I might be mistaken, but it seems game series rarely include specific, perpetual antagonists... an enemy leader or rival who is always working against the player's character, though other enemies rise and fall.
Lex Luthor is a clear example. Even when Superman manages to catch the criminal mastermind and deliver him to prison, Luthor inevitably escapes and wreaks havoc again. The Joker is another (and my favorite) example. Though Batman faces many enemies, The Joker is a sort of polar opposite and has a way of turning up again after being defeated.
An arch enemy might work from hiding, like the Sith Lord does in the first episodes of Star Wars. Or the character might be revealed early on but is never seen in any overt action, as in LOTR with Sauron.
In games series, it seems antagonists continue on only in generalities. In Halo, it's the Covenant and the Flood. In Gears of War, it's the Locust army. There's no specific figure for the player to focus their emotions and opposition on. The opposition is national or ideological, rather than personal. I'm sure there are exceptions.
Observing that the four IPs with arch enemies listed above are some of the most popular stories in modern history, this seems to be a story and gameplay element worth considering.
Showing posts with label backstory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label backstory. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Friday, October 03, 2008
rivalries -- only for sports?
A rivalry is basically a fun sort of feud. And is it ever fun!
We rarely see them outside of sports games, because a necessary condition is that victories and defeats are not final. A nemesis or archenemy is different from a rival in that a rival cannot be permanently defeated. Each time you defeat a rival, there's a chance that rival will be back one day to defeat you. Victories are only temporary.
In fact, for the rivalry to retain emotional gravity, the competitive balance must remain relatively even. If you know you're always going to win against the enemy, then there's little emotional investment in the game.
Another necessary element of rivalries is history. Pointing a player to another as his rival can add a bit of fun, but the emotional investment in that rivalry is meek compared to if the two players shared a history. The longer and more eventful the history, the more powerful that rivalry becomes... which is why I can't wait to see Bama roll over Auburn this year!
Mario vs Bowser can be called a rivalry in Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers. I grew up on Nintendo consoles, so I knew those two had been locked in a never-ending battle for years. I still would not call that rivalry if the those characters met only in Mario adventure games, but the many competitive spin-offs have allowed Bowser to have his share of wins, too.
Even so, Bowser and Mario share a public history only (to my knowledge) in the adventure games. Their interactions in the competitive spin-offs are limited to personal histories. Mario always wins in the adventure games, no matter who's playing. Bowser's victories were seldom recorded and shared.
Notice that those Mario spin-offs in which a rivalry exists are, again, sports games.
Warhammer Online is a non-sport that includes rival factions. For long-time Warhammer IP fans, those rivalries have long and eventful histories, so they are powerful. But for players new to the IP, like me, WAR is like suddenly joining a centuries-old feud you know nothing about. Thankfully, the history there is a living history, seen in the game's environments and felt throughout gameplay. But the rivalries are still shallow in comparison to sports if you're new to the IP. And while sports have dozens of teams with many rivalries, WAR is limited to just three (not counting the broad Order vs Destruction).
So, considering all that, how can deep and lasting rivalries be included in non-sports games or developed over time among their players? How can that gap between sports and non-sports be better bridged?
We rarely see them outside of sports games, because a necessary condition is that victories and defeats are not final. A nemesis or archenemy is different from a rival in that a rival cannot be permanently defeated. Each time you defeat a rival, there's a chance that rival will be back one day to defeat you. Victories are only temporary.
In fact, for the rivalry to retain emotional gravity, the competitive balance must remain relatively even. If you know you're always going to win against the enemy, then there's little emotional investment in the game.
Another necessary element of rivalries is history. Pointing a player to another as his rival can add a bit of fun, but the emotional investment in that rivalry is meek compared to if the two players shared a history. The longer and more eventful the history, the more powerful that rivalry becomes... which is why I can't wait to see Bama roll over Auburn this year!
Mario vs Bowser can be called a rivalry in Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers. I grew up on Nintendo consoles, so I knew those two had been locked in a never-ending battle for years. I still would not call that rivalry if the those characters met only in Mario adventure games, but the many competitive spin-offs have allowed Bowser to have his share of wins, too.
Even so, Bowser and Mario share a public history only (to my knowledge) in the adventure games. Their interactions in the competitive spin-offs are limited to personal histories. Mario always wins in the adventure games, no matter who's playing. Bowser's victories were seldom recorded and shared.
Notice that those Mario spin-offs in which a rivalry exists are, again, sports games.
Warhammer Online is a non-sport that includes rival factions. For long-time Warhammer IP fans, those rivalries have long and eventful histories, so they are powerful. But for players new to the IP, like me, WAR is like suddenly joining a centuries-old feud you know nothing about. Thankfully, the history there is a living history, seen in the game's environments and felt throughout gameplay. But the rivalries are still shallow in comparison to sports if you're new to the IP. And while sports have dozens of teams with many rivalries, WAR is limited to just three (not counting the broad Order vs Destruction).
So, considering all that, how can deep and lasting rivalries be included in non-sports games or developed over time among their players? How can that gap between sports and non-sports be better bridged?
Monday, June 09, 2008
classic stories vs mere entertainment
This started out as a response to Monique's article over at Write the Game, in which she stresses the importance of relationships in game dramas.
I think every classic novel and film is fundamentally about human beings and human relationships ( with others, with nature, with God, with past and future generations, with technology, etc). Classic stories are about us. Through the story experience, we, the audience, understand a little more about ourselves and how we as individuals relate to the world.
When we watch the movie Alien, for example, we're fascinated by the monster; but it's the human responses to the alien that make the story memorable. Otherwise, the Sci-Fi Channel's original movies would be worth watching. ;)
Consider this: Comedy (by which I mean "humorous narrative", as opposed to the literary critic's definition) has been around since the dawn of acting, literature (including oral literature), and art. Yet how many comedies are considered classics? The comedies that last beyond generations offer more than mere resolution. Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing and A Midsummer Night's Dream explore relationships that cannot be fully defined or explained because they are truthfully-imagined human relationships, rather than mere stratagems in entertaining plots.
What attracts so many to Da Vinci's most famous painting every year, what is mentioned time and again in the countless critiques it has received, is the mystery of Mona Lisa's smile and gaze. The painting stands on its accurate representation of the beautiful subtlety and mystery of human emotion.
Entertaining stories leave us with answers; with certain conclusions. Classics leave us with answers, but also questions -- questions which, despite their universality or social focus, are deeply personal. Classics can be appreciated over and over again because we're never entirely sure of our own responses to them. We notice things the second time around that we didn't notice the first time. Classics grow with us. Our individual personalities and experiences, our cultural, geographical, and technological points of reference, our exposure to other artistic works -- these things change us, and so change what we see in and how we respond to those great stories. Every time we read them, listen to them, gaze upon them, play them... every time it's new, because we also are new.
Where does a soldier find the strength and immediately-present love to jump on a grenade so his comrades might be spared? What do you do when a child points a gun at you with intent to kill? Is it a betrayal of friendship to ask for romance, not knowing the nature of that friend's thoughts of you? When are you obligated to reveal your feelings, and when are you obligated to be happy or brave for another person?
Those are the sort of questions classic stories raise. They are questions without certain answers. We've been asking them for thousands of years, yet still we have only incomplete and often unsatisfying responses. Classic works often provide those partial answers. They hint at the truth we know, and motivate audiences to keep searching for the rest.
I believe that all human beings are called to perfection. None of us can be perfect, but each of us is capable of amazing feats. We should strive toward the amazing, reach for the miraculous. That calling is present in every aspect of our lives, and it includes making art. Few of us will ever create a masterpiece, but we should all aim that high. The place to start is within ourselves -- the questions that drive our lives and define our actions. We all ask classic questions. A master storyteller shares such thoughts in a presentation that does them justice.
I think every classic novel and film is fundamentally about human beings and human relationships ( with others, with nature, with God, with past and future generations, with technology, etc). Classic stories are about us. Through the story experience, we, the audience, understand a little more about ourselves and how we as individuals relate to the world.
When we watch the movie Alien, for example, we're fascinated by the monster; but it's the human responses to the alien that make the story memorable. Otherwise, the Sci-Fi Channel's original movies would be worth watching. ;)
Consider this: Comedy (by which I mean "humorous narrative", as opposed to the literary critic's definition) has been around since the dawn of acting, literature (including oral literature), and art. Yet how many comedies are considered classics? The comedies that last beyond generations offer more than mere resolution. Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing and A Midsummer Night's Dream explore relationships that cannot be fully defined or explained because they are truthfully-imagined human relationships, rather than mere stratagems in entertaining plots.
What attracts so many to Da Vinci's most famous painting every year, what is mentioned time and again in the countless critiques it has received, is the mystery of Mona Lisa's smile and gaze. The painting stands on its accurate representation of the beautiful subtlety and mystery of human emotion.
Entertaining stories leave us with answers; with certain conclusions. Classics leave us with answers, but also questions -- questions which, despite their universality or social focus, are deeply personal. Classics can be appreciated over and over again because we're never entirely sure of our own responses to them. We notice things the second time around that we didn't notice the first time. Classics grow with us. Our individual personalities and experiences, our cultural, geographical, and technological points of reference, our exposure to other artistic works -- these things change us, and so change what we see in and how we respond to those great stories. Every time we read them, listen to them, gaze upon them, play them... every time it's new, because we also are new.
Where does a soldier find the strength and immediately-present love to jump on a grenade so his comrades might be spared? What do you do when a child points a gun at you with intent to kill? Is it a betrayal of friendship to ask for romance, not knowing the nature of that friend's thoughts of you? When are you obligated to reveal your feelings, and when are you obligated to be happy or brave for another person?
Those are the sort of questions classic stories raise. They are questions without certain answers. We've been asking them for thousands of years, yet still we have only incomplete and often unsatisfying responses. Classic works often provide those partial answers. They hint at the truth we know, and motivate audiences to keep searching for the rest.
I believe that all human beings are called to perfection. None of us can be perfect, but each of us is capable of amazing feats. We should strive toward the amazing, reach for the miraculous. That calling is present in every aspect of our lives, and it includes making art. Few of us will ever create a masterpiece, but we should all aim that high. The place to start is within ourselves -- the questions that drive our lives and define our actions. We all ask classic questions. A master storyteller shares such thoughts in a presentation that does them justice.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Gradual backstory
I've been toying with the idea of a system that would offer the player backstory options based on the player's previous actions. This way, the backstory would develop gradually over the course of weeks, or even months.
Honestly, I'm not sure yet if I like the idea myself, but it seems worth consideration. A good and individual backstory helps significantly to attach players to their characters. Blank slates, however, like the empty chat box in SWG, are just as likely to intimidate players as to help them. Even an experienced, professional writer will probably give you a questioning stare if you give him nothing more than a blank sheet of paper and say "write something." People generally need more guidance than that. So I've been thinking...
How can the developer guide players toward backstories that feel truly personal, but without expecting the players to write the stories themselves?
DEV-WRITTEN, PLAYER-CHOSEN
Backstory quests would be placed on the server, but not assigned to any particular NPC. The game would categorize player actions over time, and occcasionally offer the player a backstory quest (or other type of experience) related to those player actions.
For example, if the player demonstrates a fondness for bandits, an NPC might inquire if the player has any experience with police duty and (if the player confirms interest in the subject) offer that player a chance to retrace his law roots through some sort of quest.
Which NPCs can offer which backstory quests would be determined by relevance (a humble sailor's not likely to be familiar with your royal upbringing), but many NPCs would be capable of offering each such quest. That way, the player is likely to run into it, no matter which city or which part of town his adventure passes through.
The gist is: (1) the developer offers a quality backstory through NPC dialogue or similar content; (2) the player determines his or her own backstory options -- indirectly through natural gameplay choices, rather than being faced with a mess of stories at the character creation stage that the player may or may not be interested in at all; and (3) the player has the final say, accepting the screened and personalized story offered or holding out until the next story offering.
OR LET THE PLAYERS WRITE IT
All of this, of course, isn't meant to exclude the possibility of the developer guiding players to stories which they write themselves. Certainly, more could be done toward that end.
And I've learned to expect admirable creativity from just about any person, given the right guidance and a little luck; even if that person is certain he or she is completely incapable. Years ago, I read a very interesting and inspiring book in which an elementary school teacher had his students write their own poems after reading famous, complex works (including Shakespeare)... poetry everyone thought only adults could truly appreciate. The results are astounding. As I'm sure anyone with children knows, "out of the mouths of babes..." doesn't just refer to faux paus. Some of these child-written poems are profound.
Anyway, that book is one reason I'm confident that MMO players are capable of writing good stories for their characters, if developers could only figure out how best to inspire them.
Honestly, I'm not sure yet if I like the idea myself, but it seems worth consideration. A good and individual backstory helps significantly to attach players to their characters. Blank slates, however, like the empty chat box in SWG, are just as likely to intimidate players as to help them. Even an experienced, professional writer will probably give you a questioning stare if you give him nothing more than a blank sheet of paper and say "write something." People generally need more guidance than that. So I've been thinking...
How can the developer guide players toward backstories that feel truly personal, but without expecting the players to write the stories themselves?
DEV-WRITTEN, PLAYER-CHOSEN
Backstory quests would be placed on the server, but not assigned to any particular NPC. The game would categorize player actions over time, and occcasionally offer the player a backstory quest (or other type of experience) related to those player actions.
For example, if the player demonstrates a fondness for bandits, an NPC might inquire if the player has any experience with police duty and (if the player confirms interest in the subject) offer that player a chance to retrace his law roots through some sort of quest.
Which NPCs can offer which backstory quests would be determined by relevance (a humble sailor's not likely to be familiar with your royal upbringing), but many NPCs would be capable of offering each such quest. That way, the player is likely to run into it, no matter which city or which part of town his adventure passes through.
The gist is: (1) the developer offers a quality backstory through NPC dialogue or similar content; (2) the player determines his or her own backstory options -- indirectly through natural gameplay choices, rather than being faced with a mess of stories at the character creation stage that the player may or may not be interested in at all; and (3) the player has the final say, accepting the screened and personalized story offered or holding out until the next story offering.
OR LET THE PLAYERS WRITE IT
All of this, of course, isn't meant to exclude the possibility of the developer guiding players to stories which they write themselves. Certainly, more could be done toward that end.
And I've learned to expect admirable creativity from just about any person, given the right guidance and a little luck; even if that person is certain he or she is completely incapable. Years ago, I read a very interesting and inspiring book in which an elementary school teacher had his students write their own poems after reading famous, complex works (including Shakespeare)... poetry everyone thought only adults could truly appreciate. The results are astounding. As I'm sure anyone with children knows, "out of the mouths of babes..." doesn't just refer to faux paus. Some of these child-written poems are profound.
Anyway, that book is one reason I'm confident that MMO players are capable of writing good stories for their characters, if developers could only figure out how best to inspire them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
