Gameplay as Characterization

[Story]

So back in the "Best Female character in Recent Gaming" topic I defended someone's opinion of Chell and Samuas being good characters. Someone pointed out that Chell in particular couldn't be because she's just the player avatar. Yet I feel that the actions taken by her, even if they were player directed, were part of her characterization in that she is smart enough to solve the puzzles presented to her and resilient enough survive Aperture Science.

Chell is just one example, but others pointed out to me the Doom guy in Doom and Daniel from Amnesia as others. These don't even have full models outside of limbs and a few pictures.

By the way, a game that explores this idea pretty well is the iPad game Little Inferno". (though it is a mix of narrative and gameplay elements). I can't really say why without really spoiling the game though. It is like 3 hours long, and I just recommend people play it for the experience.

Another is the Stanley Parable at certain points.

Questions to discuss:
How do you all feel about Gameplay, this case I mean input from the player, as a form of characterization?
Do you think it is an interesting perspective when evaluating the motivations or interests in video game characters within their universes?
Can characters like Chell from Portal have personalities even though the player was the cause of most of her choices?
What about games only told through a first-person perspective, does the player avatar (like in Skyrim) have character as well?

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

You can characterize a character by way of gameplay. The thing though this isn't unique. Every playable character gets this kind of base level of characterization. The bugged part is that some times this characterization doesn't match the story told in the narrative. A good example of that would almost all open world games. You know the old thing were in the game your a crazy killer but in the story your not show as such.

 

[Story]

You can characterize a character by way of gameplay. The thing though this isn't unique. Every playable character gets this kind of base level of characterization. The bugged part is that some times this characterization doesn't match the story told in the narrative. A good example of that would almost all open world games. You know the old thing were in the game your a crazy killer but in the story your not show as such.

Yup, totally agree with both of these points. Though I guess it has become so common place that we don't even consider player action as characterization any more, or we look for more interesting ways to characterize though gameplay. That's why I picked the Stanley Parable and Little Inferno, since they do some interesting things with it.

The second point happens way too often, people call that Ludonarrative Dissonance. It can be very annoying. That's actually my problem with Bioshock Infinite.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

I dont really think player characters that dont have much of a story themselves can be counted among one of the best characters. Yeah you can characterize them yourself, but that means that theres a million different interpretations of the character.
Take for example Dark Souls, the player character the Chosen Undead. When I play through the game I can make up a million compelling stories for him. He could be a former knight of Astora, cast into the undead asylum when he was afflicted with the curse. After travelling in Lordran he could join the Darkmoon Blades, as he harbours exceptional hatred for those who would plunder humanity and souls from those weaker than them, and eventually link the flame because he feels like the world he has is the one he wants to protect.

Thats one possible interpretation for the player character. Yes their own lack of story may allow us to imprint personalities onto them and connect with them deeper as a character, but take them away from the players input and they are a nothing character.

I guess what im trying to to say is yes, player input is a valid form of characterisation, but only for you personally, it doesnt apply to every version of that character, hence trying to say that they are one of the best characters in x, is a meaningless statement.

 

[LaoJim]

Yet I feel that the actions taken by her, even if they were player directed, were part of her characterization in that she is smart enough to solve the puzzles presented to her and resilient enough survive Aperture Science.

So the question becomes what if the player isn't smart enough to solve the problems. Is Chell then a dull-witted dunce? What if she spends all her time murdering companion-cube after companion cube? What about the hundreds of times on your play-through when she died horribly?

It reminds me about Dara O'Briain's classic routine about Metal Gear Solid. Snake's character is supposed to be a highly effective secret agents, "but we've reviewed the security footage, and his performance in the field was erratic at best".

 

[Hawki]

I don't agree that gameplay is really a basis for characterization. Following the same logic, I can just as easily claim that Mario is a mass murderer who kills his victims by either jumping on them or setting them on fire, and is a psychopath for the lack of remorse he shows.

Chell works fine as a player character - she never speaks, the view never leaves her viewpoint, so the player is free to have their own reactions. She's one of the (IMO) few examples of a silent protagonist done right. However, I cannot call her a good character in of herself because any actual characterization is non-existent bar what the player makes up. And what an individual makes up or chooses to interpret is fine and dandy, but has no bearing on the actual product in of itself. Or if it is, then anyone can claim "x is the greatest story ever" because of the way they choose to interpret it.

 

[Story]

I dont really think player characters that dont have much of a story themselves can be counted among one of the best characters. Yeah you can characterize them yourself, but that means that theres a million different interpretations of the character.
Take for example Dark Souls, the player character the Chosen Undead. When I play through the game I can make up a million compelling stories for him. He could be a former knight of Astora, cast into the undead asylum when he was afflicted with the curse. After travelling in Lordran he could join the Darkmoon Blades, as he harbours exceptional hatred for those who would plunder humanity and souls from those weaker than them, and eventually link the flame because he feels like the world he has is the one he wants to protect.

Thats one possible interpretation for the player character. Yes their own lack of story may allow us to imprint personalities onto them and connect with them deeper as a character, but take them away from the players input and they are a nothing character.

I guess what im trying to to say is yes, player input is a valid form of characterisation, but only for you personally, it doesnt apply to every version of that character, hence trying to say that they are one of the best characters in x, is a meaningless statement.

Fair points. I wasn't claiming that characters who are defined by gameplay only are the best characters ever. If only because what is the best is purely subjective. I was defending someone's choice, another claimed that they had no character at all, but I feel they are because player input characterizes them in the game. (Though I was later reminded that Chell actually quite a bit of obscured back story if you dig around, so she's also characterized by the narrative as well, however briefly.)
I completely agree that games are experiential and that what one player experiences is different from another player. This does make characterization through gameplay difficult to define. You used the Dark Souls character as an example, that's actually a pretty linear game. I'll do you one farther and say Skyrim's Dragonborn is mostly characterized by the actions of the player and the game space allows for any number of role playing stories for him/her. However, there are typically narrative restrictions in a game as well as win states and failure states that direct were the player is suppose to be, even in Skyrim and Dark Souls. Anything done to finish the main story of the game, were player reaches the proper end state, in these cases are more canonical because most players experience these.

I suppose I should have been more clear and stated that Gameplay is the only way to define a character, narrative will always play a role in it.
I wouldn't even say they are nothing characters either. If you don't play the game and were able to some how progress, wouldn't they make them characterized by narrative only? at that point you have a movie told through the first person.

 

[Azahul]

For the most part, I found Bastion a fairly average game. There is a bit at the end though, where something you can do fundamentally changes how the game plays for a short sequence, that I found truly affecting. It's characterisation-through-gameplay at its finest by, effectively, not playing the game (or at least not playing its combat).

The second point happens way too often, people call that Ludonarrative Dissonance. It can be very annoying. That's actually my problem with Bioshock Infinite.

I do dislike people holding that up as a criticism of Bioshock Infinite. The game makes it pretty clear that Booker is something of a monster for his actions in the gameplay. The reason for the ending was, in part, to undo all the carnage and destruction that unfolded as a result of actually playing the game. The gameplay was both tied into the story and used as a way to help characterise Booker, it really doesn't fit the tag of "Ludonarrative Dissonance".

Actually, Bioshock Infinite has another good example of characterisation through gameplay. It's possible to run through the whole of the DLC where you play as Elizabeth without killing anyone. In fact, the game rather encourages it, making the straight combat fights harder and ammo far more limited, changing how melee attacks work, and giving a different Plasmid/Vigour set that emphasises stealth and escape over killing. The way Elizabeth plays feels immediately different from Booker, and helps to make it clear that you're playing someone different.

 

[MetalShadowChaos]

I think this is more towards Mechanics as Metaphor, which Extra Creditz did a thing on that everyone should watch.

Essentially, you CAN characterise people through gameplay, though it's usually pretty apparent when this is being ATTEMPTED. It's less about what the players DOES and more about what the player CAN DO, and how that reflects their character. At it's simplest, it's having the quiet one in an RPG party be the stealth-based fighter, or the supportive one be the healer, but there are much more advanced, much cleverer ways of using the idea that really add to a game and characterisation.

Alpha Protocol, while far from perfect, illustrates this in a pretty good way, in that your dialogue choices will give you bonuses based on your personality. You'll get different bonuses for being suave, aggressive or even cowardly.

Mr Azahul here also mentions another example in regards to Elizabeth in Infinite, what she can DO is very different to what Booker can DO. Different characters can be given different abilities that encourage a different playstyle, and that playstyle can mirror the character you're playing as.

Mechanics as Metaphor is a really REALLY good way to do characterisation in videogames because it's a form of characterisation you can ONLY do in videogames. It's a great way to up the immersion factor of a game as well as providing a much more personal connection to your characters.

 

[Story]

I think this is more towards Mechanics as Metaphor, which Extra Creditz did a thing on that everyone should watch.

Essentially, you CAN characterise people through gameplay, though it's usually pretty apparent when this is being ATTEMPTED. It's less about what the players DOES and more about what the player CAN DO, and how that reflects their character. At it's simplest, it's having the quiet one in an RPG party be the stealth-based fighter, or the supportive one be the healer, but there are much more advanced, much cleverer ways of using the idea that really add to a game and characterisation.

Alpha Protocol, while far from perfect, illustrates this in a pretty good way, in that your dialogue choices will give you bonuses based on your personality. You'll get different bonuses for being suave, aggressive or even cowardly.

Mr Azahul here also mentions another example in regards to Elizabeth in Infinite, what she can DO is very different to what Booker can DO. Different characters can be given different abilities that encourage a different playstyle, and that playstyle can mirror the character you're playing as.

Mechanics as Metaphor is a really REALLY good way to do characterisation in videogames because it's a form of characterisation you can ONLY do in videogames. It's a great way to up the immersion factor of a game as well as providing a much more personal connection to your characters.

You know this was exactly what I was looking for! I thought it was weird that couldn't find an Extra Credits video on this topic. Thanks very much for correcting my terminology.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The thing is, it's all you. The only thing that defines Chell is your actions... You take those away and she might as well not exist.

For example, a character like Wander from Shadow of the Colossus has very little character as well, but he still has a set primary goal and attachments; He's off to travel to a forsaken land together with his loyal companion Agro to try and revive a deceased loved one. From there the gameplay starts to characterize that which has already been established.

I mean, can you describe any part of Chell's character that's not player driven or based on her looks?

 

[Ryan Hughes]

So back in the "Best Female character in Recent Gaming" topic I defended someone's opinion of Chell and Samuas being good characters. Someone pointed out that Chell in particular couldn't be because she's just the player avatar. Yet I feel that the actions taken by her, even if they were player directed, were part of her characterization in that she is smart enough to solve the puzzles presented to her and resilient enough survive Aperture Science.

This question has been discussed at length in academia, not because of games, but because of Fairy Tales. Bruno Bettleheim wrote at length about his use of fairy tales in his treatment of traumatized children. Basically stating that some of the more generic fairy tale heroes/heroines were effective in allowing his patients to project themselves onto that character. This then allows the metaphors of the story to work as a type of therapy for the child. I suggest that anyone interested read his Uses of Enchantment.

That is to say that the characters are characters, but also blank persona for psychological projection. The two uses not being mutually exclusive to one another. Clearly, games -particularly thanks to Valve- are tending to the "blank persona" approach to character. It is interesting that Gordon Freeman is one of the most popular characters in gaming, but only his hands have ever appeared within the text of the games themselves, aside from that, he is a persona.

However, it is important to note that this approach has its artistic and philosophical limitations: We are not traumatized children (hopefully) and adults have many tools for literal communication that children do not. The reason fairy tales were so effective for Dr. Bettleheim was because of the lack of literal communicative tools that children often possess. When addressing complex moral and philosophical theories, the high-allegorical approach begins to break down. For example, look at the work of George Orwell. His metaphors are transparent and comparatively leave little room for individual interpretation, but the complex insight into the topics he addresses would be difficult -if not impossible- using full allegory or blank persona.

In this sense, I am concerned about the path games are taking. It requires a skilled artist to use only the allegorical approach, and even then, their options are limited. Also, narrowing our aesthetics in this way may unfairly ostracize artists that do not rely on heavy metaphor or allegory. In the end, these approaches are often used as excuses for lazy and thoughtless writing, leading to characters that are nothing more than vehicles for wish-fulfillment.

EDIT:
Also, try not to use the term "Ludonarrative Dissonance," as I am pretty sure someone just made that up to try to sound smart. When people use the term, they either mean simply poor game design, or they are referring to something like the literary technique of the "unreliable narrator." I think Booker from Bioshock Infinite clear fits in with the latter, but it is really up to the individual player to judge which is which.

 

[Fox12]

Here's the thing, I don't consider player avatars to be "characters" at all, since their essentially you. They lack personal agency outside of you. There's a writing rule that says that the more developed a character is, the less the reader will be able to personally associate with them. They may do things the reader would never do, which may create a gap between reader and character, even if you get that characters thoughts. They're a separate person. Alternatively, the less developed a character is, the more identifiable they are. Bella, from Twilight, has a pretty bland personality, making her identifiable. Who doesn't associate with figures like superman, or Luke skywalker? They represent the qualities we all aspire to, and most people can relate to them. It would be harder to relate to someone like Rorshack or Ozzymandias. This is because Rorshack is a character, and superman is an archetype. Characters create controversy, because different people may side with different characters. I've seen people side with Rorshack or defend Ozzy, or criticize both. This is because they have unique identities, and not everything they do is agreeable. The same could be said for characters like Guts, from Berserk. Even when I understood him, I didn't always agree with him.

The same holds true for player avatars, even ones like Commander Shepard. They aren't really characters at all. That doesn't mean they don't have value as art, though. Player avatars allow the game to have a direct dialogue with YOU as a player. A character would make a choice himself. In Mass Effect, for instance, YOU have to decide whether or not to cure the genophage. There's no clear good or evil choice. The game forces you to question your own moral truths, and explore the implications of your actions. The same is true for The Walking Dead, where you have to make difficult choices, then live with the outcome. This allows for a different kind of artistic story telling then we've ever seen before from a different medium, and forces us to redefine what proper story telling and art is. However, none of the protagonists above can be considered characters, even if their game has artistic, philosophical, and cultural value. This goes for people like Chell, Link, Gordon Freemen, Doom Guy, and others.

As for characterizing someone through game play, I would say that The Last of Us excelled at this. When you play as the little girl at the beginning of the game, you have no way to defend yourself. You have to rely on others to protect you, which makes you subconsciously sympathize with her situation, because you're experiencing what she is experiencing. When you switch to her father, you still can't defend yourself, because you're carrying his daughter. You still depend on someone else to protect you, which makes you feel vulnerable. If the writers did their jobs right then you also like his daughters character, and desire to protect her, even though you know you can't. This makes you sympathize with his situation, then, as you mirror his feelings. At the end of the game you play as Ellie, during the winter sections. It is hard to see during the blizzard, and it's easy to get lost. I actually got turned around. You have ineffective weapons, and you're outnumbered. You've been depending on your listening ability the entire game, but that's been taken away, because it now blends into the background, making you feel disoriented and paranoid, since you no longer no where the enemy is. This makes you sympathize with Ellies situation. When she tries to move a heavy object, you'll notice it's actually harder for her, and takes longer, because she's fourteen, and not a muscled old man like Joel. These difference tell you about the characters, and make you sympathize with who they are in a very indirect way. The game doesn't tell you about them through dialogue, it literally informs you about them through gameplay. For the first time we can literally step into another persons shoes. Despite this, Joel and Ellie are still well defined characters who make their own choices, completely independent of the players beliefs or feelings. A lot of people dislike Joel's decision at the end of the game. That separation only further defines Joel as a character with his own motives and opinions.

 

[Hawki]

I mean, can you describe any part of Chell's character that's not player driven or based on her looks?

No. Which is why I stated earlier that Chell isn't really a character, or at the least, isn't a characterized one. Any characterization is inferred by her actions, which are done by the player. Ergo, any characterization of Chell is done by the player within their own mind. Ergo, she is not her own character.

It's another reason why I like Shepard. Yes, Shepard's actions are at the behest of the player, but still retains a core characterization outside said player's actions. Shepard will still obey Anderson, still go after Saren, still obey the Illusive Man, etc. The player has agency over facets of the character, but Shepard remains a character in his/her own right to an extent, because there are actions and dialogue that the player doesn't control.

 

[Hawki]

Of the above points about Chell, most of those are defined by narrative (daughter/potato) or the lack of it (silent protagonist). That is characterization, but not through gameplay. It is through plot that still exists regardless of what the gamer does with Chell.

And yes, there is a difference. In theatre, a character has dialogue. A theatre character is their own entity separate from the audience. The audience has no control. So even if the character doesn't say a word, we can still infer character from their actions from an outside perspective, actions that are varied, and with the option of subtltety (e.g. facial expressions that change). With Chell on the other hand, her mindset is unknown and at the player's discretion, and her actions are limited to a set of imputs. Yes, she goes from point a to point b, but that doesn't say anything. Is she enjoying herself? Quivering in fear? Does she know why she's here, or is she in the dark as much as the player is? We don't know. So while that works in a player character sense, it doesn't make her characterized in of herself.

Using another FPS example, take John-117 from Halo. The first mission of the first game. I can infer the following about his character:

-Loyal, follows orders willingly (no talkback to Keyes)
-Has a sense of humour (jokes with Cortana)
-Isn't totally heartless (comforts the terrified marine)

In-between this he's killing Covenant left, right, and centre. These are actions that fit in with point 1 (loyal), but aren't characterization in of themselves. It's gameplay. And gameplay in of itself isn't characterization. It's establishment of in-universe abilities at best.

Or, using a final example, Sonic, from the very first game. The only time he's characterized is when the player lets him linger, and he starts tapping his foot impatiently. That is characterization, because it shows a personality outside the player's control, and conveys that he's impatient. But controlling him and going from point a (start of the game) to point b (end of the game) is not characterization in of itself, it's simply a goal that has to be accomplished, Sonic's motives for which can only be guessed at (unless you read the manual I guess).

 

[Story]

I can't really respond to everyone at length, but I am loving these points and critiques. They have given me a lot to think about and consider.

EDIT:
Also, try not to use the term "Ludonarrative Dissonance," as I am pretty sure someone just made that up to try to sound smart. When people use the term, they either mean simply poor game design, or they are referring to something like the literary technique of the "unreliable narrator." I think Booker from Bioshock Infinite clear fits in with the latter, but it is really up to the individual player to judge which is which.

While your perspective was interesting, I don't think you can imply the way games present their narrative with the way written books or fairy tales have to convey their narrative. My point is that people and developers can characterize their subjects, and world, through ludic elements or "gameplay". Something that is difficult to find in most other media because games are more experiential. It also in general often goes unnoticed by the audience and sometimes the developers.

Also, I recognize that "ludonarrative dissonance" is a clunky term but I think it is fine to use. It quite literally describes what it is. Ludo meaning "gameplay" and narrative along with "dissonance" meaning to clash. So gameplay and narrative clashing with each other. To me, it is a specific type of poor game design and while it can relate to an unreliable narrator, it is not related to that exclusively.

 

[Vigormortis]

Questions to discuss:
How do you all feel about Gameplay, this case I mean input from the player, as a form of characterization?

When done will, it's brilliant. It can lead to incredibly deep characterization through pure subtly. But, only if coupled with well designed environmental inferences.

Do you think it is an interesting perspective when evaluating the motivations or interests in video game characters within their universes?

Like before, yes, but only when it's done well and with a proper mixture of subtly and nuance.

Can characters like Chell from Portal have personalities even though the player was the cause of most of her choices?

Yes, but they are often a mixture of the intended personality from the writers and the personality of the player.

It can be a tricky process attempting to give the character specific personality traits and goals that don't clash with the wide range of possible traits and goals any give player can bring to the experience.

What about games only told through a first-person perspective, does the player avatar (like in Skyrim) have character as well?

Only if the writers are utilizing the NPCs and environmental designs to infer specific character traits about the player character. With properly scripted interactions, contextual clues, and back story, the traits and personality of the player character can be deduced. And, if done well enough, can even be compounded by the player's personality.

It takes a bit of effort on the players part, as well as the writers, but when done properly it can lead to just as much characterization as straight exposition.

 

[Vigormortis]

I mean, can you describe any part of Chell's character that's not player driven or based on her looks?

Actually, yes. I can.

She's the daughter of an esteemed scientist, one she has a strong devotion to. She has a propensity for science, whether as a result of her upbringing or some natural inclination. She's extremely strong willed and determined, almost to a fault. She has an uncanny problem-solving ability that's emboldened by her refusal to accept defeat. She hates robots and refuses to speak to them.

All of that, like her other traits, can be deduced from environmental clues and the dialogue of the NPCs around her.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

I can't really respond to everyone at length, but I am loving these points and critiques. They have given me a lot to think about and consider.

While your perspective was interesting, I don't think you can imply the way games present their narrative with the way written books or fairy tales have to convey their narrative. My point is that people and developers can characterize their subjects, and world, through ludic elements or "gameplay". Something that is difficult to find in most other media because games are more experiential. It also in general often goes unnoticed by the audience and sometimes the developers.

Also, I recognize that "ludonarrative dissonance" is a clunky term but I think it is fine to use. It quite literally describes what it is. Ludo meaning "gameplay" and narrative along with "dissonance" meaning to clash. So gameplay and narrative clashing with each other. To me, it is a specific type of poor game design and while it can relate to an unreliable narrator, it is not related to that exclusively.

Right. There is no doubt that games differ from other mediums, and I certainly wasn't ignoring the title of the thread. It is just that to give a greater explanation would require a wall of text so large it wouldn't fit on most screens. So, I addressed only one point within the subject to save space. However different games may be, though, there is no doubt that the basic concepts are still closely related to other mediums. This is universal as new mediums emerge, and games are no exception. Early photography emulated still-life paintings. Early film emulated still photography and theater. And games -once they became capable of narrative- took their narrative queues largely from film and literature. Thus, their narrative systems are still intimately related, and I would argue that throughout the history of games, their narrative has run closest to that of the fairy tale.

Of course, by using gameplay to develop character, games could be finding their own footing as a truly unique medium, but this process has only just begun, and it will require much of the blank persona from fairy tales to achieve. Again, I would recommend Uses of Enchantment, I would give some quotes here, but unfortunately I lost my copy years ago.

"Dissonance" is a great word, and that is exactly why it should never be used in the proximity of a nonsense word like "Ludonarrative." I recommend George Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language as he explains in detail why Latin prefixes are employed by people who do not know how to communicate properly. This one is only about 6 pages and is available online. http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

EDIT
To go on a bit further: Valve can pull off its silent protagonists well, as there are some skilled artists there. One thing that needs to be brought up though is that Bettleheim found that the gender of the main character had almost no effect whatsoever on the patient's attachment or utilization of the fairy tale. At times, differences could be seen: Snow White pricking her finger and bleeding -he theorized- helped girls come to terms with their menstruation and puberty in general. But overall, gender had little effect on the therapy.

This is obviously not understood in the game industry, however. And I fear that many of these writers are utilizing techniques they do not understand, nor that they care to learn about or research. Whatever the path gameplay as character development may take, I don't trust people like that to make any sort of artistic breakthrough.

Moreover, this trend towards the silent protagonist leaves out much that gaming has already accomplished in terms of story. Silent Hill would not really have worked without giving voice to James Sunderland or Heather Mason. Deus Ex would have been much more shallow -I feel- if Denton was silent, etc.