opinion

Escaping Spectre: Daniel Craig’s swansong

Despite not having the consistency of Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible series or the anarchic freedom of the Kingsman movies, James Bond remains king of the spies as far as box office and public adoration is concerned. It’s the film equivalent of Doctor Who: a series that survives through adaptation and regeneration. Yet whilst current talk of Bond largely centres on who *might* be the next lead, it feels important to take stock of what we have now.

Idris Elba was born to play Bond: he’s the necessary mix of imposing action star and charming romantic lead that these films cry out for. Yet Elba’s (possibly imminent but protracted) casting does ignore that Daniel Craig has one film left, and for my money he’s the best actor to ever hold the license. It’s therefore unfortunate that his movies have been so hit and miss (varying from all-timers in Casino Royale to lifeless duds in Spectre) as Craig is consistently excellent in the role – similar enough to his predecessors to remind us why we like James whilst cultivating his own space that shows us why we should keep watching new instalments. His Bond is a puppy with a pistol, the (now overused) archetypal flawed hero with the build of a boxer and the eyes of a scared child. Yet he’s often been a character in search of a story – having dipped into The Dark Knight re-treads with Skyfall and Roger Moore revivals in Spectre, Craig’s last film will need to stop chasing identities and craft one of its own: a task originally given to chameleon director Danny Boyle, yet he stepped away from the project over creative differences.

“…A SERIES THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE ATTEMPTING TO GET AS FAR AWAY FROM THE ISSUES OF BOTH THE BOOKS AND EARLY MOVIES AS POSSIBLE”

Such differences should be expected: the powers that be know that this film should both celebrate Craig and craft a baton to pass (Craig is a noted producer and was mentioned in the press release for Boyle’s departure, so his sway over the film seems significant). Yet how do you balance a respectful goodbye with excitement for the future? It seems likely that the Bond of the future will be heavily influenced by #MeToo and the societal changes bought by unquestioned patriotism, which can only be a good thing for a series that should probably be attempting to get as far from the issues of both the books and the early movies as possible. The film many fans hope will be emulated is Logan, Hugh Jackman’s R-Rated swansong to his Wolverine, and the appeal is obvious: an emotional no-holds-barred definitive end to a character would feel like a spiritual resolution to Skyfall and a good bookend to Casino Royale. Perhaps this is ambitious for a series that’s avoided definitive in almost all measures (which is why it survives despite maybe half of the entries being any good: it’s hard to maintain disdain when the thing you disdain keeps changing) – yet the Bond of the future will take time to settle, and whomever Boyle’s replacement is could utilise their opportunity to smooth the passage.

Craig’s Bond has fallen in love, has dealt with personal demons, has lost his most trusted ally – what’s to say that he can’t atone for actions of the past and deconstruct the toxic British culture that makes his existence possible, and the idea of a black Bond so difficult for many? In Skyfall, Bond’s abilities were questioned. In Spectre, it was his intentions. In Bond 25, could it not be his existence? What service does James Bond have in 21^st century Britain, and to whom does he belong? How can he survive in this world, and why should we want him to? It is a difficult task, but it’s in capable hands, and my fingers are crossed that the sign-off Craig deserves will allow Elba to start from the best possible place: anticipation.

What does diversity mean to comedy?

Ultimately, diversity is an essential element in all walks of life. In government, CEOs of corporations, lawyers, in music, and even in comedy. Everyone deserves to be able to have someone to relate to, and generally have representation. However, what is possibly more important is how this is carried out. A lot of the time in media, it can be painfully obvious when producers or casting directors have stuck the classic ‘token black guy’ (and other variations of this be it any person of colour, a disabled person and so on). Especially in comedy, this can be extremely cringey and awkward for the audience when the reasons for their casting are so obvious. A lot of the time, jokes to do with their race or whatever that makes them ‘different’ to their probably white-cis-straight counterparts are rarely in their favour.

However, there are some TV shows at the moment which are able to encompass comedy and representation, creating good quality and important television. For example, Orange Is the New Black has one of the most diverse casts I’ve ever seen. Granted, the fact that it’s about women in a New York prison meant they didn’t have much room to not be diverse but it’s how the characters are crafted, and how funny they all equally are. Futhermore, their backstories are all given fairly similiar attention, as well as their continued dedicated storylines. And for all those ‘politically correct people are taking it too far’ losers, the show is very happy to make jokes about race and class; but it’s done with integrity and spoken by the characters of that race and that class. They are able to take the piss out of themselves without being intentionally inappropriate in their comedy. I think a key part of this is who is writing these jokes. The Orange Is the New Black writers (although not perfect), are not just white guys; there are an equal amount of men and women, ranging in ethnicities – aka representation, aka people who know what they’re talking about when it comes to these issues. Comedy doesn’t have to be about dragging other people down or making light of serious issues in order to make people laugh. I believe true comedy doesn’t need that tactic.

“I didn’t expect much of the FRIENDS producers given the time it was made. FRIENDS is a hilarious show, but there is no diversity”

Of course, I am no angel. Shows that I have loved for many years have had their problems. For example, FRIENDS had pretty much no black characters until season 9, and Charlie only got a few episodes. Contextually though, it was the 90’s and diversity and a range of people in sitcoms wasn’t really a thing. It’s still not great, but I didn’t expect much of the FRIENDS producers given the time it was made. FRIENDS is a hilarious show, but there is no diversity. But, I am a white-cis-straight person, so it is easy for me to forget that shows like FRIENDS may be quite frustrating for others.

Another show worth discussing is Little Britain, which is probably the most ridiculous, boundary-pushing show I’ve ever seen. It is full of stereotypes and makes a mockery out of so many people. But, I’m not going to lie about it, it has made me laugh lots of times. The character who lets her adult son breastfeed from her IS funny. And even the woman who throws up everytime she eats something made by someone not white-cis-straight is funny. It’s crude and wrong, but it did make me laugh. Which of course, is an example of my privilege, but due to its record broadcast statistics, I’m not the only one. But – and this is a big but (haha) – the show simply would not survive today. It is genuinely offensive; this has been pointed out by one of the stars himself, noting that “Basically, I wouldn’t make that show now. It would upset people. We made a more cruel kind of comedy than I’d do now … Society has moved on a lot since then and my own views have evolved”. If they were to ever make a revival, the inclusion of all these diverse people on- and off-camera would give it the chance to be something truly wonderful.

The best example I can give of representational, but slightly crude humour is Key and Peele. If you have never seen their sketches, I urge you to find some on youtube immediately. Pretty much every single one makes me laugh out loud. They play a whole range of characters and touch on a range of issues, but as they are both men of colour, they do so in a way that is not cringey, but representational and actually funny! And of course, the infamous Get Out, another great work from Jordan Peele, which again has geniunely good comedy whilst touching on things that matter.

Comedy should be a form of relief for everyone involved; no one should have to sit down from a long day and filter out the Netflix shows that doesn’t have anyone that looks like them, or actively makes jokes against them. Comedy should be fun, and could become a key example to other forms of entertainment, or general life in how to do representation and diversity right.

Hunny, Tea and CG

Since the release of The Jungle Book in 2016, there seems to have been non-stop Walt Disney Studios live-action and CGI remakes, whether that’s with minimal-but-present story modernisation like 2017’s Beauty And The Beast or (going back a few years) a complete rethinking with Tim Burton’s Alice In Wonderland in 2010. This company-wide move has certainly divided opinion among fans and cynics alike.

One the one hand, it’s not hard to see the obvious criticisms. Mostly they boil down to the simplest of ideas: that these films have no real reason to exist. There’s frustration at the apparent laziness and lack of innovative ideas or new stories, in favour of a focus on CGI remakes that are, at least somewhat indisputably, a complete money grab – as studios attempt to bleed their already-successful franchises dry. There’s also the animation purists who shudder at the haunting nature of their beautiful, painstakingly line-drawn childhood favorites turned into these uncanny, almost-but-not-quite tangible beasts of the screen.

“it’s hard to deny just how impressive the use of CGI has become in creating this transitional space between live action and animation”

Maybe all this is true. Yet, every one these films have repeatedly become hit after hit at the box office; surely there must be some good in them? Many cannot help but have the CGI recreations garner that feeling of nostalgic wonder they hadn’t felt for a long time. I, for one, know hearing Pooh’s voice at the end of the first Christopher Robin teaser made me feel something heart-jerking at only two words – even if I wasn’t initially sold on the film itself, and its muted colour palette. And, even if you’re not sold, it’s hard to deny just how impressive the use of CGI has become in creating this transitional space between live action and animation. It becomes a tangible reality that makes it almost impossible to be unable to suspend your disbelief for the duration.

The major criticism, that these films are ruining box office originality in favour of the remake, is easily addressed. At least considering the Walt Disney Company internally, they are not. The company continues to make its (admittedly computer-animated, instead of traditional hand-drawn) animated films like Moana, original live-actions like A Wrinkle In Time and the upcoming Nutcracker, and even sequels like Mary Poppins Returns, at a faster rate than ever before. These remakes are most definitely running alongside original content, not replacing it.

If the CGI remakes ruin the whimsy of the original hand drawings for you, the good news is that your DVD collection is still there on the shelf for you to go back to any time. I get it, though. Do I wish and wish for more original stories? Absolutely. But am I going to march my self into the cinema for Christopher Robin’s opening weekend and in all likelihood cry for two hours straight? Absolutely. Maybe they’re just not for you. That’s okay too, but thousands of kids are accessing your favourite stories in a new way and enjoying it with their family members, creating a common connection of both discovery and nostalgia across generations. Hard to be mad at that one.

Exeter: A home from home

Where are you from? It’s one of those very standard, straightforward questions, like “What’s your name?” or “How old are you?” A question most people don’t really think twice about before they answer. Well. Most people, maybe. Not me. It’s a question that has always made me second-guess myself. I was born in Veliko Tarnovo, a small city in Bulgaria – the old capital, in fact. But I was raised in Sofi a and, except for the childhood holidays spent in my hometown, Sofi a was all I knew. So when someone asked me where I was from, I would say Veliko Tarnovo; but clarify that I had never actually lived there.

But then came the whole year abroad situation. Never in my life had the seemingly simple “Where are you from?” question been more complex.

Where I am from? Do you mean that as in my home country, or where my home university is? What’s higher education like in Bulgaria? What’s my course like back in Sofia? Well, funny you should ask that, actually… And then there was meeting British people doing Erasmus at the same university. There, I would say: “I’m from Exeter, I go to university in the UK, I’m not some random international person on an exchange, I’m one of you!” Well, kind of.

And don’t get me started on being scrutinised at Stansted when I visited the UK from Berlin. The border control lady very carefully inspected my Bulgarian ID, taking much longer than she had with the person in front of me. She flicked her gaze from me to my ID several times, then finally asked: “So, where do you actually live?” Bam. Another question that should be simple enough to answer but wasn’t. At that point, I lived in Berlin. I was due to move to Spain in two weeks’ time for the second part of my year abroad. And I was a full-time student in the UK. But where did I actually live? “In Bulgaria?” is what I finally said. “Ah.” More staring at me, then my ID, then me, then my ID. “So, like, are you going home now?”

“You know what, yes,” I felt like saying. “In fact, I am going home, because Exeter is very much home for me.” The UK does really feel like home to me, even though I won’t have an address in this country until September. “And you know what else, maybe you should, like, look at a map or something, because believe me, if I want to get to Sofi a from Berlin, rest assured that I won’t be flying from London.” Imagine if I had lashed out at her like that. I might have actually been held up at the airport. I said I was a student at a UK university, and she let me go. Not that she should have been quizzing me in the first place, as I do have an EU passport.

Exeter is where I found it easiest to make friends

Fortunately, that’s one isolated incident. I have never not felt welcome here. All my stereotypes about the UK were shattered in my first week at uni. The food stereotype? Rubbish. The reality? Pretty good. The weather stereotype? Constantly rainy and cold. The reality? Often much better than what I was used to in Bulgaria. And finally, the people. Stereotype? Very cold and reserved. Reality? Friendly, open, always up for a chat. Especially the last one; whoever came up with the British being cold and reserved must not have ventured to other places much! I can’t speak for everyone, but in my own personal experience – having spent time at universities in Berlin and in the south of Spain – Exeter is where I found it easiest to make friends.

Which brings me to our University’s national reputation of being a very white, middle-class place and being “hostile” to international students (in a bitchy-border-control-lady-at-Stansted kind of way). Let me tell you, I don’t know a single person, international or otherwise, who’ll find a grain of truth in that. I’ve had the most vibrant, incredible years of my life here – a place that has always made me feel like I belonged no matter what – and one part of the answer to “Where are you from?” will now forever be Exeter, where I learned how to be an adult (ish) and where I met some of the most important people in my life.

“Are you going home?”, however, is a question that really hits, well, home. Now, whether I’m flying to the UK or flying to Bulgaria, I always feel like I’m going home. I’m always home, and I’m always not home

Being a Fresher with an Invisible Illness

For most Exeter students that began their wild week of being a Fresher on September the 12^th, being nervous was quite a popular emotion. Being thrown into a flat full of people you have never met before whilst being expected to chug a dirty pint and do 3 shots of vodka every single night can be pretty daunting.

However, taking this giant leap of independence can seem even more overwhelming if you are doing all these things with an invisible illness. An invisible illness can be anything from anxiety to arthritis – it covers a whole range of disabilities and difficulties that cannot be seen at first glance.

the way I survived my first week of mayhem at Exeter was by being totally open and honest with my flatmates.

This brings about many problems for the sufferer, especially when meeting new people. I suffer from an invisible illness called Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome which causes chronic pain and fatigue along with many other symptoms that you can’t see. The thought of moving in with a group of people who have never heard of this illness loomed over me for the weeks before I became an official fresher. Worries about having to keep up with everyone else on nights out or going for walks around campus kept me awake at night, and I feel like many people embarking on this journey with a disability feel similarly.

For me personally, the way I survived my first week of mayhem at Exeter was by being totally open and honest with my flatmates. Luckily I have been placed with six caring and compassionate people who are always on hand to help – but I understand this isn’t always the case. Being open about your illness and attempting to raise awareness can be so beneficial in many ways. For example, if you suffer from social anxiety and you are on a night out with your flat, having someone who knows this makes it a lot easier to explain why you may need to leave early. Another positive aspect of being honest about your illness is that it means people will be more understanding towards others in the future. It may mean that someone will think twice about judging someone who gets out of their car after parking in a disabled bay and looking ‘normal’.

One of the most important things to remember as a fresher with an invisible illness is that you are not alone. There are many students around you who will have some form of health issue that you are unable to see. And one of the most important things to remember if you are a flatmate or friend of someone living with an invisible illness is that they are living with this every minute of every day so please be patient! Having to cancel plans or not being up for going out are usually because of legitimate reasons and usually leave the sufferer feeling very guilty.

Another positive aspect of being honest about your illness is that it means people will be more understanding towards others in the future.

Being a fresher has taught me so many things already and the support and love I have received from both the University and students has been overwhelming. Two years ago I never thought it would be possible for me to move out and live independently but now here I am and I am loving every minute of it. Yes there are times when I can’t get out of bed due to pain and it frustrates the hell out of me, but there are also times when I go to my lectures and feel inspired by what I am learning. Or times when I go on a night out and dance like crazy. Before I left for Uni someone told me that the most important thing to keep in mind when living with a chronic illness is that there is “no such thing as a typical university experience” and I have to remind myself of this often. University is your own experience to enjoy so don’t let anything get in your way and grab the opportunity with both hands!

Being a fresher has taught me so many things already and the support and love I have received from both the University and students has been overwhelming.

‘Proper Tasty’ and the fall of civilisation

I‘m under siege by food porn. Much as I’m loathe to use those words, there’s no other way to describe the videos of oozing cheese and dripping nutella invading my Facebook newsfeed. I love a hunk of garlic bread as much as the next student but this, my friends, is a dollop too much of the good stuff. The thought of people hunched over laptops salivating over ‘candy tacos’ keeps me awake at night. This is my invitation to you to join the resistance movement and save your appetite.

You must know the kind of videos I’m talking about. Companies like ‘Proper Tasty’ and ‘Twisted’ have millions of likes on Facebook, supplying their subscribers with a daily fix of melted cheese and unsolicited double cream. Perhaps you’ve already succumbed to their infectiously shareable content. I don’t blame you. The ‘tricolore ice cream cake’ and other innocent-sounding recipes are enough to entice the curious cook. They are also baited traps, luring unsuspecting foodies into witnessing the culinary abomination that is the ‘fajita trifle’ or the ‘nutella lasagna’. Tread with caution.

Buzzfeed has also jumped on the bandwagon, curating lists of monster milkshakes they claim will ‘give you a food boner’. I blame the cult of ‘Man v. Food’ for the rise of food as spectacle. I’ll put my hands up and confess I spent many a babysitting session watching Adam Richman chow down on seven-pound burritos. Having retired from the TV show, Richman has reportedly since turned vegan and lost 60lbs. I suggest it’s a clue that audiences’ morbid fascination with food is far from healthy.

Great food is about taste and texture, flavour combinations and flair. Civilisations the world over are accompanied by good seasoning. A cuisine is a cultural microcosm and, to me, these viral videos are nothing short of culinary barbarism. I like to think our appreciation of food is more than a Pavlovian response to plates of food through an Instagram filter.

Perhaps I’m a conservative of the cookery world. Call me a killjoy if you will. As defendants of ‘Tasty’ videos have pointed out, these videos often use relatively cheap ingredients in their recipes, making them quick and easy to prepare. Perhaps it’s more than just food porn. Maybe it’s injecting a bit of inspiration into the kitchens of those who are less well-off.

There is certainly a class dimension to healthy eating. Middle-class shoppers are quick to judge the diets of lower income households. They fail to realise that their holier-than-thou baskets of organically grown, local produce are a luxury. A healthy diet requires money, access to nutritional information, adequate cooking facilities, and time to prepare meals. Processed foods are often cheaper, higher in calories, and readily accessible. Those factors matter if you’re strapped for cash and lacking in time or energy.

Is that enough to redeem food virals? I think not. If they really cared about low-income households, nutritional information would factor as much as price. And after all, the ‘Tasty’ page describes its content as:

Food that’ll make you close your eyes, lean back, and whisper “yessss.” Snack-sized videos and recipes you’ll want to try.

If you ask me, that’s a company looking to titillate and offend your sense of common culinary decency for advertising profit.

So perhaps you’ll not join me up in arms against the ‘S’mOreo Ice-Box Cake‘. I’ll understand. But keep your guard up, or you could lose the next battle over a midnight snack to a viral video.

Assassin’s Creed – a new dawn for video-game movies?

The new Assassin’s Creed game-to-movie adaptation trailer has released, and it looks incredibly promising. In a time where video-game movies are, to put it bluntly, a disgraced and ridiculous genre, we must look to three upcoming releases as the possible saviours of the entire form; Assassin’s Creed (2016), World of Warcraft (2016), and – starring 2015’s breakout star Alicia Vikander – Tomb Raider (TBA). We now have trailers for the former two, and whilst Warcraft has fans of the series excited; to an outsider it looks like a confusing mess of fantasy clichés and CGI babies (which, to be fair, the Warcraft series unashamedly is). Assassin’s Creed has some issues that are evident from the trailer, but I believe this will be the movie that sets the benchmark for the genre, and proves to both the audience and the industry that video-game movies can be a viable product.

I believe this will be the movie that sets the benchmark for the genre

Firstly, the movie is an Assassin’s Creed adaptation. This may seem like an obvious thing to say, but I mean it is recognisably a part of the Assassin’s Creed universe, with visuals, style, plot and all. This immediately elevates it above disasters such as Super Mario Bros (1993), Max Payne (2008), and Need for Speed (2014); all of which threw out the core concepts that made the games successful and beloved, instead filling the movie with frankly laughable plots, characters, and settings. Assassin’s Creed looks like it is keeping the basics; the animus, the ancestral DNA, the Assassin outfits, but is updating some features to keep it fresh – for example, the animus is no longer a fancy sunbed, but it is instead a fully movable cybernetic limb, which means Fassbender’s character must move parallel to how his ancestor moved. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows in the trailer, however, as the decision to change Abstergo’s methods and actions can potentially kill the movie. Fans of the series know just how badly the ‘Desmond/real person’ segments can slow down the games, and the director Justin Kurzel must be careful not to spend too long outside the animus – Fassbender will be the underlying unifying factor for potential sequels, but the fans and general audience will be going mainly to see the Assassin spectacles and historical settings.

Credit: Tech Insider/Assassin’s Creed (2016)

Further, the movie looks great. Simply put, the cast and crew working on this have done a stellar job. Filming off the back of Macbeth, the film was expected to have great visuals, and expectations have been met. From the oppressive whites and greys of the Abstergo facility, to the explosions of colour and shadows of 15^th century Spain, the one guarantee for this film is that it will look the part of a Hollywood blockbuster. Not only does the setting look great, but the set design, and costume designs are just spot-on. Small details in Fassbender’s assassin outfit mesh together, with the scenes involving multiple assassin’s being believable (as far as scenes involving fictional assassins can be anyway!) If you have not seen Macbeth (2015), I would highly suggest you watch it. It is one of the greatest Shakespeare film adaptations, and one of the most visually stunning movies of recent years.

It will look the part of a Hollywood blockbuster

Finally, the factors all seem to amount to what is a promising and potentially seminal movie. The director, as mentioned, is fantastic. The cast is filled with stellar actors and actresses; namely Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, and Jeremy Irons. The action looks believable and well-shot. The settings are intriguing and fascinating to fans of the series, history buffs, and the average movie-goer. The film itself seems faithful to the canon. All-in-all: Assassin’s Creed looks incredible.

The darker consequences of public library cuts

“My life began the day I got my library card.”

That is probably a sad hyperbole, but I do love public libraries. There is something inherently comforting about being cuddled by the warm embrace of one, and the pre- holiday library haul still eclipses all excitement for the “Boots-run” to purchase delightfully miniature versions of grooming products that I would otherwise never buy. Libraries were the first place I realised not everyone saw things in the same way, the first place I heard other voices to those in the mainstream media. To put it frankly, I found my left wing on the shelves of the library. Therefore, you can imagine that the increasing news of cuts and closures of local libraries has saddened me to say the least. In Devon alone, over half the libraries were declared “under threat” in 2014. But beyond my own selfish feeling of sentimental loss, there are perhaps far more sinister consequences to the closures of our literary jungles.

Public libraries are the one place where everyone is on a level playing field.

Where everyone, no matter what level of social power you hold, has access to the same great novels, polemical essays and magical minds that live in the pages of their books. If power is a manifestation of knowledge, anyone can be powerful within the walls of a public library. My local library is habitually populated with those who have typically been seen to have little societal power: the elderly, disabled, unemployed, and by closing libraries and confining books to those who can afford them, you are taking away this relative power. Perhaps more worrying, are the consequences of the closures for children. As soon as society is in a situation where the amount of money your parents make dictates the books you can read, you are sewing the seeds to grow a society entrenched in social inequality.

Photo: www.flickr.com — Image: flickr.com

Not only is it restricting the types of people who can access great works, but it also restricts the type of thoughts people can reach. Closing public libraries and their boundless capacity to host different voices limits books read to those in schools (powerful Ideological State Apparatus if I’m going to get all Foucault on you). This narrows our minds and visions of what is conceivable and is just another way to stop opposing ideas formulating away from the distorted prism of establishment media and school textbooks. In a world where the Tory government can hijack Google’s “Search Suggest” so that nothing derogatory appears when you type in “Conservatives are…”, maintaining access to free, unfiltered information is imperative.

There is of course the argument that there is just no place for the humble paperback in this technological world, and it is true that there are increasingly brilliant online resources. As university students we are particularly lucky to have generous access to sites like J Store and our E-Library, but this is a privilege afforded to few. Try finding “How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic” for free on the general world wide web. It’s not happening. And even if you can find more common titles free online, it’s simply not the same. The autonomy of roaming the shelves leads you to stumble across ideas that you would never have thought to google, things you never even knew you were looking for.

Let’s not forget that libraries are a hub for social progress. They are central places that host events where communities can gather, exchange thoughts and advocate change. In a time where society is becoming increasingly polarized, it’s more important than ever to have such places of assembly to collect thoughts and generate social action. While the internet is doing amazing things for creating global community and conversation, there is simply no substitute for real life human interaction, no matter how good the machines are.

Finally, closing public libraries is actually doing a disservice to humanity as a whole. Libraries open the window for anyone, no matter what social spheres or hierarchies you exist in, to peer into other lives, cultures, experiences, and in this way they broaden minds and serve as an invaluable tool to combat xenophobia, tyranny and all the -isms. That’s why rather than close libraries, we should be throwing money at them and wholeheartedly endorsing them. If we can bail out the banks, we can bail out the libraries.

I haven’t even mentioned the fact that libraries are fast becoming the only public places where one does not have to pay to pee. If you want to retain the one public place that doesn’t impose this outrageous bladder tax then, for that reason alone, you should sign the petition to #saveourlibraries.

http://www.librarycampaign.com/

Are video games too long?

There, that’s enough for now. I’ve managed to squeeze in a good 15-20 hours of Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain for review, after what proved a very busy Freshers’ Week. I’ve launched myself deep into the story, mastered the game’s mechanics and feel satisfied that I can move on to the many fantastic games on the horizon.

Except, I used to be able to say this about many games, but nowadays, this is just a fantasy in today’s climate. More missions and side ops keep popping up on my iDroid, I’m unlocking even more guns and weaponry that constantly evolve my experience, and Mother Base floats atop the Seychelles in all its irritatingly unfinished glory. Despite the time I’ve put into the game, I feel as if I’ve barely scratched the surface – a painfully familiar feeling as we rumble on towards the November release date bottleneck. This is made worse when the critically acclaimed Batman: Arkham Knight and Bloodborne lay despairing and unused in their cases.

This is a serious problem for gamers like myself, especially with behemoths like the 400+ hour Fallout 4 releasing imminently: We’re missing out on loads of potentially excellent games. When we lose ourselves in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of Boston, or get all stabby in the mean streets of Victorian London, then we might be forced to overlook promising indies like Everybody’s Gone to the Rapture or Shovel Knight. Consequently, we play ourselves out of a wider and more nuanced gaming conversation that only focuses on AAA, big budget releases, and that’s an important issue.

But, this begs a complex question: Are video games too long? The thing is, there isn’t an objective figure constituting the number of hours that makes a game too long, it depends completely on the game, the detail of its mechanics and the imagination instilled into its storytelling. A game of watching paint dry or, equally, Candy Crush Saga, would prove too long after about ten minutes. But, at the same time, a rich, dense game that continues to freshen up its experience might not even be long enough after the 200 hour point.

A game of watching paint dry or, equally, Candy Crush Saga, would prove too long after about ten minutes.

The game that I have in mind is CD Projekt Red’s latest Witcher instalment, a game that consumed more of my summer than I care to admit. The deeply satisfying yarn the reputable Polish team span immersed me absolutely in the heart of the Nilfgaardian Empire. The characterisation was complex, the individual stories I lost myself in were steeped in all shades of grey and the world was full to bursting with detail and beauty that kept pulling me hopelessly back in. And, this didn’t change beyond 100 hours: the narrative and gameplay kept evolving and surprising me, keeping things feeling new all the time.

This, for me, is an example of a game that merits the long hours required. To obtain the full experience, you must play for at least 30 hours: The Witcher 3 gets better the more you play as you wade deeper into its mechanics and reap the rewards as the game changes and reinvents itself.

But, this isn’t the case with all games coming out at the moment; Some games are artificially drawn out, asking you to repeat the same tired tasks to give you the illusion that your money has been well spent. Assassin’s Creed: Black Flag‘s Caribbean world looked spectacular and building up your very own pirate ship was enthralling. But, the main missions were stale, repetitive and when you arrived at destinations, the ways in which you could interact with the world were very limited.

Also, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor had its own stellar features, namely its Nemesis system – where, briefly put, your enemies could remember if they’d fled from a fight with you, or had struck you down before – was innovative and arguably engineered the first new-gen game of this console cycle. But, after 20 hours, the game struggled to put forward new ideas, and it became a chore to totally finish if you are a compulsive completionist (much like myself).

So, why then, is the video games market saturated with such bloated titles? Well, it’s down to the cost of games and the demand of gamers. When a game costs around £40-50, our favourite pastime can add a fair amount of stress to our wallets, so we will always be looking for the best bang for our hard-earned buck. Which means that, when a new game is released, one of the first questions we all ask is ‘How life consuming is it’? Then – most recently proved by CD Projekt Red’s announcement that the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077 will be even longer than The Witcher 3 (*shudders*) – developers will deliver on what we ask for.

This is by no means an issue for everybody, there are plenty of you out there that know when to put a game down and move on. So, I’m talking to the guys who simply have to see and do everything here. The next time you’re seeking out that last collectible or finishing off the last of many side missions, think to yourself ‘Am I still enjoying the experience, is the game still new?’ If the answer to these questions is no, then you should really be assessing whether the extra time fully completing a game might be better spent on an entirely new gaming concept. As Keza MacDonald, Editor of Kotaku, argues, “instead of thinking ‘what am I getting for my money?’, I think ‘what am I getting for my time?’”.

Think to yourself ‘Am I still enjoying the experience, is the game still new?’

As a whole community, we must stop holding game length in such high regard, and focus on the quality of the game’s mechanics and how this interacts with a well-constructed narrative. Yes, some games merit longer amounts of time to finish than others, but others don’t, and we need to know when to put the game down. If we don’t, we run the risk of narrowing our gaming horizons and losing precious time that could be otherwise be spent in other industry spaces, that might just be the most interesting, innovative and entertaining areas of the video games medium.