Once you reach a certain age, keeping up with your hobbies can be insanely difficult when you have to start balancing them with work, marriage, children, and other responsibilities. I’m a bit lucky in this aspect since a) gaming intersects with my work-life fairly regularly and b) my wife is a gamer herself and grew up with the culture. That said, ever since the birth of my child and the increase in writing work I’ve taken on, it’s been getting harder.
But it helps to have a community or two that you can be part of that understand what you’re going through, especially when said communities have some excellent podcasts.
My all-time favourite gaming podcast is “The Gamer’s With Jobs Conference Call” which is the official weekly podcast of the “Gamers With Jobs” online community. As the title indicates, the podcast (and the site) caters to gamers… with jobs; the gamers swamped with work and swamped with life that still have the need to play games. They discuss what place games have in their lives, how they integrate gaming with their schedules, and even talk about their kids.
But my favourite aspect of this podcast is the fact that each week they take the time to discuss in-depth issues in gaming from a more mature perspective. Sure, they do brief reviews at the beginning of every show, but the real meat of the podcast revolves around such topics as narrative in games, analyses of free-to-play models, “why” they game, etc. They approach each topic with intelligence and depth, which leads to very stimulating discussions.
After listening to over 200 episodes of this podcast, I had started yearning for more along these lines, and have found a couple that are similar but not quite up there considering they are usually produced by gaming websites and, thus, hosted by gamers embedded in the industry who don’t necessarily have to deal with the issues Gamers with Jobs does.
But, recently, I found one that has the added benefit of taking the Gamers With Jobs model and adding a dose of Asian perspective to it.
“The OMGeek Podcast” is one I discovered by virtue of a friend of mine appearing on it (tech guru Jayvee Fernandez, whom you can visit at http://abuggedlife.com) to discuss marketing in video games. Hosted by two gentlemen from the Philippines and one from Singapore, OMGeek serves as the official podcast of the OMGeek online community.
It is a community, and a podcast, that mirrors that of Gamers With Jobs in that it caters to the gaming needs of those of us who, because of life, work, and kids, can no longer spend long carefree days of devoting hours and hours to Final Fantasy 8 or Wing Commander IV. Only two episodes old, it has already tackled such meaty topics as the aforementioned marketing in games as well as character consistency in gaming narratives.
So if you’re a gamer with a job and/or possibly looking for an Asian perspective, check out these two excellent podcasts. You won’t be sorry.
The Gamers with Jobs Conference Call can be found here: http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/podcast
And here’s how you can subscribe to OMGeek:
This is not a review of the latest Superman film. For reasons too private to mention, the character of Superman and the stories he has appeared in are incredibly meaningful to me, so much so that I just don’t think I can approach any Superman film in the standard review format. Instead, this will be a look at the film through the eyes of a guy who’s worldview, attitudes, philosophical ideals, and emotional growth have been hugely affected by the stories he’s consumed, of which Superman was a major component.
Please read this only if you’ve seen the movie. SPOILERS ahead, and a lot of the things I will write about need to be taken into context with how certain ideas, themes, and filmic language and cinematic elements are utilized in the picture.
I’m splitting it into two parts. First, I will address most of the arguments against the film that I’ve read online, as well as some of the issues that people I know personally have. I don’t aim to change anyone’s mind about the film, everyone’s entitled to an opinion after all, I just want to point out why they don’t bother me.
On a side note, I really hate how the internet seems to have enabled quite a large number of people to delude themselves into thinking they can negate someone else’s opinion through sheer force of typing. Just because I like/dislike something you like/dislike doesn’t make your opinion the only thing that matters in the world.
In the next part, I will write about just why I love this fucking movie so fucking much.
1. “Superman should be…”
A number of articles/reviews/angry forum posts/angry Facebook statuses have decried this movie as being wrong in how it chose to present the Superman character. I’ve seen things like: “Superman should be an unassailable moral pillar, impervious to doubt and willing to put everyone above himself”, “Superman should be like a god, with a perfect code of honour”, “Superman should be jovial, the light to Batman’s darkness. He should have no tortured psyche” and so on and so forth.
Really, once you approach a film adaptation of any sort with that mindset, there is no pleasing everyone. I think the problem here lies in the fact that Superman is such an established icon of popular culture that many people think they instantly “get” him, whether it’s through familiarity with the books, movies, cartoons, or the general cultural zeitgeist. They don’t consider the fact that in addition to being a brand and an icon, he is STILL a fictional character who regularly appears in stories published to this day, and has been so for 75 years.
Who is to say what Superman SHOULD be like?
Is it Siegel and Shuster who created him? Is their concept of the character the one everyone should embrace? Really? You want a Superman who can’t fly, bullies confessions out of common criminals by dangling them over the city via telephone wires? The Superman who works in the Daily Star, who treats everyone around him like they’re inferior toys (Seriously, read the 30’s comic strips… he basically uses his Clark Kent indentity to make fun of his coworkers)? The Superman who treats women like shit and makes a habit of disrespecting Lois Lane any chance he gets?
Oh and let’s not forget, Superman KILLS people in some of these strips. There’s one scene I remember where he picks up a foreign soldier, interrogates him, and THROWS him miles away to presumably die a horrible death when he SPLATS on the ground.
Or should Superman be the Silver Age Superman of Mort Weisinger and company? The one with no moral complexity, the one who flies across galaxies, shoving planets out of harm’s way (completely disregarding that doing so would wreck havoc on said planets’ gravitational fields, orbital stability, and essentially KILLING billions of sentient beings)?
What about the post-crisis Superman?
Starting with the reboot by John Byrne in 1986, this was the Superman I grew up with essentially, and where I think a lot of people’s concept of the character comes from (aside from the Donner films, which I’ll get to). So I see why people would claim this character as “SUPERMAN SHOULD BE…”) But even then, this Superman wasn’t the perfect paragon of justice. I remind you all that it was in this era that Superman was shown to KILL twice (but I’ll get to that). And yet again, which version of this post-crisis Superman SHOULD he be? Should we give him a mullet? Make him Electro Blue/Red Superman?
Should Superman be always and forever the Donner/Chris Reeves version? The one who SPUN THE PLANET backwards to turn back time, developed super “forget my secret identity” kisses, fights Richard Pryor, and has “rebuild Great Wall of China super-vision”? This was the other Superman I grew up with. In fact, for some insane reason (and not by choice) I think I’ve seen Superman III more than any other installment.
My point is this: the character is 75 years old, and he’s gone through lots of changes in that period. Each of those iterations have had incredibly cheesy bits to them, but each change meant something to someone. There is no definitive version of who the character is, because there just can’t be. Even this one… Zack Snyder is going to make his films, make a few more ones, throw in a Justice League here and there, and them someone will reboot. Hell, the comics change continuities all the time.
Making and adaptation means that you have to find the core of the character and then cherry-pick elements that resonate with you and the story/theme you’re trying to tell from the decades of continuity. Marvel did this with their Ultimate Comics line to great success. So I like to think of Man of Steel as “Ultimate Superman” on the big screen.
Looking through the entirety of Superman canon, the core elements are very simple: strange visitor from another planet, immigrant, loving small-town American family, Clark Kent, Lois Lane, powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men (which vary by era, of course), and in the end does good things. Everything else is window dressing to be changed and manipulated as the editors, producers, and the culture insist.
Man of Steel, as an adaptation, hit all those core concepts. Then, they cherry-picked from (as far as I can tell) Birthright, Superman: Earth One, Superman: the Man of Steel, Superman: For Tomorrow, Superman Red Son and Superman: Secret Identity.
So that’s a loooooong-winded way of saying… there is no one way Superman SHOULD be. If they hit the important core elements, then there’s only one way he should be to serve the particular story being told in the era the literature is made.
Face it, the “big blue boyscout” that people want is not a character. He’s an icon, a statue to look at. That misconception is the whole reason most people either hated the character for being boring or thought he was difficult to write for. If they made a character that strictly hewed to the common conception, audiences would laugh. Hell, the closest we’ve come to that is Superman Returns which basically brought the Donner Superman to modern times. It didn’t click with people (although I loved that one too, warts and all!)
Is Superman all light and funny and jovial? Sure, if you’re reading the 50’s incarnation. Is he patriarchal and noble and righteous? Sure, if you’re reading the Jurgens/Simonson/Stern run. Is he a tortured introspective soul unsure of his place in the world? Sure, if you read For Tomorrow.
And is he a troubled introspective young man desperate to find answers about his identity, unsure of his abilities, his place in the world, and how people will perceive him? Sure, if you watch Man of Steel.
2. “Superman doesn’t kill!”
As I’ve indicated above, yes… yes he does. But not lightly (in modern times, anyway). Disregarding the pre-crisis Superman who tossed foreign soldiers to their deaths and basically killed entire solar systems by playing marbles with the planets, the modern take on Superman killed twice, as far as I know.
The first time he killed is actually the whole reason I’m surprised people are in an uproar about the movie death of Zod. In an early John Byrne comic in the late 80’s, General Zod and his cronies DID invade Earth and did essentially present Superman with an ultimatum: either they die, or humanity does. Superman kills the evil Kryptonians by exposing them to Kryptonite, and only because he absolutely had to.
What I loved about this is that that act stayed with Superman the rest of his life. Numerous issues dealt with the torture that Clark felt each day knowing he killed… but knowing he had to because it was the only way to stop Zod. Now, who’s to say that the same thing won’t happen in future instalments of Man of Steel? The movie explicitly showed the anguish Clark felt at the act… and I’m certain we’ll see more introspection about that later on.
3. “Superman should have been saving more people! Too much collateral damage!”
There are several factors to this. First of all, yes, the movie could have been all about how Superman would use his super powers to save everyone in sight, blowing out fires while fending off super villains. But then, this kind of treatment runs right smack into the problem a lot of people have with the character: if he can do all of that, then there’s no fear that he’ll fail, the stakes immediately lower, and it’s difficult to write credible threats for him. He becomes less realistic, less of a character.
I actually like this kind of character, and I do think there are ways to present him well. But I have no problems with the way the filmmakers went.
This movie set him up in the role of saviour-by-inspiration. It’s right there in the Jor-El voiceover: “You will give them an ideal, they will run behind you, they will stumble, they will fall… but in the end they will join you in the sun” (or something like that). This is a Superman who won’t do humanity’s work for them.
Take note of the scene when 12 year old Clark was being bullied. The clue to what Superman is intended to be is the very deliberate choice by Snyder to put a book of Plato’s writings in Clark’s hand. Plato’s most famous idea is that of the Platonic Ideal, as represented by the allegory of Plato’s cave. Juxtaposing that onto the film, I take it to mean that once Clark finds himself, matures fully, and accepts who he is and what he has to do, he becomes that platonic ideal that casts shadows on the cave wall. Humans are the shadows lying in the darkness , but when they look up at him, at the things he does and the choices he makes, they too can “join him in the sun”.
And besides the philosophical slant, look at it this way too. This is a Superman who literally JUST learned who he really is and what he can really do something like ten minutes ago. He’s not a combat specialist who’s trained for years under Wonder Woman or Batman, he’s just a farmboy with superpowers trying to survive. He’s doing the best he can, and I don’t think his best includes being able to dictate the battle with battle-hardened General Zod in a way that saves every single human life.
In fact, at the beginning of the Smallville fight, he IS shown to grab Faora and attempt to leap away, only to be smacked down from the side by the bigger, better trained brute. It’s quite clear he was trying to take the fight elsewhere, but was just incapable of it. What do you want… you want him to stop and say “No! The People!” ala Superman 2? You want it spoonfed to you that he did try but failed?
As for the collateral damage… what do you think would happen to a city if two god-like beings fought? If superheroes and supervillains existed in our world, I guarantee the damage would be even greater than depicted in this film.
Related to this is a point some online reviewers have mentioned regarding the Metropolis destruction. “Why did he stop the machine in the ocean first? Why did he not stop Zod’s ship in order to save more metropolis citizens first?”
Seriously? It’s actually pretty clear that he had to stop the World Machine first. That’s where the terraforming was occurring, and that was the source of the gravity beam that Zod’s ship was reflecting back to it. Zod’s henchman (Jax-Ur) even said “We are slaved to the World Machine”. Anybody with a slight working knowledge of technology knows that if you’re “slaved” to something, you’re the secondary unit. Superman had to take out the World Machine before it completely destroyed Earth’s atmosphere, whereas Zod’s ship was only destroying one city.
Those were the three main issues I’ve seen bandied about online. There are a few more minor ones, but maybe I’ll save that for another post if enough people bug me about it. I’m tired of defending the film in this one post… in the next post I’m going to write about why I loved it.
But hit me up in the comments or on twitter/Facebook if you want to debate more things.
For a while, I was reading tons and tons of new comics every Wednesday. Working in a comic shop allows you to do that. Every new comic morning, at around 8:30 am, I’d gleefully rip open the Diamond (distributor) box and carefully lay out the new comics in their assigned places on the shelves.
I’d take in all the titles as they came out, mentally cataloguing which ones went into my pull list; which ones I desperately wanted to read first.
Then, shit over, I’d take them home and lose myself in four (or more) color worlds for a couple of hours. Sometimes I’d even blog about them.
When the comic shop folded several years ago, and my film work picked up, I fell out of the habit, unable to justify the time it took out of my schedule. I always regretted that, a bit, since comics have been such a huge part of my life.
And then, I got an iPad, a Comixology account, and all that changed.
I’d been reading new comics every Wednesday again for a little while now, but what I still miss about the old comic store is being able to talk to anybody and everybody about what’s happening in the stories and in the industry.
Well, that’s what blogs (and Facebook and Twitter) are for, right? So, starting this week, I’m going to do little reviews every Thursday (or Friday) of the books on my pull list.
I’m a bit behind due to work, but this week I got: Star Wars #1, Action Comics #16, Superior Spider-Man #1, Earth 2 #8, Animal Man #16, and Swamp Thing #16. Expect reviews as soon as I get to them.
As a father who waves the geek flag proudly, I am always looking to inject anything comic book, sci-fi, or fantasy related into my daughter’s routine. And after having a really hard time finding a proper goodnight book that didn’t annoy me (aside from goodnight moon, which is excellent), I decided to just write one myself. If I could actually draw, I’d even illustrate it.
I call it: “Goodnight Justice League”. She seems to like it. I’m sharing it here, just in case other geek parents find it applicable.
Goodnight Justice League.
In a shining moonbase called the Watchtower,
Sits a green Martian with shapechanging power.
He watches the monitor, vigilant and wise,
But soon falls asleep and closes his eyes.
And soon he is relieved, monitor duty done,
For Green Arrow is here, to have all the fun.
In a world of Luthors and Jokers and Sinestros and Cheetahs,
We can all sleep soundly, for the Justice League watch over us.
Goodnight J’onn, Manhunter from Mars,
Goodnight Batman, and all your bat-cars.
Goodnight Superman and your wife Lois Lane,
Goodnight Wonder Woman, and your invisible plane.
Goodnight Batgirl, in your billowing black cape,
Goodnight Flash, saving the city from a big bad Ape.
Goodnight Aquaman, noble King of the Sea,
Goodnight Green Lantern, with your power battery.
Goodnight Oracle, smart, sassy and geeky,
Goodnight Supergirl and your pet cat Streaky.
Goodnight Robin, Red Robin, and Nightwing as well,
Goodnight Zatanna, casting a backwards spell.
See you in the new day.
For when Evil attacks,
They fall to the JLA.
It’s that time of the year again. Last year, Super 8 didn’t even make my top 5 most anticipated list, yet it stormed out of the gates with its sheer sense of wonder and managed to beat out the likes of Thor and X-Men First Class as my favorite film of the summer.
As mid-April rolls around, I always make a list of my 5 most anticipated summer films. Will another Super 8-like movie steal their thunder? Or will number 1 on this list also be number 1 in my heart at the end of the season?
This is just a quick list, since I’ve gotten a few tweets asking my opinion, but I plan on writing about these films individually over the next few weeks.
So… starting with number 5:
5. The Avengers
After the early, almost out of nowhere success of Iron Man, I had high hopes for Marvel Studio’s forthcoming output, especially with the rumors that all their films would culminate in The Avengers. Sadly, with the middling quality of Thor and Captain America, and the utter disappointment that was Iron Man 2, I saw my faith in Marvel dip lower and lower.
And then… Joss Whedon. Bam. With Browncoat firmly in hand, I’m back on board with this film. The trailers worry me a bit that we may be in for another Transformers (all spectacle, no heart), but, hey, in Joss we trust.
With the exception of the Cars franchise, I absolutely adored almost every bit of cinema that has come from Pixar. With trailers that promise high adventure, comedy, and Pixar’s magic touch, Brave could not come soon enough for me.
3. The Amazing Spider-Man
I grew up loving the adventures of Spider-Man. Sure, I was always more of a DC guy, but Spider-Man and the X-Men have always been my go-to Marvel properties. That said, I was disappointed with Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man films, as I find their tone uneven, their writing unconvincing, and their leads bland as you could find in any superhero film.
Which is why I perked up at the idea of a reboot. I like the Spider-Man character, and I feel that he deserves to be treated the way the Donner films treated Superman and the Nolan films treated Batman. Having Marc Webb, director of500 Days of Summer, at the helm should help as I feel like the Spider-Man comics have always been most interesting when they were about the relationships.
The kicker, for me, is that Gwen Stacy is front and center. She’s always been my preferred spider-girlfriend (my favorite spidey comic is Spider-Man: Blue), and having Emma Stone play her is a stroke of genius.
Ridley Scott. Alien. Prequel.
I have literally been waiting for this, or anything like it, since David Fincher shat all over the franchise in Alien 3. Plus, with the archaeological elements integrated into it, I’m looking forward to having a bit more sense of wonder and discovery in my blockbuster sci-fi films.
1. The Dark Knight Rises
When Inception and Batman Begins are your worst movies, than clearly you are a fantastic director. Give a director like that the keys to one of the greatest characters ever created, arm him with the most star-studded and talented cast of the summer, and throw an ungodly amount of cash at him, and there is pressure like no other to create a film that will just blow away the field like Lord of the Rings did a decade ago.
But if anyone can do it, it’s Christopher Nolan. The Dark Knight had its problems, no summer movie is perfect, but it was still the best comic book movie since The Road to Perdition. And I think it stands as one of the best choices, if not the best choice, of the comic book industry to flaunt in their critics faces and say: “Yes. It IS possible to make great, serious films based on superheroes.” The Dark Knight is not just a great film “for a superhero movie”, it is one of the best films of the decade. Period.
I cannot wait to see how it all ends.
One of the best things Apple ever gave us was iTunes. Among its many benefits, it has become a one-stop repository of fantastic podcasts covering a variety of topics. From writing to technology, from film to sports commentary, from education to video games… if you’re looking for some auditory excellence that manages to be entertaining as well as informative, chances are you’ll find them on iTunes.
Oh sure, podcasts have been freely available all over the internet for a while now. Heck, I’d been listening to quite a number of them myself long before I ever got my first iPod. But iTunes – and say what you will about Apple and its “closed system” – found the perfect balance between ease of use and proliferation to make it my favorite source of all my favorite podcasts.
And, boy, there are a lot of them. But there are a few in particular that I unabashedly label as “can’t miss” and whose every installment I eagerly await and consume as quickly as I do a bag of Brookstone Chocolate Covered Blueberry Acai Berries. Try them. They’re good. And try the podcasts too, while you’re at it.
Each week, I’ll give you a quick look at those I deem the cream of the crop.
There are many podcasts on iTunes dealing with the subject of film. Ranging in format from reviews and interviews to criticism and filmmaking, there’s a podcast for every cinephile out there. But my favorite is most definitelyDown in Front.
DIF, hosted by Teague Christie and bunch of other fun people who work in the industry, differentiates itself from the other film podcasts by presenting itself as an alternate commentary track on the film. The conceit is simple: Teague tells you what the movie of the week is, usually a genre film since they are all genre fans. Then, he sets up a synchronization point where you pause the movie once the studio logo fades to black, just as he will do, and after briefly talking about the movie and introducing the panel, he will do a countdown to let you know when to unpause so that you can watch the movie together in perfect sync.
Over the course of the movie’s duration, Teague and the gang provide a commentary that is usually more balanced, informative, funny, and critical than any studio-sanctioned one can be. They discuss the film as it unfolds from the perspective of viewers, fans, and people who actually know how movies are made. What is especially interesting is when they discuss sci-fi films, as most of them are quite knowledgeable about the field.
If you love film, and love discussing film with smart engaging people (or at least listening to them), give this one a shot.
MILD SPOILERS for the MASS EFFECT TRILOGY
With all the controversy surrounding the endings of Mass Effect 3, it’s easy to lose sight of all the wonderful things the game presents us with. In this concluding chapter to the trilogy, we see an improved combat system, the successful culmination of multiple character arcs, the elevation of thematic and psychological debates, technical wizardry in both the visual and sound departments, and many other wonderful things to play with.
But among all the successes on offer, none are more satisfying than the richly drawn characters Bioware has populated the game with. Here, among others, we have a geneticist nobly sacrificing himself to correct a grave error of judgement, a philosophical assassin finally finding peace surrounded by his son and greatest ally, and a loyal and true friend who cheekily sneaks Shepard up to a roof for one final game of “who’s the better shot.”
And yes, finally at Shepard’s side once again, is Liara T’Soni, whom I believe to be the most important character in this game and should serve as a model for the industry for years to come.
I know that is a bold statement, but I make it coming from the perspective of a father-to-be looking at the gaming landscape as it exists now and with an eye towards what kind of future the industry holds for my daughter.
Being the unabashed geek and nerd that I am, one of the joys of parenthood that I absolutely am looking forward to consists of sharing all my passions with my little girl. I want to sit her on my lap as we watch Star Trek marathons together. I want to carefully watch her features as we build up to the exciting and terrible moment where Darth Vader reveals his secret to Luke. I want her to go with me to BC Place, decked out in Vancouver Whitecaps gear as we root against the likes of the Montreal Impact and LA Galaxy.
And yes, I want to play video games with her. I want to share with her the joy of using a controller or a mouse (or an iPad) to guide the fate of one character, one party, one city, or one civilization through the trials and tribulations that the next generation of game developers has to offer.
But what kind of characters will these be, exactly? And, more importantly, what kind of example will they set for my daughter’s impressionable mind?
It’s no secret that big-budget gaming, for so long, has been an arena for men to create games for other men (and boys). Sure, Nancy Drew has her own series of excellent adventure games, but you’d be hard pressed to find the likes of her in HALO or Gears of War. It’s getting better now, but as a result of this fact, it’s been very difficult over the years to find fully realized examples of empowering female characters who do not conform to either a damsel-in-distress mold or an unbeatable Amazon warrior princess paradigm. There is an odd exception here and there, but, on the whole, there are usually more Rinoa Heartillys (Final Fantasy VIII’s teenage fantasy dream girl) than Elena Fishers (Uncharted’s wonderfully realized journalist/adventurer).
But now we have Dr. Liara T’Soni. On the surface, if you have only a passing knowledge ofMass Effect, you might think that she’s your typical video game heroine. She’s pretty, exotic, can blow you away with biotics or sub-machine guns, and, oh yeah, she comes from a race of women who have been often portrayed as hyper-sexualized.
But dig beneath all that, and it’s not too far away mind you, and you find that Liara is so much more than that: the good doctor is a big old fashioned “Science Hero”.
A lot of main characters in video games, especially in epics likeMass Effect, have driving motivations along the lines of “Save the city from the barbarian hordes!”, “Save the world from the evil tyrant!”, or “Save me, Mario!”
If one were to take even just a cursory glance at what drives Liara, the answer becomes obvious right away: a deep, abiding, unrelenting thirst for knowledge.
Yes, she is warm, funny, has a bit of a temper, and she is quite loving and can be quite emotional. But from the moment we meet here in Mass Effect 1, her desire to learn and to know are always at the forefront.
Consider the reason she was brought into the team in the first place. Shepard was zapped by some sort of Prothean beacon and needed an expert to decipher the images locked in her head (yes, I played as FemShep). And since Liara had been playing archaeologist since she was a child, and since she was digging into the Prothean dirt and earning her doctorate while others of her species were stripping in clubs or becoming mercenaries, she was the obvious choice.
Right away, her passion for learning everything about a dead race was evident. The factoids in her brain, the reverence she held for the Prothean legend, even the fact that she was initially attracted to Shepard simply because the commander had knowledge about them… Liara’s enthusiasm was undeniable.
She had a sense of wonder – a desire to learn more than what the world was giving her and to put that knowledge to good use. And even when the story took a dark turn in Mass Effect 2, she never lost sight of the value for knowledge.
It is in the sequel where Liara showed her propensity to grow as a character. She new that her naivety and innocence could only get her so far when the world was gunning for her, so she decided to grow up and face her troubles head on with the greatest skill she had at her disposal: gathering knowledge. Setting herself up as the foremost dealer in secrets on Illium, and later as the illusive “Shadow Broker”, Liara managed to find a way to use her intellect and reason to put her in an even better position to help Shepard and the universe at large.
The world turned dark, and she had to follow. But she never lost sight of the value of using your brain ahead of your brawn (and biotics).
Her growth would continue intoMass Effect 3, where her skills would come full circle as she would use her knowledge both as a scientist and as the Shadow Broker to help Shepard end the Reaper threat. In fact, she would would prove instrumental in uncovering, through archaeology, the one secret Prothen weapon that could save the galaxy.
And there would be one final bit of growth that solidified how important Liara would become to me. At a time when the galaxy looked like it was going to fall, each character spent every free moment they had attempting to make peace with either themselves or each other.
Liara would do the same, to a certain degree, but she again showed her love of knowledge in a touching scene where she revealed to Shepard that she constructed a time capsule. She filled this capsule with memories, data, and information… everything a future archaeologist would need 50,000 years down the line to learn about Liara’s galaxy.
She began the series looking back with wonder at an ancient race and ended it looking forward with hope at a future where knowledge would never die.
Part of the success of Liara as a character must fall on the shoulders of the team of brought her to life – the animators, the writers, the directors. A particular standout is the impressive Ali Hillis, whose voice work brings a tender but firm strength, tinged with a hopeful sense of wonder to Liara.
Together, all of those elements form a character who embodies something I wish I could see more of in gaming: a heroic scientist who is not defined by her obsession with science, but whose warmth and personality are enhanced by it.
This is the type of character I want my daughter to grow up getting to know through games. The interactive nature of gaming gives the player a unique way to experience a world, and it is dangerous to understate just how much that can form a person’s character.
In a world where it’s so easy to just receive and receive stimulus after stimulus, it’s just as easy to get so caught up in the chaos that you miss the importance of understanding, theorizing, and applying. It’s so easy to forget that in order to grow – fully grow as a rational, thinking human being – you must always be asking questions. “Why did that happen?” “How can I make that happen again?” “When can I go to the stars?”
The creation of our favorite Asari information broker gives me hope that gaming is moving in the direction where we could see more female characters who prioritize the right things; characters who look to the stars, look into history, look into the future and ask “What if?”
I would love it if my daughter grows up idolizing Mr. Spock. But I would certainly love it just as much if she wants to be like Dr. Liara T’Soni as well.
Today’s post was going to be about Overhaul Games’ recent announcement that their “enhanced” version ofBaldur’s Gate would be coming to the iPad. As a fan of both the original game series and gaming on the iPad itself, I was ecstatic to read this and I’m looking forward to see how the game’s point-and-click control style will translate to the iPad’s generous touch screen.
But then I came across another announcement that got me even more excited:
Wing Commander Saga: The Darkest Dawn has launched.
For those unfamiliar with the property, the original Wing Commander was a space combat sim wherein you played the role of a nameless human starfighter pilot thrust into the middle of a vicious war against the feral alien warrior race known as the “Kilrathi.” Featuring the best space battles this side of X-Wing and Tie Fighter, Wing Commander seemingly came out of nowhere and instantly captured my very, very young attention.
Later titles, in addition to tightening the gameplay, would add to the mythos of the property. They gave your character a name (Christopher Blair), developed three of the best sidekicks to ever fly across a computer screen (Angel, Hobbes, and Maniac) and arguably reached their pinnacle in the understated masterpiece that was Wing Commander IV (starring Mark Hammil, Malcom McDowell, Tom Wilson, and the chairman from Iron Chef).
The rich character work, mythology, and plotlines made the series my favorite sci-fi video game property (well, until the release of Mass Effect). The main Wing Commander series would end with Wing Commander V, and the property itself would suffer almost irreversible damage due to the release of the abhorrent 1999 movie starring Freddie Prinze Jr.
This massive flop effectively killed the property. For a long time after, there would be occasional rumors that a resurrection was forthcoming. Sadly, it was not to be. And until now, there remains no hope for an official continuation for the series.
Thankfully, the series does boast some rather wonderfully skilled fans with the drive and determination to see the series live on in one way or another.
Hence, Wing Commander Saga: The Darkest Dawn. This fan-made and EA-permitted (if not endorsed) game is built on the back of the excellent Freespace 2 engine and is set at the tail end of the events of Wing Commander III. Although you do not get to revisit the universe as Commander Blair, you won’t find me complaining about the ability to have a hand in creating a new hero to take the fight to the Kilrathi.
Although I am as yet unable to play it (a Mac OSX release is still forthcoming), I cannot describe how excited I am to see this venerable property resurrected at the hands of developers who are so obviously fans of the series… developers who love it so much that they are offering it up for free.
So whether you are a veteran of the Kilrathi war, a newcomer to the series looking for excellent sci-fi action, or someone looking to support independent developers, why not head over to their site and give a Longbow a spin.
Who knows, if this thing does well, EA may just be inclined to take another look at this property…
WARNING: Major Spoilers for all three Mass Effect games ahead.
At this point, I think it’s safe to assume that nearly every single person out there with even a passing interest in video games knows about the whole brouhaha surrounding the end of Mass Effect 3.
The short version is this: many fans of the series expected to get a certain type of ending, one that took into account all their choices, gave them a multitude of ways in which to conclude their story, and gave a satisfying conclusion to the 100+ hour epic.
But Bioware did not do this. Instead, the developers gave us an ending that they felt would challenge the players’ assumptions, wrench the story into a more thematic and philosophical debate regarding the nature of self and predestination, and, in their own words, leave “lots of speculation for everyone!”
Personally, I thought it was a bold choice and I appreciate what they were trying to do. I understand the fans’ anger about the derth of options present, but my issue with all this is that it’s deflecting people from the real issue with Mass Effect 3’s narrative; an issue relating to breaking a promise made at the end of the series’ first installment.
The Broken Promise
No, I don’t mean the real world promises made by Casey Hudson or any other Bioware rep. I’m specifically referring to Commander Sherpard’s final line of dialogue after she stormed out of the council chambers. To paraphrase:
Shepard: “The Reapers are coming. And I’m going to find a way to stop them.”
Read that again: “I (Shepard) am going to (act by using all my resources) find (scour the galaxy with the help of my friends) a way to stop (end the Reaper threat) them.”
The glorious opening chapter to the Mass Effect series sets the table for the Space Opera Campbellian Hero’s Journey to follow. Here’s Shepard, a more or less ordinary (if accomplished) soldier in the ranks of a relatively insignificant part of galactic civilization.
Things change, however, when an ancient artifact imbues her with visions – a move that elevates her above the typical Ashley Williams and Kaiden Alenko’s of the world. Combined with her natural strength and leadership, she rises past the prejudices and hardships, taking charge of the quest to safeguard the galaxy. And in the end, she is the only one with the strength and determination to make her bold promise of “finding a way”.
Here’s the thing, though: she doesn’t. Not really. For majority of the series after the end of ME1, Shepard actually does not follow through with this promise.
Consider Mass Effect 2. Here, Shepard is killed at the beginning of the game and left for dead, only to be resurrected by shadowy organization Cerberus. It’s an interesting twist int he narrative, because now Shepard has to work with a man who clearly has humanity’s intentions at the forefront, but acts upon them in incredibly unscrupulous ways.
But she plays along, and what follows is an enjoyable romp through the galaxy collecting fascinating squadmates, exploring the seedy nooks and crannies untouched by the Alliance, and seeking to save human colonies from the Collector threat.
The narrative then ties back into the main Reaper threat when it’s revealed that the Collectors are serving the Reapers… somehow. In light of the events of Mass Effect 3, I’m actually not all that sure that the Collectors were absolutely necessary.
Nevertheless, it was a fun game with a decent story… except Commander Shepard did nothing to advance her promise. Sure, she made some noises about an invasion coming, sure the Collectors were a threat, and sure she was suspicious of Cerberus and their motives… but, again in light of Mass Effect 3, I wonder why Shepard did not do more to try to actively search for a solution to the Reaper threat.
Remember, a good hero is an active one, especially after the first act in a three act structure. But rather than actively trying to drive the story – looking for a way to stop the Reapers, looking to discredit Cerberus, anything – Shepard spent most of the second game reacting to events. The only time she really made a firm decision to act was at the end.
If I may ask a question: why was the idea of a Prothean super-weapon not introduced in the second game? Narratively, it would have made sense for Shepard, or Liara maybe, to start digging up hints of this “way to stop them” about halfway through ME2. Blueprints? Rumors? Anything. That way, while she’s going about solving the Illusive Man’s issues, she could be secretly helping “find a way to stop them”. As it is, this is already the second act and there’s still no hint or foreshadowing of how to solve the Reaper problem.
The problem continues in Mass Effect 3.
Forgetting about my problems of introducing the very first hint of a solution in the third act, I willed myself to accept that the Crucible existed and would ultimately solve the problem. “Yes,” I said to myself. “Shepard is now going to fly around the galaxy trying to unite the various races by solving their issues and convincing them to fight for humanity. The way she’s going to do this is because each sector she needs to visit may have a piece, software or hardware, of the Crucible and she needs to get them.”
Eh… not quite. Instead, the Crucible is dumped on Hackett and Shepard goes around collecting… assets. Yes, she achieves closure on a lot of character issues set up throughout the series, but as far as the endgame narrative goes, all she’s doing is just building an army.
Now, this is fine if Mass Effect was going to end in a conventional way, with strength of arms and ammount of warriors deciding the result. If so, then Shepard successfully uniting the Geth and the Quarians, successfully ending the genophage, and successfully convincing the other races that humanity is worth fighting for is the right way to go. She found “a way to stop them.”
But… no. Strength of arms was never going to win the war. Right from the get go, it was the Crucible that was going to do so. As such, being the hero of the story, Shepard should have had a greater hand in ensuring the Crucible’s creation and deployment.
At the conclusion of the game, she does end the Reaper threat. But, the way it played out, she did not “find a way to stop them”… she kinda just fell into it.
It may sound like I’m crapping all over Mass Effect 3, but I’m really not. I enjoyed playing every minute of it, even the endings. I’m fine either way if Bioware gives us a new ending, fine of they leave it as is. I’m not going to join the “re-take Mass Effect” movement, because I like the idea behind the ending, but I don’t disparage other people who do.
I do applaud their decision to attempt a more “Idea” based ending, even if I find their execution a bit lacking. I found the game to be the most affecting game I’ve played in terms of character development and making me care for this ragtag band of misfits. The gameplay itself was my favorite of the series. The voice acting was superb, particularly with regards to Jennifer Hale, Keith David, Martin Sheen, Ali Hillis, and Seth Green.
But if Bioware wants to make a series dependent on narrative and storytelling, if the industry as a whole wishes to take gaming to a more cinematic level, then the series needs to be held to the same narrative standards that other media are held to.
Now, if only they stuck to their other promise of making a Space Opera instead of turning it into military sci-fi… but that’s a complaint for another post.
Warning: Spoilers ahead. This is not a review; it’s an analysis. Therefore, I highly recommend that you finish UNCHARTED 3: Drake’s Deception before proceeding.
There is a moment in UNCHARTED 3: Drake’s Deception, the third installment of developer Naughty Dog’s highly successful UNCHARTED franchise, where I had to put the controller down and stop… really stop… and realize the magnitude of what I had just witnessed.
After an (amazing) action set-piece which saw Nathan Drake (portrayed by Nolan North) fight his way through a sinking cruise-ship full of pirates, the game shifts over to a quiet scene of Drake’s estranged love interest Elena Fisher (Emily Rose) in her apartment. As she goes over her plans to rescue a kidnapped Victor Sullivan (Richard McGonagle), Nate bursts in, and all the tension that had existed between them evaporated.
And as she invited him to rest for a few hours, he lay his head on her lap, took her hand in his, stared at her wedding ring (he wasn’t wearing his) and whispered “I’m sorry.”
She, in turn, patted him affectionately, and said “I know.” In her eyes, in her voice, the weight of months—if not years—of regrets and ghosts filtered out from the screen.
My mind flashed to prior scenes involving the two. I remembered their reunion scene where Drake’s shock at her still wearing her ring raised questions. I thought back to a revealing scene in a dusty chamber where she implies that she has grown and is no longer the desperate adrenaline thrill-seeker she once was… and in her expression lies the hope that he would do the same.
That led me to harken back to the first game, where, given an opportunity to escape, Elena actually dove deeper into trouble and Drake had to rescue her. And I thought back to the end of UNCHARTED 2, where Elena actually came so close to death that it spurred Drake to finally admit his love for her.
What happened between then and now? Did Drake walk out on her because she grew up and he didn’t? Or did he do it because he knew that his journey wasn’t finished, that if she stuck with him he could potentially lose her forever? Did he even know why?
As Elena closed her eyes, Drake’s head gently resting on her lap, I put the controller down and realized just what Naughty Dog had achieved with this game, and indeed with the series as a whole.
Across the internet, the game is getting perfect score after perfect score with reviewers praising just about everything that deserves praise. But there is a small segment of the online community wondering if this game is just giving us more of the same; content to rest on its laurels and not innovate.
We can question the validity of the complaints from a gameplay point of view, but I’m not interested in doing so. In my opinion, rather than just stay stuck in a rut, UNCHARTED 3 marks the moment where Naughty Dog has finally given us the missing key ingredient in furthering the advancement of storytelling in gaming.
One could also argue over the quality of the specifics of the plot itself. Was it too episodic? Were the villains well developed enough? Were there too many plot holes? Were the plot holes even plot holes, or subtle implied storytelling that asked players to apply a bit of thought to clue presented to them?
I have my own opinions on the plot of the game, and I do have some problems with certain plot elements, but they are not the point of this analysis. Suffice it to say, I applaud Naughty Dog and creative director Amy Hennig for doing something a lot of games don’t: not spoon-feeding the players and actually asking them to apply a bit of rudimentary literary thinking and analysis without slapping them in the face with melodrama.
No, the overriding element that stuck with me about this game was the strength and depth of the characters.
Here, before me, were two of the three most fully realized characters in the medium. At the end of the game, the pair is rejoined by the third, Drake’s mentor and father figure Victor Sullivan.
Through this trio, UNCHARTED 3 gave us a video game that examined the core of humanity that exists in the relationships we have with one another. In that, it borrows from its celluloid and prose brethren extremely well and gives videogames a new way of dealing with that subject matter.
The best stories connect with us, the readers or the viewers, by presenting characters distinct from us undergoing transformation in the context of a story that utilize themes and relationships we can relate to. UNCHARTED 3, indeed the series as a whole, does this in a way few games can.
Now, I don’t want to turn this into a “this game versus that” juvenile slugfest, but when examining growth in a medium, comparisons are inevitable.
Mind, storytelling in videogames is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, many a great story has been told throughout gaming’s history, including such gems as Gabriel Knight and The Longest Journey.
This latest generation has seen some incredible stories told as well, from Bioshock to Mass Effect. I am a fan of both franchises; I’m looking forward to Bioshock Infinite and have already pre-ordered my copy of Mass Effect 3. I’m going to be one of the first people in line to buy the third chapter in Bioware’s magnum opus and am excited to see where it leads my Commander Shepherd.
The storytelling in both franchises differ completely from one another, and indeed from UNCHARTED as well. Mass Effect is an epic sci-fi RPG that invites you to create a character of your own imprint while adhering to some strict choices made available to you. Whether you are an earth-born lone survivor or an all conquering space-born hero, you are Commander Shepherd, a human tasked with defending the galaxy from evil. The stakes are big, with the survival of several alien races directly in your control.
In addition, Bioware gives you a chance to make a direct impact on conversations, which then affect the relationships Shepherd has with those around him (or her). Are you a jackass when dealing with Turians? Do you have similar racist tendencies to Ashley Williams? Are you a paragon? A renegade?
Choices. That is what most of the character gameplay in Mass Effect boils down to. At the end of each game, you end up with a Commander Shepherd of your own making, ready to take on whatever the galaxy throws your way.
But your Shepherd isn’t my Shepherd. And my Shepherd isn’t anybody else’s either.
The illusion of choice that wide-open RPG’s like Mass Effect, Fallout, and Elder Scrolls gives players is a core conceit of their design and makes them excellent games. But the end result of having so many personal decisions effect so many different outcomes is that you never once feel like the characters in those games are real. Oh, your Shepherd is real to you and mine is to me, sure, but that reality doesn’t extend past the boundaries of your own consciousness and your save game file.
Similarly, the same condition exists in the cases of the supporting characters in these games, as the choices you make affect them too. One of the brilliant gameplay conceits Mass Effect employs in its second installment is the loyalty system. Basically, if you manage to fully make your party members loyal to you, they survive the massive end battle. This means that if you want so-and-so to live, better make sure you finished their loyalty mission. If you didn’t, just reload a previous save file and do it.
What this does is that it, as well as other small choices such as whom to have a relationship with, adds a certain replayability factor to the game which allows you to have other paths to explore.
What it also does is reduce the NPC’s to elements of gameplay mechanics, rather than full realized characters in their own right.
UNCHARTED makes a different choice. Rather than providing players with a way to affect the characters’ destinies, Naughty Dog ensures that Nathan Drake always chose Elena Fisher over Chloe Frazier… and always proceeded to leave her behind when his obsession with adventure got the better of him.
And, once he found the answer he was looking for, he always went back to her, enabled by the sentimentality of Victor Sullivan.
Some players may be frustrated by the lack of impactful choice in the UNCHARTED series, but I’m not one of them. I think that by limiting the player’s impact to “playing” Drake through the story rather than shaping the story in some other way, it allows Naughty Dog to tell a narrative in a way that permits literary analysis in a way other games do not.
Through the hard work of the animators, designers, Amy Hennig (creative director at Naughty Dog), the actors, and many more dedicated individuals, Nathan Drake, Elena Fisher, and Victor Sullivan leap off the screen as fully realized persisting characters who exist in the general public’s collective consciousness. Like Indiana Jones or Eddard Stark in George RR Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones on HBO) series, these characters are stuck with the choices they made and can be judged and analyzed endlessly for having done them.
In Martin’s epic fantasy masterpiece, Eddard Stark is a man caught between doing right by his king and by his family. When his king asks too much of him, Stark is sent into this introspective choice of choosing between what is right as a family man, and what is right as the loyal servant of the king. The story presents him as a man who knows exactly what kind of harm will befall him once he makes that choice, but his honor will not allow him to do otherwise.
The lessons we learn about him because of who he is and what was done to him allows us to vicariously live through the circumstances surrounding him and then examine ourselves and how we feel about his actions. Would we do the same things he did? Would we choose another way? His exact set of circumstances trapped him, and although we feel we might choose differently, we cannot help but respect him for what he chose.
The themes and lessons presented in literature and films are mirrors for us and our society. They present us with people making irreversible choices and cajole us into judging or sympathizing with them, into analyzing and learning from them. The irrevocable nature of choices such as Thelma and Louise’s liberating fall or Indiana Jones’ decision to let the Holy Grail go drive home the lessons they teach and remain poignant and memorable because they cannot be undone.
UNCHARTED is the first game franchise that allows us to apply a literary or cinematic analysis to the medium in that way because of its rigid structure and real characters. Through Drake’s actions, we can ask questions like “What makes a man so obsessed with finding answers that he would risk his only father figure and the best relationship that could ever happen to him?”
The mileage of the effectiveness of the answer, as with people’s preferences with movies, may vary per player. But what is impressive is that the question is asked at all.
In Mass Effect or Fallout, I can cheat on my girlfriend who thinks I’m dead (or not) and destroy a small community by detonating a dormant nuclear bomb (or not). And if I don’t like the outcome, I can always reload or do another playthrough and change all of my decisions until I find the outcome I like.
Again, that makes for valid and interesting gameplay. But because the power of the choices is negated by the fact that I can change anything I don’t agree with, I posit that it limits the power of the storytelling in a way that UNCHARTED doesn’t.
This is why you see in message boards post after post talking about whether Sully should have died or whether Chloe and Cutter should have featured more or whether Elena left Drake or the other way around.
By giving us limited choice, Naughty Dog made these characters real. By giving us thrilling gameplay mixed with a fast-paced plot, Naughty Dog made these characters vibrant. And by casting actors at the top of their craft and directing them with passion, Naughty Dog made our collective consciousness care for these characters in a way that Mass Effect or Fallout can’t do with their player-generated ciphers.
The UNCHARTED series makes you feel like you’re playing a movie populated with real characters whereas RPG’s or shooters never let you forget you’re playing a game. In a similar way, the series has an advantage over other genres that restrict player choice like point-and-click adventures. Those games have well realized characters and strict plotlines, but because of the segmented nature of its gameplay, you never forget you’re playing a game.
Naughty Dog has mastered the art of blending gameplay and cinematics in a way those games never did. Add to that the technical brilliance they employ (Nathan Drake physically reacts to the environment in subtle realistic ways), the wonderful performances by the cast, and the superb job by the animators.
And by avoiding mini-games, broken mechanics, customization, and other “game-y” devices, UNCHARTED keeps the focus firmly on story and character. This is an important factor in this argument. For example, Assassin’s Creed, another big budget franchise doing interesting things with storytelling, has a main overarching plot and it’s an interesting one. But, while they blaze their own trail, their story is nowhere near as focused because it does shoehorn in some distracting sidequests. Fun times, for sure, but it still reminds you that you are in very much a gaming milieu.
Harking back to the story criticisms alluded to earlier in this piece, I would actually argue that they are a sign that UNCHARTED and Naughty Dog are doing something right. For too long, we have seen reviews constantly speaking of stories in games as “well written… for a video game”. We don’t, for example, dock review points from a game like Mass Effect 2 for giving us an epic story fraught with pressure… and then allowing us to essentially meander around the galaxy mining for minerals or resolving familial frictions for your henchmen.
And we’ve also seen so many reviews speaking of the characters in as “well crafted… for a video game”, and thinking there’s nothing wrong with that. Fair enough, considering that the point of those games is to offer players more choices rather than focusing on a story.
But UNCHARTED has shown that one can critique a video game for its story and characters without having to add the cautionary “…for a video game” label. The polish that Naughty Dog applies to its franchise, and the fact that we’re arguing over whether or not certain heroes should have done certain things, or about the meanings behind iconic symbolisms or, something rare in video games, subtext, shows that we can analyze game narratives the way we do for film, television, comics, and novels.
Now, some would argue: “Why play a movie when I can watch it?”
The answer lies in the brilliance of the central conceit behind UNCHARTED. By allowing you agency over Drake without making you ever BE Drake, the games give you a connection to the character different from that you when you watch a movie. The silver screen acts as a barrier… putting a controller in your hand bridges that gap, thereby giving a completely different experience.
To that end, I’d also like to address some gamers’ harping on its replayability. For me, gaming is an experience, whether the game in question is a 60-hour open ended game with billions of choices or a tight 10-hour narrative that gives you the exact same thing everytime. So for me, the question is always, “Do I want to relive that experience?” rather than “Do I want to replay that?”
In the case of, say Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls games, I want to relive the experience of either beating the system or customizing my character in different ways. I want to relive the thrill of making choices and seeing what they lead to.
In the case of UNCHARTED games, I look at it like books or movies. I own hundreds of DVD’s, Blu-Ray’s and thousands of books. I own them, rather than rent them, because they are experiences I want to re-live over and over again.
Sometimes it’s a simple matter of wanting to experience the story again. Sometimes I want to delve deeper, to see if I learn anything new from a craft or literary perspective. And sometimes, I just want to experience that cathartic burst of emotion when Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman finally meet again as free men, free friends, at the end of The Shawshank Redemption.
With UNCHARTED, it’s all of the above. I like the stories enough to relive them, I love hanging out with the characters and want to hear their jokes again, and I love that wonderful feeling at the end of UNCHARTED 2 when Elena tries to convince Drake that the scariest moment in his life was when he thought she was dead. And he counters with clowns.
The series is eminently replayable, for me, because I can relive those experiences over and over again. This is why I find it odd that some people complain about it considering these same people probably have DVD’s they watch over and over again sitting on their shelves.
These games are just as replayable as those 100-hour epic games that offer infinite choices.
I’m not promoting one style of gaming over the other or saying that two styles cannot coexist. In fact, I’m saying that gamers should rejoice that we even have the choice between playing open-world RPG’s, first person shooters, or cinematic adventures that create living breathing characters. After all, at the cinemas you’re given a choice between Spielbergian adventure romps and Tarantino-inspired indie flicks, right?
In that sense, I believe that the otherwise valid review by Eurogamer, suggesting that UNCHARTED 3 isn’t innovative or different enough is not looking deep enough. By giving us characters we care for, characters that exist independent of the choices we make, the UNCHARTED series gives gaming an evolutionary jolt that I hope more developers pick up on.
In my case, as I pick up the controller again to play through the first UNCHARTED game for the 5th time, I prepare myself to look for the clues to Drake’s character in this first installment and determine if Elena could have seen what was coming a mile away. And I hope that, wherever they are, Nate and Elena have resolved their issues once and for all and will name their first kid after Sully.