn’t matter if the decision is to walk forward or to choose between two doors or to apply the lotion from one vaguely-labelled bottle instead of the other. The decisions should be themed around creating the experience of horror. They should engage the imagination.

You should have to think about what moving forward might bring. You should be worried about what’s behind each door. The consequences of the choosing a lotion should be frightening. Of course, you’re not always going to be able to do that with every game, so it’s just something to think about while you tackle the realities of putting together any piece of media.

Horror is a difficult thing to produce, and its personal effects are so variable that it’s difficult or impossible to create any piece of media that will engage everyone in the same way. But, that’s the beauty of horror. Strike out into the dark and try something new. Good luck navigating the shadow; I’ll see you on the other side.


The Clockwork’s Empires Tick On

Posted in All the Things, Game Guts, Game Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , on July 20, 2014 by trivialpunk

Hey you! I’ve been crazy busy lately, but this blog is where I started, so it deserves my love, regardless of the time I have. Today, we’re going to keep it brief and talk about a small subject: Early-Access.

Okay, it’s not a small subject, but the things that I can definitively say about it today are limited. As with any monetization model, it has its risks for both the developer and the consumer. It can easily be corrupted; it can easily fold in on itself. You never know if the game’s going to be finished, and you never know if you’re going to like the finished product after you’ve seen the original. There are many things to consider. But, there is something to be said for watching a game develop. I was in the Minecraft Beta, but I know folks that were in far earlier than I was. They, like me, recall watching the game grow with a fondness that I still feel for it today.

There was passion and dedication behind the dev(s) of that special little game that could and did. It didn’t feel like there were huge expectations for success; Minecraft was basted in the love of the game. And while Minecraft wasn’t the very first early-access game, it’s certainly the most salient success-story among the people I know. So, clearly early-access can work. However, there are some crass individuals who will turn anything beautiful into something sleazy for a quick buck. So, it’s best to know all you can before buying into an early-access game. Incidentally, Jim Sterling does a series of videos about a selection of Early-Access titles. Here‘s a playlist. But, please read on before you run away, because I wanna show you something…


Today, I’d like to talk about Clockwork Empires. It’s an early access game that is being put out by Gaslamp Games, a small indie studio in Victoria, B.C that you might remember for developing Dungeons of Dredmor. And, I think Clockwork Empires was designed specifically to make me love it. It’s a civilization game with a Cthulhian-Clockwork bent. It’s darkly funny and incredibly ambitious, and that’s why I like it. However, it’s also being thoughtfully put together and frankly discussed, which is why I love it. My friend grabbed the game the day it dropped for Earliest Access (Yes, that’s a thing), and we started playing it immediately.

It’s as Alpha as you can allow, because the devs want to make sure the engine’s humming before they add on the spoilers. Okay, there wasn’t much there, really. No save files. Only one spawn-point. A barely functioning Job system. Bugs out the butt. Game-breaking glitches. But, shit, we loved it. We loved it because we expected those things. The devs have been clear on what’s going on and how they’re progressing with implementation, so none of that was surprising. However, in the midst of those issues, we saw glimmers of potential. Potential that we felt would be built upon by a company that’s dedicated to the game’s quality. A stance they’ve wisely embodied in their dealings with their community. After all, trust is the life-blood of early-access.

When the game did work, its grid-based building system and Sims-esque placement mechanics were a lot of fun to tinker with. The character behaviours were wonky at times, but watching your pilgrims mill about and do their own thing is kind of what brings them to life. Also, watching the influence of the Occult spread through my little hamlets was always engaging. Harold the Baker and Susie the Blacksmith having frank discussions with George the Militia-man about the necessity of The Murder Act is always going to be a little bit intriguing. Watching a hungry settler wallow in depression and hunger before deciding to tear off the leg of a fish-person to quiet their wailing stomach seems like it will always be equally fascinating… even if it is a little macabre…

But, those are the cold realities of the life on the Frontier amongst the Cthulhian horrors that haunt us, so it all fits together. Even the writing is charming, which is a big plus to me. The fact that the Cultists occasionally rename your buildings as their influence grows is just icing on the companion cube. I mean, really, why call it a Kitchen when you can call it The Wailing Death-Pit?

You can take this as a recommendation to check out the game and the developer blog to see if you’re interested. But, mostly, I just wanted to tell you why I’m buying into this early-access game, because I think Gaslamp Games is going about it the right way. Hopefully, this game, and/or other games with similarly thoughtful developers, will do well. I’d like this to be the early-access norm, and I like to think that it is, but I had to give them some love, because they’re exemplifying exactly the kind of pro-consumer, we-love-games-too attitude that I like to see.

These are bold, new frontiers, and we’re the first wave of settlers. Whether this model will be corrupted into a tentacled monstrosity is beyond my ability to predict as it sits concealed by the dark wall of our unknown future. However, in the penumbra of our experience, there are shapes of glimmering knowledge interspersed with the Eldritch architecture. Reading those runes is the only way we’ll avoid the miasma that lurks in the dark… Have fun exploring! I’ll see you on the other side.

Among The Sleepless

Posted in All the Things, Game Guts, Game Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , , on July 8, 2014 by trivialpunk

What a ridiculous life I lead, sometimes. How insane can you make a banal life-style? I’m not sure, but I do know a lot of it has to do with perspective. And, luckily, that’s the theme of the game we’re reviewing today: Among The Sleep. However, before we cut to that, let’s mention Dream Journal (Cancelled due to circumstances beyond our control).

It’s my first web-series -written and produced by me. How weird could it be? Follow that link, and you’ll find out. There’s plenty more to come. However, if you’re in more of a Letsplay mood, you can follow this link to my Letsplay of “Among The Sleep”. You know, because it only makes sense to mention it here. Alright? We good? Let’s drift…

 Among The Sleep 1

 Among The Sleep is a first-person psychological-horror game developed, using the Unity engine, by Krillbite Studio, a small, dedicated indie studio based in Norway. So far, they’ve put out this game and “The Plan”. Would You Like To Know More? You know what to do. From this small sample of games, we can start to get a feel for the company, because they’re both dripping with atmosphere.

Pains were taken to craft these titles, and while I’d like to advertise for the devs and talk about The Plan, that’s not our business today. Today, we’re a 2 year-old; what the hell do we know about game-development? We’re talking to a teddy bear!

Sorry, flash-backs. But, that’s the basic idea. Your first-person perspective is roughly two feet off the floor and mounted firmly in the eyes of a child. As a result, you see the world a child would: one full of magic, wonder, imagination and danger. I know, that’s more adjectives than I’d like, too, but it’s from this miasma of descriptors that the game takes shape. Because, it’s a game about perspective.

I’m not talking about the angle, I mean how you perceive the world. The meat of the horror elements come from your childish view of the banal world you inhabit. For a child, everyday things are new and strange. Behaviors and understandings that we take for granted can be alien and disturbing to a naive viewer. It’s like landing in a new country, but the place you came from was an existential nothingness. It’s hard to relate the two.

The game is full of perceptual tricks and thoughtful arrangements that guide you intuitively through the levels. Of course, they’re not particularly huge levels, but you are playing a toddler. The size of the maps and the size of the character are well-matched, so the house becomes an Eldritch landscape, unlike any you’ve experienced for quite some time.  The puzzles are clever and very well themed. Although, the door-handles can be persnickety, at times.

But, it’s more than just a good horror-game set-up; it’s a well-executed horror game: one that understands that jump-scares are tools, not building-blocks. The horror is deep; it suffuses the shadowed textures and the narrative completely. There’s a lot going on here. To truly discuss it, we’re going to have to go a little psycho-literary on it, so we’ll finish the game-play first, then we’ll talk shop.

The physics engine works fairly well, and there aren’t any puzzles that rely on it in any annoying capacity. The game-play is tutorialized in an unobtrusive manner, and there are plenty of things kicking around the background for you to find and pick up on. I can’t tell you exactly what I mean without ruining some of the experience, but the obvious example is the drawings you find. (We’ll come back to those later) They’re scattered all over, and you don’t need them to understand the story.

However, if you start finding them, then you’ll start to see a disturbing situation unfold. But what is the story? (We’ll come back to that, too) Well, your mother has gone missing, and you’ve been dropped off at the toddler’s center somewhere in Silent Hill. So, it’s up to you to find the four items and rescue… the… Prin… cess. Well, maybe not. But, that’s the general idea: where’s Mom?

From there, it’s mostly fetch-quests and a little stealth. The stealth mechanics aren’t great, but they’re serviceable. I didn’t really feel like either the shadows or the bushes provided any sort of protection, but if you can put a wall between you and your hunters, then all the better. That’s the game; and it’s an intense experience. Try it out if you feel so inclined. (Its Score is highlighted at the end) Good? Let’s talk psychology, literature and horror.

Much of this game relies on the dissonance between your experience as a child-character and the reality that it’s masking. But, that’s just the start; they made that meaningful by masking something incredibly disquieting: abuse. What kind of abuse? Ah, that’s where they made things more interesting by using alternative narratives.

Crafting alternative narratives can be difficult, but here’s the basic idea: take all the elements available to you, then remix them. Simple, right? Well, if you change the presentation of some of those elements by translating them through a naive understanding, and a wonderful visual aesthetic, then it can become far more complicated. You can suggest far more stories that way, because you’re asking your player to interpret an interpretation of their interpretation. The possibilities are enormous, and engaging your player in that capacity is half the battle of a horror game.

So, how do you cull the divergent pathways? You pick strong symbols, almost archetypes. Then, you pick well-known cultural situations. In this case: a single mother and an abusive male voice at the door. That’s a text-book Disney-Dickensian broken-family set-up. Blend that with some suggestive drawings on the floor, and you’ve got a completely understandable story… (**SPOILERS PAST THIS POINT**) that you can begin to immediately call into question.

Because, the broader a symbol is, the more believable interpretations it can stand-in for. Why is that figure white, but that one’s black? Why are there two figures here? Why is the white one doing that? What is that shadow?

You see, in the beginning, you’re truly worried for your mother’s safety. Something has taken her away from you, and it seems to have had sinister intent. But, again, that’s only your interpretation of the event through the eyes of a child. These are strange, magical events, because they’re unbelievable. Why is Mom acting that way? Who is this other person?

Now, I know I saw the end-game interpretation pretty early, because I lived this. But, I’m not sure it’s as obvious if you haven’t. The Abusive Father-figure narrative is far more culturally salient where I’m from, so I feel like that’s going to be the general interpretation. But, there’s another narrative that can help you get there, and it exists within the pages of psychological theory.

When I was first playing the game, I was looking at things from a Freudian perspective, because there are clearly mommy-issues at play, here. But, are Mommy-issues a real thing? Is Freud really relevant? Here, he definitely is. You see, as unreliable as Freud’s theories are in a scientific capacity, their scope and internal consistency make them valuable literary fodder. His symbols and ideas are frameworks that we can use to communicate complex, emotional ideas to each other.

Which makes it all the more hilarious that I should have been thinking about Jungian psychology. Seriously, this Wikipedia Page is basically all the game’s narrative symbols in short-hand. They took their time with this. One in particular I’d like to point to is the Shadow. The Shadow is that space between who we think we are and who we really are.

The thing is, every person we meet has a shadow, for them and for us. They are different from the way we perceive them, and they’re different from the way they perceive themselves. It makes figuring out who someone is a far more complex problem than we often give it credit for. For a child who implicitly trusts their Mom? You know there has to be a long, dark shadow there.

And, that’s what kind of tipped it for me. The shadows that encroach on you in the opening are literally figurative. Even the goal of the game, to collect enough memories of your mother to access her current location, smacks of braving that dark wall of terror. Of course, I didn’t realize that until I was falling asleep after my first Letsplay session, because the streams of alternate-narrative are well-maintained.

It’s difficult to guess what’s really going on. And, in the dark, you begin to wonder what you’d prefer, which is almost more disquieting. It’s a lonely, frightening place to be for such a small person. (Protag-wise, you can’t get much more dis-empowered than an abandoned child) But, what makes it more frightening is its immediacy and the terrible truth it hides.

Because, for many people, this isn’t a game. I lived through many of those moments myself; I had to make the tough choice that you see at the end of the game. It brought me right back there. But, it did so with some grace. Powerful stuff.

Issues of family conflict writhe deep in every culture and nest silently in every mind. They’re not always our conflicts, and there aren’t always a lot of them, but it’s something we can all understand. You might say that it’s in our collective unconscious; we all know how important family can be, especially when it’s not around.

By carefully suggesting the elements of all sorts of family conflicts (by staying broad, remember), Krillbite Studio was able to weave many different possible interpretations into one game, making us consider all of their unnerving implications, before bringing it all into focus for the finale.

The dissonance between what we thought was going on and the terribly unfortunate reality is another shadow for us to explore in ourselves. Bring your teddy.

I’m giving Among The Sleep a score of: Candle-Lit Ghost Stories In A Thunderstorm out of The Thrill Of Your Darkened Basement. Enjoy exploring the void of The Shadow; I’ll see you on the other side.

All-New Advertising Gimmicks Really Aren’t Much

Posted in All the Things, Everything Else with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 26, 2014 by trivialpunk

I’m shared between the rich and clever;
I’m the heart of each endeavor.

I gleam in every artist’s eye;
I’m the awe that fills the sky.

I am love, both old and new;
I’m the reason you can “do”.

Despite our clashing; I’m your friend, too;
You’ll use Me to figure out if that’s true.

Who am I?

The first letter of my name is the first clue.

The second letter begins the Tweet that holds the second clue. It’s the only one from June 26, 2014 that begins with that letter.
Ditto for the third letter.
The fourth precedes the beginning of the end;
And, even though it’s jinxing the entire thing, it refuses to move.

Yes, I absolutely put this together to spoil the title of my first ever web-series.
If I must advertise, then I want it to be enjoyable and challenging for everyone involved!

Good luck!

Marc Married to WTF: Attention Grabbing Title

Posted in All the Things, Everything Else with tags , , , , , , , on June 25, 2014 by trivialpunk

Hi! So, we’re trying one of those smaller posts that I said would be interspersed among the longer ones. For consistency’s sake, let’s also plug a video while we’re here. My YouTube channel has a new trailer! I’m vaguely excited about it, because it’s the first time I’ve ever been caught on tape playing guitar. And, it was an accident. And, as an act of self-flagellation, I posted it.  Because, I need to get over myself.

Speaking of me, I review a lot stuff on here, because I explore many different facets of the lovingly putrescent diamond that is pop-culture. I’m sure you’ve noticed some themes in the things I write about, but I try to keep my mind as open as possible. “Try”, not always successfully, I’ll admit, but the first step is always admitting you have a problem. So, it’s time to admit that I love comedy.

I’ve been watching it since I was a small child, almost as long as I’ve been immersed in the world of horror, actually. Maybe I was dealing with intense psychological trauma, or maybe I only had a few television channels. I’ll let you decide. But, I thought I might use some of these shorter posts to briefly review some comedians. One per post. And today, we’re talking about Marc Maron.

I’ve been listening to a lot of WTF with Marc Maron lately. He’s an older, experienced comic that was a pioneer of podcasting. Still is, if we’re being honest. I’ve learned a lot from the show. I mean, I’ve learned a lot of interesting things, but the things are not the only things that are relevant. (Stay with me, here.)

Marc and I disagree on a lot of “things”, but his method of self-inquiry is infectious. It’s brash and unassuming, humble, passionate and silly. Even if someone thought the whole thing was an act, the act itself is bold. And, I’ve enjoyed every second of the process of deconstruction that the show makes me go through.

If I’m being honest, and if that string of accurate fan-boy adjectives didn’t already suggest it, I’ll consume most media that Marc Maron puts out. Comedians, generally, have a touch of the auteur about them, but Marc’s an auteur of self-reflection, so, I’m always surprised by the way he spins things, because the loom he’s working from is so intricately refined. Coupled with his honest acts of self-reflection, he lets me see the world through his eyes without asking me to buy into it. And, that’s refreshing.

But, he’s not for everyone. Like most auteurs, it’s easier to digest their ideas if they resonate with you on some level. I enjoy his act, because comedy has been a part of my life for so long, and he spends his time deconstructing it in a novel and interesting way. For me, that’s awesome.

So, I recommend checking him out through either his podcast or his stand-up (I haven’t watched his television show, yet, so I can’t comment on that). If you enjoy his comedy “drive-shaft”, then I’d also suggest Dylan Moran and Louis C.K. because they’re also consummate comedic story-tellers. I know these are big-name guys, but if you’re a comedy neophyte, then they’re great places to start. Cheers!

The Edge of Tomorrow: A Cthulhian Tale

Posted in All the Things, Movie Reviews with tags , , , , , , , on June 18, 2014 by trivialpunk

Hey, so it’s time to talk about The Edge of Tomorrow! And how we apply Cthulhu to understanding its darker implications. But, first, if you haven’t already, check this video out. It will help you understand the concept of Cthulhu better than the average individual, and it saves me a lot of time. Plus, the people at Extra Credits do a hell of a job! So, let’s get into The Edge of Tomorrow…


Alright, let’s get the up-front stuff out of the way. The Edge of Tomorrow is a dark action-comedy that’s an unholy fusion of Dark Souls, Star Craft and Cthulhu. And, honestly, I half expected to see Bill Murray fall to his death in a helicopter crash. The time-skips are well-presented, and the general plot is fairly clever. However, if you can think like a trans-temporal omni-swarm creature, then you might spoil the ending for yourself. Which is exactly what we’re here to discuss, so SPOILERS! If you’re on the fence about seeing it, then I recommend it. Take that for what it’s worth, and sorry for the short post!


Now, as we all know, at the end of the movie… …

Okay, now I’m free to spoil it. At the end of the movie, Tom Cruise finally destroys the hive-mind behind the alien invasion, and he wakes up a day before, in a brighter, cheerier world. Victory, right? Well, it depends on your perspective. You see, for humans, time is a pretty simple, albeit baffling, progression. Because we live within it, we value the moments and ages that have come and gone, as well as the future. But, what if you lived in the past, the present, the future and all of the multiple iterations therein?

Well, then you’d have a wholly different relationship to time and, as a result, to military action. Now, if you’ll recall, when The Angel of Verdun first drove back the enemy, it retreated from its camp, and the day played out very differently than it had before. However, the results of that day were simply that: the results of that day. For the creature that was attacking them, it wasn’t really a big loss. Think of it like a cat torturing a mouse. It tests its defences on one side. It swats at it a bit on the other side. The mouse struggles and struggles, but, eventually, the cat just goes in for the kill.

But, let’s say the mouse could drive the cat back. Let’s say it bites the cat’s claw and sends it scampering away, giving the mouse just enough time to make it into the next room. My question to you is: is the mouse safe? Well, that would depend almost entirely on the room and the cat. The same goes for trans-temporal beings. Okay, it can’t go all the way back in time, but it can go forward as far as it needs to. And, there are things inherent in the mechanics of the time-resets that should also trouble us.

Alright, every time Tom Cruise dies, the day resets. That’s the basic event, but does it reset for everyone, or does he just go back along his personal time-line? That’s an important question, because if the Alpha aliens (the blue ground-troops that can reset time when they die) get killed, then the day also resets. So, one would imagine, on the truly colossal front-line of D-Day, at least one or two blue aliens must have been killed in the action, besides the one that Tom Cruise takes out. So, then, there must be time-stream resets that  take place before Tom Cruise got his power. If that’s the case, then we can assume that the time-stream resets are personal. Otherwise, he would never have gotten his power in the first place. In fact, the Alpha that gives him his power dies before he does, so that’s really all you need to know.

A disturbing thought, because it forces us to ask ourselves: what does the alien really want? In what way would a trans-temporal alien invade a world? It’s not just invading you on the physical front: it’s invading time-streams. So, if you consider every single day that Tom Cruise died as one potential future, then we aren’t winning the war because we pushed them out of a time-stream. We’ve merely managed to eke out a space to continue existing. In most other potential time-streams, the creatures dominate the world. And human-kind is extinct.

This is where things get even more Cthulhian. Because, if you listened to the video, it’s right. Our only hope of surviving a creature that unknowably powerful is to hope that we’re insignificant enough to be ignored. So, if you’re a creature waging a trans-temporal war, maybe you don’t care about every time-stream, because some of them must end in your defeat. It’s not likely, but it’s necessarily possible. Tom Cruise weighted the scale a bit, but he didn’t change the fundamental nature of the invasion. We lost everywhere it mattered to the creature.

But, we’re beings of singular perspective, so We don’t really care about those other time-streams. In fact, it’s nearly impossible for us to appreciate the implications of temporal genocide with a straight face. But, to a creature like this, it must be a daily reality. So, obviously, it would be able to reset time if its own body was destroyed. That’s the realization that spoils the ending, by the way. This creature fights trans-temporal wars all the time. Of course, it has natural defences to work within the bounds of its zone of combat. But, that’s not what we see, because we’re limited.

And that’s the whole thing about Cthulhu. Powerful beyond comprehension, because we can only begin to glimpse the facts of its reality from our own. Its structure is so insane that trying to communicate its nuances will get you sectioned or dissected. And for creatures not adapted to the ravages of trans-temporal living, the iteration of days can drive you mad. You see life and death in a very different way, necessarily. (They bring that across nicely in the movie.)

Love, life, memories, death and Being are very different for time-travellers. Even the concept of being born is a bit wibbly. And when you realize that, and scream it at the top of your lungs, but no one cares… no one can care… that, too, can drive you mad. That’s an unheard-of military advantage. They don’t press the issue in The Edge of Tomorrow, but they acknowledge it at the farm-house and within the characterization and narrative. Show, don’t tell, right?

Still, the more I thought about it, the more interesting and tragic the narrative became. And, it’s always a wonderful thing when a movie gives you that experience.

I could go into the ways that different conceptualizations of the shape of time and space would change the “biology” and habits of a trans-temporal Cthulhian monstrosity, but that’s half the fun. And I’m gonna let you have it! Cheers!

Okay, so, there’s a lot of house-keeping today, which is why I’m doing it at the end. The concept video for Mike And Marco went up! Don’t worry, it’s supposed to look and sound that way, at first. It felt more… screen-testy… There’s also a place you can go to hear me read stories, some of them are Grimm’s Fairy-Tale old, and some of them are mine. In fact, there’s a whole live-action section that’s slowly coming on-line…

Our letsplays of Far Cry 3WATCH_DOGS and Silent Hill: Homecoming are chugging along. With many more games to come. So, please, visit our YouTube channel at your leisure. If you’ve ever wondered what my face looks like, it’s time to see it from the other side.

Twitter, YAW, NAM and The Problem With Hashtags

Posted in All the Things, Everything Else with tags , , , , , , on June 4, 2014 by trivialpunk

Dear Readers: We’re still on hiatus. This is just me talking here.

I’m back again with some startling news: social media is weird. Why do I say that? Well, because you, as an individual on social media, represent both yourself and any demographics you might belong to. If you hashtag, you’re throwing your voice into another stream that is made up of many more voices. Seems easy enough to navigate, right? No, we’re having a lot of trouble with that. And nowhere is it more evident than the recent YesAllWomen-NotAllMen fiasco. Today, I’m going to address this issue and try to explain why I’m using the word “fiasco.”

Let’s start where most people are going to tune out: both of these issues are important. Neither of them is mutually exclusive. When we’re answering the question: is sexual harassment still a big deal? The answer we can glean from the hashtag is, “Yes, all women deal with it.” But, not all men harass women, and that’s the general thrust of NotAllMen. Now, if you’re sitting on the side-lines, this all seems very reasonable. But, if you’re down in the pit, then these two things aren’t as simple as they seem.

To respond to YesAllWomen with NotAllMen is missing the point. It’s not about passing judgement on individual men, guys. It’s about the shit women are dealing with and making it public. And, it should probably be informing our understanding of our interactions with women, as well.

However, I also believe that an individual man might have a stake in NotAllMen, because we’ve spent the last how many years studying the effects of media on people and we still don’t get how labelling works? To me, NotAllMen is about rejecting aggression as an identifying characteristic of “males.” Because, believe me, women are capable of being aggressive.

But, again, that’s not the point of YesAllWomen. But it is the point of NotAllMen, because that self-identification matters if you’re a part of that group. Do these two groups need to fight? No, not really, but like I said, they are. So, why?

I’m not sure anyone knows the whole story, for everyone, and that’s really my big criticism of the whole thing. As far as I’ve been reading, I haven’t had one side stop and really try to listen to all the others. Because, assuming this is about one cohesive group debating another is asinine, but I know a lot of people are talking about it like that’s what’s going on. And that sort of highlights the whole problem we’re having here: the rejection of nuance.

For my part here, this is about individuals who belong to those groups not spending the time to listen, and, instead, forwarding their own agenda. I mean, that’s totally understandable. If you think something’s important enough, then you’ll toe the rhetoric line. But, this isn’t about one side versus another. This is about all of humanity.

Why is an individual being sexist? Why do they have that view? How am I sexist? How is my own myopia making it hard to see other people’s perspectives? Is trying to move past my myopia giving me a perspective that’s useful or good? What am I doing with that perspective?

These are important questions. And we can’t stop asking them. Why? Well, I went through the English circuit at a University, so I’ve seen plenty of individuals learn Trans-gender Theory or Feminist Theory and then turn around and use it to degrade ignorant ass-holes or, even, just human beings who didn’t know better. I’ve taken a certain amount of self-righteous joy in it, because we need to look at the historical perspective when we’re discussing this. But, equally, we need to care about the individuals, because education is a privilege. If we’re going to call out privileges on the net, then we need to recognize that, or we’ll turn into pompous jerks.

Also, men, having an activist group for our rights is a great idea, but I urge you to be thoughtful. Males have dominated the popular culture for so long that it’s hard for us to see why having a male-only group might be an issue, but let me just give you a “for-instance.” On my campus, we wanted to put together a Men’s Activist group. I wasn’t involved directly, but I like the notion of defending everyone’s rights, because I believe we’ll hit an even point, and then we’ll need to make sure we’re letting everyone be as free and supported as possible within the constraints of not stabbing each other. However…

Upon further reflection, and after checking some rosters, I’ve discovered that men are the majority of the population of a lot of groups. In fact, both clubs I belong to are headed by men and have a 70-30 pop. split. So, what would a men’s group be on my campus, at this time? Honestly, in effect, a group that discludes women. You can fear the spectre of quasi-Nazi pro-male regimes all you like, but I think this is the real issue. Having a boy’s club is great, but we had those for a long time. They were called clubs.

And maybe the demo-split is changing. (Although, it’s better to check than to assume) I mean, we have to acknowledge that the world is changing, right? We all know that the variation within humanity is beyond current comprehension, so why wouldn’t there be places in the world where someone would want to have a place to just be a guy? I call that place my house, but, if I spend the time, I can see their point.

So, again, why is this an issue? Well, because of hashtags. And because we forget that speaking under a hashtag means our words are being interpreted with thousands… millions of others. Because there are people who are using the hashtags for political ends. Hey, Not All Men are supporting women’s rights, here. Let’s be honest, some of the people speaking under this label are sexist jerks. But, the same goes for YesAllWomen. Let’s be fair.

But, that’s the not the point of the groups as a whole, is it?

Both of these groups are trying to do something good for the people within them. In truth, they should be supporting each other, too, though. And, honestly, these groups aren’t just made up of their original intentions; they’re made up of the people within them. I’ve read pieces on both sides that made me want to vomit my insides up. Both groups are spending a lot of time speaking past each other. So, what can we do?

Well, we’re members of these groups, too, whether we want to be or not. We don’t have to talk or anything, but I would encourage you to see people’s humanity, not just their sex or gender or any other defining characteristic. It’s demeaning to shrink an entire human down to a sound-bite. And do what you want, but we should avoid demeaning all humanity at once by simplifying something this complicated into Boys Vs. Girls. Let me give you another “for-instance”…

Recently, I saw a celebrity I won’t name say, “Tip for men, *Pro YesAllWomen explanation*…” Another guy responded by saying that the celebrity shouldn’t throw his hat into the ring so carelessly, to which the celebrity responded by deriding him and explaining YesAllWomen. Seems good, right?

Well, I would caution against making any assumptions here. The problem with the initial remark was that it was sexist. Sorry, it was. Not JUST men have this problem. We all share it. Women harass, too. The fact that women, roughly half our population, are getting harassed is everyone’s problem. However, the judgement on guys is inherent in the construction of the sentence, and if it effects you that way, then you will see it. But you might not, because it’s syntactic sub-text. It only pops out if you’re looking for it, the same way using the word “boner” here would change your perception of the phrase “pops out,” if I wanted to make a crass joke. It’s pattern-recognition working on a semantic level.

However, the sentence wasn’t meant to be about that, in reality. The sentence was about women and an issue they face. But, a sentence is written and interpreted separately, so it must be wrought carefully. When we speak on social media, we have to be clear, because we’re talking to literally everyone. We need to be sensitive, because we might be shouting at everyone on the planet that’s on Twitter, especially if we’re hashtagging, which is universal short-hand for “everyone pay attention, I’m saying a thing.”

More importantly, we need to do our best to search for a poster’s meaning. It’s hard, though, because we’re working with so little information. If your friend says something insensitive, then you have a history with them that you can use to understand what they mean. On Twitter, under a hashtag, we have 140 characters and a bunch of assumptions about the culture we live in. That’s a lot of information, honestly, but cultural information does not apply directly to human beings. You need to know where culture intersects with the facts of their life. And even then, you’ll only have a caricatured understanding of them as a person, because you won’t know what their memories, habits, biology and self are.

But, YesAllWomen and NotAllMen are working on a cultural level. So, the individual often gets over-written by the cultural narrative to which ze or he or she is speaking. The only way I see to begin solving this issue is by trying really hard to understand what someone means when they’re speaking on Twitter, not just what they’re saying. This won’t solve our problems. YAW and NAM go much deeper than this issue of communication, but we do need to be able to talk to each other if we’re going to work through issues like this efficiently and thoughtfully.

Yes, all women deal with harassment, but not all men have to let that fact dictate their identity, even if it should inform it. We can just “be” without harassing each other, but we can’t ignore that it’s happening, either. I don’t know what you think of these issues, and I’m not trying to convince you of anything but the importance of listening honestly. So, whatever my thoughts on these topics really are, I’ll see you on the other side.

Trivial Punk is a white, cis-gendered male living in the upper-lower class with a University education and too much time on his hands. He likes rice, wears glasses and once fell in a lake. #Canada

I only have my perspective, and it’s horribly flawed, because it’s horribly small. Please, check this issue out, because I only see a small portion of it at once, so I could be totally off-base. Cheers!