Review – Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

In theory, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy should be the perfect film. It’s got so much going for it, ticking every conceivable box to the extent that its quality is almost pre-guaranteed. Based on a famous spy novel written by an acclaimed  author and already converted into a hallowed TV series spoken of in hushed tones by people older and wiser than you? Check. A stellar cast that includes legends and proto-legends such as Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch? Check. A visionary director whose CV suggests he’ll bring unparalled wit, insight and drama to the project? Check. And to top it all off, a title that justs sound awesome. When I bought my ticket for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, I felt like I should’ve had to pay for the privelige of saying it out loud. Yes, I was enjoying myself already.

For those who aren’t so prone to pre-cinema hysterics, here’s a more sober introduction. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy tells the story of George Smiley (Gary Oldman), a former MI6 agent brought back in by the government to root out a suspected Soviet mole at the top of the agency. Having been forced out along with his boss Control (John Hurt) in the aftermath of a botched operation, Smiley must work covertly with the help of Peter Gwillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy) to trap the mole and thwart his Soviet nemesis, Karla. Featuring a range of top British actors such as Colin Firth, Toby Jones and Mark Strong, the film threads Smiley’s invesitigation into the wider context of a male-dominated MI6 in crisis and an uncertain, unsettling Cold War world.

The first thing to say about Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is that it isn’t a typical spy movie in the vein of Jason Bourne and James Bond. Instead, it’s a bleaker, more desperate take on the world of counter-intelligence and espionage, with Smiley’s quest bringing him up against a miasma of broken loyalties, national insecurity and masculine repression. Sure, there’s the occasional gun shot, torture scene or assassination, but these moments are really just violent counterpoints that undercut any glamour the audience might associate with the intelligence profession. They inject a bit of pace in now and then and help to bring the more dour parts of the film into focus, but anyone expecting a more consistently visceral spy flick might be disappointed.

This style and atmosphere is really evocative of the director Tomas Alfredson’s previous work on Let The Right One, and the two films have a lot in common. Where that film’s ostensible vampiric subject matter was really just extreme window dressing layered over a tale of childhood misery, Tinker’s spy tropes are designed to illustrate the futility and aimlessness of a post-imperial Britain shamelessly clinging to an obsolete identity. Both films seek to explore a murky corner of society, with the more exotic subject matter driving the drama forward and exerting tension on characters in various states of crisis.

Dodgy Haircuts - Apparently A Pre-Requisite In Counter-Intelligence

And it has to be said that the director’s approach highlights these themes very effectively. The slow, undulating pace of the narrative and the constant fug of smoke-filled rooms in an oppressively overcast London creates a foreboding atmosphere that supports the film’s thematic cut and thrust. There’s a duel sense that reigns impressively throughout of a dark and secretive world undercut by it’s own self-importance and insularity, punctuated by scenes of penetrating dramatic intensity that refocus the eye on the violent unpredictability of espionage. This film is as much about significant looks and the hidden meanings of half sentences as it is about direct action, and the subtle blend of it all brings a depth that almost demands a second viewing.

At the same time, though, this style of drama comes at a cost. For me, the film took too long to get going and only burst into life somewhere near the end. While there were several fantastic scenes that held my interest in the movie as a whole, the slow-burning nature of the investigation started to wear me down as the film progressed. This feeling wasn’t helped by a narrative structure that jumps around and loops back on itself, meaning that at points I didn’t have as a firm a grasp on the plot as I would of liked. Of course, you would expect this from a film that so overtly leans toward the subtle and the enigmatic, but at times it all just felt a bit inconsistent and unbalanced. What I’m saying, really, is that I wasn’t as gripped as I should have been.

This charge of inconsistency also has to be levelled at some of the character development. The whole film basically revolves around Smiley’s investigation into 4 suspects at the top of MI6, but I only felt like I really knew 1 or 2 of them by the end. This lack of engagement is a problem, and at times I felt like I didn’t really care who the mole was. This inevitably means that there was less of an impact when the perpertrator was eventually revealed, which was a shame considering the long build-up. This might be partly down to the fact that this film is still an adaptation, lacking the thorough exploration and illuminating detail that’s probably been lost in the transition from the novel. At the same time, the film is pretty long as it is and may not have been able to handle much more character depth.

Performance-wise, it’s a strong showing across the board. The standout is arguably Mark Strong, who in many ways acts as the tragic anchor to the film’s many themes and messages. There’s a kind of brutal vulnerability to his performance that makes him easy to engage and empathise with. John Hurt is suitably ravaged and desolate, while Toby Jones manages to be creepy, malicious and authoritative in an engagingly snake-like manner. On the other hand, I was a little disappointed in Gary Oldman. It’s an understated role and I can’t say he wasn’t a solid figure that held the entire film together, but overall I thought he was almost unknowable, a silent figure that you find it difficult to root for.

In the end, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy was more interesting than it was entertaining and the teenage boy in me came out a little disappointed. It’s a dense, layered film with a satsifying payoff and a depth that would probably reward repeated viewings, but it falls short on a couple of dramatic levels. My sense of the characters was hazy and the pace was slightly meandering, but I was still drawn into the film’s murky, despairing, occasionally striking world. As it goes, it won’t be my film of the year, but for those looking for a more meditative cinema experience it’s a strong recommendation. If I gave scores to things on this blog, it would get a 4 out of 5. But I don’t, so it gets nothing.

Review – Deus Ex: Human Revolution

Let me begin this review with a rather tragic story. As one of my most anticipated games of this year, the eventual euphoria of receiving Deus Ex: Human Revolution meant that I literally played it for hours on end, the compulsive cyber-punk shooter action eating up entire days of my life. Yet my time with the game was also an anxious period. Having waited so long and wanted it so much, I spent a lot of time looking at the clock trying to figure out how many hours I’d sunk into it and how long it would be before I’d completed it, worried that the breadth of the actual experience wouldn’t match my epic expectations. When I eventually completed it after about 4 days, I naturally felt a bit guilty and a little disappointed that it hadn’t lasted longer.

What does this story tell you, aside from suggesting that I may not, as previously expected, be a fully-functioning member of society? On the one hand, it should indicate the game’s sheer addictive quality and the seamless nature of an experience where one moment effortlessly bleeds into another. On the other, it raises questions about just how substantial this game really is and whether it’s able to satisfy the inherent expectations associated with the Deus Ex series.

But just what are those expectations? For those new to the Deus Ex name, Human Revolution is the prequel to the 10-year old original release which is widely regarded as the one of the greatest games of all time. This reputation is based on a number of different factors, including impressive storytelling, an epic globe-trotting adventure and deep, multi-faceted gameplay. Most of all, though, it’s because Deus Ex put on an explicit emphasis on the player’s own ingenuity. Problems offered a range of solutions, and the excellent nano-augmentation character customisation mechanic allowed you to build a hero that felt individual to you. And with choice came consequence, as story and character reacted to your decisions in often minute ways, leading to a gameplay experience that seemed to mould itself uniquely around each and every player.

Human Revolution takes place 25 years or so before the original game, in a time when human augmentation is coming to redefine humanity. People are able to become stronger, faster and smarter through mechanical impants, but the cost of a drug that stops humans from rejecting augmentations means that the new technology is the subject of class warfare. The player takes on the role of Adam Jensen, a security chief for one of the main augmentation companies who becomes augmented without a choice after almost being killed in an attack on the company’s labs. The plot revolves around Jensen investigating the attack and the people behind it, gradually discovering more about his own importance in a global conspiracy and facing dilemmas around his new half human, half machine form.

Thematically, Human Revolution is both strong and increasingly relevant. People are already trading in defective limbs for bionic replacements that can do things that aren’t normally possible. Sure, this may only stretch to useless superpowers like being able to rotate your hand 360 degrees, but it’s still here and it’s only going to get more advanced. This means that the game’s story always feels like its rooted somewhere in the real world, meaning that it’s easy to stay engaged with. This strong thematic background is then enhanced by a fairly interesting conspiracy story, which is only let down by the way it never extends beyond the context of the assault that opens the game. With a Deus Ex adventure, you expect a multi-stage narrative that plunges deep into the abyss of a hidden world and its shadowy powerbrokers, and in that respect Human Revolution doesn’t deliver. It’s not a huge problem, due to the understated depth of the Jensen character that anchors the plot, but it still felt like a let down.

Half Human, Half Machine - All Man

Story is of secondary importance to gameplay, of course, and it‘s the blend of stealth, action and character customisation that really drives the game forward. Every level has multiple paths available that allows the player to determine their own playstyle, whether they favour a non-lethal stealth-fest or the more traditional rocket-launcher diplomacy. Both types of gameplay are excellently designed and great fun to play. With a stealth approach, the tension is often palpable, as you observe enemy patrol routes waiting for the perfect opportunity to knock a guard out and drag him into the shadows. Identifying the right approach and implementing your strategy often leads to moments of high drama. You might have a 10-second window to hack a security system before a guard spots you, reprogramming turrets so that they target enemies and creating a distraction that allows you to slip by unnoticed. What’s great about these scenes is that they feel like products of your own tactical genius, which is an all too rare feeling in games these days.

On the flip side, the gunplay offers a satisfying and pleasingly challenging experience. Neither Jensen or his opponents can take that much damage, which means a well-planned approach is essential if you want to take down a group of enemies before they pump you with lead. Combat is ably assisted by a fluid cover system and a decent array of upgradeable guns, and each hostile encounter feels like it’s own moment rather than yet one more room to be cleared along a generic corridor of death.

But while I can’t deny the quality of the core gameplay, I can’t help but feel that the trademark emphasis on player choice is absent. Sure there are multiple routes, but it’s pretty clear that there’s only one natural path for almost every situation. Because it’s so easy to die, being stealthy is the easiest and most efficient way to play the game. And because going completely unnoticed is so difficult, it’s inevitable that you’ll opt to go guns blazing from time to time in order to play in the most effective manner possible. It felt like you would really have to go out of your way not to play in this stealth/action, almost Metal Gear Solid-esque, way. While you might think that’s a pretty big assumption to make about how others will play the game, trawling around select pockets of the internet has confirmed my suspicions that this is indeed a common approach.

What I’m saying here is that it only feels like you have an illusion of choice, and this feeling extends to the character customisation system. In theory, you have to invest your uprgrade points wisely, making use of a limited number of augments to build a character that is specific to you and your playstyle. In practice, though, your options are restricted by elements of the game’s design. Some augments, like the ability to land safely from any height, just make the game so much simpler in places that it doesn’t make any sense not to take it. A significant number of the others are just useless, so most people will end up picking a similar range of the most useful augments with maybe a little variation if they’re more stealth or combat inclined.

This all impacts on that fundamental importance of choice, which diminishes that unique, individual quality that is supposed to define the Deus Ex experience. Instead, you feel like you’re constantly adapting to the prescriptions of the game’s design rather than building your own adventure. This is a disappointment in a game that otherwise has so much going for it, such as its strong art design, fantastic writing and well-designed hacking and conversational systems. Looking back on the game having finished it, I can’t deny that it was a great experience, but there’s a real sense of absence that makes me feel like Human Revolution has fallen short of the mark.

Review – Dexter: Season 5

WARNING: While this review tries hard not to drop any massive spoilers, discussion of some major plot details and characters is inevitable. So go hard or go home, dear reader.  

Just how long can one show go before it suffers that inevitable dip in quality and subsequent nosedive into utter redundance? Dexter, the show that asks you to feel sympathetic for a serial killer, has done pretty well so far. Four seasons in and it had only gotten better, combining the tight plotting and layered intrigue of the very best TV thrillers with deliciously dark insights into Dexter’s twisted inner world. It’s always had great characters, a wicked sense of humour and that one unique hook that seperates it from everything else out there. So as Season Five comes to an end, can we say that Dexter has managed to retain that killer edge for another year?

Starting off, the show leaves itself a lot of issues to deal with. Following the tragedy that concluded the last series, Season Five sees Dexter struggling to cope with his grief and adjusting to the fact that his life has been turned upside down. This means that, inevitably, the show has to go through a dour period which lacks it’s otherwise characteristic fun and thrills. Unfortunately, this low ebb goes on for far too long. The  shows takes at least 3 or 4 episodes to develop anything like it’s natural rhythm, which is a great disappointment considering how utterly compulsive every other series had been. I got through the box set of Season 4 in about 3 days, because it just nailed the art of the cliffhanger perfectly and left you desperate for more. With this season, I was more than happy waiting a week for the next episode and was close to giving up early on.

This wasn’t solely due to weaknesses in the story. There was also a notable absence of interesting characters and some of the new faces were unspeakably bland. Too much time was spent with Dexter’s boring Irish babysitter, the one-dimensional rookie detective and the insufferable step-children. Every previous season had given us a compelling new set of characters that upset the show’s equilibrium and almost redefined what Dexter was about. On the evidence of the first few episodes, Dexter had run out of ideas, a shadow of its former visceral self.

Of course, I probably wouldn’t even be writing about it if the series hadn’t turned itself around, and that it certainly did with the introduction of Lumen Pierce (Julia Stiles), a rape victim out for vengeance against her band of torturers. The moment of her introduction was a real twist and her relationship with Dexter was compelling enough to provide the impulse for the rest of series. It progressed well through the stages of wary strangers to unfamiliar allies to clinical companions, with layers of depth and affection gently settling themselves into the creases of their relationship.

The eventual emergence of the ‘villains’ of the series also helped kick things into gear, with Dexter and Lumen’s detective work combining well with the one-by-one assasinations to give the series a solid sense of structure. They were also properly horrifying as well, helping to set up that fierce light/dark contrast of good vs. evil to ensure that Dexter firmly occupies the grey area in the middle. While it would be an almost impossible task to match the insidious menace of John Lithgow’s Trinity Killer from the previous season, Jonny Lee Miller was impressive as Jordan Chase and managed to capture that unstable, barely concealed yet invasively charismatic quality of evil that characterises the best monsters.

There's also plenty of ritualistic murder, if that's what you're into...

I suppose what really made the series stand out though was the way it really transcended the standard Dexter template. Every previous season, while distinctive in its own right, has always basically progressed in the same way. Dexter struggles with his murderous nature, meets someone who he feels he can learn from, realises that they’re even more mental than he is, and dispatches them in a tense finale to ensure the safety of those he loves. This series managed to get away from that, going for a completely different confidant in the form of Lumen, and helping to shed more light on the character of Dexter in the process. In that respect, Season 5 was a unique achievement. It managed to transcend its early struggles and in the process evolved into something greater.

That’s not to say there weren’t some persistent glaring issues though. Apart from the constant presence of irritating minor characters, there was also the fairly haphazard marriage sub-plot of two of Dexter’s colleagues at the police station, which was inconsistent and distracting. There’s also the problem of the ritual murder sub-plot, which ended abruptly in the middle of the series despite one of the murderers presumably still being on the run. Sure it fulfilled some function in the wider story, but I still can’t help but feel that it jarred a little.

Overall, though, I think Season 5 worked. It had some nice threads in the shape of Deb’s story and Liddy’s investigation into Dexter, and these tied into the main plot well. While this series wasn’t quite as much fun as previous runs, it did climax spectacularly, leaving things nicely set for the next series with the characters further developed and a few things unresolved, ready to rear their ugly heads later on. So, in that respect, Dexter Season 5 is still essential viewing for fans of the series, even if it requires a little patience. And for those who haven’t seen the show before, bloody go and buy the boxset. Honestly, muppets.

Luther: Madness Returns

There are only two people as brilliant as they are dangerous. One is John Luther, the epnoymous star of preposterous BBC crime series Luther. The other is the person who thought it would be a good idea to recommission Luther  for a second series. Because while the first series was almost universally critically panned for its ridiculous villains, fanatical adherence to cop drama cliches and bewildering plot twists, this new series has been an entirely more formidable beast. What’s more, it’s been damn close to being must-watch television.

Maybe I’m being unfair on the first series. After all, I only watched the first episode before dismissing it almost entirely. Why? Well, Luther was trying too hard to ram the same old crime drama stereotypes down our throats. The character of John Luther himself is that most well-worn of tropes – ‘The Maverick Detective’. He gets results, but in dangerous and sometimes illegal ways. The brass don’t like him, but they couldn’t do without him. It all came off as tired and stale, especially after The Wire had given us perhaps the archetypal character in this mould, Jimmy McNulty.

The show seemed to be aware that this had been done before, making up for the unoriginal concept by going completely over-the-top with everything else. As if to underline how unstable Luther was, the first episode culminated in him rather unconvincingly smashing up his ex-wife’s apartment. Topping this artificial anger, though, were the villains he came up against. These weren’t no ordinary criminals, oh no. They were full-on super villains, psychopaths who were virtually undectable by anyone except the one and only Luther.

It all felt faintly ridiculous. The show seemed to be rooted in reality but simultaneously stuffed with surreal appendages that made it difficult to take the whole thing seriously. So why was I tempted into watching the second series after so much spent disdain? Call it voyeurism, but I was just stunned that this show had been given a second chance. I was also a bit curious to see whether Idris Elba (the actor behind Luther) was really throwing away any and all capital built up in his iconic role as Stringer Bell.

So, a second chance, a set of expectations, and my mockery cannons primed and ready to go from the first minute. Yet, something happened. It all started to make sense. Nothing had changed, as far as I could see, but I suddenly saw Luther for what it really was. Of course, it was as ridiculous and over-reaching as ever – Luther’s melodramatic game of Russian Roulette in the first few minutes confirmed that. But I wasn’t laughing any more. I was hooked.

The secret to enjoying Luther is simple – just go with it. Ignore the way Luther is able to build complex, off-the-wall yet incredibly accurate theories with only the slightest of evidence. Better yet, embrace it, because once you’ve accepted that Luther has something akin to magical crime-solving powers, you can start to relish the sumptuous grittiness that seeps out of the show’s every pore. The villains, implausible yes, but utterly menacing in their ultra-violence and unpredictability. The teenage porn star and gangster sub-plots resembling a kind of modern noir, pushing the entire show into the realm of the graphic novel. And the city of London itself, made monstrous by it all.

Luther will always be preposterous, and I suppose whether you can tolerate that is purely a matter of personal taste. But there’s no denying that this series worked on so many other levels that this lunacy became an asset, not a distraction. Tight plotting, believable characters and the very real, very chilling presence of genuine evil – it was all there. With its second series, Luther cemented its own distinct identity, no longer burdened with the weight of cop cliche. Its madness is entirely its own, and that’s why we need a third series very soon.

Doctor Who – A Negative, Hysterical Review

This last series of Doctor Who has made me doubt my sanity. I haven’t been able to follow the plot. The character development has left me feeling baffled and vaguely nauseous. The general tone, the jokes, the drama – they’ve all gone completely over my head. And what’s worse, I appear to be utterly alone in my madness. Almost every website and eminent broadsheet columnist has fallen over themselves singing the praises of what I consider to be a show in a state of terminal decline. What I want to know is – is it just me who thinks this series of Doctor Who has been absolutely, irredemably awful?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Who-hater. I’ve enjoyed every other series of the modern Doctor Who revival and I think Matt Smith makes a great doctor. I even like Amy, despite her rather overwrought performance in the more emotional scenes. No, I’m just a severely disappointed fan, one who can find almost nothing good to say about a series that’s just hit its mid-series break.

So what’s so bad about it? Let’s start with the plots. This series more than any other has emphasised the presence of overarching mysteries that overshadow the action in each and every episode. The opening episode signalled this approach in a quite overwhelming way. The Doctor is killed, but who by? Amy is pregnant, or is she? Who is the girl in the suit? What’s with the woman that Amy keeps seeing through the walls? It posed a lot of questions, questions which resurfaced and shaped the action every week. But these questions came on so thick, fast and with so little explanation that I was left with just one – who cares?

None of it really carries any dramatic weight. Instead of plot, we have an endless succession of plot twists, as the show falls over itself trying to be cleverer than that which came before. The Doctor’s death in the first episode is a case in point. It was meant  to open the show with a bang, to make you go ‘What? No! I’ve never seen this before!’. But rather than set the series off in a blaze of fireworks, it was more a depth charge blowing the foundations away before we’d even started. Because, really, no one believes the Doctor is actually going to die, but every week we’re continually reminded by Amy that this is something we’re supposed to care about and be mystified by.

It’s not helped by the poor storytelling that has left this and many other unconvincing plot threads in a contrived, exhausting mess. Much of the problem arises out of the fact that understanding the story requires an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the last 2 or 3 series worth of Doctor Who lore. Keeping track of the Doctor and River Song’s relationship, a plot thread introduced around 3 years ago, is just one example of where this show requires almost academic levels of study and commitment. Supposedly they’re each living their relationship in reverse, simultaneously learning about and losing each other in a way that’s supposed to be poignant. But how on earth are you supposed to keep track of it all?

On a more personally bitter note – I hate River Song. Every time she appears my heart sinks and my eyes power down. Theoretically, she should be a good character, the one person the Doctor falls for, but I can’t help but feel that Alex Kingston’s performance leaves a lot to be desired. She’s nowhere near as sexy, mysterious or dangerous as she should be, instead flitting in and out of episodes in a smug haze. The everpresent Rory is also an annoyance, injecting an unwelcome dose of sentimentality into each episode as he and Amy once again declare their love for one another.

And that’s the real problem. Doctor Who is at it’s best when it’s just the Doctor and his companion gallavanting about in a self-contained adventure, with maybe a hint of some wider mystery surfacing towards the end. With this series, it’s mostly a case of too many characters, too many mysteries and too little coherence. Of course there are some highlights. The monsters are as novel and interesting as ever, with The Silence and The Flesh both memorable entries in the Who canon. And it’s difficult to deny that there weren’t flashes of brilliance in episodes like ‘The Doctor’s Wife’ or ‘The Rebel Flesh’.

But, ultimately, Doctor Who has crippled itself with grand ambitions of being bigger and more surprising than ever before, and lost what made it special along the way. Here’s hoping the second half of this flagging series reins itself in before it loses control altogether.

Review – X-Men: First Class

I harbour an almost visceral hatred of the 3rd X-Men film, The Last Stand. Not that it was awful or offensive or anything like that, it just should have been a lot better considering the near perfection of X-Men 2. Yep, Last Stand well and truly torpedoed the franchise, meaning the only way to save the X-Men was to give them a full-on reboot – a Doctor Who-style regeneration with fresh faces, a bold new style and even bigger special effects. And considering that X-Men: First Class was being headed-up by the ‘so-hot-right-now’ pair of Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman, of Kick-Ass fame, this was one reboot actually worth getting excited about (sorry Spiderman).

Set in the X-Men’s formative years of the 1960′s, First Class focuses on the early relationship of Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lensher (Michael Fassbender) before their metamorphosis into Professor X and Magneto. Starting off with some quick origins-style bits, including a rehash of Lensher’s concentration camp scene from the original X-Men, the plot quickly brings the two alpha-mutants together as they try to thwart the apocalyptic plans of Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) and Emma Frost (January Jones).

In the process they form the very first X-Men team, which features series stalwarts Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and Beast (Nicholas Hoult) alongside lesser-known muties like Havok, Banshee, Darwin and Angel. With the Cold War conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union raging in the background, the X-Men must stop Shaw from escalating events into World War III while struggling with the ideological tensions simmering between Xavier and Magneto.

First Class marks a complete reinvention of the franchise. Not only do we get a completely new setting and cast of characters, but the tone of the film shifts definitively to that of Vaughn and Goldman’s earlier work. This is a sexier, edgier take on the X-Men. The first ten or so minutes jumps frenetically between locations, taking in Oxford, Germany, Las Vegas and more as we’re introduced to the suave, self-confident Xavier and the vengeful, tormented Lensher. It’s a bold and self-consciously stylish opening, one which includes a few classic scenes of Lensher pursuing some almost Bond-esque Nazi hunting.

It sets a strong pace that never really lets up, making First Class an exciting, action-driven film that features several excellent set-piece moments. You might have already seen the much-talked about ‘mid-air submarine’ shot and it’s just one example of mutant powers lending themselves to pulse-pounding spectacle. It also helps that everything’s framed by a compelling and well-told story that builds to an explosive and satisfying climax.

McAvoy's classic 'doing something psychic' pose

At the core of any good X-Men film, though, are a cast of complex characters whose awesome superpowers are offset by fierce personal demons, and this is where First Class is less successful. On the one hand, the core duo of Xavier and Lensher are largely excellent. Lensher’s motivations and thirst for vengeance are convincing, and Xavier’s attempts to save his friend from being consumed by hatred provide some depth to the wider narrative. They make a great double-act, one which anchors the film superbly while also providing the focus for the film’s philosophical arguments on the conflict between mutants and humanity.

The same, however, can’t be said for the rest of the X-Men. Maybe it’s a result of having to introduce so many new characters at once, but there’s nothing interesting about the likes of Banshee or Angel. They receive a scene or so to introduce themselves but after that they represent nothing more than a few well-worn templates. Havok’s a bit of a hot-headed jock with a dark past, but so what? There’s no significant character growth or meaningful conflict in there to make him likeable or empathetic. We don’t even get any real insight into his criminal past, making him seem like nothing but a second-rate cyclops.

It’s a problem that afflicts almost all the minor mutant characters and you’re left with the feeling that they’re little more than mere conduits for special effects. While this means they serve a role in the action scenes, they’re also almost instantly forgettable. This undermines several of the narrative’s twists and turns because you don’t know or care who these people are. When one of them dies or switches sides, it just doesn’t affect you in the way that it should. There’s nothing of the ambiguity of Wolverine or the distinctiveness of Nightcrawler in these characters, making many of the more character-driven segments of First Class feel shallow and superficial.

This lopsided balance between the ‘leader’ characters and their motley crew is similarly endemic with the film’s villains. Bacon is fantastic as Sebastian Shaw, a mutant that exudes both charm and chilling menace. He’s excellent as the malevolent figure that gives First Class its dramatic impulse. In contrast, Emma Frost is a character played with almost numbing blandness and frigidity by Jones, who was probably hired more for her profile than anything else. Completing the cast are two mysterious types in suits, one who teleports and one who summons tornadoes. Cool to watch, sure, but nothing more than that.

So what’s the verdict then – does First Class inject new life into the franchise or is the stylistic shift too damaging for the X-Men to survive? I’ve got mixed opinions. On the one hand, the film gives the mutants a healthy dose of blockbuster bombast which undeniably revitalises the franchise. It’s difficult to argue that the film is anything less than enjoyable and engrossing. But is it better than the original series? No. Vaughn and Goldman have largely sacrificed considered pacing and a range of well-developed characters for something more disparate and, in the end, less remarkable. While I’m sure it’ll mark the start of a whole new series, I’m not convinced that the foundations are there to rival the X-Men’s former glories.

Review – L.A. Noire

In a year of high-quality game releases, L.A. Noire has still managed to stand out from the crowd as one of the most anticipated titles of 2011. Both the mainstream and gaming press have been blown away by the game’s innovative mechanics, groundbreaking technology and the pedigree of its publisher, Rockstar (responsible for classics including GTA and Red Dead Redemption). But now we come to the crunch. With the hype wiped away and L.A. Noire currently sitting in people’s consoles, we get to ask the question.

Is it actually any good?

Well, yes. Actually, an emphatic yes. But while there’s no doubting its quality, some may feel that L.A. Noire hasn’t lived up to its promise as the first true detective sim. But, hey, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Here’s a quick summary for those who have so far managed to avoid the smog that has poured forth from the L.A. Noire hype machine.

The game is set in a meticulously recreated 1940′s L.A. and uses MotionScan, a motion capture technology which accurately represents actors’ faces in breathtaking detail. You play as Cole Phelps, former war hero and rookie detective who must search for clues, interrogate suspects and solve cases across five different desks in the L.A. Police department. The main draw in terms of the gameplay are the interrogation scenes, where you have to decide whether suspects and witnesses are lying or telling the truth based on how they react to your questions. By studying the almost photo-realistic detail of their faces, and selecting either Truth, Doubt or Lie as your assessment of their statements, you can uncover evidence to help you successfully complete investigations.

This is a gameplay mechanic that’s never been attempted before, and the developers must be commended for basing their entire game around such a bold and untested concept. But does it work and is it fun to play? I’d have to say yes on both counts. The technology does a stunning job of recreating the nuances of the human face and it’s really fascinating to pick out all the little tells that show a suspect wilting under the pressure. A tightened lip or surreptitiously raised eyebrow can be the key to discerning the presence of a lie, and there’s a real thrill to studying a face for a good minute or so trying to determine a suspect’s true motivations, knowing that the success of an entire case may rest on making the right choice.

Sometimes, words just ain't enough

Of course there are problems. Early cases are made simple by some outrageously shifty behaviour, with liars frowning and rolling their eyes in a manner which suggests mental illness more than it does deception. There’s also a very fine line between when to doubt someone and when to outright accuse them of lying. If you decide it’s a lie, you have to have evidence to back up the accusation. The problem is that once you’ve chosen the ‘Lie’ option, interrogations can seem to veer off in completely unpredictable directions. So while you may have thought you had the perfect piece of evidence to nail a suspect, a sudden change in tone will show that you’ve actually got nothing, and that ‘Doubt’ would have been the better option. It seems a little cheap at times and it’s annoying when you fail part of an investigation due to the game’s apparently bizarre jumps of logic.

These are ultimately fairly minor criticisms though. While the early cases can seem a little straightforward, they arguably serve as great preparation for later sections where you come across some fantastic liars who require both sharp contemplation and a good grounding in the game’s principles. And as much as the choice between Doubt and Lie is problematic, it does add a healthy degree of challenge and complexity into the mix. Overall, the interrogation scenes are nearly always utterly compelling and serve as great examples of both innovation and entertainment.

The interrogations only constitute one third of the game though, alongside clue-hunting at crime scenes and more conventional GTA-style action sequences. Finding clues is probably the least exciting aspect of L.A. Noire. With each case you’ll visit multiple crime scenes where you walk around examining objects trying to find crucial evidence. The game uses controller vibration and musical cues to signal when an interesting object is close by, with Phelps then looking at the object to decide whether it’s relevant.

There’s nothing challenging about finding clues as it basically just boils down to walking around in circles mashing the x button until a bit of jazz piano pipes up. What’s more, you’ll know when you’ve found everything because the music cuts out and your partner tells you to move on. That’s not to say that clue-hunting is a waste of time or an annoyance. On the contrary, it helps to build an immense sense of atmosphere as you methodically work your way around a suspect’s home or the scene of a murder. In some ways, these sections are more akin to classic point-and-click adventure games like Broken Sword and are enjoyable for the same reason. Finding clues is more about building a case than the hunt itself and determining the significance of these clues within the wider context of the case is where the challenge ultimately lies.

As for the action segments, they’re different from what we’ve come to expect from recent Rockstar titles in that they aim squarely for realism. Whether it’s a car chase, shoot-out or on-foot pursuit, everything about the action feels authentic and firmly rooted in the world of 1940′s Los Angeles. Cars are weighty and unwieldy, enemies react realistically to being shot (and take only a realistic amount of damage) and hand-to-hand  combat is suitably unflashy. While this all means that L.A. Noire isn’t great as a straight-out actioner, it does work to really immerse you in the world of the game.

L.A. Noire doesn't shy away from the graphic detail

This sense of immersion is helped by the city of L.A. itself. In one sense, L.A. Noire doesn’t need to be an open-world game. While you’re completing cases, nothing really happens when driving between different locations and these sections can just as easily be skipped. The side missions that take place across L.A. also seem like an afterthought, since they’re insubstantial and often occur halfway across the map, which is irritating when they pop up during the middle of a case.

No, L.A. Noire could have been almost the same game without it’s sprawling open-world environment. But at the same time, the city gives L.A. Noire a huge amount of character and personality. L.A. is almost overwhelming in terms of its sheer size and detail. It forms an absolutely stunning backdrop to the story and helps to give L.A. Noire a rich, unique atmosphere.

Speaking of the story, it’s a compelling tale that builds towards an absolutely thrilling climax, but it’s also the game’s biggest weakness. L.A. Noire suffers from a few weaknesses in its storytelling that can leave aspects of the plot feeling vague and unsatisfying. Scenes which focus on Phelps’ life outside of work and his experiences in the war seem incomplete and disconnected in nature, which works to make some of the twists and turns in the story feel a little unconvincing.

A bigger problem, though, is the way story sometimes interrupts and undermines L.A. Noire’s core gameplay. Some cases will seem to end prematurely only to be revisited later on, while others involve very little detective work at all, instead acting as mere dressing for a series of set-piece moments. At these times, L.A. Noire denies you complete responsibility for solving the cases, which breaks the otherwise deep investment you have in the game and disrupts the sense that you are actually playing as a detective.

While I’m not complaining about the game’s strong focus on story, I would have liked to have seen more cases where you’re just left to use L.A. Noire’s excellent mechanics to solve cases from beginning to end. Ultimately though, this isn’t a fatal flaw and I’m sure future DLC will help to restore the balance. Which justs leaves me to say that yes, L.A. Noire is as entertaining as it is groundbreaking and can be strongly recommended to anyone looking for a more measured, thoughtful gaming experience. The whole package drips with personality in a way which makes it wholly immersive, providing a unique and memorable experience that more than lives up to the hype.

Alpha Protocol: The Spy Game That Slipped Under The Radar

Chances are you’ve never heard of Alpha Protocol. Despite being an innovative RPG from a major developer much-hyped prior to release last year, it received an overwhelming ‘meh’ from the critical community. Potential buyers chose to stay away, its publisher declared the series dead in the water and Alpha Protocol sky-dived straight into the bargain bin. But while it was routinely slammed as rough and unfinished, there were hints there that there was something genuinely exciting lurking under the surface. As an RPG obsessive, I owed it to myself to give it a go. Now, after 20 odd hours of compulsive time with the game, I’m saying that you owe it to yourself to give it a go too.

Uninspiringly hailed as ‘the world’s first modern-day espionage RPG’ (wow), Alpha Protocol tasks you with inhabiting the form of Michael Thorton: Secret agent with an attitude problem. Working for a top secret US government agency, Thorton finds himself trying to unravel a global conspiracy that sees him foiling assasinations, defusing bombs and seducing a series of enigmatic women who all, invariably, have some mysterious agenda. Employing a Mass Effect-style dialogue system and stealth-action gameplay that allows you to approach missions how you want, Alpha Protocol is similar to other recent RPGs in that it places a heavy emphasis on your decisions and the relationships you build with other characters.

So far, so (insert guttural sound of disinterest) right? It’s not the most exciting or original premise for a game, and the presence of undisputed genre heavyweights like Mass Effect 2 means that Alpha Protocol exists under a shadow of innovation and cinematic polish from which it struggles to escape. The fact is, though, that Alpha Protocol outperforms games like Mass Effect in several key areas. In some ways, it’s the most complete, fully-featured RPG I’ve ever played.

A lot of this comes down to the emphasis that is placed on choice. Sure, things like being able to choose the morality of your character, the words they say and the way the game ends have all been around for years, but no game has taken it to the same extremes as Alpha Protocol. Your choices drive everything that happens in this game and with these choices come a breathtaking range of consequences.

There's nothing like a casual headslam to break the ice

Choice is driven by the dialogue system, which allows you to choose between three conversational stances: ‘Professional’, ‘Aggressive’ and ‘Suave’. A more accurate description of these stances would be ‘behave sensibly’, ‘threaten for no reason’ and ‘act like an unmitigated bell-end’, as only one reflects how an actual spy would choose to conduct himself. Other characters, however, respond to the three stances in different ways, and their opinion of you will change based on the way you conduct yourself in conversation. You have a reputation with every character in the game which ranges from hatred to friendship, and this reputation is influenced not only by your conversational choices but by your conduct in missions and the decisions you make throughout the game.

It’s difficult to overstate just how big a role reputation plays in this game. It changes the dialogue you have with other characters, the role they play in later missions and whether they become your ally or enemy later in the game. The story is actively shaped by your relationships, not just in terms of the ending but of almost every other key event. What makes this so exciting is that building relationships is hardly predictable. Often, it’s not clear how characters will respond to a particular dialogue choice, and one wrong word or action could completely scupper a potential alliance. Success therefore depends on your ability to read characters, using their tone of voice, body language and intelligence that you’ve gathered on them as indicators of how they might respond in certain situations.

This is a great deal more interesting than the choices you’re confronted with in other RPGs. Rather than all dialogue being structured by a bland ‘good vs. evil’ opposition, Alpha Protocol tests your ability to manipulate other characters for your own ends. And this goes much further than being just a system where you either ‘pass’ or ‘fail’ conversations. As much as getting a character on your side has benefits, pissing them off has its perks too. Whether you choose to seduce, persuade or deliberately aggravate, every dialogue choice you make in Alpha Protocol has a distinctive and influential impact on the world of the game.

On top of this engrossing foundation, there are myriad other innovations.  You only have a few seconds to make each choice, which adds Heavy Rain-style pressure to proceedings. You also have the chance to actually execute most of the major characters at some point in the game. This can fundamentally alter how events pan out later on, and it’s especially interesting when you’re unsure of that characters motivations or allegiances. Conversation choices also directly impact your character’s stats, meaning that with each tough choice your actively building Thorton’s skills and experience.

All this adds up to make you feel like you’re really playing the role of a spy, which helps to engross you in the game world and invest you in the progress of your character. This is all helped by a fairly compelling setting and story that includes a lot of classic spy tropes, including clandestine meetings in Moscow parks, embassy infiltrations and a safehouse shower that hides a passage to an underground spy-cave. Ultimately, Alpha Protocol is a brilliant success as a role-playing game and a genuinely fresh entry in the genre.

Wearing your influences on your sleeve

So why all the bad reviews? Well, Alpha Protocol is a ‘stealth-action RPG’ and the other two prongs of this gaming fork are badly bent out of shape. On the surface, the stealth aspects are fairly functional. You stay in the shadows, stick to cover and off enemies with a combination of silenced pistol and brutal, muffled stealth takedowns. As long as you avoid setting off alarms and stay out of sight, then yeah, you’ll be playing the game in a ‘stealthy’ way. The problem is that the game completely ignores many of the key recent innovations in the stealth game genre. There are no light or sound meters, ala Splinter Cell, so you have no way of knowing when you’re hidden or how loud your rather-loud sounding takedowns are. Also, whereas other games would have you conceal the bodies of your victims in order to avoid detection, the dead in Alpha Protocol mysteriously melt into the floor. Not only is this a laughable omission for a stealth game, it’s also deeply incongruous in an otherwise serious, real-world setting and goes some way to breaking any sense of immersion.

As for the action, it’s a braver sort of failure. Your shooting ability in Alpha Protocol is dependant on the skill points you have invested into your four gun skills. This means that if you have a headshot lined-up with a pistol at point-blank range, unless you’ve sunk the points into the relevant skill , you’ll more than likely miss. While this is really interesting from an RPG perspective (as skill directly ties into the character’s actual progress within the game world), it’s horrible if you’re trying to play this game as a straight out actioner. Shooting someone in the face with a shotgun only for their health bar to remain static is infuriating. That means if you completely ignore the stealth route and go for a balls-out, all-action commando character, then all you’ll get out of the game (the early bits anyway) is trial-and-error annoyance and aggravating unpredictability.

Neither gameplay style is helped by an apparently lobotomised AI, which is capable of neither effectively taking cover or spotting someone a foot away carrying a missile launcher. So, in the end, what you have is a compelling game which is brought down by the half-finished appendages to its innovative RPG aspects. It’s the kind of game that you’ll instantly want to start again once you’ve finished it to see what would’ve happened had you made different choices or shot different people. Unfortunately, just as you’re about to reach for the ‘Start New Game’ option, you’ll be overcome by the pungant aftertaste of the gameplay itself.

Which is a great shame, really. Alpha Protocol has obviously had so much thought put into it that it’s apparent self-mutilation is pretty tragic. Here’s hoping some other developer takes some inspiration from this neglected gem so that its ideas don’t disappear entirely.

Review – Thor

And so the Avengers train grinds on. We’ve had the Iron Mans, The Hulk, The replacement Hulk (although he didn’t make it either) and now Thor has stepped up to the plate to quench the bloodthristy demand of the cinema-going public. Oh yes, I haven’t been able to move over the past month for the number of people pawing at me like the superhero-obsessed undead, desperate for details on when their favourite comic book character will finally make it to the big screen…

But all sarcasm aside – is anyone really that excited about Thor or is it just me who sees it as a mere stepping stone to the main event? Along with the upcoming Captain America, it’s hard to look past these films as being anything beyond a way to introduce the characters and make a bit of cash, especially considering how by-the-numbers Iron Man 2 was. So is Thor worth getting excited about? Does it come anyway near to the high-water mark set by the original Iron Man, which managed to be both epic and character-driven? Or is it just soulless refuse cast off by the vast Marvel marketing machine?

Well considering the scope of it’s plot, Thor certainly sets itself a challenge. Beginning in the mythical Norse realm of Asgard and with a quick recap of the Asgardians’ recent crushing of the Frost Giants, the film introduces Thor (Chris Hemsworth) as a brattish, egotistical super-jock at odds with father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Following a Frost Giant incursion and some encouraging words from his brother, Thor decides that the only sensible thing to do is to go down to the Frost Giant world and knock a few heads along with his team of super-friends, Lady Sif and the Warriors Three.

Needless to say, Thor’s trip is decidedly ill-advised. After throwing his hammer around and needlessly reigniting the war, Odin decides Thor could do with being taken down a few pegs and banishes him to Earth, where he stumbles around forlornly with astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) looking for a way back. Meanwhile, back in Asgard, Loki’s looking all shifty-eyed and mischievous, no doubt planning something massively evil while everyone’s looking the other way…

Pretty epic for a 1h 30 minute movie, right? Thor is quite ambitious in the story it tries to tell and it’s an achievement that it manages to stay reasonably coherent and engaging throughout. By the end, you’ve got a good sense of who the characters are and how Thor slots into the rest of the Avengers canon, and everything’s pulled off in a fun and entertaining way. The battles are really well done, with some fantastic visual effects that make you believe in Thor as a super-powered Norse god. The film’s vision of Asgard is also superb, creating an ethereal, golden aesthetic that stands in dramatic contrast to the Earth that Thor has been exiled to.

Thor’s grand scale does come at a cost, though, and a heavy one at that. The film’s character development is severely lacking in several respects and it’s almost enough to bring the entire thing crashing down. Thor himself is quite well-done, with Hemsworth rising above the boilerplate ‘arrogant bastard into enlightened hero’ template to deliver a likeably overblown, almost cartoonish figure who works well in terms of both action and comedy. Odin and Loki are similarly strong, with Hiddleston doing a particularly subtle portrayal of sympathetic moral ambiguity.

Thor has an almost Freudian relationship with his hammer

The central plank of any superhero film, though, is the relationship between extraordinary guy and average girl which is supposed to transcend all other considerations and provide the hero’s driving impulse, and this is where Thor falls flat. Portman is simply not believable as Jane Foster and their relationship felt more like a ticked box on a spreadsheet than something a god would cross dimensions for. This is partly because they only spend about two days together, but it’s more that the character of Foster is badly underwritten. She’s boring, given no history and spouts unoriginal, rampantly Americanised lines that were more irritating than endearing. Portman also seems completely miscast, neither looking nor sounding like an astrophysicist.

It’s also a problem that arises with Thor’s Asgardian brethren, ‘Lady Sif and the Warriors Three’. This group plays quite a big part in the film, but they’re given a fleeting introduction and then do little if anything to rise above stereotype and cliche. There’s the big jolly one who likes his food (heavily inspired by Lord Of The Rings’ Gimli), the rogueish, charming one and the presumably wise yet inexplicably Chinese one. Lady Sif gets a bit more screen time, but her relationship and history with Thor is only ever hinted at. It’s frustrating because I feel that if they had a couple more scenes at the start, maybe showing Thor battling alongside them and fleshing out their relationships, then maybe they’d have been a bit more interesting and could of added a bit more weight to the film.

This all flags up the wider problem with Thor - it justs lacks a bit of substance. It’s enjoyable sure, but too many of the film’s elements feel undeveloped and merely functional. Of course, this is a popcorn movie at heart so maybe it’s not fair to criticise it on that basis, but I doubt Thor will stick in the consciousness like Iron Man did. That film combined a great central character with a compelling character progression and an interesting, well-developed supporting cast. Thor lacks these extra aspects and as such doesn’t hold much interest aside from its role in the wider Avengers story.

That’s certainly not to say that you should steer clear of Thor. Far from it. It’s light and frothy entertainment that does a lot of stuff right. It does comedy particularly well, milking the ‘norse god in small town America’ fish-out-of-water scenario for some genuine laughs.  And if you like action, then Thor will serve you better than most. It’s just largely forgettable stuff when it all comes down to it, and I feel like the potential was there for something more. Still, you couldn’t do much better in terms of a Friday night down at the cinema, so just ignore this review and go and see it.

P.S.:

Also, it’s important to note that this film features Idris Elba (i.e. Stringer Bell) as a fearsome inter-dimensional guardian who wears gold armor and wields a massive sword. He also breaks out of an ice prison through sheer force of will alone. If that doesn’t convince you to see the film, then nothing will.

Review – Super Street Fighter IV 3D Edition

The console version of Super Street Fighter IV  is arguably the best fighter of all time. It’s accessible, offering easy-to-master move sets served up with masses of style and spectacle. It’s also immensely deep. A fight between two experienced players can resemble a game of chess, one miss-timed attack fatally altering the strategic equilibrium. With perfectly balanced gameplay, formidable multiplayer and a roster of 35 characters, most of whom play completely uniquely, Super Street Fighter IV is the definitive beat-em up experience.

So when it comes to the 3D-enabled port for Nintendo’s new 3DS handheld, two questions need to be answered. First, does it stand up to the original or is it a mess of compromises? Second, does it add anything new? Is it a worthwhile purchase for those who have the original and need a solid title for their new system?

Make no mistake, Super Street Fighter IV 3D Edition (or SSFIV3D) is a fantastic port. Minus a few graphical niceties, this is almost exactly the same game. The gameplay is the same. The blistering pace of the bouts is the same. The excellent presentation and eclectic style is the same. It is, frankly, an amazing achievement that Capcom have been able to bring SSFIV3D to a handheld system and a testament to the technical power of the 3DS. I am literally still doing double-takes at the fact that a PS3 game can be reduced down to the size of a tiny cartridge and carried in your pocket.

The only problem I have with the game is the compromise that has been made with the controls. 3DS has two buttons less than a standard controller, so the touch screen incorporates 4 customisable buttons to compensate. This is a perfectly adequate solution, but the result is that your just not able to play the game as you normally would. The shoulder buttons are awkward to use and using the touch-screen is largely counter-intuitive. This means that SSFIV3D is significantly harder to control than the original and I’ve altered my approach so that I only use the 4 face buttons. This inevitably means it’s a more limited experience, although I’m sure a lot of people would say that it’s just a case of taking longer to adapt to the interface.

Chin-breaking 3D action

Aside from that decidedly subjective criticism though, SSFIV3D is an easy recommendation for those that haven’t played the original. If the novelty of playing this game on a handheld doesn’t floor you, the actual substance of the gameplay will. Easily. But what about those already versed in the dark arts of Street Fighter, possibly weary of the experience having played it to death on consoles? Are this version’s new features enough to entice you to reacquaint yourself?

Ummmm, no. Probably not. The headline feature is clearly the 3D, and there’s no doubting that it adds to the experience. It provides a noticeable depth to the the characters and adds a stylish presentational gloss to the menus. Unfortunately, the backgrounds for each of the stages aren’t in 3D – they’re static cardboard cut-outs. This means the game actually looks a bit like a diorama, which is sort of impressive but can’t be called a selling point. There’s also a new over-the-shoulder ’3D versus’ mode, which adapts a new perspective to show-off the depth of the 3D. It’s fun to try out once, but ultimately it will disorientate new and experienced players alike.

Aside from the 3D, there’s a new figurine mode which uses the 3DS’s ‘StreetPass’ feature, where you select a team of figurines to do battle with the teams of 3DS users you pass in the street. I couldn’t tell you how good this is because, try as I might, I apparently haven’t walked past anyone else carrying a 3DS, which highlights the wider problem with the StreetPass feature. Assuming that enough people in your area buy a 3DS in the first place, how many really want to carry a bulky, expensive console around with them just to enable what is a very minor feature? On the strength of this game, it seems like a bit of a weak concept and you could argue that SSFIV3D shows up the 3DS’s key features as mere gimmicks.

That would be to ignore the subtler qualities of the system, though, including its fantastic wireless capabilities. SSFIV3D allows you to fight against anyone in the world with seamless wi-fi enabled multiplayer and there’s something thrilling about being able to flip open your system and jump into a global battle. Combine this with a great matchmaking facility and tons of unlockables, and you have a fully-featured multiplayer mode that adds incredible value.

So, as someone who played the original to death, would I recommend this new version to people like me? Maybe. The novelty of playing a game like this on a handheld is probably the main draw and was enough to make me feel like I was enjoying a fresh experience. If it wasn’t in 3D I probably wouldn’t notice, so it’s not a great exhibition of the 3DS’s unique selling points. Still, anyone looking for a classic fighting game would be a mug to pass this one up. The fact that you can carry it around (barely) in your pocket only makes it all the more accessible.