Great Game Characters Compensate For Plot?

Thanks to the IGDA for their 'Culture Clash' column discussing why interesting game characters make for better games, even if those games have a weak plot. The author gives the intriguing example of Max Payne, suggesting the game is memorable, despite the "relatively cliched" story, because "...the first time we see Max, he's giving up smoking because it's bad for his baby. The second time, he's howling his misery over the loss of his wife. He is a human being with a broken soul, and an enormously compelling and emotionally engaging character." However, games such as Morrowind present the main character as "little more than a cipher through which we experienced the game's story", and it's suggested that this is less successful: "It can be an effective way to craft a powerful narrative, but it's also one that is more likely to fail if poorly executed."

Comments

RPGs?

[trublaha]

I have to agree. With many RPGs where you generate your own character (ie Baldur's Gate, Morrowind, etc.) the main character lacks any identity and it's hard for me as a player to instill any identity in the character I'm playing - it just feels too... well, contrived.

This doesn't apply to all RPGs tho - Planescape Torment had a very intriguing character!

Re:RPGs?

[Goldberg's Pants]

If you create the character, yes, it engages you more. I still have fond memories of "Curse of the Azure Bonds", the old gold box game, and an Elf fighter named "Ted Grunt" who had a pink sword. (No jokes please.)

Characters in video games are mostly dull. In fact if someone said "Quick, name a character from a PC game", the only memorable one for me is Kerrigan in Starcraft. (Memorable for spoilerish reasons that, despite the game being a fair few years old, I won't spoil for anyone).

I fail to see how Max is engaging. For a character to be engaging, you have to spend time with them and become emotionally involved and attached. If the writer bonded with Max Payne instantly... He should probably seek professional help. (As should I, for typoing and saying about the writer boning Max Payne... Freud? Yes, hello, it's me again...")

I can't say I've ever found any video game character particularly engaging. Unless you count annoyance, in which case Tomi Undergallows in Neverwinter Nights wins. ("I can get that open easy!" Yes, well why don't you then instead of just standing there you stupid halfling bastard!)

Re:RPGs?

[der_joachim]

If you create the character, yes, it engages you more.

Except for Planescape:Torment. A character is pre-made for you. You will develop it over time, but you have a name ("nameless one") and an appearance (boy he's ugly). Talking about P:T would be a bit off-topic here. After all, it is a great game with a great plot AND great characters. ;-)

RPGs (in the broader sense) with bad plots can be enjoyable, however. Diablo 2 has a great replay value, because a character can develop in several ways. An amazon can specialize in spear, javelin and archery. Dungeon Siege, apart from being a weak D2 with better graphics, has that same idea, although -like D2- it has a very weak plot. DS character development is more primitive though and that's why I gave it away.

der Joachim

Re:RPGs?

[(trb001)]

I can't speak for all, but Morrowind did that on purpose. Morrowind was supposed to be a completely open ended game...you could play it seemingly forever and still not progress at all on the main quest that would win you the game. Your character in Morrowind actually had a compelling backstory....and the lore surrounding your quest to be named the Hortator and fulfil the prophecy of the Nerevarine was amazing. A good example of how complex the backstory was can is to look at the number of books throughout the game that fill you in on the history of Vvardenfall. Dear god, you couldn't possibly read and comprehend all that information the first time through, it's just too much.

--trb

Re:RPGs?

[Cuthalion]

In fact if someone said "Quick, name a character from a PC game", the only memorable one for me is Kerrigan in Starcraft

Well, if you look in the adventure genre, it's easy, but that's a genre with really strong characters and stories, because they don't try to be open ended.

From just the Moneky Island series alone I can come up with dozens of names, Guybrush Threepwood, Elaine Marley, The Dread Pirate LeChuck, Wally, Largo, Murray the talking Skull, I. Chesse, etc.

Maybe I'm kind of a bad example though. I remember the name of the guy in Out Of This World (Conrad), a game with no dialog at all, and BJ Blaskowitz, the completely unremarkable main character form Escape From Castle Wolfeinstein 3D.

Avatars in the modern RPG

[neostorm]

"...little more than a cipher through which we experienced the game's story", and it's suggested that this is less successful..."

This may be less successful as a standard "character", but that in no way means it should not be done. I personally prefer characters as ciphers, this allows me to become that character. As the article mentioned, the player is no longer watching another being experience this other world while playing out a story; the player *is* that character within that world, and creating that story.

The article is fair enough to mention that the typical "character driven" games like Max Payne (and unlike Morrowind) make for better "narratives" but this is the folly of many game analysts in assuming that all games are driven by narrative. While narrative plays a major part in moving the plot along, a game like Morrowind could easily be considered a simulation of sorts.

Either way, this is highly a matter of taste. I certainly hope I don't see less of this kind of game, and more of the currently popular polygonal cliches, that walk through several hours of cutscenes and constantly spout endlessly repetitive one-liners during gameplay. (Contrary to what I assume is popular belief, constant jabbering by the on screen player characters does not add personality).

Re:Avatars in the modern RPG

[LordLucless]

"I personally prefer characters as ciphers, this allows me to become that character."

Which is fine, until you come across a conversation essential to moving the plot forwards, in which there are no alternatives presented that match your envisioned character. Or you find that your character can't really toss in his lot with the Evil Sorcerer, as he would really like to do.

I commented on this before, waaaaaaay back, when people were bitching about the lack of flexibility in the Japanese-style RPGs like Final Fantasy.

Basically, there's a dichotomy in computer RPGs. On the one hand, you have the plot-driven games, like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, etc. These are the ones that present the characters as mere ciphers. The problem is, even if you really get into the character, as you can in tabletop gaming, the system is not flexible enough to take into account your background. Why does my elven ranger, whose parents were brutally murdered by a bunch of bloodthirsty human peasants not treat humans like scum? Because the background you write for your characters has absolutely no effect on the game. In this sort of a game, the player can mould the character however they wish, but the character may not always fit well into the game.

On the other hand, you have the character-oriented RPGs like Final Fantasy. Here your choice is taken away from you - you can't play Final Fantasy 7 as a 4-foot black midget, you're gonna have to play as a spikey-haired white guy. But because the programmers know what sort of personality each character has, they can program the game so that Cloud acts like Cloud, Squall acts like Squall, and whoever the guy is in FFX acts like himself too. In this genre, the player is forced into the mould of a particular character, but that character fits in well within the game.

Now, with the advent of Neverwinter Nights, and such games, we are getting closer; the re-introduction of a GM brings back the flexibility of a human intelligence. But until we can make a program capable of understanding a natural language, and being able to rewrite the script of a game on the fly on the basis of deducations made from information inferred from a natural language, we're going to be stuck with this dichotomy in single-player RPGs. Whichever flavour you choose is based entirely on personal preferrence; would you rather choice in character design, or a set of smoothly integrated predefined characters?

Anyone trying to start a RPG holy war proclaiming one of these as the only true way just doesn't get this; each type of game is following a different subset of the RPG ethos, and with current technology, it is just not possible to combine the two totally.

Word...

[Josiwe]

Any gamer worth his salt can tell you who Cloud, Aeris, Tifa, Barret, and Sephiroth are. Not as many can tell you the names of more than one or two characters from each of the other FF games. This is why FF7 is the most memorable of the series - its characters.

The same goes for great anime - sure you may have liked Vandread or Gatekeepers or any of the recent spate of mass-production animes. But the reason everyone recognizes the names Ayanami Rei and Spike Spiegel is that the characters in Eva and Bebop are vivid, larger-than life characters that we all connect with on a deep level.

Great literature is the same way - from Arthur to Yossarian, Hamlet to Holden, great characters are what connect us to and captivate us with any story.