Story in Games

[Fryguy64]

This post was originally written in response to Tei's criticism of Star Fox Command as having damaged the characters. It outlines my new stance on storyline in games and tries to establish why story in some games is just so jarring.

I think lately I've become more sensitive to why certain game stories just don't work for me, and I feel that the oft-criticised Star Fox Adventures & Star Fox Command suffer from the same problems as Metroid: Other M.

Note that much of what I'm about to say is primarily about action games, although some nuggets can be extended to other genres.


1. The player has to project onto their character before they care about the character.

When you first fire up a game, it's not a good idea to start your story through lengthy dialogue or cutscenes. The player has no reason to read it and no reason to care.

In an ideal situation, story should not occur before action. The player should be thrown into the game, getting a feel for the character while scripted action and signposting drive the story.

The player identifies with the character through control and action. This makes the player become a character in the story, and it means that they will project their own feelings and emotions onto the game world. Without it, the player is simply moving a guy around on the television.

This is why silent protagonists work well in games. They are a vessel that moves through the story, sometimes taking part in it, but rarely having emotions or opinions of their own. Nearly every successful videogame character falls into this realm, from Mario to Master Chief, from Link to Gordon Freeman. Even the Pokémon heroes are silent protagonists, and those are RPGs!

If the player blames their own skills or abilities for failure rather than the controls, the level design or the developer's incompetence, then the player is projecting, and will start to care what happens to the character from that point on.

In Star Fox on the SNES, the player is launched into the game after a brief mission synopsis by General Pepper. For the most part, Fox is a silent protagonist in the game, and the player is eased into the action knowing little more than that bad guys are attacking, shoot them. However, the projecting player will move, shoot, panic, dive, save Slippy?, Oh Jesus Giant Ship!, panic, success!, elation, relief.

The player isn't in danger, but their character is, and if they are projecting then the panic is real.

Players have been projecting for console generations. The panic when you have one space invader remaining, the relief when it's been blasted or the frustration when it lands. You know you can hit it - just one more credit. If it's evoking those kind of emotions then it's telling a good story.


2. In most cases, attempting to craft a story about the protagonist's character will lead to a disconnect between the player and the character.

You then get games that force a pre-moulded personality onto the player avatar, and in nearly every case this will fail. This is because, unless the avatar's personality accurately matches that of every player, then the player will stop identifying with their avatar and the connection is broken.

In Star Fox 64, Fox has a bit more to say than in the first game, and in some places it's dialogue about his daddy issues. Does the player have daddy issues? Maybe, but they won't be about a sunglasses-wearing Fox who was betrayed by a pig to a monkey. A slight disconnect is created, but only a minor point in an otherwise good game. So long as Fox shuts up.

Star Fox Adventures goes further, portraying Fox as a womanizer, a rogue who loves to blast things, and terribly impatient. None of these were things I ascribed to Fox before, nor are they attributes that defined how I would play the game. I didn't want to be an impatient rogue while puzzle solving or finding patterns in boss movements. I didn't want to rescue Krystal because she was a sexy fox with accompanying sax solo. In fact, I almost didn't want to rescue her at all after that...

Nowadays I don't care about Fox as a character. He's no longer an avatar whose personality is defined through action, but a movie character whose actions (mine) don't match the personality (someone else's).

For comparison, Metroid: Other M makes the exact same mistake. It takes a (rare enough) female character who over 8 games has been an action hero of our own making. When she's talked in the past, it's to fill us in on a bit of backstory or sci-fi mumbo jumbo that we wouldn't necessarily know without it.

All of a sudden, she's this sulking, whining, crying, confused, scared woman. I'm told how scared she is about a boss fight, whereas in a previous game that fear would be my own, reflected in the character's panicked actions during the fight! Being told she's scared of Ridley because he killed her parents, rather than being scared because it's a freaking huge boss battle... It destroys my connection to my character, it creates a divide between the story and the action, and it actually damages the respect for a character I have known for years. How soon before Samus becomes another Fox? She's already got the daddy issues!

Any more examples or comments to add? I'll look forward to hearing them.

[kirbychu]

I disagree. In most games that feature a silent protagonist, I really couldn't care less about the player character. I get involved in the game world and the supporting cast, but I feel completely disconnected from the main character. Mario is a great example - although I love Mario because he represents the series itself, I'm far more attached to Luigi, Wario and Bowser than I am to Mario himself.

I think I go into games with the opposite attitude, though. I'm looking to be the character, not to have the character be me.

(I'm not sure you could really count Master Chief as a silent protagonist, Fry... he has a decent amount of spoken lines in most of the games, and he has a more fleshed-out past than most video game characters in general )

[Fryguy64]

"Silent protagonist" is a difficult term - it seemed the best fit, but it's not all-encompassing. I suppose a "character canvas" would be a better term. They don't have to be silent, nor lack a past (if that were true, there'd be no Mario sequels)... but they have to allow for projection without disconnect.

You aren't wrong though. Naturally creating the connection between the player and the player character doesn't help you feel what they feel, but it does get you more involved with the world, the plot and the other characters. The motives aren't Link's motives, they're your motives.

Naturally, as with other storytelling media, you want to know more about the player character as well. Protagonists in books and film can drive the story because you sympathise with them. In an interactive medium such as videogames, you aren't sympathising with them, you are them, and it is you who is driving the story.

There can still be a story, and still be characters, but when you try to make a player sympathise with a character while simultaneously asking them to decide the character's fate, you get disconnect. If the character is afraid in a movie, you hope they will find the courage to stand up to their fear. If the character is afraid in a videogame, it's no good hoping... as you are solely responsible for whether they approach the next obstacle with trepidation or go in with all guns blazing. You break the connection.

Remember, this is primarily about action games. RPGs naturally have a disconnect as player control is limited by genre convention, allowing for more character growth. The same is true of adventure games.

HOWEVER... If the developer can express the character's motives or emotions accurately in accordance with those of the player (ALL players), then the connection is retained. It wouldn't be wrong for a character to express victory after defeating a boss, for example. I am reminded of the amazing cinematic of Fox's Arwing erupting from the exploding Space Armada in the original Star Fox. The connection was maintained.

Another possible get-out is humour. Effective use of it can allow you to break the connection between player and character without damaging the affection for that character. Wario is a prime example of a character where his motives and the player's are not necessarily the same, but you love him for it. This is really rare in action games, but not unheard of.

I hope that was somewhat coherent...

[TV Eye]

Alright, think about this. When was the last time you played a Zelda game and named Link something like "Mark" or "Kelly" (hurr durr)? Probably not since the first Zelda game you ever played. I'm betting that most people name their file "Link" because that makes more sense storywise.

Technically, Link is NOT a silent protagonist. The games try to make you think that you the player are taking place on this adventure, but really you're just guiding Link through a strict set of actions. When someone says, "Hey Link, what're you up to?" the next thing they say is "Oh, returning the Spirit Tracks to New Hyrule and you're having fun with a ghost Zelda while a monster force plans to corrupt the land so now it's up to you to stop it? Wow, good luck, hombre." Or something like that.

The only game I can think of that really makes the main character feel like me is Minecraft.

[Boo Destroyer]

For games like Super Mario and Zelda, I'm not interested in "being" Mario and Link at all. Sure, I use them to get around on the adventure, but they're just helping take me through these worlds, to see what's up and who's around. In fact, they're helping me get to immerse myself in the game's world and know about all the other characters better, whom I find more appealing (as kirbychu said).

And as for storyline in some other games, Metroid Prime 3 did it pretty well, even with voice acting. This is one of those games that actually tries to get the player into the story. And I like how Samus didn't have any dialogue; It allows you to fill in the blanks for when you think she may have something to say. My, if only Sakamoto followed this example...

Another one is M&L: Bowser's Inside Story. While Bowser (more of the hero this time than the Bros. were) did speak a lot, even as the playable hero, he still had something for you to find out about throughout the course of his adventure, and help sympathize with him some more.

Not to mention, the fact that I can actually relate Bowser's experiences in M&L:BIS to most of my own, actually adds onto how I'm..."embodying" Bowser (...derp...) in this game, with his attitude towards what goes on matching mine. So this is one of those times when a character speaking in a game helps the player get more into the story.

[Nester the Lark]

I think Fry makes some good points. Altho, I'm not sure if "the motives aren't Link's motives, they're your motives" is correct. I think Teev and Boo are right that Link is heroic not because we project that on him, but because it's simply what's involved in progressing through the game. So, there is some kind of implied personality there.

I suppose in that way it's OK for a character to have a well-defined personality if it fits the type of game he/she/it is in. For example, Duke Nukem, or Leon Kennedy in Resident Evil 4.

But this discussion reminded of two things. First, I recall something that was written in an old issue of Next Generation magazine explaining what made the classic Sonic games so great: "Real attitude is the result of confident gameplay, and not some artist's imagination." That is, the gameplay style says more about the character than the narrative does.

And second, Jeremy Parish recently said that he thought there were too many games in 2010 that got bogged down in story and dialog, and "just needed to shut up." For instance, Final Fantasy XIII, Metroid: Other M, Ys VII, Golden Sun: Dark Dawn, etc...

[kirbychu]

I see where you're coming from, Fry, but I can't say it's something I've ever experienced. Generally when I'm engrossed in a game, my motives tend to become the motives of the character I'm controlling anyway. These days most developers do a pretty good job of using the sound and visuals to make me feel scared or sad or angry when my characters are, too.

I just finished Arkham Asylum (I know I'm very late to that party), and even though both my parents are perfectly healthy, being forced to relive the death of Bruce's parents at the hands of a mugger in a back alley was a heart-wrenching scene. It didn't make me feel disconnected from Batman, it made me want to get at Scarecrow and beat the tar out of him for putting me through that.

When a character is just a blank canvas... I end up feeling as though that character wasn't really part of the game. And then I end up not caring about them. When they're full of their own personality, with their own goals and ideals and whatever, that's when I get attached to them. This is why, even though I prefer Mario's games, I'm much more attached to Sonic and Ratchet as characters. Because they are characters. I mentioned before that I love Luigi, but that only surfaced when I played Luigi's Mansion. Before that I cared even less about him than I did about Mario!

I certainly feel more disconnected from the blank canvas characters. I don't care what happens to them. They don't seem to either. The non-blank (I will choose to call them colourful canvas) characters are like old friends to me.

Fox and Samus have been damaged, but in my opinion it isn't because they've been assigned personality. It's because they've been assigned badly-written, poorly thought out and generally shit personality.

[Prince~Of~Light]

Ya know... when I readed all of these, it reminded me of Gradius-games.

I just had played Gaiden, and it didn't take too long to get into the feeling since I'm suppose to be controlling the space ship, going through the those awesome planets and busting enemies to dust.

When I met this the last boss, I first thought someone was screwing with my gaming memories. (See the last boss itself, it recycles the bosses from Salamander)

"That doesn't hurt." he said.

Then it started to disturb me. Zelos Force came in, and looked like it was about to explode.

"Loser..."

After Brain Golem swept away, I just waited... and waited.

When I saw the fortress exploding, I felt like I lost the battle. No Lord British in sight.
(Lord British was the ship I was using)

Until few seconds later, it came out. I was relieved, like a heck. Even that Lord B was just a spaceship with me, I did go this whole thing with him. (-iwi-)

But the battle left me with mixed feelings. (-ll;- )


Okay, it's just a shooting game having bunch of spaceships. But the feeling was same you've been having. (-lvl-)

Another thing that just came to my mind was Twinbee Yahoo!-game. Even though the game had characters with their voices and personalities took from a drama cd's, the game was still kept actionpacked so much, I still felt of being along with it. This applied to Sin & Punishment as well.

I know how you feel about finding out what characters are actually being like: after I cleared Momoko 120%, I thought mostly that she must be a hardcore, sweet girl loving her gun and Urusei Yatsura.
And then Game Tengoku tells otherwise, much to the point of being little conflicting, she's supermoe, and uses psychic powers. Not much stuff referring to her game...

FryGuy has some good points, though. Humor works, a lot. Wario is lovable. XDDD


And Ace from Twinbee Yahoo. I first thought he was your usual loyal bodyguarder warrior fella, but Sexy Parodius shows he's in fact a severe pervert, and even quite immature at some points. CUTE!

I still think that if ya can show what they really are in a good way, much in the way they can be respected and sympathized more, the characters are much likeable. I thus don't much care about characters either being just directing the game's plot, or are they just being pure annoying aspects of it by their personality and development.
And If I know any game series that took the player itself hugely in consideration, then that's Mother-series.

(If you feel that I'm not getting into the point of this discussion, you can kick me out of here.)

[Fryguy64]

I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well, as I don't disagree with anybody's rebuttals and I don't feel any of them are inconsistent with what I'm trying to convey.

Good feedback though.

First I need to emphasise that I'm not talking about whether a game is enjoyable or playable. I am talking about the unique way stories are told in games and why making Samus Aran vulnerable or making Fox cocksure will fail to resonate with players at best, and at worst cause fanrage.

BULLET POINTS! are my friend:

• The protagonist can have a backstory, their own personality and motives, but the player won't have a reason to care unless you form a connection.
  
• The connection is not created through lengthy dialogue and cutscenes, but through control and action, figuring out the character's strengths and weaknesses.
  
• It's very difficult for the player to feel in control of a main character whose motives and personality are at odds with their own.
  
• It's also very difficult for developers to create a situation in which they can predict what the majority of players will be feeling, and so risk breaking the connection every time their character expresses itself.
  
• However, with clever pacing, music and atmosphere, you can take more risks on predicting the player's emotional state by influencing it to some degree, and have the character react accordingly. This isn't just very difficult but also extremely rare.
  

Note... not impossible, and no doubt some people make that connection more easily than others and some developers do a wonderful job of creating a full character that resonates with many players with success.

However, as not every film director is a genre-smashing Tarantino or Coen Brothers, the majority of videogame directors would produce bottom-grade Hollywood shlock. Even shlock can be mindless entertainment, but it doesn't tell a good story... and now as game developers are trying to push more story into their games, we're inevitably getting more shlock, even with characters who once were familiar and enjoyable.

[Prince~Of~Light]

Wow! I guess I got it Fry. (-ll-) No wonder the earlier games of most game series seem much enjoyable to play, and to pick up with. (-lwl-) Most of them do have those aspects you said.

Maybe if they still balanced both dialogue and the actions of the characters well, it would work as much. (-lvl-)

[kirbychu]

I don't really think the problems in the newest Star Fox and Metroid games are down to the fact that the games have more story, though. They're down to the fact that the characters have taken bizarre turns that contradict their previous actions.

Now, personally I never had a problem with the way Fox was portrayed in Star Fox Adventures. The story was actually one of the few things I enjoyed about that game. For me, Fox's problems started in Star Fox Command. He's a character who has experienced and dealt with the tragic loss of his father, having him get utterly destroyed by being dumped by Krystal was ridiculous. The game turned him into a pathetic, whiny, unlikeable character.

I haven't played Other M, but from what I've read it sounds as though the story would have worked just fine if the game had taken place at the very beginning of the timeline. Having Samus be terrified of Ridley and need men around to save her from him is ridiculous and nonsensical, because she has defeated him alone many times by the time the game takes place.

These problems aren't caused by the fact that there are cutscenes, they're caused by the fact that the cutscenes were not properly thought out. Having no cutscenes in the games would solve that problem, but only in the same sense that abolishing all movies would prevent box office flops.

[Fryguy64]

Jan 12, 2011 10:14:33 GMT -5 kirbychu said:

I don't really think the problems in the newest Star Fox and Metroid games are down to the fact that the games have more story, though. They're down to the fact that the characters have taken bizarre turns that contradict their previous actions.

I'm not saying the games are worse for having more story, or for having cutscenes. I'm not even sure we're at odds here...

I'm saying that connection to a character has to be established before anyone cares about dialogue or cutscenes, and that connection is not established with more dialogue or cutscenes. The connection to the character is established through familiarisation with the character's strengths and weaknesses through success and failure of the player's actions, and without this, dialogue and cutscenes are meaningless.

On the next point...

Arguably, the qualities the developers gave to both characters contradict how we defined the characters when playing previous games. Perhaps there is someone who played believing Samus was fearful and sulky, or that Fox can deal with loss of a family member but not a broken heart. We can already see that we are in disagreement over Fox from Adventures - you thought the impatient rogue Fox was OK, while I felt he was too impatient for the way I was playing the game.

This simply underlines the problem of defining a protagonist's personality. You either have to get it spot on for the majority of players and make sure the character's personality never contradicts the player's expectations... OR leave them as a blank slate and let the player fill in the gaps with their own experiences of the game.

The storyline of Metroid: Other M is more than Samus recounting her daddy issues. There's a genuinely good Metroid storyline in there, featuring isolation, unknown horrors and exploration. And there are cutscenes that are genuinely scary, unnerving and build up to a climactic finale, just as with the best Metroid games of the past. But being told how Samus's past and her personal hang-ups breaks the genuine tension I feel playing through what I consider to be the actual story.

This is what got me thinking about this... There's a Metroid story that nobody talks about hidden beneath a jarring story about Samus. People want to know more about Samus, but why didn't it work? Why is the Samus story so much more prevalent than the Metroid story in the minds of the players? If this were a movie would daddy issues be such a terrible burden? Why was Samus more interesting and likable when she didn't say anything for hours?

[Nester the Lark]

Jan 12, 2011 12:02:19 GMT -5 Fryguy64 said:

This is what got me thinking about this... There's a Metroid story that nobody talks about hidden beneath a jarring story about Samus. People want to know more about Samus, but why didn't it work? Why is the Samus story so much more prevalent than the Metroid story in the minds of the players? If this were a movie would daddy issues be such a terrible burden? Why was Samus more interesting and likable when she didn't say anything for hours?

You're probably right about the success of giving characters a "voice" (both literally and narratively) hinging on how that character was viewed previously.

Here is an article at NintendoLife that defends Metroid: Other M, claiming that her portrayal was consistent with previous games, particularly Metroid Fusion.

For Star Fox, I was a big fan of Benimaru Itoh's comic that appeared in Nintendo Power in 1993, and it portrayed Fox as a slightly hot-headed, risk-taking swashbuckler, so I guess it wasn't jarring for me when the games followed through on that.

I can, however, think of two game series that went from having a silent protagonist to completely, fully filled out main characters, and managed not to alienate fans: Metal Gear and Wing Commander. I haven't played much Metal Gear, but I was a big Wing Commander fan. The main character went from being a completely nameless, mostly silent protagonist to the fully realized Christopher "Maverick" Blair, with strong emotions and principles, and played by Mark Hamill. It's worth pointing out, however, that by the last game in the series, he was no longer the main character, but a side character.

[kirbychu]

Jan 12, 2011 12:02:19 GMT -5 Fryguy64 said:

I'm not saying the games are worse for having more story, or for having cutscenes. I'm not even sure we're at odds here...

I'm saying that connection to a character has to be established before anyone cares about dialogue or cutscenes, and that connection is not established with more dialogue or cutscenes. The connection to the character is established through familiarisation with the character's strengths and weaknesses through success and failure of the player's actions, and without this, dialogue and cutscenes are meaningless.

Okay, I'm a little confused. Is there a game that doesn't do this? I agree completely with what you said, I'm just not sure where it'd be an issue, unless it was a game with no playable characters.

[Fryguy64]

I'm not actually sure what direction you're coming from Kirbychu... Are you saying NO games force you through dialogue and cutscenes before letting you connect with the character? Or that they ALL do?

I would say, for example, that Galaxy got it right while Sunshine got it wrong. Or Super Metroid got it right while Other M got it wrong. DKC Returns got it right while DK64 got it so very wrong. Or Ocarina of Time got it right while... actually I'm not entirely sure there is a wrong Zelda.

And that's just the games that I play...