Some of the bits about cyberpunk that I found noteworthy were the cinematography, just vastly more budget on conversation animation, those scenes felt like the true star. Also, how well it 'feels' like an rpg besides almost every quest having zero choice - often they'll be clever about choice by explaining "consequences" in a followup conclusion text message to avoid branching animations.
As you say the gameplay is trite and the difficulty is reliably trivial. I think of it more like an immersive visual novel, that's where the value is.
I'm no game dev (barely competent at tying my shoelaces), which means a part of Cyberpunk confused me. You call it out in your piece - how Johnny Silverhand is a douche in the game. BUT WAIT, there's more! I played it at launch, bugs and all, then fired up a new toon when Phantom Liberty dropped, and played both the full campaign and DLC together.
During this exciting time (and it was great both times!), I found during the second playthrough that Johnny had aged better for me. He sounded nicer; the nuance in his tone and how his lines land meant something different after my first playthrough. And it made me wonder if a) I have a brain parasite, or b) if they wrote him to be a certain way but he only comes across more favourably after you've marinated in him for longer.
Dunno, but it was a super-weird realisation to have the second time; resistance to replaying it was, "Not this asshat again," but it wasn't like that at all.
That aside, your core premise that the people you spend time with should be charming is 100% the recipe. I've lost count of the number of TV shows I've stopped watching (latest being Prime Target) because the characters are all hyper-hostile assholes.
This is one of those things that's very subjective, of course. I wrote what I did because I really felt like the way Johnny was presented was a deliberate choice, and I'm just saying how it affected me. YMMV.
That last sentence is what has been driving me nuts about movies and shows for forever. Everyone is way too extreme in their characters. Every piece of dialog is just characters trying to show how "bad ass" they are if you know what i'm referring to. There is no balance to how characters behave.
👆🏼 exactly. IMO it’s possible to be badass AND emotionally available - if a T800 can do it in Terminator 2, then a flesh-and-blood human in a police procedural can, too.
Timeline-wise that would've put your first playthrough immediately prior to the pandemic, and the subsequent playthrough probably some time after? Brain parasites might not be too far off from the truth -- those years did something to all out brain chemistries, I think. None of us are who we were.
Anyway, I kinda gestured at this in another comment, but I don't think these sorts of characters necessarily need to be charming -- just engaging. They have to entertain us, basically, so that we're excited to see them when they pop up, rather than annoyed. Ocarina of Time's Navi is kind of ground zero for this problem, isn't she? (Though, personally, Navi never bothered me). They can be charming, or friendly, or mischievous, or flirty, or cruel, or naive, or cute, or confused, or completely mad -- so long as they're interesting.
And, certainly, in a modern AAA game that's gonna be even harder to do 'cause there are so many more variables than just the writing that are nearly as important -- like the character's animation, the vocal performance, and how those sequences are integrated into the gameplay.
I totally agree with the sentiment that they don't need to be charming and I'm sorry if I came across as saying, "Everyone needs to be good." I think it's only a problem if (taking my example of Prime Target) they're *all* assholes. I need someone to root for.
In PT's case, there are two "heroes," both of whom are (IMO) huge dicks. It switches entertainment to annoyance. Shows like The Jackal show the masterclass version of how not to do it: both protagonists (the assassin and the agent) aren't people I'd want around to dinner, but they're imminently watchable and the show gives us reasons to empathise with their perspectives (something I found missing from Prime Target). I hope that clarifies my take a little.
However, this is not a game review site. It's a game criticism site. I am a professional game designer who is picking apart these works to try to understand what does and does not work. Even when I make a joke, the joke has a point behind it.
It's a shop talk site, so all spoilers are necessary.
I'm sorry to make anyone unhappy, but this won't change. Consider it fair warning for everyone going forward.
Yeah, but it's maybe different when you drop in spoilers for games other than the one being reviewed (which I would assume might be spoiled). I'm glad that I already (just barely) watched the Last of Us show to the point past the major spoiler you gave about a character dying.
I'll still read every word of your articles even with the spoilers. But maybe just add a spoiler warning at the top, in particular if they aren't the main game being reviewed. Do what you like, and I'll still love your writing - I just think a spoiler warning helps.
There's got to be a statute of limitations here 🤣 Cyberpunk 2077 came out in December 2020. Should we stop saying Darth is Luke's father, or is that still a spoiler - what's the timeframe here?
I assume the ire is about the TLOU spoilers, which in fairness could be construed as simultaneous spoilers for the currently-airing TV show.
Personally I'm of the opinion that folks care way too much about spoilers in the first place -- if spoiling a narrative ruins a story, I say the story wasn't worth very much in the first place, so nothing of value was lost -- but a lot of folks get *very* touchy about it.
Like I've folks get really mad at me for spoiling the *premise* of certain games. Like stuff you'd find out from reading the back of the box, or just playing the first 10 minutes of a game.
I like Eric's comment (above) suggesting a spoiler tag, which should solve all problems.
On the TV show, I've not watched it yet (waiting for it to finish, week-by-week doesn't give me the dopamine rush I crave), but I have played the game five years back when it came out - and I was curious to see how the internet responded to Joel's Big Golfing Day™. I haven't dipped into that yet, but I'm gonna guess there are a few surprised people out there.
Indeed. I think it's definitely the kind of thing folks are probably less likely to anticipate in the second season of a TV show rather than the beginning of a video game sequel. Or maybe not, given the Zombie genre.....
Since you've brought up zombies, I'm really enjoying my read of The Darwin Elevator (Jason Hough). His take on zombies is different enough to give me a similar feel to 28 Days Later - it looks like a zombie, it smells like a zombie (eww), but it has an additive set of behaviours that mean the viewer needs to wise tf up to a new set of threats.
I love an old trope warmed up for more than just leftovers.
Also, why are you swallowing the corpo propaganda? In cyberpunk, the zaibatsu aren't bad because they provide some level of securiy or social services, they are bad because they are actively suppressing the ability of the people to provide those things for themselves through an organized civil society. All so the big corps can continue their feudal tyranny of profit uninterrupted by pesky rule of law. (Disclaimer: megacorporations are fiction and any resemblance to contemporary business and politics is purely coincidential)
You sound more positive about the side quests than the main story. Is that a common theme in Projekt Red games or just a general trend in contemporary games?
I still haven't put more than 10 hours or so into 2077, precisely because those first few hours of play rubbed me the wrong way in precisely the way you describe. The opening act feels crazily abbreviated -- like they wanted to model it after the titular "origins" of the first Dragon Age, but were unable to devote the necessary amount of time to make those sections work, so we've got three very brief intros to a game that immediately catapult you into a narrative that demands you you care about the people and the world you don't even know yet. Not a ~great~ start.
Though, really, it's not like good writing can effectively establish these relationships very quickly. TW3 did a masterful job establishing Ciri as someone Geralt cared deeply for, with a very short tutorial segment (what is it, 20 minutes in total?) buttressed by multiple scenes throughout the first two acts of the game where you get even more insight into that relationship when talking to other characters about Ciri -- which makes that relationship feel even more important, because these conversations give the player dialog choices to help shape the nature of that relationship -- all many dozens of hours before actually getting to meet her. So maybe... maybe making 2077's opening *longer* wouldn't necessarily fix things.
I'm also one of those people deeply turned off by the whole "no third person" thing. Maybe you could weigh in on that choice, as a game designer? I just don't get it. Especially with their big, shiny AAA budget: so much of the game is built around body modification, almost all of which is reflected visually, but because you spend the game in first-person, you barely ever get to see any of it. At first I thought the first-person view was a cost-cutting measure to make cut-scenes easier to produce, but at the same time, even in the few hours I played, I couldn't help but notice they still had the cinematic sequences play out with fully mo-capped performances, full of dramatic poses and the like. At least when I could manage to point the camera in the correct direction to actually see everything, that is.
....
Re: BG3 and likeable characters... I think it was actually a pretty common criticism of the game that they *weren't* very likeable -- not at first, at least. It took a while to peel back the layers and really get to know (and, as the case may be, fall in love) with them. Some longer than others. I remember, during the beta, (those awful pre-Karlach years) people would complain about everyone being "evil" because they weren't very *nice* to each other (or the PC). EG It takes nearly two full acts before Lae'zel (the *true* heroine of the game, this is a hill I will die on, thank you very much) begins to soften up a little -- but what makes her work, and what kept her a constant in my party, was just how much fun it was listening to her insult and berate *everyone* at *every* opportunity. She was better than likeable: she was funny.
I think what it comes down to is that you want to craft characters that players *want* to listen to. Especially in one of these big fancy RPGs where interparty banter is such a big element.
And that's gotta be triply true for any character who's gonna be a constant presence in the game, constantly beside the player-character, constantly chiming-in with this or that. This is the lesson we were all supposed to have learned after Ocarina of Time, right?
....
And as for ubiquitous RPG premise tropes, I dunno, I think I'd rather we permanently retire *both* the "ticking time bomb" and the amnesiac-trying-to-recover-memories tropes. If we absolutely need something to be the genre default, I'd much prefer we copy Baldur's Gate 2, or The Witcher 3: this person the player/character is personally invested in/attached to is missing, let's go find them.
I know the 3rd person thing was a controversy, and it honestly didn't affect me either way. Until I was driving. Without the different camera options, the driving would have been intolerable. Driving should always default to 3rd person.
I just finished Escape from the Pit (awesome game, thanks) and am digging into Age of Decadence.
I really like it. And onboard with what they’re going for - a game of building your character, fee random rolls outside of combat, cool mysterious world.
But it has (so far) some of the issues you’re talking about here. They haven’t really created any memorable characters. It’s like they’re too concerned that the player might miss one of the characters if they cause it’s death or something
Definitely check out Colony Ship, if you haven't already. It barely got any coverage, which is a shame -- it came out a year or two ago, from the same devs as Age of Decadence, and it's a much better game imo (and certainly far more polished). Really cool sci-fi premise, too.
I think Iron Tower Studios doesn't really DO characters - and neither does Spiderweb. I mean, you spend most of Avernum in company of blank slates who never get any backstory or anything, and while other characters might have some personality, this is not the strongest suit of these games.
It's kind of like people complain about lack of character development is Asimov's Foundation series. But really, human characters in this book barely matter - it has a different character, Foundation itself, and IT has a lot of development. So, these games: they let you stay detached from the personal level of the story, but give you wonderful opportunities to appreciate high-level narrative. In Geneforge, Avadon, and even, to some degree, in Queen's Wish, politics and philosophy vastly overshadow characters.
Now, Owlcat Games' RPGs, they are, like BG3, much more character-focused (what would it take to get Jeff to play and review one of them, I wonder?). But less interesting in terms of the bigger story, I feel.
Also, I can very much recommend The Thaumaturge for people looking for more character-oriented stories. But it really helps to know either Polish or Russian to appreciate that game, unfortunately: the English translation loses all the charm.
"I mean, you spend most of Avernum in company of blank slates who never get any backstory or anything, and while other characters might have some personality, this is not the strongest suit of these games."
Backstory is boring.
Your characters in Avernum do have a personality: Your personality.
Maybe it's a sign how RPGs have changed and grown over the years, it never before struck me as odd that your parry was together. Nowadays you'll try and work a backstory *why* the 3-9 of you are traveling together. But back then, you just were.
You know, I'm OK with blank slate companions, but still, it's a bit like saying that the best story is sandbox. Which is a statement I'm going to vehemently disagree with.
Besides, storied companions can be great. People still talk about Sulik from Fallout 2, not to mention Morte and Fall-from-Grace from Planescape: Torment, and the whole cast of Baldur's Gate 2.
I love your games - bought almost every single one and will continue to do so - but I remember them for other things than characters, and the same goes from Iron Tower games.
Some of the bits about cyberpunk that I found noteworthy were the cinematography, just vastly more budget on conversation animation, those scenes felt like the true star. Also, how well it 'feels' like an rpg besides almost every quest having zero choice - often they'll be clever about choice by explaining "consequences" in a followup conclusion text message to avoid branching animations.
As you say the gameplay is trite and the difficulty is reliably trivial. I think of it more like an immersive visual novel, that's where the value is.
I'm no game dev (barely competent at tying my shoelaces), which means a part of Cyberpunk confused me. You call it out in your piece - how Johnny Silverhand is a douche in the game. BUT WAIT, there's more! I played it at launch, bugs and all, then fired up a new toon when Phantom Liberty dropped, and played both the full campaign and DLC together.
During this exciting time (and it was great both times!), I found during the second playthrough that Johnny had aged better for me. He sounded nicer; the nuance in his tone and how his lines land meant something different after my first playthrough. And it made me wonder if a) I have a brain parasite, or b) if they wrote him to be a certain way but he only comes across more favourably after you've marinated in him for longer.
Dunno, but it was a super-weird realisation to have the second time; resistance to replaying it was, "Not this asshat again," but it wasn't like that at all.
That aside, your core premise that the people you spend time with should be charming is 100% the recipe. I've lost count of the number of TV shows I've stopped watching (latest being Prime Target) because the characters are all hyper-hostile assholes.
This is one of those things that's very subjective, of course. I wrote what I did because I really felt like the way Johnny was presented was a deliberate choice, and I'm just saying how it affected me. YMMV.
That last sentence is what has been driving me nuts about movies and shows for forever. Everyone is way too extreme in their characters. Every piece of dialog is just characters trying to show how "bad ass" they are if you know what i'm referring to. There is no balance to how characters behave.
👆🏼 exactly. IMO it’s possible to be badass AND emotionally available - if a T800 can do it in Terminator 2, then a flesh-and-blood human in a police procedural can, too.
Timeline-wise that would've put your first playthrough immediately prior to the pandemic, and the subsequent playthrough probably some time after? Brain parasites might not be too far off from the truth -- those years did something to all out brain chemistries, I think. None of us are who we were.
Anyway, I kinda gestured at this in another comment, but I don't think these sorts of characters necessarily need to be charming -- just engaging. They have to entertain us, basically, so that we're excited to see them when they pop up, rather than annoyed. Ocarina of Time's Navi is kind of ground zero for this problem, isn't she? (Though, personally, Navi never bothered me). They can be charming, or friendly, or mischievous, or flirty, or cruel, or naive, or cute, or confused, or completely mad -- so long as they're interesting.
And, certainly, in a modern AAA game that's gonna be even harder to do 'cause there are so many more variables than just the writing that are nearly as important -- like the character's animation, the vocal performance, and how those sequences are integrated into the gameplay.
"None of us are who we were" - LOL 🤣 🤣 Truth.
I totally agree with the sentiment that they don't need to be charming and I'm sorry if I came across as saying, "Everyone needs to be good." I think it's only a problem if (taking my example of Prime Target) they're *all* assholes. I need someone to root for.
In PT's case, there are two "heroes," both of whom are (IMO) huge dicks. It switches entertainment to annoyance. Shows like The Jackal show the masterclass version of how not to do it: both protagonists (the assassin and the agent) aren't people I'd want around to dinner, but they're imminently watchable and the show gives us reasons to empathise with their perspectives (something I found missing from Prime Target). I hope that clarifies my take a little.
so many unnecessary spoilers for multiple games, why? Unsubscribed
I'm sorry to lose you.
However, this is not a game review site. It's a game criticism site. I am a professional game designer who is picking apart these works to try to understand what does and does not work. Even when I make a joke, the joke has a point behind it.
It's a shop talk site, so all spoilers are necessary.
I'm sorry to make anyone unhappy, but this won't change. Consider it fair warning for everyone going forward.
Yeah, but it's maybe different when you drop in spoilers for games other than the one being reviewed (which I would assume might be spoiled). I'm glad that I already (just barely) watched the Last of Us show to the point past the major spoiler you gave about a character dying.
I'll still read every word of your articles even with the spoilers. But maybe just add a spoiler warning at the top, in particular if they aren't the main game being reviewed. Do what you like, and I'll still love your writing - I just think a spoiler warning helps.
Changed my mind. I added a spoiler warning to the top of the article and will continue to do such in the future.
There's got to be a statute of limitations here 🤣 Cyberpunk 2077 came out in December 2020. Should we stop saying Darth is Luke's father, or is that still a spoiler - what's the timeframe here?
I assume the ire is about the TLOU spoilers, which in fairness could be construed as simultaneous spoilers for the currently-airing TV show.
Personally I'm of the opinion that folks care way too much about spoilers in the first place -- if spoiling a narrative ruins a story, I say the story wasn't worth very much in the first place, so nothing of value was lost -- but a lot of folks get *very* touchy about it.
Like I've folks get really mad at me for spoiling the *premise* of certain games. Like stuff you'd find out from reading the back of the box, or just playing the first 10 minutes of a game.
So this is fair, and you're right. From now on, I'll try to summarize at the top of the article what might be spoiled so that nobody catches a stray.
I like Eric's comment (above) suggesting a spoiler tag, which should solve all problems.
On the TV show, I've not watched it yet (waiting for it to finish, week-by-week doesn't give me the dopamine rush I crave), but I have played the game five years back when it came out - and I was curious to see how the internet responded to Joel's Big Golfing Day™. I haven't dipped into that yet, but I'm gonna guess there are a few surprised people out there.
Indeed. I think it's definitely the kind of thing folks are probably less likely to anticipate in the second season of a TV show rather than the beginning of a video game sequel. Or maybe not, given the Zombie genre.....
Since you've brought up zombies, I'm really enjoying my read of The Darwin Elevator (Jason Hough). His take on zombies is different enough to give me a similar feel to 28 Days Later - it looks like a zombie, it smells like a zombie (eww), but it has an additive set of behaviours that mean the viewer needs to wise tf up to a new set of threats.
I love an old trope warmed up for more than just leftovers.
Unrelated to anything, my favorite work of zombie fiction is World War Z (the book).
For what its worth I'm salty that reddit spoiled a 20 year old TV show that "I'm going to finish one day!!!!"
😁
Also, why are you swallowing the corpo propaganda? In cyberpunk, the zaibatsu aren't bad because they provide some level of securiy or social services, they are bad because they are actively suppressing the ability of the people to provide those things for themselves through an organized civil society. All so the big corps can continue their feudal tyranny of profit uninterrupted by pesky rule of law. (Disclaimer: megacorporations are fiction and any resemblance to contemporary business and politics is purely coincidential)
You sound more positive about the side quests than the main story. Is that a common theme in Projekt Red games or just a general trend in contemporary games?
That happens a LOT, honestly. The Main Story is almost always "That guy over there? He's BAD. Kill him!" (Yawn.)
Side stories are where developers have room to play.
Isn't that the main plot for Avernum 1 and 2? Or is that a symptom of almost all RPG main plots?
I'm not being critical, the original Exile games are been my favorite computer games since I first played them
I still haven't put more than 10 hours or so into 2077, precisely because those first few hours of play rubbed me the wrong way in precisely the way you describe. The opening act feels crazily abbreviated -- like they wanted to model it after the titular "origins" of the first Dragon Age, but were unable to devote the necessary amount of time to make those sections work, so we've got three very brief intros to a game that immediately catapult you into a narrative that demands you you care about the people and the world you don't even know yet. Not a ~great~ start.
Though, really, it's not like good writing can effectively establish these relationships very quickly. TW3 did a masterful job establishing Ciri as someone Geralt cared deeply for, with a very short tutorial segment (what is it, 20 minutes in total?) buttressed by multiple scenes throughout the first two acts of the game where you get even more insight into that relationship when talking to other characters about Ciri -- which makes that relationship feel even more important, because these conversations give the player dialog choices to help shape the nature of that relationship -- all many dozens of hours before actually getting to meet her. So maybe... maybe making 2077's opening *longer* wouldn't necessarily fix things.
I'm also one of those people deeply turned off by the whole "no third person" thing. Maybe you could weigh in on that choice, as a game designer? I just don't get it. Especially with their big, shiny AAA budget: so much of the game is built around body modification, almost all of which is reflected visually, but because you spend the game in first-person, you barely ever get to see any of it. At first I thought the first-person view was a cost-cutting measure to make cut-scenes easier to produce, but at the same time, even in the few hours I played, I couldn't help but notice they still had the cinematic sequences play out with fully mo-capped performances, full of dramatic poses and the like. At least when I could manage to point the camera in the correct direction to actually see everything, that is.
....
Re: BG3 and likeable characters... I think it was actually a pretty common criticism of the game that they *weren't* very likeable -- not at first, at least. It took a while to peel back the layers and really get to know (and, as the case may be, fall in love) with them. Some longer than others. I remember, during the beta, (those awful pre-Karlach years) people would complain about everyone being "evil" because they weren't very *nice* to each other (or the PC). EG It takes nearly two full acts before Lae'zel (the *true* heroine of the game, this is a hill I will die on, thank you very much) begins to soften up a little -- but what makes her work, and what kept her a constant in my party, was just how much fun it was listening to her insult and berate *everyone* at *every* opportunity. She was better than likeable: she was funny.
I think what it comes down to is that you want to craft characters that players *want* to listen to. Especially in one of these big fancy RPGs where interparty banter is such a big element.
And that's gotta be triply true for any character who's gonna be a constant presence in the game, constantly beside the player-character, constantly chiming-in with this or that. This is the lesson we were all supposed to have learned after Ocarina of Time, right?
....
And as for ubiquitous RPG premise tropes, I dunno, I think I'd rather we permanently retire *both* the "ticking time bomb" and the amnesiac-trying-to-recover-memories tropes. If we absolutely need something to be the genre default, I'd much prefer we copy Baldur's Gate 2, or The Witcher 3: this person the player/character is personally invested in/attached to is missing, let's go find them.
I know the 3rd person thing was a controversy, and it honestly didn't affect me either way. Until I was driving. Without the different camera options, the driving would have been intolerable. Driving should always default to 3rd person.
I saw the "losing your memory" trope and immediately thought of Kotor
I just finished Escape from the Pit (awesome game, thanks) and am digging into Age of Decadence.
I really like it. And onboard with what they’re going for - a game of building your character, fee random rolls outside of combat, cool mysterious world.
But it has (so far) some of the issues you’re talking about here. They haven’t really created any memorable characters. It’s like they’re too concerned that the player might miss one of the characters if they cause it’s death or something
Yeah, the characters are oddly flat. I'm really glad they're back to Witcher stuff, because the characters in that are indelible.
Definitely check out Colony Ship, if you haven't already. It barely got any coverage, which is a shame -- it came out a year or two ago, from the same devs as Age of Decadence, and it's a much better game imo (and certainly far more polished). Really cool sci-fi premise, too.
Oh this is exciting. I’m going to download it now - I really like AoD, but if there’s an even better version I’m down for it. Thanks!
I think Iron Tower Studios doesn't really DO characters - and neither does Spiderweb. I mean, you spend most of Avernum in company of blank slates who never get any backstory or anything, and while other characters might have some personality, this is not the strongest suit of these games.
It's kind of like people complain about lack of character development is Asimov's Foundation series. But really, human characters in this book barely matter - it has a different character, Foundation itself, and IT has a lot of development. So, these games: they let you stay detached from the personal level of the story, but give you wonderful opportunities to appreciate high-level narrative. In Geneforge, Avadon, and even, to some degree, in Queen's Wish, politics and philosophy vastly overshadow characters.
Now, Owlcat Games' RPGs, they are, like BG3, much more character-focused (what would it take to get Jeff to play and review one of them, I wonder?). But less interesting in terms of the bigger story, I feel.
Also, I can very much recommend The Thaumaturge for people looking for more character-oriented stories. But it really helps to know either Polish or Russian to appreciate that game, unfortunately: the English translation loses all the charm.
"I mean, you spend most of Avernum in company of blank slates who never get any backstory or anything, and while other characters might have some personality, this is not the strongest suit of these games."
Backstory is boring.
Your characters in Avernum do have a personality: Your personality.
Maybe it's a sign how RPGs have changed and grown over the years, it never before struck me as odd that your parry was together. Nowadays you'll try and work a backstory *why* the 3-9 of you are traveling together. But back then, you just were.
You know, I'm OK with blank slate companions, but still, it's a bit like saying that the best story is sandbox. Which is a statement I'm going to vehemently disagree with.
Besides, storied companions can be great. People still talk about Sulik from Fallout 2, not to mention Morte and Fall-from-Grace from Planescape: Torment, and the whole cast of Baldur's Gate 2.
I love your games - bought almost every single one and will continue to do so - but I remember them for other things than characters, and the same goes from Iron Tower games.