Walter White: Hero or Villain?

The finale of Breaking Bad is upon us, and as excitement and anticipation swells around our feet with bewilderment of what a masked Bryan Cranston will do next, now is as good a time as any to wonder how the series became so popular, and almost iconic in modern pop culture.

At first, Breaking Bad seems like a concept that could easily fly over our collective heads. A cancer-riddled chemistry teacher who has to find alternative ways to make money? If it were set in the UK, the problem would have been solved with the NHS and we wouldn’t have been treated to the wonderful adventures of Walter White, but without Vince Gilligan’s Pilot episode, that demanded and deserved all the attention it got, few would care about the show that is shrouded in Emmy glory.

Photo courtesy of Flickr

As Cranston said in his 2008 Emmy speech, in thanking AMC and Sony for the giving the opportunity to put the ‘remarkable, challenging, wonderful, odd mix’ on air to the world, people clearly knew that such a concept was indeed a risk. And my opinion on why this risk has paid off would be the re-appearance of the anti-hero onto television screens, something which we haven’t seen in a long time.

What makes Cranston’s character an anti-hero rather than an outright villain? Well, Walter White is far too human and all too recognisable, showing the audience both sides of themselves to prevent the stark label of ’evil’ being placed upon them, hence the common comparisons between himself and Tony Soprano.  We watch his journey, or free fall from doormat Chemistry teacher to no-nonsense meth kingpin. Compare the first and latest episodes, going from a struggling, ill old guy cramming in two jobs to make ends meet for his family, something which is entirely relatable to a substantial amount of the country, and now the cold-blooded murderer, going out of his way to build a drug empire for reasons only known to himself. You can begin to understand why so many people have become immersed in this show.

Gilligan is also in the position of using the age-old trick of making us watch moral table-tennis, which gets us desperately standing up for Walt in the face of overwhelming odds, consisting of the  police, other drug lords, and even his own family who have come to hate him as we should in an ideal world. Whenever the Heisenberg character lets someone die in their sleep, orders the cold murder of a helpless nerd, or even inadvertently causes a mid-air plane crash, old relatable Walt reminds us why he ran over those two gangsters, or why he blew up an old folk’s home, to save those close to him. Vince Gilligan has the fan base often divided, in cries of, ‘He’s killed hundreds, of course he’s evil!’ and, ‘He’s doing it for his family, leave him alone!’, something which keeps the two sides glued to the Albuquerque drug business, all while raising attention for those who haven’t delved into the show, which is almost as addictive as drugs at its core.

Image courtesy of Flickr (again)

But now, it’s clear that the tables are stacked against the bald hero, with no-one to run to, and the looming idea that he has become as corrupt and twisted as the world which is chasing him down. But despite this, there are always undertones of good and redemption. Take the toxic rant he has at Skyler, filled with hate and bottled up emotion, as horrible as it is, there’s always the idea that Walt knew he was being listened to by the government, and was providing some legal cover for his wife and family. And then there is his vain attempt to send money to his family, showing that despite all he’s done, and all his family has done to him, he still wants to provide for them in any way he can.

Regardless, we all know that the former chemistry teacher could never integrate back into to normal society, especially with his past and of course, the majority of the American government chasing him. He’s not the kind of guy to quietly retreat from his past and scurry around in the shadows of his former self. It’s likely he will go down in blaze, as has been hinted at with M60 machine gun in the boot of his car, but a blaze of glory?

Walter White is the best example of how no-one is perfect, just as no character in Breaking Bad is free from guilt or their own conscience, and more importantly, how evil can creep up on you. Before you know it, you’ve killed your way through the heart of the illegal drug business and placed yourself at the head of it.

But despite all this, is the lead character of this series evil? Well, that’s the glory of a retrospective view on a TV drama such as Breaking Bad; it’s entirely up to your interpretation. With all the lies, murder and deceit in the past, it’s difficult to play Walter off as a misunderstood hero, but thankfully, it’s not impossible, and that lack of definition (at least up to now), has been the factor that has kept millions interested in the drama surrounding an aged meth-maker with a split personality.

Are Old Games Better?

Has gaming gone downhill, or are our expectations raised?

Common opinion dictates that games, especially those in large franchises like Halo and Call of Duty, are slowly declining in quality, due to stripping out beloved features or simply stagnating over time due to a lack of innovation. At the same time, these games continue to receive outstanding scores and critical acclaim, but what do they do in order to deserve it?

In comparison to another fairly new title, The Last of Us, it’s difficult to see why these predictable games achieved the scores that they did. While The Last of Us may have a fairly generic concept, that of a zombie-apocalypse based story and third-person shooting mechanics, it brings enough new features in order to stand out and appear like a desert island in an ocean of over-saturated and unoriginal ideas.

Despite its originality, compare The Last of Us to any game within the same genre and they could appear remarkably similar. Factually, it could be compared to a game such as Resident Evil, as they are both third-person, zombie orientated shooting games. One however is an original idea, whereas the other is long established franchise of action-horror games. The original Resident Evil averaged around 8/10 across the many platforms it was released, whereas the most recent edition, Resident Evil 6 which was released last year, averaged around 7/10. At first glance, it would therefore appear that older games seemed to receive better critique.

However, take a look at games which launched years ago with amazing reviews. The Half-Life series for example has remained a consistently strong franchise throughout its creation, with each game receiving high scores. The same can be said for the Far Cry series, along with Crysis, both of which have gained positive reviews throughout each iteration.

Maybe some modern games actually do deserve the acclaim they get, even those that are part of a long standing franchise. Grand Theft Auto 4, currently the latest game in the controversial series of games was received by essentially everyone and their uncle as being the greatest game of the current console generation. Yet when seen beside its predecessor, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, the latest game seems restricted in almost every aspect. The playable world is smaller, there are fewer weapons and vehicles, the character customisation is restricted, but the game received an array of perfect scores.

Bioshock: Infinite, another recent title was praised similarly, yet simply doused the game with a new coat of paint, using a different world and story with little to any new mechanics. The same system of using weaponry and powers was still in place, and the levels were just as linear as any other modern shooting game. Little innovation has occurred, but the game was still shrouded in critical acclaim.

If you look at the scores, it’s hard to deny that there are no great games out there. But if you look at the matter from an independent perspective, you could easily think otherwise. Personally, I think that some games that lack innovation are certainly overrated, but keep in mind that we do get brand new ground-breaking titles too, although it might seem that way, we are not in a gaming world of repetitive copy and paste franchises.

I don’t think gaming is going downhill, I just think that good games tend to be missed. To those who think that the world of video games is approaching an inevitable spiral of which it can’t escape, please, wake up. This isn’t 1995, and although game mechanics might have changed, quality certainly has not.

Game Review: Remember Me

Now, maybe I should stop acting like this game is from 2005, but to say this game is about 3 months old, absolutely everyone seems to have forgotten about it. And I'm also quite pleased that I've refrained from any puns on the game's name. 

Is this because the looming next-gen of consoles and the inevitable new CoD and Battlefield iterations? It's entirely possible, but it's more likely that this game was washed up in the video game sea of mediocrity, home to the likes of Army of Two, Tomb Raider and Just Cause 2, (excluding the PC version). These are all games ranging between 'solid' to 'actually quite enjoyable', and considering the relative youth of Remember Me, I personally don't think it's ready to be put into that bottomless ocean just yet.

What was good about the game? Well, actually a fair bit, but unfortunately at launch it seemed to be overwhelmed by its generally moderate features and mechanics.

Take the general idea and context of the game; an action/adventure title set in a futuristic iteration of Paris, melding new and old architecture together. It was pretty nice to look at, and was a great backdrop for the game. The only problem was that it wasn't really utilised as much as it could have been, it was purely just a backdrop. 

Although base jumping off of the Eiffel Tower would have been great and unrealistic, I would have settled for blowing someone's virtual brains out of their ears on the Arc De Triomphe. But there isn't really any of that. There's plenty of climbing/walking through/punching people in stylized streets resembling a hipster's paradise, but take the trademark tourist attractions out, and you could pass the setting off as any other dreamt-up futuristic city.

The setting looks great, but this also resulted in some mediocre platforming, with an arrow pointing to where you need to go. While everyone was complaining about this very small feature, I actually found it quite helpful, being the incompetent tit that I am. But seeing as people need something to complain about, that tiny little feature seemed to be as good as any. 

The main problem was that the game couldn't build on its platforming for the sake of realism, or the game's idea of realism. Unlike Uncharted or Assassin's Creed, which has notable yellow pipes or white-clothed boxes that let you know you can start climbing and/or free running, Remember Me had none of it, as it would have stuck out like a North Korean spy in the middle of King's Cross.

Courtesy of Shumafuk on Flickr

And then there's the main focus of the game, the combat. Although it did try its very best to be just like the array of Batman: Arkham games that everyone and their parents have raved about over recent years, it didn't quite pull it off, as the mechanics felt noticeably clunkier than Rocksteady's series which has become the main comparison for every third person brawler. The only other problem was the flow of Remember Me's fighting, which was constantly interrupted by an enemy which you had to dodge. Apart from that, it was again, very solid. 

Then there was the 'Combo-Lab'. A great idea! Make your own move-sets to help compliment your own fighting style. It was just somewhat poorly executed, as most people ended up stringing the same kind of attack together. What's that? You're low on health? No worries, just mash the square button until you're fine again. Rinse and repeat and exploit to your heart's content.

Apart from its flaws, I personally really liked the game. It's new and different, a brand new IP in a world over saturated with the next iteration of your big-budget FPS. It was colourful, (sometimes), and had a great aesthetic. The entire digital theme really suited it, and allowed for some cool additions, like a wrist-mounted cannon that fires data at enemies.

Also, (it's unfortunate that this is notable), it includes a female protagonist and it doesn't resort to the typical exploits that most games do. Nilin is like an unmasked Batman, without the money, and what's even better is that developers Dontnod stood by their game when publishers Capcom wanted to change it due to having a female lead. This is 2013, not the 1950s; people aren't going to be outraged due to the sex of the main character.

Granted, the story is a bit cliché with the entire context of an intrusive mega-corporation and a amnesia-riddled protagonist, but in the later hours of the game, I was quite intrigued to see what would happen, and what brains I'd be able to mess with next.

Oh yeah, one key concept behind the game was 'memory remixing', essentially sequences that were as cinematic as Heavy Rain, but had relevance and were great to experiment with. While they were scripted in the sense that you have to do certain things in order to achieve a certain set of outcomes to progress, they were really fun and made you feel really integral to the story. Unfortunately, there were only four of these brilliant sequences in the entire game, but ah well...

For what it's worth, I really enjoyed Remember Me and really cannot see what all the criticism is about. Overall, it's a solid action, brawler, whatever genre it fits in, and it has some really unrecognised new ideas. It’s a leap forward which has been overlooked. I mean, when was the last time a new IP like this came out, and not just a reboot? You can pick it up fairly cheap from a range of stores, so instead of getting one of those £20 games like Dead Space 3, Crysis 3 or the latest of one of EA or Activision's franchises, why not try something new?

Give it a go, and reward innovation in the process.