Why Star Wars: Fallen Order is a Step Back for the Franchise

The Star Wars franchise has a long relationship with video games. The sheer number of video games based on the Star Wars universe over the years is too long to list. They have filled any number of genres from shooters to strategy games to RPGs. Heck, quite a few major game developers have at some point or another worked on a Star Wars title at least once. So strong was the interest in Star Wars games that there was even an entire company, fittingly titled LucasArts, that mainly released Star Wars games (though not exclusively, they did have releases also based on Indiana Jones and occasionally licensed original content).

Star Wars video games have also had a polarizing range of reception. Critical reactions have varied from games turning out to be the worst of the worst to beloved classics that end up being a huge influence on later games and even create their own fandoms. Probably the most famous example of the latter is the Knights of the Old Republic series of role-playing games, elements of which can be seen in many subsequent RPGs, including the later Mass Effect series by the same developers.

While Disney's purchasing of Star Wars did lead to some positive developments, this is one area in which it unfortunately had a negative impact. LucasArts was more or less completely shut down, and the video game rights to Star Wars went to Electronic Arts (EA). So far the only major releases by EA have been Battlefront I and II (which was a reboot of an older series by LucasArts), and a few mobile games. Hardly the output that LucasArts was once known for.

Adding to the frustration was EA becoming embroiled in a series of scandals, mostly involving their use of microtransactions. To make a long story short, EA had been using strategies designed to extort money out of players. This had happened in several of their major franchises, but it understandably shook confidence in their role in making Star Wars video games. Not helping were statements from EA saying that they were planning to stick to multiplayer games and ditch single-player storylines, even going as far as to shut down production on another game that was being made.

So admittedly many of us were surprised by the reveal of a new game- Star Wars: Fallen Order, which promised a single-player campaign which EA proudly boasted would be free of micro-transactions. Unfortunately, even if they are sincere about this part, their efforts to improve somehow only took them backwards in a different direction. According to the information that has been released, the game takes place between the prequel and original trilogies, following a former padawan trying to survive in the aftermath of the Jedi Purge in Revenge of the Sith. Could be some interesting opportunities here, not that the trailer said much beyond introducing our new hero.

Unfortunately, it is upon seeing the new hero (who is about the only thing the trailer bothered to tell us anything about), it quickly becomes clear that we have a new problem in effect. One of the more positive aspects of Disney buying Star Wars is a much greater effort at diversity than the original films. We saw this on multiple occasions. In The Force Awakens the two main characters are a woman and a black man (who also show no romantic interest in each other).

We also got the female protagonist Jyn Erso for Rogue One: A Star Wars story. Jyn was a complex anti-hero who eventually became a committed rebel who indirectly set Luke's entire journey into motion. We also can't forget that in the same film she was accompanied by a diverse group of partners from various backgrounds. This is obviously a huge step up from the six films overseen by George Lucas, in which the majority of focus was on white men (Leia and Padme being exceptions).

We can also see this going further in some of the material outside the films. Star Wars Rebels made a firm point of introducing a diverse group of characters for its main cast. Its supporting cast also included a variety of both male and female characters of different ethnicity on both sides of the force. Ezra may have been the entry point to the series, but as it went on it turned more into an ensemble cast that often shifted the focus between different characters. As as a result, it's female characters of Hera and Sabine had their share of moments in the spotlight. If anything, those two were probably the best part of the show.

So imagine our disappointment when the trailer for Star Wars: Fallen Order was revealed and we learn that our protagonist is... yet another white man. Seriously, of all the choices they could have made, they went with this. They could have taken the opportunity to introduce a strong female lead, or a non-white protagonist, maybe a non-caucasian female, or at the very least make use of the numerous aliens that populate the Star Wars galaxy. Alternatively, they could have added in a character customization system, allowing the player to create their own character (i.e. a character they feel comfortable playing as)

But no, we get stuck with generic white man Cal Kestis, whose face is put onto every shot the game has to offer. The game barely shows us anything other than this generic mug that we've no doubt seen on a thousand other protagonists. The trailers don't even give us a sense of any other characters besides him, so it's hard to even be completely sure if they at least have a diverse supporting cast. This is absurd.

About ten years ago, it might have been possible to get away with this type of practice, as some games from that era show. But this is not that time. The days of masculine heroes made by developers who assumed they were marketing to guys are over. In this day and age we need a more diverse array of heroes. We've seen it work with other franchises that have traditionally been male-dominated, why not here?

The Call of Duty franchise, for instance, has had a long history of stories centered on male bonding. The first few games took place during World War II, and generally revolved on male soldiers (with the exception of Tanya Pavelovna in Finest Hour), and there were next to no female characters across the Modern Warfare games. Black Ops didn't have much either, and Black Ops II only had a female civilian who has to be protected by men. Advanced Warfare actually had a female soldier as one of the players' allies. Black Ops III on the other hand allowed the player to choose their character's sex (though there was a somewhat confusing plot about how they actually died at the beginning of the game but had their consciousness uploaded into another guy's brain), as well as multiple female supporting characters. This pattern has generally continued through subsequent games.

Far Cry is another great example. One of the many ways Far Cry 2 has aged poorly (aside from its weak attempt at a twist ending) is the fact that the player is given nine different playable characters to choose from, all of whom can be encountered in the game as so-called "buddies," and all of whom are male. The thing is, in addition to those characters, there are three female "buddies" that function more or less the same as the males, and yet they are excluded from the players' selection.

This is especially frustrating when one realizes that it could easily have been done. The entire game is experienced in the first person, and whichever character the player chooses remains silent throughout. This literally means that the only animation that would have to change would be the two arms in front of the camera. They might have to have to record some alternate lines of dialogue where gender-specific pronouns are used, but it would have been entirely feasible.

Why did they not choose to make the female characters playable? I don't know if there's a specific reason, but my guess is such a possibility didn't cross the minds of the developers. They were working in a different time when they were probably more accustomed to seeing male heroes and assumed that the majority of players of their game would be men who would want to play as a man.

The good news for the Far Cry series is that the developers actually learned from their mistakes and began working to improve. Contrast the absurdly masculine tone of Far Cry 2 with the more open-minded structure of Far Cry 5, released ten years later. This time around, the developers had started to realize that they needed to better represent a diverse fanbase. Not only did they include a diverse group of supporting characters, they also added full customization so the player could create the character they felt comfortable with, including options to be female and/or non-caucasian.

Dishonored managed it in record time. The first game took place in a patriarchal society inspired by the Industrial Revolution, but once the developers heard requests for more diversity they quickly got on top of it. In the two downloadable campaigns featuring Daud, the developers made a firm investment in trying to add a mix of both male and female characters of different ethnicities (including Billie Lurke, who was later revealed to be bisexual). Dishonored 2 did one better, letting the player choose between two different characters, either once again playing as Corvo (the male protagonist of the first game) and his daughter Emily Kaldwin.

While Assassin's Creed has had an extremely diverse cast of NPCs one can't help but notice that the player characters are largely male. It took five games before we got our first female protagonist (and even then, only in the spin-off game Liberation). This is obviously something that had fans annoyed for a while, but the developers listened. After some backlash towards a few remarks about the lack of female assassins in the multiplayer missions for Assassin's Creed: Unity, Ubisoft began working on finding more diversity for players.

In Assassin's Creed: Syndicate the player rotates between the twins Jacob and Evie Frye, and can pretty much choose whichever they want while exploring its world (though specific missions require the player to be one or the other). The bulk of Assassin's Creed: Origins sees the player controlling a black man, the medjay Bayek, with sections in which his wife Aya becomes playable. Odyssey actually lets the player choose between a male and female version of the player character to allow players to choose whichever sex they feel more comfortable playing.

So if these games are any indication, we are living in a changing world in which we need to work on increasing representation of different people. The fact that these franchises began as predominantly masculine is not okay, which is exactly why the developers behind them have been hard at work trying to make them better. It's the same with genres, too. Notice for instance the diversity of a multiplayer shooter like Rainbow Six: Siege and Overwatch, unlike older models such as the Counter Strike series and Team Fortress 2 (both of which lack female playable characters).

And from there we once again find ourselves with this disgusting brown-haired pretty boy Cal Kestis. After all the effort we've seen from the rest of the Star Wars franchise, and from other gaming franchises, we're once again stuck with a generic white male (and probably straight) hero. All this seems to indicate is that EA has learned nothing from other franchises, including its own. One would think they would be willing to consider adding diversity after the popularity of the Fifa series (which actually added women's teams) and Battlefield V (which was promised to make a point of showing the contributions of women in World War II, even placing a woman on the cover). Evidently, that is not the case.

And all we really know about him is that he's just a generic white male who's going to go on some epic journey and do something. We literally know nothing about the character beyond his face. He is bland, dull, and completely unappealing as a hero. Why couldn't we have a strong female lead or, better yet, the option to create our own protagonist for this journey? As it stands, if Star Wars: Fallen Order hopes to prove us all wrong, EA had better get their act together.

The Not-So-Missing Link

Sir Robert Frost (Hugh Jackman) is an aspiring adventurer with a fascination for paranormal creatures. Unfortunately, he finds he is not taken seriously by his Victorian peers and his efforts to change their mind prove futile. He is particularly despised by the head of the Explorers' Club, Lord Piggot-Dunceby (Stephen Fry), a man who insists he is leading the "civilized" society of "great men" while his arrogance and closed-mindedness constantly betray his true savage nature. Dunceby is rooted in the past, refusing to except new ideas like the concept of evolution and women's suffrage. Frost is constantly seeking out adventures in the hopes of joining their ranks to no avail.

After an unsuccessful attempt to prove the existence of the Loch Ness monster (he finds it, but fails to obtain solid evidence of its existence) and the resignation of his valet, Frost finds a new opportunity when he receives a lead on the legendary creature known as Sasquatch- a possible missing link in the evolution of humanity-Vowing to prove himself to the Explorers' Club, Frost places a bet with Dunceby that he can prove its existence.

Amazingly, not only does Frost find the sasquatch (Zach Galifianakis), but discovers it is an intelligent creature who can speak, read, and write in English. Said sasquatch actually turns out to be quite friendly, and actively seeking out Frost. He's lonely, and looking for his place in the world. The only lead to where there might be other sasquatches is in legends of yetis in the Himilayas.

The two of them strike a deal- Frost brings the sasquatch to the Himilayas in exchange for all the evidence he needs of his discovery. Also thrown into the mix is Frost's former girlfriend Adelina Fortnight (Zoe Saldana), who gets brought along for the ride. But Dunceby is determined to preserve his "civilized" society and hires a big-game hunter to kill them and make sure Frost has no chance of winning the bet.

The result is a fast-paced action adventure rendered in impressive stop-motion. The animation in this film is amazingly smooth. Without proper context one could easily be forgiven for not even realizing this is stop motion, that's how impressive it is. The amount of detail that goes into the animation is incredible- from the intricate movements of its characters to the beautiful scenery that makes up the various environments encountered by its characters (and which many of the action scenes love taking advantage of). The quality of the stop-motion alone is enough to make this a worthwhile experience.

And yet it would hardly to justice to simply call Missing Link a mere spectacle of animation. There are far more complex layers to this story than one might expect. Between its various brands of humor (which includes slapstick, absurdist, intellectual jokes, and dark comedy) and over-the-top action scenes there are some really well-written and very emotional character interactions, and they even managed to fit in a bit of social commentary. This is part of what makes Dunceby such an effective antagonist, that for his goofy design and silly name his attitude feels remarkably genuine for his setting. (this is fitting with the irony of his role- a "civilized" man who constantly displays behavior that would be considered "savage")

The three heroes prove an effective team. The relationship between Frost and the sasquatch (who adopts the name "Susan") is surprisingly complex and turns out to have a lot of detail, even while in the middle of slapstick gags involving Susan's size and strength or his efforts to blend in with humans by wearing a suit. But we also can't ignore the role of Zoe Saldana. Adalina proves to be a very strong character from the moment she is introduced, and she spends much of the film proving her worth as an adventurer every bit as capable as Frost, sometimes even more so. She never feels like she's just there to be used by the men or to be looked at by the audience.

Finally, the story is extremely compelling. The narrative itself is pretty straight forward but includes a variety of twists and turns (special mention to when they actually reach the Himilayas- though I can't say why without giving away spoilers). It ultimately asks a lot of questions about where our heroes belong. What does it mean to be a "great man" (or woman, or Bigfoot) and what does it really mean to be "civilized?" And what does it mean to find one's place in the world, which is often not where you expect?

Missing Link is a must-see for fans of stop-motion. It is an incredibly well-crafted film that will appeal to all ages. Kids will enjoy the animation, the humor, and the fast-paced action while adults get all that plus a few deeper layers.

To Be a Free Man: Understanding the Futility of Freedom in Half-Life

The full Half-Life series currently comprises two main games, a series of expansions to the first installment, and two episodes continuing the story of the second game. The gameplay is fairly simple, focusing on a mix of first-person shooter action and problem-solving that usually require the player character to get from once place to another while avoiding obstacles and enemies.

In the first game, the player assumes the role of Gordon Freeman, a scientist newly hired at the Black Mesa laboratory. Shortly after his arrival, an experiment goes wrong causing a resonance cascade that results in the laboratory being infested by aliens from another dimension. Gordon then finds himself battling through both aliens and marines sent to cover up the disaster eventually travelling to the dimension of Xen where he defeats the nihilanth (the apparent "boss alien"). Half-Life 2 picks up twenty years later, where the world has been taken over by a ruthless alien race known as the Combine, and Gordon Freeman becomes the leader of a revolution.

But this is where the situation gets more complicated. The themes of freedom and liberation are hardly subtle. It's even reflected in the protagonist's name: Gordon FREEman. Yet the irony is that Gordon Freeman, the so-called "One Free Man" is never truly free. He is constantly subordinated to someone or something in what seems to be a never-ending chain of command. Throughout the series, Gordon Freeman is constantly under the thumb of a mysterious figure of authority. The true identity of this unnamed man remains a mystery still debated among fans of the games. Numerous fan theories exist to explain his apparently metaphysical presence, and the uncertainty of whether he's even human.

However, the identity of this character, known in the community as "G-Man" (derived from his filename) is ultimately not as important as what he represents to the world of Half-Life. Whoever this guy is is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that he is the puppet master behind Gordon Freeman. Whatever his endgoals are, and for better or worse, he displays a firm investment in Freeman's activities and appears to be working toward specific outcomes (even if to what end remains unclear). Throughout both Half-Life and Half-Life 2 G-Man makes routine cameos where he appears to be observing Gordon, or otherwise taking an interest in the setting. Both games also see G-Man congratulating Gordon for his efforts, implying that the player did indeed produce G-Man's desired outcome.

At the end of Half-Life, G-Man appears to offer Gordon a "job opportunity," yet the game implies that this is not a choice on Gordon's part. G-Man appears to consider Gordon a valuable asset for reasons unclear and wants to make use of him again, and subsequently puts him into stasis until the events of Half-Life 2. In that game, G-Man once again awakens Gordon, only to once again suspend him in stasis as the film's conclusion after, once again, Gordon has produced the desired outcome. G-Man has essentially enslaved Gordon and is treating him like one might a tool, literally the same way one might treat a hammer or a screwdriver. Gordon is taken out when he is needed, but when he is no longer useful he is placed back into stasis, a sort of "toolbox" where he is stored until such a time as he is needed again.

This adds a peculiar irony to the events of Half-Life 2, where Gordon is drawn into the resistance against the oppressive Combine. He becomes a beacon of freedom towards everyone. The vortigaunts, once enslaved by the antagonists of the first game, now happily aid Freeman. By the end of the game resistance members eagerly follow him and place their trust in his leadership. But is this really freedom? Or are we only seeing a transition from one handler to another?

As the player already knows, Gordon is trapped under the thumb of G-Man, with no clear means of escape (this is accomplished in Half-Life 2: Episode 1, but G-Man's reaction suggests this is little more than a temporary setback). And yet the vortigaunts are calling him the "One Free Man," a moniker the player knows to be false. In short, Gordon Freeman, the leader of the freedom fighters is himself under the control of someone else, only he is given strings that can be seen by nobody else.

The futility of Gordon's efforts at freedom is further reinforced by the decision of Valve to treat him as a silent protagonist. Throughout the series Gordon never speaks a single word, not even so much as a grunt. The series is also experienced in the first-person- Gordon's face is only ever seen on the game boxes and posters. This deprives Gordon the chance to express himself in any meaningful way. By keeping him from speaking, Gordon is unable to share his thoughts or opinions on any issue. The first-person perspective prevents him from emoting. This is also fitting as there is another dimension to his character.

G-Man is not the only one manipulating Gordon. He is also being controlled more directly by someone else- the player. Every action Gordon performs is up to the player. Gordon's movements are based on the actions of a figure who, within the diegesis, shouldn't even exist. As a silent protagonist whose story is seen in the first person, he never gets a chance to properly share any independent thought, personality, or emotions. They are whatever the player decides them to be. So even when Gordon is released from G-Man's grip by the vortigaunts, he is never released from the player's.

Furthermore, in addition to the players, Gordon's path and actions are dictated by the game's writers and developers. His movements are controlled by an entity he doesn't know exists, and his story is scripted. Freeman is therefore perhaps the least free of all the cast of Half-Life, without so much as a means to share or even indicate any real independent thought. Gordon is a puppet on three different fronts, and he can only recognize the strings of one of his puppet masters. He is about as far from a "free man" as can be imagined.

And yet, the contradiction of the so-called "Free Man" and his constant imprisonment is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the themes of control. While Gordon Freeman is indeed being manipulated by forces he can't control, he also has puppets of his own in the form of his apparent allies. Part way through Half-Life 2 one of the Vortigaunts provides Gordon a means of controlling the antlions (a hive-minded race of insectoid aliens) by harvesting Pheropods. As a result, the antlions become Gordon's personal army.

Now the puppet has become a puppeteer. The antlions under Gordon's control blindly follow his orders, taking on enemies and being ready to get themselves killed on mass just to protect Gordon. Just as Gordon cannot see that he is being controlled by the player, now the antlions become his unwitting servants, fighting and dying for him all while being unable to see or even comprehend the strings that are manipulating them.

Once Gordon reaches the levels Anticitizen One and Follow Freeman, the antlions are replaced by human resistance members. "Hey everybody," the rebels yell as they join him, "Follow Freeman!" These are freedom fighters, driven by a desire to end the oppression of the Combine and liberate humanity, but in fact they are now Gordon's servants. He can instruct them on where to go, when to hold position, when to follow, and they obey his orders.

These people are devoting themselves to following Freeman, meaning they are in fact becoming his puppets. Just as Freeman is being manipulated by G-Man, now he manipulates the resistance. The only difference is that the resistance can't see that they're being controlled, and that they are not truly free.

And yet this is only what is seen through the perspective of Freeman himself. Let us shift our perspective for a moment and consider the character of the so-called "G-Man." We never do find out exactly who he is or what his intentions are, beyond that he seems to have an investment in Gordon's success and the implication that he may not be entirely human. He is even shown to be able to freeze time itself. It is obvious that G-Man is a powerful figure, perhaps moreso than even Gordon could begin to understand. When he is not directly obverving Freeman, he is seen interacting with other characters in ambiguous conversations. The expansion Opposing Force even implies that G-Man was the one who sent the marines into Black Mesa. This would seem to suggest he is a boss figure of some sort, the man in control of everything...

Except that is not in fact what he is. He may appear this way as far as any human is concerned, but one important detail is G-Man's references to his "employers." Who G-Man works for is an even bigger mystery than the man himself, but it is clear that he is working for someone. This is not some all-powerful being manipulating everything for his own personal gain, but an agent or employee acting on behalf of an even bigger party, someone so high up that we have no idea who they even are. This means that G-Man may in fact have no more control over anything that goes on than Gordon himself, and his actions are mainly conducted to suit the needs of his unknown employers.

This does leave an interesting question to think about. If G-Man is himself being controlled by someone else, whoever they are, is that party also being controlled by someone else? Is this simply a never-ending chain of command, servants controlling servants who control servants? This appears to be the case when one examines Gordon's enemies. In the first game, Freeman is battling a mix of aliens and U.S. Marines. In the second, he is mainly fighting his way through the Combine forces, with a particular emphasis on their human propaganda master Wallace Breen.

Breen is an interesting case study given his status as the "face" of the dystopian world established in Half-Life 2. In keeping with its not-so-subtle Orwellian influence, Breen takes on the role of a "big-brother"-like figure who regularly appears on screens to deliver messages encouraging City 17's residents to be compliant and submit to the Combine authority. Among the city's residents he is a figure of resentment and a symbol of the Combine's oppression. The man basically sold out humanity when the combine first arrived (though this proved the only way to ensure humanity's survival). As a result he has practically enslaved the entire human race, enjoying the privileges of his role as administrator while trying to comfort everyone else with exaggerated claims about the supposed long-term benefits of Combine rule (even referring to them on-camera as "Our Benefactors").

But Breen is himself little more than a puppet for the Combine. His job is simply to go along with whatever they desire and find some way to present it to the human population as a positive move. Under Breen's direction, it is implied that humans are stripped of everything that makes them individuals to turn them into the ruthless metro police and and the soldiers who routinely work to stop Gordon Freeman, but they are ultimately serving the Combine, not Breen. Breen is only a tool used by the Combine to subjugate humanity. He is ultimately using his position of authority to work toward their interests. Once again we a puppet, albeit a puppet who also has puppets of his own.

Curiously, in Half-Life 2: Episode 1 we see the screens once again being used, this time by Dr. Isaac Kleiner. This comes after the revolution started in the previous game, after Breen has been deposed from his position as administrator for humanity. Kleiner instead takes up a suspiciously similar role, even if he is now speaking on behalf of the resistance. We hear him instructing humanity on what to do, and how they should feel about the Combine recognizing them as "malefactors" (echoing Breen's referring to them as "Our Benefactors" throughout Half-Life 2). He even begins providing instructions for any humans who aren't in immediate danger to begin reproducing to re-establish the human race. It leaves us to wonder: is anything really changed? Has the resistance made things better or are we only replacing one authoritarian regime with another?

Likewise, in Half-Life both groups of antagonists are acting on behalf of other authorities. The marines who arrive to cover up the Black Mesa incident are themselves implied to be manipulated by G-Man. They are only acting under orders, not even fully understanding why they have been deployed or to what end they are working. They are only acting under orders, not out of any malevolence to Black Mesa, on a mission that appears to have been meticulously planned by someone well above their level of command.

The aliens that invade Black Mesa have been enslaved by a creature called the Nihilanth, a peculiar telepathic entity that rules the dimension of Xen. The Nihilinth serves as the primary antagonist and ultimately the final boss. But it ultimately turns out that the whole reason the aliens were in Xen to begin with was because they had themselves been enslaved by the Combine (the primary antagonists of the second game). The enslaved had now become the slaver.

Furthermore, the Vortigaunts find themselves in a peculiar position. They were previously enslaved by the Nihilinth until it was defeated by Gordon. This leads to the Vortigaunts developing a particular respect for Freeman, to the point where he takes on an almost messianic quality in their view. They become extremely loyal and willing to do almost anything for the person they have come to know as "The Free Man" (who, as we have established, is not in fact free in any sense). Throughout Half-Life 2 and its episodes the Vortigaunts provide Freeman with various services. This suggests that Gordon did not in fact liberate the Vortigaunts, but that he merely replaced the Nihilanth as their master while they unknowingly continue to be controlled by their own blind loyalty.

Given these patterns, one is left to wonder about the Combine, who at first seemed to be brutal imperialists interested only in domination. We never do find out just who or what runs the full empire, something only alluded to by the transmission sent in Half-Life 2: Episode 1, but what we have seen of the other characters suggests some interesting questions about what might be found if the series had continue or were to be revived. Is it not possible that, given what we've seen, the oppression and brutality exerted by the Combine forces is in fact because they themselves are being controlled by something else?

At the end of the day, we are left with a simple question: what is freedom? What does it mean to be free? Can one ever be truly free or do they just change controllers? These are the questions which the series constantly wrestles. Their answer? Freedom is an abstract concept constructed in our minds, one for which we constantly feel we must strive towards and yet can never truly attain. True freedom is impossible. The closest one can get is the illusion of freedom brought on by strings they cannot see. Everyone is locked in a series of endless chains of command- servants controlling servants controlling servants, in an inter-tangled web of manipulation and control.