So about Fable

 

With a new Fable something on the way, (Remake, Reboot or just straight sequel- can't be sure on which one right now) I and many others have really had the franchise on the mind as everyone tries to come to terms with what this franchise even was to begin with- because it really doesn't seem like anyone is sure. It has been so very long since a proper Fable game has come out and an entire couple of generations have flown by in the interim. A lot of the target audience of these games have moved on entirely and they're now presumably batting for a whole new group of players right off the bat- but we won't be able to recognise those attempts unless we categorise what Fable is and more importantly- what it isn't. Because with that latter comes undue expectations that aren't really fair on the game.

Fable is an RPG franchise. But not really RPGs like any other franchise currently does it. They were mostly child-focused, with variously exaggerated adult winks, high fantasy RPGs that prided themselves on providing a sandbox. But that doesn't mean they were Sandbox RPGs, mind you! Perish the thought! They were robust and largely linear affairs- or rather bi-linear, I suppose? They championed purposefully opaque views on morality and heroism and created impressively creative black-and-white adventures around those parameters. They also boasted themselves as bastions of player expression despite never one featuring a character creator. (They just had so many character customisation options everyone felt like they were making someone unique.)   

But Fable didn't always stay as just that. As the games went on and the Fable brand grew the games started to shed their RPG routes and developed into a bit more of a general action adventure beat-em-up with basic moral compunctions chucked in for good measure. At least, in the rare times that they were even still traditional games! I don't mean to speak ill of the later games given that my introduction to the franchise was Fable 3 which I still hold some nostalgia for in my heart, but there's no hiding from the truth that Fable became a bit too much of a brand as it went on. Was the Horse VR game really deserving of the Fable name? Not really. What about the short-lived Asymmetrical multiplayer game? The 'player's playground' which was so integral to the franchise's identity was kind of lost.

I think as the franchise became more polished and outwardly approachable, it's innards were slowly gutted to a point where series fans became a bit disillusioned. Although to some degree I do think the streamlining improved the experience- there's no deluding yourself into believing that the original Fable isn't a bit of a convoluted mess in user experience, questing, combat, levelling- just about everything. It's the spirit of what Fable was that keeps it glued together and for better or for worse, I think that spirit was alive all the way up until Fable 3 dropped and Peter 'liar liar pants on fire' Molyneux flew the Lionhead coup. Speaking of- 'RIP Lionhead'- what a shame. Miss those guys and girls.

As Fable exists now, the franchise is not where it was left. In the absence of any serious contemporaries, Fable has become the great fantasy hope of the Xbox world, promising to bring back all those fond memories of sandbox escapism integral to this genre- even if quite a chunk of those memories weren't actually originated from Fable itself. People want Fable to be this grand fantastical adventure that will seamlessly immerse you in an otherworldly space, imbue you with all the skills to be some laudable attractive badass and thrill you throughout- most of which doesn't gell with this franchise at all. People genuinely get in their feelings about how 'unattractive' the female protagonist is like every other Fable character over the years have been virtues of beauty. The franchise's art style has been 'comic mis-proportions' since it started; what Fable have you been playing?

But lacking an Elder Scrolls, Fable has kind of had to serve as the interim Bethesda title whilst they fumble about trying to make Starfield feel like a better all around game- which has led to Fable adopting largely unrealistic expectations. Following the trajectory of Fables past- this game should only ever be a pretty decent AA game at best- honestly the production value we've seen so far largely diverges from the Fable we've known up until now- which is what leaves me to wonder whether or not there's any connective tissue from the series we know to the one we're seeing today. Will Microsoft even let this game be anything less than the big budget world simulation Elder Scrolls companion game it desperately wants to sell?

Now just because all of that is what Fable was, that doesn't mean it is what the franchise must always forever be. In fact, given the renewed spotlight-style focus that Fable is getting from Microsoft you'd almost be justified in saying they're expected to go above and beyond and create a 'premium product' to compete with the likes of Playstation's flagships- your Last of Us and God of War's. I don't believe that Fable can rise to such a task retaining it's playful innocence, no they'll need to shift in a manner that better suits the style. More cinema, less whimsy. And will that detract away from the heart of the franchise as it was? Perhaps- but sometimes it isn't a crime to change things up a little bit.

Take Perfect Dark for example, adapting a rather retro boomer-shooter into a pristine looking Immersive Sim- that's the kind of glow up that the Fable franchise could be looking at! We could get a narrower but cleaner RPG style adventure game than any Elder Scrolls game could realistically pull off. Fable could become an RPG franchise of tailor-made adventure pieces, rather than padding the waters between open world and garden plot exploration like they've done previously. And honestly, maybe the franchise would be better off leaning into it's own successes like this. Or maybe it'll just be another big open world RPG chucking it's two cents into one of the most competitive genres in the market- see how that works out for them...

Fable is back!

 Marked me down as 'mixed'

I doubt there was a single soul alive who doubted that the Fable game, teased a few years past, was going to make it to this year's E3. Microsoft spoke often about their thoughts on the game, it was highlighted as a key exclusive they want to leverage in the future; and Xbox aren't Ubisoft so the game actually had a chance of being shown! (Yes, I'm naively still waiting to see any proof that Beyond Good and Evil 2 is still being worked on.) As such I'd say it's a little redundant to come out and give the world another 'proof of life' trailer like the original announcement, especially when people are desperate to see what this new Fable hopes to bring to the fold to revigorate the franchise and maybe, finally, live up to the hype for one in the franchises troubled life.

We must all remember hearing the promises of what Fable would be everytime a new entry came out. Watching a tree grow out of an acorn, building meaningful relationships, choices and consequence shaping the land around us- Fable 2 is probably the only game that didn't disappoint and that was only through merit of the game director holding off from promising anything outlandish in the first place. Honestly I'm not even sure why this was the franchise that Xbox chose to revive except perhaps out of guilt for the way that they ended up killing off Lionhead Studios. People seem addicted to the hype of what Fable could be purely within the mind of it's unhinged creator Peter Molyneux, who last I checked was slumming it up in a pathetic crypto-game landgrab scam. (So if you're wondering that is how far this 'visionary' has since fallen off the wagon.) But you know: perhaps that's the reason why a new Fable was such an exciting prospect for people. A fresh start, free from Peter, to bring all the elements of Fable that did work out to the forefront! The irreverent British humour, the colourful fantasy landscapes pulled right out of a storybook, the vast amount of interactability with the inhabitants of Albion- there's an undeniable heart to this franchise that simply yearns to be nourished!

That first trailer reintroduced the storybook fantasy world with a touch of the irreverence, what with how that fairy got swallowed by the frog, this second one doubled down on the humour and tripled up the Britishness. Not least of all because we got Richard Ayoade, of all people, to be the face of the trailer! I have to admit I never quite expected one of our dead-pan kings to come to the world of video games, and I'm even more shocked to see a Richard Ayoade boss fight play out before my eyes but I'll admit, the absurdity factor of it all did give me a bit of a chuckle to see. Seeing a comedy icon depicted as a 'Jack and the Beanstalk' style giant farmer attempting to squash the protagonist as she dives and weaves around his kitchen pots and pans does seem very Fable to me, whilst upping the ante that crucial piece more than the original did. I'd call it a successful showing for proving what I can only assume the team wanted to prove- that they all know the assignment.

Of course there were other bare basics of the game hinted at throughout the trailer. Fighting bandits in the dark of the woods is a no-brainer, that's a staple of every high fantasy game afterall. (It's a wonder why bandits even exist anymore in Albion, everytime a Hero comes along their entire kind gets genocided!) However we did also get a nudge and a wink about more series specific interactions such as socialating at the pub, drinking and celebrating about the village populace, and of course the most important aspect of any Fable game- kicking chickens into the middle-distance. No demonstration of the ability to grab someone's face and stick it in your arse whilst you blast them with a fart, but honestly if that doesn't survive around to this new face of the franchise I won't be upset in the slightest.

Folk for the most part have been lukewarm on what they've seen due to the fact that they were promised by Xbox that we'd be getting an absolute minimum on the CGI gameplay front for this presentation. Perhaps that reaction can be something Playground games can pat themselves on the back for, however, because the fidelity of the trailer appears so high that a lot of people genuinely haven't realised that the footage is pretty much all rendered in engine using a Series X. I mean the trailer literally starts with that disclaimer but I think the logic centres in our head just tune that out once we see the actual movement in front of us and just assume no video game would really look like that. Fable's engine looks how I wish Avowed gameplay's looked. The lighting has that photorealism angle with the level of quality only a Forza studio could reliably produce, if the actual game can match that level of visual fidelity we might have an actual looker of a Fable game for the first time since... 2, probably.

But there's still that inherent disconnect. We already knew that Fable was coming, what we wanted to see some unfiltered gameplay so we can envision what the game will be like to get our hands on. Especially considering the fact that from what we've heard there's not going to much more coverage regarding any 2024 releasing games until the year is out; which means we're not going to see Fable for the rest of the year and can't possibly come around to learning what the game will be like from the odd interview tidbit here and there. And that's a decent matter to bring up, Fable has worn different masks across it's history and I, for one, would love to see how this new face turns up. Visuals are only the thin membrane layer, afterall, I need to know if this game has that special sauce to keep me, someone older than a child, invested.

What worries me most about Fable, however, is the unshakeable feeling that it is a franchise from another era of RPG game design. When Fable was still popular, that fluffy period of role playing game where glittering trails leading you towards your every objective was perfectly acceptable, minigames were appreciated, min-maxing was hardy ever a consideration. Right now we have RPGs split into minute genres- CRPGs for the min maxers, action RPGs for the explorers, JRPGs for the grinders-where does Fable fit into those demographic? On one hand I really respect Fable returning to bring Role Playing back to the underserved kid-friendly everyman audience, and on the other I can imagine an audience who grew up with the franchise being upset if it doesn't fit with their aged and evolved world views. I'm disquiet about it's chances. 

But not in the terms of raw quality. Playground Games have always known what they were doing with the Forza games and had their hand in establishing that brand as the premier racing franchise of our age, if they could bring even a fraction of what they learned during all of that to Fable then we might be in for a very unique style of RPG we've not quite seen before. One critique, however. Did we really have to just call it 'Fable'? Really? After Mortal Kombat 1, Modern Warfare 2 all of these soft reboots after soft reboots- would it kill us to come up with a new name? But hey, maybe the intention is to make that one game so good that no one even thinks about the games from the past, and therefore the inherently connected disappointment that is Molyneux. God how I'd love it if the franchise were to outgrow it's infantile father.

Winter came

 Ready for the most bizarre gaming-adjacent story ever?

So a while back you might remember how I covered a little 'game' that held the honour of the only officially-licenced Game of Thrones 'experience'. I'm using heavy quotations because the game in question was just a browser game and not one of the good ones, in fact it was a shame to the source material such a travesty to carry it's name. After months of rumours that Bethesda were going to step up to the plate with the licence, or literally anyone with the talent to really bring the world of Game of Thrones to new heights, all we got was a browser game. (Oh, and that 'Telltale' game which I didn't really like all that much. I guess that counts for something, huh.) At the time I remember delving into the game and coming away thinking this was the absolute limit of laziness and creative stagnancy, surely nothing remotely interesting could happen in relation to this title ever. And then the creator was killed.

Now to be clear, this isn't me being facetious or exaggerating, a man's life was literally ended on Christmas day and that is an inherently tragic fact, but that doesn't change the fact that the circumstances behind it are, according to early reports, absolutely wild. So the founder of the company Yoozoo, one Mr Lin, was actually something of a success story within the Chinese software world. According to BBC, he was responsible for guiding the company into it's mobile gaming routes, which led to a partnership with Supercell on publishing their Brawl Stars. Now to be clear, that is a big deal. Mobile gaming is the primary source of Chinese gaming and Supercell are the kings of mobile games, responsible for creating Clash of Clans, so this man must of been an absolute blessing to his company for securing such a deal. Whatsmore, he then went on to get a deal with HBO to be the only representative of Game of Thrones on the gaming market during it's last two seasons, which may have been a disaster to the show but the exposure still would have done wonders for Yoozoo.

That would be true even if the game didn't really deserve it, and in case you've forgotten the details of the game in question, allow me to curse you with knowledge. Game of Thrones: Winter is Coming The browser-based game essentially put players in the shoes of a unnamed classically handsome nobody in King's Landing who's job it was to stage fights halfway across Westeros for no apparent reason whilst folk who have no place in the front lines of warfare entered the fray; such as the chief spymaster. (I'm sure he's really going to turn tide of the battle.) Quiet simply, it's a low effort city builder with a Game of Thrones skin attached and a business model of selling Jpegs to the audience at a premium. Low effort crap that, in the age of Genshin Impact, is a relic of a Free to Play model long since surpassed. Thus in the modern year it's pretty much dropped off the face of the earth to be forgotten about like it should be. And then Mr Lin got poisoned.

Oh didn't I mention that? In a plot twist that comes right out of the show itself, the multibillion Yuan-worth founder was found to have died in hospital with police labelling it foul play. Suspects have already been taken into custody but right now without any information the questions are flying everywhere and it's probably wisest to just sit back and see what happens. Besides, this isn't a 'True Crime' blog and thus I'm not going to speculate on any wild conspiracies, but just thinking about this whole scene has got me a little existential. I mean, look at any of the headlines and you'll see this man's name plastered up right next to 'creator of Game of Thrones Winter is Coming', and that's pretty much his obituary, what a legacy to leave. 

I guess that's what this blog is coming back to at the end of it all, legacy and how one wants to be remembered. Now personally I don't really have a horse in this race, I don't believe in 'forever' and thus the sooner my memory is gone and faded the better, let people worry about more pressing matters, but my views aren't the same as everybody's. One fellow who I think became quiet obsessed with this was one Peter Molyneux, creator of Fable and Black and White. He's on record as being a little upset when he was offered his lifetime achievement reward and desperately sought out stamping his mark through newer ventures. Of course, these were doomed to failure and he ultimately has gone down in infamy, but his desire for creating the legacy of some sort of software revolutionary is what led him down that path.

And for another example I could perhaps mention one of the creators of the Shenmue franchise, Yu Suzuki, who made himself something of a legacy for realising the simulation potential of video game storytelling. His was one of the first ideas to really take the art of storytelling and do something unique with it that could only be achieved in the world of video games, because anywhere else the charm would be devoid. Whereas Metal Gear and Zelda told great stories beforehand, both borrowed from cinematic storytelling conventions, only Shenmue leaned into ideas like routine, daily life and perseverance through it's unparalleled simulated world space. Of course, that niggling question of finishing the story came up again which resulted in Shenmue 3, a game which it felt like no one wanted to make and only came about for the sake of "finishing the legacy." (Also, I'm told it wasn't that good)

Now, I don't know this Mr Yu personally so for all I know he was proud to make that GoT game, or perhaps not, either way he'll be remembered over here for that 'achievement' and I think that is a little sad. I mean, don't get me wrong, the game is a travesty of creation deserving of nothing more than it's own personal slime-ridden pit in hell, but I don't wish the creators any ill will, they were just securing a paycheck and that they did well enough. (I'm more upset at HBO for licensing the damn thing) Although maybe the question of what we will be remembered for is the sort of question that doesn't even cross the mind of a multibillionaire, afterall what do they have to worry about, they've already won at life.

You might be wondering exactly how this blog got to where it did, and the truth is I don't know. Perhaps my own inadequacies have started to catch with me and I'm just projecting. Writing that Game of Thrones Blog was actually quite a lot of fun back in the day and hearing about the death of someone involved just sort of triggered something for me. I haven't been shaken to the core or anything, just rattled in a subtle fashion. Either way, the last thing anyone wants to carry with them is a boatload of regrets and 'what could have been'. So my advice? Throw all those expectations and pressures to 'change the world with your mere presence' out the window, you'll be happier that way. Unless of course, doing so makes you more likely to make a game as crap as 'GoT: Winter Is Coming', we don't need another one of those, thank you very much.

The problem with Fable

People always enjoy a good Fable. M'aiq has yet to find one.

See, as this is the weekend just after the good old Microsoft Xbox conference, I felt this would be the perfect time to delve into the big showstopper they had to end their show on, because I have no patience or anything else I need to talk about right now. That being said, this 'Showstopper' was unsurprisingly scarce of tangible details (what did you expect? This was a Microsoft showcase) So I'm merely going to jump into what this announcement meant for me. Heh, listen to me playing it so coy when I've literally told you the subject in the title bar. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, after years of rumours, waiting, silence, that one weird spin-off, and another ill-fated spinoff, we've finally gotten our confirmation for Fable 4- wait, they just said Fable? (Oh god, this isn't a remaster, is it? I'm going to cross my fingers and labour under the assumption that this isn't a remaster.)

Now let me start by saying that I have something of an interesting relationship with Fable. Usually when it comes to these retrospectives I'm resplendent with praise, talking about how this game was 'my childhood' and how it's 'an example to all developers of today', but that really isn't the case with old Fable. And that's because for me Fable was the kind of series that, for the majority of it's lifespan, was something I always heard about in passing from someone and somewhere else. I saw spots on the TV about Fable 2 and thought (huh, that looks pretty cool) but by that stage I was too deep into all the other great games of the day to pay Lionhead Studios' darling any attention. It was only really around the time of Fable 3 that I really got invested and heard all the stories, read all the previews, drank the cool-aid, so to speak. And as someone who had, up until then, no real experience with the enigma that is Lionhead's founder and Ex-CEO Peter Molynuex, I didn't know the monkey paw twist that would come with every promised feature. Yes there would be an open world, but it would drab and dull, losing all value the second the main quest was done. Sure there was this 'interaction' system that the game pushed, but it was gimmicky, irrelevant and stole development efforts away from systems that mattered. The story had consequence, but all the moral dubiosity faded after the opening choice, from there it was black and white boredom with the potential to make the game-world actually empty if you made the 'wrong' choice. So I bought the game, I played the game, and after it all I just felt a kinda bummed that I'd been sold a game that honestly wasn't good.

That isn't to say that Fable 3, or any of the Fable games, were without their heart or merit; not in the slightest. Playing Fable 3 I got the sense that it was the passion project of an English studio that wanted to make something special, but the vision was bigger than the scope of the team working on it and as far as I can tell that has always been the problem with Fable. Everyone remembers the infamous promise of an acorn that could grow into a tree from the first game, that was more than just an ideal prospective feature tossed around by an overexcited project lead; that was an example of the kind of over the top dreams that fuelled this franchise. Now I would never say that dreams or inspiration is bad for creativity, or even for game making, but when designing for a project there has to be a point where you sanitise and decide to work with the resources at your disposal rather than the ones in your head. I feel like that moment came too late for all of the games in this series.

Everytime I tried to play a Fable game it felt like I was trying a smaller scale game that had been stretched and distorted to fit this mismatched canvas that didn't need to be there. None of these games have ever made their free roam elements work in a laudable manner, most of the games were entirely devoid of meaningful decision making and one of the games couldn't even pull of a well adjusted and cohesive narrative. But what these games could do was conjure up a pleasing fantastical world of satire and swashbuckling adventure, they could establish great and memorable characters, nail a decent ark for the protagonist and even pull of a memorable set-piece every now and then. What I saw whenever I played Fable was potential, which is why I found it so tragic that their developer, Lionhead, kept slipping at it again and again. Something depressingly bookended with the closure of the studio and the cancellation of their next Fable-related project which, to be fair, sounded kinda lame.

So with all that backstory to simmer on, you might be a tiny bit perplexed at to why it is I'm actually totally on-board for this new Fable game. Well the secret for that actually lies in the title of the product itself, in that it's not called 'Fable 4', but just 'Fable'. Early reports suggest that this is indicative of a new dawn for the franchise, which would make sense seeing as how we have a new studio at the helm and everything. Therefore I think it's fair to say that this has the potential to right the wrongs of the past and actually focus on the things that matter, that things which make the Fable franchise unique and great. Maybe with a fresh set of eyes on a familiar concept we could really start to open up a path to the greatness that the Fable franchise has held dormant, and maybe Microsoft will finally get their own quality fantasy franchise. (Got to consider every angle!)

Whilst the footage we saw in the reveal trailer was so frightfully non-specific that I suspect this is likely a title in early development, (bold for emphasis) I think that makes a great opportunity to talk about the directions that this new game could take to make it the best Fable to date. My number one in that category would be for the team to seriously consider shifting course and scrapping the open world aspects in favour of a focused epic adventure. How great could every Fable game have been if they'd approached that model? The struggle against Jack of Blades, Lord Lucien and even whoever it was that was the villain of Fable 3; (I cannot overstate how forgettable they were) they all could held much stronger arks in a focused linear adventure. That would also make it easier to throw-in choice and consequence and would have solved the problem of all that lifeless-feeling world that the Fable franchise suffers from. (I recognise that not everyone shares my feelings on how dull the Fable open worlds' are. But that's how I feel.)

Whatever the case if there's one thing the general public is slowly becoming aware of it's the fact that this will absolutely feel very different to the Fable that they're used to. (Which, again, is a good thing in my books) Rumors that leaked the announcement also say that the game has drastically changed up the gameplay and wants to re-imagine the franchise, in what direction it's hard to say but that alone can be interpreted in some promising ways. (Although, before you go putting too much stock in such leaks, I will remind you that correctly guessing Microsoft would revive a profitable franchise that they own the rights to hardly makes one Nostradamus) Additionally, the studio that has been placed in charge of this project happens to be Playground Games; a studio which, as far as I'm willing to look into it, have up until now only been responsible for making the Forza Horizon games. What I'm trying to say is that we have a wildcard in terms of what to expect and this could result in something really imaginative and unexpected from a genre where they're new. Or the pressure of starting a new genre of game development might overwhelm them and they resort to all the tired cliches of your average Ubisoft game. (It can really go either way at this point.)

As far as reveals go, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a tiny bit disappointed by how sparse this one was. I'm not one of those talking heads that immediately parrot "No Gameplay = bad", but I recognise that the point of a trailer, even a teaser trailer, is to establish a baseline of the product in order to entice the viewer. Fable's trailer opens us up to speculation, but it's rampant speculation where we don't even know if we're looking a sequel, reboot or what the hell's going on. I tend to err towards the positive in situations like this, so I hope that Fable has something shattering to show us next time around, because I'm open to a whole new type of game from that world. Until then, however, it's going to be information scraps and rumours time. (yippee...)

Video Game jobs

Workung 9 to 5, what a way to make a living!

In the world of fictional story telling, we are all ruled by our desires to be something extraordinary. Whether that be a particularly skillful individual or particularly lucky one, a great many of wish to shirk our more mundane daily duties and embark on some epic, life-changing adventure. In particular, one thing that none of us want to deal with is the responsibility and effort that comes with a soul-crushing nowhere job. (Unless you're one of the lucky ones doing what they love. In which case, god speed to you good sir.) With that in mind, isn't it a little bit funny when those power-fantasy driven video games that we play enforce some dull job upon us?

I'm not talking about being tricked into doing various repetitive task, or rather not just that, I mean the times in which the developers thought it apropos to simulate a real-life job within their world and have players slog through it. Of course, some games are built around such a premise and those I take no issue with. Classic video game 'Paper Boy', for example, has players simulate the life of a bicycle-bound newspaper delivery boy who has the worrying tendency to smash the front windows of everyone too cheap to subscribe to his service. (Sounds like this kid has a future in the Mafia.) Other games, however, are clearly focused around other endeavours and yet take time out of their 'save the world' schedule to have you waste time in exchange for chump change.

One set of games which made an absolute habit out of this practice throughout it's entire main-lineup is the Fable series. These games are based around the well-worn concept of a born hero struggling to save the, very English, kingdom of Albion from the baddie of the week. Of course, such campaigns are hardly cheap for an aspiring hero. One needs to keep themselves flush with a stead supply of healing potions, new armours and weapons, and the latest fashionable haircut (and I'm just listing the essentials) none of which is handed to the player for free. Thus, in every game there comes a time wherein the hero must take to the streets and perform 'jobs' in order to fund their adventures, at least until they can get into more profitable endeavours. (Like real estate. I'm serious.) In Fable 3 your Hero is given the choice of being a blacksmith (fitting enough), Lute player (okay...), and Pie Maker. (How many pies does this society realistically need?) Not only is this the best way to raise income in the early game, but it is the most direct source of capital for the late game too, meaning that even once the Hero raises to the highest office of the land, (as they do in every game) the citizens of Albion can still enjoy the presence of their reigning monarch at the local pie stand.

Another title that approaches the concept of 'jobs' in a manner that is a little more fitting, would be American highschool simulator; Bully. Just as with most Rockstar games, Bully is full of side activities for the player to embark on to various ends; some confer respect with particular factions, most award some sort of collectible upon their completion and a few give cold hard cash. But unlike other Rockstar games, In Bully the protagonist is a highschool kid, meaning that the side jobs available to him are suitably- part time. In Bully, players are given the choice to join a paper route in order to make some extra pocket money, or take to mowing lawns to get what they need. Both tasks are as tedious as they sound but offer enough consistent cash to make them worthwhile pass-times. Plus, unlike in real life, you rarely have to wait for new cash-in-hand opportunities as the grass seems to magically grow the second before you go to cut it. Bully is kind enough to award money for completing quests too, meaning that one isn't forced to subject Jimmy Hopkins to such vivid glimpses of his future careers if they don't want to. (Choice is nice.)

Looking towards other Rockstar games, The Grand Theft Auto franchise is full of side jobs throughout their titles. (Especially in the 3D era) In 3, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories and both Vice cities, you can assume the role of a taxi driver in a makeshift version of 'Crazy Taxi'; San Andreas and Vice City both have prominent meta game threads whereupon you run a chop shop in order to be rewarded with unique vehicles and one can even find a rare job in Los Santos wherein you become a part-time pimp. (Okay, that might just be exact clone of the Taxi mini-game in a different vehicle but I'll count it.) In the same vein, the Saints Row series also had a decent number of jobs for the player to partake in, although the tended to get more outlandish as the games did. In Saints Row 2 you could become a reality TV cop or a Demolition derby driver, whilst in Saint Row 4 you ended up trafficking weapons and starring in a murderous version of Takeshi's Castle.

Seeing as how things are threatening to get a little too exciting, let's tone things down to the most sedate level possible; namely, the jobs of Skyrim. As this is a title that take place in a fictionalized version of the dark ages, it is only fitting for the daily life of Tamriel to reflect that- simpler time. And, as this franchise is a lot more poe-faced than Fable, that means you won't be getting any 'guitar hero' style lute mini games. (Maybe in TES6.) In Skyrim, one can make an honest living by partaking in three peaceful job opportunities, lumberjack, miner and farm hand. All of these activities are mostly automated and just require the player to have the right tool for the job, (Except for farming, in which there is no requirement) and they are all excessively boring for a player to partake in. Whatsmore, the 'living' you make from these jobs is hardly enough to keep fed all day, let alone support you throughout the game. This is a key example of a video game job that literally exists for nothing more than role play potential.

Okay, this next topic may not have a one-to-one comparison to a real job, but it's still a game concept formed around the work of manual labour, so I'd be remiss to disclude Death Stranding from my list. In Kojima's latest art-house thriller,(?) the protagonist is thrown into a post-apocalyptic sci-fi world in which his assigned task is the transporting of key materials all across America. (Think U-haul, only without the trucks.) This mean that aside from all of the weird supernatural goings on and bigger than life characters, the meat of the gameplay is essentially just the act of walking from one point to another for hours on end. In that way, Death Stranding does truly capture the tedium of cross-country courier work. (I assume Couriers have to fight off bandits and other worldly ink monsters too.)

There is one game out there that is notable for the way how it features 'going to work' as one of the key game play features. It simulates finding a job, keeping a job, and trying to keep your sanity in the moments in between. And no, it's not some psychological horror game, (Although that description I just made up did sound like a cool indie title)I'm talking about 'The Sims'. As a game that attempts to simulate the going-ons of everyday life, to varying levels of success, it only makes sense that the working life is represented within the gameplay. Throughout the years Maxis have adapted the way that they've presented jobs, but since Sims 3 they seemed to have hit a sweet spot between having players act out some jobs and having them plain disappear for 8 hours for others. (That's how you tell the difference between boring jobs and jobs so boring that game developers can't even figure how to pretend it's fun.)

At the end of the day the inclusion of real life jobs in video games can seem perfunctory, but I like to see the situation as one of perspective. In these adventures wherein the lionshare of time is spent robbing banks or fighting dragons, it's nice to take a step back now and then and appreciate the slower moments. (Even if your appreciation is marred by the fact that your character is currently partaking in back breaking labour.) At that point is because a question of pacing, which I think is a discussion that is very unique within the world of games compared to other forms of creative media. Although I will say, at least one of the jobs I mentioned today does very little to calm my nerves and instead invokes vivid spikes of hypertension akin to PTSD. But that's just me.

A post-mortem of Morality Systems

Halo or Horns?

One of the most enduring traits of video gaming that is not shared by other entertainment forms is the gift to choice. I mean actual choice, not like those terrible interactive adventures that DVD's tried to lure us in with in the early 2000's. Choice to go where we want, converse with who we want and make the decisions we want to. It's one of the ways in which this medium can transcend from being a passive experience into something truly engaging and immersive. However, designing a story around the idea of consumer choice and input is an incredibly demanding undertaking and despite nearly two decades of choice-based gameplay, the industry is still reiterating on the core concepts. I want to explore one of the earliest ways that video games implemented choices in gaming: Through morality systems.

Morality systems are rather self explanatory. They are a process in which the actions of the player are given a value dependant on how moral that action is perceived to be in order to determine how virtuous or evil that character is. This is often coupled with consequences both small and big, so that the player feels the impact of their moral choices. Think, the Karma system from Fallout or the Renegade/Paragon choices in Mass Effect. It is a simple way of inserting choice into the a script without overhauling every scene to reflect any number of small choices you made along the way, through limiting the effect of your actions to one variable; was it good or was it bad. In the early days of modern RPGs, developers adopted morality mechanics readily, as makes sense for a 'role-playing game', and the industry standard for choice-based gameplay has been set time and time again by the examples of the RPG market.

One such game to pioneer this concept was the classic Xbox adventure game; Fable. When it released, one of Fable's most touted features was the Alignment System. As you went along your journey and interacted with the people, the morality of your actions was added up and displayed to you in your Alignment bar. Fable tried to figure out how Good/Evil you were as well as how Pure/corrupt you are, with the goal of pinpointing down your personality and rewarding/punishing you accordingly. Throughout all the Fable games, however, this didn't amounted to any more than changing your visual appearance. (Oh, and your attractiveness points. Musn't forget about those!) A saintly person would emanate blue, heavenly light whereas an evil wretch would sprout horns, a goatee and just generally start to resemble a cheap Satan cosplayer.

Key story beats were less influenced by your choice of morality and more acted as contributing factors to your morality. In some ways this was disappointing, as many elements of Fable were, because the story refused to reflect how much of a scoundrel you were. The hero of Albion could whore around and kill puppies in their spare time and, barring snide remarks from the townsfolk, no one really got on to you about it. From another point of view, this can be seen as somewhat liberating. By divorcing morality to the story, the game allowed you to play the game how you wanted without locking you down 'the good path' or blocking you off from 'the true ending'; heck, in Fable III you even got a sick pair of wings for being evil. But then, when morality is meaningless like that is there any there any real reason for having a morality system at all? At the end of the day it really comes down to how immersed you are within the world of Albion to decide whether or not you care about the way you lean towards good or evil. Lionhead Studios wanted to make a game wherein morality wasn't baked into the world, it was just a garnishing for that world.

For other properties, however, morality is very much baked into its fiber. Just look at the world of Star Wars. When it comes to Star Wars games, the vast majority revolve around joining the ranks of the iconic space wizards: The Jedi. It makes sense, anyone who has every seen a lightsaber is afflicted with the incurable desire to wield one; so here comes gaming to save the day and feed our utmost desires. However, with the territory of becoming a Jedi comes the moral issues presented by the force, represented by the Light side and the Dark side. So you can bet video games took advantage of that. One of my favourite 'jedi-simulators' would be the Jedi Knight series starting from 'Dark Forces' in 1994 and concluding with 2003's 'Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy' (Great name, not redundant at all.) Although, not every game in this series had Light side/Dark Side choices. (The first one didn't even have a lightsaber.) But as gaming evolved, so did the series to provide a loving, original Star Wars tale with a little bit of choice and consequence thrown in.

'Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II' (Again, these names.) recognised the potential of combining morality and gameplay in a way only possible in a Star Wars setting. Lucasarts knew that fans would want to use force powers as much as they wanted to use lightsabers, and so they included a simple RPG system whereupon the player could level up their Jedi: Kyle Katarn, and teach him new Force techniques. Of course, the coolest powers in the Star Wars lore are exclusive to the Dark side; but 'Dark Forces II' didn't discriminate, allowing you to learn techniques from the light and dark side of the force with impunity. Apart from when there was punity. As you learned more Sith techniques and killed friendly NPC's, (Completely accidentally, of course.) the game kept track of you travelling further and further down the path of the Dark Side. By the end, the finale you see is dependant on your alignment to good or evil; lending actual weight to your actions during the game.

That is not the only Star Wars game with morality paths, however, and I would be remiss to not mention my third favourite game of all time in this blog; 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic'. Bioware used to be the gold standard when it came to choice and consequence in games and they were far ahead of the curve when it came to accounting for branching narrative too. The backbone of morality in KOTOR is the Light/Dark side system, like one would expect, however this also co exists alongside genuine moments when choices you make directly impact events of the narrative.
This time, the game allows you to customise your force powers with actual impunity and tallies up your points based on quest choices you make. As a result, the player navigates through one of the best Star Wars tales ever told whilst feeling like they are leaving a tangible impact in that story. Like I said, the gold standard of choice and consequence.

That isn't the only time when Bioware flexed their morality system muscles. Indeed, early Bioware seemed to have built their entire brand around choice based gameplay in one way or another. A great example of this is within the world of Mass Effect; through the prime example of moral alignment represented in games: The Paragon/Renegade system. On paper, the system is leaned less towards something as black and white as 'Good guys are Paragons, bad guy are Renegades', and more towards the concepts of being a role model or an anti-hero. In game, it is kind of still about good versus evil but to a far lesser degree than Fable, like just being a dick or just being nice. Choices in missions and cutscene-interjections can range from pushing someone out of a window to their death to just making a snide remark. Afterall, Mass Effect is unwaveringly a story about a space hero; You just get to decide how nice that space hero is.

Not to say that Mass Effect is devoid of meaningful choice. Far from it, Bioware set the bar once again with the compelling way in which the narrative morphs itself to fit the choices you make. Off hand things you did in the first game, like letting that pirate go in order to save those hostages, end up circling around again to greet you in the third game. No game before or since has marketed itself so heavily on the premise that player choice matters. Andromeda even removed the Paragon/ Renegade option entirely in order to focus on the nuance of choice. Now, if only Bioware could nail nuance in their dialogue choice we'd really be cooking with gas.

One last series that has been fairly influential when it comes to the development of video game morality is, of course, the Fallout franchise. Since 1997, Fallout has been presenting players with moral quandaries about the ethical ways one can go about surviving in a surreal, post-apocalyptic hell scape. When Bethesda took over for Fallout 3, they made the moral choices a lot more comprehensive with the Karma system. Much the same with other games we've discussed, Karma is influenced by story decisions and player actions, and influences story outcomes and some dialogue paths. Where Fallout 3 and New Vegas innovated, was in the quality of the moral choices offered to you.

Fallout would offer you choices with consequences that reach far beyond what the player character will ever live to see. Such as poisoning the Project Purity's water purifier in order to slowly kill off the mutant population of the wasteland. Or deciding which of the factions battling over New Vegas should ultimately run all of the Mojave Wasteland. At the time the player is given a Karma bump to make them feel good or rebuke them in the moment, but these are the kind of choices that can wrack a mind hours after you put the game down. At this point the question of morality transcends the game world and is placed in the hands of the player. Where the decision really belongs.

Often games are blamed for over-simplifying moral choices with simple karma systems like the ones I've described. Breaking down a complex issue into 'do I get plus points or negative points'. But the way I see it, Karma systems were just a way for the RPG experiences of the day to translate the reaction of the world into a manner that the consumer can understand. When creating an RPG it is imperative to be aware that, if the player does not believe in the world in which they inhabit, they will not care about the actions they perform. The building of worlds relies on the ability of the consumer to give themselves to the fiction and fully immerse themselves in that fiction. Morality systems were merely how the gaming world helped it's playerer achieve that back when gaming was not as main stream as it is now, when people did not take these games as seriously as they do now.

In today's day and age, I can agree that morality systems are and should remain dead. Both Fallout and Mass Effect have shed theirs in their latest entries and newer projects are just ignoring them all altogether. Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk 2077, are both two big upcoming games featuring choice-based narratives that have forgone traditional morality bars in favour of more tangible consequences. This allows stories to focus on the nuance of a scenario without distracting the player with meaningless status updates. As the gaming world matures, the way games present morality should also mature.

Morality is a hugely subjective concept and the best stories will lean into that angle and show a story within which no side represents ultimate good; just like 'Fallout: New Vegas' did or 'The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt'. My definition of 'moral good' vastly differs from yours and I'd imagine that yours differ from others you know. When you apply that personal touch to your decision making it can evolve a simple good/evil choice into a duel of fundamental values. When I'm presented with the option of kidnapping a baby in Fallout 3: The Pitt; more factors are in play then the immediate actions. The people who want the baby need to test it's blood to synthesize a cure to a viscous plague; but the parents can synthesize the same cure, it will just take a lot longer and a lot more people will die in the mean time. The people who want the baby are strangers and a little bit too terse for prospective foster parents; but the baby's actual parents are slavers who own said prospective foster parents and treats them like cattle. The back and forth nature of a tough ethical quandary is the lifeblood of great stories and the future of video game story telling. I will always have a little nostalgia for the old moral progress bars we use to have but I am confident that from their sacrifice comes a brighter future for video game RPGs. Or should I say, a greyer future.