Killing off the Protagonist = Cheap Storytelling?

[CarlsonAndPeeters]

This topic is kind of hard to talk about, because it inherently involves spoilers. So for now I'll speak in vague, non-committal terms.

I just beat a game where the protagonist dies, and I got a strong emotional response from the story. I felt...I don't know, touched, kind of. I realized then that this has happened in a lot of games, including:

Spoiler

Infamous 2, Red Dead Redemption, and my all-time-favorite Shadow of the Colossus (basically)

It made me wonder...why did I have these strong emotional responses in pretty much every game where the protagonist dies? Did these games just have really really good writers? Or does killing off the protagonist inherently cause the player sadness, because the player IS the protagonist? I'm sure you could botch that up by making a shitty game, but in an average to good game the player should feel a connection.

My question is, does that make killing off the protagonist a "cheap" or easy way to create an emotional response? Or does it take talent to illicit that kind of response? Or something in between?

Thoughts are appreciated (and watch out for spoilers)

 

[Outcast107]

It depends on the game/plot.

Spoiler

Like in RDR, it was a great ending but also very sad. Its about a man who as trying to correct his mistake in his life and teach his son about doing things right the first time. It shows that the past will catch up to us and it isn't going to be pretty.

 

[The Madman]

Not at all. To make that particular narrative trick work you've got to make the player care about the character first after all, otherwise there's no real point to it. Though I can think of at least one game that tries and fails at it anyway.

Sometimes people dislike the practice of killing off protagonist in books because it's considered a 'cheap way out' if the author happens to have written themselves into a corner, but that's not nearly as common in games because... well... bluntly put most game plots are shit.

 

[badgersprite]

Depends on execution. Killing off a protagonist can be very effective, for the simple reason that it violates the one rule people tend to associate with storytelling - the main character can't die. No main character, no one to tell the story.

Can it just be done cheaply and ineffectively for no purpose other than shock value? Sure, but so can lots of other techniques. It can also be done in a meaningful way that represents the completion of a character's journey from, say, selfish to selfless. Also, it depends on context. If every game kills off their protagonist, it becomes a lot less impactful and seems a lot more manipulative and trite when it happens.

So, yeah, on its own, it's not bad, but it depends on how it's used.

 

[Zantos]

I don't think it's cheap whenever I've seen it. Whenever it's happened to me it's been really well done and emotive. It could be used like that, but if it has I've never seen it.

 

[Alssadar]

I personally think that killing the main protagonist is a good storytelling technique.
Thinking about it from a character perspective, it means the character often had something they thought was worth more than their personal life, which can form a good emotional response. It shows dedication to their cause, even if they must suffer.
Taking my personal experience with the death of a character (From Cowboy Bebop) I have realized that the death of the character also can show how the character truly was in their last moments, greedy, regretful, angry, or happy, to show us more about the character we played/watched/read, to whether our thoughts about them were true or false.
Plus, it stops a sequel of a game that wasn't good and--oh wait, Force Unleashed 2? He was cloned? BS!

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Done at the end of a game, it can be great.

Spoiler

Like Red Dead Redemption

Done at the beginning, not so much.

Spoiler

Like Mass Effect 2. The impact is cheapened when you're up and running five minutes later

But it boils down to the execution most of the time.

 

[Katana314]

Arrrgh, I kinda thought I had played all games you'd be referencing, but I hadn't. Now one of them's spoiled for me.

It does kind of frustrate me, and the game needs to be sure that its positive-quality emotional impact is stronger than that frustration, especially since logically, the fact that you're in control should kind of prevent you from going down that path. SOTC forced you to do one thing, and then seemed to call you a dick for it and punished you for doing so by killing you.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Saying that this kind of plot twist is INHERENTLY cheap story telling would be ridiculous. It COULD be used cheaply, but it could also be done well, depending on the execution.

I...think this is kind of obvious, isn't it?

 

[Fugitive Panda]

Usually when your hero dies, it's symbolic of something. Sometimes your hero is a self-sacrificing messiah figure, who spends the game making the world a better place, but has no place in it, or it's done to drive home the 'anyone can die' feeling, by taking away the person you took for granted all the way here.

Either way, it's never really 'cheap', unless they just unceremoniously drop a bridge on him and expect you to bawl. You can easily find some sort of meaning behind it.

Of course, some methods are better than others. My personal favorites are when a death really adds depth to the character in retrospect, or when it's used to really make something seem larger than life, like in...

Spoiler

Persona 3. Admit it; your first time through, you probably didn't give those risks a second thought. It's just a game about Japanese high school students fighting slime monsters, after all. Even all that foreboding talk about the inevitability of death was just flavour text, right? And all the build up around Nyx, the physical incarnation of death itself? Bull, it's a video game, you can beat the last boss, no matter how much you're told otherwise.

Until suddenly you can't beat the last boss, and your team of ace shadow exterminators are squirming around on the floor like maggots while your hero, chosen by complete coincidence, raises up and makes that ultimate sacrifice. Not to defeat the evil, but to seal it away, because even then, that's all your can manage.

And then you go back and make all the connections, and notice how all that Arcana talk wasn't just flavour text either. Your silent, mysterious hero, has been steadily progressing through the Arcana - the different stages of life - throughout the game. And what comes after life? Suddenly your hero goes from a standard silent protagonist, to an almost tragic figure who spent his time imbuing peace and meaning in others, forging bonds with them, and then having to depart. And the kicker is that the hero was put in this situation by complete coincidence, it could've been anyone. But having experienced all aspects of life, he makes the ultimate sacrifice of his own free will. It was really the only way the story could end.

Classic messiah figure, and a shining example of one done well.

Man, that was longer than I thought it'd be, and there are plenty of other examples I'd love to get into.

Maybe I'll start a blog.

 

[Zhukov]

No.

It still takes skill in the execution.

For example, killing the protagonist of the first game listed by the OP had no emotional impact on my. I didn't care one bit about that guy, so my reaction consisted of, "Right, he's dead, good riddance, credits please." Although some of the NPC deaths did have a bit of impact. They were much more interesting and likable characters.

 

[FalloutJack]

You're not going to argue the end of Persona 3 with me. That's a losing proposition for even making me think about it in the context of this thread.

 

[efeat]

My question is, does that make killing off the protagonist a "cheap" or easy way to create an emotional response? Or does it take talent to illicit that kind of response? Or something in between?

Killing off the protagonist is an easy to way have a shock factor, but it takes some talent and skill to do it well. Here's a completely spoiler-free example from a game I recently played.

I was playing a game called "Super Quest" and it was pretty neat. It had a main character named "Joebob" whom I liked. In the game, a bad person casted a spell on Joebob, but nobody knew what it did! Through their adventures, the rest of the party grew attached to Joebob, even though nobody knew the exact nature of the spell. Near the end of the game, Joebob learned its true purpose. The spell would eat his soul and leave him a mindless husk, a shell of who he once was. Joebob decided not to tell anybody this. After the final struggle, he helped everybody escape the collapsing structure. As the last party member left, he promised he'd be right behind them. Unfortunately, that promise was never to be fulfilled, as Joebob accepted death in that moment.
This was awesome because the character's death was a final act of defiance against the antagonist. Through death, his soul was released, and escaped the effect of the spell. Not only that, it gave closure to the game (which may or may not have been part of a series) even though it wasn't the fairy tale "hero takes all" ending people may have been hoping for.

Obviously, those names are fake and I'm intentionally leaving out lots of details, but you get the gist of it. Also, using a spoiler tag is worthless for this thread, because you won't know if it's a spoiler until you see the game title. At which point, it's too late.

 

[electronicgoat]

I guess you could consider it "cheap" as in the story focused the most on making you care about that character, but it's mostly a valid method of story telling. Hell, if the game is a RPG, I encourage it. At the end of a story, there is always a small sense of letting go of your character, and that his/her story has ended. What better way to do this than his/her inevitable (excluding immortal protagonists) death?
I guess the main difference between the protagonist's death and the "everyone goes home" ending is a) the sequel, a continuation of the story, or b) you don't see the death happen.

I still would like to see an "everyone goes home" ending have the death of the protagonist if they plan to do nothing else with the story. It provides a much stronger sense of finality (in my opinion) and it brings out a stronger sense of emotional response based on seeing the death. If your character was say, a badass thief, then you should get to see his final undoing at the hands of fate; some sort of fatal misstep. If your character was the obvious good guy hero type, then you should get to see him retired, married to the love interest, watching his children and grandchildren grow up, until one day, he is old and has to ascend to the higher plane. Or, hell, it can even provide one final twist; he falls to the superior skill and weaponry of a bunch of criminals.

All types of media have been doing this for a while, and it's a great habit in my opinion. Companies that aren't sequel greedy should do this as much as they feel is necessary.

 

[Hatter]

Dammit, i'll never assume that I already know spoiler content again...

OT: Anything can really be considered a cliche if you look at it that way. Good story telling really depends on whether or not it's, well... told well, not what happens. If I were to say that Joe was born into a hard life, joe worked hard, slayed the dragon, got the girl, and then died, well that's not a very good story, however all of those things are usually major plot points in a lot of REALLY good stories.

It takes talent to make those strong emotional ties with characters, so if they die, and you wish they hadn't, then you know you just read a good book, or played a good game, etc.

 

[Richardplex]

Arrrgh, I kinda thought I had played all games you'd be referencing, but I hadn't. Now one of them's spoiled for me.

It does kind of frustrate me, and the game needs to be sure that its positive-quality emotional impact is stronger than that frustration, especially since logically, the fact that you're in control should kind of prevent you from going down that path. SOTC forced you to do one thing, and then seemed to call you a dick for it and punished you for doing so by killing you.

Smashing my head against desk, trying to forget the first one. Forget, damn it, FORGET!

OT: It prevents there being sequels, it's pretty dangerous doing so. The reward for the risk is that if your emotionally attached to the character, it can pretty emotional. If not, then it's cheap. So it compliments good storytelling and it's cheap in bad storytelling.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Not really. As with all games, it has to do with how it is handled. You still have to be attached to the character. While yes, that bit in Modern Warfare was shocking, it was not exactly sad. Never cared for the character. Couldn't even give you his name if you asked. If Dom & Marcus died in GOW3 would I shed a tear? No, because I am not attached to the characters. Now, if we take something else like say... oh, I don't know... Agent York from Deadly Premonition perhaps (Note: This is not a spoiler. York does not die in the game. Go play this game anyway. It rocks), I would be sad because I was actually attached to the character. The game has too make you get attached to the character in order for you to care what happens to them, which is a challenge in and of itself.

 

[jackpackage200]

Spoilers - LA Noire killed cole phelps and i coulden't be happier - Spoilers

 

[PleasantKenobi]

Minor Spoilers.

Most people have summarised that the particular plot point of killing the protagonist can be good or bad, depending on the quality of prior chracterisation and story telling.

One of my biggest grievances with modern video games is when a series I enjoy, with a character I am at least slightly or even majorly attached to and invested in suggests a death only to snatch it away from you. Here comes the spoilers, and I don't know how to hide them:

Halo 3: Master Cheif's death would have been better than his suppossed escape and survival to allow for a sequel.

and, Metal Gear Solid 4: It feigned Snake's death several times, only to show he wasn't moments later. Snake is one of my favourite characters ever, and as a previous poster made reference to, he is associated with a particularly tragic archetype of heroics; he saves the world time and time again, only to bring about a new world to which he does not belong. So when he brings himself to end his life in the cemetary in MGS4, I wish they did. It felt cheap that they didn't. But then there is the defensive argument that MGS4 was firmly tongue in cheak for the most part, and because of such the prolonging of his life may be a parody of contemporary video game narrative convention. Who knows? I just felt cheated.