The Gamer's Quarter

[Ketch]

It seems to me that games that try to introduce emotions through having the playable character's parents killed off are going to fail because the player doesn't really identify emotionally with their character. But if say, a NPC companion's parents were attacked they would be more likely to react emotionally because, a game can't portray the depth of attachment that comes from years of living together, but it could show another person's grief and have you identify with that.

Thoughts?

[Shapermc]

I can't think of any examples of such situations of the friends parents being killed off, but quite a few with the main character. You are pretty much right, I have never once thought about what it would be like to lose my parents or the rage of such. It is a little easier to identify with the character when their parents were killed at a really young age and they don't quite remember it (or even know it yet).

All that said I am more interested in male characters who are forced to fight against their father. Or with him. Or find him. Far too freqently is the father character used as the driving force of a plot. By using a father the writers are basically saying that they can't think of another way to evoke empathy from the player. I think the wife card is a card less played than should be. With this point I should also say that on average characters in games are far too young.

I lost track of the point somewhere, sorry.

[player 2]

It's a matter of association with the player-character. The reason why Halo works so well is that our association with the Master Chief character is as strong as we need it to be. He's a blank slate and it's easy to go from there to kill everything. The opening sequence in H1 is pretty good at setting up motivations for ourselves (everyone on our side is dying, so...).

The specific example of the player-character's parents dying is well, specific. And you have to treat it as such. Shaper's on the right track with minimal association being the most sincere because, well, you can't just assume that the player is going to associate himself closely just because a game told you that these were your parents.

In FFVI, General Leo turns out to be a father figure type, even though he's on the opposite side. He does "everything right" and is admirable. The plot structure is very unassuming of your relationship so it lays out his character traits and personality in a very obvious way. There's a lot that the game does to make you like him as a character. And then, well... yeah

There are probably other, better examples. Actually, FFVI deals with character attachment a lot. Locke's old girlfriend. The monster Hidon. Mog. Towns. Oh god. I want to replay this game...
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[kuzdu]

I think that RPGs do this sort of thing well because there are a lot of characters that are player-controlled without being the main protagonist, which gives you just the right type of empathetic association, without asking too much of you. I mean, I still feel bad that I didn't save Lucca's mother the first time I went through Chrono Trigger. Granted, she didn't die, but it was almost worse when I saw her to know that I could've helped, but failed.

Player2 makes a good point about Halo. Another thing I like about that game is that it doesn't explicitly reward you for keeping your fellow soldiers alive, it just relies on your own sense of humanity (albeit digital humanity) to save them. Once again, I always felt bad when I didn't.

Then again, perhaps I care to much about fake people.

[dhex]

the jrpg convention may have come around in part because of their target audience; what teenagers don't wish to be freed from the simple tyrannies of the home?
_________________

[player 2]

[dhex]

eh, it's not really size i'm thinking of. just the "bang, your parents are dead, you are now free to do what you want."

also, being freed from the constraints of family is a pretty common motif - it has a flexibility that can be worked around by game writers. you can do revenge, a giant orphanage gang bang, etc...
_________________

[player 2]

Dragon Quest started it.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dhex]

well, i can think of more than a few american rpgs which start with some sort of broad separation - namely ultima, even before it gets into the avatar phase - but those weren't really geared towards children the way jrpgs are. the avatar's an adult - he may be skipping out on his quaint little english house and all, but they lack the whole "fuck you dad!" and "girls are scary" thing.
_________________

[Shapermc]

Morrowind has a perfect draw. You were freed from prison. You have no associations with anyone. You can go and work for "the blades" if you so wish (which is the direction the game points you in if you don't feel like going out and learning of other things to do) or go to the bar and find out what kind of jobs there are to take.

My story of Morrowind was that I became the Archmage of the Island then with my powers took over as the head of the Televani (sp?) house and freed a bunch of slaves. Most stories are not like mine. But I became (as close as I can) the character I created in the begining of the game.

I did not have to revenge my family. I was not about 17 years old. I kicked ass.

[player 2]

The freedom in aRPGs is pretty much why I hate them. Americans are so obsessed with themselves and being "themself".
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[Lackey]

On the contrary, freedom makes it easier to become someone else.

EDIT: to elaborate; Morrowind is great because no matter what character the player creates, they are still the Nerevarine. It's like different people filling the same role in an infinite string of alternate universes. This is a stronger use of the videogame as a medium than allowing only a single narrative, like in a movie or book.
_________________
| Little bird fighting against a bat sect game |

[player 2]

Immersion is overrated. And kids that can't get into another character are close minded self centered sons of bitches.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[Zack]

I felt pretty quickly attached to the grandma and sister in Wind Waker. But young sister and frail grandmother are both things I've had in real life. I would go back to Outset to make sure the grandma was okay, for no good reason, never able to get any new dialogue out of her and not really caring. I didn't try to do any unnecessary exploring until the sister was safe, either. I felt like a bad brother when I cut down grass for no good reason.

The problem is that most of us don't live with our parents anymore (right?), so that becomes an obstacle to identification. When you're 15 and your relationship with your parents is, in your head, complicated, it might help.

[GSL]

I think part of the issue could be related to the inherant difficulties in creating a truely player-defined character. It makes me think of playing Ultima Underworld. I got tired of searching for The Blasted Cup Of Whatever I needed to complete the game, so I returned to the first floor, slaughtered the grey goblin enclave, threw their bones in the water pool with the octopus monster-thingie, and proclaimed the area my dominion as I loaded their storeroom with my plunders in the Abyss. But that was it. I was never visited by men who wished to pay me tribute. The green goblins never thanked me for the genocide I wielded. The game essentially went on without me. Sitting in front of the computer, I was GSL The Conqueror, but in the game I was still the same Avatar as the one who HADN'T destroyed the goblin city.
Another analogy can be drawn with the Grand Theft Auto series, especially the later installments. You can have a pathological love for destroying sports cars with molotov cocktails, but nothing in the game is going to really reflect this, except maybe your wanted status with the five-oh. Your character is a blank slate, but only to a certain extent, as there exists a limit outside of simple gameplay restrictions on what sort of role the player can assume.

Games such as Halo give the player a limited amount of freedom as their character, which lends itself more easily to the player's accepting that they ARE the protagonist. The Master Chief is limited in the actions he can perform in the game, but within the context of those actions, the player has unlimited freedom to shape their experience.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are the traditional role-playing games. Very rarely does a JRPG crop up in which the player is allowed the true freedom of a game like Morrowind, or even the ability to shape a predefined character like the Master Chief. True to their name, RPGs want you to play a role, but it's the role the game has in mind, not the player. To get to the actual point, in lieu of the illusion of control more visible in games like Halo, JRPGs (especially more recent ones) attempt to get the player to relate to the character through emotions, in the hopes that your hero's quest to fight his father will eventually become your own. Or that you now care along with the hero if the princess is saved before the dark ritual begins.

It almost seems to be mutually exclusive - if a designer is gunning for a less involved story, then the player can be given unlimited freedom within the context of the game and there's really no problem. But if a developer has a story to tell, they're going to try to shoehorn the player as jarringly and uncomfortably as possible into an unfamiliar role, because that's they only way they can keep the player on track. And sometimes the emotions the developers force on you don't work. Odds are, the death of your character's family at a young age isn't really going to affect you much unless you've been close to an experience like that in real life. Then again, if you've played 20+ hours into the game and a likable NPC bites the dust through events out of your control, it's liable to have a greater effect on the player because you've had more time to build an attachment to that particular character.

I think.

[Lackey]

Potentially there's a lot that could be done with that kind of story telling...it just hasn't yet really.

[wourme]

I generally prefer minimal personality in a video game protagonist. But thinking about it now, I believe that this is partly just because I find most video game characters with defined personalities to be irritating due to poor writing and an attempt to appeal to a demographic that I am not a part of.

On the issue of parents, Skies of Arcadia made me notice just how often a main character's parents are not part of the picture. It was refreshing, in a way. Though I don't think this issue makes or breaks a game.

I thought Dragon Warrior III did a good job with the hero's parents.

I like games where someone can die but doesn't have to. Shadow of Destiny and Growlanser II come to mind.

[player 2]

"in that universe'?

Location does not make a person.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[GSL]

[Lackey]

[player 2]

Right. If a developer says, "hey, create your character, his class, his stats, his facial features, his voice, etc." he's just giving into the American "hey, fuck YOU, let ME do it MY way". It's ridiculous to a fault that so many American games are like that.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[simplicio]

Though I admit to being highly amused at the closest approximation to my own face Def Jam: NY could muster.

More seriously and positively though, my self-created character in Tony Hawk Underground resembled, with surprising accuracy, an (Asian) Indian male. How often do you get to play as a (non-African American, non-Japanese) minority in a major video game?

ALSO: the lack of parents sets the cliche blank slate and freedom from morality, but how about a game where we see the nuanced psychological effects of the loss off parents on our 16 year old protagonist?

Or how about a nuanced psychology of any sort, really?

[dark steve]

[player 2]

[Lackey]

I guess I just don't mind ambiguity. I prefer it.

And a good system lets you explore it with enough checks and balances to counteract the randomness.
_________________
| Little bird fighting against a bat sect game |

[dark steve]

[player 2]

The kind of "well, just try it again" mentality is exactly why videogames are a niche form of entertainment.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dark steve]

That's point blank bullshit. The "try it again" learning process is key. It's RPGs that are a niche form of entertainment.

[player 2]

Nice try.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dark steve]

Nice try at dodging. You can't name a game that doesn't teach you to play itself through trial and error.

[player 2]

There are a ton of games that don't have this "reach a dead end, start over" mentality. In fact, it is a growing trend in videogames to completely forgoe that mentality.

Super Mario World
Final Fantasy VI
Resident Evil 4
SimCity
Monster Rancher

These are just games coming to me at the top of my head. None of these games require backtracking to the beginning of the game, ever. SMW will take you back to your last save. FFVI is bother easier and forgiving (any experience gained is maintained). Resident Evil 4 is broken into small sections so that you can retry each atomized experience instead of, you know, play the whole game. SimCity, the Sims, etc. are gradual and very open ended. And Monster Rancher is the same way - your reputation grows and shrinks with whatever you're currently raising.

The mentality that games are these things that you have to build a skillset for is interesting in some respects, but really, that's the most self absorbed aspect of videogames. Street Fighter III is an excellent game that does not get enough recognition because people just can't get into it. When you have something deep and engaging like Street Fighter, but with permanent decisions to make ala Neverwinter Nights, Diablo II, etc. etc. it's just... well... it's games being full of themselves. You can't go back as much as you have to start over. It's just a waste of time.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dark steve]

"Dead end start over" isn't the same as trial and error, though I wouldn't expect a non-gamer to play any of the titles you listed except Sim City anyway.

You're absolutely obtaining a skill-set, or literacy with every game. Zelda. Put a bomb in front of a locked door. Nothing happens. Then try putting a bomb near a cracked wall. If the wall breaks open, that's a new rule you've learned. Bombs open walls. Trial and error. Think about it like you're learning a language. The cracks, doors, and the bomb are nouns, the rule is grammar. And a good game will make you apply what you know in novel situations: call it spontaneous generation of sentences. Think about Treasure games, and why people around here refer to them so often as "puzzle shooters."

If a game is too lenient with a player, then what's the point? There has to be SOME challenge or you're not engaged, you're just killing time. Having someone make permanent decisions about a character is good, except if you're OCD. It's how you make someone seriously consider their choices so they DON'T make a bad mistake. And if they do, they learn for next time. Games have been fairly gentle about this for a solid decade: there usually is a next time. Even Morrowind lets you pick preset characters if you really want them.

People are too afraid they won't get the 'good' ending. That's another reason why these things are so niche.

You know, we really should start a thread on why Wright's games keep defying us.

[kuzdu]

[ApM]

[player 2]

The freedoms you're afforded in a game like Diablo II are freedoms that people don't even want. Being able to tweak your character is cool, yeah, but being able to put 20 pts into Sacrifice is both a valid and invalid way of playing the game. I know, I tried, and I failed. This is why the American idea of "freedom" is complete and udder rubbish. Ask anyone who's played Diablo II LoD all the way to Hell Cows if they have ever looked at a Character Build sheet and they will either fess up or lie to you. Freedom is just a way to coddle dumb Americans.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dhex]

[SuperWes]

[dark steve]