Man of Steel, Man of Expectations

Man of Steel is the most recent film version of Superman, and frankly, it is the best Superman film I've watched. To be fair, I've only watched Superman Returns and Man of Steel, so I can't speak to the previous versions. I did follow the comics, and although not entirely faithful (as any new media has to take liberties with stories), Man of Steel has an engrossing character and stylistic action. However, with only a 56% tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes, Man of Steel could be considered a flop.

This is the universal symbol for "Curse" | Sourced from Google Images

When portraying Superman, directors, actors, screenwriters, and studios have the extreme difficulty of providing a character for people to relate to. Superman is invulnerable and, depending on lore, infinitely powerful. How do you make a god relatable?

What to take away from all this is that critics are becoming inconsistent and close-minded in their judgments.

Movie Critics Aren't Always Right

Reviewers are criticizing Man of Steel for its lack of humor in Man of Steel and the over-stimulating visuals. Let's take the humor aspect first.

Since Iron Man, Superhero movies can never be the same. People expect the same types of jokes that Iron Man and the Avengers provided: witty remarks during combat, quippy comebacks, and physical humor (the Avengers scene where Hulk smashes Loki around comes to mind).

Physical humor is funny. | Sourced from Deviant Art.

Superman has humor - ex: Superman telling the US military that he's from Kansas - you don't get more American than that. But there's no humor in combat, which to me, isn't a bad thing. That's like asking a general does he find humor when he has to plow through a city with his forces.

A Genre of Movies Does Not Require the Same Elements

It's not the same type of humor as the other Superhero movies or even the original Superman films (I hear they're a bit campy), but just because Iron Man and the Avengers have set recent tones, it's not bad for it to be different (somehow the Dark Knight Rises is so easily forgotten in critics minds with its dark brooding atmosphere).

Horror movies are constantly redefining themselves. Paranormal Activity pushed horror in a new direction, yet many new horror movies do not use every element Paranormal Activity created. Similarly, Superman does not need to have the exact same type of humor as the Avengers.

In fact, the humor in Superman is a bit more subtle. A lot of it has to do with visual irony as well as the history of the character: Superman in handcuffs is as effective as using a cardboard box as a jail, and Superman's day job is smartly done.

Zack Snyder Was Born for Superman

I am not a fan of Zack Snyder. I think his movies are completely over the top. Suckerpunch (which I did not see) seems entirely dedicated taking the visual sexuality of 300 (I remember my girl friends telling me they were watching 300 for the eye candy) and turning it toward men. I found Watchmen's glorfication of violence discordant with its themes (failure of superheroes, and the corruption of power). And 300 felt like it was 90% slow-mo, but I understand why it was there:  propaganda piece within the story to incite the rest of the Greeks to fight. It's a frame story, and many people seem to forget that. I still didn't like it though. I did enjoy watching all his movies for being fun action movies, but they aren't something I would wholeheartedly recommend.

Stating that Man of Steel's action sequences were long, drawn-out, and over-the-top is directly the opposite of the problem with Superman Returns. Superman Returns (which has a 75% tomatometer from critics) had a lack of a great struggle. It was an "intellectual" Superman film because it questioned what makes Superman, Superman. And they were left with a movie that had Superman stop a big earthquake and throw land into space.

Superman is Over-the-Top and Rightfully So

We pay to watch Superman fight. We expect him to. Superman is omnipotent. How do you make someone who is omnipotent and invulnerable struggle? Mentally, we see Superman struggle with his heritage and his adopted world. We even see him falter in his trust for humans, and in the movie, we do see what it means to be Superman. Physically, we see a being who can leap over several buildings, fly over buildings, and hurl buildings, get smashed through hundreds of buildings.

We see from his perspective how everything zooms by as he clashes. We see from our normal perspective what it would be like to see a superfast individual fight a group of soldiers. 

I don't see people having a problem with her smacking them around. | Sourced from Google Images

The destruction in the Avengers is arguably just as extensive, but it seems like there was no problem with their gratuitous action. In the Avengers, when Hawkeye shoots an arrow at a speeding alien without looking, that's about as gratuitous as Superman punching someone into space.

A Gritty Reboot

When looking at Man of Steel, we have to remember that it's a darker superhero movie. It's in part penned by Christopher Nolan, so it's not the shiny exemplar we've come to expect. This is the Superman story I've been waiting for because it tells of a Superman who has had to deal with strife in being different, in facing bullies, in knowing that he has the strength to destroy anyone of us, but he has to be more.

Just because it's not what critics come to expect, doesn't mean it's a lower grade. Critics are human and err. They are not superman.

Mobile Apps Integration with Gaming

When walking away from the E3 2013 coverage, I'm left with excitement for a few games, but mostly, I'm left with questions about: the integration of Mobile apps into gaming.

When looking at Xbox SmartGlass, the Watch Dogs Mobile App, and the Battlefield 4 Commander App, it's understandable to think of them as a fad to incorporate the mobile market into standard gaming. We've seen  but if anything, it's the latest iteration of a longstanding movement to incorporate additional peripherals to enhance gaming.

Nintendo has always been looking for ways to tie-in additional player support in games and integrate them.

A Brief History of Player 2 Peripherals and Support

In 1985, the games Gyromite and Stack-Up came out, which require an additional player to control events in the game. A tie-in peripheral known as R.O.B. was sold as well to make it easier for single-players to play without having to jump back between controllers (or using their feet to press the buttons).

Similarly in 1990, Mega Man 3, a single-player game, could have support from a second player if an additional controller was plugged into the Player 2 slot. This support allowed Mega Man to super jump or even to slow down time to allow Player 1 to avoid incoming damage. Using a combination of the super jump and time slow, you could glitch out the game and create a Mega Man who had know health bar and could only die to Spikes.

In the Gamecube and Gameboy Advance years, there was functionality for WindWaker to allow a second player to help out. This Player 2 would use the information displayed on the GBA screen (map with hidden areas, secret events, etc.) to help Player 1.

Since then, we have New Super Mario Bros U where a player with the gamepad can tap the screen provide assistance in the form of additional platforms. In a technology sense, it's no different than having someone log-in on their tablet or phone to help out.

What Mobile Integration Means for the Games Themselves

What the goals of mobile integration are:

1. Socialize gaming for the player and the support player
2. Provide an avenue for family/friends (boy/girlfriends, husbands/wives, fathers/mothers) to help out their gamer
3. Tap into the above audience that might not have played the game originally but will get it so they can help out their loved one
4. Tap into a different audience that might not be interested in the game type but like the additional play style offered by mobile integration.

The goals of mobile integration in games are is to create support for players but to not necessitate the need to use it. Not everyone purchased a GBA and a GBA Link to play Windwaker; however, those were additional purchases. A large chunk of the population already has smart phones and will use it to help them play the game. 

In using the mobile support, we will create the need for games to incorporate this functionality. Players will not need to use it, but it will mean that we will miss out on functionality and elements that could make the games easier, or worse, it will give the players who use the functionality a better experience ie additional maps because of Xbox Smartglass.

Because it was too hard to incorporate in the game to begin with.

People will be frustrated by the lack of design mechanics incorporated in the game itself (map functionality, a detailed map reserved for the App). Or in the case of Watch Dogs, having a second player who can stun a helicopter will make it easier for players with the mobile support. Players won't even need an additional player to do it. They can have both open in front of them and jump between the two.

Battlefield 4's Commander App is an interesting way to increase players interested in it. You can get someone who's interested in tactical strategy rather than the shooter aspect. Whether you will have a movable avatar in the field or not has yet to be shown. A strange concept, however, is that why is the Commander mode not played off of a computer? It can just as easily be done, and having an additional application for it seems wasteful.

What Mobile Integration Means for the Industry

Outside of the integration already discussed, there's been a recent development of Cross-Gaming, or a gaming world powered by various genres and types of games. Dust 514 is a MMO shooter, but it's in the MMORPG EVE Online universe. Not only that, but each game has a direct impact on the other. EVE Online players can bombard the planets that Dust 514 players are currently on, and the Dust 514 players can change the political power of EVE Online players.

Casual Games Meet Hardcore Gamers

The Battlefield 4 and Watch Dogs style tablet assistance will continue to appear, and they won't disappear. People will get frustrated by having to have additional screens at hand, but they will also use it to get the additional benefit. Analytics for the app use will show that people are still using it despite complaining about it, which means that the companies will still continue to produce Mobile Integration. That's only half of the battle though.

What will be amazing is the development of casual games connecting to a hardcore game.

I can see Player 1 play a Bejeweled style game and connect it to their Player 2's MMORPG account. Based on how many points Player 1 gets in Bejeweled, Player 2 in the MMORPG will be awarded additional crafting materials to help make better items.

Or if Player 1 is addicted to Plants vs. Zombies, by clearing each stage, Player 2 will have additional defense towers or items in Garden Warfare. Or if Player 2 is playing Zombie side, Player 2 could have additional assault tools to help out in battle. Or imagine if they make a Farmville-style game where you create farms and plants that turn into a map.

Similarly, you could have a Sim City-esque casual game where players create a world together, and the natural disasters that come in and destroy sections of the world is a Battlefield or Planetside style conflict. Rough ideas, but there're plenty of ways to do cross gaming and use mobile integration for players to work with one another.

The Industrial Revolution add-on for Bioshock Infinite (though available through pre-order only) is a great example of how a casual game can give additional benefit to a single-player Hardcore game.

Why the Bioshock Infinite Ending Works

Bioshock Infinite has been out for a few weeks now, and for those of you who haven't played it yet, you may not want to read this article because it's entirely composed of spoilers. That being said, Bioshock Infinite delves into the world of theoretical and quantum physics.

The theory I'm presenting has a lot more science than what most people are stating online, and it's from my understanding of quantum physics (having browsed thousands of articles after watching Noein in 2009).

This theory will debunk the "the Circle is Unbroken" theory that seems to be the consensus of player's interpretation of the ending.

Let's take at a look at a few of the theoretical concepts presented by the game:
Many Worlds Interpretation: it states (as simply as I can) that the universe is not definite and exists as many different versions of itself. Although things appear linear to us, that doesn't mean that there aren't other outcomes (or versions of us) in the multiverse. This will be better explained by Schrodinger's Cat. This theory was created by Hugh Everett and popularized by Bryce Seligman Dewitt (!!!).

Schrodinger's Cat: there is a cat who is in a box with poison. While it's in the box, it is both dead and alive. It's state doesn't become "reality" until it is observed. In conjunction with the Many Worlds Interpretation, there are two worlds happening simultaneously. One in which the cat is alive, and one in which the cat is dead.

Observers: By observing situations, we make them our reality, but that doesn't mean that another of us didn't observe a different situation.

Wave Function Collapse: Through observation, only one reality exists. This conflicts with Dewitt & Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation.

Causality and Retrocausality: Cause precedes effect and effect precedes cause.

The Theory

Elizabeth gained her powers from the moment her finger was cut off. One of Rosalind Lutece's voxaphones states that her powers are from leaving a piece of her finger in Booker's world.

That being said, when we look at Bioshock Infinite, Elizabeth and Booker are jumping between worlds. They are using the Many Worlds Interpretation, but at the same time, they are subverting it by jumping between worlds. The game, however, introduces the fact that Elizabeth and the Lutece's portals have the ability to jump between worlds and effect them.

They are not going to the past or the future, but they are going to different worlds along the universes. They're not even visiting worlds much, but rather, they're merging worlds or parts of worlds whenever you have to go through a tear. If they were only visiting another world, then there wouldn't be the problem of people remembering dying (all the random guys you kill, Chen Lin, etc.). Booker, Elizabeth, and Comstock don't merge with their alternate selves because they and their alternate selves are too far away. Booker does gain the memories of dead Booker in Vox Populi when he runs into the Vox Populi  propaganda poster. His memories are triggered. Chen Lin is too far away from Elizabeth's tear, but his memories are triggered when he returns to his shop and doesn't find his tools there. During the final section of the game, you're not even in the universe you started out in (which is allegedly Universe 123 [coin flips]).

When Elizabeth goes to drown Booker, she takes him back to the moment in which Booker hasn't made a decision to be baptized. So she returns to where the universes have not split yet. By not being able to make an observed choice, there won't be a Booker and there won't be a Comstock. Instead, by observing his death at that moment, that timeline is gutted from the universe. So there is no Comstock, there is no Booker who sold Anna, and there is no game you just played.

Here is where people start saying that creates a Time Paradox because by negating the effects of the game, then Elizabeth won't be able to kill Booker at the baptism because she never got the powers in the first place, so we're back to square one: in a boat, on the way to Columbia.

Why the Time Paradox Theory in Bioshock Infinite is Wrong

They're looking at it as if time were a straight line, but through playing the game, they should realize that nothing is directly linear.

They leap to the baptism where Booker is Schrodinger's Cat. He has not been observed to take or reject the baptism, so we don't know if he will stay Booker or become Comstock. The Elizabeths drown him before he can make a decision, and they observe it. What they did was cut off a branch from Booker's life.

This is explained by:
In-Game:
• Elizabeth, like the Luteces, now exist outside of time-space, so she can do whatever she wants.
• Elizabeth is a God with her powers.


Physics:
• This isn't the Elizabeth of this world because she doesn't exist.
• Wave Function Collapse - Elizabeth has collapsed all possibilities into a single outcome. According to the Many Worlds Interpretation, this is not possible. But the Many World Inerpretation is only a theory, and this game's already changed it through the Lutece machine and Elizabeth.
• Retrocausality - Elizabeth is the effect of this cause, and she comes back to change the cause.

So Booker dies, and all the Elizabeths start to fade except for the last one because we don't see it happen. We play from Booker's perspective for the entire game, so Elizabeth fading away is not observed, so she is both gone and alive. She is another Schrodinger's Cat.

Not to mention the last note for her fade out shifts keys (according to my musically inclined wife). She jumps out of the original key and goes somewhere else. It's not off-key but a change in key. Elizabeth isn't just some normal person that has to follow the laws of the universe. She bends them to her will.

The last scene, we see a Booker that calls out Anna and opens the door. It seems that this is a Booker who has either woken from a horrifying dream (the game) or is a Booker who assimilated our Booker's memories. Both explain why he's afraid that Anna's missing.

Claiming that this continues the Circle doesn't make sense because why would a Booker who's going to give her up start saying her name out of fear as if she were missing? Why would he even say "Anna? Is that you?" If you're going to give something up, you don't speak in fear. You speak with sadness.

Instead, we can assume that this is a Booker from a different universe. But how can there be another Booker you ask? They tell you throughout the game, how far would you need to go to change something? Who's to say there isn't a Booker who just decided not to go to the baptism and had a similar life like having a daughter named Anna?

In game, there's this picture.

It shows diverging paths that always return to the middle. Even if you make a different decision, it could send you back toward the allegedly linear path. In-game, no matter who you choose to throw the baseball at, it's still a similar outcome. In-game, if you choose cage or bird, it's still the same thing afterwards. No matter which door you choose at the end, it takes you to the same finale.

There are some choices that do not change the outcome of events. Whose to say that if Booker never went to the Baptism, he wouldn't have still had Anna?

So there are those other choices that stop, curtailed because we don't know what those choices lead to. Much like how Booker and Elizabeth jump between worlds, we don't know what happened to the world they were in prior. It doesn't mean the world stops, but who knows where it could go?

So if there's a Booker who didn't go to the baptism and lived, couldn't there be a Comstock that came somewhere further down the line?

In any other story, I would argue "yes." In Bioshock Infinite, no. Elizabeth clearly states that she's omniscient at the end of the game and tells you that this is the only time in which Comstock can come into existence because she's seen all the timelines. Her actions counter the final voxophones from Rosalind Lutece, who wonders if anything can change. But once again, she sees one version, and her "brother" sees that it can.

So yes, the circle is unbroken.

An easier theory
Taking all I've said earlier, when Elizabeth takes Booker back to the baptism, the Booker that receives the baptism is drowned. We all know that it's the same priest who did Comstock and Booker's baptism, and that guy has a penchant for nearly drowning people - not difficult for him to go the whole way.

This makes sense because Comstock states
"One man goes into the waters of baptism. A different man comes out, born again. But who is that man who lies submerged? Perhaps that swimmer is both sinner and saint, until he is revealed unto the eyes of man."

So that means our Booker never sold Anna. Doesn't mean he doesn't have debt even though his money was owed to Comstock to steal his daughter. :X

The Biggest Questions in Bioshock Infinite
What happened to the Elizabeth of the Vox Populi world? She's not with Comstock. Dead Booker won't let the "people in New York" get her... so where did she go?

Why don't the Luteces just fix everything? They have the ability to pull Booker out of his time period... so they could do whatever they feel. I mean, they're jumping in and out of parallel universes and different times, so why not?!

Stale Intellectual Property and Sequelitis

I'm a firm believer in evolution, revolution, and change. I like seeing new IPs come into being, new concepts, new technology, and even replacement cityscapes. At the same time, I love things that are classic and play homage to nostalgia. But I feel that our culture has become so focused on making sequels to things that don't really need sequels. This is in due part to the success of the original, so a sequel is created to capitalize on the financial success before someone else does.

You may know this as Final Fantasy XIII-3

There are many factors that go into making a sequel: financial success, development time, publisher demands, and development team. These factors can lead to either a great sequel or a terrible one.

For example, Chronicle is a fantastic movie that's part Superhero origin story and part High School drama. It uses POV cameras similar to Blair Witch Project, but through a smart script, it transcends the gimmick and incorporates it into the story.

For the sequel, which would indubitably be created, I hoped that it would answer the larger questions of the first movies. What was that alien device? Why was it there? Are there more? Where's it going to go? It's known that Matt has superpowers now, so what is his role in the world? Different government agencies will probably be after him, and that concept is amazing.

It seemed like writer Max Landis wanted the change, but different news sites are saying Fox wants more of the same. Fox wants more POV cameras because that's what made the first movie the first movie. They believe that people will want to see the same movie again because the first movie was such a success.

Making more of the same is why we have too many Saw movies, too many Paranormal Activity movies, and a 2000s version of Terminator 2 in Terminator Salvation. Sure, they're telling a continued story, but some things should just end. In creating sequels to stories that don't need sequels or prequels, the overarching storyline can get convoluted and strange.

Finding Nemo 2 should get a name change unless it's about Nemo being lost... again.

Arguably, a Paranormal Activity could be another movie altogether because it's about "possession." By creating sequels, we follow the family-line through years. The first one made it seem like it could be any family. It could be yours. But the sequels show that it's happened to that specific family, so the overall fear is gone because I'm not part of that family.

It's not just film. We have video games that follow a similar concept. In film, having a different story is good enough. When sequels fall into the same pattern, they become stale. In games, the gameplay is arguably the biggest problem.

There are at least nine Call of Duties, at least 6 Halo games, fourteen main Final Fantasies (none of them are ever final), at least five Assassin's Creed games, and more.

That's not to say that games don't evolve over the sequel's time. I have a great problem with the Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed series for their sequelitis and producing the same game over and over again. They may add in a few extra game mechanics each time, but only a few are truly revolutionary. Instead, we're treated to the same game rehashed each year, and it's not just the developers' fault. We as consumers purchase it because we want more of it.

Only three games in the Call of Duty franchise add interesting concepts to the First Person Shooter (FPS) genre. The original Call of Duty kickstarted the fascination for World War II video games in the early 2000s. It still used health packs to heal, but we can thank Halo for removing health packs from modern shooters.

Modern Warfare took the franchise into the modern day, and it made videogames a normal pastime for Americans to play. Its multiplayer element added in perks (already seen in MMOs as talents) to the FPS genre. This gave players the ability to customize their play style online.

Black Ops 2 adds in a branching storyline to the singleplayer, so that the game could be different each time you play it. All points still lead you to "W," but the endings are based on your decisions throughout the game. This creates different endings based on your decisions. Most games tell one story. Despite what you might say about Bioshock and Mass Effect, the decisions you make don't really influence the ending. In Mass Effect and Black Ops, your journey may be shaped, but Mass Effect endings are based on what you choose at the very end. A paragon or "good" Shepherd could still blow up the Council (the galactic version of the UN) at the end of the game.

Assassin's Creed 2 is my biggest gripe. Why are there two additional sequels to a sequel? Rather than continuing the story into the 3rd Assassin's Creed, they decided to prolong the adventures of the second character.

Additionally, Assassin's Creed 3 allegedly ended the series, yet lo and behold, there's a 4th one announced. Asassin's Creed 3's story is still continuing with the "Tyranny of King Washington," but you know what, let's just throw in a 4th one now too. Rather than turning attention to creating a new IP or returning to an old one (2008's Prince of Persia comes to mind), they churn out sequel after sequel because it makes money.

Superman coming back from the dead made it possible for EVERYONE.

And good for them. There's nothing wrong with the concept of sequels. But a sequel isn't retelling the same story; it's not rehashing all the same scenes, the same gameplay. It's about change and adding new developments. It could have similar concepts such as superhero sequels fighting other supervillains for the sake of the planet, but there needs to be development in their characters. Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 told how Peter Parker finally asked out Mary Jane and came to terms with his Superhero self. Terminator 2 destroys the inevitable destiny set forth in Terminator, but Terminator 3 and Salvation then show that destiny cannot be avoided.

Final Fantasy's combat systems change across its numbered reiterations and tell a different enough story that keeps them interesting. Bioshock Infinite is a spiritual sequel to Bioshock, but it's story seems more personal than the Randian philosophical endeavor of the first one. Even Assassin's Creed 2: Brotherhood added in some squad based mechanic, which was quickly dispatched.

To me, great sequels take the basic concept and expand upon it. Super Metroid took the idea of exploring a world and added new mechanics to explore it. It added creative gameplay elements to make one of the greatest games of all time. Metroid Prime took that concept and took it to the 3rd dimension. It added in a subtle story based on your character exploring in the world rather than copious amounts of exposition.

Sequels need to move things along, but they also need to have the proper development time. In many of the IP's of today, sequels are creating more of the same because they're slated to come out at the same time each year. There's not enough time to create new developments, different techniques, and something that sounds coherent.

And this trend will continue unless we ask the industry to make it stop by no longer jumping onto each and every sequels that comes out.

Picture Perfect

If you were born after the year 1995, your understanding of photography is "if I don't like this picture, I'll just take another one." Even for us born prior to that, it's become the norm.

In moving toward the digital age, we've created a culture that's centered around replaceability. All technology is responsible for this development, but cameras are by far the most prominent.

When cameras first came out, taking one picture was a feat, so people would prepare for that single "perfect" picture. As the technology improved and the price for film dropped, people began to take multiple pictures to capture a single event as a safety buffer.


Digital cameras became a household object around 2000. The technology became more affordable because the demand increased and the producers competed for market share.


With digital cameras, not only are we capable of taking new photos when we don't like the one we just took, but we replace our cameras often because the technology has become so cheap. Cameras have even become a stock in phones, making it even easier for you to capture life on the go.

Blackberry OS10 has a function that will allow you to scale back and forward seconds when a picture is taken to find the perfect picture. Scalado, a Swedish company, first invented the technology, but Blackberry is making it more prominent.

With the software developing this quickly, we no longer need to take multiple pictures and choose the one we like the most. We can edit our lives and create that "picture perfect" moment.

And the companies are telling you to replace their hardware every year because of their new technological advancements.

The two cameras were released only a year apart. Bigger is better. New is better.

This technology evolution has created cheaper, better products and software that make our lives "picture-perfect." However in doing so, we've come to view things as replaceable. If we don't like something, we get rid of it and find the "perfect" one. Or if we're interested in newer, we should go for newer. There is always better out there, and we deserve the best. It's a belief system that permeates into every facet of our beings.

When we took photos by film, there was a tangible aspect to it. We also could only take a limited amount of photos, so we had to choose what to immortalize. Even though people would interrupt and possibly ruin a photo, we kept the photos because they were valuable. We mounted them in frames and in albums and looked fondly upon them even when someone's eyes were closed.

Now, we've created an artificial world and life of constructed perfect moments. There already is a counter-culture movement of taking photos by film or candid digital photos. They're trying to capture a raw feeling and emotion attached to the picture.

Wedding photographers capture raw emotion through staged photographs. The photos are pretty, the locations are chosen, and the goal is to create a beautiful and intimate image. If the photographer is good, then the emotion is real. The couple's excited, and that shows through the photographs. But the photos are still artificial because the concept was predetermined.

In the years to come, the counter-culture will become a larger demographic. People are going to purposely use the Blackberry OS10 feature to create candid photos. The industry will have photographers whose businesses will be built upon capturing candid moments.

New technology will develop to help that trend, and the producers will market candid moments. The cultures will merge in creating a "picture perfect" candid moment. We will want to take the best real moment, something that's perfect in its emotive and candid quality. Replaceable will not change, but what we view as replaceable will.

Some Serious Shock

Some Serious Shock looks at the way modern technology has shaped our culture and lives.