Protagonists (article)

[monele]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... _hero_.php

An interesting article about protagonists in video games.

As a hook for further discussion, what do you think about the first statement saying video game protagonists can't be flawed or give the choice to end things in an unusual way (think of a Thelma & Louise game where you get to choose "drive to death"...)

[lordcloudx]

Stopped reading after page 3 because I felt the author of the article was obviously biased towards action-based titles. Grand Theft Auto, Max Payne etc.

we gamers never want to be told our destinies. We insist on being our own masters – or at least the buzzed impression that we are.

Beep! Sweeping generalization alert level 3!!!
I don't really agree with this, which is why I like jrpgs translated to english better than western ones because of the more linear stories. I just like my protagonist with a unique personality who is also dynamic and grows as the story progresses. Being able to influence the character's personality and decisions too much would mean that the character's unique personality that I crafted from my gameplay wouldn't be able to mesh very well with the game's story.

I like to play a game knowing that there is a story, you can influence it... but that event that makes you shed a tear or two is still going to happen no matter what you do and when you least expect it.

[mikey]

As a hook for further discussion, what do you think about the first statement saying video game protagonists can't be flawed or give the choice to end things in an unusual way

This makes sense for the gameplay-supremacists.

Honestly, I often see how the theories go on about making characters memorable by making a characteristic stand out - and then other articles lament about the stereotypes and how intelectually undemanding games have become because the characters are too simple.

Well, duh... On one hand theories demand easy connection between the player and the characters - and on the other hand they want depth. And the best they've ever come up with is the recipe to make the character quickly interesting to catch the player's attention - and then gradually add depth and development as the game progresses.

I'm just afraid that all these theories simply take something existing and then identify how the character in question became memorable. Every now and then there comes along a new game and then they see "hey, look how THEY made their character memorable!". And then along comes another game that does it differently and then the theorists are analyzing how that one became memorable.

And one day, I'm almost sure, there will come a game where a protagonist is somehow insignificant, the complete opposite of the typical hero, and people will like him (because they are fed up with hero stereotypes, or simply because somehow the situation is right for a change) - and then the theories will go that "oh, this game is so special because it went against the stereotypes"... and so on, and so on.

So that's the problem for me, basically. Even though game design can have a few rules... or guidelines, in essence it's still a form of free expression, art - and well, rules and art are simply opposites.

Just consider this mental exercise - how would you create the WORST game, the WORST character? The most INSIGNIFICANT. The most AVERAGE. Try it - at least for me it's every bit as impossible as creating the best, and the most memorable.

[PyTom]

how would you create the WORST game

That's easy. It's Wolfenline 1-D, Episode 1: Escape from Tunnel Wolfenline.

The world's first 1-D shooter.

[monele]

The world's first 1-D shooter.

Mm... This would require mad button mashing skills o_o...


Anyway, you're right about the guy talking about a specific genre. Eh, well, they can't be thinking about VNs now, can they?
Still... if anyone has played Planescape Torment... I think you have a great example of how you can have a very very deep main character... yet have him be quite customizeable (in terms of gameplay *and* behavior orientation).

[Nafai]

Moni said:

Still... if anyone has played Planescape Torment... I think you have a great example of how you can have a very very deep main character... yet have him be quite customizeable (in terms of gameplay *and* behavior orientation).

Ah, Sigil... how do I love thee ^_^

I agree completely with Monele in terms of depth of character despite the various directions you could take him.

Which is why the ending was such a crying shame. All that diversity in the kinds of characters you could end up with - and the end is always the same.

Lordcloudx said:

I like to play a game knowing that there is a story, you can influence it... but that event that makes you shed a tear or two is still going to happen no matter what you do and when you least expect it.

I agree to a certain extent, although what I do mind are Deus Ex Machina 'tragic events' that are totally in opposition to your characters abilities and/or the way you've been playing your character. I mean, honestly if my characters repeatedly fight their way through gun-toting soldiers, then having a character die because she threw herself in the path of a bullet that was about to hit me - it doesn't sit well.

Or, worse, when you can't do anything to keep a character alive- despite the villain's long rants before pulling the trigger - because its a cinematic and your character is just made to stand there like an idiot.

Compare that say to Suikoden II and that... particular scene where you actually have a chance to change the outcome if you act REALLY quickly (and hence most of us fail the first time). All you Suik fans out there know what I mean...

I just like in-game unavoidable events to make sense I suppose. If they can explain why I can't use Phoenix Down on you know who, then I'd accept it better

[lordcloudx]

well deus ex machina is often just an excuse to justify an event anyway. So agreed. It just makes things look forced, but what I meant by making you shed a tear doesn't necessarily have to be tragic. One of the characters could utter a beautiful line at just the right moment etc.

I've also noticed that many rpgs have this inconsistency between the story mode character and the game mode character. Like in most final fantasies, you can just keep taking hits with a gun or take on multiple soldiers with a sword, but when in story mode, one single bullet can kill. An exception would be FF VII advent children and last order, which both prove that SOLDIERS can indeed take on multiple gun-toting soldiers since the bullets seem to travel slow as molasses for them.

I'd like to see the simple narrative battle system used in the translated snes adventure game Radical Dreamers used in a real rpg, now those battles were believable but still rpg-ish by nature.

Compare that say to Suikoden II and that... particular scene where you actually have a chance to change the outcome if you act REALLY quickly (and hence most of us fail the first time). All you Suik fans out there know what I mean...

Hehe you just press x quickly when the choices appear and she'll live.

Speaking of suikoden II, the protagonist is never shown saying anything but we assume that he speaks just like in chrono trigger and chrono cross

[monele]

I'd like to see the simple narrative battle system used in the translated snes adventure game Radical Dreamers used in a real rpg

Mmm... I've often meant to try this game... often did... but often stopped too XD... I'd love to learn more about it though... especially that battle thingie (maybe this is better for another topic though)

[PyTom]

I've also noticed that many rpgs have this inconsistency between the story mode character and the game mode character. Like in most final fantasies, you can just keep taking hits with a gun or take on multiple soldiers with a sword, but when in story mode, one single bullet can kill.

The best example of this is from the original Final Fantasy VII. The following is a spoiler, but it's _the spoiler_, the one everyone should know right now about the fate of one of the game's characters.

Yep, Aeris's death. A big advance for party/story based JRPGs, killing off one of the main character permanently.

But honestly, this wasn't the first time a Aeris had died on me in that game. And every other time, a little Phoenix Down was all it took to make her right as rain. So when I'm seeing the touching burial scene, I can't help thinking that I would much rather see the items menu, where 99 phoenix downs awat unused.

[Scout]

The article definitely seems pretty action game focused. It's too bad he doesn't actually go into his theory any deeper, because frankly, as far as action games go, I think it's pretty solid to the point of stating the obvious. Yes, if you want to have a game where you don't railroad the story, your hero must either make easy decisions (the action hero) or universal ones (the everyman), and parts where you can't are where the game ends up being open ended. That's pretty much a given. But... so what?

I wish there was more substance to it; as a writer who also makes action games, it'd sure be interesting to explore creating a well developed action hero. (The everyman, not so much. That's easy enough, to the point where I know I'm personally incredibly bored by the archetype.) He almost touches on how to develop the action hero-- what sort of problems they need to confront to actually develop-- but doesn't bother trying to relate that to an actual action game. I'm more interested in that.

Mmm... I've often meant to try this game... often did... but often stopped too XD... I'd love to learn more about it though... especially that battle thingie (maybe this is better for another topic though)

I really dislike Radical Dreamers (the ending is basically somebody's bad Chrono Trigger fanfic), but I thought that the battles were definitely done right. The narrative worked and it put you right into the battles... too bad they didn't really do much with the battle system, because it could be pretty neat to have a full RPG in that format. You still got to be a tough RPG action hero, but at the same time, it was very nicely grounded.

Shame about the rest of the game.

[lordcloudx]

You still got to be a tough RPG action hero, but at the same time, it was very nicely grounded.

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Serge fights like a girl in Radical Dreamers but still somehow manages to win most battles with a little luck and with the help of Kid and Magil.

I liked the ending too, but that much is a matter of personal preference.

I believe it was meant more to be a poetic style of conclusion rather than a reference to chrono trigger. It ties in well with the introductory words and gives things a bittersweet taste.

[Scout]

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Serge fights like a girl in Radical Dreamers but still somehow manages to win most battles with a little luck and with the help of Kid and Magil.

Well, okay, you got to be a sissy who thinks he's a tough action hero. That's the same thing, right?

[lordcloudx]

hehe that I agree with.