Sign in to follow this  
Almos

Tainted heroes or good boys

Recommended Posts

Being the annoying pest that I am, I'll keep pestering you till I die.

The topic for today are the games' protagonists. As you look through them it becomes apparent that most fit into one of the two cathegories, namely:

a) Carte-blanche type protagonist: no job, no family, no past. He comes from virtually nowhere, performs his task (that is, saves the world), then vanishes back into the nowhere whence he came. Void of personality of any kind, he's just a puppet for the player to control. To be found in: "Elder Scrolls: Arena", "Noc" (or "The night", a deservedly forgotten polish adventure game).

B) "Come boy and be good"-type protagonist: personification of virtue. During the training he exceeded all of his teammates, and now he's the one charged with the world-saving task. Alternately, type-b protagonist can be a fairly normal person, without any apparent predispositions for heroism, that's nevertheless leaning towards the good and, should the opportunities arise - you guessed it - saves the world. To be found in: "F.E.A.R.", "The Longest Journey".

Storytelling-wise, types a) and B) give very little opportunities for character development. Yeah, the characters can gain experience and broaden their horizons, but that's all. Thankfully, there's the cathegory c), but it's used very seldom: it's the protagonist that walks the tightrope between the good and the bad. The only games that I know make use of this cathegory are "Silent hill" (most notably the second and the third part of the series) and "Malcom's Revenge" from the Kyrandia series. Protagonist of the game I'm trying to assemble with AGS - "Sar" - is likewise ambiguous. Far from being the "good boy who saves the world" (no, there's no saving the world whatsoever in "Sar") he's a ruthless operative of a totalitarian system in a fictional state, a guy who used to torture and kill on his superiors request. And he still does - the player himself will have an opportunity to indulge in the aforementioned activities. All in the name of the good of the state, of course. But it will last only till At Teuren's experience triggers his inner transformation - a one that will bring him downfall rather than salvation.

Why do you think ambiguous characters are so rare in computer games? And what kind of characters are you leaning to - tainted heroes or good boys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you've described above is exclusive to video games, though admittedly it is probably more prevalent on that medium.

I don't think it matters what 'type' of character is used, as long as it is a reasonably developed character with a decent plot, like The Longest Journey. As you say, they're not all that common.

Anyway, two good anti-heroes I can think of are Kain and Raziel from the Legacy of Kain series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the "blank slate" kind of character serves a useful purpose in video games in that it doesn't present a barrier between the game world and the player.

In a previous discussion about this, the idea of the protaganist performing actions other than that which the player might perform came up; the issue is that as a player, you are "acting out" the characters behaviour. Players are more comfortable playing a character which is, as much as possible, like themselves (Mary Sue style).

An obvious technical issue here is that you cannot provide a protagonist who would behave as every possible player ever would in a given situation; the next best thing is a protagonist who has no behavioural baggage (i.e. a blank slate).

A strong example of this is Knights of the Old Republic, in which the protagonist begins with no memories or behaviour trends, and evolves according to how the player acts. If a player uses the protagonist to act in an evil manner, you get an evil protagonist and vice versa.

Amnesia as a plot device in this kind of case is sort of justified but it's certainly not required. As you continue playing KOTOR, and the story of your character comes to light, you discover

that the protagonist DOES have an established history of strong EVIL behaviour, but at this point you have "overruled" the old character with a version which is more in line with the player's behaviour/values etc. Even if the player values include blasting force lightning at Jedi scum and cutting down any innocent wretch who stands in your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the exceptions serve to prove the rule, because I can name a great many (adventure) heroes who are not blank slates, but neither by far goody-two shoes. You are forgetting another common one here: the anti-hero, or loser, who goes through a journey of self-discovery and saves the day or redeems himself in the end. The varieties on all these themes are endless and between these three arche-types I'd say you have a pretty diverse mix that covers a lot of the protagonists I'd like to play with/as.

The anti-hero is also the one that walks the line between good and bad. Review Malcolm, who is somewhat evil, but infinitely more misunderstood and misschievous than the former. His intentions may not be to save the world, but he's not -in his soul- out to destroy the world either. Should he claim so, it's a superficial threat and you know he'd never do it.

True 'bad' heroes then would be the protagonists from GTA, who are criminals. These figures have a hard time convincing me to love them, since when you have a crime-simulator I think it's better to have a blank slate character. Nobody wants to see some dude be a crook, but everyone wants to be one himself in a game. So really EVIl protagonists don't do well in fiction, because they're not sympathetic. In the end, the one you want is the one who walks the line. The anti-hero then. Take Manny Calavera. He does a lot of mean stuff in Grim Fandango, even to his friends. He's not evil, and his motivations are clear from his character and the setting. But it wouldn't at all be fun if he went past the point where it's in the spirit of amusement or strictly necessary for his progress in the adventure.

That's why you find so little true bad guys as the protagonist. Because they're just not likeable, period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well with Video game characters (PCs really), there is the added dimension of whether the player is comfortable performing the character's actions. This has a bit in common with the likeability of a character but also encompasses things such as acting according to knowledge that the character doesn't have, or doing something that the character might justify but that the player wouldn't (moral issues etc.). This issue of comfort gets in the way of rich character development for protagonist characters.

An interesting facet of the relationship between the PC and the player is how the character traits of the PC will "feed back" to the player, such as in GTA where the character is a criminal, so the player feels more comfortable performing criminal acts or Grim Fandango where the player doesn't (typically) mind rigging the roulette games (because Manny doesn't mind it either). This is rather like a reversal of the "blank slate" idea in that it is the character that influences the player's behaviour. I think if you go for that kind of a setup, you need to be careful not to push the character to any kind of an extreme. I think it probably works as long as the character can justify his/her own actions (even if the player wouldn't typically approve). In that regard, a blank slate character could "justify" any action performed by the player because there aren't many (or any) precepts regarding what the character would consider correct/acceptable behaviour.

note just in case: I am not in any way talking about violent behaviour in real people being a consequence of video games etc. I'm talking about how players can become comfortable playing as a character which has behavioural traits or morals that don't correspond to their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A smart observation, Twilo. I agree that the morals of the PC can facilitate or hinder certain actions and behaviour of the player himself. But is the 'comfort' of interaction really the main thing that stands in the way of rich character development? I would state that it is rather the non-linearity of games that opposes it, because it thwarts the control the creators have over the characters. That, however, is another discussion. In regards to the comfort-issue, it would only suggest that it is more difficult to pull off a character that oscillates between extreme modes of behaviour, because you have indicated yourself that the morals of the PC can be assimilated with ease by the player. Only in the case then of the most hardened criminal becoming an utter goody-two-shoes does the comfort-issue arise, but its difficulty will more likely have to do with the entire gaming-universe being geared towards one mode of play (i.e., GTA can not be played as a softie).

All this aside, does rich character development really depend on the PC going through such extremes? Or is such more likely to be called blatant character development? The richness will lie more in the subtlety and depth of the development. The details instead of the grand gesture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... then where are:

- Twinsen (Little Big Adventure); came from nothing; became something and remained something

- Duke Nukem (duh); always was something; he just "is" and hasn't "become"

- Guybrush Threepwood (Monkey Island); never was anything; still isn't anything

- Kurt Hectic (MDK); he's the friggin janitor, the only plus he has is that the suit fits him

...

in the end you can generalize it a single category: the hero of the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of freedom in games with the development of the player character is an interesting one; consider Gordon Freeman.

Gordon has absolutely no discernable personality traits whatsoever, but because of the constraints of the Half Life games (which are extremely linear) he performs heroic actions: Gordon rescues friends from prisons, guides resistance attacks and saves-the-world-sorta more than once.

Because Gordon is pretty much a non-person and doesn't impress his own personality on the game, it allows the player to consider his/herself to be the main character.

Gordon didn't save the world, I did.

Sorta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody saved the world in half life

at the end of hl2 the world still isn't saved from The Combine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok... then where are:

- Twinsen (Little Big Adventure); came from nothing; became something and remained something

- Duke Nukem (duh); always was something; he just "is" and hasn't "become"

- Guybrush Threepwood (Monkey Island); never was anything; still isn't anything

- Kurt Hectic (MDK); he's the friggin janitor, the only plus he has is that the suit fits him

...

in the end you can generalize it a single category: the hero of the game

This is quite easy: Twinsen is still the blank slate. even though he meets up with people, in the end he has no discernable character traits or any specific attitude other than "hero". He may not be a total blank slate; he serves the same purpose. Guybrush is a typical anti-hero: bumblingly clumsy, but then all of a sudden pretty smart as well. I haven't played MDK very much, but I'm willing to bet that the persona of Kurt isn't really of much consequence when you're playing the game, so it's an empty vessel as well.

Duke Nukem is more interesting, because he seems to have been conceived as a sort of anti-hero whose character doesn't change and who is more like a prop to the game than a real person. In the end, he isn't a blank slate, but a filled one that nevertheless invites you to immerse yourself in him to be 'the duke' for a certain amount of time. If I had to categorize him I'd call him an anti-hero, with zilch character development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may not agree completely on your character analysis.

But... as you described them they don't fall into "a)" or "b)" as posted in the FP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Storytelling-wise, types a) and B) give very little opportunities for character development. Yeah, the characters can gain experience and broaden their horizons, but that's all. Thankfully, there's the cathegory c), but it's used very seldom: it's the protagonist that walks the tightrope between the good and the bad ....

Why do you think ambiguous characters are so rare in computer games? And what kind of characters are you leaning to - tainted heroes or good boys?

I think the real reason decent characters (ambiguous or otherwise) are rare in video games is because of the type of stories we generally get.

You can pretty much divide all fiction into three general categories: character-driven, plot-driven, and theme-driven. Most games fall into one of the latter two categories (as a sidenote, I think 'sandbox' style games fall into the 'theme-driven' category).

As a result, the characters (including the PC) tend to be servants of plot, rather than vice-versa (as you'd get in a character-driven story). They function less as true three-dimensional characters, more as catalysts for moving the plot. Thus we tend to get archetypes who don't develop much over the course of the game.

Factor in this 'immersion'-thing, that devs want the players to feel as though they are their game characters, and you lose a great deal of the ability to have a character grow over time (unless you can somehow get the player to grow as they play).

Along these lines, I think that the recent Prince of Persia trilogy might qualify as character-driven, though each individual episode/game is really plot driven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, nobody really seems to like the way characters were handled in the GTA games. Personally, I thought CJ in San Andreas was a really refreshing kind of hero for the kind of game people expect from GTA. Yeah, he was a gangster, but if anything he was a victim of circumstance. Try growing up there and NOT being one. Even Loc, who had a good chance to make something of himself, tried his best to become a gangster if only to fit in. The fact that CJ still had a moral compass was what impressed me. The guy may be a killer, but damn if he doesn't have a sense of honour as well.

Aside from that, you just need to look a bit to find games that'll deviate from the norm. Killer 7 anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, did you just try to get me to sympathize with O.G. Loc? :dopefish:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually liked the characters in San Andreas and how they were put down, even though it's difficult for me to put myself in the shoes of a downtrodden suburban ghetto African-American. Still, however, if you look at GTA3, the PC was a punk. In Vice City, I thought Tony was horribly arrogant and completely unlikeable. San Andreas does some things better, but I still don't really sympathize with them.

O.G. Loc was funny though.

El Muerte: why do you say these things and then not back them up with arguments at least? And in an earlier post I already pointed out that Almos had forgotten about the third archetype of the anti-hero, which basically makes up for at least half of the narrative-driven games' PC's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can pretty much divide all fiction into three general categories: character-driven, plot-driven, and theme-driven. Most games fall into one of the latter two categories

Games are rarely character-driven because video games are designed to be experiences; the player experiences a world or events. Were a game to be character-driven (regarding the PC), for example, then there would need to be a serious curtailing of freedoms regarding what you can do as a player with that character. I don't know if anyone is advocating on-the-rails games with regard to protagonist development (though Japanese RPGs tend to get away with it).

A character-driven game would be much more focused on the NPC characters, or the ancillary PCs, while keeping the protagonist more undeveloped (and the player relatively free to act as they like). This is often a necessity for Western RPGs like Baldur's Gate or the Elder Scrolls games where the PC is made up on the day by the player and is an element which the designers can't predict or account for especially accurately in assigning behaviour to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Muerte: why do you say these things and then not back them up with arguments at least?

It saves me time.

Anyway,

Twinsen) I don't think he's a blank slate, it was his destiny and the power was within him. He doesn't need training, just some push to unleash the powers within him. He has a past, he has a family, he was (until the first adventure) just another guy. He's more of a "chosen one" character. Is the chosen one the same as the "zero to hero" type?

Kurt Hectic) he's actually quite the anti-hero in the story part of both games. When you take over you are ofcourse the hero. In MDK his character didn't have a major role. In MDK his character got more form. So, he might be a blank slate for the action part of.

I really got the feeling we're push characters into a single character profile. I don't think it's as simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Games are rarely character-driven because video games are designed to be experiences; the player experiences a world or events ....

A character-driven game would be much more focused on the NPC characters, or the ancillary PCs, while keeping the protagonist more undeveloped (and the player relatively free to act as they like).

While I totally agree that a character-driven game would need to be more focused on NPCs (at the same time pushing the player to interact with them), I don't think the fact that games are designed to be experiences precludes a character-driven storytelling style.

It seems to me an RPG *should* be more character driven, that I should feel as though my decisions (and my character's actions) are having a significant effect on the gameworld and the characters in the gameworld (rather than the current scheme of following a series of linear or narrowly branching scripts) ...

Were a game to be character-driven (regarding the PC), for example, then there would need to be a serious curtailing of freedoms regarding what you can do as a player with that character. I don't know if anyone is advocating on-the-rails games with regard to protagonist development (though Japanese RPGs tend to get away with it).

While I think this is certainly true of certain types of games (RPGs, for example), I don't think it's necessarily true of all or even most games (action games & shooters, for example). The current scheme of gameplay/cutscene (or a variation thereon) would certainly work for a character-based game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this