Quantcast
Connect with us

Editorials

The ‘H1Z1’ Split: How Long Will It Survive?

Published

on

h1z1

If you weren’t already getting enough of the post-apocalyptic life simulator H1Z1, then double the content and see how you feel about it. Is it a horror fan’s dream zombie survival game?

As of February 17, H1Z1 has been broken into two different games: King of the Kill and Just Survive. H1Z1: King of the Kill drops players into the map and lets them duke it out for who exactly ends up on top. H1Z1: Just Survive is a co-operative experience focused on survival and crafting. They are exactly what they sound like, and the game’s developers, Daybreak, hope to accommodate both audience sets through focusing on the strengths of each game type.

From the announcement on the official site:

Last year, we started to notice new player trends emerging – both the initial Survival game and Battle Royale game mode now have strong populations who almost exclusively play one or the other.

The more we developed this game with you, our community, the more we realized that in order to fully support both aspects of H1Z1, and their respective players, we needed to make them their own stand-alone games supported by their own dedicated development teams. Many players in the community have been discussing splitting the game and we’ve heard you loud and clear. We want to make sure we give both titles the support they need and deserve to truly flourish.

So, we’ve decided to do just that – we’re excited to announce that the survival game will now be called H1Z1: Just Survive, with a renewed focus on truly delivering a persistent, open-world zombie survival experience where scavenging, crafting, and base building are the difference between life and death.

The announcement of the bifurcated game comes in the wake of some press detailing a coming console version of King of the Kill, which will be ported to both PS4 and XBox One in summer of 2016. Daybreak will be able to spread the property around, now that they are an independent company and not owned solely by Sony.

We had to see this coming — it’s been in the cards since the original release last January — but that doesn’t necessarily make it make more sense. What is disconcerting about this switch is not that they’re making a change, but that they’re splitting this into two different games.

Rather than just maintain the game modes within the structure of the original title, they’ve ostensibly created two revenue streams, where there used to be one. Each of the game modes is $19.99 on Steam, individually, while the entire game used to be $19.99 in total.

It wouldn’t really be a huge problem, if H1Z1 didn’t already have some weird issues surrounding monetization. The game has since cleaned up its image, but the initial release was plagued by claims of “pay-to-win” microtransactions being in the game.

As far as I can tell, the current set-up only allows players to buy skins and superficial items to sidestep any accusations of an unbecoming nature, but something about it still feels…off. That is doubly true when considering that players on the forums — big surprise, but listen — still seem to be encountering some of the same issues that hampered the title’s original release.

However, it should be noted that this kind of decision is no surprise. Daybreak, back when it was part of Sony Online Entertainment, before Sony sold them off, teased the idea of eventually splitting the two up. Layoffs hit the company in February and March of last year, so maybe that had a detrimental effect on either or both of the titles.

The upside of all this is that early adopters, people who purchased the game before February 16, will have access to both versions without penalty or extra charge. That’s a nice (and absolutely necessary) goodwill gesture to keep the wheels rolling until they figure out the business model.

Not that they don’t have time. H1Z1 sold over 1 million copies in the first two months of release, so it’s not like the game is drowning. Still, the previously mentioned shake-ups in the structure of the company are hard to ignore.

Also, there is still a question of how this will affect development of the game that does not sell as well, moving forward. King of the Kill appears to be the more popular, so how much development would then go into a version of Just Survive that sees an ever-dwindling player base? That’s something that’s still up in the air, especially given the fact that DayZ style survival sims are not blowing up en masse the way most people probably thought they would over the last few years.

Steam Early Access is beginning to be a place where games of this type go to, well not die, exactly, but linger in a kind of development limbo. When Daybreak had Sony backing them, there was probably more of a cushion than there is likely right now. Only time will tell how this gamble pays off.

How the Games Play

With the news out of the way, the real question remains as to how the games play. It’s been a year, the games should have had some time to grow and change, maybe to become something beyond a zombie survival sim also-ran.

What is painfully clear is that King of the Kill is the best bet, of the two games. Not only is it the most compelling on a minute-by-minute basis, but it is also where the audience seems to have settled. While Just Survive feels a little underwhelming.

Both games “work” just as advertised, but there are some problems still to be dealt with before either version will feel like something most people would want to play. The world feels as barren as it ever was. The UI is functional but clunky. The zombies are not interesting to interact with. If you’re playing Just Survive and stumble into one of the zones controlled by a major clan, then you’ll probably end up having a bad experience.

Not only that, but the game actively feels like a launch-week title. The servers have weirdly long queue times, and the survival game doesn’t have the feel of a complete survival game, even one year later. Last year, the open world aspect of the game was pretty uninspired, and it doesn’t seem to have changed all that much from the previous incarnation.

Now, what may be happening is that some of the server-side and connection issues may have something to do with the hiccups most online-focused games experience at launch, but H1Z1 has had a year to deal with them. It would be crazy for them to be developing other parts of the game but have ignored the most basic, fundamental aspect of creating a server-based game of this magnitude.

Also, in reading the H1Z1 subreddit and forums, a lot of people are still experiencing problems with other players in Just Survive. Players are getting killed-on-sight (KOS), even when they identify as friendly. It’s a complicated process, for sure, and the game is still in Early Access, but I have to say that I haven’t picked the game up in about a year, and I’m still seeing plenty of the same problems I did last year. I didn’t find it very exciting or interesting back then, and it also did not grab my attention in the time I put into the game this past weekend, either.

Overall, bothKing of the Kill and Just Survive are highly niche experiences, and I’m not sure I see anything about either version of H1Z1 that isn’t already being supplied by other games in this very specific zombie subgenre.

BD2016_YTBD2016_ST

1 Comment

Editorials

How Marina de Van Uses Body Horror and Pain to Explore Trauma in ‘In My Skin’ and ‘Dark Touch’

Published

on

Marina de Van horror movies

Pain is the language of New French Extremity.

Known for excruciating violence and gore, what often distinguishes these visceral films is the depiction of emotional turmoil manifested as the destruction of human flesh. Few filmmakers make this comparison so literally as Marina de Van.

The French writer/director burst onto the scene in 2002 with her shocking In My Skin, a tale of self-discovery via grisly self-harm. Eleven years later, she would write and direct Dark Touch, the harrowing story of a traumatized girl who expresses her pain through telekinetic force.

Though they differ wildly in tone and subject, both In My Skin and Dark Touch deal with the horror of unexpressed agony and its tendency to break the skin, ripping and shredding through anything in its path.


In My Skin (2002): Self-Harm as a Response to Emotional Repression

This intensely personal film stars de Van as Esther, a corporate analyst on the verge of having it all. Her adoring boyfriend Vincent (Laurent Lucas) is poised to move in, and she’s been targeted for promotion thanks to her diligent work. During a high-pressure networking party, Esther wanders outside and trips over an open construction site, ripping her pants on an abandoned tool. It’s only later that she notices blood on the floor and realizes that she’s torn the skin of her calf as well. Surprisingly, Esther has not felt a thing.

The surgeon who stitches up the wound marvels at this lack of sensitivity, wondering if the problem is not her shredded flesh — she’s still able to feel the lightest touch — but a misalignment in her head. This wound unlocks a disturbing pattern of dissociative self-mutilation as Esther begins cutting and gouging her skin to cope with moments of emotional stress. 

Her first intentional act of self-harm follows a minor mistake in a document. After noticing that she’s misused a word, Esther fixes the error, then sneaks away to slice her thigh with a stray piece of metal. Though she has caught the mistake herself, Esther anticipates punishment for imperfection. The subsequent wound on her thigh is proof that she has paid for her transgression and can now return to solid ground, having completed the cycle of shameful correction. 

As we peel back the layers of Esther’s life, we’re aghast at the toxicity of her environment. The inciting fall happens shortly after she politely declines a dinner invitation from her older colleague, an inappropriate sexual advance dressed up as an offer for mentorship. At another party, her male coworkers drag her towards the pool, threatening to pull off her pants when she screams that she’s not wearing a bathing suit.

Esther flees this disturbing scene, but not because of the men’s aggressiveness. She’s disturbed to find that her struggle to break free has reopened the still-healing wound on her leg, causing unsightly blood to seep through her pants. Like many women in the corporate world, she’s been conditioned to view her presence as an optional privilege and to create comfort for her male colleagues. Should she negatively react to their atrocious behavior, they may deem her “too emotional” and take away her hard-earned position. 

But this toxic environment only exacerbates Esther’s need to self-harm. At a working dinner, a wealthy client pressures her to drink expensive wine, then continues to refill her glass. Increasingly unmoored, Esther finds her hand creeping onto her dinner plate. After repeatedly dragging it out of her food, she notices the appendage lying limp on the table, completely disconnected from her upper arm. This surrealist moment in an otherwise grounded film is a turning point in her violent journey. Esther sees how desensitized her body has become and the lengths she will go to perform unobtrusive compliance. 

Desperate to regain control, Esther gouges her forearm with a steak knife stolen from the table, hiding the carnage under a napkin. Humiliated, she concludes the evening in a nearby hotel, where she indulges this dangerous new compulsion. For hours, Esther lovingly slices her arms and legs, gnawing on loose flesh and suckling blood from extensive wounds. She seems enamored with her ability to feel again without being perceived by anyone else. 

Disturbed by her scars, Vincent offers shaky support while contributing to Esther’s unexpressed pain. During an intense discussion about buying their first home, Esther forgets her PIN at an ATM and bursts into tears on the street. Vincent offers an easy solution, only showing his frustration behind closed doors. He lashes out at his stunned girlfriend, conflating her emotional stress with his own inadequacy.

Clearly destabilized by her tears, Vincent baits Esther into soothing him, an echo of the cycle she performs at work. We see that even at home, her emotional needs come second to men who are unequipped to handle their own feelings. Esther has internalized the responsibility of managing Vincent alongside the message that any break in her calm demeanor will lead to more suffering later on. 

In the wake of this argument and a rebuke from her boss, Esther suffers a panic attack while walking to work. In a daze, she buys another knife, then takes a hotel room for the day. Blood runs over Esther’s face as she again luxuriates in self-mutilation. De Van finds an uneasy juxtaposition between gruesome carnage and euphoric escape. Alone again with her exquisite pain, Esther seductively runs the knife over her face, digging into the skin around her eye. She chemically preserves a severed piece of flesh then lovingly tucks it inside her bra, a keepsake to honor this violent vacation.  

The next day, Esther prepares for work, pulling office attire over her blood-stained skin. De Van does not follow her out the door, leaving us to imagine how she will be received by the men in her life. Will they finally see what they’ve put her through, or will life continue as before, with Esther pretending that nothing is wrong and performing perfection until her body gives out? De Van ends the film with the striking image of Esther lying on the hotel bed, fixing the audience with a knowing stare. Though she carefully hides her fragility, we alone have seen the true cost of survival in this destructive world. 


Dark Touch (2013): Trauma, Abuse, and Supernatural Revenge

In many ways, this shocking story of catharsis through violence feels like a thematic response to In My Skin and Esther’s unexpressed pain. Also written and directed by de Van, Dark Touch follows an Irish girl named Niamh (Missy Keating) who becomes the sole survivor of a massacre.

 We first meet this little girl screaming from her bedroom window, then running through the stormy night to the house of family friends Nat (Marcella Plunkett) and Lucas Galin (Pádraic Delaney). Niamh’s parents smooth over the incident, presenting the illusion of a happy home. It’s only when the doors are closed that we realize something is dreadfully wrong. De Van implies the worst as the sinister couple creeps into their daughter’s room, commanding her to be a “good girl.” But Niamh is saved from horrific abuse by furniture that seems to move on its own. 

De Van leans into her French Extremity roots in what will become a gruesome execution. Niamh’s mother is crushed by a splintering bureau, a loose screw driving itself into her face. Her father watches his wife’s grisly death, then falls on the blades of an ultra-modern light fixture. Flames spread through the house as Niamh cradles her infant brother in a tiny cupboard. When rescuers arrive on the scene, we learn that the baby boy has died, mysteriously smothered by an inhuman force. Now an orphan, Niamh goes to stay with Nat and Lucas, who struggle to meet her emotional needs. Unable to explain her traumatic past, Niamh finds that things move whenever she cries, an outward manifestation of her silenced rage. 

Though Nat and Lucas offer support, they only seem to make things worse. Lucas volunteers to stay in Niamh’s room when she has a bad dream, oblivious to the discomfort his presence might cause. Growing impatient when she can’t fall asleep, a snide comment betrays his empty concern. Niamh finally finds solace in photos of the couple’s older daughter, who died from cancer years ago. She clings to an image of the little girl blowing out birthday candles while covered in bruises, drawn to the familiar juxtaposition of a child suffering through visible pain while going about life as if nothing is wrong.

But this too enrages Lucas. When he finds the pictures under her bed, the weeping father shakes Niamh and demands to know what gives her the right to bring up such a devastating memory. While perhaps understandable, Lucas’ reaction tells the traumatized girl that his comfort is the true priority, and she is not allowed to soothe herself. 

Niamh’s only friends in the tiny town are young siblings from a similarly violent home. Whistling to them in the night, Niamh uses her emerging telekinesis to kill their abusive mother in an attack similar to the one that destroyed her own family. When Nat arranges for Niamh to attend a birthday party, she bristles at the other girls’ treatment of their baby dolls. They slap and rip at their faux children’s hair, seeming to process their own quasi-abusive upbringing. As she bursts into tears, Niamh spreads fire through the party and melts the faces of the mistreated dolls. That night, she lures the children to school and then destroys the building, violently disrupting what she interprets as a continuous cycle of child abuse. 

Next, Niamh turns her attention to her foster parents, telepathically trapping them in her former home. For hours, she puts them through a series of torturous humiliations we assume she endured at her own parents’ hands. Now, Nat and Lucas must suffer in silence as Niamh finally reveals the extent of her misery. Forced to sit with their tormentor at a dinner table, Nat and Lucas quietly weep as flames spread throughout the home. Like Naimh once did, they go through the motions of a happy family, unable to protect themselves. Their foster daughter smiles as the fire consumes them all, finally putting an end to her tragic life. 

Despite this murderous conclusion, Niamh is not a traditional villain. She’s a horrifically abused little girl who can’t find a way to express her pain. Though she’s managed to remove herself from immediate danger, every attempt to heal is met with stigma, resentment, or the burden of caring for someone else. When her trauma becomes too uncomfortable, she’s advised to simply stay out of sight.

Like Esther, Niamh exists in a world that expects her to create comfort for everyone else, regardless of the suffering it causes her. But Niamh’s agony can no longer be contained. Abandoning all hope for a happy life, she channels her rage and destroys anyone who crosses her path. Perhaps this is not fair to Nat and Lucas or the children of this tiny town. But what happened to Niamh is also unfair, and her trauma can no longer be ignored

Though they do not narratively connect, Dark Touch feels like a spiritual successor to In My Skin. Both Esther and Niamh try to swallow their pain, but find it too great to be contained. We leave Esther struggling to stay afloat in a world of male toxicity. Picking up Niamh’s story at a similar moment, we watch the child escape her own abuse only to find that the world doesn’t really care. Her community will only offer support if it doesn’t disrupt their own lives.

Though de Van does not offer us hopeful endings, there’s grim satisfaction in revealing the world as it is, one built on the expectation that women will suffer in silence. Both In My Skin and Dark Touch seem to argue that a society built on women’s pain does not deserve a second chance. 

Continue Reading