next »

[Miko Galvez]

When playing a game, do you like to feel immersed with the main character? Do you like being in control of your character's feelings towards the rest of the world and its characters, or do you like to play the specific role of the character in its story and see where the character goes?

Things like this normally differentiate from the character's ability to speak. Silent protagonists allow the story to unfold directly to the player, not to the character. Characters like Link, Megaman, and early Mario & Sonic titles have this element and it is very common in most RPGs as well. Giving the player choices on which actions to take also allow the player to directly immerse themselves in the game as they are given the feeling of importance, where their decision matters to the game and how it will progress.

First-person games also have this thing where cutscenes play out, but you are still able to move allowing yourself to see the events in your own way from your perspective, rather than being forced to you in a story-mode manner.

I would like to discuss this because I want to learn how you can introduce the story and its theme to the player through the character without making him a silent protagonist. I want to be able to create emotion from the player that simultaneously correlates with what the main character is feeling. The character feels weak, you feel weak. The character feels mad, you feel mad. This is a problem especially with games that have dialogue as I don't want the player to feel like they're playing a character in a set-in-stone story. I want the player to feel like they ARE the character, or that they're exploring or learning the story along with the character, at least. That after the game, I don't want people to say "oh Link is cool", I want them to either say "I'm cool" or "I'm cool as Link/Me playing as Link is cool" or something like that.

Examples:

Megaman X



In Megaman X, you are forced into a boss fight with Vile where you are inevitably defeated (Vile has no visible lifebar and you cannot damage him at all). Then Zero comes and saves you from Vile.

Dialogues from the game go around like this:
X: I feel weak because I can't beat him
Zero: Don't worry, you'll get stronger, even stronger than I am, then you WILL be able to defeat him.

That makes you, as a player, feel weak because you cannot defeat him. This small dialogue from Zero also inspires you to become stronger (as a player and as X where he gains better armor in the game) where you feel the progression of growth.

Next, you face Vile a SECOND time and this time you can beat him, but only after he destroys Zero. X looks up to Zero and him being stronger than you is provides a calming presence to you as a player that things are somewhat within your side's control. However, when he dies. You feel rage to defeat this bastard Vile who took Zero away. Which immerses you with X (who has more armor upgrades now and can totally wreck Vile).

Super Metroid



Assuming everyone already knows this, so SPOILERS.

In Super Metroid, your mission is to rescue the baby Metroid. By the end of the game, you face seemingly indestructible enemies that the baby Metroid (now all grown up) attacks. It destroys those enemies but also attacks you afterward. However, it realizes that you saved it from before (in Metroid II, this is the third Metroid installment). You feel a connection with the Metroid because it not only helped Samus in cutscene or something, it helped YOU with a hard enemy.

In the final boss battle with Mother Brain, similar to Vile, you cannot damage Mother Brain and she destroys you. But right before she kills you off, the Metroid attacks Mother Brain and defeats her. Then the Metroid proceeds to heal you and Mother Brain's defeat reveals to be short-lived. Mother Brains kills the Metroid and it grants you enough power to defeat Mother Brain. You feel mad and enraged to avenge the Metroid and that immerses you with Samus. (Along with the openness of the world where you are free to choose which direction you want to take as a player, and its isolation).

[rj]

one of the absolute best examples of games with dialogue that cause you to empathize completely with the playable character is The Fall.

it has a big glaring issue in that it has a big'ol To Be Continued slapped at the end (since it's...the first game of a trilogy) but holy shit. if you haven't played that, do so. it has some of the most out-of-left-field amazing voice acting and writing i've yet seen in a game, and it's a short, sweet, and smart 2D puzzle adventure thing.

[s0]

imo it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the protagonist is silent or not. there are plenty of books, films, tv series etc. without any silent characters that make you identify with ("root for") a certain character. so the first thing i would do is just study the general principles of storytelling.

the 2nd, game specific, thing would be to try and reduce "ludonarrative dissonance" (buzzword i know, but what gives) as much as possible. basically, try to make the mechanics reflect the central theme(s) of your story. so for example, if your game tells a coming of age story, don't make the mechanics about shooting aliens with lazerz and dump the coming of age stuff into cutscenes (that's what cutscenes are often used as: a story dump).

the 3rd thing (related to #2) would be to remove strategy, tacitcs and any sort of "metagame" thinking from your game (you will probably have to sacrifice some "fun" for this). either that, or make that sort of thing part of your story. dark souls and crusader kings 2 are examples of games that do this well.

[starsrift]

Huh, I was just talking about this a couple threads over.

I think interacting with the player directly through the fourth wall or a simple avatar puppet 'character' is weak storytelling. You can't connect to the player because they know they're playing a video game, therefore any emotional content you attempt to impart falls flat.

[rj]

Huh, I was just talking about this a couple threads over.

I think interacting with the player directly through the fourth wall or a simple avatar puppet 'character' is weak storytelling. You can't connect to the player because they know they're playing a video game, therefore any emotional content you attempt to impart falls flat.

you must have hated the stanley parable

[RareSloth]

An emotional connection is of course what we need to strive for as designers, its what makes a game experience rich and delightful.

Overall, I think this is very difficult to achieve with *most* people. There will always be people who are able to immerse themselves into the game more than others. Take for example those who get very scared from horror movies or games. I think this might relate to your emotional quotient and your upbringing.

Perfect controls with great tactile, auditory, and visual feedback are pretty much basic requirements in achieving this connection that many games fail at doing. Mistakes in this area are going to detach the player.

There's also people who don't read into stories as much as others. Some people get really into a story possibly because they highly enjoy the story element. Other players don't really care as much about the story element - you can't really force a story or emotional connection here.

[Miko Galvez]

Huh, I was just talking about this a couple threads over.

I think interacting with the player directly through the fourth wall or a simple avatar puppet 'character' is weak storytelling. You can't connect to the player because they know they're playing a video game, therefore any emotional content you attempt to impart falls flat.

This is very interesting. Making the character the object of perspective for the game's story, rather than the player's eyes could possibly make the player want to see where the main character will go and how it will progress. Making the player the object of perspective plants the idea of "the game is talking to me, what should I do as a player that will benefit me the most", and the main character vanishes as the player takes over in the game.

A more cohesive relationship between the main character and the player must be established to begin with I guess, making the player and the character WANT to reach similar goals, not only have goals that will benefit the character, or the only the player. Establishing the relationship right away will dictate the pace of the game for both the player and the character.

[s0]

This is very interesting. Making the character the object of perspective for the game's story, rather than the player's eyes could possibly make the player want to see where the main character will go and how it will progress. Making the player the object of perspective plants the idea of "the game is talking to me, what should I do as a player that will benefit me the most", and the main character vanishes as the player takes over in the game.

that's why i'm saying that removing strategy and tactics is a good idea. i don't think it has that much to do w/ how much of a "personality" the protagonist has. i don't find final fantasy more immersive than dark souls, quite the opposite in fact.


also the thing is, roleplaying a character is always going to require some effort on the player's part and if a player doesn't want to put in that effort, there's no magical formula to make them care. even games that remove strategy&tactics (ex: gone home) or try to enforce roleplaying (ex: fable) can't stop people from doing things like speedrunning them or just dicking around. i think in the end it's probably more of a "cultural" issue w/ how we approach videogames than an issue of game design.

[battlerager]

Huh, I was just talking about this a couple threads over.

I think interacting with the player directly through the fourth wall or a simple avatar puppet 'character' is weak storytelling. You can't connect to the player because they know they're playing a video game, therefore any emotional content you attempt to impart falls flat.

you must have hated the stanley parable

Adding to this:
I think you totally can connect to the player. Yes, they know they are playing a video game, but if you keep that in mind and adjust accordingly, why not?

It doesn't matter if you experience something in a game, dream, book, whatever. If you experience it, it's real.

[Kytin]

This is a topic near and dear to my heart.

This is a problem especially with games that have dialogue as I don't want the player to feel like they're playing a character in a set-in-stone story. I want the player to feel like they ARE the character, or that they're exploring or learning the story along with the character, at least.

This is something I want to see done in games more. So few games let you feel like you are a character in a story rather than controlling a character for the non-story bits.

That said, I don't think it can be done while letting the player character talk.
Think about it this way: Is the dialogue important to the story? Presumably it is. Since it is important to the story, the player must handle it, or the player will feel like he has lost control of the story bits (which he has).
Is the player choosing what to say? No. Even if you give the player a list of options to choose from, the player doesn't get to choose what options are on the list. And even when the player might completely agree with an option, the player character will probably say it in a way that the player wouldn't.
(This is why I chose to try and tell the story completely without dialogue in my current game.)

You can definitely still make the player empathise strongly with the player character (or at least strongly encourage them to), even with dialogue. You just need to make sure that the desires of the player and the desires of the player character are consistently aligned. If the player wants to get stronger, then the character must want to as well. If the character is afraid of something, the player must be made to fear it also. If the player enjoys killing his enemies, then the character must do so too.
Everything in the gameplay affects the player, and therefore will affect the character of the player character. How does the player character feel about dying? Is he only helping people for the rewards they offer? The answers to these questions depend on what story you are trying to tell.

Stories tend to be written backwards. That is, the author generally decides what he/she wants the ending to be, then decides on a series of events that will cause it to happen. For a game, I recommend that you figure out what you want players to experience at the conclusion of the game, and then find gameplay that will encourage that emotion. Do you want the player to finish the game feeling triumphant and powerful? Relieved? Angry and bitter? Sad?

[Alec S.]

the 3rd thing (related to #2) would be to remove strategy, tacitcs and any sort of "metagame" thinking from your game (you will probably have to sacrifice some "fun" for this). either that, or make that sort of thing part of your story. dark souls and crusader kings 2 are examples of games that do this well.

This, for me, I think is one of the more important things.  I don't think anything does more to immerse me in a game than having the player's needs within the fiction of the game line up with my own playing the game.  Or, to put it another way, there is both a mechanical and an in-fiction reason you need to perform a specific task.  I think one of the reasons the first Amnesia did so well at pulling the player into the experience was by having the oil/lantern mechanic.  Now you've got this mental friction of "I need the items which are hidden in the area, or else I will no longer be able to see in dark areas, but doing so means further exploring scary places".

Even with something like Gone Home, all the mechanics of the game are about investigating your environment, and what both your character and you as the player want is to figure out what happened and why the house is empty.

And, conversely, the thing that takes me out of a character the most is when I don't know what they're going to do until after they've done it.  The Mass Effect games were lousy with these moments, in the form of the Paragon and Renegade options.  A button comes up that basically says "Do the cool thing" and I say "What cool thing?" and it says "Press the button to find out"