298: Who Needs Friends?

Recommended Videos

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
I honestly believe all games can benefit from a bit of "reality" in regards to how people interact with each other, even the story-light FPS games which you mentioned in this article.

It's not just friends, even though they're an important element of making a character human.
Faults, imperfections of character, you're not playing Perfect McRoidRage.

For instance, your character is in the middle of a battle and suddenly their aim starts going all to hell, you duck down behind a wall and your character start striking up a lighter and jamming a white stick with a yellow tip on it into their mouth... your character's got nicotine addiction.
His friend over to the right yells "what the fuck, Dimitri, we're in the middle of a fight" and your character just yells back "I can't focus without a smoke, man" and then you're back to shooting and it only took about 10-30 seconds to establish three things: Your character is addicted to a substance, his name is Dimitri and he's friends with someone who doesn't think he should be stopping to light up on a battlefield.

That sort of thing is what we need more of.
 

qazmatoz

New member
Sep 17, 2009
454
0
0
Anthony Burch made a good rant kind of about this a while back. Even if the character does have a network of friends and family around him, we as players are likely to not give a single fuck about them or their well-being because they are not our friends or family.

Burch's main example of this was in Infamous where you had to try to save Cole's girlfriend. I know that when I played, I seriously didn't care about either of them.

I think the bigger problem here is shallow characters, not their lack of friends.
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
qazmatoz said:
Anthony Burch made a good counter argument to this a while back though. Even if the character does have a network of friends and family around him, we as players are likely to not give a single fuck about them or their well-being because they are not our friends or family.

Burch's main example of this was in Infamous where you had to try to save Cole's girlfriend. I know that when I played, I seriously didn't care about either of them.

I think the bigger problem here is shallow characters, not their lack of friends.
Counter-argument: Hire better writers.
They had random encounters where food thieves were about to be stoned to death in Infamous... and saving your girlfriend was balanced off against saving a number of doctors.
Like some sort of evil genius challenge to the "meddling hero".

Upgrade the writing team and I can bet you that the character depth will improve.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,908
0
0
Hmmm, I think this is a poorly written article because the guy doesn't understand what he's talking about. Before you can deconstruct or reconstruct something you need to understand it first and why it's like it is. I think we're dealing with an author that sees an issue in his mind but hasn't really though about why things haven't developed along those lines to a greater extent, or the problems inherant in doing so.


The reasons why gaming has turned out the way that it has, is because it's differant from other mediums with the player directly putting themselves into the role of the game's protaganist. A lot of people don't seem to get that without this kind of immersion gaming just becomes another video. This is one of the big arguements about storytelling in games is that the kinds of devices a lot of people, especially casual gamers, want, just don't really play to the strengths of this paticular genere. Having tons of connections attached to a player character doesn't usually work out too well because the more you flesh out that character the less the player feels that they are the one in that role and controlling what is going on. What's more, you really don't know these people, so if someone comes running up and rambling for the sake of immersion in a lot of games, that's going to actually annoy the player who wants to get on to doing something. What's more such connections by their very nature sort of mandate a connection to the universe that the player does not have, the lack of connections is in part so the player can gradually learn the enviroment as the character does. What's more it works out better when you get to know characters from the beginning in a game, especially if you have some choice in whether you want to hang out with them.

To put things into perspective, it's not like various games have not tried the elements we're seeing here, this ranges from RPGs to action games. The number of successes are greatly outweighed by the failures. I think the games "Infamous" and "Grand Theft Auto IV" sort of define the problem. Infamous gave you a best friend that is present throughout the game to try and ground the character and give you some feeling of him being connected to the world. The character in question however strikes 90% of the players as being an annoying dweeb and has been mocked in connection to an otherwise solid game constantly. "Grand Theft Auto IV" tried something similar by giving your character a cousin who was integral to the plotline, as opposed to doing missions for a succession of kingpins that do very little in the end besides give missions and move the story along. While a well rated game, constantly being spamed by phone calls every 15 minutes, and having to roll this lardo's butt accross town
for a burger periodically as an almost nessicary gameplay mechanic hardly endeared anyone to what was an otherwise solid game.

In general I think games have already hit a pretty good balance between connection and immersion in most cases, and there is little to be gained by messing around with it too much. Simply put, as soon as you start attaching too much personal baggage to the player character, your going to find 90% of the people wanting to inflict greivous bodily harm on whomever is involved for actually detaching them from the game, even if they don't really know how to express it other than "annoyance".

Also, some of the examples like marines chatting or whatever already come up in games.

Simply put I think gaming is fine in this paticular area, and when you look at the pros and cons, as well as all the attempts to go futher with this kind of thing and how those aspects of the game turned out... well, I don't think there is much room to criticize.

... and trust me, as far as it goes for most games of the sort that can be criticized (RPGs being an exception of sorts here, as they routinely include a lot of backstory and networks of character relationships) the ones that do feature close in character connections tend to see it being the subject of massive mockery. I mean, how many jokes are there about Marcus and Dom from "Gears Of War"? :p



-

Oh and as far as being a sociopath goes, understand that the point of video games is to get away from reality. It's about escapism, and in general most people socialize constantly, and part of the point of going to game is to get away from a lot of that for "me time". Again, it comes down to wht things developedto be the way that they are. It's not even broken. I mean sure, having a sick mother that guilts you for not visiting her more often might add some depth to a character, but most people have to deal with that kind of crap to begin with, and it's hardly escapism to have to deal with it in a game.
 

OtherSideofSky

New member
Jan 4, 2010
1,051
0
0
Actually, the character having emerged fully formed out of thin air when the game began sounds like a pretty cool idea for a plot twist.
 

Truly-A-Lie

New member
Nov 14, 2009
719
0
0
Burck said:
I think this article explains to me why Persona 4 came across as so different. That game was based on friendships.
I'm playing through Persona 4 for the first time at the minute, and the social interaction is so good. I don't think I've ever cared so much about every character in a game. If I can't find someone, or they don't ring me on my days off school, it genuinely disappoints me, and when I say the wrong thing it's just horrible.
I think having your character move town at the start of the game was a good way of dealing with the problem of having friends from the beginning of the game, and lets you make new ones and act the way you want to. Although the options can be leading sometimes "Stay and help, or, be an ass and leave." Well how can I pick leave without feeling guilty now?
 

ender214

New member
Oct 30, 2008
538
0
0
I think this article raised an interesting point when it asked whether it made it easier to kill other characters by making the character a loner. I believe that could be a major component of it. It's easier for the player to ignore that they are usually playing a murderer for hire when you remove all the connections from them.

I've experienced this myself while playing Fallout 3. I believe the only area where I didn't perform acts of murder, theft, and general immoral mayhem was in Vault 101. In fact, Vault 101 was the only settlement I ever turned around and HELPED. I felt some sort of duty to stand by those I was connected to, which was not felt during missions. Creating connections in games could significantly reduce the pile of dead allies due to my betrayals in games, at least it would for me.
 

Narcogen

Rampant.
Jul 26, 2006
193
0
0
A lot of games are essentially adventure stories, and a lot of adventure stories quite intentionally either focus on characters that are, to some degree, asocial (NeverEnding Story comes to mind) or involve taking a character out of one context and into a new, strange one. I find it odd that frames of Fallout 3 are used to illustrate this story, because that game does exactly this.

You start out as a child in a Vault with friends and a father figure. The game establishes those relationships, then purposefully takes them away, and pushes you out in the the DC Wasteland, where if you want friends, you make them yourself. If you want to be a demented asocial loner, you can do that. If you want to be friendly, solve problems with a minimum of violence, and take on multiple companions (human or not) you can do that as well-- but if you do it that's your choice.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the philosophy of making game characters blank slates-- but on the other hand, when a character jumps onto the screen and presumes familiarity that I, as a player, don't feel yet because I don't have the background experiences that the character does, it tends to annoy me. Even so, plenty of games also do exactly that-- look at the relationship between Marcus and Dom in Gears of War, for instance, or between the Master Chief and Cortana in Halo.

Other games get to build on relationships in past installments, even while introducing new friends, like Mass Effect 2, which brings back some familiar faces from Mass Effect 1 (to varying degrees, depending on your choices in that game) but also introduces new ones.

I suppose you can cherry-pick a selection of games that doesn't ram companions down your throat, but I honestly don't see such a plethora of games that deprive the player character of any opportunities for companinship, warranting this kind of a call-out. Many of the games that do lack any such opportunities-- like Bioshock, for example-- are banking on the player's isolation and confusion in (apparently) unfamiliar surroundings; as such, friendly faces, new or old, are counterindicated.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
Hey guys! Remember Dead Space? Where the game tried to assume that you had this huge emotional connection to your missing wife? Remember how a lot of people wound up just not giving a fuck about her?

That's what happens when you try to mix the 'self-insert' character with friends/family. When you introduce a friend to that type of character, you are trying to tell the player that it isn't just his character who is friends with that person, but that the player himself is. But we have no point of reference for this person. We don't remember what he's talking about, and probably don't care. That is a HUGE breakpoint for a lot of players.

If you want the player to have a friend, you need to actually work to establish them as such during the game, not just annoy the player with 10 seconds of irrelevant dialog that goes nowhere and means nothing.
 

Torrasque

New member
Aug 6, 2010
3,441
0
0
HG131 said:
Actually, there's a good reason John-117 (Master Chief) seems so friendless: The last of his friends all died in the last month or he believes they're dead. The Rookie, well, he has the excuse of being new to the squad, and all his friends have recently died as well. Noble Six has been isolated from people most of his life. Plus, you know, he and John are super soldiers kidnapped (or, in 6's case, recruited) at the age of 6. But yeah, alot of characters are oddly friendless.
I remember reading a long while ago that Master Chief's face was deliberately left blank so the player could project themselves onto him, and gain more immersion into the game. I can only imagine the other Halos follow this trend, especially considering you can fully customize your Spartan in Reach.

*back on topic*
Really good read, and I agree.
At first, when I read the first page of the article, I was immediately tempted to post "well no, I can think of at least a dozen RPGs that actually make you give a damn about the characters" but I can see that you know that =)
For me, the two games that made me care about the characters the most, are Fire Emblem [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Emblem_(video_game)] and Phantasy Star Universe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantasy_Star_Universe].
Whenever a character died in Fire Emblem, I actually had emotions about it. I was sad when some heros that were allied to me (but I didn't directly control) died, was "YES! DIE YOU ASSHOLE!" when I killed people like Sonia and Nergal, and could not stand letting anyone I controlled, die. Not only because it was smart of me to keep my soldiers alive for the next game, but because I really cared about them!
And in Phantasy Star Universe, I was sad for a week when
Mirei was killed ='(

So yes, I think just a little bit of extra effort to make us give a damn about the character, would make games alot better.

BUT! I think it really depends on the game.
Scorpion requires no backstory about how he used to have friends but killed them all, he is simply there to kill shit.
And I don't think the main character of any GTA game needs to get friends and such, because his story always ends with him either killing everything, owning everything, or dying.

(can't think of any other examples because most of the games I play, I actually care about the characters :D)
 

Horben

New member
Nov 29, 2009
140
0
0
I agree with your conclusion, that better human connections make better games, but I refute every premise that leads up to it. Games are not devoid of human connections: you just didn't find them in the ones you played.

Soap and McTavish, growing to be brothers in arms.
The Spartans were as well.
Every JRPG ever made since FF1 was about how friendship helped the characters cope with struggle.
What keeps people playing MMOs are the human relationships that keep them together. Even the act of making people earn "reputation", where they end up being "exalted" in a game world is just as much about the emotional rewards of group approval as the physical ones.
Mass Effect 2, where the entire purpose is to earn the loyalty of your squadmates so that they participate in a nearly impossible battle.
Just about any product ever released by Bioware, except maybe Lionheart or Fallout Tactics.
Even some fighters involve friendships- but you are right, most are just psychotic excuses to punch people.
Bioshock.

You are right that more, and even stronger, human connections will make games better. But when you say that connections are absent all you really said is that you didn't find the ones that exist.
 

Al-Bundy-da-G

New member
Apr 11, 2011
928
0
0
Actually in FO:3 you do have a childhood friend who later refuses entry back to your home because of political reasons. so you know that's at least one right there
 

Biodeamon

New member
Apr 11, 2011
1,652
0
0
Video game chareceters do have friends it's just they're usually used as a plot device for their inevetible death.

Bam, i just spoiled 100 games in under 20 words. Fear my awesome might.
 

pilouuuu

New member
Aug 18, 2009
697
0
0
Excellent read. This is one of the reasons why games still can't be considered art or be taken seriously as a medium to tell stories. This and the fact that we are forced to take a violent path in games. Skyrim is a good example.

It is even more shameful that RPGs fail in this. If there's some kind of games that should allow for non-violent, diplomatic solutions to conflicts and having friendships, not just followers with no personality, then that kind of games is RPGs.

Bioware includes some characters which you can befriend during the game, but I still think it's not totally satisfactory. I think adventure games had some good examples, like Glotis in Grim Fandango. Now that's a real friend!
 

Ninjat_126

New member
Nov 19, 2010
775
0
0
Shellsh0cker said:
This. Another great example? Star Wars: Republic Commando. The members of Delta Squad--ironically, given that they're clones--feel more like real people than many video game characters because of their personal connection. There's no way to not love Sev and Scorch constantly jabbing at each other while Fixer tells them to shut up and focus on the mission. The end of the game hit me really hard because I'd grown really attached to the characters.
Plus, the moments where you go down fighting a miniboss, and your squad brings it down without your help. Or the moments when you're all incapped on the ground except one guy, who manages to go all one-man-army and bring down a droid platoon single-handedly.

Dark Souls had/has elements of this: you're a forsaken undead in a land of things wanting to kill you. And you will live for the NPC interactions. Sure, some of them are dicks, but there's something rewarding to fight your way through an army of horrible monsters, only to return to Firelink and have Griggs and Laurentius there waiting for you.
 

Quorothorn

New member
Apr 9, 2010
112
0
0
I may be nigh-on a year late to reading this article, but that shall not stop me from saying that the paragraph(s) comparing Fallout 3's Lone Wanderer and New Vegas' Courier and their place within their respective environments is a point I have thought/nattered on several times myself. The author did a fine job articulating the point I have in the past tried to make.
 

Goldhawk777

New member
Jun 3, 2010
113
0
0
One of the main problems that the video game industry has is that they are attempting to get the people emotionally connected into the story.

*SPOILERS* That's why in quick games like COD or Modern warfare that introduce a gruff PFC Donaldson who "makes a bet to drink you under the table" ends up dying in a brutal and terrible way of, (Clink clink) Grenade! Boom! Donaldson!!!

Introduction of characters and later taking them away after no emotional bonding within the next 10 minutes of gameplay allows for the player to think, "F*ck the NPCs". Because they will usually end up dead in the end of the game.

Now, I am only familiar with a few games but one game that I didn't think would destroy me emotionally would be Gears of War. Damn it, when I saw Dom die that brought a tear to my eye.

Another example on the most extreme side would be Halo: Reach. Hell, everyone knew they were going to die, and they did in eloquent cutscenes. (Except for Jun)

Mass effect attempted the fact with having sex with several of the other NPCs. The way you get emotional depth, is to make the two people go through some serious battles instead of, oh, there you are character I am supposed to be emotionally invested in.... Oh, you died, meh, moving on. Depth, is the one thing that is missing many times in videogames.
 

Mike Fang

New member
Mar 20, 2008
458
0
0
Some of this certainly makes sense. If you or your character aren't a complete stranger in a given area, there's no reason why they should be completely without acquaintances. Now, if they've just moved to a new area, joined a new squad, signed on aboard a new starship, or what have you, in those cases it does make sense that you're -just- beginning to make a name for yourself and become a part of the community/crew/squad/etc. However, if that's not the case, it's tough being introduced to a new setting when the character you play shouldn't need introductions.

That, I think, is why in some cases you get this anomaly in games. The character may not need re-introducing to the world, but the player does. In order to do this, you have to either help the player get established within gameplay -or- you need to provide exposition of some kind; cut scenes, readable books/computers/something in the game for people to peruse to get the back story, hell even some flavor text in the game manual can help. The problem is some gamers have a real problem with this sort of exposition (in particular the cut scenes) and bash it as not immersing a player into the world. Personally, I like in medias rez, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. And some games just have a need for cutscenes; frankly I like them when they're well done and fun to watch. I just wouldn't rely on them too much or make them needless.

Making a player character a part of the world they exist in (or failing to do so) can make or break a game. But HOW a character's place in the world is established needs to be handled properly, or it will feel awkward and mar the overall experience.
 

TheOrb

New member
Jun 24, 2012
169
0
0
Loved this piece, it fully revealed the reason I liked AC2 over AC, AC:B, AC:R and Far Cry 3.