Voldemort vs. Casmir vs. Every Asshat in the Seven Kingdoms — The Villain Problem

Here’s the tl;dr:

Please, HBO, don’t make a bunch of Game of Thrones spinoffs. I’m virtually certain they’ll suck. How about an adaptation of the Lyonesse trilogy? I’m guessing it would be dirt cheap to get the rights.

At its heart, Game of Thrones is vapid

As I watched a collection of “moments” compiled by HBO for prospective viewers of the final season of Game of Thrones it struck me how few of these “moments” had anything to do with characters anyone cares about, vs. the “white walkers” who have no discernible motivations and appear as little more than teasers and shock-vignettes. If you subtract the zombie army and Bran’s entire storyline, what’s really left?

In a nut, Game of Thrones is a story about a bunch of people viciously squabbling over who gets to preside over famine and death in an inevitable mini-ice-age — “whose skeleton sits on the Iron Throne”, as Ser Davos puts it — instead of, say, stacking firewood and salting meat. When Jon finally points this out, he is met with disbelief, despite the fact that this has all happened before and is well-documented. Heck, there’s even a standing army devoted to defending against it — of which Jon was commander — but it apparently misplaced its instruction manual.

There are lots of unpleasant people doing horrible things, but in the end none of that matters because there’s an army of zombie boogeymen to contend with, and the fact that none of the interesting (but pointless) squabbling that has filled the last six seasons actually matters much, and HBO wants us to know that we need to remember a few tantalizing glimpses of “white walkers” who have said almost nothing and whose motives have never been explored (nor would they likely stand up to any scrutiny).

I started this piece before the premiere of season 7. As I revise this post before posting it, I’ve just watched the third episode of the final season, The Queen’s Justice. So far, there has been little of consequence in the first three episodes of the final season beyond the use of plot devices to tie off loose ends and weaken Daenerys’s hand for purposes of evening her odds against Circe. In essence, so far Season 7 has been The Euron Show. Euron, a leeringly obvious plot device, who since usurping his niece’s throne perhaps a year ago has assembled the “largest fleet in the world” — on desolate islands with no obvious source of timber, which just goes to show how resourceful he is — and then with stunning intelligence (and we assume favorable winds) fights and wins two massive engagements against Daenerys’s navies (and held a victory procession in King’s Landing) in the space of about two weeks.

Wait a second: shall we pause a moment to recollect that Daenerys is served by Tyrion and “The Spider” — the latter commanding a global spy network — 2/3 of the brains in the Seven Kingdoms (the missing third being Littlefinger) — and yet she seems to have no clue what her enemies are up to nor how to avoid tipping her hand to them (apparently the mysteriously empty castle she walked into with no thought to security is full of spies).

Outside of The Euron Show, Sam discovers a mountain of “dragon glass” and cures Mormont, allowing him back in the game. And Jon finally meets Daenerys and discovers that she’s an idiot. (By the way, do you find it a bit annoying that Jon can sail a single ship from the far north to the far south between episodes, but Daenerys sends two fleets which arrive two weeks apart?) And horrible things are done to minor characters to show how mean various mean people are.

Where’s Tom Riddle when we need him?

Perhaps the best major villain in a fantasy blockbuster is Tom Riddle, a.k.a. Voldemort, a.k.a. “he who must not be named”, if solely because he has two qualities utterly lacking in most major villains these days, i.e. a driving motivation (fear of death), and a goal that at least makes some sense both to him and his followers (run the world, put wizards in charge and enslave everyone else).

It all makes me think fondly of Spike, in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, who switches sides from Evil to Good because the Evil team wants to destroy the world, and he “quite likes the world”.

I recently finished reading the entire Harry Potter series to my twins, and it was wonderful. As a child I was so proud to read silently “in my head”; to rediscover the joy of reading as a performance later in life has been a revelation. I think that books are actually better read aloud, but it’s quite an effort to do all that reading.

Also, it’s hard to come up with voices and keep them straight (so I usually don’t bother, but the girls prefer it when I do).

Reading aloud also exposes a lot of weaknesses in a writer that reading quietly in one’s head conceals — e.g. I find Rowling to write dialog very poorly. I often paraphrase her characters for various reasons, but worse I find that she provides the wrong information in the wrong order. E.g. I’m often fooled into thinking person A is speaking when it’s person C (so I find myself having read in the wrong voice), or being told a character is speaking in a particular way too late to do any good (Hermione speaks “shrilly” all the time, a clumsy word and a dubious adverb for a feminist to constantly apply to her best female character).

Even so, my admiration for J.K. Rowling is considerably greater for having read these books aloud. For me, to read aloud as a performance is to pay much closer attention to each word than I ever do when reading to myself, and to feel the rhythm of dialog, and have to actively imagine the emotional takes of each character all the time. I notice and remember many things I missed on previous readings (or reading in this case, since I only ever read each book once before). It’s clear to me that Rowling planned the series carefully and well. I do have a lot of issues with it, but I have a lot of issues with everything. After all, I’m writing a critique of the current holy of holies, Game of Thrones.

Voldemort is, basically, Hitler

Voldemort doesn’t get to kill that many people, but in principle he is a ruthless race supremacist who plans to kill and/or enslave the “inferior” races, and he gathers about him fellow race-supremacists and opportunists. It’s not a subtle construct, but Hitler has about him a great deal more plausibility than most fantasy villains since, well, he actually existed. To understand why people might follow someone like Hitler, one can look at history books, or psychological research such as Milgram’s famous experiment. Hitler didn’t need to use mind control, he followed a well-established despotic populist playbook — presiding over a large scale criminal enterprise with all the usual systems of loyalty and reward. He offered a carrot and a stick. Ordinary German businessmen profited from slave labor (as do businessmen in the South, who use prison labor today, and as does the private prison industry from Trump’s war on immigration).

Even so, Voldemort exhibits some classic villainous behavior that is quite childish. E.g. I know of no evidence that Hitler was personally sadistic. He hired sadists. He created an environment where sadists were able to thrive. He didn’t go around gleefully torturing and murdering people. Indeed, Hitler portrayed himself and saw himself as a good-natured family man (odd though his family was). He understood the value of PR.

My single biggest disappointment with the Harry Potter books is that the resolution depends on only the least of Voldemort’s core failings (he doesn’t understand “love” — awwww) and not his others (e.g. he’s a sociopathic race-supremacist). Indeed, even in the final battle when the House Elves join the fray, it is as comic relief (stabbing people in the ankles with kitchen knives) and ignores their vastly superior magical powers (how about apparating Death Eaters into volcanoes?)

All through the seventh book I couldn’t stop thinking of the climax of Ralph Bakshi’s Wizards where the gnome-like hero faces down his magically overwhelming brother and shows him “a trick mom taught me when you weren’t around”. Harry and Hermione were both raised as muggles, and yet never use their knowledge of the muggle world to significant advantage, despite the fact that muggles have powers superior in most ways to wizard magic (e.g. cell phones, night vision goggles, 9mm handguns). Indeed, zero attention is made to “Muggle Studies” beyond its teacher being one of Voldemort’s gratuitous victims.

Scouring the countryside for evil deeds to commit

There are many wonderful and unique things about Lyonesse as a fantasy epic, but perhaps the single greatest is the central villain, Casmir. (Note that Lyonesse has quite a few antagonists, and of them Casmir is hardly the most “evil”, but none of the villains is as cartoonishly implausible as pretty much every bad guy in Game of Thrones.)

Casmir is an ambitious, calculating, and ruthless medieval monarch. That’s basically it. He’s not a sadist. He’s not a racist. He’s definitely not a religious fanatic. When he does do nasty things, he does it on the down-low because he wants to be loved and feared. Like Voldemort, he’s not a touchy-feely kind of guy, but he’s not even devoid of conscience (e.g. he only carries out unjust sentences to avoid being seen as weak, and he recognizes the truth of accusations against him for his mistreatment of his daughter, Suldrun). He is a competent and diligent ruler (because he thinks it’s important to have the good opinion of his subjects). Indeed, as a ruler he’s distinctly preferable to virtually all of his rivals.

Casmir seems a villain chiefly because of his relationship with his daughter, Suldrun, and to a lesser extent because he has a tendency to quietly murder his former spies (both to save money and avoid risk). He has many admirable traits and a dry sense of humor. In essence, to simply be a competent medieval monarch you need to do a lot of things that seem pretty evil by today’s standards, and he does them with no great gusto. (Aillas, the main protagonist, executes a lot of people, and Shimrod, one of his friends, tortures a man to death.) If we knew nothing of Suldrun, and nothing behind the scenes of Casmir’s reign, we might consider him a capable and ambitious man who had a lot of bad luck. Similarly, if we were to judge him by the people he surrounds himself with, he is not a terrible person.

Furthermore, we can fully understand why people would choose to support Casmir and risk their lives on his behalf, we can picture a world in which he is victorious, we can see why the common people might not care whether he wins or loses, and yet he is an entirely satisfying villain. Not only is this more morally sophisticated than most fantasy novels, it’s more morally sophisticated than most contemporary dramas.

Let’s do a great epic fantasy with a great villain

There are many reasons I prefer the Lyonesse Trilogy to the Song of Fire and Ice. To start with, it’s shorter and much faster-paced. The Elder Isles seem like a place people would generally enjoy living in. The plot is clever but not incomprehensible and the cast of characters large but not unmanageable. The military strategizing does not dominate the story, but the handling of strategy and tactics is both deft and on point. (The competent generals actually care about lines of supply and reconnaissance. Their navies, for example, are not constantly taken unawares.) It also manages to blend historical allusion (it’s set on an archipelago in the Atlantic that has sunk beneath the ocean) with fairytale qualities and brutally plausible pagan practices.

And, not infrequently, it’s also very funny.

Lyonesse is not without flaws — the third book feels rushed (Vance clearly wanted it done with and had worked out the plot arc well in advance), There’s casual and unnecessary homophobia, and there’s no warrior queen in the first book (Ehirme and Glyneth would need to be beefed up, Glyneth could be made a couple of years older, Yane could just as easily be a woman). Vance’s dialog is often hilarious, but over-stylized for some tastes. Nothing a good TV adaptation can’t fix.

But the reliance on faceless, inexplicably and implacably evil major villains who just want to destroy the world, and a motley supporting cast of pointlessly sadistic lesser villains, is the single catastrophic failing of Game of Thrones. I’ll watch it to the end, but seriously. Let’s have a story with actual sides.

Tech Free Saturdays with the Kids

Romilly with her iPad
Romilly with her iPad

Like many parents, Rosanna and I are concerned about our kids’ obsession with “technology”, so we tried “tech free Saturdays”, and it worked for about an hour (I — more than slightly ironically — spent that hour with the girls playing with an Elenco electronics set — something far better than the “150-in-one” electronics kit I dreamed of when I was a kid), and then gave up. Short of getting exercise outdoors — which while almost certainly a Good Thing To Do is hardly something of which I am an examplar — what was there to do without “technology”?

I don’t pretend to know what stuff is going to be important to the success of my kids. A lot of the stuff I learned in school has turned out to be useful, or at least makes for interesting conversation (apparently, most people forget almost everything they learned in school, and — having had no interest in it when they were 14, find it intriguing as adults). But the most useful stuff I learned as a kid is the stuff society — i.e. teachers and parents — made me feel guilty about spending time on. And I don’t think this is rare. I think it’s the people who were obsessed with computer games, or Science Fiction, or Dungeons & Dragons, back in 1982, who are creating the world we live in today.

We won (or, at least, we’re ahead — when we all die young from heart disease and diabetes because we never get any exercise, the jocks from high school whose knees still work can gloat).

And having won by willfully ignoring society’s ideas of what a “healthy” obsession was when we were kids, who are we to impose our ideas of what a “healthy” obsession is on our kids? Well, we’re parents, of course, and “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”. Perhaps we’re just that much smarter than our parents and teachers.

Another possibility that occurs to me is that a passion for anything — programming, role-playing games, the collected works of Jack Vance — only turns into something powerful and character-building if it involves pushing against social pressure. In other words, it’s OK for us to try to stop our kids from doing what they want to do, but it’s even better if they defy us and it anyway.

In the end, I don’t mind if my kids are obsessed with Minecraft, or even Youtube. What worries me is that its too easy to feed those obsessions, and I don’t think technology is the problem. But, having said that, my father narrowly avoided the Holocaust and my mother lived through famine and the Vietnam War, whereas I had to cope with the poor selection of science fiction in local libraries and the fact that our school only had one Apple II computer.

The Worst Recurring TV Show Plot Ever

There was an interesting story in the New Yorker (Person of Interest, the TV show that predicted Edward Snowden) that got me watching a show I had initially dismissed (I think because it was marketed as a J.J. Abrams show). It’s got the guy who played Ben in Lost — who’s an excellent actor, even if I’d like to do terrible things to the creators of Lost with a fork.

The basic premise of Person of Interest is that in the wake of “9/11”, the US security apparatus started doing exactly what anyone with a clue knew they were doing and Snowden later revealed they were in fact doing and that a billionaire hacker genius (Ben… er Finch) wrote software to analyze all the data and spit out “persons of interest” — i.e. people planning future terror plots. The wrinkle is that the software initially couldn’t differentiate between people plotting terror attacks and those plotting ordinary violent crimes, so the hacker figured out how to divide its hits into “relevant” (to national security) and “not relevant” (i.e. ordinary criminals). For some reason the non-relevant hits are always in New York, but I digress. The billionaire feels guilty about all the non-relevant people who keep dying, and tries to save them (with the help of an improbably effective ex-CIA agent).

I mention all this by way of diversion. The show is exceptionally well-made, cleverly understated, and intelligent. So it’s with considerable annoyance that — watching through season 1 on iTunes — I stumbled into the worst recurring TV show plot ever. OK, there are probably worse recurring TV show plots, but this one is egregious and not worthy of an intelligent TV show such as Person of Interest. The summary goes like this (not a spoiler — this plot cannot be spoiled):

  1. People are getting killed mysteriously.
  2. A drug company is involved.
  3. And it turns out they’re suppressing information that lots of people died horribly during the clinical trial of a drug they’re just about to release.

I think I’ve seen this plot in pretty much every episodic cop show on television, and a bunch of lawyer and doctor shows too. My memory is hazy, but I’m pretty sure it’s occurred in The Good Wife, Law and Order (and perhaps Criminal Intent as well), Bones, etc. Shows that are generally  intelligently written, well-acted, and strongly plotted. (OK, Bones has kind of jumped the shark.)

Yes, drug companies do evil things. Yes, they’re motivated by profit. But the way to make a buttload of money as a drug company is not — repeat not — to produce a drug that kills people, cover up the deaths, and then release the drug.

Now, if the bad guy were a stock market speculator who wanted to make sure a particular drug got released because he/she had some kind of weird futures contract, or was shorting a rival pharmaceutical company, or something like that — OK, that’s kind of barely plausible. But to knowingly release a drug that will get your company sued to oblivion is simply stupid.

Now there are cases of drug companies covering up deaths caused by their drugs. A recent example which got a lot of coverage is the story of acetaminophen overdoses caused by (a)  the drug being lethal at doses as low as double the maximum recommended daily dose, (b) confusion caused by infant tylenol being twice as concentrated as children’s tylenol, and (c) the presence of tylenol in many, many “cocktail” drugs that are frequently taken together. An older example I recall is a drug used to help smokers quit that was associated with a notable, but statistically insignificant, number of sudden deaths. There was also some controversy over Prozac being prescribed for kids and possibly leading to suicide. And of course there’s Vioxx. But these are all drugs that were already on the market, and the cover-ups and maneuverings were over marketing issues (can we call our drug “the safest”? or will the government put our drug on a list of drugs covered by public insurance?). This is about protecting markets and avoiding lawsuits.

Please. Enough.

Here’s an evil thing Big Pharma actually does (and the only TV show I know of that nailed this was House M.D.):

  1. Create a drug that’s just like a drug you already sell which is going out of patent (but “with a vitamin E molecule tacked on the side” to paraphrase House from memory)
  2. Conduct many clinical trials of your new drug vs. the old drug and placebo
  3. Assuming the new drug is exactly as effective as the old drug and the trials are conducted by perfectly by disinterested parties, one in twenty will show the new drug is more effective than the old drug — publish only those results (journals have a strong bias against publishing studies with no statistically significant result, so it’s not like you even need to work hard to suppress the null findings)
  4. Market the hell out of the new drug (e.g. bribe doctors to prescribe or recommend it, scare patients into demanding it)

But that probably won’t create a grisly trail of corpses for your investigators to discover.

LA Noire

Fingerprints? We don't need no stinking fingerprints.

Despite being an all-round Rockstar fan, LA Noire and Bully are two of the more interesting Rockstar titles I never got around to playing. (I did play a bit of Red Dead Redemption, without really getting into it — I’m thinking of revisiting it once I finish LA Noire.)

This isn’t a review, and LA Noire has been out for quite some time (two years or so) so this is hardly timely, instead this is a discussion of a very interesting piece of game design that was built on top of Rockstar;s GTA Engine. As such I’m not going to discuss the content of the game (there’s a serial killer mystery which is pretty disturbing, although cleverly tucked into history) — I’m discussing LA Noire gameplay design, specifically the way mysteries are solved.

The signature feature of LA Noire is the very impressive facial capture / animation and the interrogation system built on top of it. It somewhat resembles what I considered one of the most brilliant game mechanics I’ve ever seen — unfortunately, not in a game but in a very expensive piece of multimedia computer-based training Andersen Consulting created for GE Capital back in the 90s — but I’d say the training product actually had a better thought out mechanic (more on this later).

Here’s how LA Noire works in a nutshell:

You visit a crime scene or other place of interest (e.g. the dwelling of a suspect or victim) and walk around. When you’re close to a piece of evidence, the controller vibrates. If you press “x” (often after walking around to try to get the vibration to recur) you’ll discover either one or several pieces of evidence. If one, you can pick it up, rotate it (sometimes), zoom in on it (sometimes), and it will sometimes cause a piece of evidence to appear in your notebook. There’s a subtle mechanic to tell you when you’ve found all the evidence at a crime scene (a musical swell).

Somewhat oddly, you manhandle every piece of evidence you see, despite the fact that fingerprints were used to obtain a conviction in the US as early as 1902, and you’re investigating very high profile murders (“red ball whodunits” in Homicide terms). Perhaps the typical LAPD detective in 1947 was lax with evidence (although in LA Confidential and its sister novels, set in the 50s, the LAPD is surprisingly high-tech), but the character you’re playing is educated, ambitious, and a stickler for procedure.

This is, in essence, an even more annoying variation of the Fallout / Bioware “cursor as a white stick” mechanic for finding loot in 2d adventure games and I despise it, but it’s not so annoying that I won’t play the game.

You also interview / interrogate POIs (persons of interest). Usually you gather evidence first, but the game steers you towards interviewing a witness before — for example — gather evidence at another scene.

Once you start an interview, your character will say something (over which you have zero control) then the POI will say something, then you’ll look at your notebook and some questions will be there. You select a question and the subject responds, at which point you have to pick one of three options: Truth, Doubt, or Lie. You’re told that “Truth” means you believe them, “Doubt” means you think they’re lying, but have no specific evidence, and “Lie” means you think you’re lying and can provide it. Before deciding you can examine their face and body-language (the facial expressions are pretty amazing, although almost everyone looks like they’re lying, and the few people with direct gazes are often lying in one or two of their responses and I for one have no clue how to tell which one).

Truth, Doubt, or Lie? Or would you like a life line?

You can examine your notes before choosing one of the three options, but once you pick an option you can’t go back. (E.g. you can’t decide you doubt them after having decided they were telling the truth, or change your mind and decide they were truthful after assuming they were lying. Even if you later find evidence contradicting a previous piece of testimony, you can’t go and put the question to the POI a second time. It’s quite infuriating. And you absolutely can’t do what detectives actually do, and that is ask open-ended questions. (If I recall correctly, in Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, David Simon says the most powerful question in a detective’s arsenal is “And…?”)

Sometimes a response will cause a follow-up question to appear.

When you’ve exhausted all your questions the interview is over and you’re told (usually) how many times you picked the “correct” response. You don’t know which specific responses were correct (which is especially infuriating when, for example, you’ve picked “lie” and gotten a highly unsatisfactory response despite having what looked like perfectly good evidence that you were being lied to, so were you wrong? Or was some other response wrong?)

Finally — worst of all — at the end of an investigation you don’t really get to pick your suspect (indeed, based on what I’ve read, you can apparently pretty much screw up every aspect of an investigation and the same person will be charged at the end). This may be necessary for some of the story arcs to work, but if so it’s a case of the need for story arc defeating the core gameplay.

Problems

"sadness" expression from Lie to Me

Perhaps the most egregious problem with the execution of all this comes to a single point I came across in this article on GameRant (which I found while googling for ideas on how to interrogate better, without resorting to a walkthrough):

A lot of people say that Aaron [Staton, who played Phelps] goes a little bit psycho with some of the questions you ask in the game. When we originally wrote it, the questions you asked were Coax, Force and Lie. So Force was a more aggressive answer, and that’s where we actually recorded it…But when the game came out, it was Truth, Doubt and Lie, so everyone says that Aaron on the second question goes psycho, but that’s just the way we wrote it from before.

This  is from Brendan McNamara (described as a former member of Team Bondi, the original development team of LA Noire.

Note that Coax and Force are tactics, not assessments of the preceding response (and Lie would actually be better described as Challenge). Also note that the actors were quite possibly not told that they were lying, but that they were holding back. If you’re a fan of Lie to Me (or a social psychologist) you might know that the micro-expressions of a liar are very different from those of someone holding back. Good actors (and many of the actors in the game are excellent) will also know this. So when I take a glance up and to the right to indicate fabrication and pick “Doubt” I am picking the “Force” tactic instead. This is just awful, and combined with the terrible feedback system it’s near-fatal. Given that L.A. Noire places almost all its eggs in the “read the NPCs’ facial expressions” basket, this is an utter disaster.

Even so, the real problem with the mechanics is that it gives the player detailed control over stuff that often doesn’t matter (e.g. the order in which bits of evidence are discovered) but not over the actual outcome of a case. This is pretty much like those games where all the important stuff is in the cut scenes. “Hey player, go do a bunch of legwork so that the game engine can tell you whom to arrest.” Surely the basic task of a detective ought to be (a) gather evidence, (b) form a theory of the crime based on (a), (c) accuse your suspect. The way I would suggest it work is something like, every time you accuse a suspect with insufficient evidence your potential score drops (and possibly your ultimate score suffers if you successfully convict the wrong person).

Given the whole Dragnet/Untouchables visual feel of the game, having something like a voice description of the outcome: “Frederick Ronald Bloggs was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death in the gas chamber.” or “Frederick Ronald Bloggs pleaded to manslaughter in the second degree and with a good behavior bond.” depending on how well you conducted the investigation, along with a game breakdown of how well you did would be much better than telling you stuff like how many times you guessed which response to use over the course of the investigation.

I have left one thing out of my description of the game mechanics: “intuition”. This is basically a “lifeline” mechanism (you get a fixed number of intuition points — I’m not sure when your pool is restored, it’s possible that it’s simply buggy — and each point lets you “ask the audience” or “50/50” one response to one interview response: it’s a near useless bandaid on a broken mechanic).

Making Allowances

Now, I believe what happened with LA Noire is that Team Bondi worked on it for a long time and went way over-time and way over-budget. Rockstar assigned some kind of A-team to rescue the production and basically triage the content and get something out the door. (So, think healthcare.gov.) So, a lot of the problems with the game are at least in part a consequence of an overly ambitious design being cut down to a (barely) functional core in sudden death overtime, but it seems to me that the overall structure of the game is actually as intended, and changing Truth, Doubt, Lie to Coax, Force, Challenge wouldn’t really help significantly because it’s a fundamentally flawed design.

The basic problem is the structure of the detective game.

(It’s pretty clear that the designers were aware of the shortcomings of the mystery content, because most of the mysteries and incidental street crimes devolve into gratuitous car chases and shootouts. So you get half-assed mysteries mixed with half-assed action.)

How to do it right

Here’s how the training program I mentioned earlier worked.

You (an investment banker) are asked to assess a company as an investment opportunity. You wander around gathering evidence (by walking around the company’s premises, making observations, interviewing its employees and customers, and reviewing documents) and then make a decision (“yes — loan money to the company” or “no — deny loan”). You need to cite evidence for and against whatever decision you make (compile a list of pros and cons) because your goal is to make a thorough assessment, including a  realistic risk assessment.

Is this not obviously a superior mechanic to the LA Noire game design I’ve described? You could even easily add mechanics for concealing evidence from the defense (i.e. concealing evidence that weakens your case), framing suspects, and so forth. Of course, that would be less Dragnet and more L.A. Confidential or Chinatown. I don’t want to go into the content of LA Noire — I haven’t finished it yet; so far it’s not terribly good — but it seems to me that L.A. Confidential was the obvious touchstone for this project. Unfortunately, the actual game seems instead to draw more from The Untouchables (both the movie and TV series) and Dragnet.

Finally

There’s clearly a market for mystery-solving games: there are games based on all kinds of TV mystery shows — my wife bought me an unplayable Law & Order game for Christmas some years back; I would love a good game based on Law & Order. It’s sad to see Rockstar, which I believe has the all-round best adventure game engine on the market, try and conspicuously fail to tackle this genre, because I doubt there will be another serious foray into the genre for some time to come.

Sherlock, Reloaded

Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes
Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes — still the best faithful adaptation of the original stories

I’m a big fan of the new(ish) Sherlock made by the BBC. I was also a big fan of Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes in the very faithful 80/90s adaptations, but when I tried to watch them again with my wife I found the production quality, the audio quality in particular, to be dreadful, and the pacing to verge on glacial. (This is not a universal flaw in British productions of the era — All Creatures Great and Small holds up beautifully.)

Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes, Martin Freeman as Watson
Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes, Martin Freeman as Watson in the BBC’s Sherlock. Witty, well-paced, clever visual effects, and very stylish.

Even so, I felt a bit skeptical of the new Sherlock at first simply out of loyalty to the Jeremy Brett version (I guess I hate having to update entries in my brain’s database — I already knew the answer to “best TV Sherlock Holmes adaptation”), but I was almost instantly won over by the very clever adaptation of the Victorian tropes of the original books to the present day. Holmes is festooned with nicotine patches, is virtuoso with cell phone texting, and he and Watson are assumed by almost everyone to be homosexuals owing to their lifestyle.

Lucy Liu as Watson, Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes
Lucy Liu as Watson, Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes from CBS’s Elementary — clever original stories in a decent but inferior package

Shortly after watching the second season of Sherlock (purchased on iTunes) I saw the free pilot for Elementary and felt obliged to watch it, despise it, and perhaps write a vitriolic negative review (or maybe just a nasty tweet). Unfortunately my plans came to nought as I quite enjoyed the pilot, although I wondered if it would be sustainable. Eight episodes in that and the answer is a definite yes. In general, the show has gotten stronger with each episode. Indeed, it’s a nice counterpoint to Sherlock, but it makes me wish we might perhaps combine the merits of the two shows.

The main flaw of the BBC’s Sherlock is that it inherits a bit of the breathless incoherence of Dr. Who (which has lately been controlled by the same key people). Almost everything about the show is great except for the actual plots which often don’t make much sense. and this leads to the virtues which are many — acting, dialog, presentation are all perfect, and I particularly like the deft use of visual effects. I loved the fact that all the Victorian tropes got mapped to modern equivalents except Watson’s health having been ruined in Afghanistan, which was perfect as is.

Elementary, in contrast, is inferior in almost all respects to Sherlock except for the actual mysteries, which are both original rather than adapted, more coherent, cleverer, and finally represent a better mapping of the original mysteries to the present day. And I should say that while inferior in many other respects, Elementary is still well cast, well acted, and looks good. It’s just very unusual for a US network show to be less polished than its BBC counterpart. Lucy Liu works out surprisingly well as Watson and is a stronger — if less entertaining — Watson than her counterpart in Sherlock. (Both are more interesting characters than the actual Watson, who in turn is not the gormless prat of the Basil Rathbone movies.) And indeed while Sherlock‘s nicotine patches are funnier, Sherlock’s heroin addiction in Elementary is truer to the books (nicotine patches aren’t as risque as Cocaine addiction).

Luckily, we don’t need to pick one over the other. Both are good, I just hope Elementary gets renewed and Sherlock can squeeze out more than four episodes per year.