In literature and film, the most crucial storytelling element is the characters and interaction between them. Compelling characters make up for a lot of slack in plot and setting. Just look at the most popular TV shows -- they're all driven by interesting characters and the hooks involve those characters. Ask a person what they liked about a book, and they'll probably begin by describing a character or a character-defining action. In novels and movies, the audience experiences things sympathetically. We follow someone else's journey and think/feel with that character.
In video games, the most crucial story element is setting. No matter how good the plot may be, the heart of a game always lies with the decisions and skills of the player. The main job of the developers is to create a great setting, and to define how and why the player will interact with that setting.
That's true even in plot-driven games. Plot is undeniably important in the Halo series. But the primary purpose of that plot, effectively, is to make the player feel like a hero and anticipate escalating challenges. There are few exceptions... mostly Bioware games (which I often describe as a blending of mediums -- game and film).
Characters are important in many games, but they are typically used more in line with cinematic goals than gaming ones. They're actors in a script for players to receive, rather than set pieces for players to experiment with and affect.
As Raph Koster has stated many times, play is fundamentally about learning through action. Plot and characters should serve the setting. In a game, the primary value of any character is what the player can do with that character or how that character affects the setting. Plots in a game provide inspiration and change the rules of play (ex: now, you must go this way, use this weapon, etc).
I appreciate games mixed heavily with cinema, like Mass Effect or Ghostbusters, but it's important to recognize such games as a blending of mediums. Games are not about being taken along on grand adventures. Games are about going on the adventures, yourself... your own adventures.
Showing posts with label characters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label characters. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
separating skills and loot
A question came up while I was thinking about Borderlands. In a loot-driven game, must skills and loot be related?
I'd say no, they don't have to be. Yet they usually are, aren't they?
Weapon specialization skills are common. I've never been sure if I like them. On the one hand, specialization can give a character personality. In Diablo 2, I imagined my Barbarian differently depending on whether he fought with swords or with giant two-handed mauls. On the other hand, it deters players from using items they aren't specialized in, thereby reducing the fun value of other loot.
Overall, I think I prefer no specialization skills. That reduces the likelihood that I'll loot something I can't comfortably use. But a few games, like Diablo 2, do offer enough skill options that one can avoid those of specialization entirely.
The regular bond between loot and skills isn't limited to specialization, though. Magic users are often limited to staffs, wands and "focus" items. Incidentally, why must magic classes always be intellectual pansies who lob spells from afar?
Melee characters get skills that involve spinning, slamming, or jabbing. Ranged-style characters get skills for accuracy, long shots, and reload time. Many, if not most, skills in games rely heavily on whether a character is a melee or ranged fighter.
Anyway, I'd like to see some games consciously separate skills and loot... meaning any character can use any weapon or other item, and character types are divided by skills unrelated to what they're using.
I'd say no, they don't have to be. Yet they usually are, aren't they?
Weapon specialization skills are common. I've never been sure if I like them. On the one hand, specialization can give a character personality. In Diablo 2, I imagined my Barbarian differently depending on whether he fought with swords or with giant two-handed mauls. On the other hand, it deters players from using items they aren't specialized in, thereby reducing the fun value of other loot.
Overall, I think I prefer no specialization skills. That reduces the likelihood that I'll loot something I can't comfortably use. But a few games, like Diablo 2, do offer enough skill options that one can avoid those of specialization entirely.
The regular bond between loot and skills isn't limited to specialization, though. Magic users are often limited to staffs, wands and "focus" items. Incidentally, why must magic classes always be intellectual pansies who lob spells from afar?
Melee characters get skills that involve spinning, slamming, or jabbing. Ranged-style characters get skills for accuracy, long shots, and reload time. Many, if not most, skills in games rely heavily on whether a character is a melee or ranged fighter.
Anyway, I'd like to see some games consciously separate skills and loot... meaning any character can use any weapon or other item, and character types are divided by skills unrelated to what they're using.
Monday, August 31, 2009
facial recognition
As I'm reading IGN's interview with Peter Molyneux, I think about pets. No, not because Fable 2 has a dog. Pets come to mind because they demonstrate how personal something can be without verbal communication.
All a dog needs from you to respond accordingly is your face. Project Natal currently includes accurate enough facial recognition to distinguish one player from another, but I doubt it can detect all the subtle signs of emotion in a human face.
If a game publisher can create a camera system with that kind of accuracy at an affordable price, the sympathetic connection between players and game characters will be able to strengthen exponentially.
All a dog needs from you to respond accordingly is your face. Project Natal currently includes accurate enough facial recognition to distinguish one player from another, but I doubt it can detect all the subtle signs of emotion in a human face.
If a game publisher can create a camera system with that kind of accuracy at an affordable price, the sympathetic connection between players and game characters will be able to strengthen exponentially.
Friday, August 07, 2009
The Joker
I just want to repeat something I said on Twitter after playing the Batman: Arkham Asylum demo (awesome, by the way).
The Joker is one of the best villains of all time. He is the only villain I know that will choose fun over victory.
That's a trait worth copying.
The Joker is one of the best villains of all time. He is the only villain I know that will choose fun over victory.
That's a trait worth copying.
Monday, August 03, 2009
idols and memorabilia
You can tell a lot about a person or people by who their heroes are; by who and what they memorialize.
I stopped in a Taco Bell in Louisiana the other day, and a few Saints and LSU jerseys were framed on the wall. A local sports team's trophy sat on a shelf. That marks a culture that's long been free of war (at home) and other great struggles, allowing them to focus on entertainment.
In San Antonio, one restaurant has pictures of Pancho Villa and Santa Anna. The salute to old enemies of Texas is especially striking because nobody thinks much of it, marking a culture with strong ties to Mexico.
Another Texas town used to have a bar with a fantastically long rifle hung on the wall, and letters beneath it saying, "This here rifle once killed thirty mescans in one shot." It symbolized a people's pride in winning their independence in battle over a century ago, even though that independence had long since passed.
Some cities have statues of warriors. Others have statues of poets, philosophers, or politicians. Some choose to celebrate history over a thousand years old, while others focus on the recent.
Some persons hang pictures of relatives and ancestors. Some exhibit love for their parents or grandparents culture, rather than their own. Others fill their homes with glimpses of distant lands because they'd rather be anywhere than home.
More could be done in games to define settings and characters through objects.
I stopped in a Taco Bell in Louisiana the other day, and a few Saints and LSU jerseys were framed on the wall. A local sports team's trophy sat on a shelf. That marks a culture that's long been free of war (at home) and other great struggles, allowing them to focus on entertainment.
In San Antonio, one restaurant has pictures of Pancho Villa and Santa Anna. The salute to old enemies of Texas is especially striking because nobody thinks much of it, marking a culture with strong ties to Mexico.
Another Texas town used to have a bar with a fantastically long rifle hung on the wall, and letters beneath it saying, "This here rifle once killed thirty mescans in one shot." It symbolized a people's pride in winning their independence in battle over a century ago, even though that independence had long since passed.
Some cities have statues of warriors. Others have statues of poets, philosophers, or politicians. Some choose to celebrate history over a thousand years old, while others focus on the recent.
Some persons hang pictures of relatives and ancestors. Some exhibit love for their parents or grandparents culture, rather than their own. Others fill their homes with glimpses of distant lands because they'd rather be anywhere than home.
More could be done in games to define settings and characters through objects.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
madness and conspiracy
In responding to Trent Polack's post on unreliable narrators, I shared a bit of my family's history with schizophrenia and how different symptoms might be made into gameplay. I gradually realized that placing a hero with schizophrenia in a real conspiracy could make for a unique and exciting game.
You might think of the movie Conspiracy Theory, but that's not exactly what I had in mind. While some degree of paranoia would be a good feature, the protagonist I'm suggesting would exercise more self-control. The hero's madness would take a more sporadic, more hallucinogenic form that the player could feel. Here are some examples, from my comment on Trent's post:
The visual delusions might even be used to create an adaptive AI that adjusts difficulty to performance, ala Left 4 Dead. The more help the player needs, the clearer the character's perception becomes, opening up new opportunities.
There are other schizo symptoms that might play a role, such as being aloof or having trouble finishing more than a couple sentences without a pause or wandering thought. But, in any case, my point is that an unreliable "narrator" and conspiracy could be a great mix.
You might think of the movie Conspiracy Theory, but that's not exactly what I had in mind. While some degree of paranoia would be a good feature, the protagonist I'm suggesting would exercise more self-control. The hero's madness would take a more sporadic, more hallucinogenic form that the player could feel. Here are some examples, from my comment on Trent's post:
Schizophrenia runs in my family. For my cousin, hallucinations have taken the form of believing others are angry and yelling at him when they are not. In a game, experiences like that could be used to make a player unable to discern who can be trusted, who are enemies and allies.The basic idea is a character who can carry on a very clear and orderly conversation but occasionally falls victim to delusions and problems such as these. These problems could make him distrustful of others, make other distrustful of him (when he's telling the truth), and affect the player's interaction with the environment.
I have much milder schizophrenia. I've had hallucinations where my mind couldn't organize the patterns I was seeing into a meaningful image, so I saw one thing as something else. In gameplay, the player might see something falsely the first time and correctly every time after that, creating the possibility that the player bypasses something useful. Imagine fighting with a baseball bat and realizing halfway through the fight there's a gun nearby.
I've also had memory blocks. A few years ago, I asked my brother how he got the eggs in the frying pan to be all yellow. For about 5 minutes, the very mundane memory of eggs was trapped in my mind and everyone was looking at me like I was crazy. That frustration of hearing everyone around you identify reality as something other than what you're seeing it as... that's gameplay I haven't seen yet. It could be compelling gameplay if the character also saw some things differently than other people and was correct in those observations. Imagine a schizophrenic hero working to unravel a true conspiracy.
The visual delusions might even be used to create an adaptive AI that adjusts difficulty to performance, ala Left 4 Dead. The more help the player needs, the clearer the character's perception becomes, opening up new opportunities.
There are other schizo symptoms that might play a role, such as being aloof or having trouble finishing more than a couple sentences without a pause or wandering thought. But, in any case, my point is that an unreliable "narrator" and conspiracy could be a great mix.
Monday, July 27, 2009
cliffhangers as guidance
Over the weekend, I watched a movie called Limbo. It has an especially clever ending.
In the final scene, the main characters are stranded on a small, out-of-the-way island in Alaska. They see a plane coming towards them. They were expecting this plane, but they don't yet know whether the pilot has come to rescue them or to kill them (for reasons I won't go into). For many tense moments, the three hug each other as they watch the plane slowly make its way toward them.
Then the camera cuts out and the credits roll. Whether they were rescued or slain is left unanswered.
What's clever about that ending is that it strongly emphasizes the story's theme, which was how these three characters living in a sort of limbo grew together into a family. The jarring lack of resolution to the action demands questions from the audience, forcing them to reflect and consider the theme more deeply.
The usual purpose of cliffhangers is to ensure the audience is interested in viewing the next episode of a story. In this case, a cliffhanger was used to illuminate a finished story. How might something similar be done in a game?
In the final scene, the main characters are stranded on a small, out-of-the-way island in Alaska. They see a plane coming towards them. They were expecting this plane, but they don't yet know whether the pilot has come to rescue them or to kill them (for reasons I won't go into). For many tense moments, the three hug each other as they watch the plane slowly make its way toward them.
Then the camera cuts out and the credits roll. Whether they were rescued or slain is left unanswered.
What's clever about that ending is that it strongly emphasizes the story's theme, which was how these three characters living in a sort of limbo grew together into a family. The jarring lack of resolution to the action demands questions from the audience, forcing them to reflect and consider the theme more deeply.
The usual purpose of cliffhangers is to ensure the audience is interested in viewing the next episode of a story. In this case, a cliffhanger was used to illuminate a finished story. How might something similar be done in a game?
Monday, July 13, 2009
sex scenes
The thing about sex scenes is they usually don't communicate anything that couldn't have been communicated just as well or better in more subtle ways.
That's not always the case. Sex scenes do make sense sometimes. Ironically, the first example that comes to mind is clothed sex scene in the movie Hot Shots, where Topper Harley cooks breakfast on the woman's sizzling belly. I know that's not a good example.
The sex scenes in A History of Violence are a better example. The story is about a reformed man who is forced to face his thuggish past, and forced to realize that those thuggish inclinations remain a part of him. Both sides of his personality are shown in two very different sex scenes. In the first, he is gentle and giving. In the second, he is brutal and selfish. Since the story as a whole is graphic and adult-oriented, using sex scenes to show this dichotomy makes sense.
On the other hand, consider the movie Big. That film shows Susan unbuttoning her blouse and John putting his hands on tits for the first time, but then camera fades out before even her bra is off. It's a simple, subtle scene that shows little and reveals much. Later, the characters laugh after Susan expresses some anxiety over the relationship. John leaps onto her and the camera cuts away. Sex is again implied, and all that the storytellers wanted to convey is expressed without actually showing the sex.
To Catch a Thief with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly is another good example of subtlety.
Mystery can be a powerful tool. In horror stories, keeping the monster/ghost/psychopath hidden or mysterious often increases suspense. It allows the audience to interject their own fears and suspicions, thereby personalizing the story... as well as demanding much of the audience's concentration and making them more susceptible to awe and suggestion. Likewise, mystery surrounding sex allows the audience to imagine what they will, allowing for personal expectations. It can also preclude conscious consideration by moving on quickly, thereby encouraging the audience to react with gut instincts.
Not showing sex doesn't reduce its presence or impact on a story. Dracula is a great example. The vampire's habit of biting on the neck is suggestive and provocative. Ever since Stoker's novel, vampires have been associated with sensuality. Stoker wrote more graphic scenes, as have many authors of vampire stories, but it is the neck-biting that most audiences remember.
The increasingly common inclusion of sex scenes and their increasingly graphic nature is more a cultural trend than an artistic one. I've seen almost as many films made before the Sexual Revolution as after, which is rare for someone of my generation. And I'm sure many of you are familiar with many classic works of literature, like Oedipus Rex or The Taming of the Shrew. These stories don't shy from sexual themes, but instead present them in thoughtful, rather than obvious, ways.
As is often the case in art, restraint can inspire. Just think of your daily conversations. Who usually speaks more artfully -- the person trying to be polite and considerate, or the person who accepts no bounds? I cuss quite a bit on occasion, but it's when I'm not cussing that I speak more eloquently. Try to tell a dirty joke in a clean way; you might find that the nuance makes the joke funnier. Restraints are challenges, and challenges feed the imagination.
As I said before, showing sex explicitly certainly makes sense sometimes. But I think trying to present the same themes without obvious presentations often leads to better results.
The same goes for making particular characters sexy -- try to make him or her sexy without any brazen comments, without tight clothes and a lot of bare skin, and you might be surprised at the effect.
That's not always the case. Sex scenes do make sense sometimes. Ironically, the first example that comes to mind is clothed sex scene in the movie Hot Shots, where Topper Harley cooks breakfast on the woman's sizzling belly. I know that's not a good example.
The sex scenes in A History of Violence are a better example. The story is about a reformed man who is forced to face his thuggish past, and forced to realize that those thuggish inclinations remain a part of him. Both sides of his personality are shown in two very different sex scenes. In the first, he is gentle and giving. In the second, he is brutal and selfish. Since the story as a whole is graphic and adult-oriented, using sex scenes to show this dichotomy makes sense.
On the other hand, consider the movie Big. That film shows Susan unbuttoning her blouse and John putting his hands on tits for the first time, but then camera fades out before even her bra is off. It's a simple, subtle scene that shows little and reveals much. Later, the characters laugh after Susan expresses some anxiety over the relationship. John leaps onto her and the camera cuts away. Sex is again implied, and all that the storytellers wanted to convey is expressed without actually showing the sex.
To Catch a Thief with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly is another good example of subtlety.
Mystery can be a powerful tool. In horror stories, keeping the monster/ghost/psychopath hidden or mysterious often increases suspense. It allows the audience to interject their own fears and suspicions, thereby personalizing the story... as well as demanding much of the audience's concentration and making them more susceptible to awe and suggestion. Likewise, mystery surrounding sex allows the audience to imagine what they will, allowing for personal expectations. It can also preclude conscious consideration by moving on quickly, thereby encouraging the audience to react with gut instincts.
Not showing sex doesn't reduce its presence or impact on a story. Dracula is a great example. The vampire's habit of biting on the neck is suggestive and provocative. Ever since Stoker's novel, vampires have been associated with sensuality. Stoker wrote more graphic scenes, as have many authors of vampire stories, but it is the neck-biting that most audiences remember.
The increasingly common inclusion of sex scenes and their increasingly graphic nature is more a cultural trend than an artistic one. I've seen almost as many films made before the Sexual Revolution as after, which is rare for someone of my generation. And I'm sure many of you are familiar with many classic works of literature, like Oedipus Rex or The Taming of the Shrew. These stories don't shy from sexual themes, but instead present them in thoughtful, rather than obvious, ways.
As is often the case in art, restraint can inspire. Just think of your daily conversations. Who usually speaks more artfully -- the person trying to be polite and considerate, or the person who accepts no bounds? I cuss quite a bit on occasion, but it's when I'm not cussing that I speak more eloquently. Try to tell a dirty joke in a clean way; you might find that the nuance makes the joke funnier. Restraints are challenges, and challenges feed the imagination.
As I said before, showing sex explicitly certainly makes sense sometimes. But I think trying to present the same themes without obvious presentations often leads to better results.
The same goes for making particular characters sexy -- try to make him or her sexy without any brazen comments, without tight clothes and a lot of bare skin, and you might be surprised at the effect.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
arch enemies
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
civilians and facing mistakes
I'm happy to see civilians running around in Modern Warfare 2's latest trailer, as well as fighters in civilian clothes.
I can only guess the scenes with people running away are during battles and not between. If there are civilians present during battles, with actual risk of civilian casualties, I consider that a big leap forward for first-person war games. War is never just between soldiers.
I have played games before in which it was possible to shoot the wrong people and be punished for it. Anyone who has played the Call of Duty games has been forced to restart from a checkpoint after shooting an ally. I believe that's the wrong way to punish such mistakes.
A reset means the offending action never happened. It's like a deleted scene or an expunged record. For mistakes to truly matter, they must remain part of the player's journey, an irrevocable moment which demands reflection and penance. If that moment can be erased, even in a punishment like a reset, then the player is not made to face it and reflect.
Civilians are important to war simulations (as opposed to arcade shooters) because they epitomize the moral complexity and uncertainty of war. Some civilians are hostile but not threatening. Some are dangerous in their foolhardy support. Some who would run away and seem harmless are dangerous, not by will, but due to the information they possess that enemies could gain by interrogation.
Fun over simulation -- I understand. But such complications of real warfare can make settings and stories infinitely more compelling, and potentially add replayability. Civilians are not a vital element for war games, but represent enormous untapped potential.
I can only guess the scenes with people running away are during battles and not between. If there are civilians present during battles, with actual risk of civilian casualties, I consider that a big leap forward for first-person war games. War is never just between soldiers.
I have played games before in which it was possible to shoot the wrong people and be punished for it. Anyone who has played the Call of Duty games has been forced to restart from a checkpoint after shooting an ally. I believe that's the wrong way to punish such mistakes.
A reset means the offending action never happened. It's like a deleted scene or an expunged record. For mistakes to truly matter, they must remain part of the player's journey, an irrevocable moment which demands reflection and penance. If that moment can be erased, even in a punishment like a reset, then the player is not made to face it and reflect.
Civilians are important to war simulations (as opposed to arcade shooters) because they epitomize the moral complexity and uncertainty of war. Some civilians are hostile but not threatening. Some are dangerous in their foolhardy support. Some who would run away and seem harmless are dangerous, not by will, but due to the information they possess that enemies could gain by interrogation.
Fun over simulation -- I understand. But such complications of real warfare can make settings and stories infinitely more compelling, and potentially add replayability. Civilians are not a vital element for war games, but represent enormous untapped potential.
Friday, May 15, 2009
the uncanny in sci-fi
Science fiction is fertile ground for the uncanny. As I've explained before, uncanny describes objects and situations which are simultaneously strange and familiar, often disturbingly so. This is typically manifested in a character or object that is familiar in all ways but one.
I thought of this while watching the Skynet infomercials (clever ads for the Terminator: Salvation film).
The characters in this video have an oddness about them. The man seems like just a poor actor. But the woman's head movements, facial expressions, and repeated touching of her earpiece suggest something disturbing about her.
Anyway, while watching that video, I realized that robots become creepy when they resemble creatures that don't move like robots. For example, one wouldn't expect a robot to move like a snake or a fish. The eye-scanning robots in Minority Report were creepy because they moved like spiders.
But if there's not enough familiarity, then it's not disturbing. For example, the cybernetic tree in Too Human is equally like a tree and like a computer, and so it simply looks cool. A cyborg is more unsettling when it is mostly human than when it is only half human.
One could design a good sci-fi horror story by filling the world with uncanny technologies.
I thought of this while watching the Skynet infomercials (clever ads for the Terminator: Salvation film).
The characters in this video have an oddness about them. The man seems like just a poor actor. But the woman's head movements, facial expressions, and repeated touching of her earpiece suggest something disturbing about her.
Anyway, while watching that video, I realized that robots become creepy when they resemble creatures that don't move like robots. For example, one wouldn't expect a robot to move like a snake or a fish. The eye-scanning robots in Minority Report were creepy because they moved like spiders.
But if there's not enough familiarity, then it's not disturbing. For example, the cybernetic tree in Too Human is equally like a tree and like a computer, and so it simply looks cool. A cyborg is more unsettling when it is mostly human than when it is only half human.
One could design a good sci-fi horror story by filling the world with uncanny technologies.
Friday, May 08, 2009
illuminating characters
In the recent "Blinded" episode of Lie To Me, an interesting thing happens (spoiler alert).
Throughout the show, a support character demonstrates no skill or productivity. He's driven by anger, not by reason, and that anger doesn't help. He's nothing but a burden to the team. One could almost say he's unimportant.
But at the end, a situation arises that suits his aptitudes. Suddenly, this character is the saving grace. In moments, he reveals a few profound insights that lead directly to the team's victory. The sudden departure from his past image is surprising, but believable.
This is a great example of what round characters should be. Authors should know more about their characters than they reveal. It's interesting to audiences when characters make sense but are never entirely known and understood. And character actions are more interesting when they can't be traced to a single origin.
Surprises like this can also encourage the audience to expect surprises throughout the setting and story, to wonder if they've misjudged other characters. Watch that episode sometime to see what I mean.
Throughout the show, a support character demonstrates no skill or productivity. He's driven by anger, not by reason, and that anger doesn't help. He's nothing but a burden to the team. One could almost say he's unimportant.
But at the end, a situation arises that suits his aptitudes. Suddenly, this character is the saving grace. In moments, he reveals a few profound insights that lead directly to the team's victory. The sudden departure from his past image is surprising, but believable.
This is a great example of what round characters should be. Authors should know more about their characters than they reveal. It's interesting to audiences when characters make sense but are never entirely known and understood. And character actions are more interesting when they can't be traced to a single origin.
Surprises like this can also encourage the audience to expect surprises throughout the setting and story, to wonder if they've misjudged other characters. Watch that episode sometime to see what I mean.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
sympathetic villains
One of the core beliefs of the West's major religions is that evil is a corruption of good. The well-known seven deadly sins of Christianity are all distortions of love. Lust is a corruption of physical pleasure (no, not all such pleasure is sinful). Vanity is a corruption of love of beauty. Envy is a corruption of love of experience, pride a corruption of love of self, and so on.
A major trend in 20th-century literature and film has been to demonstrate this in the form of sympathetic villains. Unlike with pure villains, the original nobility of these villains is shown. It is revealed how their perceptions and desires have been corrupted, how pain has led them to reject their good inclinations, how some noble instincts remain. The audience roots against such a character, but is not wholly against that character.
So it's perhaps surprising that sympathetic villains do not appear more often in games. A notable exception is Bioware's Neverwinter Nights, with one character corrupted by misplaced faith and another turned by pain and bitter regret. But such a scenario seems rare in games.
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I'm a fan of fables and mythic characters. But complex characters have their place, too. Why do you think games have gravitated so exclusively toward stick figures and moral extremes?
Mythic villains have been making a comeback in recent decades, particularly through comic books and their film adaptations. Perhaps games are just following a new trend in fiction?
A major trend in 20th-century literature and film has been to demonstrate this in the form of sympathetic villains. Unlike with pure villains, the original nobility of these villains is shown. It is revealed how their perceptions and desires have been corrupted, how pain has led them to reject their good inclinations, how some noble instincts remain. The audience roots against such a character, but is not wholly against that character.
So it's perhaps surprising that sympathetic villains do not appear more often in games. A notable exception is Bioware's Neverwinter Nights, with one character corrupted by misplaced faith and another turned by pain and bitter regret. But such a scenario seems rare in games.
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I'm a fan of fables and mythic characters. But complex characters have their place, too. Why do you think games have gravitated so exclusively toward stick figures and moral extremes?
Mythic villains have been making a comeback in recent decades, particularly through comic books and their film adaptations. Perhaps games are just following a new trend in fiction?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
fluid personalities
People who know me only casually often say they're impressed with my intelligence or something similar. But when I'm with family, I often feel like a moron (and they share the sentiment). The simple fact of the matter is that I often am.
I've noticed that my tone of voice changes with family. My voice becomes higher pitched, somewhat timid and submissive. On the other hand, if I'm hanging out with a bunch of guys on a back porch or in a bar, my voice naturally becomes deeper, my comments more assertive. This is nothing particular to me. It's similar with everybody.
Only the core of our personalities are hard-set. Who we are changes slightly from moment to moment depending on who we are around and what the situation is.
Our expressions change from group to group. We're silly and light-hearted around some people, serious and philosophical with others. In some groups we take leadership roles, in others we become followers. Our interests rise and fall with the settings.
Why don't we see this more in game characters?
I've noticed that my tone of voice changes with family. My voice becomes higher pitched, somewhat timid and submissive. On the other hand, if I'm hanging out with a bunch of guys on a back porch or in a bar, my voice naturally becomes deeper, my comments more assertive. This is nothing particular to me. It's similar with everybody.
Only the core of our personalities are hard-set. Who we are changes slightly from moment to moment depending on who we are around and what the situation is.
Our expressions change from group to group. We're silly and light-hearted around some people, serious and philosophical with others. In some groups we take leadership roles, in others we become followers. Our interests rise and fall with the settings.
Why don't we see this more in game characters?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
