The Uber problem

Uber set its lighter to the news touchpaper last week. Thousands of people, me included, began shouting ululations to Zaamun Rul, lord of fiery outrage. This was not solely a reaction to Emil Michael’s unacceptable comments, but the latest page in the ‘Uber is evil’ story.

Whatever your take, Uber has a reputation problem. It seems intent on acting like a villain in an HBO drama. But the reaction to Uber seems increasingly disproportionate.

It’s surprisingly hard to separate truth from distortion. The details of any given ‘kerfuffle’ (he says, avoiding the word ‘gaffe’) are murky—a lot of ‘he said, she said’, but people are quick to buy into the ‘evil’ narrative.

I can't decide whether Uber is very bad or very good at PR. It's probably a mixture. Its handling of recent events doesn't paint a picture of competence and control in dealing with its audience. That said, confusion follows each issue, which could be intentional.

I don't believe 'there's no such thing as bad publicity'. Whatever the true intent behind Emil Michael's comments, I don’t believe they helped Uber (though it’s arguable how much it’s hindered), but it impacts our trust.

An Uber you can get behind.
Image: Scott Schiller cc by-nc 2.0

Over the past few months, we've seen sexism, threats against journalists, irresponsible use of customer information, suspect investment tactics, and reputed exploitation of  drivers. Quite the rap sheet.

Some of these—the French ad campaign, Emil Michael's comments—can be rationalised away as the actions of a few; not representative of whole company. I don't buy that. Yes, individuals can ‘go rogue’ and hurt the company, but that doesn't happen in isolation. There must be an environment in which people think it’s acceptable. Even giving Emil Michael the benefit of the doubt on intent, he should have better judgment than to make cracks about digging up dirt on journalists in front of journalists (especially if your company has a track record of creepy behaviour).

These investment tactics are hardly unique to Uber. That doesn’t make them ethically right, and if someone considers it sufficient reason to ditch the service, I won’t argue, but it's dissonant to do so while not applying the same principles to other services. Targeting Uber on this point demonstrates the willingness to accept this narrative—it’s what we’ve come to expect

Irresponsible use of customer's private information bothers me. 'God View' has a ‘legitimate business purpose’, but access is too broad, the name, understandable in the context of a ‘cool’ tech company, sends the wrong message; using it as a backdrop to a party is downright insane. I think it's more indicative of immaturity than Machiavellian intent, but a cavalier approach to this sort of power does not inspire trust.

Treatment of its drivers is the hardest nut to crack. The majority of the articles I have seen from the drivers’ side have praised the service as an enabler, offering a model differentiated from, restrictive existing systems, potentially benefiting consumers and drivers. I’ve seen plenty of criticism too, but it’s largely anecdotal and unsubstantiated. That’s not to say conditions aren’t bad, but there’s little solid information and a good amount that speaks to its benefits. I simply don’t know.

Image: David Holt cc by-sa 2.0

Is all this criticism just a smokescreen—FUD spread by those with an axe to grind? Clearly not, though I’m sure Uber have ruffled enough feathers that the narrative gets amplified.

What interests me the most is how quick we are to grasp the ‘Uber is evil’ angle. Much of what’s happened is typical for other companies. It’s a self-reinforcing effect—stories appear which lead us to distrust Uber; we frame every story that follows in a way that fits our perception.

We’ve seen erstwhile-beloved companies grow up and change the world—Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others—and go from our scrappy tech darlings to figures of suspicion. We saw the flipside to their services at a point when we were over-invested in their infrastructures. Now, the cost of extricating ourselves is too high, and they can act with, if not carte blanche, carte-really-really-light-grey.

In Uber, we see the potential for the same—an ambitious, fast-growing company with a powerful and commanding vision, looking to disrupt the world. But we’ve seen where that path leads, and are far less forgiving. We punish Uber for not only their own missteps, but the sense of violated trust we have built up.

I’m not looking to excuse or forgive Uber (I came to right this post with the opposite intent). We can and should be critical. They provide an amazing service, but we should judge the cost of use in terms of more than the monetary; we should do what we can do avoid being held hostage to a service because we didn’t look at the whole picture. That said, I don’t think the way Uber acts departs much from its peers.

I’m not going to tell you that you should keep using Uber, or if you should deleted it; boycott it; whatever. That’s for you to decide. What I’m telling you is to think critically—weigh it up and reach your own decision. Don’t buy into the ‘Uber is evil’ narrative just because it’s the obvious story that’s presented, but don’t give them a pass either.

That said, our actions matter less and less. Uber’s most recent valuation put them at around 40 billion dollars. I think they’re already past the tipping point, and it would take a pretty huge hit to dent their armour.

More than a shirt

I don't often talk hot-button topics on here (I prefer safe topics, like books. In the whole of human history, I can’t recall one instance where books have ever caused trouble), but something happened this week which stuck in my craw (yes, I have a craw, it's where I store all my repressed rage).

Dr Matt Taylor, part of the Rosetta mission team, was interviewed wearing a shirt that depicted numerous women wearing decidedly un-numerous clothing. This sparked condemnation of the 'sexist' shirt, followed by a predictable counterlash defending Dr Taylor and his choice of shirt and lamenting the 'oversensitive nature' of (variously): social justice warriors, feminists, offence-seekers, and the brigade of political correctionist fun-ruiners.

I have seen three main points of complaint against shirt-based criticism:

1) The backlash and its effect on Taylor (he later apologised in tears) was excessive and overly harsh

2) The shirt is not a big deal—there are more important things to focus on

3) The shirt is not sexist

1) Was the backlash too harsh?

Probably. This big scary beast we call the 'internet' is capable of many beautiful and terrifying things; it speaks with many voices, which sometimes resolve to the buzzing of a thousand angry flies. I don't like the ‘net mob mentality, but the discussion does not end with the condemnation how the criticism was presented. We can condemn his treatment without dismissing the issues raised. This is no longer about Matt Taylor, nor his shirt.

2) ‘The shirt is not a big deal’

This comment is stupid. Whatever the topic, it always appears. 

'Why are people wasting time talking about the shirt? We just landed a robot on a frickin' asteroid.'

'Why are we wasting money landing on a stupid asteroid? We should spending that money to build robots with famine-blasting lasers.' 

'Why are we wasting money on lasers that can only solve world hunger? We should be trying to stop the thing that really matters—the inevitable heat-death of the universe? Why does no-one care about that?'

It’s an inherently pointless argument that gets thrown up all the time (literally regurgitated like the indigestible garbage that it is). It's reductive. If you concede to that logic, you can dismiss anything on the grounds that there's always a bigger fish in need of frying.

Most of all, it bothers me that people think there are a finite amount of fucks we can give, so we better spend them wisely. If that were true (spoiler warning: it isn't), I’d suggest not wasting any listening to people who offer that opinion (incidentally, the same applies for anyone who unironically uses the term 'social justice warrior' or 'feminazi'). We can hold many discordant ideas about many different things at once. It's one of my favourite things about people. Our concern is not zero-sum.

3) ‘The shirt isn't sexist’

This is the roiling meat at the centre of the issue. Much of the commentary on the topic (particularly in the mainstream media) made little attempt to characterise why the shirt is sexist. Even those taking the stance that it is largely focussed on the implications and wider impact—for example, on women in STEM fields. To be clear: that's really bloody important and relevant, but it’s not what this post is about. For me, that narrative skipped a step, which left some people behind.

The shirt is not sexist because it is sexualised. Sexualised imagery is not inherently sexist (though there are many ways in which it can take a flying leap into 'sexist bullshit' territory). The key factor is context, both in terms of placement and the wider social context.

I have no problem with sexualised imagery in and of itself, but I do take issue with people wearing clothing emblazoned with it. That's not a repressed, prudish, 'seeing sexy things in a public place makes me uncomfortable', prurient reservation; it's because putting sexualised imagery into the position of a slogan or decoration is a reduction. It's turning someone (and that someone is usually a woman) into a talisman, a banner.

Even that I do not see as inherently sexist in an abstract sense. Wearing a t-shirt depicting a favourite actor, singer, politician (male or female) is still a reduction of that person by the same definition, but wouldn’t be called sexist. However, when the focus is placed squarely on a woman’s body above all else, it takes on a different character. 

If we lived in a society with more mature attitudes towards sex and gender—one not so rife with sexism (and many other ‘-isms’) on every level (and it really, really is)—if we were healthier in our attitude towards women's bodies in particular, the act of wearing clothing like this wouldn’t be loaded with such a momentously-fucking-heavy context. But we don't, and it is. Women go through life with their worth constantly evaluated in terms of their appearance. That makes all the difference for how we interpret this. It plays into a wider narrative of sexism.

---

Sometimes, reactions can be overzealous or overbearing, but that does not mean that people are simply looking for low-hanging offence fruit so they can feast on its delicious flesh because that's how they feed and grow and incubate their fun-sucking spawn.

We don’t have to condone the way something is expressed to accept the truth behind it. We can totally disagree with the torrent of abuse while accepting that there is a point somewhere in there. We can reach that conclusion on our own, in spite of all the shouting on both sides.

This one thing is not earth-shattering. It’s sadly sidelined a great achievement, but the fact that it has does not magically make the issue cease to exist. It’s not just about the shirt. The shirt is not single-sleevedly widening the gender pay gap or shutting women out of science. It shouldn’t have merited the attention it received, but the tectonic plates of opinion grinding against each other were sufficient to raise an earthquake.

A shirt can’t do that on its own—it’s a thread in a much bigger tapestry.

It’s not just about the shirt.

Some productive thoughts

I messed up and didn't include the image credit/license for the 'jumping brain' picture in my original posting - sorry folks! (image: Emilio Garcia, cc by-nc 2.0) Also amended below.


I've been thinking a lot about my personal approach to productivity and organisation, recently, and have come across some interesting research and methodologies. While my personal routine hasn't settled back in to accommodate these (and to see which actually stick), I wanted to share some of my what I've been experimenting with. 

Let your brain run free! justdontthinkabouthehorribleconnotationsofthattakentooliterally Free!
(image: Emilio Garcia, cc by-nc 2.0)

As with all this stuff, there's an element of the nebulous - there's only so far we can go with all the theory. At some point it has to boil down to what works for different people. But I think it's important to experiment with different approaches so we can discover what works for us and what doesn't. Sometimes, the very act of innovating or embracing change and the disruption that causes to our routine can be enough to bring about benefit. 

The first thing is something I came across via this Lifehacker article (for the record, if you want ideas about personal productivity or just an interesting read, that 'How I Work' series is fantastic). The basic idea is that our brains operate very differently between more 'day dreaming'/'free associative' modes and focussed, 'executive action' modes. Here is the NYT piece on it.

This is not particularly revolutionary or surprising - it makes complete sense. But seeing it laid out so clearly resonated with what I had been finding recently in terms of two completely opposing mental states.

I don't know many people who still claim that daydreaming is inherently 'bad' (it really isn't), but it's interesting that identifying and harnessing these two modes for different things is so powerful, and that jumping too much between them (or neglecting either) is detrimental.

This dovetailed nicely with something I've been experimenting with for a while, the tried and tested Pomodoro technique. For those not familiar, you break down any task into 25 minute 'chunks' and then run a(n ideally physical) timer for each, focussing singularly on that one task. The idea that singular focus is good for getting stuff done is, again, unsurprising, but the 5 minute interludes built into the technique to give the brains break play to the same ideas as the above research, rather than trying to bang your head against a task for extended, unbroken periods. The 25 minute block is the right length of time for maximum focus. 

The eponymous pomodoro

Changing tack slightly, the other thing I've done recently is rearrange my 'to do' lists. I jump between systems and platforms for this every few months. I've never found something that works reliably and persistently for me.

My latest trick, though, I really like. Using Apple Reminders (the platform here matters less; this is good for me as it syncs across most of my devices, but it really just has to support multiple lists), I've grouped them into lists by rough time required. Currently it's '5 minutes', '10 minutes', '30 minutes' and 'Big stuff' with a couple of overflow lists.

For the first time, I've grouped my work and personal items together. That's a bit of an adjustment, but maintaining two separate lists/systems and keeping them effective has been part of my trouble. For me, one decent to do list takes time to maintain, which is fine, but doubling that up tends to lead to abandoning one or both. 

The basic logic is that now I can approach the list saying 'well, I have five minutes while I'm waiting for this person, what can I tackle?' or 'this communte is about thirty minutes, what can I work on?' There's no reason this wouldn't be possible with a single consolidated list, but it's all too easy to lose things in the mixture. This lets you plan slightly ahead and dip in to match the time you have available, scanning the appropriate list to fill your time.

It's early days, but it's working out well so far. I don't think it's any kind of revolutionary idea, but it's the most pleasing system I've found to date. I'll let you know how it goes. 

What's in the Bag?

I totally didn't post this here yet! I did, indeed, go through everything that was in my bag - just not in a blog post. Here's what I got:

The Long Haul

I hadn't planned on reading The Long Mars on launch day, given that I was relatively underwhelmed by its predecessor, The Long War, but I happened to finish the incredible Dune on that day, and knew The Long Mars would be a quick and diverting read.

The Long Mars doesn't really depart from what Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter's co-written series has offered thus far. Some decades ago now, humanity experienced 'Step Day', giving them access to a technology that allowed them to simply and easily 'step' into an adjacent world, slightly divergent from our own 'Datum Earth' in some minor or major way, a rough exploration of a multiverse theory, in a kind of frontiersman way. This concept has so much potential for telling interesting stories, and that continues to be the huge strength of the series. There has been a steady progression of scope, as the title indicates, but the core concept remains the same.

The Long Mars still feels like a Sci-Fi 'travel novel' on a big scale. It remains very much a vehicle (more 'Twains', in this case) to explore these ideas, rather than being a great narrative in its own right, and, despite the genuine excitement I have for all that it's showing, this is where things rather come apart.

As a novel, it pretty much sucks. As with The Long Earth and The Long War, there never seem to be any notable stakes. Nothing is on the line, at least nothing over which the characters have any control. Where there is tension, it is short term, situational, and with generally little payoff. It wasn't until the last 20% of the book where any real threat or risk is truly felt, and then, it doesn't extend all that far.

In any one of these books, I would respect that, as a willing departure from narrative conventions. But across all three, it feels almost dull, which is precisely what this shouldn't be, given the promise carried by the setting. For the third time now, I've felt like we're perhaps building to some greater payoff in a later book, but so far, it's more like being strung along with not much to go on in the interim.

Aside from these general problems, I found some of the writing fairly clunky. Heavy exposition in the early pages seems to be the norm for books partway through a series, and here, I found it quite clumsy, almost distractedly so, with the characters seeming wooden, or excessively stating the obvious to bring the reader up to speed. I question how much 'real estate' of an already pretty short book should be devoted to this. Equally, I don't feel like anyone skipping the first two books would be hindered all that much from enjoying this one.

The gentlemen themselves

The characters themselves also fall short, feeling very distant from the reader. In some cases, I'm sure that's intentional but as much as many choose to push people away and not let them get too close, it's awkward when that extends to the reader. I still don't feel that much for most of the characters, even the ones that have stuck around since The Long Earth. Maybe it's a byproduct of my own frame of mind when reading this series, but so far it's three for three on this - combined with the general lack of stakes, it means I struggle to care about these people and what happens to them.

Ultimately, that's what The Long Mars is - another good offering on precisely the same lines as the rest of the series. If you enjoyed either of the first two books, like as not, you'll enjoy this. If you're not familiar with the series, but you love reading something that explores a fundamentally compelling idea, it's worth checking out the series, with the above caveats in mind. I know that Pratchett and Baxter are planning more books, and I still plan on reading them, despite all the issues I've acknowledge, because, at the end of the day, they continue to deliver something that is a quick and highly thought-provoking read, which is, for me, worth enduring the shortcomings.

What about you? Are you already familiar with the series? What have been your thoughts thus far? Should books like this be more focussed on delivering a solid narrative, or is the exploration of an idea sometimes enough to speak for itself? Share your thoughts in the comments. If you haven't already, you can also find me on Twitter, @mastergeorge

'A Game of Thrones' Board Game Review

Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Players: 3-6 (best with 6)
Playing Time: 2-6 hours

Game of Thrones (still better known as ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ to the Sullied) has been gathering attention over the past four years, as the HBO show has climbed to stratospheric popularity. The game of A Game of Thrones (the board game) has been around much longer than the show, first released in 2003, but was given as second edition in 2011 (either unwittingly or presciently primed to profit from the show's rise).

A Game of Thrones places you at the head of one of six great houses from A Song of Ice and Fire in your own bid to conquer the Seven Kingdoms, capturing seven castles before any of your opponents do the same. The game has you mobilising troops, carefully managing resources, and making and breaking alliances in order to be crowned the victor. And as we know (and you can see what's coming here), when you play the game of Game of Thrones, you win, or you die.

Image featuring the old-style wooden pieces (Image: François Phillip, cc by 2.0)

Cardboard Crowns - The Product
I have bought a lot of stuff from Fantasy Flight Games. Their products are of a consistently high quality, and A Game of Thrones is no exception. It’s a standard ‘big box’ sized game, complete with board, plastic units, a plethora of cardboard counters and assorted cards, all with a great build quality.

Some of the beautiful House cards

What stands out immediately is just how good everything looks. The art is fantastic, particularly on the house cards, which depict several major characters from the books who function as your generals. The one thing that stands out above all others, though, is the board, a beautiful recreation of Westeros in all its bloody glory. As with many games of this size, there are a lot of components, making an alternative means of storage (a bit box or plastic baggies) if not essential, then an important addition.

This doesn't capture the magnificence of the board, but it does show some of the component sprawl. Also, essential Hobgoblin accompaniment.

The Fantastic Taste - The Flavour
It's hard to conceive of someone not having encountered Game of Thrones by now, the show has just become so pervasive. The game does a good job of not really spoiling anything. At most, if you go through the rulebook and dig into the context of the initial setup, there are some implicit spoilers for the first book/season, which, in the grand scheme of things, don't amount to much. I'm a big fan of the series, but I honestly don't think you have to be to enjoy the game. That said, you will get more out of the setting if you are already invested in it, but it's not a make-or-break - I have played with plenty of people not previously familiar with the world.

The game does a very good job of matching style and substance. I’ll talk more about the mechanics below, but it really does make you feel like you’re acting a part in that world, with devious machinations and warmongering bombast alike carried by the gameplay. I don't know whether the game was designed for this intellectual property in the first instance, or whether the game was developed independently of the licence, but I suspect the former. It just captures the vibe too perfectly to believe otherwise.

The Meat & Crackers - The Mechanics
As I said before, A Game of Thrones marries mechanics and mood very well (and you know that, where Game of Thrones and marriage meet, only good things can happen). The biggest part of this is the role of hidden information. During each round, the bulk of the action is split between players secretly assigning orders to their units, and then revealing and executing them. You can bargain all you like with your neighbour, but when it comes down to it, do you trust them not to attack you so you can shore up your resources? Do you use a defence order to hold the line, potentially wasting that action if they don't attack? Or do you lull them into a sense of security and come storming over their borders, knife between your teeth, while they still have their proverbial pants round their ankles?

I’m a sucker for precisely this mechanic. It creates a Diplomacy-esque moment of tension in every round, as everyone flips their orders and assesses the consequences. For me, the blind assignment of orders strikes an interesting balance between pure, calculated strategy, interpersonal relations, and evaluation of the other players' true intentions.

There are various other factors which enhance this process. One player holds the Raven token, which can let them switch out one of their orders after everyone’s have been revealed, potentially a major advantage. The relative influence of your factions define who enacts their moves first. Raid orders are executed first, and a well-placed, well-timed Raid can throw your opponent quite severely, frustrating their plans or advancing your own.

Orders in place.

Another thing I love about this is the scarcity of orders. There are only a limited number of each type, and, if you’re badly positioned, you won’t have access to some of the better ones. This means you have to prioritise your plans, since you can’t ever move or attack from more than three places in a single turn. It’s reasonably subtle, but forces some hard decisions at critical junctures.

The other major mechanic revolves around the influence tracks. These are absolutely crucial to staying on top. These define who has initiative, which orders you have access to, or who wins in a close fight. Every few turns (it’s randomised), these are opened up for bidding, and each player has to blind-bid with their power tokens to secure their spots. Since these Power Tokens are expended and not retained, you have to carefully prioritise which influence tracks you want to go after, or hedge your bets and try to be middling for all of them at best. The problem is, these Power Tokens are also needed to fight off the occasional Wildling threat, which requires everyone to pool resources to avoid mutually bad outcomes. This tension, between urgent, selfish need and the risk of penalties for all is a fantastic dynamic.

The influence system is also one of the minor issues I have with the game. Not that it’s a design issue, I don’t quite think it is, but it is where games seem to be most often decided, and I haven’t quite figured out whether people are just consistently sneaky, or whether it’s just bias from variance.

Every time I have played, there has been at least one round of influence bidding where one player has totally cleaned up, taking the best position and more or less defining the position of all the other players as they choose, which, more often than not, has been enough to close out the game. I don’t think this is just because those players have intelligently hoarded Power tokens (though it is partly so!), as I have hoarded like the lovechild of Smaug and Scrooge McDuck, and still not been able to pull that off. It becomes a little self-enforcing, as if one player gets to that position, though, it can be very hard for someone else to claw advantage back.

One other slight shortfall of the game is the balance of the houses. It’s hard to evaluate holistically, since there are a large number of elements that add up to make the whole, with different generals, starting troops and geographies, but there is definitely some imbalance, necessitating some specific early-game tactics from a couple of the houses to stop themselves being locked out of the game later on. The claustrophobic map, forcing players into each others’ way, combined with different viable strategies for each house, is partly a strength of the game, preventing anyone from being too comfortable, but the Greyjoys, Lannisters and Starks definitely have it worst off, and playing as one of those houses brings its problems. If everyone is on the same page, all’s fair in love and board gaming, but for newer players in particular, it’s something to be wary of.

Playing the Power Game - Accessibility
With the world of A Song of Ice and Fire becoming ever more popular, I can see more players approaching this game. On the whole, it is pretty accessible; a slightly-less cut-throat Diplomacy in a more interesting wrapper. It comes with some general caveats that for ‘big box’ style games, notably their relative complexity and extended play time, but, in general, while the right tactics at the right time are rewarded, the necessities are such that new players are not automatically frozen out. That said, with the balance issues I noted above, a new player in one of those seats faces more of a challenge, although that partly depends on the playgroup.

The View from the Wall - Summary
A Game of Thrones is a lot of fun. It lets you do all the things you want to do while playing in the Game of Thrones sandbox on this scale, with a blend of politics and warfare every bit as devious as the show. It’s definitely best with the full six players, as this has the greatest scope for interaction and politicking, but is perfectly playable with three to five. Some minor balance issues aside, it’s a very solid game. If you’re a veteran of the game, firstly, thanks for reading this far! You should already have been sold on the concept… Secondly, there are a couple of small expansions with different scenarios and setups to shake things up: A Feast for Crows and A Dance with Dragons (though be warned, potential spoilers for those books implied in the setup), which don't seem to have been widely picked up yet.

The Best
Feeling like Tywin Lannister, making the masterful, cut-throat move that puts you ahead of your rivals.

The Worst
Feeling like the Mad King as someone stabs you square in the back.

Rating 
Five heads on spikes

A Screen of Empty Chairs

I have to admit something. This is something that people either react to with near hostility, or with hushed confessions that they feel the same way. Here goes: I hate the cinema.

Not film, no! I love film, along with most of its media brethren. I just hate going to the cinema. People are generally quick to jump to its defence, pointing to its fantastic immersion and escapism. I don't disagree. In fact, escapism is one of my favourite things. Glossing over whatever that may say about me psychologically, I just don't have to go to the cinema to do it; if escape into myth is my goal, there are many more available and enjoyable ways to do it.

This also conflicts with the other common line of defence, "it's a great social activity". No. NO. No it isn't. Watching a film with friends is a great social activity. Spending endless hours gushing over or dissecting (n.b. I hope never to use the words 'gush' and 'dissect' in the same sentence again) what you've just seen is simply fantastic. It's another one of my favourite things. But the cinema is not the place to do that. If I wanted to sit in silence and darkness with a group of people I like, I'd... well, I don't have any analogy for that that isn't creepy. Anyway, you'd have far more fun doing so in someone's home, somewhere with an actual atmosphere. And if you're discussing the film you're watching in the cinema, well, you're too far gone to be saved anyway.

Representation of the cinema social experience

When you go to the cinema, you get the genuine experience of having your spleen gouged out with a spoon. You pay a small fortune for tickets, and then more again for some of the worst food known to mankind - ersatz sustenance which is either entirely devoid of any kind of nutritional contents whatsoever (like popcorn), or which you wish was devoid of any (like dog spleen in a bun covered with choleric paste). Now, I'm no stranger to trash food, and, honestly, the expense of tickets and reconstituted proteins does not inherently bother me all that much. But I at least want to feel that I'm getting something close to what I'm paying for.

Instead, what I see in a lot of cinemas is this horrible class system for their customers. You get in and try to find a seat with something resembling a decent view, somewhere where you can sit for 2 or more hours without developing neck-strain. 'Ooh,' you say, 'those two rows there are perfect, just the right distance from the screen. And yet no-one's sitting in them already! What a lucky chap I am!'. Then you get closer and see that, no, these are 'special' seats for 'VIP guests'. 'Wow,' you think, 'I didn't know the Croydon TelePlex had so many visiting high-profile actors that they needed permanent VIP seats.' But, no, they are, of course, for those that are willing to pay their way. Sorry, pay more of their way.

Again, I have no actual problem with a business charging more for a thing. The problem is, in every cinema I've ever been in with these, those rows are always empty, or near enough. Which means that they're blocking out the best seating in each screen for very little benefit to anyone, with the added bonus that you make the more curmudgeonly and reluctant cinema-goer (i.e. me) feel even less happy about spending £10 on a ticket and still not being able to sit where they like, when I can buy a film for less than that and enjoy a vastly better experience in my own home.

Isn't it galling when the screen is full apart from the VIP rows, and they still run that ad about piracy destroying the cinema? (Image: Dennis Gerbeckx, cc-nc-2.0)

As I said, despite my deep dislike of 'movie theatres', I very much value the film industry, for all the flaws that it too has, and those two are as inextricably intertwined as a pair of ouroboristic sex snakes. The mainstream film industry is reportedly struggling. This page has a concise summary of some of the key reasons, which should serve as a reminder to you next time you groan at the announcement of the latest sequel or reboot.

But are cinemas struggling in the same way? It sounds like a lot of the smaller, independent cinemas or franchises are, partly as a top-down result of how the studios themselves are struggling. But the big chains don't seem to be doing too badly. Cinemark Holdings and Regal Entertainment, two of the biggest US chainholders, have seen a steady upward trend in their stock prices over the last five years, as has Cineworld Group in the UK (they appear to have made about £20m after tax last year). I'm not going to claim that stock price is a total benchmark of success, but it does represent something pretty substantive about the companies.

With that in mind, I feel much less bad about not supporting them, and feel less guilty for inciting others to do so. Vote with your pocket book. Demand a better class of service; if at all possible, support your local, smaller cinemas (even Picturehouse, now opened by Cineworld anyway - show them how much better this model is within their empire. Beer in your (comfy) seat, fewer disease-ridden Pick N Mix sweets). Demand Better.

Approximate depiction of the small cinema experience (source: elitehts.com)

Nor do I quite buy that not going to the cinema is the thing hurting the film studios. I haven't been able to find a specific citation for what percentage of a film's takings tends to come from the box office. The most specific source (and I don't think it's a great one) indicated that, at least until recently, DVD sales were expected to account for about 50 percent of a film's revenue (search on page for 'fifty percent'). The same source indicated there was a pretty big decline in this, though, driven by the change in the way film is consumed (and not uninfluenced by piracy, I'm sure, though the tendency is always to vastly over-estimate the impact this has).

So, at that time, the box office would account for up to (but presumably less than) 50 percent of the takings. Now, it's possible that, in the wake of the decline in DVD sales, the portion of the takings the box office accounts for has decreased, but that seems unlikely, as significant new streams of revenue have not emerged (the video on demand services that have edged out the DVDs don't seem to be as good a source of revenue for the studios). So, I expect that the box office is now more critical to the studios than it has been for decades. If I were in the studios' position, I'd be doing all I could to encourage cinemas to keep retention high and grow their audience (rather than squeezing every possible penny out of them on the cheap). Personally, I'm not seeing that, and I think the rise in 'movie franchise recycling' (between sequels, reboots and adaptations), while designed to pander to an established audience, is actually having the opposite effect, and is introducing a wider movie malaise into the general public, which is bad for everyone.

I couldn't find a CC licence image that conveyed 'video on demand', so here is a picture of a bear (image: hectoriz, cc by-nc-sa 2.0)

Not strictly relevant, but I thought I'd throw it in here: I was pretty appalled to read about some of the tricksy accounting practices the film industry has adopted towards paying its contributors. I honestly don't know if this sort of thing still happens or how widespread it is, but it doesn't exactly cover the movie industry in glory (and, admittedly, I keep talking about the 'movie industry' as if it's some cohesive whole; like it's just one guy with a camera).

Maybe I'm just a curmudgeonly idealist, but there you go. Bottom line: demand more bang for your cinemagoing buck to tempt you out of your dwelling and into the open. Alternatively, if you disagree with me, disregard what I have said and go about your cinemagoing business.

What do you think? Is this just me, or do other people feel the same way? Do cinemas just have it locked up, and people are always going to keep on coming back to see the big hitters there first, no matter what? Are they reacting the right way to a changing media landscape? Am I just straight-up wrong? What do you love/hate about the cinema? Let's hear it in the comments.

Ready Player One

Here we are again. This is the last post I'd planned in my 'gaming overview' series. I may  do more, but that depends on my having enough to say ('that's clearly not been a problem so far' *snarf snarf*). One thing I'd definitely like to do more of is talking about some individual games (of all varieties), in the same manner I have been with books.

This isn't strictly related to anything. I just wanted to show off the lovingly girlfriend-made Companion Cube

So, onto the actual topic at hand - video games. I think most people reading this would have at least played something that qualifies as a video game - especially with the proliferation of mobile gaming and so-called 'casual' games. As with other forms of gaming, however, that doesn't mean that most people actually enjoy them!

The basic premise that, shockingly, seems to be missed by those that are quick to dismiss video games as silly, pointless or harmful (a group which includes a lot of the media, particularly in the US - though this thankfully seems to be changing), is that, as with books and films, there is an intense amount of variety in the medium! Just as there are trashy books and mindless or outright bad films, you do get the lowest common denominator garbage being turned out by studios. Sadly, (again, like films), these seem to make up the majority of the market at any given time, so the best can be lost to those who don't watch the industry amid the rest of the noise.

What we get with the best games, however, is an experience that can easily supersede the best films. An exceptional game, is, hands down, a more powerful experience than an exceptional film. You are put into the place of the character(s) in a way that films can never hope to match (cf. my post on RPGs). You ARE that character for the game, acting for them, even if we are not given control of, or even agree with, their decisions (depending on the style of game). 

The emotional impact of these games cannot be overstated, and it is something I wish more people were open to taking the time to experience. The games with this level of payoff, however, tend to be the ones that require a reasonable time investment - 6 to 30 hours and upwards. This, though, in storytelling terms, is the real value that gaming brings over films, books, and television - putting you right there in the place of a character. Making you live the experience.

All that, however, is assuming that story is the driving force behind the game. 'Good' games do not necessarily mean good storytelling. I would say that the ideal is an solid balance between excellent gameplay matched with a robust story (such as Red Dead Redemption), but there is a lot to be said for those that swing more towards (amazing) story with okay gameplay (Bioshock Infinite), and I'll happily play something which is all about the gameplay, with paper-thin plot (Demon's Souls). It all depends on what you're looking for and enjoy.

It's with these last few examples that we really see the case for 'video games as art'. Video games like these - which are very few and far between are transcendent. With Red Dead Redemption, we have a depiction of a dying age - the Old West in America in 1911, and a timeless story of regret with a single recurring message - you can't outrun your past. I honestly can't talk in as much detail as I would love to about this game without spoiling it, but it succeeds in carefully exploring its setting and depicting a beautiful range of characters, all the while delivering a fantastic gameplay experience.

The original Bioshock was a stroke of creative genius, embodying the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand in the form of an underwater city - an industrialist's utopia, and exploring the inevitable disaster that follows. In this, you actual find a deceptively deep study of human choice. All in a beautiful, psuedo-Steampunk Art-Deco style wrapper. Atlas Shrugged just can't step to that. I'm not even going to talk about Bioshock Infinite, since it's so new (don't want spoil things!), but that moves the needle so far further the original in terms of ambitious achievement.

Demon's Souls swings in totally the other direction. As I mentioned above, the plot is 'paper thin'. I think there's a whole lore behind the game - there's certainly a cut-scene at the beginning which tries to explain this, but it really. Doesn't. Matter. From what I've seen of it and the characters, it's a little odd and rather weak. The sole reason I play Demon's Souls is because it is a really, really challenging, in a way in which video games don't tend to be now. This has been a bit of a trend in the last few years - some games ramping up the difficulty - a bit of a throwback to the earlier days of gaming.

Demon's Souls is punishing, but fair. It does not babysit you (at all - there's so little in the way of explanation or tutorial!), but what it does reward is honing your skill as a player. Even when you've improved your character and their equipment to a reasonably competent level, you can still be taken down by relatively low-level enemies if you let your guard down and get overconfident. Death is not permanent, but will set you back significantly, respawning all enemies and putting you back at the start of the level. The bosses are epically difficult, and you will often have to die to them multiple times to figure out a strategy - requiring you to replay most of the level each time. 

For someone like me (and I know it's not for everyone - the amount of cursing I come out with while playing is testament to this) that is appealing and addictive. Sometimes. 

So, there concludes my thoughts on video games, and, for now, on gaming. I shall be following up with some specific, more review-like posts in the near future.

Playing a Role

Given that my last two posts on gaming rapidly spiralled out of my control and became rather compendulous in length, I was planning on resolving to keep this one shorter. Then I remembered I was going to be writing about roleplaying games (or RPGs), and realised that on this, of all topics, I am quite likely to have a lot to say. As I start to write this, I'll try and keep it to a sensible length (not least so there's a chance that someone might actually read it!), and failing that, may split it across one or more posts.

For those who might not know what an roleplaying game is - in a broad and generic sense - it's quite self-explanatory. It's a game in which you are somehow projecting yourself into a different role. While that can actually end up applying to a lot of different games that aren't truly RPGs (such as some of the 'big box' tabletop games I mentioned last time), specifically, an RPG is a game where you play a character and describe their actions. 

Generally, though not always, there is a rules element to the game, with varying degrees of complexity, which are used to resolve actions. If my character is trying to break down a door, for example, I could roll a number of dice, factoring in the strength of my character and what the door is made of, to see whether or not they succeed. 

These games usually feature one person acting as a game master (GM) to describe the world and facilitate the players' interaction with it. As a player takes on the role of one character, the GM takes on the role of EVERY non-player character in the world. 

The first roleplaying game - the absolute classic, which most people will think of when you mention RPGs - is, of course, Dungeons & Dragons. Created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson in the 1970s, D&D introduced a whole new form of gaming to the world, which has grown and grown ever since. D&D is an epic fantasy world, complete with monsters, magic, heroes and villains. The GM is referred to as the 'Dungeon Master'. There is a heavy emphasis on combat and exploration, but this really depends on the group - it would be easy to run a politicking, balance-of-power campaign, Game of Thrones style. 

If this book could talk...it would probably say 'I can't get rid of these NERDS.'

D&D is by no means the only system available, though - far from it. For any style and setting you can think of, there will be either a fully-fledged game, or a system which would lend itself to it. Horror, science fiction, fantasy, comedy, superheroes - you name it. All it takes is a group, a GM and the imagination to get started. 

One of my personal favourites is the 'World of Darkness' setting by White Wolf. It's actually an old system which was updated in 2004. It represents a gothic horror setting in the modern world, with various rulesets for different aspects of the supernatural - vampires, werewolves, mages, and stranger things - each of which lends itself to exploring a different broad theme. 

The settings are masterful and give you scope for all sorts of different game styles, from mortals against the odds and unknown horrors, to vampires vying for political control of a city. One of the things I love about it is that the rule system is simple, effective and satisfying, letting you tailor it more towards a cinematic style of play or a more gritty realism. It's easy for new players to pick up, and the fact that it is anchored in the modern world makes the setting very accessible too. Sidenote: my favorite side-series in this setting (which I've never had the chance to play/run) is 'Requiem for Rome'. VAMPIRES IN ANCIENT ROME.

You also end up with lots of gorgeous books.

RPGs are perhaps the strongest examples of something I referred to in my first post - escapism. You are trying to put yourself in the place of a character different from you, with the agency to act and explore a whole different world. This can be anchored with pictures, maps, even props, or a simple grid representing the game world, but it is firmly routed in imagination and descriptive communication. The job of the Game Master is to set the stage, your job is to act on it. The show Community actually does a very good (though sideways and humorous) job of capturing the essence of this, in the episode Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (yes, that one). This is enhanced by the fact that, the majority of the time, you create your own character, defining their background, personality and nature, and bringing them to life within the game system. 

Since first being introduced to Dungeons and Dragons by a friend's dad when I was about 11, I've become pretty firmly ensconced in a GM role. Throughout my my teens, I was DM for various D&D campaigns (and sundry other games) with a group of friends, spanning a series of epic adventures over the years. 

Also in my teens, I ended up running a couple of play-by-forum (World of Darkness) games with other interested people from around the world. I did this for about three years. Playing this sort of thing by forum is actually pretty impractical - it lets you take a lot of time to work on descriptive writing, but it means that any sort of gameplay progresses glacially slowly. Now I'm running another online game (D&D, via Google Hangouts and the excellent Roll20 virtual game board tool) with a group of friends. 

As I mentioned in my first post, it's easy to write off gaming activities as pointless. There is certainly a culturally ingrained reaction when people hear Dungeons and Dragons mentioned - that's it's the purview of extreme geeks, something fundamentally sad that's perhaps even worthy of scorn. It's a byword for sad geekery. 

Seriously, what's geeky about this? These are literal bargain-bin adventurers.

This almost invariably, as with so many things, seems to come from a lack of understanding or familiarity, but that's usually hard to convey to people in brief. The time I've put into GMing over the years has taught me a whole lot, such as thinking on my feet (you really need this…), various writing skills, world- and setting-building, and, in a weird way, presentation skills (I have a natural aversion to putting myself on the spot in front of people, but that's precisely what GMing requires). 

I'm sure I could go on with this topic, but I'll cut myself off there, in the interests of brevity (though the number of paragraphs tell a different story). My parting thought is that I view RPGs as one of the most under-appreciated, yet accessible, forms of gaming. If you have a GM who knows the score, it is possible to play (enjoyably and completely) with practically no knowledge of the system at hand. At its purest, you describe your actions, and the GM helps you resolve these within the framework of the game. This also makes it one of the most liberating forms of gaming. Even sandbox-style, open-world video games are naturally restricted by their nature. Boardgames impose rules restrictions for simplicity or style, but in roleplaying games, the only limitations are those imposed by your character or the setting. 

Back again next Monday for some thoughts on the major blockbusters of the gaming world - the video games. 

It's the forehead of MYSTERY!

On The Table

Tabletop games are experiencing a real resurgence of late. I have no doubt that a significant portion of this comes through the Geek & Sundry network, with the incomparably awesome Wil Wheaton's show, Tabletop, currently into its second season. The premise of the show is that Wil gets three or four internet personalities, actors, or the occasional titan such as the legendary game designer, Steve Jackson, into the studio to play a featured tabletop game - usually a board, card, or dice game, and film it. 

I'll admit that, to many people, I think the idea of watching people play through a board game would be the epitome of tedium, but really, the result is surprising. The guests are almost invariably hilarious, or at the very least, plain entertaining, and the show is edited to be sub-30 minutes, skipping through any dull sections. 

The show has been a fantastic means for people to discover new, awesome games to play, but for many, it's been an excellent introduction to the entire format of tabletop games and the fun that can be had playing them. Much like video games, there is a huge amount of variety in style, theme and complexity available in an industry that's been going for a long time (as I noted last time, ancient board games still exist, but the industry has been commercial in the modern world for a while...). I guess I'd classify as a 'tabletop game' anything that requires some number of specific physical components to play. From very straightforward, casual games which can be played in 10 minutes, like Zombie Dice, to well-loved family games like Monopoly, to all-time gaming classics like Settlers of Catan - easy to learn but full of rich possibility, and to epic 'big box' games like Arkham Horror, Game of Thrones, or even the infamous Risk, which can take upwards of five hours to complete. These can be passing diversions with a minimum of effort as part of a relaxed social activity or epic afternoons of machination and scheming against (and with) your friends.

I consider tabletop games to be one of the most readily accessible forms of gaming, and the one that people are most likely to take part in - though much of this comes down to the aforementioned variety in what's available - there are plenty of games that can be learnt in five minutes and played in 10, in contrast to the more complex games which can take that long just to unbox and set up. 

I personally have a huge weakness for these epic 'big box' games, and these have led to some of my most memorable and enjoyable gaming experiences. The flipside to this is that, logistically, it is much, much harder to get to actually play them - they require a much bigger time investment, and sometimes a sizeable amount of space to play.

And this is before fitting any people/glasses round the table...

Actually, I'm not even sure that the top one is showing all of the components...

I also know that they aren't for everyone. I think just about everyone I've played these big-box games with has enjoyed playing them, but I also know that they can drag on beyond what most people enjoy for a game, and therefore can quickly outstay their welcome, which can sour things. 

That said, I'm going to briefly introduce two of my favourite 'big box' games, before suggesting some games that people might enjoy more casually. First up, as mentioned above, is Arkham Horror. You each play an investigator in the HP Lovecraft universe, attempting to prevent the end of the world as a great old one prepares to awake and devour. You must explore the Lovecraftian city of Arkham, closing portals, fighting monsters, and dealing with whatever else happens to come your way. 

I usually describe Arkham Horror to people as 'the game that hates you'. As much as you try to keep enough plates spinning to progressively improve the bleak situation and thwart the old one, the game is the one standing in the corner constantly pulling faces and throwing things at you. The good news here is that all the players are working together - this is a major selling point for me, as lots of people enjoy these longer games more if you're not constantly trying to crush each other! It's nice, too, that the game can accommodate up to eight people, though this slow the pace significantly, and can make it too easy. Luckily, though, there are a bajillion expansions to the game which can ramp up the difficulty even further. To paraphrase Wil Wheaton, I've had more fun losing at Arkham Horror (the game hates you…) than at winning most other games. 

Second is the Battlestar Galactica board game (rounding out a general 'Fantasy Flight games' theme). You definitely get more mileage out of the setting if you're familiar with the (reimagined) TV series, but there's absolutely no barrier to actually playing the game and thoroughly enjoying it if you're not. For those who haven't seen the show, the basic premise is that the remainder of humanity is on the run from the Cylons, a largely mechanical, antagonistic race who have recently demonstrated that certain of their members can take fully realistic human guise. It's replicants in space. 

In the game, you each take the role of one of the characters from the show, with their own special talents and abilities, working together with the goal of reaching safety. Sounds simple, right? Of course it isn't, because this is another game that hates you! Firstly, the Cylons are constantly hot on your tail, and random events will frequently occur where you have to use your fighters and ship weapons to fight them off until you can escape (because you're hella unlikely to win outright). But that's actually the least of your problems, because you're also battling against declining population, depleted fuel reserves and a food shortage. If you run out of any of these, you lose! If Galactica is destroyed, you lose! 

Oh, and did I mention that one or more of your friends are also secretly Cylons? Oh right, I should have said that before! Depending on the number of players, one or two of your group will actually be covert Cylon agents, working to undermine your ongoing battle to safety from within, and you have NO IDEA who they are. It's a wonderful, if horrifying, sensation of paranoia, and leads to some pretty wild accusations and arguments (all in good spirits, for the most part). To add to the drama, halfway through the game, there's a chance that an additional player also finds out that they are a Cylon, even if they weren't one previously. 

Both games have their flaws. Too many players, particularly if a large part of the group is new to the game, can slow an already long game down even further. Secondly, the cooperative elements in both of these games means that experienced players can end up taking over and trying to micro-manage other, newer players. This is bad all round, since it removes agency from some players (undermining the point of their playing in the first place!) which can, fairly, put them off the game altogether. It can also make it just too easy. I'm sure I've been guilty of this at some point, but I desperately try to avoid it!

If you're looking for shorter, more 'quick fun' games, I'd check out Zombie Dice, Tsuro (a beautifully artful and simple game with a great core mechanic) - you can see both in this video. Also Munchkin.

Munchkin is a...relatively...simple card game structured around a given theme (Fantasy setting, Lovecraft, Superspies, Pirates, Superheroes…) which offers a ridiculous, irreverent, and silly slant on more serious games. One of the best parts is stacking different sets together for obscene genre mashups (flying half-dwarf cop with laser vision and a sneaky bastard sword, anyone?).

If you're looking for something with a bit more depth, but without going all-out, I'd check out Settlers of Catan or Carcassonne. Both are total classics and pillars in the modern history of tabletop gaming.

This is another long post, but I can never really do true justice to how fun some of these games can be to play. If you're interested in hearing more on any of them or looking for recommendations to suit your tastes, post in the comments below! Likewise, it would be great to hear about some of your favourite tabletop games, or some of the best experiences you've had while playing.

Look back next Monday for more of my thoughts on all that gaming has to offer us.