next »

[simono]

There are ways to do 'blank slate man' right too, though.  Mass Effect, from what I hear, did a pretty good job.

I think Mass Effect did well story wise because the player is not the protagonist (main character of the story) but just a character.

The protagonist and antagonist in Mass Effect are detailed, they drive the story and the player can side with them. That way Mass Effect gets both: a strong story with detailed characters and a blank slate player character, filled by his actions.

I at least see this in casual RPGs like GTA, Oblivion - you usually side with the really bad / really good guy but are yourself a blank slate story wise.

[ink.inc]

I enjoy playing as a character with a bit of flavor. Specifically, I love it when I'm playing as a Snark Knight
( http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSnarkKnight )

The blank slate shtick doesn't really do much for me.

(wow, we made it a whole two pages before someone linked tvtropes)

[s0]

Also, the main character in ME actually talks 'n' stuff. I'd say he's very similar to JC Denton from Deus Ex. Not quite "blank slate" but not quite a "well-defined" character either.

[AlexDJones]

The problem with having a scripted character is that it creates an immediate divide between the player and their character: since I am not Kratos, I cannot empathise with his position, motives, goals, etc. So what incentive do I have to play as him?

The goal of the writer in this case is to find some common link between the player and the character, and you can do this by making the protagonist character one with whom the player can symnpathise. You have to make the player WANT the character to see his quest through until the end. In that sense, a scripted character in a game works in the same way as any character in a film or a book.

I know telling game designers/writers to copy films is an indie faux pas, and perhaps not the best stance to take on a first post here, but there's not much I can do about that.

[Peevish]

The problem with having a scripted character is that it creates an immediate divide between the player and their character: since I am not Kratos, I cannot empathise with his position, motives, goals, etc. So what incentive do I have to play as him?

Why would that create a divide? We're able to identify with characters in every non-interactive story who are scripted.

Myself, I don't like it when any story expects me to feel a certain way at a certain time. Like when the emotional music swells and the camera dollies in on Kate Winslet crying or something. Sure, I'm going to feel emotional, but it wasn't earned, it's just a crying actress and an effective score.

What I appreciate about games is you can give the main character motivations and you can give the player different motivations, and try to make them line up. The player can decide how much they do or don't care about the character's wants and desires.

For instance, in Aquaria I might care about Naija's reasons for wanting to go to the Sun Temple, and I might not. She has old memories hidden there, she is discovering the surface for the first time, fine. But I know if I complete the Sun Temple I'm going to get a new ability. So her desire and mine match up, but I'm free to care or not care about her reasons. But the fact that we both want the same thing can make me identify with her in spite of myself. I'm free to decide my own level of investment.

[Evan Balster]

...And having your own goals "match up" with the character's like that can give you time to get immersed in the role of that character.  To develop attachments and such.

I'm a bit fixated on this whole "attachments" thing but I guess a story isn't worth telling without breeding them, right?

I know telling game designers/writers to copy films is an indie faux pas, and perhaps not the best stance to take on a first post here, but there's not much I can do about that.

Since when?  I think it's perfectly fine.  There are lots of good lessons to be learned, and being game developers we can't "copy" film per se without creative input.

Telling people to 'copy' directly is telling them not to be creative, which is an insult; telling game designers to copy film is telling them to adapt the techniques of another medium to their own, which is not.

[Xion]

Why would that create a divide? We're able to identify with characters in every non-interactive story who are scripted.

not every. There have been films, books, games, where I absolutely could not relate to or sympathize with the protagonists, for one reason or another (mostly due to chronic illogical stupidity - doing things I or no reasonable individual I know of would ever do). Did not enjoy as a result. Having strictly scripted characters extends the threat of this happening to games as well, when I think one of the advantages of games is, as you sort of mentioned, letting players care about what they want to care about, instead of trying to get them to care about what you want them to care about, as with other non-interactive mediums.

[Peevish]

not every. There have been films, books, games, where I absolutely could not relate to or sympathize with the protagonists, for one reason or another (mostly due to chronic illogical stupidity - doing things I or no reasonable individual I know of would ever do).

Yeah, I phrased that poorly. I meant "in every non-interactive medium," not in every single story.

I feel it's smart to try to engender indentification between the character and the player, I just dislike it when the game basically breaks whenever I don't identify with a character. It's a chronic problem in poorly-designed adventure games. A character has some goal that they decided on in a cutscene and the designers assume I'll  be just as invested in it as the character. If I'm not, well, the only payoff achieving that goal is the character's happiness. I say give me something tactile as well.

[Xion]

Ah. In that case, I agree.

I mean, I also agreed before, but I wasn't really sure what you were saying. But now I do so it's all gravy.

[Alec S.]

It's a chronic problem in poorly-designed adventure games. A character has some goal that they decided on in a cutscene and the designers assume I'll  be just as invested in it as the character. If I'm not, well, the only payoff achieving that goal is the character's happiness. I say give me something tactile as well.

Persona 4 is an egregious example of this.  There are quite a few times in the game where it says something like "you decide to go home" or "you decide to visit so-and-so" and I think to myself "I do? ...Okay, I guess..."

[Captain_404]

I'd argue that conflicting player/protagonist goals and motives are just an example of poor writing. If the character really is acting senselessly, that's a narrative problem, if the character has a reason for his/her actions that the player just doesn't understand, that's an example of the writer not communicating motives well enough.

If a characters "decides to go home" without the appropriate context, the action will seem unexpected or unwarranted regardless of the medium. When the writer properly communicates this context however (and communicates it well!) the action should not seem at all unexpected.

since I am not Kratos, I cannot empathise with his position, motives, goals

Ah, but isn't that the very definition of empathy! To quote dictionary.com

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

[AlexDJones]

since I am not Kratos, I cannot empathise with his position, motives, goals

Ah, but isn't that the very definition of empathy! To quote dictionary.com

the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

Good point, well made. My semantics were off.

The problem with having a scripted character is that it creates an immediate divide between the player and their character: since I am not Kratos, I cannot empathise with his position, motives, goals, etc. So what incentive do I have to play as him?

Why would that create a divide? We're able to identify with characters in every non-interactive story who are scripted.

Myself, I don't like it when any story expects me to feel a certain way at a certain time. Like when the emotional music swells and the camera dollies in on Kate Winslet crying or something. Sure, I'm going to feel emotional, but it wasn't earned, it's just a crying actress and an effective score.

What I appreciate about games is you can give the main character motivations and you can give the player different motivations, and try to make them line up. The player can decide how much they do or don't care about the character's wants and desires.

For instance, in Aquaria I might care about Naija's reasons for wanting to go to the Sun Temple, and I might not. She has old memories hidden there, she is discovering the surface for the first time, fine. But I know if I complete the Sun Temple I'm going to get a new ability. So her desire and mine match up, but I'm free to care or not care about her reasons. But the fact that we both want the same thing can make me identify with her in spite of myself. I'm free to decide my own level of investment.

While this is all true, the dissonance between a player and a character in the game is more pronounced because we control the actions of the character. We aren't just witness to the story, we drive it. To take your example of Aquaria, there is dissonance between yourself and Naija because your reasons for wanting to complete the Sun Temple are completely different. The narrative says you are in there for one reason, but the mechanics tell you you're in there for another.

You were right to call me out for suggesting there in NO incentive to play as a scripted character (It was late, and I was tired! ), but there is still that divide. This means that when you eventually complete the sun level and the plot develops, it does not engage you to nearly such an extent because you have decided that you aren't interested in it and all you want is the mechanical reward.

There are two ways around this:

1) Use good writing to make the player want to explore the Sun Temple for the same reasons as Naija, with the further option of eschewing the mechanical reward, hiding it or making it seem less important to the player than plot progression.

2) Make Naija want the upgrade as much as the player, which is easy to write, but can impact the quality of the story in many cases.

...Or something like that.

[Musenik]

Something important to consider is the player's personality in a story game. Does the player want to express her own personality, or does he want to be someone different?

Gameplay is good at encouraging players to express their personality.

Story is good at encouraging players to be someone different.

How you balance that will greatly influence who will enjoy your game. Maybe you just want to make the game you want, and don't need to worry about which players will like or dislike it. That's fine, but maybe keep this in mind, if you're trying to appeal to any specific audience.

[Peevish]

To take your example of Aquaria, there is dissonance between yourself and Naija because your reasons for wanting to complete the Sun Temple are completely different. The narrative says you are in there for one reason, but the mechanics tell you you're in there for another.

Well, I tend to think of it as Naija has her own feelings and I've got mine. The fact is that no one, no matter what the medium, can control how the viewer is going to react. I don't think "good" writing is synonymous with "persuasive" writing. For instance, if a movie deals with the topic of violence, I might have a different opinion of violence from that of the filmmakers. If the movie is incoherent or offensive if I disagree, it falls apart. But if it simply presents a compelling point of view, I can have any number of reactions to it. If a film says "the violence of American soldiers against the Viet Cong was unjustified," I can agree or disagree, and still find the film successful if it got me thinking more deeply about the subject.

The same goes for Aquaria (to stick with the example). I don't have to identify with Naija to enjoy the game. In reality, I do identify with Naija, and the game is richer experience because I identify with her. Identifying definitely improves the experience. But if the game took pains to try and endear Naija to me I'd probably identify less. I'd probably find it grating. I've always felt that good writing is interesting without telling the viewer what they should be thinking. If a story doesn't work unless the viewer is thinking a certain way at a certain time, I'd call that bad writing.

[AlexDJones]

Well, I tend to think of it as Naija has her own feelings and I've got mine. The fact is that no one, no matter what the medium, can control how the viewer is going to react. I don't think "good" writing is synonymous with "persuasive" writing.

This is true, but the point I'm trying to make is more that writers are able to control the player's incentives for progression. By this I mean, using good writing to inspire the player to play through the game for the story as opposed to mechanical rewards. This can be done by setting up a good plot and by also creating a character the player can sympathise with, thus making the player want to see the character complete his or her quest. In that sense, I'd argue that good writing and persuasive writing are indeed synonymous.

The same goes for Aquaria (to stick with the example). I don't have to identify with Naija to enjoy the game. In reality, I do identify with Naija, and the game is richer experience because I identify with her. Identifying definitely improves the experience.

Agreed. You don't have to identify with a character to enjoy the game, but if there's a disssonance between the two of you, the narrative will lose its impact if/when the plot begins to develop the character. As the character develops, the narrative will begin to run away, leaving the player behind, in a sense.

But if the game took pains to try and endear Naija to me I'd probably identify less. I'd probably find it grating. I've always felt that good writing is interesting without telling the viewer what they should be thinking. If a story doesn't work unless the viewer is thinking a certain way at a certain time, I'd call that bad writing.

I'd say that if you found it grating, it would DEFINITELY be bad writing, but that's not because the game is trying to make the character endearing. It's more because the game is trying to make the character endearing, but is failing miserably because it's not written well enough, or is too heavy handed. There is definitely something to be said for subtelty when it comes to making a character sympathetic.

[Peevish]

Hm. So do you feel that good writing always means the audience is invested in the character? Perhaps. My take is that a story can be well-written but I can still hate it. I often criticize the a movie or game story or book or whatever, and people respond "but they were trying to do that!" Most of the time, yes, I get that the writer was trying to do something, and I get that they succeeded, and I still don't like it.

If someone played Aquaria and hated it, hated the story, hated the characters, does that mean it was badly written? I loved it, story and characters, does that mean it was well-written? I think the game succeeds in telling the story it tried to tell. If someone hates it, then it's not the story for them. I'd say good and bad writing is writing that succeeds or fails in what it's attempting to achieve.

Games are a weird medium because you have to simultaneously try to achieve something with the story and something with the gameplay. Should you even worry about selling someone on the gameplay if they don't like your story? I think what I don't like about games that try to influence how I feel is that it's trying to ignore that maybe I just don't like the game.

Dog, it's ok if I don't like your game! I'll just go play something else.

(though even that gets tricky; so many people seem to think that if they personally don't like a game than the something is a failure, and the internet is full of people happy to explain how and why your game is a failure for not satisfying them personally)

[Xion]

I agree with peevish.

[MinskWorks]

Posted a blog post, didn't think it needed it's own thread but thought this would be relevant as it's essentially a look into Camouflaj's example of when not to claim you have a strong female protagonist:

The Strong Female Caricature ; Republique
http://minsktown.com/2012/05/11/the-strong-female-caricature-republiq/

[Graham-]

I'm following this model (or something like it) in my big game project. It's easier for me the way I'm doing it because you have control of 4 characters. So you feel less need to "become" the characters because you're more like this omniscient personality floating around above them, assume control now and again. It's a tightrope act keeping that design from getting frustrating.

That's the theory, anyway, I'm still in pre-production!

I have some designs like this. Some of my first ever, like when I was given the blank slate, focused on this idea.

I think in any game the player is an omniscient being. You can never actually be the character because there's always going to be some dissonance. Anyone who thinks their game gives the player complete freedom is seriously confused.

Tightrope? I found the approach to be liberating. What problems have you come across because of it?

A lot of my current designs have some element of the character's "natural tendencies." The feeling I try to invoke is that all the characters that you can control have their own wishes. If you back off they will do things on their own, literally. When you turn the system off, then return, things have happened in your absence. And so on. When you play, it's like you're "influencing" the character instead of controlling him. Sometimes your control is so precise it's exact, and other times it's suggestive. Sometimes you control one character through another character, adopting even "fuzzier" control, and so on.

I'm curious what issues you're having.

(Think about the behaviour of the horse in Shadow of the Collosus - it pulls on its own - or for that matter, Ico pulling Yorda around).

[Angrymatter]

In the beginning of a change, the PatriotProtagonist is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. But in time, when his cause succeeds however,the timid shall join him, for then it costs nothing to be a PatriotProtagonist.