Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Mysteries of Westgate At Last!
We do have a projected release date, but not one that is sure enough yet to announce. Depending on certain developments, it may slip by a few days. Given the bad feelings about the previous seemingly-interminable delays, they don't want us to mention the date until it is 100% rock-solid. But, it seems the day it is announced will also be the day you will be able to buy. So there won't be any further anticipation once we hear.
In addition to the official Bioware and Atari boards, keep an eye out on the Ossian web site in the coming days and weeks. I understand that there will be some significant updates that will include a message board specifically about Mysteries of Westgate which will almost certainly contain useful information, especially once it is actually released!
And suffice it to say, I think that will be much sooner than most will at this point believe!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Hail, Rome!
I've recently concluded the first season of the joint HBO/BBC dramatic series Rome, which takes the viewer from the closing years of the First Triumvirate (around 54 BC) to the assassination of Julius Caesar (44 BC). Overall, I would recommend the series to those who are interested in the period, but I must say it was a bit of a mixed bag.
However, as I concluded the series, I couldn't help but think something was a little off. It took me a while, but I think I've finally figured out what. Rome tries to tell two stories. First, it depicts the great political events of the age. Second, it attempts to show life in ancient Rome at the street level. In the first, we have the expected cast of characters: Caesar, Brutus, Octavian, Pompey, etc. The second is mostly told through the eyes of two legionaries, Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, and their families. While either is a legitimate approach individually, trying to mesh both into one series leads to an uneven narrative.
Ciarán Hinds should also get a nod, as he is wonderfully understated as Julius Caesar. For once, the military hero is portrayed first as a statesman and only second as a general, making it an unusual portrayal. One can almost see how people would be suckered in by him: in public, he is the image of peace and reconcilliation, extending the hand of friendship to former enemies such as Brutus and Pompey. On the other hand, he coldly and calmly orders the assassination of his critics and allows trusted (and innocent) allies to go to gruesome execution merely to uphold his public image.
However, the most interesting performance of the entire show is given by perhaps its youngest regular: Max Pirkis as Octavian. In other shows, such as the wretched Empire miniseries from a few years back, Octavian is always shown as a weakling that somehow turns into a great leader through some unknown epiphany (magic?). It is well-established that Octavian was not the military man his uncle was, but I've never been satisfied with the ubiquitous depicition of him as a pansy-ass up until he became great. Thankfully, Max Pirkis chose to play him as a philospher-poet on the one hand, but with a keen eye for politics and an understated-but-very-real brutal streak on the other. It is often he that first determines the true nature of the political game, many times warning those around him of the impending pitfulls (though he's mostly ignored by the "grown-ups'). When Titus Pullo, who has been hired to teach him the art of fighting (I said these two goons got around, didn't I?), suspects Vorenus' wife of having a baby by another man, he goes to Octavian for advice. Octavian wisely counsels public discretion but to gather more information behind-the-scenes. His method for doing this? Kidnap the other man, take him to the sewers, and torture him until he confesses to fathering the child. When he has elicited the confession, he calmly orders Titus to kill him and throw him into the filth so that the body is never found. This then, is the makings of a man who will one day rule an empire!Monday, February 2, 2009
Load Screen... Not Today
But since I mentioned it, I am now just over 75% done with the dialog scripting, and I have completed all of the OnEnter scripts, some of which are a bit on the complex side. The village of Navatranaasu is supposed to have a population of around 120, but you won't meet most of them. There are 19 individual characters (as of right now) that come and go and have daily cycles, so they won't always be available to talk. Some are major and some are minor, but these represent the core that is necessary to solve the mystery of the village. When this core is fully tested, I may add another few ambient characters to provide a bit of flavor and increase the sense of "business" about the place.
So There's This Article...
I have also managed to finish the first season of Rome. I've been collecting my thoughts, but a review is coming shortly. Indeed, it needs to, because I just got my CDs for the second season of The Tudors, and I'm already through the 3rd (of 10) episodes.
Anyway, I was Googling The Tudors out of general interest, and I stumbled across the following article from 2007. I mention it here because both it and the readers' comments are the type of thing that generally piss me off. OK, so yes, it's the Daily Mail, and that should be my first clue to not take it seriously, but nevertheless... The title says it all: "Henry VIII: The glaring errors in BBC's sexed-up, dumbed-down Tudors."
The criticisms, both in the article and the accompanying comments, generally fall into two categories. First, there is gratuitous sex. Second, there are historical inaccuracies. Taken together, this equates to "dumbed down." Where to start?
First, yes, there is sex in The Tudors, but is it gratuitous? I suppose that's a matter of preference. On the extreme position, I could argue that any sex scene is gratuitous, as there are always ways to imply what is happening without explicitly showing it. I would also note that the sex shown in The Tudors pales in comparison to that shown in Rome. I could also argue that I'm pretty sure they did have actual sex back then, as the human race somehow survived to the present. But none of that matters if it crosses the viewer's threshold. All I can say is that it didn't cross my threshold, though I would advise those who are more sensitive to take caution.
The second criticism is more interesting to me. I noted in my review of season one that there were definitely inaccuracies but that the essence of the story was true. This was in stark contrast to a quote in the article from a "Tudor biographer" that stated that the essence was not true, so I read further to see exactly what inaccuracies so bothered the quoted authorities. The following is a summary of the main bones of contention I found.
Modern radiators, Tarmac driveways, concrete bollards and Victorian carriages have all made appearances in the tenpart series set in the 16th century.
The characters talk in completely unnatural ways, addressing their own family members as "Anne Boleyn" or "Mary Boleyn" so that we, the stupid audience, understand who they're supposed to be.
Henry VIII was exceedingly powerful, both politically and physically, but Rhys Meyers is pretty, rather than macho and thus completely unconvincing.
Henry had red hair, not black hair as this actor has...
Henry was a very discreet king; he would never have indulged in womanising openly. While he may have liked the ladies he would never have been so indiscreet - that is why there is so little evidence of his affairs.
Let's nail these one-by-one. First, yes, the series has made the choice to give the Tudors a distinctly anachronistic tone by using props more suitable to the 17th century instead of the 16th. This was made clear in an article about clothing, and it obviously is true for other items as well. By the way, some of the guns used are completely inaccurate too. I don't know that I agree with the artistic choice, but I don't see how stupid things like the carriage suspension system leads to a charge of "dumbing down" or how using the correct carriage would be so much more interesting.
Second, I remember one time that Anne Boleyn's father referred to her as "Anne Boleyn" when talking directly to her, and it did seem slightly awkward to me at the time, but I didn't notice it as a general rule. One time in ten hours is hardly cause for concern in my estimation.
I agree that Jonathan Rhys Meyers is completely miscast, at least physically, as Henry VIII. Not only is he too young for the events depicted, but he doesn't bear a resemblance to Henry at any time in his life. I have to believe that there's an actor somewhere in the U.K. that could have been a better fit, but again, does Rhys Meyers really cause that much angst?
Finally, the subject of Henry's discretion. At least this finally gets to something of his characterisation and so has a little weight to it. I also note that this criticism is made by Alison Weir, who actually is a name of note, though she is not without her own critics. However, we know of at least two mistresses of Henry's: Bessie Blount and Mary Boleyn, and this doesn't count mistresses who later became wives. Second, the series doesn't exactly show him cavorting in the open. At most, the series shows his friend, Charles Brandon, with knowledge of his affairs and maybe one or two others. Having the secrets known by a few members of the court hardly qualifies as indiscretion.
So I'm a bit perplexed. There are certainly inaccuracies in the series, some of which I noted in my review, but of all of them, why concentrate on such trivial details? The concrete paving, red hair, and supposedly open sexual liaisons? This is what incenses the "authorities?" How about the curiously compressed timeline? How about Henry's two sisters being merged into one person? Isn't there anything more meaty you can be upset by?
Some of the comments are equally funny. At least a couple viewers noted the problem with Henry's sister(s) and how the series shows her marrying the Portuguese king (she didn't), but others obsessed about the clothing, lack of red hair, and a generic lack of historical accuracy.
OK, enough. My point is that all of this criticism smacks of something that really irritates me about the historical profession: namely that anything that's not an outright documentary doesn't "ring true." If it's made to be entertaining, then it's dumb, cheap, or otherwise suitable only for the great unwashed who are too stupid to understand the truth. The whole thing smacks of elitism and the need for some to demonstrate how much better they are than others because they "get it" and we ignorant brutes don't. As many here know, I'm slowly working on my masters in history, and unfortunately, I get a lot of that attitude around some of my fellow class-mates. I guess it allows them to feel important in a world in which they're going to make minimum wage when they get out because they stupidly got a degree that private enterprise doesn't especially prize. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that snarky?
The real merit in a drama like The Tudors isn't that it examines the period from every possible angle. It's that it presents the material in an interesting way that both educates the viewer and might cause them to go ask someone more knowledgeable or do further research on their own if they really become interested - sort of like a gateway drug, but for history. In the end, they may not be Tudor experts, but they'll certainly know more than when they started.
In short, I've seen precious little in the noted criticisms that I would classify as substantial, and I stand by my earlier statement that the first season of The Tudors did actually "ring true." I'll see if I also think that about the second season after I've watched the whole series.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Another LSS
I understand that the next patch comes out next week. If so, I'll switch back to testing Act III and finish that up. As it is, I don't have much longer in Act II until I've progressed enough for some actual screen shots with like, action and words and stuff. But who knows if that will be before or after I officially finish Act III and burn it to a disk. As it is, you'll just have to settle for this Load Screen Sunday. It's from the upper floor interior of the abandoned lighthouse.Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Happy New Year Everybody!
In the middle of all that, I did manage to script about 24,000 additional words of dialog as well as several associated scripts (speak triggers and so forth), wrote an additional two dialogs that I had mysteriously forgotten, and heavily edited a third that I didn't think was up to snuff. So progress was made, but not nearly what I had hoped for. Most of that work was done on the last two days of my vacation, so I'm convinced that if I could scrounge up about three to four more days of solid work, I'd be finished with the scripting at least. Unfortunately, it's more likely to continue as a few hours here and there for at least the next two weeks.
So I just blew off two load screen Sundays, or at least one - my computer was crapped out for the other. So I'll do a Load Screen Tuesday and give you two rather dark and (hopefully) moody shots. The first is the crypt below the cathedral wherein lie the remains of the Lords of Navatranaasu.Sunday, December 21, 2008
Load Screen Sunday Once More
As I said in the comment section of my last post, the bad thing about working on Act III was that I couldn't post any screen shots. A big twist occurs at the end of Act II and so anything I post from Act III is by definition a spoiler. Now that I'm back on Act II, more screen shots will be forthcoming, especially once I get most of the scripting done and I enter testing.
As for progress, this weekend I knocked out the scripting for almost 10,000 words of dialog, including Jellica's 6800+ word behemoth. That accounts for a little over 12% of Act II's total. With lots of holiday days in the very near future, I expect that I'll move fast over the next couple weeks.
And now the load screens:


Thursday, December 18, 2008
Something New
Briefly, since the last update, I cleaned up a couple more issues in Act III, handled some outstanding problems from Act I, updated the 2das to be compatible with SoZ, and then spent a small amount of time updating all maps to include some appropriate new placeables from SoZ. Mostly, this included some of the new spider webs in the VanGhaunt mansion, which hopefully lends most of the rooms an unlived-in look. Finally, I perused the available haks to see if anything interesting had popped up since my last look. Sadly, nothing caught my eye.
So there was no further excuse to delay things. On to Act II...
