Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
Could it possibly be that games designers are finally starting to realize that games must be more than simply a world with missions to capture the player's imagination?
This is also the problem with MMORPGs -> Most aren't built to tell a story, rather they're there to help you scratch your head and think what to do somewhere else than everyday life.
Somewhere along the line games developers must realise that if players play these games to escape, to be entertained - then they don't want to have to find ways within the game to entertain themselves. Games that implement these engaging story arcs are almost always extremely successful - even if only on a small cult level.
It's also the reason why James Cameron movies are always 10x better than any others.
I still don't see what the fuss is about. A cardboard cut-out character can be the most entertaining type (provided that its a scantily-clad warrior-maiden with 10'000 polygon boobs), especially for the teenage male population.
Well, to hell with you. I'm off to ogle Miss BloodRayne for a bit more.
--- Egads, I glow in the dark!
If there is adequate room for a Player to develop as Character then a lack of personality is not a problem... ie: role playing.
Supposedly this is the big difference between interactive media, role playing, and other such as books, movies, etc. where you experience vicariously through the character.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
"...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).
Characters have always been more important than plot. Consider the platform videogames of the early nineties and earlier. Consider Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario - and consider their backstories. They sure as hell weren't sold on the strength of plotline, but on vibrancy and dynamism. Sonic, anyway. When you have big splash graphics for your promotional material, you can't put a plotline up there, you have to put a character image.
qntm.org
However, there's no real depth (at least early on) to those characters. They're simply images. There's no detail on why Mario's saving the princess, for all we know he's never even seen her before he saves her. Sonic had character built up through the way he was designed and some of the things he did in the game (try setting the controller down for a while, for instance). Sonic had an attitude, but this is still image rather than any significant depth in the character.
Even Max Payne, which was the article's first mention of strong character, is every bit as derivative as the plot, and his character is developed primarily through the story.
Some basic social psychology can tell us (or, more importantly, artists) that designing the character's image in certain ways can project feelings onto the viewer, without knowing anything about that character, and both Nintendo and Sega used this well in their games, but in the end the story tells the tale. Sonic's sharp lines project his attitude, while Mario's round-ness projects a likeable character. Disney uses similar ideas in their animation, and Pixar has translated this into the computer-generated arm of animation. Shrek is an ogre, a creature that would normally be depicted as a scary, vile, disgusting creature, instead we get a round character with story points that emphasize no matter how hard he tries, no one's going to think he's scary or vile (though perhaps disgusting all the same). Try to count how many Disney villains have pointy chins or noses and thin, tall bodies with sharp lines. These things are important to get a point across at a glance, but are always developed by story.
If you're the kind of person that wants a strong connection with the characters in your game, than perhaps you'll like games that center on them, but without a plot to develop the character, that character is simply what you project onto them.
For advertising and to get people interested you may use a strong image to project your character, and it is important that the image and the plot that develops that character mesh well together, but if the story isn't there, or just doesn't develop the character, than the image will be all you have.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
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.
Yvan Eht Nioj!
...once had a line that replied to this sort of conversation. It went something like, "If only Monopoly had a stronger plot, then it would really be sucessfull."
Why do people always criticize games for their lack of plot but we never criticize films for their lack of interactivity?
I popped the Wizard of Oz in my ps2 last night and no matter how hard I tried I couldn't get that girl to go off the yellow brick road. I kept hitting buttons but they didn't seem to have any effect on the movie at all except to pause it and skip ahead.
graphics 10
gameplay 0
score 2
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players