"The Walking Dead": Not Your Father's Zombie Game

If you ever read those “Choose Your Own Adventure” books as a kid, imagine one with terrifying zombies and great character development. But instead of a book it’s an interactive game that brings the characters to life on your screen. That’s “The Walking Dead” video game in nutshell.

Developed by TellTale Games, “The Walking Dead” is based on the popular comic book series of the same name by Image Comics. The downloadable game is split into five episodes; the first, ‘A New Day,’ was released last week on the PlayStation Network, Xbox LIVE Arcade, PC and Mac.

Lee fighting off a walker. Image credit: PlayStation.com

"The Walking Dead" video game is set in the same continuity as the comic series, with the events considered a canonical prequel to Rick Grimes’ adventure. The game follows a new character--escaped convict Lee Everett--and ‘A New Day’ features appearances by well known characters from the comic, including Glenn and Hershel Greene. Because the game is not based on the television series, viewers that haven’t read the comics might not recognize Hershel, who differs somewhat in appearance and personality than how he is portrayed in the series. Glenn, however, is similar enough (Asian guy with a baseball cap.) Hopefully more faces from the comic will be seen in future episodes.

“The Walking Dead” isn’t the traditional survival horror game I expected when I first heard it announced. Like the comic and television series, the game is more about the character’s interactions than fighting off zombies. The game is also about slowly unfolding the mystery of Lee’s past and whether he is a good guy or not. So rather than being reminiscent of games like “Resident Evil,” it is more in the interactive movie genre like the critically acclaimed “Heavy Rain.” But “The Walking Dead” feels even more like an interactive movie--or maybe an interactive show in this case--because the graphics look more animated than realistic. This is meant to be reminiscent of the art in the comics and mixes well with the game’s more story focused game play.

Like with “Heavy Rain,” the player’s choices in “The Walking Dead” affect how events unfold and how other characters act towards Lee. At certain points you can decide whether to be honest or lie when asked questions or what actions to take when a zombie finally gets around to attacking someone. Attempt to save one person and you’ll make an ally, support someone’s plan of action over another person’s and you might make an enemy. The game gives you only about 30 seconds or so to make decisions so much like real life (unless you stop and restart) your path can be dictated by split second decisions.

The other games are supposed to be released over the next few months so time will tell exactly how different choices affect the course of the game overall. But this type of gameplay definitely increases the replay value. I’m already wondering how things might be different if I had Lee be more honest here or dishonest there, so I can definitely seeing myself playing this game again a few times.

Despite the heavy focus on story, the game does have its share of startling and chilling zombie attacks, where split second timing is really of the utmost importance. Although the controls are fairly simple, I fumbled a little the first few times I had to fight off a zombie because I wasn’t always sure what I was supposed to do.

Certain buttons have different uses in action scenes versus scenes in which you explore rooms or interact with other characters. The game has general instructions that are accessed in the main menu, but they don’t explain what each button does for each scenario. However, it won’t take long before you will be punching, kicking and bludgeoning zombies like a pro.

“The Walking Dead, ‘A New Day,’ costs $4.99 in the PlayStation Store and 400 points in the Xbox Live Marketplace. A “Season Pass” is available for $19.99 in the PlayStation store that includes the first episode, pre-purchase of the additional four episodes and an exclusive PlayStation 3 premium theme. A Season Pass for the five episodes of the PC or Mac versions can be purchased for $24.99.

I Have More to Say About "The Hunger Games"

I tried to avoid giving away any major spoilers in my review of "The Hunger Games" just in case the one person who hasn't seen the film yet somehow stumbled upon it. But I have even more to say, so I'm doing a post for anyone who has seen the movie or just doesn't care about spoilers.

The first thing I want to discuss is the over the top scene I mentioned in my review. In the film, there is an added scene after Rue's death that shows a riot breaking out in District 11, Rue's home district. It starts out with a guy that I assume is Rue's father going into an angry fit. People around him start acting out as well and it escalates into a full scale revolt. Now don't get me wrong. I love Rue as much as the next “Hunger Games” fan, but I think a riot is a bit of an extreme reaction. Obviously Rue's family would be angry, and I would have been fine with the scene if it just showed her father getting upset. But I would think the other citizens in District 11, as well as those in every district, would be used to seeing a 12-year-old get killed in the Games considering this is the 74th competition. That should especially be true for the more poverty stricken districts, such as District 11, where the children are malnourished and most aren’t strong enough to compete against the well fed tributes from the richer districts. Also, the riot takes away from Katniss's experience, which is what this part of the story is really about. After Rue is killed, Katniss decorates her body with flowers as a way to both honor Rue and show the Capitol that she and Rue are more than pawns in their game. While this is shown in the film, the riot is so jarring that it kind of ruins the somber, emotional mood of Katniss mourning Rue’s death. I believe the filmmakers added the riot scene to foreshadow events in the sequel, “Catching Fire,” which is where we will learn more about what goes on in the districts as a result of the Games. The riot scene gives the idea that Rue’s death sparks a revolution in the districts. While Rue’s death was part of a chain of events, the dissension in the districts is supposed to be more a reaction to Katniss’s defiance of the Capitol.

One thing I found interesting about Rue’s death in general is that, as much as I would have liked for her to survive, her death is a necessary part of the story. It is a strong reminder to the audience that this is a world where very young children are sent not only to die, but in most cases to die brutally. Seeing 17-year-olds killing each other isn't as disturbing as seeing a 17-year-old killing a 12-year-old. In movies, older teenagers look and are oftentimes played by adults so the viewer doesn’t necessarily think of them as children. Plus, horror movies have been featuring teenagers getting murdered since at least the early 70s so viewers are used to seeing that. Other younger tributes were killed in the bloodbath at the start of the games but the film doesn’t focus much on them. But these deaths, as well as Rue’s, also serve as a reminder of just how sick and bloodthirsty the spectators are in the Capitol. The last thing I’ll say about Rue is that I would have liked to see a little more of her before she was killed. I thought the filmmakers could have added a conversation between Katniss and Rue about the conditions in District 11, how Rue had to work in the fields and how she loves music. Rue could have also mentioned how she used the four note song she and Katniss used as a signal during the Games back home in District 11 to signal the end of the work day. That could have showed Rue was known by a lot of people and could have explained the uproar that took place in District 11 after she died. 

I think some other important plot points from the novel could have easily been added to the film with just some slight changes to certain scenes or extra dialogue. For example, at one point later in the movie, Peeta refers to the red headed female tribute from District 5 as “Foxface,” but there is no explanation for this. In the book, Katniss comes up with the nickname because she doesn’t know the girl’s real name and probably because it sounds catchier to the reader than “the girl from District 5.” I know that isn't exactly a major detail, but it could be confusing to some. I think the filmmakers could have easily avoided that by having Katniss mention the girl to Peeta and say that she’s been thinking of the girl as Foxface or something like that. Earlier in the film, the video shown at the reaping mentions that Panem began with 13 districts but afterwards it is said Panem only has 12 districts with no explanation. I think it would have been easy to add another line in the video or a line of dialogue in another scene to clarify that District 13 was obliterated in the Dark Days—the war caused by the districts’ rebellion 75 years or so before the beginning of the story. In another scene early in movie, Katniss mentions that her sister’s name will only be in the bowl at the reaping once and it is mentioned in a following scene that Gale’s name will be added to the bowl numerous times with no explanation. In the novel, Katniss says that potential tributes can have their names added to the bowl extra times, thereby increasing their chances of being selected, in exchange for tokens, or tesserae, that are traded for a small amount of grain and oil. This would probably take more than a line of dialogue to explain but Katniss and Gale could have discussed it or an extra scene could have been added showing them signing up for tesserae.

One of the aspects of the novel that I really wish the film version had retained is how rough the conditions are for Katniss during the Games. In the film, once she escapes the bloodbath she gets set up in the woods and finds water and food pretty quickly. In the novel, however, it takes Katniss a couple days to find a source of water and, before she does, she nearly dies from dehydration. Also, both Katniss and Peeta suffer from near starvation as well when they are holed up together in the cave. Peeta also suffers from blood poisoning while they are hiding in the cave due to his leg wound and he nearly dies. Another aspect that I would have liked to see in the film is how Katniss figures a lot of things out for herself in the novel, such as what the gifts from Haymitch mean. In the novel, Haymitch wasn’t allowed to include notes in the gifts like he did in the film, so Katniss had to interpret why he sent her gifts at certain times and refrained from sending gifts at other times. For instance, before she first found water she wondered why Haymitch didn’t or wasn’t able to send any to her but she eventually realized that meant a water source was nearby. I understand that a lot of that stuff had to be cut for length but in my opinion removing these aspects definitely took some of the bite out of the story.

I could probably go on and on analyzing "The Hunger Games" but I need to stop somewhere. The last thing I’ll discuss is something else I think the film could have done without. In the movie, the Gamemakers seemed like they were trying to kill the tributes; particularly in the scene where they hurl large fireballs at Katniss. In the novel, they used tricks like the fireballs merely as a means to drive the tributes to the same location so they would be forced into confrontations. Manipulating the environment was meant to make sure the Games didn't get boring for the viewers in the Capitol. However, they were not supposed to kill tributes. That seems like it would be counter intuitive to the point of the Games, which is to have to tributes kill each other. I haven't finished reading the trilogy though so that could also be some form of foreshadowing for information that comes out later about how the Games are operated, but I like the idea that the Games at least has some level of fairness. Then again, the government officials in the Capitol are so cruel that I wouldn't put anything past them.

"The Hunger Games" Review

So I decided to write some movie reviews and I'm starting with a film everyone has seen already:  "The Hunger Games."

Before entering the theater to watch "The Hunger Games" this past Saturday, I promised myself I would not spend the entire time comparing it to the book, which I finished reading that morning. Unfortunately I failed miserably. With the book so fresh in my mind, I found it impossible not to think about how each scene in the film matched up with the corresponding scene in the book. I actually had the same problem when I first saw many of the Harry Potter movies, being a huge fan of the book series. I didn't have that problem with the last two Harry Potter films though. By then, it had been a few years since I read the books so I didn't have an exact memory of them. But, much like the Potter films, the movie version of "The Hunger Games" does not completely live up to the book. However, that does not stop it from being a great film.

Even though I was slightly disappointed that some events in the film do  not happen exactly as they do in the book, I kept reminding myself that all of the details in a novel couldn't be captured in a two-and-a-half-hour movie. The screenwriter (who I later found out is the book's author, Suzanne Collins) had to form a story for the film based out of all the information in the novel and could not fit in everything. (As a side note, that reminds me of the same writing process I used when I was a reporter at a community newspaper. I would gather a lot of information and only use what I needed to craft a story, rather than cramming in every bit.)

Set in Panem--a dystopian nation standing on the ruins of a post apocalyptic North America--the film follows the plot of the novel fairly closely. Panem consists of a wealthy city known as the Capitol and 12 poorer surrounding districts. To punish the districts for a past uprising against the Capitol, Panem's government imposed a yearly ritual called the Hunger Games, in which one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 are randomly selected from each district to fight to the death in a televised competition. During the Games, the participants are placed in an outdoor arena where they must survive unknown conditions and hazards controlled by agents of the Capitol. The Games serve as a way for the Capitol to keep the districts in line by reminding them that they are always at its mercy. Katniss Everdeen, a 16-year-old girl from the twelfth and poorest district, volunteers to be a sacrifice, or "tribute," in the 74th Annual Hunger Games to take the place of her younger sister Primrose, whose name is originally selected. The film centers on Katnis, who must travel to the extravagant Capitol, along with fellow District 12 tribute Peeta Mellark, to train for and compete in the competition.

Reading the novel before seeing the film definitely biased my opinion of it, in both a good and a bad way. I already knew the full story so I wasn't confused by any missing background information. Plus, I was more forgiving than some because I loved the novel and wanted to love the film. However, I think the fact that the film glosses over or omits some of the novel's major plot points was possibly more noticeable to me than someone who hadn't read the book. For instance, the film mentions Panem began with thirteen districts but doesn't explain District 13 was destroyed in a catastrophic war caused by the rebellion. Also, a character says the victor of the Hunger Games is "bathed in riches" but the film doesn't explain what that includes. In the book, it is explained the victor receives money and a fancy house in their home district. The book also says that the Capitol provides extra food to the winner's home district for a year, which is why the competition is called the Hunger Games.

Additionally, some of the novel's brutality is lost in translation to the screen, however, not enough for the film to seem too toned down. A story about teenagers fighting to the death is obviously going to be violent and controversial but the film isn't nearly as brutal as the similarly themed Japanese film "Battle Royale," also based on a novel. Rather than focusing on the actual killing, "The Hunger Games" is more about Katniss's struggle for survival in the arena. Though the movie is not without deaths, it uses a shaky camera style that distracts from some of the violence and helps portray Katniss's frenzied experience. The most important aspect of the story that the film doesn't capture is Katniss's insight, given through first person narration in the novel. However, not having the limitations of first person narration allows the film to show scenes that take place with characters outside the arena while the games are taking place. Some of them are interesting additions but some detract a bit from what is really Katniss's story. One of the new scenes (that I won't give it away for that one person who hasn't seen the movie yet) is so unnecessary and over the top that I actually cringed a little.

The film features strong performances from some veteran actors including Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, Katniss and Peeta's mentor and District 12's only living Hunger Games victor, and the marvelous Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickman, the Game's colorful host. But the movie really belonged to star Jennifer Lawrence, who played the role of Katniss to perfection. I can't think of another actress who could have done a better job capturing the character's charm, toughness and vulnerability. Lawrence played a similar role in the Academy Award nominated film "Winter's Bone," which could have been a "Hunger Games" prequel that tells the story of Katniss's ancestor, Ree Dolly. Like Katniss, Ree is a tough girl living in poverty who supports her younger siblings and nearly catatonic mother. Someone needs to cryogenically freeze Jennifer Lawrence so she can play Katniss again when "The Hunger Games" is remade in 10 or 15 years. I also loved young actress Amandla Stenberg as the character Rue, a 12-year-old chosen as the tribute from District 11. I just wish Rue had more screen time in the film.

Overall, I think "The Hunger Games" is a very compelling story with a lot of interesting themes, my favorites being the allusions to the popularity of reality television in today's culture and the gladiator combat that took place in the Roman Empire. I would recommend the movie to the person who hasn't seen it. I would also highly recommend the novel to anyone who enjoyed the movie because it gives much more depth to Panem and the characters.