Analogue follows a lot of the same design choices that Digital did. The first person non-communicative protagonist, story which bears exploring, rather than exposition, and some very narratively woven gameplay.

While Digital had an active story that moved along as you played, Analogue plays a little differently. Pretty much all the story has happened sometime before the player turns up, and your job is just to find out what happened.

And that’s accomplished by reading the computer logs from that time with the aid of two AI. Which brings me to my main problem with recommending this game to you…
You need to like reading. About two hours of it. Aside from one twenty minute sequence halfway through (getting to it) it’s just reading and character exploration.

So in essence, it’s a visual novel, a genre of which I’m not overly familiar. The story was interesting and kept me there long enough to finish it in one sitting. While that run only took me two hours, there’s still probably another run or two in there with different endings available.

But none of that is especially new. Exploration and investigation find their ways into a number of games, some of those little quests lasting longer than this one did. The reason I did bring this up, was that twenty minute sequence, and what a twenty minutes that was.

I will not be spoiling, but what it managed to do was incorporate a moral choice, a real moral choice, into gameplay, without me even noticing. It’s a moral choice some people might even miss. And looking back on every game I’ve played, that doesn’t happen very often.

inFamous had one or two, but the vast majority were menu based. Dragon’s Dogma is the only other game that comes to mind that did them exclusively in the realm of gameplay. but of those only one felt like a hidden choice.

Well, I’ve ragged enough on moral choices. Next time, different gameplay systems within a single game.

Digital: A Love Story is largely considered the first popular piece of work of Christine Love (a Love story, get it?). Again, this game is free, and takes maybe a couple of hours to finish, so go forth, and take a look, if only for context.

One of the first questions I ever get asked when I bring this game up is the genre it sits in. Unlike her follow up game, Analogue: A Hate Story, I can’t really call it anything. Puzzle probably comes closest, but doesn’t really come close to really grasping what this game is.

So without delving into spoilers, the most interesting part of this game is how the gameplay works totally around the setting of the game. 5 minutes into the future or 1988.

For any story, the setting is a very important part. Background story, era, NPC’s are all part of the setting. A single story can work in a lot of settings, but the setting needs to be defined.

Every time you do anything in Digital, you’re reminded of the setting. Back in an era where the internet troll was uncommon. Back in an era a gigabyte of memory was possible exceptions to the Apple and Linux OS’)
Gameplay is said to be best used when it directly serves the story. Digital is an example of a game that does that to an extent most games don’t seem to grasp.

Brütal Legend is another unsung gem in the world of games. I can make a goodly sized list of everything that’s wrong with it, but in terms of gameplay serving story, there’s not much that can hold a candle to it. Everything you can do, explore or fight against are all musically inspired.

Next time, Digital’s sequel, Analogue: A Hate Story

The article I promised? Way too big. To cover as much as I want to over these three games, in one article, would be ludicrous.

So, first and foremost, Dear Esther. Originally a mod for the source engine, it was re-released by thechineseroom  (a British developer contrary to their name) earlier this year.

For those that don’t know exactly what genre this game is…ditto, I’ve not got the foggiest idea.
I’ve had people tell me it’s an ‘Indie’ game, or that it’s an ‘Art’ game, fairly oblivious to the fact that they’re not genres, their an environment and direction for the game respectively.

If I was more highbrowed, with a top hot, glass of champagne and monocle, I’d sum up the game as “Narratively interesting, if mechanically lacking and uninspiring” and lean back in my rhino skinned chair. But I’m not, and the game needs more explanation that that. Plus I like rhinos.

The game’s main saving grace is that the story is so open to interpretation that you’re still thinking about it a week afterwards, as indeed I am. I finished the game in about an hour, so I got it done in one sitting, which I suspect was the idea. The lack of a fail state put me into a kind of catharsis after the first 20 minutes, which made the character feel more real.

And that last part is why I justify that this is a game. Whilst the mechanics were lacking, the very fact it was in an interactive form gave weight to the main character and his journey. The story wouldn’t have held up if it was a movie or a book because there wouldn’t be more than perhaps three or four pages worth of monologue.

Whenever I criticise this game to people, I’d always have at least one person justify it with the phrase “It’s art [insert my name here], you’ve just gotta appreciate that!”.
And to that I say bullshit. A real piece of art wouldn’t sacrifice any part of its design for another. We’re beyond this level of gameplay, and there’s no reason any new mechanics can’t be conducive to the story.

For an idea, why not a climbing mechanic? There’s certainly enough vertical movement to justify it, and I’m sure it can be done such that it won’t detract from that catharsis I mentioned earlier.
You don’t even necessarily have to include a failure state for falling, just having the player grab back on a few feet further down would be fine.

So, conclusion.
I got an hour out of the game, and I see no need to return. It was a fun hour, and taught me a lot (when it’s okay to  bolster narrative over gameplay, how you design the environment around that narrative etc), but it was only an hour. For £7, I can’t recommend that. But if you see it on sale, anything around £3 or £4, go for it, because you’re going to spend at least another hour trying to decide what the hell happened.

So, returning to my original two articles, I decided to have a think on a moral choice I’ve yet to see a game effectively use. Telling you that you can do something to make your job easier, but tell you you’re an ass hole for doing it.

Just for an obtuse example, let’s go with this.

The Big Bad Eldritch Abomination is sitting right outside the city, ready to wander in and eat everything that looks at it funny.

However! You have a spell that will bind the creature away from where it can hurt anyone.

The catch? A certain number of souls are required to keep it locked there.

You have other tools available to you to do the job. The city has a fortified garrison, there’s an enchanted weapon or two kicking about that might give you an edge. There’s even rumor of an old tome detailing the creature’s weaknesses.

But their all maybe’s, The spell is a definite, and overall will save more lives. Even if you can defeat the creature, the loss of life as a result might be more than just using the spell.

So, moral choice. The player’s only job here is to stop the creature. What the player is willing to sacrifice to get that done is the choice.

And the beauty of this choice? You’re asked it over and over again.

Until the player character is killed, or there’s no one left, it’s always a pervasive option. While the armies, the weapons, the special tactics are all options, one by one they might get whittled down because with the current game world set up, it’s just not viable.

Of course the above is a fairly poor way to implement such a choice. It’s obtuse, it’s too directly opposed to most characters’ moral codes, and it’s just lazy. So let’s try shape it up at least a little bit.

The Big Bad Eldritch Abomination is sitting right outside the city, ready to wander in and eat everything that looks at it funny.

However, you have your own creature capable of defeating it. A powerful wizard who had been driven to madness through his experiments. But, just before he lost his sense of self, he erased his memory of it all, effectively making him a normal human being.

You have the power to return his memories to him, returning him to his former power, but also putting him right back in the place he feared most.

There’s little doubt he could destroy your enemy, but what happens with the wizard? Will he die doing so, will he give into his madness, will he be able to return to how he wished to be? Is it your choice to make? Is it anyone’s?

While still somewhat obtuse, considering the nature of the way I present it, it might make more sense in a given story.

I also introduced an element of risk in that last scenario. For a player to make a moral choice, they must know the outcomes of said moral choice. But, if one part of the outcome is guaranteed (Destroying the creature) but another is uncertain (What happens with the wizard) then you serve to muddy the water. I’ll likely cover this in a future article, but it’s a technique that can easily be used to dick over a player for no real reason, so it’s somewhat fortunate I don’t see it too often (Hello again Army of Two: The 40th Day)

Anyway, exam season has now truly started, so don’t expect much from me. My next article will be Alternate Interactive Story Telling Forms (or some equally difficult to say first time title), and as the subject of my article, I will be looking at Dear Esther and Analogue: A Hate Story, both available on Steam now.

And while you’re waiting for that, look up Digital: A Love Story, the game Analogue is a sequel to. Same style of game, with some really interesting puzzle styles that make full use of the setting.

I love stories. Everyone does to an extent. Fiction or non-fiction, stories are an escape, a way to be somewhere you’re not, to be someone you’re not, and to be part of a story other than your own. Stories have been part of human culture since we were first able to depict events on our cave walls.

And that’s what’s great about the “Now” we live in, there are just so many damn forms of it. There are books, graphic novels, movies, songs (folk, classic and popular), games, paintings, sculptures, gardens, tattoos, bed time stories. Even Facebook, Twitter and the blog site you read now bring us all closer together, sharing our own stories; life events, victories and defeats. And for each one of the above I could write dozens of pages on the topic and not scratch the surface.

Thankfully, I won’t. We all have better things to do, so with that in mind, allow me to pose you a question. Which medium would best tell the story you want to tell? What are the strengths of each one that will better serve to tell it?

Movies, book, television, games and even certain songs all tell active stories. Everything else is much more passive, and tells more of a theme or emotion than a recollection or demonstration of specific events.

As per usual I’ve been chatting to friends, lurking the internet forums, and just generally watching from afar. And it’s rather staggering how few people seem to understand the point of a boycott or why they do it.

So, without further adieu, my four steps to Boycotting Mass Effect 3.

Step 1 Decide what it is you want to boycott.

And I don’t just mean the product, I mean what part of the service. SO back on Mass Effect 3, generally speaking it’s the Day 1 DLC “From Ashes”. But more specifically, whether it not being included detracted from the main game in any way.

If ME3’s value isn’t changed by the storyline implications of “From Ashes”, then why boycott it? Your beef isn’t with ME3, it’s with the DLC. So just don’t buy that.

Step 2 Stick to it.

Seems obvious, but if I were any less a cynical person, I’d say I was surprised at how many times I see a people declare undying hatred for a game or policy, to find them playing it a few days later.

Yep, gotta love people. Sticking to their guns.

Step 3a Used indents and subtitles, because indents and subtitles are sexy and they make your articles easier to read.

Step 3b Quartet of question marks

Step 4 Accept PROFIT isn’t likely

I’m damn near certain this boycott won’t change a thing. Too many people are invested in the Mass Effect series to feel bullied by EA or Bioware. And as I’m sure you’ve noticed, consumers will consume.

If people are willing to pay $10 for a piece of DLC, then EA can sell them for $10. EA, contrary to popular belief, can run a business. If it’s profitable, and they can get away with it, they’ll damn well do it.

That of course doesn’t mean it’s ethical, and that you cave and buy it anyway. As a consumer you have the right to vote with your wallet, and personally I would choose to do so if you’re so inclined.

And remember, “If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake. You’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed,”

Word through the grapevine has it that said Prothean character is in fact included in the game, regardless of purchasing the DLC or not.

If that IS the case, then I retract my statement on boycotting Mass Effect 3, instead, opting to just ignore the DLC.
Seriously, $10 for a character that’s already in the game, with a quest or two to go with him? That’s not boycott tier, that’s just point, laugh and walk away tier.

So, if that is the case, I apologize. I doubt I changed anyone’s mind on the matter anyway, but I’m setting the record straight here.
If, however, said Prothean isn’t part of the main game like I suspected, then please, ignore this post and refer directly to my previous one.

When I hear news, expect it here. Live long and prosper.

Wow, that was painful to write. But good fuck does it need to be done.

For those not in the know, recently it was leaked that there would be day 1 DLC for Mass Effect 3 in the form of a new team mate. The new character? A Prothean. Yes, a fuck mothering Prothean, the Mass Effect Universe equivalent of Big Foot.

Now I love Mass Effect. I love Bioware. Among the people I personally know, those aren’t popular opinions. It was only today, I found out I was the only person even interested in buying Mass Effect 3.
And even I can smell the bullshit behind this.

I’d be more forgiving if it was another mercenary grunt, like Zaeed, or if it was for free, included in EA’s Project $10 like Shale was. But it’s not. The last case of this happening was in Dragon Age 2, where Sebastian was launched at Day 1, complete with a sizeable quest chain and notable significance within the story.

I don’t think I need to explain why taking development time away from the game we’re buying, to then sell us something on top, is a move completely motivated by greed. I like to think whatever small readership I have is intelligent enough to figure that one out themselves.

Stay frosty, may the force be with you and KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!

So you know what I still don’t get? Why have we got a specific day in the year in which we treat our significant other like they’re important? Like they’re special? Like they’re beautiful?

Consumerism seems to be the main reason. It’s a lot easier to sell cards, flowers and chocolate if there’s a specific day for them.

Now I don’t mean to be the Grinch of Valentine’s day, but it seems to me if they’re important enough to you, you shouldn’t need to be told to buy them something, take them out somewhere, treat them like they’re your world.

Oh, and forever alone, but forever a bro. Have a great day people.

Well, I’m catching up with the end of the series, and I couldn’t let it pass by without making a post about “The Dresden Files”

Words don’t quite describe Jim Butcher’s book series or my feelings towards it. Hence, the image above. This happens as gloriously as shown. I’m not telling you what book it happens in, only that yes, Harry Dresden, the main character, rides a zombie T-Rex through Chicago to go and beat up the bad guy of the week.

In the future you can be pretty sure I’ll be writing an article on this…when I can think of something relevant that is.

Needless to say, go and read these books in the meantime.