Category Archives: Criticism

Playing God: Fantasy World Creation and Race

Let me begin this short rant with a quick plug for my friend Derek’s posts on this website elsewhere.

He has a far more indepth and expert examination of fictitious worlds and creation than I could ever hope to achieve. Discussion about his own topics is what actually inspired me to scribble my own thoughts today. Specifically, I want to address world building in a general sense and possibly detail my own methods for creating fantastical worlds.

Fantasy fiction, I believe, poses one unique problem not truly present in any other genre of speculative fiction. To my knowledge, no other genre offers nearly as much possibility or limitless imagination primarily due to the audiences looser expectations towards the realities of the world. General fiction almost universally takes place on Earth with its implicit histories and social constructs. The most ‘world building’ an author is required for these stories is generating their main characters with believable histories and motivations.

One step further from general fiction is science fiction. But most Sci-fi is a speculative look at a future impacted by whatever technological advancement or theory spurred the idea for the author’s narrative. The world building is more substantive than just fabricating the main cast but requires the author to adapt and change her societies to this new dominant invention. However, once again, the general assumption is that advancement of life followed a remarkably similar thread to our own history.

Space operas and fantasy fiction, however, can take place on different planets or dimensions with truly unique and strange people or races. There is no assurance for the reader that the development of the society and structures to the point where the narrative occurs is anywhere close to something from our own lives. Star Wars, for example, has an entirely different history completely void of planet Earth and it could be reasonable to believe that the humans of that universe aren’t actually “humans” at all. Likewise, Middle Earth is truly a world far removed from our own with a past very different to anything we’ve ever experienced (even though Tolkien envisioned Middle Earth to be the lost mythological age of our own world).

This leaves a prominent issue for fantasy writers. How do you create a world that people can understand and relate to while still being believably fantastic? I mean, one of the huge draws for these worlds is that sense of wonder and exploration of visiting places far different from our own. We don’t want to recreate, verbatim, medieval Europe when we could just place our stories in medieval Europe. Tolkien is really the founding father of modern fantasy, so it’s no wonder that his approach is so widespread. Tolkien’s solution was to base the underpinnings of his world on real life mythology. Elves and dwarves were not raw creations of his imagination but legendary figures and beings from earlier cultures. By adopting these figures as real, he was able to shorthand a lot of his world’s creation by invoking those myths.

So successful was this method (coupled with his staggering detail in breathing life to his world) that most fantasy writers just shorthanded their own mythos from Tolkien himself. This perpetuating of the same ideals led to the common tropes of the genre: underground dwelling dwarves with big beards and bigger tempers, lofty elves of a dying or lost age removed from the petty squabbles of other nations and peoples, barbaric orcs obsessed with warfare and conquering and the rest of the lot. One could argue that Tolkien was too successful as fantasy stories became less and less about adopted medieval Europe and its superstitions and more about following the founding father’s exacting footsteps.

Which is a shame, since there are so many other nations, mythologies and legends that could be used as genesis instead. This leads me to my own D&D stories. They began as a simple thought experiment, “What would it be like if my friends and I were born in a universe like Dungeons and Dragons.” Course, obvious obstacles like copyright infringement and my own personal enjoyment for world building insured that this wouldn’t be indulgent fan fiction but a universe of my own. And as my collection of shorts grows and grows, I’m forced to consider the world they inhabit and the rules that govern them.

Some of these decisions were made early on. I knew I wanted to avoid the same old race wars common in generic fantasy. To address the over saturation of dwarves versus elves, I elected to remove race entirely. My envisioning of the race dynamic was to re-purpose the long beards and pointed ears that distinguished the fantasy peoples and instead dress the diverging elements more in cultural clothes and beliefs. Thus, my barbarian Orc is a large, dominating man that absolutely denies his ‘barbaric’ origins (Andre). Likewise, the peculiar half-elf Aliessa is rarely even mentioned as such for in my mind being called an elf is an insult and the powerful wizard commands far too much respect for such things.

But since race is more cultural than physical, it is really easy for the boundaries to be blurred or outright ignored. Most people seem to not care about where someone comes from and pointing out racial differences is really unnecessary unless it’s strictly for the plot. Which is nice that I don’t have to describe a new character as “the dwarf” with all its Tolkien trope baggage and instead I can focus on describing my characters as individuals first and foremost. But that element of race can always be brought up later if I decide it would make a compelling story. The mere presence of race, even if it isn’t a sticking point for most, lays the foundations for future conflicts if I so choose.

I have no idea where I was going with this so I’ll just wrap it up for now.

Dark Souls Review – Lore & Story

Leave a reply

“But then there was fire and with fire came disparity. Heat and Cold. Life and Death. And of course, Light and Dark. Then, from the Dark they came and found the souls of lords within the flame.”

– Dark Souls Prologue

Dark Souls is an action/RPG hybrid from Japanese developer From Software. It is the sequel to the critically acclaimed and oddly punctuated Demon’s Souls. I did not play the first and only recently picked up this game as it finally saw a PC release. However, substantial word of mouth and numerous awards raised my expectations for the title. A number of glowing reviews highlighted its combat and story so I was eager to experience both.

Since my ramblings generally favour writing and storytelling, I’ll leave just a quick summary of the actual game. The combat is fun with an emphasis on a melee system that focuses on proper timing with your attacks, blocks and dodges. Bonus damage is awarded for successfully parrying and riposting an attack or if you’re able to manoeuvre and score a backstab against an incredibly small hitbox on your enemies. There is also an archery and magic system which isn’t nearly as intricate and mostly results in you running backwards while spamming your spells and hoping you have enough ‘casts’ to see you to your next bonfire where you can restore them.

Naturally, as an avid fan of Skyrim, I picked a sorcerer. This means I miss out on the varied combos and attack patterns of the different weapon classes and for armour have my choice of three dresses. On the plus side, bosses are incredibly easy since I don’t have to run my face repeatedly into their enormous weapons.

But Dark Soul’s story is an interesting beast.

Unlike most Japanese RPGs, Dark Souls does not rely on scripted cutscenes to tell its narrative. Most are used for quick little boss intros to highlight how much trouble you’re actually in. The only substantial story video is the very opening of the game which gives a rather long, rambling explanation about fire and undead that will mean absolutely nothing to the player on first viewing.

The rest of the story is told through really short descriptions given on items that you collect around Lordran.

It’s a curious format that has received a lot of praise from fans. This puts the onus on the player to seek out information on the story and the world instead of heaping long narrative dumps every three or so hours throughout the game. It’s a style that could really benefit from the interactive medium that videogames inhabit. Traditionally, videogame narratives have striven to mimic the more cinematic approach popular with movies. This creates a disconnect between the game portion and the narrative portion of many games as developers will typically rely on animated cutscenes that remove the player’s agency in order to show them extravagant explosions or witty banter wholly out of the control of those playing.

The great thing about Dark Souls delivery is that it doesn’t interrupt the flow of the game. Players choose when they want to engage with the story by loading up their inventory and selecting through the menus to the item descriptions. It also provides an additional reward for exploration and discovery as the only way to gain more information on the narrative is to seek out as much equipment as they can which leads to investigating every nook and cranny of the level design.

And, because the story is delivered in these short, concise snippets much is left to the interpretation of the player to order the information they’re provided into a more coherent whole.

However, there is one major drawback. Because you’re limited by the number of items you have in the game, so damn little is actually established or said.

Now, you can communicate with the numerous NPCs spread throughout the world but most of them have little to say other than some cryptic statement on your current goal followed by the actors most hammed maniacal laugh. This leaves the player in a constant state of confusion since there is so little direction actually given – both for the overarcing narrative and even for current goals within the game. While it promotes exploration and discovery, what you’re left with is an incomplete framework in which to organize the information you gather.

My issue with this system is that it’s really hard to judge whether Dark Souls has a good story or if it even has a story at all. Essentially, the narrative you weave through your own actions as you make your way through the forty or so hours to the ending is very rudimentary. You have to ring some bells for god knows what reason, get some giant bowel from some large breasted women for god knows what reason, then fill that bowl with juicy souls for god knows what reason. Nothing is every made clear and closing in on the final act I found myself searching online for videos to explain why I was doing all these unrelated actions. I figured the answer lay in those impossible ledges that I couldn’t be bothered finding a path to. So I was content to let more persevering souls explain it to me.

What I found, however, was a wealth of useless information and a sea of shaky speculation. It appears that nothing is ever really explained and most lore enthusiasts are left formulating their own theories on the elements of the narrative. Now, ambiguity is an excellent tool to engage your readership and used effectively can really drive home your themes.

Unfortunately, too much ambiguity and you stifle the discourse on your work. Most of the discussion on the lore of Dark Souls really focuses on minor elements. Almost every video I cam across discussed Lord Gwyn’s Silver and Black Knights, spending valuable time explaining that the Black Knights are not a separate rank but a portion of Gwyn’s soldiers who followed him into a confrontation and were permanently tarnished because of it. It’s a neat little detail but certainly not something that should dominate discussion. However, it’s one of the few details that players are able to ascertain with any amount of certainty.

Which is a shame because the discourse shouldn’t revolve around the fracturing of the Silver Knights or what religion Bishop Havel belongs to when there are such grander elements like the nature of humanity and the meaning of souls.

This brings me to the goal of storytelling. At the end of the day, there is a story that you want to tell and most stories hinge on a theme or conflict. Fantasy stories are able to explore these themes and conflicts in novel ways by introducing us to worlds freed from the constraints and limitations of our own to further highlight your goals that would be either difficult or impossible if you were limited by accuracy and realism. Want to focus on the nature of good and evil? You can create a universal powered by the forces of these two ideas and shift your societies from the complex morality of our own lives.

However, for these worlds to be successful to your audience, you have to create some sort of understandable internal logic that your readers can anchor themselves within. You need them to be able to suspend their disbelief of all the fantastic elements you introduce in your fantasy world and giving them a consistent universe that works on rules and laws that the player can follow is the best way to do that.

Unfortunately, because Dark Souls is so vague and reticent in informing the player on anything we’re never given an opportunity to establish what these laws of the universe are. In the opening cinematic we’re introduced to a world that is suspended on giant iron trees filled with dragons and magic and undead. We’re told of Ages of Ancients and Fire but we’re never told what these descriptors mean. We know that souls are found in the Fire but we don’t know what the Fire is. We don’t know what souls are. We just don’t know anything.

And when given an absence of information, your audience is going to fill in the blanks. It’s only natural that we compose a narrative of the actions and events we experience. And what information are we going to draw upon than elements of our own lives? So the laws of Dark Souls and our own world begin to merge and intertwine in ways the developers had no intention because the players are given so little to work with.

Which brings me back to a point I mentioned earlier. There’s quite a bit of discussion over the religion that Bishop Havel belongs to but unfortunately this discussion is absolutely meaningless. In a world were souls are pulled from some inexplicable Fire, societies are built at the tops of enormous trees that have taken root in an unending lake of ash and some people are born with a sign that designates them as undead, how much weight can we put in understanding titles and concepts that share a name with real world counterparts? How do we even know that Bishop is a position in a church? It could be his first name for all the information we’re given. And what is a god in Dark Souls? Is it someone that possesses a lord’s soul? Is it one of the first people to have emerged from the fire? Is it just anyone that participated in the battle with the ancient dragons?

Without some sort of foundation for your audience to work on everything ends up being pointless speculation. I can’t really talk about this story with my friend since our interpretations of what the hell is going on are going to be so wildly different as we base our understanding on the narrative primary on our own imposed rules and laws than those established by the designers.

And all of this could be avoided and still keep the very simplistic story reminiscent of ancient legend and myth that I’m sure the developers were hoping to emulate. A few more narrative moments, some establishment of common concepts inherent to this universe and a tighter focus on the elements that the developers wish to explore would do wonders.

As it stands, we’re left as nameless wanderers through a world of fog and smoke with only tiny islands of information to find ourselves stranded upon.

Unspoken Review (Neverending Series)

Leave a reply

Book Review – Unspoken

By Sarah Rees Brennan

I am going to start this review by first admitting I can be very hypocritical. On one hand I like series – I like big stories that are broken into book-sized sections. I like spending time with the characters; watching as they grow and develop and gradually reach their story’s end. On the other hand, why does every book I pick up now have to be a series? I must cast my mind back some distance, a year at least, to recall a novel read that wasn’t part of some larger over-arching tale. Further it seems that these series have ever greater focus on the larger plot they fail to have self-contained stories in their book-length chapters. Perhaps it would be less frustrating if I didn’t seem to find these series at their inception – for now I am forced to wait years and years to find out what happens.

One of my recent reads is an excellent story of a girl psychically linked with a boy who just moves to her home town. The girl is wonderfully spunky; out to uncover the secrets of her small, English town as she develops her skills as a journalist of truth. With so much that could go wrong with this premise, I was delighted with the author’s handling of the plot and characters. Teenagers can be tricky to deal with; so many emotions of first loves, school rivalries, and insecurities surrounding growing up can bog down the characters. But the wit and energy and practical, go-get-them attitude woven into the pages was perfect.

The characters had their problems and their triumphs. Importantly they pulled off their conversations with a certain down-to-earth attitude and a great deal of humor. They were not overly awkward, terribly angsty, or unrealistically adult-like. Rather, they were well balanced and amusing.

It was pleasure to read and my only complaint comes with the certain knowledge that this is but book one in a series – a series that has only just begun. The ending cuts, leaving our heroes on an emotional down. Their world is falling to pieces and will likely only get worse for a while. Abysmally, I must now wait an undetermined length of time for all subsequent books to be written, edited and finally published. Sigh, it is a great deal of trouble this waiting and I sometimes I feel cheated by its ever constant presence. Please authors, find it in your hearts to write books that do actually stand-alone.

The Doomsday Vault review – Why Zombies? Why?

Leave a reply

I confess I am a little uncertain the rules and regulations of blogging. However, I am going to give this a try. With that in mind I will make an attempt to post on Wednesdays – hopefully on a weekly basis. And since I have been reading books of late, I thought I could start with a book review. Here is my Doomsday Vault review.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Doomsday Vault

by Steven Harper

What I thought I was getting was a Steampunk adventure with a bit of romance in the background – perhaps a bit trashy, but less so than the other softcover Steampunk novels I was looking at. What I got was a book about zombies and clockwork automatons.

First, I hate zombies in practically every form. There are very few exceptions to this rule and this book is not one of them. Not only that, but when you try to explain the formation of zombies it always sounds a bit silly. I suppose I should concede that germ theory did come into play around the mid-1800s. And viruses were discovered by the 1890s. Though, no one in 1857 knew that bacteria caused disease and they certainly did not suspect viruses of infecting bacteria. So when they tried to claim the cause was bacterial and the cure a virus, I was offended by this point of science. I was also unimpressed that the same bacteria which caused some people to become mindless, flesh-eating zombies also caused a select few to become super-geniuses.

Second, the romance between a twenty-two female and eighteen year old boy did not sit well. The boy was simply too boyish for the woman. So the age difference came across poorly for me. This could also have something to do with personal biases. But they played up the boy as a kid when we first meet him and the woman as a mature old maid. Face it; boys of eighteen are still kids.

Third, I don’t like humanoid automatons. They are far too complex. To have technology that is still far beyond what exists today and is supposedly created more than 150 years ago is past my suspension of disbelief. Perhaps that is unfair. I could accept one or two pieces of advanced technology, but when everything exists – from wireless communications, to dirigibles, to complex automatons (including birds that record voices, humanoids that act in every capacity of servant, and a collection of huge mechanical suits), to horseless carriages – I struggle to see the time period. Also, where is the energy source for all this equipment? It is certainly not steam.

Finally, and by far most importantly, the writing was less than brilliant. The narrative was rough in several sections, particularly when modern cursing came into play. This is supposed to be a period piece, written in Victorian England, so please write like it belongs in that time. I suppose the main female was supposed to show the restraints of the period, the social obligations and restrictions. But her conflicts seemed contrived at best. Her struggle to fit into society and her strong desire to break convention were not a compelling tale. Her fiancé was clearly designed to be evil for no good reason. Also, the ending was ridiculously silly – her Aunt manipulated everything! Oh dear.

This may be the first book in a series, but is going to be the last book I read.

Study in Pink Review (Rivals & Ritalin)

Leave a reply

Something different for today. I was going to post another piece from that continuing saga about Derek but there’s been something more pressing on my mind. And while my sister got the brunt of my rambling about it earlier I thought perhaps I would try slapping some of it up on this blog since that’s what it was created for.

Recently I got around to watching the BBC Sherlock – a rather interesting retelling of the classic Sir Arthur Conan Doyle character in a modern setting complete with cellphones, computer hacking and a cursory understanding of modern science. I have no excuse for seeing this show so late since my sister recommended it months ago. Course, she did mention it around the time I saw Elementary – an American take on the same premise. And Elementary is probably the most offensive use of Sir Doyle’s work that I’ve ever seen (and I watched both Guy Ritchie movies).

I should preface that I absolutely love the old Sherlock Holmes stories. When I was young, my mother bought me a huge anthology of the tales and I can still remember clutching the large, red covered hardback in my tiny little hands. Everytime Sherlock exclaimed that he had the solution to the mystery I would slam the book shut and wouldn’t open it until I had puzzled out the answer.

Or, an answer since inevitably half the time Sir Doyle cheated and kept important information or even culprits until the climatic reveal at the end. Certainly a way to keep your audience guessing, but it became quickly apparent that the secret to Sherlock’s expansive genius was less reliant on keen analytical reasoning and more a matter of the little jerk withholding information until he made everyone else feel wholly stupid.

Still, they were fun so I always approach retellings of the tales with a bit of apprehension. Whenever you like the source material it’s always a gamble whether someone’s reinterpretation of the events will be anywhere near the same enjoyment. Hell, Howl’s Moving Castle is the perfect example of that (perhaps a discussion left to another time).

So, I sat down ready for a grossly disappointing hour and a half when I prepared for a Study in Pink (oh boy – obviously a take on a Study in Scarlet with a wholly less clever name). After getting used to Benedict Cumberbatch’s peculiar look – which isn’t that far a stretch from Holmes’ description anyway – I was pleasantly surprised to find a Study in Pink to be an actually engrossing story. It was, I dare to say, even better than the original and perfectly integrated into our modern times.

It was hardly without flaws, mind you, but most of them are pretty minor. For example, there’s a moment when Holmes corrects a jealous police officer that he is not a psychopath but a high functioning sociopath. Sadly, five seconds of research would tell anyone that the two terms are synonymous and Cumberbatch’s character would certainly have known that even if the writers didn’t. Anyway, minor quibble over a writer’s small attempt at humour.

I suppose I should pause here and warn that there are going to be ample spoilers from this point forward. So, if you care about those things, I recommend you watch the series first if you care to hear the rest of my words on the matter. Currently, it’s only six episodes long so it’s not too great an investment.

There, now that that’s out of the way…

My biggest grievance with a Study in Pink was the bizarre hamstringing of Moriarty in at the end. A quick little lesson on the third most famous character from Sir Doyle’s serial: Moriarty was a character hastily created in a short titled The Final Problem. He was made with a specific purpose; to kill Sherlock Holmes so Sir Doyle could get on with writing about more important things… namely dinosaurs.

In this regard, Moriarty was less the ‘legendary rival’ of Sherlock Holmes that he’s commonly perceived as and more just another villain for the great detective’s Rogue Gallery. Moriarty’s sole tale was began and ended in one particular narrative that involved flinging both characters over the lip of a waterfall and never to be seen again.

Until Sir Doyle realized he could make quite a bit of money by reviving the detective and thus retconning was created.

The reason for Moriarty’s popularity can only really be attributed to Sherlock’s description of him in The Final Problem. The professor never really performed much in terms of narrative impact save for a timely air tackle and if it weren’t for Sir Arthur Doyle hyping his prowess I’m sure Moriarty would have been forgotten along with the likes of Jack Stapleton (bet you didn’t remember him even though he’s the villain of the most famous Sherlock Holmes novel). The only reason Moriarty was given such a fearsome reputation was to ease the blow of Sherlock’s death in the story. If Sherlock died ridding the world of a great menace then perhaps people would stop bugging Sir Doyle to write more tales about him.

Sherlock (the series) decided to hype the great Professor before his grand reveal. Which, while a noble prospect, actually became a rather annoying issue. The problem with forcing Moriarty into the narrative prematurely is that he had no business being involved in the issues. A Study in Pink is a story of a rather pedestrian serial killer. Moriarty gains nothing by association with him and actually loses quite a bit since now the authorities are aware of the master criminal’s presence… because he was giving money to the cabbie for some imperceptible reason. The reason Moriarty is so sinister is because he’s portrayed as the puppet master; the invisible hand behind so many criminal actions that he’s essentially the Emperor of the Underworld.

This aspect is completely abolished if every lowly criminal scum and every despicable crime is directed by his hand. Someone stealing candy from a child doesn’t have to be motivated by Moriarty’s apparently boundless depravity. Sometimes crime can be unrelated to each other.

Anyway, it was a single moment of the show trying to be cute and failing. Except they replicated the exact same issue in the next story, The Blind Banker. Which is unfortunate since Moriarty had more reason to be involved in that story but now him being everywhere was starting to come across as contrived. The Great Game sealed the issue in fantastically bumbling fashion when Moriarty is revealed to not only be an obnoxious twit but also a “consultant criminal” who is far too fast to sell out his clients to the authorities with absolutely zero gain.

The Great Game is perhaps the stupidest episode I have ever seen. The characterization of Moriarty wasn’t fresh but idiotic. There is no way that a nattering young man with impulse control issues could ever achieve the complex web of criminal control that he’s suppose to obtain. No one in their right mind would work with him. And the deus ex machina of there being a “sniper on the roof” was played far to ridiculously for it even to have such an important role on the story.

Clearly the writers felt the same since the first episode of the second season resolved the “cliff hanger” standoff between Sherlock and Moriarty by the writers literally phoning in an excuse to resolve it and never speaking of the issue again. Except, after completely bumbling the character’s appearance they decided it was still prudent to bring him into every episode following until the absolutely retarded Reichenbach Falls. So, I have to correct my previous paragraph – The Great Game is the second stupidest episode I have ever seen. Reichenbach Falls is far and away the dumbest, least thought out story I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing. Nothing in the episode makes sense and already these three sentences I have written on it are more words than it deserves.

Which brings me to the issue of rivals. Rivals make fantastic literary characters, especially for serial stories. They add that personal element to the main character’s struggles. Played well, rivals can even be as popular or even more liked than the actual main character. But they require a certain finesse in their execution. Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes can never be rivals in this literary sense. The two characters are far too great a threat to each other that they can’t have a protracted engagement since neither benefits by leaving the other alive. Moriarty has far too much to lose with Sherlock ruining his plans and his organization. Sherlock has far too much to lose with a criminal who is willing to kill anyone and everyone that interferes with his aims. The moment Sherlock becomes a threat, the master criminal wouldn’t play with the detective but dispose of him as quickly as he could.

For a rival to work, there must be some compelling reason for each other to not put a bullet in the other’s face or slit their throat when they first meet. In this regard, The Joker and Batman are far stronger rivals. Both characters are motivated by philosophical prerogatives that forbid them from killing the other. Batman believes that all people are decent and must face the justice for their crimes (and he apparently has a rule against killing even though he plays fast and loose with that one). Joker believes that everyone is a corrupted monster and is just one step away from plummeting into the abyss. So strong a paragon are they of their own beliefs that just outright killing the other wouldn’t prove their point. They must either drive or redeem the other in order to prove they are correct. Thus, you can have both commit monstrous acts against the other but they would never actually slay their nemesis. It would be akin to mentioning Nazis in an Internet discussion; the very act immediately ending the debate and proving the offender unarguably wrong.

Thus, ultimately, rivals only work if they have more to gain by the continued survival of their arch-nemesis. If your character is better served by just killing his enemy and forgetting him then they aren’t good rivals. They require a compelling personal reason to maintain the relationship – otherwise it just comes across as silly and illogical. It creates a disconnect that threatens your suspension of disillusion.

Remember – if your audience asks “Why doesn’t X just kill him?” and you can’t come up with a compelling answer for that then you have a big problem. These characters aren’t rivals but enemies and are better regulated to the simple rogues of your typical serial then trying to hamstring some greater eternal struggle.

Also, can someone get Moriarty some ritalin. Goodness that portrayal was awful.

FTL Review (PC Game)

Leave a reply

Well, seeing that my co-contributor has decided to brazenly post some of my stories already leaving me with little to write myself, I’ve decided to start this off with something a little special.

As my interests are greater than just writing, I have a tendency to peruse the digital landscape for some of my entertainment. As such, I thought I would start this off with a little review of a rare gem released last year.

And what better game to post on a blog called Out of my Mind than a game that is literally out of this world? First off, an FTL review!

FTL – also known as Faster Than Light – is a delightful pseudo-roguelike space faring, ship captaining game. That little genre title is a fancy way of saying that there’s not much to the actual game then you exploring a “dungeon” or “space sectors” in this regard and everything you really need and will use to win is found through your exploration.

The premise is simple, which is what I really like about it. You are one of the last remaining loyalists fleeing from the unstoppable forces of the rebel alliance as you try and deliver some crucial information to your leaders. It’s a cute little reversal and homage to Star Wars and kind of nice to take a perspective that isn’t from the scrappy little underdog. The rebels really feel more like a galactic empire, with their drones reaching the furthest flung space sectors and their fleets always nipping right at your heels (FTL engines) the entire journey through.

And while the story is light, I would have liked to see the designers play with that a little more. You’ll get the odd dialogue entry from the planets you visit about how they have no love for the rebels (especially when they are seen bullying around these little colonies) but I would have really liked for a narrative to be subtly woven through in these random exchanges. We could have seen colonies express why they never sided with the rebels. Perhaps we could get a few captains comment on where the fell on the conflict or even offer possible reasons why the conflict occurred. It’s not much, but it’s the sort of subtle storytelling that not only seems to be growing popular these days but also offer some extra form or replayability to the game.

As it stands, once you get to the end you have a rather unexpected boss fight and then… it’s done. There are a number of different styled ships you can acquire but since the game ends the same way every time I don’t know if I see the appeal for repeating just because of that. And, unlike other games in a similar style, your ship and crew are almost wholly determined by what you can scrap up through your exploration. Having these little story elements could encourage some people to try and seek out all the little events in order to understand the greater, global issue.

But I could only be saying this because I love stories. What really bothered me about the game, however, was a tonal shift. It’s made pretty clear that you’re being pursued by these scumbag rebels and your ultimate goal is to press through dangerous and treacherous space to reach the last friendly outpost. The game really seems focused on this journey – the crew that you assemble on the way and the tough decisions you make between them and how you’ll deal with the issues facing colonies and other ships you encounter. It’s got a very strong ‘flight to freedom’ vibe, so I was more than a little disappointed when I reached the end to realize not only is the journey pretty short (only about nine sector jumps in total) but then you’re inexplicably expected to face this enormous boss at the end. Needless to say, you die the first time and every playthrough after feels like you’re now preparing for this fight that you really don’t narratively have any expectation to face. I can understand the inclusion of the boss as a way to add difficulty to a game that would otherwise be too easy (if you just fled from every encounter and made a strict beeline to the end of each sector) but I really would have liked to see the challenge balanced better. Make the journey itself challenging, not some artificial encounter at the end.

All in all, I really enjoyed the game and it’s a strong showing for a little independent developer. And a lot of my criticism is probably unfair since the people making this are more game developers than writers. But, at the very least, I hope some of my complaints can highlight how important stories are to our entertainment and just how they can be included in a wide variety of ways. Really, we’ve been telling each other stories since the earliest recording of history and I don’t think all our fancy technology will ever replace the enjoyment of a good tale.

Anyway, for anyone who would actually care for a numbered rating but don’t want to be bothered with this rambling wall of text with little real “games journalism” information, this one’s for you:

8.5/10 successfully killed space spiders