Crusader Kings II

As a life-long fan of historical strategy games (most notably the Age of Empires and Total War series but with a significant nod in the direction of Empire Earth) spotting Paradox Interactive's sequel to the famously popular Crusader Kings on sale for only £7.99 excited me greatly to say the least.

Being such a deep and complex title, from a studio that produces nothing but deep and complex titles, I shall attempt to break Crusader Kings 2 down into its constituent parts and attempt to explain and somewhat analyse them. Rounding off thearticle with a short account of my experiences as Duke of Brittany.

Gameplay

Crusader Kings 2 is best described as a 'dynasty simulator.' More simply put, which ever county, duchy, kingdom or empire you choose to start as is ruled by a family. Your entire objective is to keep that family in power for as along as possible whilst accumulating the highest score by the time you fall out of power. This is the simple concept at the heart of CK2, and sounds rather underwhelming at first. But once you dive into the plethora of game mechanics specifically designed to usurp your seat of power from under you, it becomes mighty intriguing, Whilst a brilliant concept, and new take on the global dominate game-type, it is mighty daunting and to the newcomer can appear nigh on impenetrable.

Highlighted Area - County of Penthièvre,
Maroon Area - Duchy of Brittany

As ruler you will be presented with a court and vassals. Even if you only rule a single province, the towns, castles and churches within that province will have named Mayors or Clergymen who consider you their liege. Your family, immediate and distant, representatives from neighboring provinces as well as travelling dignitaries from foreign lands are all presented to you as characters to be interacted with in your official capacity as ruler. Managing these relationships is the key to success in CK2. Ensuring you choose the right courtiers to fill positions in your advisory Council, granting landed or honorary titles and finding spouses will help to keep people's opinions of you positive. Failure to meet their needs, or ruling in a haphazard and unjust manner will only serve to fuel rebellion and plotting amongst your inferiors, and could lead to your assassination. This is where all the fun kicks in. Having the foresight to predict when and how the inheritance system of your lands works and bending it so you have a claim to nearly everything in the nearby vicinity is a great power trip. Spreading rumours about neighboring Barons so their sons begin to plot to usurp them is ridiculously satisfying, especially when those sons reward your assistance in the matter by swearing fealty to you and offering their lands as a reward.


There is a heavy lean towards historical accuracy with, as far as I can tell, every ruler based on an historic figure. Obviously, if you start marrying people and begetting children who never got married or begat then the historical accuracy will break down, but the effort and attention to detail is a very nice touch. Where possible, characters also have a direct link to their Wikipedia page in their character panel, which is a great example of the level of detail Paradox is willing to include. It also encourages tangential learning, which I'm all for.

De jure kingdoms of Europe

Continuing this attention to detail theme, the game introduces a rather complex concept to the player right from the start. I needed to Google 'de jure' and 'de facto' fairly early on in my time with CK2, and I'm still not 100% sure what they mean. The closest I have come to defining them is this: a de facto duchy describes the provinces that swear fealty to Duke, be they under his direct control or under the control of a loyal vassal Count; a de jure duchy describes the provinces that *should* make up the duchy, regardless of who owns them at that time. For example, Brittany is a de jure duchy of five provinces in Northern France, independent from France itself. However, the de jure Kingdom of France includes Brittany, meaning that were you to choose to play as the Kingdom of France, you would not be in control of any of the provinces in Brittany at first, and bringing them under your control would be a prime objective in order to complete the de jure kingdom. Simply put, de jure should be read as 'wants to be together,' and de facto as 'current ownership.'

The aforementioned 'score' is calculated upon the death of a ruling family member, by adding their Prestige and Piety scores together. This number then becomes the score for that ruler, and is added into the family score, together with all previous rulers. Piety is generated by ruling in a just, magnanimous, solemn or zealous manner by pandering to the Pope, the local bishops and the religious needs of your subjects. Should your clergy favour you over the current Pope, and should you chose to, you can even elect one of your Bishops to become Antipope and break away from Rome.


Prestige is awarded for ruling in a more Feudal manner, with gallant acts, defeating enemies in combat and becoming the envy of your courtier through lavish feasts, construction of superior infrastructure and settlements. Most key decisions you are presented with will most likely increase one of these key factors whilst decreasing the other. For example, when throwing a mighty feast in honour of your recent successful hunt, a courtier might suggest you hire some Jewish jongleurs as entertainment. This will improve the Prestige haul you get from throwing the feast, but will most likely upset your Court Chaplain by having Jews in the palace, thus reducing your Piety. It is, in essence, a balancing act.


This system could be considered a moral choice compass, but only very loosely, as neither option is consistently the 'right' choice to make. It is a great tool to simply allow you to mold your leader, and subsequently your domain, however you see fit. I find myself leaning towards the Pious choices more often than not, as my experiences with the Total War series have taught me time and again to never, ever aggravate The Pope lest he call a Crusade.

Finances are also a consideration, however there is no periodical upkeep or expenditure from the treasury, unlike most other empire-building simulators I've played. Taxes are collected from your subjects and added to the reserve for you to spend at will until there is nothing left, at which point you just wait for more taxes to be collected. There is a financial penalty for having a standing army that increases with time as soldiers become more disgruntled with war and require more pay for equipment and supplies. Whilst this certainly makes the game easier to play, I'm not sure if it was the right choice because it boils down the military aspect of the game to simple numbers - he who owns more land, has more levies, wins more battles. There's no sense of strategy to combat other than choosing the time to strike. Example: during a brief play as an Irish Count I chose to invade Wales just after the local levies had been raised to deal with an English incursion. Taking advantage of the lack of defenders I laid siege to a province. Unfortunately, the Welsh forces returned home and ousted me rather brutally.

Making a decision to shape the next generation

There is a heavy slant towards selective and careful breeding in CK2, with an entire mechanic devised purely for accurately assigning genetic traits of the mother and father to any offspring they might have, as well as blending these traits to create entirely new ones. This means that choosing the correct débutante for your son can make the difference between him fathering a military genius to lead your family in future generations or a simpleton who becomes the butt of all the court jester's jokes. Having certain traits, such as Arbitrary or Gregarious, which can be acquired through making key decisions presented to you during your rule, enables you to choose additional options in future decisions. For example, my family ruler received Gregarious after throwing one too many lavish feasts. The next decision I was presented with regarding how to respond to a drunken insult from one of my courtiers, presented me with the usual two options but a third option to give the bloke another drink and laugh it all off, due to being known as Gregarious. The idea of shaping a person by their lineage, decisions, actions and experiences is a highly rewarding experience, and is as close as any game has come to simulating the lives of a medieval ruler that I have so far experienced.

By breeding in the correct traits your future leaders can gain advantages when ruling. Each character has an individual skill level across five statistics: Diplomacy (for negotiating with all other characters), Martial Skill (for commanding troops and the respect of military leaders), Stewardship (for managing finances), Intrigue (for uncovering the nefarious actions of others and conducting your own) and Learning (for researching new technology/for spreading faith). Every trait your character gains during their life, from inheriting their mother's silver tongue to becoming a renown vanquisher of enemy forces in battle, will affect these statistics, and these statistics are what mostly define your success as a ruler. For example, it's very difficult to dissuade your courtiers from plotting to kill your heir if you have a very low diplomatic skill, and it can be most troubling to find that your army refuses to fight for you due to your woeful martial abilities. Knowing the traits of your ruler, and understanding the applications of each statistic is vital to success. However, a good player can adapt their style to suit these statistics. For example, a ruler with high Intrigue should quickly grow accustomed to the most slimy and duplicitous roads to more power - assassinations, usurping and deceit. Whereas a leader with a high Martial Skill should be used to gain power by way of the sword, not the tongue.


Aesthetics

Not Pictured: Playable provinces in
Iceland and The Middle East

Crusader Kings 2 doesn't need to be pretty, as it's focused around managing people instead of fighting grand battles. The game is less than 1GB in size and contains enough gameplay to allow you to rule from Morocco to Scotland to Dubai; more than most Total War titles I might add. The main map is detailed enough, with basic terrain visually represented, such as forests, mountain ranges and rivers, without being too crowded that you lose sight of who owns what. There are eight different colour-coded overlays to the map, allowing you to quickly see how a certain County is ruled at every level, from the local Baron to the Duke he owes direct vassalage to, up to the King who rules the immediate area and finally to the Emperor who holds sway over the region. This is great, as it allows you to easily see the ramifications of attempting to take over a certain region. Other overlays present you with the dominant religion, the de jure duchies, kingdoms and empires, any casus beli you might currently have as well as a general opinions filter; where all provinces have a spectrum from green to red depending on how strongly they feel about the leader of the selected province. These tools are vital to governing an empire, and presented in just the right way so that, once learned, they can be rapidly referred to at a glance instead of having to try and fathom how many different rulers of various levels will come crashing down on me if I invade county X.

Character models for the Council figures and armies are, similarly to the map, enough to get by. This is certainly not a complaint as there really is no need for anything more than what they are. 

The shining jewel in the presentation of Crusader Kings 2 is most definitely in the score. In fact, four out of the available nine DLC packs are for more music. Have a listen:

Longevity

Considering the objective and the number of playable positions, CK2 can be considered endless. So long as you have a desire to play you'll be able to find a county, duchy or kingdom you haven't tried yet, starting during a time period you haven't experienced yet. This combination of really quite a daunting number of possible starting positions does mean even the most die-hard fans will tire long before the game has been exhausted - which is the right situation to be in. With the additional DLC 'Sword of Islam' even more playable areas are unlocked across Spain, North Africa, The Middle East and Pagan Europe; not to mention the Custom Ruler DLC pack that allows you to design and flesh out characters to be used in general gameplay.

There is also online/LAN multiplayer options which I haven't tried yet, but I can imagine that would be one ridiculously lengthy LAN session.


One of the more popular aspects of CK2 is the modding. Paradox have a fairly open-door policy when it comes to customer feedback. Register your game code on their forums and start throwing suggestions for new DLC, new maps, mods, music, colour palette anything, and they'll listen to the community and take the time to produce the most popular suggestions.


And of course, the most popular mod to come about so far is Game of Thrones. I'm a huge fan of the HBO series, haven't read the books, but after playing CK2 and understanding the political sport in Westeros I can definitely see how the two could gel very well.

Very excited to try my hand as a Lannister

Conclusion

The best way to sum up Crusader Kings 2 would be 'Football Manager: Total War.' It has the complexity and detailed stats analysis of a roster game but with the historical depth and appeal of an empire builder. It certainly is good to see a game where conquest isn't based on than having a bigger stick that the other guy, but on being clever, attentive and forward thinking. The bigger you play, the bigger you have to be thinking, and I'm not ashamed to admit that sometimes everything does get a little too much for me, especially when playing as a kingdom or empire, but I count that in the game's favour as it just indicates the quality of the ruling simulation.

In short, some cracking mechanics and stunning depth, mediocre on the aesthetic side but not to the games detriment. The staggering replay value certainly makes this a game to grab, but I would suggest watching a few Let's Play videos on YouTube first, just to be sure you're comfortable with it not being Total War.


A solid suggestion to all strategy fans, if for nothing else than it's a fresh look at how to rule the world. If you've already played any of the other popular Paradox games then you'll be right at home here.



As promised, here is an account of the first few decades of my experiences as Conan II, the Duke of Brittany:

King Conan II and the Duchy of Brittany

King Conan II inherited the duchy from his father Alan III. Being an independent state, Brittany is autocratic but cultures a strongly peaceful relationship with neighboring Kingdom of France, despite the French desire to claim Brittany as part of the Kingdom.


But in 1069, Conan's uncle, Count Eudes of Penthièvre, became displeased with the result of his brother's death. Duke Alan III's titles had been divided amongst his children, in accordance with the agnatic-cognatic gavelkind inheritance laws of the duchy. Count Eudes saw himself as a more fit ruler, and was quite vocal about it at court. Several months passed before his words became actions, however.


Duke Conan tried to appease Count Eudes, by allowing him to remarry after his wife had died of consumption the year before leaving him childless. Conan even saw fit to grant Count Eudes the honorary title of Master of The Hunt, as well as throwing a feast in his honour, in an attempt to quell his dissent. But it was to no avail.


In the spring of 1071, Conan's wife and spymaster, Princess Maior of Navarra whom he had wed early on in his reign to secure ties with Catholic allies in Northern Spain, discovered that Count Eudes was plotting to have Conan killed during the next autumn hunt After his attempt to arrange an 'accident' failed Count Eudes saw no other alternative than to raise the levies of his realm to engage Duke Conan in open war in the winter of the same year.

Duke Conan could not hope to raise an equal army on his own. Luckily, he was a generous and strong leader, possessing of high martial skill and two trusted vassals; the Counts of Leon and Nantes. These stout men could be relied upon to offer the services of their levies in times of need, and this was one of those times.

Rallying the now bolstered army to his stronghold in Rennes, Duke Conan awaited his traitor uncle to make his move. Count Eudes chose to invade Rennes at the height of summer, heading straight for Duke Conan's forces.

A bloody battle took place, but the valiant forces of Duke Conan outnumbered those loyal to Count Eudes 3-to-1, and the Count was forced to retreat back to his castle in Penthièvre where Conan besieged him for three long years.

Eventually the siege was lifted in 1074 and the revolt suppressed. Those levies in the service of Count Eudes were excused their actions and allowed to return home, on account of their commander being the source of treachery, and not the men themselves.

As for Eudes, Conan saw fit to have him imprisoned for his crimes, not having the heart to execute a member of his family despite his actions. In the dungeons of St. Malo Eudes resided for five long years until his life ended in 1079.


Having no heir, wife or siblings Eudes' title as Count of Penthièvre passed to his closest living relative; Duke Conan II. As a reward for their loyal services in suppressing the revolt, Conan awarded the Count of Nantes a sizable gift of gold and bestowed upon him the title of Master of The Horse. The Count of Leon was gifted a comparable reward of gold, and the title Keeper of The Swans.



Meanwhile, Conon's brother-in-law, King Antso the Unready of Navarra was under attack. The Muslim forces invading Spain had pushed their way northwards to the foothills of the Pyrénées, and Antso was calling for aid.

Once again, Conan and his loyal vassals raised the levies and made preparations for war. In 1082 the army departed Leon for the coast of northern Spain.

The Battle of Teruel

A month after landing, his forces engaged a Muslim army in Aragoza, at the Battle of Teruel. The two forces were evenly matched but, with God on his side, Duke Conan was victorious and the invaders driven out.

King Antso was very grateful for the assistance, and warmly welcomed Conan's bastard son Alan into his court. Young Alan was a promising young man, destined for a life in the clergy, until he fell for a young debutante in the court of King Antso; the daughter of Antso's most loyal vassal - The Mayor of Tudela. Both King Antso and Duke Conan blessed the union and in 1083 the two were wed.

Sadly, Alan's father-in-law passed away in 1085. Owing to the succession laws in Navarra, the position as Mayor of Tudela should pass to the oldest male son. However, Alan was a bastard and therefore could not hold landed titles. Duke Conan sent his envoys to Rome, to ask The Pope to legitimise Alan, and he agreed. Alan became Mayor of Tudela later that year.

Unfortunately, owing to an old wound he received on a hunting trip as a child and his dedication to God as a result of his formative years spent in Rome, under the guidance of Conan's Court Chaplain, Alan never had any children.

When he passed away in 1087, killed in battle in the service of King Antso, there was no heir to his position as Mayor of Tudela. The closest family relative able to hold landed titles was Duke Conan II of Brittany. Conan graciously accepted the title, declaring that he shall use Tudela as a base of operations in the war against the Muslim invaders, to secure Christian lands for Christian people once again.



And that, is how in-depth Crusader Kings 2 can be.

The Dark Knight Rises

Ladies and gentleman, please direct your attention to the following sentence: here is a spoiler warning, as the following article contains plot development, character actions and other important information for The Dark Knight Rises. You have been warned.

Having shelled out the ridiculous price of a cinema ticket to go see TDKR (primarily so I don't have to worry about reading any spoilers in the months before its release on DVD) I am going to share my opinions with you. I have chosen to structure this review on a character-by-character basis, before talking about the film in general and then reflect on its quality. I will honestly state that I'm not a comic reader, but I do have experience of the DC universe through secondary media - games, films and tv shows - so when I'm discussing what so-and-so character *should* be like, I'm referring only to my impression of them through secondary media alone.

Yes, it's a long one, so let us begin:

Batman

Well, we don't get to see a whole lot of The Caped Crusader this time round, what with Bruce having more interesting things to do in deep Caribbean prisons and being a tad shaken up since the death of Rachel in the last film, some 8 years ago by the Nolanverse calender. When we do get a glimpse of the shiny black suit and Kiss-style eye makeup it's pretty much more of the same. Some fighting, some "WHERE IS SHEEEEE?!?!" screaming into some poor bloke's face and some very cool double-team fighting with Selina in the third act. The interaction between Wayne+Selina and Batman+Selina was a definite highlight for me. When Bruce catches her stealing the pearls right at the top of the film and suddenly this quiet, dutiful maid comes out with sass and passion I was pleasantly surprised, a feeling that continued throughout the film in pretty much every one of their scenes together. I loved the "So that's what that feels like.." line Batman mumbles after Selina disappears from the rooftop mid-conversation; really impling that these two are equals in each others eyes, and therefore they should also be in the eyes of the audience, instead of Poor, Feeble Selina and The Big Bad Bat (something I was dreading).

Overall, Bale did another good, solid Batman when he was actually on screen, as well as his usual half-smooth, half-emotionally damaged Wayne behind the mask.

Bane

Well then, Bane.....

I think this was a poor stab at the character, only capturing the bare essence that makes him such a brilliant rogue. The absence of Venom I can understand, the Nolanverse is supposed to be more realistic and uber-steroids aren't really that viable. But the lack of a well defined and self-fueled cunning and calculating nature was really poor. We first find Bane working for Daggett in order to ruin Wayne financially, which seemed a bit reminiscent of the Poison Ivy/Bane relationship in Batman & Robin, where Ivy uses Bane for muscle and not a lot else. However, with time it appears that Bane is running his own scheme, with designs to only appear to be working for Daggett until the time is right.....but then Ra's al Ghul is pulled back into the mix and it turns out that Bane is just doing what Ra's wants, with the hopes of being accepted back into the League of Shadows. This totally undercuts Bane as a strong, intellegent character. The way that he talks about Ra's indicated a sense of admiration and respect; a desire to prove his worth to someone else. That isn't the Bane I know or wanted to see.

Incidentally, Bane and Talia al Ghul never had a romantic relationship, she despised him, calling him weak for not being able to beat Batman, which was when Ra's decided Bruce should marry Talia and become the heir to the League. I must say, Bane + Daggett felt very reminiscent of Hammer + Vanko, albeit a lot more serious and dark, as is the way with the Nolanverse.

There is also a lack in the admiration and respect Bane shows Batman (their first encounter came about because Bane heard that Batman was unbeatable and decided to challenge him, motivated only by personal pride and sportsmanship, not madness/ambition), their relationship should've been more akin to two individuals with differing political views on how to run Gotham, coming to the conclusion that they will have to fight for control, not one going after the other because reasons.

Regarding the presentation of Bane; I felt he wasn't muscular enough. Yes, this is the Nolanverse where everything aims to be as feasible as possible, and yes Hardy does look pretty damn stacked, but it wasn't enough for me. I grew up on a diet of Bane looking like a walking tank, and I guess I was just expecting a little more. Jeep Swenson, the actor who played Bane in Batman & Robin was a real person, so it's clearly possible to that muscular.... But, understandably, Swenson never had to act or even talk in Batman & Robin, and Nolan needed an actual actor for his iteration, so a compromise between muscles and acting had to be found.

The mask was another issue. Not only is it never explained further than "it keeps the pain in," but as Talia is reattaching parts of it after Batman has beaten Bane there is the sound of escaping gas, which could easily have been Venom. Not attributing his ability to withstand the beatings in Peña Dura to his use and subsequent reliance on Venom was a missed opportunity, I feel, as it would have explained the "it keeps the pain in" line as well as giving an actual reason for the mask to exist.

Selina Kyle

Selina Kyle (never referred to as Catwoman in the film) was wonderful. She felt nearly Whedon-esque in her portrayal, and by that I mean she wasn't a 'tits+ass in leather' girl, but more an actual character who was also female. I was truly happy that I didn't have to write "standard arse-out scene for SK" in my notes whilst watching the film; a serious concern of mine. There was only one moment in which I felt that Nolan felt obligued to have a kiss, and of course there had to be less than 2 minutes left til the detonation. 

Selina was written exceptionally well, with perfectly sculpted dialogue to keep the audience guessing as to her sincerity in pretty much every scene. I didn't see her betrayal coming at all, which I'm attributing to the strength of the dialogue and direction. There was a touch of 'Lower Class Hero' about her, made very clear during her dance with Bruce, which I found quite trite and boring. I was glad to see it didn't become a main theme throughout her development, and seemed to merely be dropped in to give her a reason to initially side with Bane and his plan to overthrow the upper classes.

After every inevitable betrayal there is usually an inevitable reconciliation and rescue. This is implemented really well, managing to tie in nicely with the canonic character of Catwoman; she has serious affection for Batman/Wayne and yet always has this animalistic instinct of self-preservation, which is perfectly illustrated by her vehemently expressing her desire to escape as soon as the opportunity presented itself, and the momentary pause after she clears the tunnel blockage.

The costume was great. It was less superhero and more practical thief, with her goggles acting as subtle little ears when she pushed them back off her face. The bladed stilettos were a nice touch, keeping the character 'strong and feminine' without making her a 'strong female.' Enough to be recognisable as the comic character, but not so feline-obsessed as the last time round.

Det. Blake

Joseph Gordon-Levitt continues to be one of my favorite actors these days. I loved him in (500) Days of Summer, I loved him in 50/50 and, of course, I've always loved him in 3rd Rock From The Sun. However, I was skeptical regarding his casting as what appeared to be a serious-faced policeman, I didn't think he had the style for it even though he handled his role in Inception with aplomb. Up until now I had nailed that down as a fluke. However, I was thoroughly proved wrong, it was not a fluke and am now looking forward to Looper even more that before.

As, what you could call a secondary character, Blake gets a helluva lot of screen time, some of the best conversations and interactions as well as the most emotive character arc. His relationship with the children, with Gordon and with Wayne are all solid and believable. Following his developing career, seeing him promoted from an officer in uniform to a plain-clothes detective was great. The personal interest Gordon shows in this 'young hot-head' helped to reinforce that this guy was the one to watch, he knew what was going down before anyone else and finally someone was listening to him. He was my favorite aspect of this film, hands down. 

I wasn't aware before seeing the film, but Blake (revealed to actually be Tim Drake) was one of the boy wonders who became Robin. This is revealed right at the very end of the film with a throw-away line regarding his name. I feel that the character has already progressed past my impression of who Robin is/is supposed to be as a character and feels more like a Nightwing or a Red Robin (as the Robin's have all become). Nolan has stated there will not be any more Batmans in the Nolanverse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a Red Robin film being discussed soon.

Other Characters

Those few important figures in this film that deserve mention but aren't really 'main characters.'

Alfred:

Still a perfect balance between that sweet, caring humour and the calm voice of reason and welcome council that Michael Caine has always portrayed so well in the Nolanverse. This time round Alfred feels much more fleshed out, with more intersting aspects to his relationship with 'Master Bruce' as well as a gut-wrenching scene at the end which WILL have you reaching for the tissues.

Miss Tate/Talia al Gul:

I disliked this character greatly. I felt she was rapidly introduced from nowhere, expecting the audience to treat her on the same level as Lucius Fox or Alfred, i.e. background characters that will have a few very important things to do or say during the film. It was only because she was played (reasonably well, I don't dispute) by Marion Cotillard that I actually payed any attention to her early on. Her relationship with Bruce seemed very unnecessary and frankly made no sense. Yes, she is in love with him in the other Batman universes, but in the Nolanverse she appears from nowhere, badgers Bruce about the generator project a bit then turns up at his house and suddenly they're in bed (or rather, in rugs by the fireplace) together. I didn't buy it.

The shock reveal of her true identity took me completely by surprise. It did explain her relationship with Bruce and having a connection to the League Of Shadows is pretty much the deus ex machina reason to be on the board of this or that in the DC universes, so it made thematic sense to me - albeit shockingly.

Commissioner Gordon:

Taking a more minor role in this film, Gordon felt underdeveloped. This was probably a result of working on the assumption that we know all we need to know about him. His wife and kids have left him and he's about to be 'asked to step down' as Commissioner. He looks and acts tired, like the weight of the Dent Act is physically hurting him - a perfect portrayal of the situation. After getting shot and being confined to a hospital bed you can feel his frustration at having no control over 'his city' and 'his cops.' After the city is cut off his role as leader of the resistance gives him new life; it's back to the rough and ready work that we saw him handle in the first two films, a situation where he thrives. Overall, another testament to Gary Oldman's abilities.

Dr. Jonathon Crane:

A brief appearance for Cillian Murphy, reprising his role but without the mask and FEAR-gas associated with his alter ego, Scarecrow. I enjoyed him showing his face, but couldn't help but think that the part had been written for Heath Ledger's Joker; sitting in a chaotic court room passing judgement on the elite of Gotham and sentencing them to death or death thinly-veiled as exile.

The Film

I felt that the pacing was both a strength and a weakness; as a strength it worked well to slowly increase the threat that Bane posed to Gotham which upped the stakes not only for Batman but for Blake, Gordon and Kyle as well. As a weakness, the pacing caused the second act to drag a little for me, there was an absence of Batman and whilst I'm not an action-junkie, there could've been a decent prison riot scene in Peña Duro or at least a few scenes explaining how Bruce gets back to Gotham from the Caribbean.

I'll divide the action into two parts; set pieces and showdowns.

The set pieces weren't anything special. The escape from the stock market was mediocre, with some potential tension sacrificed to make way for some entertaining cops. We've seen the whole city out to get Batman before, what I wanted to see was Bane fighting off dozens of cops single-handed. The chase sequence in the third act involving The Bat and two of the tumblers was, again, mediocre. I was expecting Batman to put The Bat on auto-pilot and swing down onto a tumbler and punch out the driver or something equally as exciting, but I guess that would've made the ending even easier to predict.

The two showdowns between Bane and Batman were polar opposites. The first instance was great; we see Batman giving it his all and Bane just taking the punches. Bane even shows a glimmer of his towering intellect that Nolan mostly ignores when he manages to compensate for Batman's use of the dark - his best weapon. After a few minutes of slugging it out and getting nowhere Bane destroys the Bat - I certainly felt every single one of those blows to Batman's temple that crushed his cowl. The scene had no 'epic battle music' which was a massive plus; it just focused on the clashing of two powerhouses. When Bane finally breaks Batman's back the whole movement was superbly done, from Bane lifting him to the momentary hesitation as he held Batman aloft to the sickening noise as he dropped him. This has been called a 'fan service' inclusion, but I feel it's pretty much vital to any story involving Bane, I would not have been happy if it had been left out.

The second showdown was dire. I'm referring to the encounter amid the street-war between the Police and Bane's forces, where the newly healed Batman has very little trouble kicking the crap out of Bane, breaking his mask in the process. I feel that a few weeks/months training in a prison and climbing a wall should in no way give Batman this sudden edge. Had I been in charge of this scene, it would've been longer and a much closer match, with Batman only just managing to win by the skin of his teeth. But then again, that scene does lead into the final reveal of everything and the total running time is 165 minutes so I can understand if it was a logistical call.

Issues

I do have some issues with this film. And by issues, I mean anything ranging from actual problems to nerdy nit-picking. I'll start with the most important:

The Dark Knight Rises suffers heavily from The Phantom Menace Syndrome. By that I refer to the impossible-to-define-the-protagonist aspect of Star Wars Episode 1. Is it Obi-wan, Amidala, Qui-Gon, Anakin, Mace Windu? There is no right answer.

The same happens here, with Batman, Blake, Gordon, Kyle and Bruce Wayne all apparently (to me at least) getting pretty much the same amount of screen time and development. Yes, all their paths come together at the end to tie up the film nicely, but during the second act, in particular, I found myself having to keep track of five different threads. When this happens, usually one or two are integral to the main, over-arching plot, but here *all* of them are. And that smacks of either two films shunted into one; panic that the film wasn't interesting enough and so more content was shoveled in or an indecisive editing process. Either way, it's simple maths - the more story arcs you have to follow the less each arc will be developed. As a result, there's very little Batman in a Batman film.

Bane's voice was ridiculous. Now I saw the 11 minutes of footage released months ago and I couldn't understand a word Tom Hardy was saying, so I'm glad that his voice was changed so that the audience can at least understand the words. But what was presented to me throughout the film ranged from a poor Sean Connery impression to General Grievous. It added to my dislike of the character, as he either sounded deranged or comical in some of the most crucial scenes. The 'improvements' to his voice irritated me in a second way; they felt like a narration. Given the fact that Bane has no visible mouth, I found it difficult to associate this disembodied voice with the character on screen. Tom Hardy did a great job of conveying emotion and intent with just his eyes, but it always felt about a second before or after the words Bane was supposedly saying.

Bane also appears to have some sort of Jedi mind-powers. On two occasions he touches people (Daggert and Wayne) relatively lightly and suddenly they're in serious pain. What the hell was that?! Never explained or even mentioned; very confusing.

Selina Kyle's martial arts skills, her abilities as a master thief and her acrobatic prowess are never explained or addressed, but just presented with the expectation that the audience will accept them. Well, I didn't. I could've done with at least a short section of dialogue explaining her backstory.

Similarly, Blake figures out who Batman is by looking at him once. Now, this is canon, as Blake has aspirations from a young age to be the World's Greatest Detective (Batman's accolade) and does manage to figure out who Batman/Wayne really is. But the short, throw-away line explaining this seemed a tad silly. Even more so when you compare it to Selina Kyle *not* managing to figure it out, even though she's spent considerable more time in the company of both Batman and Bruce Wayne.

I see no point in having Detective Blake revealed to be Tim Drake right at the end of the film, and then having him follow Bruce's instructions to find the Batcave if there are going to be no more Nolanverse Batman films. It seems pointless, and therefore there must be a point to it. I feel it's just sequel baiting, but not for Batman.

A few nit-picky flaws:

During the stock exchange robbery scene, I do not believe that a shoe-shine and a janitor could've smuggled automatic weapons into a building that reacted so strongly to Bane just because he was wearing a crash helmet.

In the escape from the stock market the police raised barriers to prevent Bane's escape. My question is, why make ramps? Why not just have a vertical-sided wall that no vehicle could just easily drive over? Seemed purposefully stupid to allow Bane to escape.

After getting his hands on what looked like the wireless antennae to the tablet Bane's minion was using Batman is able to trace all its traffic? I know he's Batman, but that's a bit ridiculous.

During the chase sequence in the third act one of the tumblers fires a barrage of missiles at The Bat, something like 8-10. Most harmlessly and quickly impact nearby buildings, but 3 missiles manage to track The Bat through numerous narrow streets and around tight corners. Were these 'better' missiles? Seems like adding risk and/or tension just for the sake of it, but then having it end up looking silly.

That chant. I really hated that chant. It sounded like "this is sparta, sparta" to me ever since the first teasers came out. Hans Zimmer states that it's written 'deshi basara' and it apparently means 'rise up' in a legitimate, but as of yet unconfirmed, language. Those words and that sound don't compute to me.

Conclusions

Overall, not a bad film. It's not the second coming that I was told it would be, nor has it managed to live up to my experience of watching The Dark Knight for the first time. Sadly, I feel that it fails as a Batman film, which for me need to have at least three things:

1) A strong villain; with a believable motivation, unique style and personality

2) A good interaction between Batman and the villain; either in back-story or through the clashing of order/chaos as we saw with The Joker, or through ideology as we *should've* seen with Bane

3) A smattering of Batman-esque gadgets and feats; this time round we had a gun that stopped a motorbike once, a very poorly designed and implemented Batwing and big ol' bomb that might as well have been red sticks of TNT with an alarm clock in it when compared to the microwave emitter in Batman Begins.

My recommendation won't make anyone see or not see it, with the media saturation and Batman Fever that Nolan has cultivated you've either already seen it, are going to see it soon or have no interest in seeing it. But, for what it's worth, I'd recommend this to fans of the Nolan Batman, but not to those fans of Batman as a universe. It's not a great end to a series that has been so popular for so long, but it is a reasonably good film overall with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway being my two shining stars.

Blacklight: Retribution

Free-to-Play games are a godsend, for the financially deficient such as myself. Therefore, I tend to jump on any and all that come along, except that horrendous poke-in-the-eye of my childhood that is Age of Empires Online. So I was mighty pleased when Steam started advertising Blacklight Retribution, having heard nothing but good things and being in serious need of a competitive multiplayer game of late. Killing Floor occupies most of my shootingness, but sometimes killing mindless zombies isn't satisfying enough.

Speaking of zombies, Retribution is the sequel to Blacklight: Tango Down, developed by Zombie Studios and released on the PC, Xbox and PS3 back in 2010. I have not played it, I had not even heard of it until now, but I suggest you at least check out the Wiki, as Zombie Studios is planning on making a big franchise - including a feature film and comics as well as subsequent games in the series, like Retribution.

Gameplay

TF2 goes Victorian Era

Blacklight Retribution follows a very simple, tried and tested format for online competitive multiplayer. If you've even been near a games platform in the last five years you've probably seen someone play a Call of Duty game/clone online. Blacklight is that, but not shit. By that I mean it has the same game types, Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, CTF, Domination etc. but it's not full of Xbox COD asshats because it's a PC exclusive. All hail the PC gaming master race.

There's a nice little tutorial that is similar to those found in the more recent COD games, i.e. set in a firing range, which holds your hand through all the basics of the game from jumping and crouching to calling in heavy support. After that there are servers specifically designed for new players (level limit is 10) where you can improve your skills and level up slightly faster whilst only playing against people of a similar skill level. There is always one Level 10 bastard who's amazing in each round, but usually they usually rank themselves up and out of the server fairly quickly. Once you hit Level 10 it's off into the big, wide world of constantly full servers and unexpected kick-voting.

It's good, but it just doesn't say 'Fuck You' enough

Regarding the weapon choice, it begins very limited but can expanded through either grind play or shelling out real money (more on that later). Each 'Agent' begins with a standard assault rifle and standard gear - combat knife and a grenade. The spectrum of weapon types includes everything you'd expect to find in a modern/futuristic shooter these days; SMGs, LMGs, bolt action rifles, burst fire rifles, shotguns, pistols etc. However, these 'classes' of weapon are only the basic format.

Bigger is always better

After you get your hands on, say, a burst fire rifle receiver, you can add a sniper scope, a silencer, drum mag and better stock and turn it into a long-range, silent death dealer. Each upgrade part is unlocked via 'packs' which are rewarded for completing individual feats or as leveling up rewards or can be bought in the marketplace.

Not pictured: the enemy, fleeing

So the guns do the shooting, the grenades do the exploding and the knives do the kniving; everything works well. The sort-of USP that Blacklight: Retri....y'know what, from now on I'm gonna call it BR. The sort-of USP that BR pushes is the ability to use in-game credits (GP) which you accumulate for kills, capturing points, healing teammates etc. to buy ammo/health packs, specialist weaponry such as flamers and rocket launchers, as well as hulking mech Hardsuits with mini-guns and rail-rifles, in-game. Hardsuits are indeed as bitching as they sound. Nigh on impossible to kill with basic weaponry, unless several players swarm them to take advantage of their oil tanker-esque turn rate. These suits do have a glowing Lylat Wars weakspot, if you scan them with the game's other USP - the Hyper Reality Visor or HRV - which identifies the weakspot, as well as penetrating terrain for some distance, highlighting ammo dumps and other players.

HRV

Clearly a responsible thing to do mid-battle

Crushing your enemies with violent amounts of firepower not enough for you? Well you won't be disappointed with BR, because after humiliating the enemy MVP who's been on a killstreak for the entire game right up until he got your knife in his back, their camera will follow you for a few seconds before they respawn. This gives you the perfect opportunity to use the taunt system. A simple button tap and you can tea-bag, flip off, crane-kick or blow a raspberry and all they can do is watch. This made me giggle, as it seems like an attempt to encourage flaming/trolling in-game but in practice is actually just a bit of harmless fun that no-one takes too seriously.

Overall the fighty-shooty-stabby stuff is pretty damn good.

Aesthetics

Imagine taking Killzone 2 and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and doing this with them:

After one thing leads to another, you'll get the great style of BR. It's got that brown/grey/black palette of Killzone, but not to the extent that it resembles 3-day-old curry, blended with the more 'realistic' style of COD. Also, some good character and weapon skins. There's lots of bloom as well. On one level I was genuinely blinded by the sun so much I died before I saw the enemy. Yes, I died, but I died because of lovely, lovely looking level design.

Looks damn good for FREE

My rig handled BR ramped up to Ultra, as it always does (smugface) but the game looks great even on the lowest settings. Bear (rawr!) in mind that we're still talking about a FTP game here, a game that's cost you nothing at all and yet can still compete visually with those so-say "Triple A" titles. I was very pleasantly surprised.

Given that the game is entirely online-competitive, I'm shocked that so much was invested into the visual style. I'm certainly happy that it was though, as the game is a pleasure to look at whilst I'm dominating every game. Ok, that happened one time, 25-1 KDR without a Hardsuit bitches!

Longevity

Seems a bit superfluous to include this section, so I'll be brief.

Dr Misunderstood

The game is an online shooter. They have no limit, other than a level cap or individual boredom. I see myself dipping in and out of this game for many months to come. It's currently not possible to power through a good few hours because the sheer weight of players has done some serious damage to the servers. I've often signed in and have been greeted with a message informing me to basically "fuck off and try again, you didn't pay for this so you're not entitled to complain when all our servers are full." Which is fair enough, considering that the game went live on 3rd April, and by 30th April it had ONE MILLION DOLLARS, I mean, PLAYERS!

I'll let it cool off for a few weeks.

Freemium

The word applied to a FTP game that has optional in-game content to be bought with real money. And it's never been done better.

Rental system

It is entirely possible to unlock roughly 85% of the items, weapons and aesthetics in BR through simple grind. For each round you play in, depending on how well you and your team did, you can expect to earn about 200GP. This is the amount the game's internal marketplace charges you to rent a weapon for 24 hours. That's right, RENT. I flamed a tad at this when I first started playing; I only had an assault rifle and desperately wanted to play as a sniper so I checked out the store, found myself a custom-built bolt action rifle and spent my hard-earned GP on it. The gun was great, but I was irked when I logged on the following day and was told that my rental had run out and did I want to renew it.

Simple marketplace, nuff said

I went away, sat in my Zen Garden and raked some gravel for a few hours, contemplating why the game's developers (Perfect World, also the guys behind Rusty Hearts, Torchlight 1 + 2 and the great Star Trek Online that I'm addicted to) chose to organise the marketplace this way. The conclusion I came to was simple and brilliant. It's a 'try-before-you-buy' system. You spend a little GP, which is free as you earn it in-game, to see what a certain item is like. Should you hate it, then you've lost barely anything. But should you love it, as I did with my sniper rifle, then you've paid a tiny amount to enjoy a different play style for 24 hours. I am now currently saving up my GP to afford the 5500GP price-tag on permanently buying the bolt action receiver, so I can start building my own sniper rifle.

What the hell is this?!

Even though you can grind your way to affording all the shiniest looking guns, bitches and bling you can also just pay money for them. Should I choose to, I can spend less than I feel the game is worth to buy some Zen Credits, which cost actual money. I can then use these in place of GP in order to get my gear instantly. This system is the basis of the Freemium model. You give the gamer the options of hard graft to get their reward for free, or shell out a small amount to get it now. BR does it perfectly, as at no point does it throw up pay-walls which block off certain content only available for purchase with Zen Credits. Well, at least not so far.

Conclusion

This is a solid FPS, with great online play and a healthy amount of customisation. It has all the elements that make the multiplayer aspects of games like COD attractive but without the £40 price tag. Wholeheartedly recommend it to all FPS fans, but also to anyone who's ever wanted to get into FPS gaming but doesn't want to A) pay £40 for the privilege, or B) have the sexual activity of their mother called into question by members of the opposition.