Mankind Divided and the Deus Exit.

Come back to us, Eidos, I promise we won't be mad.

So now that Cyberpunk is out it's got me thinking about the other Cyberpunk-type games that walked so that this one could run. Or rather, I've found myself postulating on the one series that deep sixed itself conveniently just so that Cyberpunk could swoop an enjoy an entirely clean playing field; that series being the Deus Ex franchise. Deus Ex is often considered to be one of the best PC games ever made, and the legacy it spawned can often be just as lauded in their own unique little ways. (I'm even told that some could stand Invisible war long enough to finish the first level. Amazing what some folk are capable of!) In fact, until this 2020, Deus Ex was really the only game in which you could take a conspiratorial look at the dark future as well as address the ethical and philosophical quandaries around the role of transhumanism in evolution. Deus Ex was that higher tier game which was mature enough to ask the bigger questions and be of consequence in it's narrative. Until Mankind Divided, that is.

Something about that game just seemed to drive everything of course in a manner that no one could of foreseen. What was designed to be the springboard for a whole Deus Ex Universe backfired wildly and ended up banishing the entire franchise to a limbo realm in which it still resides to this day. Now we've got former Deus Ex devs putting together trash like Square's Avengers, and there comes a moment to lean back and ask "Where in the heck did it all go wrong?" I remember back when Human Revolution launched and it was hailed as the true successor to Deus Ex original, and I remember how I fell in love with it's bleak view of the future from day one. There was just something so tangible and believable about what we saw, something that was lacking from the unfounded optimism of Star Trek and the unabashed whimsy of Star Wars or Mass Effect. This was a harsh futuristic reality that echoed so much of the world around us, and yet was still fun enough to be a game worth devoting free time to. So why couldn't Mankind Divided capture that same spirit?

I think that in order to quite isolate the things that Mankind Divided did wrong, we need to highlight where Human Revolution got things right, so let's start there. Firstly, Human Revolution, despite being a prequel to the original Deus Ex, set itself far enough apart from the original for it's story to be entirely unique and yet still of consequence. This allowed for newcomers to the franchise, like me, to play without feeling that we were missing out on huge chunks of the larger narrative. Indeed, the story was pretty much entirely self contained too! The story also followed this huge globetrotting adventure as Adam Jensen followed the trail of a conspiracy across to the other side of the world and back again. I cannot understate how diverse the locations are that you travel to in Human Revolution are, it really invokes the sense of an epic and wild adventure through this corporate-ruled world. The characters were all well written, with arks that neatly fit within the story; quirky features such as the interrogation mode were used sparingly enough to be special but often enough to be justified; progression was balanced out perfectly across the game; level design allowed for unique playstyles; the artistic direction was almost always arresting; the presentation of narrative-central information felt dynamic and interesting; side quests felt fleshed out- Basically there's a list the size of my arm for all the reasons why Human Revolution is one of the best games of it's decade. But how much of that did Mankind Divided replicate?

Honestly, quite a fair bit by my reckoning. And that's what makes everything so darn infuriating when it comes to the state of the Deus Ex franchise. The gameplay in particular saw a huge glow-up for Mankind Divided, with cybernetic abilities becoming more encouraged then ever before due to a user-friendly recharge system. The Gunplay felt a lot better, side quests felt a little touched up; and, dare I say it, the level design really stepped up it's game. But in a strange twist of events, I think the improvements to the game design was where the problems started. You see, for the Human Revolution the levels were designed to be open ended, but they really had three main routes to them in most situations; sneaking, fighting or taking some sort of shortcut that was enabled through a skill check. This way the team could work on making things feel dynamic and yet still be functional. I think the same basic philosophy was applied towards Mankind Divided, but somewhere along the line there was a shift which tipped things out of balance a bit.

The levels in Mankind Divided quite frankly dwarf Human Revolution; but that increase in size and options means more development time put in each level to the point where, honestly, some locations became ungainly and overwhelming. I know, it's a strange thing to admonish in a Stealth RPG immersive sim, but it's genuinely where I landed on the matter. Rather than handle new locations like I would in Human Revolution, by observing the whole picture and then picking my path through it, I would end up just going with whatever worked and taking any route which opened up to me. Now this is both a positive, because it means that new playthroughs still surprise me, and a negative, because it made me feels constantly out of control of my surroundings. Now you may look upon all that and think I'm ranting like a mad person and how you don't agree with me at all; but even if that's the case listen up, because the issue I just described, though mostly subjective, is just the tip of the iceberg.

You see, I think that because of the added effort which went into designing each individual area it led to a severe lack of making new areas, because there just wasn't the time for that. Point in case, the Hubs. These are locations wherein the player is meant to travel to between missions and mosey around, sometimes outside of the breadth of the main narrative. You can get know the world around you, take on side quests, explore this snippet of society and start to immerse yourself in the calmer moments of the narrative. It' just, Mankind Divided only has one Hub, whilst Human Revolution had two. This may seem insignificant, as Prague is a beautifully detailed and realised environment which easily surpasses the last games' in scale and realised potential; (A lot of great key moments happen there) but oddly enough the problems come back down to the storytelling. Remember how I congratulated Human Revolution for being globe trotting? Mankind Divided does the opposite to that by setting all the locations in roughly the same part of the world and brining us back to the same city inbetween each mission, robbing a lot of the romance of adventure from the story. This is especially off putting for a Deus Ex game, because it's a franchise that bases itself on global conspiracies and worldwide corruptions, and yet you never get to actually travel worldwide; once again imparting the feeling of a insignificant snail in a bigger world. In any other Cyberpunk game I would say that this is exactly what you want, a world that's bigger than the scope of the story, but Deus Ex is a special case wherein the story is about coming to terms with that wider world and analysing it; something which Mankind Divided only ever scratches at in it's final moments.

Which brings us to our final, and most damning, point against Mankind Divided; The storyline. Human Revolution's storyline throws it's players into a world on the peripheral of a huge leap forward in technology and the way it'll influence our lives, rewriting the very way we look at human capabilities, and alongside that trails the warring opinions about how such a monumental evolution should be treated. What starts as a very personal tale to uncover the truth behind a terrorist attack that cost your protagonist dearly balloons into an epic and far-reaching mission to, eventually, save the very world itself. It's in this way that Deus Ex differentiates itself from similar games in its genre and becomes something more akin to a Science Fantasy in narrative, but that just lends to the unique feeling of what a Deus Ex game is. Mankind Divided, on the otherhand, immediately undermines the events and multiple endings of Human Revolution and, in the effort of serving as the beginning of a series of games, trucks along at a snails pace wherein the entire breadth of the game is spent trying to solve the initial presented problem. The narrative never significantly evolves, 'the world' never enters the stakes in a significant manner and the endings are left murky, with the true implications of each choice promising to be subtle changes to the world state going forward. Now again, that's not inherently bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not Deus Ex. It's not what the series was built on. As a result, by the end of Mankind Divided you feel like you've just finished the first act of a story when the credits start rolling and probably aren't looking forward to waiting another 3 years for the next entry. (That's '3 years' if the franchise hadn't frozen. Now we're sitting at 5.)

You wanna know the funny thing? Mankind Divided isn't even that much shorter than Human Revolution in terms of content. Myself I only noticed a 4-5 hour difference. (Although I was playing HR as a veteran and MD for the first time ever) It just goes to show how a misjudgement in narrative can really shake up how full a game feels, making one experience feel like a shallow pit compared to the other. And when it's all said and done, I don't even really know who to blame for all this. Is it Eidos Montreal for leaning too hard into making a universe over just the one story? Square Enix for mandating that change with monetary intentions? Both for biting off more than they could chew? Whatever the case, the result is that Mankind Divided wasn't as well received as previous entries and now everything hangs in the balance whilst Eidos is dragged through the dog house and us fans lose hope. But let me be the first to say it, even with Cyberpunk here, I haven't lost hope in you, Deus Ex, and there'll always be room at the table for another Cyber-fuelled dark-future epic, as far as I'm concerned at least.

Prosthetic Limbs

We can rebuild him!

Limbs are very important to human beings. (Judging by Spore's economy I can personally attest to how much DNA they cost to unlock in the first place.) As such it can be devastating to lose a limb and be forced to readjust to simple life. Luckily, in this enlightened age of ours, there exist handy prosthetic replacements for our lost limbs which can sometimes be as sturdy and versatile as the real thing. 'As good as' isn't enough for video games, however, and for that reason whenever prosthetics make it to the video game world, they often come with so many bells and whistles that one might wonder if it's worth keeping our flabby weak human bodies when we can have some of these incredible creations.

Whether we have a story exploring the limits of humanity in transhumanist philosophies, or simply a game in which an Anime-esque hunk uses his robot arm as a baton; Video games are full of examples of this kind of body modification. I suppose developers can see it as a 'proof of struggle' to lose one's limb, as it can be one of the hardest injuries to overcome. However such developers also realize that few people want to play a game wherein they are subject to a disfigurement, and so out come the robot replacements. That might be a simplification but I'd wager that train of thought legitimately paid some role in the absolute deluge of prosthetic limbs we've seen in games.

One could not start a subject like this without starting with the grandfather of it all; Metal Gear Solid Peacewalker. (Huh, that's two mentions in one week. I might be having another relapse...) Fans might remember a very distinctive prosthetic arm in that game belonging to one- hold on- Vladimir Aleksandrovich Zadornov. (Phew, that's a mouthful.) When first introduced he appears to be a humble college professor travelling with his innocent schoolgirl accomplice who's name is literally 'Paz', which is Spanish for 'peace'. (There's a secret cover story that's trying too hard.) There's only one problem, the man has a bright metal robot hand that doubles as a cigarette lighter. (You get that from grading papers professor?) By the time this incredibly suspicious man, who just happens to hire you to investigate an extra-legal CIA occupation, reveals himself to be a Soviet spy, no one in the audience can manage so much as a pity gasp. Unfortunately this particular prosthetic doesn't prove very useful for Zadornov. Once he gets shot by Big Boss, after attempting an incredibly ill-advised quick draw against 'the world's greatest soldier', he makes a last ditch go for Snake by launching his robot arm with it's built in rocket function (What? Your prosthetic doesn't have one?) only to completely whiff his target and hit the wall. A sad way to go for the world's most conspicuous infiltration operative.

The arm, however, lived on. In the prequel to MGS V, 'Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes', Snake is caught in a helicopter crash that costs him his arm and rugged beauty. (Those scars might have some charm to them but the giant horn-shaped debris sticking out of his forehead will definitely cost him some Tinder matches.) But opportunity arises from tragedy as in 'Metal Gear Solid: the Phantom Pain' his old rival, Shalashaska, (colloquially known as Revolver Ocelot) gives him a replacement arm that is known as 'The Bionic arm'. (Probably because 'The Phantom Limb' made too much sense.) This arm is modelled directly off of Zadornov's, for some reason, all the way down to the red paint job. Player's can even unlock the ability to launch it from their arm down the line, just like the 'professor', except Snake's comes with remote control. (That's how you avoid looking like an idiot, Zardornov, by firing your forearm at your combatants instead of your very functional firearms.)

Okay, so I've never played Devil May Cry 4 (I own it, I'm just a lazy piece of poop) but as far I understand it, there is a point wherein the adorable little cherub Nero has his arm sawn off through means that have never been explicitly discussed. (Bummer.) Rather then settle down and live off his impending disability benefits, Nero lived up to his name-sake and decided to secure a demonic replacement known as Devil Bringer. (Maybe not officially a prosthetic but I'm counting it!) In DMC 5, the platinum haired Nero loses this demonic gift and is forced to replace it with a robotic arm called Devil Breaker. This one has the ability fire unearthly demon beams at enemies, pull them over Scorpion-style in order to prolong a combo, and make it explode. (As you do.) However, Nero is in luck because some charitable soul decided to scatter levels with replacement arms, for some reason. (I guess the NHS are over funded in the DMC universe.)

Of course, there is one classic video game character who's prosthetic is so iconic that most forget he even has it, despite the fact it's really hard to ignore a huge black man with a Vulcan minigun for an arm. As I remember it is never explicitly explained why Barret has his minigun arm, nor why his former friend entrusted him with the raising of his daughter in spite of that aforementioned child-unfriendly implement. Whatever the reason, it means that Barret Wallace if often a stable of any team makeup for FF7 due to his useful ranged attacks and his tankiness. (Primarily for the tankiness.) It sure is encouraging that the Shinra of Midgard allow a man who should be classified as a weapon to walk the streets unhindered. (I bet he doesn't even get stop searched.)

On a more philosophical note 'Deus Ex Human Revolutions' proposed an interesting question; if your body was damaged to such a degree that you required a body worth of robotics in order to live, are you still human? (The ol' 'Ship of Thesus' question. ) Every part of Adam Jensen's body is redesigned by David Sarif into tools for hunting down those that kidnapped legendary scientist Megan Reed. Adam is forced to confront a body he doesn't recognize in a world torn by prejudice against the mechanically enhanced as he unravels the world's deepest cabal. (God, I sound like a movie announcer.) Honestly, this is one of my favourite examples of transhumanism in gaming and I sure hope that Jensen's story gets a third game to round out the story. (For the love of god, Square, I'm begging you!)

Tactical revolution, 'Xcom: Enemy Unknown', encountered some controversy regarding prosthetics when it came to envisioning their expansion/new release: 'Enemy Within'. This arose because the new 'mech units', who were designed to balance against the powerful Alien robotics from the late game, had to be piloted by individuals without arms or legs. (So that the mech suit could act as a replacement.) This meant that those who wanted to turn their soldiers into mech units would have to opt them into a procedure to have their limbs removed and replaced with metallic supplements. At the time there was some hubub by those who thought this was 'glorifying body mutilation', but then there were people who claimed that Xcom 2's badass Alien-head wall was 'unhygenic' so I don't but much stock in the word of outrage warriors.

Hold on. Another Metal Gear mention? I've gone mad with power! As it turns out, there is yet another example of prosthetics in Metal Gear, although this one did go a little overboard. Anime schoolboy stand-in, Raiden, was far-in-large the least cool member of the Metal Gear cast after his debut in Metal Gear Solid 2. Especially in the way that they replaced series icon Snake with a guy who is such a pathetic spy that his girlfriend is on the support line and repeatedly calls him by his real name several times over the airwaves. ("Jack, do you know what day it is?") Hideo Kojima amended this by replacing most of Raiden's body with cybernetics in Metal Gear Solid 4 and having him literally wield a samurai sword into battle. (I'm fairly sure this counts as overcompensation.) In Metal Gear Rising Revengence, Raiden has even more bodyparts replaced and essentially becomes a murder fueled robot of death and destruction. (Without all the philosophical hints that Deus Ex implemented.) Throw in a line where cyborg Raiden utters that infamous line; "The Memes!" and Kojima may have created the ultimate life form.

Bizarrely this is such a common trend across video games that I had to leave out a few of the ideas that I had come up with. (The Sekiro arm is too similar to Devil Breaker anyway.) Personally, I do enjoy the hints of imagination that this particular cliche invokes, not just in gaming, but for story telling in general. That 'body horror' angle mixed with typical badass-ery is just the right blend of surreal cool to make me smile every time; and I look forward to see if future games with this idea, like Cyberpunk 2077, go the whole hog and show all angles, the cool and the weird, all in one package.

In defence of: linearity

Down the only road I've ever been down.

Every now and then there develops a trend in the world of gaming. Usually it spawns from something good and imaginative, just like any cliche, only to become repetitive and overused in no-time flat. In the early 2010's this was the fabled 'Multiple ending'. For a good few years it was genuinely considered lazy not to shoehorn some sort of branching ending into your game, even when such was completely superfluous to the main story. If you don't believe me on that, do you remember how Call of Duty Black Ops 2 had multiple endings? That's right even the big boy in the playground, Mr "Too big to fail", succumbed to the trend of passionless multiple endings for fear of looking silly amongst his peers.

It was all pretty ridiculous when you think about it, as imbuing a story with multiple endings doesn't automatically give that story depth. (Just look at Black Ops 2.) Usually, all this amounted to was the player having a slight choice thrown towards them near the end that'll slightly changed the ending cinematic. (Ohhh, how branching!) It never should have caught on in the first place, but there were so many big games successfully pulling it off that creatively bankrupt publishers felt it their civic duty to conscript developers into manning low effort rip offs. Games like GTA V, 'Deus Ex: Human Revolutions' and Dishonored, all featured multi-choice endings and all enjoyed some sort of critical and/or commercial success. However, in my opinion the one which really sold the concept to the world was Mass Effect 3. Say what you will about that ending, the main game was nothing short of a gaming cultural phenomenon. Everybody knew that Mass Effect was wrapping up in a grand way and people were just buzzing about the 'every choice matters' promise that many convinced themselves had been made. Replicating that would take effort, most publishers realized, but multiple endings could achieve the same effect simply and with gusto.

During this whirlwind of a fad, there was one obvious casualty amidst the gaming archetypes of the age. Namely, those games that choose to go for a single ending. This was the age in which such a direction in design was considered a crime towards creativity, and all those that were guilty of such would be labelled with that most damning of brands; 'Linear!' I'm being serious, look back on games of the early 2010's and check reviews from all the trusted critics. Almost all of them would bring up the phrase 'Linear' and use it as a pejorative to throw at the game. Afterall, games are all about empowering the player, so if you don't account for that one time they punched a jellyfish in the face and bring it up in the ending, you're stifling the player's freedoms! (Or at least, that's what I assume the logic was.)

The thing which always got to me was the fact that there is nothing inherently wrong with being 'Linear' with your story. In fact, usually that isn't a sign that you lack the creativity to expand out your story, but more that you posses the focus to fully realize your intended story. Many great games from around this time were all out attacked for their linearity despite handling it incredibly deftly. Sure, there's some overly noir moments in 'Max Payne 3', but the linear story was a blast. (I still maintain that game was the closet we ever came to a good Die Hard game). Assassin's Creed Brotherhood met with some grumblings in this regard despite being arguably the best written (and in-arguably the best paced) entry in the series. And even 'Bioshock: Infinite' only managed to get people to say that the story was 'good, for a linear title'.

Everytime I saw a review like that I would just grimace and bear it, confused by this mass hysteria that I fundamentally didn't understand. Even back then I could see how multiple endings for video games rarely lived up to the promise they made, if not now then in the future. Who remembers the GTA V ending? (Spoilers) That ended with Franklin being given the choice to off Trevor or Micheal in order to save himself. (And, of course, there was the option to rally against the man handing this ultimatum and risk everyone. Guess which ending everyone choose.) Whilst this initially looked interesting, in hindsight it was really rather shallow as the only ending which makes any remote sense is the one in which they kill off Trevor. You know, the guy who's insane antics got them in this position to begin with. The other two endings felt nigh-on nonsensical (Like the one in which Micheal opts to kill himself rather than be saved by Franklin.) or a bit too cleanly wrapped for a tale about 3 murderous bankrobbers. (It's a setup.)

That isn't even the worst of it. Just look at those games that were praised for offering those genuinely distinct endings which inexplicably granted real power behind the player's decision; Like 'Deus Ex: Human Revolution'. That was a game which placed itself in a precarious situation by being a prequel, in that it came from a franchise renowned for it's branching endings and yet would have to adhere to the state of the world in the original Deus Ex. To solve this, the writers ended up focusing on a supremely important but underexplored portion of the original game's lore, The Illuminati, and focused that final decision around them. This allowed for a final choice that gave the player the power to change the world in significant ways without retconning anything. (Supremely clever!) So what was the problem? Well, 'Human Revolution' was a huge success and warranted a sequel. So what did Square Enix do? Simple, they invalidated their own endings and choose one for the player in order to facilitate a franchise. (One which they then bundled with the narratively underwhelming 'Mankind Divided') So that shows you how much those 'multiple choice endings' are worth when it comes up against making money.

At the height of all this nonsense, there was one legendary linear narrative driven game that proved how one could follow a single storyline and still be caught up in the moment. (Something that shouldn't have needed to be proven, but here we are.) This of course being the story of Neil Druckmann's The Last of Us and way it used the setting of a post apocalypse to tell... well, the kind of story that the post apocalyptic genre was created to tell. (It's actually surprising how many zombie stories mistakenly make it about the zombies.) This absolutely shot through the gaming award shows of the age and won award after award for storytelling, all without giving us a red, green, blue scenario at the end. In fact, the game even has the guts to have the protagonist enact a highly controversial action at the end of the story that players have no recourse to prevent. Allowing for a powerful moment to remain powerful instead of doing what Rockstar did with GTA V. (That finale would have actually been somewhat poignant without the choices.

Obviously I disagree with the labelling of 'Linear' as a pejorative and feel that more modern games shouldn't be afraid to tell one story that they know how to tell. Nowadays the problem isn't quite as widespread as it used to be, it's almost a novelty to get multiple endings in a triple A game today; but Horror games are still very much beholden to it. (Even 'Fnaf: Help Wanted' had multiple endings. That was just a VR game, for god's sake!) I'll always maintain that it is stupid and contrived to artificial force any storytelling element into a narrative that doesn't require it, and the sooner that lesson takes hold in the industry the sooner we can start improving the net quality of video game storytelling.

Modern Morality aka Choice and Consequence

Your fantasies can never be quenched, can they!

A while ago I dived into the topic of morality systems in video games. Times at which the player is expected to go a certain direction or make a certain decision that proceeds to dictate their moral leanings. This was the way that Video Games tried to initiate moral discussions when developers were just starting to get the hang of telling branching stories. But we no longer live in that time of rampant experimentalism. Nowadays, video game storytelling has been whittled down to a fine art, so writers who really want to stand out need to do more than just institute a good/bad bar on your character sheet. In modern video game storytelling, the weight of a player's moral fibre is judged by more than just an 'evil bar' coupled with a bad ending. Discussing morality requires a tad more nuance than that. And so the marketing gimmick of 'action-consequnce' was born.

I'm treating it with some flippancy but I do believe that the way we handle morality in games now is leagues better then the way we used to. At the end of the day, the concept morality is little more than a societal construct, and when you have that in mind then there becomes little weight in wagging a finger at the player and telling them they made the wrong choice. Narrative stories needed to start confronting players with the cold, undeniable reality of consequences. This evolution helped to create some of the most memorable and divisive moments in gaming. Players no longer just argued about 'the good option' and 'the bad option', now they had a springboard to engage in discourse about their fundamental views on the issues. Or at least that is the intention. 'Action and consequnce' can be turned into a meaningless gimmick when half-assed just like anything else in life. The key is to dedicate thought and passion into giving players the freedom to see themselves reflected in the decisions and mistakes they make.

The wider gaming world has very readily adopted the 'choice-consequnce' model and it has become somewhat expected for RPG's to have some form of choice at some point in their narrative. Whilst once this was a huge selling point, worthy of sticking on the back of the box, now it is a requirement for any big budget game. Even Red Dead Redemption 2 had some vague elements of consequence throughout it's story, although that has as much to do with respecting the overarching themes of the series as much as it has to do with ticking that particular box. Modern role playing just doesn't feel the same anymore unless we can make the story our own, diverge from the path that our friends took, and then argue about it with them the next day.

One game that captured the 'Choice/conseqence' craze beautifully, was the excellent: Dishonoured. In Dishonoured, players were put in the boots of disgraced royal protector: Corvo Attano, who was framed for the murder of his charge; Empress Jessamine Kaldwin. Who was also his lover and the mother of his child. (Talk about conflicted interests.) The player is then tasked with unravelling the conspiracy that led to her assassination by hunting down those that seized power after her demise, utilizing Corvo's substantial stealthy skillset alongside a whole host of otherworldly powers. Choice and consequence come into the picture in two distinct ways.

The First way is obvious. As you hone in on your targets, you are presented with two possible ways to proceed. You can straight up kill you target and get it all over and done with; or you can pull some strings in order to set up a special event which will also succeeds in eliminating the target. These events can range from having your target kidnapped by their secret admirer, to branding their face with the mark of a heretic ensuring that they will be cast out of the sect in which they reside. There is no morally pure choice to pick, either you kill the target or ruin their life; the focus in on the consequences. Sometime these consequences are left to the imagination of the player and over times you are shown them directly.

The second method that Arkane used to realise your consequences is actually quite brilliant. You see, Dishonored is a stealth action-adventure game, (My favourite sub-genre!) which means that the player can go through levels without being spotted and killing as few or as many people as they so wish. This is wrapped up in the lore through a rat-carried plague that is rampant in the game's setting: Dunwall. Rats are well known to be attracted to rotting flesh and so the game actually keeps track of how many enemies you've killed by proportionately infesting the city. If you are a cold blooded mass-murderer, Dunwall will become a plague ridden hellscape by the final level and even your own allies will start fearing you. This also ties in with the endings that you receive. The higher the chaos you cause, the worse your ending will be. Nice 'anti-violence' message in your game about assassinating people, Arkane.

Now onto somewhat of a contentious figure. David Cage has had bad rap with gamers over the years for making a slew of games that some people would argue aren't games at all. Through his studio, Quantic Dream, Cage and his team have pioneered the interactive storytelling genre, providing games that feel like movies. So what exactly is 'interactive storytelling'? Well, by David Cage's definition, it is a medium wherein in the player is presented with events in a story and they are tasked with making choices to guide the narrative. Sounds like everything I've been discussing today. The trick is that these games feature no actual 'gameplay' like one would traditionally imagine, just choices and the occasional quick time event. Some people would call these glorified DVD games, but I do enjoy the games for what they offer. As long as a compelling narrative comes attached.

Due to the choice-based gameplay that this genre is defined by, consequence is prevalent everywhere. Throughout all of Quantic's games; 'Indigo Prophesy', 'Beyond: Two Souls' and 'Detroit: Become Human', there are numerous moments when action or inaction results in branches through the story. Although the game that everyone remembers for it's consequences would have to be 'Heavy Rain'. Anyone who followed gaming at the time heard all the fuss around 'Heavy Rain' and the fact that, if your character died in the story, they would remain dead. 'Permadeath' was unheard of in this time, so many found the novelty absolutely fascinating. Of course, all those trailers conveniently left out the fact that, in order for a character to suffer permadeath, the player would have to be so hopelessly incompetent at quick time events that they manage to fail a ludicrous amount of them consecutively.

Yeah, the games didn't exactly exude the intense 'life or death at a moments notice' vibe that David Cage seemed to be going for, but the game itself did excel when it came to branching narratives. Big choices had the chance to completely shift the road that your character was on, thus changing the path of the story. This meant that many key scenes featured dozens of possible permutations depending on the route you took to get there. Never before did players feel like they had shaped the events around them quite like they did during 'Heavy Rain'. Following that, many successors would come to pastiche and mature this formula.

One such successor would be supernatural high school simulator: Life is Strange. Whilst you could argue that Don't Nod Entertainment borrowed more from Telltale to adapt their gameplay, I would refute that both owe some degree of their popularity to 'Heavy Rain'. Narrative wise, Life is Strange is a little bit a mess. The story follows the tale of a high schooler, Max Caufield, as she discovers that she has the power to reverse time and... just sort of lives with it for a while. Max goes through the process of reconnecting with her old friend, Chloe, and starts developing their relationship together for most of the game. Only near the end of the game does she realize that Nature is trying to 'final destination' Chloe, and Max must save the town or something, whilst simultaneously dealing with a pervert teacher who is also a murderer. As I said, it's a little bit of a mess.

Where 'Life is Strange' shines is in the strength of it's choices. Whilst it is true, the ability to turn back time kind of takes a lot of the weight out of the decisions you make, some of the most potent consequences you are subject to exceed the range of your powers. (Almost makes you wonder why you even have them in the first pl- okay, I'm not going to get into it here.) On the surface the gameplay experience is very similar to the 'Heavy Rain' brand of interactive storytelling, but the focus on character led drama adds a very personal aspect to the choices you make. Sometimes 'Life is Strange' presents you with a decision you make for emotional reasons rather than pragmatic ones. I find that this makes the consequences of those choice all the more reflective.

Another choice-driven interactive story that garnered attention in recent years is the star studded: Until Dawn. Supermassive Games themed their interactive story around the cliches of slasher movies, so people went in expecting a high body count. What we didn't expect was the heavily reliance on 'The butterfly effect' and all that entails. This meant that the smallest of actions could lead to violent, unavoidable consequences down the line. Some may call this a little cheap, but I see it as a little refreshing. You see, Until Dawn came out in 2015 and by that point everyone had already got a pretty good idea of what this genre entailed. When you go through every scene waiting for a 'gotcha' moment it becomes easy to spot narrative hooks and predict results in advance. Until Dawn threw that all to the wind. Did you throw a snowball at the butterfly? Boom, icicle to the head. Things literally got that random.

But let's step away from interactive story games and move to a game that features traditional gameplay but still manages to deliver doses of potent 'choice/consequence' to the player. Let's take a look at 'The Witcher'. Off the bat, CD Projekt Red were in a good place adapting 'The Witcher', as the story existed in an adult morally grey world. All they had to do was accurately translate that world into the medium of gaming, and I think the general consensus is that they pulled it off rather nicely. 'The Witcher' revolves around the character of Geralt, the titular Witcher. Much like Garrett from the Thief series, Geralt plays the role of an observer to a world in flux. Sure, he takes part in events, even has some 'save-the-world' moments. But for the most part, Geralt just tries to live in the turmoil of warring nations.

Whilst this approach may seem like it precludes significant choice and consequence, in practice it actually paves away for more meaningful decisions. 'The Witcher' is unique in that it presents a high fantasy world, and then tells personal, character driven stories with that world. Geralt isn't leading armies and fighting elder gods, he's hunting monsters that disturb the local town life. He isn't the perpetrator of world changing events, he just gets pulled along by them. I love this subversive approach to fantasy storytelling and think it lends wonderfully to the choices that the player is left to make. They get the chance to see the world from Geralt's level and so it makes it easier for them to make the choices they believe he would make. It's a powerful use of perspective that I'd imagine should be credited more to Andrzej Sapkowski then CD Projekt Red. But those writers did manage to utilize that tool to great effect and so I will praise them both the same.

Finally, I would like to bring up one of gaming's classics. Often referred to as 'The greatest PC game ever made', I'm talking about Eidos' Deus Ex. The original cyberpunk gem, Deus Ex situates players in a world fraught with conspiracy and hyper-surveillance as they try to free the people from the grip of a tyrannical secret organization who is not the Illuminati. (They're in the game too, but this particular ultra-shady secret government isn't them.) Choice and consequence is handled the same here as in any other game, every now and then you are presented with a choice between a number of actions and must pick one. The important thing to note here is the fact that this type of gameplay was completely unheard of. Released in the year 2000, Deus Ex was the first action-oriented game to prominently feature branching narratives as a result of player choice. Players were enamoured by the concept and it's one of the many reasons that the game is still widely loved today. I still see fans arguing over that final choice as though debating warring philosophies; which, in hindsight, I suppose they are.

2011's 'Deus Ex: Human Revolution' didn't have the benefit of being the first, but Eidos still found a way to make it's choices stand out. Instead of just giving players clearly marked sections where their specific actions matter, 'Human Revolution' also put players in situations where their inaction can affect the story. Did you stop that terrorist but fail to clear out his hostages beforehand? They're as good as dead. Did you stay your hand from applying lethal force on his men? Then he might be willing to work with you in the future. All this culminates into a ending that put Eidos in an impossible position. They had to provide the player with a meaningful choice whilst baring in mind that this game was a prequel and therefore cannot change the events surrounding the original game. What resulted was one of most igneous set of endings that I've ever seen pulled off by a game. (Which was then ruined when 'Mankind Divided' came along and just picked one of the endings to go off from. But I digress.)

In the modern age of game narratives, traditional depictions of morality is mostly a thing of the past. Light sides and Dark sides are concepts that seem outdated in a world that is more coloured in shades of grey. Although I do sort of miss the old tally-based morality systems, I recognize that these systems worked to constrain storytelling and play styles. That's the reason why so many games that use to champion these systems have since abandoned them. 'Mass Effect: Andromeda' shed it's iconic 'Paragon/Renegade' mechanic, Fallout 4 dropped their 'Karma points' and Respawn have even come out to say that the upcoming 'Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order' will not have any 'light side'/ 'dark side' choices. (Although that may just be hinting at a more linear direction for the game.)
.

Going forward I expect to see more clever uses of choice-based gameplay as we move into the next console age. The Outer Worlds and Cyberpunk 2077 are two games to keep an eye on for this kind of stuff, their developers love challenging players with unforeseen repercussions. And there's also 'Life is Strange 2' for lovers of Interactive Storytelling and Supermassive Game's upcoming 'Man of Medan' for fans of chaotic consequence. These types of games aren't going away anytime soon and I, for one, couldn't be happier about it. I just can't wait to see how narrative morality evolves in the near-to-distant future. Who wants to guess how long it'll be before 'Ender's Game' happens?