Trekking with Dennis

Concord… Oof.

We’ve just seen one of the biggest and most expensive failures in the history of video games. That isn’t hyperbole: Sony’s hero-shooter Concord is now one of the worst flops of all time. Whole books could be written on this topic, with Concord becoming a case study in how not to develop and launch a game – but for now, I’ll try my best to break down what happened, what went wrong for Sony… and most curiously of all, why it won’t actually matter to the company or its PlayStation brand.

The tl;dr is this: Concord was launched years too late into a massively competitive genre, one that has already seen high-profile flops from big studios and developers. Its art style was generic, it didn’t stand out from the pack, and it offered prospective players no reason to switch from other, better-established titles in the hero-shooter genre. But worst of all, Sony was demanding $40/£35 for a game in a genre where the most successful titles are free-to-play. There was no way players were gonna take a punt on an expensive new game when there are so many free ones with huge, established playerbases.

Still frame from the release trailer for Concord (2024) showing gameplay. — Everything about *Concord* just screams “generic.”

But that isn’t all there is to say. Concord caught criticism for “being woke,” finding itself on the wrong side of the culture war in the video games arena. Releasing at the same time as both Dustborn – which was also highly criticised for its social justice narrative – and Black Myth Wukong, which the “anti-woke” crowd have rallied around thanks to dubious claims surrounding its development and supposed rejection of “interference” by companies allegedly pushing “an agenda.” Concord was harmed by these comparisons, no doubt.

There’s also the fact that the live service/games-as-a-service marketplace is oversaturated. There are only so many players who want always-online competitive multiplayer titles, and most of them are already committed to one or two games. If Concord had been free-to-play, more people might’ve been willing to at least fire it up and give it a try. But for the stupidly high price that Sony demanded? It’s really no surprise that Concord failed to make a dent in this very difficult market.

Still frame from the release trailer for Concord (2024) showing the game's tagline. — *Concord* promised to let players “battle across the galaxy!”

Shortly before I started to write this article, Sony announced that everyone who bought Concord would be given a full refund and the game would be pulled from sale. The game was only released at the end of August; Concord didn’t even last two weeks before Sony pulled the plug. And unlike in the past when some publishers have killed their live-service games… I completely understand why Sony did it and I can even say without a hint of irony that it was the right call. If no one is playing your live service game – and Concord, at least on PC, was seeing player counts of well below 100 concurrent users – then keeping it online is only going to cost money. And Concord has already proven to be a huge expense for Sony.

The claim that Concord had been in development for “eight years” seems to stem from a single quote from one of the developers and hasn’t been fully confirmed. But at the very least, the game was in full development for well over five years, and Sony even pulled resources away from other titles to support Concord. The game has cost Sony well over $100 million, not even counting the money spent on marketing it over the last couple of months. This is certainly one of the most expensive failures that the video games industry has ever seen.

Screenshot showing Concord's player count. — *Concord’*s player count on the 3rd of September 2024.
*Image Credit: SteamDB.info*

But the strange thing is that Concord’s failure really won’t have much of an impact on Sony. The company doesn’t have all of its eggs in one basket, and both its hardware and software divisions are making money hand over fist elsewhere. Sony may even be able to write off Concord’s development costs – or a large portion of them, at any rate – as a loss against its tax bill, further reducing the impact of the game’s catastrophic launch.

This is something that’s increasingly happening in the video games industry. The few massive corporations that dominate the gaming landscape are quite happy to spend vast sums of money on creating new games, because they only need to find one successful title out of a whole bunch. Sony can write off Concord without doing much harm to its broader business model. Would the company have preferred it if Concord had been the next big thing, dethroning Overwatch and Grand Theft Auto V to become the best-selling multiplayer game of the decade? Sure! But you can bet that no Sony executive will lose any sleep over its failure. They have many more titles coming along across a range of genres – and they only need one or two to become big hits.

Screenshot of Sony's profits in the first quarter of FY 2022. — Sony’s profits from the first quarter of 2022. The company absolutely will not care or even notice *Concord’*s failure.

If developer Firewalk Studios had been working independently, Concord’s failure would have undoubtedly ruined the company and its leadership team. And while it’s still quite possible – likely, even – that Firewalk will be shut down by Sony as a result of this situation, Sony itself will carry on virtually unscathed. Such is the nature of the business now that gaming has gone down this corporate path.

Concord was created to be Sony’s answer to Overwatch, Apex Legends, and Valorant. The company saw the potential in the hero-shooter genre and thought it could find a way in, hoping to print money on the scale of some of those other games. But nothing about Concord stood out – the game itself looked like a cheap copy of more successful titles. Which is what it was, at the end of the day.

Games need something to get players interested. The first thing many players notice – consciously or subconsciously – is the way a game looks. And everything I’ve seen of Concord from its level design, weapons, and characters just looked derivative and unimpressive. There’s nothing wrong with games taking inspiration from successful titles – remember when first-person shooters were literally known as “Doom clones?” But in the current highly-competitive market, a new title trying to garner attention and support from players who are already immersed in other titles needs something to stand out. And Concord had nothing.

I feel for the developers who poured years of work into Concord. I spent a decade working in the games industry, and I know that developers are passionate people who genuinely care about making the best, most creative titles they can. Concord’s failure will be a crushing blow to the people who worked hard to bring it to life, and we mustn’t forget the human element in this story. The game could also be damaging to people’s careers and future prospects in the industry – particularly if Firewalk Studios is shut down, as seems likely.

Will Sony keep Firewalk Studios around after this flop?

Because Concord’s potential failure was built into Sony’s plans, nothing will happen to the company. The situation is embarrassing for Sony, sure – no one wants to win the gold medal for “worst-selling game of all-time.” But Sony has the money and the market share to walk it off, and when Concord is completely forgotten in a few weeks’ time, there genuinely won’t be any consequences for the company or for the executives who pushed for this game to be created, marketed, and sold in the way that it was. Sony will refocus its efforts on its next live service, always-online multiplayer title… and then the next one after that, if it also ends up like Concord.

We are firmly in an era of “live service spirals,” and the industry’s big corporations can afford to keep sharting out games like Concord every few months, if necessary. They’re all just hoping to either create or buy the “next big thing,” and they’re willing to waste as much money as necessary to ultimately make as much money as possible. This is why Microsoft bought Activision and why Sony shelled out to buy Bungie, just to pick on two recent developments.

Screenshot of Sony's blog post announcing Concord's imminent shutdown. — The “important update” turned out to be the game’s imminent shutdown and de-listing.

Concord was dead on arrival. Asking for £35 in a marketplace where other games are free-to-play while offering nothing interesting-looking or unique would have doomed it regardless of other factors. Releasing alongside the popular and successful Black Myth Wukong and the derided Dustborn didn’t help by comparison, but the fundamental premise of the game was really what killed it. For a game that took five-plus years to make and cost well over $100 million, that’s appalling. These corporations need people, somewhere in the chain of command, who know the industry and its trends and will pull the plug or restart development way before release. Concord should have been shut down or completely changed months if not years ago – and it’s on Sony’s leadership that that didn’t happen.

Sony is capable of doing that: remember when the Knights of the Old Republic remake was almost killed? That was, at least in part, Sony’s doing – the company saw a “vertical slice” of the game and hated it so much that the development studio that had been working on it was removed and production completely re-started. If they could do that to the KotOR remake – a title that should be a guaranteed hit – why was no one stepping in to insist on changes to Concord?

Still frame from the release trailer for Concord (2024) showing playable characters. — The playable characters from *Concord*.

It’s a shame. I never like to see a big game fail in this way, and I really feel sympathy for the development team who undeniably worked their socks off to make Concord. But this failure is a consequence of the way modern games are created – Concord wasn’t an organic idea that a passionate developer had. It was a corporate product, designed from day one to make as much money as possible by piggybacking on successful trends. Sony won’t care that it didn’t work, because the company has other upcoming titles that its executives hope will succeed.

So farewell, Concord. Despite Sony’s ambiguous wording leaving open the possibility of the game returning one day, perhaps in a free-to-play form, I suspect that won’t happen. The embarrassment associated with the name “Concord” has hardened hearts against it, and wasting even more money trying to convert it to a freemium title honestly won’t be worth it. Even if Concord re-launched in a few months’ time as a free title, I don’t see it getting off the ground, so the least bad option is to just quietly kill it off. I hope that Firewalk Studios and its developers will be able to move on to other, more successful projects.

Unfortunately, Concord’s failure was all but inevitable.

Concord is in the process of being de-listed with refunds offered to all players. Concord will be fully shut down on the 6th of September 2024. Concord remains the copyright of Firewalk Studios and Sony Interactive Entertainment. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Thoughts on Nintendo’s New Console

Sat 31.08.24Sat 31.08.24Dennis

A few weeks ago, Nintendo broke the news that we’ve all been waiting for: they plan to release a new console sometime in the next fiscal year. The company did so in an incredibly barebones, investor-focused Twitter/X post, but that was enough to get the rumour mill going and to send Nintendo fans into a frenzy! It’s gotten to the point where Nintendo had to say that it won’t be talking about its new console ahead of the latest Nintendo Direct broadcast just to avoid fans and spectators getting upset.

Although no details about the console have been announced – and its release window is any time from April 2025 to March 2026 – today I thought it could be interesting to look ahead and speculate about what the console might be… as well as what it might not be! My usual caveat applies: I have no “insider information.” All I’m doing is speculating and perhaps taking a look at a couple of prominent rumours.

This Tweet/X post officially confirmed that a new Nintendo console is in the works.

First of all, let’s talk about the name. Thus far, when communicating in English, Nintendo has referred to its next machine as “the Nintendo Switch successor console.” Some fans have taken to using the names “Switch 2” or “Switch Pro” basically as placeholder titles whenever the console is being discussed – but I’m confident that Nintendo won’t use either of those names! In fact, I doubt very much whether Nintendo will re-use the “Switch” branding at all, and I expect the new console to have a brand-new monicker.

Although the Switch has been a successful console that has sold incredibly well for Nintendo, it’s not the company’s core identity. Sony has PlayStation and Microsoft has Xbox – and those gaming brands have become well-known for those corporations. But Nintendo is Nintendo – and its consoles have always been known by their names or nicknames. Furthermore, the only time Nintendo has tried to capitalise on the well-known branding of a console to help popularise its successor, it failed spectacularly!

The Wii U did not succeed at replicating the Wii’s success.

The Wii U tried to recycle or retain the “Wii” branding, with Nintendo incorrectly assuming that it would be a selling-point. It turned out not to be, in part because the confused naming and branding led many casual players and parents – a core part of Nintendo’s audience over the past couple of decades – not to fully understand what the Wii U was. Even as late as 2014, two full years after the console’s underwhelming launch, I was still encountering players who believed that the Wii U was nothing more than an accessory for the original Wii.

Nintendo will have learned a lesson from that, and that leads me to beleive the new console will have a new name, and that the company will fully break with the “Switch” branding. As Nintendo has done in the past, a new colour is even likely to come along to help visually brand the new machine. The GameCube had indigo, the Wii had white, the Wii U had a kind of aqua-blue, and the Switch has had bright red. I don’t know what the new colour will be – but I think we can safely assume it won’t be Xbox green or PlayStation blue!

Every Nintendo console (of the past twenty years, at least) has had its own distinct colour scheme.

As for the console itself… I’m in two minds at this point. Will Nintendo stick with the handheld-home console hybrid format that has worked so well for them with the Switch? That seems to be the prevailing wisdom; why change something that’s clearly working and that gamers clearly want, after all? But on the other hand, for the past twenty years Nintendo has been focused on innovating and trying out new and different ways to play. We saw that with the Wii’s motion controls, with the Wii U’s gamepad and asymmetrical multiplayer, and with the Switch’s hybrid system. Will the company be content to simply build a more powerful version of the Switch… or will this desire to innovate mean that Nintendo’s new console will look completely different?

We’ve seen in recent years other companies trying to replicate Nintendo’s hybrid success. PlayStation has a handheld accessory for the PlayStation 5, allowing players to take their favourite PS5 games on the go… at least within their own house. And handheld PCs like the Steam Deck and the ROG Ally are taking the handheld gaming console to new heights of performance. These devices and others are all, I would argue, firmly inspired by Nintendo… but they also surpass what the Switch is capable of in different ways. They also offer players who were unimpressed with the Switch a more powerful handheld experience.

Other companies have jumped on the hybrid model that the Nintendo Switch pioneered.

Perhaps the next Nintendo console might look more like the PlayStation 5 and less like the Switch, with a home console for players who want to play on the couch and a handheld accessory for gaming on the go. If the two systems were linked, sharing a single account, players could have both and get the “best of both worlds.” Or maybe it will look like a beefier, more powerful Switch – a handheld console with a dock to connect it to a TV or bigger screen. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Nintendo follow Xbox and PlayStation in releasing two models – one that has a slot for game cartridges and one that’s digital/download only.

Beyond those ideas, though, I really do wonder whether Nintendo’s desire for innovation will lead to a very unpredictable console! Having experimented with motion controls, could the new Nintendo machine have a more refined and accurate motion controller, for example? Or could it ditch the controller altogether, opting for a gesture-based interface like Microsoft tried to achieve with Kinect? Maybe Nintendo will ditch physical buttons and analogue sticks in favour of a touch-screen interface, reaching out to players who are used to gaming on phones and tablets. Any of these things – and many more that I can’t even think of – seem plausible right now!

Nintendo has never been afraid of innovating – like when they released the bazooka-looking Super Scope for the SNES!

Then there’s the question of games. Nintendo is already working with other companies in the games industry to bring third-party titles to the new console. Development kits have been sent out to some of the industry’s biggest names, so we can expect to see some popular titles and upcoming games join the system on release. As for first-party games, though… I’m not sure what to expect.

There has only just been a new Zelda title – Tears of the Kingdom was released in mid-2023. And Mario just got his latest 2D platformer a few months ago, too. Both of those games could be ported to the new console – and I expect they will be if for no other reason than to pad out the launch lineup. But Nintendo will have to do more than that; the company needs a “killer app” to really get players excited on launch day.

Mario has just had another 2D adventure on the Switch.

There are a couple of games that I think Nintendo might be planning on releasing alongside the new console. The first is a new 3D Mario game – Odyssey was almost seven years ago already, so surely the next game in that series has to be in development. As with the name “Switch 2,” don’t expect to see Mario Odyssey 2 – I’m confident that Nintendo will have a new adventure planned for its mascot! But a new 3D Mario title could build on the success of Odyssey in many ways, and take 3D platforming to new heights.

The second game that I increasingly feel Nintendo will be planning to launch either alongside the new console or within its first few months is Animal Crossing. Now, I’ve been critical of Animal Crossing: New Horizons on the Switch… but the game sold incredibly well, and is the best-selling Switch-exclusive game. No, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe doesn’t count: that’s a port! So with Animal Crossing having exploded in popularity, Nintendo would be well-advised to get the next entry in the series ready in time to launch alongside its new console!

A new Animal Crossing game could be on the cards.

I mentioned Mario Kart 8 Deluxe there… and while I truly believe a new Mario Kart game is coming some time soon, I wouldn’t be shocked at all if Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ended up being ported to the new console, too. Perhaps it would be bundled with the Booster Course Pass – as Mario Kart 8 was bundled with its Wii U DLC packs when it was ported to the Switch. But in lieu of Mario Kart 9 and with the Booster Course Pass having only recently finished adding new racetracks and characters, I wouldn’t be shocked to see Nintendo choosing to double- or triple-down on that game as a relatively easy money-maker on its new console.

So that’s where we’re at, at least as I see it. The name “Switch” is almost certainly going away, and I fully expect to see a brand-new console with a new name, new design, new colour scheme, and so on. Nintendo will surely seek to take advantage of more online features, more live-service/recurring revenue ideas, and the like… but I still believe we’ll get a machine that can be used like a regular old home console. I’m not convinced we won’t see some brand-new gimmick, too – perhaps something that’s not on anyone’s radar right now!

If Nintendo plans to launch its new console next spring – say in April or May – then we could see a full announcement as soon as next month. Regardless, as and when that happens I’ll do my best to take a look at it here on the website – so I hope you’ll check in for that! Until then, I hope this has been an interesting look ahead.

The new Nintendo console is currently scheduled for release between April 2025 and March 2026 to coincide with Nintendo’s next fiscal year. All properties, games, and other titles discussed above are the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Happy Past Tense Day!

Fri 30.08.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Minor spoilers are also present for Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Season 2.

We’re marking a very strange anniversary today! See, the 30th of August 2024 is when the Deep Space Nine Season 3 two-part episode Past Tense is set! Well alright, parts of it take place over the next couple of days, too. The episode featured a time travel story that saw Commander Sisko and the crew of the Defiant thrown back in time to the early 21st Century, accidentally taking part in a major historical event. I thought it could be fun to mark this unusual occasion by revisiting the episode and its mid-90s vision of what today might’ve looked like.

Although Star Trek has done time travel episodes in practically every season going all the way back to The Original Series, moments like this one are rare. The franchise’s time travel stories tend to fall into one of three categories: they visit an older time period, like the classic episode The City on the Edge of Forever or The Next Generation’s Time’s Arrow. Then there are stories that visit part of Star Trek’s own fictional timeline – such as when characters from Lower Decks crossed over to visit Captain Pike’s ship, or the Deep Space Nine episode Trials and Tribble-ations, which was created to mark the franchise’s 30th anniversary. Finally, there are stories like Tomorrow is Yesterday, The Voyage Home, Voyager’s two-parter Future’s End, and the Strange New Worlds episode Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow – all of these episodes see characters visit modern-day Earth (i.e. Earth in the year the episodes were written).

Past Tense is unusual for a Star Trek episode in that the story took its characters to a time period thirty-odd years after it was made; it’s a unique look at what the franchise’s writers thought 2024 could look like in 1995, based on their own beliefs but also, at least in part, on other stories that referenced the 21st Century. This is almost certainly the only chance I’m gonna get to talk about a Star Trek story on the day it was set; the next such opportunity won’t come until April 2063 – First Contact’s anniversary. And I’m reasonably confident that I won’t still be around by then!

One of the themes of Past Tense, according to the episode’s producers, was an examination of how society reached Gene Roddenberry’s “utopia.” Star Trek’s future has always been presented as a goal that should be within reach; a society which has overcome war, poverty, disease, and division thanks in no small part to technological progress. As Star Trek was continuing to expand, Past Tense was one of the first episodes to ask the questions “how did we get here?” and “what hardships and disasters did humanity have to overcome on the way to this utopia?”

The Sanctuary District seen in the episode.

The biggest issues that the episode’s writers saw were homelessness, poverty, the government’s abdication of responsibility, overcrowding/overpopulation, and wealth inequality. Those factors led their vision of America in the 21st Century to create Sanctuary Districts – areas in which impoverished and homeless citizens could be essentially dumped and ignored by the rest of society. The real world doesn’t have such rigidly-defined, legally-mandated districts… but when you look at many big cities in America and across the western world, there are encampments of homeless people that bear striking resemblance to what we’ve seen in Past Tense.

In addition, people with mental health problems – referred to as “dims” by the characters in Past Tense – are often unable to access the help and support that they need. Many of the “tent cities” that have sprung up in towns and cities around the world are inhabited by people with mental health struggles, addictions, and so on. At least on that front, Past Tense wasn’t far off the mark in its depiction of groups of people ignored and left behind by society.

Dr Bashir and Commander Sisko in the past.

Parts of Past Tense are undeniably bleak; a deliberate choice that might seem antithetical to Star Trek’s depiction of a utopian, enlightened future. But this was intentional on the part of the writers – there was a desire to expand the franchise’s story and look at how that future came to exist in the form that we’re more familiar with. This is something I’d argue that Past Tense didn’t create from nothing – it borrows from The Next Generation’s brief glimpses of an illusory 21st Century as well as comments from Kirk and Spock in episodes like Space Seed from The Original Series. The idea that the late 20th and/or early 21st Centuries were rough times for Earth and humankind is something that has always been a part of Star Trek!

What Past Tense does that those earlier stories didn’t is take a deeper dive into what that might’ve looked like – taking advantage of Paramount’s extensive backlot filming location. The Sanctuary District was created from the “New York Street” portion of the backlot – which had previously been seen in The Next Generation both on the holodeck and in Time’s Arrow. It would reappear multiple times in Deep Space Nine, representing both San Fransisco and New Orleans, as well as appearing in Voyager and Enterprise.

The episode’s story revolves around a major historical event in Star Trek’s fictional timeline: the Bell Riots. Named for Gabriel Bell, the riots changed the course of history. The United States abolished its Sanctuary Districts and was forced to confront the issues that led to their creation in the first place – and if the Bell Riots were removed from the timeline, the alternate future that was created didn’t even have the Federation in it.

There’s a really interesting parallel to The City on the Edge of Forever. In that story, Kirk fell for a woman from 1930, but later learned that her death was essential to preserving the timeline. Sisko, already aware of the importance of the Bell Riots, has to be the one to trigger them – knowing full well what the consequences will be and that many lives will be lost. There’s an element of “fate” to this in some ways, but the way it’s presented in both stories feels a little more scientific. We could argue the toss about whether the Bell Riots should be so influential given that World War III – which broke out a few years later – was surely a more significant factor in driving societal change… but that’s not really the point of the story!

Past Tense succeeds because it throws Sisko into this incredibly difficult situation, forcing him to assume the role of Gabriel Bell after Bell is killed. Sisko has to act to preserve the timeline and ensure that the course of history proceeds as it should – even though doing so sparks a riot that leads to many casualties. And this isn’t something abstract for Sisko, either: he’s right there in the Sanctuary District in 2024, face-to-face with the people who will be impacted. It makes for a powerful story.

While we’re mainly focused on Sisko, Dax gets to see 21st Century society from the other side – she ended up materialising on the literal other side of town, and finds herself in the company of one of the city’s more well-off individuals. The contrast between how she and her host live with what Dr Bashir and Sisko find in the Sanctuary District really hammers home the episode’s point about wealth inequality and the need to do something about it.

Dax got to see how the other side of 21st Century society operates.

This is one of many episodes we can point to when some Star Trek viewers try to claim that “everything is politicised nowadays” and that “Star Trek never used to be political!” Can you imagine the reaction in some quarters if an episode like Past Tense was made today as part of a series like Discovery? There would have been an outcry with plenty of allegations of the franchise “going woke” – whatever that even means any more!

Because of its place in the timeline, Past Tense doesn’t feel as dated as, say, Voyager’s two-parter Future’s End or even The Voyage Home – stories set in the year they were produced. It’s still a ’90s production – but in some ways it’s more interesting to look at an imagined near-future than to look at characters simply visiting the modern day. There’s humour in the latter setting, as some of Star Trek’s time travel stories have shown, but there’s more to Past Tense because of its choice of setting.

What started with a typical “the transporter done goofed” setup turned into one of the more interesting time travel stories in Star Trek’s back catalogue. Past Tense is an exploration of what was then the near-future – and as of today, our present day. It took on the challenge of explaining how society had developed and how incremental steps were made that led to the idealistic presentation of Earth and the Federation in the 23rd and 24th Centuries. And looking at it today, on the date it was set, parts of Past Tense feel unnervingly accurate.

The legacy of the episode is still present in the Star Trek franchise – a couple of years ago, during the second season of Picard, Sanctuary Districts were mentioned, albeit in a slightly different context. I think this shows how Star Trek grows and incorporates different pieces of its fictional universe into one cohesive setting. Several clips from Past Tense were also remastered for What We Left Behind – the crowdfunded Deep Space Nine documentary that was released back in 2018, where the episode briefly features.

A sign referencing a Sanctuary District from *Picard* Season 2.

So as we mark this strange anniversary, looking back at an episode and a story that tried to predict the future, there are things the writers of Past Tense got wrong and some they got right. I guess that means that the warning the episode tried to give about poverty, homelessness, and how society should respond to those challenges wasn’t entirely heeded – which is a pretty depressing thought. But in other ways, we haven’t gone to quite such extremes as Past Tense’s writers might have feared. So there is a glimmer of hope, perhaps.

I hope that this has been an interesting look back. As far back as 2022 – when Picard’s second season was on the air – I had in mind that Past Tense’s anniversary was coming, and I wanted to do something to mark the occasion. As I said, it’s quite unlikely that I’ll be here for the next one! Though it would be neat to see First Contact Day for myself. If there’s still a Star Trek fan community in 2063, I wonder what they’ll do to mark the occasion? If, by some miracle, I’m still around by then – and still blogging away here on the website – maybe you’d like to check back and find out.

Until then, I hope you have a very happy Past Tense Day! And do us both a favour: don’t start a riot!

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is available to stream now on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available. The series is also available on DVD. The Star Trek franchise – including Deep Space Nine and every other property discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Civil War: Film Review

Sun 18.08.24Dennis

The first part of this review is free from major story spoilers. The end of the spoiler-free section is clearly marked.

Civil War is a film I’d been looking forward to in 2024. It seemed like a picture that had the potential to be serious and timely – and perhaps the kind of film that could’ve ended up as a dark horse when awards season rolls around! While I’m not sure that Alex Garland’s tale of a fractured America quite reached that level, it was an interesting watch nevertheless.

War films can often be brutal in their depictions of violence, as can post-apocalyptic fiction. Civil War leaned into both of these genres at different times, using established tropes of both – while occasionally putting its own spin on some of them. By presenting the violent nature of a dystopian world and the harsh realities of war through the lenses of unarmed journalists, Civil War could feel tense, frightening, and dark. Its four principal characters could often feel vulnerable; caught in an environment where survival was the most important thing – but without any kind of weapon save their press badges.

Promotional poster for Civil War (2024). — A cropped poster for *Civil War*.

Civil War was also a film that didn’t have the political edge that I was expecting. Given the events of the past few years in the United States – deepening political polarisation, the January 6th insurrection, and so on – I was worried that Civil War might come across as preachy; arguing in favour of one party or candidate over another. Instead, the film basically ignored the president, the causes of the war, and even the soldiers fighting in it for the most part, keeping a tight focus on its journalist protagonists. I can see both sides of this argument, and when we get into spoilers we’ll talk a bit more about politics and possible analogies to current events. But for now, suffice to say that the film was far more interested in the journeys of individual characters rather than taking a wider look at societal divisions and the potential causes of a civil war in the United States.

In fact, one character in particular was front-and-centre, even when the story wasn’t being told from her perspective. Golden Globe-nominated actress Cailee Spaeny took on the role of Jessie, a young photographer who tags along with the more experienced journalists in the group. And to me, Civil War feels like her story – a tale of a young person experiencing the brutal realities of a world torn apart by war, losing her naivety or innocence as she journeys deeper into the warzone. The concept of a character’s growth and changes being reflected in a real-world journey from one place to another is something war films like Apocalypse Now have used to great effect. Civil War does something similar as Jessie’s transformation from fresh-faced wannabe to battle-hardened veteran journalist plays out.

Still frame from Civil War (2024) showing the character of Jessie. — *Civil War* is really Jessie’s story.

Civil War feels like a modern film thanks in part to its soundtrack. Silence is used to great effect at a couple of key moments, but the juxtaposition of upbeat pop tracks with some of the imagery of war – or the eeriness of locales unaffected by the conflict – is something we’ve seen other modern titles do. There’s something unsettling about hearing some of these tracks playing as the film is rolling on – and that was exactly the director’s intention.

So I think that’s all I can say for now without getting into story spoilers. If you haven’t seen the film and don’t want to know what happens – including at the very end – then this is your chance to jump ship! If you’re ready to get into narrative spoilers, though, stick with me and we’ll dissect Civil War in more depth.

This is the end of the spoiler-free section of the review. There are story spoilers from here on out!

First of all, I’m surprised at how little attention Civil War paid to the conflict at its core. Perhaps this is a result of the film’s marketing emphasising the secession of certain states and the fictional backdrop to the war, but I really expected to get a lot more about the different factions involved, some indication of the root cause or causes of these apparently separate breakaway states, and what led to all-out war being declared. There was very little about this in the film itself, yet that side of it was definitely hyped up in pre-release marketing material.

Such a storyline could easily descend into arguments about modern politics, and from that point of view I can see why writer and director Alex Garland may have chosen to side-step the issue. Civil War is ambiguous enough that both sides of the aisle in American politics could project themselves onto the rebels and their opponents onto the seemingly corrupt and unpopular president – and that may have been the intention. However, it also opens up the film to a different kind of criticism – that it isn’t political enough. If there’s a message about the danger of corrupt politicians, or a politician attempting to usurp democracy for their own ends, why not be bold and call them out – if not by name then with a more obvious analogy?

Photo from the premiere of Civil War (2024) showing star Kirsten Dunst and director Alex Garland. — Kirsten Dunst and director Alex Garland at the film’s premiere.
*Image Credit: IMDB*

That being said, I personally read Civil War’s president as being based on or inspired by Donald Trump. The brief mention of the president having sought a third term, the way in which he was made up to look – for want of a better term – more orange and with more fake tan, the way he spoke in such exaggerated terms at the beginning of the film, and actor Nick Offerman’s mannerisms all led me to that conclusion. The president was not a major figure in the film, appearing briefly at the beginning and the end only, but he was an important character and seemingly the main cause or at least a major contributor to what had gone wrong in America.

Despite the president’s death at the end of the film not being presented as a particularly heroic moment – from our protagonists’ perspective, at any rate – I can’t help but wonder if there’s a degree of fantasising or wish-casting in the way those final moments unfolded. Some politicians – Trump in particular – evoke incredibly strong feelings, and I daresay that Alex Garland wouldn’t be the first person to fantasise about storming the White House and having him killed.

Still frame from Civil War (2024) showing the deposed President of the United States. — *Civil War’*s unnamed president at the end of the film.

Let’s stick with this idea of the film as a “fantasy,” because I think the backstory of Civil War speaks to a curiously American kind of narrative. The idea of a “rag-tag” group of rebels being able to take on and defeat the incumbent government is a trope of American filmmaking and American storytelling in general. And it’s easy to see why: the United States was founded in such circumstances, when a group of colonists fought against the biggest and most powerful empire of their time to win their independence. Ever since, this notion of the virtuous rebel fighting against the corrupt establishment has been a core foundation of storytelling in America.

We see this theme in cinema – from the earliest films like 1916’s The Crisis through Star Wars’ Rebel Alliance and beyond, continuing into the present day. The conflict in the background of Civil War is very much in this American tradition of rebellion, and underdogs taking the fight to the powers that be. In the 18th Century that might’ve worked… but it’s a total fantasy in today’s world, where UAVs can drop bombs on even the most well-organised militia at a second’s notice. Civil War tried to sidestep what is a pretty glaring narrative flaw for any story that wishes to appear realistic. It does so by ignoring the buildup to the conflict and its early days, showing only the final, climactic battle as rebel forces storm Washington DC. Does that work? Does that contrivance overcome the inherent impossibility of the film’s premise? I’m not convinced – but I’m also not convinced that it matters all that much in a story that’s primarily about a handful of characters and their response to the war. The war itself is the catalyst, not the focus – if it were, this premise would trip up the story a whole lot more.

Behind-the-scenes photo from Civil War (2024) showing director Alex Garland and star Kirsten Dunst. — Director Alex Garland with Kirsten Dunst in a behind-the-scenes photo.

We talked about Jessie’s journey in the spoiler-free section, and how she changed over the course of the film. Even though Civil War wasn’t always shot from her point of view, I see it as really being her story. The other journalists in the group were more or less fixed characters – they saw horrible things, including the death of their friends – but they didn’t undergo the same transformation as Jessie did. In that sense, Civil War is her story more than anyone else’s.

The character of Lee was interesting – but I would argue that Civil War didn’t give her the in-depth look that it really needed to. Lee’s story seemed to be one of post-traumatic stress, and how a character that everyone thought was emotionless and detached was actually suffering on the inside, but struggling to tell anyone. Her interactions with Jessie came closest to hinting at that, but no one else really picked up on what was going on inside Lee’s mind. As the audience, we got to see it – literally, through the use of some creative camera work and sound design that pulled Lee out of the action at a few key moments, and that used stretched-out colours to symbolise the damage that trauma was doing to her. But the film didn’t really expand upon this; we saw it, but Lee’s travelling companions never did. Right up to the moment of her death, Lee was left alone with her struggle.

Still frame from Civil War (2024) showing the character of Lee during a flashback. — The topic of Lee’s mental health was raised but never really addressed by other characters in the film.

And perhaps that’s part of the point: Lee represents the kind of person Jessie is becoming. Through her, we catch a glimpse of Jessie’s future – one of trauma and silent struggle. She wanted to be a war photographer no matter what, and Lee shows us what Jessie will become at the end of that road.

One thing I didn’t like, speaking of photography, was how Jessie used an old film camera. Film might be the preference of a few hipsters and artists, but in a fast-paced medium like journalism, it really doesn’t have much of a place any more. As Lee remarks to Jessie at one point in Civil War, only one photo out of every few dozen is a keeper – and when a roll of film might let Jessie take 32 photographs… that’s one usable picture per roll. There’s also the process of developing the negatives and so on… and it just felt like an unrealistic and unnecessary inclusion. Civil War itself was shot on digital cameras, which I think is worth noting. If the director had a preference for film or wanted to make a point about film being somehow “better” than digital… well, it starts to look a bit silly. It doesn’t make a lot of sense in-universe for a character intent on becoming a war photographer to rely on film in a world where digital cameras exist, and the story didn’t have much to say about it, either. It’s not like the film-versus-digital debate even really came up, nor served as a metaphor for something else.

Still frame from Civil War (2024) showing Jessie developing photographs. — Jessie used a film camera for seemingly no real reason.

Parts of Civil War felt like a road trip – and indeed the film’s working title was “Road Trip” when it first entered production. We caught little glimpses of the film’s post-apocalyptic-inspired world as our characters drove from place to place, with things like random fires, furniture dragged outdoors, and abandoned vehicles on the highway all having become tropes of post-apocalyptic fiction. Civil War leaned into this with some of its secondary characters – the group at the gas station and the racist soldiers in particular. There was a lawlessness to the world that these characters successfully embodied, and the occasional moments of light-heartedness that Civil War gave to its main characters were ripped away in brutal fashion as the reality of the world they now inhabited hit them.

Even when there were moments of joy, playfulness, or a visit to a town that the war seemed to have passed by, there was still a distinct eerie sensation in the air that things weren’t right and our characters were in danger. Civil War used this quite well, meaning that even when the main characters let their hair down or found themselves relaxed, the feeling of danger was never very far away. Even the moments where nothing bad happened – such as at the refugee encampment or in the quaint little town – that sensation was always present. In a way, parts of Civil War almost developed a psychological horror tone, where the sense of danger never fully let up. Any background character, shopkeeper, driver, soldier, or whoever felt like they could be a potential risk.

Still frame from Civil War (2024) showing a suburban house. — Visiting this town, untouched by the conflict, still felt tense and even a little creepy.

It’s relatively unusual for a film to make photographers and journalists into its protagonists. All four main characters expressed different degrees of detachment from the conflict they were documenting, as if they had no real political leanings or views on the war. There was some initial criticism of the president – particularly from Sammy at the beginning of the film – but the others mostly avoided sharing their thoughts or opinions. We tend to see journalists in this way, as being impartial observers – even though many of them aren’t! But it made for an interesting viewpoint for a war film to take – particularly for a film that, as mentioned above, didn’t really go into much detail about what had happened or why this conflict was raging.

Civil War had some creative cinematography and camera work that leaned into quite an artistic style. Shots would linger over things like a sprinkler spraying water or an empty road, as well as use exaggerated or faded-out colours to depict Lee’s mental state. The camera would also fade to a grainy black-and-white at times, representing the way Jessie’s photographs would look. I liked most of these, and they felt tasteful and creative without being overused. The long shot of Jessie falling into the mass grave was also particularly well done.

Still frame from Civil War (2024) showing abandoned cars on a road. — Abandoned vehicles on the highway.

So that was Civil War. It was an intense, brutal film – but one that didn’t have the political edge I’d been expecting. That made it more interesting in some ways as a work of characterisation and a road trip movie through an interesting series of war-torn environments, but it rendered much of the potential social commentary rather impotent. However, by leaving the causes of its war ambiguous, Civil War allows its audience to reflect on the consequences of such a conflict regardless of who may have been “right,” which is arguably a more important message given the political polarisation that has been present for years in the United States.

For my part, I enjoyed Civil War. It’s rare these days for a film to stick in my mind for hours and days after I’ve watched it, but I found a few of Civil War’s most intense sequences playing in my head on repeat after only watching it a single time.

There were some great acting performances from the entire main cast, special effects that hit the mark and didn’t get in the way, creative cinematography and sound design, and all in all, an interesting narrative that hooked me in and kept me engaged throughout. Definitely one to watch if you haven’t seen it already!

Civil War is available now on video-on-demand on Apple TV and Amazon Prime. Civil War will be available for streaming on Max in September 2024 and may also be released on DVD/Blu-ray at a later date. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Wars – The Acolyte: TV Series Review

Thu 15.08.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Wars – The Acolyte. Minor spoilers are also present for other Star Wars productions.

I recently got around to watching The Acolyte – the latest made-for-streaming series in the Star Wars franchise – so it’s time for a review! Before The Acolyte premiered, I had the show on my radar as one of the more interesting-sounding Star Wars projects. For the first time on the big or small screen, here was a project that promised to step away from the familiar characters and time period that have anchored every other Star Wars project to date. With a focus on the Sith, too, I felt that The Acolyte had a lot of potential.

Because I came late to The Acolyte, I’m aware that the series has proven to be controversial in some quarters of the Star Wars fan community. I always like to review a film or show without having been exposed to other people’s thoughts and opinions, but the volume of criticism that has been flung in the direction of The Acolyte has proven to be inescapable over the last few weeks. To be honest, that’s part of why I decided to watch it and review it for myself; a sense of “surely it can’t be that bad” ended up combining with my earlier interest in the show’s setting and time period!

Cropped promo poster for episode 8 of Star Wars: The Acolyte. — Promo poster for *The Acolyte*.

As you might expect when the criticism and hatred reaches that kind of fever-pitch: no, The Acolyte was nowhere near as bad as some fans and “influencers” were trying to paint it as being. That’s not to say it was a perfect production by any stretch – there were a couple of pretty in-your-face narrative flaws, some underdeveloped secondary characters, and despite the show’s promise of accessibility to new viewers, a lot of the density of “lore” that can make a franchise like Star Wars offputting to folks who are unfamiliar with its galaxy, factions, and technologies.

I will let you know right off the bat that I am not a stickler for the minutiae of “canon,” nor someone who insists that stories within a franchise must be constrained by every little detail that came before. It’s fine if you feel that way, but this review isn’t going to pick on the very minor appearances of a couple of prequel-era characters and dive into their fictional backstories! Some of the nitpicking I’ve seen online about The Acolyte felt just plain silly to me, and I think the series did a good enough job of avoiding stepping on the toes of the mainline Star Wars films in a big way. The biggest secret to keep in that regard was the existence of the Sith in this time period – and when the series ended with every Jedi who’d seen the Sith assassin dead, and the only survivors believing him to be a “fallen Jedi,” I think we can say that that particular “plot hole” simply isn’t a thing. As the credits rolled on what I assume will be the only season that The Acolyte will get, its story’s loosest ends were tied up.

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing a character wielding a lightsaber. — Master Sol confronts the Sith assassin.

At time of writing, Disney and Lucasfilm haven’t confirmed or denied that The Acolyte will be cancelled, but given the fan reaction and the show’s relatively low viewership – according to reports, The Acolyte was doing a lot worse than The Mandalorian, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and even the maligned Book of Boba Fett – it’s hard to see it being renewed as things stand. Although Disney is keen on this High Republic time period in some spin-off media, I’m not sure that alone will save The Acolyte. Disney’s biggest event of the year – the D23 expo – has just come and gone at time of writing, as has the year’s biggest Comic-Con event, and no announcement of a renewal was made. The first season’s story left things deliberately open, but also wrapped up the main events we’d been following – so it’s not like there’s a cliffhanger desperately waiting to be resolved. All things considered, I’d say cancellation feels likely.

So let’s talk about the series itself. On the whole, I had a pretty good time with The Acolyte – and even though that may be a minority position, I’ll do my best to explain what I enjoyed, as well as criticise what I didn’t.

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing a group of Jedi in yellow robes. — A couple of main characters and some Jedi redshirts. Should that be “Jedshirts?”

Stepping away from the “Skywalker Saga” is something I’ve argued that the Star Wars franchise has needed to do for a long time, and while some recent productions have taken steps in that direction, The Acolyte is the first time we’ve seen Star Wars move so far away from that story on the small screen. There were a couple of crossover characters – but their appearances were so minor as to barely even count as cameos. Speaking for myself, I was pleased that The Acolyte went down this road, and that after relying on the crutch of nostalgia and familiar characters for such a long time, Disney and Lucasfilm have finally been bold enough to try something a little different.

That being said, there’s still a lot of familiarity in The Acolyte. For brand-new viewers, a group that The Acolyte’s producers claimed to be targeting, I think there was still quite a lot of fairly dense lore and background to wade through in order to fully understand what was going on, which faction was which, and so on. There was an admirable attempt to open up Star Wars to new fans – which is something the franchise was going to have to do sooner or later – but for me, at least some of that seemed not to stick the landing. My impression is that this was a series that new fans could approach a bit more easily than, say, Obi-Wan Kenobi or The Book of Boba Fett, but still not the softest of landings for someone totally unfamiliar with Star Wars. The first couple of episodes in particular throw a lot at the audience with the Jedi Order, droids, hyperspace, and other elements that weren’t really explained.

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing the Jedi Temple. — The Jedi Temple on Coruscant.

And this is actually a trend that continued across all eight episodes – and extended to other plot points, too. The Acolyte didn’t always take the time to fully lay out what was going on in an easy-to-follow way, leaving some scenes and sequences feeling cut short. More time was needed in some of these moments to either add context or an explanation of what was going on. Occasionally the series would revisit events through a flashback that added to something we’d seen earlier – but not always.

This is a problem I’ve had with many made-for-streaming shows over the last few years: they’re too short. The Acolyte, for instance, across its eight episodes runs to a scant five hours, and when several plot-crucial scenes and sequences felt curtailed or in need of additional framing and context, I can’t help but feel that Disney and Lucasfilm have repeated a mistake they’ve already made with other Star Wars shows. Streaming isn’t like broadcast television – there’s no need to stick to rigid schedules. Episode runtimes can be expanded, and even whole new episodes can be added to a season if necessary. Sure, there are budgetary constraints – but when we’re talking about moments that can make the difference between a scene being easily understood and just plain confusing… it’s gotta be worth it, right?

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing Osha firing a blaster pistol. — Osha firing her blaster pistol.

To give one example from The Acolyte: at one moment in the second episode, Osha draws her blaster pistol to shoot at Mae – her twin – while she’s trying to make her escape. Osha misses, and the way the scene was framed left it totally unclear as to whether she missed on purpose or by accident. The difference that makes to the tone of the rest of the episode – and to how we are meant to perceive Osha as a character as she deals with Master Sol and other Jedi – is massive. Not knowing how to read that moment made subsequent scenes and sequences feel muddled and confused – and it’s all because The Acolyte’s director, editors, and producers failed to add the necessary context to make that moment easy to follow.

While we’re talking about confusing moments, I felt that it wasn’t always easy to tell which twin was Osha and which was Mae during some of the flashback scenes. Identical twins dressed in identical costumes made it difficult to keep track of who was who – something not helped by the editing and camera angles. Perhaps this was deliberate… but if that’s the case, I struggle to see why. Knowing that Mae was the one who wanted to stay with her coven and learn Force magic while Osha was the one who wanted to leave was essential to both of their character journeys.

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing young Osha and Mae. — Young Mae and Osha (or Osha and Mae).

Since we’re talking about the twins, I find it odd that The Acolyte’s production team didn’t cast a real set of identical twins in the lead role. The younger versions of Osha and Mae were played by twins, but the adult characters were both played by the same actress. This isn’t to criticise Amandla Stenberg’s performance, by the way, as I felt she did a solid job with both Osha and Mae. But rather that it’s worth pointing out that there are relatively few high-profile roles for twins, and just like how casting an able-bodied person to play someone with a disability (or worse, having someone made up to appear to be from a different race) is something most mainstream productions now try to avoid, it’s a bit of an oddity – and one I haven’t really seen mentioned in the conversations surrounding the show.

The Acolyte’s story portrayed the Jedi Order in arguably the most negative way we’ve ever seen on screen – showing how the organisation and its members easily fell prey to internal politicking, arrogance, and self-righteousness. This is a narrative thread that links up with the prequel trilogy – though the prequels were arguably less extreme and still painted the Jedi as the “good guys” in a relatively black-and-white story. It also connects with something Luke Skywalker said in The Last Jedi about the hubris of the Jedi Order.

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing Master Sol in a flashback. — Master Sol in a flashback sequence.

Moreover, there was a distinct creepiness to some of the Jedi – Master Sol in particular. Think about it: he spied on two eight-year-old girls from the bushes, followed them back to their home, formed an instant, one-sided “emotional connection” with one of them, and then insisted on taking her away from her family to be his apprentice. That has undertones that are genuinely uncomfortable, and contributes to the sense of the Jedi Order as being a strange, almost corrupt organisation. I mean, we’ve known for a long time that the Jedi would “recruit” children at a very young age – and we caught a glimpse of how this worked with Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace – but there was something about seeing Sol so… interested in Osha that made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

That’s to say nothing of the Jedi’s attack on the Force-witches. Does that organisation/coven have a name in canon, by the way? Perhaps I missed it in The Acolyte, but either way, I felt it was really interesting to see how other Force-sensitive people and groups might behave and how they exist outside of the Jedi/Sith dynamic. These witches clearly used the Force, but they weren’t Jedi or Sith, and that gives us a look at a part of the Star Wars galaxy that we really hadn’t seen much of before. Other Force-sensitive groups have been glimpsed in spin-off media, of course, but this was a deeper dive into an unknown organisation and I appreciated the attempt to expand the Star Wars galaxy beyond what we’ve already seen on screen.

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing the Force-witch coven. — The Force-witches are new to Star Wars (at least as far as I’m aware).

During the flashback depicting the Jedi’s attack on the Force-witches’ compound, The Acolyte gave us perhaps its weakest narrative moment. Torbin, the youngest Jedi padawan in the group, fell completely flat for me. His one-note “I hate it here and I wanna go home” was so unbelievable and childish that it seriously put a downer on the entire sequence, as this was such a pathetically weak way to set up his involvement. The concept of individual Jedi making bad decisions when confronted with the witches is a good one, and I think other elements worked as intended. But the series clearly didn’t have enough time to properly develop Torbin or give him a proper reason for his actions. When the actions he and Sol took are key to the entire rest of the plot… that’s an issue.

The idea of a “vergence” in the Force is something that Star Wars has delved into before. Most significantly, The Phantom Menace set up the idea of Anakin as being either a vergence himself or perhaps having been conceived by one. Mae and Osha seem to follow suit in The Acolyte, with the witches’ coven having somehow created them through the Force. While I’m not concerned about matters of “canon” all that much, and I don’t feel The Acolyte really overwrites or invalidates what we know of Anakin from the earlier films, I would’ve liked to see more explanation of both the vergence and the twins’ conception. Both were left pretty open-ended – which could be great if the show gets picked up for more episodes, but as already discussed, I doubt that’s gonna happen. It could be that this part of the story is never resolved, and that would be a bit of a shame because it seemed interesting.

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing the Force-witches. — Will we learn more about the vergence and the “creation” of Osha and Mae?

The decision to include cameos from the prequel trilogy has been a source of some controversy. Speaking for myself, I think these cameos were handled quite well – and there’s more than enough wiggle-room for both the minor character of Ki-Adi-Mundi and the more significant character of Yoda to have been present at the Jedi Temple without being too involved in the events we saw unfolding on screen. For me, it doesn’t tread on the toes of what we knew about either character, and what they have to say in the prequel films and beyond doesn’t seem to be contradicted by their very brief appearances in The Acolyte. The same is true of a character many are assuming to be Darth Plageius – glimpsed toward the end of the series at the Sith base.

As fans, I think all of us can fall prey to nitpicking and to prioritising minor things – throwaway lines of dialogue, secondary characters, or non-canon resources like books or comics – over and above everything else. And from what I’ve seen based on my admittedly limited engagement with the discourse around The Acolyte, I think that’s what’s been happening in some cases. Having heard of the drama before watching the series, I seriously expected Ki-Adi-Mundi in particular to have a massive role – but he was on screen in one episode for a matter of seconds, had no noticeable impact on the plot, and as far as I can tell wasn’t necessarily aware of what transpired. The controversy that some fans have tried to stir up (perhaps because their social media income has become increasingly dependent on the “anti-Star Wars” crowd) feels overblown at best. A storm in a teacup!

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing Ki-Adi-Mundi and another Jedi character. — Ki-Adi-Mundi – a character first introduced in the prequel trilogy – made a small cameo appearance in *The Acolyte*.

In terms of production values, I thought that The Acolyte was decent – but there were a couple of missteps. On a couple of occasions the way real actors interacted with fully-CGI environments was sub-par and strayed into the dreaded uncanny valley. Musically, the series was fine – in line with other Star Wars projects, perhaps, but by no means exceptional. My rule of thumb for any film or TV show is that the music shouldn’t be a distraction, and in that sense The Acolyte did okay. But nothing from its soundtrack was particularly original or memorable, and if you played it for me right now, I’d struggle to remember what production it was from or even whether I’d heard it before.

Acting performances were generally pretty good. I particularly enjoyed Lee Jung-Jae’s take on the conflicted Master Sol, and Dafne Keen gave a solid performance as the young Jedi Padawan Jecki Lon. Amandla Stenberg had the challenge of playing two very different characters – but rose to the occasion. The only performance I felt didn’t reach the heights it should’ve was Harry Trevaldwyn’s – he played the role of Mog, a junior Jedi aide-de-camp to Master Vernestra. Playing Jedi roles can be tricky; they have deliberately stifled emotions, making it difficult for some performers to really know what to do. Mog was, thankfully, a minor character who wasn’t on screen all that much. Still, there are far better Jedi performances out there!

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing Master Vernestra and Mog. — Master Vernestra and Mog.

Speaking of performers, I felt that Carrie-Ann Moss was almost wasted in the role of Master Indara. Moss’ role in the series played a big part in The Acolyte’s early marketing material, yet she was only present in a big way in a couple of episodes, with her character having been killed off right at the beginning of the story. I could’ve happily spent more time with Master Indara; compared with the broken Torbin, emotional Sol, and politicking Vernestra, she was the closest the series got to having a Jedi Master in the more heroic style we’ve come to expect.

Stepping away from the rise and fall of the Empire to look at a different era in the Star Wars galaxy is something that the franchise has needed to do for a long time. I’m happy that we finally got to see some of this High Republic era on screen, and I liked some of the subtle changes made to things like Jedi robes. Setting the scene in a different – but still familiar enough – way helped The Acolyte stand out, even if its basic Jedi-versus-Sith idea didn’t feel all that fresh.

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing two characters engaged in a lightsaber duel. — A lightsabre battle.

There were standout moments in the series, and I feel the criticism it’s received in some quarters has been unnecessarily harsh. Personally, I’d like to see Disney and Lucasfilm greenlight more projects set in different locales and different time periods, and I hope that the backlash to parts of The Acolyte won’t dissuade them from doing so. There’s only so many times I can see Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, or their descendants saving the day – and if Star Wars is to survive long-term, we’ll need to see more projects like this one. That’s not to say The Acolyte was perfect – it wasn’t. But it was a step in the right direction for a franchise that has felt increasingly stale.

Despite claims made in the run-up to its broadcast, I didn’t feel that The Acolyte would be the easiest and smoothest way into Star Wars for someone brand-new to the franchise. It has the advantage of not relying on familiar characters, but it’s still got some deep cuts to parts of the Star Wars franchise that, I would argue, weren’t particularly well-explained within the series itself. That’s nothing new for Star Wars, of course!

Still frame from Star Wars: The Acolyte showing Mae. — Mae at the end of the story.

The Acolyte held my attention and got me invested in its main characters and storyline. Some of the secondary characters and sub-plots felt under-developed, and I think the series as a whole might’ve benefitted from being ten episodes long instead of eight. This would’ve allowed for scenes and sequences to be extended, for some additional character development, and for some of the show’s B-plots to be expanded upon. This isn’t an issue unique to The Acolyte by any means – but some producers and directors are clearly better at making the most out of eight episodes than others!

At the end of the day, though, I can’t say I didn’t enjoy The Acolyte. Its focus on a Sith assassin was intriguing, its portrayal of the Jedi Order as out-of-touch and arrogant lined up with both the prequels and sequels, and its core story of human characters making decidedly human mistakes was one that was, in a way, relatable. The Acolyte may have done more than any other Star Wars project to date to really humanise the Jedi Order and make some of its members feel like real people. Whether that’s something every fan wanted to see from Star Wars, or whether they prefer to think of Jedi Knights as flawless paragons of virtue… well, I think the backlash in some parts of the fan community answers that particular question!

Of the Disney+ Star Wars shows I’ve seen so far, I’d put The Acolyte in second place – behind The Book of Boba Fett but ahead of The Mandalorian. And light-years away from the awful Obi-Wan Kenobi series!

Star Wars: The Acolyte is available to stream now on Disney+. The series will also be released on DVD/Blu-ray at a later date. The Star Wars franchise – including The Acolyte and all other properties discussed above – is the copyright of Lucasfilm and The Walt Disney Company. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek at Comic-Con

Tue 30.07.24Tue 30.07.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for upcoming and recent seasons of Star Trek: Prodigy, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, Star Trek: Lower Decks, and Star Trek: Section 31. Minor spoilers may also be present for other parts of the Star Trek franchise.

The Star Trek franchise recently made a splash at San Diego Comic-Con – one of the biggest such events in the world. With a couple of new trailers and several interesting announcements, I thought it could be a bit of fun to talk about what was discussed and shown off at the event. I’ll try to cover all of the biggest pieces of news as well as share my thoughts on what we learned and saw.

First of all, a couple of caveats. I’ve been feeling unenthusiastic and pretty burned out on Star Trek lately, and I still have some catching-up to do on some of the franchise’s recent outings. That doesn’t mean I’m not still a Trekkie or that I’m not still interested in these latest announcements; far from it. But as Star Trek has added more and more series and films to its lineup, I admit that I’ve struggled to keep up. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, everything we’re going to talk about today is the subjective opinion of one person only! If I’m excited about something that sounds awful to you, or sceptical about something you couldn’t be happier about… that’s okay! There should be enough room in the Star Trek fan community for polite discussion and disagreement.

With that out of the way, let’s take a look at what’s been going on at Comic-Con!

Alex Kurtzman and writer Noga Landau at the *Starfleet Academy* panel at Comic-Con 2024.

The biggest announcement is one that took me by surprise: a new Star Trek series is in development. Though its announcement was haphazard during one of the panels, it has subsequently been confirmed by Paramount (and franchise head Alex Kurtzman) that it is officially in development. With Tawny Newsome (Beckett Mariner in Lower Decks and one of the writers attached to Starfleet Academy) taking a leading role in its creation, the series has been described as Star Trek’s “first live-action comedy series.”

Paramount later released the show’s one-sentence pitch: “Federation outsiders serving a gleaming resort planet find out their day-to-day exploits are being broadcast to the entire quadrant.”

I’ve long argued that Star Trek and comedy go hand-in-hand, with humour having been a big part of the franchise going all the way back to The Original Series. Not everyone was sold on Lower Decks at first, but I think over time the general consensus is that it’s a solid addition to the franchise, and one that didn’t sacrifice its sense of “Star Trek-ness” at the altar of comedy. That was certainly my takeaway from its first couple of seasons.

This announcement was brief and short on detail!

Paramount’s pitch does leave me a little confused, though. Are we going to be getting something like The Truman Show, with hidden holo-cameras on this resort planet? I can see the idea working well as a one-off story; an individual episode in a longer season. But it feels like a premise that might have its limits, especially when the main characters realise that they’re being recorded. Look at the Futurama episode Fry and Leela’s Big Fling as an example, perhaps.

That being said, it’s nice to hear that Paramount hasn’t given up on Star Trek, despite financial issues. The corporation is soon to merge with Skydance, and that could lead to a shake-up in the longer term, including a proposal that would see Paramount+ and fellow streaming service Peacock join forces. It’s good to see that Paramount – at least in its current form – remains committed to making more Star Trek. Would I have rather seen an announcement for Legacy, or another Picard-era series? Well… sure. But that’s no reason to be negative about this comedy series! With it still untitled and clearly very early in its development, I doubt we’ll see it on our screens before 2027.

Co-creators of the new untitled Star Trek series Justin Simien and Tawny Newsome.

There have been a couple of announcements of cast members joining Starfleet Academy over the last few months. The most interesting prior to Comic-Con had been the inclusion of Paul Giamatti, Emmy and Golden Globe winner and multiple Academy Award nominee. Giamatti will play the season’s villain – a concept I’m still not sold on, for reasons I’ve already discussed – but Paramount could hardly have selected a better, more seasoned actor for the part. At Comic-Con we learned that Oded Fehr and Mary Wiseman will join the series, reprising their roles as Admiral Vance and Tilly respectively on a recurring basis. This was something that, at least as of Season 4 of Discovery, made a lot of sense, as both characters were strongly linked to Federation HQ and Starfleet Academy. Tig Notaro will also join the series, reprising her role as Jett Reno from Discovery.

The most surprising announcement for Starfleet Academy, though, has to be Robert Picardo returning to Star Trek as the Doctor! I talked about this years ago, prior to Discovery’s third season, and how the Doctor (or at least a version of him) could still be active in the 32nd Century. It seems that idea was valid after all, and the Doctor will have a role to play in Starfleet Academy. Whether this will be the original version of the character or a future version seen in the Voyager episode Living Witness isn’t clear – I’d guess the former, but modern Star Trek hasn’t been afraid to make deeper cuts to individual episodes, so we’ll have to see! It’s worth noting that the Doctor has recently appeared in Prodigy, so his return in Starfleet Academy doesn’t come entirely out of nowhere.

The Doctor in *Prodigy’*s second season.

So Starfleet Academy really sounds like it’s taking shape, with its main characters having seemingly been cast and its first season’s story written. There are some interesting announcements and ideas in the mix, though I confess I remain unconvinced at the series’ apparent direction of having an overarching villain and a serialised main story. For me, a series like Starfleet Academy felt like it could’ve been perfect for a return to a more episodic format, akin to what Strange New Worlds has been doing, with different planets to visit week-to-week. Still, the inclusion of the Doctor and the return of characters from Discovery is good news in my book!

Starfleet Academy has also seemingly gotten its official logo/typeface, which you can see below.

Though I could be reading too much into this, I feel like the font used is a slightly softer, more child-friendly version of the Original Series film-era typeface that we’d often see on starships. The refit USS Enterprise, the Excelsior, and other ships in those films and through the early part of The Next Generation era used a similar font. This seems to carry the same outline, but in a slightly softer and more rounded form, and with a curve to the text that wouldn’t seem out-of-place on a university/college sweatshirt. First impressions are positive, at any rate!

Just prior to Comic-Con there were comments from Prodigy’s co-creators and some of the voice actors about a potential third season for the show. Since we’re doing Star Trek news I’ll share my thoughts on that, and in a word I’d say a third season of Prodigy feels unlikely. It’s clear that the series didn’t do much for Paramount or Paramount+, hence its cancellation and sale to Netflix and other broadcasters. Re-starting production at this stage would be complicated, with question-marks over the rights to the show and how proceeds would be divided. As nice as it would be to think a third season is possible… my gut feeling is that it won’t happen, despite some enthusiasm for the series since it landed on a more accessible, kid-friendly streaming platform.

*Prodigy’*s second season found a new home on Netflix.

Returning to Comic-Con, we got our first trailer for Section 31. In terms of style, the trailer was undoubtedly the most energetic and modern that the Star Trek franchise has done in a long time; it wouldn’t have felt out-of-place at the cinema in between trailers for big-budget superhero films and summer blockbusters. As a piece of marketing material, I think it was excellent. It had a great soundtrack, clips that looked exciting and entertaining without giving too much away, and it genuinely felt like a project that could open up Star Trek to new fans and especially younger fans. All of that is positive!

However, I do have a couple of notes that are a tad more negative. Firstly, in just the few clips in the Section 31 trailer, I saw several barely-redressed sets from Discovery. I would have hoped that a project like Section 31 would’ve had new sets built, or at least that redresses would have been less obvious. Maybe there are in-universe reasons for that – such as Georgiou and her crew commandeering another Crossfield-class ship, perhaps. But I wasn’t blown away by seeing the same sets and, at one point, the same special effect as I’ve already seen elsewhere in Star Trek.

*Section 31* looks explosive… and maybe a little familiar.

Secondly, although the tone of the trailer was positive and modern, I didn’t get a real sense of “Star Trek” from what we saw. The nature of Section 31 as a black ops division always meant that this story would have more freedom to step away from typical Starfleet officers and missions, and that’s something I’m generally supportive of. And as mentioned, I feel that Section 31 having a more modern identity could entice new viewers to the franchise – something that Star Trek needs if it is to survive.

But there should be a balance between telling this kind of one-off story with Star Trek’s core identity. The Kelvin films went in a more action-heavy direction but still managed to retain at least some of what made Star Trek feel like Star Trek, as have other productions post-2017. I don’t want to pre-judge Section 31 based on a few carefully-edited clips, but if one character hadn’t mentioned Starfleet during the trailer, there really wouldn’t have been much else in there to tie in with the wider franchise.

Michelle Yeoh is reprising her role as Empress Georgiou.

I like the idea of exploring more of Georgiou’s background… up to a point. As I’ve said before, prior to discovering her humanity in Discovery’s third season, Georgiou could feel quite one-dimensional. In the trailer, she seemed at her most interesting, I would argue, in what must be a flashback to her ascent to the Terran throne in the Mirror Universe; present-day Georgiou seemed to be back to her old tricks. This leaves me conflicted. I don’t think Section 31 would benefit from being “Star Trek does Suicide Squad,” where a gang of criminals and murderers without much nuance are the only main characters. That would conflict a little too much with what we know of Section 31 from its earlier appearances.

But at the same time, pushing the boat out and doing new things with Star Trek is a good thing. Reintroducing Georgiou to a more casual audience is also going to be necessary, given that it will have been five years since her last appearance by the time Section 31 lands on our screens next year. Flashing back to her time as Empress could be a great way to set up the character – as well as show how much she’s grown.

Is this the moment Georgiou assumed control of the Terran Empire?

The trailer didn’t tell us much about the plot or who the central villain(s) might be – and again, I think that’s probably a smart move. There was enough action and excitement to tease fans and get us invested without revealing too much or spoiling big story beats ahead of time. I’m sure we’ll get to see more in a second trailer before Section 31 arrives – and that trailer could introduce the main villain or show us a glimpse of what Georgiou and her crew are up against.

I will say that I’m a little disappointed that Ash Tyler, played by Shazad Latif in Discovery’s first two seasons, isn’t going to be part of Section 31. Tyler was an interesting character, and he could have been a moderating influence on Georgiou’s more violent methods. We didn’t get to see much of the new characters, but one is reportedly a chameloid – the shape-shifting species introduced in The Undiscovered Country. That could be a fun inclusion, and actor Sam Richardson is a fine addition to the cast. We’ll also get to know a younger Rachel Garrett – the captain of the Enterprise-C who we met in The Next Generation third season episode Yesterday’s Enterprise. There’s definitely a lot going on in Section 31!

*Section 31* is scheduled to arrive next year.

There were also trailers for the third season of Strange New Worlds and the fifth and final season of Lower Decks. Despite not being fully up to speed on either series yet, I braced myself for spoilers and decided to take a look! Generally, I liked what I saw from the trailers, and while we didn’t get any massive news about either series, it seems like their upcoming seasons are in good hands. As with Discovery, I’m a little concerned that cancellation came too late for Lower Decks’ writers and producers to have written a conclusive ending to the series… but that may be a blessing in disguise if a revival could be on the cards one day! Perhaps that’s clutching at straws… but you never know. These things happen in animation – just ask Futurama!

The Strange New Worlds teaser was really an extended scene from one of the upcoming Season 3 episodes, and it was genuinely hilarious. We talked before about comedy in Star Trek… well, look no further! The crew are turned into Vulcans for reasons unknown, and the entire sequence was just a ton of fun. There were callbacks to events in The Original Series, as well as to Spock’s half-human heritage. Seeing several main characters dressed up as – and acting like – Vulcans was a blast. I hope the rest of the episode can live up to the scene we just got to see!

Captain Pike and his crew are transformed into Vulcans!

The Lower Decks trailer emulated a commercial that I vaguely remember from the ’90s or early 2000s promoting one or other of the Star Trek films. I wish I could remember which one – but clearly the Lower Decks crew are geekier than I am. It was a neat callback, at any rate, and one that definitely plucked a nostalgic note for this old Trekkie!

We got to see a few clips from the upcoming season, including one that seems to feature a crossover with an alternate USS Cerritos from another timeline. That could be fun, and exploring alternate versions of our favourite characters is something that Lower Decks’ comedic style could be perfect for. There were also scenes showing Klingons, an undercover mission, a decontamination chamber, and more. Though I still need to fully catch up with Lower Decks, I liked what I saw and it seems like the show’s final outing will be a blast.

So to recap: we got big news about returning characters in Strange New Worlds, and I’m especially keen to catch up with the Doctor almost a millennium after we last saw him! A new live-action series is in early development, and it has a comedic focus. Section 31 looks like it’s going to take Star Trek in a different direction. And Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks will be returning in style.

All in all, I’d say that Star Trek had a pretty successful outing at Comic-Con this year. There were enough teases and trailers to keep fans engaged, but nothing went overboard. Maybe the untitled series’ announcement was a tad premature, as we really don’t have much to go on, but given the recent cancellations and the confusion over Paramount’s merger, taking the time to confirm that more Star Trek will be produced after Section 31 and Starfleet Academy is a good thing – it’s reassuring to both fans and investors that the brand isn’t going anywhere until at least 2027 or 2028!

Robert Picardo will be returning to live-action Star Trek.

I think my favourite announcement was the return of the Doctor. Ever since Discovery headed into the far future at the end of Season 2 back in 2019 – more than five years ago now – I’ve wondered whether the Doctor could still be around in that time period and if he might make an appearance. Although technobabble magic could have, in theory, brought back any character, as a hologram the Doctor had an easier explanation than most for his survival into the far future. I’ll be interested to see what role he might have in Starfleet Academy… as well as whether he might have some connection to the villain of the season!

So I hope this has been a fun look ahead. Some of the teases and announcements seem all but certain to keep Star Trek in production and on our screens for several years to come, and at a time when Paramount has been struggling and its flagship streaming platform has seemed to be in trouble, that’s good news in my book. Now all I have to do is catch up on the episodes and seasons I’ve missed before all of this new stuff arrives!

The Star Trek franchise – including all films, series, and properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. Lower Decks Season 5 will be broadcast on Paramount+ in October 2024, Section 31 and Strange New Worlds Season 3 are scheduled to be broadcast on Paramount+ in 2025, and Starfleet Academy may follow in 2026. The untitled live-action series has no release date on the schedule. All broadcast dates are tentative and subject to change. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Five Changes I’d Have Made To Star Trek: Picard

Tue 09.07.24Tue 09.07.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Picard Seasons 1-3.

It’s been more than a year since Star Trek: Picard finished its run, but the series has been on my mind again. With Paramount seemingly focused on more Star Trek prequels in the immediate term, and the Legacy spin-off idea dead and buried in its original form, Picard could be our only live-action look at the early 25th Century for a long time. That got me thinking about the show’s successes… but also a few places where I would have made changes if I’d been in charge!

See, Picard was far from the perfect production – at least in my subjective opinion. I’ve already drawn attention to several places where storylines and plot points seemed to overwrite one another – which is strange, particularly in a series that only ran to thirty episodes across three seasons. You can find that article by clicking or tapping here, by the way! But today I wanted to consider five changes I’d have made that I believe would’ve improved the series.

As always, a couple of important caveats! A couple of these points are contradictory, meaning one idea or the other might’ve worked in the series, but probably not both! That’s okay, and I’m happy to consider the merits of both as standalone ideas. I’m not trying to claim that Picard’s writers should have implemented all of these changes exactly as I’m proposing them! For a variety of reasons, both in-universe and on the production side of things, it may not have been possible to do some or all of these things even if the writers’ room had wanted to. So to re-emphasise that last point: I know that some or all of these ideas may not have been practical. This is all a moot point now anyway; the series is over. This list is a mix of fantasy and speculation from an old Trekkie – and nothing more!

I also want to say that, while I had some issues with the way Picard was written, by and large I’m a supporter of the series. In fact, I’d like to see more Star Trek set in the time period that Picard introduced us to – and one of the reasons why I think continuing to talk about the show is important is to make that point to Paramount. It also can’t hurt to point out some inconsistencies and other points that future writers and producers might be able to learn from! So that’s my mindset as I put together this list.

With all of that out of the way, let’s get started!

Change #1:
Replace Dr Benayoun with Dr Pulaski in Season 1.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 1 (2020) showing the character of Dr Benayoun. — Picard with Dr Benayoun in Season 1.

The second episode of Season 1 saw Picard consulting a doctor who was also an old friend as he prepared to return to space for the first time in several years. The character we ultimately got was someone brand-new: Dr Benayoun. In a way, this character could have been interesting if his role had been expanded upon; he served on the USS Stargazer with Picard, presumably prior to the events of The Next Generation, and I’m always going to be interested in storylines that expand upon the backstories of our favourite characters! But Dr Benayoun’s role was pretty small and he didn’t really give us any new information about Picard’s life prior to assuming command of the Enterprise-D, unfortunately.

If I had been writing this scene, I’d have moved heaven and earth to bring back Diana Muldaur as Dr Pulaski. At this point in the series, we’ve only seen Picard himself and a dream version of Data, so there’s absolutely a case to be made that bringing back a legacy character would have been perfect for this moment. There could have been a slightly extended conversation between the two, perhaps with Dr Pulaski commenting on how she saved Picard’s life when she performed surgery on him, or recounting another of their shared adventures in Season 2 of The Next Generation.

Still frame from Finding Hannah (2022/23) showing actress Diana Muldaur. — Diana Muldaur, who played Dr Pulaski in Season 2 of *The Next Generation*.

I said before Picard premiered that I didn’t want the series to try to be The Next Generation Season 8, but moments like this would have been perfect for small cameos from established characters. With Dr Crusher being held in reserve for a possible future role, Dr Pulaski would have been the perfect fit for this sequence. We could have learned a little about why she left the Enterprise-D, with that perhaps having been a sore spot in her relationship with Picard. Or we could’ve learned what she’s been up to in the intervening years – did she return to work at Starfleet Medical, perhaps, or take another assignment on a starship?

I’ve been a fan of Dr Pulaski for a long time, and I think this sequence could’ve been an opportunity to right a thirty-year wrong and give the character the closure and send-off she never got. Diana Muldaur has still been active as an actress in recent years – despite being well into her eighties at time of writing – appearing in the trailer for a film called Finding Hannah in 2022. Despite some negative feelings on both sides, it may have been possible to bring her back during production on Picard’s first season in 2018 and 2019. I think it could have added a fun extra dimension to the sequence in that second episode, especially for older Trekkies.

Change #2:
Leave Data dead after Season 1.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 1 (2020) showing the character of Data. — Data in the “digital afterlife.”

One of the few redeeming features of an otherwise disappointing finale to Season 1 was the storyline involving Data. Data had been killed years earlier during the events of Star Trek: Nemesis, but that film arguably didn’t take enough time to give the character the send-off he deserved. As I wrote when reviewing Picard’s first season, the scenes involving Picard laying Data to rest were beautiful, emotional, and just what the episode needed – and I could finally see why, eighteen years on from Data’s first death, they were necessary for the character.

Season 3, however, undid all of that. Not only did that decision detract from one of the only decent parts of the Season 1 finale, but it was actually a pretty convoluted plot point that was difficult to follow and relied on a lot of technobabble and “magic.” It never really found a narrative justification beyond showrunner Terry Matalas’ desire to reunite all of the main characters from The Next Generation – no matter the cost.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 3 (2023) showing the character of Data. — Data at his post in Season 3.

In Star Trek’s universe, Data was as dead as it was possible to be. His body had been destroyed years earlier, and Season 1 saw the final shutdown of the residual part of his mind that had been preserved – at Data’s own request. With both body and mind gone, there should have been absolutely no way back for Data. But thanks to the magical deus ex machina of a backup body and a backup mind… Data was resurrected in Season 3. That never sat right with me, but if there had been a significant narrative role for the character in those final episodes, perhaps I could’ve come to terms with it. There really wasn’t, though, and aside from one scene in which Data technobabbled his way to regaining control of the Titan, we didn’t really get a lot more from him for the rest of his time on screen.

I believe Data would have been better-served in Season 3 by being memorialised by his friends. Leaving alone the touching moments between he and Picard in what I termed the “digital afterlife” in Season 1 would have made those moments more powerful to revisit… instead of feeling like a storyline that’s been overwritten. Of all the dead characters in Star Trek, Data was the hardest to bring back because he’d “died” twice, both in body and soul. I don’t think the decision to resurrect him just a few episodes after that intensely emotional send-off was the right one, and I don’t think it was done for the right reasons, sadly.

Change #3:
Either leave Elnor dead or include him in Season 3.

Promo photo for Star Trek: Picard. — Elnor in a promo photo for Season 2.

This is a storyline that I’ve said several times that I genuinely do not understand. Let’s keep in mind that Seasons 2 and 3 went into production back-to-back, with the same creative team in control. Early in Season 2, Elnor was killed – and while I wasn’t thrilled with that at first, as the season unfolded, the way in which Raffi came to terms with his loss made it matter. In fact, I’d go so far as to call the Raffi-Elnor storyline in Season 2 one of the few high points of a season that had relatively few of those.

It was always going to feel strange, then, when Elnor was resurrected at the last second by Q. The fact that Elnor didn’t get much to do in the second half of the Season 2 finale hammered that feeling home; a sight gag showing Elnor disgusted by a beverage was basically his only moment of note after his return. Was it worth undoing that powerful story for an overdone bit of slapstick? He barely got any screen time nor even a proper reunion with Raffi. But nevertheless, as the credits rolled on Season 2 I thought Elnor’s return could find a narrative justification in Season 3.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 2 (2022) showing the character of Elnor. — Elnor at the end of Season 2.

Elnor, however, was totally absent from Season 3 and wasn’t even mentioned. If I was writing the season, I’d have dropped one of the La Forge sisters and included Elnor instead, having him aboard the Titan in a secondary role and ultimately becoming one of the young officers who gets assimilated. That moment could’ve actually felt stronger and more powerful with Elnor’s inclusion, as we’d be confronting a threat to a character we’d been with for three seasons instead of someone brand-new.

However… given Elnor’s absence from Season 3, I can’t help but feel that leaving him dead would have been the least-bad option. At least that way Raffi’s story of coming to terms with her grief would have meant something, and we could’ve talked about the bold decision to kill off a new, young character in a Star Trek series – something that the franchise isn’t really known for doing. While I absolutely feel that there could have been room for Elnor in Season 3, his death was such a big part of the story of Season 2 that I think undoing it would have probably been a mistake regardless.

Change #4:
Connect the anomaly in Season 2 to either Season 1’s “super-synths” or Season 3’s Borg incursion.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 2 (2022) showing the anomaly and the fleet. — The Borg-Federation fleet defends the Alpha Quadrant against the mysterious anomaly.

One thing that modern Star Trek has never managed to get quite right is serialisation. This will have to be the subject of a longer article one day, but for now suffice to say that Discovery, Picard, and to a lesser extent Strange New Worlds too all rely on season-long storylines that don’t carry over from one season to the next. There are reasons for this in Discovery’s case – the series flirted with cancellation more than once. But, as I understand it, Picard was planned from day one as a three-season show… so why were none of its storylines picked up in subsequent seasons?

There are two choices here, and they’re probably mutually-exclusive (without some major rewriting) so realistically we’d have to settle on one or the other! But I think the Season 2 anomaly is an interesting narrative idea that could have connected with either the super-synths from Season 1 or the Borg incursion in Season 3. Either of these powerful factions could have been responsible for the attempted attack on the Alpha Quadrant that Picard and co. prevented at the climax of Season 2 – and I think it would have been far better than just leaving this incredibly important event without a proper explanation.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 1 (2020) showing menancing mechanical tentacles. — The mechanical noodles of the Season 1 super-synths.

The mysterious anomaly bookended the story of Season 2, and connected to Picard, his friends, and the adventure they had in the intervening episodes. Unlike in many Star Trek stories, the anomaly was explicitly identified as an “attack,” meaning that there must be some faction or powerful force behind it. The Borg and the super-synths from Season 1 would fit the bill as being powerful enough to launch an attack of that magnitude.

Tying one of these factions into the anomaly story would have helped Picard feel a bit more cohesive. Given the abundance of overwritten plot points, dropped characters, and abrupt changes in direction across the series, having something to tie disparate story threads together would be a good thing. If I had to pick one, I’d say that the super-synths would be the ideal faction to include here, simply because we know relatively little about them, and a super-synth attack could set up a future Star Trek series or film. But given that the Borg would return in Season 3, dropping a hint or two that they could be responsible could have been a great cliffhanger to end on at the end of Season 2.

Change #5:
Have the Enterprise-A and Enterprise-D fighting alongside one another at the end of Season 3.

Still frame from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country showing the Enterprise-A. — The Enterprise-A’s final voyage.

Season 3 introduced us to the Fleet Museum, which is a really interesting idea that I enjoyed. It was also a Trekkie’s dream, as multiple vessels from past iterations of the franchise were present. Along with Geordi’s pride and joy – the restored Enterprise-D – was the Enterprise-A, Captain Kirk’s ship that we saw in The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country. How cool would it have been if, along with the Enterprise-D, Picard and co. found some friends or allies to crew the Enterprise-A and join them as they took the battle to the Borg?

I know that Picard’s third season was a “love letter” to The Next Generation, and I can absolutely understand not wanting to detract from seeing the Enterprise-D and her crew back in action. But as a Trekkie, one of the fantasies that I’ve always had has been to see different crews and different ships standing shoulder-to-shoulder – especially in a story like this one, where the battle lines have been drawn and the Federation seems to be on the cusp of defeat!

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 3 (2023) showing the Enterprise-D in battle. — Wouldn’t it have been cool to have the Enterprise-A here for this moment?

Bringing the Enterprise-A along would fit narratively, too. Part of the story was about older people still having something to offer; stepping back into the fray to save their younger colleagues. The Enterprise-D and her crew were one way to embody that storyline, but including the Enterprise-A would have been in the same narrative ballpark. There could have even been some technobabble about how the Borg wouldn’t know what to do with a ship that old, making the Enterprise-A a useful addition to the battle. If this point in the story had been reached a little earlier – say with three episodes left instead of one-and-a-bit – I’d have absolutely found a way to include the Enterprise-A.

A digital model had already been created – albeit a static one for the Fleet Museum – but I’m sure with relatively little work it could have been transformed into a moving, flying model. And as for the bridge… I don’t think an entire set would need to be built. For brief scenes shown on the Enterprise-D’s viewscreen, perhaps a redress of the Strange New Worlds or Discovery sets would have sufficed. This would’ve also been a great way to include a character or two from The Next Generation era – perhaps someone like Ezri Dax or Captain Jellico – to take command. Seeing two Enterprises riding into battle side by side… I can’t think of anything more exciting in that kind of story.

What might have been, eh?

So that’s it!

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 2 (2022) showing the main characters around the conference table. — Picard and his crew.

We’ve looked at five changes I’d have made to Star Trek: Picard.

I’m still holding out hope that a new series, film, or other project set in the Picard era will be announced, but with Paramount’s financial troubles and other Star Trek shows being cancelled… I’m not sure when or even if that’ll happen. If it does, though, I hope lessons can be learned from Picard, both in terms of narrative and on the production side of things. As good as the series could be when everything was working right, there are some definite low points that detract from its successes.

The points on this list are pure fantasy at this stage, of course! But as Picard was being broadcast, I couldn’t help but feel that a few tweaks or changes here and there might’ve improved things – so I’m glad to finally put metaphorical pen to paper and make a few of my suggestions. I hope these ideas have been interesting, at any rate – and not something to get too worked up or upset over! If you hate all of these ideas, you can take solace in the fact that none of them were or ever will be included in Star Trek: Picard!

I still have a few pieces about Picard in the pipeline, including a longer retrospective/post-mortem of the series as a whole. I don’t know when I’ll get around to writing all of those, but I hope you’ll stay tuned. It’s bound to happen eventually! Until next time… live long and prosper!

Star Trek: Picard is available to stream now on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available. The series is also available to purchase on DVD/Blu-ray. The Star Trek franchise – including Picard and all other properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

$tarfield

Sun 07.07.24Dennis

As part of Xbox’s Summer Showcase event last month, we got some big news about Bethesda’s failing space game Starfield… and it isn’t good. In fact, I’m beyond disappointed in the latest updates about the game, and I now feel incredibly sceptical about Bethesda’s longer-term future and its upcoming titles in the Elder Scrolls and Fallout franchises. Today, I’d like to talk about what it is that I don’t like – and why it should matter to fans of Starfield, haters of Starfield, and even folks who’ve never played a single Bethesda Game Studios title.

Last year, I had pretty high hopes for Starfield. But as you may already know if you’ve read my first impressions of the game – and my other post-launch articles – I didn’t enjoy what was on offer. The world-building and setting just didn’t grab me in any way, and I progressed through some pretty boring missions and bland environments not really giving a shit about the galaxy that Bethesda had created or the characters who inhabited it. After spending as much time with the game as I reasonably could, I put Starfield down and haven’t returned to it – save for taking a few screenshots here and there to use on the website.

Screenshot of Starfield showing a first-person viewpoint. — Screenshots like this one!

But what we’re going to talk about today doesn’t come from a place of “hate.” I’m not blindly attacking these decisions from Bethesda and Xbox because Starfield left me disappointed and I want to twist the knife even more. On the contrary: it’s precisely because I’ve enjoyed other Bethesda titles and because I had hoped to enjoy new ones in the future that I feel compelled to share my criticisms.

In short, Starfield is being catastrophically over-monetised. Bethesda and Microsoft seem desperate to wring every last penny out of the game, no matter what. Not content with making a lot of money from sales and subscriptions to Game Pass, Xbox and Bethesda are greedily grabbing every penny they can using every dirty trick from the games industry playbook. Having already charged £35 extra to players who wanted to play the game on its real release date, Bethesda and Xbox have now set up an in-game marketplace that wouldn’t look out of place in a crappy free-to-play mobile game, one that charges players for basic items and even fan-made mods.

Screenshot of Starfield's microtransaction marketplace. — What the fuck is this shit?

Shattered Space is going to be one of several larger pieces of DLC, and I’ve always given big expansion packs a lot of leeway when it comes to criticisms like this. But the fact that Shattered Space was planned during development of the base game – and appears to contain a faction that I would argue should have been part of the main game given its prominence and relevance to the plot and to major characters – even that starts to feel shady. The fact that Bethesda and Xbox were selling pre-orders for Shattered Space before Starfield even launched last year is just more proof of that. This is basically cut content: storylines and missions developed alongside the game’s main content that were carved out to be sold separately later on.

Whether you love or loathe Starfield, you have to admit that this is a poor way to run a single-player game. Look around at some of Starfield’s biggest competitors in the single-player action-RPG space. Baldur’s Gate 3 was complete at launch, with no major DLC and only one small content pack being sold separately. Cyberpunk 2077 comes with a single piece of DLC – and it’s a massive, game-changing one. Elden Ring likewise only has the one piece of DLC, too. None of these games paywall their fan-made mods, either.

Comparable games – like Elden Ring – aren’t subject to this ridiculous level of monetisation.

If this is the route Bethesda wants to go down – and it clearly is, as we’ve already seen with Fallout 76′s microtransactions and expensive add-ons – then I don’t think I want them to make The Elder Scrolls VI any more. Or Fallout 5. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is one of my favourite games of all-time, and even though it’s been a while since I last played Skyrim or Oblivion, I still felt a sense of excitement knowing that a return to the world of Tamriel was on the cards. But now? Fuck it, I’m out.

Gamers have become desensitised to this kind of over-monetisation, but for a single-player title Starfield’s in-game marketplace is one of the worst and most egregious I’ve ever seen. We’re looking at a single mission that costs $10, item packs containing a scant handful of items for £10 or more, and much more besides. Players also need to buy an in-game currency – at the usual awkward exchange rate – before they can buy any of these microtransactions. More games industry bullshit from Bethesda there.

I get that developers need to be paid for their time and work. But this isn’t the way to do it. If Larian Studios and FromSoftware can release profitable games that don’t need to rely on this kind of shocking in-game marketplace, surely Bethesda can too. And if CD Projekt Red can recover from Cyberpunk 2077′s shockingly poor launch (and even the game’s removal from an entire platform for months) to turn a huge profit from a game that only has a single piece of DLC, why can’t Bethesda? I don’t buy the excuse that Starfield wouldn’t be profitable without this microtransaction storefront – especially given that many of the offerings are fan-made mods that didn’t cost Bethesda a penny to create.

Maybe I’m too old and times have changed, but I’ve always believed that fan-made mods should be free. They’re a passion project, something players do for a bit of fun or to tweak a game they enjoy to be more to their liking. The idea of paying for mods has never sat right with me, and while I love the idea of up-and-coming or budding developers viewing modding as a way into the industry… they shouldn’t be expecting to make modding someone else’s game their full-time job. So paid mods are already a no-no for me, but knowing that Bethesda and Xbox are taking a cut of the proceeds for something they didn’t even make? It’s sickening.

I said months ago that, with Shattered Space just being the first of several pieces of planned DLC, the total cost of Starfield could soar well past the £200 mark – but I didn’t expect that warning to come true so quickly. At time of writing, just to pick up the microtransactions in the “featured” category you’ll need to spend over £50 – on top of buying the base game for £60 and Shattered Space for £35. With more microtransactions being added all the time, it won’t be long before Starfield will be asking for north of £500 or even £1,000 for the complete package. That’s completely unacceptable to me for a single-player title.

It’s not wrong to want good, high-quality, complete games from studios. Other developers are capable of turning a profit by making and releasing games, so there’s no justification for this cash-grab from Bethesda and Xbox. And if this is how the company plans to make and monetise its games, then quite frankly I hope Bethesda Game Studios goes the way of Tango Gameworks and Arkane Austin. Given the abject failure of Starfield already, and the controversy that these microtransactions are bound to cause, maybe Microsoft ought to consider taking The Elder Scrolls VI and the Fallout license away from Bethesda. The corporation has enough other studios under its umbrella at this point that it would be quite feasible to pass these titles to someone else.

Maybe someone else should make The Elder Scrolls VI.

I’ve lost all interest in The Elder Scrolls VI now, anyway. And unless Microsoft were to announce a massive change in that game’s development, I doubt I’ll pick it up. It’s clear to me now how Bethesda sees its games – less as complete experiences than as platforms for monetisation, microtransactions, and expensive in-game purchases. Rather than creating games to be published and sold, Bethesda is going all-in on live services and “recurring revenue,” hoping to monetise its titles for years after release. If the company was making multiplayer games, where this business model has worked, I’d leave them to it. But in the single-player space I find it objectionable… actually no, I find it disgusting.

This time last year, coming out of Bethesda’s big Starfield presentation, I could hardly have been more excited about the game and its prospects. A friend of mine said to me that they genuinely felt Starfield “could be the best game either of us will ever play” – such was the level of hype and excitement that Bethesda and Xbox had successfully built up. But it wasn’t meant to be.

Pre-release concept art for Starfield showing a space station corridor. — Pre-release concept art for *Starfield*.

Instead, Starfield was a game that was mediocre at best; a title comprised entirely of systems and mechanics that other titles have been doing better for years. As I wrote once, Bethesda should have been less focused on turning Starfield into a “ten-year experience” and instead ought to have been spending time catching up on a decade’s worth of improvements in game design and development. The company’s executives were entirely focused on the wrong ten years!

At the end of the day, I could have overlooked bland gameplay, uninspired mission design, and even a lack of decorative and cosmetic options if the world-building and narratives present in Starfield had been up to scratch. But they weren’t – and all of this lacklustre gameplay was taking place in a boring, small-scale world that I couldn’t find a way to get invested in or care about.

Screenshot of Starfield showing a player character at a mission board. — *Starfield’*s world-building was disappointing.

All of this leads to one question: why on earth is Starfield – with its bland, uninteresting, small world and outdated, mediocre, often-buggy gameplay – worth spending more money on? The kinds of things that these microtransactions are adding should be free – and given the crap state that the game remains in almost a year after its underwhelming launch, Bethesda should be continually adding new features, new missions, new cosmetic items and the like. And if there are going to be paid-for expansion packs like Shattered Space, then realistically they need to be as big and as transformative for Starfield as Phantom Liberty was for Cyberpunk 2077.

Without that kind of large-scale change to the game, I don’t see Starfield surviving. Many of the players who picked it up on launch day or in the latter part of 2023 have already drifted away and are finding new gaming experiences to get stuck into. It’s already a tough sell to win back disappointed ex-players, and adding microtransactions – including a single mission for $10 – is categorically not the way to do it. It would be bad enough if Starfield was a popular title with a large playerbase… but it isn’t. And this kind of egregious in-game shop isn’t going to do anything to bring players back.

So I guess I really am done with Starfield. I held out hope for a while that there might be an update or DLC pack that would genuinely transform the game, bringing it closer to the original promises that Bethesda made and making it a title I might actually enjoy playing. But with the company seemingly wedded to this microtransaction and paid mods approach that wouldn’t feel out of place in a free-to-play mobile game… I’m out. This game isn’t worth it, and even if it had been a title with a fun story and great world-building, I think I’d still be so turned off by the over-monetisation that I’d walk away.

On the one hand I get it: I’m a dinosaur in a gaming marketplace that’s changed. Morrowind, with its two expansion packs, was more than twenty years ago, and many developers nowadays go down the route of microtransactions, “gold editions,” paid early access, and so on. But there are still games that don’t, especially in the single-player space, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for a game that I play alone and offline to be basically feature-complete and not try to grab every penny out of my wallet every time I want to change my character’s outfit or decorate their living space.

I’ll finish this piece with a warning for Xbox and Bethesda: players will remember what you tried to pull with Starfield when the next Fallout game or The Elder Scrolls VI are being readied for launch.

Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S/X consoles. The Shattered Space DLC pack will be released in autumn 2024. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

We’re Halfway Through 2024!

Sun 30.06.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Beware minor spoilers for some of the titles below.

Although I can scarcely believe I’m writing these words… 2024 is officially halfway over! The summer solstice has passed, the nights are getting longer, and before you know it the leaves will be falling from the trees and we’ll be thinking about getting the Christmas decorations out of storage! Maybe that’s a depressing thought for some of you, but I gotta be honest: I love the autumn and winter seasons!

The last day of June marks the halfway point of the year, and I think that makes it a good opportunity not to look behind, but ahead. In late December I’ll dish out my annual End-of-Year Awards, but today is about looking forward to some of the entertainment experiences we might enjoy between now and Christmas. I’ve picked six films, six video games, and six television shows that I think could be fun to watch or play in the second half of 2024.

Still frame from the BBC's New Year's Eve coverage showing Big Ben and the London Eye. — Have you started making plans for New Year’s Eve yet?

As always, a couple of caveats! This list is just one person’s subjective opinion, so if I highlight a production that looks just awful to you, or if I miss something that you think is super obvious… that’s okay! There are loads of things to get excited about and I can’t cover all of them. Secondly, with strikes, pandemics, and other possible issues, it’s possible that some or all of these titles will miss their intended release dates or even slip back into 2025. Everything listed below is scheduled for 2024 at time of writing, but things can change!

With all of that out of the way, let’s look ahead to some of the entertainment experiences we might be enjoying between now and New Year’s Eve.

Films:

Stock photo of a popcorn bucket. — Shall we go to the movies?

I have to be honest: I haven’t seen any brand-new films so far this year! There are a couple on my radar from the first six months of 2024: Civil War, for instance, and the two-part Rebel Moon, but I just haven’t made time for any of them yet. Hopefully that’ll change… I’d love to get a review or two written in the weeks ahead!

Film #1:
The Lord of the Rings: War of the Rohirrim

Promo image for War of the Rohirrim showing a girl wielding a sword. — Promo image for *War of the Rohirrim*.

2024 is shaping up to be an interesting year for Tolkien fans. The Rings of Power is returning for its second season, but we’re also getting the first of several brand-new projects: War of the Rohirrim. Set a hundred years before the events of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, War of the Rohirrim will focus on the “Riders of Rohan” and the King of Rohan Helm Hammerhand. Helm and his men will defend their kingdom… and presumably establish the legendary fortress of Helm’s Deep.

One interesting thing about this film is that it’s animated rather than live-action, and its success could pave the way for more animated Middle-earth projects, perhaps. Director Kenji Kamiyama is well-known in Japan for his work on anime titles like Ghost in the Shell and Eden of the East. As someone who doesn’t know the first thing about anime… I’ll be very curious to see what comes of this fusion of Tolkien’s world with a uniquely Japanese filmmaking style.

Film #2:
Megalopolis

Title card for Megalopolis. — Title card for *Megalopolis*.

Francis Ford Coppola’s epic film has been decades in the making, and the legendary director has poured a lot of his time, effort, and talent into creating it – and no small amount of his own money, too. I genuinely don’t know what the result will be; are we going to get a picture comparable to the likes of Coppola’s own Apocalypse Now… or a truly spectacular flop? Some folks seem to have already decided that Megalopolis will be the latter, but until I’ve seen it for myself I don’t want to pass judgement!

The film is set against the backdrop of a New York-inspired city having been destroyed, and the attempts to rebuild it being hampered by a corrupt elite. There could be an interesting message there, perhaps, given events out here in the real world. Either way, I’ll be curious to see what this long-awaited film actually looks like when the dust settles.

Film #3:
Horizon: An American Saga
Parts 1 & 2

Cropped poster for Horizon: An American Saga showing Kevin Costner's character. — Kevin Costner wrote, produced, directed, and stars in *Horizon: An American Saga*.

Some folks will tell you that the western died a long time ago… but I don’t think that’s really true! There have been fewer westerns produced in recent years than there were at the genre’s peak, but new titles are still making their way to the big screen. Kevin Costner’s Horizon: An American Saga is one of them – and the first two of a purported four-part series are slated to be released this year. I love a good western, and some recent titles in the space have done very different things, from gritty realism to flipping traditional narrative archetypes on their head.

Horizon: An American Saga is set before and after the American Civil War, and all we really know at this stage is that it will depict different characters and families as they settle the western portion of the United States. There are some good actors in the ensemble cast, including Kevin Costner himself, Avatar’s Sam Worthington, Will Patton, and Michael Rooker from The Walking Dead.

Film #4:
Moana 2

Promo artwork for Moana 2. — Maui and Moana (and a bioluminescent whale) in a promo image for *Moana 2*.

I felt it was a tad unfortunate that the original Moana was released the same year as Zootopia, as the latter film seemed – for a time, anyway – to have really captured the attention of a younger audience! Over time, however, I think Moana has done very well for Disney, and is arguably one of the corporation’s last animated feature films to have been a major success in its own right. Disney has since pivoted to sequels and live-action remakes… which is why we’re getting not only Moana 2 but a new adaptation of the original film!

Disney’s sequels have always struggled with one problem: what comes after “happily ever after?” For most of the company’s animated films, the answer has been “not much,” with the resultant pictures going straight-to-video or being worked into Disney Channel series! But Frozen II showed that Disney can do high-quality sequels on the big screen… so there’s hope for Moana 2, at least.

Film #5:
Red One

Promo photo for Red One showing Santa's sleigh and reindeer. — Ho ho ho…

Santa Claus gets kidnapped? And his chief of security, The Rock, has to rescue him? That sounds like the setup for a film that could be absolutely awful… or maybe brilliant! Truth be told, I love a good Christmas story, and Red One seems to be putting an action-comedy spin on the whole “Christmas is in danger” concept that’s become a timeless holiday staple.

Red One features a stellar cast, including Chris Evans, J.K. Simmons, and Lucy Liu alongside Dwayne Johnson. A couple of years ago I was hearing talk of the film being the first part of a kind of “expanded universe” of holiday-related films. Not sure if that’s still going ahead, but Red One could be a fun title regardless. Whether it’ll be the kind of classic that we’ll want to return to at Christmas time every year… I’m not sure! But you never know.

Film #6:
Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl

Promo image for Wallace and Gromit: Vengeance Most Fowl showing Feathers McGraw's mug shot. — Guess who’s back?

The most evil penguin in the world – and one of cinema’s great villains – is finally returning this Christmas! Vengeance Most Fowl will see the long-awaited return of Feathers McGraw, and he seems set on getting his revenge on those who wronged him all those years ago! I’m genuinely looking forward to this one – the Wallace and Gromit pictures have all been a ton of fun, and stop-motion with plasticine figures is something genuinely different in an animation landscape overrun by CGI.

As to the plot… I confess that I’m not entirely convinced that returning to a storyline from a previous adventure is the right move. I could certainly have entertained the idea of telling an entirely new story. But I’m definitely going to be checking out Wallace and Gromit’s latest adventure no matter what!

Television:

The first half of 2024 has seen some interesting TV shows. My current favourite has to be Netflix’s 3 Body Problem, which has belatedly been renewed for two further seasons. I have a review you can find by clicking or tapping here if you’re interested! But there’s more to come, and the next six months promise some new and exciting programmes to enjoy.

TV Show #1:
Lego Star Wars: Rebuild the Galaxy

Promo image from Lego Star Wars: Rebuild The Galaxy showing Jar Jar Binks holding a lightsaber. — Did Disney just confirm the “Darth Jar Jar” theory?!

Here at Trekking with Dennis, we love and support the Lego Star Wars specials on Disney+! There have been three so far: one Christmas-themed, one Halloween-themed, and one set in the summertime. All have been fantastic, light-hearted takes on Star Wars… and given the bitterness and division in the Star Wars fan community, that can be just what we all need to see sometimes!

Rebuild the Galaxy sounds like it will be a time-travelling tale of undoing mistakes and restoring the correct timeline… with a few fun alternative ideas about Star Wars in the mix, too. Darth Jar Jar, anyone? Hopefully it’ll be a ton of fun, with Mark Hamill and Ahmed Best joining in to voice their iconic characters.

TV Show #2:
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power
Season 2

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing a tower and a desolate landscape. — Sauron’s tower rises…

As I said when I took a look at The Rings of Power’s upcoming second season a few weeks ago, there are reasons to be positive as the series returns after a two-year hiatus. But I also don’t see any kind of reboot or resetting of a series that, in some quarters, has proven to be controversial, which could mean that this incredibly expensive production will continue to struggle to win over both longstanding fans of Middle-earth and a wider audience.

For what it’s worth, I enjoyed what The Rings of Power did. Particularly when the series stepped away from big questions about Sauron’s reign and the shape of the world and told smaller, more character-oriented stories, I felt there were sparks of genius. And I will never not be interested in a high-budget production that expands our understanding of one of the original, foundational fantasy worlds. Maybe The Rings of Power is imperfect, and maybe Season 2 won’t be the soft reboot that it arguably needed… but I’m still looking forward to it!

TV Show #3:
Phineas and Ferb
Season 5

Still frame from Phineas and Ferb showing Candace looking at the boys on a TV screen. — *Phineas and Ferb* will be back on our screens before too long!

This one is tentative, but Phineas and Ferb’s return is supposedly still on the schedule for 2024. We don’t have anything official on that, and we haven’t seen any trailers, but it would be great to see Phineas and Ferb back on our screens this autumn or winter. I felt that the TV film Candace Against the Universe was fantastic, and if the writers have found new and exciting storylines for the kids and Dr Doofenshmirtz, we should be in for a fun time!

Phineas and Ferb has become one of my “comfort shows,” and I often drift back to it on days when I’m struggling with my mental health. From my perspective, I’m really happy at the prospect of getting some new adventures with Phineas, Ferb, Perry the Platypus, and the rest of the gang. The challenge for any revived or renewed series is finding a way to recapture the magic of those earlier seasons… and finding a better justification for a return than “because money.” I’m crossing my fingers… but I’m more than happy to wait until 2025 or even 2026 if it means better episodes and stories.

TV Show #4:
Those About To Die

Promo photo for Those About To Die showing the Roman Emperor. — Anthony Hopkins in *Those About To Die*.

Those About To Die is a series focusing on gladiators in the Roman Empire. It will star Anthony Hopkins as the Roman Emperor… and that’s about all I know at this stage! The trailer left me with echoes of Game of Thrones (and not just because of the presence of actor Iwan Rheon) with themes of politicking, backstabbing, and control of the Empire all seemingly in play.

There hasn’t been a big-budget production set in ancient Rome for quite some time, so I’ll be curious to see what director Roland Emmerich can do with this unique setting. Hopefully we’ll get some action and excitement at the very least!

TV Show #5:
Star Trek: Lower Decks
Season 5

Still frame from Star Trek: Lower Decks Season 2 showing the four main characters at at table. — The four ensigns in Season 2.

I really need to climb out of my Star Trek doldrums and watch Season 4 of Lower Decks before I can get too excited about Season 5! Unfortunately, this is set to be the final outing for Mariner, Boimler, and the rest of the crew of the Cerritos, as Paramount cancelled the series earlier this year. Hopefully we’ll get a fitting send-off for an enjoyable series and cast of characters.

Lower Decks has been an interesting experiment for the Star Trek franchise – one that would probably have worked better were it not drowned out, at times, by too many other Star Trek productions on our screens all at once. But I hope this won’t be the end for the franchise’s flirtation with animation – it’s a format that has worked well. Lower Decks also took Star Trek back to an older, more episodic style of storytelling, which is something I continue to appreciate.

TV Show #6:
Leonardo da Vinci

A page from Leonardo da Vinci's sketchbook. — One of da Vinci’s designs.

I’ve been a big fan of Ken Burns’ work for a long time, and Leonardo da Vinci will be the acclaimed filmmaker’s first documentary about a non-American subject. Da Vinci led a fascinating life, and I have no doubt that we’ll all learn a lot about the legendary scientist and artist through this new two-part miniseries.

Ken Burns has a unique style that makes his documentaries for PBS really stand out, so I’m looking forward to seeing what his take will be on one of the greatest polymaths of the Renaissance era.

Video Games:

Photo of a young child playing a racing video game. — There are some fun games on the horizon.

Don’t tell anyone, but I think I already know what my “game of the year” will be when I hand out some imaginary statuettes in December! Little Kitty, Big City is an adorable and incredibly fun title, but I’ve also had fun in the first half of 2024 playing EA Sports PGA Tour… a golf game. There’s a lot more to come before Christmas rolls around, though!

Video Game #1:
Star Wars: Outlaws

Promo image for Star Wars: Outlaws showing the main character. — Protagonist Kay Vess and her pet… lizard-axolotl-thing.

One of the things I’ve argued that Star Wars needs to do is step away from the Jedi, Sith, and the Force and show us more about how the regular citizens of the galaxy live. Outlaws seems poised to do just that, focusing on the criminal underworld that we’ve caught glimpses of in other productions. This is, however, a Ubisoft open-world title – and Ubisoft’s particular formula for making games like that is arguably played out at this point. Not to mention there are about a dozen different “editions” of the game, all of which offer some kind of exclusive content and cost a lot more money!

I wouldn’t say that I have sky-high expectations for Outlaws, and having come away from last year’s Jedi: Survivor feeling pretty disappointed, this is a game I admit that I have reservations about. If it all comes together, though, I think we could finally get that personal Han Solo-inspired adventure that many Star Wars fans – myself included – have been interested in for a long time. Just please… don’t make protagonist Kay Vess another “secret Jedi in disguise!”

~~Video Game #2:~~
~~Life By You~~

Title card of the cancelled Life By You. — What a disappointment.

I was all ready to tell you about how genuinely excited I was at the prospect of a proper competitor to The Sims… only to belatedly learn that publisher Paradox cancelled Life By You just months before it was scheduled to be released. That’s disappointing – not only for those of us who might’ve wanted to play it, but for the developers who’d been working on it for over five years at this point.

The Sims has had this genre almost all to itself for a long time, and the result has been a game drowning in expensive add-ons and “content packs.” Life By You could, perhaps, have shaken up a stale genre and done things differently. We’ll never know what might have been.

Video Game #3:
Star Trucker

Promo image for Star Trucker. — Ready to get behind the wheel… or control stick?

Euro Truck Simulator meets science fiction! If that sounds like fun to you, maybe you’ll like Star Trucker. As the name suggests, it’s a game about piloting – or should that be driving? – cargo ships in a sci-fi setting. It looks like a ton of fun; the kind of “cozy game” that I can find myself losing hours of my life playing!

Star Trucker hadn’t been on my radar at all until I saw it at Xbox’s Summer Showcase event a few weeks ago, but now I’m definitely curious to give it a go. I’ve played a fair amount of games like Euro Truck Simulator and Train Simulator, and taking that kind of gameplay to a weirder outer space setting seems like it could be a blast.

Video Game #4:
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle

Promo image for Indiana Jones and the Great Circle showing first-person gameplay. — Let’s punch some Nazis!

I have to be honest with you: I’m not sure about this one. Something about the marketing material for Indiana Jones and the Great Circle is just rubbing me the wrong way, and the game’s visuals feel decidedly underwhelming, too. Still, as a child of the ’80s I feel a strong connection with the Indiana Jones series… and after recent films have failed to impress, surely Indy is overdue for a hit?

The likes of Tomb Raider and Uncharted have shown that video games can do incredibly well with these kinds of historical mystery-adventures, so it could be great to give the granddaddy of the genre one more chance in the video game realm. Maybe, just maybe, I’m wrong about this one and Indiana Jones and the Great Circle will be the kind of rip-roaring adventure I’m looking for. Fingers crossed, eh?

Video Game #5:
Super Mario Party Jamboree

Promo image for Super Mario Bros Jamboree. — Promo image for *Super Mario Party Jamboree*.

I’ve had a soft spot for the Mario Party series since I played the first entry on the Nintendo 64 way back when! It’s great to see that Nintendo is keeping this fun, family-friendly party series around, and even more so to see that a couple of game boards from those early N64 titles are being recreated this time around. It looks like there will be plenty of fun to be had for Mario and the gang!

As the Nintendo Switch begins to wind down and rumors of a new console have even been confirmed by Nintendo, Super Mario Party Jamboree could end up being one of the last big first-party titles created for the machine. With more than 100 mini-games, seven game boards, and a robust online mode, it seems like it’ll be a great send-off for the Switch.

Video Game #6:
Tales of the Shire

Promo image for Tales of the Shire (2024). — Hobbit-holes!

Tales of the Shire feels like it could be The Hobbit meets Animal Crossing! Pitched as a life sim set in the world of Tolkien’s Middle-earth, it looks like there will be a lot of customisation for both player characters and their Hobbit-holes, and a lot of fun, cozy gameplay to get stuck into.

There’s a lot of Middle-earth content on the way, including several new films that were announced earlier in 2024. There’s definitely space for a title like Tales of the Shire… let’s just hope it fares better than Gollum did last year!

So that’s it!

Two coconut beverages with straws on a pier overlooking the sea. — What are your plans for the summer?

We’ve taken a look at a handful of films, TV series, and video games that I think are worth keeping an eye on as the second half of 2024 gets underway. Though it scarcely seems like any time has passed since we were taking down the last of the Christmas ornaments (and I still have an uneaten Christmas pudding in my cupboard), time’s marching on, and the autumn and winter seasons will be upon us before too long!

I hope I’ve given you an idea or two, at any rate. There are plenty of interesting-sounding titles that didn’t make the list this time around, and as I noted just last year, some of my favourite entertainment experiences came out of nowhere and completely surprised me! So I hope there will be some unexpected titles in the mix in the second half of 2024, too.

As the summer season gets underway, I wish you all the best.

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective owner, distributor, studio, broadcaster, publisher, etc. Some images and promotional artwork courtesy of IMDB and IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Let’s Play… Golf?

Fri 07.06.24Dennis

In 1997 or 1998, I had a lot of fun playing Actua Golf 2 on my PC. I didn’t have a lot of PC games at the time – my platform of choice in the second half of the ’90s was a Nintendo 64 – but Actua Golf 2 was a game that ran well on a fairly limited computer that was supposed to be used primarily for school work! It’s strange that I would’ve been interested in a game like that, but having played a demo version and with the game not being particularly expensive, I didn’t mind splashing out.

I found Actua Golf 2 to be a fun and surprisingly challenging title. It was more strategic than most sports games and less about hitting fast button combos, and I found that lining up my shots, choosing which club to use, and so on was a blast – certainly way more entertaining than I would’ve expected. There was a thrill to hitting the ball just right after making all of the right choices, and landing it within touching distance of the hole.

Screenshot of Actua Golf 2 (1997). — *Actua Golf 2* was released for PC and PlayStation in 1997.

When the Nintendo Wii came along in 2006, I was on a long waiting list for a console. Even in those days, manufacturers couldn’t keep up with demand! The Wii launched with Wii Sports bundled alongside, and one of the events included was golf. Tennis and bowling were fun too, don’t get me wrong – and maybe one day we’ll have to take a longer look at Wii Sports! But for now, suffice to say that I had a blast playing golf with my little Wiimote, and of the games included in the package, it was by far the most fun to play on my own. Tennis, bowling, and boxing were definitely games that benefited from having a second player!

Wii Sports was obviously a very different kind of experience from Actua Golf 2, with a much more arcadey, casual feel. Using the Wii’s motion controls felt gimmicky at first, I must admit, but even though due to my declining health I could only play while seated, I still had fun with it. Nintendo really nailed the whole “casual game” concept with the Wii, and the nature of golf makes it a great sport to use for a gentler, less intense experience. It still took full advantage of the Wii’s motion control system, but in a completely different way from the tennis or boxing games.

Promo screenshot of Wii Sports (2006). — *Wii Sports* was a ton of fun!

I’ve never been a particularly sporty person in real life. Even as a kid, when I wasn’t bedevilled by health issues and disability, playing sports wasn’t something that held a great deal of appeal. I played rugby at school – but only when forced to in PE lessons – and as a kid, football was regularly played at one of the clubs I attended. But the rest of the time, I’d have my nose in a book or I’d be doing other things. One kid I knew at school had a dad who played golf regularly, but I never went to the course with them. The closest I’ve ever gotten to playing a real round was when I went to the mini-golf course!

All of this is to say that I have a weird history with golf and golf games! It’s not a sport I care about in the slightest, and if you asked me to explain what the difference is between a wedge and an iron, or who the current champions are on the world tour, I wouldn’t have the faintest idea. But as a casual gamer, and as someone who enjoys slower-paced, “cosy” gaming experiences, I find golf games fit the bill. And that’s how I came to spend much of the first half of 2024 playing EA Sports PGA Tour on my PC.

Screenshot of EA Sports PGA Tour (2023) showing a close-up of the player character. — It’s true… I’m a golfer.

I’ve been a subscriber to Microsoft’s PC Game Pass service for a couple of years now, and having that subscription has felt like a pretty good deal most of the time. I got to play games I never would’ve purchased for myself – especially at full-price – thanks to Game Pass, and I’ve even tried out titles that wouldn’t have even been on my radar. Not all of them have been “my thing,” and there have been some disappointments with Game Pass along the way, too. But by and large, I’m someone who’ll speak positively about Game Pass. In my opinion, it’s a great way for players on a budget to get into current-gen gaming.

But I think we’re slightly off-topic!

Microsoft has a deal with Electronic Arts that has brought more than eighty EA games to Game Pass. I don’t think Game Pass gets the most up-to-date versions of all of EA’s sports games – the likes of EA Sports FC and the Madden American football titles don’t seem to join the service on release day. Don’t quote me on that, but I think that’s how it works. Anyway, one of the EA sports games that has recently joined the Game Pass lineup has been the aforementioned EA Sports PGA Tour. And although it had been a while since I last played much simulated golf, I thought I’d give it a whirl.

Microsoft and Electronic Arts have a deal that’s brought a number of EA Sports titles (and other EA games) to Game Pass.

I don’t play a lot of sports games or even really games published by Electronic Arts. And it’s definitely worth taking a detour to talk about just how over-monetised EA’s sports franchises have become. FIFA – or EA Sports FC as it’s now known – has become notorious for its random in-game gambling, and for selling expensive items and in-game “points,” but I confess that I was surprised to see how corrupt PGA Tour is in that regard, too. I’m not an online gamer, but even in PGA Tour’s offline mode, spending in-game currency is required to get all but the most basic golf clubs and outfits for the player character, and there are plenty of “XP boosters” and other single-use items to briefly improve your stats.

An article or essay on the shocking state of microtransactions is long overdue here on the website. But for now, suffice to say that I find these things offensive. A simple piece of clothing like a hat or a pair of shoes, or basic cosmetic equipment like different ball colours or club designs – none of which have any impact on gameplay – are not things that should be locked behind a paywall. In-game currency is “earned” at an impossibly slow rate when playing in single-player mode, and PGA Tour also employs a storefront that only carries a handful of items at a time – presumably to heighten the need for players to pay extra for in-game currency for fear of missing out. These psychological tricks are manipulative and obscene, yet they’ve become so common in modern titles that I doubt any player would even bat an eye at the state of a game like PGA Tour any more.

Screenshot of EA Sports PGA Tour (2023) showing the in-game storefront. — Part of the in-game microtransaction shop.

I enjoy a game with good customisation options, and a title like PGA Tour – where you see your character all the time from a third-person perspective – should be one where changing outfits and trying on different shirts, hats, and golf club designs simply adds to the fun. EA has chosen to monetise this as much as possible, providing a meagre selection of basic cosmetics at the start of the game and effectively locking the rest behind an expensive paywall. I get it: this isn’t The Sims or a role-playing game where outfits and costumes are a huge part of gameplay. But the fact that these basic items are unavailable except to players who are either willing to grind through a bunch of deliberately awkward challenges or pay up… it makes me angry, to be honest. And as we’re going to talk about, that’s not what I come to a golf game for!

When the Star Wars Battlefront II debacle exploded a few years ago, I really thought that the industry might be about to turn the page on microtransactions and randomised lootboxes. The backlash to that game was so intense that even governments started getting involved, and it seemed for a brief moment as if genuine change was a possibility. Slowly, though, the greedy corporations at the top of the industry have kept pushing, and microtransactions in games today are at least as bad – and in some cases, are much worse – than they ever were in Battlefront II. For me, PGA Tour is a disappointing example of this – but I’m sure you can think of a great many others.

Screenshot of EA Sports PGA Tour (2023) showing a golf ball making its way to the hole. — A golf ball in flight.

However, when I step away from the microtransaction marketplace… I gotta admit that I’m having a lot of fun playing EA Sports PGA Tour. There are some things about the game that I don’t like, sure, but by and large it’s recapturing that feeling that I used to get from Actua Golf 2 almost thirty years ago. It’s gentle, more often than not relaxing, but still a game that poses a challenge and that requires some thinking. Button-mashing won’t get you very far – and that’s something I appreciate!

I’ve mentioned this before here on the website, but I suffer from arthritis that affects my hands and fingers. My dominant hand has been made worse this past year after I suffered several broken bones in a fall, and I find that my ability to make frame-perfect button presses or complicated multi-button combos is greatly diminished. I was never the world’s best gamer by any stretch, but my abilities continue to decline thanks to health-related issues. Faster-paced titles like fighting games or first-person shooters are increasingly difficult!

Screenshot of EA Sports PGA Tour (2023) showing a golfer swinging their club. — Swinging the golf club.

One thing I’ve enjoyed about playing PGA Tour is how few buttons I need to press and how I don’t have to continuously grip the control pad. The default control scheme when using a control pad involves pulling back and flicking one of the analogue sticks to swing the club and strike the ball, and I actually really like this method. It feels interactive; like a half-step (or a quarter-step, I guess) between the simple button presses or mouse clicks of older golf games and the full motion controls of the Wii. And most importantly from a selfish point of view: it’s something I can do without pain!

That’s not to say I’m especially good at it; my timing can still absolutely suck! But controlling a golf game this way feels surprisingly intuitive. I know I’m probably a decade late (or more) with this compliment, but I really enjoy what this control scheme has done for what was already a fun experience. After lining up my shot, I like that I can set the controller down and really focus on getting my “swing” just right!

Screenshot of EA Sports PGA Tour (2023) showing a golfer putting. — Putting the ball.

There are a good number of golf courses in PGA Tour, and these range in terms of difficulty. I think there’s perhaps an overabundance of courses in the United States, and this comes at the expense of other parts of the world. There are no courses at all from Asia, Africa, or South/Central America, for instance, and only one each from France, Italy, New Zealand, Canada, and the Dominican Republic. If PGA Tour is still being supported and updated, adding a handful of new courses from different parts of the world would be a nice touch.

There is diversity of environments in the courses on offer, though, with courses built in desert locales, mountains, and on coastlines all being present. And all of them are rendered beautifully.

Screenshot of EA Sports PGA Tour (2023) showing a flyover of St. Andrews. — St. Andrews: the home of golf!

PGA Tour is nothing special when it comes to the way human characters look, and facial expressions in particular can be pretty lacklustre. Nothing about the way people look feels current-gen, and some of the crowds can actually feel quite outdated in terms of both appearance and their simplified, copy-and-pasted animations. Player characters look a bit better, but still unspectacular. Compared with what we know is possible on current-gen hardware, there’s a lot of work to do for the next iteration of this series!

But the courses themselves are something else. They look outstanding, with grass, trees, plants, and even water being beautifully recreated. Running on my PC, with an RTX 3070 Ti graphics card, these courses have all looked absolutely fantastic, and sometimes it’s been fun to just watch the flyover of each hole and take in the setting. I’m never gonna get invited to any of these fancy places, so seeing them digitally recreated is the closest I can hope to get! Thankfully, PGA Tour does a good job.

Screenshot of EA Sports PGA Tour (2023) showing a flyover of TCP Scottsdale. — There are some beautiful courses in *PGA Tour*.

I think the beautiful and realistic courses are another reason why playing PGA Tour has been so relaxing for me over these recent months. Getting lost in a digital setting isn’t always an easy feeling for any game to conjure up, so when a title can bring its environments to life like this… it really is a thing to see. I don’t think we’re at quite the same level of graphical beauty as a title like Kena: Bridge of Spirits or Red Dead Redemption II managed… but it’s not a million miles away.

As with many other sports games, PGA Tour features commentary from real commentators. I confess that I had no idea who any of them were before playing the game, but I daresay folks who regularly watch golf events on television will, and the inclusion of familiar voices in the commentary box will be another fun addition. One thing I’ve enjoyed about the commentary in PGA Tour is how the commentators will share their knowledge of not only each course, but most of the individual holes as well; rather than just commenting on events as they unfold, that little bit of extra information at the beginning is neat.

Screenshot of EA Sports PGA Tour (2023) showing a golfer teeing off. — It can be worth listening to what the commentators have to say at the beginning of each hole.

There are places where the commentary is limited, of course – as you’d expect from any sports game, really! I find that I hear a few lines repeated quite often, and in some situations the game only has a single line from the commentators, so there isn’t always a lot of variety. If, like me, you regularly miss your longer putts and end up having to take an extra shot, well… be prepared to hear the commentators take note of that. Over and over again!

Jokes aside, I’ve been having a fun time with PGA Tour. It reminds me of playing Actua Golf 2 way back when, and it’s been both an entertaining challenge and a surprisingly relaxing experience. I would never have chosen to go out and buy a golf game, but when I was browsing Game Pass it leapt out at me, and I’m glad I gave it a whirl. It’s not gonna be anyone’s “game of the year” or anything like that – not unless you’re a hardened golf fanatic! But I’ve sunk quite a few hours into the game by this point, and in spite of some limitations and a downright aggressive in-game storefront, I’ve had fun.

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Actua Golf 2 and Wii Sports are currently out of print, but second-hand copies are often available for purchase. EA Sports PGA Tour is out now for PC, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Series consoles. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek III: The Search For Spock – Forty Years Later

Sat 01.06.24Mon 09.09.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for the following Star Trek productions: The Original Series, The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, and The Voyage Home. Minor spoilers are also present for other parts of the Star Trek franchise.

We’re celebrating an anniversary today! Forty years ago to the day, on the 1st of June 1984, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock was released in cinemas in the United States. I thought it could be fun to look back at the film, highlight some of its successes, and assess its place in the Star Trek franchise.

The Search for Spock is a film I have kind of a weird personal history with! My “first contact” with the Star Trek franchise was The Next Generation. I’ve talked about this before here on the website, but the earliest episode I can solidly recall watching is Season 2’s The Royale, which was broadcast on terrestrial TV here in the UK in 1991. I think I’d seen episodes – or at least parts of episodes – before that, but I date my entry into the Star Trek fan community to mid-1991.

Promotional photo for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock showing the Enterprise at Spacedock. — The USS Enterprise returns to Spacedock.

As I continued to watch The Next Generation over the next few months and years, including returning to Season 1 and watching all of Seasons 2 and 3, I was only dimly aware of The Original Series. My parents weren’t interested in Star Trek, and in the small rural community where I grew up, there weren’t any other Trekkies that I knew of. Growing up in the ’80s, I don’t remember watching The Original Series on TV, and I never encountered any of its films at the cinema, either. But at some point after 1991, The Search for Spock came onto terrestrial TV here in the UK – probably for the first time. And it ended up being the first Star Trek film I watched!

By that point I had actually seen a handful of episodes of The Original Series when they’d been shown on TV, but I hadn’t seen The Motion Picture or The Wrath of Khan. Still, the chance to watch more Star Trek was obviously incredibly appealing, and even though I didn’t have the full picture having missed the first part of the story, I still enjoyed what The Search for Spock had to offer. Perhaps those early memories of watching the film unexpectedly have led me to over-value it in some respects… but I still consider The Search for Spock to be a great addition to the Star Trek franchise.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing the film's opening title. — The film’s opening title.

One thing I miss in films and TV shows nowadays are practical special effects – and in particular, puppets and animatronics. The Search for Spock, in my view, has some fantastic puppets that represent the rapidly evolving microbes of the Genesis Planet. Though I know the world of film and TV has moved on in leaps and bounds since then, as a child of the ’80s I feel a real nostalgia for those practical effects, physical creations, and puppets – with the accompanying cinematography that brought them to life. The Search for Spock is a great example of how well these techniques work, drawing on the likes of the Star Wars series or The Dark Crystal for inspiration.

Speaking of other films, The Search for Spock was released against some stiff competition! On its opening weekend it had to compete against some incredible titles that are rightly hailed to this day as all-time classics: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Ghostbusters, and Gremlins were all in theatres at the same time – so it’s a wonder that The Search for Spock pulled in any money at all at the box office! The film was, in fact, a financial success, bringing in more than $85 million against a budget of just $16 million, with very little extra being spent on marketing. Despite a significant decline in viewership between its opening weekend and its second, The Search for Spock proved to be a successful film for the Star Trek franchise and for Paramount Pictures.

Behind-the-scenes photo from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock showing Leonard Nimoy and a Panavision camera. — Director Leonard Nimoy during production.

It can be difficult to assess the middle part of a trilogy entirely on its own merits. The Search for Spock is sandwiched in between the serious and rather dark The Wrath of Khan and the almost pure comedy of The Voyage Home – both of which tend to be held in high regard by Trekkies. As a result, The Search for Spock can sometimes get lost; overlooked by some, disregarded by others. Some Trekkies contend that “all the even-numbered Star Trek films are bad,” lumping The Search for Spock in with The Final Frontier and The Motion Picture as being an unimpressive addition to the franchise. I disagree with that wholeheartedly: the film, while not as epic as The Wrath of Khan or as light-hearted and fun as The Voyage Home, is a thoroughly enjoyable picture, with moments of tension, drama, and action that can absolutely go toe-to-toe with the best the Star Trek franchise has to offer.

The Search for Spock is unapologetically a science-fiction story. That might seem like an odd observation; Star Trek *is* sci-fi, after all. But compared with both The Wrath of Khan – an epic action film with a superb villain – and The Voyage Home – a comedy with some sci-fi elements – it stands apart. The film has both light-hearted and very heavy moments, but keeping it all together is a decidedly sci-fi premise about a planet ageing too quickly, a dead man being reborn through scientific magic, and two interstellar empires wrangling over the fallout. As with The Motion Picture’s story of an impossibly unknowable life-form… I think it’s easy to see why some folks who long for either more straightforward action or something less serious would take a look at The Search for Spock and come away disappointed or even confused!

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing Scotty, Kirk, Dr McCoy, and Sulu. — Scotty, Kirk, Dr McCoy, and Sulu on the bridge of the Enterprise.

The Search for Spock is, I will admit, a bit of a narrative oddity. Spock’s death in The Wrath of Khan was arguably the most powerful and emotional moment in an already epic film, and I’ve been critical in the past of storylines that involve resurrecting a dead character. It’s something that has to be handled carefully, and while The Search for Spock may get a pass as the originator of this idea – at least in the Star Trek franchise – it can still feel odd to make a big deal of a character’s death, look at the impact it has on their friends and other characters, and then undo it all in the very next instalment. I don’t think that’s one of the main reasons why this film can be unpopular in some Trekkie circles, but it’s worth acknowledging that its entire main story basically undoes one of the most powerful moments from its immediate predecessor.

Though not as transformational for the Star Trek franchise as I’d argue The Motion Picture was – as that film’s design philosophy and aesthetic choices would carry through The Next Generation era and beyond – The Search for Spock did introduce a couple of really important elements that have gone on to be a big part of the Star Trek franchise. The Search for Spock marks the debut of both the Federation’s Excelsior-class starship and the Klingon Bird-of-Prey. Both of these ships have become iconic emblems of Star Trek, and made many appearances over the years.

Behind-the-scenes photo from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock showing the filming model of the USS Excelsior. — The USS Excelsior model being prepared for filming.
*Image Credit: Excelsior – The Great Experiment*

The Klingon Bird-of-Prey was a unique ship at this point in Star Trek’s history. Its movable weapon pylons – which could drop down for firing its disruptors and swoop up for flight – were unique in Star Trek, and added to the fear factor of the ship. We now consider the Bird-of-Prey to be an icon of the Star Trek franchise, and it’s even appeared in recent Star Trek projects in just the last few years.

The Search for Spock also expanded upon the Klingon language that had been created for The Motion Picture, and went a long way to defining the overall aesthetic and feel of the Klingons. Sets built to represent the interior of the Bird-of-Prey would be in continuous use for two decades after the film’s release, and along with those set designs, uniform styles that first appeared here would also be featured in a big way in Star Trek projects of The Next Generation era. The Motion Picture may have started the process of modernising the Klingons from their original presentation in the 1960s, but it was The Search for Spock that really settled on many of the designs that are now totally inseparable from Star Trek’s warrior race. Some fans even got upset when the Kelvin films and Discovery used different designs and styles for the Klingons, simply because those that debuted in The Search for Spock had become so iconic.

Behind-the-scenes photo from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock showing Christopher Lloyd and Leonard Nimoy. — Director Leonard Nimoy with Christopher Lloyd (as Klingon Commander Kruge) in a behind-the-scenes photo.

In addition to how the film expanded upon and settled several key designs for the Klingons, The Search for Spock also did a lot for the Vulcan race. We come away from it with an expanded knowledge of Vulcans, their telepathic abilities, and their culture. The film visited the planet Vulcan for only the fourth time – and gave us what is arguably our first major look at the planet since Yesteryear in The Animated Series and the classic episode Amok Time from The Original Series. Some of what The Search for Spock introduced for the Vulcans – such as the idea of katras, preserving the memory or even personality of individuals – have gone on to make multiple appearances in the Star Trek franchise. The development of the Vulcans would be seen in The Next Generation, through the character of Tuvok in Voyager, and revisited greatly in Enterprise. Many of the Vulcan stories in those shows – and in Discovery, too – have their roots in The Search for Spock and the elements of Vulcan culture and the Vulcan species that were first seen here.

Although she had been fully redesigned for The Motion Picture five years earlier, the USS Enterprise had been an absolutely essential part of Star Trek going back to 1966. Many fans have said that, in Star Trek shows, the starship is basically another character; inseparable from the rest of the crew. And as the film that “killed” the original USS Enterprise, I suspect The Search for Spock was always going to court controversy!

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing the wreck of the Enterprise. — *The Search for Spock* was the film that blew up the Enterprise!

Unlike Spock’s death – which this film was dedicated to undoing – there could be no resurrection for the Enterprise after its self-destruction over the Genesis Planet. This ship had, in some form, been an integral part of Star Trek since the very first episode of The Original Series, and fans had no less of a connection to the ship as to her crew. Losing the ship became an intensely emotional moment in the film – arguably more so than the death of Kirk’s own son, David. It was a bold decision by Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy to go there… but it’s also proven to be a controversial one!

For me, the destruction of the Enterprise is one of those singular moments in cinema – something that can be imitated but never truly recreated. Like Darth Vader’s iconic “no, I am your father” moment in another great mid-trilogy film, it’s a feeling that simply can’t be recaptured. Star Trek has, on other occasions, destroyed hero ships – the Enterprise-D in Generations, the first USS Defiant in Deep Space Nine, the Kelvin timeline Enterprise in Beyond – but none of those moments, intense though they could be, felt the same way. This was Star Trek’s first Enterprise – *the* USS Enterprise – and there it was, a burning wreck streaking its way across the sky.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing the Enterprise in the sky above the Genesis Planet. — The wreck of the Enterprise in the sky above the Genesis Planet.

The Wrath of Khan’s starship battle is one of the best in the franchise – and one of the most tense and exciting space combat sequences in all of cinema. It drew on submarine films of the World War II era and aftermath for inspiration, and combined with an excellent and wonderfully-portrayed villain in Khan, it made for one of the most memorable battles not just in Star Trek, but in all of sci-fi. The Search for Spock had the frankly impossible task of living up to that – and while I’d absolutely agree that both the Klingon attack on the USS Grissom and the confrontation between the damaged Enterprise and the Bird-of-Prey aren’t on the same level… there are points where they aren’t a million miles away.

The USS Grissom is another well-designed ship. Although it doesn’t follow the typical Starfleet design that we’ve seen with the Enterprise, the Reliant, and others, it’s clearly a Starfleet vessel. Its diminutive size makes it feel vulnerable, and dialogue confirming that it’s a science vessel adds to that feeling. The Search for Spock went a long way to expanding our knowledge and understanding of Starfleet as an organisation – far from having a few identical Constitution-class ships, as seen in The Original Series, Starfleet had a broad and varied lineup of vessels, with different specialised craft designed for different purposes. We see a range in just this one film: the Enterprise as a kind of mid-tier, slightly outdated ship, Excelsior as the brand-new top-of-the-line model, and the Grissom as one of Starfleet’s smaller, arguably less important ships.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing the USS Grissom. — The Oberth-class USS Grissom.

As an aside, I’d happily watch an entire series set aboard a ship like that! It’s one of the ideas that the Star Trek franchise had never been bold enough to try – at least, not until Lower Decks came along. Though the Grissom’s mission is an important one in The Search for Spock, the design of the ship and the way her crew talk about her really leaves us with the impression of a relatively minor vessel in Starfleet. It wouldn’t be until Lower Decks premiered more than thirty-five years later that we’d get an extended look at the officers and crew of a ship that wasn’t on the front lines of exploration!

Kruge, played by Christopher Lloyd of Back to the Future fame, makes for a compelling villain. Again, I fear that comparisons with Khan are inevitable (and perhaps unfavourable), but bringing back the Klingons for a major antagonistic role for the first time in almost two decades was a positive thing and should be a mark in The Search for Spock’s favour. We’ve seen many Klingon stories from The Next Generation era through to the present, but at the time of the film’s premiere, the Klingons had only made one relatively minor appearance (in The Motion Picture) since The Animated Series went off the air.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing Kruge. — *The Search for Spock* brought back the Klingons as major antagonists.

Kruge’s motivation is similar to Khan’s – at least insofar as control over the Genesis technology is concerned – but he’s also a very different kind of villain. We learn more about the Klingon warrior code through Kruge, as well as the organisation of the Klingon Empire and the precarious position of commanders aboard Klingon vessels. The way in which the interior of the Klingon ship was designed also ties in perfectly with this expanding Klingon philosophy that writers were creating for Star Trek. The spartan, industrial feel of the ship, with low lighting, and a bridge where the commander’s chair loomed over the other stations all match how the Klingons were portrayed on screen – and how they’d evolved from their earlier appearances.

Perhaps another reason why Kruge can feel like an overlooked Star Trek villain is that a similar idea would be used for General Chang in The Undiscovered Country. Both were commanders of a Bird-of-Prey, both had a one-on-one conflict with Kirk, and both were portrayed in a rather over-the-top, almost flamboyant style! Kruge did it first, and that should count for something… but I really do feel that he’s an interesting character in his own right, and more complex than some critics of the film give him credit for. Though Kruge would pioneer some of the features of Klingon commanders that we’ve come to see as typical, and the DNA of the likes of Martok, Gowron, and Duras is clearly present, he’s also a distinct character: his violent methods always seems to serve a purpose, rather than being present “just because.” The way he met his end – after an epic hand-to-hand fight with Kirk, also said a lot about Kirk’s character; he offered his opponent a life-saving hand before Kruge tried in vain, one last time, to drag them both to a fiery grave.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing Kruge's final moments. — Kruge tries to drag Kirk over the ledge with him.

In terms of the main characters, there’s some apt criticism of The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan that not everyone was given very much to do. The Search for Spock would be the first of The Original Series films to really try and rectify this, at least in my opinion, and you’d see a trend of each of the main characters getting at least one moment in the spotlight across the remaining films. I’m thinking in particular of Uhura’s role in helping to steal the Enterprise, as well as Scotty sneaking aboard the Excelsior. Moments like that were absent from the previous couple of films, yet included here.

And I think that speaks to Leonard Nimoy’s direction. The Search for Spock was the first of two films that Nimoy directed, along with The Voyage Home, and he also contributed to the story of both pictures – receiving a writing credit for the latter. Nimoy is a Star Trek legend – but some fans can focus exclusively on his role as an actor and overlook his writing and directing. Nimoy proved himself a solid director in The Search for Spock, paving the way for other Star Trek stars – such as Jonathan Frakes, Robert Duncan McNeill, Roxann Dawson, and Alexander Siddig – to also have turns in the director’s chair.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing Uhura. — *The Search for Spock* found prominent roles for Uhura and the rest of the main cast.

Saavik, who had been introduced in The Wrath of Khan, made a welcome return in The Search for Spock. Her connection with the reborn Spock, particularly as he underwent the rapid ageing and pon farr inflicted upon him by the Genesis Planet, went a long way to giving this side of the film – somewhat ironically, considering we’re dealing with Vulcans – an emotional core. Being lost and alone in a strange, harsh environment would be hard enough on anyone – let alone a young person – but to be in that situation with no knowledge of how he got there must’ve been terrifying for Spock. Saavik was able to step in and save his life.

Paramount Pictures had failed to sign Saavik’s original actor – the late Kirstie Alley – to a contract that left open the possibility of sequels, and with her star rising in Hollywood, it became apparent quite early on in the film’s production that the role would have to be recast. For my money, I think Robin Curtis actually does a fantastic job with what can be a challenging role; stoic, unemotional Vulcans aren’t always the easiest characters to portray. Both actors played Saavik well, and I don’t think the recasting harms the story. On re-watches of the entire three-film story, I don’t even think it’s especially noticeable!

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing Saavik. — Robin Curtis took over the role of Saavik from Kirstie Alley.

We should also talk about one more Vulcan: Spock himself! Leonard Nimoy would only don the iconic Vulcan ears for a few moments at the end of the film, but we also got to see a younger version of the character. Spock is an iconic emblem of the franchise, and his subsequent roles in The Next Generation and the Kelvin films really went a long way to tying disparate parts of Star Trek together. His resurrection here laid the groundwork for those future roles – and while that obviously wasn’t the intention at the time, I think it’s worth acknowledging how spectacular a decision it was to ensure that Spock remained in play!

Spock’s role in this film is relatively minor; he’s the driving force behind the story rather than an active participant in it. We’d seen across The Original Series the friendship and connection between Kirk and Spock, but The Search for Spock did a lot to frame those earlier stories and really hammer home just how deep their bond was. Spock’s “frenemy” relationship with Dr McCoy was kind of played for laughs at points, but with McCoy carrying Spock’s katra, there were other moments that could be sweet, intense, and even heavy in places.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing Spock. — Spock at the end of the film.

Although Spock is the film’s title character, Kirk is at the centre of the story. His friendship with Spock, his desire to cheat death and avoid the “no-win scenario,” and his attempt to correct what Sarek told him was a mistake are what kick off the plot – and we’d see the other main characters join in and contribute in their own ways. Stealing the Enterprise after being denied the opportunity to return to the Genesis Planet was the culmination of this, and the way the film reaches that point is incredibly entertaining.

In fact, the whole sequence where Kirk and the crew steal the Enterprise out from under Starfleet’s nose at Spacedock is tense, exciting, and just plain *fun*! Sulu punching a security guard, Uhura luring an officer away from his post, and Scotty sabotaging Starfleet’s “great experiment” are all really exciting, cute, and fun ideas that the film executes well. And as the Enterprise is making her escape with the space doors still closed… it’s a moment of tension that gets me every time!

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing the Enterprise escaping Spacedock. — This is one of my favourite moments in the film!

Although we’d only met David Marcus in The Wrath of Khan, his death is another emotional moment in The Search for Spock. As Kirk’s son, we experience this loss first and foremost through Kirk – Saavik, as a Vulcan, shows little emotion as he’s killed. And I think it’s worth acknowledging just how much of a brutal moment this was, at least by Star Trek’s standards. David wasn’t a “redshirt;” a disposable minor character. He was literally the son of Captain Kirk, and his death at the hands of the Klingons – while saving Spock and Saavik – was incredibly impactful.

The Search for Spock didn’t have enough time to really dig into the implications of David’s death, but its impact on Kirk would be revisited in The Undiscovered Country a few years later – with a log entry in which Kirk references what happened to David becoming a key plot point. I’m glad that this epilogue was added; it makes David as a character feel more important. His role in The Search for Spock was great, though, and he was brought to life beautifully by Merritt Butrick.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing David Marcus. — David with his tricorder on the Genesis Planet.

We should also talk about the unique place that The Search for Spock occupies in the Star Trek franchise. This was the final project to enter production before thoughts began to turn more seriously toward The Next Generation. By the time The Voyage Home began filming in early 1986, The Next Generation was also being worked on. As a result, we can kind of look at The Search for Spock as either a stepping stone or the beginning of the end for Star Trek’s first chapter. The Original Series and the films it spawned – The Wrath of Khan in particular – led to demands for the franchise to expand beyond its original characters, ultimately leading to Star Trek as we know it today. The Search for Spock, while the middle part of a trilogy and only the third film of six starring the original cast, was the final project to be produced while Star Trek existed in its original, singular form.

By the 1980s, Star Trek was approaching its twentieth anniversary, and with no disrespect intended, it was becoming clear that if the franchise were to continue, new actors would eventually need to be cast. I’m grateful for two things: firstly, that Gene Roddenberry and Paramount Television grasped the nettle and started working on a spin-off as early as they did. And secondly, that they didn’t abandon The Original Series and its cast in the rush to get a new series up and running. Working on two Star Trek projects at the same time – on the small screen and the big screen – must’ve been a challenge, but the franchise emerged stronger for it in the long run. All of that is incidental to The Search for Spock, of course! But the position it occupies in the history of the Star Trek franchise is an important one.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing the Genesis Planet. — The surface of the Genesis Planet.

Star Trek has always been – and continues to be – a franchise that can tell weirder, more esoteric sci-fi stories. Though The Search for Spock is more grounded than The Motion Picture had been a few years earlier, it’s in that same camp as a film that feels like an extended episode of The Original Series. For fans who loved what The Wrath of Khan had done with a tone and theme closer to an epic space opera or action/sci-fi, I can understand why returning to a less action-heavy premise might’ve been underwhelming. And for folks who’ve only ever seen the Star Trek films as a complete box set on DVD or streaming, I guess I can appreciate why The Search for Spock is a title they’d skip or only begrudgingly watch as a bridge between The Wrath of Khan and The Voyage Home. It isn’t a film that’s as intense as the former or as fun and light-hearted as the latter.

But for me, relegating The Search for Spock to that kind of position is unfair. Its emotional moments pack a punch, its action sequences and battles are intense, it has some wonderful moments of characterisation that make full use of its main cast, and it introduces us to several design, aesthetic, and thematic elements that have proven to be so popular and successful that they’re now totally inseparable from Star Trek. The Search for Spock refined the look and feel of the Klingon Empire – and the way the Klingons were presented here would carry right through The Next Generation era and beyond.

Still frame from Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) showing a Klingon Bird-of-Prey. — The Klingon Bird-of-Prey debuted in *The Search for Spock*.

The Search for Spock didn’t single-handedly set the stage for Star Trek’s future – that would be an exaggeration. At the time it was produced a sequel was all but guaranteed, and having lost creative control of the Star Trek cinematic franchise, Gene Roddenberry’s thoughts were beginning to turn toward spin-off projects. But The Search for Spock kept things on track and didn’t derail Star Trek, proving to be enough of a financial success for Paramount Pictures – and later Paramount Television – to continue to work on expanding the franchise. At a key moment, when Star Trek needed a win, The Search for Spock may not have hit it out of the park, but it delivered enough success – both critically and commercially – to shore up the franchise going into the mid-1980s.

To me, that’s a big part of the film’s legacy – but it isn’t the only thing we should think about. The story that Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy crafted is a fun and enjoyable one in its own right, showing the lengths friends are willing to go to when one member of the group is in peril. It’s a film that showed, arguably more than any other single story, the extent to which Captain Kirk and his crew were closer than family – and how, for that family, the needs of the one can sometimes outweigh the needs of the many. That’s an inspiring message, at least to me, and it’s what I’ve always taken away from The Search for Spock.

Promo photo of the cast of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984). — Most of the main cast in a promo photo.

So that’s my take as we celebrate The Search for Spock’s milestone anniversary. I went back to re-watch the film for the first time in several years, and I was reminded of just how enjoyable and entertaining it is. Star Trek has grown exponentially since The Search for Spock premiered in 1984, but even in the most recent seasons of Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Strange New Worlds, there are thematic and visual elements that made their debut here. The film’s legacy lives on!

I hope this has been a fun look back. I know that The Search for Spock isn’t everyone’s favourite Star Trek film, but when the mood takes me I’m happy to go on an adventure to the Genesis Planet with Kirk and the crew all over again. Raise a glass with me and toast the anniversary of Star Trek’s third trip to the movies!

Star Trek III: The Search for Spock is available to stream now on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available. The film is also available for purchase on DVD and Blu-ray. The Star Trek franchise – including Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and all other titles and properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Answering Ten of the Biggest Geeky Questions!

Sun 26.05.24Sun 26.05.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Spoilers may be present for some of the franchises/properties discussed below.

There are a handful of “big questions” that define one’s place in geekdom – and today it’s my turn to answer some of them!

I thought it could be a bit of fun to consider some of the biggest questions that geeks like us have to wrangle with. Which fictional character is stronger? Which gaming platform is the best? These questions are contentious, especially here on the interweb – but I hope you’ll engage with this piece in the spirit of light-hearted fun! That’s how I’m choosing to present my answers, in any case.

As I always like to say, nothing we’re going to talk about today is in any way “objective!” These are my wholly subjective takes on questions that are intended to evoke strong reactions, so I hope you’ll keep that in mind! Although I’ve said that these are ten of the “biggest” geeky questions, I’m sure you can think of others – so this is by no means a definitive list.

A stock photo of a contemplative man surrounded by question marks. — Let’s contemplate some big questions together!

I’ve considered myself a geek – and been considered a geek by others – for basically my whole life. As a kid and a teenager, I moved in nerdy circles and friend groups where the likes of fantasy, sci-fi, horror, and video games were frequent topics of conversation. And in the ’80s and ’90s, those things were far less “mainstream” than they are nowadays! It’s actually been really cool to see the likes of The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Marvel become some of the biggest entertainment properties on the planet – as well as the explosion in popularity of video games. When I was at school, and even into my young adulthood, admitting to being interested in those kinds of things could lead to mockery and even bullying!

For these questions today, I’ve set myself the rule of providing an actual answer – no cop-out, fence-sitting, “I like both equally” answers here! As I’ve already said, all of this is just one person’s opinion – and at the end of the day, this is supposed to just be for fun. So please try not to take it too seriously; none of this is worth getting into an argument over!

With the introduction out of the way, let’s answer some tough geeky questions!

Question #1:
Who’s the best Doctor?
Doctor Who

A promo image for Doctor Who showing all of the various incarnations of the titular character. — All of the Doctors – so far!

I don’t really remember watching much Doctor Who as a kid. The original incarnation of the long-running BBC sci-fi series was coming to an end when I was younger, and by the time I was getting interested in the genre, it was Star Trek: The Next Generation that really captured my imagination. As a result, I’m going to exclude all of the pre-2005 Doctors from consideration; I simply haven’t seen enough of any of them to really have a favourite.

Of the Doctors that have been part of the revived series, the Twelfth – played by Peter Capaldi – is my favourite… but with a big caveat! Capaldi gave the best individual performance as the Doctor in the role – hands down. No disrespect meant to any of the others… but I don’t think it’s even close. He’s a performer with exactly the right style, look, and gravitas – and in my view, he played the role absolutely perfectly. That’s why I didn’t hesitate when it came to naming him as my favourite!

Still frame from Doctor Who (2005) showing Pearl Mackie and Peter Capaldi. — Peter Capaldi’s Twelfth Doctor is my personal favourite.

But there’s a catch, as I said. Capaldi’s seasons as the Doctor – Seasons 8 through 10 of the post-2005 series – were almost universally terrible. There was one decent companion (Bill, played by Pearl Mackie) but her character was treated almost as an afterthought and she met a stupid and unsatisfying end. There were hardly any decent villains or antagonists, no truly standout episodes, and really very few memorable moments at all. In fact, Capaldi’s tenure as the Doctor marked a significant decline in Doctor Who’s quality… and the series doesn’t seem to have recovered.

In terms of the best seasons of the revived Doctor Who, I’d have to give the award – somewhat begrudgingly – to Seasons 2 through 4, which starred David Tennant in the title role. The quality of the stories produced at that time was so much higher, with some truly outstanding adventures in the mix. If only there was some way to go back in time and combine Capaldi’s performance with Tennant’s storylines. Where’s a Tardis when you need one, eh?

Question #2:
Who would win in a fight: Batman or Superman?
DC Comics

Cropped poster for Batman vs Superman (2016) featuring the title characters. — Wasn’t there a mediocre film dedicated to answering this question?

Uh, this one should be obvious. It’s Superman, right? It has to be – if you gave any other answer then I don’t think you’ve been paying attention! Who would win in a fight between an overpowered demigod and a billionaire with some expensive gadgets? Yeah… the demigod is gonna win this one. He could launch Batman into the sun, punch him so hard that every bone in his body would shatter, use his heat-vision on him from half a mile away… the list of ways in which Superman could not just defeat but murder and utterly annihilate Batman is nearly endless!

Superman is, I would argue, increasingly difficult to depict in film because of how blatantly overpowered he is. If you read my review of Zack Snyder’s Justice League a couple of years ago, you might remember me saying that the film flopped around, desperately trying to find a way to include the rest of its cast of superheroes… but to no avail. There was no getting away from the simple fact that Superman could do it all single-handedly without even breaking a sweat.

Cropped cover of Action Comics #19 showing Superman. — Superman on the cover of *Action Comics #19* in 1939.

At the time the character of Superman was first created, all the way back in 1938, it wasn’t a problem. In fact, creating an “all-round, all-American hero” for comic books aimed at children was exactly the point. Superman is textbook escapism – he’s the perfect hero archetype that can do it all. In context, Superman works, and when all you want is a “good guy” to save the day and stop the evil villains, he’s perfect for the part.

But any story that puts Superman in genuine danger has to come up with a reason why. The man’s basically invincible, save for the mysterious crystal known as kryptonite, and I think at least some of Superman’s big-screen and small-screen adventures suffer as a result of that. But to get back on topic: Superman would win in a fight, and he’d win incredibly quickly and incredibly easily!

Question #3:
Console or PC?

A Super Nintendo console on a red background. — A Super Nintendo – or SNES.

In the early ’90s, the first home console I ever owned was a Super Nintendo. From then on, all the way through to the middle of the last decade, console was my preference. I liked the pick-up-and-play nature of consoles, with no need to check system requirements or fiddle with settings to just get a game running. The underpowered PCs that I had in the ’90s weren’t much good for gaming, so I think that’s part of it, too. But you have to also remember that, for a long time, consoles were just better in terms of performance – and especially in terms of value – than PC.

But nowadays I’m firmly on Team PC! I built my own PC for the first time a couple of years ago, and prior to that I had a moderately-priced “gaming” PC. Since about the middle of the 2010s, PC has been my platform of choice for practically everything. I will consider picking up Nintendo’s next machine when it’s ready, but my Nintendo Switch has been gathering dust since I stopped playing Animal Crossing and Mario Kart 8… so I’m not sure how great of an investment that’ll really be!

Stock photo of a gaming PC. — A very pretty gaming PC setup.

PC offers the best of both worlds. Wanna play an in-depth strategy game or city-builder with loads of options and menus that really need a mouse and keyboard to navigate? PC can do that. Wanna plug in a modern control pad to play a third-person adventure title? PC can do that too. Wanna install a virtual machine and play games from the Windows 95 era? PC can do that! Wanna emulate every console from the Atari 2600 to the Dreamcast and play games that are out-of-print everywhere? PC can do that too!

With Game Pass bringing a lot of new titles to PC on launch day, and with Sony even porting over some of its previously-exclusive titles too, PC really feels like the place to be. It’s a lot more expensive to get started with – and that’s still a massive point in favour of consoles for players on a budget. But once that initial expense is out of the way, the abundance of sales on platforms like Steam means that a lot of titles – even newer ones – can be picked up at a discount. I’m really happy with my PC as my main gaming platform, and I doubt I’ll be picking up an Xbox or PlayStation this generation.

Question #4:
What would be the best fictional world to live in?

There are plenty of fictional worlds to choose from!

There are loads of absolutely awful answers that people give to this question! Who’d want to live in Star Wars’ fascist-corporate dystopia, for example, which seems absolutely terrible for anyone not blessed with space magic? Or any fantasy setting with a medieval level of technology? Sure, you might have a magic elf as your buddy… but if there’s no central heating, antibiotics, or flushing toilets… you’re gonna have a bad time!

My pick is simple: Star Trek’s 24th Century. There are things to worry about, sure: the Borg, the Cardassians, and the Klingons to name but a few threats! But there are so many wonderful inventions and technologies that would make life so much better. For me, as someone with disabilities, the idea of some or all of my health issues being cured is perhaps the biggest – but there are plenty of others, too.

Star Trek does not depict, as some have tried to claim, a “communist utopia.” As we see on multiple occasions throughout the franchise, private property still exists, and people have a great deal of freedom and autonomy. Star Trek’s future could be more accurately described as a post-scarcity society – one in which technological improvements have brought unlimited power generation, food, and other resources to the people.

There are some dark spots in Star Trek’s future – but these tend to be places outside of or separate from the Federation. Assuming I could live somewhere in the Federation, and have access to replicators, warp drive, weather-controlling satellites, and Starfleet for defence… I think it would be bliss! And so much better than anywhere else I can think of.

Question #5:
Martin or Tolkien?

I don’t need to think too long about this one! JRR Tolkien is, for me, one of the greatest authors of all-time. George RR Martin, in contrast, can’t even finish his own story, and seems far too easily distracted by other projects – including writing TV episodes and working on video games. And c’mon… he literally copied the “RR” part of Tolkien’s name for his own pen name!

Jokes aside, I think both writers are pretty great. Tolkien could be, in places, a little too black-and-white with his protagonists and antagonists, with the goodies being pure and virtuous and the villains being corrupt and evil. Martin’s work deliberately upends many of those notions, and he places imperfect and even selfish characters at the heart of his stories. Some of George RR Martin’s characters feel more nuanced – and dare I say more human – than Tolkien’s.

The Fellowship of the Ring at Rivendell from the 2001 film adaptation.

But Tolkien was a pioneer, writing the first modern fantasy epic. Martin, and countless other writers, are simply following in his footsteps. While Martin’s work is hardly derivative, some of the choices he makes in his writing are a reaction to the way Tolkien’s worlds and characters were set up. It’s impossible to critique A Song of Ice and Fire without making multiple references to Tolkien – whereas Tolkien’s work has always stood on its own two feet.

I would love it if George RR Martin would finish his magnum opus, but as time passes I feel less and less sure that he’s even interested in doing so. Now that Game of Thrones has finished its run on television, and Martin has seen the overwhelmingly negative reaction to its ending – which will have contained at least some elements that he planned to include in the remaining books – I just don’t get the impression that his heart is in it in the same way it was a few years ago. Tolkien’s work, in contrast, is complete and has been for decades – and people are still interested in new adaptations.

Question #6:
Who’s the best Star Trek captain?

Promo banner for Star Trek Day showing multiple characters. — Multiple captains on a promo banner for “Star Trek Day.”

I’ve always struggled with this question. But I’ve gone on record several times here on the website as saying that if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose – as this question is metaphorically doing – I’d pick Deep Space Nine’s Captain Benjamin Sisko. So that’s gonna be my answer!

There’s a lot to be said for Captain Kirk – Star Trek’s first captain. He paved the way for all of the others, and without him, Star Trek would not be the same today – if it even existed at all. And Captain Picard was my personal first captain; it was through The Next Generation that I became a Trekkie in the early ’90s. Without him and the crew he led, there’s a chance I would never have fallen in love with Star Trek in the way that I did. And all of the other captains from Janeway and Burnham to Archer and Pike all have wonderful qualities that make Star Trek into the franchise it is today.

Still frame from the documentary What We Left Behind showing Avery Brooks as Captain Sisko in a remastered clip. — Captain Benjamin Sisko.

But Captain Sisko has always stuck out to me. In the first few seasons of Deep Space Nine he only held the rank of Commander, so we got to see his rise to the rank of captain as the story of that show unfolded. He was also a man with a deeply traumatic past, having to come to terms with the death of his wife while raising his son alone. He was a fantastic leader – not just of a crew, but of a community. Sisko could reach out across the cultural divide to Ferengi, Klingons, changelings, Bajorans, and more. He turned DS9 from a military outpost into a friendly place to visit and a bustling port.

Although words like “scientist” and “explorer” might not be the first ones that spring to mind when we think of Captain Sisko, he had those traditional Starfleet qualities, too. We’d see him as a pioneer of exploring the Gamma Quadrant and the wormhole, as well as interacting with the non-corporeal Prophets – the very definition of seeking out new life! Sisko could also be a soldier and a diplomat when he needed to be – and to me, he embodies the very best of Starfleet in the 24th Century.

Question #7:
Marvel or DC?

I don’t read comic books – and I never did, even as a kid. So my limited knowledge of both of these brands comes from their cinematic outings, not the original source material! I wanted to get that caveat out of the way before we got into the weeds with this one.

If you were to ask 100 people on the street to name a superhero, I think Superman and Batman would probably be the two names you’d hear most often. So DC, at least in my opinion, has produced the two most memorable and noteworthy superheroes. But Marvel, at least on the big screen, has a bigger and stronger ensemble – as we saw when Avengers Endgame briefly became the highest-grossing film of all time.

Still frame from Batman & Robin (1997). — *Batman & Robin* (1997).

Although I want to say that I’ve gotten roughly equal enjoyment from DC and Marvel over the years, I promised you no fence-sitting and no cop-outs! Based on the strength of characters like Batman, who have starred in some really great films over the years, I think I have to give the win to DC. Marvel’s output is becoming increasingly convoluted, and just keeping up with the franchise to know who’s who and what happened last time can feel like a full-time job! At least DC still produces some standalone or semi-standalone films and TV shows that I can dip in and out of.

Aside from Batman and Superman, though, DC hasn’t really been able to successfully capitalise on its other superheroes – let alone turn them into household names. Wonder Woman, Aquaman, the Flash, and Green Arrow have all had limited success in a single film or TV series, but others have struggled. Batman may drag DC over the finish line this time… but there’s still room for improvement!

Question #8:
Star Wars or Star Trek?

Still frame from Star Wars (1977) showing the Death Star. — The Death Star at Yavin IV in *Star Wars*.

If you’ve read the name of this website, I’m sure you can guess which way this one’s going to go! Thankfully the whole “Star Wars versus Star Trek” rivalry that was a big deal a few years ago has more or less died out, and fans no longer feel quite so tribal about which is the best. There’s been a lot more crossover in recent years, with Trekkies and Star Wars fans happy to enjoy both franchises.

I consider myself a Trekkie first and foremost – so I’ll answer this question by saying that I prefer Star Trek over Star Wars. But that doesn’t mean I hate or dislike Star Wars by any stretch. In fact, some of my favourite entertainment experiences of all-time have come courtesy of the Star Wars franchise: games like Knights of the Old Republic and films like Rogue One are genuinely fantastic.

Promo photo of the main cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation Season 2 (1988). — The cast of *Star Trek: The Next Generation* Season 2.

What I like about Star Trek is that many of its stories aren’t about fighting a villain or defeating an adversary – but about exploration, science, engineering, and just what it might be like to live in space in the future. Star Wars, by its very nature, is more violent, with more of a focus on conflict. That’s fine when I’m in more of an action mood – but there are times when a story about seeking out new life or learning to communicate is what I’m looking for.

It’s also worth pointing out that there’s a heck of a lot more Star Trek than Star Wars! At the time I first encountered the franchises, it wouldn’t be totally unfair to say that there were two good Star Wars films and one okay-ish one – at least in the opinion of a lot of folks! Star Trek already had more than 100 episodes of TV and five films under its belt, so there was plenty to get stuck into as a viewer in the early ’90s! Quantity over quality is never a good argument, of course… but if I’m enjoying something I’m always going to be happy to get more of it! Star Wars is slowly catching up to Star Trek now that Disney has commissioned several made-for-streaming series, but there’s still a long way to go to reach Star Trek’s 900+ episodes!

Question #9:
Sci-Fi or Fantasy?

*The NeverEnding Story* (1984) was one of my favourite films as a kid.

This may come as a surprise, but fantasy was my first love long before I got interested in sci-fi, space, and the “final frontier!” Among my earliest memories is reading The Hobbit – a book that was originally intended for children, lest we forget. I can even remember pointing out to my parents that there was a typo on one page; the word “wolves” had been misprinted as “wolevs.” Aside from Tolkien’s legendary novel, I read other children’s stories including Enid Blyton’s The Faraway Tree, and watched films like The Neverending Story.

But it’s not unfair to say that sci-fi became a much bigger deal for me by the time I was reaching adolescence. Inspired by Star Trek: The Next Generation I immersed myself in science fiction, reading as many books about space and the future as I could get my hands on, and watching films like Alien and the Star Wars trilogy. TV shows like Quantum Leap, Space Precinct, and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century graced my screens in the ’90s, as did more kid-friendly offerings like Captain Scarlet.

*Star Trek: The Next Generation* turned me into a sci-fi fan!

So while I can happily say that I enjoy both genres for what they offer, sci-fi has been my preference going back more than thirty years at this point! Star Trek opened my eyes to science fiction and remains one of my biggest fandoms to this day! But there are many other sci-fi films, shows, books, and video games that I’ve enjoyed – everything from Mass Effect and Foundation to Battlestar Galactica and Halo. Sci-fi is great escapism, and I love the feeling of being whisked away to another world or another moment in time.

Though I haven’t forgotten my roots as a fan of fantasy, and still enjoy many fantasy titles across all forms of media, if I had to choose I’d definitely say that I’m a fan of sci-fi first and foremost. Sci-fi feels broader and more varied in some respects – there are radically different presentations of humanity’s future, the kinds of aliens we might engage with, and so on. Modern fantasy tends to stick to a medieval level of technology and use the same kinds of magical spells and the same handful of races – Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, and so on – in different combinations depending on the story.

Question #10:
What’s your favourite anime/cartoon series?

Still frame from Shenmue: The Animation showing Ryo and Fangmei. — There’s an anime adaptation of *Shenmue*.

I have to confess something at this point: I’ve never seen any anime. I don’t know why exactly – I’ve never really been in friendship groups where anime was a topic of conversation, and when I was a kid, there wasn’t any anime on TV or in the cinema that I can recall. I’ve yet to encounter an anime series that felt like a must-watch – with the only exception being the adaptation of Shenmue that I really ought to get around to watching one of these days! But until I do… no anime for me.

I had to think about this question for a while, though. There are some great adult animation programmes: Lower Decks, Futurama, Rick and Morty, South Park, and The Simpsons all come to mind. The Simpsons in particular was a pioneer of adult animation, and a series I remember with fondness from its ’90s heyday here in the UK! The fact that my parents – and many others of their generation – absolutely loathed The Simpsons was a huge mark in its favour for a renegade adolescent!

Still frame from the Phineas and Ferb Season 3 episode What A Croc showing the kids on jet skis. — *Phineas and Ferb*.

But on this occasion, I’m giving the award to Phineas and Ferb. Regular readers might remember me talking about this series as one of my “comfort shows;” a programme I often return to when I need a pick-me-up. I recall watching a promo for the series circa 2007-08, and although kids’ cartoons on the Disney Channel should’ve held no appeal… something about Phineas and Ferb called out to me. I tuned in and I was hooked from almost the first moment.

Phineas and Ferb’s two-and-a-half story structure – with the kids making an invention, their sister trying to bust them for it, and special agent Perry the Platypus on a mission to fight evil – felt incredibly fun and innovative, and more often than not the storylines would intersect in creative and unexpected ways. There are also some fantastic moments of characterisation in Phineas and Ferb, particularly with the breakout character of Dr Doofenshmirtz. I was thrilled to learn that the series will be returning for two new seasons and a whopping forty new episodes, and I really hope it will be as good as it was the first time around.

So that’s it!

The famous "that's all folks" card shown at the end of Looney Tunes cartoons. — That’s all for now!

I hope this has been a bit of fun – and maybe bolstered my geeky credentials just a little. As I said at the beginning, I don’t think any of these subjects are worth fighting about or losing friends over, but I’ve had fun sharing my thoughts and nailing my colours to a few different masts!

The great thing about sci-fi, fantasy, gaming, and the wide world of geekdom is just how much of it there is nowadays. There are so many high-budget productions on the big screen, the small screen, and in the gaming realm that we’re really spoilt for choice. As much fun as it is to play favourites and pick one series or franchise over another… more than anything else I’m just glad to be living through a moment where geekdom is having its turn in the spotlight! That may not last forever – a return to action movies, westerns, or whatever else might be on the cards one day. So we should all make the most of it and enjoy it while it lasts!

It’s been interesting to consider some of these questions, and I hope reading my answers has been entertaining for you, too!

All properties discussed above are the copyright of their respective owner, company, distributor, broadcaster, publisher, etc. Some stock photos courtesy of Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek Needs Sequels, Not Prequels

Wed 22.05.24Thu 23.05.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers present for Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard.

Alright, let’s talk about some troubling Star Trek news, I guess.

First of all, I want to say that more Star Trek on our screens is a good thing. I always like to give that caveat before I say anything even remotely negative about announcements and rumours because I know I can be misinterpreted. Given Paramount’s dire financial situation, recent Star Trek cancellations on the small screen, and the repeated failures of big-screen Star Trek projects in recent years, the fact that we’re getting announcements about new Star Trek content at all is a positive development. The franchise isn’t dead and doesn’t seem to be going away in the immediate term – and that is good news.

But – and you knew there had to be a “but” after all of that – recent Star Trek film announcements are not only not what I’d hoped to see, but I think they really represent how out-of-touch Paramount is and how far removed its executives have become from the Star Trek fan community. The kinds of projects Paramount wants to greenlight seem to be poised to repeat recent and not-so-recent mistakes, and also appear to be based on a total misread of where Trekkies – and a more casual wider audience – are right now.

Paramount Global is the corporation that owns and manages Star Trek.

Earlier in the year we talked about the announcement of a Kelvin timeline prequel film, as well as the prospects of a sequel to 2016’s Beyond. It’s recently been reported that the so-called “origin story” is moving ahead, with talks ongoing to sign Simon Kinberg – who previously worked on films like Deadpool, The Martian, and the X-Men series – as a producer. Kinberg may also have a role in guiding or producing future Star Trek films after that.

This prequel is not the kind of project I’d choose to make if I were in charge of the franchise over at Paramount – and it seems to me that Paramount is repeating and doubling-down on the same mistake that the Star Trek franchise has been making for almost a quarter of a century. Going all the way back to the announcement of Enterprise around the turn of the millennium, prequels are just not what most fans have wanted to see. You can see that from Enterprise’s lacklustre viewing figures during its original run, leading to its premature cancellation.

Promo photo for Star Trek: Enterprise (2001) showing several main cast members. — *Enterprise* – Star Trek’s first prequel – struggled with viewership throughout its four-season run.

Moreover, Discovery had the same problem when it was announced in 2016 – and that show’s place in the Star Trek timeline caused it a plethora of issues. As I said when I took a longer look at Discovery’s creation and its status as a prequel – which you can read for yourself by clicking or tapping here – the show’s writers taking Burnham and the crew out of the 23rd Century in the Season 2 finale seems to be a tacit admission of the fact that it should never have been set in that time period to begin with.

Most of Paramount’s executives and key investors are old. They’re of the baby boomer generation, and while I doubt whether any of them are or ever were Star Trek fans, when they think of the franchise their thoughts naturally turn to The Original Series – to Kirk, Spock, and Dr McCoy, and the adventures of the original Enterprise. When they consider pitches for new Star Trek projects and think about where to spend their money, that unconscious bias is present – and I would argue that it’s leading to them pushing the Star Trek franchise in very much the wrong direction.

Black-and-white promo photo for Star Trek (1966) showing Captain Kirk wielding a phaser rifle. — Too many senior people at Paramount Global still think of this when they hear the name “Star Trek.”

Discovery would have always been a controversial production, I suspect, but one of the biggest problems fans had with the show was its place in the timeline. Very little about Discovery in its first two seasons would’ve needed to change if the series had been set a decade after Nemesis instead of ten years before Kirk’s voyages aboard the Enterprise. Some character details would need to be different, but the fundamentals of the show would have worked the same – and it wouldn’t have picked up the controversy and bad feelings that came with being a prequel.

The biggest request from Star Trek fans over the past year-and-a-bit has been a Picard spin-off. Originally pitched by Terry Matalas, Picard’s showrunner during its second and third seasons, the series tentatively titled Star Trek: Legacy has proven incredibly enticing to Trekkies. However, with Matalas recently being tapped by Marvel and Disney to work on new projects for them, Legacy as originally envisioned seems not to be going ahead. That was always a possibility – and for all we know, the original pitch might’ve been crap. But the point remains: if Paramount was listening to Star Trek fans, a sequel, not a prequel, would surely be the next Star Trek project.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 3 (2023) showing a character at the helm of a shuttlecraft. — A sequel to *Star Trek: Picard* would be very popular with the Star Trek fan community.

Let’s assume that this “origin story” film goes ahead. A dangerous assumption given Paramount’s breathtaking incompetence, perhaps, but for the sake of argument we’ll entertain it for a moment. What would a film like that realistically do for Star Trek? It could connect with the Kelvin films, perhaps, and call back to Enterprise in some capacity. It could perhaps harken back to First Contact, which continues to be a pretty popular film, or maybe even scrape the barrel by making reference to some of the events in Picard’s awful second season. But beyond that? What could a film in this era explore that we don’t already know or can’t reasonably infer from other Star Trek projects?

There are events in Star Trek that we’ve never seen on screen but that shows or films have made reference to. Some of these might actually be interesting to explore in more detail one day – but not as a flagship big-screen project. These are the kinds of incidental stories that might work as one-off episodes in longer seasons, or perhaps as standalone episodes of Short Treks. Committing movie-level money to a prequel set in between Star Trek’s least successful series and most controversial series… it just feels idiotic. It’s indicative of a corporation and group of executives who are too far removed from the fan community.

Behind-the-scenes photo from Star Trek: Discovery Season 1 (2017) showing characters being filmed on location in a forest. — Behind-the-scenes during production on Season 1 of *Discovery*.

I can just about see the case for a Beyond sequel – a fourth Kelvin timeline film. I still don’t agree that it would be the best way for Paramount to spend money on Star Trek, but given the relative financial success of the Kelvin films and the alternate reality setting that’s a step away from the prime timeline, I can at least understand why a return to that cast and series would be appealing. But that doesn’t apply to a different prequel, one set before the events of 2009’s Star Trek and basically everything else in the franchise.

Since its inception in the ’60s – and even more so since The Next Generation premiered – Star Trek has been a franchise that looked forward and moved forward. The core of Star Trek is about the future, and representing a positive, optimistic vision of the 23rd and 24th Centuries that can be inspiring to people today. Creating a prequel that looks back at Star Trek’s own fictional history felt wrong when Enterprise did it, re-telling the stories of Kirk and co. felt strange when the Kelvin films did it, and creating yet another prequel didn’t go to plan when Discovery did it, either. Star Trek is not a franchise well-suited to prequels and it never has been. If there is to be more Star Trek in the months and years ahead – and I hope that there will be – it should continue to move the timeline forward.

Promo image for Star Trek: Discovery Season 1 (2017) showing the captain's chair. — One of the first promotional images revealed for *Discovery* in 2016.

I don’t know what might be in the script for this supposed “origin film” that sparked all of this discussion. But based on everything I’ve seen as a viewer from Enterprise through the Kelvin films to Discovery, Strange New Worlds, and beyond, I can’t imagine that it could only ever work as a prequel. With some tweaks and adaptations, I would bet the farm that this new story would work just as well – perhaps even better – if it was set in the Picard era or beyond. Making it a sequel, not a prequel, would not only give Trekkies what we’ve been asking for more of for a long time, but it would probably make for a better, more solid standalone film – and perhaps even create something that could serve as a launchpad for new films and TV shows.

If Paramount wants to set a Star Trek project in an era with few direct connections to the rest of the franchise, that option exists as well. Shooting beyond Discovery’s 32nd Century could be a possibility, but I would also advocate for a film or show set in the 26th or 27th Centuries – far removed from the events of The Next Generation era. If new characters aboard a new ship are going to have a new, disconnected adventure, why not go down that route? There would be far fewer pitfalls as there’d be basically no need to worry about the integrity of “canon” or having to avoid using certain storylines or factions.

Concept art of the Enterprise-J that was created for Star Trek: Enterprise Season 3 (2003) and included in the Star Trek: Evolutions mini-documentary. — We know practically nothing about Star Trek’s 26th Century.
*Pictured: The USS Enterprise-J.*

I really hope that Paramount’s executives will listen to feedback. I’m sure I won’t be the only one sighing dejectedly at the announcement of another prequel and trying to make the case for more Star Trek set further along the timeline instead. I’m not asking for everything to be a direct sequel to everything else – look at the problems that approach is causing for Marvel and, to a lesser extent, Star Wars. Not everything in Star Trek has to be connected. But if you gave me a choice between a film set fifty years before The Original Series or fifty years after Picard, I wouldn’t even hesitate. And I would argue that a plurality of the fan community, if not an outright majority, is also longing to see the next Star Trek project set somewhere in the 25th Century or beyond.

Now that I’ve had my say, I’ll return to something I mentioned at the beginning. More Star Trek is always a good thing, and if it’s a choice between cancellation and this “origin story” film, well… I’ll take the origin story. I won’t support it wholeheartedly – I simply can’t do that right now. But if this film does end up going ahead in its currently-envisioned form, I will watch it, review it, and do my best to be supportive of it as the next part of Star Trek. There’s precedent here, in a sense: while I wasn’t a big fan of Enterprise during its original run and wasn’t the biggest supporter of the Kelvin films, they all had standout moments. Perhaps more importantly, Enterprise, the Kelvin films, and Discovery all carried the flag for the Star Trek franchise and eventually led to the expansion that we’ve seen in the first half of the 2020s. Better things came out of all of those projects, and without their existence Star Trek would be in a very different place today.

Still frame from A Quality of Mercy (SNW Season 1) showing Pike and several of the crew on the bridge of the Enterprise. — Although I wasn’t wild about some of the Star Trek prequels, they did eventually lead to better things.
*Pictured: Strange New Worlds Season 1.*

Paramount continues to surprise me with some of these moves. I’m not sure that there’s much oversight or management of the Star Trek franchise at the moment, and there’s certainly no readily apparent picture of longer-term goals or ambitions emerging. Cinema and streaming projects remain totally disconnected from one another – despite Paramount’s reunification several years ago bringing them back together. I will keep my ear to the ground about this “origin story” idea, the Beyond sequel, and any other Star Trek projects… but I don’t have high hopes for any of them right now, and I remain disappointed that Legacy doesn’t seem to have been seriously considered.

Regardless, if there’s news, further announcements, or anything else about an upcoming Star Trek film, I’ll do my best to cover it and share my thoughts with you here on the website! And if any of these films ever actually enter production and end up being released – which I have my doubts about – I’ll certainly be previewing them and reviewing them as well. I hope this has been interesting – and not too depressing – as we look ahead to one possible vision of Star Trek’s future.

The Star Trek franchise – including all films, shows, and properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. No release dates have been set for the sequel to Star Trek Beyond, the “origin story” film, or any other Star Trek film. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Ten Things That Have Always Bugged Me In Star Trek

Mon 20.05.24Mon 20.05.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Beware spoilers for the following Star Trek productions: The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, Discovery, Picard, Generations, and First Contact.

Let’s have a little bit of fun today at the expense of the Star Trek franchise! I’ve been a Trekkie for almost thirty-five years at this point, and I’ve seen a lot of Star Trek in that time! For a franchise that now runs to over 900 individual episodes of television, Star Trek’s internal consistency and the attention to detail shown by the writers and creative teams are generally incredibly good, and there aren’t many true inconsistencies or things to get worked up about. But that doesn’t mean there are zero!

If you’re a regular reader, you might’ve seen me use the expression “glorified nitpick” in some of my Star Trek episode reviews. Sometimes I’ll point out something that I felt didn’t work very well or that seemed to run counter to what we already knew about a situation or character. Well… most of what we’re going to talk about today doesn’t even rise to that level! These aren’t things that I’m cross about or that “ruined” an episode or story for me. They’re just, as the title says, little things that bug me!

Publicity photo for Star Trek: Picard showing the rebuilt Enterprise-D bridge. — The bridge of the Enterprise-D.

Before we go any further, here are my usual caveats! Firstly, all of this is my entirely subjective opinion. If you disagree with any or all of the points below, think I’m “overreacting,” or feel that I’ve totally got the wrong end of the stick… that’s okay! These are just a few stray thoughts that I have about Star Trek, and most of them are so minor that they’re not gonna be worth getting into an argument about! Secondly, this is intended as light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek fun – so I encourage you not to take me too seriously and to engage with this article in that spirit!

Finally, I’m not counting the old excuses of “it’s just a story” or “because the writers thought it worked better that way” as explanations! Sure, everything in Star Trek is “just a story,” and if the writers needed to move characters into place or kick off certain storylines in a way that opens up a minor inconsistency, that’s just the way it goes sometimes. But as a fan, and as someone engaged with this fictional setting, that excuse doesn’t really work for me – and it never has. So it’s true that “none of this is real,” but that doesn’t change anything for me!

With all of that out of the way, let’s get started!

Number 1:
Why was the unfinished Enterprise-B the only ship within several light-years of Earth?
Star Trek: Generations

Still frame from Star Trek: Generations showing the launch of the Enterprise-B. — The Enterprise-B embarks upon her ill-fated maiden voyage.

Kicking off the plot of Generations is the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B under the command of Captain John Harriman. Joining him for the voyage are Captain Kirk, Montgomery Scott, and Pavel Chekov, but during what was supposed to be a short shakedown cruise entirely within the Sol system, a distress call was received that took the Enterprise-B right into the path of a dangerous energy ribbon called the Nexus.

But here’s my question: why did Starfleet have no other ships anywhere close to the SS Robert Fox and SS Lakul? This is Sol – the home system of the Federation and Starfleet, where Starfleet Headquarters, the Federation government, and Spacedock are all located. With the Enterprise-B on a glorified joy-ride to show her off to a gaggle of journalists, and with weapons and other essential systems still not installed… why would she be the only ship in the area?

Still frame from Star Trek: Generations showing the Enterprise-B in the Nexus. — The Enterprise-B encounters the Nexus.

Think about it: this would be like the only military unit within a hundred miles of Washington DC being a single brand-new tank without its gun barrel. If the Enterprise-B’s shakedown cruise had taken her beyond Sol, then things might feel a little better. But having no other starships anywhere close to the stricken refugee vessels always struck me as bizarre!

If Starfleet leaves its home system and institutions of government so sparsely defended, it’s a miracle that the Klingons, Romulans, or Borg haven’t been able to warp into the system and conquer Earth! Jokes aside, I think the opening of Generations is pretty great – and the film in general is one of my personal favourites. But that doesn’t mean I can just overlook what appears to be Starfleet’s atrocious planning and non-existent defences!

Number 2:
What’s the United Earth Space Probe Agency?
Star Trek: The Original Series

Still frame from Star Trek: Voyager showing the probe Friendship One. — Friendship One, a probe launched by the UESPA.

Prior to settling on more familiar terms like the United Federation of Planets and Starfleet, the United Earth Space Probe Agency (or UESPA) was an organisation that was mentioned in a couple of early Star Trek stories. But what the organisation is and what its relationship is with Starfleet and the Federation was never elaborated upon, and plot points in Enterprise have further muddied the waters.

The out-of-universe explanation for this one is simple enough: as Star Trek was being created and those early episodes were being written, some titles and names were still being decided upon. It wasn’t even settled until well into production on The Original Series’ first season that the show was set in the 23rd Century – the original pitch for the series didn’t specify an exact time period, and the 27th Century was also suggested as a possibility.

But as I said at the beginning, out-of-universe explanations don’t count!

Still frame from Star Trek: The Original Series showing Kirk and Spock. — The UESPA was mentioned a handful of times in the first season of *The Original Series*.

Enterprise could have put this to rest, but instead the series – quite understandably – wanted to use familiar names like Starfleet, so the UESPA wasn’t included in a big way. Occasional references to it have popped up, including in Voyager where the UESPA had sent out at least one unmanned probe, but nothing to definitively explain what it was and whether it was independent of Starfleet.

To me, the “United Earth” part of the name seems to suggest that it’s a human-only organisation, but with humanity’s ships all seemingly flying under the Federation flag, what role there could be for a United Earth fleet – and where any of its ships or probes actually are – remains unknown.

Number 3:
Why was Starfleet unable to detect the octonary star system?
Star Trek: Picard

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard showing eight stars in formation. — Eight stars in perfect gravitational harmony.

In Season 1 of Picard, the ancient super-synths that I nicknamed the “Mass Effect Reapers” literally moved eight stars to form a stable octonary star system. They did so to make their presence known, and on the planet in that system they left their beacon behind. But… how did Starfleet – with all of its sensors, missions of exploration, advanced telescopes, and stellar cartography departments – fail to notice such an apparently obvious and incredibly interesting stellar phenomenon?

Using technology that we have right now – today, in the early 21st Century – we can look not only at stars, but detect the planets orbiting them, view distant galaxies, and even find black holes. I find it impossible to believe that Starfleet hasn’t at least scanned the entire Milky Way, detecting every star and star system – so how did they miss something so obviously artificial in nature?

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard showing Raffi and the ENH. — The symbol representing the octonary star system.

If Picard had explained that, for instance, the Romulans deployed a cloaking device to shield the octonary system, or that Starfleet did know about the system but couldn’t explore it because of its location behind the Neutral Zone, then I’d have nothing to complain about. But a fairly sizable plot point in one episode involved the crew of La Sirena finding out that this star system had been deliberately hidden from Romulan star charts… when surely the Federation, who aren’t that far away from it in the same region of the galaxy, would have been able to see it through their telescopes! Again, if this system was in a far-flung part of the Gamma or Delta Quadrants, I’d still argue that Starfleet should’ve detected it, but its distance could be its saving grace. However, the octonary star system was supposedly in or near Romulan space – meaning it’s a mere stone’s throw away from the Federation.

In The Next Generation, the Enterprise-D is transported by Q to a system that would’ve taken them years to reach at top speed. But Starfleet already had a designation for this system: J-25. To me, that implies that the Federation has already categorised at least the Alpha and Beta Quadrants, even if ships haven’t been able to explore all of these systems yet. So once again… how did Starfleet miss an entire eight-star solar system?

Number 4:
How did the Enterprise-E reach Earth so quickly from its position near the Neutral Zone?
Star Trek: First Contact

Still frame from Star Trek: The Original Series showing a map on the main viewscreen. — A map of part of the Neutral Zone.

Star Trek’s geography has always been kept vague, and I think that’s been to the franchise’s overall benefit! But there are a few places where the distance between planets and systems seems to be inconsistent. At the beginning of First Contact, for example, we have the Enterprise-E sent away from the main fleet to patrol the Neutral Zone – despite an imminent Borg incursion. But when the battle turns against the Federation fleet, Picard is able to get the Enterprise back to Sector 001 in what seems to be a matter of hours, if not minutes.

Prior Star Trek stories, including in The Original Series and The Next Generation, had seemed to depict the Romulan Empire as being on the Federation’s far border, with outlying colonies disappearing in The Neutral Zone and “Earth Outposts” in Balance of Terror all being depicted as far-flung places. Even if we assume that Romulus is relatively close to Earth, and that the Enterprise-E was very conveniently positioned at the near end of the Neutral Zone, getting back to Earth while the battle was still raging still feels like a tall order.

Still frame from Star Trek: First Contact showing the Enterprise-E firing phasers. — The Enterprise-E at the Battle of Sector 001.

Warp factors in Star Trek are kept pretty vague – so that could account for some of this apparent discrepancy, I suppose. If the Enterprise-E could travel significantly faster than the Enterprise-D, the travel time from the Neutral Zone could be reduced. Again, it still seems to rely on the ship being fortunate with its positioning, but maybe that’s something that could be accounted for by Captain Picard preparing for this eventuality!

Still, it’s always struck me as more than a little odd that the Enterprise-E was able to reach Earth in time. Not only was Picard able to follow the Borg Sphere through the portal it created, but there was even time to save the USS Defiant and Worf before destroying the main Borg Cube. A very quick turnaround indeed!

Number 5:
Why wasn’t there a debate about which route to take?
Star Trek: Voyager

Still frame from Star Trek: Voyager showing Captain Janeway. — Captain Janeway ordered her crew to take the most direct route back to Earth.

After the crew of the USS Voyager found themselves stranded on the far side of the galaxy, Captain Janeway very quickly ordered her crew to set a course for Earth. But the most direct route to Earth, through the Delta Quadrant and later the Beta Quadrant, took the ship right into the heart of Borg territory. Janeway knew this – Starfleet had at least some idea of where the Borg’s territory was located. Even if the Delta Quadrant offered the quickest way home, I’m surprised that nobody objected or tried to propose an alternative – especially when there was a good one.

Before getting transported to the Delta Quadrant, the USS Voyager made a stop at Deep Space Nine. And what’s located right next to the station? The Bajoran Wormhole! The wormhole offers a shortcut to the far side of the Gamma Quadrant – and heading in the direction of the wormhole rather than directly for Earth is something that Janeway and the crew could have considered.

Still frame from Star Trek: Voyager showing the rear of the USS Voyager. — The USS Voyager prepares to begin its long journey.

At this point in the timeline, the Dominion War hasn’t started – so that can’t be used as a justification for not heading that way. And while all we have to go on are non-canon sources, there’s at least some tentative evidence that the wormhole’s terminus is located roughly the same distance from the Ocampa homeworld as Earth. If that’s the case, it would be no slower to head that way. Based on the Borg threat alone, I would have argued that heading for the wormhole is actually the smarter play.

Obviously Voyager was pitched as “the Delta Quadrant show,” and we got some fantastic stories out of that premise. But given the way that Voyager’s writers handled the Borg when that time came… maybe there’s an out-of-universe argument to be made here, too! In any case, even if Janeway had ultimately made the decision to head back to Earth via the most direct route, some discussion or debate would have been an interesting inclusion as the series got going. It could’ve been a way to draw some dividing lines between Starfleet and Maquis characters – making more of the “one ship, two crews” idea that Voyager never really explored in much depth.

Number 6:
Why did Michael Burnham and the USS Discovery head into the far future?
Star Trek: Discovery

Still frame from Star Trek: Discovery showing the Red Angel opening a time-wormhole. — The USS Discovery approaches the time-wormhole.

Wait, stop! I know what you’re thinking: “this is the entire plot of Season 2 and was well-explained! They had to leave the 23rd Century to stop Control from wiping out all life in the galaxy!” And you’re correct, of course – but I’m not looking at the season as a whole or the entire plan. I’m focusing in on the final moments before Burnham opened the time-wormhole and the ship disappeared.

During the climactic battle against Control, the “assimilated” Captain Leland boarded the USS Discovery to attempt to seize control of the ship and its invaluable Sphere data. But after being cornered by Georgiou, Leland – Control’s human avatar – was defeated and killed. At that moment, the entire battle seemed to stop, and as Pike and his crew noted aboard the Enterprise, Control’s entire fleet of drone ships were simply hanging there, apparently dead or deactivated.

Still frame from Star Trek: Discovery showing Control's fleet. — Control’s fleet of drone-ships.

At this moment – before Burnham had entered the time-wormhole and before Saru, aboard Discovery, had followed her – there should have been a moment’s pause. Maybe Burnham herself couldn’t see what was going on, but Saru and Pike could, and even communicated with one another confirming the death of Captain Leland. There was still time for the time-wormhole to be closed, for Discovery and Enterprise to regroup, and potentially for Discovery to remain in the 23rd Century.

Even if Pike and Saru had decided that the risk of Control re-establishing itself was too great, it’s bizarre to me that neither of them even considered the possibility for a moment. With their enemy apparently vanquished – at least temporarily – and with Discovery’s spore drive meaning the ship could’ve evaded Control by jumping to a different part of the galaxy, there was time to regroup and come up with a plan that didn’t involve stranding everyone in a totally different century.

Number 7:
How could Starfleet possibly prioritise anything other than hanging onto Bajor and the wormhole?
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Still frame from What We Left Behind showing Deep Space Nine. — Deep Space Nine remastered, from the documentary *What We Left Behind.*

I adore Deep Space Nine’s Dominion War arc – it’s one of the best (and most under-appreciated) in the franchise, in my opinion. But as the war got started, Starfleet made what appears to be a catastrophic strategic blunder. In the episode Call to Arms, which ended the show’s spectacular fifth season, Sisko informs his crew that Starfleet won’t be sending any reinforcements to hold DS9 – their priorities lie elsewhere.

We later learn that Starfleet used the diversion of the attack on DS9 to destroy a Dominion-Cardassian shipyard… but given the strategic importance of the wormhole, and the fact that the Dominion is more than capable of producing vast quantities of ships and Jem’Hadar troops in the Gamma Quadrant, it never made sense to me that Starfleet wouldn’t have thrown every available resource at the galaxy’s most strategically vital location.

Still frame from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine showing a battle in space. — DS9 could only hold off the Dominion-Cardassian attack for a short time.

The minefield that the crew of DS9 erected bought the Federation some time (as did the subsequent intervention by the Prophets), but Starfleet must’ve known that, even with the best will in the world, the minefield wouldn’t last forever. With the Dominion in control of Bajor and DS9, they could work on shutting it down without interference. The successful attack on the Toros III shipyard may have been little more than a morale-boosting pyrrhic victory.

In war, you’d almost always rather be defending a position than having to attack – and it would have been far easier to try to hold onto DS9 while the station was still under Federation control than to try to re-capture it later after the Dominion had been given a chance to entrench. For a number of reasons, the decision to essentially abandon the station is questionable at best! If part of the story had been to show Starfleet’s admiralty as out-of-touch or incompetent, that might’ve worked. But that didn’t happen, either, so I’m just left wondering what went wrong at Starfleet Command! Still, at least we got some spectacular episodes out of this storyline.

Number 8:
What happened to Dr Pulaski?
Star Trek: The Next Generation

Still frame from Star Trek: The Next Generation showing Diana Muldaur as Dr Katherine Pulaski. — Dr Pulaski in the episode *Time Squared*.

Although I really liked the character of Dr Pulaski in Season 2 – you can find a longer piece about her here, if you’re interested – I think it’s fair to say that she didn’t really knock it out of the park! A letter-writing campaign from viewers and an intervention by Patrick Stewart contributed to Gates McFadden being re-hired in time for Season 3… and then Dr Pulaski was just never mentioned again.

The nature of her departure always struck me as odd, and it feels more than a little disrespectful to both an actor and a character who, for better or worse, had been a part of the series for an entire season. When Dr Crusher disappeared at the beginning of Season 2, there was at least some effort to pay lip service to her absence – it was explained that she was on another assignment at Starfleet Medical on Earth. Dr Pulaski didn’t even get that, and to the best of my knowledge has never been so much as mentioned since.

Still frame from Star Trek: The Next Generation showing several characters on the bridge. — Dr Pulaski with Riker, Worf, and Troi on the bridge.

We can argue the toss about the benefits or drawbacks of keeping her around – and I go over that in a bit more detail in my character study which I’ve linked above, if you want to see my thoughts on that. But whether you think she was a fun addition to the crew, an annoyance, or whether you just liked Dr Crusher better… you gotta admit that it’s odd that she didn’t get so much as a log entry from Captain Picard to acknowledge her departure.

The second season of The Next Generation was my “first contact” with the Star Trek franchise. The first episode I can solidly remember watching is The Royale – which Dr Pulaski is barely in! But maybe that’s why I’ve always had an appreciation for her character. I like the dynamic that she brought to the crew as someone a bit older, a bit less personable, and who had history with some characters and seemed to be developing new relationships with others. There have been opportunities in recent years for Dr Pulaski to have returned – or at least to have been mentioned. But I doubt that will happen now!

Number 9:
Who invented the cloaking device and when did Starfleet first encounter it?
Star Trek: Enterprise

Still frame from Star Trek: Enterprise showing Enterprise and two Romulan ships. — Two 22nd Century Romulan vessels de-cloaking.

This is a point that I have a personal “head canon” explanation for that I’d love to elaborate on in a full article one day! I’ll get into that in a moment, but for now, suffice to say that this is a classic example of a “prequel problem.” In short, The Original Series first season episode Balance of Terror clearly established that the Federation had never encountered a ship that could cloak, but Enterprise and Discovery – both set prior to The Original Series but produced decades later – show Romulan and Klingon ships operating under cloak and Starfleet being fully aware of this.

This raises several questions! What are cloaking devices, how do they work, and why would Starfleet not share the details of their existence with its captains, at the very least? Kirk and his crew seemed shocked that the Romulan vessel could cloak – but the Romulans had been seen cloaking and de-cloaking more than a century earlier, as had other races like the Suliban. We can debate whether the words “cloak” or “cloaking device” were spoken in those episodes – but the technology appears to be functionally the same, so semantics won’t cut it here!

Still frame from Star Trek: Strange New Worlds showing a Romulan vessel cloaking. — A Romulan ship engaging its cloaking device in the 23rd Century.

When Enterprise was on the air I wasn’t a regular viewer, but I remember that I did catch the episode Minefield – in which a Romulan vessel is seen de-cloaking – and that led to me creating my own “head canon” explanation for this problem. I remember seeing debates on Star Trek message boards in the early 2000s about this topic, and I felt that all the producers would need to do would be to explain, somehow, that there are different types of cloaking devices. Perhaps Starfleet felt that they’d cracked the code, but the Romulans then invented a newer and better cloak. Perhaps there was even a cloaking and un-cloaking arms race between the factions.

In short, I think Star Trek can just about get away with this one by explaining that, when Starfleet figured out how to penetrate one style or type of cloaking technology, the Romulans or Klingons would refine it, re-modulate it, or invent something new. It’s not a perfect explanation, but it plugs most of the hole that Enterprise and Discovery have dug. I still think it would be nice to see something like this made official, in-universe – and let’s be honest: it would be better if these prequel-created plot holes didn’t exist in the first place!

Number 10:
What’s up with the inconsistent uniform changes?

Still frame from Star Trek: The Next Generation showing Captain Rachel Garrett. — Captain Rachel Garrett of the Enterprise-C.

The series premiere of The Next Generation established that the Enterprise-D’s voyages took place almost 75 years after Kirk’s tenure in the captain’s chair, but the “monster maroon” uniforms from The Original Series films would often make appearances in flashbacks or episodes set in the past. Starfleet appeared to have stuck with that design for decades, albeit with a few minor tweaks. Using those uniforms for such a long time already felt odd, but then things started to take a turn!

The Next Generation switched uniforms at the beginning of Season 3 for its main characters, but the Season 1-2 uniform variant was still showing up on secondary characters and background characters well into Season 4. There was also a total mess in Generations, which seemed to depict a moment of transition from one uniform style to another – although Deep Space Nine seemed to have established that space stations might use different uniforms from starships? I’m still not sure about that!

Still frame from Star Trek: Lower Decks showing the four main characters. — Two different uniform styles seen in *Lower Decks*.

Deep Space Nine made an abrupt switch to the gray-shouldered uniforms midway through its run (to coincide with First Contact’s premiere), and that was okay, I guess. Far more of an instant transition than we’d seen in Generations or The Next Generation, but not necessarily a problem. But then the alternate reality films and post-2017 TV shows have really shaken things up! I’ve said before that I don’t like to get hung up on minor things like aesthetic choices, and I was generally accepting of Discovery’s all-blue look, even if it was supposedly set in between The Cage and The Original Series whose uniforms are well-known. But Lower Decks definitely complicated things by seeming to suggest that different “tiers” of starship would get different uniforms… for some reason.

In short, Star Trek hasn’t always been consistent or clear with the way Starfleet uniforms are used, how long they’re in use for, or which types of officer/crewman should wear what type of uniform. When watching an individual episode – or even a whole season of TV – this doesn’t really seem all that noticeable. But when you pick out different stories or take a big-picture look… these inconsistencies stick out.

So that’s it!

Still frame from Star Trek: Strange New Worlds showing the USS Enterprise. — The USS Enterprise in *Strange New Worlds*.

We’ve nitpicked the Star Trek franchise and pulled out ten little things that have always bugged me! As I said at the beginning, none of these really spoil Star Trek for me, and I’m more than willing to overlook minor inconsistencies or small plot holes – especially in strong, otherwise entertaining stories. But when you step back and take a look at Star Trek – or any fictional world, come to that – there are always gonna be things that don’t quite make sense or that don’t seem to fit with the rest of the setting.

All of this was just for fun, and I hope it was an interesting look at a handful of minor issues that have emerged over the years. When a franchise has been running on and off for close to sixty years, that kind of thing is inevitable! Although I’ve been feeling a bit burned out on Star Trek of late, it was still enjoyable to jump back into some of these stories – several of which I hadn’t seen for years – to put together this list.

Until next time – and Live Long and Prosper!

The Star Trek franchise – including all films and series discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. Most Star Trek films and episodes are available to stream on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the service is available. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

What’s Going On At Xbox?

Sat 18.05.24Dennis

Uh, Xbox? You okay there?

I’m genuinely flummoxed by recent decision-making over at Xbox. I’ve said before that, while I’m a Game Pass subscriber on PC, I don’t own either of the current-gen home consoles – so I’m not coming at this from some kind of console war/fanboy perspective. But it’s pretty concerning to see Xbox flopping around like a dying fish, seemingly unable to turn its massive and ever-expanding gaming empire into anything remotely profitable.

If you haven’t heard the news, Xbox recently announced the closures of four subsidiary studios. One of those is the beleaguered Arkane Austin, developers of Redfall – which was one of the biggest flops of 2023. I’m never in favour of a studio being shut down after one failed project – especially when that studio has a previous track record of success. But I could at least understand why something like that might happen; we’ve seen it often enough with publishers like Electronic Arts, for example. Blame for a failed title gets pushed onto the developer – often unfairly, as studios are increasingly pushed to work on titles outside of their areas of expertise by publishers – and then they end up being closed down. It sucks, but it’s happened before.

Arkane Austin, the developer of the ill-fated *Redfall*, has been shut down.

But what I honestly cannot understand is Microsoft’s decision to close Tango Gameworks – developers of Ghostwire Tokyo and Hi-Fi Rush, both of which have been successful titles for Xbox and Game Pass, with the latter even being launched on PlayStation to great fanfare. Closing down a studio after a high-profile failure is one thing, but after releasing critically-acclaimed titles that achieved more than anyone could have expected? It makes absolutely no sense – and seems to be indicative of a company in disarray.

Microsoft and Xbox may have bitten off more than they could chew with the recent Activision-Blizzard acquisition. Although that side of the company is one of the only profitable spots for Xbox at the moment, the massive outlay to purchase the company in the first place has clearly burned a hole in the once-infinite pockets of Microsoft, and that appears to have led to some very short-term thinking on the part of some executives. They’re scrambling, looking for any and all money-saving options.

Twitter screenshot showing a post by Aaron Greenberg. — VP of Xbox Marketing Aaron Greenberg hailed the success of *Hi-Fi Rush*… shortly before the developer that made it was shut down.

Xbox has been running way behind PlayStation since the end of the Xbox 360 era, and that shows no signs of changing any time soon. PlayStation 5 consoles are outselling Xbox Series S and X consoles by a huge margin, and Microsoft has been struggling with that for a while. But Xbox’s ace in the hole should be Game Pass – as I’ve said more than once, subscriptions seem to be the direction of travel not only in the gaming marketplace, but in media in general, and Xbox has been first out of the gate with the biggest gaming subscription around. There have even been calls in some quarters for Xbox Game Pass to launch on PlayStation, such is the demand for the service.

But Game Pass is, as we’ve also discussed, somewhat of a double-edged sword. More people signing up naturally means fewer direct sales of games – because any player who’s joined Game Pass is incredibly unlikely to shell out extra money for a copy of a game they can already play. When some critics of Game Pass tried to spin this as a major “problem,” I pushed back on that, saying it was a silly argument. Microsoft and Xbox know what they’re doing, I argued, and a short-term hit to individual sales will have simply been an expected part of the equation as Game Pass establishes itself. But apparently I’ve over-estimated the intelligence of some of Microsoft’s executives…

A promo graphic for Xbox Game Pass. — Does Microsoft not know how to handle Game Pass?

Senior folks at Xbox have been seen in public expressing concern over “flat” sales, and the company doesn’t seem to know how to handle its own Game Pass subscription service – you know, the platform it set up with the explicit intention of changing the way in which Xbox and PC players pay for and engage with games. How on earth that managed to happen is just beyond me, and some of this ridiculous short-term thinking on the part of senior management at Xbox seems to run completely counter to the company’s stated longer-term goals.

Maybe Game Pass isn’t doing as well as Microsoft hoped. It seems, from publicly available data, that the service hasn’t seen a huge influx of new subscribers over the past twelve months, even with the release of major titles like Starfield. But as any film/TV streamer could tell them, building up a user base takes time, and there are bound to be bumps in the road along the way. Hitting the panic button after a few rough months and closing down studios that should be making exactly the kinds of games that Xbox claims to want to prioritise is so stupidly short-sighted that it’s almost incomprehensible.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing three citizens in New Atlantis. — *Starfield* doesn’t appear to have led to a massive influx of new Game Pass subscribers.

Not for the first time, I feel echoes of Sega’s rather unceremonious exit from the console war some twenty-plus years ago. Perhaps that’s the next step for Microsoft, with its gaggle of newly-acquired studios. Rather than becoming a gaming powerhouse like Nintendo or Sony, producing a glut of high-quality exclusive content, Microsoft is instead going to end up as another Electronic Arts – a publisher owning a number of different studios, ready to close all of them at the drop of a hat if there’s so much as a whiff of underwhelming sales numbers.

That would not be good for gaming. Whatever you may think of Xbox consoles or Game Pass, the games industry needs competition in order to innovate, grow, and provide some semblance of consumer-friendliness. With Nintendo not directly competing with PlayStation for the same audience – being off to one side carving out its own niche – it’s up to Xbox to be the competitor that the gaming landscape needs. If Xbox is indeed failing, in danger of crashing out of the market… that’s not going to be good for anyone in the longer-term.

Packaging for an Xbox Series X console. — An Xbox Series X box.

I don’t believe for a second that this will be the end of the line for Game Pass, nor for subscriptions in gaming in general. Those things are here to stay – even if Microsoft and Xbox can’t figure out how to make them work properly right now. The direction of travel in media is still toward subscriptions and away from box sets and physical discs, and I don’t see that changing in the short-to-medium term. Game Pass, while it may be struggling to attract new users right now, is still an exceptionally good deal and a great way into current-gen gaming for players on a budget… but it’s on Microsoft and Xbox to find a better way to take advantage of that. Top tip: shutting down studios that could produce brand-new titles to add to the service that would attract new subscribers is categorically not the way to do it!

On a personal level, it’s hard not to feel for the folks at Arkane Austin, Tango Gameworks, and the other studios that Microsoft has killed off this month. And for the dozens of other studios that other big publishers have shut down. The games industry in general feels quite unstable right now, with high-profile flops, studio closures, and large numbers of people being laid off left, right, and centre. Corporate greed accounts for a huge chunk of that, by the way, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Many of these decisions are being taken to boost already record-breaking profits and to provide even more money for shareholders and investors.

There was no need to shut down Tango Gameworks.

All of this self-inflicted bad news for Xbox comes just a few weeks before the company’s big Summer Showcase event, at which several new titles are supposed to be revealed. Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, Avowed, Flight Simulator 2024, and Starfield’s Shattered Space DLC are all likely to be shown off in detail at the event, and there’s even going to be a special Call of Duty-themed presentation following Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision. But it’s hard not to see that event being totally overshadowed by recent closures and lay-offs, and the general sense that Xbox as a brand is struggling to find a direction and an identity right now.

For players who might tune into the Showcase, or who might be subscribed to gaming news publications that will cover the event… what are they to make of Xbox, when the company seems to be all over the map with its exclusives, lack of exclusives, new studios, and studios that have just been shut down? With some of Xbox’s precious few exclusive titles already making their way to competing platforms, and studios that developed popular and successful titles being unceremoniously killed off, how can any player have faith in Xbox and the upcoming titles it wants to highlight?

Promo graphic for Xbox's 2024 Summer Showcase. — The Xbox Games Showcase is just a few weeks away.

Suppose Shattered Space doesn’t cut it for Starfield, and player numbers remain low. Will Xbox insist that future development on Bethesda’s attempted space epic is halted? What if Avowed does incredibly well and wins some big awards… but executives decide to shut down Obsidian Entertainment anyway? If I’m looking on as a potential player… why shouldn’t I just wait six months until some or all of these games come to PlayStation or to Nintendo’s next console? What’s the point in buying an Xbox any more?

All of these are questions that Microsoft has opened up by some truly bizarre and desperately short-term moves over the past few weeks and months. If you’d asked me even a year ago what Xbox’s strategy was, I’d have said clearly that there’s a focus on building up Game Pass as a subscription service with a guaranteed income, backed up by some expensive studio and publisher acquisitions to make new titles to add to the platform. But now? What is Xbox trying to do? Where’s the longer-term planning, and where does Microsoft see the Xbox brand in ten years’ time, five years’ time… or even just this time next year? I genuinely don’t know any more.

Promo graphic of an Xbox Series X control pad. — Where will Xbox be five years from now?

It’s a strange time to be following the games industry – and I suppose that’s been true for a while now, really. Despite the predictions of some doomsters, I doubt very much that we’re heading for a 1983-style “market crash.” Gaming has grown so much since those days, and I just can’t imagine a collapse of that nature happening… at least not in the immediate term. But bigger changes may be afoot, and if Xbox is losing money and unable to keep up with PlayStation, well… sooner or later, something’s gotta change.

As I said a few months ago when talking about Xbox and its exclusivity problem, I don’t believe that the company ceasing to produce consoles would be a good move for the market overall. But, as Sega found just after the turn of the millennium, focusing on software instead of fighting a losing battle on the hardware front might be what’s needed to save the brand.

Strange times indeed.

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

The Rings of Power Season 2: Thoughts, Hopes, and Fears

Thu 16.05.24Thu 16.05.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Spoilers are present for The Rings of Power Season 1 and the trailer for Season 2.

I was one of the folks back in 2022 who generally enjoyed The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power. I think I even named it my favourite series of the year – despite there being plenty of competition for that award! But I also noted some weaknesses, both narratively and on the production side of things, and at the end of the day, I felt there was still work to do for the series to justify its frankly insane billion-dollar price tag.

That’s where I start as I look ahead to The Rings of Power’s upcoming second season. But there are a few other considerations before we dive head-first into the meat of the recent teaser trailer and begin to wonder about storylines and set-piece battles! In this piece today, I want to consider The Rings of Power Season 2 not only as a standalone work, but also as one piece of an expanding “Tolkien-verse,” which will soon include an animated film, a new film based around Gollum, and another currently-untitled film.

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing Celebrimbor. — What will *The Rings of Power* Season 2 look like?

The Rings of Power was not well-received in its first season, and Season 2 has the difficult tasks of winning back viewers who were left disappointed, convincing those who drifted away to give it a second chance, and also bringing on board new viewers who either missed out last time or weren’t even convinced to press play. None of that will be easy, and while behind-the-scenes changes could’ve provided The Rings of Power with a soft reboot of sorts… none of that was readily apparent to me in the recent teaser trailer. If viewers want simply “more of The Rings of Power,” then that’s good news. But if the show, as has been reported, lost two-thirds of its audience over the course of a truncated first season… I don’t see how “more of the same” will be of any help.

I’ve discussed this before – thanks to another Amazon Prime Video series, by coincidence – but the huge gap of two years in between such short seasons of television is something that The Rings of Power could’ve done without. I was a fan of Season 1, as previously stated, but even I’m having a hard time recalling the details of what happened last time, as well as the names of characters, where everyone ended up, and just the overall state of Middle-earth as the credits rolled. This isn’t a problem unique to Amazon by any means, as it’s something many streaming productions have struggled with. But it simply must be a priority to ensure that Season 3 is produced much more quickly. Were there problems beyond Amazon’s control this time? Sure: pandemic restrictions in New Zealand and a strike by writers and actors surely had parts to play. But waiting two full years for eight episodes of television is unacceptable – and it will cause actual harm to The Rings of Power as it tries to pick up where it left off.

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 first look video showing Elrond and Galadriel. — A glimpse behind-the-scenes…

Let’s talk briefly about where The Rings of Power might fit in an expanding streaming television marketplace. When the series was commissioned, Game of Thrones was approaching the end of its run, and Amazon may have expected – wrongly – that its series would have the high-budget high fantasy space all to itself, at least on the small screen. That hasn’t happened, with Netflix’s The Witcher, HBO’s spin-off House of the Dragon, and several others offering something similar. And now, following the passing of Christopher Tolkien – who had guarded his father’s estate quite vociferously – there are even other competing works being produced out of JRR Tolkien’s stories.

The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim is an animated film that’s currently set to premiere later this year, and just last week we got the announcement from Warner Bros. of two new live-action films: one focusing on Gollum, to be directed by Andy Serkis, and another untitled film. Both will be produced by Peter Jackson, who directed The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies.

Promo graphic for The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim (2024). — *The Rings of Power* isn’t the only production based on Tolkien’s Middle-earth that will premiere this year…

Not only does The Rings of Power not have the high fantasy space to itself, but it’s also in direct competition with other works set in Middle-earth thanks to these new films. If Season 3 is slow to enter production and targets a 2026 release date, it could come up against Serkis and Jackson’s Gollum film. While I’m somewhat sceptical of a film focusing so heavily on Gollum – particularly in light of the disappointment of the Gollum video game last year – bringing back Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis is sure to pique the curiosity of fans of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It’s certainly got me interested!

None of this is to say that The Rings of Power can’t peacefully co-exist with all of these productions – in Middle-earth and beyond. There’s a market for fantasy on television, and most of the projects we’ve been talking about have their own weaknesses, too. But what it does do is muddy the waters, meaning it’s going to be tough for The Rings of Power to truly stand out.

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing an imposing tower. — Is this going to be Sauron’s fortress?

When Amazon was negotiating with the Tolkien estate prior to The Rings of Power being commissioned, I can’t help but feel that the wrong decisions were taken. Although this may be controversial, in my view it would’ve been better to re-tell the story of The Lord of the Rings instead of trying to create a prequel from the book’s appendices. Re-making such a popular story less than twenty years after the films had been produced would have drawn a lot of criticism – but The Rings of Power caught that anyway, and at least if the series had been re-telling The Lord of the Rings, the story itself would’ve been built on firmer foundations.

That’s all for the birds now, of course, but as new Middle-earth films are being created, set in and around the time of The Lord of the Rings, I don’t think that the comparison they present is a favourable one for The Rings of Power. Ask 100 Lord of the Rings fans whether they’re more excited for the next season of this series or War of the Rohirrim and the Gollum film… and I think you and I both have a good idea about which way that survey would go!

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing Princess Disa. — Princess Disa in the Season 2 trailer.

I’ve had a little time to sit with the trailer for The Rings of Power Season 2, and I’ve given it a couple of re-watches to see if I missed anything interesting. We’ll set aside concerns about the long wait, other fantasy shows, and Amazon’s management of the project and take a look at the trailer now. As always, I encourage you to watch the trailer for yourself if you can – it’s available on YouTube at time of writing, and I assume it’ll be somewhere on Amazon Prime Video, too. I’ll drop a link to the trailer at the bottom of this article.

My two biggest takeaways from the trailer are as follows: first, “more of the same.” In terms of costumes, characters, and visual effects, The Rings of Power Season 2 looks remarkably similar to Season 1 – or at least to my two-year-old recollections of Season 1! As discussed above, I think that in itself could be a serious hurdle for a series whose first season was not especially well-received. This trailer is going to be most folks’ first look at The Rings of Power in close to two years, and if that’s the main impression most people get… I’m not sure that bodes well for bringing back wayward viewers.

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing Galadriel with a group of elves. — Galadriel and the elves appear to be caught in an ambush.

Secondly, I was struck by the absence of several key characters from Season 1 – characters that we know to be returning in some capacity this time around. Their absences could be hiding spoilers, they could be held in reserve for a future trailer, or the post-production work on those scenes and sequences could be unfinished. But I also wonder whether the proto-Hobbit Harfoots and the humans of the Southlands may be taking on less of a prominent role this time around.

We did get a very brief glimpse of the Stranger – the wizard character whom many are assuming to be Gandalf – seemingly performing some kind of magical spell. I’ve had a theory for a while that the Stranger may, in fact, turn out to be another wizard like Saruman; this would be a different outcome to what many viewers seem to be expecting! But the Stranger was barely glimpsed in this trailer, which could also suggest that his role is going to be less significant this time around. I’m not always in favour of writers and artists making big changes to their work based on complaints, but the Harfoot-Stranger storyline was probably not the most well-received in Season 1, so scaling it back could make sense… if indeed that’s what’s happened.

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing the Stranger. — I almost missed this clip in my first viewing of the trailer!

The Dwarves and Elves both seem to be aware of Sauron’s rise, and we saw several clips that could all be from the same battle – or that could be from different fights spread across multiple episodes. One clip appeared to show siege weapons being deployed against a city. Battles in Middle-earth have usually been fun to see on screen – though the titular Battle of the Five Armies in the final part of The Hobbit trilogy was, I would argue, over-stretched and a bit of a mess in terms of some of its CGI. But after Season 1 had ended without a full “battle episode,” it could be fun to have something like that this time around.

We saw most of the main characters, but one character pairing that was missing from the trailer was that of Elrond and the Dwarf prince Durin. These two characters were great together in Season 1, and their dynamic did a lot to bring some of the otherwise heavy stories down to earth. While it’ll be great to see different character groupings in Season 2, and to give the likes of Elrond and Galadriel more screen time together, I hope that doesn’t come at the expense of the wonderful “bromance” between Elrond and Durin that was built up in Season 1.

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing Durin. — The relationship between Durin and Elrond was one of the best parts of Season 1.

Season 1 hinted at the fate of Numenor and its people – destruction by a massive tidal wave/flood. Whether that will actually happen in Season 2 wasn’t clear, but with the action potentially returning to the island after Numenor’s excursion to the mainland, I think it has to be a possibility! I didn’t see a lot of Numenor in the trailer, but there did seem to be one interesting clip involving a character I didn’t recognise disembarking from a large Eagle. Does that mean that Tolkien’s somewhat notorious Eagles will be in play in Season 2? That could certainly shake things up!

I can’t help but wonder whether the scene showing what we assume to be Sauron meeting the ring-maker Celebrimbor is actually a flashback. In Tolkien’s original works – which The Rings of Power has diverged from already, I should note – it was Sauron who taught the Elves how to make magical rings, so showing this as a flashback could work. I wouldn’t say I’m 100% convinced of that, but it’s certainly an interesting possibility, and a way to bring the series more in line with The Silmarillion and Tolkien’s own stories.

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing King Durin holding a ring. — “Seven for the Dwarf-Lords in their halls of stone…”

There were two creatures/monsters that I didn’t recognise: one that seemed to be comprised of wriggling worms or tentacles and another that resides under the sea. Both of these could be great fun as threats/antagonists, and I look forward to seeing what the series will do with them. In terms of visuals, both looked great – and while they’re CGI creations, they were well-integrated with the sets and characters around them. When looking at video that has been compressed for YouTube, it isn’t always easy to tell how good or bad a CGI moment might look – but these seem to be on the right track, at least.

Although we couldn’t see what caused it, some disaster appears to befall the Dwarves at their underground home, with damage raining down on a Dwarven bridge. The theme of this season could be the tearing down of the existing power structures in Middle-earth, with our main characters needing to leap into action to save what they can and prepare to rebuild what’s going to be lost.

Still frame from The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer showing an army on horseback. — Charge!

The soundtrack to the trailer seemed to be solid. Music in Season 1 was generally pretty good – and the song This Wandering Day in particular was exceptional. With composer Bear McCreary returning to compose the soundtrack this time, I think we can expect more decent music. Visually, as noted I didn’t really feel that any of the CGI/VFX were sub-par. Nothing really leapt out at me as being visually stunning or groundbreaking – but again, a short trailer made for YouTube won’t necessarily give you that!

So that’s my look ahead to The Rings of Power Season 2, which will be on our screens at the end of August. Although it feels like spring has only just sprung, August and September will be upon us before we know it – so there really isn’t that long to wait! I’m debating whether or not to re-watch Season 1 before Season 2 gets here just so I’m caught up and ready to go. When the season arrives, I’ll do my best to share my thoughts and opinions here on the website, so I hope you’ll join me for that.

Despite some issues, I’ll end by saying that I’m generally looking forward to the return of The Rings of Power, and I’m crossing my fingers that the series can build upon the genuine successes of its first season. There should be opportunities to learn from what worked and what didn’t last time around, and perhaps to hone and refine things a little. That’s not really the impression I got from the way the trailer was cut… but here’s hoping!

You can watch The Rings of Power Season 2 trailer on YouTube by clicking or tapping here.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season 2 will premiere on the 29th of August 2024 on Amazon Prime Video. Season 1 is available to stream now and is also available on DVD. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is the copyright of Amazon Prime Video/Amazon Studios and New Line Cinema. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Little Kitty, Big City: Video Game Review

Fri 10.05.24Fri 10.05.24Dennis

Little Kitty, Big City caught me off-guard. I’d added the game to my wishlist a long time ago, and I knew it was on the cards for 2024 – I even included it on my annual “look ahead” list just after New Year. But I’d missed developer/publisher Double Dagger Studio announcing an actual release date – so you can imagine my pleasant surprise to receive an email saying that the game had been released and was available to pick up!

A couple of years ago, another indie title called Stray took the “playing as a cat” idea in somewhat of a serious direction. That game was one of my favourites of 2022, and as a big cat person, I was champing at the bit for another cat game! Little Kitty, Big City isn’t going to be very complex or taxing – even on my ageing, arthritic fingers and thumbs. It’s a sweet, gentle game with lots of heart, plenty of sunshine and bright colours, and a charming art style that harkens back to the “glory days” of ’90s and early ’00s 3D platformers.

Little Kitty, Big City is an indie title developed and published by Double Dagger Studio.

I’ll make a bold prediction right now, with less than half of 2024 in the bag and some big, exciting releases still on the calendar: Little Kitty, Big City is absolutely going to be in contention for my “game of the year” award. At the very least it’s likely to go down as the best 3D platformer I’ll play this year, but its incredibly cute main character, heartstring-tugging premise, and gameplay that’s just good fun should absolutely put it in contention for the top prize.

Check back in late December to see if the little kitty manages to snatch the award – or rather, knock it off the shelf!

I felt echoes of the likes of Banjo Kazooie in Little Kitty, Big City. Gameplay-wise, the combination of 3D platforming with hidden collectables definitely reminds me of that style of game – but also the way in-game dialogue is presented through text boxes with animal noises also felt reminiscent of games of that era. For a game clearly pitched at a younger audience, it’s refreshing to see some decidedly old-school trappings!

Screenshot of Little Kitty, Big City (2024) showing a dialogue box. — Chatting with a crow.

I adore cats. My oldest is just shy of her tenth birthday, and most cats I’ve rescued over the years are black cats. There are some silly superstitions about black cats and bad luck that often sees them abandoned or never being adopted, with some even having to be put down as a result. As a black cat lover, then, it’s so incredibly sweet to see the protagonist of Little Kitty, Big City as a black cat – at least by default. I’m sure mods will be created for the PC version (if they haven’t been already) to transform the kitty with all manner of fur coats and patterns! Watch this space.

This game feels perfect for cat fanatics like me, and I’m sure that there will be plenty of cat owners and cat-obsessed kids who will fall in love with it as a result. With the exception of Nintendogs + Cats and the aforementioned Stray, there really aren’t many experiences like this; animal protagonists in general are a relative rarity. The concept could, in a worse game, come across as gimmicky… but in a title built from the ground up with its furry protagonist in mind, it doesn’t feel that way at all. In fact, the game’s levels are perfectly-designed for feline exploration, with collectables tucked away out of human reach!

Screenshot of Little Kitty, Big City (2024) showing the inventory screen. — There are some cute hats to try on!

With Little Kitty, Big City being set in Japan, the titular city has a lot of Japanese theming. It doesn’t feel “generic” by any stretch, and if you’ve played games as diverse as Ghostwire Tokyo or Shenmue – or, of course, if you’re lucky enough to have been to Japan – there’ll be a lot of things that feel familiar. When I first booted up the game and got started with exploring the city, it was the depiction of Japanese homes in Shenmue that first leapt to my mind. I’ve never been to Japan, but having that frame of reference gave some familiarity to Little Kitty, Big City and its streets.

In terms of gameplay mechanics, I love the addition of what we might call “cat-specific” moves to the standard 3D platformer lineup! Being able to swipe at objects to knock them off shelves or walls is incredibly cute, picking up objects and carrying them by mouth is also ridiculously adorable, and changing the name of “sprint” to “zoomies” was just pitch-perfect. The titular kitty can crawl, run, pick up objects, knock things out of their way, and – of course – jump.

Screenshot of Little Kitty, Big City (2024) showing a jump preview line. — Lining up the perfect pounce.

The way the jump mechanic is handled here is actually really great. I can’t remember playing another 3D platformer with a “jump preview,” showing both the intended arc and landing site, but being able to see exactly where the kitty cat will jump and land simply by holding down the jump button is a great inclusion. It means less time wasted trying to line up impossible jumps, as well as making sure you’re going to land in the right place before hitting the button. This kind of thing could – and arguably should – be an accessibility feature in other titles, and I think some other developers could take notes from the way “jump previews” are implemented here. Obviously it’s not something that every game needs – but it works incredibly well in Little Kitty, Big City.

With everything from roads and buildings to traffic cones and empty soda cans sized up, the scale of the city really does hit you in those first few minutes. The sense of being genuinely lost is something that many folks don’t experience very often – even less in the days of Google Maps and smartphones. But there’s something about the combination of being small in this very large world and being lost and alone that I felt drew on shared memories of childhood. How many times can you remember, as a kid, getting lost in a supermarket or on the high street, and feeling very small in a world that was too big for you? For me, at least, Little Kitty, Big City really nailed that very specific feeling in a way that I wasn’t really expecting.

Screenshot of Little Kitty, Big City (2024) showing the cat on a street. — Everything feels huge when you’re a small kitty cat!

At the core of the game, of course, is the idea of being lost and alone – and while this is masked, to an extent, by fun gameplay and a vibrant colour scheme, there’s still something dark and worrying hiding inside. The protagonist of Little Kitty, Big City – through whose eyes we experience this beautifully-crafted game world – is desperate to get home, to escape this strange world in which they find themselves. There’s a primal fear, perhaps, as a kid of being separated from one’s caregiver, and being unable to get back to safety. Little Kitty, Big City draws on this – and while there’s still plenty of light-hearted fun with talking crows, jars of jam to knock down, pedestrians’ phones to steal, and so on… I found myself empathising with the protagonist all the more because of those distant memories.

But maybe I’m turning into my old English teacher and over-analysing something that should just be treated as good, solid fun! That’s what Little Kitty, Big City is, at the end of the day. It’s an incredibly fun platformer with an adorable feline protagonist. Jumping on cars, nuzzling pedestrians, and causing more than a little chaos as a black cat is genuinely one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences that I’ve had in a long time – and certainly one of the best of 2024 so far.

Screenshot of Little Kitty, Big City (2024) showing the cat holding a smartphone in its mouth. — Stealing someone’s smartphone has never been more fun… or cuter!

If you have Game Pass, Little Kitty, Big City is available there and it’s really a no-brainer. It’s a small file to download at 1.4GB, meaning you can be playing it in a matter of minutes! I also think the game will be fantastic on Nintendo Switch; being able to play it on the go, during a lunch break, or while commuting is going to be amazing. Little Kitty, Big City is also a title that I feel is priced appropriately: there’s no £60/$70 “base version” here; the game’s developers understood that it’s not the kind of game that needs that price point. It’s not an especially long game – but the different hats to collect and the fun, gentle gameplay give it a lot of replayability in my opinion. At time of writing, Little Kitty, Big City is slightly discounted on Steam, but even at its RRP it’s an easy title to recommend.

I’ve been having a whale of a time with Little Kitty, Big City – and as soon as I’m done writing up this review I’m going to jump back in! It’s easily my favourite game of 2024 so far.

Little Kitty, Big City is available now on Nintendo Switch, PC, Xbox Series S/X, and Xbox One consoles. Little Kitty, Big City is the copyright of Double Dagger Studio. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Ten Ways To Improve Starfield

Thu 02.05.24Thu 02.05.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Starfield’s main quest – including its ending.

I know, I know: I keep telling you that I’m “done” talking about Starfield… only to pop up again a few weeks later with another new article or something else to add! So perhaps I’d better stop saying that this will be my last-ever piece about Starfield and just take it as it comes!

Over the past couple of weeks, Starfield has come back into focus for me. The recent Fallout television series has seen a surge of interest in Bethesda’s other sci-fi property, with both Fallout 76 and Fallout 4 seeing massive player numbers in April 2024. Both games were already running ahead of Starfield – which seems to have dropped out of the charts altogether by this point – but with talk of Bethesda potentially greenlighting some new Fallout project to tie in with the second season of the show, it really puts into perspective how far Starfield has fallen.

Don’t forget to check out my review of the Fallout TV series, by the way. You can find it by clicking or tapping here.

Cropped promo poster for the Fallout TV series. — The *Fallout* TV series has given a big boost to the games.

So here’s the deal: if you’ve read my first impressions of the game, or any of my other post-launch articles, you’ll know that I was underwhelmed by Starfield. There were elements of the game that had potential – but none that truly lived up to the hype. I didn’t hate Starfield by any means, and when I looked back at the worst or most disappointing gaming experiences of 2023, it didn’t seem fair to include it there, either. But the game was clearly not all it could’ve been.

Today, what I’d like to do is throw out a few of my (totally unsolicited) ideas for how Starfield could be improved. None of these are “magic bullets” capable of turning the game into a 10/10 perfect experience. I think that ship has sailed! But even within the confines of Starfield’s limitations, there are ways in which the game could be improved to make it worth returning to. I’m not proposing a total overhaul or re-making of the game, nor am I asking for something totally unrealistic like a brand-new main quest or recreating the game in a new engine. Instead, I’m trying to propose reasonable changes to certain systems or additions that wouldn’t undermine or fundamentally break the game as it currently exists.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player character wearing a spacesuit. — My character on the surface of an icy moon.

If that sounds like something you’re interested in, let me begin with my usual caveats! First of all, I have no “insider information.” I’m not trying to claim that anything discussed below can, will, or must be included in a future update or expansion for Starfield. This is a wishlist from an ex-player, and nothing more.

Secondly, all of this is my entirely subjective opinion. If you loved Starfield in its original form, think the game is utterly irredeemable, or just hate all of my suggestions, that’s totally okay! There’s plenty of room in the Starfield and Bethesda fan communities for polite discussion and disagreement – and we don’t need to get into an argument about hypothetical ideas for the game that Bethesda may never include.

With all of that out of the way, let’s get started!

Number One:
Empty Planets.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player approaching a structure. — A man-made structure on a random planet.

Considering that one of the biggest complaints I repeatedly hear about Starfield is that “too many of the planets are empty and boring,” this might seem counter-intuitive. But bear with me, because I genuinely believe that making a portion of the game’s planets completely empty would be a significant improvement.

One of the things I wanted most of all from a game like Starfield was the sense of going “where no man has gone before,” and being the first person to set foot in an alien landscape. Like a Starfleet officer, I wanted to explore the galaxy – after all, isn’t that supposed to be the mission of Constellation, the main faction that players are forced to join in Starfield?

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player's spaceship on the surface of a moon. — Landing on a planet where people have already been – and are still actively living – isn’t really “exploration,” is it?

But instead, the way Bethesda chose to create planets has meant that there are none – literally zero – that are empty. Humans have set foot on all of Starfield’s 1,000 planets, and it’s completely impossible to pick a landing zone that doesn’t already have pre-made structures, points of interest, shipwrecks, spaceship landing sites, and more. Any chance to feel like a bona fide explorer was lost… and for me, one of the single most crucial elements of a “space game” melted away as I came to realise that.

Empty planets in Starfield could serve a variety of purposes. Building outposts and habitats is one – because honestly, who wants to build their dream home or pirate base a few metres away from a spacer hideout, a commonly-used landing site, and an abandoned research tower? Such worlds could also contain more resources – and with a potential overhaul to the way resources are collected and used in-game, becoming a miner or space-trucker could become viable in-game career options.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the starmap. — Scanning a planetary body from orbit.

I loved the idea of finding a desolate planet, far away from civilisation, and building my luxury space penthouse there. I loved the idea of hopping from world to world, collecting rare resources that could be sold or traded, and upgrading my ship so that I could carry more and more cargo. Starfield offers the illusion of this through “mission boards,” but these are so barebones and non-interactive that they hardly even count.

I’d take the core of the Settled Systems – worlds around Sol, Alpha Centauri, and Cheyenne – and leave them more or less as they are. But the further out players get from those core worlds with their bigger settlements, the greater the number of genuinely empty planets there should be. I think this change could work wonders for Starfield, especially if it were to be combined with some of the other suggestions and proposals on this list.

Number Two:
New and Modified “Points of Interest,” Including Different Variants.

Within my first few hours of playing Starfield, I’d been to the same “abandoned research tower” and the same “abandoned mine” four or five times each. I hoped that I was just unlucky – that there were many more of these copy-and-paste structures out there and I’d just run into the same couple of them a few times. But there really are only a few of these – some of which don’t have much going on. Considering how big the game is and how Bethesda expected players to want to spend hundreds of hours playing Starfield over the span of a decade, that’s pretty poor, and has been a huge weight around Starfield’s neck.

What the game desperately needs is many, many more of these so-called “points of interest.” Just to start, I’d say there ought to be four times as many as there currently are, and every free update should be adding new ones on top of that. But even if that were to happen, the fact that all of these structures – and everything within – are literally identical from one appearance to the next means that further changes are needed.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player discovering a structure. — Discovering another copy-and-paste location.

So here’s my next proposal: each point of interest should come with multiple variants. I wouldn’t mind encountering the same structure half as much if the NPCs and loot contained within were in different configurations every time! It would make approaching one of these structures feel a bit more tense, too – you wouldn’t know whether you were about to encounter friendly NPCs, hostile enemies, alien monsters, or something else.

Taking the “abandoned research tower” as an example (because I played through several of those!) Here are some variant ideas: one variant could be the same as it is now, with hostile pirate NPCs having made the tower into their base. A second variant could contain scientists and researchers, perhaps even with a quest-giver to provide radiant quests or missions on the planet. A third could also have scientists, but be guarded by soldiers belonging to one faction or another, with players who haven’t gained enough ranks in that faction being turned away… or having to sneak in! A fourth variant could be totally empty, but with audio logs and notes suggesting something bad happened. A fifth could be filled with terrormorphs or other hostile monsters. And so on. How much more interesting would it be to approach an “abandoned research tower” if you didn’t know which variant you were going to get?

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing an NPC using a welder. — A non-hostile NPC at a random location.

There could also be unique once-per-playthrough points of interest that still appear at random but are never repeated. These could be variants of common structures or complete one-offs – ideally a mix of both. Some might spawn randomly on a certain planet or only in a certain biome, and others could be 100% random, with exclusive loot or quests to participate in. Clues could be left behind in the world to guide players to their locations.

In any case, one of the biggest things holding Starfield back is the incredibly repetitive dungeons/points of interest. I don’t think they can be entirely scrubbed from the game due to the way it’s made, but even just adding new and different variants of the current points of interest would be a start. Creating brand-new ones to add to the game ought to be a priority, too.

Number Three:
Changes to the Ship-Builder.
(Part One)

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the ship-builder. — *Starfield’*s ship-building system.

Starfield’s ship-builder is one of the game’s best features… but it’s imperfect, finicky, and in serious need of some quality-of-life improvements. Firstly, it’s a pain in the arse to have to trek from one vendor to another to be able to design my ship exactly how I’d like it! Enabling players to access all ship parts at all vendors – or to unlock different constructors’ parts and use them from that point on – would massively improve the ship-building experience.

Being able to unlock different parts or groups of parts and then use them at all ship-building stations would be a massive improvement, one that this otherwise decent system desperately needs. The easiest way, I think, would be for each manufacturer to grant players a “license” (or other in-game jargon) for their pieces, permanently unlocking them. This would mean that players would still have to work to unlock all the different parts; they wouldn’t just be there by default. But it would also mean that there’d be no need to keep travelling between star stations and planets to add one component that’s only available in one location.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing an NPC in dialogue. — It’s a pain to have to continually travel between locations to access all of the different spaceship components.

Secondly, I’d want to see Starfield combine its interior decorating – which is currently only present in the outpost builder – with ship-building. This could be optional, meaning that players who aren’t interested wouldn’t have to participate. But one area of the ship-builder that I felt really let down the whole system was the lack of interior customisation.

It’s possible for players to drop items aboard their ship and have them remain where they fall – something that was epitomised by “sandwich lady” in the Starfield Direct marketing broadcast. But this is a Bethesda game hallmark that’s been present since Morrowind… and it hasn’t been improved in any way for almost a quarter of a century. Not only that, but any modification to a ship – even if those modifications don’t change the interior or layout in any way – would lead to all items being removed and dumped in the ship’s inventory. So even that very, very basic amount of interior customisation comes with a massive downside!

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player placing an item aboard their ship. — It’s possible to drop and clumsily reposition items on your ship – like this wooden duck.

At the very least, I’d like to be able to choose colours for the walls, floors, and doors, as well as choose where doors and hatches in between modules will appear. At present, there are only pre-set colours and doors appear at random; this should be easily added with a modicum of effort!

If I dared to dream, I’d like to see furniture options for each module, posters and wall art to decorate the ship, and everything from rugs to kitchen appliances, all with different designs and colour variants to choose from. One of the disappointing things for me was that, despite making my ship look the way I wanted from the outside, it never really felt like “mine” when I was exploring the inside. There was a half-eaten sandwich on a table that my character didn’t bite. There were math equations on a whiteboard in my captain’s cabin that I didn’t write. And I would have never chosen such a ghastly colour scheme!

Number Four:
Changes to the Ship-Builder.
(Part Two)

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing an NPC. — The ship services technician on Akila.

Sticking with Starfield’s ship-builder, there are a few more places where I think improvements could be made. Firstly, having to manually “assign” weapons is finicky and annoying, and there has got to be a better way to do this. Ideally, weapons would be automatically assigned as soon as they’re added to a ship, with the same slot always being used for the same weapon type. Heck, there are only four types of shipboard weapons in the game – so ensuring that each one is always assigned the same button shouldn’t be that difficult!

Secondly, adding the option to rotate ship pieces would be nice. Maybe not every single piece would need to be rotatable – engines, for instance, as well as cockpits might be tricky. But some layouts might work better a different way around, and being able to have some hab modules running “sideways” could open up a lot more combinations. There are also visual and aesthetic reasons for wanting to be able to rotate certain ship pieces – and this must surely be achievable without ruining the ship-builder!

It would also be great if there was some way to preview how different ship pieces look on the inside without having to buy them. The in-game descriptions of the likes of the brig and armoury are pretty barebones, and it’s only after purchasing an expensive hab and installing it that players actually get to see what it looks like. If the look isn’t right, if it doesn’t match the rest of the ship, or if it doesn’t do what players had been expecting… it can end up being a waste of time and credits.

This could be combined with the interior decorating and doorway positioning additions that I suggested above. The preview window could show different colour variants, for instance, and also allow players to choose where to place hatches, doorways, and even ladders.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing a module in the ship-builder. — Adding a new module in the ship-builder.

Finally, if players have a particular ship component on another vessel in their fleet, it should be possible – somehow – to swap parts between ships. Even if removing a part from one ship to add it to another made the first ship un-spaceworthy, if that wasn’t the player’s currently-assigned ship, then it should be okay. It seems silly to allow players to amass a fleet of ships that could have perfectly usable components, but be unable to swap them between different vessels in the fleet. Having to buy the same part more than once – especially if other ships are unused and just sitting there – feels like something that could be avoided.

The ship-builder is definitely one of the better game modes that Starfield introduced, building on the likes of Fallout 4′s settlement system. But there are ways in which it could be improved, allowing players to really make their ship into the flying home of their dreams!

Number Five:
Alternate Starting Points for Different Character Backgrounds.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing an NPC in the game's prologue. — Every character starts here – regardless of how they’re set up.

It never made a lot of sense to me that a xenobiologist, a professor, or a diplomat would have ended up working in a mine. Sure, an ex-soldier or a criminal on the run might’ve taken a gig like that… but some of Starfield’s backgrounds just don’t gel with the game’s opening act. Rather than changing the entire opening (starting from a prison cell would’ve worked better, IMHO) perhaps Bethesda could add just a couple of alternate starts to account for some of these different backgrounds.

Look at what Cyberpunk 2077 did with its life paths as an example. There are three different starts in that game, each of which sees V living a different life in a different place. They all come together to kick-start the main storyline, but the journey to that point is pretty different. Even though the life paths don’t matter once the game gets going (there’s one mission apiece midway through, but they were pretty basic and uninteresting), the way the game begins offers players a different role-playing experience.

Screenshot of Cyberpunk 2077 (2020) showing the three "life paths" available to players. — *Starfield* could offer alternate starts that work similarly to *Cyberpunk 2077′*s life paths.

Each Starfield starting point could still see players grabbing an artefact on the mining planet of Vectera if that’s important to Bethesda, but how players get to that point could change depending on which start was chosen. For example, players who wanted to imagine their character as a spacefarer could begin in space, landing on the planet to transport the unearthed artefact to New Atlantis. Or players could begin working in the mine’s laboratory, studying the artefact.

I’d also like to see at least one starting point that didn’t force players down the Constellation/main quest route immediately. Players could choose not to engage with the artefact, for instance, or could choose not to accept Barrett’s offer. After the pirate attack on Vectera, players could commandeer the pirate ship instead of being given the Frontier. These are just a few ideas off the top of my head!

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the character creation menu. — Many of the available backgrounds don’t line up with working in a mine at the beginning of the game.

I don’t think Bethesda would need to go overboard here. There could be two or three mining-adjacent roles that could see players on Vectera in just the right place at just the right time to pick up the artefact. But these could be different enough from one another to take into account the different player backgrounds on offer in Starfield, which is something that I think would make a lot more sense.

If nothing else, adding a couple of alternate starting points would add to the game’s replayability, as it has for Cyberpunk 2077. There are ways to implement something like this without radically changing the game’s main story or even its opening act, and when it comes to the role-playing side of things – the side that makes me want to lose myself in a character and their fictional world – it would be a huge improvement.

Number Six:
Make In-Game Careers Viable.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player at a mission board. — I was unimpressed with *Starfield’*s mission boards.

One of the things I love to do in a big open-world game is to step away from the main story and get lost in the world. In order to do that, my character needs to be more than just a generic adventurer… so in-game career options need to exist. And no, I don’t mean getting a job with one of the factions that quickly sees the player character climb the ladder to become its leader! I mean jobs that are off to one side, not really connected to any of the main questlines.

For example, it could be possible to be an explorer: charting unexplored and unvisited planets. Players could send probes to the surface, like in Mass Effect 2, to scout landing sites, then disembark and either map the area or collect different resources. These planetary surveys – which would actually require work to complete – could then be returned to Constellation for a profit… or sold to one of the game’s other factions. As players acquire a reputation for exploration, new quests could even arise, with factions offering players bigger rewards to survey planets further and further afield.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the mission board. — The mission board in New Atlantis.

Being a long hauler – one of the actual in-game backgrounds – could also be a career option. Using the mission boards, players could collect cargo from one planet and take it to another, either under contract or just to buy and sell. Different planets or settlements could have different resources or items that they’re asking for, and this could change week-to-week.

These missions would need to be much more interactive than they are currently, with players having to manually load and unload cargo, perhaps, or travelling to meet up with different NPCs inside settlements instead of just having a mission marked as “complete” as soon as the ship touches down! But there’s potential in this system to expand it and make it into a bona fide “space trucking simulator.”

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player character mining a resource. — Mining a resource.

Finally, for a game that kicked off deep inside a mine… there’s basically no reason to do any actual mining in Starfield. Resources are so worthless and sparsely spread out that I found there was absolutely no point in mining them when exploring a planet. If I desperately wanted to complete a research project or something, it was easier and quicker to loot a spacer base, sell the items for credits, and buy whatever resource I was missing.

But all of that could change! Making resources more abundant and accessible on different planets could make mining a viable in-game career. Tweaking the value of these resources could also make it much more worthwhile, and it could be strangely relaxing to spend an hour or two mining mercury or lithium to haul back to New Atlantis and sell it. I’m not alone in enjoying those kinds of slower-paced, “cosy” experiences… and it’s actually something I was hoping to get out of Starfield. As things stand, it’s way too unbalanced and grindy, but I can see the potential for a fun time hiding just under the surface!

Number Seven:
An Alternate Ending/Reframe the Starborn.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing an NPC wearing a spacesuit. — One of the Starborn early in the game.

I hesitate to call this an “alternate” ending… because one of Starfield’s big narrative problems is that many of the fundamental questions present in its main story didn’t get any kind of conclusion in the first place. But that’s beside the point! What I’d like to see, as players reach the final act of the main quest, is the option to reject the Unity and to really push back against the whole concept of becoming Starborn. Not simply choosing not to go through the Unity, but actively stating how evil it is and the Starborn are and rejecting the whole thing.

The game puts Starborn adversaries in the player’s way, but most of these are unexplained, nameless non-entities that don’t really feel like actual people. The only two Starborn characters that players can engage with, the Hunter and the Emissary, have both been “reborn” hundreds or thousands of times over in many different universes – and the game actively pushes players to do the same thing. In fact, it’s the only way to fully complete the main quest.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing a mission prompt. — Completing the main quest requires players to travel to a new universe.

But there are huge implications to abandoning one’s entire universe and everyone in it, and Starfield doesn’t do much more than pay lip service to this. It’s possible, for instance, for players to have a romantic partner or even get married – but their spouse doesn’t travel to a new universe with them. It’s implied that, based on choices the player has made, their universe of origin will be permanently changed in some way by their becoming Starborn… but this raises some massive ethical questions. Again, Starfield does nothing with these ideas.

So here’s my proposal: introduce new dialogue during the final act of the main quest that makes clear that the player rejects the entire concept of the Unity and becoming Starborn – and not only that, but they want to kill the Hunter and the Emissary to make sure that no one else can ever become Starborn either. However many universes these two might’ve fucked up… it ends here.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the final mission in the game. — I’d like to see a “rejection” option added to the end of the main quest.

This is what I’d want to do if I found myself in that situation, confronted with a weird mirror image of myself telling me that “the Creators created everything,” and that becoming a Starborn is my destiny. No – fuck that. I’m from this universe, I want to stay in this universe, and I want to make damn sure that these Starborn clowns won’t be able to harm or kill anyone in the next universe, either. This universe-hopping quest ends here – not just for my character, but for all of the Starborn.

The Starborn and the Unity are the game’s real villains – at least until we get a proper explanation for the artefacts, their purpose, and where they came from. And I would want to see that reality reflected in the game’s final act, with players able to choose to reject the very idea of the Unity and the Starborn and ensuring they can’t go on harming people across countless parallel realities.

Number Eight:
Quests with Multiple Pathways to Completion.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing a combat encounter. — Battling a Spacer Captain at the climax of a quest.

One very disappointing thing about Starfield is how damn linear so many of its quests are. Most quests only have one route from beginning to end, and playing the game can feel like you’re riding a bike with training wheels half of the time. It ought to be possible to complete at least some quests in different ways, utilising different combinations of combat, tech, stealth, and even piloting skills depending on how players have set up their characters and which skills they’ve chosen to invest in.

Perhaps Starfield was harmed by comparisons with Baldur’s Gate 3, which was released just a month earlier. Actually, scratch that. Starfield was undeniably harmed by those comparisons! Baldur’s Gate 3 opens up practically all of its quests and characters, giving players a huge amount of freedom to decide how they want to tackle the game – leading to some incredibly fun gameplay moments. It’s possible for practically everyone in the game to die – something Starfield doesn’t allow with its “unkillable” NPCs – and for many quests to be tackled in radically different ways.

Promo artwork of Baldur's Gate 3 (2023). — *Baldur’s Gate 3* is overflowing with player choice and different ways to complete quests.

Where I got frustrated with Starfield was when the game presented the illusion of choice. At one now-infamous mission on Neon, players are teamed up with Walter to acquire another artefact. Walter states multiple times that there will be different ways to approach this interaction – but that turns out to be a lie. The game forces players down one path, and one path only.

Just taking this one mission as an example, it should be possible to abandon Walter and acquire the artefact alone, either by stealthily stealing it, killing the person carrying it, or causing panic at the nightclub and seizing it in the chaos. Then, after the player’s ship is impounded, there should be multiple options for escaping Neon. Players could sneak to the landing pad, knock out the guards, and disable the lockdown, or even rush over to another landing bay and steal a different ship. Just within this one mission there are so many ways things could go – but Bethesda has insisted that players must be locked onto one very specific route.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing dialogue options in a main story mission. — There should’ve been multiple approaches to this mission on Neon.

And there are many missions like this – both in main questlines and just out in the world. One side-story that I encountered involved a group of families on different planets and moons who found themselves in conflict with a gang of spacers. But there was only one way to complete every step of this mission – getting their communications back up and running, solving a conflict within the group, and then boarding the spacers’ station and killing them all. There should be so many different options in a mission like this – such as siding with the spacers for a reward, picking one family over the other when they argue, sneaking aboard the spacers’ station and opening all of the airlocks, or building a missile launcher on one of the moons and blowing it up from 10,000km away. Those are just a handful of ideas off the top of my head.

It’s obviously true that not every mission can have 100 different outcomes and routes to completion. But there should be some degree of choice in a role-playing game, for goodness’ sake! Even if all Bethesda can do at this point is make it so that some unkillable NPCs can now die and add one new alternate path for a handful of main story missions… that would still be a noticeable improvement.

Number Nine:
More Cosmetic Items and Apparel.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player and an NPC wearing the same outfit. — It doesn’t take long to find NPCs wearing the same outfit as you!

I was quite disappointed with Starfield’s lack of cosmetic items – clothing in particular. For some reason, clothing only comes by way of whole outfits, with no option to mix and match different tops, trousers, or shoes – and there are almost no skirts, shorts, or different kinds of headgear beyond basic baseball caps and the occasional cowboy hat. Even Starfield’s omnipresent spacesuits are cosmetically limited, with the few available options having no colour variants.

It seems a given that Bethesda and Microsoft plan to add skins as paid-for microtransactions at a future point. You can even see in the game just where these skins will appear when they’re ready to be rolled out. But in my opinion, cosmetic microtransactions have no place in a wholly single-player game, and Bethesda should’ve added a lot more cosmetic variety to Starfield for free from day one.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing apparel at a vendor. — Clothes shopping in *Starfield* isn’t much fun.

As far back as Morrowind it was possible to play dress-up by choosing different trousers, tops, shoes, and even individual pieces of armour. This would already make Starfield’s whole-body costumes feel like a backwards step even if there weren’t so few of them… but a combination of a lack of different costumes combined with the inability to select individual pieces of clothing comes together to make for an apparel system that’s underwhelming in the extreme.

For me, one part of the role-playing experience is getting my character to look exactly the way I want them to, and when Starfield offers such a limited range of costumes, that’s impossible. Most outfits in Starfield fall into one of two categories: generic “futuristic” sci-fi or western/cowboy. There’s very little diversity, no way to reflect different cultures and backgrounds… and for a game that makes a selling-point of its photo mode, there’s very little worth photographing from the available outfits.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the player character in photo mode. — Wearing a cowboy hat in Akila City.

Things like fashion sense and personal style are, of course, incredibly subjective – so you might enjoy the outfits and spacesuits that Starfield has to offer. That’s great – but even if you like some or all of the costumes available, adding new ones into the mix, as well as expanding the existing lineup with new colour variants and designs, can only be a good thing! I’d love to see Starfield add a lot more costumes and outfits, as well as skins and colour variants – all for free. There shouldn’t be paid skins in a game of this type.

And while we’re at it, let’s create some wholly unique cosmetic items that can only be found once per playthrough. One of the fun things about past Bethesda games used to be exploring dungeons and following questlines and being rewarded with something shiny and new! The only outfit in Starfield that comes close to falling into that category is the Starborn spacesuit… and I wasn’t especially wild about the way it looks.

Number Ten:
Actual Spaceflight/Piloting.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing a custom spaceship. — There’s not much of an opportunity to be a pilot…

Starfield is a game set in space. It encourages players to build and customise their own spacecraft. Ship-to-ship combat takes place in real-time in space. But there’s absolutely no spaceflight in this game. Let me explain what I mean by that: players can’t get in their ship and manually fly it from one location to another. The only option is a modified form of fast-travel that generates a small bubble of space around the player’s ship. As some folks have demonstrated, there are no “real” planets or objects within that bubble; they’re just jpegs floating in the background.

Of all the points I’ve raised today, this could be the hardest to fix. Starfield is built from the ground up around fast-travelling between locations, and the way in which pockets of space are generated in orbit of planets or near starstations would need to be expanded and changed in a significant way in order to make real spaceflight work. Ships, too, would need to change – with better and faster engines being options for players who long for that space-sim experience.

So there are real logistical issues in the way of adding bona fide spaceflight to Starfield. But I think it’s worth trying, at least – because if the only option is to fast-travel between locations, much of what appeals about taking to the stars is lost. Locations don’t feel far away from one another if players can teleport there in a few seconds, meaning much of the scale of Starfield’s galaxy – something that already feels diminished in light of its tiny cities, repetitive NPCs, and copy-and-pasted points of interest – is lost.

In past Bethesda titles, the journey from place to place was a significant part of the gameplay in and of itself. Walking from Seyda Neen to Balmora in Morrowind could lead to random combat encounters, side-quests, and interactions with NPCs. In Fallout 3, travelling from Megaton to the radio tower likewise saw the player presented with new opportunities to get lost in the game’s world and have fun. Heck, the recent Fallout TV series even referenced how exploring the wasteland often leads to getting side-tracked!

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing a custom spaceship taking off. — Part of the fun of past Bethesda games was journeying from place to place and stumbling upon new adventures along the way.

In short, the lack of spaceflight means there are fewer opportunities for players to take their time and explore Starfield’s galaxy in their own way at their own pace. When not on the surface of a planet – or approached by a random ship in orbit – there’s basically no way for players to get side-tracked by being offered a totally different quest or mission in a way that feels natural.

Starfield having functionally no spaceflight doesn’t just harm the game from a space-sim or space game perspective, it also denies players one of the fundamental building blocks of a Bethesda open-world game, too. I don’t know how it could realistically be implemented at this stage – and flying in between star systems would probably have to remain as fast-travel only. But making an effort to get proper spaceflight up and running would be worth it as it would be a huge improvement to Starfield’s immersion and gameplay.

So that’s it!

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing an NPC on a medical bed. — Does *Starfield* need to be rushed to the medical bay?

We’ve considered ten ways that Starfield could be improved – in my humble opinion, of course.

Although I spent close to a decade working in the games industry, I’m not a developer. I don’t know whether some or all of these ideas might’ve once been considered for Starfield, but were ultimately cut because they proved to be unpopular, impractical, or unworkable. The game’s very existence is, in some respects, a technological achievement; that Bethesda managed to build something this complex using the zombified remains of a game engine that’s more than twenty-five years old should count for something, right?

But I’m not alone in finding Starfield to be an underwhelming experience to play, and the fact that it didn’t win any big awards and seems to have dropped out of our collective cultural conversation after just a few months is testament to that. Starfield was being regularly beaten by Skyrim and Fallout 4 in terms of active players even before the Fallout TV show brought renewed attention to that franchise… and unless Microsoft and Bethesda take bold action in the months and years ahead, Starfield may very well end up being forgotten.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing a custom spaceship on a landing pad. — A custom spaceship on the landing pad at New Atlantis.

I’ve said before that I believe the only way to save Starfield is if its first major expansion is at least as big and impressive as Cyberpunk 2077′s Phantom Liberty DLC was last year. Tinkering around the edges won’t cut it, and if Bethesda can’t find a way to build a significant improvement to Starfield – not just a narrative addition or the inclusion of a new questline – then I think the game’s longer-term prospects will remain bleak.

I’ve had my say, and I’ve made my suggestions! Maybe not all of them would work, and maybe some of them are impossible due to the technical limitations of Bethesda’s game engine or the less-powerful Xbox Series S console. But Starfield would be a damn sight better if they were included… and really, some of these things should have been present at launch.

Could Starfield get its redemption arc one day? Never say never…

Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S & X consoles. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks, Xbox Game Studios, and/or Microsoft. Some promo images and screenshots used above courtesy of Bethesda. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Video Game Spotlight: Midtown Madness

Tue 30.04.24Fri 10.05.24Dennis

Twenty-five years ago today – that’s literally a quarter of a century – a brand-new racing game arrived on Windows 98 and Windows 95 PCs. Midtown Madness was an absolute blast and quickly became one of my most-played games of the year. With the millennium fast approaching, nothing was more fun than tearing up the streets of Chicago, getting into scrapes with the police, and taking part in some wild and dangerous races against the AI!

Midtown Madness celebrating its 25th anniversary makes me feel so incredibly old… but I’m glad to have the opportunity to talk about one of my favourite racing games of that era. Midtown Madness did something that I hadn’t really seen before in a video game – it opened up its entire city and let me drive wherever I wanted, however I wanted… even if that meant off-roading across grassy parks, scaring pedestrians on the pavement, or jumping over an open drawbridge! Two-and-a-half years before Grand Theft Auto III would take that series’ titular mayhem to an open-world environment, Midtown Madness was doing something remarkably similar.

Screenshot from Midtown Madness (1999) showing the game's title screen. — The game’s main menu – with a funky custom mouse cursor!

Although it didn’t feel that way at the time, when I look back at Midtown Madness with a quarter of a century of hindsight, it feels like a gaming landmark; an important title that did the “open world chaos” thing in its own way before some of the better-known titles in that space. In 1999 it felt incredibly new and innovative; a game that seemed to take the chaos of the likes of Grand Theft Auto but made it fully 3D. Looking back, it feels like a half-step between 2D games, racing games, and the kind of fully open-world titles that were right around the corner.

I’d also place Shenmue in that same category: the “almost-open-world” games that were the progenitors of the format. Released the same year as Midtown Madness, but in a completely different genre, Shenmue was also an early pioneer of many of the features that open-world games continue to take advantage of to this day. 1999, it seems, was one of the most important years in the development of open-world titles!

Screenshot of Midtown Madness (1999) showing a City Bus on a street by a river. — Driving a City Bus through the streets of Chicago!

I don’t have the receipt, unfortunately, but I think I must’ve picked up Midtown Madness within a week or two of its launch. I remember playing it that summer and into the autumn; it was one of the only up-to-date PC games that I owned at the time. I’d seen a preview of it in one of the gaming magazines that were prominent on newsagents shelves in those days, and it just looked like such chaotic fun that I could hardly wait to get my hands on it! I didn’t have a PC racing wheel or any fancy equipment – and as you’ll know if you’ve ever tried it, playing a racing game with a mouse and keyboard is painful! But that didn’t stop me, and I must’ve logged dozens upon dozens of hours in Midtown Madness… in between studying and working my part-time job, of course!

Taking on races was the only way to unlock half of the vehicles in the game – the other half were available right from the start. So I definitely took part in as many races as I needed to in order to unlock the likes of the city bus and the GTR-1 racecar! But where I had the most fun with Midtown Madness was driving around the city in free-roam mode – both as chaotically and as calmly as possible! The game’s rendering of downtown Chicago – while undeniably dated by today’s standards – felt like a technological marvel in 1999, and I loved every minute of exploring the city.

Screenshot of Midtown Madness (1999) showing a first-person perspective. — Driving around Chicago in *Midtown Madness* was a blast!

This wasn’t my first encounter with the Windy City. I’d been a huge fan of the medical drama ER in the second half of the ’90s, following every episode and every season as they were broadcast here in the UK. I think by mid-1999 we were on Season 3 or 4 of the show, which at that point still featured George Clooney and Julianna Margulies in starring roles! But because I felt a familiarity with Chicago – from its Lake Michigan waterfront to its “L” trains that ran on elevated tracks above the streets – I felt even more drawn to this digital recreation of the city. In fact, it was one of the first digital recreations of a real-world city that I can remember spending much time with.

Going into the millennium, I’d have had Midtown Madness’ in-game map pretty much committed to memory! I could find my way from one side of the map to the other, stopping to see the sights along the way – and the game recreated some of Chicago’s most famous landmarks. I’ve already mentioned the “L” – Chicago’s elevated metro system. But there was also the Sears Tower skyscraper, Navy Pier on the Lake Michigan shorefront, the planetarium, the Wrigley Field baseball stadium, and even the airport! All of these were a ton of fun to race through and explore.

Screenshot of Midtown Madness (1999) showing Wrigley Field. — Wrigley Field as it appears in the game.

Although the game came with options for tuning the physics engine and car performance, I didn’t spend too much time tinkering. The default settings seemed to work well enough, and I was always reluctant to mess about with them too much! Midtown Madness performed very well on the PC that I had at the time, with none of the bugs and glitches that seem to plague games today. Perhaps I’m looking back with rose-tinted glasses when I say that… but I genuinely cannot remember any bugs or performance issues that got in the way of the fun.

Obviously when you compare Midtown Madness with a racing game from the 2020s, like Forza Horizon 5, or open-world car games like Grand Theft Auto V, it feels incredibly dated. Graphics that felt great at the time look blocky in 2024, with far too few polygons, and the game has the overall look of a title from the late ’90s. The turn of the millennium would see advancements in graphics that would make Midtown Madness 3 – released less than four years later – look an awful lot better.

Screenshot of Midtown Madness (1999) showing the vehicle selection screen. — Choosing a car to race with!

And in terms of the game’s world, the relatively low numbers of vehicles on the road and pedestrians on the pavements doesn’t feel right for a massive metropolis like Chicago. There’s also a lack of diversity – there are only a handful of vehicle types and pedestrian models, and you’ll pretty quickly see all of them if you spend much time with Midtown Madness.

But those were the restrictions that game developers had to work with in 1999, and obviously an open-world city like Cyberpunk 2077 or a racing title like Gran Turismo 7 is going to surpass Midtown Madness in every way a quarter of a century later. That’s not what makes it such a special title – and no one is really asking it to go toe-to-toe with modern racing and open-world titles.

Promo image for Forza Motorsport (2023). — Ideas and gameplay mechanics that *Midtown Madness* pioneered are still in use in modern open-world and racing games today.

Instead, we have to view Midtown Madness – and, by extension, video games in general – as a stepping-stone. The premise or DNA of later titles like Test Drive Unlimited, Project Gotham Racing, or the Forza Horizon series is present in Midtown Madness, and the game was among the first to demonstrate open-world and free-roaming elements in a racing game, as well as the merits of letting players cause chaos and create their own fun. Those gameplay ideas have become commonplace in the years since Midtown Madness was released – and now extend far beyond the racing genre.

For me, Midtown Madness is an incredibly nostalgic title. I’d love to be able to play it again – but getting it to work on a modern PC, even with a virtual desktop running Windows 98, is a pain. The game can be easily found online in its complete form, but it would be fantastic if Microsoft could work with a company that specialises in porting retro games to modern systems and give it a proper re-release. After 25 years, I think Midtown Madness deserves better than to be left behind! Many other retro titles have been brought back over the past few years, so there’s almost no reason not to do it!

Screenshot of Midtown Madness (1999) showing the player's car being crashed into. — Getting side-swiped by a police car during a race. Ah, the memories!

I had such a great time with Midtown Madness as the millennium approached. It was one of the games I encountered in the late ’90s that seemed to be pushing boundaries and trying something different – and something genuinely engaging and fun. It felt like a step up from basically any other racing game I’d played up until that point, and one that definitely captured and held my attention.

As we mark the milestone 25th anniversary of Midtown Madness, I look around at open-world titles and racing games and still see a number of features that I first encountered in this landmark title. It was a truly fantastic game that gave me a ton of fun and with which I made some wonderful memories.

All that remains to say is this: happy anniversary, Midtown Madness!

Midtown Madness is currently out of print, but copies may be available second-hand. Midtown Madness remains the copyright of Microsoft, Angel Studios, and/or Rockstar San Diego. Some screenshots and still frames courtesy of LGR’s retrospective review and The Racing Madness Wiki. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Fallout: Season 1 Review

Thu 25.04.24Thu 25.04.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for the Fallout TV series and minor spoilers for several of the Fallout video games.

I’ve just finished my binge-watch of the Fallout television adaptation, so it’s time for a review! Having played a couple of the games, I’m no stranger to the world of Fallout – but I’m not exactly a super-fan of the franchise, either. I came to the TV show with enough background about the setting not to be a complete newbie, but with no real expectations about where things would go narratively. I generally enjoyed my time with the two Fallout games I played, but there have always been some elements of the games, both in terms of story and gameplay, that didn’t work as well for me. So I guess what I’m trying to say is that I didn’t have sky-high expectations for Fallout, but I was cautiously optimistic.

Any series backed up by Amazon should be afforded a decent budget, and that was another reason to approach Fallout with some degree of anticipation. The show’s writing team had also been working with Bethesda Game Studios – developers of the more recent Fallout titles – and again that seemed like something positive as this unique setting was adapted for a brand-new medium.

Cropped promo poster for Fallout (2024). — The main characters on a promo poster.

I came away from Fallout feeling moderately impressed – but by no means blown away. There were some interesting mysteries and truly surprising twists in the story… and some story beats that were either too rapid or that didn’t seem to make a lot of sense. There were some great characters… and one so cringeworthy that I literally fast-forwarded through several of their scenes. There were some great visual effects… and some that weren’t quite as high-quality as I’d have expected from a flagship streaming series of this type.

For every genuine success Fallout found with the pacing of one of its storylines, the development of one of its characters, or the way in which its world was constructed and brought to screen, there was another of these elements that didn’t hit the mark. The overall result was a series that I enjoyed parts of… then ended up rolling my eyes when something didn’t work as well as it should’ve. There were several places where I felt an extra scene or two wouldn’t have gone amiss – so maybe going for nine or ten episodes instead of a curtailed eight-episode season might’ve been better. I also think it was a mistake to dump the entire season at once instead of releasing episodes week-by-week as Amazon Prime Video usually does.

Graphic from the Fallout (2024) trailer showing the season's release date. — Why did Amazon and Bethesda feel the need to release the entire series at once?

Fallout, for me, was a show that needed room to breathe. I needed to let the events of each episode settle before racing ahead to the next – and with social media awash with spoilers within literally hours of the show’s arrival on Amazon Prime Video, I felt a strange kind of pressure to binge more episodes than I wanted to. The decision to drop the entire season in one hit is an odd one, because it’s not something that Amazon usually does with its original programming. I’d love to know why Amazon and Bethesda chose to do it this way – as not only does it harm the individual episodes by smooshing them all together, but it also means that Fallout’s moment of relevance is a heck of a lot shorter than it could’ve been. If Fallout released its episodes weekly, the show would’ve been part of our collective cultural conversation for a couple of months. As it is, Fallout was already beginning to disappear just days after its premiere.

One day we’ll have to talk in more depth about binge-watch culture and the pros and cons of releasing brand-new television shows this way. But for now, I think I’ve made my point about how Fallout was harmed by this strange and unexpected decision.

Behind-the-scenes photo from Fallout (2024). — Director Jonathan Nolan and producer/showrunner Geneva Robertson-Dworet during production on *Fallout*.
*Image Credit: IMDB/Amazon Prime*

When adapting a video game for a new medium, one of the big challenges that writers and designers face is how to include some of the game’s interactive elements. In the case of Fallout, we have things like the Pip-Boy device, which is worn on the wrist and serves as an in-game menu for inventory management, navigating the game world, and so on. Fallout went out of its way to include the Pip-Boy in a way that made sense, and I think fans of the games will have appreciated things like seeing Lucy place a map marker, or her Pip-Boy warning her of radioactivity.

But in a series that often had no time to waste, as its main storylines needed attention, in retrospect I’d say there were probably a few too many of these moments. A nod and wink to fans is great – but when more important story beats were cut short, or when characters seemed to switch from one state of mind to another too quickly, I’d either be looking for ways to extend the series… or for less-important things to cut out. Once the Pip-Boy had been established and its basic abilities made known, there really wasn’t a lot of need to keep going back to it.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing Lucy's Pip-Boy. — Lucy’s Pip-Boy.

One thing that has been alluded to many times in the Fallout video games, but never directly shown, was the state of the world prior to the nuclear war. The television adaptation picked up on some of these story threads, and it was genuinely interesting to see more of the pre-war world than we’ve ever seen before. Aside from the opening moments of Fallout 4, which was little more than a character creation menu and basic tutorial, this was the most time we’ve ever been able to spend in Fallout’s ’50s-inspired world. And it was genuinely interesting.

Seeing this world through the eyes of Cooper Howard – later known as “the Ghoul” – went a long way to humanising Fallout’s villain-come-antihero, which was important for his characterisation particularly as we got toward the end of this season’s story. But more than that, it was fascinating to see little glimpses of the world that was destroyed and forever changed by the bombs. Obviously we only got to see one side of that – the upper-class, well-off side. But even that was more than we’d ever really seen before, and it went some way to informing Fallout’s attempted critique of capitalism and mega-corporations.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the character of Cooper Howard reading a newspaper. — We got a good look at *Fallout’*s pre-war world through the eyes of Cooper Howard.

For my money, the way Vault-Tec and the other companies behaved in Fallout was pretty shallow and stupid, and it was the weakest aspect of this pre-war storyline. Vault-Tec went from “company with a unique and potentially life-saving product” to “evil masterminds of the end of the world” in a heartbeat… and I’m still not really sold on the reasoning. This issue isn’t really the fault of the television adaptation, though; Vault-Tec’s presentation is similar in the video games that I’m aware of.

But it does somewhat undermine this anti-corporatist message when, in order to make the corporations into villains, they have to behave so irrationally. Think about it: Vault-Tec is worried because a peace conference could de-escalate the nuclear standoff that America is in, and because the development of fusion power could prevent future conflicts over resources. The company has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, needing to maximise their investments and earning potential. And its solution is to… turn over control of some of its vaults to other mega-corporations, letting them run wildly unethical experiments on the people inside, and to literally cause the nuclear war that will destroy, among other things, the entire global economy and kill a significant number of the shareholders and investors that it wants to satisfy. Hmm.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing Vault-Tec characters making a deal with other corporations. — A shady deal being made in a smoke-filled room is a bit of a cliché…

Look, I get it. This isn’t something we should look too hard at and nitpick, and as a foundational part of the setting that we didn’t really spend too much time looking at, it works well enough. But Fallout also built its climactic plot twists atop this foundation – that Vault-Tec sought to control the post-nuclear wasteland and rebuild society on its specifications and parameters. And this is the part that I felt didn’t stick the landing quite as well.

In the games, Vault-Tec’s experiments and underhandedness were played off as part of that pre-war setting, and the challenges facing the characters we met involved surviving the aftermath and rebuilding. There have always been parts of Fallout’s world that I felt didn’t make a ton of sense in that context; people living in shacks, for instance, or unburied bodies just lying in the dirt right next to where people had supposedly been living for decades! But at least the main storylines of the games I played involved characters and factions trying to make the best of the post-war wasteland in which they found themselves. Bringing Vault-Tec back as a major antagonist in the show’s present day… I’m not sure. I’m not convinced yet that it’s working as well as it should.

Still frame of Fallout (2024) showing the Vault-Tec HQ building. — Vault-Tec’s headquarters in Los Angeles before the war.

As a final point on Vault-Tec: I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention how a critique of mega-corporations and how unethical they are is beyond ironic coming from the likes of Amazon! One of the biggest multinationals on the planet putting out this kind of over-the-top depiction of the worst kind of shady corporatism is truly hilarious, and the irony of that wasn’t lost on me.

In typical streaming TV style, Fallout’s character groupings were modelled on the likes of Game of Thrones: different sets of characters start out in different places, but come together as the story progresses. This format can work well… but it’s also something we’ve seen before time and again over the past decade or so, and doesn’t feel as original or ground-breaking as it once did. Still, the way in which it was implemented generally worked well in Fallout, and the action being split between Vault 33, Lucy’s adventures, Maximus’ Brotherhood of Steel platoon, and Cooper/the Ghoul’s travels and pre-war history was well-balanced.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the character of Maximus. — Maximus.

The only character and setting I’d have liked to have seen more of was Dr Wilzig, the scientist who defected from the Enclave. At first, it seemed to be implied that he was defecting to save his secret pet dog, but it was later revealed that he was smuggling a cold fusion device to the remnant of the New California Republic at Shady Sands. Why he was doing any of that, and what his faction, the Enclave, was doing in the first place were all questions that were left unanswered as Fallout ended its first season – and I’m totally okay with leaving story threads behind to be picked up next time. But for such an important character, I’d have liked to have spent a bit more time with Dr Wilzig before his untimely demise.

The attack on Vault 33, which kicked off the events of the series, was also a bit ambiguous. It seems as if the residents of Vault 32 rebelled against their overseer after learning the truth of who governed them. But how, exactly, that led to all of their deaths… that wasn’t explained. Nor was it explained why, if Moldaver and her followers knew the location of Vaults 31, 32, and 33, it took them years to attack. And if they had a Pip-Boy that could access the vaults, why did they not simply stage a direct attack on Vault 33? Or why not break into Vault 31 – something that didn’t seem to be especially difficult? If they needed a Vault-Tec employee, they had a better chance of getting someone cooperative out of Vault 31 than Vault 33! It was also unclear at first to what extent the residents of Vault 33 knew about the world above; Lucy seemed to have some familiarity with “raiders” in the first episode just prior to the attack.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the character of Lucy in her wedding dress. — Lucy figured out that her “new husband” was a surface-dweller… and didn’t seem shocked to learn that human life still existed beyond the confines of the vault.

There was also a pretty big disconnect between the behaviour of the “raiders” who attacked Vault 33 and what we saw of the residents of the Observatory. The attack on Vault 33 was supposedly orchestrated by the survivors of the attack on the New California Republic/Shady Sands, but the raiders behaved like out-of-control animals whereas the rest of the people at the Observatory seemed much more civilised. This feels like a “because plot” type of explanation, and that’s never very satisfying.

I keep having to remind myself that this is only the beginning. Fallout has been renewed for a second season, which means it’s quite plausible that some of the unexplained or poorly-explained moments will be fleshed out more in future episodes. I certainly hope that will be the case!

Still frame of Fallout (2024) showing Lucy arriving at the Observatory. — Lucy arrives at the Observatory.

Lucy made for a pretty good point-of-view character, introducing us to both the philosophy of life in a vault as well as to the challenges of surviving in the wasteland. The contrast between her idyllic vault life and the chaos and pain of the irradiated world above was stark, but in both cases, seeing things through her eyes elevated them. Ella Purnell, who had previously voiced the character of Gwyn in Star Trek: Prodigy, brought a lot to the role, and her performance is to be commended.

While we’re talking about great acting performances, Moisés Arias, who played Lucy’s brother Norm, was fantastic. A truly stellar performance as the younger, more easily-frightened brother really elevated the story taking place in the vault, and I was really impressed with the way Arias brought the character to life. Norm seems to be someone that the residents of Vault 31 underestimated, and the way in which he slowly came to investigate the truth behind the vaults was riveting stuff.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the character of Norm. — Norm, Lucy’s younger brother.

Maximus was, unfortunately, a character who was given several incredibly cringeworthy moments, especially in the first couple of episodes. As I indicated at the beginning, I actually fast-forwarded through several of Maximus’ scenes as a result; the kind of cringe humour usually seen on sitcoms like Friends has never been my cup of tea, and I was not interested in the slightest in sitting through it here. Aside from those scenes, though – which thankfully evaporated as the story progressed – I felt that Maximus was an interesting character and a good foil for Lucy.

Although Maximus seemed to be acting as Lucy’s guide to the wasteland, he was himself somewhat of a fish-out-of-water. Having spent presumably years living as a Brotherhood of Steel apprentice, Maximus could feel just as out-of-place in strange settlements and parts of the wasteland as Lucy – and of course, when he encountered the residents of Vault 4, we got that dialled up to eleven. There were some cute moments as Maximus came to enjoy the treats that vault life had to offer!

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the character of Maximus and a table of treats. — Maximus in Vault 4.

Speaking of Vault 4: this was another place where I felt Fallout needed to spend a bit more time. Lucy and Maximus went from falling into the vault – literally – to sneaking around and being expelled within a matter of minutes, and more so than any other part of the story, this felt like an unnecessary “side-quest.” For a series with video game origins, maybe a side-quest doesn’t seem like a bad thing. But when much of it – from the characters to the experiments to what their ultimate plans might’ve been for Lucy and Maximus – felt so half-baked… it needed more screen time, in my view.

The residents of Vault 4 felt pretty one-note; seemingly there for no other reason than to be physical examples of Vault-Tec’s evil machinations. And that’s okay – some stories need characters like that, and by showing the various deformities that some of the vault-dwellers were living with, Fallout was able to quickly convey just how far beyond the pale Vault-Tec had gone with some of its experiments. But that doesn’t help any of these characters feel like well-rounded people, and the whole Vault 4 storyline seemed rushed. If the season had been longer, I think more attention could’ve been paid to at least one or two of these characters, negating that feeling.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the Vault 4 Overseer. — Most of the characters that Lucy and Maximus met in Vault 4 felt pretty flat and uninteresting.

But this was a bit of a trend with Fallout, to be honest. Several characters seemed to have incredibly rushed moments that took them from one place to another in a heartbeat. Lucy, for instance, went from “naïve and afraid vault-dweller” to “badass wasteland wanderer” in twenty seconds midway through the season – after being traded by the Ghoul and almost butchered. There’s something to be said for someone discovering their “fight or flight” instinct at a moment like that – but the way it came across was rushed and underdeveloped.

We also saw this at the season’s climax with Hank, Lucy’s father. Though absent for much of the season, finding Hank had been Lucy’s objective in the wasteland – but there was a twist to come. The twist – that Hank was a pre-war Vault-Tec employee who’d been in hibernation for 200 years – was clever enough, but almost immediately after the truth was spilled, Hank went from being the loving, caring father to stealing a suit of power armour and abandoning Lucy altogether.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing Lucy, Cooper, and a wounded Maximus as Hank escapes. — Hank’s escape.

Again, this is the kind of character shift that could work. The story wanted to say something like this: Hank was always a duplicitous, uncaring narcissist who didn’t really give a damn about his family or anyone outside of Vault-Tec. But the abruptness of the moment absolutely ruined it, and Hank’s transformation from good all-round leader to damsel in distress to hardline evil villain just ended up falling flat for me. I’m hopeful, however, that future episodes and a second look at Hank in Season 2 could salvage the character and this storyline.

Fallout didn’t have time to explain everything as it went along, and as a result there’s still a lot we don’t know. Again, I’m not demanding immediate answers to mysteries that the series plans to explore in future instalments, but there are a couple of storylines that seem to have run their course that I was surprised not to learn more about – such as Moldaver, for instance. How exactly she survived not only the two centuries since the bombs fell, but also the destruction of Shady Sands was not explained. With her apparent death it seems like we won’t get to learn much more about her or how she was able to live so long (though I wouldn’t be altogether shocked to learn, in Season 2, that she isn’t as dead as she appears to be!)

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the character of Moldaver. — Moldaver in disguise as a vault-dweller.

There was potential in some of the secondary Brotherhood of Steel characters, but we didn’t spend enough time with them to really allow any of them to shine. Dane, played by Xelia Mendes-Jones, had a genuinely interesting idea at his core: the soldier who doesn’t want to be a soldier, and tries to get out of it. But this revelation came very late in the story, after Dane had been basically absent since his first appearance, and not much was made of it. Maximus wasn’t in a position to really blame Dane for anything that happened – so this idea, while great in concept, didn’t really pan out.

Thaddeus, the bully who beat up Maximus, seemed to be getting some genuine character development at one point – but his run-in with a wasteland doctor and apparent transformation into a proto-ghoul was incredibly abrupt. There was no time to elaborate on what this could mean for Thaddeus, no time for him to confront Maximus for his betrayal, for his role in wounding him and thus putting him in that position… no time for anything as his part in the story was brushed aside so that the main characters could get to their endgames. In the cases of Dane and Thaddeus, though, there’s at least hope for more screen time in Season 2 that could flesh out these storylines a little.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the character of Thaddeus. — Will Thaddeus become a Ghoul? Will we see more of him in Season 2?

There were a couple of places where main characters seemed to receive some pretty heavy plot armour, or where Fallout seemed unwilling to commit to endangering its protagonists. Lucy lost her finger, for instance, in a pretty brutal and agonising sequence – but this was almost immediately undone by medical magic in the very next scene. Both Maximus and the Ghoul likewise seemed to survive situations that seemed to be incredibly dangerous – and the risk with saving characters from bad situations too often is that they begin to feel invulnerable. One of the reasons why folks enjoyed shows like The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones was because of how everyone felt in danger pretty much all the time; being a main character was no guarantee of safety. Fallout, for me, skirted the line this time.

The nature of Fallout’s technology has always been a bit ambiguous; the Pip-Boy is clearly an advanced device, but people are still using black-and-white film cameras, for instance. It was a bit odd, then, when the listening device Cooper received seemed to pair with his wife’s Pip-Boy prototype like a modern Bluetooth headset. Something about the ease with which that was done didn’t quite sit right.

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing Cooper pairing a listening device with his wife's Pip-Boy. — Cooper was able to use his wife’s Pip-Boy to eavesdrop.

This next point is less of an internal inconsistency and more a change from what I recall from the Fallout games. Ghouls seem to escape “going feral” by way of some kind of medication – but I don’t remember seeing this in either of the mainline games that I played. New additions that expand our understanding of a setting are great, and taking the show as a standalone work I don’t think it’s a problem at all. In fact, it makes a certain kind of sense in-universe. But it seems to not line up with the source material – and I wonder why it was introduced. Aside from causing a little tension for Cooper/the Ghoul at the midpoint of the story, it wasn’t really explained or expanded upon, and didn’t serve much of a narrative function.

At the end of the day, Fallout kept my attention well enough. I can be pretty brutal about switching off a series if I’m not enjoying it or if it isn’t holding my interest, and despite some issues, Fallout told a story that I was content to follow to its conclusion. I’m pleased to hear that the series has already been renewed for a second season, and I hope that production can re-start quickly so that it can be broadcast within twelve months or so. Waiting too long in between short seasons – especially for a show that dropped all of its episodes at once – can cause issues!

Still frame from Fallout (2024) showing the characters of Maximus and Lucy. — Maximus and Lucy at the ruins of Shady Sands.

I doubt that I’ll be calling Fallout one of the best shows of the year, but it was interesting enough for what it was. There were some great acting performances, high production values, and a connected story that was generally fun enough and worth following. As some of Fallout’s mysteries were unravelled I was genuinely surprised, and the series was kept on track by several grounded and enjoyable characters.

There were a couple of places where visual effects or physical props fell short, but nothing especially egregious leapt out to ruin my sense of immersion in Fallout’s post-nuclear world. There were moments of intrigue, action, and excitement that propelled the story forward, and if my biggest complaint is “I would’ve liked to see a couple more episodes,” because some of the fun storylines and interesting characters needed a bit more time on screen… well, that’s not the worst thing in the world, is it?

I didn’t need to pick up a new subscription for Fallout as I’m already signed up to Amazon Prime. I’m not sure it would be worth signing up for on its own merit – unless you’re a super-fan of the Fallout series or post-apocalyptic stories in general – but considering I got it as part of a subscription that I already have, I guess I can’t complain too much! Fallout was imperfect, but it was a solid start for what could be a multi-season story that should only grow and improve from here.

Fallout is available to stream now on Amazon Prime Video. Fallout is the copyright of Amazon MGM Studios and Bethesda Game Studios. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

3 Body Problem: Netflix Review

Sun 14.04.24Sun 14.04.24Dennis

The first part of this review is free from major story spoilers. The end of the spoiler-free section is clearly marked.

Right off the bat, I ought to tell you two things. First, I’ve never read The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin, nor either of its sequels. I’d seen the barest of outlines of the premise when I looked into it a couple of years ago – after hearing that Netflix had greenlit this adaptation – but I didn’t track down and read a copy. To be honest… it seemed like it might be a bit weighty and dense for my reading tastes! As a result, I’m not going to be comparing 3 Body Problem to its source material – because I’m totally unfamiliar with that source material. I know there have been some alterations, with several characters being merged and ethnicities being changed to take a Chinese story and make it multi-racial and multi-cultural, but that’s really the extent of my knowledge of the changes that Netflix made with its adaptation.

Secondly, regular readers might recall that I didn’t like the final season of Game of Thrones. Why is that relevant? Because the executive producers/showrunners of 3 Body Problem are none other than David Benioff and DB Weiss – who helmed Game of Thrones for its entire eight-season run. I think I’m right in saying that 3 Body Problem is Benioff and Weiss’ second project since Game of Thrones ended, but its the first that I’ve come across – and arguably the first big project since that series ended its run back in 2019.

Cropped promo poster for 3 Body Problem (2024). — Promo poster for *3 Body Problem*.

I’ve felt for a long time that Benioff and Weiss did exceptionally well at adapting a complicated series of novels for the small screen – so there was hope for their treatment of 3 Body Problem. Where they went off the rails, I would argue, and where their particular skillset was not as useful, was in writing their own narrative threads and picking up a half-complete story. Nobody could’ve known back in 2008, when Game of Thrones first entered pre-production, that the novels upon which it was based wouldn’t be finished in time and that the TV series would end up “overtaking” the books. But unfortunately, Benioff and Weiss were left to pick up the pieces – and came up short.

But that’s enough about Game of Thrones for now! All of this is to say that, when dealing with a complete novel trilogy, I felt that there was the potential to see Benioff and Weiss shine once more; to put their unique skills to use on an adaptation of a fully-complete story. And, based on the first season of 3 Body Problem, I think I was right about that.

Photograph of David Benioff and DB Weiss at the Emmy Awards. — *3 Body Problem* is helmed by David Benioff (left) and DB Weiss.
*Image Credit: IMDB.*

So here’s the headline: I liked 3 Body Problem. It was exceptionally well-paced with some incredible acting performances, even from stars that I wasn’t particularly keen to see included. Its narrative was gripping; truly well-written sci-fi with a complicated yet enthralling underlying premise. Characters behaved in ways that felt genuine and human, something that can sometimes get lost in stories about higher dimensions, aliens, and interstellar communication.

Visual effects weren’t perfect, and I felt there were a few moments of the dreaded “uncanny valley” creeping into 3 Body Problem. However, when the action focused on characters up close, set designs, costumes, and props all looked great, and many smaller CGI/animated moments looked solid. When compared to other flagship series in the sci-fi/thriller spaces, 3 Body Problem was probably about on par in terms of animation – and perhaps a cut above when it came to physical sets and props.

Still frame of 3 Body Problem (2024) showing a helicopter approaching a ship at sea. — Some CGI/animated moments fell into the “uncanny valley.”

3 Body Problem dipped its toes in narrative arcs that looked at religious communities and cults, conspiracy theories, alien races, cross-species communication, and much more. The core group of characters felt well-rounded, and the way in which they interacted with these often strange and confusing storylines went a long way to making the whole thing work and feel relatable. Although much of the action focused on scientists who are far more intelligent than I am, I still found myself relating to them and seeing this twisted version of our own world through their eyes. More than once I caught myself wondering how I would’ve reacted, or how I would’ve chosen to act if I were in their shoes – and to me, that’s great storytelling!

There were a few lines of dialogue that were either clunkily overladen with exposition or that made me roll my eyes, but for the most part the series did exceptionally well in that regard. Taking several complicated concepts from the realm of theoretical physics and making them understandable for the layperson is no mean feat – but I came away from every episode feeling like I understood what was going on, where the sources of tension and drama were, and how it was impacting our characters and the world around them. Obviously 3 Body Problem isn’t a physics class, and I don’t want to pat myself on the back and pretend that I somehow comprehend something that other viewers wouldn’t! But I want to draw attention to the very real successes that the series had in making its dense topics work in this fictional setting.

The only real concern I have about 3 Body Problem is this: at time of writing, it hasn’t been renewed for a second season. The first season didn’t complete the story, so it needs at least one or realistically two or three more seasons to adapt the remaining books in the series and bring everything to a satisfying conclusion. I’m sure that the production team and actors will be happy to make the rest of the story – but right now, the spectre of cancellation is hanging over the series. Netflix has a disappointing track record in this area, with a number of popular and high-profile series being cancelled after a single season. I truly hope that 3 Body Problem won’t join them in the growing Netflix graveyard.

I’ve also made the point before about long breaks in between short seasons. 3 Body Problem ran to eight episodes – which is increasingly typical for a flagship made-for-streaming series these days. With Netflix still uncommitted to a second season, it will take time to re-start production, and that could easily lead to a two-year wait for Season 2. That’s not great, in my opinion, and while I obviously want to see the series continue and finish telling the compelling story it set up, there are issues that arise when any story disappears for years at a time.

Do we need to start a campaign to ensure that Netflix renews 3 Body Problem?

So I think I’ve covered as much as I can without digging into specific story threads and character moments. I don’t put numbers out of ten or star ratings out of five on my reviews, but if you want to know whether or not I recommend 3 Body Problem, the answer is a resounding “yes.” Definitely give it a watch if you have access to Netflix, and it’s probably even worth picking up a month’s worth of Netflix to give it a watch if, like me, you’re being a bit more careful with subscriptions in the current economic climate. That’s what I did, at any rate!

What I’ll do now is talk in a bit more detail about characters and storylines – right up to the end of the season. So if you haven’t seen 3 Body Problem yet and you don’t want to have it spoiled, this is your opportunity to jump ship! But I hope you’ll come back to see what I have to say after you’re done watching all eight episodes.

A Star Wars-themed "spoiler warning" graphic.

This is the end of the spoiler-free section of this review. There will be spoilers for 3 Body Problem from this point forwards – including twists, character arcs, and the way the season ended.

There are some producers and writers who love to collaborate with the same actors over and over again. Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, John Ford and John Wayne, and JJ Abrams and Simon Pegg all come to mind as well-known partners across multiple productions. But I confess that I was a little surprised (and disappointed) to see Benioff and Weiss pick three prolific former Game of Thrones cast members to star in 3 Body Problem. Going into the series, I was especially cautious about John Bradley taking on a main role – but also worried about the potential for Liam Cunningham and Johnathan Pryce to overshadow or get in the way of the scenes they were in.

None of these three had any on-screen interaction, which I think is actually a good thing. Pryce is an actor who’s played many different roles over the years, and while his “religious nut” character in 3 Body Problem had echoes of his starring role in Game of Thrones, it wasn’t enough to overshadow it as I’d feared. Cunningham took on a very different role as the leader of the shadowy MI5/CIA-inspired organisation, and thoroughly excelled.

Still frame from 3 Body Problem (2024) showing John Bradley as the character Jack Rooney. — John Bradley in *3 Body Problem*.

John Bradley was the actor I had the most concerns about going into 3 Body Problem, and while I wouldn’t say that he was “miscast” in that role… I think there’s a degree of favouritism from the producers there. Bradley’s performance was solid enough, but Rooney was arguably the least-convincing of the main characters – meaning his relatively early demise was probably to the series’ overall benefit.

Ever since she first appeared as Keiko O’Brien in Star Trek: The Next Generation, I felt that Rosalind Chao had the ability to play a starring role. We saw a bit of that in Deep Space Nine, with episodes like In The Hands of the Prophets that gave Keiko a central role in the plot. Chao did not disappoint in 3 Body Problem, taking on the challenging role of an elder Ye Wenjie. Ye was the one who contacted the San-Ti, and who “invited” them to come to Earth, and later had to come to terms with what that might mean for herself and for humanity. The younger version of the character seemed to be steadfast and resolute in her decision, but as time passed – and especially after the San-Ti had abandoned her and her followers to their gruesome fates – Ye was left alone with the weight of what she had done.

Still frame from 3 Body Problem (2024) showing Rosalind Chao as the character Ye Wenjie. — Ye Wenjie is confronted with the reality of the San-Ti’s impending arrival.

It’s hard to imagine an actor better-placed to play that role, and Rosalind Chao excelled. The scene in which Ye Wenjie was revealed as the true leader of the San-Ti worshippers was genuinely breathtaking, and her scenes in a holding cell as she at first resisted sharing what she knew, then came to terms with the San-Ti abandoning her and her fellow cultists, was riveting. Ye’s final realisation that she had single-handedly inflicted this catastrophe on all of humankind was shattering for her – and Rosalind Chao brought every bit of that process to life in gut-wrenching fashion.

One thing that modern sci-fi does exceptionally well is emphasising just how different an alien race could be from humanity. We’re used to seeing prosthetic foreheads on aliens in Star Trek, or the human-sized, bipedal aliens present in the Star Wars galaxy, but the reality of alien life – assuming it exists out there in the cosmos somewhere – is likely going to be very different! The Expanse showed us the “protomolecule,” and that was a really clever and fun idea. And in 3 Body Problem we’re introduced to the San-Ti.

Still frame from 3 Body Problem (2024) showing the San-Ti Sophon on a television screen. — The San-Ti presented themselves as humanoid.

I would love to know what the San-Ti really look like. Are they giant space bears? Insectoid? Perhaps some kind of multi-legged amphibian? The fact that they went unseen for the entirety of 3 Body Problem – being represented only by deliberately humanoid virtual avatars – was a hugely positive thing as it keeps the mystery going! I’m not sure whether their true form gets revealed in one of the subsequent novels, but I kind of hope that they remain a mystery. Keeping only a single humanoid avatar (and human cultists) worked exceptionally well. And I think the series might lose something significant if the San-Ti’s true form were revealed too soon!

The titular “three-body problem” is something that, I have to confess, my neanderthal brain is struggling with. A planet orbiting three stars is affected by the gravity of all three – but predicting its path becomes impossible beyond a certain point. That’s my ridiculously oversimplified understanding… but here’s what I don’t get. If the planet’s position can be predicted at all, what’s to stop someone clever from making prediction atop prediction, until they’ve plotted the planet’s course over centuries or millennia? It’s something to do with “chaos theory,” isn’t it? This stuff is way above my intellectual level! But it’s to the credit of 3 Body Problem that I came away with even that basic of an understanding of such a complex topic.

Still frame from 3 Body Problem (2024) showing three suns in the sky. — I’m no physicist… but there are three suns!

Having two timelines on the go at once – a “present day” and “flashback” – seems to be in vogue in made-for-streaming TV at the moment, but it’s one element of 3 Body Problem that worked well. We started with young Ye Wenjie in the 1960s, and then jumped ahead to see the main plot of the series beginning to unfold. But there were mysteries left in the past that the story would dip back into at key moments, and these two timelines came together to tell a single, cohesive story.

There were some brutal moments in the flashback timeline, right from 3 Body Problem’s premiere episode. I’m not especially familiar with the history of China and its cultural revolution, but from what I can tell, these kinds of “struggle sessions” were commonplace during the Mao regime. Seeing one unfold in such brutal fashion was pretty hard-hitting, and while the series didn’t spend a lot of time on this, the themes of authoritarianism and later environmentalism as driving forces motivating Ye, Evans, and other characters were an important part of the way the story was constructed.

Still frame of 3 Body Problem (2024) showing young Ye Wenjie in a flashback scene. — Ye Wenjie in a flashback sequence.

Despite great performances by Jonathan Pryce and Ben Schnetzer (as older and younger versions of the character respectively), Mike Evans is perhaps a character who needed a bit more screen time. I found the devotion to the “Lord” to be suitably creepy – and reminiscent of more than one real-world cult – but Evans’ transformation from wide-eyed environmental activist to oil company executive seemed pretty abrupt. And there wasn’t a lot in the flashback sequences that I felt really informed his steadfast devotion; why had he taken to worshipping the San-Ti so fervently?

And while we’re nitpicking: how had the San-Ti been communicating for (presumably) years or decades with Evans and his followers, placed spies on Earth… but didn’t understand the difference between fiction and truth, nor understand how humans are capable of lying? It seems like something they should’ve figured out a long time ago, but they didn’t until just the right moment for other narrative beats to play out. It’s not the worst contrivance in the world… and we could certainly make the case that it’s just another example of how truly different and “alien” the San-Ti are in their way of thinking. But as a story beat… it was perhaps the biggest point at which I felt the series could’ve benefitted from another couple of episodes.

Still frame of 3 Body Problem (2024) showing Jonathan Pryce as the character Mike Evans, sitting at a desk. — Mike Evans and the San-Ti had been communicating for years.

One thing I wasn’t expecting in a sci-fi series like 3 Body Problem was a realistic depiction of someone grappling with a terminal illness – but through the character of Will, the show delivered precisely that. Will’s storyline was incredibly emotional as he came to terms with the ending of his life, his regrets, and the things he’d left unsaid. I could’ve happily spent eight episodes just with Will and his friends – without any of the sci-fi shenanigans going on in the background. That’s how powerful I found those sequences to be. I’m not terminally ill, but I have health issues that I have to live with every day – and I found Will a truly relatable character as he saw his health decline.

There was, of course, a narrative pay-off to Will’s cancer diagnosis, and I liked the way in which 3 Body Problem tied all of its characters and story arcs together. Will seemed to be disconnected from the main storyline of the series much of the time, talking to the other main characters but not really involved with the plan to defend against the San-Ti. Not until the last moment! Will’s sacrifice and the revelation that the mission was a failure was genuinely heartbreaking, especially when all seemed to be going to plan.

Still frame of 3 Body Problem (2024) showing the character of Will in a hospital bed. — Will in his hospital bed.

Along with Will was the character of Saul, played by Jovan Adepo. I really enjoyed Adepo’s performance, as he brought the character to life and made him feel relatable and real. Starting as a junior researcher, Saul’s story took him through the San-Ti plot to become appointed as one of the “Wallfacers” – a unique kind of defender of Earth. The fact that he didn’t want the role was also a really relatable moment; he felt he’d been plucked from obscurity and given an impossible task. There’s a kind of wish-fulfilment fantasy in this kind of storyline; who among us hasn’t wanted, even just for a moment in the back of our minds, for someone to come along and whisk us away on an adventure, or to be told that we’re being appointed as one of the saviours of all humanity?

Rounding out the main characters were Auggie, Jin, and Raj. I liked how the story began with Auggie’s nano-fibre start-up and then, after seeming to move away from that, brought it back in spectacular fashion. That was one of the moments where I felt every piece of this story had been carefully planned, with characters and storylines being built up with purpose. Jin was perhaps the most emotional of the main characters – though there’s competition for that title! She served as our point-of-view character at several key moments, and seeing some of these events unfold from her perspective elevated them.

Still frame of 3 Body Problem (2024) showing the character of Jin in an animated environment. — Jin in the San-Ti’s virtual world.

Raj was arguably the least-developed of the main characters; he served a narrative function but didn’t really get enough screen time to really shine – nor did he get any independent storylines. He was tied to either Jin’s story or the show’s main storyline, and in those capacities he helped move things along without really breaking out on his own. Any story has characters like this, I suppose, and it’s not really a criticism as much as an observation.

The depiction of Wade’s organisation – a three-letter acronym that I honestly couldn’t remember off the top of my head – as being almost everywhere, knowing almost everything felt like a bit of a stretch. As a commentary on government agencies that spy on or observe their citizens I think it could’ve been interesting, perhaps even making a comparison with the “secret police” of Maoist China as seen in the flashbacks. But 3 Body Problem didn’t really do that, and the seemingly limitless resources of the PDC/PIA were not really given a satisfactory explanation in-universe. Nor was it readily apparent why Wade was chosen to be in charge of Earth’s defence against the San-Ti. Minor points, perhaps, in the context of the story. But you know me: I can’t help nitpicking sometimes!

Still frame of 3 Body Problem (2024) showing the character of Wade on a private jet. — Wade and his organisation felt overpowered, somehow.

So that was 3 Body Problem. I had a fantastic time with the series; it’s undoubtedly the best show I’ve seen in 2024 so far, and probably the best new sci-fi property that I’ve seen going back several years. My biggest fear right now is that it gets cancelled by Netflix before it can conclude its story, because that would be a real tragedy. 3 Body Problem is reportedly an expensive production, and Netflix has been very quick to swing the proverbial axe with shows and films that don’t meet its sky-high expectations. So I admit that I’m worried about that.

With that significant caveat out of the way, however, I genuinely fell in love with this mysterious, grounded, and fascinating tale of humanity’s first contact with a strange extraterrestrial race. I could’ve happily entertained another eight or ten episodes this season, digging even more deeply into this rich and complex story. Basing major plot points on real-world science, without resorting to fantastical technologies that are basically “space magic” kept 3 Body Problem feeling realistic and mature; grown-up sci-fi of the best kind.

I will be keeping my fingers crossed for that second-season renewal, and if Season 2 does get produced I hope you’ll come back in 2025 or 2026 for my review! 3 Body Problem was great, and I highly recommend it.

3 Body Problem is available to stream now on Netflix. 3 Body Problem is the copyright of Netflix, The Three Body Universe, T-Street, and/or Plan B Entertainment. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Introducing MountCock+

Wed 10.04.24Dennis

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, roll up and be the first to subscribe to the greatest streaming service of all time: the brand-new MountCock+!

If only it was real…

If you haven’t heard, Paramount Global – the company behind Paramount+, the Star Trek franchise, and others – is in a pretty bad place financially. That isn’t “breaking news;” it’s been the case for quite some time. As Paramount has continued to lose money, its executives have put a lot of faith in streaming to swoop in as some kind of saviour – but they’ve learned, belatedly, that streaming is a difficult market to crack at the best of times. And these are not the best of times!

Here’s what I think happened a few years ago. An elderly executive or investor – who knows nothing about the internet, data, streaming, or any of the complex technologies required to make it work – saw the success of Netflix, looked at CBS/Paramount’s own back catalogue and library of content and said to some poor, overworked employee “make me my own Netflix.” In the mid-2010s, Netflix was the hottest up-and-coming property in the entertainment world, and Paramount wanted a piece of that action. But rather than work with Netflix, Paramount wanted to be a competitor – despite having none of the outside investment, financial support, development knowledge, or technological know-how.

Logo of Paramount Global.

I really wish that I’d been faster at getting to work on this story, because “MountCock+” would’ve been a great April Fools’ gag if I’d made it a week ago! Oh well, lesson learned.

The title of this piece – which, in case it really needs saying, is facetious and won’t really be the name of a potential newly-merged streaming service – comes from news that new Paramount investor and potential new owner, SkyDance Media, is considering rolling Paramount+ and the Peacock streaming service together into one single entity. This would give subscribers to either platform access to a lot more films and TV shows, and the hope is that rolling two unprofitable streamers together will help the restructured Paramount/Paradance/Dancemount (or whatever the new company might be called) edge its way closer to profitable territory.

Paramount Global and Skydance Media may be in talks about a merger or sale.

Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat: small, specialised streaming platforms that only offer relatively few shows and films within a single niche have always been a bad idea. It was a bad idea when DC Comics tried it, it was a bad idea when CNN tried it, and the fact that DC Universe and CNN+ no longer exist as independent platforms is all the proof you’ll ever need. Netflix succeeded in the 2010s because it was a comparatively cheap and convenient way to access a huge library of content. Yes, there were whole genres on Netflix that you’d never even touch because they were of no interest to you. But there was so much other stuff that was appealing that it made a Netflix subscription worthwhile.

That was what convinced me to cut the cord – or rather, the wire to my satellite dish! In the late 2000s I got Sky – a satellite TV provider here in the UK. Getting Sky in the first place had been one of my ambitions for a long time; ever since it launched in the ’90s, the idea of hundreds of channels had been massively appealing! But by the late 2010s, the media landscape was changing. When Star Trek: Discovery was only going to be available on Netflix, I signed up so I could watch it. And I found streaming to be so convenient and at such a good price point that I very quickly dropped Sky altogether.

Stock photo of a satellite TV dish. — You can still see a satellite dish on many houses here in the UK.

The reasons for Netflix’s success were its convenience, low price point, and huge library of content. Take away one of those factors and it wouldn’t have become the phenomenon that it did – and as the so-called “streaming wars” rage in the 2020s, it’s a combination of those same factors in reverse that account for the failure or underperformance of other, newer streaming platforms. Less content for a higher price turns people away – even big fans of some franchises. I’m a Trekkie, but in 2024 I’ve only paid for a single month of Paramount+ so far; the streaming platform just doesn’t feel worth it most of the time.

Roll Paramount+ content in with another streaming service, though, and suddenly it becomes a more enticing proposition. As long as the price stays low as the library of content grows, there would be much more of an incentive to sign up for MountCock+ than there is for either Paramount+ or Peacock individually. Continuing as competitors will, in all likelihood, lead to the failure of both platforms, but if they join forces they might stand a chance. Even though Skydance doesn’t own Peacock and thus profits will have to be split, it still feels like a good idea.

Stock photo of streaming apps on a TV screen. — There are currently too many streaming services. Some will *never* be profitable for their parent companies.

Almost every time Star Trek’s parent company has been shaken up, there have been changes for the franchise. And not all of these changes have been positive. We have to keep in mind that it’s possible that a Skydance/hedge fund-owned corporation would have less of an interest in Star Trek, especially if the franchise seems to be underperforming, not bringing in or retaining subscribers, or even running too hot. While I don’t expect to see imminent cancellations, it’s something to be aware of as it’s happened before. It’s also possible that new corporate leadership might be keener on feature films with cinematic releases than on making more made-for-streaming series.

On the other hand, Paramount has been slow and even reluctant to listen to Trekkies sometimes. There’s been a significant fan campaign to create a sequel/successor show to Star Trek: Picard – but after more than a year, it hasn’t garnered a response from those at the top of the corporation. So perhaps new faces in the boardroom would be better at reading the room and understanding where the fan community is and what kind of projects we’d like to see. This is an area where Paramount has needed to improve for a long time, so again there’s the potential to see some positive changes.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 3. — Trekkies have been clamouring for another *Picard-*era series.

Business and finance is not my strong suit nor my area of expertise – and I don’t blame you if the details are boring or difficult to grasp. I’m pretty sure I’m oversimplifying it because I don’t fully understand it either; when you’re looking at corporations that routinely deal in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars… it can be hard to really comprehend the kinds of decisions that they take. But as fans, and as consumers of media in a competitive marketplace, we need to know a little about what’s happening behind-the-scenes. The future of Paramount Global will have an impact on future Star Trek productions, on the corporation’s other streaming projects, and even on its cinematic output and television channels.

For my two cents, I can see why amalgamating Paramount+ and Peacock – or Paramount+ with some other streaming platform, if the Peacock deal falls through – would make sense. After several years of streaming becoming an increasingly balkanised and fractured marketplace, bringing different platforms together just makes sense. There’s a general unwillingness on the part of audiences to pay for more than two or three different streaming services, and smaller, second-tier platforms will struggle in such a challenging environment. I’m a Trekkie – albeit one who’s been feeling a bit burned out of late – but even I have never paid for a full year’s worth of Paramount+; it’s a service I pick up for a month or two at a time to watch a couple of shows. On a related note: have you checked out my review of Halo Season 2 yet?

Promo poster for Halo Season 2. — It’s the Master Chief!

So could the hypothetical MountCock+ turn things around? I think it has to have a better chance of turning a profit than either Paramount+ or Peacock do individually – though it will perhaps need a better name than I’ve given it! But in theory, a bigger streaming platform with more original and legacy content, backed up by a corporate merger that brings more film franchises and television shows under its umbrella is a good thing. We don’t want any one corporation to have a monopoly in this marketplace, of course, but creating platforms that are more consumer-friendly and don’t see small bundles of content paywalled off at every turn is a good thing and a positive development.

“Watch this space” is probably the soundest advice right now! Paramount has been in talks for a while about possible mergers, sales, or splitting off different parts of its business, so nothing is set in stone and this latest Skydance/Peacock proposal is unofficial at best. It could happen – or Paramount could end up going in a very different direction. Still, corporate changes are afoot – and I feel increasingly confident of major news breaking before the year is over.

All properties discussed above remain the copyright of their respective broadcaster, distributor, studio, etc. This article is not financial or investment advice. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Halo (TV Series): Season 2 Review

Mon 08.04.24Mon 08.04.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Halo Seasons 1-2, and for the Halo video game series.

In 2022, I was one of the relatively small number of folks who enjoyed the first season of Halo. I didn’t think it was the best thing since sliced bread or anything, but it felt like a decent adaptation of the long-running video game series – albeit one that had been trimmed and cropped to fit a very specific mould used by other serialised streaming shows. Season 1 seemed to be a reasonable foundation upon which the next chapter of Halo could be built, so it was with some degree of anticipation that I awaited Season 2’s arrival.

And before we go any further, let’s acknowledge just how long that wait actually was. Halo Season 1 ran from March to May 2022 – meaning it’s been basically two full years since it went off the air. And as I’ve noted in the past with other made-for-streaming shows like Amazon’s The Wheel of Time, The Witcher on Netflix, or even some of the Star Trek shows on Halo’s platform, Paramount+, there are issues that result from long breaks in between short seasons. I needed a recap before the first episode – and at least in the UK, no such recap was forthcoming on Paramount+. Aside from the Master Chief and Kai, I couldn’t remember who was who nor where exactly the story left off – which wasn’t helped by a time-jump of six months in-universe, in which characters had moved around and at least one major story beat had taken place off-screen.

Promo poster for Halo Season 2 (cropped). — Promo poster for the second season of *Halo*.

Although it took me a while to get back into Halo during that first episode, as I was hampered by the lack of a proper recap, I will say that I did find myself engaging with the series as its story got going. Although I had to look up a plot synopsis for Season 1 online – something I really shouldn’t have needed to do – once I’d got myself properly reacquainted with the main players, and recapped the major story beats from the end of Season 1, I found a story that was entertaining enough to justify paying for a month’s worth of Paramount+, and that I didn’t mind following to its conclusion.

That being said, I still don’t feel that Halo has truly excelled – at least, not yet. Season 1 laid a solid foundation, but Season 2 seems to have disregarded parts of it, as well as deviated in a major way from the story that I remember from playing (most of) the main Halo video games. While I’m by no means a “canon purist,” I have to wonder: why go to all the bother of licensing a major entertainment property only to jettison most of its story and some of its characters? The story of the Halo video games – at least the first two or three titles, plus Halo: Reach – would have made for a strong and captivating story in itself, and with only a few tweaks could’ve seen the addition of new characters to join the Master Chief.

Concept art for 2010's Halo: Reach. — The story of *Halo* Season 2 was radically different from that of *Halo: Reach*.

In my review of the show’s first season, I said that re-interpreting and changing the story – and particularly finding a way to humanise the otherwise stoic Master Chief to make him into a sympathetic protagonist – was something I was generally on board with. And I stand by that to a certain extent; I don’t think a faceless, monotone character who’s an unfeeling killing machine would make for a good television protagonist, even if such a character works well in an action-heavy video game. But this time around, the Master Chief’s story felt muddled and seemed to rely on a few too many clichés and contrivances.

And partly, it must be noted, that’s because Halo’s writers have now taken the story in a significantly different direction to its source material. In Season 1, with the Master Chief getting entangled with a Covenant agent, discovering his humanity, and unlocking the mysteries of a strange alien artefact, there was still the potential to call all of this a preamble; the hitherto-unseen prequel to more familiar events. But in Season 2, with the Fall of Reach being depicted on screen in a radically different way to how it unfolded in the games, and with the story more interested in the intrigue within the UNSC and ONI, that possibility has evaporated. I’m not sure whether the new story that the writers have replaced it with is as compelling or as entertaining as the one that was sitting there, waiting to be adapted.

Still frame of Halo Season 2 (2024) showing a close-up of the Master Chief. — The Master Chief.

There was clearly an ambition on the part of some of Halo’s writers to use the UNSC, ONI, and the admiralty to look at the politics of war and the calculations that leaders have to make. This concept is sound, but it was let down by poor execution in Halo, unfortunately. In the first season, it felt as if most of the major characters – including Keyes, Halsey, and Parangosky – all had their own agendas. The Master Chief and his squad were caught in the crossfire and let down by the internal workings of the admiralty and leadership.

This message was somewhat streamlined in Season 2… but the way it was done necessitated some major contrivances. Corporal Perez, who Master Chief saved during the first episode of the series, refused to elaborate on what she saw of the Covenant during her debriefing… for seemingly no reason other than “because plot,” and when her words would have corroborated what Master Chief reported, that just doesn’t feel very satisfying. There was potential in Perez’s story to look at trauma and in particular the post-traumatic stress that soldiers can suffer from – but this angle was so undeveloped that I’m loathe to even include it as a plot point. In any case, it went nowhere – and thus doesn’t work as a justification for the narrative contrivance.

Still frame of Halo Season 2 (2024) showing the Master Chief and Perez in a chapel. — The Master Chief with Corporal Perez.

Perhaps this is the armchair general in me speaking… but I have a hard time seeing a character like Ackerson as an out-and-out villain. When confronted with the reality that a Covenant attack was imminent and unstoppable, he and the other admirals took what seems the only rational path open to them: a covert, quiet evacuation of high-ranking personnel and valuable assets in order to establish a new command centre to continue the fight and co-ordinate the defence of other worlds. Reach was, as Cortana explained, already lost before the explosions started – there was no way to prevent it.

Yet because we’re following the story of Master Chief and his crew, the series paints Ackerson and Parangosky as antagonists – more antagonistic, in some ways, than the Covenant themselves. And while we could entertain a more nuanced discussion of the “calculus of war” and how some leaders might try to use it as a justification to seize power or leave rivals for dead… Halo doesn’t really do any of that. It manoeuvres its characters into place – using more than a couple of contrived moments to get them there – and then… that’s it. Master Chief rages about how “they stole [his] armour” and his identity, but that just felt incidental and not like a driving force behind either the character or the story. The series came close to making a point about politics and war – albeit one that other, stronger narratives have already made – but then baulked on it at the last moment, despite the convoluted setup, in order to tee up the next big action sequence.

Still frame of Halo Season 2 (2024) showing Admiral Parangosky. — *Halo* came dangerously close to making a point about the politics of war with the character of Admiral Parangosky.

When such a story requires characters to act in a specific way to move things along, it can feel forced. And parts of Halo absolutely fall into this trap. During the climactic fight at Fleetcom, Master Chief and his Spartans are conveniently called away at the last second so they can be in just the right place to encounter Soren and Halsey, then Makee and the Arbiter, and finally to be rescued by Laera and Kwan. Master Chief was conveniently obscured by both fog and a communications blackout when he first encountered the Covenant, and the only other character to witness them refused to admit the truth. Laera was able to track down Soren just in time to save everyone from the attack on Reach. And so on.

Although Ackerson and Parangosky were manipulating the situation and keeping everyone in the dark about what was about to happen, their machinations can’t account for all of this – and the result is that the story is built on weak foundations. There are still successful moments of tension, excitement, and drama, and the deaths of major characters still manage to carry emotional weight. But that comes in spite of – not because of – the way in which the story has been structured. Halo is in real danger of getting in its own way.

Still frame from Halo Season 2 (2024) showing the character of Ackerson. — Ackerson was presented as an antagonist.

In terms of visuals, Halo made a couple of missteps. Physical props used for things like spaceship doors, armour, and other pieces of supposedly “roughed-up” metal could look pretty phony in places, and while it wasn’t enough to take me out of the story entirely, it was definitely something I noticed across multiple episodes. This isn’t something unique to Halo, as I’ve noted it in big-budget productions from Star Wars to the upcoming Fallout series, but that doesn’t excuse it. Set design was generally okay, though, and I liked the interiors of the Covenant ships and the way they were laid out – as well as how the show got creative with re-using certain sets for Makee’s ship, the training simulator, and a real Covenant ship in battle.

Halo had some successes with its CGI – and one pretty epic misfire. The assault on Reach midway through the season, as well as the attack on another planet in the first episode, were fantastic, with explosions and plasma weapons that looked stunning. These were well-blended with physical sets, and the transitions between the two were great. The fleet battle toward the end of the season was likewise solid; a well-animated series of CGI sequences that lived up to the excitement I was hoping for from such a powerful narrative climax.

CGI sequence from Halo Season 2 (2024) depicting the Battle of Reach. — The Fall of Reach.

Then we got on the ground and came to the climactic one-on-one duel between Master Chief and his Covenant adversary, the Arbiter. The Arbiter felt vastly under-developed as a character, and while his hatred for the Master Chief was stated in almost every scene in which he appeared, there was no reciprocity there whatsoever, so the conflict itself felt very one-sided. I will say, though, that I liked the concept of this duel, and seeing plasma swords clashing almost like Jedi lightsabers was a fun idea, and a great way to take a rather clumsy weapon from the video game series and improve upon it. So in principle, this duel should have worked reasonably well.

But my god, the animation work here was atrocious. Neither the Master Chief nor the Arbiter looked at all real, with that “too shiny, too smooth, and too airy” CGI feel that I thought we’d left behind a decade ago. Even the shaky camera and fast-moving sequence couldn’t cover up these absolutely glaring flaws in the way these characters looked, and the entire duel – which, thankfully, was pretty short – entirely fell apart for me. There were clearly limitations in Halo’s animation budget that were showing, because the series completely failed to make either character look realistic at this moment. Because the Arbiter is a largely CGI creation to begin with, perhaps the way he looked wasn’t as bad as the Master Chief during the duel – though it was certainly the worst the character had looked all season long. But the Master Chief in particular just looked so hollow and fake, and that really took the shine off what was supposed to be one of the season’s final climactic moments.

Still frame of Halo Season 2 (2024) showing Master Chief and the Arbiter engaged in a duel. — It’s difficult to convey in a single JPEG just how *bad* this sequence looked.

One thing we didn’t see much of this time, unfortunately, was the first-person perspective that I noted in Season 1. Last season, this unusual blend of camera work and CGI was used sparingly, but at a couple of key moments it really worked well. As an homage to Halo’s video game origins, I enjoyed what the first-person viewpoint brought to the series. It’s also something a little different in the action space, at least in the medium of television, and in Season 1 it was used infrequently enough as to not be too obtrusive for folks who didn’t like it. It was a little disappointing to get so little first-person action this time around; there was one scene – or a clip, really, as it was so short – that I noticed… but that was all.

This season, Halo struggled to find a good character to pair with the Master Chief. In Season 1, the Master Chief spent time with Kwan, Kai, Makee, and of course Cortana, as well as butted heads with Dr Halsey and Admiral Keyes. His relationships with Makee and Cortana in particular, as well as the resentment he felt toward Halsey, went a long way to humanising him and turning him from that faceless video game protagonist into a character better-suited to a new medium. But in Season 2, Master Chief didn’t really spend enough time with any single character to have those kinds of moments. He spent much of his time angrily barking out orders and pushing his team beyond their limits, and his relationship with the under-developed character of the Arbiter was so non-existent that their conflict and climactic duel didn’t really work.

Still frame of Halo Season 2 (2024) showing a close-up of the Master Chief's helmet. — *Halo* struggled to find another character to pair with the Master Chief this season.

There’s something to be said for a storyline that puts its characters through a tough set of challenges, or even one that forces them to confront their own limitations and mistakes. But Halo didn’t really give us any of that, with the series presenting the Master Chief as having been “right all along,” even though he was basically behaving like an irrational dick for several episodes in a row. Combined with the lack of a partner or confidant for most of the season, this meant that the series’ protagonist spent much of his time angry and brooding – and that just never feels particularly fun. Shows like Game of Thrones did wonderful things with an ensemble cast that was broken up into distinct groups, taking literally years in some cases before some of the main characters even met one another. But Halo… I don’t think it has the chops to pull off something like that anywhere near as successfully, so splitting up its few noteworthy characters for so much of the story feels more a weakness than a strength at this point. I’d love to be proven wrong about that – but realistically, the show would need to run to six or seven seasons to develop these characters well enough to pay it off.

So after two seasons of a series called “Halo,” we’ve belatedly arrived at the titular ring-world. By this point, the Halo itself has been mythologised out of all proportion, and again this feels like a weakness when compared with the original story present in the first part of the video game series. Again, I have to point out that I’m not well-versed in the more recent lore of the expanded Halo franchise, and perhaps by this point the Halo ring-worlds are as legendary as the TV show depicts. But there was something to be said for the way in which humanity stumbled upon the first Halo, and how the Covenant were the ones who knew more about them and treated them with reverence. This “race to the Halo” idea that was underpinning the story of this season was just another way in which I felt it had diverged significantly from the story I remember.

Still frame from Halo Season 2 (2024) showing Makee and the Halo ring-world. — *Halo* has finally arrived at the titular Halo.

The introduction of the Flood – which unfortunately came pretty late in the season – is at least potentially a point of interest. Presenting the Flood as akin to zombies from the likes of The Walking Dead or 28 Days Later certainly went some way to ramping up the fear factor as Halo came to the end of its final episode – but I can’t help but feel that more could have been made of this storyline if it had emerged earlier in the season and been drawn out for longer. There were a couple of key points at which the story needed to move rapidly thanks to the time constraint of being halfway through the series finale, and that just left things feeling a bit rushed and unsatisfying.

The biggest example of this is Soren and Kwan’s rescue mission. No one stops to ask “hey, what’s going on here?” because the episode just didn’t have time for the diversion, and when Laera revealed her “zombie bite,” it shouldn’t have been at all clear to Soren and the others that a bite wound would lead to infection. There was no time to explain this in-universe to the characters – nor really to us as the audience, either, as elsewhere in the base, infection seemed to spread by way of small spider-like creatures that emerged from the mouths of the infected. Perhaps Season 3 will be able to expand upon this storyline, flesh out its concepts and ideas a bit more. But as far as an introduction goes… it was a bit of a mixed bag.

Still frame from Halo Season 2 (2024) showing a character infected by the Flood. — The Flood’s “patient zero” in a holding cell.

On a more positive note, Halo took strides for representation, and it did so in a way that I’m always going to advocate for. There was a gay couple shown partway through the season; friends of Riz who she turned to for help. The fact that they were gay wasn’t front-and-centre in either of their characterisations, it was simply treated as an entirely unexceptional part of this sci-fi future. Representation can work incredibly well when handled in this way, and I’d point to Halo Season 2 as an example of how to include LGBT+ characters in a series when there isn’t the time or narrative space to include full-blown LGBT+ storylines or themes. Simply seeing a couple like this represented on screen is a positive thing.

As in Season 1, acting performances were solid across the board, and I wouldn’t want to single anyone out for criticism on that front. Halo’s sound design and music were solid; understated, perhaps, but in line with its source material. I heard several sound effects that were lifted directly from the video game series, which was great! With the exception of some unnecessary “shaky cam” sequences that made it difficult to follow the action, cinematography was pretty good, and the series’ use of light and shadow led to some tense moments of mystery and action at various points.

Still frame from Halo Season 2 (2024) showing the Master Chief wielding a rifle. — The Master Chief.

Unlike in 2022, I don’t think I’m going to call Halo one of my favourite TV shows of the year when I dish out my annual awards in December! It was alright; entertaining enough popcorn action fare. But there were significant weaknesses and narrative contrivances this time around that I feel got in the way of the fun, as well as a weak CGI sequence during what was supposed to be a climactic battle. I didn’t hate Halo by any means, but it wasn’t all it could’ve been.

However, now that the action has moved to an actual Halo… maybe there’s hope for Season 3. Although an official renewal hasn’t been announced at time of writing, it’s hard to see how the series could be cancelled at this point, given where it ended. With positive reactions from a number of critics and plenty of social media buzz, a third season feels like a sure thing. If it goes ahead and does actually take place on a Halo ring-world, that could certainly shake things up and perhaps go some way to bringing Halo back to firmer and more familiar ground.

I will be crossing my fingers for Season 3, then – and a story that successfully builds on what Seasons 1 and 2 laid out could go a long way to making some narrative decisions feel better in retrospect. So there are reasons to be positive as Halo continues its run. If for some reason, however, Halo isn’t renewed… I doubt it’ll be remembered particularly fondly, and instead will simply be tossed on the growing heap of video game adaptations that failed to light up the board.

Halo Season 2 is available to stream now on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available. Season 1 is also available on DVD and Blu-ray. Halo is the copyright of 343 Industries, Microsoft, Showtime Networks, Amblin Television, and Paramount Global. This review contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Starfleet Academy: One Year Later, Where Do Things Stand?

Sat 06.04.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Beware of potential spoilers for Star Trek: Starfleet Academy as well as spoilers for Star Trek: Discovery.

As hard as it may be to believe, it’s been a whole year since Paramount announced Star Trek: Starfleet Academy. Though it had long been rumoured to be in production, and seemed to get a “backdoor pilot” during Discovery’s fourth season, it was only at the end of March last year that the show was officially added to the Star Trek lineup.

Today, I want to talk about Starfleet Academy and look at how pre-production may have been progressing.

This might not need to be a particularly long article, because there’s been a surprising dearth of news about Starfleet Academy over the past twelve months. Given Paramount’s financial dire straits, the shaky position Paramount+ is clinging to as the “streaming wars” rage, and talk of a corporate merger or takeover, you’d be forgiven for wondering whether the series was still going ahead. I know there have been moments over the past year where I’ve had my doubts about it!

Still frame from Star Trek: The Next Generation showing Starfleet Academy. — The titular Starfleet Academy – as it appeared in *Star Trek: The Next Generation*.

I’m still surprised by how poorly-timed and threadbare the official announcement of Starfleet Academy was. In early 2023, we learned that Discovery had been cancelled, and it seemed to me that rolling that bit of bad news in with the Starfleet Academy announcement would have made a lot of sense. As it happened, Paramount seemed to be blowing hot and cold on its commitment to Star Trek, when that really could’ve been avoided.

By the time Discovery’s cancellation was being made official, Paramount was already committed to Starfleet Academy – and it would’ve looked a heck of a lot better if the news read something like: “The Discovery era will continue in the brand-new spin-off Starfleet Academy.” Instead, fans were left hanging on for weeks with the distinct possibility of Star Trek as a whole coming to an end. As has become typical for Paramount, they can’t even get the basics right. No wonder the corporation is losing money hand over fist, eh?

Will Paramount ever get its act together?

Starfleet Academy’s official announcement in 2023 was pretty barebones. The only thing we can reasonably infer from the way the statement was worded is that it’s a Discovery spin-off and will presumably be set in the same 32nd Century time period as that series. That could lead to crossovers, connections, and more… which could be fun and interesting elements to include. But we don’t know at this stage whether characters like Tilly and Kovich – who have connections with the Academy and Federation HQ as of Discovery Season 4 – will be part of the series or not. That may have been the original intention during production on Discovery’s fourth season, but we don’t know whether either of those characters – or the cadets we met in Discovery – are still part of the equation.

In a recent interview with Collider, Alex Kurtzman – who’s in charge of the Star Trek franchise at Paramount – gave us a few little tidbits of information. Firstly, the series is being pitched at a younger audience. That’s something that, again, I think most of us were able to infer from the announcement and setting. Putting younger characters front-and-centre – similar to what Prodigy tried to do – could lead to a series that appeals to a tween/teen audience, and bringing fans in those age groups on board is going to be key to the future of Star Trek. So as a general point, that’s positive.

Alex Kurtzman at the premiere of Star Trek: Picard Season 3. — Alex Kurtzman recently spoke about *Starfleet Academy* in an interview.

We also know that Tawny Newsome, who plays Beckett Mariner in Lower Decks and is a well-respected writer and comedian in her own right, has contributed in some way to Starfleet Academy on the writing side of things. Whether she’s single-handedly crafted whole episodes and storylines or whether she’s been involved as part of a broader writing team wasn’t entirely clear… but her inclusion could speak to Starfleet Academy having somewhat of a light-hearted edge, at least at points. Comedy and humour have been a part of Star Trek going all the way back to The Original Series, so again I think that should be a net positive if it’s done right.

The final confirmed piece of news is this: Starfleet Academy is targeting a 2026 release date. This was also something that, as time has worn on, seemed to be looking more and more likely. Strange New Worlds Season 3 is currently filming, and the Section 31 TV movie has recently wrapped up, and both of those projects are on the schedule for 2025. With a potential further season of Lower Decks also being broadcast next year, 2025 was beginning to fill up – so a 2026 release date for Starfleet Academy seems reasonable. As I’ve said in the past, spreading out the various Star Trek projects instead of bunching them all up is a good thing!

Promo photo from Star Trek: Discovery showing President Rillak and a class of Starfleet cadets. — President Rillak with a class of new Academy cadets in *Discovery’*s fourth season.

Knowing that the show’s broadcast isn’t imminent means that the production team can take their time with things like casting and writing, as there’s less urgency and less of a need to rush. Hopefully that will mean a higher-quality product at the end of the day! I’m all for the producers and showrunners taking their time, and even considering re-writes or changes if necessary – and while I would still expect the series to enter full production this year, the months of pre-production since the official announcement have hopefully been put to good use.

There is one thing we’ve learned from Starfleet Academy’s pre-release material that gives me pause, and makes me feel a twinge of anxiety about the show’s narrative. When the series was announced, one line in the blurb stated that the class of cadets will have to tackle “a new enemy that threatens both the Academy and the Federation itself.” To me, that sounds like the set-up for yet another serialised story that puts the whole galaxy in danger.

Still frame of Star Trek: Discovery showing an anomaly on the ship's viewscreen. — Putting the whole Federation in danger – *again* – would not be my first choice for the new show’s storyline.

After four seasons of Discovery and three of Picard that used this exact setup… I’m pretty fucking sick of it, to be honest. Lowering the stakes is something that I’ve argued Star Trek needs to do, and a return to stories that are smaller in scale – but still impactful for the characters involved – would be my preference. A series with a teen or young adult focus doesn’t need to have a “massive galactic threat” as a foundational part of its narrative in order to be exciting, entertaining, or emotional. And in too many ways, modern Star Trek’s over-reliance on this kind of storyline has been to its detriment.

One of the things that worked so well in both Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks has been storytelling that didn’t feature these kinds of existential threats and catastrophes. Both shows stand as testament to how Star Trek can still tell fun, adventurous, and engaging stories without relying on an enemy or entity that threatens the entire Federation or the whole galaxy. I just hope that Starfleet Academy isn’t overwhelmed by this one narrative concept, and that there’s room for episodic storytelling, exploration of new characters, and other narrative beats.

Still frame of Star Trek: Lower Decks showing Commander Ransom and Ensign Mariner. — Hopefully there will be room for standalone episodes – as in *Lower Decks* and *Strange New Worlds*.

I liked what Alex Kurtzman had to say about not wanting to alienate different groups of Star Trek fans, and I think there has been an effort on Paramount’s part over the last few years to at least try to keep the fan community together. Not every show is going to be to everyone’s taste – and that’s been true since The Next Generation, or even since The Wrath of Khan took Starfleet in a more militarised direction forty-two years ago! But modern Star Trek has really leaned into the idea of diversifying its output, with a kids’ show, an animated comedy, and serialised dramas in the mould of other modern made-for-streaming productions. Not every Trekkie will be interested in a show with a younger cast that’s pitched at a tween or teen audience – but I feel a sense of hope, from what Alex Kurtzman has had to say, that Starfleet Academy won’t just ignore the rest of us in the fan community!

One point I made last year, when the show was first announced, is that a series set at the Academy is actually a Gene Roddenberry idea. As far back as the late ’60s, when The Original Series was still on the air, Roddenberry was working on pitches and concepts for Star Trek spin-offs or successor shows, and a series set at the Academy – which would have featured a young Kirk and Spock meeting for the first time – was one such idea that was under consideration. So don’t let anyone tell you that “Gene Roddenberry would never have approved,” because in this case that accusation is demonstrably false!

Still frame of Star Trek: Picard showing an auditorium at Starfleet Academy. — Starfleet Academy as it appeared in *Picard* Season 2.

So that’s where we’re at – at least as of early April 2024. Starfleet Academy looks set to begin filming later this year, and while there hasn’t been a glut of news about the series yet, there are reasons to feel positive. I’ll be keeping an eye out for any cast announcements, especially if there are any familiar actors joining the Star Trek family or characters crossing over from Discovery. If we get any big news about Starfleet Academy or a teaser trailer, I’ll do my best to take a look at it here on the website.

So stay tuned! I hope this has been an interesting look ahead. Discovery’s fifth and final season has just begun, and while I’m not sure exactly what I’ll be doing by way of reviews yet, I’m sure I’ll have something to say about the season when I get around to watching it. Likewise for Starfleet Academy: I’m not sure yet whether I’ll do individual episode reviews or a full season review. But with the series perhaps more than two years away, I have plenty of time to decide! Thanks for joining me on this brief look ahead – and Live Long and Prosper!

Star Trek: Starfleet Academy is in pre-production and will be broadcast on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available in 2026 (or later). The Star Trek franchise – including Starfleet Academy, Discovery, and all other properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Election Year 2024: What To Watch

Thu 04.04.24Dennis

I am unapologetically a politics geek! And 2024 is, without a doubt, one of the biggest and most exciting political years in a long time. If you’ll permit me the indulgence – and the diversion from what I usually talk about here on the website – I thought it could be a bit of fun to talk about what’s coming up this year for both the United States and the United Kingdom, with a focus on what to watch and where I like to get my political fix.

Although politics can be fascinating in all sorts of places and all sorts of contexts, I have two real areas of interest: the US presidency and – understandably as a Brit – the upcoming UK general election. We may touch on a couple of other places tangentially, but those are the two elections I’m most interested in and will be watching most closely this year.

Still frame of the 2020 Presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. — Ready for round 2?

It’s rare to get a single year in which both the United States and the United Kingdom go to the polls for big general elections. In fact, the last time this happened was in 1992 – when John Major was unexpectedly re-elected as Prime Minister in May before Bill Clinton unseated George Bush in November. With the current British government consistently behind the opposition in opinion poll after opinion poll, an autumn election could be on the cards for us this year; I’ve heard November the 14th and October the 24th bandied about as potential election days. These dates would put the UK and US elections within a few days of each other – something that hasn’t happened since 1964.

The ’92 general election is the first one that I can really remember following and being interested in as a kid – even as many of the policy issues went way over my head, I was still gripped by the democratic process and the idea that we could have another new Prime Minister. In those days I didn’t pay as much attention to the American election; my fascination with the US and its systems of government would develop later! But I was definitely following along with John Major’s “soapbox” campaign in 1992 as he faced off against a renewed Labour Party under the leadership of Neil Kinnock. Listening to election news on the radio at lunchtime at school definitely singled me out as a geek!

Former British Prime Minister John Major in 1992.

But that’s enough history for now!

As media-literate folks – which I assume you are if you’re reading an article like this one, at any rate – we want to keep on top of what’s going on in the political sphere… but we don’t want to succumb to bias along the way. With the political environments both here in the UK and over in the US being so divided and polarised, finding unbiased or at least fair sources is increasingly difficult. It’s contingent upon us to not simply accept what we’re being told, but to double-check, or to look around for other sources of news. In this piece, I want to highlight a handful of outlets that I personally follow and regularly check in with – not because they’re free from all bias, but because they can provide analysis and insight that I find interesting or useful.

News and politics can be entertaining, and a well-presented programme can go a long way to making up for “boring” things like policy details or statistics. But we have to be careful not to let flashy graphics or a charismatic presenter blow us off-course; just because a speaker is articulate or passionate doesn’t mean they’re speaking the truth. That sentence should be applied to politicians… but it’s also true of presenters, anchors, analysts, podcasters, and other folks in the news media space.

Still frame of the BBC's 2019 election night programme featuring Jeremy Vine. — BBC presenter Jeremy Vine and his “path to Downing Street” graphic in 2019.

So I guess what I’m saying is this: don’t take any individual news source as “gospel,” nor even really at face value. If you have the time to research a subject – by which I mean doing more than just a cursory Google search – then that’s great; trying to gather different sources that examine the same topic or story is just as good.

That’s what I try to do, at least. I’ve diversified my news sources in recent years, and it really is amazing how one-sided some outlets can be. Even if we don’t agree with what someone has to say, hearing another perspective can be incredibly valuable. In these increasingly polarised times, stepping outside of one’s personal media bubble can be uncomfortable, and I get that. But even if your only objective is to better understand the other side’s talking points so you can more effectively argue against their position… it’s still worth doing!

BBC News studio - behind the scenes. — The new BBC News studio.

Having seen many elections and referenda come and go over the years, I find a lot of the passion behind individual candidates and parties to be a younger person’s game. When the same pundits and talking heads hailing this election as being “the most important in our lifetime!!!” have been using that exact same line for twenty years or more… well, let’s just say the impact wears off! That doesn’t mean that there aren’t big and important issues at stake, of course. There usually are!

Donald Trump is someone who, for close to a decade now, has managed to evoke – and provoke – incredibly strong reactions from supporters and opponents alike. His presence in the election this year (assuming he survives the tangled mess of court cases he’s facing) automatically makes it a contentious and polarising race. Here in the UK, the departure of Boris Johnson from the political stage has left us – at least in theory – with two less-charismatic Prime Ministerial candidates! But there are other factors in the race, including the emergence of Reform as a new political party on the right, debates over polarising issues like immigration and the conflict in the Middle East, and the ongoing fallout from Brexit.

A red "MAGA" hat from the 2016 election campaign. — Donald Trump’s campaign slogan from 2016.

I’m not in the business of telling people who to vote for or how to vote. And this year – for the first time in a long time, really – I’m not actually certain who I’m going to be voting for here in the UK. I have my ideological leanings – as we all do, of course – and here in the UK there are more than two parties to choose from… even if only the main two seem capable of forming a government. But I won’t be “making an endorsement” nor telling anyone how I think they should exercise their right to vote. As far as I’m concerned, that’s between you and the ballot box!

What I’m going to do now is briefly highlight a handful of pundits, podcasts, content creators, and TV programmes that I think are worth checking out and following as this busy political year unfolds. There are some talented journalists and analysts out there in internet-land, and even if you just put something on in the background while you’re working or doing chores, it can still be useful and you’ll still get something out of it.

A sign indicating the way into a polling station in the UK.

Now for the caveats: this is all my own opinion, meaning nobody paid me for a spot on this list. Most of the channels discussed below can be found on YouTube – which has become one of my go-to platforms for political content – but some can be found either on their own website or on platforms like Apple Podcasts. I’ll try to summarise what it is that I like about each channel/creator – but nothing about this is in any way objective.

With all of that out of the way, let’s look at my list – which is in no particular order.

Number 1:
Political Currency

Promo image of the Political Currency podcast.

There are several podcasts in the UK at the moment in which former political opponents share a stage. I guess that kind of thing is in vogue at the moment – but it’s simultaneously interesting to hear from people with different ideological leanings and somewhat heartening, in these times of polarisation and division, to see two former adversaries working together. Political Currency features former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and his one-time rival, former Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls. The two seem to have developed a genuine rapport after being away from frontline politics for close to a decade now, and their take – particularly on matters of fiscal and economic policy – can be fascinating.

Number 2:
Brian Tyler Cohen

Promo image of Brian Tyler Cohen from his own website.

One of the biggest independent political shows on the progressive side of the aisle, Brian Tyler Cohen has been able to interview sitting members of Congress and even state governors. His show has different segments featuring a selection of recurring guests who really know their stuff when it comes to the legal and political issues of the day, and as a result it’s quickly become one of my go-to political outlets. However… I desperately wish that Cohen would stop using such awful clickbait titles for his videos and clips! There’s no need, and when every single video is presented as “the biggest breaking news story that’s just sure to torpedo Donald Trump’s entire career…” well, it wears pretty thin. In short: great content… once you look past the horrible clickbait titles.

Number 3:
PBS Washington Week

A political show that I’ve only recently come across, Washington Week is a measured, calm discussion between journalists and political commentators, and usually tackles most of the big stories of the week. Because it’s a weekly show, there isn’t as much of an opportunity to discuss breaking news or stories in progress, but that can be an advantage in some ways. PBS – an American broadcaster largely funded by donations – seems to have less of an outright bias than some of the other mainstream news outlets, and that’s reflected in Washington Week’s calmer tone and round-table format.

Number 4:
The “Mainstream Media”

Copyright-free photo of a young girl holding a newspaper.

I’m lumping all of the main broadsheets, terrestrial news bulletins, and cable news channels into one entry for this list! Practically all of them rely on the same couple of newswires for many of their stories, after all. It can be hard to differentiate between some of the cable news broadcasters, particularly in the United States, and one should be aware of the ideological leanings and biases they have – as well as which mega-corporation owns which news outlet. But there’s still something to be said for old-school journalism, and practically all of the big newspapers and mainstream news channels have stories worth reading, interviews worth listening to, and investigative reporting that can shine a light on candidates, policies, and the political situation as a whole.

Number 5:
Times Radio

Still frame from a recent Times Radio video.

I’m in two minds about Times Radio. On the one hand, the new radio station – backed up by the long-running Times newspaper – has some well-respected political journalists, some great discussion pieces, and has started a new podcast dedicated to the upcoming election. On the other, its coverage of the Russia-Ukraine conflict is laughably poor, so much so that I don’t trust a word of it. Definitely one to pick and choose which stories to follow… and one I’m a little suspect of. When it gets its political journalism right, Times Radio can be an interesting listen. When it goes too far down the propaganda route on Ukraine… I’m switching off.

Number 6:
LegalEagle

Thumbnail of a recent Legal Eagle YouTube video featuring Donald Trump.

LegalEagle is an interesting one. The YouTube channel, which is run by a professional lawyer in the United States, began by looking at how the law and court cases are presented in works of fiction; there’s even an episode examining courtroom drama in an episode of Star Trek! But as the 2020 election unfolded, the channel started to do more videos looking at Trump’s legal cases, and this has continued as the ex-President’s legal woes have mounted. Though it’s not really about pure politics, if you want a closer examination of the law and how it could impact the election, LegalEagle is a great place to look.

Number 7:
Fox News

Still frame of Fox News with Neil Cavuto.

Bear with me on this one, especially if you’re to the left-of-centre politically. Fox is the single largest conservative-leaning news channel in the United States, though to its credit it wears its bias on its sleeve. If you want to know what right-wingers, Republicans, and Trump supporters are thinking – and perhaps more importantly, why they’re making certain arguments or favouring certain topics – Fox is a good place to start. And despite its reputation, there are some journalists and analysts worth listening to on Fox. Some of the big hitters, like Chris Wallace, have now departed the network, but I’d single out Neil Cavuto, Bret Baier, and John Roberts as presenters whose analysis and interviews can still be worth tuning in for.

Number 8:
The News Agents

A political podcast comprised of ex-BBC journalists, The News Agents is another I listen to almost every day. Unfortunately, the podcast is late with its uploads to YouTube, meaning you’ll have to listen to it at its source if you want to get that day’s episode instead of one that’s a couple of days behind schedule. No idea why the folks at Global Player can’t get their act together for that… but never mind! Because it’s hosted by bona fide journalists with years of experience covering politics, The News Agents brings a lot to the table – and there’s occasional discussion about how some of the big political stories are being covered in the media, too, which can be fascinating.

Number 9:
Robert Reich

Thumbnail from a recent Robert Reich YouTube video.

Former US Secretary of Labor (and professor) Robert Reich has a YouTube channel and weekly podcast/discussion show, and while he’s very partisan his take is still interesting. As someone who’s been in the Presidential cabinet, he offers a unique “insider’s” take on presidential politics in particular, and his area of expertise is economics – something he also discusses a lot.

Number 10:
The David Pakman Show

David Pakman is another podcaster and broadcaster in the same vein as Bryan Tyler Cohen, and occupies a similar left-of-centre, pro-Democratic Party position. Some of his takes can veer into “vote blue, no matter who” – an idiom I wholeheartedly disagree with, as I feel it gives cover to too many politicians who end up under-delivering! But Pakman’s take on the political news stories of the day is usually interesting and entertaining, and his coverage of the media and how the media talks about politics is generally very good as well.

Number 11:
The New Statesman

The New Statesman started out life as a magazine, but now much of its content is online. Though the website/app itself is paywalled, unfortunately, there are regular YouTube uploads – one of which features ex-BBC political editor Andrew Marr. Marr’s pieces are often thought-provoking, and free from the confines of BBC impartiality, he’s no longer afraid to share some of his political leanings and opinions while covering one or two of the week’s big stories. As the UK general election gets closer, The New Statesman is one to follow.

Number 12:
Leeja Miller

A recent Leeja Miller YouTube thumbnail showing Joe Biden.

Another lawyer-turned-YouTuber, Leeja Miller talks about politics and the upcoming election in an interesting way. Her take often focuses on the law and the Constitution, and how the law and democracy are intertwined in the United States. Her video output can be quite eclectic, with pieces on topics as diverse as Watergate and the Alec Baldwin criminal case – but always with a legal and/or political focus. Miller is a great presenter, and clearly puts a lot of effort into researching the subjects she discusses. Not every video will be directly relevant to the election – but many are, and sometimes in unexpected ways!

Number 13:
Let’s Talk Elections

For a YouTube channel run by a university student, Let’s Talk Elections is surprisingly thorough and well put-together. The slideshow format puts an emphasis on maps, data, and statistics – which, intentionally or not, makes the series feel professional and reliable. If I were to make a criticism it would be that opinion polls (upon which Let’s Talk Elections heavily relies for content) are not always reliable, and have arguably become less reliable over the past decade or so. So your mileage may vary in that regard! But Let’s Talk Elections videos are well-researched, well-presented, and informative.

Number 14:
Ring of Fire/Farron Balanced

Still frame of Farron Cousins on YouTube.

I’m putting these two YouTube channels together as they’re presented by the same individual and mostly talk about the same subjects. Presenter Farron Cousins can be very energised when talking about the political stories of the day – and that makes for an entertaining look at the news! There are occasionally other guests on the Ring of Fire programme, including a lawyer who often has an interesting take on Trump’s legal issues. Although I don’t agree with every one of Cousins’ takes on the news, he’s usually an interesting one to watch – on either of his channels!

Number 15:
Election Night

Still frame of CNN's 2020 Election Night coverage.

I’ve loved staying up late to watch the election results as they come in for a long time! Election night programming can be absolutely riveting for a political geek like me, with pundits and analysts breaking down exit polls and trying to extrapolate paths to victory for the various candidates and political parties. We only get one of these every few years – but there’ll be two in 2024! I’ll definitely be staying up into the wee hours to watch as the votes are counted here in the UK and across the pond.

So that’s it!

The House of Commons during a recent Prime Minister's Questions session. — The House of Commons during a recent session of Prime Minister’s Questions.

Those are my picks for what to watch in this election year. It’s far from an exhaustive list, of course; there are many other publications and content creators large and small who are well worth tuning in to see. I’m just getting started with TikTok (I’m old, I know) but there are several creators on that platform who are doing interesting things with a shorter format, and that’s just one example of another place to look.

As I said at the beginning, we all need to be aware of the biases and political leanings of the broadcasts and podcasts that we listen to – and try not to take any one source at face value. One of the nice things about platforms like YouTube is that it’s relatively easy to hop from one channel to another; to seek out different perspectives on the same story or political candidate. Many of you will already know which way you want to vote – and that’s good! But it can’t hurt to listen to what the candidates themselves have to say, as well as to hear different opinions from analysts, pundits, and podcasters as this contentious election year starts to jump into a higher gear.

I won’t tell you which way to vote. I won’t even tell you who you should listen to or trust. But I hope this list has, if nothing else, given you a place to start or suggested a new podcast or YouTube show that you might not have come across before.

Trekking with Dennis is not endorsing any political party or candidate here in the UK or in the United States. All podcasts, YouTube channels, and other content discussed above remain the copyright of their respective publisher, broadcaster, distributor, etc. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Xbox Series X & PlayStation 5: At The Halfway Point

Mon 18.03.24Dennis

If we assume that the current generation of home consoles will last roughly as long as the last couple of generations have, then the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 are close to the halfway point. Both devices were launched in late 2020, and as we’re now well into 2024, I think it’s fair to say we’re approximately halfway through their estimated lifespans. So today, I thought it could be interesting to consider the state of both platforms and look at how well – or how poorly – they’ve been performing!

For some background, I spent a decade working in the games industry, and in that time I worked with companies that released games on both Xbox and PlayStation consoles. As someone whose primary gaming platform these days is PC, I don’t really see a need to take sides in the so-called “console war,” so I’ll do my best to judge both machines on their own merits, as well as give my thoughts on the ninth generation of home consoles as a whole.

Promo photo of a PS5 console and control pad. — A PlayStation 5 console.

Let’s start with something I’ve talked about before: both the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 were released far too early. Not only were there brilliant games that were only just beginning to take full advantage of previous-generation hardware – like Red Dead Redemption II, God of War, and Marvel’s Spider-Man, to name but a few – but there were catastrophic problems with production and the supply chain thanks to the shit-show that was 2020. Both machines were launched with wholly inadequate levels of stock, leading to predictable results!

PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series consoles were out of stock everywhere for well over a year; here in the UK folks were on waiting lists that could be months long, and even as the consoles’ second holiday season approached, the only choice many players and parents had was to pay massively inflated prices to scalpers. Neither Microsoft nor Sony did enough to prevent touts and scalpers from using bots to buy up available stock, and throughout the launch window and well into 2021, both companies failed to improve manufacturing and supply chain issues.

A container ship at sea. — “Supply chain issues” quickly became an excuse for why both consoles were out of stock.

Thankfully, those issues have largely abated – at least here in the UK. But now that the availability problem has been solved and the consoles have trudged their way to the halfway point in their life cycles… is it even worth picking one up?

I have to say that, even at their recommended retail price, both consoles feel like a hard sell right now. There are so few exclusive titles to make an expensive purchase like that worthwhile, with a huge majority of games still being released on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One as well as on the current generation of machines.

A tumbleweed on a dirt road. — A visual representation of every Xbox Series X exclusive title.

There have always been cross-generation titles, of course, but usually by this point – more than three years into a console generation – there are fewer and fewer of them. But at time of writing I can only call to mind a handful of games that are genuinely PlayStation 5/Xbox Series X exclusive – the likes of Starfield, Jedi: Survivor, and Baldur’s Gate 3 come to mind, but I really can’t think of many others. Some of the biggest releases and most successful titles of the last few years – like Elden Ring, the Resident Evil 4 remake, and Halo Infinite – have all been released on both current- and last-gen platforms.

Is it worth spending upwards of £450 on a console to be able to play one or two games that aren’t available elsewhere? Don’t get me wrong: great games can and always have been system-sellers. But if I’m considering such an expensive investment, I really don’t think it’s too much to ask that I’m able to play more than just a couple of exclusive games! For a lot of players, there’s really very little advantage to buying one of these new machines in 2024… because most games are still available on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One consoles, which are a lot less expensive and which they may well already own.

Promo graphic of an Xbox Series X and its control pad. — An Xbox Series X console.

We are starting to see a shift in that area, but it’s far slower than it has been in previous generations. 2023 saw the release of titles like Starfield and Marvel’s Spider-Man 2, both of which were exclusive to next-gen platforms. But unless those games were on your “must-play list,” there really isn’t a hugely compelling reason to invest in either console at this point.

I noted in 2020, before the launch of PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X, that the jump in graphical quality would be far smaller and less noticeable this time around than it had been in years past – and I think that’s been entirely born out by the abundance of cross-generation titles. There are advantages to current-gen machines compared to last-gen ones, of course, but they tend to be in less obvious areas like loading times and control pad battery life as opposed to things like graphical fidelity and visuals.

Screenshot of Starfield showing a first-person viewpoint, a rifle, and a cityscape. — Despite being a current-gen-only title, *Starfield* is hardly groundbreaking in the graphics and visuals department.

One thing that’s definitely happened this generation has been a massive growth in file sizes! With most games now being either wholly digital or coming with massive patches and updates even on day one, downloading 100GB+ files has become commonplace. For those of us with slow internet connections, that can easily mean a couple of days to download a single game or update! That’s an annoyance in some ways, especially considering how some games with massive file sizes don’t actually seem to look much better than their counterparts from a few years ago that were one-third as big.

But large files and downloads are here to stay, I suspect. With both current-gen machines having solid-state drives (and expansion slots to add extra storage, if needed) it’s possible to create larger and more detailed game worlds than ever before. Relatively few games have taken advantage of this yet – and some of those that have, like Starfield, haven’t done so particularly well – but, despite my personal gripes with massive downloads, there’s at least potential here. Larger and faster drives on home consoles can open up new possibilities in game development, and that could lead to bigger and more immersive worlds in the years ahead.

Screenshot showing the file size of the game Jedi: Survivor. — Many titles released this generation have file sizes well over 100GB.

The question of value for money has come up a lot over the past couple of years, and while we’ve partly touched on that with the lack of exclusive games, I want to consider the price point that both consoles are at. For literally decades, console prices have come down incrementally as they get further into their life cycle. Recent console generations have seen cheaper versions produced partway through, with the likes of the Xbox 360S and PlayStation 4 Slim both arriving at around the halfway point in their respective life cycles.

This time around, however, we’ve seen price rises rather than price reductions, with PlayStation 5 consoles now £30 more expensive here in the UK than they were at launch in 2020. Despite initially suggesting no price rises were imminent, Microsoft followed suit a few months later, again rising the price of Xbox Series X consoles by £30 here in the UK. That’s despite both consoles arguably having the least-convincing lineup of exclusive games, and thus having the weakest justification for such an unfair price hike. Sony and Microsoft are billion-dollar corporations whose gaming divisions have been making money hand over fist… so these price hikes – which come on top of the rise in the price of the standard edition of many games – are honestly just disgusting. Price-gouging in the middle of an inflation and cost-of-living crisis is sickening.

A chart showing Sony's consolidated results for Q1 2022. — Sony boasted to its investors about record-breaking profits… before turning around a few weeks later and hiking up the price of PlayStation 5 consoles.

At the end of the day, I’d have expected more from both the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X at this point in their generation. There have been some great games over the past three-plus years… but many of them aren’t exclusive to this generation of home consoles, leaving me with a resounding sense best summed up thus: “what’s the point?” Neither console has, in my view, given a compelling answer to that question yet. There have been a handful of titles that I could see some folks picking up a console for, but there are undeniably far, far fewer of those at this point in the ninth generation than in any prior home console generation.

There have also been plenty of duds; broken, half-baked, or underwhelming titles. That happens, and while it isn’t the fault of either console specifically, the sheer number of buggy “release now, fix later” titles has done nothing to help current-gen gaming or make it feel like a worthwhile investment.

Screenshot of The Lord of the Rings: Gollum showing a character in an out-of-bounds area. — *The Lord of the Rings: Gollum* will likely be remembered as one of the worst releases of the generation.

The best experiences of the last few years, I would argue, have come not on the Xbox Series X or PlayStation 5, but on the Nintendo Switch and PC. PC gaming has gone through somewhat of a renaissance, with titles that were once exclusive to Xbox and PlayStation making their way onto the platform, as well as a glut of high-quality titles. And Nintendo has been consistent in its releases on the Switch, even as that less-powerful console reaches the end of its life. Whether we’re talking Animal Crossing: New Horizons, Super Mario Bros. Wonder, the remaster of Metroid Prime, or the Booster Course Pass expansion for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Nintendo has been serving up hit after hit, and offering players genuine reasons to pick up their machine.

As the ninth generation got underway in 2020, I was content to watch and wait. Even though PC has been my primary platform for several years, I’m not averse to playing on console if there’s a compelling title that seems like a “must-play.” I bought a PlayStation 3 toward the end of its life so I could play the likes of The Last of Us, I picked up a Switch to play Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Mario Odyssey, and more, and I bought a PlayStation 4 during the previous generation in order to play games like Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4. But no games of that calibre have leapt out at me this time around. Maybe one or two will before this generation comes to a close… but I’m not convinced.

A photo of a gaming PC with two monitors. — A fancy gaming PC. No, it’s not mine!

So here’s the real takeaway from the ninth generation of home consoles: buy a PC! Most Xbox and even PlayStation titles are coming to PC these days; I’m particularly excited for the upcoming PC port of Ghost of Tsushima, for instance. Having built my own PC a couple of years ago, and upgraded my graphics card just last year, I know for a fact that it’s more than a match for both current-gen consoles. Unless one of them can rope me in with an exclusive title that I can’t get anywhere else – and can’t live without – this could be the first generation of home consoles since the days of the NES and Atari 7800 that I don’t end up buying into.

As the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 reach the halfway point in their life cycles, I confess I feel a sense of disappointment – and more than a little “I told you so.” Both machines are powerful, there’s no question about that. But so far, it doesn’t seem as if anyone has really taken advantage of that power to really innovate and push gaming forward by anything more than the smallest iterative step. I knew going into the ninth generation that changes and improvements would be minimal… but even with that low bar, I’m unimpressed.

There have been some great games in the last few years. 2023 in particular will be well-remembered for releases like Baldur’s Gate 3. But titles like that feel like they exist in spite of, rather than because of, the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X. As we reach the halfway point… neither console has yet come close to reaching its potential.

PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S/X consoles are on sale now. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Fallout: Thoughts on the Upcoming TV Adaptation

Sun 10.03.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for the Fallout TV series and games.

We’ve now seen two trailers for the upcoming Fallout television adaptation, so I thought I’d share my two cents on one of 2024’s most interesting TV shows! Let’s start by acknowledging something important: video games have been notoriously awkward to adapt and bring to the big and small screens alike, and there are many examples that underwhelmed or just outright failed. Recent years have seen better efforts, though: I’d point to Paramount+’s Halo series and last year’s Super Mario Bros. Movie as being great exemplars of what’s possible nowadays.

So there’s hope for the Fallout series, then!

I like to say that I’ve played “two-and-a-bit” Fallout games. I played Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, and I took a look at Fallout 76 before quickly realising it wasn’t my type of game. I haven’t played the original CRPGs nor Fallout: New Vegas – which folks seem to say is the best one! So that’s my background with Fallout, and I have to say that while I generally enjoyed my time with the games that I played… I’m not the franchise’s biggest fan by any means, and I can see some potential issues that may arise as the world of the games is transplanted into a made-for-streaming TV series.

Screenshot of Fallout 3 showing a first-person view, a rifle, and the United States Capitol in the background. — *Fallout 3* was set in Washington, D.C. and the surrounding area.

The Fallout series has a very particular aesthetic, and it’s one that works well in the simulated worlds of video games. But there are some cartoonish trappings of the games’ post-apocalyptic setting that I’m not convinced will work in live-action, especially if the series goes down a serious, almost deadpan route with its characters and storytelling. Blending things like power armour, flying robots, and brightly-coloured Vault-Tec jumpsuits with a post-nuclear setting replete with dirt and grime… it works in the games, but I felt from looking at the two trailers that there were some visual clashes.

Modern TV programmes and films have sometimes struggled with high-resolution cameras and screens that show everything down to the last detail – and what I mean by that is that if the details aren’t perfect, or don’t look believable enough, they end up sticking out like a sore thumb. Some of the pieces of metal for things like robots and power armour didn’t quite look “metallic enough” in the trailer, looking too flat, too matte, and too much like the foam-rubber that they’re probably made from! I’ve noted similar issues in films like The Rise of Skywalker, so clearly this is something that some film and TV studios have yet to fully get to grips with.

Still frame from the Fallout TV series trailer showing a character wearing power armour. — Power armour as seen in the second trailer.

Then there were the Vault-Tec jumpsuits that several characters were seen to be wearing. For me, these came across looking too bright, and when I went back to the games to compare, I feel like they didn’t have the same issue. The jumpsuits in the Fallout games always seemed to me to be made of denim or some similar fabric; the ones made for the television series seem to have an almost shiny appearance in some sequences. I understand that there’s meant to be a contrast between the “clean” vault and the “chaotic” wasteland – but maybe dialling this back a notch or two would’ve looked better. For me, the way the jumpsuits look felt almost cartoonish.

I’m by no means opposed to bright primary colours – I’m a Star Trek fan, and Star Trek’s uniforms are almost all in similarly bright tones. I think jumpsuits like the ones seen in the trailer could work… if the rest of the aesthetic was similarly toned up to match. But it felt like most of the wasteland was a fairly drab post-apocalyptic brown and khaki, making the bright blue jumpsuits stick out. Maybe that was the intention – but there are other ways to accomplish the same task without making characters look like they’re heading out to a fancy dress party.

Still frame from the Fallout TV series trailer showing characters in blue jumpsuits. — Vault residents in their jumpsuits.

But maybe I’m nitpicking and being too harsh! There were definitely highlights from the trailers; things that looked exciting or mysterious. I’m glad that – so far, at least – Fallout hasn’t fallen into the trap of exposing too much of its story. Some modern trailers overdo it, leaving very little for viewers to discover when they get to watch the full film or series. There’s a line to walk between generating interest and over-sharing, and I think Amazon and Bethesda did a good job in that regard.

I was quite surprised to see that all eight episodes of the series will be arriving at once. Fallout could absolutely be a blast to binge-watch… but I tend to prefer watching week-to-week rather than feeling I need to watch the whole series over a couple of days to avoid picking up too many spoilers. As Netflix has discovered to its cost, releasing an entire series all at once isn’t always the best approach, and we’ve seen many modern made-for-streaming series fall back on the “old-fashioned” approach of releasing episodes weekly. Amazon doesn’t typically broadcast its shows this way, so I’d be interested to find out why Fallout is being released all at once.

Still frame from the Fallout trailer showing the series' release date. — Unlike with other Amazon original series, all *Fallout* episodes will premiere on the same day.

Actor Walton Goggins – who plays a character known only as “the Ghoul,” and who also narrated the second trailer – is someone I recognised from the trailers, though I couldn’t pinpoint exactly where from! Interestingly, as a Trekkie at least, Fallout’s writer (credited as the “creator” of the series) is Geneva Robertson-Dworet, who Paramount had announced was writing/producing one of the Star Trek Beyond sequel efforts a couple of years ago. That project may or may not still be going ahead – watch this space!

And speaking of Star Trek connections: Ella Purnell, who plays Lucy in Fallout and has been featured prominently in the show’s marketing material, was the voice of Gwyn in Star Trek: Prodigy. Gwyn was a great character in that series, and there may be echoes of that kind of “fish-out-of-water” character in Lucy the vault-dweller as she makes her way through the wasteland for the first time. At least we know that Ella Purnell can play that kind of role convincingly!

Still frame from the Fallout TV series trailer showing the character of Lucy. — Ella Purnell plays Lucy.

The original Fallout was set on the West Coast, and some elements from that game – such as the New California Republic faction – also appeared in Fallout: New Vegas. Because the games I’m more familiar with take place on the East Coast – in D.C. and Boston respectively – I have less of a familiarity with the “lore” of Fallout as it pertains to the California area. Having said that, there are a couple of factions and locations that seem to be lifted directly from the games: the aforementioned NCR being one, as well as the Brotherhood of Steel, and the settlement of Shady Sands, which was a base for one of the first game’s factions.

The series is set more than a century after the events of the first Fallout, a few years after the main events of Fallout 4 – and almost 200 years after Fallout 76! Its place in the timeline gives it scope to change things, or at least do things differently when compared to the games. I’m not a huge stickler for “canon” – especially in a fictional setting that I have, at best, experienced only a portion of. But at the same time, I hope the series doesn’t overwrite or retcon too many things from the games – especially as it’s set in the same part of the world as the first game. After all, if writers are just going to ignore everything that had been established to tell their own story… why not make a brand-new setting?

Photo of the main cast of the Fallout TV series at the Game Awards 2023. — Three of the show’s main cast members – along with a suit of power armour – at The Game Awards in December.

The two trailers both contained moments of mystery and excitement. Walton Goggins’ Ghoul appears to be an antagonist, and Lucy seems to be our point-of-view character as she emerges from the vault into this strange, new world. Beyond that, I caught glimpses of references and “Easter eggs” from the games, such as a dog that resembles Dogmeat – a canine companion present in all of the main games. There was also the famous “please stand by” screen in the vault, bottles of Nuka-Cola, power armour, and more.

Although I’ve found a few things to pick on from the trailers, most of that is aesthetic! A strong story can make me forget even the silliest visual quirks, and it’s also worth pointing out that a short trailer that had to be compressed for social media isn’t always going to be totally reflective of the finished product. There was enough in both of the trailers to keep me interested, and when Fallout arrives next month I’ll be sure to tune in!

Still frame from the Fallout TV series trailer showing a post-apocalyptic wasteland setting. — The wasteland in the vicinity of Shady Sands Public Library.

Although Fallout has never been one of my all-time favourite gaming franchises, I’ve enjoyed it enough to sink dozens of hours into two of its titles, and I generally had a good time. There’s more to the unique world than can be portrayed in a couple of video games, though, and I think Fallout could make a good television adaptation. Whether this particular story and script will live up to that potential… I’m not sure. We won’t know until we’ve watched the series, I guess! But there are positive notes to take away from the two trailers, and reason enough to think that Fallout could be a fun watch this spring.

When Fallout has premiered, I hope you’ll circle back for a review and my impressions of the series. With all of the episodes arriving at once, it might take me a little while to get through the full series, but I’ll endeavour to write up a review before too long.

See you out in the wasteland!

Fallout will premiere on Amazon Prime Video on the 11th of April 2024. Fallout is the copyright of Amazon MGM Studios, Bethesda Softworks, and/or Kilter Films. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Six More Star Wars “Hot Takes”

Tue 05.03.24Tue 05.03.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for the Star Wars franchise, including Return of the Jedi, The Last Jedi, The Mandalorian, The Book of Boba Fett, and the video game Jedi: Survivor.

A couple of years ago, I shared six of my “hot takes” about Star Wars. But it’s always fun to stir the pot, so I’ve come up with six more! These are all controversial takes that I have on Star Wars; opinions that seem to be a minority position based on my limited engagement with the fan community. I thought it could be entertaining and interesting to share some more of these with you today!

This is just for fun, and while I do genuinely hold all of these opinions – I’m not just making up stuff for the sake of clickbait – there’s no need to get into a big argument! Everything we’re going to talk about here is subjective, not objective, and I’m keenly aware that I’m in the minority. They’re called “hot takes” for a reason, so feel free to disagree with me vehemently on any or all of the points I raise!

If you want to check out my first set of “hot takes,” you can find them by clicking or tapping here. Otherwise, this is your last chance to nope out if you don’t want to read some potentially controversial Star Wars opinions!

“Hot Take” #1:
The Book of Boba Fett is probably the best Disney+ Star Wars series so far.

Promo poster for *The Book of Boba Fett*.

I went into The Book of Boba Fett with low expectations. I’ve never been wild about The Mandalorian, thanks in no small part to its decision to bring the Force and Luke Skywalker into a story that was originally pitched as “the adventures of a gunslinger beyond the reach of the New Republic.” Boba Fett has always felt like a non-character to me ever since I first watched the original trilogy in the early ’90s. Add into the mix Disney and Lucasfilm grossly overplaying the nostalgia card in the sequel trilogy, and I truly did not expect to get anything out of The Book of Boba Fett whatsoever.

But I was surprised to find an exciting and interesting story that was just plain fun. It was a nostalgia overload for sure, but it managed to keep me entertained regardless – and by the time Boba and his friends were fighting for their very lives on the streets of Mos Eisley, I was gripped. Maybe it’s because of those low expectations that I had such a good time with it… but whatever the reason may be, I thoroughly enjoyed the series.

When I compare it to the other Star Wars offerings that I’ve seen on Disney+, it tops the charts easily. The Mandalorian isn’t great, in my opinion, and I find the show’s protagonist difficult to root for because of how utterly monotone he is. I once described Din Djarin as an “unemotional helmet-wearing slab of nothing;” a character who seems to act at the behest of a room full of TV writers, and not because of any motivation or character trait that I can detect.

Obi-Wan Kenobi was a show so utterly dire that it put me off Star Wars for months afterwards! Trying to write a review of that appalling mess was likewise so unpleasant that I ended up taking a break from writing anything at all here on the website – and I still haven’t finished that review! The mere thought of going back to Obi-Wan Kenobi just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I haven’t seen Andor yet – thanks, in no small part, to Obi-Wan Kenobi causing me to turn away from the Star Wars franchise for a while! But I suppose when I get around to watching it it could dethrone The Book of Boba Fett. As could The Acolyte – a project I’m definitely looking forward to as it promises to step back in time to a wholly different era of the Star Wars galaxy.

But The Book of Boba Fett isn’t just my favourite Disney+ Star Wars show by default. The others have their problems, sure… but The Book of Boba Fett could’ve been just as bad. I was surprised at just how entertaining it was, and how a character I had no interest in was able to be transformed into a genuinely fun protagonist. There were themes of loss and revenge as Boba navigated Tatooine’s criminal underworld, but my biggest takeaway was how positive, fun, and light-hearted the show could be. I admit that I’m surprised to see that it wasn’t received more positively by other Star Wars fans.

“Hot Take” #2:
“From a certain point of view” is patent nonsense and always has been, and Star Wars is made worse by continually trying to justify it.

Are you old enough to remember when Return of the Jedi was regarded as the weakest Star Wars film? Before the prequels came out, that was the general consensus! When I first watched the Star Wars trilogy it was at the insistence of a friend, and his father was adamant that Return of the Jedi was an awful film and a poor way for the story to conclude. So it seems that divisiveness in the fan community is nothing new – but more on that later!

One of the reasons for Return of the Jedi being held in lower esteem than its two predecessors is the clumsy and just plain stupid line from Obi-Wan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker that coined the phrase “from a certain point of view.” I’ve always considered this explanation to be absolute dog shite, making no sense whatsoever. And Star Wars has since doubled- and tripled-down on this idea… when it really should be ignored and pushed aside.

Luke asked Obi-Wan how his father died in *Star Wars*.

Let’s step back and set the scene. In Star Wars (a.k.a. A New Hope, the first film in the series), Obi-Wan Kenobi explained to Luke Skywalker that Darth Vader “betrayed and murdered” his father. That line was unambiguous and not subject to interpretation! But by the time The Empire Strikes Back rolled around, the decision had been taken to retcon the relationship between Vader and Luke, transforming them into father and son – leading to one of the most iconic scenes in all of cinema.

As with many other things in Star Wars, though, something that should’ve been left alone… wasn’t. We could’ve ignored what Obi-Wan said in that first encounter, accepting that the retcon overwrote it. It would’ve been an inconsistency, sure… but it would have been one that the story could’ve survived. There are also legitimate in-universe reasons for Obi-Wan not wanting to tell Luke the truth; he could’ve apologised or explained his reasoning and left it at that.

The *Obi-Wan Kenobi* series revisited this idea.

But instead we got this ridiculously convoluted work of semantic gymnastics, with Obi-Wan justifying his lie – and it was made into a lie by the retcon in Empire – by trying to claim that, somehow, Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader aren’t the same person. Even though they’re literally the same person, with the same body, “soul” or essence, Force abilities, and so on. Anakin made a decision to defect from the Jedi to the Sith… but it doesn’t mean he stopped being Anakin. Even thinking about it in the most abstract and poetic terms… he’s still the same person.

Since this line was uttered, Star Wars has continually stumbled by trying to justify it and make the concept stick. The prequel trilogy made a big deal about Palpatine granting Anakin his “new” Sith identity, and the aforementioned Obi-Wan Kenobi series also tried to double-down on this idea, with Obi-Wan saying that the man he knew “is truly dead.” But… he isn’t. He’s different, sure. But he isn’t dead. This whole “from a certain point of view” idea just doesn’t work for me. It didn’t when I first saw it in Return of the Jedi thirty-plus years ago, and every attempt that the franchise has made to lean into it hasn’t helped. I wish Star Wars would quietly drop this idea and move on!

“Hot Take” #3:
Franchise fatigue is beginning to set in.

This is just a snapshot of part of the Star Wars category on Disney+.

Though not as oversaturated as Star Trek has been in recent years, I’d argue that Star Wars is very much in danger of running too hot. Too many shows and films in too short a span of time is going to lead to franchise fatigue – and while there will always be fans who will turn up for every new project, the more casual audience that any series relies on will begin to drift away.

I think we’re already seeing this, at least to a limited extent. Solo: A Star Wars Story was the first film in the franchise to make a loss at the box office, and it was released only a few months after The Last Jedi. On Disney+, too, it seems that more recent shows and seasons have attracted less attention and excitement. Fewer people turned up for Obi-Wan Kenobi or The Book of Boba Fett than had for the first season of The Mandalorian, for instance.

A Star Destroyer as seen in the opening shot of *Star Wars* in 1977.

Since the Disney acquisition of Lucasfilm went through more than a decade ago, Star Wars has hardly been off our screens. The sequel trilogy came along in the back half of the 2010s, with Rogue One and Solo in cinemas as well. And since the launch of Disney+, there have been new live-action and animated shows every year. With several of these projects overlapping each other or being spin-offs that rely on older films or shows to set them up, keeping up with Star Wars and knowing what’s what and who’s who can feel like a full-time job!

With Disney+ in poor shape financially, the corporation is relying heavily on its biggest brands to bring in and retain subscribers. But the likes of Star Wars and even Marvel are in danger of burning out; turning away audiences due to convoluted interconnected storylines or just because there’s a desire to look for something new and different. A few years ago, a massive audience would’ve been hyped for a live-action Star Wars series. But now? I can almost hear the collective sigh as yet another season gets sharted out onto Disney+.

I haven’t seen much excitement for the likes of *Skeleton Crew* recently…

I genuinely don’t know what the solution is here. The truly hard-core Star Wars fans will, of course, keep showing up for any and every new project. But how long can the franchise rely on those folks if a wider audience of more casual viewers can’t keep up or loses interest? As Disney recently found out to its cost with the Galactic Starcruiser hotel at Disney World… there are only so many of those hard-core fans.

Maybe you don’t feel a sense of franchise fatigue just yet – and that’s okay. If you don’t, I’m genuinely happy for you! But with so much Star Wars content on the horizon, with new series, films, and video games coming every few weeks… how long can that last? How long will it be before you say, “eh, I think I’ll skip this one and watch something else?” In my opinion, no franchise can keep up this frenetic pace for very long. Star Wars has already been pushing it for several years, and I wonder when it will have to slow down.

“Hot Take” #4:
Jedi: Survivor was crap.

Battling battle droids in *Jedi: Survivor*.

I absolutely adored Jedi: Fallen Order when I played it. Going on that adventure with Cal Kestis and the crew of the Stinger Mantis was fantastic, so I was incredibly excited for the game’s sequel in 2023. But as you’ll know if you read my review of the game… I really didn’t like it. Mechanically and narratively, the game failed – and that’s before we get into the bugs and glitches that have come to define its poor launch.

An open-world design is not something that suits every game, and Jedi: Survivor was made significantly worse than its predecessor by attempting to go down this route. The clumsily-designed maps, particularly on the main planet of Koboh, really got in the way of the story and immersion. It made no sense to me that Cal and his friends would hide out in a “quiet, out-of-the-way” settlement like Ramblers Reach… when that settlement was a stone’s throw from both a massive pirate base and two Imperial outposts.

The game’s open-world design put Ramblers Reach literally a few metres away from the Empire and pirates.

In terms of story, I found Jedi: Survivor to be an unimpressive relation to its illustrious predecessor. Cal was teamed up with a character who was obviously, from almost his first second on screen, a “secret bad guy in disguise.” This plot point was so flagrantly telegraphed that it might as well have been lit up in neon. And the return of Master Cordova, a character who played a huge role in the story of the first game, was handled incredibly poorly.

There were some narrative highlights: Cere’s story took her full-circle, for instance, and while I could see Bode’s betrayal coming from a mile away, Cal’s reaction to it was genuinely emotional. But the foundations of this story felt weak and almost random, with Cal stumbling into a random cave, Greez accidentally building his cantina atop ancient Jedi ruins… and a convoluted plot involving an ancient Jedi sealed in a bacta tank and a “lost” planet that no one knew how to reach. Compared to the story of Fallen Order, Jedi: Survivor came up short.

Obviously we can’t discuss Jedi: Survivor without commenting on the game’s shockingly poor condition. I’ve uninstalled it now and haven’t touched it since September, so I can’t comment on its current state. But I saw the reviews Jedi: Survivor received upon launch and chose to wait several months before jumping in – only to find that it was still in an absolutely appalling state, with bugs, glitches, frame-rate problems, stuttering, and low-res textures all getting in the way of the experience. The fault for this lies with publisher Electronic Arts, who chose to force Jedi: Survivor to be released before it was ready.

At the beginning of 2023, I genuinely expected Jedi: Survivor to be in contention for my “game of the year” award. Instead, for a variety of reasons it ended up as one of the biggest disappointments of the year. A sequel is in the works, and while I’m going to be much more sceptical this time around… I have to at least cross my fingers and hope for something better.

“Hot Take” #5:
The sequel trilogy won’t ever be retconned out of existence.

The Holdo manoeuvre is canon. Suck it, haters!

I’m not sure how hot of a take this really is, because I think most folks understand that Disney and Lucasfilm aren’t going to turn around one day and announce that the sequel trilogy is suddenly non-canon! But in some corners of the Star Wars fan community, this fantastical notion has taken root. I’ve heard some big-time fan blogs and channels with sizeable audiences pushing the idea that some or all of the sequel trilogy – and The Last Jedi in particular – are about to be “erased” from canon or overwritten.

Like any franchise, Star Wars has grown and evolved over the years. Stories, characters, and themes that may have been controversial or hated at first tend to be more accepted with the passage of time, as we’ve seen with both Return of the Jedi and the prequel trilogy. The same is sure to happen for the sequels, given enough time. Fifteen years from now, they’ll just be part of the furniture; inseparable from the rest of Star Wars.

In 1999, I really didn’t like The Phantom Menace. In fact, the only part of the prequel trilogy that I even considered to be passable was Revenge of the Sith – and that dim praise comes with multiple caveats! But as time has passed, the prequels have been folded into the broader lore and canon of Star Wars quite effectively – to the point that I’d never even consider the idea of overwriting them at this stage.

Many of the fans who seem to be arguing most passionately in favour of the sequel trilogy being scrubbed are – somewhat ironically, perhaps – younger folks who first came to Star Wars when the prequels were in cinemas. The prequel trilogy was their way into the Star Wars fan community, so the idea that those films could’ve been disliked or hated as much as the sequels are today doesn’t seem to register for a lot of folks. But they were… and the fan community was able to recover!

I don’t know what the future holds for Star Wars. Maybe it will go on for years and years, producing new content all the while. Or maybe it’ll take another decades-long break before triumphantly returning, as it has in the past. But either way, the sequel trilogy will remain part of that story. It may not be beneficial to Disney and Lucasfilm to put it front-and-centre right now, particularly as fans seem to long for more stories set during the prequel era or the time of the original trilogy. But the sequel era is developing stories, spin-offs, and a lore all of its own – and building on that will be a key part of Star Wars’ future.

The idea that a billion-dollar trilogy of films, complete with spin-offs, merchandise, and more would ever be dumped or retconned out of existence is nothing more than a juvenile fantasy; the ultimate “cope” from folks who can’t stand those films. And look… I agree that the world would be a much better place if The Rise of Skywalker had never existed. That film was an absolute catastrophe! But it won’t ever be erased or overwritten – and I’m okay with that. I’m still content to give Star Wars a chance to impress me with what comes next.

“Hot Take” #6:
Writing a sequel to Return of the Jedi that didn’t feel like tacked-on fan fiction was probably impossible.

The main characters at the end of *Return of the Jedi*.

Stories end. Every story eventually comes to an end, with its character arcs, sub-plots, and main narrative threads all being drawn to a close. And for better or worse, Return of the Jedi was the end of Star Wars; the final, climactic battle of the Palpatine-versus-Skywalker saga. The Emperor was dead, Imperial forces were implied to be in disarray, the threat of the Death Star had been removed, and it seemed as if the Rebel Alliance had won the day. After three films – or six, if we include the prequel trilogy – the story had come to an end.

And what an end it was! Saving the galaxy, destroying both Sith Lords, restoring the Jedi Order, and setting the stage for a return to freedom and democracy after two decades of oppressive autocracy is a great place for the curtain to fall and the credits to roll. And having seen both the impotent fan fiction of the old Expanded Universe and Disney’s sequel trilogy, one thing seems abundantly clear to me: that should have been the end. There just wasn’t space to add a new story after the events of Return of the Jedi.

The Death Star explodes above the forest moon of Endor.

It’s ironic that Disney is the company that purchased the Star Wars brand, because the sequel trilogy is a great example of what I like to call the “Disney sequel problem.” Every Disney film – of the classic and renaissance eras, at any rate – ended with a “happily ever after” moment, with the heroes celebrating a hard-fought victory and the baddies vanquished. It proved impossible to make a sequel to those kinds of stories that didn’t feel either tacked-on or derivative.

And both of those labels apply to the Expanded Universe and the Disney-created sequel trilogy. The First Order basically picked up where the Empire left off, and the revelation that Palpatine had been secretly pulling the strings the whole time completely undermined whole narrative arcs from the original and prequel films. The Force Awakens was basically a carbon copy of A New Hope, and The Rise of Skywalker tried its best to be Return of the Jedi. No part of the story was original, and as I wrote once, the entire sequel trilogy feels like a bait-and-switch. Instead of answering questions about the Star Wars galaxy that fans had been asking for years, the films simply re-told the same story with a different coat of paint.

Kylo Ren and General Hux in *The Force Awakens*.

And I don’t see how it could’ve been different. After killing the Emperor and Darth Vader, there was no “big bad” left to defeat. Mopping up the leaderless remnants of the Empire would’ve felt anticlimactic, and replacing the Emperor with Snoke and Vader with Kylo Ren was just cheap and derivative. The same feelings would have arisen if a new Emperor had emerged, a new Sith Lord had been discovered, or the First Order had been given a different name to match one of the silly Expanded Universe stories.

Unfortunately, modern entertainment franchises can’t be allowed to come to a dignified end. They must be resurrected and kept on life-support at all costs, with new stories being churned out to suit the needs of corporate shareholders who are too cowardly to invest in new stories and characters. After saving the galaxy and defeating the Sith, Return of the Jedi left Star Wars with nowhere to go narratively – but Disney and Lucasfilm went there anyway.

So that’s it!

I hope I didn’t upset too many people with this list!

There’s still plenty to enjoy with Star Wars, even if I’ve found a few things to pick on this time. In 2024, I’m looking forward to The Acolyte on Disney+ and to getting my hands on the remastered Dark Forces video game – so I’m still engaged with the franchise. I also like to keep up to date with big developments, and I’m sure that I’ll eventually get around to watching most of the live-action series and seasons that I’ve missed.

I hope this has been a bit of fun, and perhaps thought-provoking in places. Although these are “hot takes,” it wasn’t my intention to upset anyone or cause anger and division. The Star Wars fan community has more than enough of that! At the end of the day, we all have things we like and things we dislike in our favourite films and franchises.

Until next time… and may the Force be with you!

The Star Wars franchise – including all films, games, and other properties discussed above – is the copyright of Lucasfilm and The Walt Disney Company. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Dear Paramount: If You Won’t Remaster DS9 & Voyager, Fans Will (And You Won’t Make Any Money)

Sat 02.03.24Tue 12.03.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Beware of minor spoilers for the following Star Trek productions: Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Picard, and Prodigy.

For years, I’ve been publicly calling on Paramount Global to finally remaster Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager. Two of the franchise’s best-loved shows are languishing in DVD quality even on Paramount Plus, turning away a potential audience and making it harder for Star Trek to convert sometime viewers into fully-fledged Trekkies. With massive story connections in Prodigy and Picard in particular, you’d have thought that remastering these shows would’ve been a great idea… but alas.

It often feels like Paramount Global is being run by morons; short-sighted corporate idiots who said “make me my own Netflix” without any idea about streaming, the internet, or the technology required to make something like that happen. It’s nothing short of a miracle, perhaps, that Paramount Plus works as well as it does! But even as Paramount Plus has continued its painfully slow international rollout and brought in new subscribers, executives seem content to overlook one of the biggest requests from Star Trek fans… even if it would be easier and cheaper than ever before and would surely bring in new subscribers and make money.

Tom Ryan, CEO of streaming at Paramount.

We could talk all day about how Paramount executives have misunderstood Star Trek and the kinds of shows Trekkies wanted to see – and perhaps one day soon we’ll have to do that (again!) But for now, suffice to say that a remaster of Deep Space Nine and Voyager is something that fans have been calling for for well over a decade – but those calls have continually fallen on deaf ears. It’s high time to change that!

Technology gets better and better all the time – including in video production, special effects, and upscaling. With readily available AI tools – pieces of software that already exist today – it’s possible to upscale old television programmes from DVD quality all the way up to full HD, 4K, and beyond… and churn out creditable results. Two full years ago I made the case for Paramount taking advantage of this technology to massively reduce the costs involved in remastering Deep Space Nine and Voyager, and the case for doing so grows stronger by the day.

Programmes like *Topaz Video AI 4* are already on the market.
*Image Credit: Topaz Labs*

Unlike when The Original Series and The Next Generation went through the process in the late 2000s and early 2010s, selling Blu-ray discs is no longer the objective. The Next Generation only “underperformed” on Blu-ray anyway because the move away from optical discs in favour of streaming was already happening when it was released. Remastering Deep Space Nine and Voyager today wouldn’t have to come with the same cost – and the same sales target – as those other shows. Instead, it could be all about giving Paramount Plus a (desperately needed) boost.

And unlike when whole sequences from The Original Series and The Next Generation had to be remade and reimagined from the ground up, artificial intelligence can fill in a lot of the gaps. I don’t want to do people out of work, nor encourage greedy corporations to utilise and rely on AI any more than they are already… but if cost is a concern, there’s no denying that remastering can be done a heck of a lot cheaper in 2024 than it could’ve been a decade or fifteen years ago. Taking advantage of these technological advancements just makes sense.

*The Next Generation* has already been remastered.

At present, fans only have access to Deep Space Nine and Voyager on DVD or VHS. But even with those limitations, it’s incredible to see what some tech-savvy Trekkies have already been able to create. Remastered and upscaled scenes are available to watch right now, with fans having put in a lot of hard work on their own, for free, to bring these shows into the 21st Century. And that work will undoubtedly continue.

The entirety of Deep Space Nine – all seven seasons – are already available in 720p thanks to AI, and the show can be… shall we say “acquired” through certain unofficial channels by anyone who knows their way around a computer. While arguably imperfect, this is still one of the best ways to watch the series – and Paramount isn’t making a single penny from it. If Paramount would commit to doing this work, it could be a nice little earner, driving new subscribers to Paramount Plus and giving existing subscribers a reason to stick around.

Screenshot of a website offering a torrent of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. — AI-upscaled versions of *Deep Space Nine* are already available to fans who know where to look.

Here on the website, we’ve argued back and forth about piracy before. Here’s my take: if a film or series is available to rent or purchase, I’m firmly in the camp that says “pay for it.” But if Paramount won’t remaster these fantastic shows and make them available… I don’t see anything wrong with fans doing it ourselves and sharing it within the community. Paramount is the only loser in that situation, and the corporation has inflicted that loss upon itself!

An interesting example of a fan-made project like this comes from the Star Wars franchise. I’ve talked before about Project 4K77, and how a dedicated group of Star Wars fans were able to get hold of a high-quality copy of the original, unmolested Star Wars from 1977, and how they were then able to digitise it, preserving it for future generations. That project was incredibly successful; a testament to the hard work and determination of Star Wars fans. And it has quite literally saved and resurrected the original version of the film that spawned the long-running franchise – a version of the film that George Lucas and the Walt Disney Company wanted to throw in the dustbin.

Still frame from Star Wars (1977) showing the Millennium Falcon in the Death Star's hangar bay. — Project 4K77 preserved the original version of *Star Wars*.

Now, it’s true that Deep Space Nine and Voyager haven’t been abandoned in the same way as the original version of Star Wars was. And I agree that DVDs are still perfectly watchable – especially on smaller displays and screens. But I also think it would be a terrible shame to leave Deep Space Nine and Voyager behind as Star Trek – and the media landscape in general – moves on. The simple fact is that returning to DVD-quality video after enjoying full HD and 4K feels like a significant downgrade, and the fact that those shows only exist in that way is going to be offputting to old fans and potential new fans alike.

Think of the younger audience that Paramount tried to appeal to with Star Trek: Prodigy. Prodigy leaned heavily on the legacy of Voyager, bringing in a holographic version of Captain Janeway and telling a story that was, in many ways, a sequel to the events of that series. But any of those younger viewers who wanted to see Voyager for themselves would’ve found a decidedly sub-par product either on DVD or Paramount Plus… and that may well have put them off. Had Voyager been remastered and ready to go in full HD, a better connection with Prodigy could’ve been possible.

*Prodigy* reintroduced characters from *Voyager*.

Even now that Prodigy has been cancelled, though, remastering Voyager and Deep Space Nine is still worth doing. The fact that fans are already doing it, using only DVDs and consumer-level software, should show Paramount that there’s not only the technological ability to do this, but an audience that wants it, too. Trekkies want to be able to watch our favourite series and episodes in the best quality available, and right now, Paramount isn’t offering that. The corporation could offer it – and many folks would jump at the chance to re-watch Deep Space Nine and Voyager that way. But if not… we’re going to continue to see fans using better and better programmes and AI to make their own versions.

There’s a quotation about new technologies that I think about a lot whenever AI is being discussed: “this is the worst it will ever be.” What that means is that technology improves all the time, and next year or in five years’ time, some of the issues will have been worked out and AI’s capabilities will only have grown. If fans are able to achieve such great results already… who’s to say what will be possible a few years down the line?

Screenshot of YouTube showing an AI-upscaled clip from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. — Fans are already making – and sharing – AI-upscaled and remastered scenes and clips.

What that means, in my opinion, is that Paramount has a pretty limited window of opportunity. If Deep Space Nine and Voyager are ever to be remastered, now is the time to do so… because at the rate AI is growing and improving, in five years from now any Trekkie who wants to could well be in a position to use AI to watch those shows in 4K or 8K from their old DVDs or even VHS tapes – without needing to sign up for Paramount Plus. Paramount won’t make a penny in that situation.

So the time is now, Paramount! Act fast, and finally give these shows the official remaster that we all know they deserve. With no need to print huge numbers of Blu-ray discs, and with the benefit of new technologies, remastering Deep Space Nine and Voyager won’t be anywhere near as costly as remastering The Original Series and The Next Generation was. Adding those shows, in all their 4K glory, to Paramount Plus will be a significant boost to the platform, and I have no doubt that people would sign up just to watch them – or stay signed up for longer. Remastering will be an expense, sure… but it’s an affordable one, and one that will pay off.

But if you won’t do it… don’t expect fans to wait around. The technology to make it happen is already here, already accessible, and already being used by Trekkies to make our own versions of these great shows. Continuing to ignore this request is going to prove costly in the long run, because if a fan-made version is available in better quality than anything on Paramount Plus… why would anyone sign up for Paramount Plus? Pushing your biggest fans toward piracy isn’t a great business model!

In most jurisdictions around the world, piracy – defined above as the sharing of copyrighted material over the internet – is not legal. Trekking with Dennis does not endorse, condone, or encourage the sharing of copyrighted material. The Star Trek franchise – including Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and all other properties discussed above – remains the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Xbox & Bethesda Probably Have One Chance To Save Starfield…

Thu 29.02.24Thu 29.02.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for several main story missions in Starfield.

I was excited about Starfield last year. By the time the game’s big showcase had wrapped up in June, Starfield had rocket-boosted its way to the very top of my most-anticipated games list, and it held onto that position even as Baldur’s Gate 3 diverted my attention. But despite doing my best to give the title a fair shake, sinking more than twenty-five hours into it, and really wanting to love it… I didn’t. Starfield just didn’t have that “Bethesda magic;” the “je ne sais quoi” that has made some of the studio’s previous games into all-time classics.

And I’m far from the only person who feels that way. Despite launching to generally positive reviews from both players and professional critics, the longer folks have spent with Starfield, the further the game’s ratings have slipped. Although there are multiple areas of criticism from writing and dialogue through to the game’s outdated underlying technology, the general consensus is that Starfield is disappointing, shallow, and lacking in the replayability that Bethesda desperately tried to build into it.

Screenshot from Starfield (2023) showing a character sitting in a chair aboard a spaceship. — An NPC aboard a spaceship in *Starfield*.

But it’s 2024, and if there’s one thing the games industry knows it’s this: you can launch half a game today and promise to patch out all of its issues later! The dreaded business model that I’ve dubbed “release now, fix later” has firmly embedded itself in the games industry – and Bethesda is no stranger to utilising it. The company’s most recent title before Starfield – Fallout 76 – has received years’ worth of patches and updates, and even though it endured an appalling launch, it’s in a much better state today than it was five years ago. In fact, Fallout 76 is now sitting just ahead of Starfield in terms of average reviews on Steam.

There are some areas of Starfield that patches, updates, and DLC have the potential to improve or fix. In a game all about exploration, being forced to re-play the same handful of copy-and-paste structures filled with nameless, mindless enemies got old fast – so how about quadrupling the number of these structures, creating some unique ones that only appear once per playthrough, and adding new and different types of enemies and loot to fill them. Or how about making at least some of the game’s 1,000 planets genuinely empty, with no pre-built structures at all. That sense of exploration, of being the first person to set foot in a “strange, new world” is what I wanted from a game like Starfield… and it seems like something that could be implemented into the game without too much effort.

Screenshot from Starfield (2023) showing a first-person view over a procedurally-generated landscape. — It’s hard to convey how disappointing it was to land on a “deserted planet” only to find buildings and bases full of nameless, meaningless NPCs.

Then there’s the game’s main story. It was left deliberately open-ended to push players into New Game Plus – and I firmly believe this was one of the first and most important ideas conceived for Starfield during its creation – but it’s led to a fundamentally unsatisfying end to the game’s main quest. So Bethesda could write a better ending – and a more conclusive one. Who created the artefacts? What was their intention? Could the player character interact with these “Creators” somehow? Again, that seems like something that should be achievable.

Adding in new and varied paths through certain quests is also something that should be doable. A notorious mission in the main quest sees the player character travel to the “pleasure city” of Neon to acquire another artefact, but this quest is about as on-rails as it’s possible to be. No matter what choices the player makes, there’s only one way to get the artefact and complete the mission. It should be possible to tackle a quest like this in more than one way – and adding that in wouldn’t break the rest of the story or other parts of the game. For example, being able to kill the character who has the artefact, or finding another way to escape Neon after the deal goes down are things that would only impact that one quest – and being forced to play it in one specific way isn’t what a lot of folks wanted or expected from a game like Starfield.

Screenshot from Starfield (2023) showing a conversation and dialogue options during a mission. — This mission offers the illusion of choice, but ultimately forces players down one very specific route.

There are, of course, some things that can’t be fixed in Starfield, no matter how much of an annoyance they seem to be! I wasn’t personally all that bothered by the game’s loading screens when opening an airlock or entering a building – but I know that the loading screens have been an area of complaint for a lot of folks. Starfield is built on the creaking, zombified remains of a twenty-five-year-old game engine, though… so I don’t see a way to remove them. Nor could the game’s fundamental spaceflight problem be fixed; Starfield is built on the player and their ship fast-travelling between locations, so any opportunity for actual piloting or flying is basically gone at this point.

So we need to be realistic about what we could reasonably see from updates and future DLC; Starfield won’t change fundamentally in terms of either gameplay mechanics or narrative. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be significant improvements that could mean the game will be worth re-installing and giving a second chance. And yes, in case you were wondering: I’ve already uninstalled Starfield.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the in-game map. — Things like adding better in-game maps for towns and other locations should be achievable.

But here’s the thing: Bethesda basically has one chance to do this.

Many players who tried out Starfield are already moving on. Games like Baldur’s Gate 3 and Cyberpunk 2077′s Phantom Liberty DLC emerged around the same time and have, by comparison, highlighted many of the fundamental weaknesses in Starfield – as well as how far behind Bethesda has fallen in terms of game design and development. Bringing back players like myself who tried and gave up on Starfield – or convincing sceptics to try it for the first time in light of mediocre reviews – is not an easy task.

Phantom Liberty has done the impossible for Cyberpunk 2077, completely changing the way whole mechanics work, adding a massive new area of the map, new missions, and much more. Starfield needs its first piece of DLC to be at least as substantial and as transformative as Phantom Liberty given its shortcomings, and it needs this DLC to be well-received. If not… a lot of those players we’ve been talking about will be forever lost, with Starfield being brushed aside in favour of newer, better gaming experiences.

Promotional screenshot of the Phantom Liberty DLC for Cyberpunk 2077 (2020). — *Phantom Liberty* quite literally transformed *Cyberpunk 2077*.

Starfield is basically a “single-player live service” game. That’s the model Bethesda and Xbox chose to adopt, and we can see inside Starfield just where the paid skins and cosmetic items will appear when they’re ready to be pushed out. But like any live service, Starfield has to be basically good enough to build up a playerbase before anyone should be thinking about microtransactions, cosmetic loot, or paid mods. If Starfield’s first big expansion isn’t good enough, I don’t see the game retaining enough players to make that kind of “ten-year experience” anywhere close to viable.

Look at other games in the live-service space. Whether it’s Anthem, Marvel’s Avengers, or Ghost Recon: Breakpoint, it’s incredibly easy for even massive publishers with huge brands to fail. And there are relatively few titles that launch to such a mixed reception that go on to make a recovery. The jury’s still out on the likes of Halo Infinite and Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, but to say they’re limping along wouldn’t be unfair. Asking for a single patch or update to transform the fortunes of titles like that seems like a big ask… but it’s where they’re at. Just like Starfield, they’re in the last chance saloon.

Promo graphic showing future content for the video game Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League (2024). — We’ll see how much of this promised content for *Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League* actually gets released…

Gaming is a marketplace – and a very competitive one at that. New titles are being released all the time, and while once-in-a-generation masterpieces like Red Dead Redemption II or Baldur’s Gate 3 are comparatively rare, there are enough good games out there – even in the single-player and role-playing spaces – for players to very quickly move on from a disappointing or underwhelming experience. Most games don’t even get a second chance; by the time developers have been able to address issues and roll out updates, the damage has been done and players have left, never to return.

Starfield is lucky in that Bethesda’s pedigree and Xbox’s sky-high marketing budget will almost certainly grant it a second chance and a second look from a decent number of players. But that second look had better be substantially different and a massive improvement – with changes and fixes across the board. Because there damn well won’t be a third.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing a first-person view of a spaceship cockpit and a planet in the distance. — *Starfield* has already had a chance to impress me.

Xbox won’t willingly burn money on Starfield if things don’t improve, just like Electronic Arts didn’t with Anthem or Square Enix didn’t with Marvel’s Avengers. Publishers pretty quickly hit their limit when it comes to supporting a failing game – so Starfield’s life-support can’t last forever. The game sold a decent number of copies at launch, and drove at least some new subscribers to Game Pass, so it’s probably bought Bethesda some time. But that time is finite, and if, at the end of it, the DLC or update isn’t good enough… I can see that being the end of the road for Starfield.

One interesting example here is No Man’s Sky. After that game was poorly-received by a lot of players upon release, Hello Games knuckled down and got back to work. Over the span of years, No Man’s Sky received dozens of updates that brought it much closer to its original vision. But those updates were all free, and players who stuck with the game were rewarded for their support and patience. Hello Games didn’t have the audacity to charge extra for completing the work that should have been done ahead of release… so perhaps there’s a lesson there for Bethesda and Xbox, too.

Screenshot of Starfield (2023) showing the interior of a custom spaceship. — Some big free updates wouldn’t go amiss!

At the end of the day, despite whatever positive spin the PR departments at Microsoft and Bethesda might try to put on it, Starfield is in trouble. I gave up on the game after giving it more than enough time to impress me, but what should be even more concerning for Bethesda are the reports from folks who stuck with the game to the end – only to say it isn’t worth re-playing. The game’s launch did not go to plan, and the purported “ten-year experience” seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes.

We can discuss how all of this happened, where Bethesda went wrong, or what the worst aspects of the game are. There are already plenty of articles and essays about all of those subjects – and many different answers to those questions. But there is still a glimmer of hope for Starfield, that updates and improvements could bring it closer to the game we were all hoping for. But time’s a-ticking, and there’s one last chance to get it right.

Let’s cross our fingers and hope that Xbox and Bethesda seize the opportunity.

Starfield is out now for Xbox Series S and X consoles and PC, and is also available on Game Pass. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, ZeniMax Media, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek: Discovery – Season 5 Wishlist

Fri 23.02.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Discovery Seasons 1-4 and the trailers, teasers, and announcements for Season 5.

With Star Trek: Discovery’s fifth and final season due to premiere in just a few weeks’ time, I thought it could be a good moment to look ahead! Season 5 is going to be the show’s last chance to tell a different kind of story, explore under-utilised characters, and potentially lay the groundwork for Starfleet Academy and other possible spin-off projects. It’s also Discovery’s final opportunity to win over sceptical Trekkies – hopefully bringing to a close one of the most contentious chapters in the history of the Star Trek fan community. Suffice to say there’s a lot that needs to go right!

I admit that I have concerns already, even at this early stage. The revelation that Season 5 wasn’t originally written with the show’s cancellation in mind could prove fatal, and last-second re-writes and pick-up shots could end up feeling obvious and tacked-on. Then there’s the premise itself: is the mystery at the story’s heart going to be yet another re-hash of the tired “all life in the galaxy is in danger and only Burnham can save it!!!!” trope?

Still frame from Star Trek: Discovery 4x01 Kobayashi Maru, showing characters amidst rubble and debris. — *Discovery* has consistently raised the stakes in its stories… and it’s past time for something different.

On a personal note, I’ve been feeling burned out on Star Trek since midway through last year – and even though I still consider myself a fan of the franchise and want to see it succeed, I’ve stepped away from Star Trek over the past few months. I haven’t finished watching Strange New Worlds’ second season, nor even started Lower Decks’ fourth, and I haven’t played either of the Star Trek video games that were released last year despite having planned to do so.

Discovery’s fifth season thus exists in a strange place for me at this time. I don’t feel a great deal of hype or excitement for its premiere, not in the same way as I did for all four of the show’s previous seasons. If I’m being brutally honest with my introspection… I can’t even say with 100% certainty that I’ll watch it as it’s being broadcast, or whether I’ll pick up Paramount+ later in the year for a month or two and watch it then. I’d love to be able to say “stay tuned for weekly reviews,” as I’ve generally enjoyed the process of writing reviews for Seasons 3 and 4. But at this point… I’m not 100% committed to doing that.

A behind-the-scenes photo showing the USS Discovery bridge set. — A behind-the-scenes glimpse of the USS Discovery’s bridge set.

But enough about that for now! I have a longer piece on the burnout I’ve been feeling – which you can find by clicking or tapping here – if you’re interested to read more.

As I look ahead to Discovery’s fifth season, there are several loose ends that I’d like to see the series tie up, some narrative traps that I hope can be avoided, and a couple of fantasies – that will almost certainly go unfulfilled – about the series tying its 32nd Century setting closer to the rest of Star Trek. It’s these points that we’re going to look at today. I’m calling this piece my “wishlist” for Season 5!

But first, I have to give my usual caveats! Firstly, I have no “insider information,” and I’m not claiming that anything discussed below will be included in Discovery’s upcoming season. This is a wishlist from a fan, and nothing more. Secondly, we all have different opinions about what makes for a good Discovery story. I’m offering my subjective take on what I’d like to see included, and you are free to vehemently disagree with all of the points I raise. Nothing about this is “objective” in any way! Now that that’s out of the way, let’s get started!

Wish #1:
A proper ending.

The famous "That's All Folks" graphic shown at the end of Looney Tunes cartoons. — Season 5 will be *Discovery’*s final outing.

Season 5 is to be Discovery’s swansong, and I’m already deeply worried about that. Comments from people who worked on the season – most notably director and Star Trek legend Jonathan Frakes – have confirmed that last-minute re-writes and extra filming sessions were required to “make the finale into the finale” after news of the show’s cancellation broke. To me, that suggests that Season 5 was not written with the show’s cancellation in mind, and that raises some pretty big concerns about how conclusive and definitive its ending will be.

There are many different ways to bring a story to its end. I’m not, for example, suggesting that the entire main cast should be killed off, nor that the show’s end needs to be explosive and dramatic. But other Star Trek shows have done their best to give their crews a proper send-off – whether it was Deep Space Nine showing its characters going their separate ways, Voyager finally making it home, or even Enterprise’s ultimately disappointing attempt to show the founding of the Federation. Discovery’s characters deserve an ending, in whatever form that may take.

Still frame from the Deep Space Nine Season 7 episode What You Leave Behind showing Chief O'Brien in his cabin. — Chief O’Brien left DS9 and headed for Earth in the series finale.

Let’s be blunt: there won’t be a Picard-style resurrection for these characters in twenty years’ time. While it’s still possible that we might see the likes of Tilly or Kovich in Starfleet Academy (assuming that series is still going ahead amidst the neverending chaos of the Paramount corporation), for most of the crew, this is the end. And that end, however it may come, needs to be worthy of the show and its great cast of characters.

At the very least, I’d like to see all of the main characters get an ending to their respective arcs and stories – and if we can stretch things out, there are several prominent secondary characters who deserve that, too. Again, we don’t need to see anything explosive or dramatic for everyone; something as simple as Admiral Vance choosing to retire with Burnham taking over as head of Starfleet could be one way to handle those characters, for instance. One way or another, though, we need to get an ending that feels conclusive… and doesn’t feel like it was written on the back of a napkin in twenty minutes because Paramount’s executives have no idea what they’re doing.

Wish #2:
Lower the stakes.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 2 episode Such Sweet Sorrow showing a spaceship launching a fleet of unmanned drones. — Control threatened to wipe out all life in the galaxy in Season 2.

Discovery has, over its four seasons so far, put the entire Federation in danger no fewer than four times. Putting Earth itself in the firing line at the end of Season 4 was just the icing on the cake… but it’s past time to try something different. Other Star Trek shows have used the “massive galaxy-ending threat” storyline quite sparingly – and that’s been to their benefit. It’s only Picard that’s come close to over-using this trope as much as Discovery.

There are so many stories that can be told in this wonderful sci-fi setting that don’t require such high stakes. Stories can focus on individual characters, factions, planets, and so on without forcibly cranking the drama up to eleven. This is now Discovery’s last chance to tell a story that doesn’t involve some sort of existential threat to the Federation and/or the entire galaxy, and I’d really like to see how Captain Burnham and the other characters thrive in that kind of narrative environment.

Still frame from Discovery Season 3 showing the destructive event known as "the Burn." — The apocalyptic disaster known as “the Burn” was the driving force behind the story of Season 3.

The season’s original premise seemed to tease a mystery – one that could tie into the events of The Next Generation or even the Picard eras, which could be a ton of fun. Unravelling an archaeological mystery, searching for some kind of hidden treasure, and striking out on a bona fide adventure are all ideas that could make for an entertaining and compelling story.

Some of my all-time favourite Star Trek episodes (and favourite Discovery episodes too, come to that) are smaller character-focused pieces, or stories that put exploration and adventure at their core. We’ve seen glimpses of this in Discovery, with episodes like An Obol for Charon in Season 2 and Choose to Live in Season 4, but those stories still came along as part of season-long arcs about imminent threats to all life in the galaxy. It would be great if Discovery could take this last opportunity to tell a story with lower stakes and let us see how the characters we’ve come to know would cope with an altogether different kind of mystery.

Wish #3:
Finally explain the events of the Short Treks episode Calypso.

Still frame from the Short Treks episode Calypso showing Craft in the USS Discovery's shuttle bay. — Craft aboard the long-abandoned USS Discovery.

If you’ve been a regular reader for a while, you might remember this particular point from my commentary leading up to Seasons 3 and 4 as well! Thus far, Discovery has taken steps toward embracing some of the plot points from Calypso – including the creation of Zora from a merging of the ship’s computer and the sphere data, as well as the use of the term “V’Draysh” to refer to the post-Burn Federation. But on the other hand, the ship’s retrofit, the galaxy-wide ban on time travel, and the show’s current place in the timeline have all taken steps away from what we saw in this mini-episode.

Maybe I’m one of the last people to still give a shit about Calypso. It was a fifteen-minute mini-episode produced in 2018 for the sole purpose of trying to retain subscribers to what was then still called CBS All Access in between seasons of Discovery. Maybe I should just… write it off. But because Calypso still feels like such an outlier – and a mysterious one at that – I can’t. I want to see some kind of conclusion to its story, and with this being Discovery’s final season, it’s all but certain to be our last chance to get one.

Still frame from the Short Treks episode Calypso showing the USS Discovery engaging its tractor beam. — The USS Discovery in *Calypso*.

A big part of me suspects that Calypso will be brushed aside by Paramount. It seems clear at this point that it was written at a time when Discovery was flirting with cancellation after an unimpressive first season, and could have served as a kind of epilogue to Season 2 with only a couple of narrative tweaks. It also set up Season 2 in suitably mysterious fashion, leaving us wondering about the thousand-year time-jump and the state of the galaxy in the far future.

If left unresolved, Calypso wouldn’t be the only outlier in the history of the franchise – not by any means. Star Trek’s world has grown and evolved over decades, with storylines and ideas falling by the wayside. Maybe it would be too complicated to write an explanation for Calypso in the confines of a ten-episode season that also has a lot of work to do for other characters and storylines that are arguably much more important. But with talk of a mystery that could be centred on the 24th Century… I can’t help but wonder. Could some kind of time-travel be on the agenda? And if so… could the USS Discovery and its computer end up hidden in a nebula for hundreds of years, waiting for the crew to return when the time is right?

Wish #4:
A major connection to the Picard era.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard Season 3 showing the USS Titan approaching a space station. — The USS Titan.

For two shows in the same franchise that were in production simultaneously for three full seasons, there’s been remarkably little crossover between Picard and Discovery. The inclusion of the Qowat Milat from Picard’s first season has been the biggest, but it feels like both shows missed open goals when it comes to making bigger connections. I don’t want to see Star Trek go down the Marvel route of making every show and film one piece of a bigger puzzle – because that kind of storytelling has its own limitations. But there’s more Paramount could do to connect disparate parts of the Star Trek franchise, even with Picard and Discovery being set centuries apart.

A teaser trailer for Season 5 (which was only shown at a fan convention, as far as I can tell) featured a Romulan scout ship of the same design seen in The Next Generation – according to reports from those who saw it. Combined with what we know about the story’s “ancient mystery,” some kind of connection to the 24th Century seems to be a possibility – and that’s great! Anything that ties into The Next Generation and the shows of that era would be wonderful to see.

Still frame from The Next Generation Season 3 episode The Defector (remastered version) showing a Romulan Scout Ship. — A Romulan scout ship in *The Next Generation*.

But there’s got to be more to it than just a hit of cheap nostalgia for nostalgia’s sake. A successful story that ties into the events of The Next Generation and Picard could do a lot for the languishing Picard spin-off pitch – Star Trek: Legacy. Many Trekkies, myself included, would love to see another series or film set in the Picard era, and Discovery’s final season could help set it up and rally more support.

In any event, this is Discovery’s last chance to connect to Picard. With Picard having concluded its run, perhaps the necessity of such a connection is lesser now than it was a couple of years ago… but I’d still like to see something more. It doesn’t have to be a major appearance by a main character or anything like that – though that could be absolutely phenomenal if handled well – but if Discovery could do something more to connect with its sister show, I’d appreciate it!

Wish #5:
Undo some or all of it?

Still frame from the Discovery Season 2 episode Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2 showing Michael Burnham time-travelling. — Could time travel lead to a reboot of Star Trek’s far future?

This isn’t something I’m sure I want to see – hence the question-mark! But Discovery’s 32nd Century has certainly been a departure from what we’ve come to expect from Star Trek’s incredibly positive and optimistic take on the future. Furthermore, its place in the timeline casts a shadow over practically every other Star Trek story; the knowledge that the Burn will come along and cripple the Federation is now forever present, and that can have an impact on how future stories are perceived.

For much of Season 3, I wondered whether Discovery’s writers were planning to “undo,” through time travel, parallel universes, or other technobabble shenanigans, the Burn and the post-apocalyptic 32nd Century. Going that route could’ve even tied in with Calypso, the Short Treks episode we discussed a moment ago. It didn’t happen in the end – and Season 3 came to an end with the Burn’s cause being explained and the Federation beginning the slow task of rebuilding.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 2 episode The Red Angel showing Michael Burnham. — Time travel and undoing broken timelines has been a theme in *Discovery* already.

At this point, with two full seasons set in this time period and having been introduced to several genuinely interesting characters, wiping out this version of the 32nd Century would be difficult to pull off from a narrative standpoint. In-universe, however, there are still some good arguments for doing so. Saving the lives lost during the Burn is one, as is saving the future from more than a century’s worth of strife and difficulty. Going back in time could also save Kwejian and other worlds from last season’s dark matter anomaly.

I doubt that this is the way Discovery will choose to go in its final season… but there are arguments in favour of resetting the 32nd Century to bring it more in line with the rest of the franchise – especially if Paramount hopes to make the 32nd Century the setting for other projects. Starfleet Academy seems all but certain to be set in this era, and while there’s something to be said for stories about rebuilding after a disaster… Discovery hasn’t really done much with that idea so far. Maybe it would be better to admit now – before it’s too late – that “post-apocalyptic Star Trek” was a mistake, and find a way to undo it.

Wish #6:
A big-picture look at the state of the galaxy and its factions.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 3 episode There Is A Tide showing Admiral Vance and Osyraa at the negotiating table. — The Emerald Chain is one of the only new factions we’ve met in the 32nd Century so far.

Star Trek has built up its factions and their relationships over the course of decades, and only rarely has the franchise “zoomed out” to take a broader look at the shape of the galaxy. But with the 32nd Century still being a relatively new setting, there’s so much that we still don’t know about how the galaxy looks in this era. It would be great if Discovery could shine a light on at least some of the factions that we remember from past iterations of Star Trek, showing us what became of them over the centuries.

Several factions have been name-dropped over the past couple of seasons: the Borg, for example, and the Q Continuum. And we’ve seen background characters from races like the Ferengi and Lurians that indicate they’re still around. But other major races and factions from Star Trek’s past are noticeably absent: where are the Klingons, the Betazoids, or anyone from the Delta Quadrant? It would be great to catch up with even one returning faction and see what position it’s in – and if I had to choose, I guess the Klingons would be the most interesting. Not only has the Klingon Empire been a major faction across Star Trek’s history, but Captain Burnham and the crew had multiple run-ins with them in the 23rd Century.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 1 premiere showing the Klingon character T'Kuvma. — The Klingons played a big role in *Discovery’*s first two seasons.

If Discovery could zoom out, though, even just for a few moments, and show us other major players in the 32nd Century beyond the Federation and the Emerald Chain… I’d really appreciate it. It would be wonderful to see how the Star Trek galaxy has evolved over that time, as well as seeing how powers like the Klingons or the Borg coped with the effects of the Burn and its aftermath. With the Burn now 100% confirmed to have originated with the Federation… could that cause tension or even conflict? There’s a lot that could be explored here.

Setting up what the galaxy looks like beyond the Federation’s borders could also be to the benefit of Starfleet Academy and any other potential spin-off projects, giving them something to build from. Discovery’s 32nd Century feels very open-ended at the moment – and that can be a good thing, don’t get me wrong. But beyond just the curiosity of seeing more of the galaxy in this era, there are solid narrative reasons for establishing the status of major factions and races.

Wish #7:
Properly explain Dr Kovich and his role in the Federation.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 5 trailer showing Dr Kovich and Captain Burnham. — Dr Kovich and Captain Burnham in the first Season 5 trailer.

Dr Kovich is a fun and enigmatic character, portrayed brilliantly by David Cronenberg. But he’s also mysterious to the point of being frustrating, and I’d like to see Discovery finally explain who exactly he is and what his role is within the Federation’s hierarchy. We’ve seen Dr Kovich as a psychiatrist, a military analyst, a commander with the authority to give orders, a teacher or professor, someone with classified medical knowledge, and more. Last season, he told Captain Burnham that he couldn’t accompany her on Discovery’s mission to the galactic barrier because he had “more important things to do,” only for that line to be ignored as the season came to a close.

So once more I’m asking this question: who is Dr Kovich? What’s his role in Starfleet/the Federation? Is he, as I’ve long suspected, the head of – or perhaps even the sole survivor of – Section 31? The latter could be an interesting tie-in with the upcoming Section 31 TV movie.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 5 trailer showing Dr Kovich. — Could Dr Kovich work for Section 31?

Enigmatic and mysterious characters are a ton of fun. But Dr Kovich has, for me at least, crossed a line. He seems to be too perfect; a master of too many trades and a jack of none. Narratively, he seems to be moved around at the drop of a hat to fill any senior role that the writers need – but with no explanation of how he has all of this classified information and knowledge of such a broad range of subjects. If he was part of Section 31 in this era, a lot of that would make sense.

Perhaps that will have to be my own personal “head canon,” though! Still, with Dr Kovich returning this time, it would be nice to learn more about who he is and what exactly his rank or position is within Starfleet or the Federation. He’s also a character who has the potential to reappear in Starfleet Academy… so if he can’t be given a full explanation or spotlight episode this time, maybe there’s still hope!

Wish #8:
Tee up the “next phase” of Star Trek.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 4 premiere showing Burnham addressing a class of Starfleet Academy cadets. — A series set at Starfleet Academy has already been announced.

Discovery’s cancellation, if you really think about it, could be a turning-point for the Star Trek franchise. It was the first made-for-streaming Star Trek series, the first fully-serialised show, the first Star Trek series on the small screen in more than a decade, and the first to explore this new 32nd Century setting. Its finale will mark the end of an era – so the question “what comes next?” should be firmly on the minds of executives and producers.

Discovery is bound to do something to lean into or set up Starfleet Academy – I think that’s a given. We already saw a “backdoor pilot” in Season 4, and I think Season 5 could expand upon that, perhaps giving some of the cadets from that episode more of a starring role. But beyond Starfleet Academy and Section 31 – another Discovery spin-off – what else can this final season do to give potential future projects a foundation to build upon?

Still frame from the Discovery Season 3 episode Terra Firma, Part II showing Burnham and Georgiou. — Season 3 has already set up the *Section 31* TV movie.

There are many ways this could go – from doubling-down on characters and themes to killing off half of the cast or even overwriting some or all of this iteration of the 32nd Century. But if Discovery could use this final season to blaze a trail that other shows could follow – without leaving things unresolved or ending on a deliberate cliffhanger – I think that would be fantastic.

Star Trek’s future is up in the air right now, with three of the franchise’s shows all coming to an end and questions over Paramount’s future. Personally, I don’t think it’s impossible to imagine a time in the very near future when Star Trek is once again on hiatus. But a solid final season from Discovery could include something for fans to keep in mind – and for the franchise to return to in the future.

Wish #9:
Spend a bit more time with one or two of the secondary characters.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 4 episode Coming Home showing T'Rina and Saru. — T’Rina and Saru.

The question of Discovery’s secondary characters – and the bridge crew in particular – always feels like a contentious one in some quarters of the fan community. We all agree that Discovery was pitched as “the Michael Burnham show,” but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room to spend a bit more time with some of the other members of the crew… especially as Burnham has arguably seen her main character arc come to somewhat of a conclusion.

It was interesting in Season 4 to spend a bit of time with some of the folks at Federation HQ – T’Rina, President Rillak, and Admiral Vance all made fine additions to the show’s cast of characters, and several members of the crew also got moments in the spotlight. Not all of these character moments have worked as well as they should, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort!

Still frame from Discovery Season 4 episode Coming Home showing Admiral Vance with his wife and daughter. — Admiral Vance with his family.

It would be great if Season 5 could find the time to explore someone like Owosekun or Rhys a bit more. Or even to bring back someone like Gray, who was rather unceremoniously shuffled off the series at the earliest opportunity. Now that Burnham is firmly embedded in the captain’s chair, has resolved her issues with Starfleet, and settled her relationship with Book, there’s perhaps more of an opportunity than in past seasons to spend more time with other members of the crew.

Obviously in a ten-episode season with a mysterious main story, we aren’t going to have time for a detailed look at everyone. That’s a shame – but it is what it is! I’d settle for even a single episode with a focus on one of the secondary characters, or storylines featuring a couple of them spread throughout the season.

Wish #10:
Standalone episodes and storylines to offset the season’s main narrative arc.

Still frame from the Discovery Season 4 episode Choose to Live showing the interior of the Abronian spaceship. — Saving the Abronians in *Choose to Live* was one of the highlights of Season 4.

When I think about Seasons 3 and 4, my favourite episodes and storylines were actually off to one side, not really part of the main season-long narratives in either case. Episodes like Terra Firma and Choose to Live were among the highlights of their respective seasons, and that’s because they did something that Discovery hadn’t really done before: self-contained episodic storytelling.

Since the likes of Lost and Game of Thrones set the entertainment world ablaze with incredibly popular serialised stories, that’s the only model that most executives have wanted to pursue. But a franchise like Star Trek was built on an older style of episodic storytelling, and that’s something many fans have long appreciated and want to see more of. It’s also, I would argue, why a franchise like Star Trek proved to be so popular in re-runs and on DVD: you don’t need to have followed a whole season-long story, it’s easy in most cases to just pick up an episode or two and have a great time. But that’s a longer conversation that we’ll have to save for another time!

Still frame from the Discovery Season 3 episode Terra Firma featuring the character of Carl. — “Carl” in *Terra Firma Part I*.

Strange New Worlds managed to strike a wonderful balance in its first season. Characters could have season-long arcs, learning, growing, and changing as their adventures unfolded, but each week the crew would be in a different situation, orbiting a different planet, facing a different foe, or tackling a different challenge. This blend of serialised arcs with episodic storytelling was fantastic – and I would dearly love to see more of it in Star Trek (and on TV in general!)

I don’t expect Discovery to fully go down the Strange New Worlds route – as much as I’d love to see it. But there really ought to be time for a couple of standalone episodes, perhaps focusing on other characters off to one side as the ship and crew travel to their next destination. Opening up the season to new and different adventures would be well worth it!

So that’s it!

Promo photo for Discovery Season 5 featuring Captain Rayner. — Captain Rayner… a new character for Season 5.

Those are ten of my wishes for Discovery’s upcoming fifth season. Although I’ve been feeling that sense of burnout that I described earlier, I do fully intend to watch Discovery this spring. Whether I’ll sign up for Paramount+ in April to watch it week by week or whether I’ll wait till June and binge it… I can’t be sure right now! But as I said shortly after New Year when I put together my annual “looking ahead” list, Discovery is a series that I’m looking forward to.

My biggest concern at this early stage has to be whether the series can manage to put together a solid, conclusive ending given that no such ending was originally written. Can re-writes and a couple of days of additional shooting make up for that deficit? Or will the series come to a close in unspectacular or even disappointing fashion?

I hope you’ll stay tuned here on Trekking with Dennis, because there will eventually be episode reviews and perhaps some additional commentary once Season 5 gets going. And when the series has broadcast its final episode, I’m sure I’ll have something to say about the way it ended – as well as perhaps taking a retrospective look at Discovery as a whole. Until then… Live Long and Prosper!

Star Trek: Discovery Season 5 will be broadcast on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the platform is available beginning in April 2024. Seasons 1-4 are available to stream now, and are also available on DVD/Blu-ray. The Star Trek franchise – including Discovery and all other properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

The Way We Engage With Media Is Changing… Get Over It!

Mon 19.02.24Dennis

Earlier this year, a quotation from Ubisoft director of subscriptions Philippe Tremblay was doing the rounds. Many news outlets seized upon it, as did bloggers and commentators – and the reaction, at least from what I’ve seen, was pretty negative. Tremblay suggested that players will get comfortable with “not owning [their] games,” and that four-word phrase sent usually sensible critics and analysts into a state of meltdown.

As I state in the title of this piece, the way in which practically all of us engage with and consume media has changed dramatically in the last few years – and that change is continuing. I’ve been through multiple stages of this transition myself with different forms of media for at least twenty years, if not more. It began with music, with digital downloads replacing cassette tapes and CDs. It happened again with DVDs and Blu-ray discs losing out to video-on-demand. It’s happened already in gaming with the move from cartridges to discs and then the decline of optical discs in favour of digital downloads.

And all of that is before we get into subscription services and streaming.

Promo graphic for Xbox Game Pass. — Xbox Game Pass is the first major gaming subscription service… but it won’t be the last.

Twenty years ago, I couldn’t have predicted the rise in streaming and subscription platforms – but now they’re everywhere. Many people, especially younger people, have never purchased so much as a single song or film – they’ve grown up streaming their music and videos. Forget about physical discs or tapes, there’s a whole generation of younger people who’ve never even bought a song on iTunes or paid to watch a film or TV series on demand. Subscriptions have become the way many people want to engage with different forms of media – and it’s easy to see why.

Subscriptions offer a “best of both worlds” approach. Like a cable or satellite TV package, they offer a good deal of choice. And like video-on-demand or a DVD box set, they let viewers choose when they want to watch. Music streaming, too, has these same advantages: an abundance of choice and the freedom to choose what to listen to and when. Audiences no longer have to put up with the rigid schedules of broadcasters and TV channels, while also having access to far more viewing or listening options than they would with CDs or DVDs. For a relatively low price per month, massive libraries of content become available – opening up far more titles than any of us would ever be able to reasonably expect to purchase. This was the original appeal of streaming, and while in the film and TV space there are problems resulting from the “streaming wars,” it remains the major appeal of the format.

Paramount+ is one of a growing number of film/TV subscription services.

I don’t have a crystal ball, so I can’t predict what the media landscape might look like another twenty years down the line. It’s quite possible that further changes and disruptions will have come along, and streaming may no longer be the flavour of the month. But right now, as things stand, it’s the direction of travel for music, television, film… and even gaming. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that is simply wrong, and unfortunately for folks who want to push back against it… I think that’s a losing battle right now. Is it worth being aware of the shortcomings of streaming and subscriptions? Absolutely! Is there a reasonable chance of reversing this trend in the next few years, and can we expect people to go back to buying cassette tapes and DVDs? Absolutely not.

It’s no shock to me that gaming is also moving toward a subscription model. The only real surprise, if I’m being honest, is that it’s taken until now for subscriptions to begin to take off. An all-digital product like a video game is well-suited to being bundled into a subscription package, and gamers – who tend to be a younger demographic on the whole – are exactly the kind of tech-savvy people who are already engaging with other forms of media in this way. It makes perfect sense that subscriptions would be the “next big thing” in the gaming market.

A selection of PlayStation 4 games in boxes. — A subscription model for video games actually feels overdue!

Here’s the fundamental question at the heart of this controversy: do I, as a player or viewer, need to own outright the media that I’m engaging with? Because answering this question should go some way to explaining why some people are so angry at Ubisoft for this comment, and why others seem to be just fine with it.

I’m happy to watch a movie or TV show once and never come back to it again. I can think of many, many films and TV shows in that category. I watched them, I enjoyed them, but I have absolutely no need or desire to go back to them. Buying the DVD box set of a show like Battlestar Galactica just to watch it once seems wasteful, and while I could re-sell it afterwards, I wouldn’t get most of my money back. I could rent it – as we used to do in the days when Blockbuster and other video rental stores were in every small town… and that’s basically what streaming subscriptions are. Yes, you don’t own the media you consume when you subscribe to a platform. You pay to access it – i.e. you rent it.

No offence, Battlestar Galactica…

For a lot of TV shows and films, that’s totally fine. Last year, for instance, I watched Ladybug and Cat Noir: The Movie. It was a decent enough film; a perfectly enjoyable superhero adventure for kids. But I don’t need to own a copy of Ladybug and Cat Noir: The Movie… because I’m almost certainly never going to watch it again. Paying £15-20 for a DVD, Blu-ray, or digital copy just seems wasteful.

And that mindset also applies to games. There are many, many games that I’ve played over the last thirty-plus years that were one-and-done affairs. These are titles I enjoyed but just see no need to revisit… such that owning them outright, either digitally or on a disc/cartridge, is unnecessary. So if a streaming service is going to come along and let me essentially rent the games that I want to play – while also giving me access to a library so colossal that I could never afford to purchase even one-tenth of the titles on offer – then heck yes. Sign me up!

A selection of "trending" titles on PC Game Pass in February 2024. — A selection of “trending” titles on PC Game Pass in February 2024.

When I first started talking about Microsoft’s Game Pass service in 2020, that was how I felt. And I will admit that subscriptions in the gaming space have some bugs and kinks to be worked out – in particular how DLC and expansion packs should be handled. But those are surmountable hurdles, and the benefits of the subscription model, particularly to low-income folks like myself, outweigh the disadvantages. If you asked me right now, in early 2024, what would be the most cost-effective route into current-gen gaming, I would say without hesitation that an Xbox Series S console and a Game Pass subscription is by far the best option for folks on a budget.

At present, there are no titles (of which I’m aware, at any rate) that are only available to people who sign up for an expensive subscription package. That means that players can still choose to purchase – and own outright – any game or games that they choose to. Some developers and studios, such as Baldur’s Gate 3 creators Larian, have indicated that they won’t put their games on any subscription service in the near future – and that’s okay, too. An independent publisher or studio will always have the freedom to choose whether to engage with subscription platforms – and which to sign on with, if any.

Screenshot of Baldur's Gate 3 showing the character creator. — Developers Larian Studios have pledged not to put titles like *Baldur’s Gate 3* on subscription platforms for the foreseeable future.

Permanently owning media is, if you think about it, a relatively new concept. When films came along in the first years of the 20th Century, they’d be shown in cinemas – but there was no way for the average person to own a copy of a film until really the late 1970s. The same applied to television shows: audiences would be entirely dependent on broadcasters to watch their favourite shows, with no way to purchase their own copy. This was even true of shows that eventually spawned long-running series and franchises: Star Trek, for instance, and Doctor Who, both started off in the 1960s, when viewers could only ever hope to re-watch their favourite episodes when television networks would do re-runs.

Even within my own lifetime, owning a copy of a film or television series was a relative rarity. When I was very young we didn’t have a video recorder at home, and it was only in the late ’80s that my parents purchased a Betamax system, and then later still a VHS recorder. I could count on my fingers the number of video cassettes I owned as an adolescent, and most of those were blank tapes used for recording programmes directly from the TV; even in the ’80s and into the ’90s, the idea of purchasing and owning a vast media library was far from the norm.

A collection of (mostly horror) films on VHS cassette. — Nobody that I knew in the ’80s or ’90s had a collection like this one!

In gaming, too, this idea of permanent ownership hasn’t always been around. Games started in arcades, where players would have to pay to play a game that they didn’t own. And in the ’80s and ’90s, renting individual games and even entire consoles from rental shops was commonplace. I still remember the mad rush of trying to complete a game the night before it was due to go back to the shop!

With streaming and subscriptions growing in the music, film, and television spaces, their arrival in gaming was inevitable. And perhaps in the future we’ll look back on the period of media ownership from the 1980s through to the early 2020s as a bit of a blip; an outlier in a media landscape that has tended to favour a less permanent relationship with audiences. I don’t have a great track record at predicting the future… but that seems at least plausible to me, at any rate!

Stock photo of a neon sign advertising psychic services. — I don’t claim to predict the future…

I could probably count on my fingers the number of films, television shows, and video games that I’d want hard copies of, because there really aren’t that many that I consider to be the kinds of masterpieces that I need to return to over and over again. There are a great many games that I’m happy to only play once, and that I don’t need to own outright because I’ll never play again. Paying the inflated asking price of £60/$70 for a game in that category feels wasteful… even more so to think that a physical copy of the game would just end up gathering dust on a shelf.

All that being said, I don’t expect to see “physical” copies of games disappear entirely. As we’ve surprisingly seen with the resurgence of the vinyl and cassette markets in music, there’s a hard core of collectors (and hipsters) who long for those slightly archaic formats – and the same will almost certainly be true of video games, too. Many games that began as digital-only products end up releasing a physical copy on a disc or cartridge – Hades, one of my favourite games of 2021, is one such example. And “collector’s editions” of games aren’t going anywhere, either. So for collectors and fans of games in boxes, I don’t think they’re going to entirely disappear. Whether they’ll remain affordable is another matter, of course!

Olivia Rodrigo's album Guts in vinyl format. — Many modern artists release their albums on vinyl.

Returning to the quotation that prompted all of this, though, here’s what I have to say: I’m totally fine with renting most of the games I play. I can think of several titles from just the past couple of years that I paid full price or close to full price for that 100% did not deserve it, and if I could’ve tried those games as part of a subscription package, I could’ve saved myself some money and bother! For the way I personally play games, subscriptions and renting are perfectly fine. And for those occasional once-in-a-generation masterpieces like Baldur’s Gate 3? I’m happy to splurge!

The way all of us engage with media has changed a lot over the past decade – and it changed in the decade preceding it, too. There will undoubtedly be more changes to come in the years ahead, and it’s entirely plausible that a return to one-off purchases and full ownership will be on the cards. But right now, subscriptions and renting are the way things are going. The transformation has already happened in music, it’s ongoing if a little unsettled in film and television, and gaming is just beginning to catch up. There are drawbacks, of course, and we mustn’t kid ourselves: corporations are doing this for their benefit, not ours. But as someone on a low income, and who remembers growing up as a gamer with literally a few pennies in my pocket, having access to a massive library of titles for one monthly price still feels like a great deal. And if I don’t own any of those titles and can’t replay them if they get taken off the service… well, that’s a trade-off I’m okay with.

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, publisher, and/or developer. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

I’m Not Sure What Xbox Is Doing Any More…

Fri 09.02.24Sat 10.02.24Dennis

I don’t usually like to cover rumours here on the website, but the growing controversy swirling around Microsoft and Xbox is proving difficult to ignore. If you haven’t heard, a number of reputable outlets have been reporting that Microsoft is planning to make some of its biggest current and upcoming console-exclusive titles available on PlayStation 5 consoles – including the likes of Indiana Jones, Starfield, and the Gears of War series.

This feels like a potentially massive shift in the gaming landscape, perhaps on a scale we haven’t seen for a long time. And I have to admit that it leaves me with pretty big questions about Microsoft’s strategy. What does the company hope to achieve in the longer-term with a move like this… especially after having spent so much money buying up companies like ZeniMax and Activision-Blizzard?

A graphic promoting Microsoft's acquisition of Activision-Blizzard. — Microsoft spent a lot of money to purchase Activision-Blizzard recently.

Console exclusives suck. Let’s make that clear right off the bat. It would be better for players if every game could be available on every current-gen system with no limits… but that isn’t the world we live in. Nintendo games are exclusive to the Switch, and that’s gone a long way to helping the company shift well over 100 million consoles. PlayStation exclusives have likewise helped Sony dominate two console generations in a row. And Microsoft has been lagging behind since the end of the Xbox 360 era in that department.

But the company has seemed determined to course-correct. Microsoft has spent lavishly over the last few years, buying up the likes of Obsidian, Bethesda, and of course Activision, and using those long-established companies to create new exclusive titles. After launching Game Pass and bringing in tens of millions of subscribers in a few short years, Xbox’s plans seemed pretty clear: develop more and more exclusive games for consoles and PC, and turn the brand back into the powerhouse it was in the 2000s.

An Xbox 360 console with an open disc tray. — Xbox dominated the console market in the mid/late 2000s with the Xbox 360.
*Image Credit: Mario A.P. via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0*

If these rumours of exclusive games going to PlayStation are even close to being true, that corporate strategy is no longer one that Microsoft is pursuing. And to me, it feels short-sighted almost to the point of desperation. Putting a game like Starfield on PlayStation might bring in some cash in the short-term as players who had previously been locked out will be able to pick it up. But in the longer-term… why would anyone buy an Xbox or even consider subscribing to Game Pass?

If Microsoft is willing to put games that it owns on a competing platform, but that competitor isn’t reciprocating, that’s tantamount to admitting defeat and throwing in the towel. Players will quickly realise that PlayStation is the place to be, because it allows them to play almost every title going – whereas Xbox doesn’t. PlayStation exclusives like God of War, Horizon: Zero Dawn, and The Last Of Us have been hugely influential in Sony’s success over the past decade or so, and if games that had previously been only available on Xbox also join the PlayStation lineup… that’s a great deal for PlayStation gamers.

A graphic promoting Xbox Game Pass. — Will we soon see Game Pass available on PlayStation consoles?

So what’s Microsoft’s move here? Are Xbox consoles to be discontinued, going the way of the Atari Jaguar and Sega Dreamcast? Have sales of the Xbox Series S and X been so poor over the past three years that Microsoft is considering getting out of the hardware market? If so… where would that leave the gaming landscape? If PlayStation and Nintendo are the only ones left, that might not be good for gaming and competition in the marketplace.

Sony learned a lot of harsh lessons during the PlayStation 3 era when the Xbox 360 sold more than 80 million units and gave the PS3 a real run for its money. That competition spurred Sony on and led to better things a few years later. With Nintendo effectively off to one side doing its own thing, Xbox has been PlayStation’s main competitor for the past twenty years – and having competition is necessary for a healthy marketplace. I don’t want to jump the gun and write Xbox’s eulogy, but if previously exclusive games start appearing on PlayStation… it feels like a harbinger of worse news to come.

A PlayStation 3 controller. — PlayStation had to play catch-up during the PS3 era.

If Microsoft is finding that their current-gen machines aren’t selling as well as they’d hoped, there are other options besides a total surrender or abandoning hardware production. Nintendo ditched the Wii U well ahead of schedule, launching a brand-new machine less than five years later. That could be one route for Xbox to follow. If the Xbox Series S is proving troublesome from a development perspective, retiring that console in favour of the Series X could also be possible. Even just waiting, treading water in anticipation of bigger exclusives in the next few years might be better than abandoning exclusivity altogether for the sake of some short-term cash.

Microsoft has some upcoming games that have the potential to be console-movers. Indiana Jones is one – albeit one that I personally wasn’t taken with when it was shown off a few weeks ago! The sequel to Skyrim is also bound to be a big deal when it’s ready in a few years’ time, and that’s before we’ve looked at some of the franchises and games that Microsoft owns the rights to after its recent acquisition of Activision.

CGI render of The Elder Scrolls VI from Bethesda's E3 announcement. — *The Elder Scrolls VI* could be a console-seller if it’s an Xbox exclusive.

With so many studios coming “in-house,” Microsoft’s future in the gaming marketplace looked to be getting brighter. Game Pass continues to add subscribers, and with subscriptions being the current direction of travel across various forms of media, Microsoft is actually ahead of the curve in the gaming realm; Game Pass is streets ahead of any comparable offering from any other company. Game Pass’ current success could pave the way for a subscription-based future for the Xbox brand. But Game Pass – and Xbox consoles in general – need exclusive titles to make it work.

I don’t really have a dog in this fight; the only current-gen console I own is a Nintendo Switch. But even as PC player, what happens on console has an impact. Microsoft’s seemingly abrupt change in strategy could have implications down the line for Game Pass, for ongoing and upcoming titles, and more.

An Xbox Series X control pad. — What will this mean for Xbox?

I’m all in favour of shaking things up in the games industry, but Xbox seemingly surrendering its already mediocre lineup of exclusive games isn’t how I’d have expected – or wanted – things to go in the first part of 2024! And as I said at the beginning, I really don’t understand what it’s supposed to achieve beyond a short-term injection of cash. If Microsoft’s gaming division is so short of money that it needs a few hundred thousand sales of Starfield on PlayStation 5… then something’s gone very wrong indeed.

This is great news for PlayStation owners – assuming that these rumours turn out to be correct, that is. For people who’ve invested into the Xbox brand, though, I can understand why there will be some degree of upset. There’s tribalism, of course, with some Xbox die-hards determined to cheer for “their” console, but that isn’t really what I mean. Stepping back and trying to look at things as reasonably and objectively as possible… PlayStation is looking like a way better deal. If Microsoft’s biggest exclusives join its already impressive lineup, I can absolutely understand why players who shelled out for an Xbox Series X would feel hard done by.

Still frame of Phil Spencer at the Xbox Series X announcement event. — The Xbox Series S and X consoles are still relatively new.

It’s that sense of regret, of having made the wrong decision. By sending their games to PlayStation, Microsoft will be giving that platform a boost and making it the better deal for players – leaving current Xbox gamers and supporters feeling understandably upset. If they’d known this was going to happen when purchasing a new console, PlayStation 5 would have been the logical choice.

We’ve all experienced that kind of regret or envy, even if just on a small scale. How many times have you chosen the wrong line at the supermarket, only to see the other lines moving faster? Or ordered a dish at a restaurant only to see your friend or partner’s plate look way better? It’s those kinds of feelings that I think we can all relate to; this is something that goes beyond merely “Team Green versus Team Blue.”

Promo artwork of the PlayStation 5 console. — It could be a good time to consider buying a PlayStation 5…

So we’ll have to watch and wait for official news from Microsoft – as well as an explanation, if this does end up going ahead. I wanted to share my two cents on the subject, at any rate. Console exclusivity isn’t great, but what’s worse is seemingly promising players exclusive titles, using exclusivity as a major selling-point, and then U-turning on it midway through a console generation. Some players will feel that they’ve been left high and dry by Microsoft and Xbox… and the damage that could do to the brand, with some of its biggest fans and supporters potentially souring and turning away, should not be underestimated.

Is a bigger shake-up of the gaming landscape imminent? Will Xbox drop out of the hardware market altogether? Will a reciprocal deal be struck to bring titles like Spider-Man 2 and God of War Ragnarök to Xbox and PC? Is this the end of console exclusivity?

There are some big questions floating around… and all we can do is watch this space. Be sure to check back in the days and weeks ahead, though, because if there really is massive news from Xbox, I’m sure I’ll have more to say.

Xbox Series S/X and PlayStation 5 consoles are available for purchase now. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Palworld: No One Owns A Genre…

Fri 26.01.24Dennis

I have very little interest in the new survival/monster game Palworld. I’ve never engaged with titles like Monster Hunter or Pokémon, so the game just wasn’t on my radar. But an issue has come up for Palworld that I think is an important one not only for the games industry, but for entertainment and media as a whole, and I felt compelled to add my two cents to the conversation.

If you haven’t heard, Palworld has been accused of “ripping off” or plagiarising the long-running Pokémon series. The game uses some familiar designs for its monsters, and although I haven’t bought it or played it for myself, I understand that some elements of its gameplay are similar, too, with players being able to “catch” monsters and use them in battles.

Sheep-like critters with machine guns in a promo screenshot for Palworld. — Sheep-like critters with machine guns in a promo screenshot for *Palworld*.

Nintendo and The Pokémon Company, who jointly own and develop the Pokémon series, have even commented on this, with the latter releasing a statement saying that they “intend to investigate” Palworld and “take appropriate measures to address any acts that infringe on intellectual property rights.” I’ve linked to The Pokémon Company’s full statement at the end of this piece so you can read it in full if you’re interested.

Whether you like Palworld or not, the issue this raises is a genuinely interesting one – and it’s one that the games industry hasn’t really wrangled with for a long time, at least not in public. The basic question is this: can any company claim ownership of, and potentially patent, trademark, or copyright, an entire genre, style of game, or gameplay mechanic?

Promo screenshot from Pokemon Violet featuring a character holding a red and white ball. — Do Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have a monopoly on designs and gameplay elements?

The answer should be obvious: no, of course not, don’t be stupid. The Pokémon Company and Nintendo can’t own the concept of a game with battling monsters any more than Rockstar could own the open-world sandbox crime genre, or PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds could own battle royale. The developers of PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds tried in vain to claim ownership of the battle royale genre, even going so far as to try to sue Epic Games, creators of Fortnite, over the perceived “copying.” That lawsuit went nowhere – and rightly so.

I’m old enough to remember when first-person shooters were literally called “Doom clones.” Doom popularised the first-person shooter in the early 1990s, and on the back of its success, dozens of other FPS titles were developed. But Doom’s creators didn’t lawyer up and try to prevent anyone else from making a first-person shooter at the time, nor did Rockstar go after the likes of the Saints Row series in the mid-2000s.

Screenshot from Doom (1993) showing a gun being fired. — *Doom* (1993) popularised – but did not invent – the first-person shooter.

Going all the way back to the earliest video games, new titles have come along that used similar styles, designs, and gameplay elements. Some of these games have gone on to innovate, pioneering entire sub-genres and gameplay mechanics, and if they’d been shut down or prevented from existing by excessive copyright lawsuits or patents, gaming today would be in a much worse place. The history of gaming is one of piecemeal innovation, and of companies jumping on popular genres, innovating, and pushing boundaries.

There were first-person titles literally decades before Doom, with 1980’s Battlezone in particular being a noteworthy progenitor. And there were crime games and open-world titles years before Grand Theft Auto III came along. So in neither case can the developer claim to have wholly independently “invented” something, even if their title was the one that popularised it. That was the fundamental flaw in the PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds lawsuit.

Promo image advertising PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (a.k.a. PUBG Battlegrounds). — *PlayerUnknown’s BattleGrounds* didn’t win its lawsuit against Epic Games.

Stepping away from gaming, we can look to cinema and even literature for other examples. No one would try to make the claim that only Tolkien should be allowed to write fantasy, or that fictional races like elves and orcs are somehow copyrightable. Nor would anyone be able to argue that the owners of 1927’s Metropolis should be able to trademark the entire sci-fi genre. That isn’t how art and media work or have ever worked.

Look at a film like Galaxy Quest, or a TV series like The Orville. Both lean heavily on the Star Trek franchise for inspiration (and parody), but Paramount wouldn’t have a leg to stand on if it tried to take their creators to court. And once again, that’s because Paramount doesn’t own the sci-fi genre, or even the “explorers on a faster-than-light spaceship seeking out new life” sub-genre of sci-fi. Anyone is allowed to tell their own stories – as long as they don’t use trademarked names or characters for profit.

Still frame from Old Wounds, the premiere episode of The Orville, showing the bridge of a spaceship. — *The Orville* pays homage to the Star Trek series in more ways than one.

If Palworld had its own Pikachu or Charizard, maybe Nintendo and The Pokémon Company would have an argument here. But from what I’ve seen, the game’s monsters all have unique names, and while they may look similar to critters from the Pokémon series… so what? You can’t claim ownership of any and all yellow-haired monsters in every video game. That’s the kind of claim that would be laughed out of court.

Maybe The Pokémon Company and Nintendo have been complacent, because there hasn’t really been a serious challenger to the Pokémon series before. Monster Hunter exists in a similar space, as do games in the Digimon series, but Pokémon has been a force unto itself for a long time. Perhaps the sudden arrival of Palworld struck a nerve, or perhaps Nintendo is worried because recent Pokémon titles haven’t been well-received.

Promo screenshot of Palworld featuring a yellow monster holding a gun. — I can see why *Palworld* appeals to fans of the Pokémon games.

But none of that actually matters. Palworld has as much right to exist as any of the 873 Pokémon games, and if its better than anything that The Pokémon Company has done in recent years… well, they’ll have to adapt and do better. They’ll have to make better games, actually finish working on them before releasing them, and maybe even look at some of the features included in Palworld that players have enjoyed. Pokémon has arguably been pretty stagnant for a while, at least from what I can see looking in from the outside, so a kick up the backside from a genuine competitor could be just what the series needs. Complacency breeds stagnation and ultimately decline, but competition can revitalise a flagging series.

Rather than seeing Palworld as a problem to be crushed, The Pokémon Company and Nintendo should view its entry into the marketplace as a window of opportunity. After years of having the monster-battling space all to themselves, there’s now the potential to look at how other developers might handle that kind of game – and even opportunities to learn and grow. But that would take the kind of critical thinking that Nintendo doesn’t always have a knack for!

Screenshot from Pokemon Blue (1996). — The Pokémon series has been running for decades, so a challenge and shake-up couldn’t hurt.

Either way, Palworld is here to stay. I can’t imagine that the game will be pulled from sale or forced to be shut down because of a complaint from Nintendo and The Pokémon Company, because any threat of legal action would surely be doomed to failure – as it has been every other time it’s been tried by other publishers and developers. Even if we accept that Nintendo and The Pokémon Company originated the monster-battling sub-genre (which is very much up for debate, as Pokémon itself is a variation on the role-playing game genre), they don’t get to claim ownership of it exclusively. And even if Palworld uses similar designs, visual styles, and gameplay mechanics… none of those things are copyrightable. This argument will go nowhere.

I will concede that, from what I’ve seen, parts of Palworld do look similar to the Pokémon series. And from the point of view of a fan or player, I can absolutely understand wanting to leave it a negative review pointing that out, or even to boycott it and refuse to play it because of its perceived “ripping off” of the Pokémon series. That’s absolutely fine on an individual level – and I can definitely appreciate why some Pokémon fans might see things that way. But that’s very much a personal, individual decision – and one that has no bearing on any copyright law or trademark case!

For my money, Palworld is a title I’m happy to skip. It’s not my thing – just like Pokémon isn’t. But I found this argument to be interesting – particularly when The Pokémon Company itself weighed in. I doubt we’ll hear much more about this; if The Pokémon Company has decent lawyers, they’ll tell them pretty quickly that nothing in Palworld comes close to violating copyright laws. But hey, I’ve been wrong about these things before… and in a way, I’d quite like to see this issue litigated, especially if it ends up embarrassing Nintendo and The Pokémon Company and costing them a lot of money!

You can read the full press release from The Pokémon Company by clicking or tapping here. (Warning: Leads to an external website)

Palworld is out now for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox Series S/X consoles. Palworld is the copyright of Pocket Pair. All other titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective publishers, developers, and/or distributors. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

The Canon Conundrum

Sun 14.01.24Tue 16.01.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek Beyond, The Empire Strikes Back, and The Rise of Skywalker.

Where do you stand on questions of “canon” in works of fiction? That’s the thorny issue we’re going to grapple with today!

The term “canon” as it’s applied to franchises and fictional universes today comes from the realm of theology, surprisingly enough. The first “canon” referred to the Bible, specifically to which books of the Bible were considered sacred and authentic. It has its roots in Latin, and is etymologically distinct from “cannon” – the large gunpowder weapons that we often associate with pirate ships.

A stock photo of a cannon. — No, not *that* kind of cannon!

In the context of fictional universes and modern entertainment franchises, the word “canon” has kind of taken on two meanings. Firstly, we have the authoritative list of which stories are the accepted ones in a particular series. And secondly, we have the meaning that we’re looking at in more detail today: how the word “canon” has been applied to individual story threads, narrative elements, and the minutiae of a fictional setting.

As more and more films and television shows have grown and been turned into ongoing franchises by their corporate overlords, the question of canon in its secondary meaning has come to the fore in fan communities. It’s worth noting that some fandoms have been wrangling with questions of canon for longer than others: Star Trek fans, for example, have been caught up in these kinds of debates for literally decades, as have fans of some comic books. Other franchises and fictional settings are new to the debate, prompted by new additions to their series, or in some cases, by corporate decisions that overwrite what had been previously established.

A still frame of Encounter at Farpoint, the premiere episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, showing Captain Picard and Worf on the bridge. — The Star Trek fan community has been caught up in these debates for decades!

Very few people would dispute that a film or television episode produced officially as part of a franchise is “canon.” That’s not really what we’re looking at today – though there are certain exceptions, such as how Star Trek: The Animated Series was “officially” considered to be non-canon for several years. Debates instead tend to focus on smaller story elements – the background of a character, how a fictional technology works, or whether Event A clashes in an irreconcilable way with Event B.

Some television shows – particularly comedy, but not exclusively comedy – tend to play very fast and loose with matters of canon. If a good joke requires a character to act completely differently, or even for an entire setting to be transformed, then these kinds of shows will do it. Why waste a good joke, after all? But other shows and films like to take themselves seriously, presenting their fictional worlds as big, persistent alternate realities in which audiences are invited to lose themselves. It can be jarring for some viewers when a new film or episode comes along that seems to challenge or even “violate” some aspect of what had been accepted as canon.

Still frame from Season 31 of The Simpsons featuring Moe and Homer at Moe's Tavern. — Questions of canon and consistency matter far less in a comedy series.

In fan communities – or at least, in those of which I’m aware – folks tend to fall into one of two rather rigid and well-defined camps.

On the one side are the “purists.” These people insist that the tiniest minutiae must be respected at all costs, and any perceived violations of canon must be given a satisfactory explanation. Overwriting or undoing an element of a story that had been previously established doesn’t usually sit well with canon purists.

Opposing the purists are the “don’t cares.” As the name suggests, these folks are completely uninterested in whether a story fits with the rules and backstories that have been established; as long as the story itself is entertaining, they’re happy to ignore such criticisms and concerns.

Still frame of Star Wars: The Force Awakens featuring the character of Rey. — Some characters and storylines attract more criticism than others…

Canon purists will often argue that a story falls apart if the newest chapter doesn’t “respect” or fall in line with everything that has been previously established. On the other side of the debate, the don’t cares will argue that none of that matters and that they’re happy for the writers of a new chapter to take them on a different and unpredictable journey.

So where do *I* sit? What’s my answer to the canon conundrum?

The answer, as you’ve probably guessed, is that it’s a bit more complicated! I don’t buy into the black-or-white nature of this argument, and my position tends to be a bit more nuanced.

A cartoon depicting people fighting in front of an abstract background. — There’s no need to get into a fight…

Let’s define one more term: internal consistency. In the context of works of fiction, internal consistency has a fairly literal meaning: within the confines of a setting or fictional universe, basic rules are established that don’t change, in a fundamental or transformative way, from chapter to chapter or story to story.

Internal consistency is, for me, one of the essential pathways to suspension of disbelief. To give a couple of examples: if a fantasy universe establishes that magic works because magic users are born with innate magical power, the writers can’t arbitrarily change that later on to say that magic is actually something that anyone can learn from spellbooks. In a sci-fi setting, if we establish that a machine can travel backwards in time because it uses black hole technology, that also mustn’t be changed later to say that the time machine works by fusing together time-mushrooms in its engine.

Still frame from Context is for Kings, Star Trek: Discovery 1x03, showing a CGI rendering of a mushroom garden. — The cultivation bay aboard the USS Discovery.

In short, canon matters because basic internal consistency matters. The fundamental building blocks of any fictional setting or world must remain consistent from one story to the next, and can’t be changed at the whim of the writers simply to force a particular story beat to fit. If that story beat can’t fit with what’s already been established because it clashes in an irreconcilable way with one or more of those building blocks, I believe it should be changed or even abandoned outright.

But that isn’t all there is to say.

When it comes to smaller things, like designs and aesthetics, I’m much more forgiving. If characters in a fictional organisation used to wear blue jackets, but in a new story they’re wearing red jackets… that’s not a “violation” of canon in my book. And that extends to smaller story beats, too. If a couple of lines of dialogue two seasons ago established that an event happened “200 years ago,” but a brand-new flashback shows the event happening 100 years ago – and it fits better with the story – then I’m content to let it slide. There are many, many cases where stories have technically “overwritten” something that had been hinted at or even explicitly stated, but the outcome ends up being positive.

Still frame from Star Trek Beyond showing the USS Enterprise-A. — Things like redesigns and visual overhauls don’t phase me.

These debates can often be incredibly subjective. Fans can be willing to overlook a change or disruption to canon if they like the outcome or if it takes place in a story they enjoy, even if they’d otherwise consider themselves to be sticklers for internal consistency. Likewise, fans who might otherwise have a more relaxed approach to canon might find themselves calling out inconsistencies or retcons if the story is unenjoyable to them for some other reason.

And it’s worth acknowledging that some changes to canon or retcons have just… worked. Although some Star Wars fans didn’t like it at the time, you’d struggle to find many folks in 2024 who are adamant that Darth Vader being retconned to be Luke Skywalker’s father is a bad thing that “ruined” The Empire Strikes Back. Or Trekkies who’d argue that the way the Borg changed in between their first and second appearances was to The Next Generation’s detriment.

Still frame from Lego Star Wars: Terrifying Tales featuring Luke and Darth Vader. — Darth Vader’s revelation in *The Empire Strikes Back* is an example of a popular and well-received retcon.

Time is also a great healer. I wasn’t wild about Enterprise when it premiered, and some episodes in that show tripped over what had been established in Star Trek episodes set further along the timeline. Many Star Wars fans in the late ’90s and early 2000s felt that the prequel films messed up the franchise’s internal consistency… but those arguments have fallen by the wayside in the intervening years. Don’t get me wrong, you can still find fans who are bitter about these things, but the passage of time has paved the way for many folks to accept the changes that were made.

Speaking of the passage of time, it isn’t just modern entertainment franchises that have had to deal with this issue! Going all the way back to the end of the 19th Century, some readers of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories were mortified when the character was resurrected after his supposed “death” at the Reichenbach Falls. If these arguments have been raging for more than a century, what hope have we of resolving them now?

Illustration of Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty's fight at the Reichenbach Falls, published in 1893 by Sidney Paget. — Sherlock Holmes’ survival proved controversial with fans in the 1890s…

At the end of the day, I’m happy to admit that I fall somewhere in between the “purists” and the “don’t cares.” Canon is important because a fictional setting needs to be basically consistent from one story to the next. Too many overwrites and retcons erode the fundamental building blocks of a world – bringing the whole story crashing down. I also don’t believe that new writers coming in to a long-established setting can or should have totally free rein to do whatever they want; they are, whether they wish to be or not, constrained to an extent by what has already been set up. If they can’t create a story within reasonable limitations… then they aren’t a good fit for that franchise, and their story should probably be discarded.

Having said all of that, though… I’m also not someone who’s a stickler for the minutiae of canon. If a new writer comes in with new ideas for a fictional world, I’m happy to give them the chance to tell their story and add to our understanding of that setting and its lore. Just because a particular character or event hasn’t been mentioned before… that doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, and there are ways to interpret many stories that can include new additions without feeling like something has been entirely cancelled or overwritten. Retcons and changes can also work incredibly well, representing an improvement on the original story or idea in many cases. We don’t have to look far to find great examples of that.

Still frame of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds featuring the character of Una Chin-Riley. — The Star Trek franchise has some great examples of how changing canon can work.

At the end of the day, I want to be entertained. I return to a familiar fictional setting in part because I’ve enjoyed what writers and creatives have built and want to see more of it – so it can be jarring if a new story changes too many things too quickly, or seems to overwrite something I particularly enjoyed. But at the same time, a strong script, fun ideas, and high production values can win me over before too long. A new story that strikes out in an unexpected direction can keep me on my toes, challenge my expectations, and prove incredibly fun and engaging.

There is a time and a place for canon. Basic building blocks that are key to the functionality of a fictional world, or well-established origin stories for major characters are the kind of things that I feel either shouldn’t be challenged or that have a very high bar to overcome. But smaller things involving secondary characters, or the likes of designs and aesthetics, are absolutely fair game in my book.

A stock photo of a bricklayer using cement to construct a wall. — Canon represents the “building blocks” of a fictional universe.

I hope this has been an interesting look at “canon.” This is a subject that I’ve touched on in other reviews, articles, and essays over the past few years, and it’s one that I’ve been meaning to delve into more deeply for some time. In fact, it’s been in my writing pile since I first set up my website more than four years ago. I’m glad to have finally been able to get around to it and try to explain where I stand!

Hopefully I’ve been able to get my point across as clearly as possible. This is a big topic, one that could easily be a whole series of articles with dozens of examples and anecdotes! I’ve tried to keep such things to a minimum this time, instead taking a “big picture” look at canon as a whole. But there may be time in the weeks and months ahead to dig a little deeper using some specific stories from across the world of entertainment.

Still frame from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier showing the character Sybok. — And there’s no shortage of examples!

It’s been fun for me to finally put (metaphorical) pen to paper and tackle this question. Canon is a big deal for a lot of folks in fan communities, and I get that. There have been times over the years where I’ve felt that a story could’ve benefitted from staying true to canon a little more… and other times where I’ve felt that a story played it too safe, or that a retcon wouldn’t have gone amiss!

But I confess that I get a little tired of this black-and-white argument, with “purists” and “don’t cares” caught in a seemingly endless back-and-forth argument that never makes progress. We won’t always agree on what makes a good story – nor even on what the basic needs of a story are. That’s okay, and I share this piece with the world in that spirit. This is my subjective opinion on questions of canon – and nothing more. A lot of folks can and will disagree, and I’m totally fine with that. It’s up to all of us as individuals to decide what’s important and how we wish to approach entertainment franchises and fictional worlds.

All properties discussed above are the copyright of their respective company, broadcaster, distributor, or studio. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Another Star Trek Film Announcement?

Fri 12.01.24Fri 12.01.24Dennis

Paramount has tried and failed multiple times to get a sequel to 2016’s Star Trek Beyond into production… so it was a surprise to learn that the corporation has tapped yet another writer and director to work on a script. I’m beginning to lose count, but if we don’t include the Section 31 TV movie and disregard – for now – Sir Patrick Stewart’s Picard movie concept/pitch that I talked about the other day… is this the fifth time Paramount has announced a new Star Trek film in just the last couple of years? Or is it the sixth?

At this point, I’m a die-hard sceptic, unfortunately. There have been so many false starts, premature announcements, and just straight-up failures with this project that even when I’m halfway through watching the film I’ll still be doubting its existence! Paramount’s commitment to making a new Star Trek film may be rock solid, but the corporation’s basic competence is in serious question. So I guess what I’ll say is this: I’ll believe it when I see it!

A behind-the-scenes photo from Star Trek Into Darkness showing an explosion. — An explosive moment during filming on *Star Trek Into Darkness*.

It feels odd to be covering two separate Star Trek films just days apart. I’m loathe to call Sir Patrick Stewart’s comments about a hypothetical Picard film an “announcement,” because the more I’ve watched his interview, the less convinced I am that the script he was hyping up is anything more than a speculative pitch. But even so, 2024 has been kick-started with some interesting Star Trek news!

One thing that seems clear from Paramount is that neither of the two Star Trek films currently in development are connected to Picard. One is the repeatedly-failed Beyond sequel, and the latest announcement sounds like it could be a prequel – or perhaps a film set in between Enterprise and 2009’s Star Trek whose place in the timeline will undoubtedly prove controversial! But are either of those concepts worth pursuing? And with Paramount’s dire financial situation and a potential takeover of the company happening later this year… will any of these hypothetical films ever make it to screen?

Director JJ Abrams and actor Chris Pine in a behind-the-scenes photo from Star Trek (2009). — Director JJ Abrams and Kirk actor Chris Pine during work on 2009’s *Star Trek*.

The last time we talked about a potential Beyond sequel, I had this to say:

“I don’t think we still need the Kelvin timeline. And if I were in the room, I’d argue that there are better ways for Paramount to spend money on Star Trek than greenlighting a new film starring this cast…”

That was almost a year ago… and honestly, I don’t think much has changed since then – at least not in terms of my attitude to a new Kelvin timeline film, be it a sequel or prequel.

Concept art of the USS Enterprise from production on Star Trek (2009). — Concept art of the Kelvin timeline’s USS Enterprise.

Midway through 2023 I began to feel burned out on Star Trek. Part of the reason for that is the complicated, downright convoluted nature of the franchise, with different shows all being set in different periods along the timeline. There has been a lot of Star Trek over the past couple of years, and franchise fatigue is definitely in danger of setting in. Given all of that, there’s even less space for another new film with new characters – or different variants of current characters – than there was before.

What Star Trek needs more than anything else is space to cool off. The past few years have been frenzied, with Paramount seemingly greenlighting any idea that came along with little regard for how oversaturated the franchise has gotten, nor for how well the different shows work together. If Star Trek is to survive much longer, then producing fewer shows and films – perhaps with a tighter focus on a single setting and time period – is what’s needed. This scattershot approach of different parallel realities and eras just adds to the confusion of Star Trek as a whole and makes it difficult – if not impossible – to bring new fans on board. And as I’ve said countless times before: that’s vital to the franchise’s future prospects.

Paramount has arguably mishandled Star Trek over the past few years.

The Kelvin timeline served a purpose in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Star Trek and Into Darkness proved definitively that audiences hadn’t entirely fallen out of love with Star Trek – and that the franchise could still do new things even after decades in production. Without the Kelvin timeline films it’s hard to see how Discovery and the rest of modern Star Trek would have been possible. So I don’t want to diminish or disregard the Kelvin films and their place in the history of Star Trek.

However, that’s not the question before us right now. Instead, we need to seriously evaluate whether or not there’s a place for a new Kelvin film in 2024. When considering everything that Star Trek has done since 2016 – which is almost 200 episodes of television across five-and-a-half different shows, lest we forget – what role could a new Kelvin film play? I’m not sure there’s a place for one film in that timeline, let alone two.

Cropped still frame from Star Trek (2009) highlighting the name of the USS Kelvin. — The Kelvin timeline is named for the USS Kelvin.

The Kelvin timeline’s big selling point – from a corporate point of view, at least – is its profitability. Although Beyond was considered a disappointment, it still brought in money at the box office, and Into Darkness is the Star Trek franchise’s highest-grossing film. If Paramount is worried about Star Trek paying its way, I can see the appeal a new Kelvin film might have to a faceless suit in a boardroom.

As well-received as Strange New Worlds and Picard have been, they haven’t been able to drag Paramount Plus across the line and into profitable territory. A lot of Trekkies and viewers liked what they saw, but that hasn’t translated into Paramount Plus becoming a must-have subscription. If a new film were to prove successful and bring in millions at the box office, it could shore up Paramount’s finances in the short-term… as well as the corporation’s commitment to Star Trek. That might be the single biggest point in its favour from my point of view!

Promo photo of Anson Mount as Captain Pike in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. — *Strange New Worlds* has been well-received by many Star Trek fans.

But when I think about what I’d like to see most of all from Star Trek, a new Kelvin film doesn’t even break into the top ten… or top twenty. There have been some interesting pitches and ideas over the past few years, from Discovery spin-offs to animated shorts. Right now, I’m more interested to see Star Trek explore more of the Picard era – the early 25th Century. That feels like something that has huge potential and could really drive the franchise forward – comparable, in some respects, to what The Next Generation and the other Star Trek shows of the ’90s did.

With the fan campaign for Legacy still doing the rounds and still being talked about almost a year after Picard ended, that’s where I’d choose to focus my energy if I had a foot in the door of the Paramount boardroom! But even if Legacy couldn’t go ahead as currently envisioned, the Picard era is still ripe for further exploration and feels like the right setting for future Star Trek projects.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard showing the USS Titan. — A new series or TV movie set in the *Picard* era is very appealing.

So I guess that’s where I’m at. In a perfect world – one where the Star Trek franchise had limitless budgets and creative freedom – I’d say go for it. But when budgets are constrained and there isn’t the time or money to do everything, priorities have to be set – and speaking for myself, as a Trekkie, the Kelvin timeline just doesn’t feel necessary. There’s no compelling reason to return there, and with several prominent characters also taking part in Strange New Worlds – a series that I sincerely hope will continue beyond its third season for several more years – there’s also a narrative risk. Competing versions of the same character could trip over one another, or come across as repetitive and having nothing new to say.

On the practical side of things, after so many false starts and cock-ups I have absolutely no faith in Paramount any more. The corporation has screwed up these announcements multiple times, including in 2022 when a humiliating un-announcement had to be made just days after one of the aborted Beyond sequel ideas had been officially put on the schedule. I’m not convinced at this stage that either of the two films allegedly in development will see a release – or even start filming.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me six times in a row with the same announcement? I’m not even sure there’s an expression for that!

Zachary Quinto (Spock) and Chris Pine (Kirk) in a promo photo for Star Trek (2009). — Spock and Kirk in a promo photo for 2009’s *Star Trek*.

If you want to get excited and hyped at the idea of Star Trek returning to the big screen after the longest-ever gap in between films, I feel ya. I’d love to be able to jump on board the hype train and ride it all the way to Starfleet Headquarters! But Paramount has sapped my faith over the past couple of years, and I’m at a point where I don’t have any confidence in the corporation or any announcements it makes. I genuinely don’t know whether this latest Star Trek film will even come close to entering production.

Despite my reservations about both Paramount as a whole and a Beyond sequel or prequel as narrative concepts, I will do my best to talk about them here on the website. If there’s big news, casting details, or a trailer, I hope you’ll join me for my thoughts and analysis. Just because a new film set in the Kelvin timeline wouldn’t be my first choice doesn’t mean I won’t treat it fairly and give it a chance to impress me.

Still crossing my fingers for that Legacy announcement, though!

The Star Trek films should be available to stream on Paramount+ in countries and territories where the service is available, and are also available on DVD and Blu-ray. The Star Trek franchise – including all films and properties discussed above – is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Star Trek: A Picard Movie?

Sun 07.01.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are spoilers ahead for Star Trek: Picard Seasons 1-3.

It’s been a while since we talked about much Star Trek news here on the website. I explained back in the autumn that I’ve been feeling burned out on the franchise – to such an extent that I haven’t even finished Strange New Worlds Season 2, nor even started Lower Decks Season 4. There are a variety of reasons why, and I won’t go over the whole thing again. You can click or tap here to read my thoughts on franchise fatigue and burnout if you’re interested!

Suffice to say that Picard’s third season was the last full Star Trek project that I watched, and while it undoubtedly had some highlights and some very strong emotional storytelling, it was far from a perfect production. Although the story of Picard’s third season came to an explosive end, an epilogue seemed to hint at there being more to come for Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-D. I was cognizant of the very deliberate way in which the final scenes of The Last Generation (the Season 3 finale) replicated almost shot-for-shot the ending of All Good Things, the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1994. But here’s the thing about that: at the time All Good Things was filmed, Star Trek: Generations was already underway. Production on the film would begin almost immediately after The Next Generation ended… so doesn’t that feel like someone was dropping a hint? Or perhaps making a pitch?

Still frame from "All Good Things," the series finale of Star Trek: The Next Generation, showing the main characters playing poker. — The end of *All Good Things…*

Still frame from "The Last Generation," the series finale of Star Trek: Picard, showing the main characters playing poker. — …and an identical shot from the end of *The Last Generation*.

Sir Patrick Stewart, who has played the role of Captain Picard since 1987, recently teased that a script for a film featuring the iconic character is in the works. In an interview with Josh Horowitz on YouTube (which I’ve linked to at the bottom of this article and encourage you to watch for yourself) Stewart said that he hoped to receive the script within days.

Although this is far from an official announcement, I wanted to consider what a new Picard film could look like… and whether it’s a good idea!

Still frame of Sir Patrick Stewart on the podcast "Happy Sad Confused with Josh Horowitz." — Sir Patrick Stewart recently teased this idea on a podcast.

The first thing to say is actually something I talked about a lot during all three seasons of Picard. I first came to Star Trek in the early 1990s by way of The Next Generation. Captain Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-D were my “first contact” with the franchise, and that series is what made me a Star Trek fan. So I will always have a strong bond with the show and an emotional attachment to Picard, Riker, Dr Crusher, and the rest of the crew.

I think it’s important to state that up-front because there’s no way I can be unbiased about this. More Next Generation is always going to be something I’m interested in, and another adventure with Captain Picard will never fail to be appealing. As I said more than once when Picard was on the air: this project almost feels like it’s being tailor-made for me!

Still frame of "Encounter at Farpoint" from Star Trek: TNG showing Worf and Picard on the bridge of the Enterprise. — *The Next Generation* was “my” Star Trek show!

But I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t have concerns. Across its three seasons, Picard told a muddled, often contradictory story that rarely reached the heights I was hoping for. It was a different kind of show from The Next Generation – which is fine, in theory – but I didn’t always feel that the series even knew what type of story it wanted to tell, let alone executed it well. There are orphaned storylines that went nowhere before being dumped, main characters who just disappeared, and more. It was far from the perfect series.

Season 1 came to a disappointing end, with the series literally running out of time. Season 2 is basically unwatchable for me in its entirety due to how poor its mental health story was, and because of how long it spent aimlessly wandering in a modern-day setting. Season 3 was an improvement in some ways, but its central villain was stupidly wasted and its final act rug-pull brought back the most boring and predictable of factions.

A still frame from Star Trek: Picard showing a crowd at a red carpet event. — *Star Trek: Picard* was a mixed bag with some serious narrative weaknesses.

So the overall quality of Picard, and the way in which the character was handled in the series as a whole, has to be a concern for any future project. It may be better to say that, despite some issues, Picard managed to pull out a decent enough ending to its third and final season and kind of… leave it. Don’t risk undoing that ending for the sake of another tacked-on project.

I could quite happily say that Picard’s story is complete, and after the launch of the Enterprise-G he either returned to Starfleet Academy or went into a well-earned retirement, living out the rest of his life with one of his wives at his Château in France. Although there was a tease at the very end of The Last Generation, that scene focused more on Jack Crusher, and seemed to represent a handing of the baton from one generation of characters – and one crew of the Enterprise – to another.

A still frame from "The Last Generation," the series finale of Star Trek: Picard, showing Jack Crusher wielding a phaser pistol. — You didn’t skip the credits… right?

And that’s another really great point. Ever since the 1980s, Star Trek has boldly struck out in new and different directions. New characters have been introduced with new starships and settings to explore, and the idea of returning to classic characters in such depth is a fairly new idea. While nostalgia can be a great selling-point, I don’t believe that Star Trek should rely on it to such an extent. There’s a case to be made for the next Star Trek film or series stepping away from legacy characters, at least partially, to focus on telling new stories and expanding the franchise.

If Star Trek had kept telling stories with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy for close to forty years… would that have made it better? Look at the problems facing Star Wars, a franchise that has failed to break away from its original stories and characters. That’s come to feel like an almost fatal flaw in the Star Wars franchise as it doubles down on prequels, mid-quels, and spin-offs from spin-offs. There’s a real danger that too many Star Trek projects focusing on the same handful of characters could stagnate the franchise and leave it with nowhere to go narratively.

Promotional photo for Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) featuring Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner, and DeForest Kelley. — Would Star Trek be better today if it had spent decades with the same handful of original characters?

One of the things I was most excited to see, going all the way back to the announcement of Star Trek: Picard, was how the franchise could potentially pass the torch to new characters. Unfortunately several of the new characters created for the show were dropped or written out, but Season 3 ended with at least one – Jack Crusher – still in play and still potentially able to accomplish that goal. And with a fan-led campaign to make Star Trek: Legacy happen as a sequel to Picard, there’s still a glimmer of hope, perhaps, that it could happen.

Where would a Picard movie fit in with Legacy? If it came down to a straight-up choice between one or the other, which would fans prefer? And which would be better for the franchise overall? I feel that Legacy, as envisioned by the fan campaign at least, has the upper hand here.

Still frame from Star Trek: Picard showing the Enterprise-G orbiting a star. — The Enterprise-G.

A Picard movie would surely be the end of the line for the character. I mean, it would have to be… right? And it could be a successful project both critically and commercially, bringing in either cash at the box office or new subscribers to Paramount+. But it would also be an ending, not so much a launchpad for new stories – which is what I’d argue Star Trek needs right now. Picard set the stage for more Star Trek in the early 25th Century, and if handled well, I really do feel that there’s the potential for the franchise to take advantage of that. It hasn’t happened yet, though… and the window of opportunity may be closing.

As a concept, TV movies and one-off stories are a great idea for Star Trek. If this new script couldn’t sustain a ten-episode season of TV, making a one-off film is a great idea. In fact, it’s something that the Star Trek franchise should try to do more of in future. Section 31 doesn’t need to be the only one! As I said when I made the case for more of the Short Treks mini-episodes, there are dozens of ideas for individual characters and story threads that couldn’t be a full film, series, or even episode that can work in that format. I don’t think anyone would really be opposed to that idea – and it extends to TV movies and films, too.

Title card for the Star Trek spin-off series "Short Treks." — I’m in favour of Star Trek doing more one-off stories, short stories, and TV movies.

But any time we have that particular conversation, we pretty quickly run into the elephant in the room: Paramount Global’s finances! The corporation isn’t in a good position, and Star Trek’s future budgets are very much in question. We’ve already seen Discovery cancelled and Prodigy sold to Netflix, and there’s been little by way of news about Starfleet Academy since it was announced almost a year ago. Paramount doesn’t have the money to throw at every project that gets pitched, so it comes down to a question of priorities. If any Star Trek projects will get the go-ahead in future, which ones should be at the top of that list? Is a Picard movie even in the top ten?

It wasn’t clear to me from Sir Patrick Stewart’s interview how far along this project might be – nor who was responsible for it. It could be an official project with Paramount’s backing that’s about to enter pre-production… or it could be something a lot more speculative. There’s no guarantee that it would get made even if it were something paid for by Paramount, as we saw in 2022 with the whole “Kelvin sequel” debacle. So maybe we’re getting ahead of ourselves by thinking too long and hard about a project that may never get out of the starting gate!

Promotional photo for Star Trek Into Darkness (2012) featuring the main cast. — A Kelvin timeline sequel has failed to enter full production multiple times in the last few years.

Although this isn’t always a comfortable topic, there are also legitimate concerns/questions over Sir Patrick Stewart’s age and thus his ability to take on a challenging new script. One of the weaknesses of Picard, particularly in its second and third seasons, was that its narrative was not well-suited to an older person. Stories threw the character into situations like discovering he had a son, and some of the storylines would’ve been a better fit for a forty-year-old… not someone who’s past eighty.

One of the disappointing things for me about Picard was the wasted potential to tell a story that was well-suited to an older person. Instead of Picard discovering that he had a son and trying to relate to someone who was (allegedly) in his early twenties, a story could’ve been told that was better-suited to an older character in his twilight years. Would a new Picard film go down that road? If so, maybe it would be worth seeing. But if it’s another script that tries to make the character out to be younger than he clearly is… there’ll be that disconnect once again.

Still frame from "Remembrance," the first episode of Star Trek: Picard, featuring Sir Patrick Stewart as Jean-Luc Picard. — Jean-Luc Picard.

If decisions about Star Trek’s future were in my hands, here’s what I’d say. I would absolutely consider any script that featured Captain Picard – or anyone else from The Next Generation. There’s definitely scope to do more with those characters somehow. But at the same time, I’d be careful to balance a one-off project like this with Star Trek’s future prospects. And if it came down to the wire, with tight budgets only allowing for one or two to go ahead… I’m not convinced at this stage that a Picard movie is the one I’d choose to give the green light to. That’s not a definite “no,” because a strong script could absolutely win me over. But it’s not a firm “yes,” either.

I daresay that the details of this script will be kept under wraps for a while. If it doesn’t proceed, we may never know what it could’ve entailed and how good or bad it might’ve been! But if we get any more news – or an official announcement – I’ll be sure to take another look.

Behind-the-scenes photo from Star Trek: Picard Season 3 showing Sir Patrick Stewart, Jonathan Frakes, and others. — Sir Patrick Stewart and Jonathan Frakes during the production of *Star Trek: Picard* Season 3.

So I hope this has been interesting… and not a horribly incoherent ramble!

I was surprised to hear Sir Patrick Stewart talking so openly about a potential new Star Trek project – not least because Picard Season 3 had been billed as the character’s swansong. Despite its issues, I generally feel that the conclusion of Picard’s final season left the characters in a better place than Nemesis had done in 2002, and in a way I’m content to leave them there, enjoying a break after their last adventure.

But a part of me will always want to see more Captain Picard – and with this script potentially offering the last chance for the character to come back, maybe I’d feel a sense of regret if it didn’t go ahead. If we’d never come to know about it and it didn’t happen, well… no harm done, right? But knowing it’s out there and being worked on in some capacity, and that Sir Patrick Stewart himself seems to be on board with it at least in theory… I can’t lie: a big part of me would love to see it come to fruition.

You can find Sir Patrick Stewart’s interview with Josh Horowitz, in which he discusses a potential Picard movie, on YouTube. Click or tap here to watch the video. The relevant section begins around the 33-minute mark.

Star Trek: Picard Seasons 1-3 are available to stream now on Paramount+. The Star Trek franchise, including Picard and all other properties discussed above, is the copyright of Paramount Global. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Looking Ahead To 2024

Wed 03.01.24Thu 04.01.24Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for some of the titles on this list.

Happy New Year! I hope you had a wonderful time on New Year’s Eve ringing in 2024. As we pack away the last of the Christmas ornaments and begin to figure out what day of the week it is, it’s also time to look ahead! As I do every year, I’ve picked out a handful of films, television shows, and video games that I think are worth keeping an eye on over the next twelve months.

And you never know, one of these might make a great Christmas present when December rolls around. Is that the first time you’ve heard someone talk about Christmas 2024? I certainly hope so!

A family decorating a Christmas tree. — Christmas will be here again before you know it!

2023 was a decent year… at least in terms of entertainment. There were some solid television shows, excellent video games, and exciting films that kept us entertained. Here’s hoping that 2024 can continue the trend!

As always, a couple of caveats before we get started. All of this is the entirely subjective opinion of just one person. There are going to be tons of entertainment experiences to get stuck into in 2024 – so if your favourite doesn’t make the list this time around, or if I include something that sounds atrocious to you, that’s okay! This is far from an exhaustive list, and all I’ve done is pick a handful of titles that appealed to me.

A movie theatre/cinema. — What are *you* most excited to watch or play in 2024?

It’s also possible that some or all of these titles will be delayed. Between strikes, the pandemic, and other issues, the creative process is more complicated than ever – so no release date can be considered safe or set in stone. Any of the titles we’re going to talk about today could miss their intended release/broadcast date – and some could even slip into 2025 or beyond.

With all of that out of the way, let’s get started! I’ve picked six films, six television series, and six video games that I’m looking forward to in 2024, and I’ll briefly talk about each of them.

Films

I didn’t watch that many films in 2023. As my health has declined, I’ve found it impossible to get to the cinema, so I’m stuck waiting for films to release on DVD or a streaming platform! That being said, I had a blast with last year’s Super Mario Bros. Movie… so I’m hopeful that there’ll be a solid film or two in 2024.

Film #1:
Wicked: Part One

I’ve been following the production of Wicked for a while – and the film is due to be released in November, all being well. I was incredibly lucky to see the stage production in London, and I fell in love with the story and its wonderful songs. The musical seemed to be crying out for a proper big screen adaptation, and I’m so glad that it’s finally getting one! The inclusion of Tony- and Grammy-award winner Cynthia Erivo is sure to be fantastic, and I look forward to seeing what Ariana Grande might do with the role of Glinda, too.

At some point in its production, Wicked was cleaved in two. The theatre production is close to three hours long, so splitting it into two films could make sense – depending on how much new content has been added. As long as Wicked hasn’t been over-stretched, I think it should be a net positive, at any rate!

Film #2:
Twisters

Cropped promo poster for Twisters (2024).

The 1996 film Twister has long been a favourite of mine. Disaster films are kind of a guilty pleasure for me, and Twister was definitely one of the better additions to the genre from the ’90s. So this reboot/reimagining has piqued my curiosity – though whether I can truly say I’m “excited” about it is an open question! Not every film can be given a sequel, and not every intellectual property can sustain being spun off into a franchise… and for me, Twister is firmly a one-off type of film.

So it remains to be seen whether Twisters can recapture the magic of the original film, or tell a story that will be as enjoyable. But I’m content to give it a chance to impress me, and at the very least I expect to see high-quality visual effects that should make the titular tornado (or might that be tornadoes, plural?) better than ever.

Film #3:
Despicable Me 4

Cropped promo poster for Despicable Me 4.

Gru and the Minions are coming back for another outing – and I’m quite looking forward to that! I enjoyed Minions: The Rise of Gru a couple of years ago, and while I’m not any kind of super-fan, the Despicable Me series and spin-offs have usually been good for an evening’s entertainment.

Despicable Me 4 will hopefully be more of the same; another wacky adventure with Gru, the Minions, and the rest of the family. I don’t know much about the plot, but it seems like most of the voice cast are reprising their roles. Fingers crossed for a bit of fun!

Film #4:
Civil War

Promo photo of Kirsten Dunst in Civil War (2024).

Civil War comes along at an interesting time – with political tensions on the rise in the United States. I fear that some of its social commentary may be a little heavy-handed, but I’m willing to give the film a chance. Hopefully it can build up an engrossing narrative either way! Director Alex Garland may not be a well-known name, but he was nominated for an Academy Award for 2014’s Ex Machina, and I also enjoyed his 2018 picture Annihilation. So there’s reason enough to be optimistic!

The film will star Kirsten Dunst, playing a journalist reporting on the “rapidly escalating” conflict. I wouldn’t say I have sky-high hopes… but I’m definitely going to tune in when Civil War makes its way to a streaming platform later in the year.

Film #5:
Dune: Part Two

Promo photo of Stellan Skarsgård in Dune: Part Two (2024).

If you’ve been a regular reader for a while, you might remember that back in 2020 or 2021 I said that I was worried about Dune: Part Two! The novel Dune has been notoriously difficult to adapt, and I feared that a lacklustre reception to the first film might’ve meant Part Two would be canned. Thankfully, Dune was one of the best films of 2021 – meaning that its sequel has leapt to the top of my must-watch list!

Picking up where 2021’s Dune left off, Part Two will bring the story to a conclusion. The principal cast from the first picture are all returning, and Dune: Part Two looks set to be one of the year’s biggest sci-fi blockbusters.

Film #6:
Alien: Romulus

Promo photo for Alien: Romulus (2024) featuring a juvenile alien.

The Alien series… well, let’s just say it probably has more flops than hits at this point. But I’m still willing to give Alien: Romulus a chance! The film is picking up the baton for the long-running sci-fi/horror series, and its main selling-point right now is that it’s set in between the first two films in the series. There’s scope, perhaps, for an exciting story set in the same universe.

I’m not familiar with any of the cast or crew… but that can be a good thing sometimes! If I’m being realistic, I don’t expect Alien: Romulus to blow me away, but if it’s good enough it might just lay the groundwork for the success of the upcoming Alien TV series or other projects.

Television Shows

Most of the TV shows coming up in 2024 are new seasons of ongoing productions, but there are a few new titles in the mix that sound potentially interesting. 2023 felt like a good year for TV (and streaming series), so hopefully there’ll be more successes this year, too.

TV Show #1:
Star Trek: Discovery
Season 5

Promo photo for Star Trek: Discovery Season 5 featuring the main cast.

Let’s get the obvious one out of the way first! Although I found myself burning out on Star Trek partway through 2023, Discovery’s fifth and final outing could just be the project that pulls me back in. After four seasons of “the whole galaxy is in danger and only Burnham can save it!!!” Discovery seems ready to finally try out a different premise. It’s unfortunate that the change came too late to save the show – and if Season 5 turns out to be a cut above the rest, we might be lamenting that Discovery’s writers and producers didn’t do this sooner.

I have a specific concern about the series finale – i.e. that it was never written to be a finale, and that worry bleeds over into the rest of the season. This is going to be the crew’s final outing, but if the story wasn’t written that way in the first place… can it be satisfying enough? I guess we’ll have to wait and see!

TV Show #2:
Election Night(s)

A still-frame from CNN's 2020 election coverage.

This one’s a bit “out there,” so bear with me! 2024 is going to be a big political year, with elections taking place in the United States and almost certainly here in the UK, too. Election night programming is incredibly interesting to me, and watching the results come in – often in the middle of the night – can feel quite tense and even exciting.

I find much of the passion and enthusiasm behind individual candidates or political factions to be a younger person’s game; as you see more and more elections play out, the claim of any of them being the “most important in our lifetimes” starts to wear thin! But that doesn’t mean election night programming can’t be fun, and in the United States in particular, there’s a lot on the line. Big questions persist over both the Republican and Democratic parties and their presumptive candidates of choice… so it could be a fascinating night in November.

TV Show #3:
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power
Season 2

Robert Aramayo as Elrond in The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Season 1.

Season 2 of The Rings of Power was also on my list of things to look forward to in 2023, so it’s fair to say that production is taking a while! After Season 1 had been filmed in New Zealand, production switched to the UK due to pandemic regulations, necessitating some major changes. That partially explains why it’s taking so long… but after a break of potentially two full years, it will be a challenge for the show to pick up where it left off.

Not everyone liked The Rings of Power… and I get that. But I named it my favourite series of 2022 for a reason, and there were some fantastic character-driven stories in the mix – some of which I’d love to see more of this time. With a new production location and several re-cast characters, Season 2 could also be the kind of “soft reboot” that wins over some of the show’s critics.

TV Show #4:
Fallout

Still frame from the Fallout TV series trailer featuring a desolate beach.

There are quite a few video game worlds and settings that feel ripe for a big screen or streaming adaptation – and this time it’s Fallout getting the small-screen treatment. The first Fallout games were CRPGs in the late 1990s, but the series was later acquired by Bethesda, who’ve now made or published four 3D action-RPG titles. Fallout is set in a post-apocalyptic future, one in which a major nuclear war has devastated much of the world. But notably, it has a lot of ’50s Americana aesthetic and musical trappings – which have created a unique world ripe for further exploration.

I would expect the first season of an adaptation like this to play things fairly safe – i.e. not to stray too far from the source material. So I think we can expect to see vault-dwellers in blue boiler suits, irradiated mutants, ’50s-inspired designs, and a lot of post-apocalyptic ruins! As to the show’s story, though… we’ll have to tune in to find out!

TV Show #5:
Manhunt

Promo photo of Patton Oswalt in Manhunt (2024).

Not to be confused with a film or several other TV series of the same name, 2024’s Manhunt focuses on the aftermath of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and the search for his killer, John Wilkes Booth. American history – and the Civil War in particular – has been an interest of mine for some time, so Manhunt is exactly my kind of show!

The story of John Wilkes Booth’s attempted escape from justice is an interesting one; he broke his ankle immediately after firing the shot that killed Lincoln, struggled to escape the Washington area by boat, and was eventually cornered in a barn. The miniseries will focus on the chase – and how federal officials were able to track down the most wanted man in the country. It should be a fascinating retelling of the story.

TV Show #6:
Star Wars: The Acolyte

Could Star Wars finally be stepping away from the time period and characters that we’re most familiar with? It seems so, because The Acolyte is purportedly set a full century before The Phantom Menace, tying into Disney’s “High Republic era” that has been featured in a few novels and comics. That alone has piqued my curiosity, as I’ve argued for a long time that what Star Wars needs to do is explore different settings and new characters.

I haven’t been overly impressed with Star Wars on Disney+ so far. The exception was The Book of Boba Fett, which I genuinely did not expect to enjoy as much as I did! But there’s potential in The Acolyte… and I shall be tuning in with my fingers crossed!

Video Games

2023 will undoubtedly be remembered as a good year for gaming as a medium! There were some fantastic titles released over the last twelve months… so how will 2024 compare? My pick for “game of the year” ended up being a title that wasn’t even on my radar… so there could be some surprises in the mix, too!

Video Game #1:
Expeditions: A MudRunner Game

Promo screenshot of Expeditions: A MudRunner game featuring an off-road vehicle.

MudRunner and SnowRunner are unique titles, carving out their own very particular driving simulation niche. Expeditions looks set to build on the off-road driving gameplay of those earlier titles, while adding a few new features into the mix, too. Off-road driving can be difficult to get right – even in racing titles – and the way it’s been handled in this series so far has been fantastic.

The addition of a scientific element to Expeditions could help it stand out from its predecessors, as will things like piloting a drone. But at its core, driving a variety of off-road trucks and vehicles through incredibly challenging environments is going to remain Expeditions’ bread-and-butter. And I think it’s going to be a blast! These titles have always been fun, challenging, and something a little different – so there’s a lot to look forward to as the series continues.

Video Game #2:
Little Kitty, Big City

Banner for the upcoming video game Little Kitty, Big City,

If you aren’t excited to play Little Kitty, Big City… do you even have a heart? Jokes aside, the game looks adorable! Players will take on the role of a black cat who’s trying to get home after getting stranded in a city, and developers Double Dagger Studio have promised that we can make friends with other animals, wear cute hats, and cause chaos! What’s not to like?

After Stray took the “playing as a cat” idea in a somewhat serious direction a couple of years ago, Little Kitty, Big City looks to be a more lighthearted affair. A bright and cartoony art style feels pitch-perfect for this game, and I’m crossing my fingers and hoping for some cute and adorable kitty cat fun!

Video Game #3:
Star Wars: Dark Forces
(Remaster)

Still frame from the trailer for Star Wars: Dark Forces Remaster featuring a Stormtrooper.

I’m quite interested to see what Nightdive Studios can do with one of the Star Wars franchise’s best-remembered titles of the ’90s! Dark Forces was a “Doom clone” first-person shooter, one that had a fairly strong story set in between Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back. This remaster won’t transform the game, but will make it playable on modern machines and offer things like widescreen support and higher frame-rates.

It’ll be a blast to replay Dark Forces for the first time in… well, a long time! Some recent Star Wars games (and films) haven’t lived up to expectations, so stepping back in time to one that did feels like it should be a sure thing. As long as Dark Forces can avoid being released in a broken state, this feels like a guaranteed hit.

Video Game #4:
Open Roads

Promo screenshot for Open Roads (2024) featuring an animated landscape and building.

Open Roads sounds like a title that could offer quite a different experience. Billed as an “interactive movie,” and sporting an art style that looks almost hand-drawn, the game will feature a mother-and-daughter duo on a road trip… with elements of exploration and mystery. Publisher Annapurna Interactive – who are responsible for titles like Donut County and Kentucky Route Zero – promise that the game will feature a “unique and engaging interactive dialogue system,” which sounds pretty fancy!

The clips and images that I’ve seen of Open Roads so far have definitely piqued my curiosity, and I’ll be interested to see what the “interactive movie” feels like to play when it’s released.

Video Game #5:
Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden

Promo image for Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden featuring a human and a skeleton.

Hunting ghosts seems to be the name of the game in Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden. The game promises to be emotional and atmospheric, with dual protagonists and a story where player decisions can lead to “dramatic consequences.” I’m always up for a bit of ghost-busting… and as a new property, Banishers might just be a title that stands out in a gaming landscape littered with franchises and sequels.

Developers Don’t Nod have pedigree, having created acclaimed titles like Life is Strange and Vampyr. At least in terms of graphical fidelity, Banishers: Ghosts of New Eden looks set to be the developers’ most impressive – and challenging – title yet.

Video Game #6:
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024

Promo image of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 featuring an aircraft.

Flight Simulator 2024 is already controversial in some circles, coming so soon after the most recent entry in the series. The current Flight Simulator was supposed to be supported for longer, but it seems as if development switched pretty quickly to a new title instead. Hopefully, though, Flight Simulator 2024 will be able to push through all of that and represent an improvement over an already visually stunning title.

I’m not a hard-core simulator enthusiast, and what I appreciated about Flight Simulator (the 2020 version; names are confusing) was its level of accessibility to the layperson. For professional pilots the realism can be cranked way up… for those of us looking for more of an arcadey experience, it can be dialed back. Hopefully Flight Simulator 2024 will be equally as accessible!

So that’s it!

Still frame from the BBC's New Year broadcast in 2012 featuring Big Ben and the London Eye. — How did you ring in the new year?

We’ve taken a look at six films, six television shows, and six video games that I’m looking forward to this year. As the dust settles on 2023 and things start to get back to normal after the disruption of the holiday season, there are already some highlights to look forward to. January can feel like a depressing month, sometimes… but there are definitely things to feel positive about as a new year gets underway!

I hope you had a fantastic New Year’s Eve, and let me once again wish you and yours a Happy New Year!

Trekking with Dennis isn’t going anywhere, and across 2024 I hope to talk in more detail about some of the titles discussed above – as well as anything else that comes along and captures my interest! See you out there!

All titles listed above are the copyright of their respective studio, publisher, broadcaster, distributor, etc. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

End-of-Year Awards 2023

Sun 31.12.23Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Beware of minor spoilers for some of the titles below.

Where has all the time gone? We’re just hours away from the end of yet another year – and that can only mean one thing: it’s time for my annual End-of-Year Awards! Today I’ll be handing out some imaginary statuettes to some of the best (and worst) entertainment experiences of the year. I hope it’ll be a bit of fun – and not something to get too worked up over!

As always, I have a couple of important caveats. The first is that I’m just one person – and as such, I didn’t watch every film or play every game that came out this year. Titles have to clear two hurdles to win an award, and the first one is arguably the biggest: they had to convince me to try them out in the first place! I don’t have every hour of the day to dedicate to entertainment, and there are a lot of films, TV shows, and games that were released this year that won’t get a look-in because I didn’t watch or play them. They might be fantastic… but they can’t be included this time for reasons that I hope are obvious!

Secondly, all of this is my entirely subjective opinion! I’m not trying to claim that these are somehow “objectively” the best entertainment experiences of the year and the only ones deserving of an award! That would be silly – this is just my opinion, and you are free to disagree vehemently with some or all of my choices. I share these made-up awards with the world in that spirit.

I’ve broken down my picks into a few categories and sub-categories, some of which have both a winner and runner-up and some of which just have a winner. I’ll briefly explain what it was that I liked (or didn’t like) about each.

So let’s get started, shall we?

Best Short Documentary

🏆Winner🏆
Now and Then – The Last Beatles Song

Published on YouTube at the beginning of November, this twelve-minute short documentary provided a fascinating look at the complicated production of Now and Then – a song featuring performances by all four members of The Beatles. Billed as “the last Beatles song,” Now and Then reached the number one spot on the charts here in the UK, and learning a bit more about how it came together was genuinely interesting.

Now and Then was a demo recorded by John Lennon at his home some time in the 1970s, but the recording was relatively low-quality and wasn’t deemed suitable for release. In the ’90s, the three surviving Beatles got together, and Now and Then was one of the tracks that they worked on – but again it wasn’t able to be salvaged. It’s only in the last couple of years, with the advent of AI and the ability to isolate and separate various instruments and vocals, that the song was finally ready to be worked on. Performances by John Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr, and Paul McCartney were brought together – and the song was finally released.

Best Documentary

🏆Winner🏆
The American Buffalo

I have a review about this in the works – but it’s gotten buried in the pile! Ken Burns is one of my favourite documentary filmmakers, so any new production of his is going to be on my must-watch list! This year, Burns turned his attention to the Bison – or the titular “American Buffalo” – and looked at the history of the species and its near-miraculous survival from the brink of extinction.

Ken Burns and the team at PBS Studios put together a truly engrossing two-part documentary that goes into incredible depth about the history of the species and how humans have interacted with it. It’s a riveting documentary, perfect for anyone interested in the history of the United States, Native American peoples, the “Wild West,” or the titular “buffaloes” themselves.

Best Web Series

🥈Runner-Up🥈
Imperial War Museums

It’s been a long time since I was able to visit the Imperial War Museum in London. Despite its offputting name, it’s worth checking out if you’re in the area – as are the Imperial War Museums’ videos on YouTube. I’m a bit of a history buff, and although some of the channel’s content is simplified for an audience who might not be familiar with the subject matter, I still found that there was a lot to learn and plenty of interesting facts in the mix.

Imperial War Museums’ videos are well-presented and explained, and in particular I’d highlight some of the channel’s short documentaries about the First World War from earlier in the year. I didn’t know that the Imperial War Museums had a YouTube channel, but I’m glad I found it. There are some genuinely interesting videos here that are well worth a watch.

🏆Winner🏆
Food Wishes

I honestly can’t believe that in more than four years of writing here on the website I’ve never mentioned Food Wishes! This is one of my favourite YouTube cooking channels – and one of the longest-running series on the entire platform. Chef John began uploading videos to the platform all the way back in January 2007, which is almost seventeen years ago! And perhaps the most astonishing thing about Food Wishes is how little things have changed in all that time.

This year, Chef John has continued making recipe videos. The format is relatively simple, but there’s plenty of humour and fun alongside the instructional recipes. With well over 1,000 videos on the channel, you’d worry that there might be fewer interesting or appealing recipes… but somehow that isn’t the case! There have been some incredibly mouthwatering creations this year, and I look forward to seeing what 2024 has in store for Food Wishes, too.

Funniest TV Episode

🏆Winner🏆
Worldwide Privacy Tour
South Park

South Park is one of the entertainment industry’s great equalisers. Its creators poke fun at pretty much everyone, from politicians and celebrities to whole industries and nations. In Worldwide Privacy Tour, Harry and Meghan – better known as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – were firmly in the crosshairs. And the episode was absolutely hilarious, lampooning the hapless, talentless duo for simultaneously crying about “privacy” while jetting off to California to live as celebrities.

I’m no monarchist. In fact, I’m a small-R republican, which in a British context means that I’m someone who wants to see the outdated and corrupt monarchy abolished. But even I find Harry and Meghan to be grating, at times – even while I’m pleased that some of their statements and escapades are eroding support for an institution I’d like to see the back of. The pair are among the most privileged people on the planet, but they’re also useless hypocrites. Whether it’s lecturing people about climate change before hopping on a private jet, complaining about being bullied while being a serial harasser of servants and staff, or whining about “privacy” while sitting down for an extensive interview and writing a tell-all book, Harry and Meghan deserved everything they got from South Park… and then some.

Best TV Miniseries

🏆Winner🏆
The Fall of the House of Usher

It’s relatively rare – in this age of franchises, sequels, and spin-offs – for a big budget to be afforded to a one-off miniseries. Netflix’s The Fall of the House of Usher, which is based on the works of American gothic horror author Edgar Allan Poe, is one of the year’s best examples. I don’t usually go for horror, but with Halloween approaching I decided to give The Fall of the House of Usher a shot – and I’m glad that I did!

The miniseries keeps the tense and disturbing atmosphere of Poe’s stories, but changes many of the characters and plotlines, as well as setting things firmly in the modern day. You might think that there’d end up being a clash, but the production pulls out a surprisingly coherent and entertaining story. There are moments of gore and a handful of jump-scares, but nothing too offputting for someone who isn’t the world’s biggest horror fan.

Best TV Series

🥈Runner-Up🥈
Star Trek: Picard
Season 3

For the past few years, Star Trek episodes have been afforded their own category when I’ve dished out my End-of-Year Awards, but as I kind of burned out on the franchise midway through 2023, there are a lot of episodes that I just haven’t seen. Picard’s third season was imperfect, containing a villain who was built up only to be discarded, yet another return of an over-used faction, and a story that felt a bit stretched and occasionally muddled. But it also had some incredibly well-executed emotional moments, and I can’t deny that I enjoyed seeing the crew of the Enterprise-D reunited for another adventure.

In the new year – or at some point in the future, at any rate – I’ll talk about what worked and didn’t work in Season 3 in a bit more detail. Because I have thoughts, don’t you know! But for now, suffice to say that Picard’s third season was one of the highlights of 2023… even if it wasn’t perfect. I’m still holding out hope that there’ll be a new Star Trek series taking place in the time period that Picard established.

🏆Winner🏆
Silo
Season 1

Silo was an impressive sci-fi series with a distinct air of mystery. I particularly enjoyed its subterranean setting, and the idea that the people in the titular silo didn’t know what had happened on the surface, nor why they were forced to live underground. Playing out against that backdrop was an engaging murder mystery, a struggle for power within the confines of a sealed community, and much more besides.

There were several familiar faces in Silo, including Tim Robbins and Will Patton, both of whom excelled. I greatly enjoyed Rebecca Ferguson’s performance in the lead role, too. A second season of Silo is already in production, and I will be eagerly awaiting its arrival in 2024.

Best Kids Film

🏆Winner🏆
Ladybug and Cat Noir: The Movie

With the major caveat that I haven’t watched Disney’s Wish yet, I want to highlight Ladybug and Cat Noir: The Movie. I don’t think it turned a lot of heads when it was released, but it’s a creditable adaptation of a fairly long-running animated series that offers a new look at its titular heroes. The film could be a great introduction point for someone new to the world of Miraculous, serving less as a reboot than a reimagining of the show and its characters.

The story was easy to follow for younger eyes, but still strong and engaging, and the film had an uplifting message at its core that’s sure to resonate with its intended audience. The idea that anyone can become a hero is always going to be appealing, and the idea of people doing bad things with good – albeit selfish – intentions is likewise important. All in all, a solid film that I enjoyed – and one that I’m sure many kids will, too.

Best Film

🥈Runner-Up🥈
Barbie

I really wasn’t sure what to expect from Barbie. Director Greta Gerwig had pedigree, with titles like Lady Bird earning her nominations for the top awards. But I really didn’t know what she’d do with the world-famous Barbie name and brand. I’m surprised that Mattel, the makers of Barbie dolls, greenlit a film like this – because Barbie really isn’t a film for kids, despite its name and source material. But I’m glad that the film was able to go ahead, because it was funny and clever; a really unique picture.

I daresay Barbie isn’t for everyone; the film can feel quite subversive, challenging the expectations of its audience in places. But it has an important message – and considering that it’s basically a corporate cash-in on a famous brand, that’s actually pretty great. Margot Robbie is, of course, the film’s star – but I’d also say that Will Ferrell was particularly well-cast as the chief executive of Mattel.

🏆Winner🏆
The Super Mario Bros. Movie

I adored The Super Mario Bros. Movie, and although it might seem like a bit of a silly pick, I’m happy to crown it my favourite film of 2023. The film did such a good job of adapting the familiar world of Nintendo’s Mushroom Kingdom for the big screen, while at the same time putting a nice twist on the tired “save the princess” trope. There were cameos and callbacks to many different things from the video games, and a few new ideas that I’m astonished to see Nintendo has failed to take advantage of!

As a film aimed at kids, the main story here isn’t anything groundbreaking. But what there is is just so much fun and is presented in such a bright, vibrant style that I found it impossible not to smile. The Super Mario Bros. Movie is going to become a textbook example of how to successfully adapt a story for the cinema – so other studios should be taking notes!

Most Disappointing Video Game

🥈Runner-Up🥈
The Lord of the Rings: Gollum

Maybe you were never sold on the idea of playing as the contemptible Gollum, but I’d been following the development of this title for years and felt that it could’ve offered something a bit different. You know the story by now, though: Gollum was released in an unfinished, practically unplayable state, and was shredded by professional critics and players alike. I maintain that the game could have found an audience had it been marketed correctly – and, y’know, finished – but unfortunately it wasn’t to be.

As the video games industry seems to be consolidating around relatively few genres and ongoing franchises, what appealed to me about a title like Gollum was that it seemed to be something different. In terms of narrative and gameplay, its developers had a vision for what they wanted to create, and it seemed like something that could have been fun. Unfortunately, for what seems likely to be a multitude of reasons, Daedalic Entertainment lacked the skill, resources, or money to pull it off.

🏆“Winner”🏆
Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

As with Gollum above, Jedi: Survivor was released in a broken, bug-riddled state. The fact that I struggled to play the game even after waiting for several months and after seeing several major patches roll out is shocking, and the blame lies at the door of publisher Electronic Arts. However… there’s more to the Jedi: Survivor story than just bugs. What I found underneath the buggy veneer was a game that was narratively weak and that failed to live up to its illustrious predecessor.

I won’t say too much lest I spoil Jedi: Survivor’s story for you, but suffice to say a major plot point in the game’s narrative felt ridiculously obvious and seemed to be telegraphed from almost the first moment. The return of a major character from the first game was handled poorly, and while I liked some of the customisation options for protagonist Cal Kestis, the amount of these and the way they were unlocked felt ridiculously unbalanced. An open-world setting did not suit Jedi: Survivor, and the game was notably worse for trying to go down this route.

The “I Can’t Believe Anyone Chose To Die On This Hill” Award

🏆“Winner”🏆
Hogwarts Legacy

I was surprised at the number of people who outed themselves as being what I shall generously call “fairweather allies” to the LGBT+ community over Hogwarts Legacy. The game is, by all accounts, a bog-standard open-world affair with a fairly uninspired main story, boring side missions, and a map outside of the main Hogwarts castle that just screams “generic.” The fact that the game is nowhere on anyone’s “game of the year” lists speaks volumes; Hogwarts Legacy turned out to be forgettable fluff.

Which makes it all the more sad and upsetting that people ended friendships and got into massive online arguments over this game. Hogwarts Legacy was not worth the hassle, the hurt, or the destruction that it caused. I don’t agree with the “hot take” that says that anyone who played or bought the game is automatically a transphobe – even though the Harry Potter series’ creator has said, on the record, that she considers sales of the game and all other merchandise as being acceptance and agreement with her transphobic views. But for the folks who chose to die on this hill earlier in the year, and who prioritised such a mediocre game over allyship and friendships… I hope it was worth it.

Best Ongoing Video Game

🏆Winner🏆
Civilization VI

I’ve played quite a bit of Civilization VI this year – thanks in part to the game’s ongoing support and the addition of new leaders. It’s been fun to jump back into the game and find several new factions and leaders to both play as and play against, as well as other updates. Although I’ve played Civilization VI on and off since its launch back in 2016, the game can still surprise me – and there are still plenty of Steam achievements that I’m yet to unlock! I finally managed to win a religious victory this year, though, so I can cross that one off my list!

In addition to new leaders, some of Civilization VI’s updates have introduced climate change mechanics and rising sea levels, as well as imaginary near-future technologies and government types. These are a blast, and stomping a city with a Giant Death Robot that I’ve named “The Danger Roomba” will never not be fun! Civilization VI can be expensive to pick up, and I’m always wary about recommending a game with £100+ of DLC and expansion packs. But for the amount of enjoyment it’s given me this year, I couldn’t leave Civilization VI out.

Most Improved Video Game

🏆Winner🏆
Cyberpunk 2077

A little over a year ago, in early December 2022, I said that Cyberpunk 2077 was a fairly average, unremarkable game that was elevated slightly by a solid story. I felt that the game’s bug-riddled launch actually distracted from its real mechanical flaws – and in a perverse way, that probably helped CD Projekt Red. But a year later, it’s stunning to me just how many of my complaints have been fixed! To coincide with Phantom Liberty, the game’s first and only expansion pack, a major update was released that completely reworked entire gameplay mechanics and systems, improving the game dramatically.

A review of Phantom Liberty is still a ways off, but I hope you’ll stay tuned for my full thoughts sometime in the new year. For now, suffice to say that Cyberpunk 2077 is much closer to that original vision, and a far, far better game than it was a mere twelve months ago. The transformation may seem subtle at first, but when you start levelling up your character and getting into combat encounters, you’ll see a huge difference.

Game of the Year

🏆Winner🏆
Baldur’s Gate 3

If you’re a regular reader, you’ll have seen this coming from a mile away! Baldur’s Gate 3 is an absolutely fantastic game, one of the best I’ve played in years. And to think I only bought it because I was looking for something to play while waiting for Starfield! I had no idea what I was getting into, because I’ve never played Dungeons and Dragons, but I ended up having a whale of a time. The game has an incredibly strong story with some great characters – and fantastic voice acting – but it’s a mechanical masterpiece, too. There are weapons and spells galore, and so many choices to make that really do make each playthrough feel unique.

I’m about to kick off a second run through the game – after delaying it for a while – and I’m really looking forward to creating a completely different character and trying new things. There are two large chunks of the map that I didn’t explore last time around, characters and companions that I didn’t get to meet, and so much to get stuck into that it’ll feel almost like a brand-new game all over again. A thoroughly deserved win for one of the best games of the last few years.

So that’s it for 2023!

I sincerely hope that you’ll join me for more reviews and commentary in the new year – because I’m sure there’ll be plenty of fun things to talk about in 2024!

2023 has been a solid year, entertainment-wise. The disruption of the pandemic seems to be settling down, and we got some decent films, decent games, and decent TV shows to get stuck into. I didn’t get around to seeing or playing all of them… but there’s always next year, right?

Hopefully these awards have been a bit of fun. I enjoy putting these together once a year, and I think it’s important to show off some of the best and most enjoyable titles of the year. We won’t always agree on which ones should win an award… but that’s okay. There should be plenty of room for polite discussion and disagreement – and it’s in that spirit that I share my choices.

Whatever you’re doing for New Year’s Eve, I hope you have a fun (and safe) time ringing in 2024. I’ve bought myself a suitably silly New Year-themed hat that I shall be donning… as I hang out with the cats and possibly watch some of the fireworks on TV! To those of you who’ve been regular readers all year long, thank you for sticking with me! And I look forward to sharing my thoughts with all of you once more in 2024.

Happy New Year!

Some great holiday sale deals for PC gamers

Fri 22.12.23Sat 23.12.23Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Beware of minor spoilers for some of the games on this list.

It’s that time of year again! As I do every year, I’ve picked out a handful of discounts on Steam and the Epic Games Store that I think are worth taking a look at! Getting started with a gaming PC can be expensive – but if you reckon that you can often get relatively new games at a steep discount at least twice a year on platforms like Steam, it can be worth it in the long run. That’s my justification, at any rate!

I’ve picked twenty games that I think represent great value now that they’re on sale, and this year I’ve gone for a mix of up-to-date and older titles. I’ve personally played most of the games listed below; one or two are titles I’m less familiar with or aren’t necessarily “my thing,” but I’m happy to add into consideration for one reason or another.

Now for the important bit!

All prices are listed below in GBP and were correct at time of writing. These sales end in early January, at which point this list will no longer be accurate. Prices and discounts may vary depending on where you are in the world. And I’m sure there’s some legalese about refunds, price changes, and the like.

As always, everything we’re talking about today is the wholly subjective opinion of one person only. If you hate all of my suggestions, or if I exclude games that you think are the best of the best, that’s okay! We’re all entitled to our opinions, and I share this list with you in that spirit.

Let’s get into the deals!

Deal #1:
Starfield
Steam: 30% discount, £41.99

For one of the biggest releases of the year – on PC and Xbox, at any rate – Starfield’s discount feels pretty generous. The game only launched in late August, so to get such a steep reduction after a mere four months makes it well worth considering. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the game itself. Starfield is a big game with a lot of things going on, and some experiences – like building my own spaceship – were definitely fun! But there are also limitations to be aware of; this isn’t Bethesda’s magnum opus by any means.

Still, when it’s on sale I’m happy to recommend Starfield. It could be worth picking it up now, while it’s discounted, and then waiting to see how the promised updates and patches add to and hopefully improve it in 2024. I put Starfield down a while ago (and I’ve actually uninstalled it already), but I’d love to be able to return to it in the future.

Deal #2:
Civilization VI (Platinum Edition Bundle)
Steam: 91% discount, £13.49

The base version of Civilization VI is a mere £4.99 in the current sale, but for less than a tenner more you’ll get all of the DLC, too. I think it’s worth it – especially when you consider that Civilization VI would cost over £100 to buy in full at any other time of year! This is one of my most-played games of the last few years… I’ve literally sunk over 500 hours into it!

Civilization VI is a turn-based strategy title; a digital board game played on random maps. There are a growing number of empires and leaders to choose from, each of which have unique bonuses and play styles. Every single game is different, and even though Civilization VI is now more than seven years old, DLC and updates have continually refreshed it.

Deal #3:
Elden Ring
Steam: 40% discount, £29.99

Elden Ring is categorically not “my thing.” Souls-like games, with their deliberately punishing difficulty, are just not enjoyable – or even playable – for me… but the overwhelming consensus is that Elden Ring is one of the sub-genre’s all-time greats. Many players picked it as their “game of the year” in 2022, so to get it at a reasonably steep discount just a year later feels pretty generous!

I can’t tell you much more about the game, really… but if you decide to give it a go, I hope you have as much fun as everyone else! I’ll be sitting this one out, but I can appreciate Elden Ring from afar.

Deal #4:
Red Dead Redemption II
Steam/Epic Games: 67% discount, £19.79

Speaking of games that are considered to be masterpieces, Red Dead Redemption II is on sale, too! Rockstar – the developers of the Grand Theft Auto series – took their signature open-world formula to the late 19th Century, and what results is one of the best games I’ve ever played. Red Dead Redemption II is intense, detailed, emotional, and incredibly fun to play.

With Grand Theft Auto VI still a ways off – and even further away, perhaps, for those of us who play on PC – Red Dead Redemption II could be a great substitute! If you haven’t played it yet it’s incredibly easy to recommend, and if you have… why not go around again?

Deal #5:
Kena: Bridge of Spirits
Steam: 60% discount, £12.79

Kena: Bridge of Spirits was my pick for game of the year in 2021, and for good reason! The 3D platformer is fantastic – and deceptively simple. Its story was incredible to follow, and the game was visually beautiful – feeling almost like something you’d expect to see from a Walt Disney film. More than once I found myself just staring at a stunning landscape or vista, almost in awe of how incredible the game looks.

In some ways, Kena: Bridge of Spirits also felt like a throwback to an older style of video game. There are puzzles to solve, 3D platforming elements to challenge you, and at practically every step of the way there’s something to do or watch out for! Narratively, visually, and mechanically, Kena: Bridge of Spirits absolutely excels. For such a low price it feels like a steal – but be sure to pick it up on Steam this year, as it isn’t discounted on the Epic Games Store for some reason.

Deal #6:
The Lord of the Rings: Return to Moria
Epic Games: 50% discount, £15.84

It hasn’t been the best year for Lord of the Rings in the video game realm. The less said about Gollum the better… but maybe Return to Moria will be the series’ saving grace! For a game that’s only been out for a couple of months, a 50% discount may seem generous – and may speak to the game’s less-than-perfect reception in some quarters. For my money, though, if you set appropriate expectations I think there’s enough going on in Return to Moria to have a good time.

Return to Moria stars the dwarves – and features a pretty basic character creator. There’s base-building, mining, crafting, and most of the things you’d expect from a game that bills itself as a survival title. The addition of online multiplayer could make this a fun one to play with a buddy, and perhaps the addition of friends would improve the experience. Maybe it isn’t the perfect game – but there’s still fun to be had here, especially at this price point.

Deal #7:
Ryse: Son of Rome
Steam: 65% discount, £2.79

For less than the price of a coffee, Ryse: Son of Rome is incredibly easy to recommend! I paid full-price for the game the day it was released; it was my first purchase for my brand-new Xbox One console. And although Ryse is a relatively short experience, clocking in at around six hours, I had fun with it. At the time I was mostly concerned with its jaw-dropping visuals; graphical fidelity that really highlighted the strengths of what was a new console generation. But there’s a decent story to follow, too, as well as some fun hack-and-slash gameplay.

I took a more detailed look at Ryse: Son of Rome a few weeks ago to mark the tenth anniversary of its release, and you can find that article by clicking or tapping here. For such a low price, you’ve almost got nothing to lose by giving Ryse a try!

Deal #8:
Return of the Obra Dinn
Steam: 33% discount, £11.22

If you’re looking for a genuinely different experience – visually, narratively, and mechanically – then look no further than Return of the Obra Dinn! The game’s deliberately retro aesthetic helps it stand out from the pack, but that’s just the start. There’s a complex and tragic mystery at the heart of Return of the Obra Dinn, and it plays out in absolutely phenomenal style.

The game’s art style will either grab you or turn you off completely – but I’d encourage you to push through if you fall into the latter camp. It’s a gimmick, for sure… but it’s one that works remarkably well. Return of the Obra Dinn wouldn’t be the same without it.

Deal #9:
SnowRunner
Steam/Epic Games: 50% discount, £12.49

Aside from its predecessor MudRunner – and upcoming sequel Expeditions – there really isn’t anything quite like SnowRunner! It’s an off-road driving simulation, with trucks and four-wheel-drive vehicles to climb behind the wheel of. There’s a realistic representation of mud and, of course, snow – with vehicles getting bogged down and stuck. Off-road driving in a lot of open-world and even racing games can be way too smooth; SnowRunner is completely different, and driving can be a real challenge!

Most of us aren’t going to go off-roading in a jeep, let alone ever drive a big truck in difficult conditions, so this game offers a unique experience – while at the same time respecting the real-world truckers and drivers who keep society functioning! It’s a blast to get stuck into – literally. And SnowRunner is also a very appropriate game for this time of year!

Deal #10:
Banished
Steam: 66% discount, £5.09

Banished has become a mainstay of my lists here on the website; I hardly ever miss an opportunity to recommend it! Banished is a deceptively simple town-building game, and it’s a ton of fun. It’s one of those games that feels really easy to get started with… but that’s very difficult to master at the same time. There aren’t a huge number of buildings, nor jobs for citizens… but striking the right balance to keep everyone fed, healthy, happy, and warm is no mean feat!

I always have to point out that Banished was created by a solo developer. That absolutely blows my mind – because the game is so good that I’d be including it on a list like this even if it’d been created by an entire studio! I have a longer piece about Banished, and you can find it by clicking or tapping here if you’d like to read more.

Deal #11:
Cyberpunk 2077 (Ultimate Edition)
Steam: 43% discount, £42.53

This time last year, I didn’t expect I’d ever be in a position where I could recommend Cyberpunk 2077 to anyone in good conscience! The game’s appalling launch and borderline-unplayable state gave way to a title that was just… pretty average, to be honest. Average in some respects and outdated in others. But then along came the 2.0 update and Phantom Liberty – the first (and supposedly only) major expansion pack.

Most of the mechanical complaints that I had about Cyberpunk 2077, from armour and clothing to police spawning and levelling up, have been fixed, and the addition of a new storyline is fantastic to boot. Best pick this one up on Steam, though, because it’s another case of Epic Games not offering the same discount for some reason.

Deal #12:
Star Trek: Resurgence
Epic Games: 40% discount, £19.01

Regrettably, I didn’t get around to trying Star Trek: Resurgence for myself this year. I’ve been feeling a bit burned out on the Star Trek franchise in general for the past few months, so that’s partly why. But according to reviews and anecdotal evidence from friends and fellow Trekkies, it’s a great game for fans of the long-running sci-fi franchise. A narrative experience with a strong story in which choices genuinely matter, Resurgence has definitely picked up some positive buzz.

The game was developed by several people who used to work at Telltale Games – the studio behind popular titles like The Wolf Among Us and The Walking Dead – so Resurgence has some pedigree! This is a title I shall be picking up while it’s on sale… and I hope to get stuck into it in the new year!

Deal #13:
Gylt
Steam: 50% discount, £8.49

When it was first released, Gylt was one of the only titles that was exclusive to Stadia. You remember Stadia, right? Google’s short-lived foray into gaming? Not ringing any bells, is it?

Anyway! Gylt is a surprisingly charming and frightening action-horror-puzzle game in which the protagonist – a young child – must navigate a nightmarish realm while searching for her missing cousin. Seeing things through a younger person’s eyes completely reframes them, and Gylt really nails this aspect of gameplay, giving everything a larger-than-life and unsettling vibe. I’m not usually one for horror titles, but I made an exception for Gylt.

Deal #14:
Monkey Island Collection
Steam: 59% discount, £20.37

The Monkey Island games are a ton of fun – and the way they’re presented in their remastered form brings them up-to-date. I had a blast playing the first two games in the series in the early 1990s on my first-ever PC – and revisiting them in a new art style decades later was certainly an interesting experience!

The first two games in particular hold a lot of nostalgia for me personally, but the third game (out of a total of five, now) might realistically be the series’ high-water mark. A thrilling pirate adventure awaits ye, should ye choose to venture to Monkey Island!

Deal #15:
Lego Star Wars: The Skywalker Saga
Steam/Epic Games: 80% discount, £7.99

If you enjoyed playing the Lego Star Wars games (or any other Lego game, come to that) during the Xbox 360 era, The Skywalker Saga is basically more of the same – but shinier! I had a blast with it when it finally launched after several long delays, and while nothing about it feels revolutionary or groundbreaking… it’s perfectly fine for what it is. You know what you’re getting into with a Lego Star Wars game, and The Skywalker Saga is exactly what you’d expect.

I’m not wild about the “character packs” that are sold separately, but I would say that the base game provides plenty of characters to play with and a lot of content. All nine mainline Star Wars films are represented in the game, and characters from all three of the cinematic franchise’s main eras are present. It’s a bit of silly fun, so if you have younger kids or someone to play with on the couch, it’s an easy recommendation!

Deal #16:
Jade Empire: Special Edition
Steam: 75% discount, £3.74

In between Knights of the Old Republic and Mass Effect, BioWare developed this underappreciated game! It follows the standard BioWare formula, but it’s set in a world loosely based on China – full of magic and martial arts. I played the game on the original Xbox – where it was a console exclusive – and I was thrilled to see it available on Steam a few years ago.

For such a low price you’re getting a full BioWare role-playing game complete with fun and engaging characters, a story of revenge, and a unique setting. I’d love to see a full-blown remaster of Jade Empire one day… but for now, this version is still perfectly enjoyable.

Deal #17:
Forza Horizon 5
Steam: 50% discount, £24.99

I had a blast playing Forza Horizon 5. The Horizon series is the less-serious, more arcadey cousin to Forza Motorsport, Microsoft and Xbox’s flagship racing series. And it’s a ton of fun with hundreds of cars to choose from, a massive open world to drive across in between races, and so many different kinds of races from supercars on racetracks to off-road buggies in the jungle.

Forza Horizon 5 has a really positive and almost uplifting tone to it, one that really goes out of its way to celebrate the different cars on offer. And there really are a lot to choose from! It’s a delightful racing game – and after the disappointment of this year’s Forza Motorsport having so few racetracks, Forza Horizon 5 feels even better by comparison!

Deal #18:
Halo: The Master Chief Collection
Steam: 75% discount, £8.49

The Master Chief Collection gives you the first six Halo titles in one package – and I think it’s great value. I’m more interested in the single-player campaigns – though I enjoyed the first two games for their multiplayer on the original Xbox – but there’s a bustling online multiplayer scene if you’re more interested in that side of Halo.

The consensus seems to be that Halo has gone off the rails with its more recent offerings, so stepping back in time to re-play the first entries in the series might be the best way to enjoy it! The games are all fun, fluid, and fast-paced first-person shooters in an original sci-fi setting. If you’ve been sleeping on Halo, now could be the time to give it a shot.

Deal #19:
Control: Ultimate Edition
Steam: 75% discount, £8.74

I didn’t really know what to expect when I booted up Control for the first time – but I had an absolute blast with its eerie setting and mysterious tone. Control is also one of the most accessible games I’ve ever played, with a ton of different features that ensure the game can be played by people with disabilities and health issues. Speaking as a disabled person, I really appreciated that!

Control has a compelling story, as protagonist Jesse searches for her long-lost brother. The human side of the story kept it grounded even as supernatural shenanigans played out, and that was handled particularly well. I enjoyed exploring the game’s world – what seemed, at first, to be a fairly plain office building held a lot of secrets and surprises!

Deal #20:
Command & Conquer: Remastered Collection
Steam: 75% discount, £4.49

Command & Conquer and Red Alert were great games in the mid-90s – titles that helped to define and popularise the real-time strategy genre. I had great fun playing them at the time – so welcoming them back, in this remastered form, has been wonderful! I was always more a fan of Red Alert than Command & Conquer; I think its factions and setting being based more on the real world is part of the reason why. But both titles are present here.

In their remastered forms, Command & Conquer and Red Alert are well worth playing for anyone who missed them first time around! Not only will you be picking up a piece of gaming history, but you’ll be getting two real-time strategy games that are well worth playing in their own rights, too.

So that’s it for 2023!

Christmas Day is getting closer by the hour, so I hope you’ve done all your shopping! If you get a Steam or Epic Games gift card from a certain jolly man in a red suit, perhaps I’ve given you an idea or two for how to spend it. If not, I hope this has been a fun look at a few games that I like or that I think might be worth your time. There are plenty of titles on sale at the moment, and I tried to pick out a selection of mostly single-player titles – because that’s how I like to play – across a few different genres.

I made one deliberate exclusion from this list that I want to briefly address: Baldur’s Gate 3. Technically the game is on sale on Steam, but I felt that its 10% discount – while generous for a brand-new game that’s just won a bunch of the top awards – wasn’t big enough to warrant being included this time. But if you want to pick it up at a slight discount, it’s my pick for game of the year and I can’t recommend it enough!

So that’s all for now. There will be more to come before the new year, though – including my annual end-of-year awards! I hope you’ll stay tuned for that in the days to come. Take care – and Merry Christmas!

All titles listed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some screenshots and promotional artwork courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Ten Games To Play While You Wait For GTA 6

Sat 16.12.23Sat 16.12.23Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for some of the games on this list.

The recent trailer for Grand Theft Auto 6 has got a lot of gamers salivating! We really ought to try and avoid boarding the hype train, but with Grand Theft Auto 6 being the long-overdue sequel to the most successful and profitable video game of all-time, a bit of excitement is understandable! However, the game won’t launch until sometime in 2025 – and probably even later for PC players like me, unfortunately – so until then we’re all facing a dilemma: what should we play?

I’ve picked out ten games that I think could be fun substitutes for Grand Theft Auto 6. I’ve tried to avoid the most obvious pick: Grand Theft Auto V! But I’ve selected games in the same open-world space, with comparable driving and third-person action gameplay, or with a focus on crime and criminality. There are bound to be hundreds of “what to play before GTA 6” lists floating around… so you may have seen some of these ideas already. But maybe – just maybe – there’ll be something a bit different in the mix this time!

A screenshot from the Grand Theft Auto 6 trailer showing the fictional Vice City from above after sunset. — Vice City after dark.

As always, this list is the entirely subjective opinion of one person only! If you hate all of my ideas, think they’re too obvious, or you’ve seen a far better selection of games elsewhere – that’s okay! There’s no need to take anything too personally or get into an argument.

I’ve already shared my thoughts on the recent trailer for Grand Theft Auto 6, and you can find that article by clicking or tapping here.

With all of that out of the way, let’s get started!

Game #1:
Saints Row 2 (2008)

Promotional screenshot of Saints Row 2 featuring a character firing a handgun. — Running and gunning!

For me, Saints Row 2 is where the series managed to strike the right balance between being a pure “GTA-clone” and the utter silliness and wackiness that would come to define its later entries. There was an attempt to reboot the Saints Row series earlier this year, but unfortunately it wasn’t well-received so I can’t recommend it. But if you don’t mind stepping back to the Xbox 360 era, Saints Row 2 could scratch that open-world crime itch!

Saints Row 2 is comparable to Grand Theft Auto 4 in terms of graphics and gameplay – but with a less-realistic physics engine that seemed (to me, anyway) to make driving a bit more arcadey and fun. It also has a bit more of a grounded story when contrasted with later Saints Row games – there’s no visiting Hell or battling aliens from outer space in this one. There’s an open-world city to cruise around, cars to jack, missions to get stuck into, and basically all of the Grand Theft Auto trappings with a less-illustrious name attached. It was great fun in 2008 – and although I haven’t played it in a while, it’s still a game I heartily recommend!

Game #2:
Sleeping Dogs: Definitive Edition (2012; 2014)

Promotional screenshot of Sleeping Dogs showing protagonist Wei Shen holding a shotgun. — Wei Shen in Hong Kong.

Sleeping Dogs takes the Grand Theft Auto formula but puts two very distinctive spins on it. Firstly, the player character is a cop, not a criminal – albeit an undercover cop who seems to have no qualms about breaking a few laws! And secondly, the game is set in Hong Kong, not the United States. Both of these elements help it stand out from other open-world crime games!

You’ll occasionally hear Sleeping Dogs discussed in conversations about underrated games – and rightly so! It’s a fantastic title that was criminally under-appreciated when it was released. The game’s underwhelming sales at launch led to the cancellation of a potential sequel – but Sleeping Dogs is still a fantastic standalone experience. If you play on PC, the game is frequently available at a steep discount during Steam sales, and with the winter sale coming up soon, you might be able to pick it up for less than the price of a coffee. Surely it’s worth a shot for a few pounds or dollars!

Game #3:
Expeditions: A Mudrunner Game (2024)

A promotional screenshot of Expeditions: A Mudrunner Game showing first-person driving. — Driving up-river!

You won’t have to wait too long for this sequel to Mudrunner and Snowrunner; it’s due for release in March. I’ve had a surprisingly fun time with Saber Interactive’s off-road vehicle simulation games, so if the driving side of Grand Theft Auto is what you liked the most, I’d happily recommend all three. If you’re sick of racing games and are looking for a different kind of vehicular challenge, Mudrunner, Snowrunner, and the upcoming Expeditions could be just what the doctor ordered!

Snowrunner has several large open maps and plenty of vehicles to choose from – and the off-road part of the driving simulation is really the focus of the game. I expect Expeditions will do something similar – but according to the developers, it’ll also be adding new features like a recon drone, metal detector, and of course, new vehicles!

Game #4:
Red Dead Redemption II (2018)

Promo screenshot of Red Dead Redemption II featuring protagonist Arthur Morgan and a horse. — Howdy, partner!

Alright, I suppose we couldn’t put together a list like this without talking about Rockstar’s most recent title! Red Dead Redemption II is, in my humble opinion, Rockstar’s magnum opus – and one of the most incredible video games ever made. If you haven’t played it… what are you waiting for? I’ve only played it once, and I’m seriously considering going around for a second playthrough sometime soon.

Red Dead Redemption II takes Rockstar’s open-world formula to the 19th Century, with an incredible map based on parts of the American midwest, the Rocky Mountains, the Deep South, and more. The single-player campaign features one of the best stories ever told in a video game, with incredible characters and an intense, deeply emotional narrative. I can understand being put off by the time period if you’re craving a game set in the modern day… but give it a shot, especially if you can find it at a discount. I really don’t think you’ll be disappointed!

Game #5:
Crime Boss: Rockay City (2023)

Promotional screenshot of Crime Boss: Rockay City featuring Chuck Norris' character. — Outer space exists because it’s afraid to be on the same planet as Chuck Norris.

I’d argue that Crime Boss: Rockay City was unfairly criticised upon release by folks who’d either over-hyped it or had set the wrong expectations. If you go into it expecting a first-person Grand Theft Auto experience with all of the bells and whistles of a Rockstar game… sure, I guess it’s fair to say it comes up short. But if you look at the game for what it is – a fairly straightforward and linear FPS that’s more comparable, in some respects, to the Payday series – there are more than enough charming features to make it worth playing.

Crime Boss: Rockay City has voice acting from the likes of Chuck Norris and Danny Trejo, and its ’90s setting is something a bit nostalgic. The game is also set in a fictional city based on Miami – just like a certain upcoming crime game that we’re all looking forward to! Crime Boss: Rockay City is reasonably priced, and didn’t try to overcharge. That being said, it could well be available at a discount when holiday sales get going this month – so keep an eye on it!

Game #6:
Cyberpunk 2077 + Phantom Liberty (2020; 2023)

A screenshot of Cyberpunk 2077, looking out over an apartment building. — The view from V’s apartment.

As I said recently, I never thought I’d be in a position where I could recommend Cyberpunk 2077 to anyone in good conscience! However, the addition of the game’s big 2.0 update and the Phantom Liberty DLC has been a game-changer – quite literally! Cyberpunk 2077 had been slowly but surely rebuilding its reputation after a disastrous launch three years ago, and by the time I got around to fully playing through it, the worst and most egregious of the bugs and glitches had been fixed. But the 2.0 update and Phantom Liberty have genuinely transformed the experience.

Many of the complaints that I had about Cyberpunk 2077′s gameplay – from the way clothing and armour worked to how police would randomly spawn in Night City – have been addressed and completely fixed, and the addition of a new story campaign has been fantastic, too. I can understand not wanting to play the game or to support a developer who behaved deceitfully – and we should never forget how CD Projekt Red acted in the run-up to the game’s release. But if you haven’t played Cyberpunk 2077 yet… you are honestly missing out on a great story and a fun experience.

Game #7:
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (2002)

Loading screen art from the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City featuring protagonist Tommy Vercetti. — Protagonist Tommy Vercetti.

Is this one too obvious? With a return to Vice City on the cards in 2025, it could be fun to step back in time to see its first appearance! I really enjoyed Vice City at the time – it felt like a step up from Grand Theft Auto III with a bigger map, more vehicles, and a fully-voiced protagonist. I’d go so far as to say that Vice City’s homage to the likes of Scarface and Miami Vice has me genuinely questioning how well Grand Theft Auto 6 will work when it takes the iconic Miami-inspired city out of the ’80s and into the modern day.

If you grew up on Grand Theft Auto V and other games of that generation, stepping back to Vice City could feel like a downgrade – and I fully appreciate that. But the game has a fun story, and if you can overlook the admittedly outdated graphics and the technological limitations that come with a two-decade-old game, it’s absolutely worth playing. I had a blast with it in 2002 – and knowing that that was more than twenty years ago makes me feel absolutely fucking ancient!

Game #8:
Shenmue I & II (1999; 2001)

Cropped poster of Shenmue I & II. — A promo poster showing some of the games’ characters.

Before Grand Theft Auto III came along, the original Shenmue on the Dreamcast was an early open-world pioneer. In some ways, its world is more detailed than even Grand Theft Auto V’s, with a day-night cycle that actually matters to characters’ schedules, dynamic weather, mini-games, and more. I absolutely adored Shenmue back when I owned a Dreamcast – and I never miss an opportunity to recommend the game to players who might’ve missed it when it was new.

Shenmue tells a compelling story of revenge. Protagonist Ryo Hazuki must track down the man who murdered his father, and his quest takes him from his home town in Japan across the sea to Hong Kong and beyond. It’s a relatively slow-paced game with a lot of dialogue and investigating, but these sections are broken up by intense hand-to-hand combat battles that use a variety of martial arts moves, as well as quick-time events… which Shenmue can claim to have invented. For better or worse! Both games are available in one package, and this could be another one to add to your wishlist and keep an eye on.

Game #9:
Mafia: Definitive Edition (2002; 2020)

A promotional screenshot of Mafia: Definitive Edition featuring a character holding a gun walking past two cars. — Promo screenshot of *Mafia: Definitive Edition*.

When I first played Mafia on the original Xbox, I thought it was basically going to be “Grand Theft Auto in the ’30s” – but that hardly does it justice. The game – and its two sequels – have been remade from the ground up in recent years, putting to shame Rockstar’s appalling Grand Theft Auto III Trilogy “remaster” from a couple of years ago. Of the three, the original Mafia is probably the title I’d recommend most highly – but the entire trilogy can be picked up as one set.

All of the elements of a Grand Theft Auto game are present, but the ’30s setting and heavy focus on the titular mob makes for a completely different kind of story. Many of the gameplay elements will be familiar, but different and distinct enough to make this open-world crime title stand out from the crowd. I enjoyed the story of Tommy Angelo, a “made man” in the mob, and Mafia: Definitive Edition is an easy game to recommend to any fan of the GTA series.

Game #10:
Baldur’s Gate 3 (2023)

A screenshot of Baldur's Gate 3 showing a dice roll. — Ready to roll some dice?

I know, I know: this one’s a bit “out there,” as Baldur’s Gate 3 seems to have very little in common with the Grand Theft Auto series. It’s a completely different style of game – but as players, we’re willing and able to try out new experiences, right? If you’re at all interested in games with incredibly strong and compelling narratives, give Baldur’s Gate 3 a chance to show you why it’s my “game of the year.”

A turn-based role-playing game with a branching storyline, incredibly fun characters, and one of the best character creators I’ve ever seen, Baldur’s Gate 3 seemed to come out of nowhere this year and completely blew me away. I had an absolute blast playing it this summer and autumn, and even after sinking more than eighty-five hours into a single playthrough, there are characters I haven’t met, whole areas of the map that I missed and didn’t explore, and so much more to try! I really need to start that second playthrough sometime soon!

So that’s it!

A screenshot from the Grand Theft Auto 6 trailer showing characters on a beach during the day time. — Characters on the beach as seen in the *Grand Theft Auto 6* trailer.

We’ve taken a look at ten games to play while you wait for Grand Theft Auto 6. I hope I managed to pick one or two that you might not have been expecting! I’m sure I’m not the only one putting together lists or compilations like this one; there’s a lot of buzz around the next Grand Theft Auto title, and people are definitely going to be looking around for comparable experiences in the meantime. If I helped even one person find one game to try, then I’ve done my job and contributed something positive to the discussion!

Because I play on PC – and because Rockstar, despite its insane financial resources, is cheaping out on Grand Theft Auto 6′s PC release – it might be 2026 or even 2027 before I’ll be able to get my hands on it. I might not live that long… but if I do, I hope you’ll swing by Trekking with Dennis for a review! If there’s significant news about the game between now and then, I’ll do my best to cover it and discuss it here on the website. And if you missed it, you can find everything I had to say about the December 2023 trailer by clicking or tapping here.

Have fun out there – and happy gaming!

Grand Theft Auto 6 is currently in development and will be released on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series S/X in 2025. No PC release date has been set. All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some promotional screenshots courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

The Game “Awards” – Please Wrap It Up

Thu 14.12.23Thu 14.12.23Dennis

If you missed it, the so-called Game “Awards” was broadcast a few days ago. I don’t usually pay a lot of attention to the event – I have my own End-of-Year Awards to prepare for, after all! – but one particularly striking image has come out of the highly-commercial event, and I wanted to share my two cents.

Overshadowing the awards ceremony itself, and even many of the award winners, was a simple phrase that was shown on a massive prompt facing the stage: “Please Wrap It Up.” After being given as little as thirty seconds to speak upon receiving an award, the message would be displayed to developers and award-winners – before music would begin to play and they’d be ushered off-stage. Out of the entire three-hour broadcast, barely ten minutes was given to the award-winners themselves – who are, surely, supposed to be the stars of any awards ceremony. The rest of the time was dedicated to advertisements, trailers, speeches by the presenters, and even musical acts. Some awards weren’t even presented at all, being skipped over in a mere couple of seconds.

I’m far from the only person to have noticed this, and that’s surely because the Game “Awards” has become incredibly unbalanced. By prioritising trailers and presenters plugging upcoming games live on stage over the actual awards, the Game “Awards” is in danger of losing its audience. People turned up hoping to see their favourite titles of the year being honoured, not ushered off-stage after thirty seconds to make way for an incoherent ramble from an overhyped developer about his latest (completely unseen) title. Yes, I’m talking about Hideo Kojima. Or to make way for yet another trailer or commercial – practically all of which, this year, were entirely CGI creations that didn’t show any gameplay.

There’s a line to walk here. I think a lot of folks would agree that the likes of the Academy Awards and Golden Globes, which honour the best films of the year, can be pretentious and can feel like an industry congratulating itself and inflating the egos of its stars a little too much. Fewer and fewer people pay attention to the Oscars and Golden Globes as a result; those broadcasts have been losing viewers by the boatload over the past few years.

But would more people tune in to the Oscars if half of the awards weren’t presented on-screen, actors and directors were given less time to speak, and the broadcast was overstuffed with adverts and trailers? I mean, more than half of the Game “Awards” three-hour presentation consisted of trailers and adverts. That seems excessive, and there has got to be a way to strike a better balance.

The creators and producers of the Game “Awards” are trying to frame the event as video gaming’s equivalent to the Oscars or the Golden Globes… but if the games industry wants that kind of prestige, the ceremony has to be handled better. Right now, it’s an overblown advertisement – worse, somehow, than the likes of E3, because at least with E3 I knew from the start what I was getting into. The Game “Awards,” by putting its emphasis on the statuettes it plans to hand out, feels deliberately dishonest in its marketing. But at least it has that in common, rather ironically, with many of the video games it advertises.

It feels incredibly disrespectful to developers to invite them to a fancy ceremony under the guise of potentially receiving an award – only to then give them in some cases literally no time whatsoever on the stage to accept that award. If these awards are, as the organisers would like you to believe, the most prestigious in the industry… shouldn’t they want to see people receiving them? Shouldn’t that part of the broadcast be the biggest deal? After all, if receiving a Game Award is so unimportant that it’s relegated to a footnote in its own live presentation, why should anyone give a shit about who the winners or nominees are? If the titular trophies are so meaningless to the Game “Awards” itself… what’s the point?

I don’t like to throw the word “scam” around lightly; I think too many people do that these days, leading to the word’s impact and severity being diminished. But if you entice audiences to turn up to your event under false pretences… we’re definitely getting close to “scam” territory. The Game “Awards” pretends to be an Oscars-style ceremony with fancy suits and statuettes, then it flips the script on viewers and shows them basically two-plus hours of ads and barely ten minutes of actual award-winners. What else can we call such duplicity?

Geoff Keighly, principal organiser and presenter of the Game “Awards.”

Maybe some folks like tuning in to watch the trailers – and that’s okay. I like a good trailer as much as the next person, and it can be fun to look ahead to games that we might hope to enjoy in the months and years to come. Some of these trailers can be well-made, with creative visual effects, great soundtracks, celebrity endorsements, and much more. But that isn’t the point I’m making. If I choose to watch ads and trailers, that’s up to me and I can do that all I want. But if the Game “Awards” pretends to be an awards ceremony just to trick me into watching two hours of ads… well, I don’t appreciate that.

And let’s be honest: that’s exactly what’s happening here. The organisers of the Game “Awards” would ditch the statuettes in a heartbeat and make the entire event nothing but trailers, celebrities, and advertisements if they could get away with it. They don’t give the tiniest of shits about handing out awards or honouring the best and most creative titles of the year – all they care about is selling more and more advertising space and making a metric fuckton of cash, and they’ve done that by diminishing and minimising the actual awards portion of the broadcast so much that it feels like a footnote.

*Baldur’s Gate 3* won “game of the year.”

So what’s the solution? I don’t really have one, if I’m honest. Maybe the complaints received about the “Please Wrap It Up” screen will prompt some minor changes, and perhaps for the next year or two you might see award recipients being given sixty or perhaps even ninety seconds to speak. But sooner or later the desperation to grab as much cash as possible will overwhelm the Game “Awards” organisers once again, and the excessive ad-to-award ratio will be back.

The only thing we can do, as consumers in this marketplace, is register our disapproval. Don’t tune in to the next Game “Awards” and let the organisers know that we care as little about their made-up trophies as they seem to. If fewer and fewer people tune in, and make it clear that the reason we aren’t bothering to watch is because of how unbalanced the broadcast is in favour of trailers and ads, maybe the message will get through. As we’ve seen with the collapse of E3, no event in gaming is sacred or safe – they rely on our viewership and patronage to remain relevant.

I won’t bother watching another Game “Awards,” because what’s the point? If the organisers care so little about the actual awards, why should I?

All titles mentioned above are the copyright of their respective developer, studio, and/or publisher. The Game Awards can be streamed now on YouTube. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Five “Christmas” Films To Watch In December… Or Any Time Of Year, Really

Tue 12.12.23Tue 12.12.23Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Beware of minor spoilers for some of the films on this list.

I love Christmas – it’s the most wonderful time of the year, don’t you know! And there are some absolutely phenomenal Christmas films that are on everyone’s must-watch list every single year. You know the ones: films that we’ve watched at this time of year for almost as long as we can remember; films that have come to define every aspect of the word “Christmas.”

And I thought it could be fun to take a look at five of them and explain why they’re not really Christmas films!

That’s right, it’s time for a little bit of festive controversy as I pick out five “Christmas” films that aren’t really Christmas films! Instead, I would argue that these films are in other genres entirely, or are only tangentially related to Christmas either by being set at that time of year or even just by association.

*Father Christmas* is indisputably a Christmas film – which is why it won’t be on the list below!

Before we get into the list, an important caveat: this is just for fun! I don’t think the debate around what is or isn’t a “Christmas” film is something that needs to be taken seriously at all, and I’m making this list with tongue firmly embedded in cheek. It’s also one person’s entirely subjective opinion – so please try not to get too upset if I call out your favourite Christmas film!

I enjoy all of the films on this list, and regularly watch them at this time of year. But for reasons I’ll try my best to explain, I don’t necessarily consider them to be true “Christmas” films in every sense of the phrase. Definitions of what constitutes a Christmas film may vary – and it might be enough to say that a film set at Christmas, released at Christmas, or that has developed an association with Christmas over the years counts. But I’m going to argue that those reasons are not enough – for a film to truly be a Christmas film its plot has to be directly tied up with Christmas!

So let’s jump into the list, shall we?

Film #1:
The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

Wait, this film literally has the word “Christmas” in its name! Not only that, but it sees protagonist Jack Skellington take the reins of Santa’s sleigh on Christmas Eve… so how can it possibly not be a Christmas film? Well, that’s simple: it’s a Halloween film best enjoyed in the autumn.

Most of the action in The Nightmare Before Christmas takes place in Halloween Town, and practically all of the principal characters are Halloween Town residents who are inspired by the monsters and ghouls of horror fiction and folklore. Although the plot touches on Christmas and sees characters visit Christmas Town, those scenes and sequences are told from the point of view of the denizens of Halloween Town – and their take on Christmas is very much a spooky one!

The film is largely told from the perspective of Halloween Town residents.

For that reason, The Nightmare Before Christmas is a great film to watch in between Halloween and Christmas – say, in the middle of November! But as Christmas gets closer, we should really be leaving Halloween behind to focus on what lies ahead. For me, The Nightmare Before Christmas is too strongly rooted in Halloween, and decked out with the trappings of that holiday, to truly be considered a Christmas film.

That being said, I love how the film shows Halloween Town characters discovering Christmas for the first time, and how they work to save Christmas – after putting it in danger! There are some fun moments amidst the frights and scares… but it’s still very much a film that’s best enjoyed before Christmas time fully arrives!

Film #2:
Love Actually (2003)

This is simple: Love Actually is a film set at Christmas, not a Christmas film. Are we clear on that? Good! Wait, what do you mean I have to fill three-and-a-half more paragraphs? D’oh!

As stated, Love Actually may be set at Christmas, but setting alone does not – in my view – make for a Christmas film! Many of this romantic comedy’s storylines have nothing whatsoever to do with Christmas, and the simple fact that they play out in front of an occasionally festive backdrop doesn’t magically make the entire film a Christmas film!

Because of Love Actually’s narrative structure, some of its storylines and characters arguably have more to do with Christmas than others. Billy Mack, for instance, is desperately chasing the Christmas number one single, and the kids are taking part in a school’s nativity play. But other characters really don’t do anything Christmassy at all during their time on screen, with their stories taking them in different directions.

I enjoyed Love Actually when it was released – and to think it’s celebrating its twentieth anniversary this year makes me feel old! But I must confess that I was surprised to see it hailed as a “Christmas” film in the years after its release. To me, it has much more in common with writer Richard Curtis’ other rom-coms like Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill than it does with bona fide Christmas films.

Film #3:
Frozen (2013)

Frozen just isn’t a Christmas film, okay? It’s set in the middle of summer! And the princesses of the magical kingdom of Arendelle may not even celebrate Christmas for all we know; the holiday isn’t mentioned once!

A lot of people seem to associate Frozen with Christmas for two reasons: it was originally released shortly before Christmas, and it’s full of ice and snow thanks to Elsa’s magical powers. But there’s more to a Christmas film than a magical blizzard – and while Frozen may have a cute winter aesthetic going for it, as well as some well-animated snow, that’s not enough to make me believe it’s truly a Christmas film. And I say that with sincere apologies to everyone under the age of ten!

Snow and ice do not automatically make a film Christmassy.

The story of Frozen is set in the summer time; it’s only Elsa’s magic that causes Arendelle to freeze over. And the snow and ice is presented as a genuine danger to the kingdom’s inhabitants – hardly the carefree presentation of a white Christmas that we’d expect to see in a proper Christmas film! Many films use ice, snow, and blizzards to great effect – but we don’t call all of them “Christmas” films, and with good reason!

As more of the kids who grew up watching Frozen come of age, I expect its status as a “Christmas” film will only be further cemented. We’ve already seen songs like Do You Want To Build A Snowman showing up on Christmas compilation albums and playlists… so this idea of Frozen as a Christmas film clearly isn’t going away any time soon.

Film #4:
Die Hard (1988)

John McClane is fed up with this debate!

Uh oh, now we’re really getting into some controversial territory! Look, here’s the way I see it: I don’t dispute that Die Hard is set at Christmas and has some of the visual and musical trappings of the holiday season. That’s indisputable. But Die Hard is an action film set at Christmas time – not a Christmas film.

A couple of years ago, I saw somewhere online a homemade Christmas ornament featuring protagonist John McClane crawling through the ventilation ducts at Nakatomi Plaza. That was creative and cute – but the action movie trope of sneaking around in a crawlspace isn’t exactly something that screams “Christmas” to me!

Alan Rickman as terrorist leader Hans Gruber.

One of the best tests of whether something can truly be considered a Christmas film is this: can you comfortably watch it outside of the Christmas season? I’d have no issue watching Die Hard in the middle of summer – because its plot doesn’t hinge on Christmas, its characters aren’t interested in Christmas, and fundamentally, nothing about the film would change if its office Christmas party was instead a birthday party or a Fourth of July celebration.

And that’s the key to understanding Die Hard’s place on this list. It’s an action film with a few incidental Christmas trappings, and it’s been hyped up by fans as a “Christmas” film on the internet in recent years – but it isn’t. Being set at Christmas does not automatically make for a Christmas film!

Film #5:
Trading Places (1983)

An ’80s Christmas classic – but rightly so?

I’ve only seen the comedy film Trading Places a couple of times; I think it’s more popular in the United States than it is over here. But it’s a film that’s often discussed in a Christmas context – and seems to be on many people’s list of Christmas favourites!

As with Die Hard above, though, Trading Places is definitely a film set at Christmas time… but that doesn’t necessarily make it a true Christmas film. It’s a comedy, it’s a wacky adventure, and it’s a film that calls out and criticises racism as well as the weird excesses of wealth and capitalism. And those are all good things; Trading Places is funny! But again, that doesn’t make it a Christmas film.

The Christmas setting and the film’s annual airings on television in December have combined to make it a film that a lot of folks associate with the holidays. If you grew up watching Trading Places every year, there’s no doubt it’s become a part of your household’s festive tradition! We all have our own little Christmas traditions that we stick to – and that’s totally okay.

But for me, Trading Places is another film that can really be watched and enjoyed at any time of year. Nothing in its story is exclusive to the festive period – and that’s actually a good thing! It means Trading Places is a film that can be enjoyed on its own merit year-round.

So that’s it!

We’ve picked out five not-really-Christmas films! But I can already think of several more… so come back next December to see which other so-called “Christmas” films are going to be targeted!

As I said at the beginning, I hope you’ve taken this list in the spirit of festive fun. It’s meant to be a bit of silliness as the big day approaches – and while I will make the case for all five of these films not really being 100% Christmassy, I’m not about to die on that hill – or get into a massive argument about it!

So I hope this has brought you a bit of light-hearted festive cheer as Christmas draws nearer. The big day will be upon us before we realise it! I have a couple of other festive ideas that may (or may not) make their way onto the website before then, so please stay tuned! And Merry Christmas!

All of the films discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, distributor, company, etc. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Don’t Reply To Negative Reviews, Bethesda…

Mon 11.12.23Dennis

Just when I thought I’d said everything I was ever going to say about Starfield…

Bethesda’s customer support/public relations team has had to handle some absolute nightmares over the past few years. The line “we aren’t planning on doing anything about it” in response to a complaint about the Fallout 76 “canvas bag” fiasco will be forever etched in my mind – and that’s just the start! I used to work in the games industry, specifically in marketing, so this kind of story is right up my alley… so to speak.

If you haven’t already heard, Bethesda’s PR team has begun posting replies to negative reviews on Steam… and it’s going about as well as you might expect.

An example of a response to a negative review of *Starfield* from Bethesda.
(I have redacted the developer’s username for the sake of privacy.)

Here’s a great rule of thumb for any developer, publisher, or creative of any kind: don’t reply or respond to reviews. Ever. Period. End of story. Just don’t do it – it never goes well, and ends up coming across as whiny, arrogant, or both.

There are legitimate points of criticism in practically any work of media, and there are always going to be differences of opinion even among professional critics and journalists. A developer might think that they’ve made the “perfect” video game – but it’s a universal truth that even the absolute best of the best receive the odd negative review. Going after critics and players who have something negative to say is just a bad look – and it shouldn’t happen.

If Starfield was some obscure indie title made by a couple of amateur developers, I’d still encourage them never to reply to negative reviews – but I could at least understand, on a purely human level, where such responses were coming from. If a project that I’m passionate about and poured a lot of work into suddenly seems to be coming under attack, it’s natural to want to react to that, either to try to convince reviewers to change their minds or to “fight back.” It’s still a bad idea, but at least it’s understandable in that case.

But Bethesda is a big company, and it’s backed up by Microsoft – one of the largest and most valuable corporations on the planet. For these companies to literally pay some of their employees to use official Bethesda developer accounts to reply to negative reviews is just… well, it’s pretty shocking, to tell the truth.

Another response to a negative Steam review.
(Developer username redacted.)

Whether you think Starfield is the “game of the year” or a dumpster fire, you have to accept that other people have different points of view. And Steam reviews are one way in which players can express their opinions about the game. A company the size of Bethesda has to accept that not every review can be positive – and they kind of have to take that on the chin when it happens. It’s a reality of the games industry.

The internet has democratised media criticism – and that’s a fantastic thing. No longer are reviews the sole domain of professional journalists with university degrees; anyone can now offer up their half-baked thoughts and opinions on films, games, and TV shows. And I think that’s absolutely wonderful. One of the best things that Steam does – and other platforms like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes do, too – is aggregating reviews, presenting audiences with an overall picture of how players feel about the titles on offer. No one individual review is, therefore, a deal-maker or deal-breaker; players are now able to consider a much broader range of opinions.

The internet has opened up media criticism to anyone with a keyboard – and there are going to be a whole range of opinions on practically every video game, film, and TV show.

But the fact that any old idiot can set up a website – or post a review on a platform like Steam – means that not all reviews are going to be fair, accurate, or even relevant. Some reviews of Starfield criticised the game for absolutely silly reasons, and again on a human level, I can understand wanting to react to that and scream “it’s not fair!” But as a corporation, Microsoft has to be better than that. Bethesda and Xbox have to be professional.

Telling a player that they’re “wrong” to feel the way that they do about Starfield is bizarre – and it doesn’t do anything to endear Bethesda to its fans. Many reviews of Starfield echo my own thoughts on the game: people genuinely wanted to enjoy it, but found it to be visually last-gen, narratively weak, repetitive, and so on. Those criticisms may feel harsh to the talented developers who put a lot of time and effort into creating Starfield… but telling players that they shouldn’t feel that way or they just “don’t get” what Starfield was meant to be is an incredibly silly way to react.

There are two good ways to respond to criticism. Firstly, Bethesda and Xbox can prioritise fixing commonly-noted issues with the game. Rolling out updates and patches that, for example, improve the quality of the in-game map or reduce the frequency of copy-and-paste levels and environments would be a good place to start. Saying to players “we hear your concerns and we’re acting on them” is the appropriate reaction.

Look at what Hello Games did when No Man’s Sky came in for some absolutely ruthless criticism upon launch. Instead of lashing out at players, telling them to appreciate what the game had to offer, they knuckled down and got back to work. That game has received more free updates and patches than I can count – and it’s now in a far better and more enjoyable state than it was when it launched. Hello Games prioritised adding features that players wanted and fixing issues that players criticised – and the result is that, several years later, the game can claim to have made a comeback.

Bethesda could learn more than one lesson from Hello Games…

The second way to react to criticism is to make sure that the things players don’t like won’t be present in the next game a studio creates. While I personally wasn’t offended by Starfield’s abundance of loading screens, it’s one of the most common complaints about the game that I’ve read over the past couple of months. I don’t believe it’s possible to remove the loading screens in Starfield – thanks to the game’s reliance on the outdated Creation Engine that Bethesda has been using, in some form, for close to a quarter of a century – but it *is* possible for Bethesda to acknowledge the way players feel about loading screens and ensure that they won’t be present to the same extent in The Elder Scrolls VI.

Although the first Mass Effect game was well-received, it picked up criticism in 2007 for its inventory management and weapon overheating. By the time Mass Effect 2 rolled around a few years later, those problems had been fixed. Inventories were streamlined, weapon overheating was gone, and players had a much better time with the game. BioWare took those criticisms on board and worked to ensure that the things players didn’t like were gone from the next game in the series.

Inventory management was criticised in *Mass Effect 1* – so BioWare streamlined it in *Mass Effect 2*.

When Bethesda responds to criticisms of Starfield being “boring” – in the subjective opinion of one player – by saying things like “When the astronauts went to the moon, there was nothing there. They certainly weren’t bored.” it feels incredibly arrogant and smug. Trying to shut down “wrong” opinions about the game by attacking players – some of whom spent dozens or hundreds of hours playing before leaving their reviews – is genuinely shocking coming from a major studio. I’ve never seen anything quite like it, in fact – not on this scale, at any rate.

So Bethesda, here’s some free advice from someone who used to work in video games marketing: just stop. Stop what you’re doing – and if possible, apologise to the players you attacked. Refrain from ever responding to reviews again, and take the criticism as it comes. Even if you’d made an impossibly perfect game, there’d still be some people who didn’t like it or felt it wasn’t for them. That’s the way it goes, and you can’t afford to be so thin-skinned in this marketplace! You are doing actual damage to your reputation by retaliating in this way – so stop it.

A custom spaceship landing on a planet in *Starfield*.

What a mess, eh?

I really felt that I was done talking about Starfield until this came along. I was quite content to put the game back on the shelf, perhaps returning to it in a year or two to see if expansion packs and updates had improved it. But never in a million years did I expect to see Bethesda lashing out in this way. It’s unprofessional, petty, thin-skinned, and just plain wrong. It has done nothing to address legitimate points of criticism of the game, nor has it helped the reputations of either Starfield or Bethesda itself. I’m genuinely shocked to see this.

Somewhat ironically, given Starfield’s copy-and-paste buildings and “points of interest,” at least some of these reviews seem to have themselves been copied-and-pasted… or perhaps written by an AI bot. I hope Bethesda learns another lesson from this mess and doesn’t keep up this attack on critics of Starfield. No matter how great you might think the game is, and how much fun you had with it, you have to concede that not everyone feels the same way, and that there are genuine reasons to be dissatisfied, underwhelmed, or even downright pissed off at Starfield.

Do better, Bethesda.

Starfield is out now for PC and Xbox Series S/X, and is also available via Game Pass. Starfield is the copyright of Bethesda Game Studios, Xbox Game Studios, and Microsoft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

A Festive Recommendation: Father Christmas (1991)

Sun 10.12.23Dennis

With the big day edging ever closer, I thought it could be a bit of fun to talk about one of my favourite Christmas TV specials. There are a growing number of films and TV programmes set at Christmas time, and a lot of them can be rather repetitive to say the least! If you’re looking for somewhat of a different take on Santa Claus – both visually and narratively – then the 1991 animated TV special Father Christmas might be just what you’re looking for!

I have to confess something before we go any further. Watching this on TV as a kid when it first aired was borderline traumatising thanks to one scene in particular! Seeing Father Christmas getting drunk, hallucinating, and rushing to the toilet was… well, let’s just say it’s something that’s still etched in my mind all these years later! What I’m trying to say is that if you have little ones – or even older kids who are particularly sensitive – there’s at least one sequence in the film that I remember being shocked by when I was a wee bairn.

This sequence might not be the best for sensitive eyes!

That being said, Father Christmas is one of those TV programmes that I’ve found myself drifting back to Christmas after Christmas. I may have missed it one or two times, but it’s a perennial festive favourite in my house – and it has been ever since I first watched it. Christmas is a time for tradition and memory – and this TV special has become one of my personal traditions, even as my memories of that first viewing aren’t entirely positive!

In 1982, Raymond Briggs’ kids’ book The Snowman was adapted for television by the brand-new station Channel 4. It became a smash hit, and is Father Christmas’ better-known cousin; the films even take place in the same “shared universe.” After The Snowman had won a BAFTA TV award and been nominated for an Academy Award, it only makes sense that Channel 4 would’ve wanted to commission another adaptation of Briggs’ work!

*Father Christmas* and *The Snowman* share a setting.

Father Christmas is based on two children’s books: Father Christmas and Father Christmas Goes On Holiday, and it amalgamates the plots of both into a single story. It’s charming in its own way, answering a question that few other festive films have really tackled: what does Santa do for the other 364 days of the year? It follows Father Christmas – as he’s known in the UK – around the world, visiting different countries and cities as he takes a break from his busy work.

Father Christmas himself is voiced by the late Mel Smith – a comedian who was a mainstay on British TV in the ’80s and ’90s along with his partner Griff Rhys Jones. Smith also scored an unlikely hit on the music charts in 1987 with a cover of Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree that he recorded with singer Kim Wilde for charity – so he has some Christmas time pedigree! His vocal performance in Father Christmas is part of what makes this version of the character stand out.

Father Christmas, naturally, reaches its narrative climax on Christmas Eve, and after spending much of the year on holiday, it’s back to work for the man in the red suit! There’s a tie-in with The Snowman at this point in the story – and while I’d absolutely recommend The Snowman as well, it’s by no means essential viewing. The story of this TV special is easy to follow, after all.

Hand-drawn animation wasn’t uncommon on British television at the time, but with an abundance of CGI and computer animation nowadays, Father Christmas feels even more special, somehow. The animators, some of whom had also worked on The Snowman years earlier, used a lot of pastels and coloured pencils during the animation process rather than paint – and I think that gives Father Christmas a pretty distinctive look.

With so much computer animation these days, *Father Christmas* can feel like something a bit different.

Apart from the aforementioned drunken sequence, there are a couple of others that really stand out. The first is seeing Santa living a fairly quiet life in a British town. This version of the character lives not at the North Pole (nor in Lapland) but in the kind of terraced house that you see quite often here in the UK. Catching a glimpse of Santa’s home life is something neat.

A lot of Christmas programmes show Santa on his sleigh on Christmas Eve – and while I’d say that this part of the special is enjoyable and fun, it’s perhaps its least-unique offering at the same time. There are moments of tension as darkness falls and the snowfall gets in his eyes, but by and large it’s nothing you won’t have seen before.

But the song that accompanies Santa’s flight is hilarious: Another Bloomin’ Christmas is the perfect encapsulation of how this production’s version of the character sees his job and Christmas in general. It’s a pretty fun song in its own right, too!

All in all, this is a particularly British take on Santa Claus and Christmas time – but with the twist of showing Santa’s activities throughout the year in the months before Christmas. After returning from his travels, Santa has to see to the growing mountain of post, take care of his reindeer – and pet cat and dog – as well as prepare for his flight. There’s a fun sequence that shows him racing to Buckingham Palace as dawn nears on Christmas Day, too.

The aesthetic of the programme puts it firmly in Britain in the second half of the 20th Century. Many of the things that I remember from my own childhood are present, and I think that’s part of why this TV special in particular triggers a very specific kind of nostalgia: not only for Christmases past, but for the time and place of my childhood in general, and for those things that don’t exist any more. Even on that first viewing in December 1991 – on Christmas Eve, no less – everything about Father Christmas felt, well, like Christmas to me. And it still does thirty-two years later.

As to how you can watch it… well, there are a few options. The special was released on DVD along with The Snowman, and copies seem to still be available on Amazon at least here in the UK. Also in the UK, Father Christmas can be streamed via the Channel 4 website. I think it’s available for purchase via iTunes and possibly via Amazon Video outside of the UK (it’s not on Amazon Video in the UK, curiously). I’ve also seen bootlegs of the special on YouTube and other streaming sites… but be careful of copyright laws if you decide to go down that route!

Father Christmas is a programme I heartily recommend at this time of year. Brits like myself may appreciate the nostalgia factor, but folks from all across the world can take in a different – and distinctly British – take on Santa’s flight and Christmas Eve. I hope you’re able to tune in… and Merry Bloomin’ Christmas!

Father Christmas is out now on DVD and may be purchased digitally via iTunes, Amazon, and other platforms. Father Christmas is the copyright of Channel 4. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Grand Theft Auto 6 Trailer: Thoughts and Impressions

Tue 05.12.23Tue 05.12.23Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers may be present for the Grand Theft Auto series.

One of the first subjects I ever wrote about here on the website was Grand Theft Auto 6. That was all the way back in 2019 – and I said at the time that Grand Theft Auto V felt like it had been hanging around for a little too long! Suffice to say that official news about Grand Theft Auto 6 is long, long overdue – and before we go any further, I think we should acknowledge that.

Rockstar has milked Grand Theft Auto V dry, and the company’s obsession with keeping that game going across three entire console generations has clearly come at the expense of other projects. Red Dead Redemption II’s online mode didn’t get the support it should have, and the less said about the appalling Grand Theft Auto Trilogy remaster the better. Even Grand Theft Auto V’s single-player mode was sacrificed at the altar of Rockstar’s obsession with online multiplayer: the game never received the single-player DLC that had been planned back in 2013.

So we come, belatedly, to Grand Theft Auto 6. The game has one heck of a legacy to live up to – and only time will tell if it will be up to the task.

If you’ve followed the story online or on social media, chances are you’ll already be aware of the big leak that hit Grand Theft Auto 6 a year or so ago. Early footage of the game made its way online and has been doing the rounds for months, so in that sense I wasn’t stunned or blown away by any of the reveals in the trailer; I’d seen the outline of the game already. And I have to say up-front that there are a couple of pretty big disappointments.

The first is the game’s setting. Returning to Vice City is just not what I’d hoped to see; it’s too samey and too similar to Grand Theft Auto V’s Los Santos. Both are sunlit, tropical cities by the beach, both are set in the modern day, and while there will undoubtedly be improvements mechanically and visually from the previous entry in the series, I’m just not convinced at this stage that Grand Theft Auto 6 will be able to truly differentiate itself from its predecessor and stand out in the way it needs to.

For me, the game’s world, time period, and overall setting are hurdles that it will have to overcome – and they’re totally unnecessary ones. Grand Theft Auto V stood apart from its predecessor by hopping across the country, leaving a New York City stand-in behind. Red Dead Redemption II likewise made some big decisions in terms of setting, choosing a setting inspired by parts of the Rocky Mountains, Midwest, and Deep South instead of simply returning to the world of the first game. And both titles stood out because of those decisions.

A few months ago I saw a poll somewhere on social media. Unscientific, I know, but I think the results were interesting. The question posed was “where should Grand Theft Auto 6 be set?” and while Vice City put in a creditable showing, it ended up in a distant second place behind the preferred option: “somewhere new.” At least some players agree with me, then: it would’ve been preferable if Grand Theft Auto 6 could’ve been set in a new location, perhaps somewhere other than a sundrenched coastal city decked out in palm trees.

There’s also a case to be made, I’d argue, that teasing a game that won’t be ready for potentially two full years – barring any major delays – is too early. It’s not as bad as something like The Elder Scrolls VI, which was teased back in 2018 and may not be ready until 2028, but there’s still a lot of work to be done on Grand Theft Auto 6. The trailer, as you can see, wasn’t showing bona fide gameplay but rather a combination of “in-engine footage” and CGI.

Rockstar has been notorious in the games industry for its culture of “crunch” – the borderline-abusive practice of forcing staff to work ridiculously long hours in the run-up to a title’s launch. This happened with Red Dead Redemption II – and although Rockstar has pledged to do better, promising gamers a deadline of 2025 for Grand Theft Auto 6′s release could lead to the same old problems all over again. Although the end of 2025 may seem a long way off, developing a game as large and complex as Grand Theft Auto 6 will surely be a time-consuming and difficult process, and even with some work having already begun, two years – at the very most – isn’t actually all that long when it comes to modern game development. We’ll have to watch this space for leaks from within Rockstar to see how bad “crunch” and working conditions get.

A fabulously festive flock of flamingoes.

One major disappointment for me, as someone who plays on PC, is the apparent lack of a simultaneous PC release. Rockstar’s official press release only mentioned Xbox Series and PlayStation 5 consoles, so reading between the lines that seems to leave out PC. Grand Theft Auto V and Red Dead Redemption II both launched on PC more than a year after landing on home consoles, so Rockstar has done this before… but what are the executives spending all of the billions of dollars that they made from Grand Theft Auto V on if not making sure the new game will be available to everyone who wants to play it?

Cutting off PC players is a mistake – one that I hope can be rectified before launch. Delaying the game on console by a few months, if necessary, would be worth it to get that simultaneous release. Practically every other major release from AAA publishers can manage this, and with Rockstar’s insane financial resources, there’s no reason why they can’t, too. Trying to spin this as some kind of “point of principle” in favour of home consoles over PC is just… stupid. That argument made no sense to me when Rockstar has tried to pull it in the past and it makes no sense now. It’s the company cheaping out, hoping to get away with spending less money on development and testing – and nothing more.

So… more Grand Theft Auto. That’s basically the takeaway from this trailer for me. More of the same from a series that could’ve tried something a little different. Having a woman protagonist is great, and I hope that the writers will create an engrossing single-player story that will be fun to see unfold. I’m not a multiplayer gamer, so that’s the side of Grand Theft Auto 6 that I’m interested in.

As for the setting, I have to say I’m disappointed. I knew that this was coming based on the leaked gameplay, but I still half-wondered if Rockstar might’ve had time to change things up and go for something a bit different. I guess the company has decided to not rock the boat too much in light of the rampant success of Grand Theft Auto V… but to me, it feels that Rockstar is playing things a little too safe. I’d have liked to see a bit more boldness in choosing a genuinely different setting – perhaps a city based on Chicago or Washington DC, or setting the game in a time period like the ’70s or the ’90s. That would’ve helped Grand Theft Auto 6 develop its own identity. That’s already a tough task, as the game will be living in its predecessor’s shadow for a long time, but it’s one Rockstar seems to have made more difficult with some of these creative decisions.

Maybe I’m showing my age here, but part of what I felt worked best about Vice City was its ’80s setting. Leaning into the likes of Scarface and Miami Vice for inspiration really took that game to a different thematic place, feeling distinct from Grand Theft Auto III. Taking Vice City out of the ’80s and into the modern day is perhaps a bit of a challenge; there’s an open question as to how well Rockstar’s Miami stand-in will work in a contemporary setting. That’s a concern, too.

Based on what we saw in the trailer, I feel that it’s actually difficult to judge how the game might play. No real gameplay was shown, after all. But knowing that Rockstar is playing it safe with Grand Theft Auto 6, I think we can reasonably make the assumption that it won’t look, feel, or play much different from its predecessor. There will be guns to shoot, cars to jack, and an open world filled with crime to get stuck into.

This camera angle from the trailer is almost reminiscent of the original GTA games!

For me, Red Dead Redemption II is Rockstar’s magnum opus. If I dared to dream, I’d say that I’d hope Grand Theft Auto 6 could reach comparable heights… but I don’t want to put too much pressure on the developers. Some games are genuinely once-in-a-lifetime masterpieces, and asking for “another one like that” probably ain’t gonna happen – as much as we might want it to! So what I guess I’m trying to say is that I want to set appropriate expectations for Grand Theft Auto 6 and not over-hype the game to the moon and back. There will undoubtedly be a lot of excitement for the game as its launch gets closer… but keeping that in check as much as possible is absolutely worth trying. Don’t forget what happened with Cyberpunk 2077! Or Starfield.

To end on a positive note, the release of a new entry in the Grand Theft Auto series is something I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t looking forward to. I played the first game back in the ’90s – along with its London-based spin-off – and had a blast with it at the time. Watching the series make the transition to 3D was also fun to see in the early 2000s. So I’ve been a fan of the series for a long time.

Everybody who’s excited for *Grand Theft Auto 6* raise your arms!

The trailer showed off some impressive-looking environments and character models; on par, at least, with those seen in Red Dead Redemption II. Nothing blew me away – but by the time the game has been fully-built and is in our hands, I daresay we can expect high graphical fidelity and a visually pretty title.

So that’s all for now, I guess. I’ll be waiting to see whether Rockstar can be bothered to launch the game on PC in 2025 – if not, it might be 2026 or beyond before I’m able to get my hands on it.

Assuming I live that long, I hope you’ll check back in for a review – and in the meanwhile, if we get more information, another trailer, or more juicy details about Grand Theft Auto 6, I’ll do my best to cover it here on the website.

Grand Theft Auto 6 is currently in development and will be released on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series consoles in 2025. Grand Theft Auto 6 is the copyright of Rockstar Games and/or Take-Two Interactive Software. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Futurama: Season 8/11 Review

Mon 04.12.23Sun 09.03.25Dennis

Spoiler Warning: Minor spoilers are present for Futurama.

So here’s a question to kick things off: is this Season 8 or Season 11 of Futurama? There are different points of view depending on how you count splits in earlier seasons and whether the TV movies count as their own season! It’s not really all that important, just an interesting side-note as we welcome back Futurama after a ten-year absence.

I was cautiously optimistic about Futurama’s return to the small screen. The show got a pretty conclusive ending back in 2013, but its episodic nature – combined with the fact that it’s never been a series that takes itself all that seriously – meant that it wasn’t too hard to pick up where things left off. In that respect, I think the resurrected Futurama did alright. There were several genuinely fun and entertaining episodes in the mix – but there were also a couple of duds.

The new season picks up where the last left off.

One of the questions I had about this revival is how necessary it would feel. Or to put it another way: is Futurama being brought back because its creators, producers, and writers genuinely feel that there are more stories to tell – or is this just a cynical playing of the nostalgia card by a big corporation as it seeks to win and retain subscribers amidst the “streaming wars?” On that latter point, there were several really in-your-face moments across practically every episode of the new season of Futurama as the show seemed almost desperate to use nostalgia as a crutch.

Characters from popular or well-remembered episodes of the show would appear for cameos seemingly at random, in ways that added nothing to the story of the new episode – and practically all of these moments fell flat. Characters would also make unnecessary references to past events and adventures, again for no other reason than to say “remember how good old Futurama used to be?” Pretty much all of these cameos and callbacks ended up detracting from the episodes they were part of; net negatives as the nostalgia card was invariably overplayed.

Moments like this one, where two characters from the Season 2 episode *The Deep South* made a cameo appearance, were meaningless and added nothing to the new story.

And that’s a shame – because there were some fun, original stories this season. I particularly enjoyed How The West Was 1010001 and its western-inspired story arcs. The Christmas special – I Know What You Did Next Xmas – was also great, thanks to the uncommon pairing of Zoidberg and Bender for a time-travelling adventure! I’d also pick out at least parts of the episodes Zapp Gets Cancelled and Related To Items You Viewed as being highlights this time around.

Futurama has never been shy about having a point or making social commentary, even going all the way back to its first season in 1999 with episodes like A Big Piece of Garbage or Fry and the Slurm Factory. With that in mind, then, I didn’t object to the premises of episodes like Related To Items You Viewed or Rage Against The Vaccine… but I also don’t feel that the points those stories aimed to make were communicated particularly well, nor were they fully-realised by the time the episodes made it to screen.

Professor Farnsworth with his vaccine syringes.

Firstly, Rage Against The Vaccine arguably missed its moment of relevance, coming after most of the so-called “controversy” surrounding Covid-19 vaccinations has passed. Although the episode only premiered this past September, watching it felt almost like stepping back in time a couple of years, such was the outdated nature of the story. But also, within the story itself, arguments about vaccine safety, magnetism, and 5G were particularly on-the-nose and not subtle in any way. Subtlety is a huge part of what makes this kind of parody work, and when it was so flagrant and so obvious, for me at least part of the humour fell flat.

Related To Items You Viewed wanted to make a point about massive corporations like Amazon pushing small companies out of business – but did so quite poorly. Corporations like Amazon are, as the episode depicts, ever-expanding… but the story just seemed to end at that point without knowing what else it wanted to say. Corporations are putting smaller companies out of business, and then… what? Why go to the trouble of saying so if there’s not a broader point to be made?

*Related To Items You Viewed* came dangerously close to making a point… before retreating with its tail between its legs.

The Prince and the Product was by far this season’s weakest offering, with an uninteresting frame narrative containing a couple of uninspired product/TV advertisement parodies. It was an attempt, perhaps, to try something similar to episodes like Naturama and Saturday Morning Fun Pit… but I didn’t like those either! It’s hard to put my finger on what doesn’t work about this idea… but taking the characters so far outside of their usual setting and appearances is probably part of it.

I love a good Christmas special, and I Know What You Did Next Xmas was definitely a fun story. Time travel can be difficult to get right in fiction, but Futurama’s less serious nature means that the show can get away with a lot. Dr Zoidberg and Bender made for a fun duo, and the episode was unique this season insofar as it built on what had been established in earlier seasons without feeling like it was little more than a naked attempt to rely on nostalgia. Futurama’s version of an evil robot Santa Claus was put to good use – and the time travel premise worked well, too.

Zapp Gets Cancelled didn’t go down the “cancel culture is stupid and/or fascist” route that I feared it might’ve based on the title, and had some fun and entertaining moments throughout. There were definitely nods to the Star Trek franchise in the presentation of the Democratic Order Of Planets and the Nimbus – as well as a surprisingly compelling villain in Dr Kind. My only criticism would be that Zapp Branigan didn’t seem to learn much from his escapade… and the character felt a bit listless after the main thrust of the episode’s plot got going.

All The Way Down was one of the season’s attempts to tell an emotional story – but it felt more confusing than emotional most of the time. Without much of a connection to the people of Professor Farnsworth’s simulated universe, it was hard to really care about them potentially discovering their simulated nature, and the episode’s talk of the main characters living in their own simulation never really went anywhere. The simulation hypothesis is a massively complicated topic – and this episode barely paid lip service to it. I get what the writers were going for here, but it didn’t quite stick the landing.

The rest of the episodes were neither outstanding nor awful, with some moments of well-timed humour that made them enjoyable enough to watch once or twice. I can’t say I didn’t have a good time with Futurama’s return overall, and it certainly killed a few minutes here and there this summer and autumn. But I can’t shake the feeling that, as things sit right now, Futurama is a corporate product. Some of this season’s opportunities for genuine social commentary felt toned-down to the point of irrelevance, and the cameos and callbacks to past stories were excessive. Futurama, then, hasn’t really found a justification for its return yet.

I’m not entirely comfortable raising this point, and I don’t want it to come across as an attack in any way. But I think it’s worth noting that, while he did a solid job with the voices of both Professor Farnsworth and Dr Zoidberg, Billy West’s portrayal of Fry is noticeably different – and I would suggest older – than in previous seasons. This isn’t a criticism exactly – and we’re all getting older, after all – but when you compare the way Fry sounded even in an episode from the most recent season before this one, there is a difference in his voice.

Billy West voices Fry – among other characters.

Speaking of Fry, I’m glad that Futurama didn’t try to write off his relationship with Leela or reset the characters. The events of Meanwhile were significant, and I wouldn’t have wanted the revived series to try to ignore everything that happened last time. Fry and Leela’s relationship wasn’t front-and-centre this season, but it was a permanent fixture as the episodes played out. That’s sweet, and I appreciated it.

There are ten more episodes to come in Season 8/11, and I assume they’ll be shown sometime in 2024. Nothing that I saw this time has put me off, even though not all of this season’s episodes have been as strong as I’d have liked! I’m sure I’ll be tuning in next year, then, to see the rest of the new episodes. And earlier this year, Hulu and Disney confirmed that another twenty episodes have been ordered, presumably keeping Futurama on the air into 2025 or even 2026.

Fry and Leela in *How The West Was 1010001.*

So what’s the verdict, then? I had fun with most of the episodes most of the time, and even the season’s weaker stories still had moments of humour, the occasional good joke, or something else that made me crack a smile. Futurama isn’t a show that I take too seriously, and in that respect I’d say it was fine. Was it as good as it was in those early seasons around the turn of the millennium? Perhaps not. But I didn’t really expect it to be.

I’d recommend this new season to folks who enjoyed Futurama in the past – if for no other reason than to see what comes next. I don’t think that anyone who didn’t like Futurama in its earlier incarnations will be swayed by the revived series, and some super-fans from years past might not enjoy every story or creative decision. But as I’m not in either category, I’d say it was fine. Some episodes were decent, some were duds. None were exceptional, though… so make of that what you will.

Futurama is available to stream now on Hulu in the United States and on Disney+ in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The series is also available on Blu-ray and DVD. Futurama is the copyright of 20th Television Animation, Hulu, and The Walt Disney Company. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

A festive playlist to get you in the holiday spirit!

Sat 02.12.23Dennis

For the fourth year in a row, my festive playlist is here. This is becoming the closest thing that Trekking with Dennis has to an annual tradition!

I absolutely love Christmas music, and I’ve been a collector of Christmas albums and songs for a long time. Every year there are new festive albums and singles, and although there are a lot of samey arrangements of a handful of “traditional holiday favourites,” there are some real gems in the mix, too. These can be new songs or simply interesting takes on classic tunes.

For me, Christmas is a holiday all about traditions and nostalgia! And Christmas music is part of that; I have very fond memories of listening to some of these Christmas songs on my father’s old record turntable before we’d even made the switch to cassette tapes! Part of what makes Christmas time feel like Christmas time is hearing some of these songs on repeat. When I used to work in a shop, I admit that sometimes I did roll my eyes when Wham! or Mariah Carey started playing on the radio for the fifth time in the space of one shift! But even then, the music was just part of what made it Christmas.

Memories are funny things, and perhaps on another occasion we’ll have to dig a bit deeper into my Christmas recollections! But for now, suffice to say that hearing some of these Christmas tunes evokes memories of going Christmas shopping after dark, with the city’s array of Christmas lights and decorations glittering on a winter’s evening.

If you missed the earlier editions of my festive playlist, you can find them here:

The videos below are all hosted on YouTube, and some may be unavailable or blocked depending on where you are in the world. However, all of the songs should be available via your streaming method of choice if you can’t listen to them here.

So let’s get started, shall we?

Track 1:
Medley: Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, O Come All Ye Faithful, The First Noel – Steve Wariner (1990)

This medley took me forever to track down! I owned a CD in the mid-1990s called something like “A Country Christmas” – which was a mix of Christmas songs by different country music artists – and this was one of the tracks. When I converted my CDs to digital I didn’t know who all of the individual artists were, so it’s been on my computer forever just under the name “Various Artists.” It was only when I decided that I wanted to add it to this year’s edition of the Christmas playlist that I belatedly learned that the singer is one Steve Wariner.

I confess that I don’t know much about Mr Wariner – other than that he has recorded several other Christmas albums! This medley, though, brings together three classic Christmas carols in a gentle country style, and the blend works incredibly well. It’s been a fixture on my festive playlists ever since I owned that CD, and I’m glad I can finally put the artist’s name to such a beautiful arrangement.

Track 2:
Christmas Dirtbag – Wheatus (2023)

Do you remember the song Teenage Dirtbag? Wheatus were a one-hit wonder with the song in the year 2000, and I remember hearing it on the radio seemingly incessantly at the time! It was a good song, though: a kind of alt-pop/pop-punk tale of teen rebellion and feeling left out at school. Well… to my utter shock, Wheatus have reworked the track with some clearly tongue-in-cheek Christmas lyrics. And every time I listen to it I get a big stupid grin on my face!

This is a song that might trigger a very specific kind of nostalgia for millennials and Gen X-ers, and you know what? I hope it makes a stir on the charts! Christmas is a time when novelty songs can often find an audience, and this thoroughly bizarre version of Teenage Dirtbag deserves all the love it can find. If you’d told me a Christmas version of Teenage Dirtbag would be in any way worth listening to I’d have laughed out loud… but then I heard it. If you aren’t convinced, just give it a listen. It only took me one go around to be absolutely hooked!

Track 3:
Step Into Christmas – Elton John (1973)

The same year that Wizzard and Slade were battling for the Christmas number one spot, Elton John also recorded and released a Christmas classic! Gosh, what a great year for Christmas songs 1973 was. Elton’s offering didn’t make much of an impression on the charts that year, though, peaking at a lowly 24th position – but it’s found a lot more love in the years since, and is now a mainstay on the radio at this time of year.

I’m a bit of an Elton fan, and this pop track is definitely up there with his other hits in terms of quality. It’s been a festive staple for as long as I can remember, really – and it wouldn’t feel like Christmas if I didn’t hear Step Into Christmas at least half a dozen times before the big day!

Track 4:
Auld Lang Syne – Dougie MacLean (1995)

I lost a close relative on New Year’s Eve 2003, and perhaps it’s for that reason that I’m not the biggest New Year’s fan. I don’t hate the holiday, but it’s one that brings up memories of that person – and of others who are no longer around. New Year is a reminder of the onward march of time, too – something that’s catching up to me! Hearing Auld Lang Syne can feel bittersweet, then, as a new year is rung in.

It’s in that spirit that I share this particular rendition of Auld Lang Syne by Scottish folk singer Dougie MacLean. I was fortunate enough to see him perform live once, and it was a truly incredible performance that remains to this day one of the best I’ve ever seen. You might know Dougie MacLean from his song Caledonia, which is often called Scotland’s “other national anthem.”

This version of Auld Lang Syne is hauntingly beautiful; a slowed-down take with traditional instruments that really encapsulates the way I feel about New Year. It might not be something you want to listen to every day – and it certainly clashes with some of the more upbeat Christmas songs on this playlist – but when I’m in the mood for it, it’s one of those pieces of music that’s emotional, nostalgic, haunting, and incredible all at the same time.

Track 5:
Stay Another Day – East 17 (1994)

Stay Another Day is one of those songs that’s become a Christmas anthem… for no other reason than it happened to be released at this time of year! Boyband East 17 leaned into the wintertime theme in the song’s music video, and a Christmas classic was born. Stay Another Day is a perfectly enjoyable ’90s pop song – and became the Christmas number one in 1994, beating All I Want For Christmas Is You by Mariah Carey in the process – but it’s not necessarily one I’d have expected to become a mainstay of Christmas playlists!

That being said… it *is* on my Christmas playlist, so East 17 clearly did something right! Stay Another Day is just one of those songs that developed an association with Christmas, and while I might’ve been surprised when it started coming back Christmas after Christmas… it’s no less Christmassy that a lot of other songs that are popular at this time of year! If you’re hearing it for the very first time, I get why it might not seem like a typical Christmas song. But for us Brits, it’s just another of our inexplicable Christmas traditions!

Track 6:
Fairytale of New York – Ed Sheeran and Anne-Marie (2017)

I included the original version of this Christmas classic on the first edition of my festive playlist back in 2020, and I can absolutely understand why people would say that Shane MacGowan and Kirsty MacColl’s vocal deliveries can’t be beaten! This version, recorded live for Radio 1 here in the UK back in 2017, is different from the original, no question. Ed Sheeran has a much softer voice than the late great Shane MacGowan – who passed away earlier this week – and that definitely changes the tone of the song. This version also makes a couple of changes to the most offensive lyrics from the original, further toning things down.

All that being said, while this cover of Fairytale of New York is certainly different… I don’t think that makes it worse. It’s just a different take on the song by two incredibly talented performers, and there should always be room for covers of even the most beloved classics! As far as I can tell, this cover version – which was performed live and never officially “released” – has never charted. But the original Fairytale of New York has returned to the top five around Christmas every year for the past few years – and in light of the recent passing of Shane MacGowan, could even be a surprise contender for this year’s number one.

Track 7:
What Christmas Means To Me – John Legend (2018)

I confess I’m not especially familiar with John Legend, but as an avid collector of Christmas albums I picked up his offering – titled A Legendary Christmas – in 2018. The album contains eight covers and a whopping six original compositions. This song is a cover of Stevie Wonder’s 1967 hit, and Wonder himself returns to play harmonica alongside John Legend, which was a nice touch!

I like the up-tempo song and jazz instrumentation, and even though I can’t remember hearing Stevie Wonder’s original version before, it’s sweet of him to join in for a collaboration on a new version of one of his hits. There are other great tracks on John Legend’s Christmas album – but this has always felt like one of the best to me, so it makes the cut on this occasion!

Track 8:
Here Comes Santa Claus – Elvis Presley (1957)

Ten years after Gene Autry wrote Here Comes Santa Claus, Elvis covered the track for his first Christmas album. Elvis’ version of the song is one that I can remember my father playing on his turntable in the run-up to Christmas; that must be one of my earliest memories of listening to Christmas music! My father had been a big fan of Elvis’ earlier albums, and may even have picked up Elvis’ Christmas Album the year it was released.

So it’s not unfair to say that there are strong nostalgic feelings and memories attached to this song in particular! But it’s a great cover version in its own right; a song well-suited to Elvis Presley’s distinctive voice. There’s also a version of this song featuring new instrumentation by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, recorded in 2017 as part of their album Christmas with Elvis and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra. Though I prefer the original, that version adds a lot to the track.

Track 9:
DJ Play A Christmas Song – Cher (2023)

The second brand-new track from 2023 to make this list comes from Cher’s first-ever Christmas album. I know what you’re thinking, because I thought it too: Cher hadn’t made a Christmas album till now? That doesn’t seem right! But it’s true, and her 2023 offering – simply titled Christmas – is her first foray into the holiday music genre.

Cher is a fantastic performer, and I can already tell that this new offering is going to become a mainstay on my Christmas playlist – for as many Christmases as I have left! When DJ Play A Christmas Song reached the number-one spot on the Billboard Dance/Electronic chart in the United States, it made Cher the first performer ever to have a number one song in seven consecutive decades! The song has also charted in the UK in recent weeks – and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it rise beyond its 30th place peak as Christmas gets nearer.

Track 10:
It’s Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas – Maddie and Tae (2023)

In 2015, after the tongue-in-cheek Girl In A Country Song had been a big hit, it seemed as if Maddie and Tae were about to take the country music world by storm. They were even hailed in some corners as “the new Taylor Swift!” That didn’t quite happen for the duo, unfortunately, but they’re still performing and recording music together – and this year Maddie and Tae have released an extended version of their Christmas EP, containing this cover version of It’s Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas among other tracks.

I find this up-tempo version of the festive classic to be charming, and not too “country” if you’re not a huge fan of the genre. The duo’s vocals are a great fit for the track, and it’s always nice to get a new take on a Christmas classic. There are plenty of versions of It’s Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas out there – and I featured Michael Bublé’s take on it as part of the festive playlist a couple of years ago – but this version is something just a little different.

Track 11:
Ring Out, Solstice Bells – Jethro Tull (1976)

Prog rock band Jethro Tull recorded Ring Out, Solstice Bells in 1976 – and it’s become a perennial festive favourite ever since! I’m loathe to call it a “Christmas” song, because the title and lyrics are deliberately non-Christian and even pagan, celebrating the winter solstice rather than Christmas itself. But that doesn’t stop Ring Out, Solstice Bells being a great song and one that’s well worth listening to at this time of year.

This is another track that I can picture my parents listening to in one of those early Christmastime memories! I think my father must’ve owned Jethro Tull’s 1977 album Songs from the Wood, on which the track was featured after its original release. I can’t remember, though… but I know this was a song that we listened to at Christmas time! It’s another one of those strangely nostalgic songs that reminds me of those childhood Christmases.

Track 12:
Underneath the Tree – Kelly Clarkson (2013)

I still consider this track to be a “new” Christmas song… even though it’s celebrating its tenth anniversary this year! Shows how old I’m getting, eh? In 2013, American popstar Kelly Clarkson released her first Christmas album, and along with a handful of up-tempo versions of holiday classics was this original composition. It’s a great song and has been rightly hailed as a modern festive classic!

Underneath the Tree peaked at number 12 on the charts here in the UK, but was a chart-topper in the USA and Canada. I’ve seen it on multiple Christmas compilation albums and playlists in the years since, and it’s been a mainstay on my own Christmas playlist since I bought Kelly Clarkson’s album that same year.

So that’s it for another year!

I’m proud to say that, once again, we’ve managed to stay hidden from both Wham! and Mariah Carey… but as we begin to run out of top-tier festive hits, will we be able to keep that up next year? I guess you’ll have to come back in December 2024 to find out!

I hope this playlist has given you a little bit of festive inspiration, at any rate. In my admittedly foggy memories of childhood, my parents would pop on a Christmas record when we were getting the decorations out of storage in mid-December. It was great fun to dig through the boxes, finding little ornaments and pieces of tinsel that we hadn’t seen in almost a year all the while some festive songs were playing in the background. I’m sure I’m romanticising those memories; looking back with red-and-gold-tinted glasses! But memory is a funny thing, and my recollections of Christmas are a big part of why I love the holiday season so much.

I hope you’ll stay tuned, because I have a couple of other festive ideas that may (or may not, time depending) make their way to the website before the big day. All that remains to say is this: Merry Christmas!

All songs on the playlist above are the copyright of their respective record company, studio, distributor, composer, etc. All videos courtesy of YouTube. Videos are merely embedded here, and are not hosted on Trekking with Dennis. For copyright or other legal purposes, please contact YouTube directly. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Yet another year in review

Thu 30.11.23Thu 30.11.23Dennis

It’s the 30th of November – so it’s time to take stock and look back at the progress that Trekking with Dennis has made over the past twelve months. If you’re new around here, this is not my “end of year” post in which I’ll talk about some of the highs and lows of 2023. It’s far too early for something like that – and it really irritates me to see publications putting together their “best of the year” lists or retrospectives before Christmas! I mean, there’s still an entire month of 2023 left!

On the 30th of November 2019, I made my first post here on Trekking with Dennis. That was just a short test piece to make sure everything was up and running – but it kicked off a project that is now celebrating its fourth anniversary. Every year, I like to take a few minutes to look back at the past twelve months and just see how things have been going. It’s my way of marking the occasion, and I’ll share my thoughts with you today.

A girl holding a birthday cake with lit candles. — Happy 4th Birthday to Trekking with Dennis!

The past twelve months have been a series of ups and downs both personally and for the website – I think that’s indisputable at this point! I’ve written fewer articles and columns this year than I did last year, and some of the pieces that I did write – and felt pretty good about – haven’t been as widely-read as I’d have hoped.

Firstly, I’ve had some personal disruptions over the past twelve months that have impacted how much I’ve been able to write. I’ve had some major work done to my home, which involved having builders in for several weeks. There are still a few things left to finish from that particular project! Having a lot of construction and destruction going on – as well as making all of the plans and arrangements beforehand – definitely meant I wasn’t able to do as much as I’d hoped for several weeks.

A house being demolished, an excavator, and a man operating a hose. — Thankfully it wasn’t quite *this* extreme…

Also this year, I suffered an injury to my dominant hand. I broke several bones in my hand due to an unfortunate fall, and while it didn’t leave me entirely out of commission, it certainly made things like typing a bit more tricky for a while! I already suffer from arthritis in my hands and fingers, and this injury certainly hasn’t helped in that regard.

And then there’s the elephant in the room: burnout. I haven’t found myself wrangling with burnout in terms of writing here on the website – and there have been times when I’ve been especially pleased to be able to sit down and talk about some of my favourite entertainment subjects. I’m instead talking about the way in which I’ve felt burned out on the Star Trek franchise – something I detailed in a piece a few weeks ago.

Anson Mount as Captain Christopher Pike in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. — I’ve been feeling burned out on Star Trek for a while now.

One thing I’d like to do in the coming weeks and months is “pre-write” a handful of articles and columns, perhaps on topics that aren’t time-sensitive like older films or video games. That way I’ll have a handful of pieces in reserve that I can publish in the event that I find myself overwhelmed, unable to write, or suffering from a case of writer’s block! It seems like a good idea, at any rate – though whether I’ll actually be able to manage it is another matter entirely!

In housekeeping news, I’ve made a couple of changes to the website. If you look at the menu above, you might’ve noticed that the old “Let’s Play” page has been replaced with the more generic-sounding “Video Games” page. I’ve also added individual pages for four video games, titles that I’ve had a lot to say about. The Starfield page may not be a permanent fixture, though… because I doubt I’ll be playing that game again any time soon!

A screenshot of Starfield featuring a customised spaceship and a planetary body. — I’d been anticipating *Starfield* this year.

In mid-2020, I wrote a series of articles documenting my playthrough of Jedi: Fallen Order. That “let’s play” series was fun to write – but also pretty time-consuming. I made abortive attempts to write up playthroughs of other titles, but none really managed to get off the ground. The old “Let’s Play” webpage had therefore become outdated, and while I’d definitely consider returning to that format in future, it’s very much something that’s on the back burner for now. The page that replaced it is just an up-to-date list of my most recent gaming and games industry coverage, but the addition of pages for games that I talk about has been fun. I like to think it’s added a little something to the website, particularly as I’ve stepped back from writing as many pieces about the Star Trek franchise.

Just last month I published Trekking with Dennis’ 750th article! That was a pretty big milestone, three-quarters of the way to 1,000 pieces since November 2019. That piece was the first part of my Mario Kart 8 Deluxe tier list – a format that I had a lot of fun with and plan to return to in future.

A screenshot from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe showing Dry Bones on SNES Rainbow Road. — It’s Dry Bones!

We’ll talk more about stats and numbers in the new year, but the website passed the 200,000-hit mark in May of this year – before experiencing a significant decline in traffic in September! I’m not entirely sure what the cause of that drop-off has been. After the website saw a surge in hits during Star Trek: Picard’s third season, with my reviews and theories picking up some attention, things seemed to calm down going into the summer. I kind of expected things to remain relatively flat for a while – at least until the next big “viral” article – but in mid-September there was a sharp decline in traffic from which the website hasn’t recovered.

I’m not one to obsess over stats, but I think it’s worth being aware of the mid-September drop-off, at least. I’ve said repeatedly that I’d still be here writing and sharing my thoughts even if nobody was turning up… and who knows, maybe I’ll get the chance to prove that someday soon! Jokes aside, though, I have felt a little disheartened that some of the pieces I worked hard on this autumn haven’t picked up much attention or many hits. I don’t know what the cause of this is – but it seems reasonable to assume that changes to search engine results could be responsible.

Although I’ve had some moments of writer’s block this past year, by and large I still enjoy the process of writing here on the website. I said in the beginning that my goal was to carve out a small slice of the internet where I could share my thoughts and opinions about some of the entertainment topics that I’m passionate about or interested in – and crucially, do so at my own pace without needing to worry about things like word limits. The website still serves that purpose for me – even if there have been fewer things to write about over the last twelve months when compared to the website’s first couple of years in operation.

If you’ll permit the indulgence, I’ve picked out three pieces I’ve written over the past twelve months that I’m particularly pleased with. Firstly we have my critique of the rollercoaster year that the Star Trek franchise endured in 2022, in which I took Paramount to task for some pretty big failures – and noted a few successes, too. You can find that by clicking or tapping here.

Action figures based on the animated TV series Star Trek: Prodigy. — Toys for *Star Trek: Prodigy*.

Secondly, I talked about Rey’s potential return to the Star Wars franchise… after a relatively short break. I’m not sure that’s a project that I’d have given the green light to… but you can read my full thoughts by clicking or tapping here! And finally, I’d like to draw your attention to my two-part review of Baldur’s Gate 3 – which will almost certainly be my pick for “game of the year” when I dish out some made-up awards next month! That game is truly outstanding. You can read the first part, which is spoiler-free, by clicking or tapping here. The second part does contain spoilers, including for the game’s ending, and you can find it by clicking or tapping here.

All that remains to say is this: thank you for your support and attention over the past twelve months! If you’ve made it this far into this rather self-indulgent recap, I can only assume you’re a regular reader, and I really do want to thank you for that. I’m a bit of a hermit, both online and offline, and I don’t have a lot of people to talk to or interact with. This website is my stand-in for that, and sharing my opinions and thoughts with you (and anyone else who happens to turn up) continues to be a fun hobby and a source of enjoyment in what can be a dark, frightening, and uncaring world. Knowing that some folks are interested in what I have to say – and in a way, share these experiences and hobbies with me – is a source of light and inspiration.

Take care out there – and see you soon!

– Dennis
Thursday, 30th November 2023

All properties mentioned above are the copyright of their respective broadcaster, studio, developer, distributor, company, etc. Some stock images may be courtesy of Pixabay. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

So you’re burned out on Starfield… what next?

Tue 28.11.23Tue 28.11.23Dennis

Spoiler Warning: There are minor spoilers ahead for some of the entries on this list.

Although I was generous to Starfield when it launched back in September, I quickly ran out of patience with the game. In summary… Starfield just wasn’t what I’d been expecting, and I couldn’t find a way to lose myself in either its world or its narrative. I like to think I gave it a fair shake after thirty-plus hours of playtime, but I just wasn’t enjoying myself. While the game is ambitious in scope and a technological achievement in some respects, it’s also limited in its designs, held back by an outdated engine and mid-tier graphics, and just… boring. Starfield never quite “clicked” for me… and I’m okay with that!

But it does leave me with a dilemma. I’d hoped Starfield would be my “game of the autumn,” giving me hours of fun as the nights are drawing in and Christmas time is approaching! Having stepped away from the game, I found myself unsure of what to do next. What game should I play to fill the void left by Starfield?

What should we play instead of *Starfield*?

This could also be a good list if you’ve played Starfield to death and you’ve done everything you can with the game. If you (somehow) managed to dedicate several hundred hours to it, and you’ve beaten all of the faction questlines, the side-missions, and gone through a dozen New Game Plus playthroughs… maybe you’re also looking to play something else for a while! Even the best games can wear out their welcomes after a while.

So that’s what I thought we could consider today: a few different games (and a TV show, too) that might replace Starfield for those of us who didn’t stick with it… or for folks who just need a break from it.

Boxman, my favourite *Starfield* character…

As I always say: everything on this list is entirely subjective! If you hate all of my picks or I miss something that seems obvious, that’s totally okay! We’re all entitled to our opinions, and there should be more than enough room in the gaming community for discussions and disagreements.

I’ve picked a few different categories of games based on some of my expectations for Starfield, and I’ve tried to include a few different and perhaps unexpected titles, too.

So let’s jump into the list!

Bethesda Game:
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

Starfield is a Bethesda game… which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view! I could certainly entertain the notion that Bethesda could do with modernising the way it creates its missions in particular, but that may be beside the point. If you’re craving this specific kind of game, there really is no substitute for what Bethesda brings to the table.

With that in mind, I’d like to suggest Morrowind as the first candidate for a game to play instead of Starfield. A lot of folks have played Skyrim to death already – with that game having been released and re-released more times than I can count over the past few years – but Morrowind may have slipped through the cracks for some players. If you missed Morrowind when it was new, now could be a great time to revisit it.

Morrowind may have been released in 2002, but it doesn’t have to look like a two-decade-old game if visuals are a concern. There are some fantastic graphics and visual mods out there that can genuinely transform the way Morrowind looks. It might be a stretch to say that it can look “brand-new,” but it can certainly give other Bethesda games a run for their money!

Morrowind was my first Bethesda game, and I played it to death in the early and mid-2000s. But even with the countless hours I spent playing the game, there are quests I haven’t completed and achievements I haven’t gotten. It’s overstuffed with content, having more NPCs, weapon types, and factions than Skyrim. If you haven’t tried it yet – or if it’s been twenty years since you last picked it up – it could be a great replacement for Starfield.

Spaceship Builder:
Star Trek: Starship Creator – Warp 2

I don’t know what element or component of Starfield may have appealed to you the most – but for me, building and piloting my very own spaceship was at the top of the list! Relatively few games had offered anything quite like Starfield’s shipbuilder, but this offering from the Star Trek franchise just after the turn of the millennium was one of them.

This game was a niche product even in the year 2000, and I fully appreciate that! Trekkies will get a lot more out of Starship Creator than a general audience, and there are arguably other games that we could’ve picked for the spaceship builder category. If you’re looking for a more modern title, the likes of Space Engineers or Kerbal Space Program are definitely interesting options!

But for folks who enjoy the Star Trek franchise, Starship Creator is a unique experience that few other video games from the franchise have really offered. In 2000, it was a blast to import your own photo (or a photo of a friend or even a celebrity) to add to your virtual crew, and while the ship-building options are limited by the technology of the time, it’s still a ton of fun to remake classic Federation starships in new ways.

When I looked ahead to Starfield, the shipbuilder reminded me of Starship Creator. I said in the run-up to Starfield’s launch that one of the things I really wanted from the game was the ability to build and customise my own ship and take it on adventures! Unfortunately, Starfield’s lack of real spaceflight and overreliance on fast-travel meant that the custom ship I worked so hard on never really got much of an outing.

First-Person Role-Playing/Shooter:
Cyberpunk 2077 + Phantom Liberty DLC

At time of writing, some digital shops on PC still have their Black Friday/Cyber Monday deals available, and I’ve seen the base version of Cyberpunk 2077 at a fair discount on both Steam and Epic Games. If you missed the deals this time, I expect we’ll have winter/holiday sales to enjoy within a month or so, so you might not have to wait too long!

If you’d told me a year or so ago that I’d be recommending Cyberpunk 2077 to anyone I’d have been sceptical! I didn’t hate the game, but I felt it was overhyped, surprisingly linear, and with gameplay elements that I’d seen before in other (better) titles. For what it was, though, Cyberpunk 2077 was decent enough, and I had some fun with its corporate dystopia, fully-realised cityscape, and Keanu Reeves’ character of Johnny Silverhand!

After waiting to ensure that Phantom Liberty was well-received and not bedevilled by the bugs and glitches that will forever define Cyberpunk 2077, I recently picked it up. A review will come when I’ve fully played through the new content, but suffice to say that the overhaul to Cyberpunk 2077 has been impressive, with changes made to the game’s levelling up system, skill tree, and one that was desperately needed: armour! The version of Cyberpunk 2077 that you’ll play in 2023 is significantly better than it was even just last year, and when the game has an entertaining story, I think it’s well worth playing for any fan of first-person role-playing shooters.

Starfield has also put Cyberpunk 2077′s gameplay and world-building into perspective for me. The open world of Night City in particular is miles ahead of anything in Starfield, feeling like a genuinely lived-in city populated by real people. The main story is much stronger than Starfield’s, too, and I think there are other favourable comparisons.

Spaceflight:
Star Wars Squadrons

As indicated above, one of the disappointing things about Starfield for me was the lack of functional spaceflight. After working hard on my custom spaceship, I genuinely expected that I’d be able to launch it into space and actually pilot it to my destination. Instead, travelling from planet to planet is all done by fast-travel menus, which really rips me out of the immersion. Relatively early in the game, I picked a mission from the “mission board” in New Atlantis, only for the so-called mission to basically play itself with practically no interaction required.

But we’re off-topic already! Star Wars Squadrons is the starfighter game of your dreams; the game that we all thought we were playing in the ’90s when we booted up the likes of Tie Fighter or Rogue Squadron. The visuals are absolutely gorgeous, and sitting at my desk I genuinely got the sense that I was in the pilot’s seat of an X-Wing.

Sitting in the pilot’s seat of an X-Wing has never felt more real!

I’m not sure if Squadrons still has an active multiplayer scene, but there’s a fun campaign to play through and it’s also possible to take on the AI, so there should still be plenty to get stuck into. I think the game is an absolute blast, and it’s one I really should get back into! In terms of spaceflight, which is the category I’ve assigned to it, I definitely felt there was a lot more to get stuck into here than there was in Starfield.

Because Squadrons puts you in the seat of a starfighter, you aren’t going to be hauling cargo across vast expanses of space. There are other games that offer that kind of experience, though, if you really want it. But if you’re looking to pilot small ships, get into fun dogfights, and try out some of the iconic vehicles from the Star Wars franchise, there’s really nothing quite like it!

Role-Playing Game:
Baldur’s Gate 3

A combat encounter in *Baldur’s Gate 3*.

With only a month of 2023 left to go, I can’t see another game coming along to dethrone Baldur’s Gate 3. It will almost certainly be crowned “game of the year” at my annual end-of-year awards! It’s one of the best games I’ve played in years, offering branching storylines, a massive variety of play styles, character classes, and so much more.

I’d missed out on the first Baldur’s Gate in the late 1990s, and this game ended up being my first foray into the world of Faerûn. It was overwhelming at first, because the game hits you with a ton of options right off the bat – but I ended up having a whale of a time. I chose to play as a drow (or dark elf) druid, but there are a huge variety of character options and play styles, with different weapon types, magical spells, and more. I’m going to start a second run through the game sometime soon so I can try something different and have a completely different experience!

Starfield offers players different backgrounds and skills to level up, but in the time I spent with the game I didn’t really find much by way of unique content to match either the character I’d made or the way I hoped to play the game. Baldur’s Gate 3 does a much better job in this regard, with character classes that have a massive impact on the way the game plays.

There are some absolutely incredible characters to meet in Baldur’s Gate 3, all of whom are voiced beautifully and feel like real, well-rounded people with their own motivations. Keeping them all happy and working together is part of the experience, too. Just thinking about the game again has got me salivating; I can’t wait to jump back in for that second playthrough!

Sci-Fi Adventure:
The Mass Effect Trilogy

Commander Shepard’s crew in *Mass Effect 2*.

You can pick up the complete Mass Effect trilogy in one bundle called the Legendary Edition, which includes all three games plus their DLC. This could be another title to look for when it’s on sale, as I’ve seen Legendary Edition at a fairly steep discount in some recent Steam sales. If you’re new to the trilogy, or returning to it for the first time in a long time, it’s the easiest way to get the complete experience.

When I think about a sci-fi adventure set in a unique world, Mass Effect and its two sequels leap to mind. The trilogy isn’t an open-world experience; it’s much more linear than a game like Starfield in that respect. The games build up a main story focusing on a galaxy-ending threat, but also smaller character-focused stories featuring a diverse (and occasionally wacky) cast. Again, the voice acting to bring these characters to life is incredible, and all of the folks who join the crew of the Normandy are fun, fascinating, and frightening to various degrees!

The Mass Effect trilogy was criticised for its ending back in 2012, and I think it’s worth stating that some of that criticism was absolutely fair. There should have been a way for the third entry in the series to pay off more decisions and choices that had been made. But even with that weakness, I still feel that the trilogy is worth playing for any fan of sci-fi. The characters and world-building in particular are incredible.

And in terms of gameplay, there’s a lot to love with Mass Effect. A third-person cover-based shooter is already a blast, but Mass Effect adds both tech and magical powers into the mix, shaking things up. Different character builds play quite differently from one another, making it worth going back to replay all three games to get a new experience.

Open World Game:
Red Dead Redemption II

Red Dead Redemption II is a masterpiece; one of the finest video games ever made. And director Todd Howard had the audacity to suggest, in a pre-launch interview, that Starfield was drawing inspiration from the way in which its open world was designed and built. Perhaps he shouldn’t have said that, because the comparison it invited is… well, let’s just say it’s an unfavourable one for Starfield and leave it at that.

I’ve had a fascination with the American “Wild West” since my schoolfriends and I used to play “Cowboys and Indians” on the playground. Red Dead Redemption II transported me to that time and place in a way I truly did not believe was possible, and I found myself having dreams about the game during my playthrough. I absolutely adored the time I got to spend in that world – over 100 hours on a single playthrough.

Promo image of protagonist Arthur Morgan.

The story of Red Dead Redemption II is dense, adult, and deeply emotional, packing a real punch as it reaches its crescendo. When people say that “video games can be artistic” or “video games can be just as good as films and TV shows,” it’s stories like Red Dead Redemption II that we can point to.

But more than that, the world in which the game was set was beautiful and jam-packed with things to do. It’s possible to wander on foot or on horseback through the wilderness, into the mountains, across the grassy plains, and beyond… just taking it all in. I’d heard great things about Red Dead Redemption II and knew I was in for something special, but even with the hype and high expectations, the game absolutely blew me away. It’s one of the best games I’ve ever played in my life.

Narrative Experience:
Shenmue I & II

I never miss an opportunity to talk about Shenmue! This was one of the first games I played that felt truly “cinematic;” as if its story would be right at home on the big screen. I absolutely adored that experience, and while some aspects of the first Shenmue in particular can feel dated by today’s standards… at the time it was genuinely groundbreaking.

Unfortunately, Shenmue I & II has to come with the caveat that its story is incomplete. Beautifully written, gripping, and populated with a fantastic cast of characters… but nevertheless without an ending. I was deeply disappointed in 2019 when I learned that Shenmue III – a game that fans donated their own money to help create – would not be finishing the story, as I felt that was its only objective.

Protagonist Ryo Hazuki meets Santa Claus.

But we’re drifting off-topic once more! The first two Shenmue games – which can be picked up in one package, at least on PC – were fantastic during the Dreamcast era. They’re well worth playing in their own right to follow a genuinely enjoyable story, but twenty-plus years later, I also feel that Shenmue is a piece of gaming history. This was one of the first titles to come close to offering an open world, one of the first games to pioneer systems like dynamic weather and NPCs with routines, and one of the first to allow players to step away from the main quest to pursue mini-games and other activities. Shenmue pioneered ideas that many modern games now take for granted.

It also created the quick-time event… which may be a mark against it, depending on your point of view! For me, Shenmue feels like a game that was ahead of its time, pushing the boundaries and taking gaming in a new direction. Maybe some folks weren’t ready for that in 1999/2000. But Shenmue I & II are well worth revisiting, if for no other reason than to take part in an engaging and somewhat mysterious story.

Base-Building:
Banished

A town in *Banished* with a forest, houses, a chapel, and pastures.

Another game I never miss a chance to discuss is Banished! Maybe it’s stretching the name to call this a “base-builder,” as it’s more of a town-building game akin to a stripped-down Sim City, but for players who were interested in building settlements and bases in Starfield, I think there are enough similarities to warrant its inclusion on a list like this one!

Banished is fantastic. Its charm lies in its relative simplicity, as there aren’t so many buildings and jobs for citizens to be overwhelming. But that simplicity blankets a surprisingly challenging game, and getting the right balance of resources to keep the town going is far trickier than it seems! Banished is a balancing act, requiring farms, orchards, blacksmiths, and other buildings and professions to keep the citizens of a small town fed, healthy, and happy.

A hospital and a field of wheat in *Banished*.

I’ve sunk countless hours into Banished, and every few months or so I find myself drifting back to the game, ready to start a new save file. It always boggles my mind that the entire game was created by a single developer – I’d still have found it to be a fun and impressive game if it had been worked on by an entire studio!

If part of the appeal of Starfield was striking out for a new land, creating a settlement, and harvesting resources, maybe a game like Banished will scratch that itch. Even if not, it’s well worth playing in its own right, because building, maintaining, and managing a town successfully is a fun challenge. I have a longer piece about Banished, and if you’d like to read it you can find it by clicking or tapping here.

TV Series:
The Expanse

The Expanse is one of the best sci-fi shows of the past few years without a doubt. In a similar way to Starfield, it shows a near-future level of technology and a solar system populated entirely by humans – without any aliens to be seen. Humanity has splintered into different factions, each of which has its own agenda, but at its core, The Expanse follows a few compelling characters rather than taking a birds-eye view of the political landscape of the solar system.

It’s hard to say too much about The Expanse without spoiling it, but aesthetically there are some similarities to Starfield. The way spaceships are designed in The Expanse feels similar, at least in some respects, to the way they’re presented in Starfield – so if that kind of NASA-inspired look is part of what drew you to Starfield, you’ll see at least some of that in The Expanse.

The spacecraft Rocinante in *The Expanse*.

Obviously a TV series is completely different from a video game, and I don’t think The Expanse can ever be a like-for-like replacement. But if you haven’t seen it and you’re not sure what to do with yourself after burning out on Starfield, I’d absolutely encourage you to check it out. It’s well worth a watch, and it has at least some points of comparison with Starfield.

I had a great time with the show, and I was pleased to see Amazon pick it up after it was dropped by its original network. The Expanse has now completed its six-season run, and you can binge-watch the entire thing on Amazon Prime Video at time of writing.

So that’s it!

We’ve found a few things to play instead of Starfield. If, like me, you didn’t get on with Starfield, or if you’ve just spent so much time with it that you need a break, I hope this list has given you some inspiration! Some of the titles discussed above can be found at a discount when sales roll around, so it might be worth adding some or all of them to your wishlist ahead of the holiday season.

I really wanted Starfield to be my “game of the season,” carrying me through to Christmas and into the new year. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to the hype or the expectations I had for it, and after about thirty hours of trying to push through and waiting for it to “get good,” I gave up. Starfield is still installed on my PC at time of writing, but I have no plans to return to the game any time soon.

I hope this has been a bit of fun, and if I gave you an idea or two then I’ve done my job!

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective developer, publisher, and/or studio. Some screenshots and promotional artwork used above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Oops, I forgot that Avatar 2 existed…

Mon 27.11.23Dennis

So, uh… yeah. Avatar 2. Or to give it its proper title Avatar: The Way of Water. It’s a film. It was released almost a year ago. I was planning to write a review of it. And I completely forgot that it existed until a couple of days ago.

The growing Avatar series – which will soon include a big-budget video game adaptation along with two films – has all of the elements of what should be a successful multimedia franchise. The original film was a Best Picture nominee at the Academy Awards, director James Cameron has incredible pedigree as a filmmaker, the world of Avatar is visually gorgeous, a lot of effort has gone into constructing things like a full-blown Na’vi language, and it’s backed up by the almost limitless budget of the Walt Disney Company. So… why is Avatar still so incredibly forgettable?

I forgot all about Avatar until now…

I didn’t hate or even dislike The Way of Water. For the three-plus hours that it lasted, I had a decent time with the film. It was a swashbuckling sci-fi adventure; a blockbuster worthy of the title that transported me to a faraway planet and a sci-fi future that was entertaining to see. But as the credits rolled I just… switched off. The Way of Water, like its predecessor before it, didn’t leave a lasting impression.

And for a series backed up by Disney’s money, turning a massive profit at the box office, with a new video game adaptation and an expensive theme park attraction… I just don’t get it. Why is Avatar – to use some Gen Z lingo – so “mid?” Why do I find myself caring so little about The Way of Water that I literally forgot it existed? And why isn’t the series making an impact on our collective cultural conversation?

A section of the themed Avatar land at Walt Disney World.
Image Credit: Avatar/Walt Disney World

Although I’m not the most active person online or on social media, I follow a bunch of websites, blogs, and channels that talk about the same kind of things I enjoy discussing here on my website: sci-fi, pop culture, cinema, and geeky entertainment topics. But since The Way of Water was in cinemas, none of them have so much as mentioned the series. If anyone had been talking about it, perhaps I wouldn’t have completely forgotten about Avatar this year.

For a film that made so much money – The Way of Water is currently the third-highest-grossing film of all time, behind only the first Avatar and Avengers Endgame – it’s so strange to be talking about it in this way. A huge audience clearly turned up for The Way of Water… but within weeks it was all but forgotten. I don’t expect to see it winning any of the big awards, which isn’t a slight against it; there’s a lot of competition. But for a film that aims to really kick-start a wider connected universe, I’m just not sure how successful The Way of Water can have been when it’s dropped off the face of the earth so readily.

Director James Cameron with the stars of Avatar: The Way of Water at the film’s premiere.

There is absolutely room for a new sci-fi franchise, especially under the Disney umbrella. Marvel and Star Wars are both seeming to stumble and falter, and the MCU is perhaps coming to the end of its life in its current iteration. There’s definitely space for another multimedia “shared universe” to come along. Avatar should be in prime position to occupy that kind of slot… but if it can’t offer something memorable, something for fans and audiences to retain and keep in mind after the credits have rolled, then it won’t even come close. Realistically, Avatar should be challenging Star Wars, Star Trek, DC Comics, and even Marvel in the upper tiers of sci-fi cinema. But right now, it doesn’t feel anywhere close.

Although we can lay part of the blame for this, in theory, on the long gap between the original Avatar and this new sequel – twelve years is a long time to wait, after all – I don’t think that’s a fair explanation. The original Avatar, as I’ve noted in the past, was not an especially memorable film either, and the universe that it attempted to create felt limited to the characters and story that unfolded on screen. I’ve never really gotten the sense from Avatar that there was more to the world of Pandora or to this futuristic depiction of Earth and humanity that I needed to see explored. In fact, I could’ve lived a happy life without ever seeing a single sequel to Avatar – let alone four.

Boating across Pandora…

So is The Way of Water “unnecessary,” then? That seems a bit harsh! The ending of the first film left the door open to a sequel or spin-off, and it’s worth acknowledging that. But the story was also one that we could’ve considered complete; I never felt that Avatar was crying out for either a direct sequel or for more stories set in this world. “Unnecessary” might be overstating it… but I’d certainly say that I wasn’t champing at the bit for The Way of Water.

All of that could’ve been irrelevant if The Way of Water had been more memorable. I may not have been desperate to see a sequel, but I’m always up for watching a good film, so the “necessity” or otherwise of The Way of Water wouldn’t have mattered if the film itself had something to say. For all of the money invested in it, though, and for all of the technical achievements that James Cameron and his team brought to the table in terms of the way it was created, The Way of Water just didn’t leave a lasting impression. In fact, I don’t feel that the Avatar series or franchise has really made much progress with this instalment – at least in terms of cultural relevance and its potential place in the upper echelons of sci-fi.

A rotorwing aircraft.

And because of that, The Way of Water can feel… forced. If there was no organic groundswell of public opinion craving a sequel – no letter-writing campaign like there had been for Star Trek, no “expanded universe” of comics and novels like Star Wars created, and no real Avatar fan community in general – why was it even made? The very existence of the film – and the upcoming video game adaptation, too – feels very “corporate,” as if a group of executives have decreed that “Avatar is to be the next big thing,” without really understanding what makes a series popular and beloved to begin with – let alone failing to acknowledge that such things can never be manufactured.

For me, The Way of Water sits somewhere alongside films like the original Pirates of the Caribbean or the Indiana Jones trilogy. It was perfectly entertaining popcorn blockbuster fare… but nothing more than that. Unlike with Star Trek, Star Wars, or other top-tier franchises, I don’t have a desire to see more, to explore the universe that the film created, or to really spend much more time in its world. And if that was the ambition behind the Avatar series – to create a succession of one-and-done popcorn action flicks – then I’d say it was doing just fine. But when there’s clearly a corporate aim to push Avatar to something greater… I can’t help but feel that it isn’t meeting its goals, at least not in its current form.

Promo art for The Way of Water.
Image Credit: Avatar on Facebook

Part of the problem is originality. The world of Avatar doesn’t really have anything unique to help it stand out. The blue-skinned Na’vi are the closest it gets, but even then, the CGI-heavy aliens easily blend into a lineup of other humanoid races from other sci-fi properties. The rest of the aesthetic of Avatar is pretty generic, with spaceships, weapons, costumes, and technology that doesn’t really stand out when compared to more successful sci-fi properties.

A lot of Avatar just gets lost in the sci-fi milieu, leaving the franchise unable to differentiate itself from films, TV shows, and even video games in an expanding genre. The time should be right for a new sci-fi series to make a serious push to break into the upper echelons of the genre, thanks to a combination of a renewed interest from big corporations and the fact that some of the biggest names in sci-fi seem to be foundering – if not stalling outright. But the bland, forgettable Avatar isn’t able to make that leap.

The blue-skinned Na’vi are the Avatar series’ most unique creation.

The original Avatar was criticised in 2009 for telling a story that was unoriginal at best, and the sequel falls into the same narrative traps. Themes of environmentalism and colonialism are presented – but these have been examined before, and examined better, in other pictures and other series that have had more to say. Unoriginality doesn’t have to mean “bad,” not by any means. But if the aesthetic, setting, and narrative premise are all things that audiences have seen before, there’s got to be something more to help it stand out or communicate a message. The Way of Water just doesn’t succeed on that front.

When I first sat down to watch The Way of Water, I expected the film to really make the case for Avatar as a series. I expected a strong narrative, compelling characters, and plenty of adventure… but more than that, I needed to see the film take the world-building from its predecessor and expand upon it, creating something that I’d want to lose myself in. With three more Avatar films and a big-budget video game in production, I needed The Way of Water to not only give me a reason to keep them on my list, but to want to get my hands on them. This film was an opportunity not only to remind me that Avatar exists, but to do what the original wasn’t able to and set the stage for something greater.

The Way of Water pioneered underwater motion capture.

Star Wars still has fans turning up for its films and streaming shows even though – let’s be realistic – it hasn’t done anything truly outstanding since 1980. But because Star Wars had that strong beginning, and created an alternate reality that fans wanted to experience more of, audiences still show up forty-five years later. They still go to conventions, dress up like Darth Vader, and pay their subs to Disney+ to watch the latest offerings. For all the money that’s being pumped into it, Avatar still doesn’t feel like a series or a franchise that can attract anything like that kind of support.

So that’s it, I guess. I didn’t dislike The Way of Water; it was a competent film with some clever behind-the-scenes technologies and filmmaking techniques that ended up being a perfectly watchable popcorn adventure flick. But I just can’t reconcile the fact that this franchise has now produced two of the three highest-grossing films of all-time… yet it’s still so utterly forgettable that I literally forgot it even existed for months. And even after returning to The Way of Water to take notes and grab some still frames… nothing about it jumps out at me, nothing about it sticks in my mind, and I genuinely don’t see how Avatar as a series will ever break into the top tier of sci-fi franchises if it keeps this up.

Avatar: The Way of Water is available to stream now on Disney+ and is also available on DVD/Blu-ray. The Avatar series is the copyright of 20th Century Studios and/or the Walt Disney Company. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Video Game Spotlight: Ryse: Son of Rome

Wed 22.11.23Dennis

On the 22nd of November 2013 – a decade ago today – Ryse: Son of Rome was released. And on that very day, I bought a copy! Ryse: Son of Rome was one of the launch titles for the Xbox One, a console I also picked up on release day. With it being the game’s tenth anniversary, I thought it could be a bit of fun to shine a spotlight on this underappreciated title.

Ryse: Son of Rome was a good game to get started with as a new console generation was landing. For all of its flaws (especially with the original version of the machine), the Xbox One was a beefy system by 2013 standards; a powerhouse built for high-definition screens and great-looking games. Ryse: Son of Rome took full advantage of the Xbox One’s hardware to create characters and environments that still hold up ten years later.

I still remember the excitement I felt as I headed into the city on the day the Xbox One launched. I didn’t know what game or games I might be able to afford, but the launch of a new console generation felt like a really exciting moment. At that time I was still working in the games industry so I’d been following the new consoles as their launches approached. The Xbox One had already stumbled, with controversies surrounding its always-online nature, sharing games between accounts, and the mandatory Kinect accessory that bumped the price up to $100 more than a PlayStation 4. But I’d been an Xbox player for more than a decade at that point and had played on both earlier consoles – and I’d even tried out the original Kinect – so I thought I’d stick with what I knew!

The only Xbox One bundles that were available to me included FIFA 14, so I ended up with that game and enough spare cash for one other. After checking out little more than the box art, I settled on Ryse: Son of Rome. It was one of only a handful of Xbox One-exclusive titles in November 2013, along with the likes of Forza Motorsport 5 and a rail-shooter called Crimson Dragon. There were a few other multiplatform titles, but one of the drawbacks to the Xbox One across really its entire lifespan was a lack of solid exclusive titles. Looking back, Ryse: Son of Rome was one of the better offerings.

*Ryse: Son of Rome* was an Xbox One launch title.

I’m a history buff, having studied the subject at university, and I have a soft spot for historical settings as a result. Even now, a full decade on from Ryse: Son of Rome’s release, there aren’t that many games that visit Ancient Rome. In fact, aside from strategy titles like Civilization VI or Age of Empires, I can’t think of many other games that even mention the Romans – let alone action/adventure titles that take place in that time period. In that sense, Ryse: Son of Rome still represents something a little bit different.

What I remember most about Ryse: Son of Rome was how darn good it looked! There was so much more detail in the faces of characters, in the weapons they wielded, and in the environments they battled through when compared to games I’d been playing on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and it felt like a new chapter for gaming as a hobby. Though titles like Mass Effect 2 or Grand Theft Auto V had looked decent on those machines, I could definitely feel the Xbox One and Ryse: Son of Rome kicking things into a higher gear.

*Ryse: Son of Rome* is a good-looking game!

The story of Ryse: Son of Rome was fairly formulaic and nothing exceptional, but it was still entertaining and well worth following to its conclusion. It’s a swashbuckling tale of revenge told through a frame narrative – with echoes of the likes of Gladiator, perhaps. I won’t say too much lest I spoil it for you, but while I’d never rank Ryse: Son of Rome as one of the all-time great gaming narratives, it was solid and enjoyable for what it was.

I was surprised, when I revisited the game earlier this month, at just how well it performs and how new it still manages to feel. If I picked up Ryse: Son of Rome today, on its tenth anniversary, I think I could be led to believe that it was a brand-new game. That says a lot about its art style and graphical fidelity – but also, perhaps, a little about how technology hasn’t advanced as much in the past decade as it had in the previous ten years.

I was a little surprised to see that Ryse: Son of Rome isn’t available on PC Game Pass – though it seems to be available on the console version of Microsoft’s subscription service. If you have an Xbox One or Xbox Series S/X and a Game Pass subscription, it’s an incredibly easy title to recommend to any fan of action/adventure games and single-player narrative experiences. Without the subscription, Ryse: Son of Rome is often on sale, and I think it was one of the titles in a recent Steam sale on PC that was less than £5. For that money, it’s once again an incredibly easy recommendation!

For full-price on launch day in 2013, I was satisfied – and if Trekking with Dennis had existed back then, you’d have seen a positive review. I would’ve mentioned the game’s relatively short length as a caveat (Ryse: Son of Rome clocks in around the six-hour mark), but with relatively few other exclusive titles, it was worth it at the time.

*Ryse: Son of Rome* was my gateway into the Xbox One generation!

So that was my experience with Ryse: Son of Rome! I think it’s an underappreciated title from the early days of the Xbox One; a hidden gem that a lot of folks aren’t aware of. With holiday sales coming up next month, it’s worth putting it on your wishlist or keeping an eye on it, because it really is a fun, somewhat different, and visually impressive adventure.

I promised I’d do more of these “spotlight” pieces, taking a retrospective look at some older titles that I enjoyed. So far, the only other game to have gotten the spotlight treatment is Banished, a PC town-building game that, again, I thoroughly recommend! You can check out my thoughts on that title by clicking or tapping here, and I hope you’ll stay tuned for more spotlights like this one in the future.

All that remains is to say this: happy tenth anniversary, Ryse: Son of Rome!

Ryse: Son of Rome is out now for Xbox One and PC and is also playable on Xbox Series S/X. Ryse: Son of Rome is the copyright of Crytek and/or Xbox Game Studios. Some screenshots and promotional artwork used above courtesy of IGDB. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Ten Gaming “Hot Takes” (Part 2)

Mon 20.11.23Dennis

A few days ago, I shared the first of my gaming “hot takes,” and today we’re going to finish the job. I’ve got five more “hot takes” to round out this list, and I think we’ve got some spicy ones in the mix!

As I said last time, this isn’t clickbait! These are opinions that I genuinely hold, and I’m not inventing things for the sake of being controversial or to score “internet points.” I’m also keenly aware that I’m in the minority, and that plenty of folks can and will disagree. That’s okay – there should be enough room in the gaming community for differences of opinion and friendly discussion of these topics. This is all subjective, at the end of the day!

So if you missed the first part of the list, you can find it by clicking or tapping here. Otherwise, it’s time to get started!

“Hot Take” #6:
Story matters more than gameplay (in most cases).

When discussing Starfield a few weeks ago, I said something rather telling. I didn’t really appreciate it in the moment, but looking back, I think it sums up my relationship with video games as a hobby quite well: “I’m someone who’ll happily play through some absolutely bog-standard gameplay if I’m enjoying a story or getting lost in a fictional world…” If you want to see the full quote in context, by the way, you can find my piece on Starfield by clicking or tapping here.

That line pretty much sums up how I relate to most games I play – and almost all single-player and action/adventure titles. There are some exceptions: Mario Kart 8 Deluxe springs to mind, as does Fall Guys, and some turn-based strategy games, too. But when I look at the games I’ve enjoyed the most since at least the second half of the ’90s, it’s story more than gameplay that appeals to me.

It was a solid story and great world-building that convinced me to stick with Cyberpunk 2077, even when I felt its gameplay was nothing special. And on the flip side, it was a mediocre story set in a boring, empty world that led to me giving up on Starfield after less than thirty hours. When I fire up a single-player game, I’m looking for a story that grabs me, and a world I can lose myself in.

It doesn’t feel controversial to say “I want a game to have a good story,” but that isn’t really the point I’m trying to make. For me, story almost always trumps gameplay. While there can be exceptions – games with either incredibly innovative gameplay in which the narrative is less relevant or games that are so mechanically poor or bug-riddled that even the best story couldn’t salvage them – for the most part, that’s what I’m looking for in a new release.

I stuck with *Cyberpunk 2077* because of its story.

It was Shenmue, around the turn of the millennium, that stands out to me as an example of this. Shenmue was the first game I’d played where the story seemed like it would be right at home on the big screen, and I absolutely adored that. Many games have come along in the years since with compelling characters, wonderful worlds, or magnificent mysteries… and I think that’s part of why I still love playing video games after more than thirty years.

If games had stuck to being glorified toys; story-less arcade boxes where the only objective was either “kill everything on the screen” or “keep walking to the right,” then I think I’d probably have drifted away from the hobby. But I was fortunate enough to play some absolutely phenomenal titles as gaming made that transition and many incredible stories were written.

“Hot Take” #7:
More complexity and additional gameplay elements do not make a game “better.”

Some modern games try to cram in too many features and gameplay mechanics that add nothing to the experience – and in some cases actively detract from it. I know this probably comes across as “old man yells at cloud;” an out-of-touch dinosaur whining about how modern games are too convoluted! And if this was something that only happened in a handful of titles, I guess I’d be okay with it. But it seems to happen all the time!

Strategy and “tycoon” games seem to fall victim to this very easily. I adored Rollercoaster Tycoon when it launched in 1999; it felt like a game that was simple to get started with but difficult to master. In contrast, when I tried 2016’s Planet Coaster… I was hit with such a huge wall of options and features that it was offputting. I didn’t know where to start.

There’s a balance that games have to find between challenge and complexity, and some titles get it wrong. I don’t have the time (or the energy) to spend tens or hundreds of hours becoming a literal rollercoaster engineer; I want something I can pick up and play, where I’m able to throw down a few theme park attractions without too much complexity. If the game had those more complex engineering sim elements in addition – as optional extras for players who wanted them – that could be okay. But when booting up a new game for the first time, I don’t want to encounter a dense wall of features and content.

This doesn’t just apply to strategy games, either. An increasing number of shooters and action/adventure games are incorporating full-bodied role-playing systems, and again it just feels wholly unnecessary. Look at a game from the early 2000s like Halo: Combat Evolved. It was a shooter – your character had a handful of weapons to choose from, and you blasted away at aliens. There was no need for levelling up, for choosing traits or skills, or anything like that. But more and more modern games, even in the first-person shooter or stealth genres, are going for these kinds of role-playing mechanics.

Skill points and levelling up in *Assassin’s Creed: Mirage*.

Don’t get me wrong: I love a good role-playing game. But when I boot up something like Assassin’s Creed or Destiny, the last thing I want or expect is to spend ages in menus micromanaging a character who, to be blunt, doesn’t need that level of engagement. Partly this is about balance, and in some cases it can be fun to level up and gain access to new equipment, for instance. But in others it really is a question of simplicity over complexity, and what kind of game I’m playing. Not every game can or should be a role-playing experience with a complex set of stats and skills.

Some titles really emphasise these elements, too, seeking to win praise for including a convoluted levelling-up system and skill tree. And a lot of the time, I find myself rolling my eyes at that. Leave the role-playing to RPGs and leave the overly-complicated systems to simulators and let me pick up and play a fun game!

“Hot Take” #8:
I hate VR.

Promo image of the HTC Vive Pro 2 headset.

Is “hate” too strong a word to use in this context? I’m going to go with “no,” because I genuinely hate VR. I was worried when the first VR headsets started being released that the video games industry in general was going to go all-in on VR, because I felt if that were to happen that I wouldn’t be able to keep up. But thankfully VR remains a relatively niche part of gaming, and even if that were to change, it doesn’t seem like it’s going to replace regular old video games any time soon!

In the ’80s and ’90s, it seemed as if VR was something tech companies were working towards. It was a futuristic goal that was just out of reach… so when VR headsets first started cropping up, I really thought that they were going to be “the next big thing.”

TV shows like *VR Troopers* hinted at VR being the direction of travel for video games as far back as the ’90s.

But I’ve never found a VR system that I could actually use. I could barely manage playing tennis on the Wii – and even then I had to remain seated! I’m disabled, in case you didn’t know, and the move toward VR headsets and motion-tracking devices felt a bit threatening to me; these technologies seemed like they had the potential to lock me out of gaming.

There haven’t been many VR titles that have interested me, though. One of the only VR titles that did – Star Trek: Bridge Crew – was pretty quickly ported to PC without the VR requirement. While the influence of VR is still clearly present in that title, I think it demonstrates that at least some VR games can work without the expensive equipment.

*Star Trek: Bridge Crew* was quickly ported to non-VR systems.

There’s plenty of room for innovation in gaming, and for companies to try out different kinds of screens, controllers, and methods of interactivity. But for me personally, VR felt like a step too far. I’m biased, of course, because between vision problems and mobility restrictions I don’t feel capable of using any of the current VR systems – not to anything like their full capabilities, at any rate. But even with that caveat, I just don’t think VR has turned out to be anything more than a gimmick.

It’s possible, I suppose, that a VR system will come along one day that I’ll feel compelled to invest in. But it would have to be something I could use with ease, and none of the VR devices currently on the market fit the bill. So I won’t be jumping on the VR bandwagon any time soon!

“Hot Take” #9:
We need fewer sequels and more original games.

I’ve lost count of the number of entries in the Call of Duty franchise at this point…

Across the world of entertainment in general, we’re firmly in an era of franchises, sequels, spin-offs, and connected “universes.” This trend has been going on for well over a decade at this point… but it’s been to the detriment of a lot of stories. There’s always going to be room for sequels to successful titles… but too many video game publishers have gone all-in on franchises and a handful of ongoing series at the expense of creating anything original.

And unfortunately, some original titles that have come along in recent years haven’t found success. I mentioned Starfield above, which seems to be seeing a precipitous drop in its player count, but we could also point to games like Anthem, Forspoken, or Babylon’s Fall – all of which were new settings featuring new characters that struggled to get off the ground.

*Forspoken* didn’t exactly light up the board, unfortunately.

The reason why I consider this one to be a “hot take” is simply because of how many players seem content to go back to the same handful of franchises or series over and over again. Some folks have even gotten genuinely angry with developers for sidelining their favourite series in order to work on something new, as if a studio should only ever be allowed to work on a single series in perpetuity. Sequels, prequels, and spin-offs are all more popular and attract more attention than brand-new experiences, and I think that’s short-sighted on the part of publishers and narrow-minded on the part of at least some players.

And I have to hold up my hands here: I can be guilty of this, too. I’ve written articles here on the website looking ahead to the next Mass Effect game, for instance, while it seems clear that at least some of the folks at BioWare wanted to branch out and create something different. And I have to admit that a sequel to a game I enjoyed or a new entry in a franchise I’m invested in is exciting – more so, arguably, than the announcement of a brand-new project.

Lots of people are eagerly anticipating the next Mass Effect game.

Brand-new games are more difficult and more expensive to get people to pay attention to. They’re also comparatively risky propositions from a corporate point of view; a ton of people will turn up for a game with a well-known name attached, even if it’s not all that good. But a brand-new world has to be something truly special to attract players in the first place – let alone retain a huge playerbase and make a profit.

But it’s a shame that that’s the situation we’re in, because when developers are restricted to sequels and the same handful of franchises, creativity is stifled. Where’s the next breakthrough going to come from if the only games a studio is able to make are sequels and spin-offs to earlier titles? And when audiences get tired of the decreasing number of surviving franchises… what will happen?

“Hot Take” #10:
Graphics actually do matter.

This is perhaps the most contentious point on this list! I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve heard some variant of the expression “graphics don’t matter” when discussing video games. But you know what? If you showed me two similar games in the same genre, with the key difference between them being that one was a ray-tracing Unreal Engine 5 beauty and the other looked like a Nintendo 64 game that had been sneezed on… I know which one I’d choose to play.

When I was really getting into gaming as a hobby in the 1990s, it seemed like the push for better and better graphical fidelity was never-ending. Games used their visuals as a selling-point, and that trend continued into the 2000s with consoles like the Xbox and PlayStation 2. It would’ve seemed wild in those days for a game to not only take a backwards step in graphical terms, but to celebrate doing so.

*Grand Theft Auto: Vice City* looked great in 2002.

We need to separate “graphics” from “art style,” because they’re really two different things. Some games can do wonderful things with cell-shading, for example, or a deliberately cartoony aesthetic. When I say that “graphics actually do matter,” I don’t mean that photorealism is the be-all and end-all; the only art style that games should pursue. What I mean is that games that prioritise looking great – within their chosen style – are going to grab my attention.

I think an interesting example here is South Park: The Stick of Truth. No one would argue that that game is “realistic” in its art style – but that’s the point. Developers Obsidian Entertainment worked overtime to recreate the look and feel of the South Park cartoon – and what resulted was a genuinely fun and interesting visual presentation. Playing that game really felt like taking part in an extended episode of the show. Compare the way The Stick of Truth and its sequel look to the upcoming South Park: Snow Day. I know which one I’d rather play!

*South Park: The Stick of Truth* stands out because of its visual style.

When a developer wants to go down the photorealism route, though, it’s great to see just how far they can push modern hardware. There were moments in games like Red Dead Redemption II where the environment felt genuinely real – and that feeling is one that games have been chasing since the inception of the medium. I really can’t wait to see how graphics continue to improve, and how realistic some games might be able to look in fifteen or twenty years from now… if I live that long!

At any rate, visually beautiful games are always going to catch my eye, and games that don’t prioritise graphical fidelity will always have a hurdle to overcome in some ways. Gameplay and story are important, of course, but graphics aren’t irrelevant. The way a game looks really does matter.

So that’s it!

A Sega Dreamcast console. I had one circa 2000.

We’ve come to the end of the list – for now! I’m sure I’ll have more “hot takes” and controversial opinions about video games that I’ll be able to share before too long.

I hope that this has been interesting – and not something to get too worked up over! As I said at the beginning, I know that I’m in the minority and that a lot of folks can and will disagree. Although some people take gaming a bit too seriously sometimes, I like to think that there’s room in the community for polite discussions and disagreements.

Have fun out there – and happy gaming!

All titles discussed above are the copyright of their respective studio, developer, and/or publisher. Some images used above courtesy of IGDB and Unsplash. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Disney Dreamlight Valley: Buyer Beware?

Thu 16.11.23Dennis

Although it’s been playable for well over a year, Disney Dreamlight Valley still hasn’t been officially “released.” We should talk more one day about big corporations and publishers abusing the early access model, but that will have to wait. I want to ask an unfortunate question today: has Disney Dreamlight Valley been ruined even before its release day?

For some context, I played and adored Disney Dreamlight Valley last year. The game was my surprise pick for “game of the year” when I dished out my annual awards, it was my most-played game of 2022, and I’ve continued to play it this year as well. So I’m not approaching this subject as any kind of dyed-in-the-wool “hater;” I genuinely wanted to see Disney Dreamlight Valley succeed.

Promotional screenshot of *Disney Dreamlight Valley*.

I can summarise the fundamental problem with Disney Dreamlight Valley in a single word: greed. Between developer/publisher Gameloft and the Walt Disney Corporation itself, greed has quickly crept into what seemed to be a fun game with a lot of potential. I praised Disney Dreamlight Valley last year for being “Animal Crossing without the downsides;” an adorable life-sim game with many of the Disney characters that long-time fans know and love. It felt as if Gameloft had taken the Animal Crossing formula and honed it to near perfection, adding much-needed features and quality-of-life improvements, and updating that style of gameplay for a new generation of players.

That was the game I sunk over 150 hours into in 2022 – and have continued to play on and off through 2023 as well – and that was the game that gave me some genuinely fun and sweet experiences. As an early adopter of the game, I knew that Disney Dreamlight Valley was going to change as development continued and its official launch approached – but I hoped that those changes would be more positive than negative.

A recent update to *Disney Dreamlight Valley* added Halloween-themed content.

The original plan for Disney Dreamlight Valley was that the game would be free-to-play when it officially launched. Knowing that that was the plan, the fact that the game sold microtransactions and a “season pass” didn’t seem too bad, although I felt it was questionable to sell Moonstones – Disney Dreamlight Valley’s in-game currency – during its paid early access period. But I could at least understand why it was happening, and I even gave credit to Gameloft early on for rebalancing the rate at which Moonstones were generated in-game to be more generous.

However, Gameloft recently announced that Disney Dreamlight Valley will not be free-to-play, as had been the original intention. The timing of this announcement feels a bit sketchy in and of itself; it seems that Gameloft and Disney came to this decision a long time ago and deliberately kept fans and players in the dark until the last possible moment. But that’s almost beside the point, because what’s far worse – and will be far more noticeable to players – is the free-to-play economy that remains in the game. An in-game currency, a “season pass” for cosmetic items, and microtransactions are all part of Disney Dreamlight Valley, even though the game will no longer be free-to-play.

Different versions of *Disney Dreamlight Valley* – and their associated price tags.

It seems as if Disney and Gameloft want to have all of the money-making tools that modern games employ. They want to sell the game up-front, they want to sell large DLC packs, and they want the in-game currency and “season pass” that are the hallmarks of free-to-play titles. Most games pick one of those, or two at the very most, but Disney Dreamlight Valley is going all-in on monetisation, taking the total cost of the game easily above £100 – and that’s just to get started.

I guess we shouldn’t be shocked. I mean, this is Disney we’re talking about – a corporation that charges guests to park their cars at its hotels and sells bags of popcorn at Walt Disney World for like $15. And I know that modern games are almost never intended to be complete experiences when they launch, but rather ongoing projects with updates being rolled out over the span of months or years – with a steady stream of income all the while. But even with those caveats and that knowledge… this still feels hugely disappointing, and Disney Dreamlight Valley feels like a particularly egregious example of a greedy corporation trying to wring as much money as possible out of players.

Promo art for the first DLC pack – featuring at least one character who was originally implied to be part of the base game.

If Disney Dreamlight Valley isn’t going to go free-to-play – which is an understandable decision in some ways – then the in-game currency and microtransactions have to be stripped out. It isn’t fair to charge players up-front, charge more for expensive DLC add-ons, and still expect to get away with including all of the microtransactions that come with a free-to-play experience. That just shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone. It’s one business model or the other – not both.

I have no doubt that the content Gameloft and Disney plan to roll out in the months ahead will be enjoyable. Practically every update to the game thus far has added new characters and content that I’ve enjoyed… but the updates so far have come at no additional charge. It already seems as if Gameloft plans to paywall new areas of the map and new characters, and that’s before we get into paywalled “season pass” content and cosmetics. When all’s said and done, the full cost of the Disney Dreamlight Valley experience – to get all of the characters, levels, missions, and cosmetic content – will be massive.

The cost of Moonstones (*Disney Dreamlight Valley’*s in-game currency) on Steam in November 2023.

When Disney Dreamlight Valley was an early access title with a free-to-play future, I thought I knew what I was getting into. The microtransactions were still irritating in the early access phase, but at least I felt like I understood why they existed and what the plan was. Although it was hard to get enough Moonstones through general play, it was at least possible to acquire a certain amount; enough to get some of the cosmetics on offer. But now? Knowing the game will charge up-front, charge more for DLC, keep its in-game currency, keep its “season pass,” and continue to sell other microtransactions and cosmetic content? It feels excessive.

Gone are the days when a corporation like Disney would develop and release a complete game. Disney Dreamlight Valley has that live service component; it’s intended to be an ongoing experience with content being developed post-launch. But there has got to be a way to balance the cost of that development with an enjoyable and reasonably-priced player experience, and right now, the pendulum has swung way too far in the monetisation direction.

If you’ve been awaiting the release of Disney Dreamlight Valley – and especially if you saw my review last year and are still considering picking it up – it’s worth being aware of this change to how the game will operate. Last year, shortly after launch, the level of in-game monetisation felt acceptable. But with the game’s official launch approaching, it no longer does. That definitely affects my ability to recommend the game – especially to parents considering picking it up for younger kids. At the very least you need to be aware of this in-game currency issue and make sure you have some kind of parental control on in-app purchases on whatever system you’re using.

I still enjoy what Disney Dreamlight Valley has to offer… but that enjoyment is now tainted. It feels as if Disney and Gameloft haven’t been up-front with the game’s biggest supporters about these changes. And the game now feels like it’s going to be overly-monetised when it launches. That’s a real shame, and it takes a lot of the shine off of what has been a fun experience.

My recommendation of Disney Dreamlight Valley now comes with a huge caveat: beware of in-game monetisation and Gameloft’s shifting priorities.

Disney Dreamlight Valley is out now – in early access – for PC, Mac, Xbox One, Xbox Series S/X, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, and Nintendo Switch, and will be officially released on the 5th of December 2023. Disney Dreamlight Valley is the copyright of Gameloft and the Walt Disney Company. Some screenshots used above are courtesy of Gameloft. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Tier List: Part 2

Wed 15.11.23Wed 15.11.23Dennis

A couple of weeks ago, I put all 48 of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe’s racetracks into an internet-friendly tier list! But the Booster Course Pass has seen the launch of another 48 racetracks over the past couple of years, and now that the sixth and final wave has landed, it’s time to give each one a ranking!

The same rules apply as last time: racetracks will be given one of six rankings from F-tier at the bottom to S-tier at the top, and I’ll be basing their positions on criteria such as track layout, theming, music, and just how much fun I have with each one overall. Racetracks I hate or never choose to play will be at or near the bottom, and the ones I adore will be close to the top.

So what was the state of play when we ranked the first set of racetracks? I’m glad you asked!

F-tier: three racetracks,
D-tier: five racetracks,
C-tier: ten racetracks,
B-tier: twelve racetracks,
A-tier: twelve racetracks,
S-tier: six racetracks.

You can see the first tier list above, complete with all of the racetracks we ranked last time. If you want to check out the full list, including my comments on all of the above tracks, you can find it by clicking or tapping here.

I’ve enjoyed the Booster Course Pass on the whole. The decision to release racetracks in waves was fun, and gave me a reason to keep dipping back into Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. There have also been some wonderful inclusions from past games, as well as some wild new additions to the Mario Kart series. All in all, the Booster Course Pass has been good fun, and feels like good value for the asking price. When you consider you’re doubling the amount of racetracks from the base game, as well as getting a few new characters, the cost definitely seems reasonable to me!

Racetracks will be listed in the order in which they appear in the game, beginning with Wave 1 and ending with Wave 6. Each track will be given a tier ranking of either F, D, C, B, A, or S, and I’ll provide my reason(s) for my decision. Please keep in mind that not only is this just one person’s subjective take on the Booster Course Pass… but also that this is just for fun. If you hate all of my choices, that’s totally fine!

With all of that out of the way, let’s rank some racetracks!

Tour Paris Promenade (Golden Dash Cup)
Tier: A

Paris Promenade is a wonderful encapsulation of everything Paris wants to be, and in that sense it’s the exemplar of what Mario Kart Tour aimed to achieve with these city-themed tracks. Having visited Paris as a tourist (with a friend acting as a local guide) I have to say that the city itself is probably the worst I’ve ever had the misfortune to visit; it’s an absolute dump. But its idealised version makes for a fun racetrack, and hits all of the tourist hotspots that you’d expect, including the iconic Eiffel Tower and the Champs-Élysées.

I also absolutely love the accordion melody that accompanies the track; it feels wonderfully French!

3DS Toad Circuit (Golden Dash Cup)
Tier: B

Toad Circuit gets a lot of stick from people who say it’s “boring,” but I actually don’t mind it. It was a great first track to introduce new players to Mario Kart 7, and it’s been recreated in more or less its original form here. It was a solid track then, and it remains a solid track now. It’s a pretty basic layout set at a modern raceway – much like other tracks from other games with the “Circuit” name. But there’s nothing wrong with it at all, and I’m perfectly content to race through it.

Decent music, decent theming, and a decent layout come together to make a racetrack that’s… well, decent.

N64 Choco Mountain (Golden Dash Cup)
Tier: D

I felt that Choco Mountain stood out on the Nintendo 64… but this recreation feels decidedly mediocre. The all-brown colour palette manages to feel more akin to dirt than the titular chocolate, and I just don’t find much visual interest in the racetrack or its theming. There aren’t any really challenging points that are fun to master, and this is one of those racetracks where there isn’t one glaring flaw… but rather a lot of smaller things all come together to make it unappealing.

Nice bluegrassy music, though.

Wii Coconut Mall (Golden Dash Cup)
Tier: S

Coconut Mall is elevated to S-tier thanks in no small part to an absolutely amazing soundtrack! Honestly, the musical accompaniment to this racetrack is one of the best in the entire Mario Kart series, and I love the upbeat, fun energy that it brings. Coconut Mall is a fun setting in its own right, with a cartoony shopping centre to race through that’s something a bit different from other offerings in the game. There are plenty of twists, turns, and jumps – and the conversion of the final ramp into a glider section was a great way to update this track with newer Mario Kart mechanics.

There are so many positives here that Coconut Mall absolutely deserves its S-tier ranking!

Tour Tokyo Blur (Lucky Cat Cup)
Tier: C

There’s nothing particularly wrong with Tokyo Blur… but there’s not much about it that leaps out at me, either. I’m surprised, in a way, that Nintendo opted to go for Tokyo instead of Kyoto – the city where the company is headquartered. But maybe they’ll do that in Mario Kart 9 or Mario Kart Tour 2… who knows? Truth is that I’m waffling right now to fill some space because I really can’t think of much to say about a decidedly mediocre racetrack. It was nice to visit Tokyo and have a non-Western city included in the Booster Course Pass.

I just wish that Tokyo Blur had been a bit more… memorable.

DS Shroom Ridge (Lucky Cat Cup)
Tier: B

I like Shroom Ridge. It’s essentially a newer version of N64 Toad’s Turnpike; a racetrack with moving vehicles as obstacles, but with a somewhat more complicated layout. There are a few dips, sharp turns, and generally a bit more theming and scenery. Traffic poses a unique challenge, and darting in between different cars and vans manages to feel like good fun.

Races on Shroom Ridge can be chaotic – but the good kind of chaotic!

GBA Sky Garden (Lucky Cat Cup)
Tier: F

I don’t enjoy Sky Garden. Its “racing on clouds” schtick is dull, and the white-blue-and-tan colour palette isn’t the most exciting, either. The layout is pretty basic, and while we could say that’s to be expected for a racetrack that debuted in Super Circuit on the Game Boy Advance… look at what Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and the Booster Course Pass have done with several GBA and even SNES tracks. There was more that could’ve been done here – but even then, the bland theming would have let it down.

There’s a neat shortcut that can be fun to pull off online, though.

Ninja Hideaway (Lucky Cat Cup)
Tier: B

I should endeavour to play Ninja Hideaway more often, because it’s a racetrack with a unique Japanese-inspired theme that’s a lot of fun. It’s great when a racetrack offers branching paths that take more or less the same amount of time to traverse; it keeps things interesting and varied. Ninja Hideaway also has an easily-missed shortcut that involves breaking a wooden barrier, and an exciting glider section where landing on a higher or lower path is possible.

The theming carries this one a long way – but underneath all that, it’s still a great track to race through!

Tour New York Minute (Turnip Cup)
Tier: S

I adore New York Minute. The jazz soundtrack feels perfect for the “city that never sleeps,” and racing around Central Park and through the Rockefeller Center – where Nintendo’s official shop is situated – is an absolute blast. It’s been more than fifteen years since I last set foot in New York City, but several locations felt genuinely familiar to me, showing just how well the Booster Course Pass (and Mario Kart Tour) have recreated famous landmarks.

Could this be the best of the real-world city tracks? Read on to find out!

SNES Mario Circuit 3 (Turnip Cup)
Tier: S

Maybe it’s the nostalgia talking (again), but I absolutely love SNES Mario Circuit 3. As I said in the first part of this list when discussing SNES Donut Plains 3, everything I loved about Super Mario Kart is present here, and although the racetrack is flat and its theming is basic… the wave of nostalgia that washes over me every time I boot it up is more than enough to carry it into S-tier. I had so much fun with Super Mario Kart in the SNES days… to think I’m still racing through some of these tracks more than thirty years later is funny to say the least!

Definitely a blast from the past – but a solid racetrack in its own right, with a couple of fun shortcuts to pull off, too.

N64 Kalimari Desert (Turnip Cup)
Tier: S

Am I giving out S-tier rankings like they were E’s at a rave… or is the Turnip Cup just that good? Kalimari Desert is one of my favourite racetracks from the Nintendo 64, and the adaptations made to it for the Booster Course Pass take it to another level. I adore racing through the train tunnel, and that each lap takes a different path. I love that there are different routes to take, glider options, and a sneaky shortcut. And the musical accompaniment is just fantastic.

Kalimari Desert’s “American Southwest” theming felt wonderful on the Nintendo 64 – and if anything, it feels even better on the Switch!

DS Waluigi Pinball (Turnip Cup)
Tier: A

I’m not sure what Waluigi has to do with pinball… but there’s no denying that this is a great racetrack! I have fond memories of playing pinball – not at an arcade, but at a leisure centre. That pinball machine was a Star Trek: The Next Generation one, and it was an absolute blast! Everything you’d expect to see in a pinball machine is present in this racetrack, and dodging the giant rolling balls can be challenging! Waluigi Pinball is also the longest racetrack in the game, which is neat. Some tracks in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe can feel a tad short… looking at you, N64 Rainbow Road!

A great soundtrack, a fun and unique theme, challenging obstacles, and an exciting layout all come together to make Waluigi Pinball a great racetrack.

Tour Sydney Sprint (Propeller Cup)
Tier: B

Sydney Sprint takes racers through the Sydney Opera House and across Sydney Harbour Bridge. Those are basically the only two landmarks I know of in the city – the latter from seeing it lit up on New Year’s Eve – so from my point of view at least, it’s a racetrack that hits the major highlights of the city it’s recreating! I like the layout of the racetrack, with each lap feeling different from the last and the final lap actually going “backwards” from the direction the race started.

A solid city track.

GBA Snow Land (Propeller Cup)
Tier: B

I love snowy and wintery racetracks, and GBA Snow Land is a perfectly creditable addition to Mario Kart 8 Deluxe’s growing roster of those. The penguins add something a little different midway through, as the track veers off the road and onto a frozen lake. There’s a particularly complicated shortcut that really only works if you have a mushroom and you absolutely nail your drifting alignment… but pulling it off online, in the final lap, and jumping from being in tenth place to first in a matter of seconds? That’s pure racing bliss.

The wintery theming is doing a lot for Snow Land, but it’s a fun racetrack with a cool (get it?) shortcut.

Wii Mushroom Gorge (Propeller Cup)
Tier: A

Mushroom Gorge was great fun on the Wii, great fun on the 3DS, and it’s great fun again here on the Switch. The addition of an optional glider section makes the multi-mushroom jump section different, and perhaps a tad easier for players who find the bouncy mushrooms a bit tricky. I’m not wild about the musical soundtrack, but if that’s my only complaint about this well-laid-out racetrack… that’s not too bad!

A racetrack that’s an absolute blast – and that can lead to some fun and chaotic moments online!

Sky High Sundae (Propeller Cup)
Tier: F

Although it doesn’t officially have the “Tour” prefix, it’s worth pointing out that Sky High Sundae debuted on Mario Kart Tour shortly before it arrived in the Booster Course Pass. Food-themed racetracks are pretty “meh” for me, as I think I said last time, and Sky High Sundae really has nothing going for it. The music is uninteresting, the theming is dull, and the plain oval layout is pretty uninspired, too. Anti-grav does nothing to cover up Sky High Sundae’s flaws.

A racetrack that I almost always avoid.

Tour London Loop (Rock Cup)
Tier: A

I was born in London… and if you’d told me a few years ago that there’d be a Mario Kart track set in that city I don’t think I’d have believed it! London Loop hits most of the landmarks you’d expect: Tower Bridge, Big Ben, the Thames, Buckingham Palace, Marble Arch, and the London Eye being the ones that spring to mind. The soundtrack is fun, each of the three laps takes a different route, and there are many of the London/British staples that tourists and visitors love to see, like phone boxes and double-decker buses.

A fun track that captures the spirit of London.

GBA Boo Lake (Rock Cup)
Tier: D

I appreciate that Boo Lake features an actual lake in this reimagined version… but even a dash of underwater racing can’t salvage what is a pretty bland and uninteresting racetrack. There just isn’t all that much going on here: a fairly minimalist soundtrack, a plain boardwalk to race on, and only one pinch point that offers anything resembling a challenge.

Still, Boo Lake can be a bit of fun at Halloween!

3DS Alpine Pass/Rock Rock Mountain (Rock Cup)
Tier: B

On the 3DS, Alpine Pass (as we know it in the UK) felt like a racetrack that was there to showcase the all-new gliding system. As a result… maybe it wouldn’t be totally unfair to suggest that other parts of the racetrack were less of a priority. Still, there’s a fun soundtrack and some great theming, and I like that the glider sections come with the option to either rush back to the ground or keep sailing through the air. Both approaches feel like they have merit.

A lot of gliding… but most of it is fun!

Wii Maple Treeway (Rock Cup)
Tier: S

Maple Treeway is a beautiful autumnal racetrack that I’m so glad has returned. It looks stunning in 1080p HD on the Switch, and racing up and down a massive tree while the leaves are turning shades of red, orange, and gold… it’s just an incredible experience. The wigglers offer a bit of a challenge, there’s an interesting alternate route if you have a mushroom, and replacing the bouncing net with a short glider section mixes things up a bit.

Oh, and the music! The soundtrack to Maple Treeway is one of the best in the entire Mario Kart series without a doubt!

Tour Berlin Byways (Moon Cup)
Tier: B

Berlin Byways has one of the best musical accompaniments in the Booster Course Pass, and that really helps this city racetrack stand out. It’s been years since I’ve been to Berlin, but a couple of the racetrack’s tourist sites – the Brandenburg Gate and the Berlin Wall – felt familiar. I love the addition of Whomps in the Berlin Wall, too – that was a bit of fun, and a surprisingly bold move from Nintendo given that it might’ve seemed flippant and thus controversial.

All in all, a fun dash through the German capital.

DS Peach Gardens (Moon Cup)
Tier: B

Peach Gardens was always a decent racetrack in both its original form and when it was recreated on the Wii. It’s been shaken up this time around with its final lap now running most of the racetrack in reverse. This is a really fun inclusion, and really transforms Peach Gardens into something a bit more special. Racing through the gardens at Peach’s castle was always a neat idea, and although not much has changed visually from the racetrack’s original version on the DS, the titular garden looks better than ever.

Not many Mario Kart racetracks let you go backwards!

Merry Mountain (Moon Cup)
Tier: S

Although Merry Mountain is another racetrack that, if it was being honest, should come with the “Tour” prefix… I can’t really fault it! I love Christmas, and this racetrack’s “Christmas village” theme is beautiful. Part of why I love snowy and wintery racetracks is because of the association with the holiday season, so having an overtly Christmas-themed racetrack in the game for the first time is just fantastic. The music is great, the theming is fantastic, and there are a few fun twists and turns before the racetrack ends with a long, straight run to the finish line.

Merry Christmas! And no, it’s not too early to say that.

3DS Rainbow Road (Moon Cup)
Tier: A

This might be the best version of Rainbow Road in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – even though it isn’t my all-time favourite Rainbow Road! This racetrack was a blast on the 3DS, and its recreated version takes all the beauty and wonder of racing through outer space to a whole new level. I love the soundtrack, which brings back the N64 Rainbow Road theme as part of a new, longer musical track, and hopping from the titular rainbow road to planetary rings and the surface of the moon will always be loads of fun.

3DS Rainbow Road really nails that feeling of wonder and magic that the racetrack should have.

Tour Amsterdam Drift (Fruit Cup)
Tier: F

Amsterdam Drift fails at the only real task it had: it doesn’t feel like Amsterdam. The racetrack spends far too long underwater in empty, featureless concrete ditches with crystal-clear water that don’t resemble Amsterdam’s world-famous canals in any way. And the rest of the track isn’t much better, either. The musical accompaniment isn’t noteworthy – nor does it have any features reminiscent of the Netherlands or Amsterdam – and the city sections feel bland and uninteresting. The tulip garden was a nice touch – but can’t salvage this racetrack.

Amsterdam is a beautiful city, and it deserves better than this!

GBA Riverside Park (Fruit Cup)
Tier: B

Riverside Park is fun – if a tad short! Jumping through a waterfall will always feel great, and the walking piranha plants are a different take on a familiar obstacle. There are a couple of turns that are fun to drift around, and because Riverside Park isn’t too long, when racing online you’re usually never too far off the pace – making it easy to catch up if you fall behind.

A good example of how to upgrade a classic track without completely changing it into something new.

Wii DK’s Snowboard Cross/DK Summit (Fruit Cup)
Tier: A

I don’t like comparing racetracks from different games to one another… but I can’t help it here because comparisons with Mount Wario are inescapable! DK’s Snowboard Cross might’ve cracked its way into S-tier were it not for Mount Wario taking the same concept and doing it far better. DK’s Snowboard Cross was outstanding on the Wii – and has been recreated in more or less its original form here. But having seen Mario Kart 8′s take on the same idea… it doesn’t seem quite as impressive as it once did.

I love racing through the half-pipe near the finish line – and there’s no denying that this is still a great racetrack.

Yoshi’s Island (Fruit Cup)
Tier: D

Yoshi’s Island is one of only two racetracks to make its debut in the Booster Course Pass. And it’s a shame it’s so disappointing! The theming here is on point, and I will absolutely give credit to Nintendo for recreating the look and feel of Yoshi’s Island. But the racetrack’s layout is dull and it comes with a glaring flaw: that awful flying button that unlocks a slightly shorter elevated path near the end of the lap. There are times when the button is literally unreachable; it’s drifted too far such that it becomes completely impossible to hit it no matter what angle you take from the glider ramp.

That’s poor design, in my view, and drags Yoshi’s Island down a peg.

Tour Bangkok Rush (Boomerang Cup)
Tier: D

I’ve never been to Bangkok, so I’m hardly a good tour guide to the Thai capital. But even with that caveat, I cannot believe that one of the most interesting, important, and noteworthy features of Bangkok is a multi-storey car park. It’s mind-boggling to me that this was included in the racetrack given that there must’ve been other touristy sights worth racing past. Beyond that weird inclusion, though, Bangkok Rush doesn’t do anything to stand out from a growing roster of city tracks.

It’s great to get another city outside of Europe and North America, though.

DS Mario Circuit (Boomerang Cup)
Tier: C

I’m not convinced that Mario Kart 8 Deluxe needed yet another “Circuit” track. Nintendo has made a significant alteration to DS Mario Circuit, adding a forested section with a sleeping Wiggler that wasn’t part of the original version. The inclusion of a couple of tight turns that are relatively fun to drift around just before the finish line help drag DS Mario Circuit out of D-tier… but only just.

A racetrack that just feels… unnecessary.

GCN Waluigi Stadium (Boomerang Cup)
Tier: D

Waluigi Stadium was near the bottom of the list in both Double Dash and Wii, and this revised version doesn’t do enough to make it feel any better or more interesting. The generic “motorsport stadium” theme is bland, the halfpipe sections are functionally useless, and there just isn’t much going on to elevate Waluigi Stadium into being anything better than the sum of its parts. It was a disappointment in both of its earlier appearances, and it is again here.

Waaagh!

Tour Singapore Speedway (Boomerang Cup)
Tier: B

Singapore Speedway is a lot of fun. It feels almost futuristic in places; a reflection, no doubt, of the city-state’s renowned infrastructure and technological prowess. Being set after dark makes the city and its buildings pop, and racing through Chinatown is a change of scenery from the high-rises and neon-lit skyscrapers of the rest of the racetrack.

Maybe it isn’t the best city track… but it’s far from the worst!

Tour Athens Dash (Feather Cup)
Tier: D

Athens Dash is another like Amsterdam Drift where I just don’t feel like its theming has been handled well. Athens – modern Athens, that is – has more to offer than the ruins of Ancient Greece, yet this racetrack ignores all of that and sticks only to the ruins of the Parthenon and the rest of the Acropolis. Including at least one modern building or attraction should’ve been possible, even if the racetrack were to keep its focus on the ruins. Athens Dash leaves me conflicted, because as enjoyable as parts of it are, I feel like it’s missing the point. Some of the buildings in the background are incredibly low-poly, even for a Tour track.

There are also a couple of genuinely confusing points in the racetrack that aren’t well-signposted.

GCN Daisy Cruiser (Feather Cup)
Tier: B

Daisy Cruiser is just… nice. It’s a pleasant track to race around with a sweet musical accompaniment and a fun theme. This version of the racetrack hasn’t really been enhanced beyond where it was in Mario Kart 7 (when it was recreated for the first time), but there’s nothing wrong with that. The underwater section had already added a lot, and it’s hard to see where else to take Daisy Cruiser without losing some of what makes the racetrack as fun to play as it is.

I like the sliding tables in the dining room, those always win a chuckle!

Wii Moonview Highway (Feather Cup)
Tier: A

Yes! Moonview Highway is back! I’d been hoping to see this racetrack make a return, as I’ve long felt it was underappreciated on the Wii. One of the more difficult racetracks in the game thanks to a combination of road traffic and some tight turns, Moonview Highway is a blast. It hasn’t been changed too much from its original incarnation, which is great – but I do lament the loss of Mii characters staffing the toll booths!

A fun, challenging racetrack that I’m happy to play over and over again.

Squeaky Clean Sprint (Feather Cup)
Tier: A

I didn’t think I was going to like Squeaky Clean Sprint when it was first announced. It just seemed, from those clips, like a pretty generic and uninteresting racetrack… but I was so very wrong about that! Ribbon Road proved that shrinking down Mario and the gang for a race was a great concept, and Squeaky Clean Sprint makes such good use of its “toy-sized racers” idea. Racing down the plug hole of a bathtub – past accumulated grime and dirt – felt genuinely icky the first few times I did it, and there’s something about the bathroom setting that’s just comical and fun. The design of the track itself is great, too, with alternate routes opening up in the second and third laps.

A surprise, to be sure… but a welcome one!

Los Angeles Laps (Cherry Cup)
Tier: F

What’s the one landmark that comes to mind when you think about LA? The Hollywood sign! Not only does Los Angeles Laps not race past the most famous landmark on the entire American Pacific coast, but it doesn’t even appear on the hills in the background. Instead, Los Angeles Laps worms its way through the most bland and generic city, with only the brief beach section near the start feeling like anything vaguely inspired by LA or California. And what was going on with that diversion through an oil field?

A boring, generic racetrack that ignores the most iconic emblem of the city it’s meant to represent.

GBA Sunset Wilds (Cherry Cup)
Tier: C

Sunset Wilds came within a hair’s breadth of a B-tier ranking… but then Nintendo opted to rip out its most unique feature! One of the best tracks from Super Circuit – and, I’d venture, one of the best desert racetracks in the entire Mario Kart series – Sunset Wilds lived up to its name in both its original incarnation and when it returned in Mario Kart Tour. The sun would actually set – with the final lap of the race taking place after the sun had gone down. For some reason, this version removes that iconic feature.

The racetrack left behind is still enjoyable… but it’s missing a key element of what made the original so much fun.

Wii Koopa Cape (Cherry Cup)
Tier: B

Koopa Cape was a blast on the Wii, and this version is almost as good. I don’t like the changes made to the warp pipe section; removing the obstacles and rushing water changed things a bit too much. But despite that minor downgrade, Koopa Cape is still fun to race through, and the river section in particular can lead to some fast-paced and hectic fun.

A solid addition to the lineup, all things considered.

Tour Vancouver Velocity (Cherry Cup)
Tier: B

Vancouver Velocity has some cute autumn and winter theming that I appreciate, and racing through both a park and an ice rink adds a bit of visual diversity to what could’ve easily been yet another city track. The anti-gravity section shakes things up, too. There’s also a pleasant soundtrack along with a night time setting that, again, adds something a little different to help Vancouver Velocity stand out a little.

The ice skating Shy Guys are cute, and I love seeing the aurora in the sky.

Tour Rome Avanti (Acorn Cup)
Tier: C

There’s nothing especially wrong with Rome Avanti, and it balances its historical and modern sites far better than Athens Dash. But there’s not a lot about it that leaps out at me, either, and along with a fairly convoluted criss-crossing layout, I just don’t find it a ton of fun to drive. I like the Chain Chomps in the Colosseum, and again the night time look gives Rome Avanti something to help it keep its head above water. But I guess I just don’t see much else about it that’s all that special or memorable.

Still, the standard of driving is far higher than anything ever seen in the real Rome!

GCN DK Mountain (Acorn Cup)
Tier: B

DK Mountain is fun, and it comes with a great musical accompaniment! The cannon section can feel painfully long, but once that’s out of the way, the race down the mountain/volcano feels fast-paced and exciting. The angry face on the volcano looks better than ever in this version of the racetrack, too, which is fantastic, and the return of the dangerous bridge just before the finish line was a much-needed inclusion! There’s a lot to love here.

Oh, and this version retains the shortcut from Double Dash and Wii (that I’ve never been able to successfully pull off!)

Wii Daisy Circuit (Acorn Cup)
Tier: A

Daisy Circuit always felt like an underappreciated racetrack on the Wii, and I’m glad to see it make a return. It’s not got an especially complicated layout, but the inclusion of the original shortcut – now with an added glider ramp – does provide an option if you have a mushroom to use. I like the aesthetic and music of Daisy Circuit, and racing around a sweet little seaside town at sunset will always feel like a ton of fun.

Probably one of the best racetracks to have the “Circuit” name!

Piranha Plant Cove (Acorn Cup)
Tier: A

Piranha Plant Cove is another track that should come with the “Tour” prefix, but we can forgive it because of how much fun it is! The use of the word “Cove” conjures up images of pirates, and this racetrack’s underwater ruins theme kind of plays into that. I like the night time setting, and it’s fun to get a racetrack that’s almost entirely underwater – only the second in the game after Dolphin Shoals to really lean into the underwater racing idea.

A fun concept that has been executed well – and a racetrack that looks outstanding on the Switch.

Tour Madrid Drive (Spiny Cup)
Tier: B

The best part of Madrid Drive is also the shortest: driving through the football stadium! But this short section definitely elevates a racetrack that can feel, in parts, a bit samey in a game with so many other European city tracks from Tour. In a way, Madrid Drive drew the short straw by being the final city track in the game; it’s easy to feel bored of the concept by this point. But its art gallery is fun, the Wiggler in the city square is just plain random, and the aforementioned football stadium – complete with ball-kicking Goombas – gives the track a unique element to help it stand out.

Not the best city track, perhaps… but definitely not the worst!

3DS Rosalina’s Ice World (Spiny Cup)
Tier: A

I love icy and wintery racetracks, and Rosalina’s Ice World really leans into the magic and wonder that snow and ice can provide. Heavily inspired by Super Mario Galaxy, the racetrack has a lot of those magical, mystical elements that really compliment its ice road setting. It was great fun on the 3DS, and this recreation feels faithful to the original while bringing much more visual detail.

As the final icy track in the game, Rosalina’s Ice World delivered!

SNES Bowser Castle 3 (Spiny Cup)
Tier: B

I adore the way in which the original Bowser Castle music from Super Mario Kart has been adapted here. The heavy metal cover brings it in line with the music for Mario Kart 8′s Bowser’s Castle – which is great! Overall, though… I can’t help but feel that this version of SNES Bowser Castle 3 is a little too different from its original appearance. Heck, it’s basically a brand-new racetrack altogether. It’s a good track, don’t get me wrong… I guess it just doesn’t give me the same nostalgic vibes as other SNES racetracks have.

It’s great to get another Bowser’s Castle track in the game, though!

Wii Rainbow Road (Spiny Cup)
Tier: A

I feel a little sorry for Wii Rainbow Road, because it would have almost certainly made S-tier were it not for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe having so many other versions of this iconic racetrack. By the time I reached Wii Rainbow Road at the end of the Booster Course Pass, I couldn’t help but feel it was just a little too samey. That’s not its fault at all, and the way it’s been recreated here is still wonderful. But it gets a little lost amongst other versions of the racetrack – including the 3DS one discussed above.

A solid end to the Booster Course Pass, though.

So that’s it!

We’ve put all 96 Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Booster Course Pass racetracks into our tier list. Let’s take a look at the final standings, shall we?

F-tier: seven racetracks,
D-tier: eleven racetracks,
C-tier: fourteen racetracks,
B-tier: twenty-eight racetracks,
A-tier: twenty-four racetracks,
S-tier: twelve racetracks.

Let me just add those up on my calculator… yep, that’s all ninety-six racetracks officially ranked! Check out how the tier list looks:

As I said at the beginning, all of this has just been the wholly subjective (and occasionally arbitrary) take of one person. I’m a huge fan of Mario Kart – and I have been since the very beginning. I think you can see that there are far more racetracks in the upper half of the list than the lower half, and even those racetracks that I don’t enjoy every aspect of can still be fun to race through from time to time.

This has been a fun experiment. I’ve never made a tier list before, but the format is surprisingly good fun. I can already think of a few more ideas for tier lists… so this might become an occasional part of the website going forward!

I hope you’ve enjoyed this look at the different Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Booster Course Pass racetracks. I’ve certainly had fun racing through all of them – though I was clever this time and took my time instead of trying to rush through all of them in quick succession! Now that the final wave of the Booster Course Pass has landed, I think it’s an easy recommendation for any Mario Kart player. Doubling the number of racetracks in the game really does expand it and give it a boost – and with Mario Kart 9 potentially still a ways off, that’s a good thing in my book!

I have more than 200 unused screenshots of Dry Bones (my favourite Mario Kart driver, if you couldn’t tell) racing around practically all of the racetracks in the game, so maybe I’ll put together some kind of gallery of those in the days or weeks ahead. And be sure to stay tuned for more Mario Kart and Nintendo content here on the website in future! If we start to get news about a new Nintendo console, Mario Kart 9, or anything else in that vein, I’ll do my best to cover it and share my thoughts.

Until next time!

Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is out now for Nintendo Switch. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, the Booster Course Pass, and the Super Mario series are the copyright of Nintendo. This article contains the thoughts and opinions of one person only and is not intended to cause any offence.