When Characters in game don't matter

[JaymesFogarty]

From Tomb Raider Angel Of Darkness, the gameplay has become more interesting and varied. Lara as a character isn't very interesting, but the gameplay is good enough to warrant a session playing as a vegetable.

I haven't played TR a lot, so I can't tell. However, I suppose this title is not the first of the series, right? So, don't you think that she was already consolidated as a strong character, even for marketing reasons?

The reason I started with Angel Of Darkness, is that it was the first Lara Croft game I played, and was actually interested in her character. The first four games featured boobs on legs as far as I'm concerned; it was the delicious drama in AOD that started to build her character for me.

You mean you pieced together a story despite all the horrific bugs?

Of course. I suffered through the PS1 days; horribly built games with graphical deformities every few seconds, mission objectives disappearing, save points not loading, and character models and voiceovers not working at all. I suffered through hell those years; I was more than equipped to deal with a few niggles in AOD.

 

[loc978]

That ludologist obviously doesn't see video games as a medium for storytelling. He is provably wrong. All you have to do is look at a list of top-selling games.

...for the record, I've only briefly played Tomb Raider (tried 3 or 4 different titles from the series) or Bayonetta. Neither game held my interest.

 

[Twaddlefish]

From Tomb Raider Angel Of Darkness, the gameplay has become more interesting and varied. Lara as a character isn't very interesting, but the gameplay is good enough to warrant a session playing as a vegetable.

I haven't played TR a lot, so I can't tell. However, I suppose this title is not the first of the series, right? So, don't you think that she was already consolidated as a strong character, even for marketing reasons?

The reason I started with Angel Of Darkness, is that it was the first Lara Croft game I played, and was actually interested in her character. The first four games featured boobs on legs as far as I'm concerned; it was the delicious drama in AOD that started to build her character for me.

You mean you pieced together a story despite all the horrific bugs?

Of course. I suffered through the PS1 days; horribly built games with graphical deformities every few seconds, mission objectives disappearing, save points not loading, and character models and voiceovers not working at all. I suffered through hell those years; I was more than equipped to deal with a few niggles in AOD.

You're a better man than I. It was around the point in some warehouse when the puzzle decided to fuck itself I had enough. I never really saw why I needed four different pistols either.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Other games however, such as Assassins'S Creed & Uncharted feature well-developed characters; you couldn't play the game without them.

Really? In Assassin's Creed II you're playing as a completely different character to Assassin's Creed I and it's still exactly the same...

 

[Rock Beefchest]

Heavy Rain, I didn't give a f*** about the characters but the stroy was beyond great.

This doesn't make any sense. In heavy rain the characters and the story are irrevocably linked. Without the character development they could not have advanced the story. The example would be the substitution of other characters into the roles of the various parts of Heavy Rain. Such a substitution would make the story not make sense and thus damage the plot.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Other games however, such as Assassins'S Creed & Uncharted feature well-developed characters; you couldn't play the game without them.

Really? In Assassin's Creed II you're playing as a completely different character to Assassin's Creed I and it's still exactly the same...

I'll have to politely disagree there. The gameplay in Assassin'S Creed 2 compared to one is very different for me. The gun and twin blades, although very cool and handy to use, play a very important role in embodying the flamboyancy and passion for the kill in Ezio, as opposed to in the original Assassin'S Creed, where Altair's weapons appropriately suited his cold-hearted murderous personality. I found that several of the missions, such as the ones including Leonardo are missions that are suited to Ezio; I couldn't imagine Altair solving his problems in such a way. Not to mention that the plot is very character focussed; the entire point of the game is to get vengeance on Ezio's family, and that takes around thirty years!

 

[JaymesFogarty]

From Tomb Raider Angel Of Darkness, the gameplay has become more interesting and varied. Lara as a character isn't very interesting, but the gameplay is good enough to warrant a session playing as a vegetable.

I haven't played TR a lot, so I can't tell. However, I suppose this title is not the first of the series, right? So, don't you think that she was already consolidated as a strong character, even for marketing reasons?

The reason I started with Angel Of Darkness, is that it was the first Lara Croft game I played, and was actually interested in her character. The first four games featured boobs on legs as far as I'm concerned; it was the delicious drama in AOD that started to build her character for me.

You mean you pieced together a story despite all the horrific bugs?

Of course. I suffered through the PS1 days; horribly built games with graphical deformities every few seconds, mission objectives disappearing, save points not loading, and character models and voiceovers not working at all. I suffered through hell those years; I was more than equipped to deal with a few niggles in AOD.

You're a better man than I. It was around the point in some warehouse when the puzzle decided to fuck itself I had enough. I never really saw why I needed four different pistols either.

I don't blame you for giving up. I only the completed the game two years ago. After reading about it on the internet, it reminded me that no game I've played so far has bested me, so I went back and completed it. Not worth it though; the ending was shit, and thanks to this new game coming out, the canon has officially been fired! (Get it? GET IT?)

 

[Geekosaurus]

Other games however, such as Assassins'S Creed & Uncharted feature well-developed characters; you couldn't play the game without them.

Really? In Assassin's Creed II you're playing as a completely different character to Assassin's Creed I and it's still exactly the same...

I'll have to politely disagree there. The gameplay in Assassin'S Creed 2 compared to one is very different for me. The gun and twin blades, although very cool and handy to use, play a very important role in embodying the flamboyancy and passion for the kill in Ezio, as opposed to in the original Assassin'S Creed, where Altair's weapons appropriately suited his cold-hearted murderous personality. I found that several of the missions, such as the ones including Leonardo are missions that are suited to Ezio; I couldn't imagine Altair solving his problems in such a way. Not to mention that the plot is very character focussed; the entire point of the game is to get vengeance on Ezio's family, and that takes around thirty years!

It's a shame but I don't agree. Maybe if I bought into the story of the games a little more I would share your opinion.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

I know that Sakura is useless in any given situation, and if they haven't beefed her up in Shippudden, she would just be an arse bouncing round the room.
(And yes, I think she's playable in the Naruto Games).

 

[Sad Face]

I think it depends on the game entirely. The playable characters in games are meant to be an extension of the player in one way or another, but there are some games where character is important and others where it doesn't matter quite so much.

 

[rabidmidget]

The modern game has evolved quite a bit from having the characters and story being a mere setting for the gameplay. Now games are starting to experiment with different story telling techniques, that mix gameplay with story in a much smoother fashion (although cutscenes kind of go against this but that's a different rant). Obviously, the average game has a long way to go, but there is still the occasional, shining example.

Also, what about RPGs, where the main gameplay element of the game isn't actually the combat, but the player's ability to sculpt whatever character they want, through in game choices.

 

[pulse2]

There are characters built around a game and games built around a character.

Say for Gears of war, I have no emotional ties with the characters, so it wouldn't matter to me if Fenix was a frog or a zombie with an anger issue, as long as he/she/it is doing what they do best, tearing locusts apart with chainsaw guns. The same could be said about the likes of Halo Tekken, Tomb Raider games and other similar titles. I think the industry has demonstrated how much we still care for Lara Croft, considering we have Uncharted and Prince of Persia now.

Cod Games are the same, replace tom with bishop and kate with faye and it makes no difference to me, I am here to shoot iraqis / russians, when do I start.

Then you have those games that are based upon character development, take Final Fantasy 7 for example, Sephiroth (while he is a plamnk) IS the villain, replacing him with a clown would not have the same dramatic effect of evilness, as with Joker is to batman, replacing Joker with masterchief would definitely be noticed. Other such games include Duke Nukem (before he dissappeared for years) as a Duke Nukem game was....well a Duke Nukem game, it was classed as an FPS, be we know it as a Duke Nukem game, simply because Duke is so bad ass and memorable. I can't think of many other FPS characters like him if any at all.

This is why character development is important, but the problem here is that when a character is focused on more than the gameplay, when the characters story comes to an end, so too does the gameplay. Take God of War for example, Kratos IS the God of War, and he's so kick ass that he's killed all living things. Even if you could, how would you create a spin off of that, the conclusin is that everything dies because of Kratos. The only way you could continue that game of chess is if you chose a different mythology and created a different angry character to go with it....and we all know how well Dantes Inferno performed ¬_¬


So yeah, that theory is flawed.

 

[clarissa]

The point of Tomb Raider and Bayonetta are booooobs (pretty sure you picked out those two for example is because of this). There ARE games where the characters can be replaced but only as an ingame model and everything else stays the same.
eg. in CoD you can't see yourself (at least in SP, in MP other guys can see you) but I'm pretty sure that's not what you're talking about.

Actually, I chose Bayonetta because it is a game in which the characters really matters. I couldn't care less for her boods. I care about the whole thing she represents inside the game. And I must confess that one thing that made me enjoy this game so much was her. I have never "met" such type of character ("bitches", in other words) that could be good characters. That really called my attention.
For me, Bayonetta is one of the pieces that keep the elements of the game together: she is a strong character, and a strong representation in playability.
Also, I thought about Bayonetta because it is an action game as well.

 

[clarissa]

from looking at your examples (lara and bayonetta) i think your missing the point. these two arent good characters, they're chicks with impossible sex appeal. now, if you were to ask if i'd still play Heavy Rain or The World Ends With You if the characters were replaced with mindless cows, then i'd say no and call you an idiot (no offense).

as for the chess player, i'd say he hasnt played the right games to be able to make a statement like that.

Those were not my examples. I also agree with you.
I used Bayonetta as an example because it is an action game which I really played. I don't know much about TR (the ludologist's original example), so I tried to think about somethin I really played.
Anyway, thanks for your contribution.

 

[clarissa]

There are characters built around a game and games built around a character.

Say for Gears of war, I have no emotional ties with the characters, so it wouldn't matter to me if Fenix was a frog or a zombie with an anger issue, as long as he/she/it is doing what they do best, tearing locusts apart with chainsaw guns. The same could be said about the likes of Halo Tekken, Tomb Raider games and other similar titles. I think the industry has demonstrated how much we still care for Lara Croft, considering we have Uncharted and Prince of Persia now.

Cod Games are the same, replace tom with bishop and kate with faye and it makes no difference to me, I am here to shoot iraqis / russians, when do I start.

Then you have those games that are based upon character development, take Final Fantasy 7 for example, Sephiroth (while he is a plamnk) IS the villain, replacing him with a clown would not have the same dramatic effect of evilness, as with Joker is to batman, replacing Joker with masterchief would definitely be noticed. Other such games include Duke Nukem (before he dissappeared for years) as a Duke Nukem game was....well a Duke Nukem game, it was classed as an FPS, be we know it as a Duke Nukem game, simply because Duke is so bad ass and memorable. I can't think of many other FPS characters like him if any at all.

This is why character development is important, but the problem here is that when a character is focused on more than the gameplay, when the characters story comes to an end, so too does the gameplay. Take God of War for example, Kratos IS the God of War, and he's so kick ass that he's killed all living things. Even if you could, how would you create a spin off of that, the conclusin is that everything dies because of Kratos. The only way you could continue that game of chess is if you chose a different mythology and created a different angry character to go with it....and we all know how well Dantes Inferno performed ¬_¬


So yeah, that theory is flawed.

Nice explanation. Thank you for your contribution.
This analogy that some games are "built aroudn a character" is some really interesting way to define these games in which characters matter.
I guess generalization is what makes this theory so strange.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Other games however, such as Assassins'S Creed & Uncharted feature well-developed characters; you couldn't play the game without them.

Really? In Assassin's Creed II you're playing as a completely different character to Assassin's Creed I and it's still exactly the same...

I'll have to politely disagree there. The gameplay in Assassin'S Creed 2 compared to one is very different for me. The gun and twin blades, although very cool and handy to use, play a very important role in embodying the flamboyancy and passion for the kill in Ezio, as opposed to in the original Assassin'S Creed, where Altair's weapons appropriately suited his cold-hearted murderous personality. I found that several of the missions, such as the ones including Leonardo are missions that are suited to Ezio; I couldn't imagine Altair solving his problems in such a way. Not to mention that the plot is very character focussed; the entire point of the game is to get vengeance on Ezio's family, and that takes around thirty years!

It's a shame but I don't agree. Maybe if I bought into the story of the games a little more I would share your opinion.

Perhaps. Although it is undeniable that Assassin'S Creed 2 changed the formula considerably, compared to Assassin's Creed. Ubisoft definitely worked hard in making that game world, and I did fall in love with it.

 

[Minky_man]

Putting obserdity aside, We are all kinda assuming that we are replacing an already established character and turning them into a Goat or something.

What if, for Example, Assassin's Creed 2 was made with a character named Joaquin who acted like Spiderman (sometimes Gloomy, sometimes happy and jokey, sometimes Badass etc) and had similar moves from Assassin's Creed 1 with some upgrades to gameplay. Would you hate the game? Love it? or would it be the same game to you because you never actually KNEW about some chap named Ezio?

(The above scenario is assuming someone went back in time and made that game using Joaquin, you had no knowledge of the AC2 that was actually released in reality)

I think this is what is meant when talking about "changing" the Character and having the same game. Because really, the games we love and the games we hate, are based on one idea, out of hundreds.

Thoughts?