Whenever people talk about JRPGs being obsolete in relation to the success of the modern Western RPG, the one thing I can never escape is that the Western RPG’s freedom tends to work against its story. As great a game as Skyrim happens to be, its narrative takes a backseat to whatever impulse it is that drives us to pick locks or hunt foxes outside of Whiterun. I think this is one of the reasons that the Mass Effect series appeals to me – it still manages to have a tight, exciting narrative while allowing the player a certain amount of freedom. Somehow, the series has straddled a pretty nice sweet spot that brings the best of both of those worlds.
In the latest release of Bioware Pulse, the company’s video series highlighting its projects, lead writer Marc Walters discusses their desire for Shepard to be a much deeper character this time around than ever before:
“One of the things we wanted to do in Mass Effect 3 was deepen Shepard as a character, so you really get to express what your Shepard is feeling and going through, throughout the war… We wanted to take that next step with the story telling. Yeah, it’s a war, yeah it’s got giant robots we get to shoot in the face, but there is a human side to the story. You are role-playing, and you are role-playing as a human. Why shouldn’t that human have an emotional component throughout the game?”
Here’s my question, and one I think the Western RPG is going to keep running into as long as it does business this way: can a lead character in a game based on player choice ever really have depth? Sure, Bioware has come up with some memorable, incredibly well-written characters in the past – but all of these completely outshine the main characters, who are just conduits for your own one-dimensional choices. I’m not sure if those things can ever co-exist, and I think developers could be kidding themselves if they think they can.
How do you guys feel about this issue? Can lead characters in games based on player choice actually have depth? Is it OK for them not to?
Source – VG247
It’s really something that is simply impossible to do. When players choose the main character’s actions, the main character doesn’t have many traits that good characters have. He/she doesn’t have many (if any) flaws, doesn’t evolve over the course of the game (except in strength), and is going to remain static constantly. It’s unavoidable, but I like what Bioware is doing, which is all you really can do, and that’s get the character to express emotion more.
I know I keep whoring for it but go play the Witcher 2. Geralt is by far the best example, that I can think of, of a lead character in a game based on player choice that has a lot of depth and personality.
Eddy and I have talked about this a few times and I tend to agree with him. I don’t tend to get emotional or have a connection to the person I am playing if I am choosing what he does or says. The NPCs around him or her, yes, I tend to feel more for them.
But I have not had any experience with Western RPGs that have moved me like Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy has.
Jim, I plan on trying Witcher 2 when it comes to 360. I hope it is the one!
I’m going to say it does on account of how far the character takes your choice. Also at some point the results of your choices resurface later on in the game or the sequel and the characters reaction to that is a way to give that character more depth.
I’ve never played Witcher 2, but I want to…for the gameplay and decision-making. Not the T&A! I PLAY IT FOR THE PLOT.
ahem
It’s certainly possible to have a character with consistent personality and even motives, but give the player choice in gameplay and story. Look at Adam Jensen. He always has one motive: to find Megan and stop whoever is behind the attacks on Sarif Ind. Sure, he switches between being serious and being a cheeky arse, but he never seems like a Renegon Shepard who frequently suffers from bipolar disorder. I think what Bioware struggles with is that they let the player choose Shepard’s mood and personality, not let the player choose between decisions that the protagonist makes. Everyone has different moods and this affects how much their personality can alter, but it doesn’t have to come off as being totally different paths. Shepard can choose to save the civilians and only wound the bad guy, or he can murder everything in his path, but he doesn’t need to be in a totally different mood mid-conversation.
I think the illusion of choice influencing the main story can be far more effective in games where they are really trying to tell a story. Take Deus Ex: Human Revolution for example. 2 gamers can have very different experiences if one plays stealth and the other goes guns blazing. Different weapons, different side quest outcomes, different perks and stats to upgrade, while the story and heart of the game really remains the same. Your actions still feel like they make a difference, and there’s less of a chance of breaking the game by doing quests out of order or doing them incorrectly on purpose like in the huge games. In massive RPGs the character often kind of becomes a diluted blend of YOU and “the hero”. I think the depth of a character can be determined by how emotionally invested you get, not just how many actual hours you play.
Don’t tell me Steve from Minecraft is flat! XD
The problem I tend to run into is the ambiguity of choice. Maybe I’m just dense, but I find on a semi-regular basis that a dialog choice that I take to mean one thing apparently means something very different to the developers. It’s not unlike the wtf-that’s-not-what-I-meant interrogation choice outcomes I experienced in LA Noire that were my greatest frustration with the game. Mass Effect by and large skirts around this issue by making most of your dialog choices about as subtle as a Krogan berserker, which I’m ok with. If there were a way to give the player more insight into the subtleties of the conversation options, that would at least expand the possibility of developing more main character depth, though I’m skeptical that depth can increase much without reducing choice.
To echo Gadfly, The Witcher 2 is a perfect example of a character you make choices for, but is still multi-dimensional. It works here because the developers already know who Geralt is and what he is like, so the choices you make are always consistent no matter what you choose. When you have to choose which of two characters to help, both choices have pros and cons, and both are consistent with who Geralt is. You could argue then, that this is just the “illusion” of choice, and maybe it is, but it does affect the game and world, even if not the character.
Contrast that with Mass Effect, whose Shepard could seem to be, as Cossack says, “affected with bipolar disorder”. With Shepard, you could literally choose to diplomatically help out a woman who was robbed one second, and then bash the face in of a fan the next. These actions are in no way consistent, and tend to distance the player from the character if that’s how you choose. Not to say I don’t like ME, but I, like Anthony, tend to care more about the other characters than Shepard.
[quote comment=”18473″]To echo Gadfly, The Witcher 2 is a perfect example of a character you make choices for, but is still multi-dimensional. It works here because the developers already know who Geralt is and what he is like, so the choices you make are always consistent no matter what you choose. When you have to choose which of two characters to help, both choices have pros and cons, and both are consistent with who Geralt is. You could argue then, that this is just the “illusion” of choice, and maybe it is, but it does affect the game and world, even if not the character.
Contrast that with Mass Effect, whose Shepard could seem to be, as Cossack says, “affected with bipolar disorder”. With Shepard, you could literally choose to diplomatically help out a woman who was robbed one second, and then bash the face in of a fan the next. These actions are in no way consistent, and tend to distance the player from the character if that’s how you choose. Not to say I don’t like ME, but I, like Anthony, tend to care more about the other characters than Shepard.[/quote]
I think it works so well in The Witcher only because of who Geralt’s character is. Geralt is a very morally grey character who can swing either way very easily. Think Malcolm Reynolds and his complex morality, just err on the side of bad rather than good and you have Geralt.