"Injustice: Gods Among Us": Review

From the makers of "Mortal Kombat", "Injustice: Gods Among Us" is the polished fighter you'd expect, but set in the DC comics multi-verse. Fighters are a genre of game I've never particularly cared for; I only bought this one because of my comic book addiction. However, "Injustice: Gods Among Us"'s enjoyability goes beyond it's superhuman roster. The gameplay is solid, the campaign enjoyable but short, and the playable characters are varied but balanced.

Some of you may have noticed my use of the word "multi-verse" in the opening paragraph. This is because the central premise of the narrative is one of two universe. There is the familiar DC universe where heroes are heroes and villains are villains, mixing with an alternate universe where some heroes have revolted to establish an authoritarian world order, joined by some villains. In most other games, this would seem far-fetched, but this is no more absurd than a standard comic-book plot, and "Injustice" turns it into the fantastic. Individual bouts by certain characters can also seem forced at times through flimsy set-ups. This is worsened by the games seeming insistence of four consecutive fights for each character.

However, the four consecutive fights with characters does provide other benefits to the game. It allows the player to grow comfortable in and sufficiently experience each character by the end of the series, but also keeps it varied enough for the player to find the one best suiting his style. Knowing the campaign is the first mode inexperienced fighter players will turn to, they have made it an easing process into the game. This is important because it is something high-class fighter games so often forget. My previous experience with games such as Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat is one of endless beatings, while struggling to remember and execute painfully long combos. "Injustice" has minimised this problem systematic of fighters. While there are still teething problems for new players, they are small and require relatively little time to work through. "Injustice" is forgiving but not lax in its difficulty gradient.

The gameplay is solid. There are sufficient combos for varied combat, and the combos seem to be able to link together for the more experienced (although first-hand knowledge is lacking!). There is also a good mix of character builds to use, as expected from a roster of 24 playable characters. Players can opt for fast but weak fighters such as The Flash and Catwoman, or strong but slow ones like Bane, and quite a few points inbetween. Initially there seem to be no over-powered characters that dominate, although they may be discovered as players explore each one. As expected of fighter games, each character has a "super-move" unlocked by achieving combos and taking damage. In true DC style, most of these are suitably epic. Whether it be Superman piledriving someone from the upper atmosphere or Batman splattering people with the Batmobile, immense satisfaction is derived each time, as well as massive damage. They could be even more beautiful if the graphics had been brought up to scratch with titles like "Tomb Raider" and "Forza 4."

However, these are not the only quirky elements of the combat. Seemingly innocuous everyday objects can be used to evade your opponent, as throwable objects, or exploding traps. When sets of characters react differently to every object, half of the fun in each map is finding out what there is and how to use it to your advantage. "Injustice" also has a system called clashing, where players can wager portion of their "power bar" to either gain health or deal some extra damage. The gains tend to be small, leaving it feeling more like a gimmick than a game-altering addition. However, there are a few dramatic (and occasionally amusing) dialogues between characters, and a big boom, redeeming it slightly.

A final fun aspect is the multiple layers on maps, that players can "transition" between. Get your opponent to a "transitionable"end of a scene, and you can whack them down (or up) a layer, normally through lots of damaging objects. On one map they can get hit by a train and on another be pushed through a demonic jail. Unfortunately, they are such an innovative and exciting addition to the gameplay that you wish more time had been spent developing them. When the mortal and humble Green Arrow punches Superman a kilometre and through several walls, the sublimely surreal becomes ridiculous. This could easily have been fixed by tailoring the initial part of the sequence to each fighter, but seems to have been left as an oddity. Fortunately, this is a small lapse of detail in a game otherwise superb.

There are also sufficient challenges to stop "Injustice" falling into the repetitive pattern some fighter games can fall into. While the campaign is slightly shorter than most, the S.T.A.R Labs mode place extra criteria on battles and mini-games, creating a fresh challenge for those left hungry. Numerous "Battle" modes also place you against difficult odds, and against strings of opponents. These, combined with the multiplayer, give the game much more variation and play-time than you would initially expect.

Despite the mediocre graphics and occasional ham-written scene, "Injustice: Gods Among Us" is one of the few fighter games I enjoy playing. It is challenging without being harsh, and tries to ease beginners into the genre. It is challenging, quirky, and genuinely fun to play. In a world where high-quality superhero games like "Batman: Arkham City" and "The Amazing Spider-man" are rising, "Injustice" earns its place between them.

Should you play this game? Yes

Score: 8/10.

The Seven Class System

The number of classes in society is increasing exponentially. In the 1800s there were the two classes of the bourgeoisie and proletariat. In the 1900s, there were three classes; upper, middle and working. Now a study by the BBC has revealed there are now 7 classes.

Obsession with class has long been a part of the British psyche, as shown in our political discourse. There are calls on the left for Labour to begin re-representing the economic interests of the working class. Meanwhile, the centre ground of politics has a tradition of championing "the squeezed middle."

Another reason class is so dominant in our political discourse, leaving aside cultural compulsion, is it's effectiveness as a rhetorical tool. If you can quickly summon the image of a vast group, with reasonable economic similarities and shared concerns, that is a valuable tool in powerful speech making. "The squeezed middle" carries momentum much further than "People who earn between £x and £y." Secondly, given Britain's history of class consciousness, the phrases themselves carry power. These pillars of reference can, not only keep a speech going through snappy labels, but emotionally charge it as well.

One need only look at the BBC's proposed new class system to see it is unfit for purpose. "Emergent Service Workers" is a long, flaccid phrase. Meanwhile, "Precariat" tries to presumably combine "precarious" and "proletariat." This attempt to appropriate marxist language just sounds absurd given its lack of grounding in marxist historical context and tradition. Any politician who used these phrases would be laughed out of the pulpit.

If there is one advantage going for this new class system, that is its more holistic approach to class. An increasing tendency by society to judge class on factors other than the economic combined with a greater mixing of values and interests between economic classes, means the boundaries between some classes are blurred if existent. By taking into account "cultural and social capital" as well as the traditional "economic capital," the BBC has been able to reinstate boundaries between an increased number of classes. Now your class is determined by areas such as your internet use, eating habits and the music you like as well as your economic status.

However, given it cannot perform as rhetoric like its predecessor, what is the point of this improved accuracy? It seems to exist only to be a means of identification. Unlike the three class system, which we could evaluate on it's usefulness elsewhere as well as it's accuracy, the only criteria for this one is it's accuracy in providing identity.

On this front all class systems fall down. Instead of introspection, the identity is derived from the economy and culture surrounding us, referenced from society and our position within it. When asking "Who am I?" this system responds by saying "You are a qualified accountant with a partner and 3 kids, who likes indie music, uses social media, and has income of x pounds" This answer of who we are resembles describing somebody through a narrow window. It is defining yourself through the third person. Our identity becomes the superficial things we outwardly project, not the way we think or our emotions. We have a definite outline of identity but no stuffing to be within it.

The ability of this class system to aid our understanding of ourselves is extremely limited, nor is it a system that can effectively use these outlines in rhetoric. It is a system invented merely to indulge the British obsession with class.