I don't know if it's just me, but has anyone begun to really hate, I mean REALLY hate, how simple and shallow game characters tend to be?
Okay I'll partially discount Roleplaying Games because by definition most of these are deep, though they fall into the trap excusing a whole tonne-of-brick typecasting characters, and generally only getting the term deep partially correct (where deep is word-replaced in their minds by "verbal diahorrea for dialog and backstory, and exemplify characteristics by DnD Stats, and a look defined by the BIG BOOK OF MYTHOLOGICAL SHIT"), but still , big budget game developers should be truly ashamed of what they excuse as characters in their games and game storylines.
By character, I'm speaking to every essence of what a well-rounded character personifies-
A percieved history, personal traits both good and bad , behaviour that backs up their traits and history, and appearance. At the moment, games as a general medium address merely two of these most of the time and the rest is usually Mary-Sue/Marty-Stu'd from wherever that shit comes from (probably Fanfic.net). The result is dull characters that one could not give a crap about.
Okay, take Marcus Fenix. Epic gave him a marty-stu armoured-hulk backstory, hulking armor and a voice from the same guy who does Bender from Futurama. He is, however, not well rounded. His actions, or more importantly, the actions the player had at his disposal didn't do any credit to his character's demeanor or backstory, it went tangentical to it in fact. He shows little remorse about his actions, doesn't lament for the dead, and as far as the game will let you go toward being a psychopathic senseless killer.
While that's all fine and great in the scope of the game, where you're stopping an enemy that threatens humanity in all existence, it's still inconsistent with Fenix's background as a decorated soldier who was imprisoned after abandoning his post to save his father. Rarely does this get reflected in the game. In Gears, all he does is tow party line, at the expense of comrades and friends, mercilessly slaughtering locusts for the good of the COG.
For all intents and purposes too, Marcus' background is locked back tight with only a few surface shreds to show for it's existence, and it is never delved into. For the intents of the game, he could just be a robot with a gun and the game would play more or less similarly.
A comparable character to Marcus is Duke Nukem. Yes, Duke Nukem. Unlike Marcus though, Duke Nukem is that way by legay and by design. He's shallow because he comes from an age predating Quicktime events and dead-serious drama in games. He's a cryogenically frozen and occasionally-thawed clone of 1980s Arnold Schwarzenegger, without the bad accent, in a game. The difference between the two is not in the gameplay (because they both are action heroes with over the top bloody combat and crazy weapons and one-liners). The difference is that Duke is 10 years Marcus' senior, and overal game story deisng has moved on, but Marcus hasn't.
Then of course the question begins to be asked- " Would I want to find out about Marcus?"
Appallingly, the answer is no. Especially not in the midst of a psychotic chainsawgun-powered testosterone-injected superviolent action game. There is space for exposition, but it'd be a waste in Gears. I mean really, why even bother. Also while I'm at it, I'll thumb Halo for similar characterization.Though to it's credit, it does go out of it's way to break that where it can and has limited success, but fuck it anyway.
Of course someone will inevitably bring up one of several Bioware games, or Fallout (probably 3).Again, RPG games, and they are true exceptions to the rule, because they spend exorbitant amounts of effort doing it.. Except Fallout 3, 'cause fuck that. It shows, mind you, because Bioware games are AMAZING at that specific edge of storytelling. Especially Mass Effect 1 and 2 (and aside from Dragon Age) , do not fall back on DnD Cruxes and typecasting).
People go around and thumb their noses at Far Cry 2 for being quite "bland and boring", however there is a lot to be said for the writing and characters of that game. Like Anthony Burch, I find myself unequivocally attracted to the writing and storyline fuelling this game, as well as it's technical achievements. In particular the characterisation in the game is brilliant. Every characters is unique, with their own goals and ideals, and they back their traits with their actions. Even the Buddies, the interchangeable characters that the player can play as and have as help are all varied in their background, look and vocals. Then there's the Jackal, the elusive bad villain, who you pick up the tapes of in your quest to apprehend him as you venture through the very closest a video game has yet got to the genius introspective of Apocalypse Now, all be it as a subtext to the immediate plot.
Far Cry 2 is characterisation done right. Uncharted 2 is Characterisation done right. Gears is characterisation done wrong, Darksiders is characterisation done wrong.
Characters, at least in my book are not all generic Mary-sue. Everyone in the world has a certain amount of uniqueness to them, everyone has a story. Games with any shred of narrative structure should reflect this. It's almost Lit 101 grade basics here. Movies came to grasp with this, theatre REVOLVES around character, hell even anime/manga as a whole has a concept of how characterising works ( though typecasting is common, but it's still stronger writing than most games).
Characterising , in my books is the one area of game narrative that is being held back continually. It's probably the one thing stopping the progression of games as a progressive medium towards the realms of artistic recognition, and away from comic book territory. There is hope, as long as Bioware and Valve keep doing their thing, we may still cling to the hope the industry wakes up to realise that Rounded characters from design to execution are MUCH better for them than, say , Genenric overarmoured grunt, generic space marine, generic soldier (with insert twist), generic fantasy group, generic space travellers. Good design means you could Have ANY of those archetypes, but you can layer one detail of history, ideals , emotions, traits.
Guiltier than Gear and Halo though, are games featuring Modern day soldiers. Not joking, they are literally the shallowest of the charaxcter archetypes. Rarely do you get more than an "oh he's here, he's from X, he's here to Y".
Soldiers are people too, I should know, I know a few, and they all have personalities. When they get together, they have ways of speaking that aren't just text-book military lexicon. Especially in Military groups like Spec Ops or at the squad level, interactions between people is on a much more personable level than games lead you to believe. Game soldiers are, as a whole, cardboard thin cutouts of what soldiers embody. Granted, soldiering is their job, but like all jobs, that's not al lthat defines them, even "lifers".
I think, and I know I'm going to get rozzered for this, Rainbow Six, even Vegas are about the closest I've seen to characterisation in any Modern Day shooter. This maybe because Tom Clancy penned the original script to work off of, but there is enough character to even the NEW Rainbow Soldiers (Logan, Bishop, Kan, etc) to not worry about mary-sue syndrome. Every character has backstory, and even though the games aren't focused around character interaction much at all ,and game tech limited greatly how much visual characterization each had, every rainbow operative has backstory, a height ,weight, build, traits, things he/she excels at, things he/she fails at, and though All the games up to Lockdown couldn't visually or aurally express the difference, the AI for each handled differently, which in the game's scope was enough. Of course Lockdown and Vegas had proper characterising, complete with graphics and speech to boot, which was probably their only strengths, but my point remains the same. Rainbow Six - Best Character portrayals in modern shooters given it's scope.
Now imagine what you could do with a good script write, and today's game tech.
Lastly A brief look at another excellent characterisation game- Battlefield Bad Company. Every one of the main protagonists has a back-story (it's not deep, but it serves purpose), and coupled with creative writing and easily discernible looks for each, you have a recipe for great characters. Though the back-stories are shallow, they are deepened by the actions ingame, a shared experience between the player and the 3 other characters.
The player's character was introduced the right way, scripted in cutscenes the right way, each of the other characters was executed the right way that it seemed almost seamless the way the characters grow on you.
Bad Company sets to change the tone of things for the characters, which I'm personally apprehensive about, but providing they don't mess the characters built out of the first game, I'd still probably find it acceptable.
So yeah, game characters are on a whole, shallow twigs. They shouldn't be, but are. One day I shall fix this. Maybe today, maybe tommorrow.
Umm that's all I have to say for now, tune in next week where I chew something even more massive out maybe. If you have anything you wanna say, drop it in the comments below or reach me at the usual places.
No comments:
Post a Comment