I Think Character Depth is Irrelevant in Games

[asiacatdogblue]

Back then, many played video games just to have fun. Just thinking how would they able to beat the game, get from one point to another, better their skills, and get the top high score.

Many gamers back did care what the characters in the games were doing nor why. Some don't even bother learn the character's name.

Why do you think many Nintendo characters are so liked? Is it because of their personality? Why, no. It's because they come for the games everyone loves to play. the characters themselves have no personalities. They're just simply avatars for the player.

Fighting games are pretty much this. Nobody cares that Ryu is just a simple man that wants to be the greatest fighter ever, nor the fact that he is technically, a hobo. Gamers like him because he can shoot projectiles out of his hands. Gamers don't care that Guile nor Scorpion are lost, angry souls that are out to right a wrong. People only known them as the characters that go "SONIC BOOM" or "GET OVER HERE!"

Video Game Characters are only liked for "what they do" and not "who they are." Story and Plot can be irrelevant as well. When playing a game, one doesn't think about all these characters are fighting each other, why they don't resolve it in a more meaningful solution, of what the antagonist's true goal really is. One only thinks about how to destroy enemies and bosses in a cool and dignified way and not die in the process.

I did say that Mario should drop the "Save the Princess" plot and just show the gameplay 100%. Maybe all action games should just be "beating the game and that's it." Do gamers need a reason?

[TV Eye]

This is the mentality most children (no offense) have nowadays. Back in the old days, as you mentioned, having a game with a story was a luxury. The Legend of Zelda was so revolutionary, not just because it had top down gameplay or a save feature, but also because it gave you a reason to play. The Triforce needed to be recovered.

A lot of people take story for granted. This article mentions how when children play games, yeah...they don't give two shits about story, skipping every cutscene in GTA4 so when they see the bad ending where Roman dies they ask "Who is that guy?"

Though I agree that fighting games don't need story, it does enhance the experience. I like story, and I like elaborate cutscenes. I also like character depth and development.

[kirbychu]

Story is pretty much the only reason Street Fighter gives me for bothering to finish the game with 35 goddamn characters. So I'd say it's fairly important in that case.

It depends on the game, though. I can happily play Mario Kart or Smash Bros. for hours with no story at all, but if they brought out a Zelda game with no plot? Not sure if I'd bother with that. Probably not.

[Boo Destroyer]

The only kind of story that fighting games even have is "lawl tournament thingy.......And then said tournament turns out to be a ruse from the final boss, who then sets his real plans into motion!"

[kirbychu]

But generally each character has their own unique opening and ending, which is the only reason to play through as more than one of them. For me, at least.

[asiacatdogblue]

Well, was mostly talking about the characters within. Red M is an everyman who is meant to fit in any situation. Link is Genetic Hero incarnate. These characters have no real depth, and yet they're still prised by gamers alike. Mostly because of the games they were in. Also, they were blank slate avatars, which, as Fryguy64 said, are easy to project the player into, making the avatar into whatever the player wants... uh, sort of.

Thought, I with fighting game, most gamers only like characters for their moves and abilities. They could care less about who the character actually "is."

[TV Eye]

I agree with Kirbychu. I have no reason to unlock all the other characters in fighting games unless I want to see their openings and endings. I mean, in Tekken 5, here you have Kazuya defeating his demon corrupted grandfather. Every Tekken game, Kazuya has always been pretty evil, being the son of Heihachi and all. He embraces Jinpachi in what could finally be a turning point for him...but then his expression changes and he violently murders the man who made him a great fighter, absorbing the demon powers in the process.

That's some powerful stuff, no matter how you look at it.

[kirbychu]

I think that really depends on whether those people are fans of the series or just casual players. Using Street Fighter as an example, people who only know the characters for their abilities are probably people who have only casually played one or two games in the series. That's the category I fit into. The only SF I've ever owned is Street Fighter IV (though I played SFII a lot, years ago).

I was really confused by most of the character stories, so I had to look up what was going on. There's a lot of history between these characters, and you're expected to know it. Luckily, there's a Street Fighter wiki, with really, really long bios on every character. So there are clearly people who do care. And thank god there are, or I'd have no idea what was going on in that game. Most of the cutscenes seemed to be deliberately confusing me as punishment for not playing the other games.

[Boo Destroyer]

In a lot of games - not just fighting games either - most of their characters have such rich background info, but none of it is ever touched upon in-game.

But then that's just video games being video games.

[kirbychu]

Jul 20, 2011 17:18:57 GMT -5 Boo Destroyer said:

In a lot of games - not just fighting games either - most of their characters have such rich background info, but none of it is ever touched upon in-game.

I think you missed my point.

I was confused by the rich background info because all of it was touched upon in-game. The characters made constant references to events from older games. Some of the endings even seemed like huge cliffhangers, but in fact, they were just leading into the events of SFIII, which is apparently set after SFIV.

[Fryguy64]

I note that the initial post seems to be primarily focused on action games. I do agree that for the majority of action games, story can be an unnecessary distraction.

But Action games aren't the only kinds of game.

Graphical adventure games are entirely reliant on their story. If you played an RPG without a story, you may as well be playing with an Excel spreadsheet.

Even action games need to give you a goal to work towards. Saying you "beat the game" is cool and all, but saying "I rescued the princess" shows that even a very basic plot can draw someone in.

The Mario games do not have a rich story, but they have the Mushroom Kingdom, a rich and vibrant world filled with creative imagination. But the Mushroom Kingdom is a setting for adventures, and therefore a story element. You could arrange the block pattern in Super Mario Bros. onto a drab brown-grey wasteland and replace the characters with standard hero fare. The challenge would be identical, but the feel of the game would be very different.

I'm a huge advocate of gameplay over story. Lucky for me, so is Nintendo (in most cases). But when the two are intrinsically linked, then story can enhance the game significantly.

[nocturnal YL]

Oh, the old "is story important" thing again...

Is it? The answer: It depends on games (mostly game genres), and it depends on gamers.

For example, you can't play text adventure (those old Famicom games, several are even Nintendo-published), RPGs or vsual novels without story. On the other hand, non-action puzzle games with excess story can be annoying.

And then there are gamers that prefer either. Some play games to read the story, others just want to see the action done. Try to look for game communities with fans of both (lots of RPGs are like this) and see for yourself.

Also...

Why do you think many Nintendo characters are so liked?

See Samus Aran (before Other M).

Jul 21, 2011 4:23:28 GMT -5 Fryguy64 said:

you may as well be playing with an Excel spreadsheet.

Let's.

[Fryguy64]

Hmm... Just realised this isn't so much about story but about character... which is arguably also part of the story. But the discussion seemed to develop somewhat.

You're right in saying that many Nintendo characters are blank avatars for the player to project into, and this is true of a lot of game heroes. A similar situation occurs in a lot of fiction, where characters are included that the reader/viewer/player can relate to.

To bring this closer to another discussion going on right now, the characters Tiff & Tuff in the Kirby anime have been included for this reason. Sure they're annoying to us, but they're a couple of "normal" kids in this wacky world of speechless pink baby puffballs and giant king penguins with snail sidekicks. Sure, most of us can't relate to them, but that's because most of us aren't the target audience for the show, which is significantly younger than the average Nintendo fan.

In another anime, Pokémon, the silent protagonist is redrawn as Ash, the bumbling-but-brave kid. Why is he such an idiot? Well, because imperfections make it easier to relate to the protagonist. You'll notice that Ash's travelling companions are also awkward and imperfect, but for different audiences. Brock seems to be one of the ways older boys got into the series, with his goofy, lusting-after-anything-in-a-skirt behaviour.

The differences between relating to a character in traditional fiction (e.g. movies) and in interactive fiction (e.g. games) leads to many of the issues with creating good game-to-movie and movie-to-game adaptions.

In a book, you need an internal monologue, and in a film you need dialogue. In a game you need solid play mechanics. There are many established techniques for translating books to films now, but still none for translating play mechanics to dialogue.

Play mechanics draw the player into the game/story, but often monologue or dialogue takes the player out of it again. As a result, the most successful game characters are silent protagonists, and each player will have a different idea of what that character is like. It's not easy to force a player to see the character in a particular way. The best recent example is Metroid: Other M.

This all-powerful robot-suited woman is suddenly a miserable emo with parental issues. The feeling of isolation and helplessness is already a play mechanic, in place since the very first instalment on NES. You get stronger as you explore these weird alien caves, but you face stronger enemies as you play as well. That leads to isolation, panic and stress.

Other M didn't add to this by telling us how Samus feels the rest of the time. The game itself is good for the same reasons the other games are good. But emo Samus not only stalls the experience, but threatens to remove the player from the story.

That's not to say the same is true of all videogame characters. We have never been told Wario is anything less than a gross, greedy musclehead. He talks, he gets cutscenes, but he's been presented consistently so everyone is in agreement about his "character". And I hope we can agree that while his game's play mechanics are great, the games would be less rich and fun if it was anyone other than Wario we were controlling.

In that respects, character depth isn't irrelevant to games, not even action games, but it's a difficult art to get right. In most cases, it's easier to let the player decide.

[kirbychu]

Jul 21, 2011 8:57:03 GMT -5 Fryguy64 said:

As a result, the most successful game characters are silent protagonists, and each player will have a different idea of what that character is like. It's not easy to force a player to see the character in a particular way. The best recent example is Metroid: Other M.

Yeah, this is a big factor in that Kirby discussion, too. Because there was no dialogue in early Kirby games, a lot of people built up their own idea of who Kirby was. When the anime came along it was the first time Kirby's personality was really focused on, and although it was apparently the personality Sakurai had intended for him all along, a lot of people were upset by it because it wasn't how they'd imagined it.

[eggtroopa]

Jul 21, 2011 8:57:03 GMT -5 Fryguy64 said:

In that respects, character depth isn't irrelevant to games, not even action games, but it's a difficult art to get right. In most cases, it's easier to let the player decide.

Agreed. As a young'un, character didn't matter to me, but recently, I started to actually care about the characters I controlled. After playing these newer games, ones that have character depth for their characters, I look at other titles like SMB and wonder if they can't benefit from a more formulistic approach as well.