Character Development

[Babar]

First off, this post would contain spoilers for The Dig, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Monkey Islands(?), etc. I could hide them in spoiler tags, but that'd be annoying for the flow of the sentence. You have been warned.

Y'know, I don't think I've seen proper character development in any game I've played, even adventure games. I mean, sure, Guybrush grows a beard and starts talking about his mightiness in Monkey 2, but then he's back to being an idiot kid in 3 and 4.

I remember in Indiana Jones FoA, there was all that flirting between Indy and Sophia throughout the game, (then there was a point where you could have left her for a large portion of the game), and then she got captured, and you had to free her. When she got out, there was a kissing scene. Maybe it was because I was a kid when I played through it, but it seemed a rather random and 'put on' thing to happen, and didn't seemed to be developed at all in the (admittedly short) time remaining in the game.

The Dig had the archaeologist fellow go wonky in the brain, and funnily enough (though it was probably supposed to be like that), he acted the exactly the same as he would have otherwise, only more intensely.

I can't think of any Sierra game where there was any sort of character development at all, even over a series. O' course, LucasArts games were not really any better. I suppose the idea of static backgrounds the player has to go through, came along with the idea of a static character that would lead the player through them.

Another thing is this 'freedom of role' thing they have in many RPGs (and people suggest it a lot for adventure games). While it may sound nice, I don't think it really has any purpose, even in character development. Sure, if you kill the guy instead of helping him, maybe your points will shift one or two towards "Evil", but what does that do? You get 1 or 2 "dark" spells? You grow horns on your head? You get surrounded by a dark cloud? (This is how my friend described KOTOR. No idea how true it is). Even games that gave you dialogue options, who chose the non-normal dialogue option other than just to see what happened? Besides, when were those dialogue options even close to what you wanted to say yourself?

What I guess I'm really missing in most adventure games is the process of the character developing. Small, subtle things that add up bit by bit to change the character. Stuff like a slight change of method of speaking after an important event, or even a little change in the sprite. Idea: After Guybrush completed the 3 trials, he could've been made to stand up straighter, and have more confidence the way he spoke (or have been given a slouch before that). Troublesome in spriting, though, I admit.

Then again, games don't usually stretch over a long time (something to do with the static screens the player goes through?), so lots of changing would probably not be very normal.

Is character development important? Would it make the game more enjoyable? The characters more believeable or 'real' to play? Or it doesn't matter?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

The games you've mentioned are a particular sort of adventure games - the ones that rely a bit more on inventory puzzles. Most, if not all, old(ish) adventure games were like that. Grim Fandango wasn't like that. Gabriel Knight wasn't quite like that. Both games provided good character development, wouldn't you say? (ok, so I'm biased towards Gabe Knight, but I really do see character development).

It mostly depends on whether the game wants to tell a story or provide a gaming experience. That's often a clear distinction, and has made the distinction between the gamer who wants to *play a game* and a player who wants to *take a part in an interactive movie*. Black Dahlia and Phantasmagoria are also examples - say what you like against Phantasmagoria, and there's plenty to be said, I admit, but it features character development of the most primal sort: a descent into fear.

Monkey Island was ready to cash in on Guybrish Threepwood. Same as Indiana Jones. They were great games, but character-wise it was "more of the same". It was the whole ambience, atmosphere and environment (and the overall mindset of the makers) that went a steup further. If it WERE't more of the same, people might complain "hey, that's not Guybrush!". Heck, it happened with Gabe Knight.

And I wouldn't agree that The Dig offers no character development, but then again from your post I see that I value *the evolution between character interactions* more than I value *the evolution of a character per se*. Which is a point that might make all the difference, and which might render further argument from this corner impossible, since it's a vital issue on which we base our viewpoints.

[evenwolf]

Character development is definitely important.     You are correct that few games have it.   I wouldn't isolate adventure games either.



But character development isn't about obvious changes in personality & stature.   Its more about the choices characters make.      And in adventure games the player makes thousands of tiny little choices.   This really doesnt count.     You might be on to something here though.    Good stories usually set up circumstances and conditions for its main characters.. and throughout the story you see the character arc where they are challenged for the specific conditions you've established.    This would really make the story strong if more AGSers did this.

As an example I can say Grundislav developes Ben Jordan characters really well.    Ben might be starting to fall in love with someone, which becomes an emotional investment for the player.   Then the girl disappears and the player feels empathy for Ben.   That's good stuff.    It's hard to create good characters and be subtle about it.   I would encourage more people to make outlines for their games...including character "roller coasters"  where good and bad things happen to them.  There's the obvious physical dangers but those really don't have any weight unless the player is emotionally invested.

[Babar]

And I wouldn't agree that The Dig offers no character development, but then again from your post I see that I value *the evolution between character interactions* more than I value *the evolution of a character per se*. Which is a point that might make all the difference, and which might render further argument from this corner impossible, since it's a vital issue on which we base our viewpoints.

I completed the 'bad' ending much later than the good one, so I don't know if that is what you are talking about. Because the ending was the only point where any development (even between characters) really happened. Before that, the hero (sorry for just using their titles, I don't remember the names) acted much the same way that Indy acted with Sophia: You had the option for a little harmless flirting. Once again, it's been a while since I played it. Did the tone of their character interactions change after they realised what happened to the archaelogist? The bit near the end where the reporter extracted a promise seemed to be well in line with the behaviour of that character up to that point, although I suppose it did do a bit to *the evolution between the character interactions*.

I've only ever played Gabriel Knights 1, and that was a long time ago. I don't recall any real character development, even after (as one would expect) the mentor fellow died.

EDIT: I like the idea of drawing up character rollercoasters, evenwolf! I never thought of that.

[Nikolas]

By all means, bellow, I'm playing the devils advocate. It just strikes me as odd, that's all.

Another thing is this 'freedom of role' thing they have in many RPGs (and people suggest it a lot for adventure games). While it may sound nice, I don't think it really has any purpose, even in character development. Sure, if you kill the guy instead of helping him, maybe your points will shift one or two towards "Evil", but what does that do? You get 1 or 2 "dark" spells? You grow horns on your head? You get surrounded by a dark cloud? (This is how my friend described KOTOR. No idea how true it is). Even games that gave you dialogue options, who chose the non-normal dialogue option other than just to see what happened? Besides, when were those dialogue options even close to what you wanted to say yourself?

I see where you're coming from, but this has little to do with character development, and could focus at linearity in games. It is a very difficult thing to do really, and design. Because with that you destroy your twists and any points you would love your player to remember. If you let your player completely free (secondlife springs to mind), then, you are just immitating real life, which, to me, doesn't seem interesting.

"When were those dialogues options even close to what you wanted to say youself?". But it's not you! It's the character! If you want to be you, get out of the computer...

[Babar]

I meant it in the way that what the character does affects him/her, Nicholas. So if a character continuously does 'evillish' things, I'd expect some sort of 'result', something more significant than learning dark spells and having horns grow out of your head.

About the dialogue bit, well...I was specifically talking about Neverwinter Nights, which I am playing through right now. Most conversations allow you the option to be evil as well as good, but my point was that these 'un-normal' dialogue options don't really change the character in any significant way. The responses you get to choose from aren't really as a result of character behaviour upto that point, either. You'd usually get 3 basic options of "Yes, my lady, your thanks is all I need, [slobber slobber]", or "I just in it for the reward, princess" or "Hahahaha! I'm EVIIIL!! DIE NOW!". I'm sure they could have made the character more complex than that, without 100s of options. It's not really my main point, though, as it's an RPG, and your technically supposed to provide the character.

[Akatosh]

I meant it in the way that what the character does affects him/her, Nicholas. So if a character continuously does 'evillish' things, I'd expect some sort of 'result', something more significant than learning dark spells and having horns grow out of your head.

There were two versions last few chapters in Kotor, depending on whether you join the dark side or not (your decision). If you did, you could/had to kill all the "good guys" in your party (except for the "decorated war hero" who, um, just runs away), which essentially left you with a Mandalorian, a dark Jedi, a completly snapped mentally instable killer droid and another R2D2-style bot who didn't play that much of a role unless you had to hack a computer or something. Anyway. Granted, you had to fight through the same stupid level, but it was very different than if you joined the good side (where you didn't have to kill anyone, not even Bastila), including the dialogue and the end fight... and the final cutscene, of course.
Seriously, the two ends could have belonged to two different games IMO.

[evenwolf]

I think morality simulators are retarded.    I'll name "Fable"  as the worst attempt at choosing good or evil    Oblivion had some good applications.. such as not being able to join the Fighters Guild once your Infamy hit a certain point.   But anything beyond that in a game is tedious & distracting.


Character development!   A good example is Syberia.

Kate Walker spends all this time on telephone calls with her mom, fiancee, best friend, and boss.   She is obviously just a business minded woman who couldnt give a shit about this small town she's visiting.  All she wants is to please her employer back in New York.   But over the course of the game she becomes captivated by the story of Hans Valburg and his inventions and ultimately she makes a choice between the two worlds.

So I would say that Syberia really worked hard on character development.  You actually do see Kate Walker's change from not caring to caring.    The only question is whether or not they sacrificed gameplay for all this development.


More good development:   The scene in Fate of Atlantis after Indy gets Sophia's attention with the Nur Ab Sol puppet.   In one scene you set up Indy's relationship with her,   their past, and the problems between them.     

[LimpingFish]

I think "franchised" characters (Guybrush, Indy, heck even Leisure Suit Larry!) avoid overt character development simply because of the charcter model they conform to.

Guybrush can't become a brooding hero, because his ineptitude as a pirate is the storytelling cornerstone of the series. He may be elevated, in certain situations, to a more heroic version of himself, but he still reverts to his long established persona afterwards.

Indy is the consumate hero, but still prone to the odd bout of comic relief when needed. Larry is a Larry, and will always remain so.

Something, like Fahrenheit or Syberia or (shudder) The Longest Journey, is where character development is really needed.

And some would say...lacking.

[OneDollar]

I'd say something like Beyond Good and Evil had some good character development. The lead, Jade, goes through several setbacks on her journey to find the truth, for example when

Spoiler

she returns to her home and finds it destroyed and the rescued children kidnapped

[close]

she starts calling out their names while you are still controlling her. You then have a cut-scene where she almost gives up but decides to keep on fighting. It adds more to her character and ups the tension of the game but ultimately...?

Well she doesn't make change her reactions to objects, she doesn't move any differently, she doesn't gain any new abilities or loose old ones. This is the issue really, because when the player is experiencing the game they have to be able to comfortably control the character. If the character changes every time something of plot significance happens it damages the bond between player and character and so damages their immersion in the game. Any changes have to be subtle ones, I'd say especially in the classic point'n'click games. After all, doesn't everyone get annoyed at puzzles where you know the solution but the main character won't do it because they have to have done something first that changes their mind?

As a side note I've only experienced the light/evil RPG thing in KOTOR and I wasn't blown away. Sure you can say good/evil/neutral things to people, but generally its choosing between gold (robbing them), experience (killing them) and light and dark points which give you different costs on your force powers. Your companions (especially Bastila) make comments on your progress (whether you are sticking to the light path) but ultimately you are faced with the choice at the end. Even if you played through the entire game as a light side do-gooder, you still get the option to betray everyone and take over the galaxy at the end. I guess its all about being given the freedom to react to a situation as you want, but still it doesn't ultimately affect anything

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Ah, let me just ask a question:

What is character development in a game?

I was under the impression that it was the evolution of a character throughout a game - his/her personality, reaction to the gameworld and other characters. Like in a movie or book.

But from what I've been reading, it seems I got it wrong and character development is actually the ability to influence the gameworld differently because of choices the player makes. Such as Fallout, I guess.

Obviously anything and everything I said before was tainted by this. At any rate, it would be nice to be on the same station as everybody else...

Because the ending was the only point where any development (even between characters) really happened. Before that, the hero (sorry for just using their titles, I don't remember the names) acted much the same way that Indy acted with Sophia: You had the option for a little harmless flirting.

What about at the very beginning when Brink and Maggie find out Low had instructions on what to do if Attila had something alien in it... and had withdrawn it from them? Or when Brink dies, and the group is shattered? Or when Brink "loses" his hand? That affected everyone.

I understand that it's not the character that get developed as much as the *situation*, and they simply react. However, if you want to make that distinction, then I will maintain that in any given medium, not just games, character development is rare. More often than not you see the same characters from the beggining to end, doing different things only when different circumstances applied. And most times you won't even know it, because you don't know the character, really. You're watching him/her for the first time. You can't really know what's in character for them, except for whatever hints the maker has decided to give you, whatever aspect he's decided to focus on.

Did the tone of their character interactions change after they realised what happened to the archaelogist?

Funnily enough, I do remember that Broken Sword 1 did exactly that - if you got Nicole's phone by asking the policeman, her tone seemed to be much, much colder than if she'd given it to you... an effect that would last for quite a while.

But again, are we talking character development or simply very good ways to maintain non-linearity?

I've only ever played Gabriel Knights 1, and that was a long time ago. I don't recall any real character development, even after (as one would expect) the mentor fellow died.

Wolfgang's death was more of an emotional moment than a character-changing moment - which is what I'd have thought one would expect. Ergo - no two people expect alike. But really, you don't see how Gabriel has changed? How his devil-may-care-James-Deanish attitude became more serious-minded? How during the course of the game he sold his father's painting - an attitude that says a lot - and as the game progressed became more and more aware of his family's history, and more and more attached to it? Basically, I guess what I mean is: did you feel the character you started the game with could have done what he does at the end of the game if there had been no game inbetween?

[MoodyBlues]

This is blasphemous, I know, but I almost think character development, at least in games, is a teensy bit overrated.  If you have a good character at the beginning, it's almost as fun to explore his/her existing personality as it is to change it.  I'd rather have a static character than one who becomes an ultra-mega-broody anti-hero any day.  (I'm looking at you, Sonic Team.)

Generally, though, I love seeing a player character change throughout a game.  And sometimes it's essential; for example, wouldn't Simple Peasant/Pirate/Janitor X have to become braver, stronger, and smarter in order to defeat Big Baddy Y?  Strangely, though, I can't think of a game where this is done very well.

[Radiant]

Now that you mention it, I can't even recall any RPGs that do character development. Well, except numerically, of course, but that doesn't count. One of the weird parts of, say, Baldur's Gate is that the guy who's afraid of everything remains afraid of everything even after leveling up five times and kicking serious ass.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Character development is certainly important in games where the character personalities are established.  Guybrush's personality is established as you play rather than by a specific attitude he takes towards situations, so Guybrush's development (or lack thereof) doesn't impact the player as much.  Certain games, however, depend on strong character development to make specific characters important to the player (especially characters that will die). 

[lo_res_man]

How about charecter all ready dead? I think Grim Fendango had THE best character development I have ever seen. From a sleazeball out for a buck to man with all the important things in life  (or death) figured out. "Nobody knows whats gonna happen at the end of the line, so you might as well enjoy the trip." Wise words for a man who started out worried he was gonna get fired

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

ProgZMax has stated in a couple of sentences one of the points I stumbled so badly upon trying to make. Many thanks, prog.

[lo_res_man]

You gotta admit the guy has Forum Oratory down pat[b/]