Stormzy and the games industry

 Those are two nouns I didn't expect in the same sentence

So I am a Brit, technically, having been born and raised on this particular heap of rock; but I suppose I'm soon to have that title withdrawn once I reveal that I do not, and have never, listened to Stormzy's music. This isn't a music related blog so I won't get into my personal tastes or possible reasons why I've never been exposed to this man's stuff, but I'll go so far as to say it's in no disrespect to his apparent talent as I do know the man has been something of a British icon for years now. (Some people must like him) Yet even with my interests firmly settled on the more digital worlds out there, somehow recent events have forced Stormzy into my headlights, and I find that rather intriguing. You see, as the Games industry slowly progresses to a point of entertainment dominance, more and more popular figures have headed it's way to try and lap up some of those profits, and now we're starting to hear feedback on how successful this transition has been. For instance, we have Stormzy.

England has never been the most interesting place to explore in the video gaming world, we don't have much here except really old castles (Which aren't nearly as cool as some of the one's in eastern Europe) and lots of rain, but regardless Ubisoft have had themselves something of an English renaissance with their key franchises this year. Most notably of which being Watch Dogs Legion which takes place in alternate future-history version of London (or at least, hopefully alternate history) wherein everything is just that little bit more cyberpunky than the modern day and there's some sort of paramilitary dictators running the country or something, I dunno I just work here. Now Ubisoft's vision of London is quite cool to see, but I don't think anyone expected Ubisoft to go above and beyond in affirming how the only way to really bring the spirit of London alive was to somehow rope Stormzy into the game! I mean how did they even make that leap in logic? (I mean it makes total sense to me; London doesn't quite feel right unless I walk out my door and wave to Stormzy everyday) Whatever the thought process, they got there and then managed to get the man in the game. (Kudos to them.)

As it just so happens his contribution is more than just in a single side quest where he voices over one of the most boring hacking minigames that Watch Dogs insists on repeating ad nauseum, (I hate that stupid 'connect the dots' minigame) he actually showed up for an entirely game-rendered music video which featured one of his brand new songs. I actually watched the video myself and I will note, the fact that his model exists within the same graphical world as his backdrops really sells the illusion of the video, I mean you get the same effect from really high budget music videos, but it was still an interesting and well-conceived attempt. So that right there is worth commending Ubisoft on, they've gone above and beyond to make a music video in a manner that has never been done bef... okay, it has been done with GTA V and I guess with Fortnite, but his was a flagship marketing move, so it received the sort of amplified attention that those other events perhaps slightly lacked in.

But where this all becomes really interesting is in the aftermath of this little publicity stunt which Ubisoft pulled, because you see, I never really realised this but Stormzy isn't exactly the sort of persona one thinks of when they think of an artist connected to the gaming industry. He's a very popular grime artist who's close to household name down this end of England, but when talking about the International stage I wouldn't be surprised if there's many Americans who'd never even heard of his music. I mention this, because the sort of exposure he would have received from being heavy broadcast in a game with as much inexplicable universal appeal as Watch Dogs might certainly serve as an indication for the sort of cross-pollination potential that the gaming industry holds. ( I never even thought about this until a literal headline brought it up.) 

And according to a VP at Warner Bros., Watch Dogs did as much for Stormzy as James Bond did for Billie Eilish, and that's the sort of bold statement that gets these eyebrow a-raising. Of course, the comparison there is made to the recent theme for the James Bond movie which feel like it'll never release, No Time to Die, for whom the coveted role of 'music artist' was awarded to Billie Eilish. Typically this a tremendous opportunity for any artist to be featured alongside such a storied franchise as it not only speaks to the prestige of the artist but acts as a huge boost in exposure for them. If the tune is good enough it might even enter the annals of movie history like 'Skyfall'. (Which I still genuinely consider to be one of the greatest Bond themes ever.) Now is this here Warner Bros. Executive claiming that Watch Dogs is as big as all that? Certainly not within the mainstream, but perhaps figures are enough to back up that bold sentiment?

Well by Tim Miles' account, (he being the VP in question) he's noted that this sort of explosion in exposure is a documented event that has been witnessed for TV and movie, and this has marked the first time such a growth (Which he likens to a doubling in streams and new fans) has happened in the world of video games. And I think that in itself marks an interesting precedent for either the growth of the gaming industry or the decline of Cinema. (I think he was referring to the former though, for what it's worth) I wonder if Stormy genuinely has acquired a sizable number of new fans from his brief cameo, and what that might encourage other upcoming artists to partake in in hopes of comparable results. It's not like the gaming industry is starving for original music artists and scores, so don't think there's any great promise for the industry in that sense, but perhaps a little more mainstream recognition might be on the horizon.

Although what I really want to know, is how this same scenario will play out for the bevy of supporting artists in the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077, because there's going to a bunch of integration with real-life artists in there. I mean, right now we don't even know how their songs are going to be displayed in the game other than that they'll be on the radio as mood music, but then is that with them playing versions of themselves in this Cyberpunk world? When Run the Jewels actually name-drop Keanu Reeves is that then in reference to Keanu Reeves as Johnny Silverhand or Keanu as the CEO of his motorbike company. (As in the Cyberpunk lore I believe he is canonically known for his company.) But if Cyberpunk proves to have a similar effect on it's contributing artists then the music industry might be in for heck of a heel turn. (And I'm not sure if that's for better or for worse yet.)

 I've always invited maintstream coverage of gaming in the hopes that our pastime slowly works it's way out from under the 'pariah' label, and given the rampant success of it's contribution to Entertainment I can only hope that time is soon. Maybe as musicians start to respect this platform a snowball will be set-off, as long as the music industry keeps it's claws far away from positions of power within the gaming landscape, I'm happy. (So much of what keeps this industry great is based on trust and the music industry is built on mistrust.) Ultimately, however, I'm just glad that Ubisoft could prove itself a viable vehicle for British talent, enough to be comparable with one of the oldest ongoing institutions in Entertainment. That's quite the achievement, it must be said.

Ubisoft Backward

The more things refuse to change, the more they stay the same.

At the funeral of the Electronic Entertainment Expo, many developers and manufactures took it upon themselves to carry the sodden torch of the yearly gaming-conference out of the noble desire to complete this year's marketing schedule at a fraction of the cost. Trying to go through all of these events one by one is proving taxing, I'm going to be at this forever, but none more so than Ubisoft Forward which is airing at 9:00 PM European time! You're a European based company you bunch of headcases, why are you making us suffer so? But I'm an idiot who's agreed on this strangely convoluted order of writing blogs which means that I'm going to scramble to get this one out in under 3 hours. However, I do have one saving grace in that regard; all Ubisoft games are the exact same so I can just copy and paste my blogs from last year. (That's a joke. No need to check to make sure, though.)

So, having watched the whole reveal event I was struck by one prevailing thought; wow, even when they've put together the event and venue themselves they still decide to fill the air with aimless nattering about nothing in particular. I mean, what exactly will it take to have an event that is actually somewhat focused, Ubisoft? Did you really take time out of our day in order to give a show reel of 'Rainbow Six: Siege' in order to 'Thank the players'? (See: Advertise without any new content.) Was there honestly a prolonged CG trailer mash-up in order to tease 'Elite Squad', Ubisoft's crap-tier mobile crossover title that they revealed a lifetime ago? Where's the real content that we've been waiting for like 'Skull and Bones', 'Gods and Monsters' or, heck, what about 'Beyond Good and Evil 2'? Is BGE 2 still a game that's real? Maybe it would do everyone some good to set the record straight on some of these lingering titles that Ubisoft have dangled about recently. But alas, seems not as the Ubisoft's event, dubbed 'Forward', was as standard, predictable and generic as Ubisoft's games themselves. Still, I thought it was okay.

Am I a settler? I never really took myself as the type of person to forge my own concessions in order to confide to the reality but I find myself doing that more and more with Ubisoft. I think that may come from how early I was at noticing how repetitive their games were (something the rest of the world was slow to cotton-on to.) but I seem to have blown right past the anger and frustration where I'm now slumped into begrudging acceptance. Ubisoft have all the money, talent and scale they need to be trailblazers, just none of the drive and creative freedom. Phil Spencer made a brief appearance during the event to sniff their wind and call them "Industry leaders", but the whole message seemed so canned it only really highlighted what a joke they've become in that regard. At this point, you either get on board with Ubisoft's, mildly antiquated, way of making games or you settle into hating them completely. I want to land on the former. (And as soon as they start charging reasonable prices for their old videogames, that is. You guys aren't Nintendo, so stop pretending you have their value margins.)

I was also very interested by, but not entirely surprised by, the inherent lack of real-time reaction to anything happening on the larger stage. For example, despite the CEO himself popping up in order to wrap up the show, there was no mention made towards the very public resignations that have happened in recent weeks due to sexual harassment allegations. Don't get me wrong, I understand from a business perceptive why that makes sense in order to keep the presentation positive, but it really looks terrible for optics, especially in this age. I can just smell those articles of "Ubisoft ignore their sex-assault investigations during event!" And it's not like they've never taken time out to amend their image before; they straight up apologised for the absolute state of 'Assassin's Creed: Unity' back in the day. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I would have preferred a section of sober condemnation over the waffle which made up roughly 50% of this showcase. (Does that make me a bad person? Probably.)

"What of the games, though? That was why you were there, wasn't it?" And indeed, we did get some rather substantial glimpses of Ubisoft's two bigboi's so I guess I can't complain too much. (A lot of gameplay does help to swallow the pill.) Firstly came the title that is set in my own backyard, 'Watch Dogs: Legion', and I have to say that I quite enjoyed what I've seen thusfar. Graphically it's encouraging to see how they've managed to keep up the quality from the reveal event as far as I can tell (I haven't gone back for a side-by-side comparison.) The writing is still superbly eye-rolling and the voice-acting raised my eyes at times. (They did hire English VO's for these recordings, right? I'm having a hard time telling...) All-in-all I think the game looked fine and will get more into it in a separate blog; 'Assassin's Creed: Valhalla', however, is a different story.

This is the game that feels like it's been through 3 complete reveal cycles, one time with it's own trailer, another during Xbox's conference and now a full gameplay reveal during Ubisoft's event; and I was not expecting my opinion to drop off this badly. After the Xbox conference I was left rather impressed by the fidelity of it all, but absolutely none of that was on display today; man, the title looked rough! The textures looked on par with 'Odyssey', (so nothing too bad) the combat animations looked decent, but the facial animations where honestly gross. I mean it was bad, to the point where I had to look about Assassins's Creed 2 footage to tell if it was always this rough. (And the result is: kinda, but given the age it was a lot more forgivable back then.)

When we talk about Ubisoft games that are drenched in generic-tropes, 'Valhalla' really takes the cake as a perfect example. The combat seemed recycled from 'Odyssey' which evolved it from 'Origins', the 'Build a settlement' feature is a holdover from Assassin's Creed 3 and they showed literally nothing in terms of it's depth, (So I'm guessing it's just as shallow as it was back in AC3) and the world's inhabitants look and feel totally devoid of life and vigour. The only points that stand out are- say it with me; the combat, world design and movement. God, it feels like I've been saying those exact same points about Assassin's Creed since birth; I must have come out of the womb critiquing Assassin's Creed fear of evolution. None of what I see from the footage looks like it has the potential to push the franchise forward apart from one moment which appeared to show active fire effects. (That was a holdover from 2008's Far Cry 2, but it was still kinda cool.) But will I get it? Not at full price, that's for sure...

But enough of all that transient garbage, I came for one thing and one thing alone; I wanted to see Giancarlo Esposito. And did we get that 'Far Cry' blowout we were promised? Yes- well no- well... we got a really cool cinematic. No gameplay. But, like, it was a really cool cinematic, though! Does that still count? The only rational explanation, in my mind, for Ubisoft's absolute reticence for showing off any gameplay for a title that is undoubtedly going to run exactly the same as their last game is because they have another 'Ubisoft Forward' that they're trying to drum up attention for. Sometime before the end of the year. (Be still my throbbing heart, I can't wait...) Instead all we got was a prolonged introduction to Giancarlo's dictator character making a very beleaguered point about how difficult it is to be a fascist or something. Okay look, script-wise it lacked the elegance perhaps of Vaas' soliloquy- but man, Giancarlo is such a great actor! I know I'm going to be watching that trailer over and over- it's really good! So somehow through the merit of showing me literally nothing, Ubisoft left me with a better taste in my mouth than they did with 'Valhalla'. (There's a lesson there somewhere.)

So overall I give Ubisoft a grand; "Should have just released the footage to Youtube" out of ten. Although I will commend the team for managing to capture all the pretentious pomp and grandstanding that we thought we'd lost with the cancellation of E3. (Great job, guys!) I may sound like I'm being supremely critical, and I am. Major publisher events get such a bad rap for the very reason that even when they have actual content to show, they still pad things out like their trying to impress the high-school football team. This time they had 30 minutes of commentary-tied 'Valhalla' gameplay, and they saved it for after the show; preferring, instead, to treat us all with CG trailers of a mobile game and a reminder that Brawlhalla exists. (Thanks?) Thank god there was actually content to the event or I don't know what I'd have done, likely eaten my own arm out of boredom. Still, I can't help but feel like something was missi- where was the 'Just Dance' trailer? Oh my god... there was none... I don't know how to- is this good, is thi- How do I react to this? I gonna need some time to process this, that's about it.

Watch Dogs Legion. Ubisoft finally play to their strengths!

I could hardly call this blog "Gaming in the Big Smoke", if I didn't talk about Watch Dogs Legion. Finally, a video game set in the streets of London! And one that doesn't feature terrorist attacks in Piccadilly Circus, (Looking at you 'Modern Warfare') but rather just human trafficking in Camden Market. Many who got a look-in for this game have come away calling it the most ground breaking project this year despite it's drastic departure from the Ubisoft formula. For my part I find myself optimistic for what Ubisoft could deliver with this title whilst fairly sure in what departments this project will inevitably fall short.

I have had an interesting history with Watch_Dogs; a sort of love/hate affair with the franchise ever since the first game. Watch_Dogs was the very first AAA game I ever purchased for my eighth generation console and so I was obviously enamoured by the technical capabilities of a game that seemed to dwarf anything I had ever seen before. The textures, lighting, framerate, everything appeared to be light years above the open world projects of yesteryear. The novelty of being able to hack the phone of any NPC and read a snippet of their life was destined to be an absolute game changer for the PC-NPC relationship. However, once the honeymoon period started to fade and the eighth generation began to really kick off, it became apparent that Watch_Dogs wasn't going to have the staying power that I initially thought it would.

Of course there was the whole 'E3 controversy' where the shown demo portrayed a graphical fidelity that was not reflected by the final product, showcasing little animation touches and ambient details that rivalled even today's open worlds. But that would not be the reality of Watch_Dogs and the project had to be sanitized in order to be shippable to as many people as possible in the desired launch window. Whilst many fans still reel at the thought of this 'deception' for me it was never really the key issue; the game was still beautiful at night, the gunplay was surprisingly solid and the gimmick of hacking seemed like such a compelling tool to leave in the hands of the enterprising player. Where the game really fell off for me was in the two areas that Ubisoft have always had trouble with: story and characters.

Although I have yet to play the latest two Assassin's Creed games I still think it's safe to say that Ubisoft have had trouble writing solid protagonists with compelling narratives ever since Unity, with Black Flag featuring the last great main character. Even Assassin's Creed 3's dull protagonist was offset by a fantastic (if drawn out) opening and some of the most relatable and, in some cases even pitiable, villains in the franchise. Watch_Dogs was never so lucky.
Aiden Pearce has been lambasted by critics over the years for his stereotypical 'Revenge plot' writing and the hypocritical way he pursues justice for death of his niece whilst simultaneously throwing his remaining family into peril. I, for one, have no problem with characters that I disagree with. A character can be stupid, and cruel, and hypocritical in my book as long as it rings with authenticity. As long as it fits this story and leads to a interesting narrative. And that is my problem with Watch_Dogs' story, it didn't go anywhere. That 'twist' ending was such a slap in the face to anyone who tried to invest themselves in this world that even the own game calls itself out. Aiden has a 'So that's what this was all about?' line that just about sums up my frustration at having wasted so many hours of my life to the world's least interesting conspiracy. Heck, the operation that attempted to cover up a murder ended up leading to the murders of hundreds if not thousands in a senseless revenge tale, even by video game logic the whole thing just made no sense!

And then there's the hacking. The signature gimmick of Watch_Dogs that failed amount to anything truly special in the finished product. Due to the first game's limitations the most intuitive branch of  hacking was the scanning of NPC's, actually using it in gameplay felt far more restrictively situational and prohibitively contextual than what was initially teased. This wasn't the revolutionary new gameplay idea that would forever change the landscape of gaming but an interesting gimmick that lost it's luster far sooner than anyone could have expected.

It was only earlier this year that I was finally able to forgive the game enough to dive into Watch Dogs 2 (For a heavily discounted price). Now shed of the original title's underscore, Watch Dogs 2 ditched the dark, gritty, Neo Noir for the bright, spray painted, punk rock hacker lifestyle. No longer would players stalk the grey streets of modern day Chicago but now they cruised the bright sunny roads of lightly futuristic San Fransisco. Gone too was gloomy Aiden Pearce in favour of the almost charismatic Marcus Holloway. The message was clear, this was a shift in direction for the team, they wanted to focus less on the revenge tale of one hack happy serial killer and instead pick up on the adventures of hacktivist freedom fighters DedSec.

Most important of all was the way that hacking was implemented. This time we got the chaotic freedom that everyone expected from the first game. Now we were able to hack and remotely drive other people's cars, falsify police APB's on the fly and set a pedestrian's pocket aflame by setting off their phone from afar. (Maybe a sly nod to the Galaxy Note 7) This was the gameplay that everybody wanted from the first game, at the surprising cost of the tight gunplay, but the benefits mostly outweighed the negatives. Hacking was fun, parkour felt great and the citizen's AI and ambient interactions really bought the larger world to life. Everyone seemed to agree that Watch Dogs 2 was a marked improvement over the first title, so why can't I just love it like everyone else? Because I'm just too much of a darn curmudgeon I guess.

This time around the protagonist wasn't some wannabe action hero. Marcus Holloway was built from the ground up to be everything that Aiden wasn't. Likeable, relatable, funny, black (Always nice to have more black protagonists in gaming) and yet still I wasn't satisfied with the final product. I think my key gripe lies in the character of Marcus Holloway and the lack of growth that character undergoes. Throughout the entirety of Watch Dogs 2 Marcus Holloway is little more than the 'get it done' guy. Despite his grand words in the opening about 'doing something' about the slow decay of personal freedoms and privacy, Marcus organises very little himself in that pursuit. Instead it's up to support characters Sitara, Wrench and Horatio to make Marcus do everything. A well worn cliché in video game story telling. As a result Marcus doesn't ever really learn or grow at all. He was the same man at the beginning as he was when the credits rolled. Perhaps I am the only person who actively complains about squandered potential in video game story telling but I just can't help but sigh everytime a great concept sleeps through the plot like this. The raw idea of of tackling different exploitative tech start ups that all lend to a fledgling Orwellian surveillance state spearheaded by Blume; is exciting to me, even now.

But will Legion be the one that finally gets it right? Maybe.

Off the bat, Legion has made a move that many would call daring and that I wholly applaud. They have removed the protagonist entirely. Straight away I see this as a positive move in the right direction for Ubisoft's open world franchises. The time of well written characters in a Ubisoft game fizzled up long ago so why not focus on their current strengths, Addictive gameplay loops and stunning open worlds. But the really promising part is what they chosen to replace the main character with.

Earlier I mentioned how the hacking of Watch_dogs appeared to revolutionize the PC-NPC relationship, until the honeymoon shades wore off and it became apparent that the feature was really rather shallow and gimmicky. Well, this time around Legion has expanded upon that mechanic to provide every NPC with the opportunity to become a controllable character. And this isn't just a case of model swapping, each NPC has a job, a past and a stat modifier. Whenever you try to recruit one you are presented with a series of generated tasks to get them on your side. Once they join you can assign a role that best suits their respective strengths and repurpose them in the fight to free London.

The whole system has a feel of the sandbox about it. An algorithm with seemingly limitless potential that just oozes replayablity, much in the same way that 2014's Shadow of Mordor did with it's nemesis system. The prospect of building your team of hackers and infiltrators from a randomly selected pool, coupled with the tension of permadeath and the absurdity of your options (Retiree assassin and living statue being my personal highlights) promises an experience that doesn't just revolutionize the Watch Dogs brand, but maybe Ubisoft AAA's from here on out.

And of course there is the setting. 'Cyberpunk London' as I've heard it described. Watch Dog's Legion is set in a futuristic dystopian spin on modern day London, complete with a totalitarian military dictatorship, huge worker drones alongside self driving taxi's and a whole bus service that consists solely of the 42 to 'City center'. (Chilling!) For a local, seeing an imaginative spin on actual London (No 'inspired by' nonsense) is more exciting than anything else on Ubisoft's lineup. Us Brits almost never get represented when it comes to video game settings. Again, excluding the one about the terrorist attack in Piccadilly Circus.

Of course the bubble of positivity bursts when it comes to the story telling. '70 missions!' Ubisoft boasts, but already people have commented on how the new systems have sacrificed narrative cohesion. Ubisoft have gone out their way to acquire a huge amount of voice work to account for the possibility of any NPC being present in any cutscene but despite how impressive that sounds on paper, there are some limitations. A brand new recruit jumping into the fray with all of the confidence of a worn veteran? Unavoidable unfortunately. One character starting a quest chain, getting killed, forcing another character to take over making it look like DedSec members share a hive mind? Necessary for the plot. But then the obvious question is, does the promising idea of endless potentially playable characters offset the abandonment of a well told story?

It's difficult to criticize a Ubisoft game because, besides a few examples, they don't deliver absolute turds just a slew of rehashes. Their core formula isn't rotten just flogged half to death by Ubisoft themselves. Perhaps this is why I personally have such a hard time giving them a break. Ubisoft is one of the biggest game companies in the world and yet they never take risks, never push the industry forward, never revolutionize their genre of choice. And yet Legion may be poised to change all that.

In my opinion, if the game is given the level of variety and unpredictability of Shadow of Mordor then I can forgive the loss of a good story. At the end of the day, Ubisoft's goal is to create a platform for replayability and probably a little bit of monetisation too. As long as the former is rich and the latter is sedate, then I'm on board for this adventure. Watch Dogs might finally be coming into it's own.