Selasa, 02 April 2019

Road to Endgame: Iron Man 3 Revisited - /FILM

Iron Man 3 Revisited

(Welcome to Road to Endgame, where we revisit all 22 movies of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and ask, “How did we get here?” In this edition: Iron Man 3 brings a personal style to the MCU, even as it stumbles in the homestretch.)

After six films culminating in an unprecedented crossover, the Marvel Cinematic Universe had arrived. The Avengers set a new standard for summer blockbusters, though the concern going forward (for skeptics, and presumably for studio execs) was one of diminishing returns. Iron Man’s first solo outing after the battle of New York was tasked with bringing audiences back for more, while also establishing Marvel’s ability to tell new kinds of stories. In effect, it had to dramatize moving on from the world of The Avengers, while taking place entirely within it.

Simply put, the question Iron Man 3 had to answer was, “What comes next?” Would Marvel come close to rivaling the spectacle of its first team-up? Well, no. Then again, perhaps it didn’t have to. Iron Man 3 is nothing like The Avengers. In fact, it barely has anything in common with Iron Man and Iron Man 2, though what it does have — despite yet another vaguely defined character arc — is something only a handful of Marvel movies can boast.

It has a unique sense of identity.

Black to Basics

Outside the odd oblique tilt in Thor (and some self-contained, silent drama in The Incredible Hulk), Captain America: The First Avenger was arguably the only “Phase 1” film to sidestep the genre’s visual trappings. You can thank Joe Johnston of The Rocketeer for that, but not every Marvel movie has the luxury of a period-adventure sandbox.

Even The Avengers, which delivered some of the finest blockbuster spectacle this decade, didn’t make particularly great use of visual storytelling until its final battle. Its major third-act beats worked because they translated character into action; for instance, the fluid long-take where the Avengers fight in tandem for the first time. One of its only non-action scenes, where subtext was expressed visually — Captain America’s silent stroll through an unfamiliar world — was cut from the film.

For the most part, Marvel movies rely on straightforward dialogue to deliver emotional information. Iron Man 3 however, feels like the first entry in the series where the filmmakers were granted visual leeway. For once, the end result was not, as critic Matt Zoller Seitz puts it, a “movie-flavored product.”

Despite the studio notes it was forced to adhere to (like swapping its female villain for a male one to sell more toys)Iron Man 3 is a Shane Black film through-and-through. Its tonal consistency is entirely a function of its story. Black often sets his films around Christmas because he feels the holiday “represents a little stutter in the march of days, a hush in which we have a chance to assess and retrospect our lives.” When Christmas arrives for Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), he’s alone in a remote Tennessee locale, far flung from Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), the loved ones he put in danger.

Stark’s story began with him building armour to escape a remote cave. Here, for the first time in the series, he’s forced to find a way out of his isolation without the help of his suits. The stage is set for Stark to reflect on his decisions, and on his post-Avengers identity as it relates to the Iron Man persona. The film doesn’t quite stick the landing when it comes to these themes, but it finds an exciting momentum in the way it articulates them.

Black and cinematographer John Toll (The Thin Red Line, Cloud Atlas) depart from the bright palette of The Avengers to deliver a darker entry, both visually and emotionally. The entire film feels frigid even before Stark gets stuck in the snow. Cold lighting defines the texture of each space, and the muted tones of the productions design are interrupted only by deep-red explosions. The film is drab without being dour, and the characters constantly have to fight their way out of shadows.

In several scenes, the camera observes instead of empathizing. We see Pepper Potts’ meeting with Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) through Happy Hogan’s eyes, as he sits in the distance, relaying the information to Stark over the phone. Black, like Hogan, is people-watching, and the visual framing constantly prevents Stark from connecting with those around him. After Stark’s home is attacked, he’s forcefully ejected from his own narrative and launched thousands of miles away. Physically, and emotionally, he could not be more distant.

The fluid cinematography, combined with the fluidity of Black’s action and dialogue (the script was co-written by Drew Pearce) gives Iron Man 3 a distinctly “cinematic” texture — that is to say, one heavily reliant on non-dialogue audio and visuals to convey meaning — the kind few Marvel films can claim. Downey Jr. underscores the affair with his dry wit as usual, and his emotional separation becomes necessary so that Iron Man can (re)define himself in relation to other people.

Despite the distancing quality of the group scenes, the film extends beyond observational exercise at just the right moments. Its point-of-view shifts jarringly when Stark’s P.T.S.D. comes to the fore. The frame closes in on him with furor, until all we can see, or feel, is panic. Iron Man 3 is at its most potent when exploring the psychological effects of The Avengers on Stark, though unfortunately, there also comes a point when this vital story thread is haphazardly brushed aside.  

Nothing’s Been the Same Since New York

Tony Stark was once known as Marvel’s alcoholic superhero — Demon in a Bottle (1979) is his most instrumental story — and while the character’s alcoholism never finds its way into the films, Stark’s addict nature manifests in different forms. In Iron Man 3, his addiction is to building protective armour, and it’s exacerbated by trauma.

Clinical psychologist Dr. Andrea Letamendi argues that Stark’s symptoms could, in fact, be interpreted as Post-traumatic stress disorder, or P.T.S.D. He seems to display four key factors for diagnosis:

  • Avoidance of potential trauma triggers that lead to anxiety.
  • Hyper-arousal (he’s been awake for 72 hours when the film begins).
  • Vivid recollection via dreams and visions.
  • Functional impairment with regards to personal relationships.

More pertinently, Tony Stark is also more vulnerable to P.T.S.D. than the average human being, owing to what Letamendi calls “re-deployment.” Stark has been experiencing and re-experiencing trauma since the very first scene in Iron Man. His car was bombed, he had shrapnel lodged in his chest, he was kidnapped and tortured, and he spent the rest of the series embroiled in violent conflict. The Iron Man armour is as much an addiction as it is a symptom, not unlike P.T.S.D.-afflicted soldiers sleeping with guns by their bedside (Stark even calls to one of his suits in his sleep).

There are now 42 versions of the Iron Man armour, each created for different contingencies. The 42nd, which Stark operates remotely from his workspace, has even begun to replace him in his interactions with Potts. He’s frozen in the moment he flew through the wormhole above New York City, and his technology has consumed him,

The film dramatizes Stark’s symptoms with aplomb. The leering, distant camera is traded in for rapid zooms and uncomfortable close ups when his anxiety rears its head. The visual shifts feel inescapable; the lens becomes another wall closing in on Stark as we, the audience, poke and prod into his psyche, intruding on both his personal space and his most traumatic memories.

Stark’s experiences in The Avengers are collectively referred to as “New York.” This, coupled with his vengeful, self-destructive attitude towards vaguely Middle Eastern terrorist The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) calls to mind America’s own post-9/11 political tenor — albeit to no real end, despite the potential for exploring wartime paranoia.

However, Stark’s specific road to recovery makes Iron Man 3 a noteworthy sequel. In the context of Marvel’s shared-universe, his arc in this film involves letting go of his own origin story, and his journey to doing so means moving past the events of The Avengers. As much as Iron Man 3 is about defining Iron Man outside of his suits, it’s also about defining this larger narrative outside its most recognizable moments.

Separation

The film begins the process of separating Stark from the larger saga by introducing antagonists independent of previous Marvel films. The explosive Extremis Soldiers seem to simply exist, with no connections to Gamma Radiation, the Super Soldier Serum or Stark’s technology, something only Loki has had the distinction of thus far. Stark even searches for connections to prior entries, but it turns out the soldiers were created by Aldrich Killian, whose path to Extremis began decade before The Avengers. It’s as if Stark must move past the memory of his crossover and confront something new, just to make this movie happen.

Unfortunately, this meta-narrative of blazing a new path takes precedence over Stark’s mindset, the backbone of the film. His story is set up admirably, before being promptly forgotten.

Stark is in a bad way. He can’t sleep. His anxiety is triggered by a child’s drawing of the event — a crayon depiction of him flying towards the source of his trauma — leading to a public breakdown. He’s even triggered by Harley Keener (Ty Simpkins) simply mentioning New York, and it gets to a point where he has a mid-freeway episode for almost no reason at all.

With his suits out of commission, Stark attempts to combat his disorder by building weapons out of hardware scraps. Creating new tech to protect himself, a one-time survival mechanism in Iron Man, has become his crutch. Though while he finally sheds his stockpile by the end of the film, his journey to doing so feels disconnected. The freeway freak-out is the last time his anxiety or P.T.S.D. come up in the narrative.

What follows is a passable display of the film trying to figure out who Stark is outside of his iron cocoon. Fighting with only one Iron Man boot and glove makes for a hilarious action beat, but the film’s climactic scenes are muddled, especially in how they try to define Stark in relation to his new villain.

Like Thor before it, Iron Man 3 is yet another example of a Marvel film being “almost there” with its character arc.

A Clash of Ideologies, or Lack Thereof 

There’s much debate as to the movie version of The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), originally a racist caricature best left in the ’60s. The character being cast Indian rather than Chinese avoids outright whitewashing, though the form he takes instead of an orientalist stereotype is an intentional mixture of bastardized iconographies — see also, his Captain America tattoo which uses an Anarchist ‘A’.

Not unlike real-world terrorist outfits (ISIL, for one), the Mandarin lays claim to attacks that may not be his doing. He likens the recently-bombed Hollywood’s Chinese Theatre to the fortune cookie, an American-in-origin manipulation of Eastern imagery, repackaged and mass-marketed to the West. Fittingly, this ideological repackaging is exactly who the Mandarin is too.

As revealed late in the film, the Mandarin is actually a hodgepodge of western fears, a think-tank terrorist strung together by a clueless actor and his wealthy benefactor, Aldrich Killian. It’s a believable explanation for Killian’s unstable-to-the-point-of-explosion Extremis Soldiers, thus avoiding further inquiry into his experiments. This Mandarin borrows the symbol of The Ten Rings, the organization that kidnapped Tony Stark in Iron Man, and he fashions himself (or rather, is fashioned by Killian) as a grandiose, moralizing zealot, hell-bent on attacking the United States and its foreign interests.

For the first time, the Marvel Cinematic Universe comes this close to having something concrete to say about America. The “war on terror” being nebulous here, as it’s often framed the real world, allows Killian to sell biological weapons to both sides. These “both sides,” however, are never defined, or even alluded to in any way that would flesh out Killian and the world around him. Who Killian sells to matters, because his willingness to sell to them ultimately defines his conscience.

Credit where credit is due: compared to the other films in the series, Iron Man 3 features a marginally more critical take on America’s military industrial complex, certainly more than Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Captain Marvel, which were all made with military funding. And while Iron Man 3 cast several real-life Air Force recruits, there’s yet to be any evidence of Department of Defense involvement in the film.

Rather than avoiding the question of military ideology altogether, Iron Man 3 frames capitalist war profiteering through its sheer lack of ideology outside of money and power, something even U.S. political biopics have started to do. Though, the profit-motive being divorced from concerns of who, culturally or racially, is considered expendable, is its own relevant issue, something even the most military-centric Marvel films barely touch on.

Over the course of the film, U.S. militarism is sold and packaged through media narratives on multiple fronts. One on hand, there are televised portrayals of vaguely Middle Eastern threats, whose outlook is irrelevant so long as they seem scary to Americans. On the other, the film shows America’s limp, lip-service-only ideological response to those threats, as the nation simply paints over the heavily armed “War Machine” (Don Cheadle) in red, white & blue and calls him “The Iron Patriot” (War crimes often become acceptable when given focus-tested monikers).

While the film does little to portray the actual effects of this warmongering (Iron Patriot’s foreign interventions play out as dark comedy), it does portray the American response as both predictable and ill-considered. Killian takes advantage of this, conning the American President into invading Pakistan on two different occasions as the villain sets his traps elsewhere. While Iron Man and Iron Man 2 blame military industrialism solely on industry, Iron Man 3 at least draws a line straight to the U.S. Commander-In-Chief; the bare minimum, in a series so focused on war.

The downside to this empty ideology, as is the case in prior Marvel films, is that it fails to properly mirror the character-story being told. Aldrich Killian’s motivations are disconnected from Stark’s “self-created demons.” Killian has an unfeeling dedication to the business of war (as Stark once did), but his appearance in Stark’s flashback does little to entwine the two beyond happenstance. Where Killian would have fit perfectly in prior Iron Man entries, Iron Man 3 isn’t concerned with Stark’s place in the world of warfare.

Killian’s ruthlessness is on full display after the Mandarin reveal. He treats his soldiers as disposable, and he readily murders Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall), the one person whose objectives are aligned with his. He doesn’t care about the people closest to him, which is what separates him from Stark on the surface. Stark’s arc, at least nominally, involves learning that Happy Hogan, Pepper Potts and the likes ought to be more important to him than his suits. This journey is externalized when Potts seemingly dies, followed by Stark’s far-too-late realization of just how good he had it.

However this dramatic beat, while functional as a self-contained moment, is entirely detached from Stark’s larger story, a narrative disconnect that’s only exacerbated by the specifics of the climax.

Fireworks in Lieu of Character 

Tony Stark shedding his armour at the end of the film makes sense on paper. The Iron Man concept has become an anchor, and Stark’s ultimate test ought to be whether or not he’s able function without it. Yet the film’s third act, an action-laden set-piece featured heavily in the trailers, sees him entirely reliant on his technology once more.

Summoning dozens of Iron Man suits is cool. Each one having a different design is cool, despite primarily existing to sell toys. The remote centralization of these unmanned drones is… well, it’s dangerous, but it looks cool, and the image of Stark jumping from suit to suit is cool as well. Ultimately though, empty suits fighting anonymous henchmen is still an empty spectacle, and it happens to be at odds with Stark’s journey in the film.

Stark’s reliance on his technology is never put to the test; if anything, the finale only supports his obsession. His addiction to his suits is as much a psychological phenomenon that defines his character, as it is a dramatic want or desire in the mechanics of the story. Destroying his outlet (or symptom) neither helps him confront the roots of his trauma, nor adequately pays off the conflict between both needing his suits, and needing to destroy them in order to exist completely. As fun as Iron Man 3 may be, discarding its P.T.S.D. thread this way is narratively disingenuous.

The Road Ahead

By this point in the franchise, Robert Downey Jr. had become Marvel’s not-so-secret weapon, and Iron Man 3 features some of the best dramatic work of his career. He’s allowed to dig deep into what makes Stark tick (and what prevents him from ticking), working in tandem with Black’s signature sarcasm-as-shield while balancing it with unshielded moments of vulnerability. Even when the spinning plates prove too many for the story, Downey Jr. balances them with finesse, which is part of why the film feels coherent despite dropping the ball thematically.

In the film’s closing narration, Stark utters two key phrases: “I’m a changed man” and “I am Iron Man.” The former mirrors a mal-formed character moment in Thor — the God of Thunder says, “I’ve changed,” though it isn’t clear how — while the latter is an intentional callback to the first Iron Man. These sentiments are distinctly at odds with one another, and their conflict is never reckoned with until later in the series.

Stark hasn’t given up being Iron Man, mind you; it would be unrealistic to expect him to, in a series so lucrative, even though it would’ve made for a stronger character arc; as video essayist Patrick Willems points out, Marvel’s “Phase 2” is where the series begins exhibiting the illusion of change. The removal of the reactor in Stark’s chest indicates that he no longer cocoons himself in armour, but the “change” in question doesn’t come from no longer needing his suits. Nothing is truly different about Tony Stark between the beginning and the end of the film; at some point, his disorder simply fades. His decision to destroy his suits seems to come from wanting to no longer need them, for Potts’ sake. However, the recognition that change can or ought to happen is vastly different from actual change. The latter is where stories end. The former is usually where they begin.

It’s an unsatisfying narrative conclusion to a story about the personal effects of trauma. But like its predecessors, Iron Man 3 also inadvertently sets into motion specific narrative faults that are eventually taken advantage of, in ways that alter the series’ approach to Tony Stark. If there’s one thing Marvel is good at, it’s taking flaws in narrative framing and retroactively weaving them into the text; the political short-sightedness of Iron Man and Iron Man 2 went on to become Stark’s political blinders; the inadequate character change in Iron Man 3 became a defining trait.

Iron Man 3 felt like the third time the reset button had been pushed on Tony Stark. His mistakes remained unconfronted, and his story merely had the appearance of progress. But by turning this dramatic shortcoming into an inter-textual narrative, the Marvel Cinematic Universe turned another weakness into a new foundation. From this point on, Stark’s backbone was his penchant for combating mistakes with even more mistakes, creating a long-running narrative between films like Avengers: Age of Ultron, Captain America: Civil War, and even Spider-Man: Homecoming, culminating in Stark’s ultimate failure in Avengers: Infinity War.

Marvel’s shared-universe has succeeded because of its long-term story. Not one of Infinity Stones and Quantum Realms and other cosmic plots, but one rooted in characters like Tony Stark. The MCU’s heroes are why the series works, despite its myriad of other flaws. If anything, Marvel’s sleight-of-hand makes those flaws seem like they were the plan all along.

***

Expanded from an article published April 10 2018.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.slashfilm.com/iron-man-3-revisited-road-to-endgame/

2019-04-02 15:00:49Z
52780258276600

Google+ dies today, by the hand of Google's apathy - Android Police

After nearly 8 years in service, Google has called time on its social network effort, Google+. By now, any user that might have had some worthwhile memories on the platform should have downloaded their data — yesterday was the last day to do so. But from the last day to the first, the site was mired with challenges through and through.

The network was the latest link in a chain of half-baked efforts in social media. They included interconnect mediums such as Google Wave that were supposed to bring together email, social networks, instant messages, and other sources. Just prior to G+, the company put together a mess of instant messaging features and shoehorned them into Gmail, calling it Google Buzz. It was felled after two years on major privacy failures. Any one of these services served at best as a bridge for people who had to be across many existing social media in their lives, but they were never strong enough to stand as a sole alternative to Facebook and Twitter.

Beginnings

Born on June 28, 2011, the "Google+ project" brought a simple premise to the fore: users could interact with their "Circles" of friends the way they want to, sharing as much or as little information with each as they'd like. People could follow topics or "Sparks" to learn and contribute interesting links, pictures, and experiences. A rudimentary instant messaging system was rolled in, intended for people to "Huddle."

The advent of Google+ also brought about a video-calling medium that later turned into a chat app of its own right, the moribund Hangouts. Before it became a cancerous Frankenstein of SMS, phone calls, and live streaming, Hangouts was meant for impromptu gatherings or catching up with friends and co-workers.

Android Police played a role in bringing more than 7,800 people onto Google+ in the first few days of early access. The masses jumped in to experience another take on digital society which, even in 2011, had already matured into a pig's trough of commercial content, political trolling, and unvarnished angst. Many who joined hoped things would be better over the fence and that they could share their lives on the internet with the focus and attention that every disparate part of them so deserved.

Struggle

The tech behemoth had the ammunition to do damage with more than 500 million users by its third birthday. One way it could boast that number was through aggressive integrations with sister services. It made G+ registration compulsory when signing up for Gmail or Google Play Games.

Most notably in 2013, Google started requiring G+ accounts for those who wanted to post comments on videos uploaded to Google-owned YouTube, meaning real names had to be used. The anonymous legions of YouTube commenters complained about losing their right to post whatever they wanted — with or without vitriol — in the snug privacy of an alias.

YouTube comments became more of a joke to deal with than ever. There was less discrimination and verbal assault against video creators, sure, but many G+ opponents were simply copying and pasting ASCII art of some stick figure named "Bob," telling Google to bring back screennames.

Source: Know Your Meme

If this subject reeks of overtures from all the stories we've seen about online harassment and extremist radicalization, it may have been a shame that Google killed off this would-be salve in 2015. Then again, Google+ had killed off all of its goodwill, too.

Faded hopes didn't change Google+ as much as Google's own data gathering and profit calculations did. Ultimately, more people ended up falling back into the vortices of mainstream social media or sought more reclusive alternatives like Instagram and Snapchat.

Downfall

Eventually, it was this sandwich of spam, ads and overreach that took its toll on Google+. The platform had ended its use of invasive recruiting tactics while doing little else to retain its base. Those who have most recently been using the site spent 5 seconds or less at a time before drifting away.

Google actually admitted that tidbit last October in a leaked internal memo about a vulnerability that allowed third parties access to private information from users' friends and relatives without their consent. Although it was patched quickly, it was not disclosed in short order for fear of regulator scrutiny. In December, Google revealed that another vulnerability, with similar implications affecting more than 52 million accounts, had to be patched in the previous month. The incident sped up the company's clock for Google+'s shutdown. It announced its final timeline on January 30.

The company had arguably kept Google+ alive for much longer than it should've cared to. Much of that care should have gone instead to Hangouts: for all its faults, it became a convenient direct communications app that people with Gmail accounts came to rely on. It has gained second lives with spur-off apps for enterprise users and is expected to carry on a meaningful legacy long after its initial run.

Google+ will have to be remembered for what it used to be, the content it used to hold, the posts and comments that people might dig up in their Google Takeout archives one day — if they chose to keep them — and in at least one way, it will be fondly regarded. Account for all the other ways in which the network sought to stay afloat through different modes of attrition, though, and we are left with one overlong footnote in Google's biographic annuls.

Around 10AM PST today, Google+ for consumers officially went offline. The below screenshot is all any Google+ page now redirects to.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.androidpolice.com/2019/04/02/google-dies-today-by-the-hand-of-googles-apathy/

2019-04-02 15:55:00Z
52780258015263

Iron Man VR Looks Sick, Is a Full Game with a Deep Sandbox and Story - Push Square

Iron Man VR PSVR PS4 PlayStation 4 1

Last week’s trailer for Iron Man VR did not paint the game in the best possible light, but as soon as we learned that it’s a collaboration between Sony and Marvel Games – the same fruitful partnership which ultimately resulted in last year’s Marvel’s Spider-Man – we knew that all would be okay. And as some hands on impressions spill out of the United States, we’re feeling more confident than ever.

Speaking with Kotaku, developer Camouflaj’s Ryan Payton explained: “We’re not making a rail-shooter. We’re not making an amusement park game. We’re not making a short demo or an experimental Iron Man ‘experience’. We’re making a full game with a deep sandbox, with a deep story with plenty of great missions and great cinematics.”

According to previews, you play the game using two PlayStation Move controllers. In order to propel yourself upwards, you point the motion wands at the ground and then pull the triggers. Obviously in order to fly and attack then you’re going to need to use a combination of each hand, with one pointed behind you in order to accelerate you forwards, and the other aiming at enemies.

To get you up to speed, there’s a practice area set around Tony Stark’s Malibu Mansion, but the main mission shown to press sees you leaping out of a plane, blasting foes out of the sky, then bending its wings back into shape. It looks and sounds superb, with Payton citing Resident Evil 7’s outstanding PlayStation VR mode as an inspiration. Hype!

Let's block ads! (Why?)


http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2019/04/iron_man_vr_looks_sick_is_a_full_game_with_a_deep_sandbox_and_story

2019-04-02 13:01:39Z
52780258276600

'No Man's Sky VR' is the purest way to explore the universe - Engadget

There's been at least one moment in the past year when Sean Murray, the creator of No Man's Sky, has been seated around an awards-ceremony table with the people behind Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege or Warframe, and they've all shared a moment of incredulity.

"We're like, 'Yeah, so, two years ago was pretty rough, right?'" Murray said, laughing. "And everyone's in the same boat."

All of these games, No Man's Sky included, were not particularly well received at launch. However, each team kept the updates rolling in, and they eventually found themselves on awards lists the world over. Fortnite added battle royale and transformed into a multi-billion-dollar franchise; Rainbow Six Siege embraced esports and DLC, and garnered 40 million registered players; Warframe chased an aggressive content-release schedule and listened to its core audience, and it's now one of Digital Extremes' most successful games.

No Man's Sky VR

No Man's Sky rolled out a steady stream of updates to deliver the features that fans really wanted (and expected from day one), and climbed its way up from "cautionary indie tale" to "Best Ongoing Game award nominee" in just two years. Today, it's a universe-sized astronaut simulator packed with quintillions of planets, absurd creatures on land and sea, plus crafting, mining, building, flying and oodles of exploration. This summer, the gigantic No Man's Sky Beyond update goes live, bringing three major features to the game, two of which are public knowledge: MMO-style mechanics and, announced just last week, VR support.

Hello Games is bringing No Man's Sky to every headset on the market via Steam VR and PlayStation 4 for PSVR (with an exclusive physical edition as well as a digital offering). No Man's Sky VR isn't a separate mode; instead, it incorporates virtual-reality players into the existing game. VR players can join games with non-VR friends, and they'll receive all future updates. Same game, new input method.

"It feels very comfortable to me in terms of a fit for No Man's Sky," Murray said. "If I'm honest, we're supporting VR because we want to. Genuinely, I think it's creatively led more than necessarily commercially or anything like that. It just feels like a good fit."

After spending 15 minutes with the game in full VR glory, I can't help agreeing with Murray. No Man's Sky makes sense in VR, putting you directly in the space suit -- jetpack, multi-tool, inventory and all. The multi-tool, which mines minerals, blows holes in the terrain and builds towering structures out of nearby organic matter, lives in your right hand, while inventory can be pulled up as a hologram on your left arm, streamlining the crafting process.

Walking involves a teleportation system that serves its purpose just fine, though there are a handful of other ways to navigate new planets and the surrounding interstellar sea. First, there's the jetpack, which is loads of fun yet slightly disorienting in VR, with the most potential to cause headset-related nausea. However, No Man's Sky VR also has vehicles, swimming and -- this is the big one -- spaceships.

No Man's Sky VR

It takes two hands to steer the ship, pressing and pulling the throttle with your left hand and using a joystick to direct with your right, and the entire process is visceral in a way that only VR can provide. Flying a ship in VR -- racing over mysterious planets and up, out of the atmosphere in a tunnel of light and space dust -- is an absolutely fantastic feeling. Then, the hyperdrive clicks off and the galaxies finally come into focus. Asteroids loom like mountainsides, and flying between them is smooth, thrilling and profoundly peaceful. Planets sit, suspended in the ink of space, impossibly large. Everything is frightening and gorgeous in equal measure, shining a light on the incomprehensible size of the universe, the planets, the space rocks, the ship, yourself.

This sense of scale and immersion simply can't translate on a 2D screen.

If the goal of No Man's Sky is to make players feel simultaneously miniscule yet deeply connected to a network of atoms that stretches in all directions, forever -- if the goal of No Man's Sky is to make players feel, full-stop -- then VR is the best way to play. This sense of scale and immersion simply can't translate on a 2D screen.

Murray has had a long time to think about interstellar scale. His parents traveled a lot when he was young, and at one point they ended up running a million-and-a-quarter acre ranch in the Australian outback. At night, Murray would stare at the dense blanket of stars and dream about their depths; by day, he would play Elite, devour everything sci-fi and program his own games. No Man's Sky VR is the unique result of decades of stargazing and coding.

"If five-year-old me could see that you're putting on a headset and being in this world, he would be very excited about that," Murray said.

Hello Games

What's next

Back at the awards-ceremony tables, surrounded by a cabal of developers who successfully staved off extinction, No Man's Sky stands out because it comes from a small, independent team. Hundreds of developers and millions of dollars put together Fortnite, Rainbow Six Siege and Warframe, each, while the average number of people at Hello Games, working on No Man's Sky, was six.

This tiny team propelled Murray to continue improving No Man's Sky after a launch so disastrous it culminated in a failed lawsuit accusing Hello Games of false advertising. At the same time, developers could see something the Twitter mobs couldn't -- hundreds of thousands of people were playing No Man's Sky. And, the average play time was an impressive 25 hours (nowadays, it's 45 hours).

No Man's Sky wasn't a failure by any means, but public perception was sour. Only the developers at Hello Games (and at least one prophetic games journalist) could see its true success and potential.

"They are super talented and I didn't want to just move on and let that be their legacy," Murray said. "It's really nice for them to be able to say to people, 'I worked on No Man's Sky,' and people to be really happy and positive about it now. That is something that they deserved."

No Man's Sky VR

By the time No Man's Sky launched in 2016, it had become a tentpole game for Sony as it attempted to woo players to the PlayStation 4. Hello Games benefited from a massive marketing push, coordinated by Sony, that set expectations extremely high and ultimately contributed to the game's unfavorable reception. Many of the features highlighted in these ads -- such as live, random encounters -- would need more time to be properly implemented. That's what Hello Games has been working on ever since, and it's what No Man's Sky Beyond is all about.

"It's become so much simpler two years out from launch," Murray said. "At launch, we were so focused on trying to please the partners that we were working with, trying to market our game, trying to live up to expectations that we were really struggling to meet."

"It's become so much simpler two years out from launch."

No Man's Sky Beyond is a three-part update hitting the game this summer, and VR is the second tier. The first part, No Man's Sky Online, adds new social and multiplayer features to the game. The third arm of No Man's Sky Beyond is unknown for now, but Hello Games says it'll share more information soon. Whatever it is, it'll surely play into the sense of galactic immersion and scale that Hello Games is still building three years after launching No Man's Sky.

"There's this cool moment that we were experiencing of two or three of you being on a planet and feeling really tiny in amongst everything," Murray said. "There's a nice camaraderie there of, oh, it's just us and we're flying our ships beside each other or whatever. So you're looking out the window and it's really nice to see your buddy there and realize how small you are and have that experience together. It's a really nice moment."

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/02/no-mans-sky-vr-hands-on-interview-sean-murray/

2019-04-02 12:00:43Z
52780258276600

Samsung might do something it’s never done before with the Galaxy Note 10 - BGR

Samsung just announced the official pricing and release date for its new Galaxy S10 5G. The other three S10 models — Galaxy S10e, Galaxy S10, and Galaxy S10+ — are already available for sale in every major market, and the upcoming Galaxy Fold is set to finally hit store shelves on April 26th. That leaves one more big flagship smartphone launch for Samsung in 2019, and the Galaxy Note 10 is shaping up to be the company’s most impressive handset of the year.

Everything we’ve seen from Samsung so far in 2019 has been quite impressive, actually. The bold new design on the Galaxy S10 series is a breath of fresh air compared to last year’s Galaxy S9, which was boring and uninspired. Thankfully, the S10 sports a wonderful all-screen design and it’s packed full of nifty new features. Then there’s the Galaxy Fold, which the company had been teasing for years before it was finally unveiled back in February. The design isn’t quite as impressive as what we’ve seen from Chinese smartphone makers like Huawei and Xiaomi, but Samsung’s first smartphone with a foldable screen will definitely still turn heads when it’s released later this month. As great as all those phones are though, the Galaxy Note 10 may end up being the cream of Samsung’s crop in 2019. Now, a new report suggests that Samsung will change up its Galaxy Note strategy this year and do something it has never done before with the upcoming Galaxy Note 10.

With just a few months left to go until the Galaxy Note 10 is expected to be unveiled, leaks have begun flowing. So far, everything we’ve heard has been very good news. The Galaxy Note 10 is expected to feature a new design that borrows from the Galaxy S10’s all-screen look, but it’ll likely be a bit more square since that has been the case with all Note phones in recent years. We’ve heard the new Note 10 will likely feature a quad-lens camera system on the back with some nifty new features, and we also know there will be a 5G version of Samsung’s flagship phablet. Now, a new report suggests that another big change is coming this year.

According to Korean-language financial news site The Bell, Samsung plans to release two different Galaxy Note 10 models this year. We’re not just talking about a different SKU with 5G support that features the same design as the regular Note 10, we’re talking about an entirely different version of the phone.

The report states that Samsung will release a main Galaxy Note 10 model in all key markets around the world, but a second version of the Note 10 with a smaller display will also see a limited launch. According to the site’s sources, this new smaller Galaxy Note 10 model will only be released in European countries. “We know that the Galaxy Note 10 will come out on the market in two different models,” an unnamed source from within Samsung’s supply chain told the site.

It’s unclear what the smaller Galaxy Note 10 model might be called or why it might only be released in Europe. The smaller Galaxy S10e model from Samsung’s new S10 lineup has reportedly been selling quite well all around the world, so it seems odd to think that the company might confine the smaller Note 10 version to just one region. As for the main version of the Galaxy Note 10, the report states that the phone will feature a 6.7-inch AMOLED display, but it doesn’t offer any other details about the device.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://bgr.com/2019/04/02/galaxy-note-10-release-date-coming-new-model-leak/

2019-04-02 12:17:00Z
52780254878577

Spark for Android is here to fill the Google Inbox-shaped hole in your heart - The Verge

Today, Google is officially shutting down Inbox, its alternative email app to the company’s main Gmail app. But as one email app dies, another is reborn, with popular email app Spark finally making the jump from Apple’s platforms to Android — just in time for all the former Inbox users looking for a new app.

I’ve had the chance to try out a beta version of Spark for Android, and I’m pleased to report that it’s just as good as the original iOS version (which is already one of the best email apps for iOS around.) It’s fast and responsive, especially for searching the thousands of archived emails I’ve got kicking around my account, and offers all the customization features that Spark is known for: letting users tweak what menu icons they’ll see when viewing an email, notification options, and a quick access widget that offers shortcuts to things like starred emails or your sent folder.

My one complaint is specific to the Android version of Spark — due to Android app conventions, actions like delete or archive are located at the top of the display instead of the bottom. It’s a bit awkward to have to shift attention back to the top after scrolling through an email to take action on it, but Spark is following in the path of other Android email apps like Gmail here, so I can’t complain too much.

The app itself is still a lot to take in, with lots of options and settings to decide between, and more casual users may still prefer something like Google’s stock Gmail app (which will still be first in line for new features and updates from Google itself). But there’s a lot to like about Spark, especially if you’re the kind of user who likes to tweak things around to optimize their personal workflow.

Spark for Android is available today.

Update April 2nd, 8:20am: Clarified Android design conventions.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/2/18291060/spark-android-google-inbox-email-app-hands-on

2019-04-02 12:00:00Z
52780256649169

Google’s constant product shutdowns are damaging its brand - Ars Technica

An artist's rendering of Google's current reputation.
Enlarge / An artist's rendering of Google's current reputation.
Aurich Lawson

It's only April, and 2019 has already been an absolutely brutal year for Google's product portfolio. The Chromecast Audio was discontinued January 11. YouTube annotations were removed and deleted January 15. Google Fiber packed up and left a Fiber city on February 8. Android Things dropped IoT support on February 13. Google's laptop and tablet division was reportedly slashed on March 12. Google Allo shut down on March 13. The "Spotlight Stories" VR studio closed its doors on March 14. The goo.gl URL shortener was cut off from new users on March 30. Gmail's IFTTT support stopped working March 31.

And today, April 2, we're having a Google Funeral double-header: both Google+ (for consumers) and Google Inbox are being laid to rest. Later this year, Google Hangouts "Classic" will start to wind down, and somehow also scheduled for 2019 is Google Music's "migration" to YouTube Music, with the Google service being put on death row sometime afterward.

We are 91 days into the year, and so far, Google is racking up an unprecedented body count. If we just take the official shutdown dates that have already occurred in 2019, a Google-branded product, feature, or service has died, on average, about every nine days.

Some of these product shutdowns have transition plans, and some of them (like Google+) represent Google completely abandoning a user base. The specifics aren't crucial, though. What matters is that every single one of these actions has a negative consequence for Google's brand, and the near-constant stream of shutdown announcements makes Google seem more unstable and untrustworthy than it has ever been. Yes, there was the one time Google killed Google Wave nine years ago or when it took Google Reader away six years ago, but things were never this bad.

For a while there has been a subset of people concerned about Google's privacy and antitrust issues, but now Google is eroding trust that its existing customers have in the company. That's a huge problem. Google has significantly harmed its brand over the last few months, and I'm not even sure the company realizes it.

Google products require trust and investment

The latest batch of dead and dying Google apps.
Enlarge / The latest batch of dead and dying Google apps.

Google is a platform company. Be it cloud compute, app and extension ecosystems, developer APIs, advertising solutions, operating-system pre-installs, or the storage of user data, Google constantly asks for investment from consumers, developers, and partner companies in the things it builds. Any successful platform will pretty much require trust and buy-in from these groups. These groups need to feel the platform they invest in today will be there tomorrow, or they'll move on to something else. If any of these groups loses faith in Google, it could have disastrous effects for the company.

Consumers want to know the photos, videos, and emails they upload to Google will stick around. If you buy a Chromecast or Google Home, you need to know the servers and ecosystems they depend on will continue to work, so they don't turn into fancy paperweights tomorrow. If you take the time to move yourself, your friends, and your family to a new messaging service, you need to know it won't be shut down two years later. If you begrudgingly join a new social network that was forced down your throat, you need to know it won't leak your data everywhere, shut down, and delete all your posts a few years later.

There are also enterprise customers, who, above all, like safe bets with established companies. The old adage of "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" is partly a reference for the enterprise's desire for a stable, steady, reliable tech partner. Google is trying to tackle this same market with its paid G Suite program, but the most it can do in terms of stability is post a calendar detailing the rollercoaster of consumer-oriented changes coming down the pipeline. There's a slower "Scheduled release track" that delays the rollout of some features, but things like a complete revamp of Gmail eventually all still arrive. G Suite has a "Core Services" list meant to show confidence in certain products sticking around, but some of the entries there, like Hangouts and Google Talk, still get shut down.

Developers gamble on a platform's stability even more than consumers do. Consumers might trust a service with their data or spend money on hardware, but developers can spend months building an app for a platform. They need to read documentation, set up SDKs, figure out how APIs work, possibly pay developer startup fees, and maybe even learn a new language. They won't do any of this if they don't have faith in the long-term stability of the platform.

Developers can literally build their products around paid-access Google APIs like the Google Maps API, and when Google does things like raise the price of the Maps API by 14x for some use cases, it is incredibly disruptive for those businesses and harmful to Google's brand. When apps like Reddit clients are flagged by Google Play "every other month" for the crime of displaying user-generated content and when it's impossible to talk to a human at Google about anything, developers are less likely to invest in your schizophrenic ecosystem.

Hardware manufacturers and other company partners need to be able to trust a company, too. Google constantly asks hardware developers to build devices dependent on its services. These are things like Google Assistant-compatible speakers and smart displays, devices with Chromecast built in, and Android and Chrome OS devices. Manufacturers need to know a certain product or feature they are planning to integrate will be around for years, since they need to both commit to a potentially multi-year planning and development cycle, and then it needs to survive long enough for customers to be supported for a few years. Watching Android Things chop off a major segment of its market nine months after launch would certainly make me nervous to develop anything based on Android Things. Imagine the risk Volvo is taking by integrating the new Android Auto OS into its upcoming Polestar 2: vehicles need around five years of development time and still need to be supported for several years after launch.

Google’s shutdowns casts a shadow over the entire company

With so many shutdowns, tracking Google's bodycount has become a competitive industry on the Internet. Over on Wikipedia, the list of discontinued Google products and services is starting to approach the size of the active products and services listed. There are entire sites dedicated to discontinued Google products, like killedbygoogle.com, The Google Cemetery, and didgoogleshutdown.com.

I think we're seeing a lot of the consequences of Google's damaged brand in the recent Google Stadia launch. A game streaming platform from one of the world's largest Internet companies should be grounds for excitement, but instead, the baggage of the Google brand has people asking if they can trust the service to stay running.

In addition to the endless memes and jokes you'll see in every related comments section, you're starting to see Google skepticism in mainstream reporting, too. Over at The Guardian, this line makes the pullquote: "A potentially sticky fact about Google is that the company does have a habit of losing interest in its less successful projects." IGN has a whole section of a report questioning "Google's Commitment." From a Digital Foundry video: "Google has this reputation for discontinuing services that are often good, out of nowhere." One of SlashGear's "Stadia questions that need answers" is "Can I trust you, Google?"

Google's Phil Harrison talks about the new Google Stadia controller.
Enlarge / Google's Phil Harrison talks about the new Google Stadia controller.

One of my favorite examples came from a Kotaku interview with Phil Harrison, the leader of Google Stadia. In an audio interview, the site lays this whopper of a question on him: "One of the sentiments we saw in our comments section a lot is that Google has a long history of starting projects and then abandoning them. There's a worry, I think, from users who might think that Google Stadia is a cool platform, but if I'm connecting to this and spending money on this platform, how do I know for sure that Google is still sticking with it for two, three, five years? How can you guys make a commitment that Google will be sticking with this in a way that they haven't stuck with Google+, or Google Hangouts, or Google Fiber, Reader, or all the other things Google has abandoned over the years?"

Yikes. Kotaku is totally justified to ask a question like this, but to have one of your new executives face questions of "When will your new product shut down?" must be embarrassing for Google.

Harrison's response to this question started with a surprisingly honest acknowledgement: "I understand the concern." Harrison, seemingly, gets it. He seemingly understands that it's hard to trust Google after so many product shutdowns, and he knows the Stadia team now faces an uphill battle. For the record, Harrison went on to cite Google's sizable investment in the project, saying Stadia was "Not a trivial product" and was a "significant cross-company effort." (Also for the record: you could say all the same things about Google+ a few years ago, when literally every Google employee was paid to work on it. Now it is dead.)

Harrison and the rest of the Stadia team had nothing to do with the closing of Google Inbox, or the shutdown of Hangouts, or the removal of any other popular Google product. They are still forced to deal with the consequences of being associated with "Google the Product Killer," though. If Stadia was an Amazon product, I don't think we would see these questions of when it would shut down. Microsoft's game streaming service, Project xCloud, only faces questions about feasibility and appeal, not if Microsoft will get bored in two years and dump the project.

Listing image by Aurich Lawson

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/04/googles-constant-product-shutdowns-are-damaging-its-brand/

2019-04-02 11:45:00Z
CBMiYmh0dHBzOi8vYXJzdGVjaG5pY2EuY29tL2dhZGdldHMvMjAxOS8wNC9nb29nbGVzLWNvbnN0YW50LXByb2R1Y3Qtc2h1dGRvd25zLWFyZS1kYW1hZ2luZy1pdHMtYnJhbmQv0gGwAWh0dHBzOi8vYXJzdGVjaG5pY2EtY29tLmNkbi5hbXBwcm9qZWN0Lm9yZy92L3MvYXJzdGVjaG5pY2EuY29tL2dhZGdldHMvMjAxOS8wNC9nb29nbGVzLWNvbnN0YW50LXByb2R1Y3Qtc2h1dGRvd25zLWFyZS1kYW1hZ2luZy1pdHMtYnJhbmQvP2FtcD0xJmFtcF9qc192PTAuMSN3ZWJ2aWV3PTEmY2FwPXN3aXBl