Friday, 3 August 2012

Winterton’s Fridays: Endings Part 2- The Importance of Themes


Last week I looked at the importance of narrative and character in the endings of video games. This week I’m going to look at how the presence of themes, and see how they can be put to good use. Again, there are obviously going to be spoilers here, specifically about “Red Dead Redemption” and “Mass Effect 3”. Just so you know.

So the theme of “Red Dead Redemption” is, ostensibly, redemption. We are told this in the title, and Marston himself keeps talking about how he hates what he is being made to do. Now, forgive me for missing something, but when exactly does John Marston get redeemed for his violent crime sprees? Is it…erm…when he is committing more violent crime sprees? Yeah, not sure how killing lots of people is penance for killing a few people in the past.

Hog-tying is, at best, morally ambiguous.


And yes, I know he’s doing it so he can see his family, but surely that sort of undermines the gesture? Numerous characters point out that he is killing hundreds of people just for selfish reasons. I mean, his family aren’t exactly in danger, they’re just away from him (and, as we see at the end, John often brings danger with him). Moreover, it’s hardly redemption if you are being forced to do it. Charles Manson didn’t suddenly become a better person when he was arrested, he just wasn’t around to commit crimes anymore.

Now let’s clarify something; the people John kills don’t necessarily deserve to be killed. Even if we accept that being shot dead by a cowboy is something someone can deserve (I have mixed feelings), it feels strangely at odds. Moreover, since “Red Dead” is a sandbox game, it implicitly encourages exploration, looking for side-quests and whatnot. Which leads to Marston actively seeking out trouble. In fact, the game ends with possibly the most clear indication that John has failed, as we see his son Jack gunning down a former FBI agent. Then, with no apparent irony, the title card flashes up, as if redemption has finally been achieved.

You can't just put a red filter on things so your title has a rhyme in.


The only hint we get at John’s internal dilemma is a recurring sidequest with a mysterious stranger who hints at John’s dark past, who it later turns out is a hallucination John is having. This was undoubtedly my favourite part of the game, and yet was never alluded to at the end, nor given much time.

Compare this to “Mass Effect 3”. Now I’m sure we’re all aware of the controversy and generally negative fan reaction to this ending. In simple terms, Sheppard finally gets to a point where s/he can kill the Reapers and save the universe. S/he is then presented with a choice: destroy them, but also all other synthetic species (such as the Geth who, in my playthrough at least, were a staunch ally), control them, or fuse all organic life with all synthetic life. Seeing the final option as the most suiting of my “solve-all-problems” Sheppard, I picked it, and was treated to a beautiful, transcendental journey as Sheppard sacrificed himself for this change. I then see the human Joker and the AI robot EDI landing on a new planet together, both sporting evidence of their new merged genetics.

I can honestly say I think this is one of the best endings, not just in video games, but in any popular media. The theme of choice that runs right throughout the “Mass Effect” series is solidified in these final moments. Throughout the game, we see the toll Sheppard’s journey has taken on him or her, as Sheppard is continually haunted by the memory of an Earth boy s/he failed to save. Throughout all the moral complexity of “Mass Effect”, the ending underlines quite simply and elegantly the things that are important in life, and for once ends on an optimistic note, after the fatalism of the series up until that point.

Pictured: Pure awesome.


I know many people have complained that we do not see what became of the supporting cast and how things developed, but my answer to that is simple; if you do not know Garrus or Tali well enough after three games you never will.

I’m interested to know what people make of this, and hope to read some controversial comments and interpretations.

Winterton’s Fridays: Endings Part 2- The Importance of Themes


Last week I looked at the importance of narrative and character in the endings of video games. This week I’m going to look at how the presence of themes, and see how they can be put to good use. Again, there are obviously going to be spoilers here, specifically about “Red Dead Redemption” and “Mass Effect 3”. Just so you know.

So the theme of “Red Dead Redemption” is, ostensibly, redemption. We are told this in the title, and Marston himself keeps talking about how he hates what he is being made to do. Now, forgive me for missing something, but when exactly does John Marston get redeemed for his violent crime sprees? Is it…erm…when he is committing more violent crime sprees? Yeah, not sure how killing lots of people is penance for killing a few people in the past.

Hog-tying is, at best, morally ambiguous.


And yes, I know he’s doing it so he can see his family, but surely that sort of undermines the gesture? Numerous characters point out that he is killing hundreds of people just for selfish reasons. I mean, his family aren’t exactly in danger, they’re just away from him (and, as we see at the end, John often brings danger with him). Moreover, it’s hardly redemption if you are being forced to do it. Charles Manson didn’t suddenly become a better person when he was arrested, he just wasn’t around to commit crimes anymore.

Now let’s clarify something; the people John kills don’t necessarily deserve to be killed. Even if we accept that being shot dead by a cowboy is something someone can deserve (I have mixed feelings), it feels strangely at odds. Moreover, since “Red Dead” is a sandbox game, it implicitly encourages exploration, looking for side-quests and whatnot. Which leads to Marston actively seeking out trouble. In fact, the game ends with possibly the most clear indication that John has failed, as we see his son Jack gunning down a former FBI agent. Then, with no apparent irony, the title card flashes up, as if redemption has finally been achieved.

You can't just put a red filter on things so your title has a rhyme in.


The only hint we get at John’s internal dilemma is a recurring sidequest with a mysterious stranger who hints at John’s dark past, who it later turns out is a hallucination John is having. This was undoubtedly my favourite part of the game, and yet was never alluded to at the end, nor given much time.

Compare this to “Mass Effect 3”. Now I’m sure we’re all aware of the controversy and generally negative fan reaction to this ending. In simple terms, Sheppard finally gets to a point where s/he can kill the Reapers and save the universe. S/he is then presented with a choice: destroy them, but also all other synthetic species (such as the Geth who, in my playthrough at least, were a staunch ally), control them, or fuse all organic life with all synthetic life. Seeing the final option as the most suiting of my “solve-all-problems” Sheppard, I picked it, and was treated to a beautiful, transcendental journey as Sheppard sacrificed himself for this change. I then see the human Joker and the AI robot EDI landing on a new planet together, both sporting evidence of their new merged genetics.

I can honestly say I think this is one of the best endings, not just in video games, but in any popular media. The theme of choice that runs right throughout the “Mass Effect” series is solidified in these final moments. Throughout the game, we see the toll Sheppard’s journey has taken on him or her, as Sheppard is continually haunted by the memory of an Earth boy s/he failed to save. Throughout all the moral complexity of “Mass Effect”, the ending underlines quite simply and elegantly the things that are important in life, and for once ends on an optimistic note, after the fatalism of the series up until that point.

Pictured: Pure awesome.


I know many people have complained that we do not see what became of the supporting cast and how things developed, but my answer to that is simple; if you do not know Garrus or Tali well enough after three games you never will.

I’m interested to know what people make of this, and hope to read some controversial comments and interpretations.

Winterton’s Fridays: Endings Part 2- The Importance of Themes


Last week I looked at the importance of narrative and character in the endings of video games. This week I’m going to look at how the presence of themes, and see how they can be put to good use. Again, there are obviously going to be spoilers here, specifically about “Red Dead Redemption” and “Mass Effect 3”. Just so you know.

So the theme of “Red Dead Redemption” is, ostensibly, redemption. We are told this in the title, and Marston himself keeps talking about how he hates what he is being made to do. Now, forgive me for missing something, but when exactly does John Marston get redeemed for his violent crime sprees? Is it…erm…when he is committing more violent crime sprees? Yeah, not sure how killing lots of people is penance for killing a few people in the past.

Hog-tying is, at best, morally ambiguous.


And yes, I know he’s doing it so he can see his family, but surely that sort of undermines the gesture? Numerous characters point out that he is killing hundreds of people just for selfish reasons. I mean, his family aren’t exactly in danger, they’re just away from him (and, as we see at the end, John often brings danger with him). Moreover, it’s hardly redemption if you are being forced to do it. Charles Manson didn’t suddenly become a better person when he was arrested, he just wasn’t around to commit crimes anymore.

Now let’s clarify something; the people John kills don’t necessarily deserve to be killed. Even if we accept that being shot dead by a cowboy is something someone can deserve (I have mixed feelings), it feels strangely at odds. Moreover, since “Red Dead” is a sandbox game, it implicitly encourages exploration, looking for side-quests and whatnot. Which leads to Marston actively seeking out trouble. In fact, the game ends with possibly the most clear indication that John has failed, as we see his son Jack gunning down a former FBI agent. Then, with no apparent irony, the title card flashes up, as if redemption has finally been achieved.

You can't just put a red filter on things so your title has a rhyme in.


The only hint we get at John’s internal dilemma is a recurring sidequest with a mysterious stranger who hints at John’s dark past, who it later turns out is a hallucination John is having. This was undoubtedly my favourite part of the game, and yet was never alluded to at the end, nor given much time.

Compare this to “Mass Effect 3”. Now I’m sure we’re all aware of the controversy and generally negative fan reaction to this ending. In simple terms, Sheppard finally gets to a point where s/he can kill the Reapers and save the universe. S/he is then presented with a choice: destroy them, but also all other synthetic species (such as the Geth who, in my playthrough at least, were a staunch ally), control them, or fuse all organic life with all synthetic life. Seeing the final option as the most suiting of my “solve-all-problems” Sheppard, I picked it, and was treated to a beautiful, transcendental journey as Sheppard sacrificed himself for this change. I then see the human Joker and the AI robot EDI landing on a new planet together, both sporting evidence of their new merged genetics.

I can honestly say I think this is one of the best endings, not just in video games, but in any popular media. The theme of choice that runs right throughout the “Mass Effect” series is solidified in these final moments. Throughout the game, we see the toll Sheppard’s journey has taken on him or her, as Sheppard is continually haunted by the memory of an Earth boy s/he failed to save. Throughout all the moral complexity of “Mass Effect”, the ending underlines quite simply and elegantly the things that are important in life, and for once ends on an optimistic note, after the fatalism of the series up until that point.

Pictured: Pure awesome.


I know many people have complained that we do not see what became of the supporting cast and how things developed, but my answer to that is simple; if you do not know Garrus or Tali well enough after three games you never will.

I’m interested to know what people make of this, and hope to read some controversial comments and interpretations.

Gaming should Never Ever be cool and gamers shouldn't try to make it so.

People generally like being accepted and invited to cool parties, well I do anyway, so when I'm interacting with the general population I try my utmost not to come across as a dribbling idiot with nothing to talk about except obscure Gamecube RPGs and how there just aren't enough good co-op campaigns out there. I have people I can talk to about these things and they have me to talk to about these things in return and although people outside of this circle of trust are aware that we like our games, they literally have no fucking idea how deep the rabbit hole goes. In addition to what a gamer's party might look like and gaming marathons, there are just the endlessly unexplainable and socially inexcusable in-joke curios that come from down the gamer's pit of madness. I won't even try to explain why re-imagining Dracula from Castlevania: Symphony of the Night as a posh crab makes me vomit with laughter every time I think about it, but it does.

"Die Lobster! You don't belong in this world!"
See? Absolute Grade-A Bullshit which I shouldn't bring out on a tray in general conversation. I still stand by a previous article that states that geek culture has permeated society in a huge way in that it's a lot more socially acceptable to own a games console, go see a superhero movie or just be into science than it has ever been in recent years but I must place the emphasis on the word 'acceptable' here. When I say that 'acceptable' I mean it in the sense that having a valid train ticket on a train is acceptable. It's just something that doesn't register as an immediate faux pas which is as much slack given by the world as I could ever hope for. Being an avid gamer is not something that should ever get you on the guestlist for London's hottest nightspots nor should it get you a few seconds of screen time for being in the audience at the Olympic games.

Because why the hell would you want to be at London's hottest nightspots for crying out loud?
I might be preaching to the choir here given that you're reading this gaming blog but there are offenders out there trying to transform the status of gamership from something to be ashamed of (the way it should be) into something to be ashamed of not being, which is just plain wrong. The TV Show Spaced had it right by associating gaming humour with social dysfunction and general malaise. Admit it, Simon Pegg loses cool points whenever he does a movie which isn't laced with obscure references to gaming or other nerdy things. Is How to Lose Friends and Alienate People in your top 3 Simon Pegg movies? Didn't think so. We move onto sitcom Big Bang Theory which still sticks to its guns and firmly conveys that being an avid gamer is something to be tolerated and not celebrated by the general populace. The downside is that it mocks the main characters for this which from my point of view is like mocking someone with a genetic disability. Just plain cold hearted.

The fact that the Sheldon Cooper character gets a girlfriend is meant to be a joke. Sick humour.

It gets worse as we pass to a Kickstarter project called VGHS (Video Game High School) in which top gamers attend a Hogwarts style gaming academy to hone their skills, where society applauds the top players like celebrities and the weaker/casual/non gamers are treated like so much useless trash. Oh and as a final kick in the gut this whole "gaming=cool" logic applies mostly to FPS games which means the COD crowd get all the babes/hunks whilst the Dragon Age fans still get to cry themselves to sleep. This world would be a hell for us all.

The worst offender probably has to be Blizzard's World of Warcraft adverts featuring Mr. T, Ozzy Osborne and Chuck Norris proclaiming that immersing yourself in the MMORPG world of WoW is something to be proud of. In no world of mine does sinking your finances and time into a fantasy world align with the emotions evoked by rock and roll, moviestars or even an ironic pastiche sense of reverential cool. Let me say this: I don't play Hexic to get SWAG, I don't write this blog so people will high five me at the roller disco and Ben and I do not record Timeshitters videos for glory. We do it because we can't help ourselves and need serious medical attention. Seriously, somebody call the emergency services. Help.      

Thursday, 2 August 2012

The most abusive relationship in gaming - by Dr. Liam Fielder


The game guide; it’s a familiar image to anyone with even a mild interest in gaming. From epic RPGs to the mind-bending puzzles, many games choose to release an official strategy guide to offer help for their gamers, and with the abundant source of (somewhat) reliable information wikis otherwise known as the ‘world wide web’, the chances are that if you’re struggling with a game, the solution is just a page turn or a click away.

Modern game guides are usually full of exclusive artwork and cool extras,


Game guides and wikis have their place, they’re wonderful, and frankly I owe at least 7500G to them, however in the wrong hands (usually mine) they’re open to abuse. Take my recent tussle with Obsidian Entertainment’s Fallout: New Vegas, an expansive game with hours just waiting to be explored, that is, hours of content that you have to find and work through. To the weaker mind (usually mine) it is easy to simply look up what quests are available in the current area rather than spend hours talking to every NPC in order to see whatever kooky mishap or zany situation they’ve managed to get themselves into.

Sure, we've heard Old Ben's side of the story...

As well as saving time, I was able to find all the hidden treasures and pickups I needed, making that perfect character build and those achievements that little easier to get; so where’s the problem? It’s all due to moderation; using a guide to find those last few pieces of gear or to get through a particularly difficult quest is fine, but without moderation you can find yourself playing a game as a paint by numbers, checking off boxes and completing quests step-by-step as the mighty game guide has told you to. Suddenly those achievements are nothing more than a measure of your ability to follow a list of instructions given from on high (usually someone in Connecticut with a wiki account).

Those unsung heroes!

When greeted by a game as expansive as New Vegas, a great deal of the charm comes from engrossing yourself in the lore; talking to every NPC is the best way to really immerse yourself in the irradiated world that you’re supposed to be playing a role in (ergo, role playing game). When following the guide, that engrossing activity risks becoming no more than a hurdle standing in your way of your next solar-powered orbital laser gun.

So how do we pull away from the grasp that the game guide has over us? How do we stop being addicts to the information so readily available to us? Well, I’m not entirely sure we need to; maybe we can be happy playing games as an accountant with a checklist, because to some tastes (usually mine) that’s actually part of the fun. I remember playing FFXII with the help of a guide, consulting my paper partner only to check at what point different side quest became available to me during the main story, leaving the majority of the guide untouched, and in that balance, I enjoyed the game.
So, if you find yourself looking up a game a bit more than you’d like to, ask yourself what is more important; would you rather finish the game, or play the game? 

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Games You Want to Love But Can’t- Shadows of the Damned


"Shadows of the Damned” came so close to being an out-and-out underrated gem, and yet in the end it just wasn’t. It had all the right components; auteur director in the form of Suda 51, interesting and varied enemy design, and some solid and genuinely humourous (if unsubtle) writing. And, for the reasons I am about to go into, it just doesn’t quite work in the way I had hoped.

Okay, so first off, it contains some of my pet hates. I have mentioned this before, but there is no excuse for unskippable cutscenes. I honestly do not believe there is a decent argument for a game including them. Some games have great narratives, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I want to be forced to watch them every time I play the game. And if I want all the achievements in “Shadows of the Damned”, I’m going to have play through the game three times, since it doesn’t credit lower difficulty achievements when you beat the game on higher difficulties. Cheers Suda, you mad bastard.

You have to take your trousers off first, mate.


Another weird aspect of the achievements is that a lot of them rely on you being in certain chapters of the game, either to use certain weapons or collect certain power ups. Fair enough, but why not have a chapter select? Missed something in one of the final chapters of the game? Looks like you’re going to have to play through the whole thing again to get back there.

On this subject, “Shadows” has an achievement for maxing out your upgrades. Again, not a rarity these days, but at no point does it suggest you will have to grind off the few spots where there are unlimited enemies to give you a chance at being able to buy all the upgrades. Clarity is a big problem in this game.

Another major complaint I have of the game is the structure and length of it. I am very much a sucker for a well structured “Act” system when it comes to video games, and I often point to “Bayonetta” for an example of it being done very very well (In fact, I often point to “Bayonetta” for examples of things being done very very well). In “Bayonetta” we get missions with energy, drive, and excellent incremental difficulty. “Shadows” suggests that it is going to do this, and then…well, doesn’t. The side-scrolling sections, whilst fun, hint at other secondary gameplay styles that could have been, but aren’t.

This makes marginally more sense when playing the game.


Despite all these objections, I still recommend “Shadows of the Damned”. I’d rather have an imperfect gem than something generic but well-crafted.

Want to read about a game that has no issue with length? Click here.



Tuesday, 31 July 2012

New From Rocksteady: Batman 3: Bats and Bolts

A disturbing premonition has hit me. Most gamers will be aware of a breakout game from Rocksteady studios called Batman: Arkham Asylum which combined compulsively enjoyable freeflow combat, surprsingly enjoyable 'predator' stealth sections and a huge dollop of wonderfully integrated Batman lore. Further still the sequel, Batman: Arkham City, added a whole host of additional gameplay features and content and on the whole a fairly good sequel. But allow me if you will, to compare these two games to another series. Let's talk a bit about Banjo-Kazooie.

Famous in it's own right for introducing cross-species freeflow combat.
Just like the first Batman Arkham series game, Banjo-Kazooie was just bursting with stylish environments and innovative gameplay mechanics. Where Batman had any amount of ways to navigate areas, discover secrets and generally kick some asses, the bear and bird duo had any amount of ways to do overcome their own challenges in creative ways. The tones of the two games may be vastly different but, where Batman has gadgets and special takedowns, Banjo has a bird in a backpack that can do some unsightly things with eggs.

Although the second game is a touch darker in tone as it happens.
 Okay so that in itself isn't a strong comparison. Many games gradually give the player more techniques to play around with as progress is made but the reason Banjo and Bats have a fair bit more in common is that their sequels evoke much of the same responses from players. First of all the scale of both sequels dwarfs that of the original games. Banjo-Tooie goes all out with the size of some of their levels and arguably most of Banjo-Kazooie could squeeze into at most a couple of the worlds in Tooie. The scale was such that is was overwhelming to a fault and developers Rare, even at the height of their pre-splintered powers struggled to fill in all that virtual space, much unlike Banjo-Kazooie, where literally every inch of the game world was considered to be a flawless platforming masterpiece with no wasted space. Scooch over to Arkham City and although we are treated to a much expanded overworld in the shape of North Gotham and many more Riddler Challenges than the first game, but again we find that where all this content isn't just tiring to play through it can feel like filler material at times. Although both sequels are real treats to fans of the first games, they both feel like they are stretching too far at times.

Much like Animal Crossing's next title Animal Space Colony. Keep it simple guys!
 Also, both games have main protagonists that pretty much pick up where they left off in terms of character ability. Banjo retains all of the abilities he and Kazooie had learnt in the first game only to learn a whole host of new moves to compliment the old. Batman has very much the same treatment in Arkham City, retaining most gadgets and moves and simply extending the variety of ways he can brawl in the street and sneak up on armed guards. Another thing to note is that although both games do provide some token navigational challenges which require the older move set, a lot of the show stopping attention is brought upon the new moves as one might expect.

So where does this leave us? 'Banjo-Threeie' was cryptically hinted at the end of Tooie, but what we were in fact treated to was a Nuts and Bolts, which was a big pile of nothing involved building cars out of Lego bricks and not having any fun. After playing all the way through Arkham City, without giving anything away, we were treated to a hint of what may be in the third instalment of the series in the form of the smallest of teasers. Let's just hope that instead of more seamless combat action and great detective intrigues we aren't treated to something like Batman goes to NASCAR or Batman and Reliant Robin. I'd rather the third title didn't get released in that case, which may explain why Half-Life 3, Team Fortress 3, Portal 3 or Half-Life: Episode 3 aren't ever likely to see the light of day. Perhaps Valve can't fight the urge to make their third franchise titles into crappy half-racing, half-bullshit nonsense. Another mystery solved! See you next time.

Sunday, 29 July 2012

DLC What I Did There - By Edmund Colley

I recently bought a trio of pre-owned games in a “3 for 2” offer from Gamestation to fill a void over the summer. The games I bought were Infamous 2, L.A. Noire and The Saboteur; which each turned out to be an example of a different type of Downloadable Content (DLC) that resulted in my pleasant surprise, outrage and acknowledgment of the existence of jiggle physics in games, respectively. Each type added a different after game completion experience which is something I’ve seen game developers are doing more often either for additional profit or good-will fan service.


I’m a big fan of the game developer Sucker Punch for both the Sly Raccoon series and Infamous; I got Infamous 2 so that I could conclude the series. The sequel is set in a vibrant New-Orleans-style backdrop in which super powered Cole Macgrath (aka; “The Electric Man”) continues his series of moral dilemmas while maintaining his world title of world’s gravelliest voice. Infamous 2 employs one of the more interesting yet infrequently used forms of DLC, User Generated Content (UGC). 

Pale skin and varicose veins are the tell-tale signs that someone is evil. I’m watching you Nan…
The player gets to build their own side missions and share them online with other players thus promising “infinite content”. Having played a few, there is a surprising amount of variety for a game console interface UGC. The agility courses are quite entertaining as you can grind seamlessly from wire to wire for once without the need for Tony Hawks face to be shoe horned in there. However the regular internet trope of one good idea, hundreds of imitations is present and does make it hard to find any gems. The limitations of UGC obviously being what the developers will allow the players to change. You can’t let the player have too much control as that’ll probably just overwhelm them and the more you restrict the less variety you can get. Infamous 2 probably only has a few hours of UGC to experience before you start to get the feeling of Déjà vu with each new level. Dare I say, it’s not up to the complexity of level design Little Big planet has, which is a sentence I never thought I’d say.

Every night when I close my eyes, he’s staring. Why won’t he blink?
L.A. Noire was another game I’ve also been anticipating for a while. I love a good detective story and was thinking this would be a gritty, dramatic, mystery through the streets of Los Angeles. Though the game is gritty and dramatic, it wasn’t the head scratching, Sherlock Holmes style CSI I was hoping for. Regardless it was engaging and had fantastic use of motion capture acting. It played out more like a post-WWII American detective TV show with a short mystery each episode. The DLC for this was the general; buy more levels/cases which the developers use to get a bit more cash out of the players. I was hoping for some DLC to give some closure to the game’s rather abrupt ending and the reviews of the DLC were positive. However it was £7 for what I found out to be 6 hours of gameplay, a gun and some gaudy looking suits. Admittedly, not having bought a lot of DLC, this may be fairly standard but I thought it was a rip off. I’m sure this can’t be said for all paid for DLC but I suppose this was made by Team Bondi, a production team which in its 7 year production had reports of inhumane work conditions and 60 hour weeks, and shut down shortly after the games release. Paid for DLC is what it is really, a cash cow for developers and means of making Skyrim an even bigger time sink.


Not a solution to Team Bondi’s problem but a step forward. Mandatory happiness booth for all!
Finally, the third type of DLC is the bonus content for games mods made by the developers or additional content that they didn’t have time to put in the game before release (free but it doesn’t really add much story wise). This can be simply game items, patches for bugs or perks for the players that add something to the replay value of the game. And in the case of The Saboteur, it’s boobs. Yes, put in the code that comes with the game and you can see the women at the secret headquarters for the French resistance (conveniently located in a burlesque house) dance topless. In all honesty, the people who made the game clearly put in a lot of effort to perfect the jiggle physics and put the content out for free so good on them I suppose. Also since I bought the game pre-owned it meant the code had already been used so no boobs for me*. Quel domage.

(*That’s how I felt about the Catwoman DLC playing a pre-owned copy of Arkham City - Jak)