#six dissects

let's start from the end of that post: "'you just won't give up will you? .. I actually like that about you .. it reminds me of someone'... makes me wonder about the stronger dogs he's confronted exactly like this and reduced them to nothing but a bloodstain on the floor."

istvan didn't come out of the womb evil, no one does, but we know what triggered this mental break - the turks killing his parents. it didn't happen overnight; this spiral was gradual. his life was stripped away from him and he's been acting out of self preservation ever since, desperately trying to regain control in his life.

i wonder about the time before he met erik and before he became nobility. istvan wasn't handed anything on a platter. he was not born w a silver spoon in his mouth like all his other nobleman colleagues, he had to earn that shit through blood. he doesn't fight for sigismund's cause, he is a mercenary with a bandit lover who fights for themselves only, which means sticking with the stronger dogs no matter what - because frankly, he is not.

istvan is a hypocrite; his whole life is about revenge. it didn't stop with killing turks, or the turks, his wrath extends to any that threaten his existence. then he finds erik and he feels for him. he takes erik in because he sees himself in his eyes, as I've mentioned before on my isterik post. istvan telling henry revenge is childish nonsense isn't him scolding henry, he's speaking from his own experience of living for nothing but revenge and never being sated. and maybe, just maybe, he's grown weary of the fight. but stopping is no longer a choice.

I'm going to throw in something i said to you before but it's pretty relevant now:

"[...]I really struggle to believe the evil mastermind narrative, bc taking out a man like istvan is completely insignificant compared to taking out a man like von bergow ... no one really respected him and I'm sure he knew, I mean they thought he was So weird and that He Killed Himself at trosky, not that he was significant enough to be hated and assassinated."

i feel like istvan's significance is played up. he was given a warden's job with little defense and three men who wanted to tear him limb from limb. he knew something bad was going to happen at trosky. his death is no big loss to anyone (except erik), because a spy can easily be replaced. that's all he ever was. istvan isn't important and neither is henry. istvan is doing bandit work and getting his hands dirty while his allies remain cozy in their castles - henry does the exact same field work for his lords. difference is, henry still has faith in people and the world, and of course his people care about him. istvan only has erik.

istvan is not stupid, he knows his allies are using him just as much as he's using them. then he tries to convey this reality to henry about his own allies with little success. during the torture scene he tells henry this isn't his war, almost pleading. very little torture actually takes place, and he chooses psychological tricks instead of physical pressure (e.g. saying zizka already told him what he needs to know when he didn't, letting henry say stupid things to him with little consequence, godwin always breaks if henry doesn't talk, maybe istvan knew and dragged it out to see just how much these people care about henry). he feels for henry in his own way, else he had many chances to just kill him and be done with it.

I draw lines to henry because he is also not fighting for wenceslas' cause, he is fighting for himself and the people he loves first who happen to align themselves with wenceslas. but henry is on a revenge streak first and foremost. he brutalized runt and istvan over a sword and treated the man who killed his parents w more dignity. he is just as capable of taking the low road as istvan, and for the moment he enjoys it too.

so when henry stares istvan down, istvan sees his younger self who revelled in his newfound control through brutality... but now he's aware of his place in the world and was trying to make sure erik didn't follow the same path, and by extension henry. he's much older than them. he's seen a lot of horrible shit; seen people succumb to the same cycle - including himself. erik represents the hope of breaking this cycle, and perhaps he saw that same hope within henry too.. but that doesn't matter anymore.

I can't stop thinking about istvan confronting the men who killed his parents the way henry confronted him. maybe they were important, maybe they were just soldiers. but there was no chance of a fair fight, maybe a knife in the dark, even poison. maybe he gave them the runt special, who knows. but for sure there are countless men he's graced with a visit in the night, just as he did with talmberg and hans' company. the stronger dogs have one fatal flaw of underestimating the weak, so he wouldn't make the same stupid mistake with henry... but it's a shock when he stabs him with the dagger so easily because he had more faith in henry keeping his honour. then he uses his final breath to not chide or congratulate henry for "finally learning", but warning him once again of the path he's carving. if he truly hated henry, this would not have been so easy.

I have a lot of thoughts about them and I'll try to untangle some of them here .. I guess I'll just start w the obvious and say I feel like watering down isterik to "toxic bc Istvan groomed erik" is a pretty dismissive way to talk about such a raw and volatile display of love. people are once again doing what they did with hansry and trying to understand their relationship through a modern lens when it's not that simple, especially since we're missing a lot of information from two very unreliable narrators. I'm not saying istvan didn't foster an unhealthy relationship with erik by taking him in, caring for him like a father would, and being intimate as lovers - he absolutely did. i'm just honestly bored of the discussions around Problematic relationships starting and ending with "that's toxic" as if Bad People aren't capable of loving just as deeply as anyone else especially if their circumstances are a bit... unusual. I mean, why do people do anything? to live and love, right? and no im not saying it's all okay bc they love each other, it's still bad but both can coexist.

it's interesting that we hear different accounts from both on how they met - istvan found erik during a raid and took him in, but we don't know the details. we don't know what situation erik was in, why istvan was so drawn to him, or hell, if maybe erik killed his own parents instead and istvan is just saying that to protect him. this is the story we hear from istvan, but we get two different recountings from erik. one is in kcd1 where he tells henry point blank that istvan killed his parents and he's stronger than his parents ever were, but then in kcd2 he calls henry a liar about istvan killing his parents. this confused me when I first heard it bc I could've sworn he was aware, so I thought maybe it was a retcon. all well and good I guess, but I thought,, well what if it isn't? as far as I'm aware nothing else has been retconned, so why would this be?

so I try to think of it a different way, just to see if that would even work. maybe it might be a key inconsistency of erik's mental state, showing how he's still trying to grapple what the fuck happened that day. I mean, it's hard to recall all the details of a traumatic event, right? especially if it happens to you so young. maybe erik has no recollection of what really happened and trusts what istvan told him. or he knows and he just doesn't need to justify anything to anyone, especially not to henry. maybe in the first game, since istvan is still alive, he plays up the hardened bandit face and says "yeah, istvan killed my parents in cold blood - know that he doesn't fuck around", but after he dies, well, we've seen him. he's thrown into a rage that will eventually consume him. his entire reason for fighting is gone, and henry bringing up something he tried so hard to ignore... well, yeah, id be pissed too.

again... I'm just speculating. in the end it could just be a retcon and I'm going insane over such a minor detail, oh well. we just don't have enough information to make a conclusion, but I guess that's the point. it's like they both said, we don't understand their relationship and we never will.

moving on from that.... since you were so kind to ask I'm gonna throw in a bit of rare lore about myself to kinda connect why isterik is like the light of god to me - in my own writing I try to explore a wide variety of relationships and character behaviours, almost anything goes really because I do believe fiction should be a safe space for writers to explore concepts without it being reflective of them as people.. some of the best stories I've been lucky to experience have been generally pretty dark, unafraid to explore beyond the boundaries of what we're comfortable with,, because well, it's real. and why not. isterik reminds me of one relationship I have - similarly a relationship that can't easily be defined because of the parties' roles in society, the circumstances of their meeting, and of course as two men. so, my understanding of this relationship does stem from my own experience writing these kinds of relationships, which in turn stems from my observations of people around me.

and I do love that honestly. can't give warhorse enough credit for making their characters so believable. what fascinates me about isterik is that they very obviously love each other and treat each other as equals. its obvious that istvan isn't using erik. he doesn't try to hide how much he cares for him.. why would he beg for erik's life instead of his? istvan has been playing the theatrical villain this whole time, but the moment his right hand man is threatened, he breaks. i've briefly mentioned this before but its unnerving how he begs for erik's life. this game once again shows you how your enemies are just as capable of love and fear whether you like it or not, they're people too.

erik is more than some pawn. if istvan wanted to, he could easily replace him. but erik isn't disposable. istvan saw something familiar within erik and only he could drag it out - he built erik up and protected him the way he wished someone would've done for him after his parents were killed by the turks. he was alone and suffered god knows how long until he finally gained some semblance of control in his life, and then he taught erik to never let anyone take that control away... but who was the one who did that to him in the first place? is he talking to erik or himself? istvan himself has a lot of issues, but if you look past his mad rambling there really is some truth to it (a whole other thing to get into on my istvan analysis... somewhere in the future)

along w that i don't believe erik is entirely some helpless thing that doesn't understand what kind of situation he's in. the tragic thing is he was, but that boy is long dead and buried (and something I won't ever forget is how we see a glimpse of erik being normal through godwin's eyes... horse racing? really? that entire sequence was uncomfortable, erik is completely void of emotion, aside from rage of course, I honestly don't believe all of this was istvan's doing. something must've already been wrong with him, which could explain why istvan kept him and fed that hatred). at the same time, I don't believe erik is any worse than istvan, at least not when he's alive (like i found it interesting that when erik freed istvan, he begged him to flee when istvan wanted to kill henry.. idk how to explain, i feel like istvan was the reason he was even able to 'control' his anger. another thing i need to think on more).

istvan is clearly the one pulling the strings of everyone around him - the enabler - while erik is the muscle (no I'm not saying he's not smart but he's not capable of being manipulative like istvan, check their respective roles in society). he won't last long without istvan. his guiding light is gone. istvan and erik make each other stronger (better for them, worse for us), they fight for each other and for their place in the world - just like henry and hans do. they're really not so different, it's true. henry goes to great lengths to avenge his parents, believing it is the righteous thing to do, but so does erik. they were both horribly wronged and will fight to get that control back no matter the cost. they are products of war, extensions of their lords to be used and discarded. they're lucky if anyone cares about them at all in the end. and this is what istvan was trying to protect erik from and warn henry about. they're the same, but morality separates them in their ultimately selfish actions.

morality. that's the difference. hanush said this exactly in the first game - if i recall correctly, that their honour is what separates them from the common bandit. henry and hans believe in honour, it's what stops them from going too far even if they feel otherwise it in their hearts. henry especially can act on these darker thoughts - taking his revenge too far by taking his anger out on his allies and treating his enemies as subhuman... but isterik aren't caught up about imaginary concepts of mortality and honour, or especially in istvan's case, he doesn't fear god. they revel in their daily routine of pillaging and killing those they deem lesser, a threat. more importantly, they're doing it together (cute date ideas or whatever). anyone who threatens the other is in for a world of pain - I mean of course, no one would let their loved ones be threatened, but to the degree to which istvan and erik will go for each other is what most people would consider extreme. istvan was willing to let his hostages be violated just at the mere thought of erik being harmed, erik is hellbent on skinning henry and by extension hans.. and anyone who gets in his way.... which is why I do expect him to be in kcd3 if it happens, probably not as a major antagonist, but like how henry hunted istvan, erik will hunt henry. i don't see erik's story ending well, whatever he ends up doing to henry or even hans. his entire reason for living was taken from him, he'll burn the world and himself with it because that's the kind of person he is (which yk.... as a tragedy enjoyer.... evil emoji).

despite people thinking in terms of extremes with them, i do think they are capable of being normal with each other.. i mean, we've seen it. how tender istvan became when he said goodbye to erik. how erik was hesitant yet calm in his presence. so much left unsaid, we can't even begin to understand what was taken from erik that night. i wonder how long he stayed at istvan's grave after burying him, how often he went back to talk to him or just sit in silence. maybe he never went back at all. im normal about them. and i will be very normal about kcd3.

so anyway tl;dr I'm incredibly biased and I love when love is so so messy and passionate. they do not need a redemption arc or any kind of justification on Why This Relationship Is Ok Actually or why people who enjoy it are also bad people or whatever juvenile discourse people r having. they're unapologetically fucked up and I love them for it. they don't need to change people need to expand their minds and find enlightenment through isterik. or something

brief lore

so i've been playing kcd2 pretty much every day since it dropped, did my first playthrough in under 5 days with little sleep and let me tell you. I have been completely cured of everything that was causing me grief for the entirety of january which involved my own personal art/writing, and honestly this game dropped at a perfect time to rip me out of my self-induced misery.

despite my love for fantasy and historical settings, I didn't expect much when I first played kcd1. I thought it was just a medieval times war simulator for repressed men, but I had to give it a try. obviously, I'm glad I was wrong, and I actually realized this around the time you go back to skalitz for henry's parents and after I played theresa's dlc. I realized there might actually be care put into the writing, into the reality of war instead of glorifying it with another peasant-turned-knight story. kcd1 did an incredible job of immersing you into the role of henry, an average peasant, son of a blacksmith. he's not some secretly skilled dragonborn waiting to be awakened to save the world, he's just a boy who was thrown into the fray years before he was ready... kcd1 was good. i really enjoyed playing it and experiencing such a unique game. it was an impressive ambition especially with the limited budget they had. maybe it could stand to be condensed, but as an act 1 it's incredibly engaging at the beginning and end, creating a strong foundation and lot of anticipation for kcd2.

authenticity is king

what makes a good story? a question that can be debated until the end of time. its complicated. its simple. its completely subjective. but as corny as it sounds, the truth i believe is a good story has soul in it. it's something i will believe until i die. a good story has something to say, something that needs to be said no matter how silly or serious it is. and even if the result is ugly, bad art with soul will never truly be bad. and i'm not here to preach anything or glaze companies like warhorse and even larian, because no one is safe from criticism (i have especially torn into larian myself over certain issues), but this universal praise we see isn't undeserved, and we should celebrate the fuck out of good games when we get them.

kcd2, i believe, has easily become one of the greatest games of all time. and it's simply because, at its core, the writing of kcd is human. this is unfortunately something very easily forgotten when swept up in numbers and trends. but kcd is not trying to be something it isn't. the writers had a very clear vision of the story they wanted to tell from the start and made absolutely 0 sacrifices for trends and culture wars.

the writing is mature, it respects your intelligence and doesn't have to spell everything out. serious moments actually feel tense, the humour is woven in well without being out of place, and something i consider a true miracle is that they don't force quippy lines out of every character. the dialogue is believable enough where it's not too incomprehensibly archaic or too jarringly modern. the characters are not all that self aware and don't pull therapy speak out of their asses. every single character has depth from the major characters to even the minor npcs. the world is so full of personality and charm that i didn't mind sitting around with npcs to just listen to them talk about their mundane lives or observe their daily routines. i even found myself caring about the most insignificant npcs. like i failed the fight dirty quest bc i banished hired hand stanley to hell for bullying my boy tobias 'darling' and his dog. such a minor npc but i felt like i had to do something to help even if the game didn't acknowledge it. and to me, if a game makes you feel something and follows you well after it's over, it's doing something right.

at the time of writing this i'm on my 3rd playthrough. 200+ hours and i'm still discovering new npcs, dialogue, quests, locations, and outcomes. 2.2 million words sounds like too much, it makes you wonder if its justified, but i can confidently say it is. warhorse made no sacrifices to be like other games. their vision remained strong from beginning to end, and now if they so choose to, kcd3 has a very strong foundation and limitless potential for henry's story to branch off into. and if not, i have no doubt whatever warhorse writes next, whether it's about henry, medieval bohemia, or another historical setting completely, will be a masterpiece.

wait... you're just like me?

every single character in kcd has flaws and some fuck up immensely, which many people might be annoyed w but it's something I love and find lacking in a lot of stories. you can't pin a single character down as "good" or "evil" and they put an emphasis on this when confronting istvan, erik, markvart, drinking w the cumans, staying in trosky, exposing semine, spying on the praguers, and through a bunch of minor npc conflicts... all of these situations are not clear-cut and every single character involved have reasons for fighting, and you fear the prospect that they're right.

what do you do when the enemy looks and feels like you do? how do you judge someone in any way that matters without condemning yourself too? the game asks questions and does not give you an answer. at least not one that will satisfy everyone. such is life. and that's what i love about this game. i love when writers aren't afraid to make their characters so viscerally human. I love how no one is immune to their desires, to all the fuck ups and deception. everyone is bound to fuck up no matter how careful they are. fuck ups that seem so easily avoided if they did one thing differently or were more cautious of who they worked with. you'd think even the most cunning and experienced could avoid it but even they mess up, and kcd doesn't try to show off or give anyone immunity in manipulation and morality. it's as markvart said, "under all the armour and finery you will only ever find a man" (and my god, what a scene. I believe the entire conversation w markvart is the heart of the story. but my words won't do it justice, please go watch it it's incredibly written and acted).

so... why did i care about some npc with 3 lines enough to fail a quest and risk getting arrested for him? well, because his story hit home. it's a rarity that writers care enough about the little people to show the beauty of the mundane and the humanity of even the most revered. kcd breaks the illusion that people in the past were so different from us today and tells us point blank that we are here today because the fight for life and love is endless.

things worth living for

kcd puts you into the body of a boy who had everything taken from him, and from the moment he regains consciousness he's ready to throw himself back at the enemy to avenge his parents. it's a pretty hopeless thing to do. what can one blind man do against an army? what can one weary woman do in the ruins of her home but try to save at least one more soul, even at the cost of her own? kcd shows the gruesome and hopeless reality of war... but it also does a good job of showing the importance of people.

henry has few people left in his life, but two haunt the corners of his mind; his parents, we know this very well. they are the driving force of why he fights and they remain important instead of being used as fuel for his story. it may seem insignificant, but i really appreciate that they didn't pull a "radzig didn't want henry or care about henry's mother and lied to martin the whole time" and "martin abandoned sara and samuel for another family", i feel it would've been too much for henry to have more guilt and anger over his parents and then a tense relationship w radzig/samuel on top. what would be the point in learning about his real father and step brother, only to end up resenting them? there's a lot of dark shit going on and it's good to have some genuine familial relationships once in a while.

there's no malicious reason why martin and radzig couldn't raise their biological sons, and if they could, they would have, but they tried to do the best they could for henry given the circumstances, and you wouldn't even doubt for a second that martin would've loved sam if things were different. it's bittersweet and feels real. there's no need for a big plot twist of "martin was a bad man actually" after everyone spoke so fondly of him. and i appreciate that warhorse doesn't pull plot twists out of nowhere. it's good that henry has hans, sam, radzig, and godwin to rely on and untainted memories of his parents. it's good that despite everything, henry is able to hold onto the blue skies overhead, green grass underfoot, beautiful girls, good wine, a few good friends, and a fine steed under his backside.

... speaking of godwin, i want to briefly mention just how good of a secondary pov character he was. when i first played i was a little confused as to why him, mostly bc i didn't drink w him in the first game so i didn't know shit about him. but godwin makes a very compelling and fun secondary pov character as a noble war veteran turned priest that has absolutely no involvement in henry's life aside from drinking with him once but is now compelled to look out for him simply because he likes him (and bc it was asked of him but he does care shh). and it's not like his purpose was to babysit henry the whole time, he's given his own personal obstacles when he has to face his father in raborsch, who berates him in front of everyone with no shame, to the italian job where his father finally acknowledges that he was wrong about godwin. kcd2 gives this hedonistic priest a whole new layer of depth one couldn't have deduced based off his behaviour from the first game. it's truly incredible to see how a little care can go really far for even the most seemingly unimportant npcs like godwin or even liechtenstein. all in all, i really enjoyed playing as godwin and he was the perfect choice for a secondary pov character.

i could go on forever about the supporting characters, but i need to move onto the elephant in the room now: henry and hans.

those guys

henry and hans are so fascinating to me. it's been a good while since i've seen such deep and complex characters where even their failures are exciting to witness because you just know this will only strengthen them as people. the reason why, for me at least, it means a lot that warhorse wrote such a beautiful relationship between two men is bc they're written as people first. henry and hans are two characters that Can stand on their own but become stronger together. two young men who come from completely different worlds find comfort in each other's presence despite the laws of man and god saying it can't be so.

you can see something shift between them as early as the hunting trip. a trip that was a punishment for both turned out to be what they needed. to put aside their statuses and find common ground. hans asks about henry and skalitz, and empathizes with henry over the loss of his parents and reveals he never knew his own. you see something strange from the asshole who keeps humiliating and provoking you. you start to understand that all he really needed was for someone to understand him. not a mentor or guardian. not his subjects who drink and bathe with him on a whim. a friend. someone who sees him as a person worthy of his noble title and not a child or a drunk whore.

this newfound bond grows as you get up to typical teenage boy behaviour and in the span of a few weeks the haughty nobleman henry met just yesterday becomes a closer friend than his childhood friends fritz or matthew ever cared to be. but it doesn't end there. hans doesn't remain a pretty face and let everyone fight battles for him, and when it's time to take back talmberg his true character shows when he puts himself between the enemy to save tobias feyfar (when the trebuchet is attacked) or henry (if he gets knocked out during night raid). hans is willing to risk himself because he believes in justice as much as henry even though he came from a more privileged background. both of them were already incredibly noble men in the making and kcd2 tests how far they're willing to go for a place in the world.

it doesn't matter how you play him; henry remains the same sweet boy from skalitz underneath it all. the blacksmith's boy who comes home crying to ma with scrapes and bruises and big dreams, the lover and loyal friend, and the survivor who vowed to never run from a fight lest more innocents be slaughtered for his cowardice. he never forgot skalitz and he never stopped blaming himself. even if he has to push, even when he becomes just as bad as runt or istvan or the dry devil, it weighs on him. you can control his actions and his words, but you can't control how he feels at his core. even after all three of his goals have been achieved by the end of kcd2 (avenge his parents, get his sword back, and protect hans), he is still deeply hurt and laments getting lost in his path of vengeance. this guilt follows him into his dreams, justifying his actions becomes an uphill battle, and in the final conversation with his "parents" he can choose to repent and acknowledge that he has lost himself or double down and say he was always right. then he can choose to keep fighting, or finally present martin's sword to radzig and settle into the life he should've had back in skalitz...

there's no black or white answer, as the game often tells you, only action and consequence. and something I've noticed are the people who are a bit annoyed at how your choices throughout the game don't matter in the end since you can choose to say sorry and "everything is okay", but I don't see it that way really. it's not okay, why would it be? but everyone deserves a chance to repent, whether you personally believe it or not, and henry is arguably better than most for acknowledging his guilt and promising to do better. life doesn't end at the first sin. you could always become just as bad as the enemy or you could choose to be kind, merciful, and treat people with dignity.

as for hans. well... kcd2 happens because of him, because he desperately wanted to prove himself to hanush and his people that he was a capable ruler and warrior. he wasn't expecting it to be difficult, his confidence in the plan is the sole reason why it went so wrong. it was his fault they were ambushed despite henry's concern and he knows it. then he blows up at henry and runs off to fix it himself, which he would've succeeded in if von bergow hadn't played them. his comfortable view of the world was shattered and he couldn't accept it at first, but facing death multiple times and seeing henry risk it all for little reward built him back up as a braver and more responsible man to the point where he is unrecognizable from how he started in the first game. hans is reliable, brave, and capable of handling a lot more than people give him credit for. not a lot of noblemen would risk themselves so willingly, let alone for a peasant, and henry is actually lucky hans tolerated him and threw hands as equals instead of just sending him to jail and ending his journey quite early (henry is lucky a lot of noblemen put up w him lbr he does himself no favours lmao).

i find hans to be interesting because he isn't really a typical nobleman, he puts the pleasures of life first before politics and sees his people as people and war as a losing battle (see the conversation he has w brabant after freeing them from maleshov). but he still acknowledges that the day will come when he has to take his role seriously even if the looming threat to his freedom strikes fear into his soul (see raborsch when the arranged wedding is announced). in the prologue of kcd2 he leads the company and doesn't joke much or even indulge in the conversation of women, the shadow of tomorrow's meeting with von bergow grows closer and there's a lot of pressure to not mess it up. hans is a lot of things, but incompetent is not one of them. he doesn't cry when they have to get their hands dirty and remains relatively calm when dealing with other nobleman. he knows what's at stake and doesn't allow henry to take the brunt of their struggles. even when henry is hallucinating, shouting, and is essentially dead weight, hans doesn't hesitate to carry him and assure him that he's okay.

i haven't even begun to cover the depth of the story and the characters, but as much as i wish i could I'm not qualified enough for a deep analysis and I'd rather go to my final thoughts, which is of course the romance between henry and hans (and warhorse's treatment of mlm characters).

gay... people?

from my previous point, these are two characters that stand on their own, but together they stand taller. even without any romance the game and story are incredible. henry and hans' friendship is not optional, it is a core part of their characters and why they fight. it's not distracting or out of nowhere bc their sexualities are not their entire personalities. but here's the thing, the friendship created a strong foundation for a potential romance, but if written carelessly and completely out of character, this romance would not have worked and the writer's hand would show. taking into account the setting, the characters, and the plot is the only way to craft a believable and good romance. and I know some people are disappointed because they expected more romance or dates or some grand display of love, but these characters aren't like that, at least not how we perceive romance in our modern day. they love each other, there's no denying that, and they didn't even have to say those exact words for it to be true. love can be shown and said in a multitude of different ways and it will not look the same for every person, but it doesn't make the love any lesser.

for henry and hans, it's action above words. hans seems to be the more introspective of the two, and we see this when it's him who initiates the final romance scene with a beautifully tragic story he'd been thinking about for god knows how long. but this only happens when they're sure they'll die, that they'll never see each other again, only after henry reminds hans again and again that he's cared for. and maybe it's too late but something needs to be said. often times they make jokes and tease each other, which could definitely have flirtatious undertones, but their true feelings show in serious moments, moments of danger, and of course when you pick the heart dialogue. the only time henry tries traditional flirting on hans is when you can learn how to give a compliment in italian, but even then he kind of fumbles for a more genuine one ("i am dazzled by your beauty" into "you look good"). henry drops the usual theatrics to assure hans that he will always back him up when he needs it. hans needs to know that henry doesn't stick w him because he has to, but because he wants to. and the best part is that this remains true even if you don't choose to romance him.

but aside from henry and hans, we of course have istvan and erik who have their own complicated relationship that includes something romantic. then there's npcs; novice lucas (kcd1), black bartosch, and herbalist barnaby (kcd2) (I'm not sure if there's any more, these are just the ones I'm aware of rn). the way all of these characters are written is Not forced and liking men is not their entire purpose, it's actually a completely optional thing to find out about these characters (investigate the monks who abuse lucas, talk w black bartosch instead of just training, and hang out w herbalist barnaby after fighting him. actually, even if you don't interrogate erik and istvan, you could completely miss the romantic undertones of their relationship and continue to think it's just father/son). and no, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stories with gay or even trans characters can't be about that, it would be horribly hypocritical of me when my own trans-bisexual-ness fuels my own art, but that's not all we are and I believe we're doing ourselves a disservice when we keep ourselves stuck in the coming out story cycle.

we need stories that are more than our pain, especially now, and it's important that not only we create gay/trans art, but our allies do as well. we deserve to be seen and not have to keep our love under the guise of close friendship. and I'm sorry, but sometimes it's not enough to simply imply or queer bait. I feel like it's rare for stories to actually commit to showing that we exist and that we are capable of all kinds of love, too. to treat us like people and not fun little side quests. to not debate our existence or water us down to naive teens in quirky coming out stories. we deserve to have stories where we actually get to live and love.

and idk if warhorse is really aware of how impactful that decision was... the confirmation that the director saw something more intimate between henry and hans and hearing how the actors wanted to do it justice means a lot especially knowing the reputation warhorse had. and in the end the most unlikely people created one of the most compelling and beautiful relationships in recent years because they saw people first. it may seem like the bare minimum but it's appreciated regardless. people can cry and scream about how wrong it is to have gay people in the middle ages until the end of time. nothing can change the fact that we've been here and always will be.

too long; did read

I hate being sappy, but kcd2 pulled me out of the pit I was in because of the shit on the news and my own art block, and it has comforted and inspired me to continue my own work even if it never sees the light of day. kcd2 to me is what stories should be. there's no secret to why it's so good, because swen vincke said it himself at the last game awards: "[the formula] it's stupidly simple, but somehow it keeps on getting lost." a great speech that unfortunately means nothing to titan companies, but we know it's the truth. kcd2 is a success because it was made with genuine love, care, and respect for games, history, and people. it really is that simple.