I'd be more inclined to think we'd relate to the person who talks and acts like a regular person. Even in a TV show Elizabeth would be the secondary character. Is that because she's less interesting, or the writers are morons who don't understand which of their own characters are compelling? Not at all. It's because super colorful characters don't work as the main protagonist. See again--River Tam. Comedy needs a straight man, and drama needs one too. Everyone liked Jack Sparrow better because you were supposed to--but as evidenced by the later movies, he couldn't carry the plot by himself. As uninteresting as he seemed, the Pirates movies needed Will Turner to work. Characters like Booker make characters like Elizabeth possible.
Elizabeth is not the PC
- Thread starter Epic Fail 1977
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OP, you might want to explain what PC means in this thread. At first I thought "a lady can't be a computer", then "oh, another thread about political correctness". Only then I realized you were talking about player characters. The use of acronyms is fine in moderation, if you explain what you mean by them.
I don't think I've seen anyone complain that being funneled down a corridor with scripted stuff blablabla would be in itself a bad thing in Call of Duty games (or video games in general). That formula is after all the foundation of the FPS genre. What people have been complaining about is the constant ADHD-turbo madness super 150% intensity of it, where not one second passes without someone shouting, shots being fired or explosions going on in the background.
Also, see the Jack Sparrow example above. If Elizabeth was the player character, it would be a completely different game, or it would feel really stupid for the game to have to explain all the stuff about Columbia the player character (i.e. us) is supposed to know from the get-go. It would also be way harder to characterize Elizabeth, since we wouldn't even see her face or her do something else besides shoot stuff.
Epic Fail 1977 said:
I don't think I've seen anyone complain that being funneled down a corridor with scripted stuff blablabla would be in itself a bad thing in Call of Duty games (or video games in general). That formula is after all the foundation of the FPS genre. What people have been complaining about is the constant ADHD-turbo madness super 150% intensity of it, where not one second passes without someone shouting, shots being fired or explosions going on in the background.
Also, see the Jack Sparrow example above. If Elizabeth was the player character, it would be a completely different game, or it would feel really stupid for the game to have to explain all the stuff about Columbia the player character (i.e. us) is supposed to know from the get-go. It would also be way harder to characterize Elizabeth, since we wouldn't even see her face or her do something else besides shoot stuff.
Would I prefer to be playing as Elizabeth? heck yes. But remember this - Alyx Vance was a supporting character in Half Life 2 and its follow up episodes, but she has made much more of an impression than Gordon Freeman has.
So... am I the only person who remembers that the protagonist of Bioshock had no personality other than
If she's a legitimately good character, then I don't see what the problem is? Surely any personality given to Booker at all will be better than what they did for the PCs of the previous two Bioshock games. And, jeez, it's not like you know he's going to just be some generic gravel-voiced blank slate character. You don't know he won't get an arc as the game goes on, and the problem is that developers haven't really figured out how first-person can lend itself to powerful protagonist development without resorting to typical cut-scenes. People don't seem to like the method the Crysis games used, they're split on how Half-Life did it but say no other game should do it because they're just "copying Half-Life", and apparently normal cutaway cut-scenes are the worst thing ever.
Still looking forward to this game. Probably helps that I don't read up on pre-release hype.
"is controlled by Fontaine"?
If she's a legitimately good character, then I don't see what the problem is? Surely any personality given to Booker at all will be better than what they did for the PCs of the previous two Bioshock games. And, jeez, it's not like you know he's going to just be some generic gravel-voiced blank slate character. You don't know he won't get an arc as the game goes on, and the problem is that developers haven't really figured out how first-person can lend itself to powerful protagonist development without resorting to typical cut-scenes. People don't seem to like the method the Crysis games used, they're split on how Half-Life did it but say no other game should do it because they're just "copying Half-Life", and apparently normal cutaway cut-scenes are the worst thing ever.
Still looking forward to this game. Probably helps that I don't read up on pre-release hype.
Booker is far from a black slate character. As for the "funnelled down a corridor" comment, SKYHOOKS! Also, the previous shock games tend to let you explore a bit, even revist old areas with new problems.
This might be pretty silly, but aren't all games 100% scripted events happening around you? Isn't it always smoke and mirrors?
This might be pretty silly, but aren't all games 100% scripted events happening around you? Isn't it always smoke and mirrors?
If you want to look at it like that then the entire (real life) universe is a script, albeit one with some randomisation built in - or hidden variables if Einstein was right (but that would be even worse, because that would mean that even you are scripted). My point is that there is a point, albeit a vaguely defined one, where you start to feel like (1) you have free will and (2) the world is not running along a preset path.fwiffo said:
Which is all way off topic, but nobody is actually talking about the topic so who cares right?
A huge amount of games with successful stories apply the idea of the dull main character/ interesting cast idea. From Bioware games, System Shock 2, Ico, MGS, Bastion and many others listed here. It's a cliche because it works.
Only games that rely on the main character having a well rounded and introverted personality, where they drop gameplay hints disguised as sarky statements seems to work. (The Thief series, Max Payne, Duke Nukem) Or games where the story is totally abstract and devoid of emotion outside of the players own experience playing and thus rely on zero game-world context emotionally. (Limbo, Penumbra etc.)
It's not an all encompassing stereotype, but it is occasionally needed and I do find I enjoy games a lot more when there is a character who has your back. I think Alyx was a totally hollow character. Sure she loved her Dad but narrative wise there was not a lot going on. But when the shit hit the fan and she bailed you out or shot some guys gunning for you. You made a connection with that character because she was useful in gameplay and not just as an exposition tool, that allowed us to fill in the gaps in her personality and when her Pappy got iced, we cared for her in a story sense because we liked her.
Only games that rely on the main character having a well rounded and introverted personality, where they drop gameplay hints disguised as sarky statements seems to work. (The Thief series, Max Payne, Duke Nukem) Or games where the story is totally abstract and devoid of emotion outside of the players own experience playing and thus rely on zero game-world context emotionally. (Limbo, Penumbra etc.)
It's not an all encompassing stereotype, but it is occasionally needed and I do find I enjoy games a lot more when there is a character who has your back. I think Alyx was a totally hollow character. Sure she loved her Dad but narrative wise there was not a lot going on. But when the shit hit the fan and she bailed you out or shot some guys gunning for you. You made a connection with that character because she was useful in gameplay and not just as an exposition tool, that allowed us to fill in the gaps in her personality and when her Pappy got iced, we cared for her in a story sense because we liked her.
Hmmm. Couple of things:
1. Since the game will probably stay in first-person the whole time, having Elizabeth be the secondary character is probably the best way for the player to get to know her. If you're playing as her, you don't actually see her, and her decisions aren't unique to her anymore, they're just the player's decisions. Look at it this way-As it is, you'll spend the whole time watching Elizabeth-Getting to know her, watcher her go through a character arch-and if you were PLAYING as her, you'd spend the whole time watching Blank-Slate-Booker. I know I which one I prefer. (NOTE: Obviously there are a couple of presumptions in there, as the game hasn't actually been released) Not to mention the fact that Elizabeth already knows a lot more about her surroundings then the player does. It would be weird for the player character to know more about the game then both the support character and they player themselves.
2. Alyx was more interesting then(than?) Gordon Freeman, but that didn't make Half Life 2 boring.
1. Since the game will probably stay in first-person the whole time, having Elizabeth be the secondary character is probably the best way for the player to get to know her. If you're playing as her, you don't actually see her, and her decisions aren't unique to her anymore, they're just the player's decisions. Look at it this way-As it is, you'll spend the whole time watching Elizabeth-Getting to know her, watcher her go through a character arch-and if you were PLAYING as her, you'd spend the whole time watching Blank-Slate-Booker. I know I which one I prefer. (NOTE: Obviously there are a couple of presumptions in there, as the game hasn't actually been released) Not to mention the fact that Elizabeth already knows a lot more about her surroundings then the player does. It would be weird for the player character to know more about the game then both the support character and they player themselves.
2. Alyx was more interesting then(than?) Gordon Freeman, but that didn't make Half Life 2 boring.
Ugh, yeah. It's kind of ridiculous. I remember when Portal 2 came out, there was a thread talking about how awesome it is, and someone mentioned a bit towards the end(without giving too much away) where the player character is injured and can't move, only aim the gun. There's even a short "cutscene" where you watch the character's arm grab the gun off the floor. You might be thinking "Gee, that sounds EXACTLY like something out of 'Call of Duty'", and you would be exactly right. But you know what the Valve-Fan said? Something about Valve's "Great new method of storytelling". Now personally, I don't mind linearity and crazy-scripted events at all. I do mind when people hate the idea in one franchise, and love them in another, even if they're implemented identically.Epic Fail 1977 said:
There is nothing wrong with having the side character be more interesting. Think about Moby Dick, or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or even most of the Sherlock Holmes stories - the actual narrator whose view the reader experiences everything is not the most interesting or even "main" character.
And how exactly would YOU know that Booker is a generic, uninteresting character!? Have YOU played the game? Because you do realize that they've pretty much only showed the first 20 minutes of the game at best, right? But no! He's a white man with stubble! GENERIC!!! WHITE MEN CAN'T HAVE INTERESTING STORIES!!!
I see this as a brilliant way to combine great aspects from third and first person perspectives.
You get to be in the world in first person. Yet you still have the stronger character focus of a third person game in the omnipresent Elizabeth.
You get to be in the world in first person. Yet you still have the stronger character focus of a third person game in the omnipresent Elizabeth.
I still feel like having Booker be this seemingly generic badass dude man is going to be part of the setting/lore. I mean, Columbia itself is basically a characterization of the "FUCK YEAH, 'MURICA!" attitude from what we've seen. Perhaps Booker too is a part of that. Until I play this for myself, I'm going to remain optimistic. Infinite is most likely the only game this year that I'll be picking up on day one.
Can't say I have a problem with blank slate characters that you're supposed to project yourself through either. I almost never directly project myself into a video game but I grew very attached to Jack as a character in the first BioShock and the same has happened to me with the protagonist of Persona 3 now. Or maybe I am projecting and not realizing it and I secretly adore myself.
Can't say I have a problem with blank slate characters that you're supposed to project yourself through either. I almost never directly project myself into a video game but I grew very attached to Jack as a character in the first BioShock and the same has happened to me with the protagonist of Persona 3 now. Or maybe I am projecting and not realizing it and I secretly adore myself.
That's a pretty bold statement, considering Bioshock Infinite's hype is not regarding gameplay, graphics, or mechanics, but the quality of its writing. And that is pretty subjective. People are hyped up about it because Levine, through his past games and recent interviews, has shown himself to be very good at writing the type of characters a lot of people like. But that doesn't mean it will be everyone's cup of tea. So it's impossible, even if it was leaked, for anyone to say objectively that the game is bad or not as good as people are hoping. *Maybe* a lot of people will still like it. Heck, I'm one of the only people I know who thought Enslaved was a fantastic game. Gameplay and graphics can be objectively good, or bad, or disappointing. Story is in the eye of the beholder.