We Are Watching: Curfew Character Teasers

By Kieron Gillen on June 30th, 2010 at 10:54 am.

We’ve previously discussed the graphic-adventure-for-web I wrote with Littleloud for Channel 4. Anyway, since then, they’ve lobbed up four interrogation-scene character trailers to introduce the main cast. And you’ll find them below. Out towards the end of next month, and available free to play online to everyone.

And I’m not saying any more to avoid spoilers. Yes.

__________________

« | »

, , , .

38 Comments »

  1. poop says:

    call of grand theft duty 4

  2. radomaj says:

    A Machiavellian genius, I say!

  3. Sobric says:

    Lilly Allen?

  4. Brumisator says:

    This RL graphical engine is pretty impressive

  5. Brumisator says:

    By the way… not to be a grammar Nazi or anything… but shouldn’t the slogan be “Whom do you trust?” ?

    Damn this television perverting our children’s conceptions of arbitrary rules.

    • Sulkdodds says:

      In all honesty, ‘whom’ no longer has much of a place in our language. It’s an inflectional hangover from Anglo-Saxon, but not one that has often been widely used; traditionally it applies in a dative case that doesn’t properly exist anymore, while its application to a wider ‘objective’ case is so rare nowadays that it’s difficult to describe it as an ordinary part of the tongue. It is only ever insisted on when preceded by a preposition – “to whom”, “for whom,” and so on. But even this usage is bound up with the traditional ban on ending a sentence with a proposition, and THAT rule is an invention of 18th century grammarians imposing the rules of Latin onto English; it is, to paraphrase Churchill, the sort of nonsense up with which we need not put. I imagine the same vogue for Latin imposition lies behind the persistence into the modern age of any scrupulous distinction between who and whom. Ironic that rules transplanted from an ancient foreign tongue should be used to prop up a native relic, but there you go.

      All of this means that ‘whom’ is of limited use. In fact, it’s so rarely encountered in ordinary conversation, or even journalism, that its primarily purpose is increasingly mere snobbery. To know about it is to be a linguist or a purist, and to use it strictly, that there is a True Proper Right Language and that you are one of the few who speaks it. That may not be the intention but it’s usually the unfortunate implication. Whom is fast becoming only a marker of status, as when one drops French phrases into one’s English, or, indeed, when one says ‘one’.

      So nah, I reckon ‘who’ is fine.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      That’s the thing, innit? It’s about more than just grammar. It’s about what the words mean and what they imply about the person speaking. WHOM DO YOU TRUST? would change everything about that trailer.

      KG

    • Clovis says:

      So, it’s ok if I respond to the question with, “I trust he”?

    • DJ Phantoon says:

      English is a living language, and will change as such. The word ‘whom’ is archaic at best! I can find more uses for the word ‘defenstrate’ than ‘whom’, and for good reason: No one uses whom anymore.

      Ain’t is a real word, despite not really being more than a conjunction of two already existing conjunctions (are not and is not). So don’t be so anal about a word no one uses. It just makes you look elitist, you mac user. No one said PC gaming included you, even if Macs have Steam now!

    • Shih Tzu says:

      Clovis: Sure, if your goal is to say things no one ever says.

    • Clovis says:

      I’m reading Hocus Pocus by Kurt Vonnegut and just saw an example of “whom” being used. Seemed perfectly natural to me. Of course, that was written in 1990, so I guess it is pretty archaic. The narrator is also a bit nutty.

      How do you tell when a rule becomes archaic? Most people I know don’t bother with using an adverb when they should. Oh well, I guess you just gotta’ learn to think different!

    • Nick says:

      There’s nothing wrong with using who. Equally there is nothing wrong with using whom, dismissing it as archaic is rather stupid, unless you advocate the removal of countless other words as well.

    • TeeJay says:

      @ Sulkdodds

      You make very good points until you get to the bit about “its primarily purpose is increasingly mere snobbery” or being “only a marker of status”. There are some contexts (usually formal) where it sounds more natural (eg. starting a letter “to whom it may concern”) – also using “whoever” instead of just “who”. All sorts of people drop affectations into their language for all sorts of different reasons, be that french phrases or jamaican patois.

      ‘Orses for courses, innit?

  6. YogSo says:

    Yay! at the return of the “staring eyes” tag.

    By the way, will there be (optional) subtitles in the game? I’d like to play it, but I’m afraid the language barrier (for some reason, I have a much hard time understanding “standard” British accents than “standard” American ones) is definitely a problem for me. Subtitles would be a huge help.

  7. Baka says:

    I can’t help but find them staring into the camera and acting directly into my face kinda awkward.
    Is that just me?

    • Clovis says:

      I don’t think it ever bothered Bethesda Game Studios.

    • LionsPhil says:

      No, it’s not just you; having your field of view filled with someone’s face—not even their whole head—is not a natural conversational stance. I’m getting horrible, horrible “we learnt precisely bupkis from the horrendous FMV adventure era” vibes from this.

      Of course, this CAPTCHA system insists I’m not human, so perhaps I’m just alarmed by the proximity of their disgusting, grease-covered flesh and their flapping spittlehole. Beep. Click. Whirr.

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      LionsPhil: I wouldn’t worry. The actual game is much more naturalistic angles.

      KG

    • Taillefer says:

      I think these are done many times better than other games (that I’ve played, anyway) manage just for simple things like cutting to their eyes and mouths and such. At least your eyes aren’t fixed forwards in your static head which just stares, unblinkingly, ever on.

    • Collic says:

      It worked for Sergio leon.

      Extreme close ups do have their uses.

  8. JR Maxwell says:

    These are real people? They fall squarely in the uncanny valley for me.

  9. DJ Phantoon says:

    Will this get an Optimus thumbs rating?

    Also, how does Optimus Prime have so many thumbs? I thought he only had two arms. Does his feet transform into hands just for this or something?

  10. Flakfizer says:

    Third Person? Meh, this is Deus Ex : HR all over again…

  11. Kab says:

    Colour me very very intrigued….

    Is it wrong to fancy the ‘Machiavellian genius’?

    Best sort of trailers though… no spoilers but an epic hook… Never heard of this project before but definitely going to be following it…

    (PS Your CAPTCHA still really really sucks salty monkey nuts!)

  12. The Dark One says:

    Graphic adventure games using live actors will only achieve perfection when every single one features Brad Dourif in its cast.

  13. Gerbick says:

    Yay, for the TV on the Radio soundtrack!

  14. Bobsy says:

    JESUS KIERON IF YOU LIKE THAT SONG SO MUCH WHY DON’T YOU MARRY IT

    Also, doesn’t she have intriguingly round teeth? Rounder than most!

  15. Pod says:

    NUMBER 4 IS THAT SCOTTISH GUY (Iain Connell?) WHO ISN’T SCOTTISH ANYMORE WHATS GOING ON PEOPLE

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>