Flames of the Witcher

 

Like many out there, I have a very insular view of the Witcher as a franchise. I know the thing from it's games and only that. Just as book fans typically stick only to the games, and show fans are ostracized by all the other sectors of the franchise. It's a particularly strange and somewhat ineffective way to run a multimedia franchise, but when literally no facet of the franchise is willing to shake hands with the other what are you going to do? The Witcher games at least try to take the books that had released at the time into account to as full of a degree as they feasibly can, being an RPG video game. The show... wasn't so much interested in even doing that and really... well, the Netflix series kind of looked at the profitable franchise and figured they could puppeteer that corpse into their own thing with a bit of work. Several years later, some odd casting choices and one horrendous PR disaster later- and the series is being cut short.

It is very necessary to remind everyone that no matter how they like to frame it, The Witcher is absolutely not living up to the vision that the showrunners had for it. They like to pretend that they are ending the show and it isn't being cancelled, despite the drop-off of ratings and reviews they got throughout their previous season, alongside the nightmare storm PR they have drummed up consistently. And they also want everyone to forget the 7 season plan the team initially had in place. And those seven seasons were the actual working plan- it's not like the Resident Evil series where the showrunner casually threw up the idea of 20 seasons before farting out a disaster piece of the ages- The Witcher had ambition. For all that ambition ended up amount to...

It seems almost callous to chalk all this fallen potential up to the casting, and subsequent firing, of one man- but if the shoe fits- then it must be said that axing Henry Cavill was probably the death knell for this already struggling brand. After seasons of muddled themes, distorted plot points and straight butchered character arcs- through it all people who actually liked the series could enjoy a solid performance from the one man who perfectly encapsulated his character and seemed more invested in getting the story right than anyone in the writers room. As one of the only Witcher fans in the world who both liked the games and read the books: (Shock of shocks!) the man should have probably been brought on as an executive producer. Instead he was driven from the show and with him went any hope the show would eventually become something worthy of the source material.

Source Material is such a strangely feared concept in the modern scene of adaptations whereupon every adaptor seems so eager to veer off and do their own thing atop the bare bones of the original plan that often times I'm left wondering why it is these creators were 'drawn' to the property to being with! Surely a 'fan' would respect and want to preserve what was so special about the thing they are adapting, rather than just roll over it with their own twisted facsimile of the original. Oftentimes it feels as though perhaps what had drawn them was the 'fandom' rather than the product itself. That 'love', so to speak, which could be opportunistically siphoned off their direction with enough surreptitious reconstructions. That is the only explanation I can fathom for some of the disasters that paint the modern world of TV and film.

So The Witcher is burning down at Netflix, and through the flames we are going to be fed two more series as the franchise chokes on itself and goes out with a whimper. In that time I'll be honest- the idea of recasting your core lead character does intrigue me for how seamlessly they will attempt to pull it off. I mean sure, thanks to the rank incompetence of the writing staff, Geralt's key position as an moral observer judging the worst of the world with an objective eye is practically eliminated in favour of him being dumb strong man with sword- but the white haired badass was still the most recognisable character on the show. Straight up sticking a new handsome actor in his britches is sure to cause some undeniable friction I can't help but be curious at.

Compare this to the world of Fallout for a second. There is an adaptation that didn't just get the look and feel of the original property nearly down pat- (I think there are some tonal issues personally, but if Josh Sawyer himself doesn't see them I'll confess to perhaps being my own kind of misguided in that regard.) but built upon the foundations of the games in order to tell it's own story. It's own, largely derivative, story. Fans love it, critics seem enamoured, and now everyone is scrambling to claim credit for making the show what it is and the franchise too. Witcher, on the otherhand, feels like it's been discarded by the video game community, despite the fact that the brand's international success can be placed pretty much solely on the shoulders of that game series, whether the creator wants to admit it or not!

I do feel bad for the Witcher, because it was actually on of the better properties to suffer this disgrace. Resident Evil was never going to be a strand-out TV show even if it were placed in the hands of competent creatives, but The Witcher actually had that potential. I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to give it the cliche title of 'The next Game of Thrones', given that the scale of The Witcher is inherently personal whereas GOT was telling the story of an era; but it could have been it's own special little gift to fantasy TV storytelling instead of what it ended up being- an increasingly low-effort exercise in pointless excess living up to neither the games nor the books.  

The Witcher series is... going a bit awry

Between the lesser of two evils; I'd rather not choose at all.

Adaptations have been on their evil dark path of ignominy of late. To the tune of, every single adaptation has let people down in some regard except for... I dunno... Sandman? I've heard good things about Sandman. (Still yet to watch it myself.) But aside from that? The Halo show, Resident Evil show, Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, Wheel of Time; it's as though people who either don't love, or in some cases actively despise, the source material are intentionally doing their best to set these fictional worlds on fire. Like that WB executive who hated Zack Synder so much he tried his utmost to kill his movie franchise off, only to give Zack the victimhood complex which his fanbase weaponised into kicking off a light-cult fandom movement that, in turn, managed to bully WB into rereleasing a movie that, ultimately, didn't even earn them much in the way of prestige or viewership when it finally dropped. Where was I? Oh that's right; adaptions are a mistake, stop them.

One adaptation that had a lot of buzz around it, both positive and negative, was that of The Witcher starring Henry Cavill. Based on the novels of the Witcher more than the games who popularized those models to the wider world, The Witcher was set to adapt the various stories about the titular monster hunter, Geralt of Rivia, as he tries to stick by his moralist philosophy in a corrupt and sodden world that seems to slowly ruin all those who survive in it. And beside the fact that The Witcher was popularised to a global audience by the video games, conventional wisdom would lead outsiders of the franchise to the books for their material because for one; there's more of them, and for two; the general public still aren't ready to accept video games as a legitimate form of intelligent art. Which, incidentally, is my explanation for why every adaptation turns out to be a dog's dinner.

Still, regardless of some unfavourable comparisons to the visual designs of the games, (physical prop armour is tougher to build and make look cool than digital game assets.) the show turned out to be quite enjoyable to watch throughout it's first season, due in large part to the starring role of Henry Cavill, a man known both for being a gamer and a lover of 'The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt'. His passion seemed to mirror the excitement of a fan wanting to see their favourite game franchise spread to a wider audience of viewers, and that positivity made it possible to look past the perhaps average costume design... and general graphical design. (I hate this show's version of the Wolf School pendant. It looks like a minimalist redesign gone horribly wrong.) I can even forgive the show for having it's single best fight scene in the first episode. 

Season two was a bit more divisive I hear, with actual changes made to the source material causing head scratches for fans who were left, once again, wondering what the point is of adapting something and then veering off on your own path. (I don't know if the team have gone quite as off-the-rails as 'Rings of Power' has, but the threat is there.) Still we hold on for Henry, because Henry seems to believe in the property and thus became something of the fan's beacon to support this show even through it's potential woes. Like holding one of our own on our shoulders, hoping he'll succeed for the good of all our fandom. He's always been good at getting fans to like him, that Henry. Superman fans were begging for him to come back for so long that Dwyane Johnson slapped together a clunker of an outdated superhero movie just to bring him back into the DC movie franchise! Whatever would we do without Henry?

A pertinent rhetorical, given the times. For Henry Cavill, the lightning rod of a series that otherwise been called "Decent to mediocre" has hung up his swords and quit in favour of... one of the Hemsworths? (Which one? Urgh, not Liam!) It's a shocking and bizarre situation considering just how central to the marketing of this franchise Henry was, with his love of the game and respect for the books impassioning him to try and flesh out his character as much as humanely possible. Every time stories came out about how Henry was taking his role, we'd hear about his dedication to the source material and understanding of it. He wanted to try and bring out Geralt's inner voice into the breadth of the show, allow the philosophical aspects of Geralt to nestle into the audience's head so when he turns around and comes out with a speech about the line of good and evil, it comes out of the mouth of a man who you believe ponders these sorts of queries between his bouts of brutality. That's just an actor who cares.

Which if report are true, put him at odds with many of the writers and showrunners behind The Witcher. Henry had to fight to make the show how he wanted to make it and apparently didn't possess the power to make the necessary changes despite his star power and fan adoration. He made the very important choice to put his foot down over only continuing series 3 if the team agreed to stay more to the script of the novels, and now we find out he's leaving for 4. And I am pretty much on Henry's side here, not just because of how likable he appear to be. Rings of Power has shown us just how 'spectacle oriented' show writers become when untethered from the tight confines of their source material; disregarding the 'bigger picture' and 'important themes' in favour of empty flashes of dull excitement and 'member berries. (Remember the Balrog tease? What was the point of that?) When I hear reports of one former Witcher writer disparaging their former colleagues for laughing at the source material, I can't help but not only believe it, but assume that's how it is across the board with all of these adaptations. I'm not adverse to change in adaptation; I just think it needs to be respectable and worthy change. 

Henry, for his part, is at least making sure he's hitting his dreams. The man has finally been welcomed back into the DC superhero franchise he helped kick off all those years ago, and if we're really being blissfully unawares; we could accredit this shift in leadership to Henry merely wanting to dedicate his full attention back to the Supes movies. (Of which he can't be doing for than a handful of months of work towards a year. Yeah... he could have fit in a TV show at the same... if he wanted to.) Liam has been respectful, and sensible, enough not to say anything here, but I think the consensus is the same; the man has the looks but lacks that level of performance required to take over a pivotal role which was the spine of a close-to-flagging TV series. Will he just try and copy Henry's voice, which itself was a working evolution upon Doug Cockle's Geralt voice; highlighting different aspects of the stunted emotions of a Witcher? Does Liam even recognise the significance of the work? I don't know... which leaves this show's fate in limbo.

Adaptations... shouldn't be this minefield that they appear to be. I hear time and time again that it's ego which sinks these projects, from people who want to make their mucky mark on established work and can't get the go ahead to make official additions onto the work. (Just look at Rings of Power; they lied about sticking to the confines of canon so they could tell their bad fan fiction.) And dropping Henry from the role, whether he chose to leave or was ousted, was a terrible move for a project riding his passion. Any competent showrunner would have run to Henry with compromises or stern words the second this possibility passed their periphery, and if that encounter did occur and still resulted in a walk away; then they've failed in this basic duty of keeping production together. Liam needs to be nothing short of a miracle worker to pull this switch-up off; and I'm not the optimistic 'route for the underdog' sort of guy myself...

 

The Witcher is being remade... sigh...

Not another one... 

Yeah that's about it, I've crossed my threshold on the amount of remakes I can take without considering the entire concept utterly moronic. Maybe it's the absolute deluge of remakes being made without purpose, maybe it's the insult of two remakes that are currently targeting higher market prices than their original released with, and maybe it's the fact that the internet is actually celebrating this remake as "One that makes sense" but I just cannot find the time of day for these anymore. Reliving the past is becoming a plague on an industry that has started to hit a total brick wall of blanket innovation; for so many years the pursuit of visual fidelity improvement was the base driving force behind so many technological improvements, and gameplay tweaks were a decent undercurrent. Now we've reached about as far as gaming can feasibly get in turns of visual fidelity and all that innovation has almost instantly dropped off. Now we're scrambling at anything for the next step forward and have too often landed on remakes.

Because afterall, these were the brilliant games of yesteryear that stunned and wowed even despite their visual woes, or dated gameplay, or middling narratives; why shouldn't we bring them into the modern year? And to some extent I agree with that in specific circumstances, but those circumstances have really slipped from being specific of late. Horizon Zero Dawn, Dead Space, Last of Us; bar that last one I can't think of a single one of these games that would be considered 'unforgettable classics'. Maybe to their genre fans perhaps, but the average gamer probably doesn't even think about those first two. Yet here we are dedicating efforts and talents to treading the steps that past developers have instead of coming up with new ideas and new adventures. Resident Evil 2 earned it's place in history and deserved that remake, Final Fantasy VII remake is not only deserved, but it's blazing in some many interesting directions that I have no doubt it'll hardly resemble the original when it's all said and done. Why The Witcher?

The very first Witcher game was a title considered not worth the effort of a remaster back in the days when the sequel was being considered. It's narrative was said to be decent, but the graphics couldn't really support the typical HD reworking to be spruced up, and the gameplay was pretty horribly dated to the point of being sleepy and boring. I have no doubt that a remake would need to totally exorcise all of that combat, probably rewrite the story, definitely rerecord all the lines, restructure the shape of the game, remake a lot of the side content, (as the modern world isn't going to accept minigames that reward you with topless playing cards of the women you wooed.) and basically put all of the technical effort that could have gone into making a brand new game instead into remaking an old one that treads no new ground, doesn't push the story forward, and only really has a chance of making a few stragglers interested in The Witcher series. And it will just be stragglers at this point, because The Witcher 3 literally set the RPG genre on fire with 10/10 reviews and constant positive coverage, anyone who didn't pick it up then probably isn't going to today either. 

Instead of all of this sunken effort into a Witcher game that already exists, we could have had a spin-off that fans were begging for since the end of 3. We could have had a Ciri-centric game! It's pretty clear that the coming trilogy is going for an all-new protagonist, probably to give the creatives as much freedom as they want, and thus even if Ciri shows up, she'll just be a brief encounter quickly brushed past. We could have had an entire narrative following Ciri's journey to become her own brand of Witcher, and whilst doing so explore the setting of The Witcher through the eyes of a girl just coming into her prime. There's an infinite number of directions they could have gone with a one-off, concepts they could have explored and foes they could have pit the increadibly powerful blood-descendant against; and the creator's wouldn't have to step-toe within the confines of an already constructed three-part narrative in order to keep things feeling 'fresh'.

I think my biggest problem with some of the remakes being fronted today, is that some of them are latching onto a strong name rather than a strong idea of what they could do with that name. Tetsuya Nomura remade Final Fantasy 7 because he knew how to remix the original and cared about that process; The Last of Us was remade because the 1st game was popular and Sony needed a cash injection. When you lack the passion behind the project, it's easy to just miss some of the key ingredients that make up the original, like the art direction. The Last of Us Part 1 loses it's colour because the art of the game is shifted to match 2's direction without any acknowledgement of why 2 sought a darker palette than 1 did. Dead Space Remake tones down the carnage to make it more maudlin and grim, whereas the utterly ridiculous gore of Dead Space 1 better fit the slasher-movie inspirations inherent in that artistic approach. These remakes are pretty, but the beauty only goes skin deep.

And then there's just the logistics of spending these resources. Some of the time the studio working on the project isn't even the one's who own the property, and in those cases I'm decently okay with the spent time and effort on the project because I know nothing I care about it being held up by this. The Witcher Remake is being made by another CDPR internal studio, a studio that could be working on anything else related to the double franchises that the company are going to be pushing going forth. The next undercooked game that CDPR puts out, you're going to be looking back to this remake and wondering if this team could have helped out in the way that they ultimately didn't because they were remaking a largely inconsequential product. I'm not the guy cutting the cheques or running the numbers, I just care that these games come out as good as they can; and dividing teams and multitasking projects after the most embarrassingly poor release your company has ever fronted is a dumb, if bold, move. 

Finally I want to touch on a more ethereal concept; the creative stunting of artists. As an artist you always looking to create something, to bring to life the ideas you dream about, even in a small way, to the projects you work on. Moulding and fitting your ideas to fit in a team project is a talent in of itself, and trying to remake someone's else's work in the middle of other projects just doesn't leave the room for expression. It doesn't ask the artists and designers to think of the new and the unexplored, and it doesn't push forward the overall mentality of the studio. It's stepping in someone else's tracks, spinning wheels, going absolutely nowhere. Now sure, there might be a lot of potential in this Witcher Remake to try stuff the original developers would never have thought of; maybe after the team is done this game won't resemble the original in the slightest. But at that point, why not just make something wholly new and be done with this remake idea altogether?

Remakes don't really excite me anymore. Not even a New Vegas Remake would get me tingly anymore, largely because I think the idea has been pulled way from it's comfort zone and stretched beyond recognition. If the Last of Us Part 1 can call itself a remake without a hint of irony, then the industry has lost all touch with the concept of taste and reality. I don't care about the Witcher Remake; and unless it's a masterpiece I probably won't play it. But as the bug starts to catch and every team starts going back on the game's they put to rest, I can only start to wonder when some of these remakes will start crossing the line by doing some really messed up stuff, like throwing in microtransactions or... oh wait, Crash Team Racing literally did that! I guess we have no self respect anymore as an industry, do we?

CDPR Stock goes down

 Yeah, this is an investment blog now apparently

They used to rule the world. Back before the Cyberpunk crash of 2020, CD Projekt Red were riding high as the single most profitable video company in all of Europe; and the community was largely proud to have them there. It was refreshing not to have to endure the most successful of our industry being another bottom-feeder conglomerate intent on magicking money out of the lifeblood of it's fans through some other exhaustive scheme. CDPR were the people's company! They were honest, made great games, earnt their success through genuine hard work and not the back door crap that 90% of other big studios do. Heck, they even accepted game piracy figuring that it was duty of the devs to provide enough incentives with a quality product to earn people's purchase. (Kind of- I'm colliding a couple of stories together because it's a bit of a confusing one. But the spirit is as I described it.) But that was before.

Just recently the headlines have been lighting up the sites. "CDPR stock fallen by 75% since the release of Cyberpunk." Obviously that's not exactly how situations like this are supposed to go down, dropping the single most hyped-up game in all time is by all rights a situation worthy of celebration because success raises prestige which raises stock which attracts more money. It's a cyclical meritocracy. (At least in theory. No need to get into the realities of capitalism in a blog like this.) But of course that never happened. And now we're seeing that despite selling obscenely well for a game which barely resembled the carefully sculpted dream that CDPR sold it as, the scars of the mess that was Cyberpunk has hobbled and marred the company's trajectory much more seriously than one would imagine. Not that CDPR is in trouble, I should add. Just that they're going to be smarting from the Cyberpunk debacle until they can conjure another mega-hit to recoup their lost momentum.

And as I look to what CDPR are doing with the game, and the extended universe plans that are slowly trotting out after two years in development, (that Anime looks alright) I can feel nothing but a deep emptiness about the futility of all this. Despite making their promises and spending a crazy amount of time desperately trying to make Cyberpunk into at least a pale shadow of the promise they originally sold, we know that they plan to essentially dump the game as soon as they have technically fulfilled their promises. The upcoming DLC, which is said to be something of a lean expansion not really on the scale of CDPR's long lauded 'Blood and Wine', is going to be the end of their support cycle as they abandon that game engine entirely and move onto newer horizons. (Again, unless they totally remake the game in Unreal 5 and then work on the next DLC from there. Which... they are absolutely not going to do. That would be utterly ridiculous.)

Then crunching the raw numbers it is apparently the fact that the company who was once valued at 40 Billion Zloty is now less than 10 Million, demonstrating that Stock loss in a much more palpable fashion. This means they had to relinquish their crown of 'biggest European developer' at around the same time they had their 'world's greatest Dev' mode forcibly seized by the angry mob of their fans. Those same outlets are reporting the new winner of that title is Techland, fresh off their successful launch of Dying Light 2, which is surprising to me because I always figured that CDPR took their title directly off of Ubisoft. But no, despite not being public apparently they've got it on good estimative authority that Techland is worth around 10 billion and Ubisoft is only- six? Really? Damn, Imma need to reassess my casual valuations. (All those games and all those years and CDPR, with their two major releases, is still more valuable than them even on the otherside of a 75% drop. Wild...)

So what's the obvious meaning behind all of this? Well for one it means that CDPR are probably in a lot of hot water from their investors on account of their rank failure to serve the value of their stock. Remember they ended up pulling them along for this grand farce based on either sheer incompetence or sly flasehoods, and it's cost their investments to a significant degree. Heck, there were even a handful of investors who tried to sue CDPR for misrepresenting the strength of their game before launch, which- appears to have gone nowhere but having suits filed against you ain't exactly a glowing endorsement to other prospective investors! Also, this reinforces for the industry that lying to make a quick profit today is not worth the downturn it might cause on the otherside; which I suppose is a positive in a way. And I'm sorry to be leaning on something as vapid as the broken trust between company response and investor knowledge, but I'm just trying to figure out how the company justified their lying to themselves.

No, I'm not talking about the lie of releasing a game that was in no way the one their marketing was producing; there was no way CDPR were ever going to be able to make that game; but releasing a game that was actually unplayable to all but their wealthiest customers... I mean that's a little screwed up. It really goes some length to make the hobbyist feel unloved by the industry because they couldn't find it in their pocket to drop several thousand on a competent gaming rig. It's... galling to think that CDPR managed to convince itself, maybe through merit of it's fiscal responsibility I don't know, believed that flogging a non-functional mess was better in the long run than delaying by another year. Yeah, that would have sucked a lot and probably given their stocks a hit, but I think the post-apocalypse right now is hardly any better, if not much worse.

 But, of course, CDPR are not a dead company. They just released a new Witcher game, although it's just a follow-up to their card game (which was said to be excellent if that's your thing) and they've announced The Witcher 4, which appears to be following a new protagonist altogether and not, as we all hoped, Cirilla. What I'm trying to say is there's hope in the future for a comeback to a little bit of the grace they once had and maybe, with enough elbow grace, they'll be able to fool a whole new generation into trusting them before they announce Cyberpunk 3333; and try to pull this whole backwards scheme once again to yet another colossal flop. (But seriously, if they did do this exact thing again with a new Cyberpunk game I would laugh so hard.)

All this makes for grim reading for the Cyberpunk 2077 fan out there, still desperately trying to tell everyone that this game is actually flawless because the sunk cost fallacy has hit them that hard. (Come back when the game has a semi functioning law system; how about that?) And though once I never would, today I have to ask what sort of effect this is going to have on CDPR's future big budget releases. Are we going to see cheap monetisation generating methods that old CDPR would never endorse in order to make up the difference. Something that starts as simple as some cosmetics, then evolves to 'time savers' and then finally morphs into Cyberpunk Immortal? I'm thinking of a worst case scenario again, I know; but it has a little weight, doesn't it?

Roadmap Review: CDPR edition

 Old meme, I know

The general state of the modern gaming ecosystem does make it more than likely, in our new big releases, that things are going to be messy. It's just the consequence of subscribing to a "Put it out when I'm ready, screw if the game's ready." mentality. But we have a global solution to that little problem, don't we folks? A universal cure all as gimmicky as the Desert Rose and but nowhere near as reliable. I'm of course talking about the humble road map. That moment when the multimillion dollar organisations turns around to you and says "Woah hey, I know I screwed up this time, and god willing I'll do it again the next time you put your trust in me. But damn it, I'll commit to making this right as long as you give me around about a year and keep buying my microtransactions. I'm talking a lot of microtransactions here, I'm looking to retire sometime in the next year or so." And the results of such roadmaps have been... let's be generous and say 50/50. Not in that the content gets delivered, I think we have more examples of that happening than in not happening in the long scheme of things, just that it'll be worth the hype anyway. Most instances we're talking about content that would have been much better served if it was a surprise. (But then how could you mobilise your personal army of defenders to rally behind you like their dignity and honour depends on it?)

Of course, typical Roadmaps exist to do little more than give the graphics department a little project to work on, the promises are basic stuff that can be written in a text document and they sort of need to be subject to change in order to match the flow of development. (No one wants to be married to a bad idea for too long) As such Roadmaps tend to be exceedingly vague for actual discernible information and serve less as the 'promise' which they want it to be perceived as, and more of a hint of the direction things are going. As such, and in relation to CDPR, whilst they have released an honest-to-goodness roadmap for the direction of their entire company in the wake of the Cyberpunk conundrum, that isn't the only string of information I want to look at relating to where the team want to take this game in the near future. For that we have handy leaks, wouldn't ya know, which offer just enough for that juicy rampant speculation. But first, let's look at what CDPR actually wanted everyone to know.

CDPR is a company that has had an oddball work cycle for a decent amount of time now, reports say that at least since the development of the Witcher 3 (which was a long time in the making) people have been perplexed or overworked during the whole project life span. That hasn't changed. They claimed that it would do, but they lied, to themselves and to us. But apparently this time, that's going to change. They promise. (Anyone else feel that deja vu?) "Comfortable" is how they've described it in an official video addressing the evolution of the company over the next year. The want their employees to feel happy, encouraged and "empowered". I find that last point, which is a direct quote, to be very apt as it answers a disgruntled claim that I've heard alot about through others stories; the way in which CDPR management hold a tyrannical reign over ideas and will instantly shut down any and all dissent/other opinions. Bare in mind, of course, that these are the anecdotal tales of former employees so genuine doubt could be drawn regarding their validity, but either way it sounds like an area the team are committing themselves to working on.

 The big stickler, however, the point which has everyone in a tizzy, is the fact that CDPR are announcing actually huge shake-ups to their current plans for the immediate future, representing their determination to make changes now. (Or their proclivity for switching course on a dime to the determent of everyone. Interpret as you will.) For you see, massive changes to the working environment is coming so that by 2022 the team can deploy teams in such a way where they'll be able to develop two AAA games at once. That's right; The Witcher 4 and... Cyberpunk 2? I guess. Both are going to be created at the same time so that they can learn from each other or some such. Not going to lie, my pessimist has the biggest eye-brow raised on this point given that we're talking about a company now reviled for their huge burnout culture and biting off more than they can chew so often they're on the way to developing an eating disorder, and they just announced how they intend to double their own workload. It just makes me grimace a little. But hey, I'm sure they know what they're doing. (Even though recent history has proven that's not true a lot of the time.)

Another big development, and this one did catch me by legitimate surprise; it seems that Cyberpunk might be losing it's multiplayer standalone. (or it's just being heavily reworked, details are confusing right now) CDPR voiced how they are no longer dedicated to making Multiplayer Cyberpunk their next project (likely due to the way they couldn't possible create a breathing and fun multiplayer title based on such a rough foundation) and are instead committing to creating the basis for Multiplayer to be part of all games going forward. What does that even mean? God knows but it sure sounds bad, doesn't it? What, we're supposed to expect them to wrap in some throwaway multiplayer deathmatch to the next Witcher game, same as every single game from the late 2000's? Sounds like textbook wasted development time to me. But I suppose there's nothing for that whole situation except to wait and see.

Right now the heads of the studio are very much in the present, and that means getting Cyberpunk to a workable state. The new patch that launched had some improvements here and there, but it's far cry from what was originally promised and now folks are turning their attentions towards the extended DLC development of Cyberpunk for confirmation that things are, indeed, still on track. This leads us to the recent leak, curtsey of some Epic Store listings, informing folk about several new DLC heading towards Cyberpunk that very much seem, judging by the way they're all priced at 0.00, to be the free DLC that the team have been talking about. Now the whole 'free DLC' thing has been a constant call for praise in relation to CDPR, with people still so shocked by the whole stunt in Witcher 3's lifecycle that they're willing to give CD all the benefits of doubt in it's name, but from my opinion it was simply a cool buff that they did, nothing exactly game changing came from it. There was a new game plus mode, of course, but the rest was just a few alternate outfits, small missions, and just general expansions upon what was already in the game. But people are expecting the world out of Cyberpunk's free DLC suite.

So whilst we sit as uninformed today as we were when the policy was announced, if you want to put stock in rumours and a series of screen shots that seem decently real but who knows these days; (There's not really much evidence they could provide to prove legitimacy anyway) then we have a list of names for these DLC and can extrapolate upon that as we wish. The majority of these DLC share names that seem to hint towards what I was saying, expansions upon systems that are already there, but some promise lies in it too. Ripperdoc Expansion and Fashion Forward Expansions sound pretty ignorable off the bat. There might be some decent new augments introduced, but Cyberpunk dropped the ball on the Ripperdoc system in general so it'll take more than a few new stock items to flesh it out. The Body Shops expansions, however, almost sounds like a brand new prosthetic system in the game which fans were really hoping for in the base game. (Either that or Night City is getting the newest franchise in a chain of English cosmetic skin-care shops)

'Gangs of Night City' could be anything from gang themed cosmetics (which I'll bet it is) to a new bunch of quests. 'Rides of the Dark Future' is literally just the name of one of their Night City wire sections. New cars, great. If only there were more reasons to use new cars. (Like chases) 'Body of Chrome' sort of sounds like more customisation but I think, due to the lack of the 'expansion' suffix, that this actually going to be quest based around the concept of 'chrome'. (A term used to describe purely cosmetic augmentations) 'The Relic' and 'Neck Deep' sound like small quests and 'Night City Expansion' is what has people drooling. They hear something as vague as that and ultimately conclude that it must be the solve all they've been waiting for. "City expansion? Why, that must include the Police rework, the subway reintroduction, the pedestrian AI fix, the Traffic Ai fix and complete reworking of the main story in order to provide greater player choice that we've been expecting." I'd be surprised if that DLC addresses even one of those problems, truth be told. I more think that's just a placeholder title, like probably most of the listings in this leak if we're to take them to be real in the first place. And finally, there are three untitled and placeholder images that seem to be indicating three upcoming paid expansions. (one up on The Witcher's two)

Ultimately, that's what we can expect of Cyberpunk in the rest of this year and CDPR in the years beyond, so the question is whether or not this is what we want to see. A lot of what's being said here is clearly as much to the investors and perspective buyers as it is the internal team and the fans, obviously, (and the DLC plans weren't meant to be seen at all) but we all have something to take away from this. On one hand, there's going to be more CDPR games, although they'll be duo developed and that might just end up making both of them bad. (Worst case scenario, perhaps, but I gotta be the one to ask.) Multiplayer systems are coming to our single player games, but how long until multiplayer-centric monetization sensibilities start to follow suit? We're arguing theocraticals against hypothesis' here, which is to say there is no total answer, but I'd consider this mission statement a critical moment in CDPR's history for the foreseeable. Everything they've talked about is so drastic, that we're either looking at a journey to ruin or a path to apotheosis, and I wonder if they'll even be able to tell which is which before it's too late to change course. Food for thought or idiosyncratic ramblings; you decide.

The Witcher relations restored.

Reunited and it feels so good!

It's already so early on into the year, no the decade, and we've already got a significant story making it's way around the gaming sphere; one concerning a game franchise that I cherish greatly. Unfortunately, the topic itself will be delving into rights management, which isn't the most fun thing in the world to talk about, but I'll try to keep things as brief and snappy as possible for my own sanity's sake. (As has been my style of late.) One quick disclaimer for this particular topic; a lot of it involves hearsay and assumption from folk with very few verifiable truths, so bear that in mind as we delve into the world of conflict between CD Projekt Red and The Witcher.

Or to be more accurate, the conflict between CD Projekt Red and 'The Witcher's Author: Andrzej Sapkowski. (Oh boy, once again I'm glad this is a written blog.) Their's is a relationship that spans back a very long way and has birthed one of most beloved RPG franchises of all time, but that doesn't mean it was smooth sailing all the way. Back before CDPR had to deal with the struggles of putting together a team to make a worthy Witcher sequel whilst simultaneously handling the early stages of the Cyberpunk project whilst juggling the cusp of a new technological age, they were just a small studio out of Poland that had a much more simple threat against their ideas; ignorance. (And I mean that in the least 'obnoxious' possible way that one can say something so obnoxious.)

In Poland The Witcher books are huge. Well I suppose that's a bit of a misnomer now as currently they are so popular worldwide that they are outselling Harry Potter in America, but what I mean to say is that they have always been huge in Poland. They have always been lauded for they way they handle mature themes, great characters and Slavic mythology, (Easiest the creepiest of the world mythologies) in one engaging package. So much so that it made since for a budding Polish game studio who were brimming with national pride to seek out the rights to adapt that story into a game and show it off to the world, afterall there had already been a TV series based on the books, why not a game too? Well the biggest barrier to that sort of thing happening would be Andrzej himself who, as far as I can tell, has always held a prohibitively low opinion of the gaming world.

Just like Roger Ebert who once famously claimed that "Video games can never be art", (It always hurts more when said by someone you respect) Sapkowski has thrown shade at every part of the game creation process claiming that it can never compete with alternatives when it comes to pure storytelling. There are actually quite a few specific quotes to this avail, albeit translated, but it's much too early in the morning right now to put myself in a bad mood so I recommend you either look them up yourself or take my word for it. The bottom line is this; Andrzej didn't like Video games and when he was approached to make an adaptation of his work he wanted practically nothing to do with the idea. To this day we're not entirely sure of the specifics of their transaction, but Andrzej ended up selling CDPR the rights to his property under a lump sum, figuring that the games themselves would never catch on enough to make a percentage deal worth his time. Afterall, his tales are story-rich and there's no space in the world of gaming for a story driven game, is there? (Was this guy talking to EA or something, he sounds like their spokesperson.)

Hindsight is, and always will be, 20-20 because The Witcher games weren't just a hit, I would argue that their legacy has had a marked effect on the entire industry, and CDPR have become veritable superstars in their wake. Reception towards the first game might have been rather modest, but 'The Witcher 2: Assassin of Kings' practically cleaned up in the review circuit. (Apart from with Jim Sterling who still stubbornly refuses to admit he misjudged the game. Reviews are highly subjective, to be fair.) This just happened to be the time that I stumbled onto the series in a manner that was amusing organic, I missed all the rave surrounding this game and merely saw that the case in the shop had a cardboard wallet and thought "Ohhh that looks fancy, let's look it up." 'The Witcher 3' was something of a gaming cultural phenomenon with people flocking to it in a manner that felt like it rivalled the Grand Theft Auto games. (Although only in feeling. GTA still dominates the physical charts in a manner that just feels silly at this point. How the heck is GTA V still on the chart of highest monthly earners?)

It's hard to determine the exact moment when Andrzej realized that he made a legendarily poor gamble, but I'm sure that the highly publicized lawsuit was a long time bubbling in the background. And honestly, can you blame the man? His own work was making millions from new fans across the world and he wasn't seeing a penny of it, sure that was due to his own shortsighted prejudice, but that doesn't mean the man had to like it! Folk still found it disheartening to hear about the author of the beloved series locked in legal strife against the celebrated folk who had turned that series into something spectacular in the digital world. Just at the height of CDPR's fame as a talented studio with compassionate devs who were charismatic to a T, Andrzej launched a campaign against them, essentially dragging his own name through the mud in the eyes of gamers. (Not that he cared. He probably thinks of us lot as sub-human or something.)

The next big development we would hear out of the world of the Witcher would be in relation to the Netflix adaptation wherein our titular Witcher, Geralt of Rivia, would be played by a fellow gamer; Henry Cavill. Henry even mentioned, during a press junket, how he was a huge fan of 'Wild Hunt', winning him a whole new gamer audience, I'm sure. Unfortunately it would then come out that the show would do it's best to forget that the games ever existed, with the Showrunners confirming that even when they run out of material from the books they would never seek out the game's storyline; this is in spite of the huge boon that those stories have been for the popularity of the franchise, propelling an arguably niche series to a global stage. This made it seem like Andrzej's anti-gaming influence had struck once again, ensuring that CDPR's masterpieces would never be respected like they deserved to be.

This is when the story turns positive, as recently it came out that CDProjekt Red and Andrzej have come to terms, surprisingly, and that CDPR have been restored full rights to make a ton of Witcher branded content once again. This is the kind of amicable solution that, I'd wager, no one was expecting to occur although all are undeniably happy for. Looking at the situation from the other side, I suppose one could argue that Andrzej might have been attempting nothing more than a legitimate attempt to rearrange a deal to get what he is rightly owed, but his unbecoming attitude during this saga certainly does paint a more malicious picture. Whatever the truth of the matter, the ultimate positive resolution has been achieved and CDPR are free to continue making Witcher games in the future, something that they have expressed interest in a few times throughout the years. (Although I'm not entirely sure how that would work considering the excessively conclusionary nature of 'Wild Hunt' alongside the multiple endings. But another chance to play as Ciri is worth any canon bending they end up having to do.)

I suppose this means that things are looking up for the future of CD Projekt Red. Their studio is steadily growing into an independent power house and their reputation is almost spotless as virtuous paragons of the industry. (Let's hope the Bethesda bug doesn't catch with them anytime soon.) I do wonder what it was that finally changed our esteemed author's mind in the end though, was it purely just about the money he was missing out on or did the fellow truly have a change of heart? Perhaps we'll never know the final answer and we'll be left to enjoy our happy ending, even if we're not entirely sure how it came about. One last tantalizing cliffhanger to keep us scratching our heads.

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?

In defense of: Minigames in video games

Turtles all the way down

Here we are again. Another day, another 'aspects in video games that I love and everybody else hates', wouldn't make a bad YouTube Video template if I had an inch of verbal charisma about me. Or any capture software. Or talent. But alas, I am a writer and so here I write. Sometimes I think about these elements and think 'I must be the stupid one here'. All those professional game critics seem to rant and rave about these things, so maybe I'm the one who can't see the inner truth of a terrible game system. But then I remember how enjoyable mechanics are a subjective topic, and how I should always try to see things from all sides even when others don't. I think this next topic can be a pretty divisive one so I'll ask the reader to keep an equally open mind.

Hey, I heard you like Video Games, so I put a video game in your video game. Or 'minigames' as they are colloquially known as. The term 'minigame' is actually rather broad in it's definition, spanning from side activities, to card games and skill-representative minigames. What do I mean by that? Well, minigames in which the purpose is to simulate the player character undergoing a certain skill such as; picking a lock, hacking a computer or hot-wiring a car. An oddly major point of contention among many video game critics, who have strange ideas about what 'video game pacing' is, even when it comes to an open world hundred-hour RPG. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

Let me start with an admission. Even though it's probably obvious by now. I love minigames in video games. Of course, now comes the customary 'When they are implemented correctly...blah blah', but lets be honest- isn't that true with any aspect of a video game or anything in general? I enjoy good movement in a game, and if it sucks then I won't enjoy myself. Am I being obtuse here? Let me settle back into my more formal attitude. So... When I experience a well implemented and executed Video Game minigame, I often find it adds to the immersion and can even be enjoyable. Some minigames were so well made and implemented that they even became their own spin off products; Just look at 'The Witcher's' 'Gwent'. If that's the case, then why do so many people get up in arms over the concept of minigames.

Well, much like with Vercua Salt in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, a bad egg spoils the bunch. I'm not going to sit here and blow smoke up anyone's backside, yes, some games have downright horrible minigames. Assassins Creed makes a habit of needlessly throwing in lockpicking minigames ever since Assassins Creed 3. They are too simple to be a fun challenge and too frustrating to be inconsequential; literally the perfect blend of pointless and perfunctory. Or how about Oblivion's conversation wheel. A gross oversimplification of Morrowind's, equally as bad, stat-based disposition system, into a game mechanic so useless that most forget about it 10 minutes in. But those examples (and others I'm sure) aside, there are plenty of darn good representatives of the feature too; and I don't like judging something by it's worst tendencies.

It'll probably come to the surprise of of no one to learn that The Elder Scrolls is one of my favourite role playing series' of all time. I love the freedom of being immersed into the world at such a one-to-one level that I get to be my main character in everything they do, in a very gamified way of course. I get to live my life in the world of Tamriel, assuming that life is a non-stop adventure. So it makes sense for that life to contain a little bit of lockpicking, there and then. Now, Oblivion drops the ball here again with a needlessly frustrating minigame but Skyrim adopts Bethesda patented lockpick wheel, and that's where I want to focus your attention.

The Skyrim lockpicking minigame, also present in Fallout, is perhaps one of most immersive lockpicking experiences in gaming; if perhaps not the most accurate. That moment when you feel around the lock and test it for a sweet spot, has that perfect touch of deductive reasoning, guesswork and luck all wrapped up into a small, potentially 5 second, minigame. The way how the lock slightly gives way when you are close to the sweet spot eggs you on just that slight bit to keep going. As the difficulty of the lock increases, the sweet spot gets smaller and your lockpick undergoes proportionate tensile stress; forcing you to get more selective with your guesses. In Fallout, Bethesda even coupled this  with a perk requirement (Or skill point requirement in the earlier games),  meaning that the system isn't entirely skill-based as it is in Skyrim.

At the complete other end of the technological spectrum comes the hacking minigame. Now, hacking has always been a topic that leaves a lot to the imagination. Few people have a truly solid understanding on the mechanics of 'hacking' or what is even really encompassed by the term 'hacking', so developers practically have full artistic licence here. I suppose that means at some point games developers had to sit down an realise that email-phising didn't make for the most exciting gameplay and opted for something a lot more gamey.

The first game that comes to mind is Bethesda's Fallout, again. When choosing to hack a terminal, players are met with strings of letters and symbols with actual words interwoven inside. Each word represents a potential password for the terminal and, as such, are the exact same length. Whenever you pick a word, you lose one of 3 guesses and are told how many letters your word shares with the password. There are also some additional lines about that can restore your guesses or erase a dud hidden in the code too. It's another incredibly simple system that is incredibly diverse. It's almost like solving a crossword in a odd way, only less time consuming.

Square Enix's 'Deus Ex: Human Revolution', on the other hand, goes for a much more flashy system. In their hacking, players are greeted with a sort of virtual-chessboard that you have to tactically move across. They are tasked with 'capturing' nodes in order to reach an exit node and break into the system. It's the kind of minigame that is nightmare to explain but so very simple once you get your hands on it. I've heard many critics leverage that fact in order to misconstrue the whole system as a confusing mess but I have to say that this couldn't be further from the truth. 'Human Revolution's' hacking is surprising intuitive and elegant, painting the illusion of being some expert hacking machine whilst only really giving players a little strategic minigame.

With the cyclical nature of life it was inevitable I would up at Gwent again. Gwent is a pretty interesting little card game when it comes to the world of The Witcher, in that it is both an in-universe game that it is simultaneously non-canonical. Unless I missed a darn good reason why half of the printed cards of the game hold the likeness of Geralt and his friends. But I digress, Gwent is a fantastic little side activity that the character is able to partake in whenever they are taking a break from skinning monsters.

The actual rules of Gwent are actually remarkably similar to Hearthstone whilst also being distinct. You are provided with a deck of ten cards that are each established with either a power value, an effect or both, the aim of the game is to have a higher power value than your opponent at the end of the round. The trick is that you have to take these 10 cards through all 3 rounds, barring a special effect, meaning that you have to be strategic about what rounds you dedicate your cards in and which you decide to lose in order to reserve your cards for later. Effect cards have the ability to neutralise certain types of cards for both players or summon backup from your deck and so on. It is actually an incredibly meaty addition onto a game that is already packed with content, likely why CD Projekt Red saw it fit to expand Gwent out into it's own separate game later.

Okay, so this is kind of cheating, but I have to give some attention to the classics. Yes, you could argue that there is nothing particularly unique about the many gambling games in Red Dead Redemption, but it doesn't make the games themselves any less fun. There's something wholesome about spending your cowboy days under the night sky playing dominoes or down in Thieves Landing playing Liars Dice. Poker does sort of get lost in translation when your job is to bluff a computer but blackjack remains delightful for me. I'm not going to go into the rules of classic gambling games, not the right kind of blog, but I will say that it's always nice to partake in gambling without any of the real world consequences. (Thank you; Video Games.)

That isn't the only game to focus on gambling however. Fallout: New Vegas, predictably, has a selection of all the best gambling games to choose from too. Poker, Blackjack, One-armed bandits, and roulette tables all await The Courier in the land of sin. New Vegas does add a mini game of it's own to the mix, however. A relatively slow placed card game called: Caravan which benefits from the same card-collectathon appeal that Gwent does. In Caravan, the player has to build a 'caravan' of mostly sequential cards that value between 20 and 27. Some of your cards can be used to mess up opponents caravans and your turn can be used to scrap a caravan and start again. Once you have 3 complete caravan's you win the game. This time I will admit that the game and it's rules can be somewhat obtuse if the player doesn't take the time to learn, but it is another fun distraction in the world of Fallout once you do.

This last part is definitely cheating, but I stand by my choice. 'Minigame' is, after all, a term used to denote a small game, within a larger game, who's goals do not aid the completion of the major game in a significant way. At least that's how I'm choosing to define the term in order to justify this part. Because, you see, racing is a minigame in a way. Okay, hear me out. Of course, there are games that are dedicated to racing like 'Project Gotham racing' or the 'Forza' franchise; but what about those games that aren't dedicated to the racing art form. Like Sleeping Dogs, Watch Dogs 2 or Grand Theft Auto. These are just games with decently, rudimentary driving mechanics that work well when dedicated to a racing minigame.

Of course some these games implement their racing better than others. Rockstar have been doing driving mechanics since the year dot, so it makes since that their racing would be the superior offering out of all my examples. But Watch Dogs 2 has surprising weighty cars that are fun to zip through San Francisco in and Sleeping Dogs almost feels like it stole it's driving from a completely different game in how solid it feels. No real rules to wrap your head around either, get from point A to point B without killing anyone. Simple and fun.

I've covered a vast array of minigames here, from the simulative to the integrated. All of the one's I have chosen have similar traits that I believe are indicative to a good minigame. They are intuitive yet deep. Easy to pick up but hard to master. Something like that doesn't just happen by accident, it takes care and ingenuity to plan and execute on in a way that perfectly fits into your game without feeling like a useless tack on. Not every game manages to pull it off; Mass Effect 2's hacking minigame (and most hacking minigames as a matter of fact) is dull and repetitive, Mafia 2's lockpicking is frustrating, and all of Oblivion's minigames suck. But in the end it comes down to whether the creators take the time to envision a worthy addition to their game mechanics or not.

Minigames are one of those things that people find it easy to rally against in their entirety. "They just distract from the game" they argue "They're wastes of time", which I find a moot argument in an entertainment form created for the purpose of wasting time. On a more serious note, Video games offer a strange take on 'pacing' that isn't shared by any other medium. As an active participant within that world, the pace of the story can often be dependant on you expending the effort to drive the story forward. A good minigame doesn't get in the way of that, but rather is there as an activity to partake in, in those moments when you aren't constantly pushing for that credits screen. For that reason I don't believe that 'minigames' should be scaled down in the future (Like they have been in many recent games) but just have more effort and resources devoted to, in order to create something that we readily sacrifice our time to instead of one that feels like it's leeching from our time.

Are friends electric?

I hate to ask...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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