henke on 1/12/2010 at 07:15
We were discussing the "No Russian" mission in the CoD:MW2 thread and I suggested that the reason the player goes along with slaughtering an airportfull of civilians isn't because he's immoral, or callous. It's simply that he's too afraid to do what is right. Now, many others are having a hard time accepting this and I can understand that. It's not like the game even gives you a choice. If you try to put a stop to the slaughter you're greeted with a Game Over screen. The game needs you to keep your head down and go along with it for the story to go on.
The problem, of course, is that games are wishfullfillment, powerfantasies, and the player will always play as heroically as he can. And when I say "heroically" I don't neccessarily mean that he's a good guy. He can be an antihero, sometimes even a villain, but never a coward. So when a protagonist has to do something cowardly, or make a hasty decision that the player knows is wrong, it's usually done in a cutscene. And that creates a disconnect between the player and the character.
In good movies, or books, the protagonist will often have a moment of weakness at some point and do something wrong. But games are games, and players are conditioned to win. So they will always play as heroically as possible and do the right thing if given a choice. That's why the only videogame-protagonist who we will feel comfortable playing is the hero who always does the right thing.
Discuss.
nicked on 1/12/2010 at 07:35
You can kinda get around it by "tricking" the player. You complete a level only to find out you were unwittingly working for the bad guy and you've put the whole world in jeopardy. True it's less of a personal mistake, but it stills gives you the story possibilities of fixing the screw-up.
Also, if you give the player certain physical weaknesses, that can lead to "emergent cowardice". E.g. in Thief (or any other stealth game really), the power fantasy is taken care of by making you a super-stealth guy, but in face-to-face combat, you're quite likely to die. So players can play it "heroically" and storm in with a sword (or gun or whatever), but it's going to be much more challenging. It encourages the player to hide and basically act cowardly to save their own skin.
You can also have "inner turmoil" projected into gameplay, by using symbolic levels or dream sequences, although in most executions, this has a similar effect to just playing a cutscene.
henke on 1/12/2010 at 08:04
Your first example isn't an example of cowardice, but it could be an example of player naivete, sure. Good point.
In Thief stealth is simply the tools you're given to beat the game. Not rushing the guards with your sword drawn isn't cowardice, it's self-preservation and playing the game in a way that'll let you win.
nicked on 1/12/2010 at 08:20
I think that's the crux of it - you have to let players win. You watch a film to enjoy interesting character arcs. You play a game to win. Factoring in mistake-making is not something anyone will voluntarily do. Same reason you find yourself thinking "No don't run upstairs you silly girl!" in horror films. The only way you can make the player feel like they've done something wrong is by forcing it on them through narrative techniques, otherwise, the player is likely to just quickload.
steo on 1/12/2010 at 12:07
Some games manage to achieve a lesser degree of protagonist imperfection through secondary objectives. When this is done in such a way that a player doesn't realise they've failed until it's too late for most to bother going back, they just accept that the they haven't met the best possible outcome and continue, perhaps later playing the game again and doing it right. The first example of this that comes to mind is in Resident Evil where it is possible to save supporting characters. It helps if the player is rushed to some degree by a real or perceived time limit. RE isn't done perfectly, but it's the same principle I'm talking about, I just can't think of a game that has ever done it really well.
Another example that comes to mind is Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries. Again it's not perfect, because players will often just load game if they fail, but most missions allow you to fail even the primary objective, you just only get paid for completed objectives. Hell, you could sometimes even continue if your mech got destroyed, provided you managed to eject, but the loss of your best mech would probably cause almost all players to load.
Thirith on 1/12/2010 at 17:18
Doing the 'right' thing (whatever that means in any given context) isn't necessarily the same as doing what is successful in terms of the game's mechanics. You can create flawed protagonists by creating a tension between the two, from games that allow for lots of freedom, such as Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, to games that have little to no freedom but still manage to craft an interesting protagonist, such as Shadow of the Colossus.
ZymeAddict on 1/12/2010 at 18:28
Quote Posted by henke
The problem, of course, is that games are wishfullfillment, powerfantasies, and the player will always play as heroically as he can. And when I say "heroically" I don't neccessarily mean that he's a good guy. He can be an antihero, sometimes even a villain, but never a coward. So when a protagonist has to do something cowardly, or make a hasty decision that the player knows is wrong, it's usually done in a cutscene. And that creates a disconnect between the player and the character.
In good movies, or books, the protagonist will often have a moment of weakness at some point and do something wrong. But games are games, and players are conditioned to win. So they will always play as heroically as possible and do the right thing if given a choice. That's why the only videogame-protagonist who we will feel comfortable playing is the hero who always does the right thing.
Isn't this where the idea of role-playing comes in?
Most RPGs, and some shooters like
Bioshock, include "cowardly" and/or "evil" paths that lead to different outcomes. Yeah, they're usually pretty crude from a narrative standpoint, but the choice is still there.
Also, I don't know about any of you, but I will routinely sick with a bad decision I made in a game just to see what direction that takes me.
Yeah, the maker of a game isn't likely to make a game that
forces you to be cowardly, evil, or make wrong choices, but there are plenty out there which allow you to chose for yourself, either literally in the game, or by your style of play.
Ulukai on 1/12/2010 at 19:23
Quote Posted by henke
That's why the only videogame-protagonist who we will feel comfortable playing is the hero who always does the right thing.
Oh, I dunno. I just played through Fable III again as the ultimate bad-ass and I thoroughly enjoyed myself; but before I started the play through I had a think about the mindset of the person I wanted to play, and based my choices accordingly.
Thus, when making an 'evil' choice, I didn't feel guility about it as I would have done had I started playing herorically with my own moral compass (which I do naturally tend to do)
Now if you'll excuse me there's some ramblers walking across my land without permission and I can't find my shotgun cartridges.
Sulphur on 1/12/2010 at 21:28
I think your base assumption is somewhat flawed in itself, henke. I don't know about us always wanting to do the 'right thing' as heroes. A game's ultimate goal is for the player to win it, and that doesn't preclude the player from choosing to fuck over everyone he meets.
Playing good or evil in RPGs has been around for a good while. And the GTAs have some of the more amoral protagonists (justifications be damned, the ramifications of their actions place a lot of them on the 'vicious psychopath' side of the fence), and Mafia II has you playing Vito who's pretty much an everyday thug. An uninteresting one, mostly, but flawed nonetheless.
My problem is more to do with that games mostly let you swing towards either side of the moral compass and there's precious few options in between. It's almost always a choice between being a saint or an amoral jerk; in that way Dragon Age let you mix things up a bit in various shades of grey. So did KoTOR 2 and Alpha Protocol. You could be as flawed as you wanted, and the repercussions were entirely your problem -- especially in Alpha Protocol. As a matter of fact, I tried to save a bunch of people in AP that I had a vested interest in and, well, let's just say that I'll be replaying the game and choosing other, less obvious options instead this time.
Games can have flawed protagonists. Realistic protagonists, now that's where the actual challenge lies.
Phatose on 1/12/2010 at 21:50
You know, I'm thinking back through games, and the premise is just wrong. Cowardice is acceptable in games, and has appeared. Even in titles with a flood of testosterone like say, the original Resident Evil, running away is actually a fairly important part of the game.
Now, there aren't many titles where running away is the focus, but that's simply because it's generally not much fun.
Beyond that, plenty of titles give you room for flaws. Civilization - how many players haven't made a tactically bad move simply cause they were pissed? Then you have things like Minecraft, where the whole idea is to make monuments to your own character flaws (typically shaped like giant penises).
Seems like a case of "In 100% of games where you're not a coward, you're not a coward" - narrowing down the scope to remove the counterexamples, then wondering why there aren't any.
