#oneaday Day 508: Come Get Some

The observant amongst you who have me on your Steam friends list (and if you don't, add me) will have, well, observed that I've been playing Duke Nukem Forever tonight. I played it for quite a while, actually, which I took to be a good sign. Here are some initial thoughts.

  • "Duke, you're a relic from another time." This line spouted right near the start of the game is clearly deliberate. The game itself is a relic from another time — not just in the sense that it's the world's most notorious piece of vapourware, but also in terms of its gameplay sensibilities. A lot of people seem to think this is a bad thing, but given my general distaste for the po-faced nature of Call of Duty and its brethren, I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. Consequently, I expect to love the game and everyone else to hate it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time this has happened.
  • Interactivity! Duke 3D, despite its primitive engine, was all about walking up to things and pressing Spacebar to see if they did anything, or if not, enjoying the sound of Duke muttering "Where is it?" Duke Forever takes all this to the next level by providing all manner of things to see and do, including fully-functional pool and pinball tables, weightlifting benches and lots of other things besides. There's a purpose, too — using these items adds to Duke's maximum "Ego", aka his shield. So you're encouraged to piss about with the world — exactly as it should be.
  • Pacing. It's interesting to come to this off the back of Far Cry (which I'm still intending to finish, but the introduction of silly and hard-to-kill mutants has dulled my enthusiasm somewhat) as they're polar opposites. Far Cry is mostly about evaluating a situation from afar and determining the best way to tackle it. Duke is about charging in screaming and blasting the shit out of everything, and then punching it in the balls a few times for good measure.
  • Whatever your opinion on Duke the game, Duke the character is still a strong one. Sure, all he does is spout one-liners from movies, but his attitude gives the game a great deal of character. Cheesy, stupid character, sure, but that's all part of what the Duke experience is supposed to be all about. When he growls something amusing after a particularly gruelling firefight, it's satisfying to be "rewarded" with that.
  • Multiplayer looks interesting. I haven't tried a game yet, but there's a full Call of Duty-style progression system, with a Duke twist. Levelling up and completing challenges gives players the opportunity to customise both their multiplayer Duke and their own apartment, which they can then wander around, ogle their babes and bum around in. A nice touch.
  • The graphics are reasonable, but not stunning. There's also a few frame rate issues at times — I doubt very much it's that my computer's not up to it, as for the majority of the time I'm getting 60+ frames per second. But there seem to be certain things that cause a little bit of stuttering — not game-breaking stuttering, but noticeable. A shame. Perhaps they'll be patched out — or perhaps there's a setting I can tweak somewhere. Turning off anti-aliasing helped a lot, actually, and didn't degrade the quality of the graphics that much.

So. There you have it. Duke Nukem Forever, the game we thought we'd never see. Sure, after this long, it's never going to live up to the hype. But having played it for quite a bit this evening, I can say with some confidence that I like it quite a bit.

#oneaday Day 507: Bang

I often labour under the mistaken assumption that I don't like shooters. I know, I know, to assume is to make an "ass" out of "u" and "me", and to incorrectly assume things about yourself is doubly stupid because after all, you should know yourself pretty well by now.

But anyway. What I mean to say is that I've fallen a bit out of love with recent shooters. Sure, they're pretty, and spectacular, and they make a bucketload of money. But they're boring. With a lot of modern shooters, you have two choices: incredibly linear, tightly-scripted single player campaign, or endless hours of multiplayer against people you will never, ever beat because all they do is play Call of Duty all day.

In the Ubisoft sale a while back, I picked up the two Far Cry titles for an obscenely low price, along with Crysis. I tried Far Cry 2 briefly and am looking forward to delving into that later, but the original Far Cry in particular is reminding me that the genre can indeed be fun if handled correctly.

The difference is in feeling like you have a choice of how to handle things. In my (admittedly limited) experience with the Call of Duty series, it's very scripted — go here, do this, proceed to this mission objective, use this weapon right now because we say so, BAM — car chase, things exploding, save this guy, oh you can't because it's scripted that he should die, etc. etc. But Far Cry is a bit different. Besides featuring hilariously atrocious voice acting and the most sarcastic protagonist I've ever had the pleasure of looking out from behind the eyes of, Far Cry's objectives are less tightly scripted, being of the "There's a thing you have to do about a mile away" variety, and then leaving it up to you how you approach it.

Do you steal a vehicle, powerslide through the middle of a bunch of enemies then pick off the rest with a mounted rocket launcher? Do you swim out to sea, jump atop a rock and pick them off from a distance? Do you lie in the bushes, observing their patrol patterns and assassinate each of them quietly one at a time? The answer is "yes", because you can handle situations in pretty much any way you please. The "all guns blazing" approach rarely works, but that's good — it forces you to think of solutions that are a bit more creative.

Even the indoor missions, while necessarily slightly more linear, have multiple paths and alternative routes to try. Do you open the door, throw in a grenade then clean up afterwards? Or do you crawl through the air vent in an attempt not to be seen? It's top-quality stuff, and the simple fact that when you die you don't have to go back and handle the same bit in the same way makes the whole experience infinitely more appealing than a more linear — albeit probably more spectacular — recent title.

So, good job, Far Cry. I am enjoying you. And I am looking forward to your sequel, despite it apparently having literally nothing to do with you.

#oneaday Day 506: Monetize Me

Comin' atcha like a machine-gun today. And by that I mean I will be using bullet-points.

  • I have changed my day counter to the number of days since I started posting every day because 1) it's more satisfying that way, 2) I'm annoyed I missed my 500th day and 3) I'm sick of having to bring up a calculator every time I want to work out how many days I've done this non-stop.
  • E3 coverage has calmed down somewhat. Most of the big announcements have been made. Now it seems to be mostly up to the show floor team to flesh out those announcements with some hands-on impressions. Kind of sad I'm not there. One day! Maybe.
  • Getting people to pay for things is complicated. Whiskey Media did a bold experiment with charging for content and so far it seems to have been mostly successful for them. I haven't signed up, but then I don't read their sites that much. If I was more attached, I might be convinced — as someone on the other side of the potential paywall, I'm all for ways in which content creators can get paid for their work. Unfortunately, some people are still wary of this sort of thing — although porn sites have been running a successful "pay for content" industry for years. Like most things technological, porn once again leads the way.

    I think about this every time I cover a Facebook game. Who is paying for the stuff in these games? There are fucking hundreds of the bastard things, so they must be making money somehow. Are people really forking over hard-earned money purely so they can pussy out of completing a quest objective? Are people really spending money on an "exclusive" cat statue to put in the middle of their field that is not real?

    Then there's the free-to-play "proper" games — many of which are actually getting seriously good. These I can actually understand paying money for somewhat more. The recently-remastered APB, for example. You can play it for free, but for access to full character customization (which is probably something of a bandwidth hog) you have to fork out for a premium subscription. This is still cheaper than the game was on its initial release, though, because although you're paying monthly, you didn't have to pay anything for the game in the first place. Unless you went out and bought it when it was released, in which case more fool you for not reading reviews first. (As a free to play game, though, it's pretty good fun — I suggest you check it out.)

    The key, it seems, is to make sure that people don't feel like they have to pay for something. If you grind to a complete halt in a game until you fork over some Facebook Credits or you bank details, that's a bad thing. If you can make progress in a game without having to pay anything, but spending a bit of money speeds things up a bit or gives you some sort of additional (non game-breaking) benefit, that's a good thing. If you can spend money in order to not have to complete mission objectives, that's a bad thing, although some people really are that lazy, I guess.

    The next few years are going to be interesting to see. Will people start paying for content on websites? Will people want to shell out $60 for Call of Duty and then subscribe to Elite on top of that when free to play games offer competitive services for significantly less?

    Will this bullet point ever end?

  • Why yes, yes it will.

#oneaday Day 158: Wii3

More E3 gubbins today, with the big news being Nintendo's announcement of its new console, the Wii U, which features a controller with a big-ass touchscreen in the middle of it. It looks pretty damn impressive, to be fair, but it remains to be seen whether or not it'll become just another gimmick for people to deride.

That said, I liked the Wii. It was a good console for social gaming. And I'm not talking about bollocksy "Share This With Your Friends!" Facebook titles — I'm talking about getting together with actual real-life three-dimensional people in the same room and playing fun games. Maybe the Wii's games weren't the most hardcore — but have you ever played a "hardcore" game with friends who aren't particularly up on their gaming? It becomes an exercise in frustration, with experienced players either deliberately having to nerf themselves or the less-experienced ones giving up out of sheer frustration. The Wii knew exactly what its market was, and it tapped it perfectly with the minigame collections and the motion control. Hardcore gaming it was not, but the 360 and PS3 covered that more than adequately, so Nintendo had no need to compete.

Now, though, it's a different story. Microsoft is wooing the former Wii market with all its Kinect shenanigans and running the risk of alienating the core user base, were it not for platform mainstays such as Call of Duty, Gears of War and the like. Microsoft's E3 press conference left a lot of gamers frustrated that there wasn't more for "them" on offer, but Microsoft have seen the success Nintendo had with the Wii and want a piece of that pie — and given the Wii's dated technology, are perfectly entitled to that.

Nintendo, in response, fight back with a new console that purports to offer the best of both worlds — a casual-friendly console that supports all existing Wii hardware and software that is also a hardcore-friendly console that will see hopefully great versions of big-name games like Batman: Arkham City with the additional benefit of both the world's biggest VMU (Dreamcast-five!) and the ability to carry on playing whenever your significant other and/or housemate bursts into the room desperate to watch Britain's Got Desperate People Who Really Want To Be On Television Despite Being Shit and Absolute Cunts. It looks awesome, though a lot will depend on the price of the system — and its crazy controller.

Meanwhile, in PC land, we continue to have the most backward-compatible system in the universe with the cheapest games in the universe (excepting that little games exchange on Zargon Prime, they actually do have the cheapest games in the universe) and consoles start to look just a little bit gimmicky. Possibly.

Oh dear. PC snobbery is starting to infest my brain!

#oneaday Day 157: E3

I'm in the middle of covering E3, with only Sony's press conference left to go today. It's in half an hour and is likely to be about a million hours long, so I'm hoping I'll stay awake for it.

I've got to say, considering that E3 is the biggest event in the games industry's calendar, I'm largely underwhelmed by what's been on show so far. Battlefield 3 is impressive — even for a non-military shooter sort of man — and of course there's a tent in my pants over TrackMania 2 Canyon, but when the most impressive thing you've seen so far is arguably a new 2D Rayman game, you have to wonder what's going on.

Perhaps it's cynicism. It's easy to become jaded by endless news posts and press releases about how awesome this not-particularly awesome feature of some obscure game is. You get to a point where you just stop listening to the endless hyperbole and make your own mind up — but unfortunately by that point, all you can hear when you see something genuinely impressive is the PR person in your ear going "Revolutionary! Innovative! Game-changing! First time ever!" and you just want to punch yourself in the nose. Well, maybe not. That would hurt.

Cynicism aside, though, there's a few disappointing no-shows so far. Ubisoft still won't make Beyond Good and Evil 2, despite it being an obvious fan favourite. Microsoft's press conference is depressingly predictable, being full of Kinect and other bollocks. And EA didn't announce an Xbox Live Arcade version of M.U.L.E.

EA's conference has, so far at least, been the strongest one, with some great-looking titles on offer. Need for Speed: The Run in particular looks fantastic, and the addition of QTE-driven "get out and run away frantically in a 24 stylee" sequences look set to give the whole thing a wonderful action movie vibe. QTEs aren't to everyone's tastes, but I like them when used effectively, and The Run looks like it will be using them well to create a dramatic, exciting road adventure. Plus it uses Autolog, so it's time to get ridiculously addicted to challenging each other's times again.

As for Sony's conference, which is coming up in about 20 minutes at the time of writing, I'm not sure what to expect. Couldn't give a damn about Resistance 3, though I'm sure someone out there is excited. Will be intrigued to see how uncomfortable it all is following the PSN woes of recent months.

One thing's for sure, though: I will sleep well tonight. Or indeed this morning, whenever I am able to actually get to bed.

Head over to GamePro to check out my show coverage so far.

#oneaday Day 156: PrE3

LOS ANGELES, June 06, 2011 — GeneriCon is today proud to announce its announcement of an announcement at the world's largest electronic entertainment expo — E3! The announcement is for a top secret project that will not be revealed at E3, but the announcement will not reveal what that project is — rather, it will reveal when to expect the announcement of the project!

"I'm tremendously excited about this announcement," said Papa Bear, CEO of GeneriCon. "Our 15 years of experience at teasing the industry is sure to pay off this E3 when we build up to absolutely nothing of any substance whatsoever. They'll be begging for more by the time we're finished — but they're not going to get it!"

GeneriCon's announcement ceremony will feature a special appearance by the Cirque de la Lune, a fraternity of performing minstrels from Paragon City who have not yet realized that they are fictional constructs born from the imagination of massively multiplayer online RPG players. Supporting Cirque de la Lune will be a troupe of performing badgers and the worlds most synchronized brigade of elephants.

"The practice of announcing a new project at E3 is passé," said Julian Ivanov, VP of Commercial, Corporate and Certifiable Communications. "We are revolutionizing the practice of announcements. After this E3, people will be wondering whether they should even bother attending the show in the first place, so little will actually be revealed on the show floor. But the answer is simple, of course — come to see our elephants."

Visit GeneriCon's booth on the show floor, booth number 6969, to see absolutely nothing whatsoever. Private media showings, including exclusive reveals, can be arranged by emailing suckitup@genericon.com.

ABOUT GENERICON

Founded in 1996 by the son of an advertising legend and a Belgian, GeneriCon has since proven itself to be a world leader in the field of PR and marketing teasers as well as having the highest staff turnover of any company in history. Despite ample coverage from the press, consumers have not yet noticed that the company is yet to release an actual product onto the market.

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

From time to time, GeneriCon may use statements such as "will", "might", "should", "hope to", "want to", "intend to", "will possibly", "maybe might", "probably", "definitely will", "definitely won't", "possibly will", "almost certainly will", "absolutely, positively, totally will", "really wish we could", "have extremely good intentions to", or "think we might just". These statements should not be taken as official confirmation of an intent to do anything at all and, in fact, it's probably safer if you just ignore them altogether, just like you're ignoring this whole paragraph because it waffles on forever and ever and doesn't really make any sense. GeneriCon reserves the right to decline all knowledge of the use of any forward-looking statements at any time, even if they were on the record and appear on audio or visual evidence, because you probably just made it up because that's what journalists do, isn't it? Any use of forward-looking statements is not admissible in a court of law and is not an admission of liability should someone come to injury as a result of waiting for a non-existent product. All rights reserved, except the ones which might cost us money.

#oneaday Day 154: Shame on You

Have I told you about The Squadron of Shame? If you're a long-time reader, then I probably have, several times. But if you're here by chance, you might not be familiar with our little group.

Born in the dim and distant past of 1up, before the various 1upocalypses which have hit the site since then, The Squadron of Shame came about as a result of a podcast feature dubbed "The Pile of Shame". The concept of The Pile of Shame seems to have entered into popular consciousness in recent years, but the first time I ever heard it was on 1up Yours, when it was used to describe that ever-growing pile of shrink-wrapped games (or, these days, things in your Steam Library) that you somehow never get around to playing for one reason or another.

The 1up Yours guys agreed to play Tim Schafer's Psychonauts, which was widely regarded as being "good" and somewhat overlooked by the masses. They lasted a week before they gave up, so a number of members of the community stepped up to the plate in an attempt to succeed where they had failed.

Putting together forum threads and a 1up Club page to discuss the game, we found a number of like-minded gamers who enjoyed coming together to discuss games at considerable length, and in a markedly more intelligent manner than many of the "lol noob"-type people out there on the Internet. Over time, we took on a wide variety of other "missions" — taking on games which the masses had passed by and delving into them to discover whether it was actually worth going back and exploring them. Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't.

The turning point came when 1up merged its largely-disparate forums into just three general-purpose areas. The formerly intelligent discourse found on the 1up Radio boards was drowned out by the million voices of 12 year olds who thought Master Chief was da bomb, and our experiences were sullied by trolls coming on to our threads, criticising us for "walls of text" and completely derailing the discussion.

Before UGO took over 1up, we decided it was time to leave once and for all. We took to Twitter for a while, but we were scattered, and not everyone in our group used Twitter. It felt too "public" — although we always were a public group, there was an element of the "book club" mentality about it — a group of friends who knew each other well and enjoyed each other's company, but were still welcoming to newcomers.

Over time, we tried to come up with a way to resurrect the Squad formula. Thus, the Squadron of Shame SquadCast was born. Beginning as a game-focused podcast in which we concentrated on a single game and discussed it at great length and morphing into the topic-led discussion show we have today, the show has always been an enjoyable thing to be part of — and to listen to. We also have a small but active community at our "temporary" home: the Squadron of Shame Squawkbox. And we've all remained fast friends through thick and thin, through everything life's thrown at each one of us.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is what the Internet is all about. And you can be part of it, too — our latest episode was released today, with a discussion of game worlds. You can check it out by paying the Squawkbox a visit, and there are links to subscribe there if you so desire, too. If you have a WordPress account, too, you can join the discussions on the 'box, too — don't be shy. We like new people, and we also don't mind "walls of text". So long as you use paragraphs. So far as conditions for entry go, that's not an unreasonable one, I don't think.

Anyway. There you have it. They're my favourite group of people on the Internet, and I haven't given them a plug for a while, so there you are. Join us. Or at least listen to our new episode.

#oneaday Day 151: Not To Be Read Until 4pm

This won't be news to any of you, but sometimes in the games industry, you find out things and you're not allowed to talk about them. The technical terminology for this is an "NDA" or non-disclosure agreement, or an embargo preventing publication of something until a particular time.

It's obvious why publishers insist on this sort of behaviour: it allows them to control how and when information gets released. This means that they can effectively control the press to release the information that the company wants talked about at a specific time, ensuring that it doesn't "clash" with anything else and get upstaged by something cooler.

Still, when something gets embargoed until a particular time, you'd expect the information that was being held back to be complete, wouldn't you? Not so in the case of today's Call of Duty Elite announcement, which explained what the service would be but failed to mention anything useful like how much the premium option would cost and indeed what the premium service actually offered, compared to what free members would get.

The practice of embargoes seems to be a relatively recent one. I don't remember them being mentioned all that often before a couple of years back — but then, I wasn't involved in the games press full-time at that point, so this sort of nonsense may well have been going on for years.

The thing is, though, it ultimately hurts everyone. People tease embargo reveals all day, then EVERY FUCKING SITE UNDER THE SUN releases the same information at the same time when the embargo expires, and then I don't read any of it. If you follow games sites on Twitter and you do happen to be interested in the coverage, you'll probably only click on the first link you see. This means it becomes a race for whichever outlet can get the content live and tweet it first. Sensible outlets will have prepared the material well in advance, of course, but sometimes that doesn't happen and you end up with sloppy, rushed reporting.

Then sometimes you wonder why on Earth certain pieces of information are embargoed. I had a press release from NVidia earlier today talking about their new pair of wired 3D glasses for 3D Vision-equipped PCs. It was embargoed until 5pm Pacific on the Sunday just gone. It's a pair of 3D glasses — not the most exciting thing in the world, even if they are under $100 for once. Why did that need to have a timed reveal?

As with most things in the industry, if one person does it, everyone has to do it. Gone are the days* when a developer could just go "Yeah, I'm experimenting with a thing. It's pretty cool. Might not go anywhere though." No, now it has to be a countdown to an announcement of a teaser trailer which leads to a countdown to an announcement of an exclusive reveal of the first gameplay footage which will coincide with an exclusive reveal of one little piece of information that no-one gives a shit about. (OMG! The main character's eyes are directly scanned from an actor/rapper no-one's heard of! Fuck off.)

I've never worked in the music, film or "general" journalism industries so I can't say for certain whether this sort of thing goes on in them. But somehow I doubt it's quite so tightly controlled as the ever-peculiar games industry.

* The exception to this is, of course, the indie development industry, who rarely, if ever, use embargoes and are usually pretty candid and open about the projects they're working on. And all credit to them — honesty gets them far more respect from me than an intricately-planned campaign which drives journalists and consumers alike utterly crazy.

#oneaday Day 148: People, The Mutant's Pursuing Me!

It's been a very long time since a game has genuinely gobsmacked me with its obvious technological marvellousness, but The Witcher 2 has gone and done a sterling job of it so far. I beat the first game this morning and enjoyed it so much I wanted to go straight on to the sequel, which I'd had the foresight to download in advance from Good Old Games.

I wasn't quite ready for the leap in graphical fidelity between the two. I thought the first game looked pretty good — it used to bring my old computer to its knees, after all, and it was one of the first games I installed on my new computer to enjoy in its "full glory" — but wow. The Witcher 2 makes its predecessor look decidedly primitive in many respects.

Gone are the stilted, uncomfortable character animations when people are standing around talking to each other. Gone are people's inability to remain seated while talking to you. Gone are the sex cards (replaced with good, old fashioned full frontal nudity — are you paying attention, BioWare?) and gone is the fun but arguably overcomplicated combat system. (Also gone are some of the original voice cast, which is a little disappointing, but perhaps understandable given the amount of time between the two games.)

In is a decidely cinematic presentation (including an entertaining ability to wiggle the camera around veeery slightly using the mouse in conversation scenes, giving it a "hand-held camera" look). In are more than five different character models. In is background scenery featuring realistic foliage best described as "lush". In is a motion blur effect that makes rotating the camera look infinitely more realistic than in 99% of other games out there. And in is a Demon's Souls-style combat system that at first appears to be hack and slash, but isn't afraid to punish you mercilessly for thinking so until you learn that it's actually based on timing, patience, blocking and carefully watching your opponents to look for an opportunity. A combat system which has divided people somewhat, with many impatient types upset that it's "too hard". Hard it may be, but there's nothing wrong with a challenge.

One of the things that has impressed me most so far, though, is the potential for the branching of the plot, with different resolutions to problems and different major and minor choices. Already in discussion with a friend, I've seen that at least four or five parts of just the prologue branch off into alternative paths — some of which meet in common places, others of which diverge. And, like the original The Witcher, there's no obviously "right" choice in many situations. This is a Good Thing, as it makes you think about what you're doing, and also forces you to live with consequences which don't necessarily make themselves obvious until much, much later.

In short, The Witcher 2 is looking like being an absolutely amazing game. A lot of people have been quietly anticipating it for a long time — this is a game from a company that doesn't saturate the market with announcements of TV ads for their games, after all — and it's gratifying to see firstly that they've made an excellent game, and secondly that a lot of people seem to be thinking very highly of it. It deserves it, and CD Projekt Red deserves a huge amount of success for creating such an excellent RPG franchise.

#oneaday Day 145: Wotcher, Witcher

I've been playing a shit-ton of The Witcher recently, and if you haven't played it, you probably should. Unless you have a PC that won't run it very well. And even then, you should at least try and play it, because even on low detail it's still an excellent game — as is the sequel, from what I've heard… though the sequel is significantly more demanding on your poor old graphics card and processor than its predecessor.

But anyway. Why is The Witcher good? Many reasons. Sure, it has approximately ten different character models, many of which are used for both major NPCs and minor ones, making visual identification of characters a bit jarring sometimes. And sure, some of the animations are a bit clunky, and characters standing talking to each other look distinctly uncomfortable, unintentionally. And the interface isn't wonderful, though I've seen worse. But despite these little flaws, the game is a genuine gem.

Probably the biggest selling point is the titular Witcher himself, Geralt of Rivia. PC RPG purists often baulk at the idea of playing a fixed, non-customizable protagonist, but the (slightly cliched) amnesia subplot helps go some way to justifying the player moulding Geralt into the protagonist they'd like him to be. More than that, though, it's the fact that The Witcher features choices with genuine consequences, and a complete lack of an oversimplified "good/evil" or "paragon/renegade" meter. Simply put, there is no good and evil in the world of The Witcher, only shades of grey. Geralt is often thrown into awkward situations and asked to make a decision to side with one or the other of the parties involved — but notably, abstention is often an option, also, and that, too, carries with it consequences.

The best thing about these choices, though, is that the consequences don't make themselves immediately apparent. This helps get around the "quicksave/try out dialogue options" problem that some games are plagued with. In The Witcher, you have to make choices, and live with the consequences of those choices — because said consequences might not become obvious until a good 5 or 6 hours of play later.

This is a Good Thing. If nothing else, it forces players to immerse themselves in the role of the protagonist and decide What Would Geralt Do? on a regular basis. But beyond that, it neatly sidesteps the accusations of overly-simplified morality systems that are sometimes levelled at BioWare's otherwise-excellent games.

Then there's the fact that the game treats you like a grown-up. Sure, there's the notorious "sex cards" (abolished in the sequel in favour of some good old-fashioned full frontal nudity) but besides that, characters speak to each other in an unashamedly adult way that never feels forced. There's some very strong swearing from a number of characters, but it's worked into conversations in a pretty natural way, rather than a Kingpin (the game, not the movie) sort of way. It's nice to see a game have the guts to unashamedly use the word "cunt," for example, and it's also nice for the sequel to avoid BioWare's prudishness when it comes to sex scenes. There's no keeping underwear on and dry-humping here. Gratifyingly, in the first game, there's even a Captain Kirk-style "let me show you that sex without procreation can be good" scene with a thoroughly naked dryad. And for those who feel that Geralt's naked adventures are a bit gratuitous — well, there's always the option to not shag your way around Temeria.

I haven't finished the first game yet but I'm looking forward to seeing how it concludes. The story so far has been interesting, combining political intrigue, magic, monsters and world lore into an engrossing "dark fantasy" setting that — dare I say it? — is much better than Dragon Age. If you've never spent a night with Geralt, then what are you waiting for? Get thee over to Good Old Games and score yourself a copy for just $9.99 — bargain.