Back in high school, I used to be a pretty serious Drama nerd. Auditioned for every show, worked behind the set, and spent countless afternoons in the auditorium of my hometown high school.  The backstage is a mysterious place – a hodgepodge of relics from shows past, surrounded by mammoth practical systems that are coated in history. Most stages are old, and host to rich histories that pass from each generation of students to the next. Those myths often dip into the supernatural, and combined with the eerie emptiness of a proper theater – the setting seems prime for a great horror film. Unfortunately, The Gallows is not it.

The Gallows is a found footage horror movie, akin to The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, or any of the countless pretenders to the throne that emerge in a given year. It follows a group of teens who are looking to sabotage the school’s production of a play called ‘The Gallows’, which had accidentally killed a student in a prop malfunction twenty years prior. Armed with only a digital video camera and the incessant desire to film every waking moment of their lives, (because all acts of criminal vandalism need evidence) they quickly get trapped in the auditorium with a malicious spirit among them.

A good piece of found footage is not an easy thing to make. Since the camera itself is given a part in the story, every shot needs to be justifiable by the narrative. You need to ask why this moment is being filmed, especially as danger mounts. The Gallows’ answer to this challenging directorial question is to post its’ characters as the sort of thoroughly unlikable people who insist on recording every moment of their waking lives. When danger mounts, its’ insinuated that the camera is the only light source available – but it doesn’t explain the need to keep recording, wasting battery life (a constant plot element to add arbitrary tension). Like any bad found footage film, you’ll spend plenty of time staring at the floor, or the wall, or the ceiling as characters run from danger – not having the decency to show the audience why.

While the characters are unlikable, and the film often hard to watch – The Gallows can’t totally kill its’ otherwise compelling premise. High school auditoriums can be a terrifying location, filled with creepy corners and dangerous highrises. As a result, The Gallows got to me in a fun, personal place. It paid off on four years of drama nerd status, fulfilling some long-overdue fantasies of just how bad a show can go. I had a fun time watching The Gallows, but unless you also reside in the Venn diagram between high school drama geek and horror fan – there’s nothing to see here.

Follow Chris Berg on Twitter, @Mushroomer25

The Gallows is blurry, predictable, and likely not for you.

Welcome to “Why You Should Be Excited For:” a new preview column that will attempt to rationalize the hype and excitement behind some of the most niche entertainment releases building buzz across the web. It’s the quickest way to board any hype train.

You’ve probably never heard of Zero Escape, and frankly, I wouldn’t expect you to. Currently, two games exist in the series – 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors and Virtue’s Last Reward. They’re Japanese visual novels, a genre infamous for cheap titillation. The vast majority of the “game” involves reading text bubbles as anime character portraits pop in and out of frame. In between story sequences you’ll occasionally enter a room that tasks you with a simple puzzle . The “visual novel” moniker isn’t just a name – this is effectively a book series wrapped around a video game shell.

The true gameplay of Zero Escape comes in the choices that you’re forced to make, and their consequences. After a few hours of reading, puzzle solving and picking choices, you’ll hit an end to the story (usually resulting in your character’s grisly demise). But the end isn’t the end. Rather, it’s just an end. The magic comes in repeat journeys through the game, making new choices and finding new information. Eventually what’s learned from each possible outcome of events will solve the mystery.

The premise for both 999 and VLR are very similar and plays out like a depraved mix of Saw and Big Brother: Nine people wake up in a mysterious location with limited recollection of how they arrived there. Their personalities and styles vary wildly, yet all are tasked with cooperation if they wish to leave alive. Complex challenges force the player to make and break alliances with the cast of diverse characters.

It’s emotionally stirring, intellectually challenging and delightfully strange stuff.

If you can ignore the anime hairstyles and the occasional moments of absurd female objectification, this is the first sci-fi mystery worth getting invested in since Lost. Twists come naturally, yet leave you blown away. They’re the most engaging books I’ve read in years, and I read them off a Nintendo 3DS.

After Virtue’s Last Reward, I was left in a dazed buzz with a deep desire to see what follows. But ever since that game’s release in 2012, there was a worrying silence.

While 999 and Virtue’s Last Reward found a fan base in the U.S., they didn’t quite resonate in their homeland of Japan. Word spread for months that the conclusion to the trilogy had been canned by publishers, and we’d never get closure on the saga. But as clues dripped in over the last few months, the signs became clear. Finally, at last week’s Anime Expo 2015, the (still technically untitled) Zero Escape 3 was announced for a summer 2016 release.

If you’re interested in trying the Zero Escape series for yourself, you’ve got a few options. The first game, 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors, is available on the Nintendo DS for around $25 on Amazon. There’s also a version on iOS, but that one removes the game’s puzzles and ultimately undermines the experience.

As for Virtue’s Last Reward, PS Vita owners with PS Plus may have noticed the game was a free download a few months back. If you were smart enough to grab it, it is largely considered the definitive version. The Nintendo 3DS copy will still serve you well, but it does suffer from a crippling bug that can occur when saving the game during puzzle sequences. Either one will cost you around $30 on Amazon.

I can’t implore you enough to give the Zero Escape series a chance. They’re not easy games to approach as an outsider, but I promise that the reward within will change what you think about the possibility of games as a medium for narrative expression.

Follow Chris Berg on Twitter, @Mushroomer25

On Saturday night, I’ll be celebrating the Fourth of July back in my home town of St. Helens, Oregon, as I’ve done every year for the past twenty years. I’ll gather with friends and family down at the Columbia River and look longingly across the water to a sea of mortars, bottle rockets and other patriotic displays that our state has banned in the name of public safety.

Eventually the city-sponsored fireworks begin, which will launch stunning colors and lights into the air with a thunderous boom. Afterwards, we all race out of the parking lot through the worst traffic of the year, and return home. I drag out a bag of fireworks purchased in a Safeway parking lot from a tent smelling of gunpowder and pavement, which all provide the same hollow display of sparks shot below the six-foot legal limit.

Nearby neighbors sometime fire off contraband that flies harder into the sky. It’s an annualized humdrum display of patriotism that often matches the modern American experience: a commercialized facsimile of joy sanctioned by the state.

Oregon’s regulations of fireworks are among the most strict in the country. While tents offering them can be found everywhere, the product they sell is a paltry selection compared to the rest of the nation.

By law, all fireworks sold in the state of Oregon must not “explode, eject balls of fire, or travel more than six feet on the ground or 12 inches in the air.” An at-home fireworks experience in Oregon typically consists of staring at a cardboard cone in a suburban driveway, as it shoots colored sparks into the air for about 30 seconds before burning out entirely. Of course, more exciting contraband is available just across the river if you’re willing to risk paying $1,000 in fines, per violation.

What confuses me about Oregon’s archaic fireworks law is that as a community, we’ve already clearly shown a distaste for prohibition. In the same week that our proud state has decriminalized recreational marijuana – only the third state in the nation to do so – countless proud Americans will drive across the border to Washington, load their cars up with contraband fireworks, and smuggle them home as if it were a brick of cocaine. And don’t be mistaken: people are making the trip.

When demand is high for a product blocked only by a short trip across the border and a bit of risk-taking, the people will obtain it. It’s a lesson that America has learned countless times over, and one that Oregon of all places should understand.

But of course, fireworks and pot can’t be compared so readily. Marijuana has medicinal properties, and less-proven risks than many legal drugs. Illegal fireworks are dangerous, posing a fire risk to our great state. Right? Washington must be a dystopian hellhole, engulfed in flames all night from these deadly rockets flying off like popcorn in the pan.

From June 23 to July 6, 2014 (the officially sanctioned “fireworks season”), the state of Oregon experienced a total of 165 fires. Across the border in Washington, they experienced 155 firework-attributable fires. In a state with nearly twice the population of Oregon. Whatever Oregon’s fireworks’ ban is doing, it’s not stopping fires.

There’s no doubt that fireworks are a dangerous thing, and the ones banned by Oregon law pose a larger risk. However, in the face of statistics, we must question our current behavior. How much longer will we condemn our children, and our children’s children, to lackluster explosive expressions of this nation’s greatness? We must apply the lessons of one prohibition to another, and reconsider this state’s view on fireworks.

Back in the summer of 2009 the stars seemed to be aligning for fans of Marvel comic books. Iron Man had hit the previous summer and the foundation was laid for a massive Marvel franchise that would come to dominate pop culture. Meanwhile, something equally interesting was happening in the world of video games. Batman: Arkham Asylum was released for the PC, PS3, and Xbox 360. A superhero game like no other, it brought an iconic character to life with intense polish and a clear respect for the source material. It seemed like video games were prime to adopt comic book stories as a prosperous genre, just as blockbuster films had.

Now here we are, six years later. Marvel’s Cinematic Universe has dominated on multiple mediums, but still no serious attempt at entering the world of video games. We’ve got a cheap Diablo clone on Steam (Marvel Heroes), a few mobile titles (Marvel: Puzzle Quest) and kids’ titles designed to enhance toy sales (Lego Marvel Super Heroes). But for the core gamer, there’s really nothing on the horizon. While Warner Brothers & DC Comics seem intent on pushing forward with more gaming adaptations (a Suicide Squad game is heavily rumored to hit in 2017), Marvel is hesitant. It begs the question, what’s stopping Marvel from making a comparable product? WB’s latest release, Batman: Arkham Knight, is blowing up the sales charts. But the operating hands behind The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and more still don’t see the potential.

It hasn’t always been like this. If you take a look back, Marvel used to have an active hand in game development. Iron Man, Captain America and Thor all saw game adaptations hit around their relevant film adaptation. Activision had a steady business adapting the X-Men, Spiderman, and Deadpool properties into games up until early last year, when their licensing contract expired. Back in 2012, footage leaked out from an Australian THQ studio of a cancelled Avengers game developed for release alongside the film. All of these games faded away, almost as if taken out by a mysterious supervillian in the night.

The sudden absence can likely be tracked to a moment back in 2009 when Walt Disney purchased Marvel Entertainment for $4 billion. The sale was completed in 2010. Due to existing agreements, Disney didn’t fully distribute Marvel films independently until 2012, with the release of The Avengers.

One more thing to note about Disney: they’ve never been particularly skilled in the realm of video games. The company recently folded their games development brand, Disney Interactive, into the consumer products division. This decision mirrors their recent handling of video games as a whole. Currently, Disney’s biggest contribution to gaming is Disney Infinity. For those of you who may not have a young kid in your life, Infinity is a game revolving around real world action figures, which enter the game as playable characters. It’s a merchandiser’s wet dream. The toy-game hybrid has been wildly successful and in 2014, integrated Marvel heroes into the franchise. If you want to play with Iron Man on a next-gen console, your only hope is picking him up in plastic form first.

What’s especially odd is that this anti-gaming stance doesn’t apply to Disney’s other major acquisition in the past few years. Star Wars is the next big franchise to enter the Infinity family. But Star Wars: Battlefront, a big budget shooter from EA, will be released soon, building off the release hype for Star Wars: The Force Awakens. EA has also been made the exclusive partner for all future Star Wars games, including an upcoming action-adventure title from the creator of Uncharted.

So what exactly is stopping Disney from taking the same steps with Marvel properties? Presently, their future plans in the world of games only include continued collaborations with Lego and a new narrative adventure from Telltale (the digital publisher that’s previously adapted The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones). The release of Arkham Knight casts a big shadow over Marvel. Will they finally respond?

Follow Chris Berg on Twitter @Mushroomer25.

“Batman: Arkham Knight” is the fifth game in the Caped Crusder’s Arkham series, and the final chapter produced by founding studio Rocksteady Games.

This is a franchise that took the entire gaming industry by surprise with “Arkham Asylum” in 2009, and took a great leap forward with “Arkham City” just two years later. No other game series in history has come close to their visceral fantasy of vigilante justice, and “Arkham Knight” ties up the series with a sharply polished package that, while occasionally flawed, is sure to thrill “Batman” fans of any level.

The Dark Knight himself is a man of many tricks: a master of martial arts, the world’s greatest detective, and a ninja that lives in shadows. “Arkham Knight” touches on all of these facets over its storyline, as well as inside activities that populate the open world of Gotham. This makes “Arkham Knight” a jack of many trades, but master of none.

Flying over rooftops with the cape and grappling hook feels magical, though often unwieldy. Combat encounters often offer the opportunity to pursue stealth, alongside a lengthy utility belt of gadgets to deceive foes. However, the levels don’t present themselves with clear solutions. Rather than carefully planning an attack, improvisation tends to be the best course of action. That strategy will often lead to hand-to-hand combat.

The simple timing-based system of attacks, stuns, and parries became an industry standard when Rocksteady introduced it in “Asylum”. But in the six years since that innovation, the original has started to feel a little stale.

All of this is old cowl to fans of past “Arkham” games, but “Knight” does bring in one major new feature: the Batmobile. Batman’s iconic ride has been transformed into the monstrous hybrid of a supercar, tank, and hovercraft. It’s also easily the worst aspect of the game, hindered by a confusing control scheme and fairly boring array of weapons. Traversal has never been an issue in this series (gliding from point to point is already fast) making the Batmobile mostly useless for open world exploration.

You’ll mostly find yourself using it for an array of fights against endless waves of tanks, or in a series of consistently uncreative physics puzzles in the main campaign.

While all of this may sound like a subpar experience, the magic of “Arkham Knight” is in the presentation. This game is absolutely stunning to look at, with industry-leading character animation, captivating art design, perfect animation, and an open world polished with next generation visuals. Rocksteady’s interpretations of Batman villains (both new and old) are visually creative with unique plot lines, and all boast impressive vocal performances. These touches make the campaign an absolute joy to play.

The story of “Arkham Knight” picks up directly off of “City”, but you shouldn’t worry yourself too much about canon. In-game character bios & backstory make it easy to catch up with the events, and it’s no more complex than your average summer superhero romp. Any fan of the genre should be able to see the big plot beats coming from a mile away, but it’s hard to care when they’re this well told.

One subplot in particular runs throughout the narrative, and builds to one of the best final sequences in recent gaming memory. Side missions will have you tracking down various villains, and a handful of them are every bit as engaging as the main campaign. The Riddler’s plotline, in particular, revolves around a massive “Saw-esque” series of puzzles that go in some fantastic directions.

“Batman: Arkham Knight” is the ideal summer game. Its story will keep you up into the longest hours of the night, kept awake by a pressing sense of protection for gotham. The constant variation and lengthy list of side-missions, high-score challenges, and collectibles will keep you coming back for weeks to follow.

This is a fitting end to Rocksteady’s “Arkham” legacy, and one that sets a very high bar for whatever follows.

Follow Chris Berg on Twitter @Mushroomer25

Die-hard Destiny Fans Are Seeing Red (Bull)

Last year, Bungie’s long-awaited online shooter Destiny hit next-gen consoles to a mix of ecstatic cheers and disappointed yawns. The game was a visual stunner with some of the best gun-play mechanics on the market, but suffered from a drought of content. Grinding through the same quests for different loot and currency proved tiring for some, but many stuck with it. While following content updates have been criticized by many for failing to fill the holes of the original release, the game still has a passionate fan base. But will the plans for Destiny‘s latest expansion break the limits (and wallets) of fan loyalty?

The conflict began at The Taken King‘s price point of $40. This is double the price tag of past Destiny expansions, and isn’t included in the “Season Pass” that many players bought back at launch. But it doesn’t stop there; The Taken King is also being sold in a new, $100 “Collectors’ Bundle,” containing exclusive content (emote animations, to be specific) alongside the base game and past two expansions. When asked about existing players feeling left out of this new content, Taken King director Luke Smith said, “If I fired up a video right now and showed you the emotes you would throw money at the screen” in a Eurogamer interview. Eventually, Bungie relented and agreed to release the emotes as a separate download. But as you may hope, this outrage wasn’t centered merely on dance animations. Destiny fans have started to wonder about the value of The Taken King as a whole.

Furthering the PR nightmare, the game’s publisher, Activision, also announced a partnership with energy drink Red Bull this week, offering an “Epic New Quest” for those that buy both the game and beverage. The week of coverage has turned many passionate Destiny fans on the game, so often feeling that they are paying too much for too little.

Batman: Arkham Knight Is A Nightmare On PC

Those who dedicated themselves to gaming on PC are treated to many luxuries. High frame rates, exceptional visual effects and premium features are the norm, all delivered on a wonderful all-digital interface. But PC gaming does come with one big peril, and it’s latest victim is the Dark Knight himself. When a game is built with one of the next-gen consoles in mind, it can often take a certain amount of work to ensure the experience on PC meets customer standards. Sometimes companies don’t take that time, and the consequences are visible in Batman: Arkham Knight.

To start, the game is capped at 30 frames per second, the same standard seen in the Xbox One & PS4 releases. This is a bit of a slap in the face to users who run the game on hardware capable of higher frame rates (delivering a smoother game play experience), especially when the PC release has also seen many visual flourishes (such as rain effects) removed. Even worse, running the game on anything less than the highest-end equipment results in a sub-par experience full of broken animations & sudden slow downs. Online speculators have blamed this quality on evidence that it was outsourced to a small team of 12 people, separate from the core Rocksteady Studios team. In many ways, this matches the similarly busted port of Mortal Kombat X, another WB Games release.

After three days of sale on the open markets, WB pulled the PC version from sale on all digital storefronts. This is a first for the publisher, and likely spurred by Steam’s recent policy shift that permitted refunds on the service. While Arkham Knight‘s PC release is undoubtedly frustrating, it may serve as a warning for future broken AAA ports.

Follow Chris Berg on Twitter: @Mushroomer25

Warning: This article contains spoilers for season 2, episode 2 of True Detective

In last week’s review of True Detective, I commented that the show’s second season was setting its eyes on a more ambitious narrative than the first season. The first episode established an elaborate array of personalities, plotlines and philosophies; in the second, the connections between them became more defined. The web of this season’s mystery seems more tangible than ever – and with it comes a clearer vision of this season’s future.

The episode opens on Frank (Vince Vaughn), languishing on the fragile and “paper mache” nature of his luxurious lifestyle. He recalls a time when as a young boy, he was trapped in a basement and believed death to be upon him. Every moment since has felt like an illusion, one made worse by the murder of his business colleague. His fortune has vanished from a dead man’s pocket, forcing him to leverage every remaining asset (including Ray) to keep afloat.

Meanwhile, the case of the gruesome death of Ben Caspere, Vinci’s city manager, has pitted three departments against each other, each enlisting an agent to work the case toward the most profitable resolution for their department. Yet of course, each of them also has an alternative motive to be taken into consideration. Ani (Rachel McAdams) has emerged as the closest thing this season so far has to a morally good protagonist, though slightly naive in her practical viewpoint on life. Her commitment to the case stands conflict with Ray (Colin Farrell) and Paul (Taylor Kitsch), who only seem interested in the case as a means to return their lives to a state of normalcy.

Paul’s life in particular has come to be defined by mystery. He’s clearly not in touch with his own sexuality (decrying a “fag” who hit on him at the bank, while gazing at flamboyant passers-by from his apartment), has mental and physical scars caused by some private militia work and can’t imagine a life beyond where he presently resides. He’s a blank slate, though that may just be a side-effect of Taylor Kitsch’s untapped acting capacity.

But finally, let’s touch on the only plotline that people will likely recall from this episode. Ray, arguably the biggest lead of this season, gets a couple shotgun rounds to the gut. It’s a moment foretold by the episode as a whole, which was almost overwhelming with hints of finality in his dialogue. Robbed of the only thing in his life giving him meaning, his excursion into the dead man’s sex den with no clear backup or significant defense seemed moreso motivated by suicidal thoughts than a desire for answers. Of course, it’s hard to say if Ray has truly passed at all. But if the glamour shots of Caspere’s corpse are any indication, perhaps we should hope that those two shots were fatal.
Follow Chris Berg on Twitter: @Mushroomer25

When HBO’s True Detective emerged onto the scene back in early 2014, it was an immediate cultural phenomenon and a premium quality show steeped in American philosophy, folklore, and subtle atmosphere. It burned fast and bright and left a distinct impression on all those who witnessed it. Now, more than a year later, True Detective is back to fill our summer nights with wonder, terror, woe, and maybe a touch of nihilism.

In the transition between seasons, TD has shifted just about every part of its being. This is a new mystery and a new cast, and a new director at the helm (Justin Lin, most well known for the Fast & Furious franchise). Showrunner Nic Pizzolatto provides the series’ spiritual through line that connects the two seasons. Season 2 places us in modern-day southern California, somewhere in the miscellaneous suburbia outside Los Angeles. We follow four characters, whose lives cross around the disappearance of a community leader. Pizzolatto’s script has many of the same hallmarks as the first season: long monologues spoken into the ether, slow pace of action, and an unsettlingly vague establishment of time.

Colin Farrell leads the ensemble as Ray Velcoro, a detective for the small city of Vinci with enough emotional baggage to fill a Boeing 747. The performance is nuanced and holds secrets behind the eyes. The character is interesting enough as a central focus, though Farrell fails to leave much of an impression. Vince Vaughn plays Frank Semyon, an industrialist deeply entrenched in the corruption of city politics. Rachel McAdams and Taylor Kitsch are cops at two different levels of the beat, each with their own respective insecurities.

But more essential than the central characters of True Detective is the character of the show itself. While Pizzolatto’s dialogue is still dense with metaphors and prose, it takes a backseat to exposition for a much larger story. One episode in, the personality of this world still feels unestablished; it’s once again loaded with the interconnected lives of its characters, but the plot seems to progress without a distinct style or voice.

For a show that won audiences over on atmosphere, some fans may not find what they treasured in the first season.

However, there’s still a fascinating story waiting to be told in the forthcoming episodes. It’s a mystery of the California highway, modern empires of concrete shaped by forces of grand ambition. The possibilities of True Detective‘s second season are infinite, but we know one thing for sure: it’s not here to retread old ground.

In the past couple of years, the gaming industry has seen a great deal of criticism on issues of representation and diversity within the medium. For an industry that is notoriously obsessed with selling games about white men gunning down enemies of varying shades of brown, it’s a valid concern. Games have grown to a billion dollar entertainment pillar and become a massive part of popular culture. With that recognition comes responsibility to fairly and accurately paint a picture of the outside world.

It hasn’t helped that when writers do tackle topics of representation, they are often decried or threatened for their worldview. While it’s fair to disagree with the comments of Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu, the reaction to criticism should never be threats of personal and public violence — or even worse, a pseudo-political movement supporting said threats. But while watching this year’s E3 conferences (where gaming’s heavy hitters announced their latest and greatest) I noticed something tremendous. The industry isn’t listening to the monsters in the corner, shouting against “SJWs”. In fact, diversity in big budget gaming is booming.

Among all the titles featured on stage at the E3 2015 press conference, over 12 featured female playable characters. For the record, here’s the breakdown — Rise of the Tomb Raider, Recore, Mirror’s Edge: Catalyst, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Dishonored 2, Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate and FIFA 16. They all featured female characters in a lead role during a trailer or gameplay demonstration at E3. That’s not even to mention the swaths of titles like Gears 4, Fallout 4, Halo 5: Guardians and Call of Duty: Black Ops III which featured female side characters in a heroic role.

This is a massive step up, even in comparison to just last year at E3. Of all the titles debuted or demonstrated on stage in 2014, only four featured female main characters (Rise of the Tomb Raider, Infamous: First Light, Bayonetta 2, and Mirror’s Edge: Catalyst). 2014 was also the year that brought us Assassin’s Creed Unity, which omitted playable female characters due to “the reality of production.”. Now just one year later, Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate is dedicating an entire trailer at PlayStation’s stage show to Evie Frye, a female assassin.

Even more impressive, some of the event’s biggest announcements this year centered around new games with diverse leads. Recore (from Keiji Inafune and the creators of Metroid Prime) follows a young woman venturing through the desert with a team of robots. FIFA 16‘s biggest new feature is the addition of Women’s national teams. Dishonored 2 centered its entire reveal on new assassin Emily Kaldwin, daughter of the first game’s protagonist. Horizon: Zero Dawn debuted with a post-apocalyptic female hunter taking down a robotic dinosaur. If that last image isn’t a perfect example of feminism expressed in the language of video games, nothing is. This industry isn’t just passively accepting representation, it’s doubling down on it.

The shift wasn’t just on screen, it could also be felt on stage. These E3 presentations are often infamous for being a constant parade of geeky dudes, occasionally broken up by a suave guy in a suit talking about numbers. But 2015? Microsoft’s entire conference opened with Bonnie Ross introducing Halo 5: Guardians. Indie developers of different nationalities and identities came out to sell their games, and none of it felt forced. At one point, Aisha Tyler and Angela Basset shared the stage to dish about Rainbow Six: Siege — Ubisoft’s biggest game of the year. That’s two women of color on stage at a Ubisoft press conference who weren’t dancing backup for a Just Dance promotion.
E3 2015 was loaded with the sort of quiet progress that often goes unnoticed, but deserves to be called out.

Now, let’s be clear. Gaming isn’t at a perfect 1:1 ratio with gender representation. Of the games you’re going to see on store shelves this year, most will be fronted by the same typical image of a rugged male action hero. We still have miles to go before all people who play video games feel equally connected to the people they see on the screen. But the progress is happening before our very eyes.

In 1993, Jurassic Park burst into cinemas like a T-Rex through so many electric fences. Audiences were blown away by the visual splendor created by computer generated visuals, delighted by fun characters and even left to question humanity (thanks to the larger themes nailed by Micheal Crichton’s original novel).

It’s a blockbuster that raised the bar for visual effects in cinema, and has been beloved ever since. Yet despite this, Jurassic Park has never worked as a franchise.

The first two sequels are overwhelmingly bad films, losing every ounce of charm, wonder and fun. Now, after over two decades spent in wait — Jurassic World has finally opened the gates.

World takes place in a society much like our own, one that is still feeling the effects of Jurassic Park. Dinosaurs have been back for over 20 years and the appeal has started to wane. Corporate sponsorships wrap the enclosures and the magic has waned. It cleverly mirrors our modern entertainment culture.

The same visage of a dinosaur on screen isn’t going to inspire awe like it did in 1993. We’ve gotten harder to impress, and it’s resulted in monsters that are bigger, badder and more dangerous than ever before.

We see the perspective of the park from many eyes.

Bryce Dallas Howard rules over the park from the control room. Chris Pratt speaks for the animals, while Ty Sympkins and Nick Robinson see things from the visage of the crowd.

It gives the story a sense of larger scope, fitting a park that dwarfs what the original’s John Hammond first built. However, beyond a few standout performances (Lauren Lapkus and Jake Johnson are constant scene-stealers as control room attendants), none of these characters are terribly memorable.

The script seems to be aware of this — moments of character building are brief, shifted aside for more dinosaur action and references to the first film.

While Park was a fun film, it was also a genuinely clever one. The original novel’s basis of genetic engineering was simple, believable and a modern parable for corporate science.

It’s a legacy that World just barely attempts to uphold, making large claims about the power of genetic engineering and manipulation, but never explaining beyond “Dinosaur A + Animal B = Super Murder Dinosaur.”

Jurrassic World is the first successor to Jurrassic Park that seems to understand why the original was such a mammoth hit. It’s a simple concept that neither The Lost World nor Jurassic Park III touched and seems very obvious in retrospect.

It’s satisfying to see a structure built by man for the purpose of containing the uncontainable and watching it all fall apart. As a result, World lit the same fire in me that Jurassic Park did back in the ’90s.

I left the theater with a massive grin on my face, immediately wanting to see it again.

Follow Chris Berg on Twitter: @Mushroomer25