Monday, 23 March 2015

The Glories of Monster Rancher

My girlfriend and I have a terrible secret that I am prepared to share with the world. Think of this as a Wonderings Exclusive.

We're both big fans of the old Monster Rancher game.

As a youngster I was first acquainted with the brand through the anime. You remember it right? It was the one with the weird yellow eye with a tail and mouth. And a villain whose name probably made a lot more sense in Japanese.

Evil Moo, in all of his presumably-bovine glory
If I was a pedant, which I absolutely am, I would point out that this game is actually Monster Rancher 2. The ol' "not releasing a game in the West" trick those wacky Japanese love to pull. Them lovable mischief makers.

The artist formally known as 2 is a monster raising game of the "nurturing" sort, as I like to call it. Unlike your collect-athons - the Pokemons and Dragon Warrior Monsters of the world - Monster Rancher revolves around taking a monster and taking a lot of time and effort raising only one monster at a time. It combines the visceral action of battle with the heady thrills of parenthood.

So you have a monster. You feed the monster. You train the monster. You force it to fight in tournaments, even if it doesn't want to, because food doesn't buy itself dammit, and you want a nicer house. Then, upsettingly, one day it dies.

The beauty of the game is that the raising of the monster is a time consuming process that involves difficult decisions. It asks you to balance the well being of the monster with the need to push it hard enough that it becomes a killing machine of any worth, as such you form a fairly specific relationship with each monster. After a while it seems like they have their own personality.

The really unique part of the game is your ability to create monsters from whatever miscellaneous disk you have lying around your house. Being as well acquainted with the rich Monster Rancher lore, which I am sure you are, you'll remember that monsters could be extracted from ancient stone discs. The game allows you to take out the monster rancher disc and put in a CD or a non-DVD computer game or Playstation game, and then converts that into a monster. It adds an exploration element that can be fun and surprising. It can also be highly tedious too.

There's a surprisingly low level of cuteness in the game. The series mascot, Suezo, looks like a piece of Cronenbrug body horror that has been re-imagined by a crayon wielding five-year old. I suspect that Pikachu's job is safe for the moment. Maybe this is why it's but a dim 90s memory next to the continuing behemoth that is Pokemon, but I know which one I would choose.

Today in Football - 23/03/15

Greg Dyke has warned Premier League football is in danger of "having nothing to do with English people" as new proposals to limit the number of non-EU players are outlined by English football's governing body.

Having emerged ruddy-faced from Nigel Farage's local pub following a conference with an "adviser who would remain nameless", Dyke  also revealed plans to toughen the rules on home-grown talent in the latest proposals from its commission, which was set up in 2013 to improve the England team.

The Dyke-Farage commission has also proposed changes to work permit rules having highlighted flaws in the system.
The stricter work-permit rules, approved by the Home Office on Friday, will come into force from 1 May.
Under the proposals outlined by the FA on Monday:
  • A player will have to have been registered with his club from birth - down from 18 - to qualify as 'home-grown'.
  • The minimum number of home-grown players in a club's first-team squad of 25 will increase from eight to 25, phased over four years from 2016.
  • At least two home-grown players must also be 'club-trained' players - defined as any player, irrespective of nationality, that has been registered for three years at their club from the age of 15.
  • Only the best non-EU foreign players will be granted permission to play in England.
"We have to do this by negotiation with the different leagues and with the clubs - we have to convince them that this makes sense for English football," said Dyke, "English players for English jobs.
"And we are helped by Harry Kane in truth - we are helped by seeing a young kid come into the Spurs team and become the top scorer in English football. If he was Spanish, or maybe Welsh, people would already be saying he is better than Messi and Ronaldo combined!
"How many other Harry Kanes are around in the youth teams of Premier League clubs? It was almost by chance that Tim Sherwood became manager at Tottenham for a time and put him in the side - otherwise he would still be out on loan at Millwall or some other shitty backwater no mark."

Sunday, 22 March 2015

Today in football - 22/03/15

Former Manchester United manager has described this season's Premier League as the "poorest he has seen "in a long time".

"Maybe we have talked up the Premier League more than we should," the 51-year-old Scot told BBC Radio 5 live. Sky, The BBC and pundits across the land have reacted with confusion, dismay and anger.

When found for comment, Sean Dyche was seen roaring from the roof of Turf Moor as a plane carrying Danny Ings receded into the Spanish sunset, a mixture of rage and sorrow palpable in his gravelly voice.

"So if we're to believe Moyes," reasoned one confused member of the public, "then there's no best league in the world. Which only makes sense if there are no leagues in the world, and that's bollocks."

Another member of the public added that he'd seen Scottish football before and not only did it exist, but it was worse than the Hindenburg Disaster.

Currently a petition is gaining momentum for Moyes' citizenship of the UK to be revoked. 

Moyes added that it is no shame to fail in a league as poor as that, and its qualities may be drastically improved by hiring a solid and experienced Scottish manager who would be doing just as well as that Dutch cunt if he had had as much money to spend.

Friday, 20 March 2015

UoL vs FNC

If you're a fan of LoL in any capacity you owe it to yourself to watch this.


Tuesday, 17 March 2015

Amateur Hour

I’m a big fan of Fresh Meat. It’d not been something I’d taken to initially, the characters and their initial conflicts just seemed too spiky dislikeable to hook me in. At the urging of a friend I picked it up again and before long found myself being drawn into the lives of those six students, and their increasingly ridiculous personal lives.

Having finished season three, I spent a lot of time telling everyone that not only is the story a great one, but the fundamental principal behind it is an important writing lesson. Fresh Meat works because all of the main characters are, as human being, fundamentally shit. Their bad choices caused by self-absorption, naivety, immaturity and emotional cowardice create the situations that evoke laughs and, more importantly, drive the plot forward. They are defined not by their positive traits, but by their negative ones.

This is, I think, one of the key aspects of good characterisation and engaging conflicts. Characters have to be driven and defined by their flaws – and beyond that, their flaws have to be an active part of the obstacles they face and the conflicts they are embroiled in. To be engaging, a character needs to have agency in a story, and for it to be compelling the agency has to be exercised primarily by the character’s negative traits.

So the BBC Writersroom comedy window is open, and I’m beavering away on a script that is probably too wacky to make the cut. In my continual hoovering up of advice and the such I come across this. Andrew Ellard, a noted and experienced script editor with BBC, giving very good advice for the people looking to enter a script into the Writersroom. His message is loud and clear: no passive protagonists, laughs are derived from a character’s flaws.

Thing is, this script I’m writing on? Protagonist is passive as fuck. He’s spent about twenty pages at this point just saying “what?” I’d rabbited on about characters being defined by their flaws, then created a character whose flaws, or even his good attributes, don’t play an active part in the story at all.

But I guess that is the line between a good writer and a bad one – it is all well and good recognising good practises, being able to spot it, but actually implementing it in your writing is a totally different thing.


Today, I fall on one-side of the good/bad dividing line. Hopefully tomorrow I’ll be on the other side.

Friday, 19 September 2014

Things I want to like - RWBY, Pt. 2


The Magical School

From the moment Ruby rocks up at Beacon Academy it is clear that we are dealing with a magical school drama. The narrative job is this setting is to create both a magical and mysterious world routed soundly in a relateable coming-of-age story. We get an idealised high school experience to live out like a childhood we never had, and a magical world to explore.

The eponymous example, of course, is Harry Potter, and one of the weirder things that I took away from RWBY is just how many things that JK Rowling did well. Let me break it down for you:
  • Visually, both Beacon Academy and the surrounding area are bland. Compare to Hogwarts:


  • In connection, with the last point Beacon Academy more generally lacks character in other ways. Whilst Hogwarts makes it clear what the structure of the school is, Beacon Academy is way fuzzier.
    • Hogwarts has a house system and each class is dedicated to different parts of wizarding as a practise or the wizarding society. There are older years and lots of different pupils and a sense of scale. It feels like it has proper structure. It's a place where people could function like normal human beings, but it's also steeped in all the things that make it a fantastical and mysterious place to us.
    • Beacon Academy suffers somewhat for the lack of structure of the world around them - as discussed earlier, the world outside of Beacon lacks definition and the relationship it has with Dust and Hunters are is very ambiguous. The internal culture of Beacon is similarly lacking. 
  • School, surely, equals coming of age drama. This further reinforces what was said in part one.

En-Media-Res

If there’s one crime of narrative that really needlessly makes a story or character boring, it’s poorly chosen en-media-res. For many of the most important character points in RWBY, we only learn about character flaws or conflicts when their particular storylines are ready to be resolved.

It’s based on the idea that you can pull the rug from under the audience’s feet, the idea that a revelation can force you to re-evaluate a character that you had already made an opinion about. This is done with a little more consideration, as will be discussed in the next section, with Jaune, but it’s also used in the final storyline with both Blake and Weiss.

The problem is most specifically demonstrated with Blake – before the “revelation” – was that she was ostensensibly a one note character. She was withdrawn and quiet. That was more or less all we had seen of her so far, a minor conflict with the very loud and outgoing Yang aside. When the series finale rolls around, it is revealed that Blake has links to the evil terrorist group – she is, in fact, the same species that the terrorist group is standing up for.

(Whether or not this was a twist is unclear – it’s played off like one, but at the same time it is something that I had already assumed was the case. Were we meant to know to begin with? It’s unclear.)

Blake’s quietness is more interesting in the context of a tragic backstory – and as such it weakens her character for us not to know this from the start. She has no conflict, she’s not going anywhere characterisation-wise: if the twist itself really has no impact as a twist (it only really has impact if it somehow contradicts our impression pre-twist) all that has been achieved is that the story has been hidden from us really.

Character conflict solved offscreen

In the finale, the major conflict between Weiss and Blake is resolved because Weiss thought about it whilst not on-screen. Not really sure I need to say anything else about that really.

Jaune: the Actual Protagonist

Jaune is the main male presence in the series, and a counterpoint to Ruby. What makes him such a destabilising presence for the series at large is the fact that he matches the bildungsroman structure so well. He's the only character with flaws, and he's surrounded by women like he's in a harem anime. He's appointed a leader without heroic qualities, yet that actually becomes the one decent point of character conflict in series one.

The crux of his development comes later on in the series, when it is revealed that Jaune failed his test to get into the school. He really isn't there on merit, but rather he has to earn his merit through team work and effort. This is a character arc, and this is good characterisation. What's more, Jaune's secret is revealed to a bully who then forces him to act in a manner that forces him to work against his friends.

In the end Jaune overcomes those difficulties and ends up rising above what the bully did to him - his development comes a bit early, maybe, but it is far more than any of the other characters get. And, to be honest, it feels weird that we're talking about a show advertised to be about women kicking ass, yet it is the one major male character who really ends up feeling like the real character.

Format Limitations

The short length of each episode does to a certain extent hamstring the narrative - on this point I have to sympathise with the writers - so they have to communicate characterisation, conflict and resolution in as economical a way as possible. The writers themselves seem to recognise and structure their episodes accordingly - necessary, but ultimately maybe suggests that the episodic and multi-char focus really isn't suitable for what the series is trying to achieve. Starting with a smaller cast (maybe of four?) and making one series a continuous story line might have made more sense.

Pedantry Really

Why do they pronounce Weiss, a German name, with a soft ‘w’? It should be more akin to ‘v’. This just doesn’t stop bothering me. 

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Dr Who - Into the Dalek



Do you guys remember Dalek? That one with Ecclestone and the lone Dalek taken prisoner? Apparently, the Who guys remember it too, and in a move that sort of harkens back to it have decided to construct a sort of Capaldi-era version of it.

In a quest to fix a broken Dalek and discover what kind of man the Doctor is now, Clara and the new 1st (do we call him that now?) go inside a Dalek that has been captured by besieged soldiers.

Show/tell

Before that, however, we got to meet our secondary companion for the episode - a minor character who would, like many before, end up as failures in their attempts to be companions. We first meet her as she screams at her clearly dead shipmate not to die, whilst being chased by a Dalek craft. As the Daleks seem to have her dead, she is saved at the last minute by the Doctor.

As we get a little look at the Doctor and her first little interaction - and, again it all seems kind of awkward. The woman screams about how she has lost her brother and tries to hijack the TARDIS - unsuccessfully of course.

This first meeting really demonstrates well why her character plain doesn't work - why almost all of the character beats of this episode, in fact, do not work. We're told to sympathise with her, we're told about her character through dialogue. It's on a hiding to nothing, since we never really saw her with her dead brother and was never given a reason to care about their relationship. Yet we're meant to care, because she has went through loss and she's showing her qualities as a character by being generally shouty and dislikeable. Worse, her portrayal never particularly improves either, so we end up not really caring when the Doctor eventually knocks her back.

Really, all of the side characters are badly handled here. Rusty, our intrepid broken dalek and the closest the story gets, is mainly characterised through an extended monologue whilst the characters all stand around listening. Again, we should care because the dialogue tells us we should, not because the characters actions or the context of the plot makes us engage with them in any real way.

Thematic Throughline

The two main characters, Clara and Big Ol' Caps, have something of a better defined character journey through the episode. Of course, they have a better base to build from, but it's still appreciated.

Unfortunately, this whole show/tell problem is just as evident here. At the start of the episode the Doctor sits Clara down, turns to her and asks her "Am I a good man?" It's a bit too explicit. It's way too explicit. What's worse, is that how explicit it is seems to be used in place of actually using the plot to demonstrate it much of the time. There's a lot of talk about experiences and memories in the latter part, in the connection with the dalek's mind and the Doctor's. At the end, we seem to get an answer to the question - but instead of being demonstrated by the plot, it relies on a flimsy paralleling.

Worse than Clara's though. At the key moment realisation, when the Doctor needs to learn something, she wades in. "I'm a teacher," she says, "I teach." As if trying to convince herself that was her character arc all along. I'm pretty sure even she isn't convinced, although efforts to make her relevant to proceedings, no matter how late, are welcome.

The key to the Doctor's arc, the question asked at the beginning, is the dalek. The not-good dalek, the broken dalek. When asked what a good dalek, Rusty replies "you're a good dalek." Because that's the point of the episode - characterising the Doctor by drawing parallels between him and his most hate enemy, the daleks. Just like the episode Dalek.

Shades of Dalek

The problem with this very obvious similarity is that it sets up the episode to be compared very directly to Dalek. Both have the same thematic throughline, and both look to take on a raw, somewhat edgy Doctor and confront them with an uncomfortable truth about themselves. Such are the parallels between both episodes that it feel like it was probably on purpose.

The problem is that Dalek is a far superior episode to Into the Dalek. Okay the dialogue isn't as sharp, it doesn't look as good and it's not as inventive, but the core story is told just so much better. The lone dalek's actions and Nine's actions both speak for themselves during the episode, the ideas are much better communicated and have more substance. There's a real sense of tragedy to proceedings, and the switch up that happens is all the more shocking for it. The dalek, although not given a cheeky nickname, feels like it has much more character and power. As such, watching the new episode, it is difficult to escape the feeling that we've seen this done better elsewhere.

Still, wasn't all bad.

What I liked

This was a good looking, ambitious episode, well directed and creative. It had ideas in it, and on paper was quite an interesting premise. Never be let it said that I don't appreciate a story that gives me a lot to chew on, even if it doesn't quite manage to convey those ideas well.

The best thing, and the thing I always like when Doctor Who rarely does it, is that it felt a bit like a quest. This was a physical journey as well as an emotional one, where we got to see new places and characters overcome obstacles that stopped them getting to a goal - always a solid way of creating conflict, which tends to be hard to get wrong. Some of my favourite stories (The Impossible Planet, Asylum of the Daleks, etc) feel like quests, and this episode definitely benefited from a similar vibe.

The dialogue sparkled. A lot of the interchanges between Clara and the Doctor was funny, sharp and conveyed a great rapport. Whatever else the episode was, it was eminently quotable.

Also, as a part of the continuous dalek lore that New Who has been building up, I felt that this is a pretty decent addition on that front - the idea that a "good" dalek is just one who is broken was good, although the memory bank bit doesn't quite fit as a part of the make-up of daleks with me for some reason.

Clara and Danny

Slowing down the pace of the episode, and cluttering up the time line, we also had our introduction to Danny Pink. It was just about as literally tacked on as you could get. Tonally it was nice, and it sold the characters far better than the rest of the episode, but it just felt so peripheral to the actual thing that it kinda felt a bit boring. Plus the romance seems a bit forced - it's not given any time to grow before it is already being toyed with. Still, look forward to Mr Pink being actually involved in an episode.

Does feel like the tone, especially set in the between-adventure segments with Clara are an interesting counterpoint to the childish, fairy tale tone of Eleven's days. There's definitely a slightly older tone going on, a young adult to the childishness of Eleven.