The Death of Character in Gaming.

[Ambitiousmould]

I find myself saying this more and more recently but I honestly think that Ben Kerry from ArmA 3 is a genuinely good character. Not mind blowing, but I think people would be pleasantly surprised. His character and personality is well established. He is a respectful fellow, but is light-hearted and is quite often prone to sarcasm and complaining to himself. And generic though this may sound, in the context he is in, it is actually well executed, for instance, when he goes through quite a lot of shit for an objective, then gets a sudden change of orders form a British officer whose command he is now under, he goes 'Sir, but, I... ugh, goddamn Brits' (or something to that effect). But when the situation changes to one of real emergency or trauma etc., he clearly displays some real emotions, such as when:

when his sergeant gets killed by stepping on a landmine, and he goes something like 'SHIT! Sgt. Adams?! Sir?!' and then slowly pulls himself back together after being told that the enemy will be there soon.

So say what you want about modern military shooters in this topic, but ArmA 3 proves that they can come up with some good characters.

 

[Something Amyss]

you must read some damn good books...(heheh kidding) no they arent as complex as say...the guy from Lolita but I think "shit" is being a tad harsh

"Shit" may be harsh (and he did draw it back), but the best characters in video games rarely break out of "B" movie material.

I mean, I'm not even talking great literature or fine cinema, most characters have character that rival the pizza guy in a 90s porn flick and the best ones are usually up to about a Steven Segal movie. I mean, I haven't played TWD, so maybe it's the one instance where the characters who are praised are truly praiseworthy, but for the most part...Eh.

There's a reason Gordon Freeman and Link top the "best heroes/protagonists/whatever" lists often, though (especially fan ones, not so much critic ones to my knowledge): like porn, the characters for the most part don't matter. People would rather imprint on a Gordon or Link. And that's fine. It's also antithetical to this thread.

to me this isn't a problem with gaming "becoming art" this is a problem with the retarded practices of the upper end of the AAA side of things

I mean just look at the Watch Dogs trailer...did you manage to remain awake?

You mean "standard popcorn flick thriller plot #8?" Oi with the poodles already.

....I shouldn't do this, but....

A second one is allowing the player to have unrealistic choices in the characters actions (Aka Mass Effect). Seriously you really need to have middle ground if you go that route instead of the broken Good/evil thing.

You can't be serious. Mass Effect's choices are often more "be a dick" and "don't be a dick." Few of them are even of consequence. Pick a different target if that's your bugbear.

Probably the most ineffective of all is the blank slate character (aka any character creation that has NO effect on the game. I say not completely because some games get that right, aka Saint's Row).

I'd say the opposite. The Saints Row series is the ultimate in your character creation not mattering. And it still presents a character. Just not one of your choosing.

Some of you can easily say you hate her as a character. That's good, i'm glad you have personal taste but I can proudly say at least my character was a character.

By definition, all characters are characters. And before you say "that's not what I meant," let me just say:

The problem with you definition of character is you haven't really offered up a specific definition of character. Just that Lammy has it and all those soulless cash grabs since don't. You give a few platitudes, but even then none which really describe the quality of character.

I'm going to have to agree she's a character like all characters, but disagree with any meaningful use of the word.

 

[gargantual]

There are three dimensional characters in games. even in the 6th and 7th gens with all their cut-scenes have had some revealing moments. Unfortunately game-play systems weren't initiated for a lot of them, and the format of big budget story driven action games, isn't currently catered to allow for the type of character exposition that's as fleshed out as film and books,


but character can be revealed through more than conversational quirks, and dramatic dialogue.
Some presets of a game character, and the way they play also suggest much about them.

Besides. What really makes three dimensional anyways?

1st dimension. Their immediate attitude and persona (shaped from experiences b4 the start)
2nd dimension, their motives and truth that lie under it, revealed.
3rd dimension, signs of change, growth and evolution, due to challenge or conflict.

Hell even Jason Brody in Far Cry 3 arguably had that to a degree. (again not the most fleshed out game character, but what more would you expect with a rich "valley"-kid stuck on a slave trading island with only his naivety to reference to?

For the mountain of one note stereotype, I would think 20 some odd years of hundreds of games (especially narrative driven ones) would leave a lot of diamonds in the rough. Despite the flying-blind approach that game developers have taken to plot, and its a learning process.

Hell You can have too much of the opposite in film, like too much talking head scenes, where the suspense is buried in labored discussion (I.E. Attack of The Clones) where you'd rather just see some light sabers going.

But yeah you're getting old. We're all getting old. I get it, looking behind the puppet show and seeing all the strings isn't a comforting experience for you because the magic's gone, but think of why any person dedicated themselves as a fan of an artform, knowing all of its flaws. I'm sure Appreciation can be more than surface level.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Could someone delete my post, please?

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

The very best characters that gaming has to offer manage to be two-note and entertaining. And that's basically it. It's nice and all, but it's nothing to be proud of. In a more mature medium they'd be laughed out of town as childish cardboard cutouts primarily created to fellate the player. / Every so often I'll manage to convince myself that, no really, gaming has awesome characters! Then I'll go and read a book and be sharply reminded just how pitifully low our sorry standards are.

I've read a fair few of your posts around here, and you're a smart guy, but c'mon... The ol' let's play compare to other mediums and especially books thing? One is neither worse or better - they're two distinct mediums with their separate - and immensely varied - strengths, weaknesses, and goals. It's all about how they're used, in achieving a given effect.

Some authors focus on organic character narrative. Some feature them as barely-there ciphers for conceptual or thematic demands. Some are bold and almost one-note, others are nuanced and contrary. All of these things make up what characters are and can be in a book.

Is a David Gemmell character worse or better than a J.G.Ballard one? Or do they service different goals as per the tone and 'purpose' of the book? Orwell's 1984 is a bit of a crap book in general, as fiction and character narrative goes. But its characters serve as icons to (fairly didactically) illustrate ideological realities. It's a classic which is never judged on its characters (having 'better' characters in 1984 would arguably have hurt its impact).

Videogames are a young medium, and it's only in the last decade where - I believe - they've truly begun to embrace their potential. But that potential is unique to its own medium. There'll be crossover, sure, simply because of how culture/art works as expressions of human nature. Games have various ways of imparting character narrative or detail.

Which brings me to:

The posts preceding my own only further reinforce my opinion. I mean, Christ, someone is citing L4D's Zoey as a good character? Lara fricken Croft? That one guy from Halo 4. The FFXIII cast? Horrors above.

I absolutely am citing Zoey as an example of great characterisation in gaming.

As this post outlines:

What's wrong with Zoey? She fits perfectly into the game world, her reactions are for the most part realistic, she makes a good player avatar... / As a character she fits naturally and perfectly in the world and game that she's placed in. Honestly if I had to choose an example of how to write an effective player-controlled character in a videogame that isn't mute, Zoey would be pretty close to the top of my list.

For one, she's strongly realised; top notch voice work from Jen Taylor, and well written by Valve. The simplicity and normality of her visual design adds to it, too.

Is she a 'deep' character intended to explore fancy themes? No, because it's a game about shooting zombies with your mates... And yet, we see L4D's characters in various psychological and emotional states - from idly chatting about hatred of vans right through to life or death terror and loss. It's character narrative through contexts, and through interaction.

I think Zoey's the best example by far in that game, but it works as a dynamic, too. We hear how the group interacts, and this reveals nuggets of details and adds genuine texture to who these people are - or were. Unlike many other characters in games or films, or books (lots of films and books have shite characterisation), they are allowed to be irreverent, witty, satisfied, anguished, strong, weak, vulnerable, elated, despondent. And all of it arises contextually, dependent on gameplay. That's pretty frikkin' great design.

EDIT: Also the function of a character in a game is completely different to that of a character in a film or novel (which is exactly why Booker, Elizabeth and Lara don't work for me.) This isn't a bad thing, it's just a different medium.

I won't go into a full textwall outlining why I picked Lara, Elizabeth and Booker, but I don't think there should ever be one form of definition for what character in gaming means - which appears to be what you're doing. As I said above; the role of characters is varied within mediums - and gaming is no different (and all forms are valid).

I think the 'problem' with player characters doing things you wouldn't is a ridiculous criticism. I am not Booker, or Captain Walker, or Lara. Those games aren't about what I would do - they're about what created characters would do. Stepping in to Captain Walker's shoes made for a particularly horrific experience, and Spec Ops The Line's commentary on pop-violence (in games, in films, in our culture and society in general) could not have been done if the 'character' was just the player, given freedom over their actions.

(and it's not fair to comment on Lara if you've not seen out her arc. chances are - if you didn't enjoy the game or her at the beginning - you'll never take to her, but at least play the whole thing out before dismissing my pick. there are some issues with how she's portrayed throughout, but for me she absolutely fits the bill as a character who I believe in and can relate to)

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

(and it's not fair to comment on Lara if you've not seen out her arc. chances are - if you didn't enjoy the game or her at the beginning - you'll never take to her, but at least play the whole thing out before dismissing my pick. there are some issues with how she's portrayed throughout, but for me she absolutely fits the bill as a character who I believe in and can relate to)

Ok, let's take that last point first.

I have no doubt that Lara has an "arc" as such - heck, she had the beginnings of one even in the section of the game I was in - my problem was that for the part of the game I played it didn't work, at all, in any way. I don't want there to be any ambiguity about this. I don't want to give the impression that "yeah, she was a bit inconsistent, but there were good parts". There weren't any good parts that I could see. The character, as she's portrayed in the first three or so hours of the game, just does not work on any level that I would judge her by. She doesn't work as a player avatar, she doesn't work as a consistent character, she doesn't work within the game world.

Even if you can take the constant bitching and the screaming (and I can't), can you take that she's effectively superwoman yet constantly needs to remind herself of her own mortality, or that killing things effectively churns her stomach in cutscenes yet she's got no problems picking off fifty scurvy pirates with a bow when you're controlling her? She's never affected by injury or illness the same way that the other characters are, in fact her character doesn't seem to follow any of the rules that their characters do in terms of how the world affects them. I think Nerd Cubed put this in his video better than I ever could, but I agree 100% with him.

And yeah... it might get better later on... but honestly... I can't. I just can't. I played three hours of the game and it was painfully awful. Very little about the mechanics, the setting or the main character appealed to me in any way. The only thing I can think of that was positive is that I kinda liked the progression system... other than that, I got nothing. Anyway, I have no desire to go back to see if the rest of it improves any time soon.

Next point:

I think the 'problem' with player characters doing things you wouldn't is a ridiculous criticism. I am not Booker, or Captain Walker, or Lara.

To an extent I'd agree with you here. I think I gave the impression in my last post that this is a criticism that should be applied consistently to every game or game type, and that's wrong. I haven't placed "Spec Ops" but, knowing enough about what type of story it tells, I can imagine that Captain Walker in particular would do a lot of things that I wouldn't, but I also think that the actions the player takes would make total sense within the game's world, and that the player would appreciate this. The same thing does not apply to the actions of Booker, Lara, or Elizabeth.

But my specific problem with Booker is that his "character" takes over to the point where my actions in the game have zero effect on anything. It's like he's making all the decisions and I'm given a bit of fighting to do, y'know, to distract me from the important stuff. I'm the damn protagonist. It's supposed to be MY story, not his. If the game doesn't allow me that experience then, by my personal standards of interactive media (and I realise not everyone will agree with them), the game has failed. I've made the comparison to "Bastion", another game with a linear storyline, before. In "Bastion", although the story is linear, I always felt that I was the one driving it forward, that my actions had consequences. I never felt that way in "Bioshock: Infinite". Never felt as though I had any place in the world at all. The "main character" of any game that's ever existed is the person or people who are playing it.

Stepping in to Captain Walker's shoes made for a particularly horrific experience, and Spec Ops The Line's commentary on pop-violence (in games, in films, in our culture and society in general) could not have been done if the 'character' was just the player, given freedom over their actions.

But wasn't that exactly the point of Spec-Ops? I haven't played it so I obviously can't comment on it from the player's standpoint, but my understanding from the publicity surrounding it is that it's the player themselves who has to make the conscious decision to do all of the horrible things within this game, and that it's a searing commentary on other games where this kind of thing is just accepted as the norm without any kind of moral examination. (The same is exactly true of "System Shock 2" by the way - even when you know that your actions are dictated by a monster, you have no choice but to continue, unless you want to quit completely. The difference is that this is fully justified in the game's world, and adds rather than detracts from the player experience.)

I don't think there should ever be one form of definition for what character in gaming means - which appears to be what you're doing.

I think there's a fairly good catch-all, and you've provided it yourself:

We hear how the group interacts, and this reveals nuggets of details and adds genuine texture to who these people are - or were. Unlike many other characters in games or films, or books (lots of films and books have shite characterisation), they are allowed to be irreverent, witty, satisfied, anguished, strong, weak, vulnerable, elated, despondent. And all of it arises contextually, dependent on gameplay. That's pretty frikkin' great design.

And there it is. It's ALL about the gameplay. Again, it's an interactive medium. Trying to tell the story of a character on screen completely misses that point. It's about the PLAYER'S journey, about their experience. Whether they're protagonist characters or NPCs, whether you agree with their actions or not, the overriding point is that characters in games are successful when they add to that experience, and fail when they detract from it. What "adds" or "detracts" varies from person to person, of course (hence the fact that you like Lara and I, at least for as long as I tried to play that game, couldn't stand her), but if there's one hard-and-fast rule, that would be it.

 

[Bocaj2000]

World/lore then characters then story.

I'm sorry, but I have to reverse this:
-You develop the story first so that you have an established theme, tone, and mood. You also have direction for the player character as well as their journey.
-(This is technically part of 'story', but I'll include it for your sake) Then characters that will assist the player to their end goal. These characters must aid the theme, tone, and mood while being interesting and engaging.
-Last is the environment and lore to create atmosphere and cement the theme, tone, and mood. This is also the stage where all of the design choices will take place. Although this is very important, constructing this first would be backwards.

I agree with your problem, but I think that it stems from a lack of tone that many games have. For example, the reason Spec Ops: The Line is a classic is because it followed this order.

 

[dyre]

*shrug*

As someone who reads a fair few books, I regard all characters in gaming as, well... shit.

(EDIT: Okay, "shit" is being needlessly harsh. Let's go with "lacking". Very lacking.)

The very best characters that gaming has to offer manage to be two-note and entertaining. And that's basically it. It's nice and all, but it's nothing to be proud of. In a more mature medium they'd be laughed out of town as childish cardboard cutouts primarily created to fellate the player.

And this isn't an attack on modern gaming. I'm talking about old games as well. Hell, if anything, the characters in old games were significantly worse.

Every so often I'll manage to convince myself that, no really, gaming has awesome characters! Then I'll go and read a book and be sharply reminded just how pitifully low our sorry standards are.

The posts preceding my own only further reinforce my opinion. I mean, Christ, someone is citing L4D's Zoey as a good character? Lara fricken Croft? That one guy from Halo 4. The FFXIII cast? Horrors above.

Come on, Planescape Torment had some great characters. And The Witcher 2 had some good characters too.

I also read quite often - and actually literature, mind you, not just escapist genre trash - but it's not fair to compare the two mediums...literature is a purer form of storytelling; characters are essential in good novels. Video games have a totally different set of priorities...they need to keep the gamer interested and excited, and subtle character development just isn't good for that. One needs a great deal more patience to read The Remains of the Day than to play an action RPG.

Popular examples like Booker and Elizabeth (not sure why Lara gets mentioned...she has no personality at all) are incomparable to Jane Eyre and Mr Rochester, but that isn't to say they aren't are solid characters in the context of an action-adventure genre piece. I think if Bioshock Infinite was turned into a book with the same caliber of writing as the game, the characters would be better than the average novel in that genre.

 

[Ishal]

*shrug*

As someone who reads a fair few books, I regard all characters in gaming as, well... shit.

(EDIT: Okay, "shit" is being needlessly harsh. Let's go with "lacking". Very lacking.)

The very best characters that gaming has to offer manage to be two-note and entertaining. And that's basically it. It's nice and all, but it's nothing to be proud of. In a more mature medium they'd be laughed out of town as childish cardboard cutouts primarily created to fellate the player.

And this isn't an attack on modern gaming. I'm talking about old games as well. Hell, if anything, the characters in old games were significantly worse.

Every so often I'll manage to convince myself that, no really, gaming has awesome characters! Then I'll go and read a book and be sharply reminded just how pitifully low our sorry standards are.

The posts preceding my own only further reinforce my opinion. I mean, Christ, someone is citing L4D's Zoey as a good character? Lara fricken Croft? That one guy from Halo 4. The FFXIII cast? Horrors above.

It's almost as if gaming's strengths are elsewhere... other than trying to be things it's not. Huh...

Imagine that.

But even so. Different mediums with different priorities. "Fellating the character," as you couch it, is necessary in most games. That's the genre.

The more I read these "from on high" snarky comparisons the more it just makes me wish we could stop this pointless dick measuring contest with other mediums.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

When someone starts lamenting characters or story in a game I hate to remind folks that for the most part games didn't have much in the way of story or character development or even depth for many many years. I'd say it wasn't til the late 90's that gaming caught on to telling big stories (aside from point and click adventures) and fleshing out characters more. Mostly games were player-centric and focused on the game mechanics, possibly why so many of us who grew up in the 80's-90's era of gaming have so many fond memories, the developers weren't so concerned with character development as they were making a solid game that was fun to play.
Now I hear folk crying how an aspect of gaming that hasn't even been around as long as we sometimes think it has, may have stagnated... sigh.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Now I hear folk crying how an aspect of gaming that hasn't even been around as long as we sometimes think it has, may have stagnated... sigh.

Well I don't know what games the OP has played 10 or 20 years ago, but I'd say, in general, characters (and stories) in games have definitely been improving over the years. There's still a lot of work left to do in order to catch up with movies, sure, but still.

I'm happy about any halfway decent game character I get. Hopefully happy enough to encourage writers to continue to improve, but not happy enough for them to become complacent.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

stuff about nu-Lara

This thread isn't about diving into the minutiae of each character. We disagree subjectively about whether she worked or not (and the game, seemingly. it's one of my gen highlights), and it's not easy to talk about it with someone who hasn't seen the whole thing through (more on that later... ). If you'd like to hear why I think she's a superb character, then fire me a PM.

I haven't placed "Spec Ops" but, knowing enough about what type of story it tells, I can imagine that Captain Walker in particular would do a lot of things that I wouldn't, but I also think that the actions the player takes would make total sense within the game's world, and that the player would appreciate this.

Please don't try to discuss an example which you've not experienced in full, based upon reactions of reviewers or other players - every example I listed came from games I've played through at least once in full (but most were multiples runs). Otherwise it's just conjecture which can never constitute a discussion.

But my specific problem with Booker is that his "character" takes over to the point where my actions in the game have zero effect on anything. It's like he's making all the decisions and I'm given a bit of fighting to do, y'know, to distract me from the important stuff. I'm the damn protagonist. It's supposed to be MY story, not his.

I didn't feel that, and I disagree. Some games feature emergent gameplay and emergent narrative - Skyrim's a decent example. Such IP's are biased towards player freedom - that's their schtick. The same can't be - and I don't think ever has been - said about the BioShock series, which can perhaps be most accurately seen as a narrative of a place; Rapture in the first, Columbia in the third.

The major difference between 1 and 3 was obviously of voice acted PC's. This changes how the player associates with their role in the game. But whilst Infinite is certainly more linear, I never felt I 'was' Jack. Not once. I was participating in a much larger narrative, that explored ideas as well as individual character motivations. The player was just along for the ride, as in Infinite.

Stepping in to Captain Walker's shoes made for a particularly horrific experience, and Spec Ops The Line's commentary on pop-violence (in games, in films, in our culture and society in general) could not have been done if the 'character' was just the player, given freedom over their actions.

But wasn't that exactly the point of Spec-Ops? I haven't played it so I obviously can't comment on it from the player's standpoint, but my understanding from the publicity surrounding it is that it's the player themselves who has to make the conscious decision to do all of the horrible things within this game, and that it's a searing commentary on other games where this kind of thing is just accepted as the norm without any kind of moral examination.

...seriously, just don't do that. Play the thing and then comment on it!

Spec Ops The Line is art, ergo there may be multiple readings, and I personally think the critical understanding of it has been patchy. For me, Spec Ops explores player choice, essentially by not giving you any and making sure you're very aware of that. If anything, its end point is that the only real agency a player ever has is to physically put the pad down and walk away (presumably after turning the TV and console off.. ). In games with conventionally linear narrative structures the player never has any real choice (Half-Life 2 is a masterpiece of how to maintain the illusion of player freedom).

It manipulates our assumptions of moral certitude at the beginning and then--- well, I'd start to stray into spoiler territory. Let's just say that I reckon one of the most important and relevant mission prompts 'in game' is a single word: Obey. The character giving the orders - and the game - are not treating Walker as a character in a fictionalised and coherent reality; that word's for us, the player, always complicit in Walker's journey.

And there it is. It's ALL about the gameplay. Again, it's an interactive medium. Trying to tell the story of a character on screen completely misses that point. It's about the PLAYER'S journey, about their experience.

And this is pretty much the core of the issue. You're right in that I cited Zoey/L4D as a means of exposition-via-context/gameplay, but I did so to give an example of the various ways games can impart characterisation.

Zoey can be a player character, an avatar, or even a bot if you're flying solo to learn a map. There is no conventional narrative or plot for her.
Thomas Lasky is mostly (exclusively? I've not played Halo 4 for an age) an NPC seen in cutscenes, who has very little to contribute to the main story - although he plays a crucial role John's arc.
Lee from TWD is arguably the principle lead in an ensemble; we can shape his arc, but not truly control it.
Walker is--- well, he's complicated... A nuanced character, yes, but also a metaphysical cipher for a game about gaming which is about choice where there really is no choice...

All very different, but all - for me - 'successful' examples of characters within gaming.

As I said re literature, characters in novels can be many things. Ditto films. Why are games any different? Does player interaction really determine that player 'centrism' and agency are the defining dramatic or artistic qualities of the medium? I personally think that's a completely ridiculous conclusion which profoundly limits the whole industry.

Games, like every other expression of culture/art, have all kinds of modes and ways of achieving different ends/goals. They are also unique, being both passive and interactive - so they can mix and match depending on their creator's intentions.

but if there's one hard-and-fast rule, that would be it.

I believe--- hyperbole incoming ---when hard-and-fast-rules exist for art - art dies... All creators must be allowed to explore any and all avenues, be it affirming certain ethics, challenging them, or outright denying them.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Snip

Agree about "Spec Ops", obviously. You're citing an example that I haven't played and can only go on what I've read when discussing it... which, plainly, isn't much. As I said. Look, I've laid out exactly what my limitations are in terms of knowledge there. That's why I framed what I said as a question rather than as a statement of knowledge.

And "Half-Life 2" is a perfect example of using a very linear structure and story while still maintaining player agency. It's also one of my favorite games, by the way.

Regarding "Lara", we're not going to agree... let's just say that I think it's a perfect example of what's WRONG with gaming today, and move onto...

"I believe--- hyperbole incoming ---when hard-and-fast-rules exist for art - art dies... All creators must be allowed to explore any and all avenues, be it affirming certain ethics, challenging them, or outright denying them."

Hmmmm... a moving picture should contain moving pictures, sound, or both, and should be engaging, somehow, on some level, to the viewer. A piece of visual art should be a creation that engages somebody visually. And a piece of interactive entertainment should be a piece of art (maybe even that's being too specific, depending on your definition of "art") in which the audience actively participates and contributes to the experience that they have. That's a matter of definition, of semantics, of whatever the heck you want to call it. Anyway, there's your "hard and fast rules" - you have the artist, the art, and the audience. Everything else is extrapolation about the relationship between those three.

So let's extrapolate. Is it unfair to argue that the characters within an interactive medium should primarily or even solely serve the purpose of enhancing the interactive aspect of it? I don't think so. Unless you want a "game" which involves pressing a button every five minutes then watching a repeated video clip of people talking. That might have very good characters, but it would be a really bad game.

But of course what you "get" out of videogames is entirely subjective (as the Lara point proves). It's all very well to say "the interactivity is the most important aspect", but how far do you take that? Well, to me, "Bioshock Infinite" went way too far in the wrong direction. I felt like a passive observer the whole way through. The stuff you actually get to do has no bearing on anything of importance. And the reason for this is because the game isn't interested in letting me make my own story. It wants to tell me the story of Booker DeWitt. It's a very good story (albeit one that's ripped shamelessly, beat for beat, from one of my favorite novels. "Bloodstone" by David Gemmell, if you're interested.) And I DON'T CARE. Because my actions have zero impact on this game's world, or anything else. Booker's character gets in the way of my experience. He doesn't enhance it.

It's a very good story, but it's not my story. And for a piece of interactive media, especially a videogame, this is not good enough. I don't believe that the designer of this game understands the relationship between player and protagonist. Either that or he just does not respect the player. In which case, why should I respect his story? (And yes, I'm totally astonished that THIS game came from THIS designer. Especially given his history. But that's what I feel.)

 

[Eve Charm]

Eh it's more likely if you believe that "in the good old days characters were better" it's more because now and age today, when they write a character, they fully write a character, or at least enough you don't leave it to an imagination, or your allowed free reign to create your character completely. It's much easier to talk about an character with others that's in itself a character even tho you don't know much, rather then " oh what did you make your skyrim character" and argue more on how you think they should be.

Mario, link or sonic even though they all had at least six games under their belt up in the 90's but there wasn't much to them at all. Characters like any belmoth became really badass because " he killed dracula " to the point people didn't even know most of the time it wasn't the same one. Also it's not like "Call of duty guy" is ever gonna get a cartoon show after him ;p

A written character is only as good as it's writing but an mysterious character that's badass is as good as you can imagine them to be. Case and point, Samus Aran. No way in hell when they gave her a story would it be anything close to what people have been making up in their head for 10-20 years.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, one of the reasons why Bioware really irritated me with "Dragon Age 2" and "Mass Effect 3" was that I really liked the characters they created in those series, and it really irritated me when they ruined things. It wasn't anyone in particular, but on some levels the ensemble cast was like visiting old friends. I get some of this from "Star Wars: The Old Republic" as well with your crew members, which is why I still drop by once in a while. Bioware has been good at this kind of thing, and truthfully if I hadn't loved their work I wouldn't have the sheer depth of hatred for them that I do now.

Blizzard also created some very distinctive characters through StarCraft, Diablo, Warcraft, etc... Raynor and Kerrigan, the various angels and Dekard Cain in Diablo, etc.. To be honest due to the development in "Warcraft III" I was quite motivated in WoW up to the point where I got to drop Arthas, and actually found it a bit touching to visit Uther's Memorial, and notice little touches here and there connected to things that had happened before, and see various characters from earlier quests show up in different places. To me a lot of that fell apart after "Lich King", not only did my guild collapse (bringing about my retirement) I just didn't feel the same motivation to fight Deathwing, or explore Panda Land. For me, finally saving the world from Arthas was more or less the proper end of the story, everything else after that was just dragging it on too long for the sake of dragging it on, it began to lack the
same personality and charm. What's more as time went on the quests got worse, we started with quests with personality like the one that inspired this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-SJ9xey_1Q that was actually epic, powerful stuff, which is why it could inspire things like that from fans. Not so much with "Kung Fu Panda: The Expansion Pack"

To me a character doesn't have to be deep or multi-faceted, even a totally one note and stereotypical character can be awesome and memorable if it's done well. I think this a big part of why "Final Fantasy VII" has lived on so long, individually some of the characters are kind of irksome, but taken as a whole group they are kind of appealing so it's neat when they get recycled into different things, of course this is very old.

Tastes vary, there is a lot of bad writing out there, but some really good stuff as well, a lot of it depends on your luck in picking games.

 

[carnex]

Games opened new ways to create compelling characters but in the same time created a slew of new problems with characters due to it being the first medium where audience has direct influence, often greater than creator on how the character is perceived. There are only four ways to deal with the problem the way I see it.

First one is to ignore player actions and build characters regardless of interactive parts. Most games act like this since it's the easiest path and gives both gameplay and storyline greatest freedom. Perfect example of this behavior is new Tomb Raider. It's easily least engaging method but also creates largest bang for buck.

Second is to incorporate character generation into game play with or without additional development through cut scenes. This is the trickiest in terms of design unless you are making a psycho or otherwise violent character due to games relaying on conflict for player engagement 90+ percent of times. For the rest characters you either have to be really creative or restrict player freedom to a large extent. Perfect example of this are point and click adventures and music and rhythm games like UnJammer Lemmy. Or Papers Please and Cart Life in newer games.

Third is to leave character to player. Everything he does and every line of dialogue is either influenced by his action or his choice. This is my favorite way of creating a character but it's also most demanding one in time and money spent. Every character I created this way is character I remember most fondly or with most disgust since I tailored it to my specific sensibilities.

And fourth is to say, to hell with story and character and go with gameplay. Mario and Sonic (pre-talky BS) are perfect example. They have certain traits and that's it. The rest is not necessary and actually would drag the game down.

And it was like that from the moment game systems and computers had enough power to deliver coherent and compelling storyline. I don't see how good old days could have more compelling character. If anything these days games are burdened with unnecessary characterization and story.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

I have noticed a major conflict here, regarding how a person defines a "good" video game character. Personal opinion seems to lie on one side or the other of the "well-written/appropriate to the game" divide. Some people like characters like Booker and Elizabeth from Bioshock: Infinite, while others deride them as not fitting into the world of the game, or not being effective vessels for player immersion.

So, your opinion on whether a character is good or not seems to often come down to what you find important in interactive storytelling. Some people are taken out of the experience and the investment in the story if the character they are controlling makes a decision they find stupid or unreasonable. Other people don't care if their avatar in the game has flaws and does things they wouldn't do, as long as it goes toward creating a realistic and interesting character.

Just goes to show how this issue can not be resolved. It comes down almost entirely to personal taste. I happen to love some video game characters, and while I think they may not be as "well-written" and "literary" as characters in famous novels are, they are still excellent in their own way and I don't think they are less legitimate for being in a video game.

 

[stroopwafel]

I think writing in videogames have definitely improved and games like Human Revolution and Last of Us can easily match the better Hollywood productions. But I think that's also the medium's biggest flaw: the tendency of videogames to imitate a passive 'artform' in order to invoke drama and tell a story(and maybe acquire mainstream acceptance?). Games are not movies and I think its a shame they try so hard to be something they're not. Ever since the advent of FMV story/character driven games basically all have the same structure of gameplay-cutscene-gameplay-cutscene etc. and nothing really takes me more out of the experience than that. Granted games sometimes try to spice things up by adding dialogue options giving you the illusion of choice or having the player trigger scripted events but its always there to passively tell the story, again in a fashion that is just not very well suited to a videogame.

One of the best examples of this is GTA4. On its own it had a good story but the gameplay discredited it entirely. They corrected this with GTA5 by making the player-characters irredeemable scumbags. Love it or hate it, the story needs to suit the gameplay. Ofcourse dissonance between gameplay and story is one thing but it also neglects the one real factor that distinguishes videogames from every other medium: interactivity. The best games have the player's experience tell the story, not a scripted event or cheesy attempt at drama. Games can deliver a sense of place and agency no other medium can, b/c instead of being an observer you're being an active participant.

Also one of the reasons post-apocalyptic themes are so well suited to videogames is exactly this. The aftermath of destruction allows for discovery and storytelling through atmosphere and cues in the environment, something videogames particularly excel at. It's something games as diverse as Fallout 3, Last of Us, Demon's/Dark Souls and Metro Last Light all have in common. All these games have a suggestive and indirect atmosphere which develops through player experience, something a movie or book could never replicate.

Videogames can tell a good story, but if its always attempted to tell it like in a movie it will never reach its full potential.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I have noticed a major conflict here, regarding how a person defines a "good" video game character. Personal opinion seems to lie on one side or the other of the "well-written/appropriate to the game" divide. Some people like characters like Booker and Elizabeth from Bioshock: Infinite, while others deride them as not fitting into the world of the game, or not being effective vessels for player immersion.

So, your opinion on whether a character is good or not seems to often come down to what you find important in interactive storytelling. Some people are taken out of the experience and the investment in the story if the character they are controlling makes a decision they find stupid or unreasonable. Other people don't care if their avatar in the game has flaws and does things they wouldn't do, as long as it goes toward creating a realistic and interesting character.

Just goes to show how this issue can not be resolved. It comes down almost entirely to personal taste. I happen to love some video game characters, and while I think they may not be as "well-written" and "literary" as characters in famous novels are, they are still excellent in their own way and I don't think they are less legitimate for being in a video game.

I think that's basically it right there. Again, exactly how a particular character affects the interactive experience of the gamer depends on the game mechanics, not the character; and how much the gamer finds this ok is obviously completely a subjective point, depending on the gamer's expectations. Plainly a lot of people enjoyed "Bioshock Infinite" more than I did (which, let me make this clear, I don't think is a bad game, although it's not a great one either - it was just a huge personal disappointment to me because of my history with the developer.)

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

I think writing in videogames have definitely improved and games like Human Revolution and Last of Us can easily match the better Hollywood productions. But I think that's also the medium's biggest flaw: the tendency of videogames to imitate a passive 'artform' in order to invoke drama and tell a story(and maybe acquire mainstream acceptance?). Games are not movies and I think its a shame they try so hard to be something they're not. Ever since the advent of FMV story/character driven games basically all have the same structure of gameplay-cutscene-gameplay-cutscene etc. and nothing really takes me more out of the experience than that. Granted games sometimes try to spice things up by adding dialogue options giving you the illusion of choice or having the player trigger scripted events but its always there to passively tell the story, again in a fashion that is just not very well suited to a videogame.

One of the best examples of this is GTA4. On its own it had a good story but the gameplay discredited it entirely. They corrected this with GTA5 by making the player-characters irredeemable scumbags. Love it or hate it, the story needs to suit the gameplay. Ofcourse dissonance between gameplay and story is one thing but it also neglects the one real factor that distinguishes videogames from every other medium: interactivity. The best games have the player's experience tell the story, not a scripted event or cheesy attempt at drama. Games can deliver a sense of place and agency no other medium can, b/c instead of being an observer you're being an active participant.

Also one of the reasons post-apocalyptic themes are so well suited to videogames is exactly this. The aftermath of destruction allows for discovery and storytelling through atmosphere and cues in the environment, something videogames particularly excel at. It's something games as diverse as Fallout 3, Last of Us, Demon's/Dark Souls and Metro Last Light all have in common. All these games have a suggestive and indirect atmosphere which develops through player experience, something a movie or book could never replicate.

Videogames can tell a good story, but if its always attempted to tell it like in a movie it will never reach its full potential.

YES. Thank you, yes.

It is a constant source of annoyance to me about videogames that as the technology gets greater and greater, the games themselves seem to become more and more "safe" and risk-averse. The current way of doing that is to make them into "interactive movies". Again, putting the characters and story ahead of the player experience. Thankfully there are always alternatives - the Bethesda RPGs being my choice - where you feel not only as though you're part of the story, but you have a direct effect on it.

(And again, this doesn't mean that every game has to be open-world or has six hundred different endings. "Half-Life 2" is a fantastic game that's totally linear. But because the player's character has so much agency in the story from the start, even though that story can only go in one direction, it works.)