Slashdot Mirror
On Making Videogame Heroes, Villains Realistic
Thanks to the IGDA for its 'Culture Clash' column discussing the increasingly complex nature of heroism and villainy in videogames. The writer suggests: "The white hat/black hat dichotomy of heroes and villains (PC and NPC) in most games is no longer sufficiently believable to the player, but is still theoretically acceptable given the earlier limitations of the medium", and goes on to argue: "Audiences respond poorly to blatant noseleading, and increasingly demand escalating shades of gray." Do you enjoy stereotypical portrayals of good and evil in gaming, or do you find, as Daryl Zero needed to be told: "You realize... there aren't any 'good guys' and 'bad guys'... there are just... just a bunch of guys"?
Good characterization (making those shades of grey) takes time. The player's time. So it becomes a tradeoff. To make a good story, you have to usually cut into the time you're actually playing the game (cut scenes, etc). At its forefront, the game is still the most important part. Otherwise you're just watching a movie. The key to all of this is finding some way to integrate the character development/story development into the game action itself.
Karma: Excellent^(-t/Tau), Tau=Wittiness/Trollishness
Would that not depend on the kind of game you play? For RPG:s multi-shade characters would work very well, and I would appreciate the variation (not just grey, bring on the whole colour-spectrum!), but for shoot-em-ups, isn't part of the premise that the characters you are shooting by the dozen are totally evil? War-games would be different again, "enemies" in that sense are also just people, but there is a war on. I'm talking your average kill-everything-in-sight game where you would not necessarily be wanting to justify your actions other than by "but they're *evil*".
I've said it before, and I shall now say it again:
Evil does not think itself evil
While villans in cheap movies may rub their hands together and cackle about how eeeeeeviiiil they are, in the real world those who do evil do not see themselves as evil.
The pusher on the corner doesn't see himself as evil, "Yo, I'm just givin' folks what they want."
Saddam did not see himself as evil, "I am maintaining order in my country - this person is a threat to that order, and to prevent others from becoming threats I must make an example of him. Uday, turn on the wood chipper."
Darl McBride does not see himself as evil, "I am running a business. This is my chance to make money."
If you want your villans to be believable, try to get inside their heads and make their actions make sense from their perspective. It's taxing, it's scary, but it makes for a believable villan.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Knights of the Old Republic did a decent job of portraying the NPC's in a mixed light. Of the *bad* guys, Canderous was the only one who came across as hyperactively violent, and that translated to an interpretation of his actions as *evil*. HK-47, while definitively evil, was a droid, so he was programmed as such, and his dialogue was mostly used as comic relief. The interesting thing about KotOR, though, is how the arrogance of the Jedi is portrayed. Bastila is so bossy and uptight when you finally meet her that, even though she's *good*, she almost seems like she should be evil. (I suppose that could be called foreshadowing of a sort.) I do agree with the article, though, that KotOR's method for *role-playing* as the PC is lacking. Having played through as light and dark, I found myself taking the over-the-top EVIL approach too often, to ensure my dark side status, as opposed to a more natural *evil* reaction. The problem is, as described with the kitten situation, there was always the blatant good option, the mercenary good option, and the KILL KILL KILL evil option, and I would have liked a more subtle method of being mean. I suppose I don't care would have been good, but picking that means not completing whatever task is at hand. I guess the ultimate problem is that in the choice between role-playing and completing a task in the game (be it attempting to do all the quests or maintain dark side mastery), I chose the tasks. Ultimately, that should not be such a visible choice.
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
Tolkien seemed to do just fine with caricaturized good and evil. I believe Sauron and Saruman were well aware that they were unquestionably evil.
It's bad story that gamers don't like. Characterization is part of that, but really, how characterized was a disembodied eye?
"lidless, wreathed in flame," was about it.
But the story (for most people) was captivating, despite its apparent 'simplicity'. 'Believable' villians are only a requirement if you're trying to craft a 'believeable' story.
and even then, self-delusion is not a set-in-stone requirement (Hannibal Lector).
As with any storytelling, there are no set rules, there are no silver bullets - there is only what works and what does not work. And no-one can tell you which is which by description alone. You must read the work to know where it lays on your subjective scale.
Trying to adhere to structure or processes that were defined via hindsight, doesn't guarantee future success - so why bother?
(You may argue with 3 act play, 9 part story, joseph campbell, et al. - but the overbundance of crap stories that adhere to those structures and the instances of good stories that don't use them already prove my point)
A storyteller should get inside every character's head, to make sure they're well-written. But self-justified evil is not a prerequisite of a well characterized Bad Guy.
it's also important to note the distinction between the disillusioned bad guy who thinks he's doing good, and the Bad Guy who realizes that his actions will be seen as evil, and perhaps are evil, but he still feels a compulsion to execute them anyway (the Borg, any Mob Boss, etc).
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
(disclaimer: opinion, of course)
Characters, no matter whether good, evil, corrupt, silly, stupid, super-intelligent or whatnot, need to be believable and contextually relevant. Contrary to popular belief, characters need not be complicated, nor should they resemble human characters. That's because most of the people you meet and interact with are known on a very superficial level, like characters. The rare few, those you are close to, have many facets, and none of those are easily classifiable.
In a book, like in a game, the characters you have most contact with should be more than superficial, and the rest can be extremely superficial. The goal is the ease the reader's/player's acceptance of the fantasy you're spinning. The only problem is that really human-like characters seem a bit neurotic and wishy-washy. I believe that's why the main character's are always so driven in the plot. They're still polarized towards a goal no matter how deeply the character is described.