'Dragon Age : Origins ' the old gold standard

 Respect for your elders.

The year is 2009 and Bioware is about to release one of their greatest, and most terrible, achievements. Because you see, 'Dragon Age: Origins' is a game that would shoot the already accomplished developer into the spotlight once again on a golden horse of quality, and would unfortunately be the absolute peak of their life from which the studio would spiral into ignominy. Every success they make from then on would be compared and contrasted to it, every failure would be heightened in the knowledge that they once made this; the entirety of Bioware history would be whittled down to before 'Dragon Age: Origins' and after. At least in the eyes of some. I'm someone who still remembers that this is the studio who bought both Knights of the Old Republic (an arguably better game) to the world and the Baldur's Gate Trilogy; an actual classic masterpiece. None of which is to say that Origins isn't another masterpiece for their shelf, because it absolutely is; but when I see people heralding it as the unbeaten gold standard for RPGs I can't help but roll my eyes. 

'Dragon Age: Origins' is a spectacular RPG, not least of all because it's the only RPG I can think of which has managed to create genuinely impactful origin story set-ups so that the character you make in character creation is firmly cemented in the world. Cyberpunk 2077 even tried to copy that feature, and ended up screwing it up because they forgot to add the follow-up main narrative tie-in which makes the origin stories impactful! Origins also balanced its narrative between several big self contained stories with their own climaxes that all leant towards the bigger goal, so that by the time you reached the credits you really felt like you'd embarked on a world shaking adventure novel the size of a Tolkien book. It presented a simple RPG system which, whilst lacking depth for a game of it's genre, provided a very fun set of tools to navigate the world with. And it also toyed with action and consequence in a manner that felt like it had impact, even if as-a-whole it sort of feels a bit like the whole 'Mass Effect 3' style story where you shore up allies for some big final battle at the end because you need the numbers rather than because you're shaping the specifics of the future.

All of which I lay down in praise, because Dragon Age has been one of my favourite fantasy worlds almost exclusively through of it's stellar introduction in 'Origins'. (And that's still the case after watching that Cassandra Anime which that convinced I'm the only one who has ever watched. So that goes to show you how much of a fan I am.) Thedas succeeds in being a fantasy world lacking the backing of a well established book franchise to lean on or any of the other dozens of helping hands that some game devs rely on, and is still pretty interesting and cool, apart from the elves who are cookie-cutter cliché fantasy elves. And that isn't a given, by the way; lest I remind everyone of Larian's Divinity and that total sewer of a fantasy world so rotten that Larian literally reimagines the entire world canon every game or so. But in Bioware's failure to really nail the formula of Origins again, or to try and supplant it with something better like they've tried to do twice now, I think it's safe to admit to ourselves that the golden boy of 'Dragon Age' is no longer at the top of the pecking order for RPGs anymore. Well, unless you're looking specifically for a mildly deep, narratively formulaic, fantasy cliché ridden, role playing game. By Bioware. If you want those specifics; then 'Dragon Age: Origins' is your king. But if you're looking at the buffet that is RPGs; the genre has moved and branched beyond what that old classic can offer.

Rather than just living in the world of the RPG. Or the western RPG and the JRPG, if you're cultured. We now have the RPG and the CRPG. And for what it's worth, I think that CRPGs have effectively overtaken the western RPG market and made those old titles largely irrelevant, at least from a gameplay standpoint. (Origins will forever be well written, afterall.) These CRPGs harken back to the old days where RPGs existed to adapt robust and expansive board game rulesets into the digital landscape, which provided vast swathes of gameplay potential as they were designed to do. Bioware came at a time when RPGs were smoothing out a lot of those complexities in an effort to become more widely playable, and at the time that made the most sense; but we're leaning back towards an industry of niche and specialisation, such that those old games that tried to balance the fence just don't really cut in comparisons anymore.

Pillars of Eternity was the big return to form for a lot of people out there, as Obsidian slid into the space left behind my the death of the original CRPGs to remind everyone what we love above board-game based RPGs. Options. So many options and builds and styles of play beyond the bog standards 'rouge, mage or warrior' that everyone and their mother usually does. Although for me it was Tyranny which really tipped the cart over on DA:O's shoes. Their unique narrative presentation of being someone who serves the dictator sparked to life that world in a manner I hadn't felt for a new RPG in a very long time, that same spark which had gone stale for Dragon Age after two entries that felt like they weren't giving themselves to the world building quite as much as they could. (What the series needs is a single globetrotting action RPG that really highlights the beauty and diversity of Thedas, rather than redesigning a whole race and telling us to just go with for the third time.)

But what about that unique structure which DA:O rocked? True enough, no matter how many other RPGs you find which get the individual bits and pieces down pat, none quite capture that epic feeling of a total adventure told in one great stride. DA:O is really the successor to the Baldur's Gate trilogy in that regard, only without the ramp up in challenge to match the stakes of the narrative. Except... Pathfinder Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous give it a damn good try, don't they? Both adaptions of entire adventure campaigns, those Owlcat Games titles go even further than 'Dragon Age: Origins' to tell branching and intricate epic journeys that feel like a whole sweep of novels by the flipside. They haven't perfected that formula just yet, and there's still some ways to go for Owlcat but they're not stopping improving their craft. Unlike Bioware they aren't moving away from that style of RPG, they're embracing it and expanding it to create games that challenge RPG diehards. Whilst Bioware let the mantle rot and fester.

Ah, but I can't extol the virtues of Bioware RPGs without talking the cinematic presentation that they alone have possessed and perfected for all these years, now can I? Unless... oh, Larian is in the process of nabbing that crown of excellence with their work on the upcoming Baldur's Gate 3; a game which is a follow-up to Bioware's own legacy work too, which has got to be something of a double whammy. Soon Bioware won't even have the façade of epic narrative storytelling to hold up as their saving grace, which is going to end up leaving the studio practically bereft of virtues to call their own. And that's probably because in the years since DA:O came out, the game development industry has grown and involved in ways that version of Bioware could never imagine. 

Some games really do stand the test of time and remain the shining beacon that everyone looks back to for inspiration, but they are very rare exemplars of their genre. With how busy the RPG genre is, it shouldn't really be news to anyone that even a classic like 'Origins' isn't going to remain the top-dog golden standard forever, this medium evolves too quickly for that. None of which is to say there isn't still lessons to be learned from Origins, specifically in it's still unmatched character origins mechanic. (I really would have thought Larian would have managed to trump that one in the years since, but no such luck.) But even legends need to be put to rest, lest we leave them on the pedestal as more of a curtsey and it just becomes an embarrassment, like giving Martin Scorsese an Oscar for Gangs of New York instead of Goodfellas; it's just unseemly. So sing of how good Origins was during it's time all you want, but don't pretend it's still the king of the crop. Give it the respect to let the game rule it's time, why dontcha? 

I hate: Minions in Boss fights

 Not the yellow guys. They're aight.

Hate is borne from love they say, or something to that avail, because both demand the utmost extremes of emotion to be reached. Thus I suppose it only figures that I absolutely love boss fights in video games and am so glad that they're coming back into the mainstream lately. I live for those moments of mortal showdown between the protagonist and some powerful, towering foe which stretches every wit and sinew to trade blows with. I love the climatic nature of the events, the emotions, the thrills, the highpoints and the low. Standing across the deck of a burning ship and ripping off perfectly fine suits before Shibusawa, drawing guns inside of a snow-white field of stagnant water lilys against The Boss, and stepping into the Kiln, watching the Soul of Cinder slowly rise amidst a sea of discarded burnt-up swords from a thousand battles fought; these are the moments that steal my heart away time and time again. A perfect boss fight, in set-up alone, can be unforgettable tournaments of one on one. But we're not here to talk about things that I love, now are we, so let's discuss how games often manage to bottle it and burn my wings in anguish. Time after time.

Minions. Why? I've just fist fought my way through the streets of Kamarucho, snuck across a Russian forest crawling with soviet hit squads and bested Lords with the strength to relight the world; I expect on the other end for my foe to have the common courtesy of facing me like a man; instead of hiding beneath the coattails of swarms-worth of brainless anklebiters that I've already stepped on hoards of in order to get here in the first place. It's demeaning. What enjoyment do I get out of taking a break between each expertly dodged move to go "Oh whoops, the mobs are getting rowdy again, better take a quick time out"? Why should anyone have to deal with their clash of the titans moment being interrupted by an errant skeleton who's trying to remember how to cast a basic fireball? "Excuse me, Skeleton-mage-man, but I'm right in the middle of something right now. This huge climax of tension and narrative drive that the world designers and storytellers have been weaving throughout my last stretch of gameplay, could you sod off and let me enjoy that now?" Is that being too direct? Not enough?

A boss is a very special milestone to reach, and it should be an exciting affair as well. Oftentimes they precede important story revelations or an impressive tract of land that's about to open up to you. Rarely does a boss not come without a reward, even if it's just relief of having duelled and won the day. Thus there's almost a sacredbond between these moments and players; an unspoken rule that things are about to get tough but you can mange through the struggle by learning your enemy, maybe through several attempts, and exploiting those weakness. The game has saw fit to challenge our resolve, and thus we meet it with all our vigour and intrigue. Something new, exciting and unexpected lurks just beyond that foggate and I'm going to be the one to figure it out! Only for it to turn out to be a swarm of nobodies who sit on you whilst their boss does the dirty work. Does anyone else come away feeling cheap after such fights? Like they were used and tossed out the next morning without so much as a cup of coffee? 'Cause that, win or lose, is me. Utterly unamused. 

In my eyes this spawns the same sort of dissatisfaction that those feel who complain whenever a boss is simply just a scaled up version of an enemy you fought in the level beforehand. (I mean it's not that lazy, mind you, but it feels that way to me.) I expect new experiences, new movesets and new tension, such to the point where I'll even rate boss fights with unique boss minions in them over those that recycle the level's mob trash, because at least then I know that these are enemies geared to be in this fight. Otherwise it almost always turns into an inelegant mess of a battle where attention is drawn away by a back-up troop who all engage in their own tactics instead of supporting their boss, because that's just how they designed at a base level. So I switch target, loss focus, get bum rushed, die, rinse and repeat. And it's almost never with a smile on my face.

Dark Souls, bless that franchise, understands this fully, and even in the battles that are occupied by mobs the boss in them is designed in such a manner where they would be useless without the mobs. Imagine battling the Deacons of the Deep without the hoards: the fight would be even more trivial then it already kind of is. I just don't see why, when you already have a tough-as-nails headlining act, they need to have the audience rush the matt for backup. Okay, that's not true, I do kind of understand the logic. Some of the reasoning doesn't escape like I wish this practice would. I say that because, at a base level, good design does dictate that the challenges and tribulations of a level should reinforce the skills that you need to use as the game becomes more difficult. Thus I can kind of see the logic behind populating boss fights with identical enemies to the level you just bested as though to say "Look, you fought these guys before so you should be familiar with them!" But I'd call this a case where the forest is wholly missed for the tress.

Now there's obviously a angle to be addressed here of design and balancing that I am sort of knowingly bulldozing over to make a point. That's because I think the expectations of a boss battle are fundamentally different what what is sought out of level-filling mob trash. When trudging through levels, I expect a diverse smattering of enemies who feel intelligently placed enough to give the area life and stretch gameplay across the area I'm playing in. They don't necessarily have to feel like they were crafted for the halls I'm fighting down because I expect these guys and their AI to meet me in a variety of locations over my gaming adventure. Level trash needs to be adaptable, a little indistinct and be designed to be fought time and time again without being boring. And I'll imagine you're already starting to see the comparison I'm about to make. Boss enemies are, ideally, meant to be as synonymous with their arenas as they are with their gameplay. (Remember how I noted each boss' location when I gave examples earlier?) Their size, attacks, speed, design: everything should be crafted to compliment the location within which you fight them, whether that is to hinder your struggles or aid them. These aren't enemies you could just pick up and place across the game, they have their space and it's a space made for them. So isn't it galling, then, for the mob trash to invade that space? Doesn't it speak to an inherent disrespect of the sacred boss arena?

But of course, there has to be an example of a climatic boss fight which does exactly this but does so without such complaints from me, and the example which comes most readily to mind right now is that of the Dragon Age Origins finale. (Spoilers. Duh.) At the end of that game you're tasked with duelling a huge dragon atop a burning city whilst hoards of Darkspawn do their best to rearrange your face. Now this is by no means the first dragon you've met in your journeys (his breath does unique damage but that's about it) so you know these guys can hold a fight on their own. But you're being assaulted by other enemies as well in a manner that doesn't feel ridiculous, and here's why. Firstly, you're not alone during this fight and this is supposed to resemble a large scale conflict, so the trash makes sense. Secondly, they're intelligently spawned so that you're not drowned in them. Thirdly, only the simplest of enemy types spawn so that you don't have to deal with complex strategies that draw attention from the main fight. And lastly; because the game is a tactical RPG in which you can take the time to pause the action, take a step back and unravel each new complication as it heads your way. That's why this sort of mobbing can work in games like X-Com too; it's fits the genre.

Of course, at the end of the day if you'd ask me which I'd rather have, trash filled boss arenas or no boss fights at all, I'd have to err towards the former, but that doesn't mean I'll stop suing for fundamental improvement to how such encounters are designed. Great boss fights can make or break a game's legacy and I think that in today's age, with as many brilliant examples of tight boss design as we have, there's not really an excuse for such clear, at least to me, missteps. Maybe I'm the one being regressive and there's some brilliant execution of this very issue of mine that blows away every single bit of my criticism. But I haven't played it yet and, given the breadth of games I have played, I can rather confidentially say that it's probably the exception and not the rule.

Enemy spam in game design

There coming out the wall!

Enemies are a staple of a good many video games out there today, and for very good reason; they represent an active trial for the players to overcome through strife that can feel exciting and dynamic in a way that's hard to replicate with static puzzles and gradual progression. That is, of course, just a general overview of their potential role in gaming; enemies can serve many different roles for their respective games and that's what makes them such a universal aspect. That does not mean, however, that there is no etiquette or widely excepted methodology to the creation and implementation of said enemies; but I'm only interested in one specific set of rules and that's those that go into deciding the sheer quantity of enemies. What counts as just enough and what crosses into the borders of 'Enemy Spam'.

'Enemy Spam' refers to a situation in video games wherein the player meets an enemy force that vastly eclipses their ability to handle it. As such, what actually constitutes 'enemy spam' can vary wildly from game to game; it comes under the banner of balancing for the title in question. In some games, enemy spam could be considered having a group of five enemies thrown at a player in a very one-on-one style game, or having a constant barrage of enemies thrown at them again and again in a very resource heavy style game. What's important to note and make distinction of is that 'Enemy Spam' isn't used to denote a moment at which a player's ability is heavily challenged, even when it's to a degree outside of their supposed limits; but rather a time when the amount of enemies, or the type in question, are so consciously geared to be disadvantageous to the player that it starts becoming frustrating, and loses that hard-but-rewarding edge. (It's a fine line to walk.)

Personally, the first time I really came up against 'Enemy Spam' was in the party-based RPG 'Dragon Age: Origins', which I'm sure you all know so well. That was an entire game built around the core concept of intelligent use of character skills and positing in order to overcome the threats of the game. (Although, all too often that did slip into micromanaging the every move of your teammates. The AI wasn't the best on the market.) This meant that throughout the majority of the game you'd come up against smartly constructed groups of enemies that would test your versatility and strength as you devise counters against the many different enemy types, with the finale of the areas typically testing all of the strategies you had made in your journey. By the climax of the game, however, the team had run out of new enemy types to throw your way and thus just resorted to placing armies of Darkspawn in your path. This was still completely fine and dandy right up until the final hallway of enemies before the final boss; because there we all saw the quintessential example of enemy spam.

There, in front of the player, were a layout of battlements manned by Darkspawn; surely a challenge for any player to get through and requiring of some tactical planning. Bioware, however, saw to it that people wouldn't have a chance to get to planning as the second you get there you'll be hit by a wave of invisible Shrieks to throw you off your game. Good play, Bioware, but now it's time to get back to- oh, there's another wave. And another. And another. Now this isn't any where near the worst example of enemy spam, but in a game that, up until this point, had relied on strong enemy composition rather than overwhelming numbers, it was supremely jarring. And all that was compounded by the final fight itself, which swarms unending waves of enemies at you requiring anyone on higher difficulties to literally bring an entire apothecaries worth of potions just to withstand the impending hoards. (Not really the sign of a well-crafted boss fight.)

Now this is by no means the only example of this sort of issue popping up in the game balancing, and in fact; Bioware themselves are responsible for an inordinate amount of it. There's the corridor of endless Sith at the end of KOTR, the Geth Juggernaut hallway up the Citadel tower in Mass Effect and probably something at the end of Jade Empire that I haven't got to yet. But there are other examples from different game franchises. Some might say that the later Dark Souls games resorted to increased amount of enemy spam to fill their areas (although the Frigid Outskirts from Dark Souls 2 is easily the worst offender in that regard.) The final level of 2016's DOOM is split in three nauseatingly prolonged combat arenas, all enough to make you never want to see another Demon for as long as you live. The newer XCOM games have spammy final levels, as does The Outer Worlds and certainly some of the Kingdom Hearts games.

But where is that line in the sand? At what point is more enemies too much and how does a developer know how to effectively walk that line? You may have noticed a trend out of the games that I mentioned, in that most of the egregious offenders pull their spam by the final levels, and that makes sense when you think about it. The finale of the game is supposed to represent the climax in spectacle, story and gameplay; so it makes sense for the developers to throw everything they can at you. But when they just inundate you with so many enemies that the game devolves into a substandard version of itself, suddenly that's too much and considered 'Enemy Spam'. It's a very tight line to walk and I envy no one who has to do so for a living.

Perhaps the hardest task of game balancing is figuring out the utmost extremes that your game and, most importantly, what your players are comfortable with; because realistically there is no right answer. There's no cure-all, one-fits-all, choice for how to attain perfect equilibrium and  therefore Devs just have to work off what little they can judge from their play testers and a little bit of instinct. Some games can totally get away with chucking the kitchen sink at you without ruining anyone's day; just look at the finale of 'Batman: Arkham Asylum' for instance. Just before the final encounter the player is asked to walk through a room brimming with clapping thugs on either side. Now this is entirely optional fight, and the key may lie in that, but I feel it's just the makeup of the game's legendarily tight combat controls that the action of knocking out everyone in that room still feels satisfying by the final punch. So as I say; different strokes for different folks.

Of course, personally I wouldn't say that Enemy Spam essentially ruins a game, but it does leave a sour taste in the mouth for the player which is rarely relived by the eventual completion of the task in question. For my two cents, I feel it's just a little unfair to be thrust into an overwhelmingly packed situation without being made aware of it prior. Perhaps it's the surprise of "Are we done ye- another wave?!" which really stings the worst, or perhaps I'm being reductionist with even that and there's an even wider net that could be cast here. Either way, I would be interested to hear a perspective for how enemy spam is handled from both a developer and player level, but as this was just an introduction to the topic, those are a couple blogs for another day.

The Best Companion in: Dragon Age: Origins

Beneath the sacred Mountain

Yes, I'm back once again for this 'best of' series that I seem to like so much, only this time I'm focusing on developers who, once upon a time, prided themselves on storytelling and character development, so needless to say the decision will be more multifaceted. Yes, today I'm talking about a Bioware RPG, more specifically one of their most celebrated ever, the prematurely named: Dragon Age: Origins. Now whenever people lament the shadow of a company Bioware is today, it is with the fond memories of their glory days back in 2009 when this title launched, therefore you could look on this title as the gold standard for what to expect from a Bioware game. That being said, I personally don't believe that Origin's boasts Bioware's strongest overall character line-up (Or even Dragon Age's if I being honest.) So it'll be interesting to see what conclusions I'm drawn to with this title. (Alas: Spoilers. Some mild, others not so.)

That being said, I'm obliged to start with the usual barrage of 'disclaimers' such as the fact that this list is entirely subjective and there's no wrong answers in questions like these. Also, I'm only covering the companions present in 'Dragon Age: Origins' and not those from 'Dragon Age: Awakening', although that's not because of personal preference but more because I literally don't remember any of the people for that DLC aside from Anders, and that's only because he shows up in Dragon's Age 2. Maybe I'll get around to replaying that DLC and figuring out exactly why I found it so utterly forgettable. (In the companion department, that is, everything else about 'Awakening' is actually pretty stellar.)

There is actually one more thing I want to address before getting into this particular blog and that is what some folk refer to as the 'standard Bioware archetype'. This is a criticism that some people stoke in the way that Bioware is so lacking in creativity that they recycle their companions from game to game instead of coming up with new folk, and it's a theory that seems to hold some water to those that pay but a precursory glance. I.E. The loner type character in Morrigan and Jack or the sage-like character in Wynne and Kreia. Whilst it is true that wide personality traits can be seen as common across these characters, anyone familiar with these characters can tell how distinct they are. (The Wynne/ Kreia comparison is honestly too dumb to comment on.) So whilst I mostly respect folks right to have their opinion on the quality of character writing, I'm going to have to just say people miss the mark quite widely there.

Now let's completely undermine everything I just said by talking by the archetypal 'stoic strong man' character: Sten. What can I say about Sten? Well I can't start by saying that as an actual functioning party member he's broken. I'm not sure what it is, but the guy is designed to work as a tank despite his stats being completely unable to accommodate for that. (Not really any use for a tank who's as tough as a box of tissues.) Even if the player does decide to invest points into turning Sten into an actual feasible tank (for whatever reason) he'll just naturally be outclassed by Alistair whom you receive earlier and who is just much more naturally talented in that particular field. What I'm basically trying to say here is that Sten is practically useless in any tough gameplay encounter and that already throws up a huge barrier when I'm trying to like someone. His personality did the rest. Speaking of...

Sten is your prototypical strong man with little to no emotion beyond being occasionally sternly judgemental. Initially this works as an introduction to his race; Sten is a Qunari who has been sent by his leader, the Arishok, to study and observe the Blight which is sweeping the land. This sets this character up for a classic man-out-of-place dynamic as he comes fact to face with a culture incompatible to his own and struggles to come to terms with whilst the player whittles through his tough exterior to reveal the commonalities inherent to all beings, Qunari or man. (You see, Bioware, that's how you handle this sort of character.) Instead Sten is presented as a humorless, uncharasmatic, murderer who does his best to poke and prod the main character with inane observations and comments about nothing to the point where you just want to kick him out your camp. Yes, there should be moments where you explain parts of your culture to him, No, those shouldn't all consist of him blabbering on about Qunari culture for 5 minutes at a time. I appreciate the effort but you guys seem to have forgotten; as a player I don't care about the 'Qunari' because they aren't important to the current story being told, so why would I want their people's freakin' spokesperson as my personal companion? Why not send me an exposition machine from the Dalish tribes if you wanna start this terrible of a precedent. (although even that would make a little bit more sense as, again, the Dalish actually show up in the story!)

So Sten basically has no personality throughout the entire game and yet the player is expected to have cultural standoffs with him as though we give a crap what he thinks about us. (How can we do that when we don't even care who he is? It's like arguing with a sentient exposition dumb, why even bother?) Only by the end does he seem to show some begrudging respect towards you, but by that point it feels a little out of nowhere and a lot too-little-too-late. And you wanna know what makes this all worse? The knowledge that we'll never get to see Bioware take another crack at Sten to evolve him into a better character due to the strange revelation in the next Dragon Age that Sten was actually his title, he never had a name. So there's a thousand identical mountain men going around with the name Sten, making this one utterly unremarkable in every conceivable way. (Yes, I get that's sort of the point of his entire culture, but it doesn't make for interesting character moments.) In conclusion, Sten is easily the worst companion in DA:O, maybe even in the entire franchise.

My next pick might be a little controversial for how low he is, but that's a surprise to me because I found Oghren utterly insufferable during my time with Dragon Age. It's only once I loaded up 'Dragon's Age: Awakening' with the promise of a returning 'fan favourite' that I realised there were people who were actual fans of this obnoxious Dwarf, and I cannot fathom why. Don't get me wrong, in terms of usefulness he is a damn sight more sensible to keep around than Sten; Oghren is presented as a two-handed damage dealer and he's actually built to be able to live up to that promise, with an extra character class to back it up. Functionally, I'd actually argue that Oghren is in the upper echelon in the teiring list and I wouldn't be surprised to hear it if some folk actually bought him to the final fight with them. (Maker knows you'd need all the advantages you can get for that absolute bloody onslaught of enemies. That finale is not one of Bioware's best designed.)

My gripes with Oghren actually come purely from his character, although I will admit that this isn't to say that this is a badly done character like Sten was. Oghren is intend to be a brash, crude, sometimes violent and occasionally purile Dwarf who specialises in embarrassing himself and driving away everyone until you come along to deal with his crap. Bioware execute this beautifully and as a result I cannot stand to be around this arse for longer than the game intends, and can you blame me? He's annoying, a braggart and his height of humour is belching. (Because that's just one step above fart jokes, huh Bioware?) I mean don't just take my word for it, look at the mission in which he's introduced! He's just been dumped by his wife for being awful and she's mounted an expedition through the incredibly dangerous Deep Roads in a bid to get away from him. (Okay, there are other reasons for this expedition too, but I'll bet money the distancing was a huge bonus!) The second she's gone she immediately picks up a new lover, goes absolutely nutty, and even in her insanity refuses to listen when you drag her husband through hell to get her to calm down. (That's what you expect the results to be from sharing a household with Oghren for extended periods of time)

Although seriously, all that is absolutely fine in my book. Honestly. Sure, Oghren repulses me on a base level but I do absolutely love it when any writer can provoke such an emotional response out of me. I like having characters that I disagree with in stories as it makes everything a lot more enjoyable and varied from the point of view of the watcher. My real problem with Oghren is the fact that he doesn't really appear to grow throughout your time together, or at least not enough. Through your journey's Oghren appears to be on a journey to become more of an actual adult and start actually pulling himself together, although this just amounts in you wing manning him to score an old flame. (Literally. That's his entire companion quest. Like a crappy romcom.) Of course, this apparently does 'change' him according to the main game's epilogue, but I actually remember enough about 'Awakening' to know that account doesn't match with reality. In that DLC, Oghren is still the same POS, ungrateful drunkard as always and you have to work overtime just to keep his new relationship together. (He drops their baby twice. I just can't with this man.) So in conclusion; I understand why Oghren is beloved by some, he's a really well written character, I just fundamentally hate him for who he is. That's all there is to it.

If that last one was going to ruffle feathers, then this one will too if I don't get something out right away; I actually do like the little rogue elf Zevran. As a party member he's the only dedicated rogue with a specialisation in close range combat, meaning that he can really take advantage of Dragon Age's 'Backstab' system which makes one-on-one bossfights easier. (Or 'feasible' in the highest difficulty. Which, again, is the only difficulty I play on.) He's actually a great addition for specialised party configurations, but he's not the kind of companion that I'd bring along for just any bout. (Rogue's aren't always at their best when surrounded. Take it from the idiot who insists on playing 'Dragon Age: Inquisition' as one.)

I think his story is actually pretty cool too, with him trying to assassinate you to begin with before becoming your friend in a weird 'life debt'/'I don't really have a choice because I'm know as marked for death as you are'-type situation. Additionally, unlike Sten much of Zevran's world-building is actually pretty cool to hear about, probably because he actually shows up in some his stories. I enjoy the England-inspired Fereldan well enough, it's well-executed typical fantasy fodder, but hearing about Antiva (Which I'd imagine is meant to be Spain) through Zevran's voice makes for a very cool exotic sounding place. Unfortunately, this works against Zevran because I remember his stories about his home world more than I remember him. I can't even recall how his post-game epilogue goes, which doesn't really bode well for the character's staying power. Ultimately, Zevran is cool enough, he just lacks any real depth for me.

Okay, maybe it's a little cheaty to include a DLC character but I don't care, I like Shale. As a party member she is delightfully unique as a stone golem construct imbued with the soul of a particularly sassy Dwarf. In gameplay she makes for a pretty useful crowd control unit (You'd think she'd be a tank...) which doesn't exactly make her a party staple but does give her a space in certain pouts. (I've literally had fights that I've ducked out of just to bring her aboard because her unique move set is that cool) As a non-humanoid companion she's certainly a lot more robust and useful than the dog of this game. (Oh yeah, there's also a dog. He's not interesting enough to get a paragraph.)

In terms of personality Shale radiates that delight sardonic wit of HK-47 (crap, now I'm comparing games!) which ensures she always has a great quip about the situation. Her personal backstory is pretty funny too, with her being forced to be a scarecrow in a small town for several decades, explaining her disdain for simple human life. As a smartly comic relief character, it's actually rather surprising when her story touches the pensive once you dig into her past, although she doesn't exactly have a grand interesting narrative for players to dive into and so I have to mark her down for that.

Wait, have I marked up the French girl because of the accent again? (Am I a Francophile?) No, in truth every single character from this point forward all pretty much count as legendary Bioware characters, the like of which each Western RPG companion gets understandably compared to. Thus Leliana earns her spot so high because she is easily one of the best companions in DA:O. In terms of gameplay she's a particularly competent ranged Rogue who isn't too shabby close up either, making her pretty much a must for most regular party configurations. Whenever I play she pretty much gets the bulk of all my light armour because she makes better use of that stuff then I ever would. (Pretty much the only task you can rely on Bioware AI for is ranged combat.)

In terms of character, Leliana is an absolute classic, as I've mentioned. She starts off seeming to be a stereotypical 'Chantry bashing' religious type who you'll think get on your nerves within the hour, however soon you'll learn there's a lot more to this Orlesian 'bard'. As it turns out, Leliana turned to religion in order to come to terms with her dark past, also, turns out in Orlais 'Bard' means 'Spy/assassin'. (Funny how the rest of the world don't know what must be a terribly kept secret.) As you progress through the story she turns out to be one of the characters who inserts themselves rather adamantly into the main plot to the point where she can even briefly become the party leader if you play your cards right. (Or, given the situation which allows for this, very wrong) By the end of the tale you've helped Leliana either overcome her guilt and devote herself to her new creed or hardened her out of her guilt by convincing her that the spy-life ain't so bad. (I guess that canonically the latter happens, given her appearance in DA:O) To conclude; Leliana is a great companion and no Dragon Age playthrough would quite feel right without her.

Here, however, goes a character whom I respect for wholly personal reasons. Whilst Wynne might not be the kind of character who most default to when thinking of 'classic Bioware companions' I feel her presence in this particular title is too important to forget about. Wynne is a mage of The Circle, which immediately makes her part of the very intriguing 'Mage vs human rights' dynamic that every game in this series has addressed at least once. Her magic also makes her an invaluable party ally as she is the only dedicated healer who even gains the powerful ability to revive other party members mid fight. Literally, I have no idea if this game is completeable on the hardest difficulty without Wynne in the party, she's that essential.

But it's her character and story that I find really intriguing. Wynne is an elderly teacher when you meet her, although every thing changes for her when she is killed protecting her students only to then have her body possessed by some sort of benevolent demon. (Something which is abhorrent by the laws of the land.) Therefore Wynne is struck with the chance to do more good with her life and the dichotomy that her means to achieve this second chance is at odds with everything she believes in. However where Wynne really shines for me is the way in which she acts as a teacher for the player. Although her role in that regard is less official than, say, Kreia from KOTOR 2, she is still a learned individual who is eager to provide a sage word of guidance when the player needs it. In terms of roleplaying, this is a very handy tool for establishing an arc for the main character, gently guiding them into becoming the hero, or villain, that the player wants. Therefore, I like her for being that bedrock upon which a character arc can actually occur for the player character, which is something RPGs often neglect to account for.

Okay now we're firmly set in the world of personal preference, it only makes sense that I put my personal second best companion as Morrigan. Doesn't it just make sense? A pessimistic, snarky witch who delights in insults and light sadism; she's brilliant. As a witch of the wilds Morrigan is an incredibly useful attack mage with the power to practically evaporate a target if you give her enough room. As magic is a little overpowered in this franchise, a double team with her and Wynne is my personal go-to for all the big fights. She also has a shapeshifting personal skill which makes her a decent physical damage dealer for those with magic resistances. (I just wish I was smart enough to remember about that whenever those situations arise.)

As for her character, you can probably already tell that Morrigan is my actual spirit animal. She's always there to insert a bit of snide realism to deflate your heroic posturing and ensure that your feet are firmly set on the ground; but in a way that isn't so imperious or intrusive. (Like Kreia from KOTOR would.) Her personal story is also very interesting as it starts from a very innoculous request before ballooning into one of the most curious plotpoints of the franchise; one that very much still has a hanging question mark over it. (Will Flemeth let Morrigan enjoy her freedom, or has she already snatched it away without any of us knowing?) And Morrigan will forever have extra 'best companion' points in my eyes for being the only non-doe eyed bystander in that incredibly cringe-worthy scene in which Leliana decides to serenade you. (I could, and maybe even will, go into an entire blog of reasons why that scene is the single most skincrawling moment in the entire game. But I need to wrap this up.)

Those in the know will likely know my pick for top. Not just because there's a giant picture of his handsome mug above, but because there's only one real person who could be considered the best Companion in a game full of great companions. The one man who Bioware never give us more of no matter how much we beg, Alistair, the Bastard Prince. Now in gameplay Alistair takes up that most noble of party roles, the humble tank, and he's a damn sight better at it then Sten is. Although I usually play a tank myself, that in no way dissuades me from double teaming with Alistair against the harder to manage bosses like the high dragons. (Always helps to be able to switch aggro when health is waning.) But needless to say unless your player is a Tank, Alistair is an absolute necessity to your party at practically all times.

Good thing, then, that he has charisma and snark dripping out of his skin pores. He's funny, instantly likeable, sassy and- I'm starting to see a commonality in the types of personalities that I like... His story is also classically engrossing, with him being a Bastard Prince who never wanted his royal lineage, meaning that you can honour his reticence or mold him into becoming the type of king that Ferelden needs, making his presence essential to the games central plot. He's also the only surviving Ferelden Grey Warden aside from you (despite his relatively junior position) meaning that his council is the only one that gives you any idea what the Warden's are or how they would act. (And he hardly has any idea himself.) It's a really clever way to introduce a exposition font that you come to rely on without making him feel too arbitrary or cliche. (Something they completely messed up doing in the same game with Sten. How do you even do that?) There's something different about learning about the shortened life-span of the Grey Wardens from the same guy who talks about licking lampposts in winter like a badge of honour. Ultimately, Alistair serves as both the funny and straight man, bringing a very human perspective to an inherently whimsical fantasy world. His commentary is incisive, his musings relatable, and his pedigree that of a genuine friend, making Alistair my pick for the best companion in 'Dragon Age: Origins'.

That's that for Dragon Age for now, but not for Bioware as I intend to travel into space next. Yes, I know that logic would dictate that I move onto Dragon Age 2 now, but I actually haven't beat that game more than once so cannot judge the different paths available in the story. (Also, I technically still haven't beaten 'Dragon Age: Inquisition' but don't tell anyone.) Whatever I move onto next, I hope I drummed up some fond memories with this blog and maybe got you thinking about your favourite companions from back in the day. Until the next blog, I'll be sulking about FF7 Remake being an Playstation exclusive right up until they announce otherwise. (Which may never happen, so I might just be sulking for life.)

Are friends electric?

I hate to ask...

Companionship. One of the enduring traits of humanity is the desire for company, so that we don't have to go through this life alone. It's why we surround ourselves with family and friends; why we include ourselves in society and why, deep down, we just want to be loved. Or something like that, I dunno. I'm just trying to justify the reason that we connect in such a strong way to fictional characters in media. Such to a degree that we feel like we care about them. Just look at the cast of Game of Thrones, (Ignoring season 8) and how many people, including myself, felt genuinely distraught after the brutal murder of our favourite character. Or the fan petitions for the heroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe when... Infinity war happened and then... endgame happened. (Still not sure about the time frame for spoiler etiquette.) If portrayed right, fans can end up caring about these fictional creations as though they were real, breathing friends.

Video games are no different. In fact, sometimes Video game characters and companions can evoke an even greater degree of affinity then any movie character could hope to inspire. Perhaps it is a result of the immersion that a well realised game world can create; a testament to the authenticity of a vision that inspires authentic emotion. The same something special that has us thinking on a story long after we put the controller down, wracking our brains over decisions we made and the people we lost. RPG's especially seem to key into this mindset, at least for me, with the best examples presenting you with companions that you would defend in a heartbeat. But why is it that we find ourselves in these positions? Why do we care about the fate of those that are, ultimately, not real? Well, a few factors go into play.

The first I want to discuss is: Authenticity. It's a word I use a lot when describing fictional worlds that feel real but are not necessarily a reflection of reality, such as the worlds of Game of Thrones, The Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, Dragon Age, Even the Divinity Series. However, I want to stress the fact that authenticity is distinct from accuracy. An accurate fictional world attempts to capture all the details, big and small, of it's subject, whether in visual depiction, feeling or both. An authentic fictional world seeks to offer viewers something they've never seen before whilst presenting it in a manner so that they believe that such a place could exist. If a world feels authentic, then it helps make the people in that world feel authentic too. If we allow ourselves to fall for the fiction that a world magic can exist, is it so hard to for us to then believe in the sprites that inhabit that world?

Secondly, the writing of a character comes into play. An extension upon authenticity, the quality of writing plays a huge role in making the audience buy into the fiction. Vain creatures as we are, humans respond to traits and characteristics that reflect ourselves. We respond better to humanoid features like expressive eyes and facial hair, which is why anime characters have big eyes and CG Thanos from the MCU sports almost imperceptible stubble. We also like characters that demonstrate strength whilst also showing weakness, which is why some of the most enduring characters of pop culture can be flawed heroes like John Marston or Ezio. We want to see ourselves represented because we can recognize ourselves, and once we cross that threshold it becomes easier to see these imaginary creations as friends.

Thirdly, I believe interaction with the characters has a part to play. Now, 'interaction' is a difficult one because the exact meaning shifts if we're talking about a movie, book or game; but what I essentially mean by 'Interaction' is how close the perspective of the viewer is to that character. As in, is this a recurring character, is this character a friend, is the viewer in the shoes of that character, et cetera. Video Games have been establishing a close comradeship with it's cast through the use of companion characters for years. Those who share your adventure with you and save your life time and time again. In my exploration of emotive characters in fiction I want to first start with companions in gaming.

I could hardly go 5 minutes of talking video game companions without bringing up my favourite cast of characters from Fallout: New Vegas. In New Vegas, players are given a story of many sides as you are thrown into the middle of a war over the Mojave dam. Oodles of factions vie for the control over New Vegas and for you to help them achieve it, creating a situation where the player can find it difficult to know who to trust. Luckily for you, the player is given a whole host of memorable personalities to share the burdens of the land of sin with. Boone, Veronica, Cass, Arcade Ganon, Rex, Raul... and Lily, I guess.

The companions in Fallout games are the type that travel the wastes with you, risking life and limb, so they already share that instant bond-through-battle. However, in New Vegas the game takes it one step further. The cast of New Vegas are more than just hired guns, they are people with their own stories, troubles and dilemmas that they are in the process of dealing with when the courier walks into their lives. They care about the actions and decisions you make throughout the game and can come to respect or despise you in relation to the sides you choose in the coming conflict. Additionally, they all have a point at which they will trust the player enough to let them into their personal issues giving the player a way to help them out and through it.

Companion quests are what really push the New Vegas group into being a team you really care about as a player. They are exquisitely presented deep dives into that individual's world and troubles. Whether you're helping Boone open up about the death of his wife or Veronica come to terms with the prospect of leaving the only family she ever knew, you are positioned at a formulative moment in that person's life with the power to shape the person that they then become. Is there any greater sense of responsibility than helping to raise someone into the person they need to be? Most parents would likely argue not. In a way, that is the position that New Vegas places you in with it's cast. You become the parent and the companions are your children. The courier is never really an equal to his crew but more acts as a mentor. That is likely why it is so easy to care for that particular band of rogues.

The Witcher has a slightly different approach to endearing it's characters. Benefiting from being able to draw from Andrzej Sapkowski's novel series of the same name, 'The Witcher' game series did not need to spend time creating and introducing us to characters. Although most of the audience were not familiar with the fantasy novels, CD Projekt Red still opted to frame their tales in medias res; expecting the audience to pick up the story and cast as the went along. With a few clever drops of exposition here and there, soon everyone was familiar with Triss Merigold, Vesemir, Yennefer and Cirilla.

CDPR didn't need to have these characters follow Geralt around because they were already integrated so close to the story as Geralt's closest friends. With the player being put in the shoes of Geralt, it isn't too surprising why the audience comes to love them as much as he does. The Witcher is a very special RPG in the way that it allows for choice and consequence whilst still featuring established characters in a grounded, usually personal narrative. This means that the player may influence the direction of events but they never feel like the orchestrator of them, like anyone in life, really. A benefit of this approach is that the writers had an easier time directing the emotion of narrative, manipulating the audience into caring for people close to Geralt by familiarising the audience with their very human attributes. Ultimately, The strength of the Witcher's cast is a testament both to Andrzej Sapkowski's talent of crafting characters and CD Projekt Red's talent for utilising them.

So we come to Bioware. I speak of the team with a lot of high regard in terms to storytelling, and that is especially true with Dragon Age: Origins. As a traditional RPG series, Dragon Age is rife with memorable villains and companions in every entry; however, for my money the strongest lie in the original. This is both due to the framing of that story and the cast itself. Dragon Age: Origins was a story all about relationships, relationships between people, factions and nations. The Warden was tasked with uniting a country in order to save it's people, even when that country seems intent on tearing itself apart. You have to mend the shattered allegiances of Ferelden whilst working alongside a crew of, no other word for it, misfits. The sweet spy, Leliana; The wise teacher, Wynne; The bastard prince, Alistair; The suave assassin, Zeveran; The irritable witch, Morrigan; The apathetic golem, Shale; The drunken dwarf, Oghren and The faithful canine, Dog. Oh and Sten. I don't like Sten.

Almost every companion is diverse and intriguing in that way that Bioware can pull of better than anyone else. These are teammates that you fight and grow alongside and, just like New Vegas, the more time you spend with them the more they open up about themselves. The difference here is that you are very much on their level in Dragon Age, opening up your own weaknesses as they share theirs, and becoming a leader as they become who they are meant to be. Of course this means companion quests, which is my favourite way of solidifying a friendship, and even budding relationships as you progress with your team. You start of unifying a team of stranger and end off facing the end of world with a squad of stalwart friends and colleagues. And Sten. 

Final Fantasy 15 is another game with an absolutely great cast of characters. Grounded with the presentation of a road trip, and yet vast in the story of a chosen prince rising in order to face off against The Star Scourge. For FF15 the close interaction between the player, Noctis Lucis Caelum and his friends was the driving heart of the story. You would travel the road with them, meet new people, camp under the stars and just about do everything you would do on a road trip with real friends. (I assume.) Noctis travels the world with his best friend, Prompto; his royal advisor, Ignis and his royal protector, Gladiolus; and they all had a part to play in that coming of age story turned struggle between light and dark.

Final Fantasy is no stranger to emotional moments, with every game having at least one heart wrenching moment. They always focus around character driven moments and motives that expand your understanding of the people you share your party with. FF15 pushes this one step further, in my opinion, by basing the entire narrative around a close group of friends sacrificing their childhoods, their freedoms and eventually even some of their lives, in such a beautiful narrative. I may have even shed a tear once or twice. (Or I openly bawled three separate times.) Final Fantasy is just that well written, that even on it's fifteenth entry it can still introduce new characters that delight and surprise you and can leave you feeling hollow in their absence.

It would impossible for me to rattle off every single great companion in every Video Game; but I have provided a small petri dish of those that, I believe, present the fictional characters that most accurately represent friends. They all excel in traits that I think are necessary in making the fake seem real. They are all complex, vulnerable and unique; indicative of great writing and implementation. But why do we care so much about these fictional inventions?

Perhaps that is more of a question for a psychologist, however, from my point of view it comes down to that original trait of humanity I talked about; wanting not to be alone. Not that I'm accusing all the world of being lonely, but I believe us humans are hardwired to seek companionship wherever we can, even in the stories we read and the games we play. I can't say whether it is healthy to have one's entire group of friends exist entirely as a cast in some story, but there isn't any harm in connecting with a story that touches us in way we didn't expect. So maybe friends can be electric.