Seldon2639 said:
I've been playing FFXIII.
I hate Hope. I hate him with a passion. He's whiny, annoying, angsty, and really pretty dumb. His "Operation Nora" crap is getting on my nerves, and I hope he eventually just gets his ass kicked by Snow.
Then I take a step back: maybe this is how I'm supposed to feel.
If we accept, and I do, that games can be art, then we must accept that part of that is to inspire in us emotions, and not always good ones. Yahtzee has once said that intentionally annoying aspects of a game are still bad, but I don't buy that. If a game can be art for making us truly afraid, or truly sad, or truly angry, can't it be art as well in making us truly annoyed?
Hope is annoying because he's real. His reactions are closer to what a normal person's reaction would be. He's the only character not to have taken a level in badass prior to the events of the game, and he acts like it. He acts like a kid who watched his mother die saving the life of someone else.
If games are art, must the only art made be of the "watching badasses be cool" variety? Is horror less artistic because it makes us scared? Drama because it makes us sad? Or is there a place in this medium for the art of making a character who really irks the player? I think there is.
But, what do you guys think? Can we defend annoying the player in the same way we defend trying to scare him or depress him or anger him?
Actually I will be blunt in saying that Hope's reaction is *NOT* realistic. People have a tendency to rise to challenges when pushed, and oddly enough to thrive in situations of adversity. The statement "that which doesn't kill me, makes me stronger" exists for reason. Our species would have been wiped out long ago if this was not the case.
I point this out because I think the whole "wet dishrag" and "reluctant hero who wants to be 'normal'" thing is overplayed and increasingly ridiculous.
This is not to say that everyone is a stoic badass, but it does mean that people are going to adapt a lot faster than writers give them credit for in many cases.
Ironically, the biggest problem with emergency situations is NOT people panicing or collapsing into inactive piles of quivering jello. The biggest problem is that nobody wants to feel like an idiot and does not want to be caught overreacting, thus people are reluctant to act until they actually see a threat. So basically if there is a fire or something, people will act unusually rationally if they can (being trapped in a room with no way out is an exception), but are going to be far slower and more cautious with reactions until they actually see it. This is a part of being trained for evacuations as they occur in most situations.
This incidently applies to situations of violence and such, people wanting to be heroe or see what is going on is the biggest problem. As ridiculous is the "OMG, terrorists are shooting people? I don't buy it, but let's go see!" is reality for example.
