what is missing from most games.

[GarageGothic]

Wow, this thread really took off.

Too much to comment on, really, so I won't. And it shows me how we must narrow down the topics when we do the game theory discussions - although I agree that both are important, I think the two separate discussions about music and writing are confusing things - so maybe topics should be more specific. Anyway, we'll get into that after Mittens.

One thing that was brought up, which I think would make an interesting game theory discussion, is the gap between player and character - how the player character's personality might differ from the actual players. And how to deal with this within an interactive environment without compromising the characters or the story.

One case that comes to mind is, I think, from one of the Monkey Island games. But I'm not sure, so I'll write a fictitious example:

The main character is a coward, totally non-confrontational. He has to get past a bouncer at a club, and after some attempts at persuasion, the Bouncer says: "You want trouble?", and the player has a number of options, one being "Yeah, just come on, you big goon. I'm gonna kick your ass". But when you choose that option, the player character just says: "...uh, no."
Situations like this, limiting the player to replies suiting the character, are, in my opinion, important character defining moment. Especially in this example, as we see what could be interpreted as the characters real feelings, what he actually would say if he dared, as well as what actually comes out.

In my game, Shadowplay, I do something similar in a conversation, to reflect the issues of the player character:

Spoiler

Your male sidekick, who you've met during the game, asks the player character if she wants to go on a date with him. You get all kinds of excuses as options: You're too old for him, you don't think it's a good idea because you're working together, etc., and each time he counters with a good reason why it isn't a problem. Only when there are no excuses left, you are allowed to choose the final option, admitting to him, that you're actually gay.

[close]

I think limiting the interactivity, not for techinical reasons, but on purpose, is a major storytelling tool. But so is multiple paths, or at least multiple endings. Somebody mentioned the single ending of Syberia, and I agree, it would have been nice if the player actually made the choice for Kate. But seeing how much Kate had changed during the game, there really was no option for the character, she has nothing to return to. I actually think GK2 was more flawed in that respect, since it was a story about duality and following your animal nature. Gabe should at least have had the choice of running away with von Glower - like he had the choice of helping Malia, killing her, or doing nothing in GK1 (all of which led to "real" endings, not restart/restore/quit-screens) even though Jane Jensen marked out the "right" one by awarding more points.

[DGMacphee]

Okay everyone, here an interesting question I thought of:

Do you prefer games where the main character has a seperate personality from the player (Grim Fandango, Monkey Island) or do you prefer the main character to have no personality and thus allows you to inflect your own personality within the game (Myst)?

I prefer the first option -- I like to play along with other characters.

It's like "Indy and I are a team! We're going to find Atlantis together!" or "Manny and I are sure going to smash that DOD corruption ring for good!"

[Barcik]

A word about the ending of Grim Fandango: I agree with what you said here. This ending was exceptional and very emotional.

Eric - about a lack of music in key moments: Have you ever seen The Bourne Identity? If so, remember the assassination scene? It was so great because it had no music, no close-ups. Nothing. It was sudden, just like a real assassination should be.

LasNaranjas - after 10 attempts my printer has finally managed to print your article, I'll read it and comment later.

DG - I'd prefer to play a main character with it's own personality, at least in an adventure game. The reason is because I see the adventure game more as a story than other genres. Also, games where you can inflect your own personality on the main character are usually flawed. However, when I play an RPG I prefer the second option, due to the many possibilites, and the ability to play the game whatever way I like.

And a bit about stereotypes: They are not always that bad. Sometimes, a player can feel an emotion about a sterotype. Take Wally from Monkey Island 2 for example. He was a quite regular nerdy chap, yet I felt bad having to take his monocle. Why? Because the implementation of the sterotype was done well - he was a regular nerdy chap, but LEC actually managed to make him plainly ridicilous and pitiful, unlike most other cases of such characters.

[Migs]

You guys have given some great comments.  I've found it difficult to portray distinctive character personality in the writing of my game.  Since my story is an epic saga, it'd hardly make sense to not have two characters develop at least a light romance in the course of the game.  I've NEVER been good with writing romance, unless it's comedic.

I've even worked as a writer before...a technical writer.  It's not the same thing, but it at least gives me a basis for writing stories that are consistent and make sense.  But as for raw emotion...PFFFT.  That's one part I've spent hours and hours working on with limited success.  Yet I'm not going to accept anything less than near-amateurishly-perfect for my game.

I've enjoyed all this talk on Grim Fandango.  I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who finds it so powerful and moving.  It has to be the best game LucasArts made before they started pumping out all this Star Wars drivel.

[MillsJROSS]

They've been spouting out Star Wars drivel for a loooong time.

And yes, character development is key. There have been some great puzzle filled games that just don't keep me playing because i feel nothing towards any of the characters. They're 2 dimensional, so to speak. And it feels like you're playing with a cardboard cut-out. While games like GF, flesh these characters out, and give you something to care for, which compells you to see that character safely on his way.

-MillsJROSS

[Hobbes]

In one of the books on Creative Writing that I own, there was a rather interesting paragraph dealing with character. True, there were a few chapters, but DG's question made me think about that one.

I, too, prefer characters who are clearly defined. The paragraph (summarised) said something like: The more defined the character is, the more the player can identify with the character. Furthermore, the different the character is from the player, the more the player can identify with it.

Looking at what has been written above, this seems to hold true. I've yet to come across an interesting game about a regular Joe doing regular stuff all day. Wouldn't be able to find myself in that person.

Now, Indiana Jones... yeah, I can identify with him, even though there are hardly any similarities between him and me (we're both male, that's about it).

So, as a conclusion, it could be said that to build a good story (and because of that, a good game) your characters should be unique, and clearly defined.

[Barcik]

Las: Let's see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that emotion is easy to put into games because it is naturally caused by the Uber Protagonist phenomenon?

[Ginny]

Another thing about the Grim Fandango ending:

I felt sad because Manny was leaving me!

I enjoyed the great adventure with him that when the game reached the end, I thought "Man, that was such a great adventure that I wish it could keep going. But Manny has to go now. He's reached the end and deserved his peace. He's found eternal rest and I have to get on with my dull life now."

It's when you, as the player, have to wave goodbye to all your favourite characters that the game becomes emotionally successful.

I agree completely as I said in post, leaving all those characters is sad, not to mention the feeling of "it's over, the adventure is finished".
That's part of the reason I would like a sequel to it, despite it being a perfect single masterpiece. I keep wishing the story would continue! Of course, unless they plan to invent what's it like in the 9th underworld, and unless they plan to have Manny and Meche not be able to get into the land of the dead for some reason, then they'll have to use different characters, and a GF sequel without Manny is somewhat not the same.

Las Naranjas - I haven't played Simon the sorcerer so I don't know what the intention was, I was just pondering about what I read the article. I was talking about the fact that despite not very good writing there is emotion, however the player and the protagonist are seperate in this emotion, as far as I understand, Simon doesn't feel guilt, but the player does, and in my opinion it's because of the Swamplin's character. Of course, in a different media with no interactivity, I wouldn't be the one leaving the Swamplin, thus I wouldn't feel guilt, and though I might feel a little pity (once again I haven't played the game so I can't know for sure, it depends on the Swamplin's character), but mainly I think I'd find the situation amusing. So yes, in a different type of media this emotion will not exist, since the Uber Protagonist doesn't exist. When you and the protagonist are joint in your actions, because you're the one "directing" his actions, then you feel as if you are the one actually doing it.
So, basically, I agree. Btw, I just realised it's your article, right? Well done in that case .

I don't know if this is true in Simon's case, but it might be that in cuscenes you do feel connected to the protagonist's actions, even if they are pre-defined. This might be possible only when the protagonist is well written and you feel connected to him during the game, making this feeling transfer to the cutscenee as you said, but I'm wondering wether it exists with a character like Simon.

Gilbot, trap, Ghormak -  I haven't played Pleughberg yet unfortunately (despite hearing lots about it), so I can't say anything about it.

GarageGothic - Such options being rejected by the player character when the playe wanted to choose them can be an interesting tool to strengthen the character, but can also pose a problem which could increase the distace between player and protagonist.
In the fictuous example, it may indeed cause a problem if the player is the type of person to choose that option, but it may also strengthen the character's personality. You could of course remove the option to say such a thing, but that may not be a good idea. As long as the character refuses to say it then it won't damage his image, on the contrary, but it might make a very brave macho player (no offence to anyone hehe) feel distant from the character. Then again, maybe not, or maybe he was already distant.
about your example from your game, I don't see much of a problem, since it's excuses, but it was unclear to me why the example limited the player. The only matter wa that the male sidekick found a good counter-reason each time. It's a humourous situation if the protagonist isn't gay, an if she is it might be interesting emotionally, if it's something that's hard for her to admit. I don't think it would affect the player/protagonist relationship. It might affect the protagonist of her relation with her male sidekick though. So yes, it is a good storytelling tool.

I'm interested in the example you thought of from MI, care to share it?

"Somebody mentioned the single ending of Syberia, and I agree, it would have been nice if the player actually made the choice for Kate. But seeing how much Kate had changed during the game, there really was no option for the character, she has nothing to return to."

Yes, and as I pointed out earlier, even if it would have been nice, it would be unnatural for the character. That's why non-libearity in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed, or should be restricted, where one of the choices is unnatural for the character or the story.

Do you prefer games where the main character has a seperate personality from the player (Grim Fandango, Monkey Island) or do you prefer the main character to have no personality and thus allows you to inflect your own personality within the game (Myst)?

I prefer the first option -- I like to play along with other characters.

It's like "Indy and I are a team! We're going to find Atlantis together!" or "Manny and I are sure going to smash that DOD corruption ring for good!"

I agree, I don't like the second option because the characters are one of the most important things in a game IMO, and just using your personality as a guidline isn't as interesting. I think games let us get away into a different world for a while, and when someone says, "No, I can't do that, Kyle[or another random name of the main character] wouldn't do that", then it's a sign that  the character feels at one with the protagonist, as you said, "Indy and I are a team" and so on with another character though. However, so you when you describe your actions in the game, say "Manny did this" "I did this" or "We [Manny and I] did this" ?

Another thing I thought of is this: Do you think if there is such a situation where the player and the character are different in personality, and the character is very well written, will the character affect the player somehow? Is it possible the character will alter the player's personality just a bit, or possible set an example for the player in real life? (this also has connection with the question of wether kids are afected by the violence in games, i.e. a change to the worse, but in my question I'm more interested in a change for the better or just somewhat different).

DG - I'd prefer to play a main character with it's own personality, at least in an adventure game. The reason is because I see the adventure game more as a story than other genres. Also, games where you can inflect your own personality on the main character are usually flawed. However, when I play an RPG I prefer the second option, due to the many possibilites, and the ability to play the game whatever way I like.

And a bit about stereotypes: They are not always that bad. Sometimes, a player can feel an emotion about a sterotype. Take Wally from Monkey Island 2 for example. He was a quite regular nerdy chap, yet I felt bad having to take his monocle. Why? Because the implementation of the sterotype was done well - he was a regular nerdy chap, but LEC actually managed to make him plainly ridicilous and pitiful, unlike most other cases of such characters.

About the games where you inflict your own personality being ussually flawed, I agree.
About stereotypes - ditto, I agree, stereotypes can be fun, but the main character, in order to have a complex personality, shouln't be entirely a stereotype. Other characters definetly can be, it all depends on implementation, such as your example of Wally. Stereoypes can be well written too.

I've enjoyed all this talk on Grim Fandango.  I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who finds it so powerful and moving.  It has to be the best game LucasArts made before they started pumping out all this Star Wars drivel.

Another GF fan! Great . Is Star wars as good or better than GF in your opinion though? (I haven't played any so I'm wondering).
And yes, GF is definetly very moving and emotional.

[Ginny]

I don't believe this, my previous message is too long, I can't put all this in it too.
I guess I ought to slow down a bit, but I have a lot on my mind hehe.

I, too, prefer characters who are clearly defined. The paragraph (summarised) said something like: The more defined the character is, the more the player can identify with the character. Furthermore, the different the character is from the player, the more the player can identify with it.

Looking at what has been written above, this seems to hold true. I've yet to come across an interesting game about a regular Joe doing regular stuff all day. Wouldn't be able to find myself in that person.

Now, Indiana Jones... yeah, I can identify with him, even though there are hardly any similarities between him and me (we're both male, that's about it).

So, as a conclusion, it could be said that to build a good story (and because of that, a good game) your characters should be unique, and clearly defined.

Hmm, interesting, what's the book called?

When I think about, playing someone exactly or even almost exactly like me would probably be boring or at least not as interesting as a unique and special character with special attributes. God, I just implied that I'm boring!
Actually I think it's because maybe we have a need to escape from your world (which was obvious before aswell) but also from our personality, because it's tied with our life and our world. Playing the regular Joe doing normal stuff is boring IMO, no doubt, but if the regular Joe is caught in an unusual adventure, then it becomes interesting, and if there is character development and change during the game (another issue dealing with emotion) then it becomes even more interesting and even emotional.
So after all, playing a character based on yourself or very much like yourself isn't boring, because we're not really regular Joe's completely, we have strong personalities and different attributes and histories. However playing a game where you live out a life of regular, routine tasks etc, isn't interesting in my opinion.

And yes, a defined and unique character is very important in creating a reson for the player to identify with him, and the mosr defined and the more interesting and un-generic, the more identification.

I, too, prefer characters who are clearly defined. The paragraph (summarised) said something like: The more defined the character is, the more the player can identify with the character. Furthermore, the different the character is from the player, the more the player can identify with it.

Looking at what has been written above, this seems to hold true. I've yet to come across an interesting game about a regular Joe doing regular stuff all day. Wouldn't be able to find myself in that person.

Now, Indiana Jones... yeah, I can identify with him, even though there are hardly any similarities between him and me (we're both male, that's about it).

So, as a conclusion, it could be said that to build a good story (and because of that, a good game) your characters should be unique, and clearly defined.

Hmm, interesting, what's the book called?

When I think about, playing someone exactly or even almost exactly like me would probably be boring or at least not as interesting as a unique and special character with special attributes. God, I just implied that I'm boring!
Actually I think it's because maybe we have a need to escape from your world (which was obvious before aswell) but also from our personality, because it's tied with our life and our world. Playing the regular Joe doing normal stuff is boring IMO, no doubt, but if the regular Joe is caught in an unusual adventure, then it becomes interesting, and if there is character development and change during the game (another issue dealing with emotion) then it becomes even more interesting and even emotional.
So after all, playing a character based on yourself or very much like yourself isn't boring, because we're not really regular Joe's completely, we have strong personalities and different attributes and histories. However playing a game where you live out a life of regular, routine tasks etc, isn't interesting in my opinion.

And yes, a defined and unique character is very important in creating a reson for the player to identify with him, and the mosr defined and the more interesting and un-generic, the more identification.

[Migs]

Here's an idea.  One way to make a game have an undeniable aspect of character personality, is to make the main character 100% based on YOU.  Each time you come up to a different obstacle, just ask What would I do?  Would you get mad and frustrated?  Would you stop and think quietly?  I think this would be a good exercise in character development and consistency.  From this, you can branch off and create unique characters.

[Las Naranjas]

Barcik-Not so naturally puts it there as exacerbates exponentially the tinistes shred of emotional impact (provided it comes from actions derived from what the player/protagonist does.).

[GarageGothic]

As long as the character refuses to say it then it won't damage his image, on the contrary, but it might make a very brave macho player (no offence to anyone hehe) feel distant from the character. Then again, maybe not, or maybe he was already distant.

Or maybe he would learn the frustration of bottling up emotions because of shyness, lack of courage or whatever. I think interactive environments, where the intereaction is restricted by the limitations of the character, is a great medium for gaining insight into and respect for people different from yourself.

about your example from your game, I don't see much of a problem, since it's excuses, but it was unclear to me why the example limited the player. The only matter wa that the male sidekick found a good counter-reason each time. It's a humourous situation if the protagonist isn't gay, an if she is it might be interesting emotionally, if it's something that's hard for her to admit.

Yes, that was what I was trying to convey. She is indeed gay, but always comes up with some way to avoid the topic. It's sort-of inspired by personal experience, but I think it works really well dramatically as well, because her admitting it changes the dynamics of their relationship and deepens their friendship.

I'm interested in the example you thought of from MI, care to share it?

I don't remember it exactly. But it was quite similar to the fictitious example. If nobody else remembers it, maybe it was from some other game. I'm pretty sure it was a LucasArts game though.

[Ginny]

Or maybe he would learn the frustration of bottling up emotions because of shyness, lack of courage or whatever. I think interactive environments, where the intereaction is restricted by the limitations of the character, is a great medium for gaining insight into and respect for people different from yourself.

That too .

[Barcik]

Las, still trying to understand you better - Take the following situation. You as the player worked hard to help the protagonist get an item, and as soon as you find it, it is taken away by the villain in a cutscene. Something like the beginning of MI2, if only it was under your guidance that Guybrush made all that money. The player feels anger, dislike, perhaps even hate. Is that an effect of the Uber Protagonist phenomenon?

[DGMacphee]

Barcik, I don't know if I should speak for Las, but from what I ascertain, you've got the right idea.

I think Las's text tries to explain the function of the Uber-Protagonist as a conduit between the gaming world and player's emotions, and specifically how the actions of the player determine such emotional impact.

Then again, it's Narangas' text and he could say it's something completely different, but that's the jist I got.

[Las Naranjas]

Fairly much barcik, but it's not so much the ramifications of what other characters do to the protagonist but the ramifications of what the protagonist does under the volition of the player. Whilst the former is true, it pales in the blinding light of the latter.

[Barcik]

Well, Las, I've been thinking about it and it seems you are pretty much right.
However, this is still mostly limited to things which happen under the player's responsibility.

[DGMacphee]

It's not really limiting though.

For a start, there's no alternative because all progression in the game happens under the player's responsibility anyway (As stated, the advancement of the story depends upon player interaction).

Thus, there is no game without player responsibility.

And further, Las's theory fits the same criteria as any aspect of an adventure game.

Therefore, you can't really consider empathy in a game as limited when it merely fits the same universe as narrative, character development, etc.

[Las Naranjas]

The player's area of responsibility (real or imagined) is over the protagonist (player character).
And a narrative is about the...protagonist.

[shitar]

Whats missing from most games.....?Hmmmm. NUDITY,GUNS,DRUGS!!!! Thats why Monkey Island is so popular... or is that GTA 3?