Borderlands 2 And Bad Mission Design
My daughter Erin has mostly stopped playing Borderlands 2 with me, and it may be time for me to take a break. This is because the mission design of Borderlands 2 is pretty damned dreadful, and the skill tree is a disappointment.
Now, the core run-n-gun gameplay is fun, which partially saves it. But each mission you can take is long – I’d estimate at least an hour to two hours for each one, assuming you’re mildly incompetent, as we are. And it’s long in the same way, in that most missions involve you fighting your way through a bunch of enemies to find the foozle.
There’s gotta be some study for “ideal mission length” that Diablo uses to entrap people’s souls, but Borderlands misses the mark. See, when the missions get to be that long, you forget what the point of them is. Sure, there’s a lot of clever writing about how you’re trying to hunt down a broadcast radio or rescue an innocent or deliver a fire cultist to the immolation pit… but when you’ve spent the last forty-five minutes repeatedly shooting and running and taking cover and hiding, you forget all that. The flavor drains away, and you’re enmeshed in the same stupid gameplay mechanics, fighting your way to the blue rectangle on the map. I can’t count the number of times I finally reached the goal and forgot why I was supposed to be there.
So what’s left is the mechanics. “Oh, here I am, shooting again. Just like I was an hour ago.”
Plus, the goals are often these absurdly padded multi-part extravaganzas: hey, don’t just kill one mutated vorkid in an annoying acid-melting fight, fight four of them! Don’t just have one part to this tea party mission, have five of them! And of course, you get no XP until you’ve eaten every last one of your vegetables.
It might help a little if the levelling up was more rewarding, but too many of the skills are passive (and thus easily forgotten), like “reloading faster after you kill an enemy.” It doesn’t really seem like you’re reloading faster. There’s no graphical doodad to remind you that this +15% speed boost is, in fact, a reward, so it just feels like you’re the same old guy. And then half the skill tree things have multiple levels, so levelling up has zero excitement – what am I doing for the next five levels? Well, I guess I’m maxing out this skill.
It’s a good game at the core, but it’s the little things that are fucking killing it. If they’d had twenty-minute missions, then it would feel flavorful, like I’m making constant progress. I’d be addicted. As it is, I’m thinking of taking a break, and Erin already has.
A Brief Rant About Fucking Up Perfectly Good Photos
On Facebook, there was a lovely picture of a friend of mine. Then some asshole “fixed” it using Instagram. Suddenly, my friend’s beautiful skin tones are all bleached out, the contrast gone, and now she looks like an idiot hipster.
What the fuck, man?
Instagram is just proof I can never predict the future, because if you’d told me, “People will pay money to make photos look like overexposed Polaroids,” I would have laughed in your face and asked seriously, where are my teleporters? But no. People have now come to purposely make their photos look like the mistakes of the 1970s. In fact, we have gotten to the point where people think that a photograph that actually has some semblance of the original flesh tones of the world itself is wrong, all this lovely fidelity an error to be corrected.
Worse, they think this tweaking is fucking art. Oh, yes, you’re very deep, iPhone owner. You pushed a goddamned button on your iPhone to tint a picture. I’m sure if you asked Michelangelo, who spent four years hunchbacked, teetering on unstable scaffolds as he painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, he’d bob his head and go, “Yes, yes, you and I? The same. Perhaps I spent a lifetime honing my craft with oils while you tilted your camera at an angle and selected ‘Washed out’ and called it day, but no! We are both artists!”
No. It doesn’t make you artistic, or quirky, or anything. You took a fucking photo, which is the beginner rung of artistic skills; not that there aren’t brilliant photographers, but “getting the person’s face mostly in the picture” doesn’t make you fucking Annie Leibovitz. I know, I know, it took you ten whole seconds to get the composition of that photo you took at Applebees, and your friends will call it art because they’re in it and it looks moody – and then oh my God, you apply the “sepia” filter! That’s the stuff, man! That’s what turns it all around!
Look, there’s also value in having photography represent real life, and what you’re doing? It’s the Matrix bullet-dodge, the synthdrums of 1980s music, the feathered 1970s haircuts, the autotune – it’s that stupid, overused technology you’re going to look back on in ten years and be so fucking embarrassed because everyone was doing it, and it wasn’t that good, and in hindsight you’ll come to realize you were part of a dumb, omnipresent trend where you weren’t cutting-edge, you were part of the lemminglike wave, and all those photos are just so hideously dated that when you try to show people what it was like back in the day they’re just going to ignore all the heartfelt emotions you were trying to convey about your twenty-something years and laugh, laugh, laaaaugh at the stupid Instagram, Jesus, did we all do that? We did. What the fuck were we smoking?
Be a real hipster. Get ahead of the trend.
The Fine Details of Directing Porn
I scan probably about thirty porno scenes a day. This is because I have a subscription to Videobox, which provides five full-length porn movies a day, split into scenes with multiple preview screen-caps, and I feel obliged to drop by and see what sort of filth is on tap for the morning. I can preview a DVD, and then download the scenes I think are hot.
I watch only out of obligation, of course. Why, I have mistakenly given my money to this purveyor of smuttery, for which I cannot procure a refund, so it’s only in my best interests to not let this expenditure go to waste! What a shame, Margaery, but let me reap some small guttering light of enjoyment in between my bouts of rickets and my inevitable demise to cholera.
Anyway, what I’ve come to notice is that I download scenes in clusters. You’d think I’d just download scenes according to my kinks, but most porn DVDs leave me cold, even if the subject matter is technically up my alley.
But a few DVDs, I’ll download every scene from. Further analysis shows that this is all due to the directing.
What’s fascinating is how personal porn direction is. And why not? The director is trying to put his hottest masturbatory fantasies up on-screen. I can usually tell, just by glancing over the screen caps for a given DVD, what turns that particular director on. In this sense, the porno director’s trying to connect with an audience.
There’s a lot of fine choices about what goes into porn, and the first one is “the women starring in the porn.” If you’re a woman watching straight porn, well, I feel sorry for you, because the men are usually this sort of blurry afterthought, reduced to a set of mushy abs and a cock. No, what gets the starring role is the female at the heart of it.
And I don’t doubt there are some real-world restraints in terms of who they can get, but most porno DVDs – at least the ones that aren’t compilations – have a very similar look in women from scene to scene. Even though there are three women here, featuring a blonde with a short bob-cut, a brunette with long curly locks, and a redhead with frizzy hair, all of them are so skinny they have that ladder-look between their boobs but quarter-bouncing tight butts. Or they’re all naturally stacked, with big lips and a bit of jiggle in the belly. Or they’re all white trash harlots, looking like they stepped out of the trailer park in jeans and a belly cut-off T-shirt. They all fit a kind of archetype, what the director (or perhaps the producer) says, “These are the women worth fucking.”
So if you have a DVD full of so-called MILFs who are actually thirty-year-old strippers with overinflated implants teetering around on high heels, that’s not gonna do it for me. I tend towards the slightly goofy natural look, women who giggle during the act, who can at least pretend to have a good time.
Then comes the story – do we have one? I like the ones where people talk for a bit before they fuck – yes, it’s artificial, but at least I know who these people are and am kind of invested. But we have the other range, where people are just naked and fucking from camera one.
Then: how do they fuck?
I feel bad that American society is so repressed, because if the world was a little more honest, we wouldn’t use a universal noun for “fucking.” Well, I guess we have two in the sense that there’s “fucking” versus “making love” – a useful distinction – but realistically, there’s so many styles of having sex that I wish we had a greater, agreed-upon vocabulary to describe it. Hell, there’s about ten different ways of approaching cunnilingus alone, from concentrating on fingering with a touch of tongue, to the “focus all the attention upon the clit” frenzy, to the G Spot Tornado, to the gentle tease… and while you can use and combine any of these techniques, it’s clear in watching porno that there are schools of fucking, and some directors subscribe to them severely.
For me, the number-one goal of porno fucking is “The woman has to look comfortable.” If I’m watching some poor girl balanced to hamstring-breaking proportions on a cold piece of wood, I think, “God, she can’t be having a good time” and something turns off within me. Please. Get that girl a comfy couch.
But some directors are clearly into porno fucking, which is to say you both swap positions every three minutes like some sort of dick-infested Chinese fire drill, contorting both women and men into these gymnastic methods that can only be done by the most physically fit. It’s a bizarre abstracted style of fucking, bereft of actual enjoyment, but very athletic. (And I’m sure some of you do enjoy this “All right! Stand on your head now while I squat!” fucking, but my sneaking suspicion is that if you do like it, you like it because it makes you feel like you’re in a porno film.)
Others are into “women as object” fucking, wherein the woman is a doll to be fucked, and any attempts by her to, you know, participate are actually annoying. I see that all the time in porno, and it vexes me – “She’s trying to suck your dick! Let the woman use her skill instead of you just grabbing her fucking head! She could demonstrate – oh, no, you’ve flipped her over the couch. Why not just get a RealDoll, you idiot?”
(This is different from, say, face-fucking, where the woman is expected to be used. You can see these poor porno actresses reaching for the cock, trying their best to actually pleasure the man, and being overridden. Worse, I’m pretty sure there are men who get off on this overriding.)
Still others are into a strangely gentle kind of porn, long slow grinds where positions are held for minutes at a time – a classic 1980s porn riff, usually to terrible music. This gets kind of boring, actually. I’m sure it’s nice for the woman, but I’m fast-forwarding.
There’s a ton of little bits. Is there kissing? What kind of kissing – genuine kissing, or that little snake-hiss you get when the actress actually doesn’t want to kiss anyone? Is cunnilingus treated like an actual act where the woman gets to react, as opposed to some sort of brief aperitif before the inevitable penetration? Is it all genitals, all the time, or can attention be given to, say, the back of the neck or the belly? And what the hell is wrong with the missionary position, anyway?
(Don’t even get me started on how imaginatively bereft most MFF scenes are. Having been in my share of the glory, I’m going to tell you that there’s so much bad MFF positioning that I can barely watch them. You have no idea where all the fun is, people.)
And finally, you can have all the elements for hotness and have it taken away by the directorial style. For example, what gets me off is watching women’s reactions. I enjoy the kind of naughtiness where the woman knows she shouldn’t be doing this, but oh, what s/he is doing to me is just making me fucking mad. That’s cool. So I watch to see faces.
So when I get mechanical close-ups of pounding genitals, it turns me off. I mean, everyone has those. If you watch porn, you’re gonna see more than your share of genitals. They’re not that exciting, particularly the dangling balls in close-up, boinging around like some constricted ping-pong tournament. But a lot of porn directors think that this is hot. A lot of people, including some I know, agree.
But the porno director focuses in on what they like. Hey, are they a big butt fan? You’re gonna know, even if this isn’t a big butt video, because hey, rear entry closeup. You’ll get a lot of headless body shots if they think that’s the stuff. And that can kill your porno-buzz right there.
Basically, what you come to realize is how varied and multi-tonal the human sexual impulse is. You’d think watching two humans humping would be hot, and it is at first, but as your personal porno tastes become refined and you see enough to see how others’ tastes trend, you come to realize that sex isn’t just one thing. It’s a host of many tiny things, like atoms aligning in the cell to create chemistry, and sometimes you wind up with a dead organism.
Sex is not sex. Sex is not necessarily sexy.
This is what happens when you get a damn Videobox subscription. And watch probably too much damn porn.
In Other Fine Cinema….
….Looper does not have the greatest death scene in movie history. That glory belongs to the Turkish movie “Kareteci Kiz 1973,” and it features this poor man getting shot. It is amazing in every way, yet perfectly work-safe.
…I feel that way some days. Most days, in fact.
Looper: The Mostly Spoiler-Free Review
All my science-fiction writin’ friends are in love with Looper, and it’s easy to see why: Looper isn’t a movie. It’s a science fiction book that’s been filmed.
See, the plots of movies are like a snake eating itself: the first half sets up all the elements in the movie – all the characters, mysteries, and plot points – and then you hit the tipping point and the movie spends the last half tidily wrapping up each element that it’s introduced. They usually shift the third act to a new location just so this pattern isn’t quite as evident… but once all the elements have been touched upon, the movie is over. Roll credits. It’s satisfying, but it’s also predictable – nothing wrong with a good formula, but you can use it a little often.
Whereas Looper is a lot like an Alfred Bester novel. It’s still introducing new concepts and mysteries when you’re halfway through the movie, and they turn out to be central to the plot. There are a lot of side journeys and toss-off concepts that aren’t wrapped up in a tidy way. Things are very messy, which makes Looper as unpredictable as a spitball.
That doesn’t mean it’s the best sci-fi movie ever, or even the best time-travel movie starring Bruce Willis meeting his younger self, but the novelty makes it something far fresher than the usual slew of pre-fabbed films.
The trick of Looper is that time travel has been invented, but it’s instantly outlawed. The mafia sends people back in time to be killed – it’s explained that technology has advanced to the point where they can’t hide a body in the future – and quite often, the Looper-hitmen are assigned to “close the loop” and kill their future selves. As Loopers are chosen from a bunch of hedonistic junkies, this is approached with a cynical fatalism – hey, I’ve got thirty years to party! And those who are weak and let themselves go encounter horrible, horrible fates as the Mob chases both of them to ensure that the future isn’t changed.
That’s the first sign of how unpredictable Looper gets. In any other film, the shocking twist that Joseph Gordon-Levitt has to kill his older Bruce Willis self would be the unique factor – he’s the only one who’s ever had to murder himself! Why? But making the self-destruction mundane is just one of Looper’s many hidden tricks. This subtle bit of worldbuilding actually makes things far better. If this was a once-in-a-lifetime event, then Young Joe would immediately sympathize with Old Joe and they’d team up to get revenge.
But no. Young Joe is infuriated by the way that Old Joe is fucking with his life now, sees Old Joe as greedy and selfish (which, yes, they both are) for not succumbing to the fate that he signed up for, and so the two of them are at odds throughout the film. They don’t like each other. They shouldn’t. Even though they’re the same person, they have entirely different agendas.
The acting is also top-notch. The makeup to make Joseph Gordon-Levitt look like Bruce Willis is a little intrusive at times, making him look a tab Kabuki, but both actors meld – you’d expect Bruce Willis, being the big star here, to be just Bruce Willis, but no, Bruce takes on just enough of JGL that it’s not quite the Die Hard of the Future.
Now, Looper has some serious flaws. People have called it an internally consistent time travel movie, which it most certainly is not – it’s the usual messiness of multiple futures, not quite explained. And while the characters are wonderfully defined and acted, their ends are not often well thought-out – Jeff Daniels plays a mob boss with such a beautiful affability I wanted to watch him all day, but in the end his character is almost literally discarded. If it was a book, it’d probably be a B-grade book – lots of great ideas, a weakish plot.
But as a movie, Looper is something interesting and new and worth watching just for a fresh take on cinema. I liked it an awful lot. I’d encourage you to go see it, if you like time-travel films.