RPGs can't be art without character development.

[Jerubbaal]

Your definition of "art" is far too narrow, and while certain games have more artistic value than others, the overwhelming majority of games have at least some artistic value. Bioshock, in spite of its flaws, tried to express certain ideas about very important ideas like objectivity, capitalism, and more. Saying that RPGs need a specific type of character development to be art is just setting yourself up for failure in this thread. Especially when discussing a game that is far more FPS than it is RPG.

 

[Savagezion]

I know this probably won't be a popular opinion here, but I don't think games are art yet. I'm starting to be convinced that they can get there, but there's one big problem they'll have to overcome first-- games that allow you to make choices for your character disallow or actively discourage character development.

-snip-

Lots of games (read: every game with a morality-meter ever) give actual gameplay benefits for playing a static character.

-snip-

The point is, character development is a cornerstone of the narrative arts, and if games want to join that pantheon they'll need to find a way to incorporate it. One easy way would be to yank control of the character away from the player and make a linear game where the character develops without your input, but that's no fun-- why not just make it a movie instead? The great thing about Bioshock wasn't that it had a great story, it was that it had a great story that could only ever reach its full potential as a game (for reasons too spoilery to discuss in detail). Games are right to allow choice, but they should also let people change.

So effectively we are seeing that it isn't how linear a game is but the morality system in play that is ruining character development and I agree. I am a big fan of character development and it is the main thing I pay attention to when I experience a story involving characters. That said, characters are not always the most important part of a story.

However, one thing I notice is that you are only paying attention to the main character in your examples as if all the other characters are less important or irrelevant to this topic. When I think the other characters (NPCs) are more important than the main character. Mass Effect did this right to an extent - they got more right than most games out there today. (Or as right as you can get with a morality meter.)

Choice being present in a game actually allows for even better character development than normal as you can come at the character from multiple angles as opposed to just one. Additionally, many linear RPGs (read: most JRPGs) have a hard time properly displaying emotion by creating scenes that are ridiculously contrived. Linearity falls victim to contrived stories as much as morality meters fall victim to forcing you down a static path.

I despise the common argument that linearity = better story as it just simply isn't true and no logic can support such a claim. Otherwise, EVERY movie ever made has a better story than any game that offers choice. A story with choice offered to the player is an even better vessel for a story as it can be viewed from multiple angles. So a good story will be displayed better if the player has the option to look at it from many different angles rather than just one.

 

[Jerubbaal]

So effectively we are seeing that it isn't how linear a game is but the morality system in play that is ruining character development and I agree. I am a big fan of character development and it is the main thing I pay attention to when I experience a story involving characters. That said, characters are not always the most important part of a story.

Character development and morality systems aren't the same thing. That's a big flaw in both your post and the OP. While bad morality systems can hurt character development, you're missing the point that they are a very small part of the overall character's person.

In a game like Deus Ex, there is no morality system. But the way that you choose to complete a mission in and of itself says a lot about who you are, and when you get to the part where you can choose from three endings, you'll find that one of them particularly resonates with you. Often, though not always, this will have a little bit of correlation to the way you approached the missions and objectives earlier in the game. Also, my decisions regarding my brother Paul and the character Tracer Tong had a big effect in this regard, and I had come to trust their judgement a great deal, in spite of them being imaginary characters.

So we see that with no morality system in a fairly linear game (in spite of the differing methods it gave for completing objectives, it was pretty linear), we have a great deal of character development.

Choice being present in a game actually allows for even better character development than normal as you can come at the character from multiple angles as opposed to just one. Additionally, many linear RPGs (read: most JRPGs) have a hard time properly displaying emotion by creating scenes that are ridiculously contrived. Linearity falls victim to contrived stories as much as morality meters fall victim to forcing you down a static path.

Choice can make for better character development, but a well-designed linear narrative can do the same thing. Earthbound and Mother 3 come to mind as excellent examples of this. The game is written in such a way that the vast majority of players will resonate quite a bit with Ness and Lucas, and they will also come to gain affection for the characters in the story. The games offer virtually no moral choices, but they still convey what I personally believe is the best-told story in video game history (Mother 3's story, not Earthbound's, though that one was great too).

I despise the common argument that linearity = better story as it just simply isn't true and no logic can support such a claim. Otherwise, EVERY movie ever made has a better story than any game that offers choice. A story with choice offered to the player is an even better vessel for a story as it can be viewed from multiple angles. So a good story will be displayed better if the player has the option to look at it from many different angles rather than just one.

You're taking one claim, viz.: that linearity is always better, and responding with the equally ridiculous claim that choice is always better. The answer is neither, and it honestly depends on the game and what the developer feels is the best way to convey the story.

 

[Savagezion]

So effectively we are seeing that it isn't how linear a game is but the morality system in play that is ruining character development and I agree. I am a big fan of character development and it is the main thing I pay attention to when I experience a story involving characters. That said, characters are not always the most important part of a story.

Character development and morality systems aren't the same thing. That's a big flaw in both your post and the OP. While bad morality systems can hurt character development, you're missing the point that they are a very small part of the overall character's person.

No, I am not. I know they are not the same thing and you even agree that they can negatively effect character development - the same exact thing you just quoted from me. In most games that use a morality system it negatively impact character development because the characters development in relation to the story is being guided by some contrived morality that is not in line with the morality of the player or the other characters in the game. This usually leads to NPC characters that overall have no convictions or motives for their actions when viewing the content as a whole. This destroys the characters as characters because the NPC from your game is not the same person as the NPC from my game. This automatically removes the attribute of "character" and instead gives them the label of "plot progression asset".

In a game like Deus Ex, there is no morality system. But the way that you choose to complete a mission in and of itself says a lot about who you are, and when you get to the part where you can choose from three endings, you'll find that one of them particularly resonates with you. Often, though not always, this will have a little bit of correlation to the way you approached the missions and objectives earlier in the game. Also, my decisions regarding my brother Paul and the character Tracer Tong had a big effect in this regard, and I had come to trust their judgement a great deal, in spite of them being imaginary characters.

So we see that with no morality system in a fairly linear game (in spite of the differing methods it gave for completing objectives, it was pretty linear), we have a great deal of character development.

So, where did I contradict that exactly? Read the first sentence in that exact quote again. "it isn't how linear a game is but the morality system in play that is ruining character development" and you say I am wrong and use a game without a morality system to prove it? You just regurgitated what I said with an example.

Choice being present in a game actually allows for even better character development than normal as you can come at the character from multiple angles as opposed to just one. Additionally, many linear RPGs (read: most JRPGs) have a hard time properly displaying emotion by creating scenes that are ridiculously contrived. Linearity falls victim to contrived stories as much as morality meters fall victim to forcing you down a static path.

Choice can make for better character development, but a well-designed linear narrative can do the same thing. Earthbound and Mother 3 come to mind as excellent examples of this. The game is written in such a way that the vast majority of players will resonate quite a bit with Ness and Lucas, and they will also come to gain affection for the characters in the story. The games offer virtually no moral choices, but they still convey what I personally believe is the best-told story in video game history (Mother 3's story, not Earthbound's, though that one was great too).

I never said "always does" - I said it "allows" for even better development. A good story is a good story and good characters are good characters and choice vs. linearity have no impact on that. Every video game ever is going to be linear to a degree. Because the responses must be pre-scripted. Because of this, choices in RPGs are more like faucets than content disruptors. It is just a way to offer multiple vantage points to view the same content. A truly well written character can be viewed from more than 1 perspective to appear "fully realised". In a linear game with none of this you see the character from 1 angle, in 1 form of lighting, under 1 set of circumstances. That is much easier to fall victim to "contrived" characters than someone trying to give you multiple ways to see the character.

I despise the common argument that linearity = better story as it just simply isn't true and no logic can support such a claim. Otherwise, EVERY movie ever made has a better story than any game that offers choice. A story with choice offered to the player is an even better vessel for a story as it can be viewed from multiple angles. So a good story will be displayed better if the player has the option to look at it from many different angles rather than just one.

You're taking one claim, viz.: that linearity is always better, and responding with the equally ridiculous claim that choice is always better. The answer is neither, and it honestly depends on the game and what the developer feels is the best way to convey the story.

No, I am saying that choice is the better vessel as it can display more than linearity can. I am not saying that choice automatically offers better writing. As not everyone will use it properly or perhaps even needs to. But the option to show multiple angles on the same content is undoubtedly the model that allows for better in-depth writing. A good linear story will be amplified through choice given that the choices are given just as much attention as the original story. Morality systems currently are screwing this feature up on a regular basis. The downside to these multiple perspectives given to choice is that it will fully display how poorly you have developed your characters as well. A game with poor characters (ex:inFamous) is going to put that on display for everyone to see using this system.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I know Bioshock isn't an RPG. The fact that the gaming part is done with guns and not dice rolls isn't relevant to the narrative structure.

What does that have to do with RPGs? Bioshock's protagonist has no character development because it isn't ABOUT the protagonist. Even his fucking NAME isn't mentioned in-game. He Literally has no character model [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsrWHwaB8KA&feature=player_embedded].

Bioshock's story is about Rapture, it's founders and the philosophy behind it and them. It never pretended to be anything different.

 

[Bajinga]

I saw the word "choices" in Luke Bean's first comment. I immediately came to think of this episode of, what is now, Extra Credits:



You can see the points he raises and the games that Daniel mentions. They all have a great storyline, and could be considered art. He makes great arguments (If you can call them that) showing that morality is something that can be implemented greatly to show the player what the game is really made of.

 

[Binerexis]

In relation to the title, we can also all say that Paintings aren't art unless they're done on canvas.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

What? No. You're mad. You don't necessarily need character development for it to be art. The world that's been created, the messages that it shows can make it art. I don't really understand your reasoning that it can't be art if there's no character development.

You've just taken one aspect of some stories and said that all stories must have it. Which is stupid.