"Plan B." "Are we only at B? Seems higher." Halo Infinite review

The newest Halo video game Halo Infinite came out last year while I was in Angola so I only recently acquired a copy and began playing it in the last few weeks. What's nice about that is that I missed most of the hype around the launch so I can come to this game a little removed from the high emotions fans must've experienced at launch time. I'm also glad that I dodged any spoilers beyond the first two trailers. I'll spoil the game below, but first...

Before I can delve into this game I need to digress and talk about the previous game, Halo 5: Guardians. Halo Infinite follows that game, although it also picks up characters from the non-shooter game Halo Wars 2.

It can be difficult to talk about what went wrong with Halo 5: Guardians because there's no real consensus from Halo fandom about what the problem was; every Halo fan has a particular hobby horse and they get upset at every. single. game. It becomes tiring to attempt to cut through all the noise and figure out where the real problems lay. But make no mistake, Halo 5: Guardians had problems and Halo Infinite very clearly wants to win back the fans.

So I can only talk about the problems with Halo 5: Guardians from my own perspective; take it with a grain of salt (or whatever cliche you prefer). I felt the multiplayer on Halo 5: Guardians was pretty good - mind you, my favourite mode in multiplayer is Firefight, so I'm atypical. There were changes to the gameplay, most importantly the "Spartan charge" abilities, but they didn't make a real impact on gameplay (the "ground pound" was fun but liable to fail in multiplayer).

The biggest problems with Halo 5: Guardians were in the campaign mode and that's where Halo Infinite works hard to make changes. Part of 5's problem was the massive cast; due to putting the cart before the horse - writing 8 different Spartans into the role of protagonist so regardless of whether players were in 4-player mode or not there would always be 4 Spartans on the screen - cluttered up the game. Frankly, having 3 other Spartans present at all times distracted from the story. How could a player pause to enjoy a nicely-designed visual when immediately one of the Spartans would start yakking about some irrelevant detail? Beyond the Spartans there was also a massive supporting cast (Halsey, Palmer, Lasky, Roland, Arbiter) and that's without getting into the antagonists!

Halo 5: Guardians also frustrated me due to its annoying ad campaign, the "hunt for truth" ads which made it appear that the game's conflict of Master Chief vs. Spartan Locke would involve some differing perspectives, a mystery to uncover. The game kind of flails towards that (there are levels where your only objectives are to find people on the map and listen to their exposition) but virtually everything in the ads was non-canon - the scenes depicted never came close to occurring in the game itself.

Third, there's Spartan Locke himself, who turns out to be the real protagonist of the game (alongside his 'Team Osiris' Spartans). Master Chief is demoted to only about 1/3rd of the game's missions. And the Chief's allies, Blue Team, were given an odd introduction. They were big deals in all the novels written about Halo but this was their first time to appear in the games. If you hadn't read the books, you wouldn't think they were a big deal at all - they just appear with the Chief. Their actual reunion was shown in the comic books instead (and even there it was downplayed).

I think I understand why Spartan Locke was created; if the franchise is going to have a future, there need to be new protagonists to keep the series fresh and expand the universe. On that level, I don't mind Locke. He's bland - that's fine, the Chief barely had a personality beyond 'taciturn' until Halo 3. But to pit him against the Chief - even though their "conflict" only plays out as a single cutscene - is a really bad call if the goal was to make Spartan Locke a new fan favourite. Do not send him to attack the franchise's most beloved character... just... don't, ever. I think that's at the heart of fandom's disdain for Locke.

There are other aspects that might've harmed Halo 5: Guardians -- the Prometheans are uninteresting bullet sponges, but on the other hand we're still fighting the Covenant all these years after they were beaten? - but the last, and I think most fatal blow was that the game reintroduced Cortana (the 2nd most beloved character of the franchise) as a villain. And not just a "agree to disagree" opponent, full-on cackling "my Guardians will destroy Alderaan" super-villain. It wasn't just a heel turn, it was a heel turn which was impossible for Cortana to ever come back to.

My suspicion at the time was that when the next game arrived the Chief would have to put Cortana down (Old Yeller style) and then he, perhaps, would assume responsibility over "the Mantle" in her place, thereby writing him out as the franchise's lead protagonist.

Of course, that didn't happen; that really did not happen.

Halo Infinite retreats quite a few paces from Halo 5: Guardians. Many of the changes seemed designed to win back fans - to change the Chief's armour to something more like the earlier games (fans always complain about the armour even though they only have to see it during cutscenes). They brought back Joseph Staten, who wrote the stories for the games the fans now think they love (at the time they complained about his stuff; fans never change).

But to the problems I noted about Halo 5: Guardians: instead of 8 protagonists there's just one: Master Chief. His supporting cast? Echo-216 and the Weapon - and that's it. The ad campaign? Totally up front, to the point that I was surprised when I saw the trailers I'd missed that they spoiled a lot of things I assumed were meant to be surprises (such as the Weapon). Spartan Locke is gone (they might've even killed him off-screen, a blood/pixel sacrifice to placate the capricious fans).

But the story - the story in Halo Infinite is such an improvement. It's set on a Halo ring, which is nice (they haven't been the scene of any games since Halo 3). At times, Halo has felt like an artifact title. Trying to explain to someone why a few of the games have 'Halo' in the title makes you sound ridiculous ("Well, we visited them in earlier games... and one appears for about 3 seconds in this game during a cutscene...")

Cortana is gone - dead. She's still not absent as the story of Halo Infinite follows the mystery of how she died (a genuine mystery unlike Halo 5: Guardians), but having committed to killing her off the game has no problem ramping up her super-villainy (she blows up a planet mainly because she has no idea how diplomacy works). But, as we learn, she also owned up to her mistakes and sought to make amends before her destruction. It's still frustrating that this is how Cortana's story ends, but a lot is mitigatedd by the presence of the Weapon.

I found the Weapon to be absolutely perfect - precisely what the franchise needed. A naive newcomer who doesn't really understand what's going on and has to be guided by the Chief - a reversal of his relationship with Cortana. Indeed, Weapon is characterized as being younger and more child-like than Cortana - she doesn't have the ridiculously sexy body of Cortana, instead garbed in a modest UNSC uniform (the camera also seems careful not to linger on her anatomy in ways that previous games did on Cortana). Hints are dropped throughout that although she claims to have been programmed to "imitate" Cortana, there's more than mere physical resemblance - and, indeed, she proves to be a copy of Cortana. This way we end up with Cortana as a continuing character, yet she doesn't have to bear the burden of responsibility for all the terrible things Cortana did.

The Weapon and Echo-216 both have character development - the Weapon going from exuberant to resentful after the Chief tries to delete her and finally coming to terms with what she is; Echo-216 begins mostly irate and irritable but in time he becomes the Chief's best buddy (even hugging him at the climax). And through their character development, the Chief is allowed to progress a little as well. It's a hard thing to make the Chief develop as a character without breaking what makes him work (that is, making him relatable all players, for which he needs to be a bit of a cipher). I think working out his character issues through his relationships with the Weapon and Echo-216 was a clever way to make it work.

Something also has to be said for the Banished, villains who were introduced in Halo Wars 2. Fans never warmed up to the Prometheans but the Banished have the advantage of being comprised of Covenant races but not actually being Covenant themselves. It's a bit of a step back yet also a step forward. They're familiar foes, but their goals are different and they even have a few new abilities and weapons.

Weirdly, this is the first time I'm going to talk like a real Halo fan -- that is, I hate the changes to the weapons! It's a bit of a problem in the campaign but something I really noticed in multiplayer: vehicles can't take as much damage as they used to; the Needler doesn't seem to kill as quickly as before; the Banished sniper rifles don't seem to be as powerful (or easy to wield) as the Covenant beam rifle. On and on... maybe I just need to work out my old expectations and stop thinking the current versions of the weapons will work like the old ones, but the learning curve has been a bit steep for me (Halo Infinite does have a training mode for testing weapons but it's one thing to use them on stationary targets - another against a moving opponent).

But in all, I'm very pleased with Halo Infinite. The open world exploration in campaign mode offers a lot to do after the story is finished. I'm very pleased with the character work done with Master Chief, the Weapon and Echo-216. I have yet to play a Halo I dislike, but this one in particular I enjoyed more than the other 343 Industries games.

Books Worth Going Back for (2017 review, part 1)

2017 was very good to me and to this blog. Blog readership has climbed significantly this last year. The most-read post was my list of 10 Great Princess Leia Moments from the Comics, but I was personally most fond of The Quality of Mercy, the first time I seriously attempt to discuss my spiritual beliefs on the blog.

But you're not here to watch a victory lap; let's get to the recap!

Best in Fiction

I delved into many novels this last year, particularly in the science fiction genre. I read Citizen of the Galaxy and The Puppet Masters by Robert A. Heinlein and enjoyed both books. Heinlein is not an author I've consistently enjoyed but he's certainly one I want to enjoy. Citizen of the Galaxy is easily the novel of his I've most enjoyed, thanks to his comprehensible world-building and strong lead protagonist. The Puppet Masters was simply good fun.

Although a Halo video game fan I hadn't reach much of the Halo fiction but finally sat down with Halo: The Fall of Reach by Eric Nylund, the novel which was released to fill in the backstory behind the original game. It's a very strong novel, especially from my perspective as a fan of the games, but I think it stands well on its own as it tells from the beginning where the Spartans came from and how their war with the Covenant began.

I began watching Game of Thrones in the last 2 years and of late found myself introduced in the literature, beginning with A Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings by George R. R. Martin. I'm sure I'll read the rest of the existing material by the end of 2018. I'm most impressed by how carefully Martin builds his fantasy world and the various considerations given to making it feel lived-in. At this point the books are much like their television adaptations but I know that will change - and even then, I have noticed how the book's events are much better at developing mysteries.

From my friend Olav I took up recommendations for The Goblin Emperor by Sarah Monette and Old Man's War by John Scalzi, the first a fantasy political book in the vein of Martin, the latter a sci-fi adventure in the spirit of Starship Troopers. Both were very enjoyable reads with well-developed central characters.

I read Lay Down Your Arms! by Bertha von Suttner, an anti-war novel written before that field of fiction was famous. The book tells the story of a woman whose loved ones are repeatedly, throughout her life, destroyed by war. The book's diary format certainly shows its age, but the anti-war message remains timeless.

I picked up Leave It to Psmith by P. G. Wodehouse from a book sale and I clearly need to read more Wodehouse; I had previously read some Jeeves/Wooster stories, but now I see how fine Wodehouse's other works were. Leave It to Psmith is a fine farce, especially for people who know their mystery novel tropes and enjoy seeing Wodehouse dismantle it. In a much more ridiculous fashion, The Pyrates by George MacDonald Fraser was an extremely funny send-up of pirate film tropes. I've had a look at Fraser's other works, hoping I would find more cut from this cloth, but this seems to be an exception in his career.

Best in Non-Fiction

The book event of the year for me was Five Came Back by Mark Harris, the story of the five top Hollywood directors who became involved in World War II. It was a facet of the war and of the directors' careers which I hadn't paid attention to before and the tale became unexpectedly moving in many places. I was also very impressed at the thoroughness of the research. This was a Christmas gift to me in 2016 and got me excited for the Netflix adaptation (more on that tomorrow).

Also in film, I read Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello and The Dark Side of Genius by Donald Spoto. Both helped me better realize Hitchcock's great filming instincts and his particular shortcomings. I had known of The Dark Side of Genius for decades but avoided it, fearing it might be salacious. It's not, and as both books made me want to rewatch my Hitchcock films, I think it didn't hurt his standing in my eyes. Finally, Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker's Journey by Harlan Lebo must surely be the most authoritative look at the film Citizen Kane ever written. It's particularly good reading for those people who are aware of the controversies surrounding which screenwriter was responsible for which elements of the final film.

I read Unquiet Ghosts by Adam Hochschild because Hochschild's books have all been engaging so far; the subject of investing Russia post-Stalin isn't one I had interest in, but Hochschild dug up some interesting people, finding folks who had been imprisoned by Stalin, yet wept when he died. It points to how easily people allow themselves to be led by authoritarians.

More directed to my faith, I read Devotions on Emergent Conditions by John Donne, a series of reflections Donne made while suffering a lingering death. It's a neatly philosophical book and many of Donne's ruminations were affecting to me. I used the book as a devotional during my last trip to Angola. A friend loaned me Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Quershi, the story of a Muslim man who converted to Christianity and how it was a very gradual process for him. It's unfortunate that Quershi died last year as he was gifted at sharing his story of faith.

Always being interested in Africa, I read The Colour Bar by Susan Williams, which tells about the marriage of Seretse Khama and Ruth Williams and the many ridiculous political steps taken to try and break them up. There's a movie of their story as well, but this real life account has much more drama and plenty of ruthless villains. Finally, In the Shadow of the Sun by Ryszard Kapuscinski is a collection of memoirs from Kapuscinski's various journeys to Africa across several decades and he expressed his feelings about the continent in a way which I felt akin to, given my own recently-discovered love of Africa.

Tomorrow: Film!

Why I (unexpectedly) stuck with Halo

Although my family had a Nintendo Entertainment System I didn't keep up with the way gaming technology advanced through the 1990s - most of my experience with gaming consoles was on the NES with only brief asides to friends' homes to see what the next generations of consoles could do. My younger brother was a little more committed to gaming than I was and by the 2000s he had adopted the Xbox as his console of choice. When I would visit him in the mid-to-late 00s he would insist on my joining him to play his games. Frankly, I would have been almost as happy to simply watch him play.

My brother truly enjoyed the Halo games and it became the game he wanted me to play when I visited. However, I had no particular experience or interest in the first-person shooter. I found the controls confusing and unwieldy and my brother, in his haste to get the games going, wouldn't give me space to test the controls. I recall playing Halo 2 with him during one of my visits but I was wholly detached from the experience as I struggled with the controls. I had no interest in the cut scenes and opted to "skip" every time one appeared.

Some time later my brother convinced me I should buy an Xbox 360 so that he and I could play games together online. He mellowed my resistance by finding a used console for sale at a very good price, but the only games of his which I had enjoyed were the Star Wars Battlefront titles and I couldn't get a copy of those games for love nor money. One of my friends was into Assassin's Creed at the time and loaned me the first game of that series; my brother alerted me to a sale on Halo 3 where I got a copy for $20. Although I still had no particular interest in the game I conceded as it would at least be a game I could play with my brother.

In my first few months as an Xbox 360 owner my only diversions were Halo 3 and Assassin's Creed. I approached Halo 3 with a greater degree of caution; how would I ever adapt to the controls? Wasn't there some way I could play it outside of first-person perspective? I had no interest in the player vs. player mode (where I was hopeless) but resolved I would play one mission of the campaign each night and give up only when I reached a point I could not get past.

My first major discovery from playing the game solo was that I needed to invert the controls. Perhaps no long-time Halo player can appreciate this, but my ability to enjoy the game transformed dramatically when I could rely on aiming my character's weapon at my enemies instead of my knees. Further, I didn't skip the cut scenes this time; I was committed to "one campaign mission on normal difficulty per night" so I took the time to appreciate the story which had been crafted around the action scenes. I began to appreciate the elegant design of the game - that despite being in a 3d environment the correct path to follow was usually intuitive, that weapons worked differently and had particular uses in certain situations.

On my ninth night of Halo 3 I reached the second-last level and there hit a roadblock. Time and again I would try to pass the same checkpoint, fail and respawn. I had reached the point I had previously anticipated and decided to give up on the game. The next day I started up Assassin's Creed instead.

And yet, I wasn't quite done with Halo 3. I felt a compulsion to go back and finish the campaign. But how? How could I get past that frustrating checkpoint? What could I possibly do differently? I asked my brother and he had nothing to contribute. I should have simply carried on with Assassin's Creed but my mind kept going back to Halo 3. I'd formed a connection with that game - a sequel - which I had failed to make with the latter game, despite taking it from the beginning. One week after giving up on Halo 3 I returned and I got good; I realized my problem was ammo and trained myself to be more efficient and learned how to score headshots; I finished the rest of the game that night.

What did I find so compelling about Halo 3 while Assassin's Creed came up short? It's not so much about the gameplay - I appreciate both modes and initially I preferred AC's third-person view. Primarily my preferences come down to the protagonist. The lead character in Assassin's Creed is a jerk - a loudmouth who is needlessly abrasive towards his allies yet blindingly naive to his superior. Throughout that game when the lead would speak I usually rolled my eyes; what a wanker. By contrast, Halo 3's Master Chief seldom speaks in the game and when he does speak, it's very succinct. It's actually quite appealing and immersive to me - after all, the Chief is meant to be the player's avatar in the game so any kind of disagreeable personal traits would make that player-to-avatar connection disjointed. Or desynchronized, as Assassin's Creed would term it. I never cared for the protagonist of AC, but in Halo 3 I found a hero big enough to be imprinted with all the qualities I wanted to see.

Obviously, every Halo fan could see the Master Chief differently; perhaps you think he's a total bro who does the Dew and uses his helmet as a bong. Maybe that's a valid interpretation from where you sit; as we Halo fans say, "opinions are like guns: everyone has two" (we need to work on our catchphrases). What, then, did I see in Master Chief during Halo 3?

Trait 1: Forgiveness

In the opening of Halo 3, the Chief has just been reunited with a squad of soldiers led by Sgt. Johnson. Accompanying the sarge is an Elite, one of the enemies of humanity, the battlefield commanders of the Covenant. The Chief grabs a pistol and has already jammed the barrel under the Elite's jaw when the sarge calls the Chief to back down: "The Arbiter's with us." When the Chief does not change his stance, the sarge continues: "Come on, now. We've got enough to worry about without you two trying to kill each other!" The Chief finally releases the Arbiter who, somewhat contemptuously remarks of the attempt on his life: "Were it so easy."

Throughout the game, the Chief and the Arbiter have to set aside their personal feelings for the sake of their common foes - the Covenant and the Flood. In 1 player mode the Arbiter only appears during the game for particular moments, sometimes disappearing for a full level or two. And at some point - amidst all the near-death experiences and fate-of-the-galaxy drama, the Chief and Arbiter begin to respect each other. Their altered relationship becomes clear in the eighth mission when a temporary truce with the Flood ends as Flood surround the duo; the Chief and Arbiter stand back-to-back, braced for combat and clearly trusting each other.

It continues to the ninth mission as the Chief ventures alone into the Flood-dominated vessel High Charity to rescue Cortana. Near the end of the level (in 1 player mode) the Arbiter suddenly reappears to provide cover for the Chief as he evacuates the soon-to-explode ship; Cortana is surprised when she detects the Arbiter's presence; "Who would be crazy enough to come in here?" The Arbiter coming to the Chief's rescue unbidden is a further sign of that growing trust. As the final level begins, a cut scene depicts the Arbiter throwing a rifle to the Chief as they prepare to destroy a Halo ring. The game ends with Master Chief missing in action; the Arbiter attends a solemn ceremony on Earth's in the Chief's honour. A final conversation between the Arbiter and the Navy leader Lord Hood sums up the change which the Chief & Arbiter's relationship underwent over the course of the game, with Hood noting his own prejudice against the Arbiter.

Lord Hood: "I remember how this war started. What your kind did to mine. I can't forgive you... but you have my thanks. For standing with him to the end. Hard to believe he's dead."
Arbiter (wistfully): "Were it so easy..."

As noted, the Chief is not particularly talkative and there is no moment where he unearths his feelings about the Arbiter and the evils he was responsible for while loyal to the Covenant. Instead, I interpreted the Chief through his visuals and his actions; he doesn't forgive the Arbiter with words but demonstrates his trust and acceptance with actions. They respect each other as equals (why not? they have the same button controls) and let the past rest. At one point, the Chief gambles the survival of Earth on a hunch - his trust for Cortana - and the Elites support him without reservation, while the Chief's own superior, Lord Hood, is dubious. As the Chief accepts and trusts others, they accept and trust him.

Trait 2: Perseverance

Oh, sure, perseverance, the Chief's got that in spades, what with the events of Halo 3 taking him from Africa to two different space stations and a number of ships; his adventures have a huge scope and he never backs down from the challenge. But when I say he has perseverance, I mean he persists when all reason suggests otherwise. Is it too much to call Master Chief an existentialist hero? What? It is? Too bad, I'm going with it. Master Chief embodies the attributes of Soren Kierkegaard's existentialist hero, what we call "a knight of faith." Like Kierkegaard's hero, the Chief labours towards his ideal without the promise of reward but is kept aloft by the ideal itself.

Throughout Halo 3 the Chief receives strange communications from his friend Cortana, of late a prisoner of the Flood. The messages are brief, disjointed halves of old conversations and remembrances. Later, the Chief receives a message from Cortana which, if obeyed, could leave Earth vulnerable to an attack, but as a prisoner of the Flood it isn't clear whether Cortana is in her right mind, if she can be trusted. Finally, in the ninth mission the Chief boards High Charity to retrieve Cortana. Snippets of Cortana speaking in a disarming way appear through the level as she seems to have no memory of who the Chief is; still, the Chief moves forward. The Flood's Gravemind contacts the Chief to taunt him, boast of Cortana's corruption and assimilation; the Chief moves forward. Even before the eventual rescue of Cortana (who was not nearly so assimilated as the Gravemind thought) I had become impressed with the Chief; he is true to his word and true to his comrades in spite of all the attempts to dissuade him. He fights on even when all testimony suggests there is nothing to fight for.

Trait 3: Trust

Lord Hood: "Earth... is all we have left. You trust Cortana that much?"
Master Chief: "Sir. Yes, sir."

I've written about trust in the previous two entries but it really deserves some space of its own where Cortana is concerned. At the time I played Halo 3 I wasn't aware of how the Chief & Cortana's relationship had been previously portrayed, nor did I know the specifics of the Chief's promise near the end of Halo 2. That did not matter for my purposes; as I have stated, the Chief is someone who both gives and receives trust. He faces the horrors of a ship full of zombie-like Flood, through seemingly endless muck all for the sake of Cortana and in spite of her seeming-insanity. And, as I came to realize upon reflection, Cortana had been resisting the Gravemind all that time because she believed in him - which was not misguided.

Cortana: "You found me... But so much of me is wrong, out of place... you might be too late..."
Master Chief: "You know me. When I make a promise..."
Cortana: "...You... keep it."

There is a sense that Master Chief is honourable and honest, very straightforward in how he approaches others. He's confident in himself, sure, but more than that he makes others confident. The Chief will absolutely honour every promise and achieve every goal he sets out to do, which leaves his allies to simply do their part. He's reliable, for want of a better word.

Trait 4: Comfort

Related again to the above is the comfort he lends to Cortana, the calm, reassuring way he speaks to her. Soon after being reunited with her, he makes a joke - the one time in Halo 3 where he is less-than-serious:

Cortana: "Got an escape plan?"
Master Chief: "Thought I'd try shooting my way out. Mix things up a little."

At the time, Cortana is still reeling from the trauma of fighting against the Gravemind for however-long she was on High Charity. The Chief seems very concerned about her fragile emotional state, first stooping down to place himself at eye level to her hologram as he reminds her of his promise to her, then cracking a joke as they prepare for combat. Later, he consoles her prior to the Halo ring's destruction:

Cortana "If we don't make it --"
Master Chief: "We'll make it."
Cortana: (short pause) "It's been an honor serving with you, John."

At the very end of the game's cut scenes, the Chief and Cortana have been stranded in space aboard a crippled ship. They've been listed as "missing in action" and thought dead. There's very little chance of their being rescued and the Chief seems resigned to their hopeless fate as he hangs up his weapons. But then he offers a final word of comfort as he enters stasis to await rescue.

Cortana (whispering) "I'll miss you."
Master Chief: "Wake me... when you need me."

For Master Chief, there is no life but that of a soldier; when Cortana tells him the war with the Covenant and Flood is over he seems almost sad as he concedes, "It's finished." What purpose does his life hold without a war to fight? In that sense, it's logical for him to place himself into stasis like King Arthur, to be awakened in the hour of humanity's greatest need (or Halo 4, whichever comes first). But when he's around Cortana the Chief demonstrates his softer, human, emotive side. For her sake, he closes with words of comfort; even if there isn't a battle to be fought, he'll be there for her, knowing well the strain she's already undergone and being cognizant that as an AI, she has a limited lifespan which will probably be played out entirely aboard the crippled ship lost in the void of space.

Cortana's presence in Halo 3 points to another side to the Chief, of another identity he could have as a feeling human being - the person who Cortana (and she only) refers to as "John." Despite being a computer program, Cortana is modeled after her human makers and experiences the full range of human emotions. She draws those emotions out of the Chief and he, in turn, helps her cope with her feelings. They rely upon each other, to some extent and that bond - that relationship - that's what drew me in to Halo 3. Perspectives on that bond vary amongst Halo fans - some want them to be romantic, comradely or fraternal. The giant space marine in armour is in love with the computer program inside his helmet; 'twas ever thus. I don't care what form their affection takes: I simply appreciate that they like each other. And that, more than anything, made me want to spend time wearing the Chief's boots.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying: I didn't think I'd enjoy playing Halo but it turns out, I do. I still do.

"I am one with the force." Rogue One remarks

Here we are, doomed to spend the rest of our lives seeing the Star Wars brand diminished year after year as film after film is rushed to the multiplex in order to shore up this bloated, putrescent franchise.

Yet I liked Rogue One. Spoilers to follow.

I didn't read any articles about Rogue One going into the film, relying mostly on the trailer to give me a sense of what the picture would be like. It appeared to be a bit grimmer than what Star Wars normally is and was dealing with a bit of continuity minutiae which really didn't need to be followed up on at all. I've already seen people online claiming this film solved "plot holes" from the original Star Wars as people today have not really bothered to educate themselves on what a "plot hole" is.

It's needless, but then, what film is needed? It tells the story of how the Death Star plans were originally captured, largely because that's a piece of Star Wars mythology which people already know about and is thus fertile fodder for a stand-alone motion picture with a cast of unfamiliar protagonists. In a way, much like the similarities The Force Awakens had to the first Star Wars, Rogue One plays it safe.

But now that I am clicking on articles and reading reactions from my friends I'm seeing many criticisms of the picture such as the "Uncanny Valley" effects used to recreate 1977 vintage Tarkin & Leia (I wasn't bothered by the effects at all - then again, I saw it at a 3D showing, perhaps it looks less-convincing on flat film?).

I've also seen complaints about the tone of the movie. My friend (and former colleague) Peter Sanderson complained on Facebook:

"It was unremittingly grim and dark, literally so. with little light or color, with no sense of joy or hope, no human warmth, no characters who inspired empathy, no sense of wonder. The movie just dragged on and onwithout ever feeling inspired to me."

On the flip side, Todd Alcott has a reaction which I feel elucidates why I'm more pleased with the film than Peter: "If one goes into a movie with a set of expectations and those expectations are unfulfilled, sometimes one’s response is to spend the running time looking for the movie expected instead of watching the one being screened."

But to Peter's point: yes, Rogue One is a grim story. It's set in the days before "A New Hope," after all. By the end of the film, all six of the protagonists are dead, giving their lives to retrieve the Death Star plans, which are then transferred to Leia.

This bleak-yet-hopeful climax didn't bother me in the way it bothered Peter; after all, I'm a Halo fan.

Halo: Reach was the first Halo game I played on the day of its original release; I had been watching videos to prepare myself for all the combat changes and new strategies. And while I had not read the novel The Fall of Reach which originally established the battle of Reach, I had gleaned details online - primarily, that the reason why the Master Chief seemed to be the last Spartan left for the war with the Covenant in the original Halo trilogy is that all the other Spartans died on Reach.

From the start, I knew the character I was playing (Noble 6) and his teammates (Noble Team) were destined to die, and they did. And yet, it ends on an emotional, hopeful note. As in Rogue One, the team are trying to relay important data - that is, the character of Cortana - to an escaping ship. Noble Team die so that Cortana can live and thus enable the Halo trilogy to occur. Notably, the game was promoted with a trailer entitled: "Deliver Hope."

A grim sci-fi tale where everyone dies for a just cause is A-O-K by me. I suppose where the comparison between Rogue One and Halo: Reach breaks down (and Peter would agree) is in terms of character - that Noble Team's personalities and relationships were demonstrated very cleanly and efficiently so that as the team died the player would (hopefully) have an emotional reaction. However, I had difficulty connecting to the crew of Rogue One; perhaps it's because of reshoots but I feel the film needed more time for the characters to sit down and interact with other rather than advancing the plot (or do both at once). The characters spend a considerable amount of time simply getting into the same room as each other and then keep going on journeys to other places; perhaps if they'd all met in the first 15 minutes then spent the rest of the film working on the main problem (getting the Death Star plans) they'd gel better. There's a moment near the end of the film where Jiang Wen's character Baze calls Felicity Jones' Jyn "little sister." It was cute, but I didn't have a sense of the two sharing any form of rapport prior to that bit.

However, to some extent what I'm asking for is more; I'm not unhappy with what the film offered, I simply want more of it. I truly enjoyed Donnie Yen's character Chirrut and wished he'd had more dialogue and exploration of his philosophy. There was something instinctively likeable about Riz Ahmed's Bodhi and I wanted some more character beats from him. I would have appreciated getting into the head of Diego Luna's character Cassian for more than one conversation.

If I had any trepidation about this film it was because the director of the underwhelming Godzilla was back. Given his previous love of refusing to give fans what they wanted to see I was pleased to see he's now adapted himself to his current audience, loading in the expected fan service (to the point where I laughed when Gold Leader & Red Leader appeared) and framing action scenes so that you can - get this - understand what's happening! Good on you, Gareth Edwards.

You've probably already seen or are going to see Rogue One. But, on the off-chance that you aren't sure and you do love Halo: Reach then you and I meet on the same Venn diagram. In that spirit, enjoy the picture.

That Went Well: 2015

When I stop to think about the media I enjoy - prose, comics, film, video game - I can't quite escape a sense of ennui. Have I read every word worth reading? Seen every film worth watching? So much of what I find - old or new - is too familiar and I'm far too detached from the experience. I want to be entertained, but perhaps I've experienced too much?

But of course, then something comes along which I truly, unabashedly, enjoy. Sometimes it's not only good entertainment but even touches me personally. For that reason, I'm here to share my favourite discoveries of 2015.

PROSE BOOKS

I had once heard the book Hell on Ice by Edward Ellsberg dramatized by Orson Welles on the Mercury Theatre radio program. That was enough to convince me to read the book when a copy came past me for disposal. I wouldn't have otherwise glanced twice at it; it's the story of an expedition to the North Pole which goes horribly awry; it's a very long, slow burn, but when the explorers' ship is finally lost the tension of wondering how any of them could have survived sustains a heightened interest to the grim finale.

The graphic novel Unflattening led me to the work which (partially) inspired it, Edwin Abbott's Flatland, an engaging blend of drama, humour, philosophy and mathematics.

I read two more books by Paul Brickhill, best-known for The Great Escape. In Reach for the Sky, he told the story of aviator Douglas Bader, a man who is kept rather emotionally distant in the narrative, but his determination to resume flying planes after losing his legs is remarkable enough on its own. I also read Escape to Danger, a collection of stories about pilots who escaped from the Germans during World War II, many of them very unusual in terms of the near-deaths the pilots would survive and the oft-surprising ease with which they would escape.

After initially quite enjoying Fyodor Dostoevsky through Crime and Punishment, I'd begun to grow disenchanted with everything else of his I read, but his romance story White Nights helped bring me back - it's a brief read, but with palpable emotions.

My interest in Africa continues to lead me through various tomes on the subject, including two by Thomas Pakenham: The Scramble for Africa and The Mountains of Rasselas. The former explained the divvying up of the continent to me in a way I finally grasped (that it was told so that what each country was doing in relation to each other at each given time was most helpful) and the latter told of Pakenham's journey to Ethiopia in the 1950s with many beautiful photos; Ethiopia remains the African nation I most hope to visit one day.

As I've frequently remarked on this blog, I continue to enjoy the works of author Sax Rohmer, despite the frequent racism found therein. I read the biography Master of Villainy by Cay Van Ash but found the author far too willing to praise Rohmer to the heavens and wanted something less opinionated about him. The book The Yellow Peril: Dr. Fu Manchu & the Rise of Chinaphobia by Christopher Frayling was much more to my liking; it's meticulously researched to help explain the climate in England when the Fu Manchu stories first appeared and more interested in setting the facts straight than protecting Rohmer's reputation (which was Van Ash's problem).

I'm continuing to work my way through the original novels which inspired some of my favourite movies; in 2015 that included Deliverance by James Dickey, Paths of Glory by Humphrey Cobb, The Bridge on the River Kwai by Pierre Boulle, Hell House by Richard Matheson, The Big Clock by Kenneth Fearing and Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House by Eric Hodgins. I also delved into some good books about film and film people: Cagney by James Cagney and This Is Orson Welles by Orson Welles.

COMIC BOOKS

At last, Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo resumed regular publication (following his work on the 47 Ronin and Usagi Yojimbo: Senso mini-series) and, predictably, the quality is as high as before. Sakai continues to craft interesting tales about feudal Japan and the slow-yet-ever-changing cast of characters continue to progress. Usagi Yojimbo is the most dependable book on the market.

The Wild's End wrapped up, only to be followed by another mini-series, The Enemy Within. I need to post a review of this series as it isn't receiving a lot of notice, but Dan Abnett & I.N.J. Culbard are delivering a notably weird mash-up of two great institutions of British fiction: The Wind in the Willows and The War of the Worlds. The present series even includes a character who is vaguely analogous to H. G. Wells!

The Autumnlands by Kurt Busiek & Benjamin Dewey is taking a measured pace (much about the human protagonist remains unexplained) but I trust in Busiek to make the journey worthwhile; in the meantime, Dewey is delivering dynamic art and distinctive animal-people. I'm still following Busiek's Astro City (in trades) as well, and between the two they remind me of why I first became so excited by his writing back in '97.

Q2: The Return of Quantum & Woody reunited Priest & Mark Bright in a coda to their series. I gather Priest wasn't satisfied by the experience at all, but I enjoyed revisiting the characters and seeing Priest almost aggressively reject nostalgia in favour of continuing to move his cast forward.

The Complete Little Nemo was easily the best trade collection I picked up in 2015; I had eyed it for quite some time, but only moved on it when publisher Taschen ran a sale on their site. It is precisely what it claims to be - all of Winsor McCay's Little Nemo between two covers. What a delight!

Some other graphic novels I delved into were Deogratias by Jean-Philippe Stassen, Notes for a War Story by Gipi, Burma Chronicles by Guy DeLisle, Rose by Jeff Smith, On the Ropes and Kings in Disguise by James Vance, Unflattening by Nick Sousanis, Laika by Nick Abadzis and War Brothers by Sharon E. McKay, while I continue to follow Winterworld by Chuck Dixon, G.I. Joe by Larry Hama and Ragnarok by Walter Simonson.

MOTION PICTURES

Mad Max: Fury Road My brief thoughts on this picture were ultimately the most-viewed blog entry of 2015, which certainly speaks to how gigantic this film's reception was. I've rewatched it a few times since then and continue to be impressed by the ease at which the story is told and the subtle character development which unfolds. This is cinema that brings to mind Hitchcock, Ford, Murnau... hands-down my favourite theatre-going experience of 2015.

I caught up on The Edge of Tomorrow on DVD, having been intrigued by it's advertising. The marketing really did not sell this film - it's quite funny (particularly in terms of black comedy) and uses star Tom Cruise in a role which is quite different from his usual fare. In fact, I came to realize this is now my favourite Tom Cruise movie; previously, I would have asserted I didn't have a favourite. I like Cruise's development from craven coward to hero; I like Emily Blunt's far more capable secondary character who has to train him; and I laughed at a lot of Cruise's darkly funny death scenes.

Life Itself is the documentary on Roger Ebert filmed at the end of his life and intentionally designed to show what his life was like at the time; it is at first startling to see Ebert missing his lower jaw and I appreciate that he didn't want to hide it from the camera. The biography of Ebert's life is also engaging, particularly to hear how wounded Ebert was when Siskel didn't inform him of his impending death.

Diagram for Delinquents is a terrific documentary from Sequart about the oft-despised Fredric Wertham, the psychologist who opposed comic books. Amazingly, this film offers a perspective on Wertham than that which comic book culture has absorbed; it actually brought me around to his side on some of his thinking. For that reason, this is easily the best comic book documentary I've ever seen - I actually learned something important!

There are other movies I quite enjoyed: The Citadel (1938), which touched on notions of the struggle to attain one's ideal life as in other King Vidor pictures; Johnny Got His Gun (1971), which I watched after having read the book; Ender's Game (2013) which I have not read in prose but I found it to be a good picture; 42 (2013) which interested me despite my lack of interest in baseball and led me to The Battered Bastards of Baseball (2014), Knuckleball (2012), Moneyball (2011) and even Ken Burns' Baseball mini-series; Harold & Maude (1971), a picture I'd heard a lot about but didn't understand the appeal 'til I saw it; Romero (1989), with Raul Julia dramatizing the life of a murdered priest; A Time to Love and a Time to Die (1958) an adaptation of an Erich Maria Remarque novel which I haven't read (yet) but had an interesting look at Germany near the end of WW2; The Talented Mr. Ripley, which I had no idea had been adapted from a series of novels by the same woman who authored the stories adapted into Hitchcock's Strangers on a Train; Beasts of No Nation (2015) which examined African child soldiers and held up to everything I'd previously read on the subject; Nightcrawler (2014) I had heard praised in a few places and it turned out to be an extremely involving film with turns I couldn't quite predict and that's always a pleasure; finally, Bridge of Spies (2015) which is not what I'd have expected from a Spielberg/Coen Bros. mash-up, but told an interesting Cold War story in a very uncomplicated way.

VIDEO GAMES

In 2015, I upgraded to the Xbox One (or Xbone). I didn't plan to - I didn't want to shell out the money for what was (and is) still an expensive console when my Xbox 360 remained useful. Unfortunately, my 360 began to develop trouble reading discs and as it doubled as my DVD player, it crippled two modes of entertainment. Suddenly, the One seemed to make sense - it would mean upgrading to a blu-ray and, as my 360 friends had all abandoned that console for the One, it would mean having people to play games with again.

My mistake (and regret) was buying Destiny for the One. I already had it on 360 (Destiny was part of how I rationalized staying with the 360), but I wanted to play it with my friends as there were parts of the game you couldn't play without friends in your party. Unfortunately, by the time I got on the One my friends had given up on Destiny. I continued to play, but over time the game has actually become worse; the last update (The Taken King), which I avoided, actually barred me from accessing features I'd been able to use previously. That, coupled with the many behind-the-scenes troubles being reported on convinced me to stay away; if my friends went back to Destiny I'd consider giving it another go, but as it is I feel I've wasted enough money. It was good for what it was - that is, it kept me occupied until the release of...

Halo 5: Guardians. As I didn't plan on owning the One, I thought I'd played my last Halo game, but here I am. This game has a campaign story which is just okay; it turns a beloved character into a villain, which is unfortunate, yet never hits the emotions of the previous series entry (and I didn't think Halo 4's campaign matched the Bungie game entries). The campaign has some interesting fights, but the story's not as involving as it should be. Meanwhile, the matchmaking modes are pretty good; my favourite Halo mode, Firefight, remains MIA (was I the only one who liked it?) but the new Warzone mode finally perfects what some of the previous games were trying to accomplish; on the basis of Warzone mode alone, I'm very pleased with this game - I can happily play Warzone for hours. I still have hope there are other game types coming in future updates as this game is significantly smaller than Halo 4 was.

And those are my 2015 highlights!

Breaking news: unpopular console is unpopular

I didn't consider owning a video game console to be an important part of setting up my home, but a few years ago my younger brother was very excited about the Xbox, especially because of their Halo games. From playing games with him, I gradually wore down my resistance to owning a console; it helped that he knew where I could buy an Xbox 360 second-hand and about a sale for copies of Halo 3 at just $20.

My first 360 died in short order, but by then I was hooked; after playing Halo 3 through I was impressed by the storyline and I wanted to keep playing; I bought a brand-new 360, went back to the older games in the series and bought the new entries as they arrived; I've dabbled in a few other Xbox titles, but really I'm in it for Halo; anything else is a distant second.

Xbox recently released this trailer for Halo 5, debuting on the new Xbox One console:

And my first thought was, "why would Master Chief wear a cloak when surely his armour provides all the environmental protection he needs?" The rule of drama, I suppose.

My second thought was of the nature of Halo sequel trailers; Halo 2 revealed the story was escalating - now the Covenant were assaulting Earth; Halo 3 noted the war with the Covenant was about to end; Halo Wars was selling a strategy game based on the franchise - something completely new; similarly, Halo 3: ODST introduced a protagonist who was much more vulnerable than the Chief; Halo: Reach promised to involve players in a notorious battle of the Covenant war, the place where humanity suffered its worst defeat.

Then, the game developer Bungie parted ways with Halo and the difference in 343 Industries' trailers is striking; Halo 4 promised more of Master Chief & Cortana. Well, very good, many fans were eager to see them again. But Halo 5? More of the same. Hey, it's Master Chief again. Hey, there's something Forerunner-like lying under a desert. There's nothing about this trailer which fires me up as a fan - it seems like "more of the same."

Which, the thing is, I may be a fan, but I'm not in the tank. I still consider myself a casual gamer. Virtually everything about the Xbox One has suggested hostility towards the consumer, a platform so restrictive they didn't trust them to lend their discs to friends! They've quickly begun dialing up some damage control and reversals of policy, but again, I'm a casual player; I don't want another console, I'm pleased with my 360.

This is where the Halo 5 trailer missteps, I think. Considering how unpopular the console's policies are, consumers' general reluctance to upgrade and Halo's status as the premiere Xbox franchise, I think this trailer needed to be more than "usual business." It needed to either show the fans something tantalizingly new or raise the stakes. It does neither.

But I'm not about to dance on Xbox's grave; I'll skip the One and stay with 360 the same way I skipped Microsoft's Windows Vista and stuck with XP; eventually, Microsoft came along with a new operating system designed with consumers in mind rather than CEOs & CFOs; if the One tanks, I expect something similar. Regardless, Xbox will still be collecting money from me on Xbox Live, right? For them, it's the no-lose scenario.

The Marvelous Non-Marvels

The comic book marketplace introduces nearly a hundred new products every week; something always slips under the radar, even the super hero comics from the big two publishers (Marvel & DC). In that spirit, I think it's interesting to look at the non-super hero comics Marvel has published over the last year because I don't believe I've read any reviews of them on the internet. In some ways, it strikes me that a non-super hero Marvel comic has a more difficult time gaining attention than such material found at Boom!, IDW, Dark Horse or Image.

ANITA BLAKE

ADAPTED FROM: The series of novels by Laurell K. Hamilton. Adapted by Jessica Ruffner and Ron Lim.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Anita Blake is a professional reanimator (much as the Great Gildersleeve was a water commissioner) who keeps running into vampires in the course of her work, sometimes using her talents to assist the police, but always menaced by the seductive Jean-Claude, who wants to make her his servant.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: I read the first Blake novel Guilty Pleasures when I was a co-writer on the Guilty Pleasures Handbook for Marvel; what can I say, I was young, humble and wanted to see my name on something other than super heroes.

WHAT IT'S LIKE: Anita runs into vampires who posture at her; she postures back; they go their separate ways. The story is firmly in the Daishell Hammett school of detective tales, concerned more with characters' dialogue and suggesting at menace rather than action driving the plot. People in Anita's world are very casual about the supernatural; at one point, a young reanimator Anita is helping to train is attacked by two vampires who bite him; does Anita charge to the rescue, teaching the vampires a lesson in pain? No, she more or less shoos them away and their master scolds them. One cover depicts some vampiric snake creatures which seems promising; the creatures become snakes for only one panel in the story itself and don't actually start a fight. In that Hammett vein, Anita doesn't play detective so much as she's constantly thrown into events beyond her control and triumphs by outliving her enemies. I always feel sorry for the innocent bystanders, though.

As a long-time fan of Ron Lim, there are two ways to consider his art in this series; on the one hand, Lim is aping the style of Brett Booth (Anita Blake's original artist); on the other hand, Lim is working without an inker, making this the purest Lim I'll probably ever see published. I do admit some disappointment with Lim's work in one issue where he depicts Anita having a telephone conversation over the course of a page. Isn't it comics 101 to switch out at least one panel to show us the person on the other end of the conversation? Special props to the colorist, Laura Villari, whose work is all the more vital without an inker present.

DARK TOWER

ADAPTED FROM: The series of novels by Stephen King. Adapted by Peter David, Sean Phillips, Luke Ross and Michael Lark.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Roland the gunslinger pursues the mysterious Man in Black across a wasteland of mutants and monsters, confronting supernatural horrors with a western flavour.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: Nil.

WHAT IT'S LIKE: This is genuinely great material which I found easy to slip into despite my lack of familiarity with the Dark Tower novels and comics. I think anyone could drop in on Dark Tower at the start of any story and find their way without difficulty; it's a simple premise and the stories keep moving forward with cracking good dialogue and playful narration.

Richard Isanove's colouring keeps a uniformity to the series, which is no small feat; Sean Phillips, Luke Ross and Michael Lark each have styles of their own, but Isanove could fool you into thinking the series has only one artist. Special props to Luke Ross, whose storytelling skills are utterly magnificent in a way so few comics today are; in the Little Sisters of Eluria#2, he has one page with 21 panels! That issue contains 180 panels total, twice as many as the average comic book! And he does this for artistic effect, using the smaller panels in #2 to increase the sense of claustrophobia and menace, switching in issue #3 to larger panels (92 total) for a flashback sequence. Give this man more work, please!

ENDER'S GAME

ADAPTED FROM: The series of novels by Orson Scott Card. Adapted by Aaron Johnston, Pop Mhan and Giancarlo Caracuzzo.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: In Ender in Exile and Speaker for the Dead, having committed xenocide against the Formic race, Ender seeks redemption; in the prequel Formic Wars, the early days of Earth's war with the Formics is depicted.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: Nil, although my sister always spoke highly of the novels.

WHAT IT'S LIKE: Again, I came into Ender in Exile with no familiarity with the source material or the comics which had come before, yet I was suddenly drawn in mid-story thanks to sharply-defined characters, fine dialogue and an easy-to-grasp storyline. The Formic Wars were difficult to get into because of the larger cast and different setting, but Speaker for the Dead was much more involving. Kudos to Pop Mhan, whose talents have grown since I last recall seeing his art.

15 LOVE

ADAPTED FROM: Marvel Comics' own Millie the Model. Rebranded by Andi Watson and Tommy Ohtsuka.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Mill Collins is a struggling young tennis player who takes on a new coach in the hopes of avoiding expulsion from a prestigious academy.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: I've read Millie the Model. Stop judging me! I write handbooks!

WHAT IT'S LIKE: I suppose this occurs in the Marvel Universe, since Millie the Model is Mill's aunt; I doubt making the connection more explicit would have helped this book garner attention, but it's worth noting this is the one comic in the feature bound to turn up in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. It's actually an excellent piece of work! It's clear to see how it was meant to surface around 2002 based on the manga-esque art of Ohtsuka and the lower-case lettering from Russ Wooton; it's also difficult to see it ever finding the teenage girl audience who would most appreciate it. But it's an engaging read, focusing on the dramas of Mill and her coach trying to establish mutual trust. Mill has an adversarial tennis player nemesis from the start of the series, but their big showdown is actually the second-last match of the series - the real drama comes between Mill and her coach during the final match. I've heard tennis comics are popular in Japan and based on 15 Love I can see why.

HALO

ADAPTED FROM: The video game series and Eric Nyland's novel the Fall of Reach. Adapted by Brian Reed and Felix Ruiz.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: John-117 is a Spartan II super-soldier trained from childhood to put down insurrection on Earth's colony worlds, but when the extraterrestrial Covenant appear, the Spartans' new job is to ensure humanity's survival.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: I'm actually a huge Halo fan, having played all of the first-person shooter games up to the present; I don't read the novels, however.

WHAT IT'S LIKE: Yet another series which I can't judge based on its strengths as an adaptation! However, based on my overall familiarity with the Halo universe, the Fall of Reach comics do a fine job with John-117's personality (not easy to get across because he doesn't emote) and Ruiz, who I didn't think was well-suited to Marvel's super hero comics, does an excellent job with the spaceships, aliens and weapons, keeping consistency with the source material.

JOHN CARTER

ADAPTED FROM: The series of novels by Edgard Rice Burroughs. Adapted by Roger Langridge and Filipe Andrade.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: John Carter finds himself on the planet Mars, where the indigenous Tharks treat him like a pet; then he discovers there are human-like residents on Mars.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: Nil.

WHAT IT'S LIKE: Andrade is another artist who I'd had some doubts about based on his super hero work, but even though all I've read is the first issue of A Princess of Mars, it's clear his gifts are in science fiction environs. I enjoyed the first issue quite a bit, thanks to some fun dialogue and how the Tharks are portrayed as uninterested in Carter, rather than hostile.

OZ

ADAPTED FROM: The series of novels by L. Frank Baum. Adapted by Eric Shanower and Skottie Young.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: Various adventures in the magical land of Oz, including the Marvelous Land of Oz, Ozma of Oz and Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: I read most of Baum's Oz work when I was in junior high. I read everything the local libraries had in stock, at any rate.

WHAT IT'S LIKE: These are beautiful comic books! Although I would never have imagined Oz under Young's visuals, his designs are so different from what I'm used to that I look forward to each new character introduction; he did a smashing job with my personal favourite, the Very Hungry Tiger. Fun dialogue, fun stories, fun art...what's not to love?

THE STAND

ADAPTED FROM: The series of novels by Stephen King. Adapted by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa and Mike Perkins.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: After a catastrophic plague reduces Earth's population, various survivors gather together to confront the supernatural horror of the Dark Man.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: Nil.

WHAT IT'S LIKE: I've heard a lot of good things about the Stand, but coming in mid-point I have to say, I think I need to have read the novels to appreciate this material. The cast is bloody huge and the stakes aren't quite clear to me. I don't even get a sense of this series depicting a world where 99% of the population is dead - thanks to the largely rural settings, it seems about as densely populated as the real world. I'm glad to see Perkins sticking with this series for consistency's sake, yet I wonder if it'll hurt his recognition amongst comics fandom when he'd been building a pretty good name for himself on Captain America. Ah, but maybe people will be reading the collected editions of the Stand comics for decades to come.

ZOMBIES CHRISTMAS CAROL

ADAPTED FROM: The novel A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Repurposed by Jim McCann and David Baldeon.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT: As a zombie plague ravages London, Ebenezer Scrooge learns from three spirits how he's been the unwitting carrier of the disease and only he can set the world right.

MY PRIOR EXPERIENCE: I've read A Christmas Carol and experienced various radio/film adaptations.

WHAT IT'S LIKE: I think Pride and Prejudice and Zombies has much to answer for. This book is an odd duck, being a rather faithful adaptation of A Christmas Carol except for how scenes are altered to admit zombies into them. By attempting to adhere to the structure of Dickens' book, it makes for an atypical zombie story...for one thing, the zombies lose!